Banned in Loveshack.org

[rjc149]

I'll play devil's advocate here. What's wrong with a little resentment towards women?

Women don’t find it attractive. Whether or not that matters is your call.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

It doesn't sound like you're willing to admit any misinterpretation or misstep in logic. We're also saying a lot of the same things and repeating ourselves, so forgive me if I check out of this thread.

According to TRM, in relationships with them, it's your will against theirs, and beware of losing

If you think there's isn't a battle of the sexes you are sorely misguided. There is a duty for every man to stand up for himself. Not just with women, with everything. It is your responsibility to have boundaries and hold to them.

TRM is held in very high regard by the same people who also harbor resentment and bitterness toward women. I believe they feed off of, and are thus validated by, the angry undertone of TRM. I don't believe the resentment in TRM is purely my own interpretation. What you have admitted as pessimistic is what I would call resentment.

You think he's being hostile, I disagree. This is what I mean by straw man. You are knocking something that's very open to interpretation. To knock it down you focus in on an interpretation that bolsters your argument. You are taking the serious tone of the book and assuming it's due to hangups and resentment. Multiple people have told you they haven't interpreted the book this way but you're insisting it's the authors fault rather than your perception. The blind lead the blind regardless of TRM. People who are misguided will seek confirmation bias in everything. They come here and others attempt to open their minds and instill a healthier outlook. The healthier folk take every book with a grain of salt. If you think you can write a 'more balanced' relationship book then by all means.

My balanced approach rejects feminist brainwashing and the red pill reaction against it. Ironically, the approach I strive for is centered on a primary thesis of TRM -- that a man must appeal to both side of female hypergamy in order to be optimally attractive. This is an approach I haven't gleaned from studying attraction literature, but largely from personal experience.

What do you mean by 'appeal to both sides'?

 

[rjc149]

It doesn't sound like you're willing to admit any misinterpretation or misstep in logic. We're also saying a lot of the same things and repeating ourselves, so forgive me if I check out of this thread.

You can check out any time you like.

If you think there's isn't a battle of the sexes you are sorely misguided. There is a duty for every man to stand up for himself. Not just with women, with everything. It is your responsibility to have boundaries and hold to them.

I don't choose to look at male/female duality as a conflict. I prefer to see it as a complementary dynamic, or at least, I believe men should strive for that in their relationships with women. That is not to say that a man should abandon his principles, or let a woman dictate them.

You think he's being hostile, I disagree. This is what I mean by straw man. You are knocking something that's very open to interpretation. To knock it down you focus in on an interpretation that bolsters your argument. You are taking the serious tone of the book and assuming it's due to hangups and resentment.

The straw man fallacy pertains to factual argumentation. I am offering my opinion, I am not making a factually-based argument. I support my opinion with my interpretation of the author's tone, which you have recognized as pessimistic. This pessimism, in my opinion, stems from the author's contempt of women. You can freely disagree.

Multiple people have told you they haven't interpreted the book this way but you're insisting it's the authors fault rather than your perception.

The "multiple people" in your sample size and demographic are 2-3 posters on a seduction forum, who generally hold TRM in regard, and where the author of the book himself sometimes contributes. Hardly a representative poll. Not even drawing from the raging feminist pool, I'm sure non-biased readers would feel a misogynist undertone lurking beneath the prose.

What do you mean by 'appeal to both sides'?

Female hypergamy presents two sides, as Rollo Tomassi recognizes and asserts -- the desire to fornicate with alpha males to pass on superior genetics, and the desire to seek long-term nesting arrangements with beta male providers. Or as he terms it, 'alpha fvcks, beta bucks.' Or, as I would term it more simply, sexual fulfillment and emotional fulfillment.

Thus, the best strategy for a male to play to female's hypergamous duality is to have elements of both alpha and beta. Maintain the dominant alpha frame to keep her sexually attracted, with beta elements and characteristics to appeal to a woman's emotionally-driven nature. Being some unbending IDGAF silverback alpha will kill the emotional connection a woman feels and drive her into the arms of a nurturing beta. The nurturing beta's submissiveness will kill her sexual attraction and drive her back into the arms of an alpha. So, be the best of both and offer her complete attractiveness.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

Thus, the best strategy for a male to play to female's hypergamous duality is to have elements of both alpha and beta. Maintain the dominant alpha frame to keep her sexually attracted, with beta elements and characteristics to appeal to a woman's emotionally-driven nature. Being some unbending IDGAF silverback alpha will kill the emotional connection a woman feels and drive her into the arms of a nurturing beta. The nurturing beta's submissiveness will kill her sexual attraction and drive her back into the arms of an alpha. So, be the best of both and offer her complete attractiveness.

Attraction isn't a choice. Any attempt to change your character to appeal to a woman's emotions is a supplication to her frame and coming from a place of scarcity. Rather your goal should be to become the best version of yourself and put that out into the world, accepting whatever comes back. Anything else is needy. Coming from abundance means she has to qualify herself for your time and attention, not the other way around. Adopting beta characteristics(sacrificing self respect) to keep a woman around will only lose her respect and cause you to harbor resentment if she doesn't give you what you're after. A woman will naturally want to be around a man that radiates abundance because he enjoys her company but let's her come and go as she pleases. The 'IDGAF' attitude is arguably the one more in touch with reality and the one capable of facilitating the deepest emotions because there is no fear of loss. Uninhibited unconditional passion for another.

 

[evan12]

I do however encourage you or others to sign up. Some of those guys there sorely need some masculine presence, there's just too much femininity over there.

The only website that allow TRP posters is Quora, I enjoy reading some very strong RedPills opinions there. I wouldnt waste anytime on these websites , at the admins will ban you eventually.

 

[user43770]

I guess if you really wanted to help some poor saps over there you could send them PMs?

 

[rjc149]

Attraction isn't a choice. Any attempt to change your character to appeal to a woman's emotions is a supplication to her frame and coming from a place of scarcity. Rather your goal should be to become the best version of yourself and put that out into the world, accepting whatever comes back. Anything else is needy. Coming from abundance means she has to qualify herself for your time and attention, not the other way around. Adopting beta characteristics(sacrificing self respect) to keep a woman around will only lose her respect and cause you to harbor resentment if she doesn't give you what you're after. A woman will naturally want to be around a man that radiates abundance because he enjoys her company but let's her come and go as she pleases. The 'IDGAF' attitude is arguably the one more in touch with reality and the one capable of facilitating the deepest emotions because there is no fear of loss. Uninhibited unconditional passion for another.

No, attraction is not a choice. Striving to become more attractive is, however.

It really depends on what you want. If you want just spins plates and maintain a revolving-door harem, then not giving a fvck about what your woman thinks or feels is a perfectly functional strategy. If she starts disconnecting, next the stupid b!tch and replace her. That’s the correct attitude right?

Your disdain for “beta traits” and your equating it with neediness and the sacrifice of one’s self-respect indicates that you have adopted, or are prescribing, a rigid, unbending red pill view of both women and relationships. Alpha/beta = black/white to you. You are one or the other. That’s a mindset I am challenging.

Becoming the best version of yourself, being a man on your mission, gracefully accepting that most women will come and go from your life and thus having an abundance mindset, does not mean you must emulate some caricature silverback alpha "I got three b!tches just like you waiting on my c0ck" persona. The alpha/beta dichotomy is not black and white. It’s not a totality. Everything in life sits within a spectrum.

We are in different life phases I believe. You are in a phase of life where you want to pursue sexual gratification with as many willing mates as possible. Totally acceptable. I was once, not long ago, of the same mindset. I am in a phase of life where I want to have higher quality, more meaningful relationships with worthy women. Having some beta characteristics in order to keep her emotionally engaged doesn’t mean castrating oneself and become a weak, spineless supplicating little *****. It means making the effort to make her feel heard, understood, and loved. It means accepting some of her influence at times to maintain a healthy partnership. It means giving a fvck about how she feels and what she wants. I have driven some wonderful women out of my life by adhering too closely to some red pill dicta of alpha male behavior, because I was scared of losing them by appearing "too beta." Adopting a red pill alpha persona to avoid betatude by a wide margin comes from a fear mindset. It's inauthentic. If being a good and loving partner for your woman threatens your masculinity, you’re a weak, insecure poser b!tch. It’s that simple.

 

[Spaz]

No, attraction is not a choice. Striving to become more attractive is, however.

It really depends on what you want. If you want just spins plates and maintain a revolving-door harem, then not giving a fvck about what your woman thinks or feels is a perfectly functional strategy. If she starts disconnecting, next the stupid b!tch and replace her. That’s the correct attitude right?

Your disdain for “beta traits” and your equating it with neediness and the sacrifice of one’s self-respect indicates that you have adopted, or are prescribing, a rigid, unbending red pill view of both women and relationships. Alpha/beta = black/white to you. You are one or the other. That’s a mindset I am challenging.

Becoming the best version of yourself, being a man on your mission, gracefully accepting that most women will come and go from your life and thus having an abundance mindset, does not mean you must emulate some caricature silverback alpha "I got three b!tches just like you waiting on my c0ck" persona. The alpha/beta dichotomy is not black and white. It’s not a totality. Everything in life sits within a spectrum.

We are in different life phases I believe. You are in a phase of life where you want to pursue sexual gratification with as many willing mates as possible. Totally acceptable. I was once, not long ago, of the same mindset. I am in a phase of life where I want to have higher quality, more meaningful relationships with worthy women. Having some beta characteristics in order to keep her emotionally engaged doesn’t mean castrating oneself and become a weak, spineless supplicating little *****. It means making the effort to make her feel heard, understood, and loved. It means accepting some of her influence at times to maintain a healthy partnership. It means giving a fvck about how she feels and what she wants. I have driven some wonderful women out of my life by adhering too closely to some red pill dicta of alpha male behavior, because I was scared of losing them by appearing "too beta." Adopting a red pill alpha persona to avoid betatude by a wide margin comes from a fear mindset. It's inauthentic. If being a good and loving partner for your woman threatens your masculinity, you’re a weak, insecure poser b!tch. It’s that simple.

There's no such thing as alpha or beta men.

But there's dominant and passive men where both personalities can learn masculinity.

 

[Epic Days]

There's no such thing as alpha or beta men.

But there's dominant and passive men where both personalities can learn masculinity.

Yep

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

I have a different idea of what an alpha is from what you've described. This is the second time someone has assumed a definition different than what I hold in mind, which makes me think there's a more appropriate word. Maybe masculine is it.

It really depends on what you want. If you want just spins plates and maintain a revolving-door harem, then not giving a fvck about what your woman thinks or feels is a perfectly functional strategy. If she starts disconnecting, next the stupid b!tch and replace her. That’s the correct attitude right?

Being completely abundant is not about not caring or ignoring your partner or other people in your life. On the contrary there are no thoughts from the ego, no manipulative agenda, no fear of expressing vulnerabilities, because there is no need for validation. Coming from abundance involves no demands or hostility. A relationship is seen as a hindrance, a set back, because locking down a girl is the last thing on a abundant man's mind. There's no malice or insecurity.

Your disdain for “beta traits” and your equating it with neediness and the sacrifice of one’s self-respect indicates that you have adopted, or are prescribing, a rigid, unbending red pill view of both women and relationships. Alpha/beta = black/white to you. You are one or the other. That’s a mindset I am challenging.

You're assuming a lot about my character here, and you're incorrect. Allowing a woman to come and go is not rigid. Being unmovable and allowing a woman to completely melt into me, body, mind, and soul, is not limiting or rigid. It's the exact opposite, it gives women the opportunity to indulge completely because they identify with the comfort I exhibit in my own skin. Its the mentality that will only attract a complete woman that is secure enough in herself to release completely. An insecure woman will be intimidated or become angry or demand backflips. You seem to think those are the only ones that exist, or at least the only ones you're interested in. This is evident by your willingness to change and compensate for her insecurities.

Becoming the best version of yourself, being a man on your mission, gracefully accepting that most women will come and go from your life and thus having an abundance mindset, does not mean you must emulate some caricature silverback alpha "I got three b!tches just like you waiting on my c0ck" persona. The alpha/beta dichotomy is not black and white. It’s not a totality. Everything in life sits within a spectrum.

You're absolutely right, and this must be some sort of stigma you associate with the word alpha. We clearly have different ideas of what that is, so use the word masculine if you like. A confident, abundant man can only seem like a brute to someone without those qualities. It's a humble confidence, there's no need to flaunt or flex nuts, because there is nothing to prove.

We are in different life phases I believe. You are in a phase of life where you want to pursue sexual gratification with as many willing mates as possible. Totally acceptable. I was once, not long ago, of the same mindset. I am in a phase of life where I want to have higher quality, more meaningful relationships with worthy women.

Another inaccurate assumption. I would love to have a deep and fulfilling relationship with one person(or multiple). I also have a standard in mind, and I'm not willing to lower that standard to have a relationship sooner. I have no problem meeting people and nothing deeper forming simply due to incompatibility or bad timing or a partners insecurities, I also have no problem going to my grave alone. I am much more happy to do that while upholding myself to the standards I believe in that supplicating to women. My desire for a full relationship with another is not more important to me than my principles for a fulfilling life. This level of self respect is rare, but at the same time extremely self sustaining, contagious, and allowing of high social and emotional acuity. I'll continue to meet girls, have fun, and uphold what I believe in. If that means walking or letting her walk, it's completely ok with me. And not out of some kind of pent up resentment or fear, rather the opposite, from openness and unconditional love. A woman coming from her own abundance doesn't care how many women I'm seeing. She's living in the moment like me, and she'll allow me the freedoms I allow her. Even if a woman is a bit possessive it works to my benefit because she's the one who will be chasing and qualifying herself.

Having some beta characteristics in order to keep her emotionally engaged doesn’t mean castrating oneself and become a weak, spineless supplicating little *****. It means making the effort to make her feel heard, understood, and loved. It means accepting some of her influence at times to maintain a healthy partnership. It means giving a fvck about how she feels and what she wants.

A woman will engage emotionally or she won't. The same goes for me. In no way is there a lack of listening, loving, or understanding when both are coming from abundance. It seems as I have a different definition for alpha, you have a different definition for beta. There is nothing wrong with putting in effort, as long as it's unconditional. One simply has to remain aware of any conditional behavior creeping in and creating resentment.

I have driven some wonderful women out of my life by adhering too closely to some red pill dicta of alpha male behavior, because I was scared of losing them by appearing "too beta." Adopting a red pill alpha persona to avoid betatude by a wide margin comes from a fear mindset. It's inauthentic. If being a good and loving partner for your woman threatens your masculinity, you’re a weak, insecure poser b!tch. It’s that simple.

What you're describing is fake confidence, or sure a poser biitch. It's funny that you call this alpha behavior when it's actually weak and something I would attribute with being beta. There is no worry about losing a woman by appearing 'too beta'. A man does not think twice about expressing his vulnerabilities when asked. A man isn't being vulnerable by talking about his vulnerabilities if he isn't validated by others. He can talk about his weaknesses openly and comfortably because he is self validated. In fact expressing those things is a gift and an opportunity for the other to come closer. It's also a gauge to see if respect exists where it should. Personally I don't bother talking about it unless she asks, and even then I have fun being mysterious about it and making her work for it. And if there is no respect then I feel no fear, no remorse, and no pain. I simply know the limits of the relationship in that moment. I may choose to leave or I may choose to simply withhold that info and keep her at arms length. Some men never bring up their weaknesses because they never think about them or aren't aware of them. Some don't bring them up out of fear. The truly masculine are aware of them and tend to not talk about them unless asked, because it's not a big deal and not anyone else's problem. it's a natural facet of any man working to better himself, and therefore nothing to be ashamed of.

When you're proud of yourself and own yourself completely there is nothing to prove and no need to worry about keeping a woman. It's not being a douche, it's the most complete you can be, and it naturally attracts women. Filtering out those that aren't genuine or complete themselves is also easy as long self respect and therefore awareness isn't compromised.

I think we have similar ideas and are misunderstanding each other due to differing definitions. This is the misunderstanding I referred to earlier. But I want to be clear you're not talking about supplicating out of fear, or supplicating at all.

 

[Spaz]

I have a different idea of what an alpha is from what you've described. This is the second time someone has assumed a definition different than what I hold in mind, which makes me think there's a more appropriate word. Maybe masculine is it.



Being completely abundant is not about not caring or ignoring your partner or other people in your life. On the contrary there are no thoughts from the ego, no manipulative agenda, no fear of expressing vulnerabilities, because there is no need for validation. Coming from abundance involves no demands or hostility. A relationship is seen as a hindrance, a set back, because locking down a girl is the last thing on a abundant man's mind. There's no malice or insecurity.




You're assuming a lot about my character here, and you're incorrect. Allowing a woman to come and go is not rigid. Being unmovable and allowing a woman to completely melt into me, body, mind, and soul, is not limiting or rigid. It's the exact opposite, it gives women the opportunity to indulge completely because they identify with the comfort I exhibit in my own skin. Its the mentality that will only attract a complete woman that is secure enough in herself to release completely. An insecure woman will be intimidated or become angry or demand backflips. You seem to think those are the only ones that exist, or at least the only ones you're interested in. This is evident by your willingness to change and compensate for her insecurities.




You're absolutely right, and this must be some sort of stigma you associate with the word alpha. We clearly have different ideas of what that is, so use the word masculine if you like. A confident, abundant man can only seem like a brute to someone without those qualities. It's a humble confidence, there's no need to flaunt or flex nuts, because there is nothing to prove.




Another inaccurate assumption. I would love to have a deep and fulfilling relationship with one person(or multiple). I also have a standard in mind, and I'm not willing to lower that standard to have a relationship sooner. I have no problem meeting people and nothing deeper forming simply due to incompatibility or bad timing or a partners insecurities, I also have no problem going to my grave alone. I am much more happy to do that while upholding myself to the standards I believe in that supplicating to women. My desire for a full relationship with another is not more important to me than my principles for a fulfilling life. This level of self respect is rare, but at the same time extremely self sustaining, contagious, and allowing of high social and emotional acuity. I'll continue to meet girls, have fun, and uphold what I believe in. If that means walking or letting her walk, it's completely ok with me. And not out of some kind of pent up resentment or fear, rather the opposite, from openness and unconditional love. A woman coming from her own abundance doesn't care how many women I'm seeing. She's living in the moment like me, and she'll allow me the freedoms I allow her. Even if a woman is a bit possessive it works to my benefit because she's the one who will be chasing and qualifying herself.


A woman will engage emotionally or she won't. The same goes for me. In no way is there a lack of listening, loving, or understanding when both are coming from abundance. It seems as I have a different definition for alpha, you have a different definition for beta. There is nothing wrong with putting in effort, as long as it's unconditional. One simply has to remain aware of any conditional behavior creeping in and creating resentment.





What you're describing is fake confidence, or sure a poser biitch. It's funny that you call this alpha behavior when it's actually weak and something I would attribute with being beta. There is no worry about losing a woman by appearing 'too beta'. A man does not think twice about expressing his vulnerabilities when asked. A man isn't being vulnerable by talking about his vulnerabilities if he isn't validated by others. He can talk about his weaknesses openly and comfortably because he is self validated. In fact expressing those things is a gift and an opportunity for the other to come closer. It's also a gauge to see if respect exists where it should. Personally I don't bother talking about it unless she asks, and even then I have fun being mysterious about it and making her work for it. And if there is no respect then I feel no fear, no remorse, and no pain. I simply know the limits of the relationship in that moment. I may choose to leave or I may choose to simply withhold that info and keep her at arms length. Some men never bring up their weaknesses because they never think about them or aren't aware of them. Some don't bring them up out of fear. The truly masculine are aware of them and tend to not talk about them unless asked, because it's not a big deal and not anyone else's problem. it's a natural facet of any man working to better himself, and therefore nothing to be ashamed of.

When you're proud of yourself and own yourself completely there is nothing to prove and no need to worry about keeping a woman. It's not being a douche, it's the most complete you can be, and it naturally attracts women. Filtering out those that aren't genuine or complete themselves is also easy as long self respect and therefore awareness isn't compromised.

I think we have similar ideas and are misunderstanding each other due to differing definitions. This is the misunderstanding I referred to earlier. But I want to be clear you're not talking about supplicating out of fear, or supplicating at all.

Think along the lines of dominant and passive men.

Stop thinking about Alpha or Beta men, it simply doesn't exist because it's a lie based on illusions.

A dominant man cannot assume all the traits of a passive man no matter how he tries, he will come off as a fake.

Same goes with the passive man.

Which makes it actually a waste of time since it's not their natural inclination and it gets worse for those who thinks they're Beta, they then go over compensating by acting all Alpha.

What both dominants and passives can do however is to acquire masculinity.

Masculinity is just a code of conduct for men.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

Think along the lines of dominant and passive men.

Stop thinking about Alpha or Beta men, it simply doesn't exist because it's a lie based on illusions.

A dominant man cannot assume all the traits of a passive man no matter how he tries, he will come off as a fake.

Same goes with the passive man.

Which makes it actually a waste of time since it's not their natural inclination and it gets worse for those who thinks they're Beta, they then go over compensating by acting all Alpha.

What both dominants and passives can do however is to acquire masculinity.

Masculinity is just a code of conduct for men.

This seems like semantics. An alpha is typically more dominant, a beta is typically more passive. Is this something you read or did you come to the conclusion yourself?

 

[Spaz]

This seems like semantics. An alpha is typically more dominant, a beta is typically more passive. Is this something you read or did you come to the conclusion yourself?

Albert Einstein is considered the "Alpha" in the field of physics

I don't think anyone can dispute that.

But his nature is inherently passive, he's an intellectual.

Micheal Jackson is considered the "Alpha" in music.

But he's passive by his very nature, an expressive personality.

I could go on but you get my drift.

If you'd like to talk about Wolves and Gorilla's social structures and then apply it with humanity, I'm not really interested.

 

[Epic Days]

Think along the lines of dominant and passive men.

Stop thinking about Alpha or Beta men, it simply doesn't exist because it's a lie based on illusions.

A dominant man cannot assume all the traits of a passive man no matter how he tries, he will come off as a fake.

Same goes with the passive man.

Which makes it actually a waste of time since it's not their natural inclination and it gets worse for those who thinks they're Beta, they then go over compensating by acting all Alpha.

What both dominants and passives can do however is to acquire masculinity.

Masculinity is just a code of conduct for men.

Passives striving to be “Alpha” are wasting their time in the literal sense. It doesn’t lean to their strengths.
Dominant men can sometimes be a detriment to himself. Especially if he is seeking a “relationship”. There are dominant skills that he needs to build on.

“Alpha” is highly contextual. But this doesn’t help a man grow when he divides men via Alpha/Beta.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

Albert Einstein is considered the "Alpha" in the field of physics

I don't think anyone can dispute that.

But his nature is inherently passive, he's an intellectual.

Micheal Jackson is considered the "Alpha" in music.

But he's passive by his very nature, an expressive personality.

I could go on but you get my drift.

If you'd like to talk about Wolves and Gorilla's social structures and then apply it with humanity, I'm not really interested.

Like epic said it's way pretty contextual. Albert Einstein also always had women. How would we determine whether he was alpha/dominant/masculine or not in terms of relationships or women? I don't think making correlations to animal social circles is productive so I'm with you there.

My take is we all have an ideal man in mind. The ideal varies slightly but for me it's a man that works to all virtues and away from all vices, constantly striving for self improvement. I subscribe to the idea of alpha/dominant/masculine being my natural energy and beta/passive/feminine behavior to be a detriment, in all aspects of my life.

 

[Spaz]

Like epic said it's way pretty contextual. Albert Einstein also always had women. How would we determine whether he was alpha/dominant/masculine or not in terms of relationships or women? I don't think making correlations to animal social circles is productive so I'm with you there.

My take is we all have an ideal man in mind. The ideal varies slightly but for me it's a man that works to all virtues and away from all vices, constantly striving for self improvement. I subscribe to the idea of alpha/dominant/masculine being my natural energy and beta/passive/feminine behavior to be a detriment, in all aspects of my life.

Then state what is alpha to you.

And then state what is masculinity.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

Then state what is alpha to you.

And then state what is masculinity.

That's just it, those terms are interchangeable to me. I don't think there are any negative qualities to either. Basically what I've described above and what I describe in all my posts and what I strive for. A mountain of a man that works for something larger than himself and focuses on facilitating boundaries in all relationships to allow for the comfortable engagement of all emotions.

 

[user43770]

This seems like semantics. An alpha is typically more dominant, a beta is typically more passive. Is this something you read or did you come to the conclusion yourself?

I've noticed this before with spaz, just never called him out on it. He takes known truths and then re-words them to make them seem like his own ideas.

If you, prize, have anything original to say, he will belittle you in some fashion and then use your exact thoughts at a later date. I've seen him do it with things I've said in previous arguments.

His entire life is sosuave. How else could he post dozens of times a day? His "purpose" is to post on sosuave.

 

[user43770]

Albert Einstein is considered the "Alpha" in the field of physics

I don't think anyone can dispute that.

But his nature is inherently passive, he's an intellectual.

Micheal Jackson is considered the "Alpha" in music.

But he's passive by his very nature, an expressive personality.

I could go on but you get my drift.

If you'd like to talk about Wolves and Gorilla's social structures and then apply it with humanity, I'm not really interested.

You're getting into situational alphas. All of this sh1t has been covered before in the manosphere, but I bet you know that.

You're just clever enough to steal other people's ideas and try to make them your own. Like nobody would notice.

We are always talking about the sexual market place on this forum, bud. Not intellectual alphas... Obviously.

I think @EyeOnThePrize was pretty clear with what he intended to say.

 

[Spaz]

You're getting into situational alphas. All of this sh1t has been covered before in the manosphere, but I bet you know that.

You're just clever enough to steal other people's ideas and try to make them your own. Like nobody would notice.

We are always talking about the sexual market place on this forum, bud. Not intellectual alphas... Obviously.

I think @EyeOnThePrize was pretty clear with what he intended to say.

It still doesn't matter what you think.

To me u r worse then useless.