An embarrassment of Gammas

I believe that is the proper collective term, is it not? Gammas absolutely love it when things go poorly for attractive women, because they see it as a great romantic opportunity to rescue her and outkick their coverage thereby.  Witness the grotesque behavior of men reacting to one woman's attractive mug shot:

The woman whose attractive DUI mugshot took the internet by storm has been beset with unwanted attention by lovestruck admirers who have offered marriage proposals, declarations of never-ending love and trips overseas.

'I hope if you have a man he takes care of you and showers you with love and tenderness. If we were together you would need for nothing. I would go to the ends of the earth just to make you happy,' one man posted on Reddit after Meagan Mccullough's mugshot went viral....

'The eyes of the sky. And hair like woven silk. I have taken photos of thousands of woman and never seen one with what you have in those eyes breath taking you are,' another posted told her.

Another asks her to move to Ireland: 'What's up with that surname, you must have Irish heritage? You got bar work experience? Come to Ireland, I'll put you up for a while and you can work in my friends pub while you find your feet, look up your family history and then move on to something better. Over here, we don't call you a criminal for driving drunk (unless repeatedly caught). I'm not joking by the way.'

Meagan said the sudden attention has been 'weird' and she has received a lot of 'gross' messages from guys as a result.

Dozens of men fashioned memes featuring the police shot with captions such as 'GUILTY - of taking my breath away', 'Arrested for breaking and entering - YOUR HEART' and 'Tell me what she did so I can end up in the same jail'.

This is literally world-class anti-game. And note, in particular, how the woman is reacting to this over-the-top desperation: with precisely the same sort of horror that women do when faced with it in person.  Women are the unromantic sex. All things being equal, they are much more turned on by a laconic "yeah, I suppose I'd hit that... if I had enough to drink" than "I would go to the ends of the earth just to make you happy."

On misogyny

A woman at Susan's place made some very forthright statements accusing a onetime female blogger of misogyny.  I considered each of them.

1) Telling her blog readers that emotional and physical abuse isn’t a valid reason for divorce if you are a Christian. If I hadn’t left my first husband, he would have probably killed me by now.

Emotional and physical abuse is not valid grounds for a Christian to divorce his spouse. The only valid reason for the Christian to divorce is sexual immorality on the part of the spouse. To claim otherwise is provably false.

2) Telling readers that marital rape doesn’t exist because a husband essentially owns his wife’s body.

Marital rape doesn’t exist, not because of any essential ownership, but because consent has been given. One can no more give and withdraw consent within a marriage than one can lose and regain one’s virginity or join and quit the Army at will. If you are not giving consent by marrying someone, then your husband or wife has no more sexual claim on you than anyone else on the planet.

3) Telling readers that it’s wrong for a woman to turn down her husband sexually and that she must act enthusiastic even if she’s not in the mood. While sex is an important part of any marriage, it should never be forced.

It is wrong for either a man or a woman to turn down the spouse sexually. The only acceptable reason is for prayer, and then for a short time only. It is eminently clear that your morality, such as it is, is Churchian, it is neither Christian nor Biblical.

4) Telling readers that the 19th amendment should have never been ratified b/c women are too emotionally unstable to vote responsibly.

It is no more misogynous to assert that women should not be granted the privilege of voting than it is hateful to children or foreigners to assert neither of them should be given the privilege.

5) Calling women who have had sex before marriage sluts and calling women who are 4o and older and unmarried spinsters.

This is certainly impolite and perhaps even inaccurate. But not necessarily indicative of hate.

6) Posting numerous times about how men are superior to women in every way (intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually).

This is indicative of potential misogyny. It’s also stupid. Men are superior in many ways. And women are superior in many ways.

7) Posting that domestic violence claims are exaggerated and that men are just as likely to be victims as women.

This is not misogyny, these are simple and easily verified facts.

Alpha Mail: Stalking the Sigma

Anais wonders where to find these rare and difficult, yet highly attractive beasts:

I don't see a way to email you here, so I will venture to ask my question about Sigmas... I'm obsessed with them. I'm an attractive young woman (not attractive enough to marry a Very Alpha alpha, but I think it's reasonable to shoot for a lower alpha/higher beta if we're talking about the "normal" hierarchy) who swoons primarily for Sigmas. I love reading this blog because it helped me put a name to the kind of men I have always fallen madly in love with. I'm an introvert myself. I get plenty of attention on dating sites, out in the world, etc . . . but Sigmas don't seem to congregate on Match.com or often show up at a random party. I have never been into hook-ups or casual relationships, and my only long-term relationships have been Sigmas met in totally unlikely ways.

Maybe this is a hopeless question, as the only place I have ever encountered significant concentrations of Sigmas was at the quirky college I attended- but where is a good place to meet them? I live in a big East Coast city (not NYC). When I encounter them in the wild, they usually really like me.

The fact that Sigmas are relatively rare does not mean they are impossible to find. They are not unicorns. On the other hand, they are less easily spotted than Alphas, who thrive upon being the center of attention, and they aren't necessarily going to come to your attention in a pack of loud, rambunctious men out having a good time.

But there are a few tricks that may prove useful in identifying them in the wild.

1. Look for the guy who is out in the group, is an obvious part of it, but keeps breaking away from it, especially to pursue women. Sigmas are solitary hunters. They don't need the emotional support from their friends to pursue women, and tend to think that their friends only get in the way.  If you see a group of guys, and one of them seems to periodically vanish and return, he could be their Sigma.
2. Pay particular attention to the guy who locks eyes with you, disappears for a while, then later appears unexpectedly at your side or behind you. Sigmas like to take people off-guard.  The guy who smiles and approaches you directly probably isn't a Sigma.  He is more likely the guy who initially makes you feel slightly alarmed and WTF was THAT?
3. If a man seems to be intentionally trying to turn you off or irritate you, he may be a Sigma.  Sigmas relentlessly test and qualify women in order to categorize them.  Of course, he could simply be a jerk. Or a social incompetent. 
4. Does he cut you away from the crowd? Sigmas aren't herd animals and will always prefer a quiet conversation of two to group banter.  If you're looking for a Sigma and you sense the man with whom you're talking is separating you from everyone else, you may be in luck.  Or he may just be a serial killer.
5. Do others look to him for leadership? And does he provide it or does he shy away from it?  If the latter, you may have struck sigmatic gold.
6. Does he make you feel that if you don't take your pants off, he might just go ahead and do it himself without bothering to ask you?  And do you find it worrisome that somehow, that doesn't seem to upset you the way you know it is supposed to? You may have found the type of introvert you seek.
7. Does he engage you in conversation/flirt with you/have sex with you without even asking your name? Probably Sigma.

If you're seeking a man who isn't a part of the social hierarchy, then keep an eye out for those who ignore its rules, demonstrate contempt for it, and appear to be playing an entirely different game.  If you're at a party, look at see who is off by themselves in a dark corner. You should be able to identify them readily enough.

Those who are glaring at people, nursing drinks, and mumbling to themselves are the Gammas. The one who is simply watching with a slightly arrogant smile on his face is the Sigma.

An unfortunate oversight

Let's face it, forcing feminists to face the fact that they are evil and disgusting sub-civilized beings is a duty for every socially responsible individual who values the continued existence of Western civilization.  In that vein, we must salute one nameless employee at Target:

What the. Plus sized women get "Manatee Grey" while standard sizes are "Dark Heather Grey.

No doubt the white knights at Target will soon have the name of the color changed lest an obese woman be reminded of the fact that she is manatee-sized. And yet, she will still be manatee-sized.

But yeah, it was probably just an oversight....

How to enter the lion's den

"When you go in the lion's den, you don't tippy toe in. You carry a spear, you go in screaming like a banshee, you kick whatever doors in, and say, 'Where's the son of a bitch!' If you go in any other way you're gonna lose." 
- Brian Billick

Rollo wisely admonishes those who will be drawing media attention as the androsphere begins to command mainstream attention:

 I understand the host here is contracted to the Huff-Po so the context begins in terms of what entertains women’s need for indignation. No indignation, no audience. George is hamstrung from the outset: we have the ubiquitous 50+, “I’m ok with the beta provider I married after fucking my spell of bad boys and learned my lesson so you gals should learn from my mistakes” woman (aka the Aunt Giggles, Kay Hymowitz archetype). Next we have the prerequisite “clinical psychologist” who looks like one of the mothers on Dance Moms, and rattles off the feel good humanist psychology truisms clichéd in the 1990′s. After that we have Nathan the self-identified White Knight who’s only purpose is to bolster both women’s feeble positions to better identify with any woman in the hopes that she might be watching and, God willing, anonymously seek him out to potentially hook up with him for being such a team player.

That’s a tough cast to work with so I will commend George on his effort, however, his dropping the ball here is less about his grasp of red-pill wisdom (I know and read his blog regularly), and more about the context that the MSM will allow the manosphere to be represented in. Learn this now red-pill literati before you venture into the MSM – the feminine imperative will gladly make you the red meat for the indignation that sells their advertising to women.

As I now have a considerable amount of experience with hostile mainstream interviewers, I recommend listening to this interview I did with a gentleman by the name of Thom Hartmann for an example of how to go into a situation where you are aware the host does not share your views. What you always have to keep in mind is that they are not talking to you, they are talking to their viewers/listeners through you. To communicate effectively, you have to do the same. When listening to this, note that Hartmann not unreasonably considers himself more intelligent than the average talking head. And yet, simply by being sufficiently prepared for a potentially hostile interlocutor, I am able to present a case for the seemingly unthinkable in a perfectly credible manner.

Game and the Old Testament

BM wonders about this passage from 2 Samuel:

And as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart. Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! And David said unto Michal, It was before the Lord, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel: therefore will I play before the Lord. And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour. Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
 - 2 Samuel 6:16, 20-23.

Both men and women are hierarchical herd animals, but women tend to be more focused on status within the hierarchy, especially as it is denoted by external markers of that status. From Michal's perspective, David was behaving in a foolish manner unworthy of a king.  Because his external behavior was incongruent with his high-status position, she did not respect him for either his position or his accomplishments, but despised him instead.  Notice that all of his past achievements and all of her affection for him meant absolutely nothing in that moment; because he played the fool, once, in public, that is enough to completely destroy her regard for him.

Take note of that, men.  Screw up in her singular opinion just one time in public and that can be all she wrote for your wife's regard for you, at least in the short term.

There is, of course, an element of jealousy here as well. Michal complains specifically about "the handmaids of his servants", which tells us that they probably didn't mind the sight of the handsome young king capering about in his uncovered glory at all.  It is telling that she doesn't bring up the priests, the soldiers, the old men, the widows, the beggars, or anyone else who has seen David leaping and dancing.  No, it's what we can safely assume to be the positive response of the pretty young women that set her off.

This is a lesson for both men and women. Michal can't help that she doesn't like his behavior, but she has three choices. She could keep her mouth shut, she could fawn on him in the manner we presume the handmaids did, or she can resort to the role of the Mommy-fuhrer.  Being filled with jealousy and despising him in her heart, she unwisely resorts to the latter. This is a terrible idea in general, and it is spectacularly stupid in the case of a charismatic alpha who is not only a popular leader of men, but a superlative killer as well. Her response is a textbook example of how a woman should NEVER behave when she thinks her man has made a fool of himself in public.

David's response is also illuminating. He not only rejects her attempt to control him, but he recognizes that her failure to understand the purpose underlying his actions renders her categorically unfit to be a wife to a king who fears and abases himself before the Lord. The clear implication of the final verse should put fear into the heart of every woman who thinks to exert herd control over her husband via shame: "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death."

David doesn't divorce Michal, but he sexually rejects her as a wife from that moment forward.  Not because she was jealous or because she thought he looked foolish while dancing, (he actually agrees with her in that regard given how he describes himself as base in his own sight), but due to her complete failure to understand who and what he is, her inability to comprehend his values, and her lack of respect for him as a man and a king. She has everything backwards.  She thinks his dancing before the Lord makes him inglorious and unworthy of his position, whereas he knows that because he is a king, he can behave in an even more vile manner and merit honor for it.

This is a strong Alpha move. David doesn't hesitate or equivocate, he doesn't attempt to explain himself or defend himself. He simply acts. He doesn't try to fix the situation because there is nothing to fix: she has, of her own will, disqualified herself as being worthy of his wife and queen. David's action illuminates the bright dividing line between ALPHA and BETA. ALPHAS qualify women.  BETAS attempt to qualify themselves to women.  And ALPHAS, being secure in their self-belief, do not tolerate women attempting to qualify them.  The mere attempt to do so is sufficient to intrinsically disqualify the woman.

A man answers to God. He does not answer to his wife. The wise man will listen to his wife and consider her advice. But he will not answer to her.  He has a purpose in life that goes beyond pleasing her.

This passage from 2 Samuel is an ancient illustration of an observable modern reality and explains why women tend to respond so positively to douchebags with Game while despising men of quality who lack it.  Women tend to focus on attitude and external status markers; they often fail to grasp that the markers can be misleading and that the value they nominally represent only exists insofar as a marker truly indicates something of substance supporting it.  While this tendency can certainly be surmounted, that can't happen so long as its existence is denied.

Alpha Mail: to fight or not to fight

Z requests a situational post-mortem:

I have a question about a fundamental aspect of game. Once, I was having some fun with a 7-8ish woman on the dance floor. Turns out she had a boyfriend (of course this wasn't stopping her from grinding on me). Needless to say the boyfriend punched me in the face without warning. It was a badly aimed, weak punch that caught me in the forehead and did no physical damage. He stopped after the first punch and we just stared at each other. I wasn't afraid of him in the least bit, but I also didn't feel like getting kicked out of my favorite club. I decided peace was the proper course. I offered him my hand and said honestly "I didn't know she was taken." After a moment he shook my hand, nodded, and walked off with the girl.

It bugged me a bit after the fact, however. I started to question if my decision to pursue peace was the right one. Was that an act of submission? Was that showing weakness? Should I have fought it out even though, in my estimation, not getting kicked out of or banned from the club outweighed the mediocre attractiveness of the woman?

In other words, in fundamental game theory, was that a Beta move, or worse.. a Gamma/Delta move?

It was a Beta move and it was also almost surely the right move in today's society. The Alpha move would have been to confront, because Alphas will risk almost anything rather than accept such a blow to their ego without immediately retaliating.  Remember, as hard as it is for men to understand it, women are instinctively attracted to violence and mindless thuggery. An Alpha will almost always choose to fight if challenged, let alone if actually struck.

The reason it was a Beta move is because Z didn't really back down. Extending a hand and making peace in that situation is not backing down, it is an offer to a mutually agreed-upon cessation of hostilities. He was entirely ready to fight, but was also willing to walk away if sufficient respect was proffered.  As is often the case, the Beta way is the one that leads to the easiest and most reasonable outcome.

This used to happen to my brother all the time. He was a very good-looking Beta, so a girl would smile at him, he would smile back, they would start getting cozy, and the next thing he knew, an angry boyfriend would punch him in the face. He never got into a fight because he had the combat instincts of a newborn lamb and it took him about thirty seconds to find an equally interested girl after walking away. And he never seemed to learn that he could save himself a lot of trouble if he simply opened with the question "are you here with your boyfriend?"

Walking away in a self-respecting manner isn't weak. A fellow Dragon was once accosted in a nightclub; he dropped into a fighting stance that indicated a recognizable familiarity with the martial arts, as did the other guy. They stared at each other for a moment, until my friend asked the other guy: "So, do you want to match styles?"  The other guy laughed and said "No, not really."  As with Z in the case of the forehead-puncher, they both recognized that the costs of fighting were simply too high. In a fight between two reasonably trained martial artists, even the winner runs the risk of being hurt pretty badly.

In Z's case, the risk of being arrested, kicked out of the club, or even shot rendered physical conflict undesirable. It's not the Alpha act, but then, Alpha is not synonymous with wise or optimal.

But neither is the act of walking away Delta or Gamma.  The Delta thing would be to chest up to the guy, shout at him, and basically make a scene until safely held back by others. Then the Delta would spend the next two hours growling how he would totally have kicked the other guy's ass if only he hadn't been prevented from doing so.  It's remarkable how many guys have "almost" been in a fight and yet somehow never seem to quite cross that fine line demarcating violence from mere confrontation.

The Gamma would likely pretend to be more badly hurt than he was, and hold his hands to his face while shrieking "you hit me", threatening to sue, and urging others to call the police.  He'd make wild threats about imaginary people he knew, from mobsters to military men, who would wreak deadly revenge upon his assailant. At no point would the thought of simply fighting the other guy himself occur to him.

The Omega wouldn't have been in the nightclub at all. The Sigma, of course, wouldn't have gotten punched, as he would have already had sex with the girlfriend in the women's bathroom or the parking lot. There is a reason, after all, that Roissy refers to a certain kind of ALPHA as "the sneaky f-----".

Alpha: Exercises le droit du alpha by openly stealing girl or obtaining phone number in front of helpless, angry boyfriend.
Beta: Attracts girl, boyfriend confronts
Delta: Hits on girl, boyfriend confronts
Gamma: Hits on girl, girl is creeped out and asks boyfriend to confront
Omega: Levels up.
Sigma: Has sex with girl or leaves with girl, boyfriend has no idea.

The good news is that if you're forced to deal with angry boyfriends on a regular basis, you are almost surely a Beta or better.  The only men who have to put up with that sort of thing are men whom women deem worthy of actively trading up for. This is also why higher rank men tend not to behave in a very jealous manner; they know from first-hand experience how little use jealousy is once a woman's eye starts wandering. 

I lost one girl to the guitarist of the Black Crowes and another to the backup guitarist of Guns-N-Roses when both bands were at the height of their fame. I didn't protest in the slightest. Having usually been on the other side of that situation, I knew how pointless it was for the socio-sexually overmatched to attempt resistance.  And after all, there are always more girls on the girl tree.