30 comments on “Alphas Can Easily Be Manginas

  1. What about the vast majority of the 80% who aren’t omega virgins? I’ve known many omegavirgins, and none of them were virgins by choice, like you claim to be. They were virgins because they had no game, most of them weren’t particularly ugly. Your assertion that sexual success is based on looks and money is not reflective of the reality I have observed.

    • You can still be in the unattractive 80% and get laid occasionally.

      I’ve known many omegavirgins

      I can tell that actual virgins would not talk to you so this is another lie from you.

  2. W&N, you hit the nail on the head with this post.. Men in the 20% are manginas most of the time, because women treat them with respect and they have no concept of the anger that rejection from women on an unrelenting, consistent basis causes. I have spent thousands of dollars and many years trying the
    pua thing. I think I approached over 10,000 women and only got laid a handful of times after all those thousands upon thousands of hours of time spent trying to get good at it. The only PUA’s who have had ANY success, and I have met hundreds, were ones who were already successful with women before. Even upon the ultra rare occasion where I was approached by an attractive women, I was always rejected within the first month or two, for some retarded reason, like “you are not exciting”, or “we are just too different”. Now I have nothing to do with women, unless it is a hooker. By some rare chance if a girl does talk to me, I just purposefully weird her out by talking about tfl/incel, how women only go for bad boys, etc.

  3. when one thinks about it for more than a moment, the whole “alpha/beta/hierarchy” paradigm breaks down. supposed “natural leaders” being easily duped into making bad decisions based on instinct for the biological imperative or otherwise being the lowest social rung. meanwhile, the supposed “subservient men” are the ones forging their own paths and making all the real money.

  4. The psychology isn’t sound. Guys who get girls and have gotten them their whole life quickly lose any awe of them. They typically find that girls pander to them, not they to girls. Your mistake is that you are imagining a guy who has never gotten girls, who suddenly finds himself getting girls without any change in personality or outlook. He still has the psychology and outlook, built up over years, of the guy who doesn’t get girls, but is now dealing with actually getting girls. Such a situation would indeed lead to weird psychological responses, but such a situation is impossible. A man can go from not getting girls to getting girls, but in a very short time he loses the psychology that is associated with not getting girls. (As an aside, for me one of the dead giveaways that Roissy is not getting girls is that he is the psychology of a man who doesn’t get laid – he still fells incredible awe for women and sex. )

    I agree that a person can be anti-mangina and not get girls, and a man can be “alpha” in the gamers definition of that term, especially roissy’s, and be completely unsuccessful with women, and that a guy can get girls and pay lip service to feminism out of a desire to conform to social notions of sophistication or hipness, but a guy who is used to getting women is unlikely to be controlled by them in actuality, simply because any sense of mystery or awe is gone, and girls seem just like normal human beings.

    • Your reply doesn’t necessarily make sense either. I can just as easily suggest that men who are used to positive responses from women base their egos on it and can’t tolerate the idea of it no longer being the case. You could even call it an addiction.

      Why do ‘alphas’ continue to chase after women, use PUA techniques, then? Why do men still appear to be the initiators no matter how much experience they have.

      The betas who care too much / alphas who don’t care seems like a false dichotomy. t’s far more likely that confidence levels are derived from innate attractiveness to women.

      Anyway, just because intimacy and affection are experienced in the past doesn’t mean the desire for it suddenly ceases.

      • Addiction is a good comparison Ray. Theoretically someone who’s been addicted to crack or heroin since their teens should be “over” it by a certain point and tired of it. But we all know that’s not the case. If anything they get worse with age. They build up a tolerance, need more of the drug to get the same effect, and go into withdrawal quicker. I think the same probably happens with some real alphas who love to womanize. The manosphere self-described “alphas” don’t really count because they’re not actual alphas and don’t get laid.

      • Yes, guys can definitely be addicted to sex and women. I know guys like that, and it can be a huge ego boost. Part if not all of the ego boost comes from a feeling of power over women that couldn’t survive if the guy was letting himself be controlled by women (giving up his power). It’s worth pointing out that guys who get ego boosts from their ability to “get” women typically have friends who don’t get women – if their whole group has this “power”, which is usually the case, there’s no ego boost, it’s just normal, everyone can do it. Not only that, but actually getting lots of women over time cannot help but change your attitude towards women. Familiarity and use breed, not necessarily contempt, but much less awe. This point may be reached sooner or later but it is reached.

        Point is, if you’re used to getting women then it’s hard to see at what point you would feel that your access is threatened unless you turn mangina. Being a mangina is almost certaintly done to win social approval or out of a genuine belief in left-wing values, and doesn’t imply being letting yourself be controlled by women. Like so many fashionable liberal beliefs, they are meant to be observed in the breach.

        As for why even alphas have to chase, that’s because sex roles are almost certainly biologically hard wired. It’s naive and silly to think that women are simply being “lazy” and that we can flip the social script. I strongly suspect even Alek Novy calls women lazy for not approaching simply to raise awareness of how hard it can be for men and how absurd and unfair feminist expectations are, not because he seriously thinks this can or should change. And guys who are good with women, for whatever mysterious reason (certainly not because they are “alphas”), know from experience that lots of women will approach them, all the time.

        t’s far more likely that confidence levels are derived from innate attractiveness to women.

        Sadly, this is completely false. How many athletic good looking guys have you seen with fat ugly chics? It’s almost an epidemic in the West, and its common to see good looking Western guys with ugly prostitutes all over Asia, victims of a lack of self confidence despite their great looks. Attractive guys frequenly turn down hot girls who approach them and opt for ugly ones out of fear. It’s common. I see it regularly.

        • As Alex and White and Nerdy have pointed out, PUA/confidence based “power” over women is an illusion. PUA techniques, despite appearing to manipulate, are based on pleasing women. When a man uses them he submits to women’s desires, changing himself and aspects of his behaviour for the sake of what women appear to want. There’s no power there (that assumes PUA type macho games work for otherwise unattractive men, very debatable)

          This argument is starting to confuse me to be honest. I don’t think sexually successful men are necessarily being manipulated by sex or power, BUT many men have sincere desire to find a partner and “society says” that it’s up to them to risk and carry the relationships forward. So they do. Since women generally want the same thing there’s no reason why role reversal couldn’t work and women initiate part of the time. You would think feminists would support the concept; after all, it allows to women choice over who to initiate with and the situation, making the whole process “safer”. But no, women still cling to backward notions of being pursued because it makes relationships all about them.

        • FWIW I think men are controlled by positive attention from women for reasons that go beyond getting sex of the novelty of (appearing) to be able to manipulate them.

          It’s more a less one aspect of our humanity to desire affirmation from those we’re attracted to, and it just so happens that society and civilization up to this point deems that men swallow their pride and “ask” for it.

        • I’m not talking about PUA – those techniques don’t work and are laughable. Guys who are attractive to women have the “power” to attract. It’s experienced as a power, and it has a profound psychological effect. The more I go through life the more I realize that this quality is somewhat mysterious and can never be adequately understood or analyzed. Some guys just have “it” (and it has absolutely zero to do with being “dominant” or alpha. Attempts to be dominant just make you look silly and can be counterproductive) and some guys, who seemingly have a lot going for them, just don’t. Looks and status and everything else matter but there is a mysterious X-factor so that great looking guys and guys with status can be utter failures with women and very average looking men with average status and nothing “alpha” about them can have huge appeal to women, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. You certainly cannot “will” yourself from one category to another, or “learn” it.

          Many “backward” notions are in fact intractable biological facts. The progressive conceit that human nature is infinitely malleable seems naive and science is increasingly disproving it. Female coyness and passivity is probably something that cannot be changed, as it is a feature of every known society, despite the many excellent and compelling reasons for why this SHOULD change. Humans are not a rational species designed for optimum efficiency. I guarantee you that after another 1,000 years of progressisvism human females will still be coy.

          Bottom line – the experience of getting lots of women creates its own psychology, one that makes it less likely that you will be rendered powerless in the face of feminine allure and the feminine mystique will seem less awesome and compelling, and you aren’t likely to be controlled by women in any real and actual sense rather than pay lip service to some hip progressive notion.

        • The progressive conceit that human nature is infinitely malleable seems naive and science is increasingly disproving it.

          No, science is disproving no such thing.

          And you have no proof that women will still be exactly the same in 1000 years or that their nature is some intractable, inevitable genetic fact. There is a lot of genetic determinism in the manosphere for some reason, and I’m not sure but it seems like you fall into a similar category?

          Bottom line – the experience of getting lots of women creates its own psychology, one that makes it less likely that you will be rendered powerless in the face of feminine allure and the feminine mystique will seem less awesome and compelling, and you aren’t likely to be controlled by women in any real and actual sense rather than pay lip service to some hip progressive notion.

          If that’s the case, why are some of the most powerful men with the most success with women sex addicts? Tiger Woods seemed to have no problem getting women, yet his appetite for them seemed insatiable.

          Think of two people who really like good food. One person can enjoy food, spoil himself with a great meal, then be full and move on to other things and forget about food for a while. Another person may like food but have an addictive relationship to it, and the more he eats, the more he wants to eat, and he goes on big binges as a result.

          When it comes to sex, I’ve met guys who have fallen into both categories. They enjoy sex, are good at getting it, but can get bored of it and it loses its appeal to them. Meanwhile I’ve known other guys for whom there’s never enough sex, and they’ll take ridiculous risks and go to ridiculous extremes for the next piece of ass, even though they’ve had so many conquests.

          It’s overly simplistic to believe that there is only one type of psychological profile that covers EVERY man who is able to get a lot of sex.

        • There is a lot of genetic determinism in the manosphere for some reason

          I think that’s because feminists believe that nothing is genetic so that anything can be changed with social engineering. (IOW, in the nature vs. nurture debate, feminists think its all nurture.) The so called manosphere just picks the opposite of what it perceives the feminist position to be so they think everything is nature (or genetically determined). The reality is likely that both the feminists and the so called manosphere are wrong because it’s a combination of nature and nurture.

        • Grizzly, of course I have no proof. There isn’t any yet. There is just lots and lots of evidence that personality is to a large degree heritable. An aspect of female behavior that has remained stable over millenia in every society we know of seems like a good candidate for being considered largely heritable. Despite the best efforts of Communists, Nazis, and assorted other Utopianists and millenarians to alter basic human nature and usher in the millenium, at the cost of much spilt blood, human nature remains much the same as it was 2,000 years ago. So forgive me if I am somewhat skeptical of the latest claim about some ancient aspect of human behavior that can now suddenly be fundamentally altered using reason and science. At some point, after so much death, maybe we should be a bit wiser about human nature?

          It makes sense to point out to feminists that since it is the male role to approach, its retarded, cruel, and senseless to create all sorts of double binds and to encourage harsh rejections for men who guess wrong or misjudge how strong to come on, as Alek Novy does, but when you start thinking you can actually alter basic gender roles, you’e crossed over into a progressive fantasy and are as doomed to disappointment and futility as every other utopian scheme that has foundered on the unforgiving realities of human nature in the 20th century.

          I don’t think I’m coming across clearly – of course sex can be addicting. What I mean to say is that guys who get lots of it are unlikely to be so impressed with and awestruck by women that they will let themselves be actually and really controlled by them under the delusion that that’s the path to sex. They know it’s a delusion, they know surrendering control won’t get them sex, and they aren’t worshipful of the feminine mystique, as Roissy and other quasi-celibates can sometimes be, which is the only other way I see that a guy might let himself surrender control to women – basically strategic, thinking it’s the path to sex, or psychological, he isn’t used to women so he’s utterly awestruck and worshipful of them, like Roissy. And those two conditions, psychological and practical, don’t exist in the case of a guy good with women. Maybe if they saw their supply of sex being threatened they would – maybe – but women don’t give sex to guys they favor based on how manginistic they are, so no such threat would ever materialize to be noticed.

          And you’re right that a single typology can’t fit all cases – that some guys who are great with women might let themselves be controlled by them. Sure. There’s always outliers.

        • Kevin, what you say about men growing numb to feminine mystique appears to relate to men interested in getting laid and little more.

          As for adults looking for something more permanent, I see no reason why men a better suited to deal with rejection than women, and I really don’t care if women are prone to be more inhibited. Biological predisposes us to many behaviours that are anti-social by today’s standards. We don’t make allowance for it on that basis. You may think it naive to expect modern women to walk their own talk and reject rigid gender roles, but it’s a basic of element of justice; the sheer psychological terrorism of expecting men to initiate and do all the chasing then vilifying them for it has to stop.

        • *Just read the last reply to Grizzly. You’ve put your points across well, although I’m not sure if Alex’s perspective is fully represented.

  5. Kevin says:
    The psychology isn’t sound. Guys who get girls and have gotten them their whole life quickly lose any awe of them. They typically find that girls pander to them, not they to girls.

    That works if a guy is captain of the college football team. He may well have girls coming to him, not the other way around. For a PUA, he still has to do lots of approaches. Lots of approaches mean lots of rejection.

  6. ” The reality is likely that both the feminists and the so called manosphere are wrong because it’s a combination of nature and nurture.”

    I’ve wanted to write about this for a long time but don’t quite have the background in science or philosophy to give it the attention it deserves…

    (I might try a hack job at it though…)

    Ironically, I thought Stardusk was arguing for “biological determinism” when he mentioned most men couldn’t GTOW. I thought it was funny that P. Elam resorted with histrionics instead of a say, agree to disagree stance but the bigger picture is that Stardusk’s view (which may not be the “right” view) is extremely threatening to the AVfM crowd. I also thought it was funny when Rooshiepoops went into histrionics with Minter and a bit disgusting when his crappy ROK page endorsed abortion with all the fetus hatred of a man hating radfem.

    • SWAB, you definitely have more knowledge on the subject of nature vs nurture than either the feminists or the so called manosphere does. Don’t let that stop you.

      I can understand Paul Elam’s frustration with Stardusk to a point because Stardusk’s position means there’s no hope to rollback feminism. In a way the existence of MGTOW proves Stardusk wrong to a degree which is very ironic.

      • Yes, I agree. The genetic determinism wing of the manosphere has no problem pretending to know more than they know and bullshitting with pseudoscience, but because normal people actually have a problem with pretending to be experts in things they have no idea about, it causes people like SWAB to feel outgunned and underinformed. Don’t fall for it SWAB. 5 mins of even the slightest research will have you able to refute 90% of their bullshit.

  7. Pingback: What Happens When Alpha And Beta Get Applied To Conspiracy Theory | The Black Pill

  8. A lot of the alpha male jock sniffing on heartiste can get pretty comical.
    Check out this bizarre post on Putin and Decaprio

    An excerpt incase no one wants to(understandably) hit the link!
    A hushed crowd gathers at a safe distance round the two great white beasts… lords of their jungles… locked in a struggle predetermined by ancient custom and cosmic law. They slowly circle, gazes unwavering, searching for a flash of weakness in cold orbs of blue ice that have seen much. Stalking and circling, bodies taught under the veneer of custom suits and polite banter, prepared to spring to action. Their minds electrified with the weight of the rapprochement, jowls flaring a crimson warning. The winner will acquire mating rights to the loser’s concubines, and oh my is that a lot of concubines. The women on the losing side will wail and gnash their teeth, but only for a moment before regrouping and surrendering with barely concealed relief and joy to the carnal caretaking of the new king

    hahahahahahahaha… As the wise Theodore Dalrymple would say “As satire is impossible, commentary would be superfluous”

  9. Other thing, a man can give a lot to his wife and be pleasant with her, and at the same time get for her all that he wants and rule over her. And if you look it in a partail way you could wrongly conclude that this man is mangina.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.