You’re a Wongle from the Planet Bongle
Pretend that you’re alien called a “wongle” from the distant planet Bongle.
The wongle civilization is a technologically advanced one, and wongles are happy eating fruit, meat, and ice cream.
100,000 years ago, back when wongles were living in caves, they ate rocks. It was painful and they hated it. Painful to eat, painful to digest, painful to pass. But, when they shit out a rock, the chemicals from their digestive system would cause the rock to light up for a few minutes, like a light bulb. This created a source of both energy and light for the cave-dwelling wongles.
Today, so many years later, the advanced wongle society is powered by antimatter. The entire planet Bongle is completely powered by three pieces of safe, clean, cheap antimatter. There is so much energy on Bongle, it’s even given freely to wongles who can’t afford it. So as a wongle, you don’t need to eat and shit rocks any more. Neither energy nor light is something that wongle society has to worry about.
The strange thing is, some of the wongle DNA that was wired to eat rocks is still in your wongle brain. So there are times you have this strange urge to eat rocks. To be clear, you hate eating rocks. You’d rather eat a banana or cheeseburger (Wongleburger is a popular fast food chain on Bongle). Yet, the useless and obsolete biological urge to eat rocks is still there.
It’s even worse than that. A few thousand years ago, the wongle overlords, meeting behind secret vaults in an effort to create and maintain dominion over the wongle masses, discovered that if wongles ate rocks on a regular basis, it made them easier to control.
The overloads leapt into action. They starting passing laws encouraging the eating of rocks. Other overlords made religious edicts saying that not eating rocks was selfish and morally wrong. Other overlords made plays, movies, TV shows, and books extolling the virtues of eating rocks, how cool it was, and how it demonstrated maturity and responsibility. The overlords made sure that schools encouraged students to eat and shit rocks. Businesses sprouted up to profit from rock-eating and rock-shitting, and further encouraged the wongles to eat (and shit) rocks.
The wongles hated eating rocks, had no real desire to do so, and had no reason to with their antimatter. Yet slowly, through all the subtle encouragement of their overloads, they started eating rocks. In a strange sort of way, it was easy for the wongles to assimilate rock-shitting into their society, as painful as it was, because (conveniently for the overloads) it satisfied some of their obsolete DNA from the cave-wongle days.
That was thousands of years ago. Today, you’re a wongle living in modern wongle society on high-tech planet Bongle. For generations, you’ve been trained to eat and shit out rocks. Of course you hate eating rocks; it’s nothing but pain for you. Regardless, you have some outdated biology that tells you that you should, and you think eating rocks is “normal” because wongle society has been telling you your entire life that you should. To you, it’s normal and natural. So, you and all your friends and family spend your lives painfully eating, swallowing, digesting, and shitting out rocks. It sucks, but at least you fit in.
One day, a few wongles come along and tell you that it is, in fact, stupid to eat rocks. There’s literally no reason for it. You’re just doing it because you’ve been told to do it. Yes, there is a little biology in you that encourages you to do it, but the reason for that biology has been gone for literally thousands of years.
How would you react to these weird wongles?
You’d be PISSED.
All of your Societal Programming and some of your Obsolete Biological Wiring would be screaming at these guys. You’d use your intelligence to attempt to summon up all the “reasons” why eating rocks was a “good idea” and “made sense” and was the “best for society” and “not selfish” and “natural for wongles to do” and how “female wongles wouldn’t let you not eat rocks” and how there were “less health risks if you eat rocks” and how there was “nothing wrong with wanting to eat rocks” and how some wongles have “made rock-eating work for them” and how “shitting out rocks sometimes actually made you feel good.” And on, and on, and on.
What’s interesting is you would completely forget about all the pain and limitations in your life eating rocks has caused you, and instead you would instantly go into your defense of rock-eating and rock-shitting.
What would be the source of your arguments as an angry wongle defending your rock-shitting?
They would be from the Societal Programming installed into your head by your wongle overloads, of course. This would be bolstered by some of your very-out-of-date biology that you no longer had any use for. That’s pretty much it. Your arguments would not be from logic (though it would feel like they were). They would not be from reason, desire, your core feelings, or even your own personal preferences (although again, it would feel like they were).
As you argued with these asshole, know-it-all anti-rock-shitting wongles, your wongle overlords would smile down upon you, another wongle citizen following in lockstep with their system, unwittingly surrendering to their will, and your own obsolete biology.
Happy Rock-Shitting!
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Hey BD,
Interesting take on wongles, I see what you mean. Related to SP – did you read Chase’s last 2 articles, namely “Why you never hear from alpha providers in the manosphere” and “7 rules on how to be the alpha provider”.
He argues that paying for a woman is beta if done from a needy/supplicating position, but alpha if done as provision (e.g. getting her a Cartier watch to look nice beside you in an event). His case is that manosphere is too simplistic in labeling men AF/BB, and that alpha providers have no need to post in manosphere, only guys who were hurt/didn’t get the girl or were beta in their marriages post there which distorts the view. Kind of like the “Dave from hawaii” story on heartiste. What is your take on these two articles by Chase? I know that you were married previously, but you mentioned you were not yet an alpha by then.
Best,
Jay
I can see how this story applies to women’ ASD and other such irrational, societal crap. But even so, is it impossible to control our genes and go against our nature? We do it everyday, by using condoms and contraception. So this is not really an excuse. Women have just made themselves comfortable to exhibiting ASD and bullshit. Maybe we should consider the idea that they are not really so interested in sex as men are.
Except for the high divorce rate and the ultra high unhappiness in married couples. Every friend I have who have been married are divorced.
My parents are divorced. You can believe whatever you want until reality hits you in the face. Then those articles are meaningless because you just realized that that was a beta provider pretending to be alpha writing articles.
Go counter to nature if you want. But if my chances to be happy are 5% or less, there is no way I would get married. It is probably less than that as the years go by. Yes, people stop getting divorced as they pass 50 or 60 but is that because they would want to be with no one else or because they can’t get anyone else?
In any case, we all make choices then have to live with it. It doesn’t matter what BD believes because you will pick something that you want to believe in. If it’s something that goes against the odds then you will find out sooner or later.
@Minister: women are not less interested in sex. It’s just that genes aren’t the only thing that has power over us (although I’m usually the guy arguing that X or Y is “from your genes, not society’s influence”). Ideas, or “memes” do too, even though this is itself a biological property of humans. That’s why many religious people who believe that premarital sex is sin will go 10+ years without sex in spite of their urges, or why even at the worst times in the USSR, many workers were still “happy”, even though their bio wiring was telling them that being hungry and poor etc was wrong: the ideological brainwashing can override biological urges, although the combination of the two can make you a pretty dysfunctional human. You know the theory that feminazis would “at least calm down a little” if they were having good sex on the regular. It’s like as soon as our brain got complex enough to produce ideas that make us happier and more prosperous – like the invention of tools -, it also got complex enough to produce fairy tales and SP that make us unhappy.
This blog used to be good
Did you have to bring the Wongles into this? LEAVE THEM ALONE, the poor things have had enough trouble already!
I thought this was a clever post “7darktriad3”. Was there something about it you didn’t like? I’m wondering if you just didn’t process the big metaphor.
BD has a way of spelling things out really clearly. I expected him to tie this in to real life at the end, but he left it up to the reader to put the obvious dots together.
For me the best part is that he could have chosen anything, but deciding on rock-eating aliens just for the impact of calling marriage akin to shitting rocks LOL
Ok, if it hadn’t already, this blog has completely jumped the shark (google it if you don’t know.). BD has gleefully admitted multiple times to needing content for content’s sake in order to make money, which of course is a Top Chef certified recipe for complete and total bullshit and KJ mental masturbation. There’s so little money in all this though, why the fuck would anyone waste their time generating bullshit content to try to make money? Doesn’t add up.
The Chase article is on point. A clique of weak betas crowding around their beta-to-omega king (alpha 2.0 is omega, freedom but no leadership or clan) wouldn’t be able to wrap their heads around it (for any guys who have neve witnessed an alpha providership, watch the Godfather), just wait. . . the defensive frames here are about to rain down if the Chase article is addressed. Keep living fearfully and defensively being “not angry” and calling yourselves “happy.” Whatever ruse you need to feel big and get through the day.
Friendly reminder gentlemen: Rule Number 5 for this blog states that if you have complaint about something I posted, you need to clearly state why you disagree. Disagreement is encouraged here, but no drive-by “this blog sucks” comments with no explanations, please. Thanks.
@Jeff
I don’t see how Chase’s articles contradict in any way what Caleb has written. They define “Alpha” and “Beta” in different ways, but they’re really saying same things. Caleb is much heavier on anti-monogamy, but nowhere in Chase’s articles did he say these “Alpha Providers” had to be monogamous. Hell, Caleb sells a book on the right way to do marriage.
I read both blogs, and both are excellent and almost entirely agree with each other, they just approach the subject from different directions. Chase has a much more philosophical approach while Caleb is more practical.
I haven’t but I’ll take a look today. Chase is a good guy and usually I agree with him.
I agree. I have said exactly the same many times.
It’s not just about spending money. It’s also about A) frame, B) oneitis, C) monogamy, and D) whether or not you can easily afford it without screwing up your Mission and your finances / financial plan.
Correct and semi-correct. I talk about OLTR marriage all the time; that’s an Alpha taking care of a woman if he wants.
There are also several big manosphere blogs that are very pro-monogamy and written by married guys. Dalrock and Alpha Game (Vox Day) are just two examples.
Right, so in answer to Minister’s question, we are not compelled by genes and nature to get monogamous with one woman for 50 years, nor sign a legal contract stating this. That’s SP, and thus, bullshit. We are compelled by genes to do things like: have sex, have children, and pair bond to one person for a while.
The goal then is to follow our genes and be happy without SP screwing all this up for us.
It sure has. I lose thousands of views every week! Oh wait…I gain thousands of views every week. So yeah, it’s clearly downhill from here.
Yes. Gleefully. This is called “capitalism.” I suggest you look it up.
Please demonstrate why what I say is “total bullshit” and “KJ mental masturbation.” Please be very specific, or refrain from posting. Thanks.
Exactly. So clearly I must not be making a little money. I must be making a lot of money, from my books, ebooks, coaching, and membership programs. If I wasn’t, I wouldn’t waste my time doing this.
Again I suggest you look up that “capitalism” word again. You might also want to look up the words “business” and “profit.” It might help explain to you what I’m doing here, and why.
I just said above that I not only agree with the premise of the article, but have said the same things in the past. So yeah, you’re really good at calling this stuff dude!
No complaint, just observation. Would you like more specifics as to how your wongle bongle story (and many of the more KJ posts) are along the lines of Fonzie jumping the shark? Seems self evident: there’s nothing new to say, the same message has been repeated in various ways ad nausem, so time to employ stunts to attract the desired level of attention. Enter Fonzie on water skis.
Chase is a great example of consistently putting out a variety of quality non-KJ non-mental-masturbatory content, without some weird defensive “my frame or your suck”-type chip on his shoulder.
Correct. This is a repackaged repeat of what I’ve said before. No other blogger (including Chase, who I really like) has ever repeated his main points before? I’m the only one, huh?
Also, when you’re a blogger, you have to occasionally appeal to new readers, not just regular ones. Thousands of people (literally) will be reading this blog post who have never read one of my posts before. It’s important my content appeal to both demographics.
If you had your own successful blog, you would understand this. But since you spend your time on the sidelines being angry and tossing insults at people who are trying to help men, you don’t.
I’ve clearly said Alpha Male 1.0s are just fine, such as right here. I’ve repeatedly said monogamy can work for certain personality types. I could go on with other examples, so where this chip on my shoulder? Projection much?
You said my content was “total bullshit” and “KJ mental masturbation,” and I asked you to state why, not point out that I occasionally repeat myself like every other successful blogger on the internet. I’ll ask one more time, why is my content “total bullshit” and “KJ mental masturbation?” Be specific please. (Or would you like to take back those characterizations?)
I did think at some point that BD had jumped the shark, but I changed my mind quickly. I must admit I’m often surprised at how he keeps coming up with interesting articles. But even if the allegedly repetitive ones outnumbered the others, I’d still think this is a very good blog, for two reasons: 1° what BD said about new readers, 2° because I’ve noticed that people really have a tendency to forget what they learned when it’s counterintuitive. Black Dragon stuff is counter-many things, so I often catch myself slowly sliding back to more blue pill dispositions, but his logic is solid, so I keep expecting his new articles (“Feeding time”, as Jack outside the box called it some days ago). He’s doing it for personal profit ? It’s fun and creative (by the way BD, the occasional sci-fi ranting involving antimatter, pink aliens and weird digestive systems is VERY welcome lol, keep it up), so fuck it, I’ll keep reading, plus he’s helping many men and women.
I am very happy with who I am. I am who I am, with the help of great articles like this.
I remember this from masf!
You know what else was cool that superman mono batman poly story 🙂
I don’t know how to quote.
I guess at the root of my “kj” point is that you paint an inaccurate picture of models other than your own, casting shade on them in a seemingly objective fashion to promote your own alpha 2.0 model.
In the case of what you call “alpha 1.0” you tend to describe weak angry men who attempt to rule by fear and enjoy emotional spikes. This, to use the same example, would not apply to the Godfather’s way of leading his family. While there is some small degree of fear present in those he loves and leads, he largely runs his household off of an abundance of love and genuine respect and admiration for his provision and demonstrations of good judgement and leadership. This is neither your description of alpha 1.0 nor your description of alpha 2.0, your binary framing of “alpha” is KJ to begin with and thus everything that follows also flawed in a mental masturbatory way, one way or another.
This misrepresentation or not-the-whole-truth tactic fits with your primary stated purpose in all this: to sell your product. It may help you sell alpha 2.0 to pit it against your warped description of alpha which you title alpha 1.0, but is KJ at its core.
Chase blog does not have this feel to it, that something is trying hard to be sold. There seems to be an underlying desperation feel here.
Yep. This is the updated version.
Right here, baby.
Copy and paste the text you want to quote, highlight it, then click the big quotes symbol on the top toolbar.
Again, you’re not being specific. How specifically is my picture of my models inaccurate?
Your avoidance of stating specific criticisms after I’ve asked you three times tells me you’re just a guy who doesn’t like the 2.0 model and prefers the 1.0 model. That’s fine; just say that and we can agree to disagree. No need for all this insulting and anger.
Incorrect and you are grossly misquoting me. Alpha Male 1.0s are not weak at all (quite the opposite), and often do not rule by fear. Some do of course, but ruling “by fear” is not a part of the Alpha 1.0 template. Ruling is, but not by fear.
Again you repeat your same complaints about KJ and masturbation without any specifics.
I’ve been very patient with you, given you a chance to back up your arguments, and asked you for specifics that you have not provided (other than an utterly incorrect interpretation of my description of Alpha 1.0). Per Rule Number Five here, please refrain from any more complaints here unless they are very specific (which “KJ” and “masturbation” are not) and accurate to what I’ve said, rather than what your anger thinks I said. Thanks.
The specifics to back my point are everywhere on this blog. Since you’re using this technicality to dodge the point being addressed, here’s one specific for you.
Let’s look at your recent “alpha male 1.0 traits to avoid” post. The traits attributed to an alpha male are “control freak, too risky, gunman, self-destruct, phone man.” NONE of these are alpha traits, you’re describing random overcompensation weaknesses that are seemingly rooted in strength but are clearly overcompensations indicitive of LSE issues and character flaws.
This appears to be objective good advice, but you’re “casting shade” on other alpha models by entirely misrepresenting what they are. Those AREN’T alpha male traits, the title and framing is ENTIRELY misleading. “Overcompensation behaviors to avoid” would be a more accurate title and frame.
There’s the specific to back my larger point that you “misrepresenting other models, casting shade on them in a seemingly objectively manner.” Will you address it now?
I, too, dislike the Alpha 1.0, Beta and Alpha 2.0 terms, because they seem to imply some emotional connotation, some “right” and “wrong”. Instead, they simply correspond to people who want to dominate, who want to be dominated, and those desiring neither. When speaking of women, BD uses the terms Dominant, Submissive and Independent, which are much clearer to my mind. Put this way, isn’t it apparent that the trichotomy is complete and there’s no fourth pattern of behavior?
The Godfather is very clearly an Alpha 1.0, inherent in his role is ruling other people. Is this a path to happiness? For someone with his immense resources maybe, but hardly for everyone.
Damn what’s up with Jeff, BD must have pushed a button or a few. Interestingly enough Jeff keeps reverting to Chase and not ideas or thoughts of his or her own nor can answer the question with clarity.
In regards to this article, if yes nothing under the sun is new, it brings to the front a truth that resonates is multiple levels. The few that manipulate the existence of so many from birth to death, people that go through an entire life span without really knowing what a fuck was really going on. Having wondered into the valley of the blue pill and having returned from it I think this is a breath of fresh air. Cheers! Jeff, you too have a nice day
@Anon The Godfather is indeed a leader, but there are many ways to lead. You can lead strong minds and great people without having to resort to negativity, overcompensation, and drama.
Many men find great joy and happiness in leading their tribes of all sorts (business, family, friends) through love and mutual respect for all. It CAN be done, it is done all the time in every well-functioning team of any sort.
In this you appear to be in agreement with BD. https://alphamale20.com/blackdragonblog/2014/11/02/do-i-think-alpha-male-1-0s-are-bad/
What’s the problem, then?
@Anon Thanks, I didn’t have to read far into that post before finding another specific, where alpha is misrepresented. They’re all over this blog.:
” incompatible with spending the rest of my life bossing people around, monitoring them to make sure they obey my orders, and then spending time lecturing them and correcting them whenever they don’t.”
The post title obviously doesn’t cancel out the very clear pattern I’m pointing out here.
Sure, let’s look at it, where I said in the very first paragraph, and I quote:
“I’m not nearly as hard on my Alpha 1.0 brothers as I am on the beta males because, at least Alpha 1.0s are, well, Alpha. They’re strong, confident, capable men with strong game.”
and
“I’m not saying all Alpha Male 1.0s do the following things. These are just extreme examples to illustrate what happens when you let your need for control compromise your happy life.”
So yeah, clearly I hate Alpha 1.0s and love misrepresenting them.
Some are not, and some are. For example, controlling others is an Alpha 1.0 trait. You yourself said that being an Alpha (to you) is being a leader.
Correct, that’s what Alpha 1.0s must spend a portion of their life doing. If you enjoy doing that, go for it. Each to their own.
It’s true I obviously prefer the 2.0 model to the 1.0 model, so of course I’m going to promote that here (as well as to make money, which seems to really bother you). If you like the 1.0 model, you’ve got scores of manosphere blogs to go read; I’m not sure why you’re reading this one. This blog will just piss you off. (Granted, you like being pissed off, so maybe in a weird sort of way you should probably keep reading this blog. Funny, isn’t it?)
People didn’t like the “Alpha” and “Needy Alpha” terms either, which is why I changed them. The bottom line is that some men are going to complain about any terms I use to describe different types of men.
For example, you like three terms I use for women, I get a lot of hate on this blog from Dominant women who dislike being called Dominants, even though its very clear that’s what the complaining women are.
Thus men who really like being Alpha 1.0s are going to bitch about any term I use to describe this kind of man (“Controlling Alpha?” “Outcome Dependent Alpha?” “High-Volume Alpha?” etc.).
No, he’s just the typical of manosphere guy I describe here. He’s a committed Alpha 1.0, likely right-wing, who is also angry and wants to be angry. Which is fine. He’s just reading the wrong blog.
1. A good leader has to spend very very little of his time on order obeyance, monitoring, and correction. That’s a misrepresentation, a footnote at best not the focal point.
2. Alphas also do not need to “control” people. A good leader allows people to be who they are and directs their energy in the right productive directions so that the person is enjoying themselves while adding value to the team.
3. I’m not right wing or angry. I’m highly socially liberal. There’s no anger here just disagreeance with your presentation.
I don’t think you yourself have a grasp on true alpha though, if you genuinely believe all these things you’re saying. You may never have experienced being a member or a leader of a happy well functioning team. It’s quite a great experience with very little of the negative stuff you focus on.
Yes he does, to a degree. What if your woman or one of your underlings become problematic? You must correct. What if you get resistance? You just argue. Etc.
If everyone under you are utter submissives, then yeah, you’d be set, but that’s not how the real world works, particularly the Western world, and particularly Western women.
I have no idea about right wing, but you are clearly angry, or else you would not have said this:
Top Chef certified recipe for complete and total bullshit and KJ mental masturbation
or this:
why the fuck would anyone waste their time generating bullshit content to try to make money?
or this:
Keep living fearfully and defensively being “not angry” and calling yourselves “happy.” Whatever ruse you need to feel big and get through the day.
or this:
some weird defensive “my frame or your suck”-type chip on his shoulder.
and…oh you get the point. Happy people don’t use that kind of wording.
Yes, with over 25 years of business experience working with literally hundreds of different companies, I have never seen a happy, well functioning team. Yep. Never.
Regardless, we’re not necessarily talking about team, we’re talking about women and relationships. If you control a woman, you’re in for drama and unhappiness more than I am if I avoid such control. It’s as simple as that.
@ Jeff Are you serious? You use the Godfather as an example of someone leading without fear??? You mean a character who literally has people murdered if they don’t do what he wants? Or chops off the head of their beloved pets and puts it in their bed? Lol. If that’s not ruling by fear and evil, I don’t know what is.
Anyway, arguing about Alpha 1.0 versus 2.0 is stupid because they appeal to totally different personality types. People who lean towards 1.0 would be unhappy being 2.0 and 2.0s are definitely miserable being 1.0s. Also, I would say the reason 1.0s (or “provider alpahs”) aren’t much on the manosphere is because that type of personality type isn’t the type to enjoy interacting with strangers on the internet much at all. Those are more introverted people who like to play purely in the realm of the mind and ideas…not exactly the kind of thing that someone who likes to control and exert power over others generally finds enjoyable.
What does KJ stand for?
Why do people like to pick nits, be pedantic, and engage in useless semantic discussions?
I would call this alpha 2.0, except for the adding value to the team part. Unless you consider yourself and women that are in your harem a team. If you’re talking about team as in employees, than no thanks to leading (more like tolerating bs) with employees involved. I would dislike being an employee, but would absolutely would hate being an employer.
Regarding those of you who asked for my opinion on those two Chase articles, I’ve just read both of them.
Regarding “Why You Never Hear from “Alpha Providers” in the Manosphere” I pretty much agree with all of his main points, and have said many of the same things.
He doesn’t address sexual monogamy, however, and that’s a very important aspect of all this. While writing about Chase’s successful Alpha provider, I kept asking myself, “Is this guy fucking women on the side or not?” The answer is likely yes, though Chase doesn’t address this.
He also notes that if the successful Alpha provider’s woman doesn’t work out, he dumps her and gets a new one. Well, that would mean he wasn’t successful, right?
Again though, I agree with the article.
Regarding his second article, “7 Rules on How to Be the Alpha Provider”, again I pretty much agree with all of his main points, and even describe the same specific sub-points in my book (which all of you should purchase which gives me money which will make Jeff more mad).
There are a few side-points I would do differently than Chase (I don’t think he would soft next, for example), but on the whole I agree with the article.
I have to point out though, that even if you do 100% of what Chase suggests, you’re still overwhelmingly likely to get a divorce or break-up down the road. ALL RELATIONSHIPS ARE TEMPORARY, no matter how awesome or Alpha you are.
So the “successful” in “successful Alpha provider” does not mean “rest of your life.” It means, “now for the time being.”
@Kryptokate I agree, the well rounded full life happy alpha types wont be on the internet much. That is why they’re under represented. As for the godfather, I said the way he leads his family, those he loves.
@BD That’s not anger. This isn’t about me either way though, I’ve made a valid enough point.
Again, “control” is not highly necessary for great leadership, “direction” and “proper channeling of energy” trump control, along with solid screening to begin with. You keep falling back on this misrepresentation, which is my very point: you fall back on misrepresentations.
In any case, I believe things are about to start going in circles, I’m probably out. You know I’m right BD, you know what you’re doing. If not it’ll sink in once you get out of defense mode.
@Duke That’s a straight up alpha trait. No number system needed.
Yep. Your debate skills are impressive. You have clearly shown the error of my ways.
Sometimes I hate it when I read a Master Piece (capitalized!!).. yes a master piece.. get all excited about getting more value from the ensuing debate and comments on that piece, and get disappointed because one or two ****s hijack what was a pretty damn enjoyable, entertaining, informative article…..especially when their objections and opinions are basically….”I don’t like this”.
If you don’t like it go somewhere else, but don’t ruin our zen dude! I think everyone knows who I’m talking about. Or be a true Bro and figure out how to add value to the conversation. New information or new analysis/perspective on existing information are the best ways to disagree while still providing value – and there’s no shame in that style of debate i.e. even if you’re wrong, if you bring new information or new analysis you still retain others’ respect.
BD..this was a fantastic piece and I learned something. And, at my next happy hour with my buddies will be using your analogy – a little plagiarism is called for here.
Jeff there are definite anger issues with you. My question is why? I am a women and had no problem with the story.
BD: you clearly know how to dominate the debate. But you should have stopped with your first question to him stating if he wanted to rephrase.
You had that…he came in with guns blazing and you preferred fencing….”Are you really going to slay the dragon? I think not…thank you.”
The moral of the story: Jeff there might be more out there than what you know or have been taught to believe…for the love of God that was dramatic and I am a woman.
Okay, I’ll ask. Kate, I don’t know what KJ stands for either. Maybe some one can help us out.
A pleasant enough post with an amusing edge. I am amazed that anyone could get so angry. No long term happiness there.
Outdated biology is still apart biology. As you have wrote many a times that people can’t deny biology long term without dysfunction (drama) arising. Care to square this circle?
I highly doubt he is anywhere near Alpha. If he gets this butthurt he is not alpha at all. Beta at the most. More than likely an omega, since his butthurt levels are pretty high. I would also argue that most of the writers and readers of the common manosphere blog are Omega males who think that sex negative MGTOW is the answer to everything.
KJ = Keyboard Jockey, just another term for Internet Tough Guy. In this case, a KJ is someone who gives advice but more than likely doesn’t follow it themselves (see: Nearly EVERYTHING under the PUA umbrella since 2010, when PUAs thought it was cool to start staging infield footage, and having monogamous relationships).
Joelsuf thank you
I’m pretty sure KJ was referring to knee-jerk, as in, articles he thinks are written only for automatic thoughtless reactions.
My point about misrepresentations still hasn’t been addressed, just ad homs and speculations as to which Greek letter would best fit me.
The point: Framing a leadership team-oriented lifestyle as drama, baggage, full of negativity and unhappiness is simply an inaccurate depiction of teamwork, leadership, and alpha, which are a source of great happiness and joy for many. Why must this lifestyle choice be ridiculed and misrepresented in order to promote your more loner-oriented “alpha 2.0” that actually isn’t all that alpha in that it does not involve leadership, the core trait of alpha. Address my actual point? I believe it would add value to the discussion to be address the ways in which things are being mis-colored, accuracy is value.
KJ = keyboard jockey = making stuff up or not representing the truth
misrepresentation of Alpha…for fucks sake quit you wining already, you either have balls or not and if you live and die (and I say die because a real man will die by his fucking word, and not get entangled in definitions) by that rule you’ll live the Alpha way, by the way The Godfather was a fucking movie, life you feel it in your balls! not on TV.
@Jeff: You are not happy because once a woman throws big drama at you, you will get angry and in a big fight and eventually divorce. Then you will get depressed, needy and your desire to show her you are the man will further throw your alphaness down the toilet. Exactly your need to show everyone else who is the boss is what makes alphas eventually unhappy. Because in real life most people will not give a fuck of what you have to say. How is this misrepresentation? Godfather by the way is a very bad example. He was striking fear and because of that respect even to member of his family. He did not seem to be happy obviously 80% of the movie. Let’s not take an example of Michael who killed his brother because he did not listen to him.
You seem to care about giving us your point of view so much you keep on going on . If you feel you have something better to offer with your alphaness, then start a blog and show us your skills. Blabbing just proves the above point. That you get offended and angry when someone doesn’t get along with your view.
Also it seems you are bothered by a system that makes men more happy than your system. Why is it bad for people to make money, be non monogamous and healthy? Should they be “leaders”? Oh yeah be Ghandi, Mandela or even John Wayne or Bill Gates or Zuckerberg( beta leaders). Have fun with that.
The alpha you’re talking about doesn’t fare well in the modern world, which is now very gynocentric. The “loner” oriented alpha is the best option there is right now.
Based off this premise, why would any rational person actively promote a personality type that is not conducive to the MAXIMUM available happiness, and try to take money off it? In order to be happy, one must be selfish, this cannot be accomplish if your life is based on leading teams.
That is the main point that you are missing, or rather that you don’t like. You want to be worried about society, well that’s fine, nobody is stopping you. But getting butthurt because people don’t actively support your team oriented lifestyle is rather shortsighted.
To further address your point: Nobody cares if you don’t like the misrepresentation of the word alpha. Focus on something important in your life, instead of trolling manosphere blogs with useless nonsense.
@duke Do you think “maximum available happiness” is universal like that? No different strokes for different folks? The loner life, which Chase calls “sigma” rather than “alpha 2.0” is also full of its own set of cons. It largely comes down to personal preference.
And of course I’m living my life, I’ve spent about 30 minutes of 24 hours posting here once. That’s another ad hom, has nothing to do with my point.
@hey hey Yes there is more at stake when you plant seeds with people and create units, teams, and families. Obviously a large degree of fluidity is essential across the board in life, that’s not exclusive to loners. Again, it’s a misrepresentation that alphas demand control, rule by fear, and fear change. When a team comes to an end you move on, just like anything else, I’ve done this at several points in my life and not experienced the scars and depths of negativity your talk about. This may hurt a bit more than nexting a MLTR because your emotional investment is probably higher, but this isn’t a source of unhappiness, and for many the joys of the emotional investment are well worth it.
Agree with BD’s point that everything is temporary and comes to an end. The only thing constant is change. That doesn’t mean lifelong family and team units cannot happily exist in various forms over the course of someone’s life though. If you’re fluid, if you’re positive, if you lead by appropriately channeling people’s energy in the right direction, then you can live a happy life full of love surrounded by family.
It’s true that leading is what some people genuinely like.
It’s also true that it always brings some amounts, maybe low, maybe high, of drama, baggage, negativity and unhappiness. If all the other people did their work well, a charismatic leader would be hardly necessary, it would be a simple coordinator’s job. Overcoming obstacles is inherent in being a leader, and most of the obstacles come from people.
Thus an Alpha 1.0 gains happiness from being in lead and tolerates drama.
At the same time, Alpha 2.0 gains happiness from working towards his goals without drama, while tolerating not being in a visible leading position.
So these two options are just two possible approaches to one trade-off. Put another way, an Alpha 2.0 primarily desires independence, that is, minimizing things that influence him that are out of his control. An Alpha 1.0 leader is necessarily dependent on a large number of things that he can influence, but not fully control.
Leading meant much for me for a while. I know well how to lead people, how to persuade people, how to manipulate people. But I’ve come to understand this brings me no joy, for the primary reason that most people are irrational and manipulating and tricking them is essential in getting them to do anything, including things that are beneficial to themselves. Hence my path is the Alpha 2.0 path. Now I’ve no subordinates and no superiors, I’m not forcing anyone to do anything, I just do what I like and that’s what I prefer. There are others who like to lead and others who like to be led, those are their own choices, who am I to criticize them?
@Anon good post that ended on an open minded positive note, but you still resorted to distorting things, such as “tricking and manipulating is essential in getting people to do anything.”
That’s exactly the type of misinformation that I’m talking about. That’s simply not true. If that’s been your personal experience, then you’ve never been a part of a happy well functioning team.
Perhaps this all does just stem from inexperience or bad experience, perhaps this blog is a niche for those who haven’t been fortunate enough to experience a well functioning team/family where manipulation is nonexistant and drama is minimal enough to be moot. Trying to wrap my head around where some of this stuff stems from. I’m certainly familiar with the dramatic and manipulative type, but I find good screening to begin with almost completely takes care of this issue.
I like your use of the word “fortunate”. So only the lucky few can get good teams? Luck is the utmost dependence, and that’s what an Alpha 2.0 strives to avoid.
If you mean that through hard work one can build a good team or a good family, that’s certainly true. But there are ways to happiness that involve much fewer amounts of work. I have an analogy for you. Suppose on some planet, everyone was told that happiness can only be achieved through this hard process of excreting rocks…
@Anon yes there is a massive amount of luck involved in what you’re born into and how your early life experiences affect your world view.
So people are “fortunate” to have been born into a well-functioning alpha-provider unit and to have experienced being a beta member of well-functioning teams on their own way up. If a persons earlier life family and team experiences are negative and poorly-lead then that will color their perception of leadership. This largely comes down to luck.
Yes, once you’re your own man, creating this for yourself takes hard work, at least initially. Just as learning to get laid on the regular and creating what you call “alpha 2.0” also takes hard work initially.
As for your last sentence, I don’t think a love of teamwork is societal programming. In many, it’s inherent. I can see how those who don’t possess this trait can misinterpret it to be SP. The SP comes into play more with beta playing by the rules for pats on the head, not so much the alpha creating the reality he prefers for himself.
It is what it is Jeff. BD’s making money, reiterating points, etc. You’re being outcome dependent in all this arguing, so you’re clearly not satisfied or even OK with what is presented here. So go be happy doing something else, preferably out in the real world and not online (KJ).
I read a few articles that interest me. Rarely ever comment, even if I disagree somewhat (better things to do). WHO GIVES A FUCK? What does it accomplish? A whole bunch of nothing. That you even have the time in your life to argue about the content on this blog is mind boggling. Unless you’re one of BD’s direct competitors in blogging– I just can’t see this being a wise use of your short life.
Or BD could be right. You’re happy because you like this type of drama. I know where I’ll be and I hope most of the rest of you folks will be as well: Out in the real world getting it DONE!
If you accept that these paths can both lead to happiness, while being differently suited to different people, is there any disagreement at all?
@shayne It’s an interesting discussion to me and an engaging use of some extra time yesterday and this morning. Please don’t ad hom and judge me by your own standards, it’s almost like you’re trying to shame your own set of SP onto me. If you don’t like to discuss things on the Internet, good by you, go do your thing.
Also, challenging existing ideas isn’t drama lol. If the point is valid, it leads to progress and evolution, positive value.
@Anon If that is done, then there is no disagreement.
Note that I’ve said ZERO negative about “alpha 2.0,” rather I’m pointing out needless negative framings of a more leadership team based life preference.
If it’s accepted that both paths can lead to happiness, without one path being thrown under the bus, then we’re all good!
Until the truth hits you in the face. How many times did we see people thinking they are happy by being dependent(because you are dependent on family, teams etc) but once something major happened in their life, their world fell apart?
A 2.0 is independent, that is the keyword you seem to neglect. You can be happy but a 2.0 will have much more long stretches of hapiness because of this independence. It is like saying a pathetic beta is happier than you because he enjoys playing videogames and jerks off every day. He might be saying that, but is it true?
How can you be happier fucking the same pussy for 20 years and nothing else(even if you crave every pussy you see on the street but are scared to do anything because the wifey who fucks me once a month will find out)? Or how can you be happier when you want to go to a huge trip abroad for 6 months whenever you like but you can’t because “hell i’m a billionaire i run facebook!!”
from Jeff, “Please don’t ad hom and judge me by your own standards, it’s almost like you’re trying to shame your own set of SP onto me.” case closed with this “guy” he’s not what he professes to be. Ciao bella!
@hey hey If I had the choice between creating a billion dollar business and a solid family unit or the ability to take 6 month vacation whenever I want, I’d choose the former. There are ways to run things and still have enormous personal freedom, these aren’t mutually exclusive.
I’ve actually led a very “alpha 2.0” life, except I value and enjoy teamwork so I employ people and work in groups, and find more intimate and connected LTRs to be more engaging and enjoyable than spreading out emotions over a harem (and I spent YEARS fucking everything I could and having girls on rotation.)
My parents are still together though, approaching 50 years of marriage, in what was a mostly alpha-provider setup by my father. He delegated certain responsibilities to my mother but the buck stopped with him and he ran the ship. I’ve heard him raise his voice less than 10 times in my life, that’s how rare drama has to be, everyone fell in line out of respect for his good judgement. Having experienced this along with all the other options, it is my field tested personal preference. Why is that so hard to wrap your head around? A life of shared love and support with close people is great!
Great question; I love questions like these. I started to write a response but it went too long, so I’ll write a blog post about it. It deserves further analysis than what a quick comment can offer.
@ KryptoKate: I’d say KJ = Keyboard Jockey = some average guy (or loser) who postures online like he’s a big winner, champ, stud, expert, etc — all talk, no action, no victories, no proof, etc. Or as they say in Texas, “He’s all hat and no cattle.” ha ha.
BD, I can’t believe you wrote that long story about Wongles eating rocks but never once did you go into their problems with dental care, flossing, etc., or the culinary/cuisine aspects of eating rocks (much less the economic implications). This glaring omission is very upsetting to me, because my happiness depends on how I feel about each blog post you write, because I have nothing more compelling going on in my life right now, and no hope of changing that. So please write each blog post with the caution of a neurosurgeon performing brain surgery, because when you keep offering all this great info & entertainment for FREE, you are responsible for my happiness. And if a shark was actually “jumped”, I hope this stunt was performed in a humane way such that no harm was done to the poor innocent shark.
@lazy guy
Lol. Best comment!
A “like” button would be wonderful for some of these comments. I’m thinking specifically of the comments by “lazy guy” and “the machine”.
I like my rocks medium rare with bbq sauce, on the side.
I don’t care how you do it, alpha 1 or alpha 2. You’re gonna have drama either way. It will just be a different kind of drama depending on which path you choose.
@ jack I really think it is just different personality types and doesn’t have much to do with one’s experiences, I think it’s inborne temperament. My dad is a total alpha 1.0 — he runs EVERYTHING — and I had a very nice, safe, healthy prosperous upbringing with almost no raised voices or anything like that, but I still don’t really enjoy family or teams because I just don’t. There is always a voice inside me looking for an escape route. What feels warm and happy to others feels claustrophobic and stifling to me, like I’m trapped.
I’ve said it before, there are two types of people: those who are prone to being lonely without others and those who are prone to being annoyed with others.
Whether you want to call it “independent” or “sigma” or “Alpha 2.0”, you’re talking about a personality type that is much more prone to being annoyed by others, grating at interpersonal obligations, and desiring of freedom and independence than being enmeshed in a group or having a group identification. I don’t think you can change someone from that into a more team/family oriented person or vice versa. Both types should do what fits their personality. But inherently, you are going to find wayyyyy more people on the internet who fit into the “independent” side of things because that’s exactly what the internet is good for…being able to interact with others and exchange ideas *without* the people you’re engaging with being able to extract personal, social, or emotional obligations from you. First and foremost because you’re (usually) anonymous. More social/family/team oriented people don’t like being anonymous, they desire recognition from others. They’re busy posting photos and sharing on social media, not anonymous blogging and message boards.
Also, what you see as “influence” or “channeling energy” by others is likely the exact same actions that a more independent person would view as manipulation. It isn’t a mischaracterization but an accurate description of how it feels. For example, your Cartier watch example. There is no WAY I would ever accept a gift like that, and I would be very upset if someone tried to give me one and it would make me want to break off the relationship. Why? Because it feels like a manipulation and attempt to control me by buying my ongoing affections with an expensive gift, and to then require me to make some kind of reciprocal emotional/social investment in return. I don’t like that. But clearly, there are many people that would love such a gift and it would make them feel loved and special and taken care of. Same action, different interpretation based on how it makes you feel.
I see what your beef is because on the internet, and especially here, you inherently get some devaluation of the “family/leader” type model because that isn’t one that works for the independent types who frequent the internet. However, the entire rest of society throws praise on that model and it benefits that personality type, so I don’t know why the internet can’t be a refuge for everyone else who wants nothing to do with it. You’re simply never going to get a family/group oriented majority on the internet because the internet is based on individuals interacting on easily made and broken networks without any ongoing social obligations — ie it is made for independent minded people.
cough, cough. Ahem!
First of all Kate, I am most flattered that you are thinking of me. 🙂
But I believe your comment is directed at Jeff. I, on the other hand, abhor the traditional conservative alpha 1.0 lifestyle!
Ha, you’re right, sorry Jack, I meant Jeff. 🙂 I “see” names based on the number of syllables and vowell placement…my brain makes this kind of mistake all the time.
@Kate that’s a fair point, that this is a particular niche part of the net. It’s true of many small scenes, that the scene’s identity is rooted against something else rather than simply existing on its own, I see this in small arts communities too, a large part of their identity is rooted in what they’re against.
I guess it seems on the weak and reactionary side of things to me to operate from this place, especially when things are misrepresented (another specific for BD: https://alphamale20.com/blackdragonblog/the-alpha-male-2-0/, where “control” and “desire to be heard” are attributed as the primary alpha male traits, which simply isn’t true and I can site plenty of examples of well known leaders who do not operate from this place if anyone cares for me to go that far. Those are “meathead” traits and meatheads are a type of beta, not the definition of alpha.)
In any case, I’ll leave you to it. If this is what you’re into, no skin off my neck. I think my point would have been better received if I had matched the tone of this place in my initial posts rather than using “standard Internet” tone which left the “discredit me without addressing my point” tactic wide open. Thanks Kate for actually listening to what I said and not taking the easy road.
Btw I never said to give gift, that must have been someone else. Positive reinforcement is a great way to lead but generally not in the form of gifts except for very special occasions.
@Anon too. You get it, you don’t have that chip in your shoulder. Good discussion.
Alpha Providers ::: swoon :::: My favorite 😉 🙂 Really, I think it’s super beta to be devising ways NOT to spend money on women. It comes from fear and paranoia, and THAT is anything BUT “Alpha”…. The reason you don’t see these guys online is because they are just like ::: shrug ::: when they see other men bitching about paying for a woman. Then they go out and do it AND get laid, because they aren’t supplicating, they are coming from the place of “I am the MAN in the relationship, so this is what I do”.
@LG:How is spending money on women without having sex with them Alpha? And why should an Alpha spend money on you in order to have sex with you?
Spending money on a woman every time, is like spoiling your kids with toys every day. Of course people will devise ways not to spend money on them and spoil them. People will spend money on them because they want to spend money on them, not because the little brats cry everyday to have a PS3. Same goes with women. If a man spends money on you out of fear that you won’t stick with him then he is a beta. If he spends money on you only if he feels like it and not because he expects something in return(i.e sex) or because you are a bitch to him and he tries to calm you down then he most probably is an Alpha, simple as that. Learn to differentiate.
@Jeff: Leader = Alpha? Zuckerberg is a leader. Is he an Alpha? Brin and Page are leaders. Are they Alpha? CEO does not equal Alpha. A bodybuilder does not equal Alpha. The biggest looser might be Alpha(imagine the guy who beats the hell out of everyone just because he feels like it). In the extreme, Alpha is the guy who doesn’t take shit from anyone, tries to control people based on his beliefs and goes home to the missus and expects food on his table or else(i’m far fetching here but you get the point). Yeah he can be gentleman but only because he feels like it, not because his wife demands of him. He might go out get drunk and if the wife yells at him, he will slap the hell out of her because she raised her voice. Now imagine Zuckerberg, who is the leader in the house you think…him? You don’t seem to understand the difference and I think you are more on the beta side rather than the Alpha side. Beta afraids of the consequences(i.e if I tell her tonight I go out with my friends, she might tell me I’m neglecting her and scold me). And don’t bring your parents in the equation, they grew up in a different era with a different set of mentality(and because of that your mother does not demand much). The problem is probably you think the Alpha is some guy who is calculated, gentleman etc. He MIGHT be, but it doesn’t mean he is. You will never hear an Alpha say “I can’t do that, the wife will not let me” unless he is betasized.
If you want examples of well known Alphas that are “calculated” and “gentlemen” here are some: Tom Cruise, Clint Eastwood, Henry Cavill, Bill Clinton. Alphas that are brutes: Mike Tyson, Fuld, Trump, Bilzerian. Alphas that were betasized: Brad Pitt. Betas: Zuckerberg, Obama.
Still think Alphas are misrepresented? Barack has a “full” family life that seems united, but we all know who is the leader of the family and it is not him. He is the leader of the planet, yet he is beta.
No one said anything about spending money “in order to” have sex with women. That’s the point. Alpha men that spend money on women aren’t doing it with that attitude. They are outcome independent, spending money on women out of benevolence, not begging for sex and hoping if they spend enough they will get some.
I also never said an Alpha man would be spending money on women “without having sex” with them. Obviously they would be having sex, but if that doesn’t happen he’s not over there calculating how much money he spent on her and getting angry that it didn’t turn into sex. He’s spending money because the person spending money is the one leading the encounter and in the masculine role.
Lovergirl, I still find your take on alphas spending money on women ambiguous. Could you specify:
1° At what point do you expect the guy (if he’s alpha) to start spending stuff on you, knowing that, regardless of his frame, anything substantial he spends before you first have sex can’t escape the “money in order to have sex” box (especially if you wouldn’t have slept with him had he not done it), since it’s still part of the succession of steps that led from him hitting on you to him having sex with you.
2° How do you differentiate the guy who’s “keeping count” because he’s beta and the guy who’s keeping count because he simply doesn’t have much money and values what little he has, or who (rightfully in my opinion) doesn’t invest financially before he has invested emotionally ?
Women have come to expect that when a dude spends money on them, it is by default outcome dependent. BD wrote an article about this. When the ideals of toxic masculinity (Men being judged by money and laycounts by both men and women) and toxic femininity (Women being judged by other women how well they can gold dig and divorce rape) we’ll see some progress in this. The ball is in the women’s court, since society still thinks that they are the gatekeepers of sex (a toxic masculine theory to be sure, but chicks love upholding it for some reason).
I don’t expect a man to spend and spend on me before sex, but I do assume he is going to pay for dates that he invites me on. To do otherwise lacks class. Expecting a woman to pay, or god forbid, haggling over splitting a bill, is not smooth, lol. He shouldn’t be EXPECTING anything to come out of it! Sure, sex is a plus, but what he is paying for is a nice time together, whether it results in sex or not. If we don’t have sex, he still had nice drinks, dinner, whatever, in good company. That’s being outcome independent.
In my experience alpha men pay for whatever and if you aren’t interested I would imagine they would just move on, without getting all huffy that they didn’t get sex out of the “investment”. If we have a good enough time together, eventually it WILL result in sex, so going out is just setting the stage. If he doesn’t create an environment where I will WANT to have sex with him, no, I wouldn’t sleep with him. Being cheap and weird about it doesn’t create that environment. You don’t have to spend a ton of money to do that but to play games and try everything under the sun to AVOID treating a woman just comes off as a turn off.
If a guy doesn’t have much money he can still create a positive environment. Take her out for ice cream or coffee or something that only costs a few dollars. Or go to a free outdoor festival, wander around and share a shave ice or something. Stop thinking of it as an investment towards getting sex and let go of the outcome. Think of it as spending money to have a nice time with an attractive woman. Your more relaxed attitude will draw women to you.
The way women “tell” is by how they feel when they are with you. Does she feel pressured, or like you are angry and resentful about buying her a drink? She will pick up on that and it will turn her off. The men in real life that I would deem “alpha” just seem to get this and don’t come across as super tied to whether or not I sleep with them. It also implies an abundance mentality when a man isn’t worried about it.
Convenient belief, especially since a.) He is going to be the one inviting, as per western society and b.) He can’t just invite you to a no cost option like drinking wine at his apartment, cause you’re too old for it and it wouldn’t be “classy”.
If it’s a front row concert ticket on the other hand, then yeah he chose something above and beyond, and it’s on him.
Spoken like someone with shifting priorities, who can also get laid with a single SMS winky face.
I agree with that. But what I draw from all that is an alpha guy who spends will do it without treating you like you owe him as a result (true) and an alpha who doesn’t but can still make you feel the right way is also cool. I mean technically someone could invite you to his apartment for a nice candelit dinner he didn’t have to spend a ton on, with equally romantic effect.
Unless of course, as you’ve gotten older, the qualifiers for good environment have gotten… Magically more expensive?
An this is the real message. Doesn’t matter what the hell you do as long as it feels right to her. However, I think you’re being elusive about the price you “sell yourself” for. Not on purpose maybe. Just cause you don’t like how it comes off, to yourself or others. I don’t think your beliefs are abnormal or psychotic for a western older woman. But it reveals a gold digging streak you’re in denial of.
All in all, it’s a convenient belief system, since you can dismiss the free shit as “we’re just going with the flow”. Sure, a guy can skip the line if he turns you on immensely… But you know full well that most guys can’t. Yet even when you get a loser, you always win something of objective value (drink, meal).
The guy who throws money around and doesn’t get laid, or isn’t into you gets… The subjective value of your company, and the “experience”.
Drinking wine at his apartment isn’t “no cost”. Wine can be expensive. It would be cheaper to go out for ice cream or coffee. 😉
Not really. I don’t expect someone to take me out for anything especially expensive on the first date. I’m not going to complain if they do, lol, but I don’t really care one way or the other. It’s just a getting to know you date, which shouldn’t be pricey. Lots of guys do drinks and maybe appetizers the first date. We don’t get wasted, so its just a couple of drinks.
Who is counting this though? Oh gee, I had a terrible date with this guy I don’t like but I won a couple drinks? Come on. I also spent time and money getting ready for a date and looking good, as well as figuring out the situation for my kids. When they were younger that meant finding babysitting (which fortunately men would sometimes offer to pay for, but I still had to figure out THEIR dinner). Now that they are older I still have to feed them.
So if I’m going out for dinner and not going to be here, I have to spend more money than usual on feeding my kids, ordering pizza or something because I don’t have the time to cook while getting ready for a date. Not every woman you date is a single mom, but every woman has to put in more effort into looking good and getting ready. She is spending money too and its still a waste of her time if things don’t work out with you.
lol @ a gamma whining about what is or isn’t alpha
I’d bet money Jeff is 12-14 years old