The Alpha test

It's pretty simple. Since most young women take naked selfies, if your wife or girlfriend is below the age of 30 and isn't sending them to you, then you're not an Alpha. Because, at some point, there is a 90 percent chance she was sending them to someone who isn't you.

Of the 850 readers who responded to a poll in a Cosmo twitter callout (99 percent of whom were female, with an average age of 21), 89 percent had taken nude photos of themselves at some point. Of that group, only 14 percent regretted doing so, and 82 percent said they'd do it again.

According to the poll, around 83 percent of women would take nude photos again -- 26.21 percent stipulating that they would only do so if they weren't recognizable in the images.

Of course, the caveat here is that these are young women who read Cosmo. I tend to doubt the percentage would be quite as high if the poll surveyed 850 young women who read Tolstoy. Then again, if your wife or girlfriend likes to read Cosmo or InStyle or any other magazine that is primarily composed of gossip and pictures of celebrities, it's probably a fair metric.

Hunting alphas

For less attractive women who seek alpha males they can't otherwise attract, pursuing a career as a prison guard appears to be a strategy that permits them to obtain what they want:

In the most recent federal survey of detained juveniles, nearly 8 percent of respondents reported being sexually victimized by a staff member at least once in the previous 12 months. For those who reported being abused, two things proved overwhelmingly true, as they were in Woodland Hills: They were teenage boys, and their alleged assailants were female employees tasked with looking out for their well-being. Nine in 10 of those who reported being victimized were males reporting incidents with female staff. Women, meanwhile, typically make up less than half of a juvenile facility’s staff.

These were not one-time occurrences. Among those who said they were abused by staff, 86 percent reported more than one incident in the previous year; 20 percent of those who reported sexual misconduct said it happened at least 11 times over that period. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics survey, the use or threat of force was present in only one in five victims. Instead, the research suggests that female guards are more likely to establish a relationship with the boys, writing them letters, giving them gifts of alcohol or even drugs, or granting them special favors to build their trust. Such activity—often called “grooming”—not only sets the stage for the abuse that follows but also makes the teens less likely to report their abusers after the victimization happens—or even to consider it abuse in the first place.

Better a young Alpha than none at all, I guess.

Why low-N matters

Alpha widows don't know they're widowed:

This goes against the premise of every single romance novel, but you’re not going to marry the best sex of your life. At least, not if you’re like most women. According to a recent study by iVillage, less than half of wedded women married the person who was the best sex of their lives (52 percent say that was an ex.) In fact, 66 percent would rather read a book, watch a movie or take a nap than sleep with a spouse.

Amanda Chatel, a 33-year-old writer from the East Village, says, “With the men I’ve loved, the sex has been good, sometimes great, but never ‘best.’ It’s resulted in many orgasms and was fun but, comparatively speaking, it didn’t have that intensity that comes with the ‘best’ sex.

“I knew [my best sex partner] was temporary, and so the great sex was the best because the sex was the relationship,” she adds. “We didn’t have to invest in anything else.”

Just what every man wants to hear from his wife, I suppose. "You're not bad, darling, but you just can't compare to that drunk guy who ravished me in bathroom of that nightclub."

This also explains why higher N is less of a problem for Alphas. Even if she's experienced, she's less likely to be pining for his predecessors.

Dr. Helen hits USA Today

With her rhetorical six-guns blazing:

Imagine that your 14-year-old daughter engaged in sex with the 20-year-old man down the street. Anger would hardly begin to describe your feelings, but then imagine how you and your daughter would feel if she became pregnant and the man who abused her got custody of the child and your daughter had to pay him child support for the next 18 years.

This would not only be unthinkable in our society but most people would say that it bordered on abuse or worse. Yet, as reported in a recent Arizona Republic news story, this is what happened to Nick Olivas, who happened to be 14 at the time he had sex with a 20-year-old woman. The difference, of course, is he's not a girl.

At the age of 21, Olivas found out he had a child and that he owed over $15,000 in back child support plus interest. He was rightfully upset, stating: "It was a shock. I was living my life and enjoying being young. To find out you have a 6-year-old? It's unexplainable. It freaked me out."

When a state government finds out a 14-year-old girl is a statutory rape victim of a 20-year-old man, the common reaction would be to file criminal charges to put the predator in jail. But for male victims, child support laws turn state governments into the allies of abusers instead of advocates for the victims.

Why the double standard when the victim is male?

Now that is a lovely rhetorical start designed to punch right through the female imperative before the reader realizes it, then adeptly making the twist to appeal to the legal equality that feminists supposedly stand for.

She's right, of course. The law holding male statutory rape victims responsible for their children is absurd. That being said, female rape victims who bear their rapist's children do assume responsibility for them, so the correct thing to do would be to give a male victim the right to claim paternal responsibility and/or custody without either being imposed upon him.

How Gamma males argue

John Scalzi likes to brag about how he's a master of rhetoric because he has a Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy of Language from the University of Chicago. Here is how he demonstrates that rhetorical mastery when various gamers have pointed out the obvious fact that Anita Sarkeesian, who has developed a little cottage industry out of complaining that there aren't enough women involved in the games she doesn't play, has completely failed to provide any convincing arguments to support her ramblings:

In the last couple of days, some dudes have tried to talk nonsense about @FemFreq to me here. Dudes, I SO don't have time for you. (1/2)

Your arguments are bullshit, you reek of fetid sexism, and also @FemFreq is fucking RIGHT. So, stop, already. You're not swaying me. (2/2)

Now remember, the First Law of Gamma is: Lie RELENTLESSLY to yourself. Observe that Scalzi is announcing that NO INFORMATION can possibly sway him from his chosen position. In doing so, he also announces that he is not capable of dialectic, he is one of those individuals that Aristotle described as the sort for whom "not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct."

The Gamma cannot be instructed because he identifies with his delusions and any knowledge that does not conform to his preconceived delusions must therefore be rejected before it can threaten them. This is the primary difference between Delta and Gamma. Both Deltas and Gammas tend to be conflict-avoidant, but the Delta can be easily instructed. The Gamma cannot be.

There is no rape epidemic

Not in the USA, anyhow. Although I'm sure the importation of more Pakistani Muslims can correct that in a hurry.

Prof. Mark Perry comments: "FBI crime statistics reveal that far from an “epidemic” of an increasing frequency in rape in America, we’ve fortunately experienced exactly the opposite – the frequency of rape has been declining for more than two decades, and fell to a 41-year low in 2013."

What happened around 1990 that changed things so dramatically? My guess is that the rapid expansion of concealed carry laws has had a significant effect in reducing the frequency of actual rape as opposed to date rape, near rape, regret rape, and other forms of rape that take place only in the female imagination.

A collapsing civilization

Sarah Hoyt laments the decline of civilization in her old Portuguese village:

It just seems that every woman my age has been divorced three times, or is shacked up with some guy half her age who is eating out her savings. Every younger woman is having kids out of wedlock starting well before seventeen. And I keep thinking: Oh, h*ll. When did everyone who grew up with me become… low class?”

Look, the village was poor as Job, and financially we were probably the wretched of the Earth. Things I remember from my childhood could fit in a documentary on “growing up in the third world.” Stuff like getting clothes stolen from the line, because there were people who genuinely couldn’t afford clothes for their kids; stuff like eating day old peasant bed fried in lard for a meal, to stretch out the grocery money of the household; things like getting the toes of my shoes cut off when I outgrew them, so I had ersatz sandals for spring. Other things, like playing with empty containers, or thinking the days the crops were irrigated (not with water!) ideal for cork boat races (disposable, thank heavens, but…)

We weren’t rich, and my family was relatively well off.

But dear Lord, we were middle class, no matter what our actually available money was....

Again, I ask you – can the roof stay up when the walls fall? Will we turn in the “middle class” standards so many found so oppressive for medieval standards that bring poverty and misery? For places where women and children are only safe while a man is willing to defend them; where the bad men aren’t looked down on by other men?

Is this what we want?

And how is it possible we came so far so fast? How did we tumble to this?

Her answer, I suggest, can be found here: "And I’m not going to lie and say that all things that went on and the established mode was the best one. It very well wasn’t. For one, it was a genuinely patriarchal society in the sense that women had almost no power."

There is her answer right there. Civilization depends entirely upon the restriction of female sexuality and the limitation of female power. It’s not the only factor, but it is a necessary one. The restrictions can be cruel and enforced primarily by men, as in the case of Islamic semi-civilization, or they can be soft and enforced primarily by women, as in the case of traditional Western civilization. Or something in between, such as she describes. But the restrictions must exist, be they self-imposed or externally imposed.

There is no equality. There never will be as long as young men are willing to build, steal, or kill for sex. Unless sex is primarily made available to young men by forcing them to jump through various hoops that help build and maintain civilization, it’s back to barbarism and grass huts for everyone. And that decivilizing process is exactly what she is describing.

The decline of civilization is the logical result of the Sexual Revolution combined with the Divorce Revolution. There were no winners and civilization lost.