Chart – Men Dating Different Types of Women
The chart speaks for itself. Click on it to zoom if you can’t read it on your device.
The bottom line here is to A) know thyself, B) know what kind of woman she is, and C) set your expectations accordingly.
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.
This article was originally published on
June 16, 2016
do you have any behaviours or words women use that are tells for dominant vs independant women in first or second date ?
‘If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles’… or something.
TLDR; don’t date a dominant woman. Couldn’t agree more.
Two introverted narcissists: zero drama long term relationship without boredom or cheating. But not everyone can be perfect. 😛
Damn….it’s hard to find complete submissive women nowadays
I’ve heard eastern european countries like Poland, scandinavian have many of them
P/S: I’m a chinese Asian guy
@Tom
You are correct-most women in the western world are Dominants by far. That’s in part because so many guys are Beta these days. Does one beget the other? That’s a bigger discussion I’m sure BD has addressed here before(Power of Betas, etc…).
I prefer independent women, even though they’re touch to nail down sometimes. They have their own life going on and aren’t up my ass constantly. I have many things going on in my own life and won’t be one of these guys that’s constantly hanging out with the same woman.
It’s pretty difficult to suss out a Submissive or Independent on a first or second date, unless she’s an extreme version of one of those (which most women are not). However it’s usually easy to detect a Dominant. A Dominant will often try to set some or all of the agenda, often pre-first-date. “We should go do X.” or “I don’t want to go to Y. I hate that place.” Or she will be verbally dominant / aggressive in her tone and things she says, even if she’s smiling/laughing while she says it. Another tell is that Dominants become irritated very easily, either with something you do or say, or something she recalls someone else did or said.
There’s no way in hell a narcissist could be in a relationship with zero drama.
Submissives are common, all over the place. I have one in my life right now.
If you’re looking for a complete (i.e. extreme) Submissive, well yeah, those are rare, but they always have been. An extreme of anything is rare.
Also remember that their are problems with Submissives (emotionally needy, very sensitive, cry a lot, demand a lot of romantic Disney bullshit, etc). No type of woman is perfect. Be sure you read this.
Most women in the Western world are Dominants, yes, but I don’t know about the “by far” part. My estimate is about 60%, and I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s much higher than that (though I could be wrong).
Also remember that certain cities have a higher concentrations of Dominants than others. For example, you’re going to have more Dominants in places like New York, San Francisco, or Copenhagen then you would in a place like Dallas or Rio.
Independents are great, but yes, they’re the least common category.
Again! Remember there are problems with Independents (they get bored fast, they tend towards shorter relationships, they’re less feminine, etc).
Again, no type of woman is perfect.
Chart is spot on.
My wife is submissive and my 2 side girls in Sydney are independent.
I was just in NYC and had 10 days to play around and the 4 women I hooked up with in that time were all independent. From my dating there I felt that independents were better represented as an overall percentage vs Sydney. Australian women tend to be VERY dominant.
More and more women are becoming dominant though and I feel that in 20 years or so pretty much every western woman will become dominant and we’ll be left with a society not too disimilar to the ‘beautiful ones’ rat experiment.
Biggest chance of finding independents in Sydney now is targeting under 18-21yo’s or going foreign. Otherwise 9/10 times you’re dealing with a dominant. You can still find the rare submissive in the younger age groups. In NYC there were plenty of dominants too, but a lot of independents of all ages. Don’t think I came across 1 submissive, but I was only there a month and playing for 10 of those days.
“There’s no way in hell a narcissist could be in a relationship with zero drama.”
This would be the primary reason drama-avoidance is an overwhelmingly dominant issue and topic for you, no?
I don’t understand the question. Are you saying I’m a narcissist or that I screen out narcissists?
I don’t want drama because drama makes me unhappy, and I like to be happy. It’s my highest objective.
Also, I was just thinking, and there’s probably a sampling bias when estimating the number of dominants in a society. 9/10 women I meet in Sydney over 21 are dominants, but that’s because my sample only includes single women actively looking for dates online.
Dominant women are more likely to be single and/or in a relationship but looking for something better. Hence an over representation of them in the dating pool. So maybe only 7/10 are dominant in greater society. Hard to say.
Maybe there are more submissive’s out there than we realise but they are more likely to meet a man through a social circle and stay in an LTR with him, like how I met my wife. So they are largely under represented in our sample.
I’m asking if you think your own narcissistic tendencies may be why you’re so drama focused?
I just don’t get much drama from girls, drama avoidance isn’t an issue that’s at the forefront of my gaming, and drama is a word that doesn’t often enter my thought process at all, bullshit from others is so infrequent. I think drama stems from the man more than the woman.
That’s possible.
How exactly am I a narcissist? Or have “narcissistic tendencies?”
How am I focused on drama? Soft nexting (for example) is just one of hundreds of dating techniques I teach, most of which involve sex and freedom, not drama.
Neither do I. The last time I’ve had to soft next a woman, for any reason, was well over two years ago.
Do you regularly have consistent relationships with the same woman that last over 1.5 years? Drama management is only an issue for men who do that. If you’re out banging chicks via one night stands or fuck buddies and not much else, drama avoidance won’t be an issue for you, because those are barely “relationships.”
Correct. Most drama during the first 1-3 years is the man’s fault. I’ve said this many times.
“Neither do I.”
Fair enough. You seem very drama focused though for someone who doesn’t get much. People tend to not be focused at all on that which isn’t happening to them.
I don’t generally make it past 1.5 years no. I’m well bored by then. I can only speak up to about that amount of time.
“You seem to be very focused on running 5 miles every day for a guy who is already skinny.”
He’s skinny because he runs.
I have no drama in my relationship life because my drama management techniques work.
Then you are in a completely different category and can safely ignore everything I ever say about drama management. If all I was doing was banging chicks without long relationships, I wouldn’t concern myself with drama either, because it wouldn’t be factor. But that isn’t what I’m doing, and that generally isn’t the type of lifestyle I’m discussing here.
I feel like, the men in my life who were beta, would consider me dominant. The alpha 1.0’s would consider me submissive and the ones that lean towards alpha 2.0 would say I’m more independent. So really, the way a woman behaves towards you, is a lot dependent on how you treat her. I don’t get as attached to the alpha 2.0 types because they aren’t as invested in ME.
The “skinny” example isn’t really an equivalency, unless you see drama being as inevitable as unavoidable as maintaining health, which requires conscientious daily maintenance.
Perhaps post 3-year, or whatever your cutoff is, drama does reach a heavy maintenance level though. I certainly hope drama never reaches health-level maintenance in my life.
I think the chart is mostly accurate but I have a few quibbles. First, a relationship between an independent woman and a beta male can go on for quite some time despite her being bored. She may be cheating but feel too guilty to leave.
Second, I wouldn’t call a dominant woman with an Alpha 1.0 necessarily a “dysfunctional” relationship. There will be drama, but mostly their values are aligned so both can be happy that way. I’ve seen two dominants together like that and although it looks bad to me, looking in, it can make them both happy and be long-lasting. They are both aggressive, jealous, possessive, and will have some power-struggles but at least they understand each other and share similar values and can both generally respect each other.
Third, I think the independent woman/Alpha Male 1.0 is the most dysfunctional and potentially dramatic to the point of violence or real threats of danger, of all these relationships. Because the problem with this relationship is that, unlike with an Alpha 2.0/Dominant Woman situation, where they just won’t tolerate each other, the Independent Woman is likely to be very *sexually* attracted to the Alpha 1.0. But not be able to stand him or want him around otherwise. This creates a dangerous situation where he will be absolutely *furious* and in disbelief that he can’t “conquer” her after they’ve had sex, or that she doesn’t act like a woman is “supposed to”, and he will not be able to understand her or relate to her at all. Their values are in conflict, but she understands his motivations and he doesn’t understand hers. Yet because of his drive to compete, control, and dominate people, he also won’t be able to let her go. And this is where the real danger is and where it can turn criminal or violent.
It will drive him absolutely nuts that he hasn’t conquered her. And for her part, she’s got a guy that she doesn’t want to be around, doesn’t want to get into a relationship, doesn’t want to commit to, but she IS still sexually attracted to him, and he keeps coming back at her with neverending persistence and aggression. So she may slip up and sleep with him again, which then triggers the cycle of insanity when she still rejects him for a relationship and he reacts with fury. The only time I have ever felt that my person or property were truly endangered was in this type of situation. And I’ve found that Alpha 1.0s are actually much worse than betas when it comes to not being able to ever get over a girl if she rejects him. Not because they’re more capable of love or attachment or devotion — they’re definitely not — but because they’re incapable of accepting not WINNING and it will drive them nuts their whole life to have not conquered. Their will to compete and conquer just overrides everything else, so a chick they’ve slept with and offered commitment to who rejects it will become their furious obsession which never dies if they never win. And for a true Independent woman, the last thing that they want is to be conquered by an Alpha 1.0, so they will die fighting before they give in. It becomes a Moby Dick/Nero type battle between the Alpha 1.0 trying to conquer and the woman trying not to be conquered. So for the sake of both Alpha 1.0s and Independent women, they should avoid each other like the plague. Or at least, they should never ever have sex with each other. They’ll be tempted but they should keep it as a fantasy in their heads, this is a terrible dynamic. They can actually be pretty good friends and they can both think to themselves about how they’d like to have sex but they should never actually have sex because the aftermath will be terrible.
Betas will be heartbroken and full of grief at a breakup but they can get over it eventually. 1.0s don’t get over being rejected. They’re the ones who are still furiously calling a woman who broke up with them 30 years ago in high school a bitch.
Most situations where you have a dangerous, violent male who stalks, beats, murders, or threatens a woman physically, it is either (a) a beta male who essentially has a mental break and snaps — this is rare, or (b) much more common and the usual circumstance, you have an Alpha 1.0 dealing with a woman who is Independent, or who started off submissive and he thought he owned her but he pushed her too far til she started acting independent to get away from him.
In contrast, most situations where you see a woman go absolutely apeshit and try to do real harm to a man are cases where (a) a dominant woman is with a beta who suddenly stops acting like a beta, or (b) two dominants together and she finds out about his cheating.
It’s 100% equivalent. You tried to frame his focus on drama as evidence that he has drama in his life. Clue Bus: This is a website that sells products to help men reduce drama in their lives, of course there’s going to be a focus on that topic.
Great analysis. What are the common indicators of independent/submissive types?
Spoken like a true Dominant. 🙂
In all seriousness though, you are a Dominant, but a mild one.
Correct, but I didn’t have enough room in the little box to explain all that.
This goes back to the old “you can have lots of drama and still be happy!” argument which I have refuted many, many times. I don’t really want to repeat it all yet again.
I mostly agree on the rest of what you said.
He’s not stupid. He knows all that. That entire thing was a weak attempt at insulting me because he has some kind of personal problem with me that he won’t reveal. You can tell since it started out with him attempting (unsuccessfully) to call me a narcissist, which as I’ve explained before is the standard go-to word to use when you don’t like someone online.
Well, as I said above, there are none. If a woman is nice on a first/second date, she’s either a Submissive, Independent, or even (though much more rarely) a mild Dominant with stronger girl game (like Lovergirl). It’s very hard to tell the difference just over one or two quick dates pre-sex. You could make some general guesses based on her relationship or sexual history, but that’s a very hit-or-miss way to make a determination and is often an inaccurate indicator.
All the women I’ve dated were submissive. Coincidence I think, because I have definitely been attracted to dominant/ independent women a lot, but never happened. I must attract submissive women more, I think.
I think it’s fairly easy to assess where the woman on the scale falls. I think it’s MORE difficult to assess your own behavior.
Lovergirl, I have the hunch that if you’re “dominant” among some men, and “submissive” among others, that you are likely on the dominant/ independent side of the scale, most likely.
A submissive woman I feel would rarely act dominant in a relationship.
But I have known many high-energy Type A extreme dominant women who were always in control and telling people what to do, and Queen Bee, yet I know they would say they were 100% “submissive” with their man (when in reality, they weren’t, despite what happens in the bedroom).
Your chart looks very accurate, thx!
Dominants can be really sexy and get you interested fast with looks alone (no wonder Alpha 1.0s love them), but they’ll always be short-lived in a drama-free relationship. They just become furious once you give a shrug to every demand they make (my ex-gf was like that….I really don’t miss those days).
Independents are by far my favorites right now: low investment after you get them in a relationship, short texting, and they ask for almost zero explanation about your personal life. They make great FBs!
Submissives can become a little annoying if you don’t have enough free time to give them attention. And they could turn clingy if you don’t manage well the first stages of the relationship.
@Wolf
Really don’t think so…this just seems too alarmist (like the feminist threat BD talked about in a recent post). I’m guessing here, but in my own experience a good percentage of dominants are just light submissives “in disguise” playing the SP/girl power game. Put an assertive man on their side and they instantly become more feminine and less demanding.
This is interesting. Does a geographic distribution occur for Alpha males as well?
BD, in one of your articles, you talk about how women who are 9’s and 10’s will tend to move to large cities once they become aware of their potentially higher SMV.
I would guess that Alpha males would tend to move to larger cities as well, not so much because of a perceived high SMV but because of their desire to build their career or business? (Similar to why a Dominant would be in a large city, I suppose) Or perhaps this migration-to-city phenomenon (if it exists) only applies to Worker Alpha 2s?
I’d say a rude awakening for dominant women. No path to true happiness in her column.
The chart is interesting in the sense that it is possible to define yourself as a male by your relationship state.
For example, my wife and I have been together for 8 years in a consistently harmonious and zero drama relationship. Based on this I must by default be an alpha 2.0. My previous long term relationship before her was insanely high drama and dysfunctional. Which leads me to believe at that point that I was an alpha 1.0.
After that relationship I changed some habits and stayed single for four years while spinning many plates. Then I met my now wife.
There are no absolutes but it is quite interesting stuff nonetheless.
Or (c): When the dominant woman interprets her man’s outcome independence as submissiveness, cheats on him, then is shocked to realize that he’s actually been cheating on her all along. Apeshitness will be off the charts, guaranteed.
There’s a lot of truth to this. Dominants will be compliant and submissive in the presence of a man with strong frame and high perceived value (kryptonite for dominant women). But all that goes out the window as soon as you promise monogamy.
I think most women who seek out male seduction sites are dominants. Game makes dominant women feel out of control; it’s only natural to want to educate oneself to defend against it.
My last dominant girlfriend would constantly make remarks like “I know what you’re trying to do to me” any time I ran game or showed strong outcome independence.
If only she realized that those were the times we had good sex. Dominant women make their own lives miserable.
See, this is how I act, with men that aren’t showing any indication of investing in ME. However, when they are, I’m completely different. It’s the guy, and the way he acts towards ME that makes the difference.
The only time I’ve been dominant in a relationship was when I had no other choice. My ex husband just wouldn’t step up to the plate and I resented him for it. I’ve had multiple men refer to me as “submissive” but I’ve never in my life had anyone, anywhere, refer to me as “dominant,” until now, lolol.
I am high energy, but very type B and I don’t tell anyone what to do, other than my kids. I’m pretty easy going. Even my ex husband would say that, though I felt like I HAD to tell him to do things because he wouldn’t do anything if I didn’t. I was reminded of that recently when he came up to visit the kids and seemingly couldn’t make any decisions on his own. I would wait and wait and wait and finally make a suggestion. I hated it just as much as I did when we were married.
Yes. Very common, with 10s though, not necessarily with 9s.
When you’re a female 10 in a small town/city, all you can think about it is how fast you can get the hell out of there. And soon you will.
I have no data or experiences to suggest that Alpha Males move to larger cities. On the contrary, many Alphas really enjoy living in smaller towns or smaller cities. I like big cities myself, but I’m just one guy.
That being said, if a man (Alpha or beta is irrelevant) has his income as his top priority, then yes, it’s often a good idea to move to a larger city if he lives in a small one (though not always).
I’m not sure about that. It might be correct. Dominants and Independents anyway. (A Submissive would never read a pickup site. The harsh, masculine, blunt, anti-Disney language always turns them off.)
Then why do you always go into hysterics whenever we talk about how men shouldn’t have to buy women dinner on first / second dates?
A Submissive wouldn’t care, and certainly wouldn’t defend it. An Independent wouldn’t want a man to pay for her like that at all.
Like I said, I don’t think you’re a dominant person, but in terms of the three categories you are indeed a mild Dominant, in that you have a very specific dating/relationship agenda, you expect men to follow it, and get very upset when they don’t.
I’ve a cousin who’s younger 1 year than me (her mom always proclaims she’s an independent woman), but I doubt it? from the way she talks to me, eg. verbally/aggressive in her tone, i just don’t like the way she talks to me because i feel like she somehow ”threatens” people – ordering people, perhaps I’m a mild beta male? Or lean towards alpha 2.0 (cause i don’t control people’s lives anymore like alpha 1.0)
Plus, recently i heard rumor say there was one beta guy who showers her dinners etc to get her attention, she demanded to cut contact with thim because ”she wants someone to be a christian before being exclusive her”, and the guy’s reluctant to, so fucked up…luckily i only went to church twice and i hardly believe religious’ bullshits nowadays, like no sex before marriage etc
I don’t go “into hysterics”. I simply do not date men who do not pay for dates. As in, I don’t GO OUT on a first date with a guy who doesn’t appear to intend to pay. As I have said many times, a man paying for a date is establishing himself in the dominant position from the beginning. It’s very beta to expect a woman to pay for you…. I don’t tell them, hey motherfucker, you’d better pay for me! Lol I just would be very turned off by a man who appeared to want me to be the one taking HIM on dates, because that would be submissive and beta on his part.
I can agree on the independents being the split the bill types, but submissive women don’t pay for dates, unless maybe she feels pressured to do so, feels sorry for the guy, or is with a shady type of guy that is demanding it or using her. That’s something dominant women would do, expect to pay for a first date. I even had a guy (who had been dating ME prior to this) tell me how turned off he was when a woman he was seeing wanted to pay for all the dates. He felt emasculated.
What agenda do I have, pray tell? The paying for dates thing honestly is never an issue. The men I choose are not the types to expect me to pay for them. They always pay and its never a fight, I never have to ask or demand or argue about it. I wouldn’t bother. They wouldn’t be attractive enough for me to stick around if they made it into some sort of big deal that they were paying for me.
One of the most alpha men I know is flying me down to see him again here soon. Did I ask him? Hell no. I wouldn’t dare. I rarely even contact him at all. I hadn’t heard from him in like 6 weeks and he just hits me up and is like “hey, do you want to come to xyz” and I get all excited and say yes so he flies me on over.
What is my “agenda”? I have no idea. Because, I’m really pretty go with the flow, let it develop into whatever it does. It’s not like I’m looking for a husband. I’m not sure I even want one at this point in my life. I hate it when men ask me what I am looking for because it’s nothing specific and I don’t even know how to answer that question.
This is silly. How offended a woman’s sensibilities are has nothing to do with how dominant or submissive she is in a relationship. This sounds like a Disney version of women’s purity. You don’t have to be prude to be submissive. You don’t have to be dumb and unaware to be submissive either. Submissive simply means that you defer to the other person and allow them to lead and make decisions.
A beta male would never even dare to suggest such a thing.
No, he’d just expect it or go along for the ride if the woman wanted to pay. Same as I do. I don’t suggest men pay for me. They just do and I don’t argue or complain about it!
You’re wrong. The idea would never even enter his head.
Sweetheart, you’re dating betas. They might have lots of money to fly you around for a good shagging but they are betas through and through.
Yes you do.
To repeat, an Independent would never think this. A Submissive might think it, but never (or rarely) actually act on it. So if you’re not one of those two…
No, you just think it and act on it instead. I don’t care what a woman says, only what she does.
For starters, that a man must spend a certain amount of money on you before you’ll offer him your pussy, or else he gets nothing.
Does that sound like a Submissive to you?
Yeah. You really sound like it.
“Introverted Narcissist” yeah I’m sure such a thing exists.
Here’s something funny about me: Dominant chicks hit on me like crazy. Its like as soon as I approach them they know that they aren’t impressing me and that turns them on. But when I shoot them down boy do they get butthurt. Ratchets (which are pretty much 90% of dominants) actually hit on me hoping that I take the bait, its ridiculous. And they know I never will. Its like the catcalling thing, only the other way around. Nearly all of the chicks I have hooked up with are either independent or submissive. Many are submissive. But every now and then I’ll get some dominant chick who is trying to sting me along and I will snuff them out real quick.
I may not have the monetary success of an alpha 2 but when it comes to dating, chicks know who they are dealing with.
@Zoe:
In order to live a sexually enlightened lifestyle, you must reside in either a big city, or in the suburb of a big city so that you may have easy access to the city, your suburb, as well as the surrounding suburbs (as in my case).
If you do not live in either a big city or one of its suburbs, living the alpha male 2.0 lifestyle becomes impossible as it pertains to sex. Living in a rural area or a small town or village where everyone knows everyone, neighbors observe neighbors, and everyone’s up in your business means that strict conservative monogamy (puke) is your only realistic option. You have no privacy in such small places, no discretion, no way to preserve the woman’s pure reputation with the blue pill sheep (or your own), shitty logistics, and no sexual freedom! And forget about Internet dating!
Sexual promiscuity, or its possibility, depends on several factors – birth control, paternity testing, a gender neutral economy, industrialization, modern technology, and a culture of individualization instead of communitarianism!
In a communitarian traditional Disney land where your personal life, professional life, social life, religious life, and sex life are all connected through so called “community bonds,” you’d be run out of town if you live the red pill lifestyle (this goes double if you’re a woman).
But, in an individualistic big city (or in suburbia) where all your different lives are disconnected from each other and society is atomized, you may pick your own ideological community (irrespective of physical location) without the people in your other lives (i.e. your boss at work) ever knowing about it, or your friends or blue pill family. No one will ever know you’re a swinger or poly who shouldn’t know. Discretion and privacy are now possible, because “community bonds” exist of your own choosing, and those bonds are ideological, not physical, or based on physical location.
So if you fall out with a particular community, just find another one without ever changing your physical address and avoid your old one easily (it’s a big city).
That’s why alpha 2.0s and sexually enlightened red pill women go to big cities. Our lifestyles wouldn’t be possible anywhere else. Society must remain atomized and individualized for the requisite privacy and discretion that make sexual liberation possible to even become a realistic choice!
Keep telling yourself that. Seeing as you give no room for zero-drama at all, how could you understand it? You need to be in a place where you and your partner are nothing short of the same person, where there is no room for drama because you wouldn’t hurt yourself like that. How could you ever understand it? 🙂
PS: Apparently nobody here knows what NPD actually is or about the various subtypes and vast spectrum all disorders sit on. Study before you comment.
In my experience, submissive women tend to be the most prudish, anti-sex, and Disney “girly-girl” types. I’ve slept with a few of them. The two that come to mind were both cheating – one on a beta boyfriend who wanted to be the submissive one and the other one on an alpha male 1.0 who was physically abusing her. But the single ones are just too Disney and traditional for me to want anything to do with.
It’s only independents for me. They’re the best (barring the occasional submissive cheater in a disappointed relationship).
@Lovergirl – refusing to pay for a woman doesn’t mean the man expects her to pay for him.
@BD:
Ahem! Remember Mariken from the old masf?
This is ridiculous. I simply said I don’t go out on dates with men who expect me to pay or split the bill, and I don’t. That has nothing to do with how submissive I am in a relationship. I don’t argue with men in real life about it. I disagree with the PUA crowd that tells men not to pay for women and I simply don’t accept first dates from guys that are playing games, trying to get me to meet them at their house or otherwise acting lame.
Being submissive doesn’t mean you have no standards or are submissive to every guy out there before you even know him. I said I am submissive to the men I am in a relationship with, and I am, even to the point that several of them have called me “very submissive”. I would even say I’m probably MORE submissive than most submissive women, because men comment on it.
There is no set amount of money a man must spend on me and I’ve never said anything of the sort. I have (repeatedly) explained that I don’t expect a ton of money be spent and I’m happy with whatever, even if its just a coffee, but that I am not paying for a man or splitting the bill on a first date. Having basic criteria met before you invest in a man is just common sense and EVERY woman has some sort of standards, no matter her “type”. Again, a submissive woman cannot be submissive to every man on the planet, or she’d be used and abused, repeatedly. That’s just dumb.
@ POB
Dominants are very good at slipping in under your radar. The sex is fantastic. But, if it seems like all your Christmasses have come at once and it’s too good to be true, then it probably is. 🙂
And yes, as soon as you say, “No” to something, the real them comes out.
Not at all. The guy that is flying me somewhere has a lot of money, so he can afford it. He’s one of the most alpha men I’ve ever met in my life. Not only is he a big corporate millionaire, but he’s FANTASTIC in bed and clearly has a lot of experience there (lol). I’ve never seen a drop of jealousy or neediness out of him and I’ve known him for a year. He’s amazing!
It would be super crazy and weird for him to ask a poor single mom to split the bill or pay for dates with him. Masculine men like him, just don’t do that. They take charge, and women love it and respect them for it. So when I see men advocating game playing to get women to split the bill or avoid paying on dates, I recognize what awful advice it is and SAY something. I’m trying to save you all from looking like total chodes, lol, but in real life it really isn’t an issue.
@LG,
I won’t enter in a debate with you because I’ve already seen the consequences (on another place) when someone tells you something that’s 100% accurate, but goes against your beliefs. Also I do like some of your posts and insights, specially when you put your guard down and allow yourself to be more loose (which is becoming kinda of rare these days).
That said, please read your own sentence above (underlines are mine) and tell me you’re not behaving like a demanding self-centered woman (AKA dominant).
@AI
LOL, so true.
Me, me, me, obey, do as I say, I want more, you’ll behave this way to make me happy, I know what’s better for you, etc, etc. God, it’s so tiring.
@Blackdragon
Write this post “Confessions of an Alpha 2.0, Why I Gave My Daughter Body Images Issues and an Eating Disorder-The Hypocrite’s Guide to Fat Shaming Their Daughter’s into Staying Skinny and Pretty.”
I’m going to write the guide for women “The Art of Feminine Game-Exploiting His Mommy Issues to Take Him For ALL He’s Worth.”
Could be fun. lol
I could be wrong, but I’ve generally found submissive women to be far less tick-boxy than dominant women. Sexual attraction (Alphaness) seems to be the dominant factor for her attraction. Submissive women’s mannerisms, tone of voice and personality are usually noticibly weaker too, which I find so much more attractive. I’ve got Beta mates who are attracted to the opposite, or it doesn’t strike them at all that these women are dominants.
Not really, because you are going by what I SAY to men on a message board when they want to argue about things like spending money on women, versus what I actually DO, which is be submissive towards the men I date and have sex with. Strangers are another story.
The sentence you quoted
Was in response to a description of an INDEPENDENT, not a dominant.
I am very much like this with men who do not invest in me, do not get jealous and keep some emotional distance. I respond by keeping emotional distance of my own, in order to protect myself. I don’t text much, I don’t ask personal questions about their lives. I keep it at FB. There’s nothing “Dominant” about any of that. It’s just a logical response to a man not being invested, because I don’t want to get hurt. If he’s investing in me, I let down my guard and am very different. Then I’m going to be more clingy and take up more of his time and attention. It’s all in how he acts towards me.
From the chart, it looks like Dominant women have nowhere fulfilling to go.
Do Dominants ever find medium-term (post-NRE) happiness with any type of man? Or do they only find brief happiness during the NRE stage with a beta male, then it’s on to the next one?
Dude. She was so hot. And so insane. FB of my dreams.
Correct. Dominants are often very good in bed, noticeably better than Submissives or Independents. This is why they make great FBs.
You’re mistaking me for Roosh. I’ve never fat shamed anyone, my daughter isn’t fat, and she gets regularly hit on by both men and women whenever she goes out, including when I’m with her, since we’re are often mistaken for siblings. (Seriously.)
You’re mistaking me for Roosh again. Get your bloggers straight. I’ve been very clear that any man who gets his wallet sucked out by a woman these days probably deserves it, so go for it. And if you’re hot, please feel free to exploit my mommy issues while you’re bent over my couch Mommy.
Correct, they are, but they are still tick-boxy, often quite a bit. (Submissives have a lot of Disney, as Jack said above). Independents are the least tick-boxy women, by far.
Of course they can. Some of them anyway. I know several Dominants married to submissive betas for 10+ years. There’s a medium amount of regular drama in the relationship, and often the women cheat, and the husbands grumble a lot, but the women are content (not happy, but content) in that they more or less have what they want.
For every Dominant out there, there’s a pussy beta ready to follow her orders.
I don’t really think the “who pays for a date” thing has that much to do with being dominant/submissive/independent. It seems more like a cultural thing to me and a matter of one’s etiquette norms.
I grew up in the north-east, and it’s very normal and expected there that men and women split bills. There’s not an expectation that men pay (at least, in the regular towns and suburbs, I don’t know what goes on in NYC). But in the south men INSIST on paying. The west is sort of in between, though I’m guessing the north-west is more like the north-east. Basically the more traditional and religious a place is, the more likely that they have ideas about gender roles that involve men paying. Another southern thing is that men won’t let a woman put gas in her car. It’s considered emasculating or something. But I never even heard of such a thing as men pumping gas for women til I was in my 30s.
And I literally never in my life had a man pay for anything or even *offer* to pay for anything til I moved away from the northeast after college. Since then, the men who insist on paying are all over the spectrum as far as being alpha or beta, I really don’t think it’s related to that at all, it’s more culture and what you were raised to think of as “polite”.
Same goes for dumb traditions like opening a woman’s car door for her. I hate when guys do that, it’s the most uncomfortable, purposeless empty gesture. Everyone opens their cars by clicking their keyfob nowadays so it’s just bizarre, there’s no reason for it. But even back when people used keys, in the northeast, guys rarely would open a cardoor for a woman, so even back then I thought of it as overly formal and stiff. Same with — god forbid — pulling out a chair. But my female friends from the west like those things and insist on them. And guys from the south insist on them and get pissed if you don’t let them.
I think these things are just mannerisms that will always seem weird if they don’t fit the custom you’re raised with. Like all the bowing and apologizing they do in Japan. To me, chivalrous customs come off as hoaky, overly formal, and embarrassing, but that’s because I almost never witnessed them growing up. OTOH, I’ve known guys raised in super male-dominant cultures who do things like always walk several paces ahead of women or make her carry everything and never offer to help carry things, and that seems extremely rude to me. Just because it violates a norm. I don’t think you can peg someone as dominant or submissive based on this type of thing because it’s more etiquette than anything else.
I’m more referring to Lovergirl’s extreme reaction (as clearly shown above) whenever this topic is brought up, not the literal topic of who pays for a date. To say a third time, an Independent or Submissive wouldn’t react the way LG is to this topic, but Dominant proudly would.
Notice that you, Kate, aren’t all antagonistic about this topic like LG is, because you’re a Independent (despite the fact you like serial monogamy, but hey, no one is perfect).
?????!?!?!?!?!?!
What planet am I on right now, and how do I get back to Earth?
Seeing as many are ratchets, they kind of don’t deserve fulfillment. Remaining ugly and expecting betas to treat you the rest of your life is no way to get through life.
It is. Cuz most of them want to “get revenge” on “all the divas and ratchets who took all my money from me who didn’t fuck me!” They want chicks to be their mom. They still judge their self esteem based on their laycount and how many chicks like them, which is not only beta, it is bordering on being omega. Unless you are some kind of pimp where you have a crew of prostitutes who pay for you (if this is the type you are talking about then I apologize), expecting chicks to give you stuff is the same diva ratchet behavior that “dominant” chicks exhibit.
I pay as much as I am comfortable with. And I’m a believer in whoever invites, pays. I’ve had chicks invite me to places and I just kind of let them pay. Usually we have sex right after, since if they were attracted enough to get at me right out of the gate, they are usually attracted enough to have sex on the first date. If a chick approaches you, she is down. Waste no time. If she wastes your time, she’s either an independent who just wants some dude to chat with, or a succubus who wants you to take care of her forever. Here’s my rundown:
Omegas want chicks to take care of them like they are their mom and believe that they are so “special” and that they “deserve it” for “all the pain they had to endure.” They think that if a chick takes care of them, that they are “getting back at the evil feminists!” Nearly every sex negative MGTOW with autism thinks like this, although they will never admit it irl. But they will spew it like venomous vomit online.
Betas pay for chicks no matter how much it is, not expecting or aspiring for intimacy afterwards and don’t mind being strung along (although they become butthurt about it in some aspect down the road). They will continue to pay for chicks if it means the chicks will stick around.
Alpha 1s pay for chicks no matter how much it is and expect intimacy afterwards. If they don’t get said intimacy, they get butthurt. Many turn into omegas if they get divorce raped or if they get cheated on.
Alpha 2s pay as much as they are comfortable with, and aren’t afraid to hard next chicks who want them to spend more. Cuz they usually have other chicks who they can spend time with. Or they can just hunt for more. Either way, they don’t get butthurt about rejection like the aforementioned three. IMO a lot of alpha 2s are former betas (like me).
I often find it funny how most women these days come off as dominant or independent at first, but once they realize you are Alpha, their inner submissive traits start to pour out. I’ve had some of the most dominant women melt in my hands after they realized I was the stronger one. They secretly all want that, a man who is stronger….but most men aren’t these days.
How someone reacts to the topic of men on message boards telling each other not to pay on dates has virtually nothing to do with whether or not they are dominant, submissive or independent. LOL It’s bizarre that that was even brought up as a way to try and characterize me as a “dominant”.
I can’t say I have ever been on a date where I was the one driving, barring a couple of times when men I’ve known for a long time have let me drive their car for a little bit. In those instances of course they were the ones pumping gas, because it was their car. I have had men fill my gas tank for me when I had to drive to visit them somewhere. They definitely never expected me to get out and pump the gas, lol. And one of those guys was from Detroit….
Well, there are things you want to control, and there are things you have to control. Isn’t it a relief to hire, say, a plumber, only to discover he’s highly competent and honest so you don’t have to watch his every step?
I, for one, am willing to submit to someone on basis of merit in areas where their knowledge exceeds mine, but I’m unaffected by mere charisma. Also there are areas working with which is genuinely interesting to me, so I wouldn’t have others direct me just because I want to explore it myself, even if I fail multiple times.
For that reason I think there are women who have come to be dominant (likely due to weakness of males around and also due to SP) but don’t really want to be that way; and those who really delight in bending others to their will.
I can’t imagine being bothered by those things. Men here usually open doors for women, including car doors, when you are on a date. It’s classy and makes me feel more like a lady. They carry your bags too, if they are heavy.
It sounds like I wouldn’t be very happy dating men in the Northeast, lol. 😉 I wonder if that just goes for white guys- I date primarily black men and they are usually more conscientious about how they treat women.
I don’t know though, I have a co-worker that is an older Italian man from New Jersey and he always opens doors and carries things too. I’d pretty much see any man that didn’t as a clod, in comparison, just like these fellows that think ditching out on paying for a date makes them look attractive (wtf).
LG: the reason you’re being called a dominant (and I think you’re missing this) is not your *stance* on men paying for dates. It’s the *way* you’re responding to it. Compare your responses to kryptokate’s.
Expecting a woman to pay for you and wanting a woman to pay for you are two different things.
I never expect a woman to pay for me. That’s not the kind of society we live in.
But I LOVE IT when women pay for me, particularly on 1st/2nd dates (which is rare). I’ve had many long-term MLTRs where women paid for the restaurant bill much or even most of the time, including my longest consistent one.
It’s fucking awesome when women pay. But no, I don’t expect it. I expect most women to be like Lovergirl (because they are).
@ LG Yeah, a NJ Italian would be sort of an exception because they’re still raised in a heavily traditional, Catholic, stronger gender roles type family. But outside of Italians or maybe some recent immigrants, your typical northeast/new England white guy is raised without much if any religion or traditional culture.
Opening doors and pulling out chairs doesn’t make me upset or anything, it just makes me feel kind of silly and like it’s overly formal, like we’re pretending to be British royalty or something. Sort of the opposite of relaxed and having fun, like oh wait now we’re playacting at being fancy.
But like I said, my other female friends love that stuff and even get mad if a guy doesn’t do that stuff. And I think it’s good that we all like different things because then we’re not allccompeting for the same people. 🙂
My best friend who is very super girly and feminine (and super awesome) with 5 kids who reminds me a bit of you loves guys who actually FEED her on a date. Like, actually take a bite of food and put it in her mouth with their fingers. She literally goes wild for it. But if anyone ever did that to me I would be dying laughing at the weird awkwardness and overly romantic cheesy vibe, it would feel like a Saturday night live skit to me.
But Im not really a lady on the streets/freak in the sheets type. More like a tomboy on the streets/freak in the sheets. I think BD’s observation that Independents tend to be less feminine in behavior is accurate. My best friend wears skirts and giggles and smiles and I’m more likely to be cracking jokes and wearing sneakers. We both get guys but don’t usually like the same ones so it works out perfect. 🙂 Which I think is generally good for either guys or girls for wings…it’s good for there to be a contrast that plays up your respective strengths to your type.
@ Joel you keep using the word ratchet, what does it mean?
@JOTB
I considered economic factors as a driving force for city migration but failed to account for the sexual dynamics factor — my oversight as a novice in the BD lifestyle. Thanks for you comments! They got the wheels in my brain turning at a steady pace.
Lovergirl,
I just wanted to share my thoughts on your relationships with men. I’ve read some of your blog posts and comments here. I’d guess you’re a submissive and a relationship with Alpha 1.0 would be the best for you. But since you don’t want to be monogamous, these men don’t see you as more than FB. And you don’t see Alpha 2.0s as serious relationship material. I think you might want to change your frame if you want a fulfilling LTR.
If you don’t want to watch the video, ratchets are pretty much (traditionally) unattractive chicks who literally think that they are royalty and that boys and men owe them stuff. I deal with them in droves at both my jobs, their reactions when men don’t take their bait is hilarious. They literally act like 2 year olds when they don’t get what they want, attention included. When BD is talking about dominants, he is more than likely talking about ratchets.
“Ratchet” = ghetto, trashy, the opposite of classy
My response is different because I disagree and she doesn’t, lol. Disagreeing with strangers on a message board has nothing to do with being dominant or submissive in a relationship. That’s a misunderstanding of what it means to be submissive. There is no one out there who is submissive to everyone they meet. You can’t please everyone, its impossible.
You also can’t be submissive to a submissive man. It’s impossible. For someone to follow, someone has to lead. So if you don’t take control, then women aren’t going to submit to you and they are ALL going to seem like “dominants”. That was my original point. A man’s behavior determines the way a woman reacts to him.
If what BD is trying to assert, that I am a “dominant” is true, then it really doesn’t matter anyway, because the men I am sleeping with are more dominant than I am and therefore I submit to them. They aren’t men who would tolerate a woman bossing them around and I can’t imagine doing so. If a woman is demanding with you, its because you allow it.
1. This is true in a relationship. That’s why Submissives, when they date pussy betas, become the stronger one in the relationship and then utterly hate every minute of it until the relationship ends, which it always does.
2. This is not true during sex. During sex, all of these categories get thrown out the window. Submissive guys can be dominant during sex, and badass Alphas can be very submissive during sex, and enjoy it. (The stereotype of the strong Alpha CEO who goes to the dominatrix to get tied up and whipped is very accurate.) Submissive women can be dominant during sex and Dominants can love it if a guy is rough with them during sex. I’m an Alpha 2.0 to the core, but during sex I’m the biggest, bossiest, outcome dependent Alpha 1.0 in the universe. Etc.
Then when the sex is over, people return back to who they are. I’m just making the general point that you can’t use behavior during sex to prove or disprove anyone’s category. During sex, often everything is different.
I agree completely, and have said this many times.
I’m not trying to assert it. I am asserting it.
Your point is partially accurate, but if you’re demanding X amount of money spent on you by a man before you’ll fuck him, you’re not submitting at all…you’re in control. And if you’re in control at that point (the outset of the relationship) then you’re also in control at many other points, since a person doesn’t demand control at the outset and then completely go Submissive for all the rest. Thus you can’t be a Submissive and you certainly can’t be an Independent. You’re a mild Dominant.
Oh it goes waaaaaaaay further than that. Ratchets can be classy too, so they can entrap betas. The ratchets who are ghetto etc usually act that way cuz too many betas and omegas were trying to get at them so they prefer alpha 1s (Omegas acting as betas IMO). If a chick has ridiculous expectations for a man like expecting a man to buy them everything or take care of their kids or treat them all the time then they are ratchet, even if they are hiding it behind being well spoken and well mannered.
I’m no expert, IMO but A man’s knowledge of self and inner dialogue also determines this. For example, I act like a combination of Tony Stark, Archer, and Sheldon Cooper when I talk to chicks. I say smartass stuff but then turn around and act silly and awkward too. The reason I get away with this is cuz my inner dialogue isn’t “Gee I hope this chick likes what I’m saying” its “Her reaction to this is gonna be priceless lol.” That’s what I’ve learned anyway. The more fun and carefree you come across as to chicks the more they like you. What most betas and especially omegas do is they treat getting chicks like its some kind of job. BD talks a lot about Outcome Independence, and if a dude is outcome dependent it makes no difference how cool he acts he is getting shot down.
I don’t know. I’ve never heard the term used as a noun, other than referring to some kind of a tool. Otherwise, over here anyway, its used as an adjective. “Look at these ratchet ass bitches, looking like they just stepped off people of Walmart, fighting over a man on Jerry Springer”.
I must have told you all this a million times, but I will say it again. I have never, ever, DEMANDED that a man spent money on me. I simply don’t date the type of men that have the expectation that we are going to split bills or I am going to pay for them. They are screened out from the beginning because I am attracted to traditional minded alpha men who treat me like a lady outside of the bedroom. They aren’t into this gender bending, have women pay for dates crap and neither am I.
I never even mentioned what happens during sex, but I do think it carries over to outside the bedroom, especially in a relationship. If a man is consistently dominating me in the bedroom, I’ll be doing whatever he wants outside of the bedroom as well, lol. This is why some (smart) men know they can end arguments by fucking the shit out of a woman.
I would be monogamous for the right man, but right now I’ve kind of given up on serious relationships. The Alpha 2.0 men I have met are always already in a serious relationship and maybe that is why they are easier able to curb jealousy and possessiveness, but I’ve never come across one where that appeared to be an option.
Happy Father’s Day, Blackdragon and to all the other men here!
That’s functionally the same thing.
What if a guy wants to buy you a single drink and then fuck you?
Thank you! My daughter and I just took my dad out to breakfast.
@Kryptokate:
An indispensable trait of the alpha 2.0 is his immunity from “culture.” That’s what the red pill is all about. As an individualist and free thinker, you’re supposed to be a “culture of one.” You are your own culture.
I HATE the blue pill culture I was raised in and I have thoroughly rejected it. Every time someone asks me why I hold the opinions I hold, or why I do what I do, I NEVER say -“Well, this is how I was raised, this is what my parents taught me, or this is the culture in which I’m immersed.” That’s blue pill shit!
A red piller has thought through all his or her actions, beliefs, and values and will give you his or her own reasons – which are unique to them – why he or she does what they do. A person who took the red pill has an internal hierarchy of values, not an external one. The surrounding culture or society can go fuck itself.
A red piller isn’t a “social climber” or concerned with society’s approval or what society thinks of as “power.”
So when you say that men being chivalrous or not chivalrous depends on the culture they are in, you must only be referring to beta males or alpha 1.0s.
@Lovergirl:
To my knowledge, there isn’t a single man in the entire seduction or red pill community who has ever suggested that a woman pay for him. If I’m wrong, let me know.
And then:
LOL! The hypocrisy here is mindboggling.
Oh. My. God!
So in the South, men are women’s henchmen! Got it. Note to self: Never visit the South. Oh wait, I already have that note for a multitude of other reasons. Nevermind…
Yes! That is a factor. Although there are red pill individualists and free thinkers within every race, ethnicity, nationality, and skin color, the numbers aren’t equal. In America, white people have the highest percentage of red pill individualists, in contrast to every other race. This is partially due to white people being the numerical majority in any case. But even blue pill white culture is more individualistic than the culture of other races. Other races in America, as a general rule, tend to be more tribal. That also has to do with their minority status and their need to “stick together” for safety.
So yeah, even though there are red pill black men, the numbers are smaller than red pill white men. I think it’s harder to be a free thinking individualist when you’re a member of a minority race, especially since your community may shun you or say you’re “not a real black man” or whatever garbage they come up with. It’s still possible though.
The problem with “traditional minded alpha men” of any race (alpha 1.0s) is that their traditionalism doesn’t end with their female supremacy (chivalry). It spills out into other things, like slut shaming, or at least a Madonna/whore complex. I suspect this is why most of the traditional black men you’ve slept with quickly saw you only as fuck buddy material, or became jealous and possessive when you hinted you want something more and then confused them by still sleeping with other men. These black men don’t think in red pill terms. They have the “good girl, freak, and ho” construct which I have rejected a while ago after I realized just how based within the M/W complex it really is.
These black men don’t want to “introduce you to mom” because you slept with them so quickly and went to swingers parties with them, which leads them to believe that you’re not “girlfriend material.”
Your biggest problem Lovergirl is that you want to live the red pill lifestyle and would be cool with an open relationship, but you insist on sleeping with men who practice traditional chivalry despite the fact that it is that same traditional chivalry which spills over into other subjects and closes their minds to the possibility of rejecting their own Madonna/whore complex!
No! The reason they “curb their jealousy and possessiveness” is because they’re alpha 2.0s, not because they’re in a serious relationship. An alpha 2.0’s values come from within, not from external circumstances.
Your men being (1) traditional and (2) black (in terms of culture) is the source of your frustrations.
If you want a serious open relationship with a non-possessive alpha 2.0 serious boyfriend who will tell you how much he’s in love with you right before you hop into bed with him and his brother (or right before you sleep with your married fuck buddy while he goes to bed with one of his side women with a light heart), you will have to address the above two problems.
But if you’re unwilling to sacrifice traditional chivalry, the price you’ll probably have to pay is enduring traditional attitudes on other subjects as well, like slut shaming if you want more than just casual sex.
Lover Girl Definitely partially dominant. Moreso independant with slight provider-hunter tendencies. I’d say that’s a nice combination.
Have you not read anything I have written on this topic over the past several YEARS in discussions with you guys? LOL I’ve said a million times that it isn’t the amount he spends on me, its simply the gesture. I’ve fucked many guys that only bought a drink or two before hand. I have no problem with that. I don’t feel like reading it all again but I’m pretty sure I even said up above in THIS thread (and many times before) that taking a woman out for coffee or ice cream is sufficient on a FIRST date.
The thing about many men is THEY view women as less when they don’t put as much effort or money into her. Women have to take this into consideration. Not too long ago, I got myself into a situation where I was basically doing Netflix and chill with a guy a couple of times a week (after the first couple of dates, which weren’t anything that expensive). Then, what did he do? He turned around and started dating another woman, right in my face, taking her to a much more expensive restaurant and a party at his job, right off the bat, and even brought her to an event I was working at, on a real DATE. (She wasn’t even physically attractive). OUCH.
Why would he treat her so much better? Ultimately, I allowed it by being too accommodating and not having higher expectations from him. So he saw me as someone he could walk all over. I sure don’t want to be THAT foolish again!!
Are you kidding? I see it all the time, guys on message boards suggesting that they should get women to pay for things, like they are some kind of pimp. The problem is that most times when men get women to pay for things they look more pathetic than pimping.
I don’t even live in the South, not anymore. Men still are mostly chivalrous around here, I think. Maybe not young white guys-like in their 20’s or something but I wouldn’t know because I don’t date them. The young white guys I work with still do stuff like offer to carry things even if they may not be as conscientious about it. I can’t imagine a place where men just stand around like clods when they see a woman carrying something heavy.
This is definitely a problem. Even with one of my current men who I think of as more 2.0 because he’s not jealous acting or needy- we were watching a program on tv and he called some woman a “whore” because she cheated on her husband. I’m thinking wait, what? Lol Because, I’m pretty sure he’s married and here we are in his hotel room about to fuck. What does that make ME? I don’t think he thinks of me as a whore but he has to know he’s not the only guy I sleep with, or does he? He actually treats me very well and not like a “whore” so IDK. It threw me off.
Then I think he’s not the jealous type at all, but men can pull the 1.0 jealousy and possessiveness seemingly out of nowhere or just in general be a control freak. He mentioned that he can read all of his “ex’s” (Im pretty sure he’s still married) texts and whatever she does on her laptop- it’s sent to his email. I said I wouldn’t like that, someone having access to all of that (look at me, trying to be independent) and he looked at me like I was flat out crazy and said “ITS MINE, I PAY FOR IT, I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT”. I didn’t argue with him, lol, but it would still bother me.
I don’t know that the chivalry and madonna/whore are necessarily intertwined. The one man I know that seems to not have any madonna/whore at all- he’s still super chivalrous. 🙂 He’s a dream, too bad HE is already taken too (but in an open relationship, or it used to be- he just got married, but he’s still definitely open to sleeping with me).
I’m not really convinced that a man like this exists.
I’ve never read such message boards. But I’ll take your word for it. I’ll assume these guys are mostly black, since “pimping” seems to be mostly a black thing.
We are not your unpaid servants (at least not until someone like Bernie Sanders becomes president).
This is called “virtue signaling.” He’s trying to throw you off of his own scent hoping to score points with you because he’s not convinced that you’re as open minded as you are, or as he’d like you to be. This is not alpha 2.0 behavior at all.
So he’s a 1.0 control freak. A 2.0 would never read a woman’s emails.
They are. It’s about the cancer of traditionalism itself. The more traditional a man shows himself to be on one issue, the more the chances go up that he’s traditional on other issues too. For many men, the way they do one thing is the way they do everything.
Then he’s one of those rare chivalrous men who is not a traditionalist when it comes to sex. But he’s the exception that proves the rule. If you want a man with no M/W, your best bet is non-chivalrous men.
I’m reasonably sure that I exist. Let me know if you want me to pinch myself and confirm it. I’m also pretty sure that BD exists.
Although they’re in the smallest minority of men, alpha male 2.0s do exist. Most of them are white, but they’re real. They’re not chivalrous though, so you’ll probably screen them out by default and then complain that they don’t exist, lol.
Traditional, thrill of the hunt alpha 1.0s. They are most prominently represented in the black community.
So the trick then is to discern what type of man you’re with. If you insist on dating only black men, then the chances of them being alpha 1.0s and “thrill of the hunt” go way up. As such, you should probably do the exact opposite of what the red pill community tells you to do because we here are trying to cultivate the exact opposite type of personality.
Much of what turns TOTH 1.0s on turns POS 2.0s off. So if you encounter a POS 2.0, be sure to do the opposite of what you normally do. But when you date blue pill men with blue pill desires, and you want to fit in to that world, this community will be of limited help to you.
This is why I get frustrated when guys in this community talk about female virgins or Disney princesses and ask how do they persuade them into bed. Sigh…..well, if you want someone from that world, you’re probably going to have to adjust to society’s rules, at least to some extent. Thank god I don’t have that problem. It’s red pill women only for me!
Really? That kind of dialogue is on pretty much every “red pill” board nowadays. And nope, they aren’t black, as black men nowadays are being taught to be beta. Most of them are white or Asian basement dwelling autistic omegas who say stuff like “MGTOW until she pays for everything. Join the revolution!”
Red pill men nowadays are more concerned with their social status than ever before, more than most blue pilled men. Don’t forget that your favorite PUA scam artist Roosh popularized the concept. The Manosphere is becoming the new feminism. You heard it here first.
Nowadays its best to take a bit of all three pills: Blue pill concepts where people are generally alright to each other, red pill concepts like never taking anyone’s word face value and that feminism is a hate group etc, and black pill concepts where there is no meaning, there is no free will, and that genetics/upbringing determine everything.
I don’t know that any of the men I sleep with would qualify as “thrill of the hunt” because they always keep wanting to have sex with me. Actually, most of the white guys I have slept with in my life have been one night stands, not the black men. Even the guy that was taking that other woman out and treating her better, would have liked to have kept having sex with me, but I cut him off. 3 months later he’s trying to apologize, but I ignore him.
Anyway, I can’t help it that I am primarily attracted to 1.0 types. They turn me on more and make me feel safer. I LIKE it when they are a bit jealous and possessive (not crazy so) and control freakish, lol. Of course, there really aren’t a lot of men in the world that would fit under the 2.0 umbrella but even the ones that supposedly do, seem like they would be too distant and not invested enough, which wouldn’t feel good to me. Plus, not chivalrous? That just sounds like a cold, unappealing relationship.
Would you fuck a guy fast if he just wanted to sit at a Starbucks or a park and talk and not buy you anything?
Yes, it’s pathetic, but it’s not because they are being “beta”.
The beta male is the guy who offers value without expecting any value in return. He pays for your dinner because he thinks that’s the only way you’ll like him.
The men expecting you to pay are the reverse; they are expecting value from you without having any to offer themselves. Those men aren’t necessarily betas, they are often young (and clueless) alphas simply trying to act the part because they don’t know any better.
Mature, emotionally-healthy people never have to have discussions about who-pays-for-what, because the value exchange is always clear and usually even. This is also why many men don’t do dinner dates when they first meet a woman; establishing maturity and emotional health can take time.
Probably not, because it would be obvious he was trying to ditch out on taking me out.
If he took me someplace fun, but free, I probably wouldn’t care.
Would you fuck a guy fast if he just wanted to sit at a Starbucks or a park and talk and not buy you anything?
Okay, now explain to me how that’s the behavior of a Submissive or Independent.
I am suspicious of men who do not pay on dates because it comes across like they are trying to AVOID giving value to a woman. Either you don’t want to give value to me because you don’t really like me that much, or its because you are beta and trying to play a game where you put me down and yourself up. Neither is appealing to me. I like men who acknowledge my value to them as a woman, beyond just sex. Spending money is how most men attribute value. It’s an easy way to gauge how he sees you.
It has nothing to do with how submissive, independent or dominant I am. I don’t know this guy well enough to be submitting to him- if I haven’t fucked him yet. I don’t go around submitting to every stranger that crosses my path. Its simply part of screening whether or not this guy is worth my time. If he’s treating me like I’m not worth much, then he isn’t going to be worth much to me either.
The prosecution rests.
I’ll let the readers decide if what you just said in the last few comments are the statements of a Dominant, Submissive, or Independent.
That’s dumb, because it has nothing to do with it. No woman goes around being submissive to every guy that she meets on a date. Every woman has to screen out men or we’d be fucking every loser on the planet.
Also, if, like you assert, I am some Alpha dominatrix chick- the guys I am dating, the Alpha 1 and 2’s, are able to melt me like butter. I’m submissive to THEM. So that kind of throws the chart out the window….
Undercover ratchet detected. You sound like the alpha 1s who “screen” chicks to see how much sex they are having. Value = Money. Got it.
That is very often how men show that they value a woman. I didn’t make up the rules. I’m just playing by them. There’s no such thing as being an undercover ratchet, lol.
It’s how Betas and 1950s-era Alphas show value. In 2016, time == money.
Generation gap. Younger women don’t think like this. They recognize that both parties are investing time to get to know each other, and do not expect anything more (other than maybe a drink or two). So a man offering to pay for dinner/whatever comes off as both unnecessary and trying too hard.
Is a man’s time investment not enough for you? Why not?
For sure, I have no research to back my claim. But when I read the typical female comments on these blogs, their posts almost always take the form of:
“This blog post doesn’t apply to me/I’m different from the other girls/I don’t date guys like that”
I honestly cannot see a reason why an independent woman would take the time to write something like that. But a dominant? Most definitely. Kate is the obvious exception here, but it seems we all agree she leans independent.
He probably went overboard with that action but that doesn’t really matter. The fact of the matter is that you were fine with it until you saw how he treated the other girl. This is what has driven the price of pussy up. Women see how well off and even average guys don’t mind splashing around money whether they are simps or not , and come to expect this type of behavior. So now not treating a woman like a princess is “walking all over her, and she is foolish for allowing it! And higher expectations is the answer of course.” :face palm:
@LG: “See, this is how I act, with men that aren’t showing any indication of investing in ME. However, when they are, I’m completely different. It’s the guy, and the way he acts towards ME that makes the difference.”
No offense, but that sounds like what a Dominant would say IMHO.
In my experience, subsimissives feel sad when they don’t get enough attention, independent women are too busy with their projects/other men they are fucking/dating to really mind and dominants get angry and/or outraged because they are not being treated “as they deserve”.
A submissive would find a way to win your attention, an independent would just shrug and don’t give a fuck until you show around -if they aren’t bored already- and a dominant would *demand* your attention or “punish” you for not giving it, by either getting back at you or taking away their own attention.
A submissive wants a king, an independent wants a male courtesan and a dominant wants a lackey until she starts hating him or gets bored with it, and would likely find a way to harm him preferrably with words.
I’ve found submissive women to be the ones that make me happier unless they are extremely submissive, because it bores me to death to interact with people who have 0 initiative; independent ones feel more like “partners” or maleish friends to me than like someone who I would like to date, even if they are hot, although I really haven’t dated many; and dominant are usually extremely attractive to me, even if they aren’t that hot physically, but they always seem to get bored when I do not submit to their ridiculous demands/drama or I don’t follow their games, they tend to piss me off also cause the ones I’ve met don’t wait to long to give me drama, and it tends to quickly skyrocket. That kills my attention.
Annnnddd….I don’t date beta men. I don’t want a “lackey”. I don’t demand anything from the men I am seeing. I simply don’t waste my time with men who aren’t my type.
Even if I am “dominant” as you all are asserting, I am not dominant in my relationships because I choose men that are more dominant than me. So it blows away the chart above, because with them I am submissive.
Like you all think I am demanding men spend money on me (which I have never done) but the men I sleep with would not say that at all. In fact, the guy that is flying me to see him again made a comment once about a woman on a dating site “demanding” he spend money on her. She made some comment about how she was “worth” it and he told her, no, she wasn’t and she got pissed. He said you are only “worth” what an individual person wants to attribute to you. He also didn’t like that she demanded something from him and I can tell you if I did that I wouldn’t be seeing him anymore. He wouldn’t tolerate it. I don’t date the type of guys that do.
Lovergirl –
You’re selectively using submissiveness as a tactic to get the behavior out of men that you want. That’s a tactic rooted in dominance.
A true submissive seeks to please everyone, pleasing other people brings her pleasure. A submissive is a reflective type, they’re happy when the other person is happy.
You’re not reflective at all. Rather, your relationship satisfaction is rooted in particular male behavior. So you’re not submissive.
HUUUUGE difference.
Only undercover ratchets would say such a thing, out of ego protection. Its just like the manosphere comparing dick sizes and laycounts. Just like they are fighting against and denying their homosexuality, you are repressing your ratchet behavior. If the ratchet belligerently denies that she’s ratchet and the omega male belligerently denies that he’s a virgin, those who are only one step above (undercover ratchets and manospherians respectively) would have the habits of denial as they come from the same pool. Ratchets learn how to look and act classier and become undercover ratchets, and omega males get over their autism and get laid some. But they both deny the lower value status because they still hold on to their ego.
If you want men to take care of you for life, just admit it. If you want to create a lifestyle that revolves around stringing along good looking betas and alpha 1s for sex and companionship, then admit it, do it, and be proud. If I I have buddies who admit to being sex negative MGTOW and don’t have an ego about it, certainly you can admit to being dominant/undercover ratchet, no?
No, actually, I’m not. That’s just how I act with men I am in relationships/sleeping with. Try telling any guy I’ve ever dated that I am dominant and they would laugh at you, lol. Or maybe they would say its because YOU are beta or submissive. Even my ex husband, would not say I was “dominant”. According to him, I wasn’t dominant ENOUGH. He said I was “too nice,” and we were married for 13 years, so….
Sure, and I’m definitely a people pleaser and happy when I make others happy.
Um, and you decided I’m not “reflective” how? Because you don’t like me disagreeing with anyone on a message board? That’s funny.
You all seem to be throwing around “dominant” like it’s some kind of personal insult, to women you don’t like, or maybe the ones you couldn’t conquer. A dominant personality is simply someone who takes control. Many dominant women would be proud to own it. Me, I don’t do that in relationships, at all.
Lovegirl have you ever met any guy that didn’t pay or just wanted to split the bill on your first date, apart from the rare extreme players, who are Alpha by the way?
Also there is no way a beta will ever think to play dumb about paying bill. Beta’s mindset is to please you so that he will get in a relationship with you. In other words, if you encountered men that took you date after date after date and paid everything they are definitely betas. An Alpha will take you few dates and will push the button of sex. So FEW means they didn’t pay enough bills for you to have sex with them(according to what you say about how you feel about the guys who don’t pay the bills). Even a 2.0 will pay for your coffee the first 2-3 dates(if just a coffee doesn’t bother you according to what you say).
In other words, you are either going out with betas(I said it again, even if they are executives and have plenty of money to spend or they are bodybuilders, it doesn’t mean they are Alphas) or you are going out with Alphas and just paid 2-3 times pre sex. Just like every other type of guy you will encounter.
And out of curiousity, how long were your relationships lasted after your marriage? And who makes the hard next? And how most of the guys react when you leave them?
Not sure whether it´s due to a generation gap but the above quote resonates with me. Generally, I value a man´s time invested in “us” or “me” much more than money and whether he´s ever bought me anything is, on its own, not even a marginal factor in deciding whether I´m going to have sex with him. I´m happy with a date in the park and talking. And careful not to give a guy the impression that he can “buy” me.
However, if I am out with a guy who is way better off than I am, he takes me to a place that turns out fancy and then wants to split the bill, I am going to think he´s stingy, not sufficiently interested in me or both.
I think (reasonable) women generally check whether you´re willing to share what you have, not how much you have. Would you want to date a stingy woman?
Hi there hey, hey. That’s a lot of questions but I will attempt to answer in brief here.
Why yes, I have. My ex husband couldn’t afford to pay for our first date (we were in college) and I split the bill with him. After that I paid for a lot of dates, because I had more money than him and I felt sorry for him. Huge mistake. He was super beta and had no drive to make money in the future either, still doesn’t.
I went on a double date not too long ago, with some guys I met at an event I was working and one of the guy’s girlfriends. The guy was really kind of shy and his friend had to ask me to come. He didn’t speak up when the paycheck came, so I offered to pay my part and there was no argument from him. This made him look even weaker to me. I paid, but never slept with him or went out with him again. He was a white guy too. Its pretty rare I date white men, but there you go…too beta to pick up the tab.
There were a couple of men from wayyyyy back before I got married, when I was still very young, who did not pay and in fact took advantage of me financially. They slept with a lot of women, and were not beta in that sense but they were male golddiggers. I avoid men like that like the plague now and I do not find it attractive in the least when I see men living off women.
A while back I was sleeping with a guy that had a lot of money and was in a poly relationship. The main woman that he was seeing lived in a house that he paid for. There was another woman that came along and was living on the lower level of the house and SHE had this loser boyfriend that was living off her like that. She had a car and he didn’t so she would drive him everywhere. She also bought him a freaking washing machine and dryer. I cannot respect a man that cannot provide for himself and lives off women. It disgusts me (and irritated the poly guy enough that he kicked him out of his house).
Someone who is “playing dumb” about a bill is a tryhard. Trying too hard to APPEAR alpha. Instead, they look foolish. THAT is beta. Not having enough money to pay to take a woman out is also beta. An alpha man can take care of himself and others if he so chooses.
I don’t know where you are getting this idea that I said a man has to pay a certain amount of bills before I have sex with him. I’ve never said that. I’ve said, repeatedly, that I don’t expect lots of dates before sex, I just expect that the man will be the one paying and not me, for whatever we do. Alpha men don’t play silly games or worry about trying to get a woman to pay for them or split bills. They just pay, because that’s what men do when they are with a woman.
I’m not attracted to beta men and rarely do I go out with them. When I do it doesn’t last long because I am turned off. I’m not someone that goes on date after date after date before sex. I am not interested in that, lol. I’ve never claimed to be. The MOST I would ever do is 3-4 dates before sex before dropping a guy because he doesn’t seem like he’s getting around to it.
I’ve slept with close to 50 men since my divorce. It’s hard to answer your question because they are all different. The longest “relationship” since then lasted about a year. Another one lasted 9 months. We were all sleeping with other people though during that time. The man that has been around the longest since my divorce, I’ve been sleeping with for about 5 years now, but he is married to someone else and it’s sporadic how often we have sex. There are a handful around that I’ve known for over a year and still have sex with sometimes.
When things end with a guy, whether it was me or him that “nexted” the other person, the guy virtually ALWAYS, at some point, attempts to get me back in his life. Like clockwork. Sometimes its a couple months down the road, sometimes its years later. Some continue making hints towards that indefinitely.
It seems to me that you are talking about super betas. The ones that have 3 women at most in their lives. I don’t talk about them because I didn’t imagine you are going out with those nerdy types at all. If we are talking about such types I imagine you understand them from the first glimpse and should avoid a date with them.
As far as the “play dumb”, I mean it as a way of screening the woman(i.e if she is a gold digger) and it is definitely not try hard or trying to take advantage of the woman. I guess you mix these guys with the scrooge ones. I can see your point for latter ones, but not for the former. Of course you will never know if you put both of them in the same bag.
Now imagine a masculine and confident man, goes out on a date with you, you feel his masculinity throughout the date, you got horny and here comes the bill and he laughs and says “are you going to pay that?” Is this guy beta to you? Forget about the gentleman BS society throws at us. Maybe you will be offended or irritated. The question remains. Is this guy beta? I don’t think so.
Also about the “next”, I meant what do they do immediately after you avoid them? Do they beg you or anything similar?
I would find that very offensive if he was serious. If he was joking it would still rub me the wrong way. I would most likely drop him like a hot potato and tell my friends the story of the asshat that asked me if I was going to pay for his dinner, after he invited me out. I would be turned off by his conceit. That’s not “alpha” nor is it “beta”. Its just horrific manners and insulting to the woman.
Still it doesn’t change the fact that the guy is Alpha. However YOU take that gesture. He simply doesn’t care. He will likely see you as a gold digger or some woman that gets offended easily and for stupid reasons and move on to the next woman(and there plenty of women who don’t find it horrific manners or insulting). Of course I’m not talking about the first date as there are very very rare occassions a man wouldn’t pay the bill.
The point is, you have your standards. But that doesn’t change the categorization of men/women. You can’t simply say “the guy didn’t pay my bill so he is beta” when he was clearly anything but. But when a guy does everything to please you from the get go it means he is a beta.
I’ve been following this exchange and I’m currently siding with hey hey. Not wanting the woman to take it for granted that you’ll pay for the date, and potentially proposing to split the bill, isn’t “an attempt to appear alpha”. Some men are just that type of egalitarian, especially in places of the world where women actually earn more than men (and in psycho places like Sweden, it’s expected, and it’s considered offensive to offer to pay). You can say that this disgusts you and is not your type, but you don’t get to decide that a man isn’t alpha just because he doesn’t follow your agenda of male-complies-with-the-animal-ritual-of offering-food-and-trinkets-to-the-female. And that bit:
is laughable, sorry. You’re redefining concepts at will lovergirl. It’s also self-contradictory, because logically any guy who was recognizeably alpha from an early age, by definition didn’t always have enough money to pay for a real date. ‘Alphaness’ is an attitude. It does imply striving for financial wellness, but an alpha suddenly losing his money isn’t gonna magically wake up the next day as a beta, and a young alpha fresh out of high school getting laid left and right isn’t “beta” because he doesn’t yet have a paying job. It’s nonsensical. You’re having a quasi-feudal view of what alpha is, defining it with financial ability. A third-world fisherman dressed in rags (with a bit of exaggeration) can be alpha. Again, it’s your right to have those particular standards, but you’ll weed these men out because they’re not your type, not because they’re “not alpha”. It’s a well-known characteristic of alphas that though they may charm the women they’re compatible with, they’ll look like assholes to the women who have different standards – and that’s the whole point: an alpha doesn’t care about rejection and knows that one woman disliking his attitude doesn’t mean his attitude isn’t alpha, but that he should move on to the next woman.
You are making the common male mistake of confusing asshole with “Alpha”. They are not one and the same. Having no class doesn’t make you “Alpha”. Being a jerk, in and of itself, doesn’t make someone “Alpha”. Are there some men who are Alpha that can also come off as a jerk? Yes. However, the top of the line, true Alpha 2.0 types don’t act that way at all. They aren’t going to smirk and refuse to pay a bill because that’s immature and not socially savvy.
One of the men I sleep with occasionally has slept with over 500 women. I don’t think anyone could ever question his “Alpha” status. He’s very cool, calm and collected and he never gets jealous. He’s also never, ever, asked me to pay for anything. He doesn’t take me out for fancy dinners but he has taken me out for drinks and he always pays for a hotel room. When my car broke down he bought transmission fluid, put it in and followed me to my destination (about an hour away) to make sure I was safe.
The job of an Alpha, in the wild, is to look out for, protect and provide for those under him. A man who is incapable of protecting and providing for women is not “alpha” by definition. There would be no point of having an “alpha” in a pack if he was just pushing away females and children and expecting them to fend for themselves.
We are only discussing the financial ability of an Alpha because BD brought it up when he asserted that I am a dominant woman for expecting men to pay on dates. Even if an Alpha male is not rich, he is not going to want to be dependent on others, and especially women, to provide for him. That, by definition, makes him beta. A leader takes control and makes sure everyone he is in charge of is taken care of. A beta expects other people to lead and take care of him.
No, i’ve said the guy was masculine made you horny and you were drooling up to the point he said that about the bill. He is an asshole(funny asshole) and an Alpha. There is a beta asshole too but clearly thats not what i described above.
But you have ridiculous standards. No it is not a man’s job to pay for any woman’s(he barely knows) bills. This is just SP and not what men must do to be real men. The whole point is for the woman not to demand from a man to pay her bills. If the man pays her bills she should be thankful and not demanding it(as a means of standard not verbally demanding it). If an Alpha understands the woman is like that and not gold digger or provider hunter he will take care of her. After he proves to him he is the special woman. Not before and right of the bat when he barely knows the girl. Your standards are simply like this: ” pay for my bills and maybe we’ll have sex”. Does this exchange remind you something?
Couldn’t agree more. Here is my problem with this blog and any others like it. They claim to be outcome independent but as soon as any of their beliefs are challenged they start throwing around labels, like Dominant, ugly, ratchet or fat. Women can do that, too. Just tell a man he’s a sissy, poor or has a small penis (when you know it’s average).
I just watched “The Mask You Live In” as well as “Miss Representation”. I don’t agree with all the messages in both movies but they definitely make you think.
The best quote in the first movie is from Joe Ehrmann. He said “Comparison is the thief of all happiness.”
Blackdragon has arbitrarily come up with a definition of Alpha 2.0 and degrades any men who haven’t achieved this level as betas, pussies or whatever. He also degrades women for their age, looks or weight. Just look at his Demi Moore post or others. Or look at how he degrades Lovergirl when she says BD’s SMV isn’t what he thinks it is.
I find that difficult to swallow. Everyone knows thats BD is a former fat guy. Fat people are like former smokers. They are zealots about it. They are constantly comparing themselves to others and their former fat shame is something they are constantly pointing out in other people.
I find it incongruent because it’s clear to me that Blackdragon is a great father, with the exception of objectifying women and PRIMARILY valuing them for their age, weight or looks. That causes anxiety in girls. Just look at the “Day in The Life” post where his daughter is asking for “tips”from his hot gold digger MLTR. It teaches them they are only valuable if they look a certain way or meet a certain weight standard. Who determines those standards? The Rules Revisited guy isn’t into older women, he prefers thin women, doesn’t have a daughter, yet when he writes to give advice to women he doesn’t throw around labels or degrade women to assert his masculinity or dominance.
But it’s deeper than that. These blogs and others like it use arbitrary standards to say that a man isn’t worthy because he’s ok with fuller figured women (even though this blog’s survey was more than 2/3rds for the hour glass shape), doesn’t earn $75,000 or whatever BOX that Blackdragon or Roosh V want to put men in.
Men are killing themselves at a rate that is 4 times that of women. These blogs create a culture that encourage bullying and preying on people’s insecurities to sell products.
“Comparison is the thief of all happiness” and since Alpha 2.0 is supposed to be about consistent happiness, it doesn’t make sense to me all the comparisons and degradation of others.
It’s my opinion gender roles are fucked in this country.
The more that blogs like this create an “us” against “them” mentality, the further we will devolve into fuckdom.
,
You realize you didn’t provide one specific example of this. If I degraded women (which I don’t), it would be easy to throw up all kinds of clear, specific, recent examples of me doing this. Instead you make a vague reference to Demi Moore, someone I haven’t talked about on this blog for over three years.
You angry women out there, please, for the love of god, stop mistaking me for Roosh. It was fun at first but now it’s getting stupid. If you don’t like him, go yell at him. Don’t read his blog then come over here yell at me for things he said that upset you. You look like an idiot when you do this, seriously. I’m not Roosh, have radically different opinions than him, and I don’t have time for your misplaced trolling. Thanks.
Also, don’t imply that what commenters say on this blog is what I say. What commenters say and what I say are two different things. Don’t equate the two. Again, thanks in advance.
@Marie
“Objectifying women” is a meaningless catch phrase that needs to die. If you’re naive enough to think that human reproduction – just like in any other mammal species – doesn’t heavily revolve around visual and age cues, and that therefore physical appearance isn’t a core factor in men’s attraction or lack of it toward women, then you’re just delusional. Men have no obligation whatsoever to be apologetic about what they are, and part of what they are is a software optimized to trigger attraction to potential mates selected partly based on age and appearance. Not their fault and not “society”‘s (that huge lie) fault. You’re also deliberately conflating “hourglass” with “fat”, two entirely different things. Anthropologists can try all they like to exaggerate cultural differences, still the vast majority of men like boobs and hips, not rolls of fat, and the individual and cultural variations do not stray from recognizeable general patterns. This is not good or fair, but it is true. Even the guy who admits to pursuing fatties didn’t deny that they weren’t as attractive as others, and the point wasn’t “shaming” him but pointing out that he could get what he admitted was better given more effort. I wouldn’t mind getting it on with a fattie if she’s cute, doesn’t change the fact that freakin’ Hannah Davis is hotter.
Somehow, if a boy has to renounce his dream job for another “because it doesn’t pay” it is considered tough love and good advice; but if a girl is told that she needs to lose weight to be more successful with men, we get dumb complaints about how men “only value women if they conform to a standard of appearance”. Men must shut up and apply the lessons when told about the unfair facts of life, but women ? Women get to complain about how men are superficial pigs.
And if men are committing more suicide than women, Marie, it’s largely because the matriarchy, not the patriarchy or a blog – and especially not this one, perhaps the blog where I’ve seen the least internet bulllying ever – is creating a world where men are castrated and depressed. Is it a coincidence that the more matriarchal countries like sweden are precisely those where male suicide is insanely higher than female suicide ? According to your view it should be the opposite. Go troll somewhere else.
I’m not. Nor did I say that what a woman earns or how intelligent she is matters. I agree that this blog is the one of the least bullying…That’s kind of like saying someone is a little bit pregnant. You either are a bully or you aren’t. Blackdragon is choosing to shame and humiliate men by calling them pussies and preying on their insecurities.
Again. No, I’m not. And if you ask a million different men what fat is they will all give a different answer of what appeals to them, especially when the swing from ideal (from a recent studies around the world) was 102-154 lbs. Guess What? I’m somewhere in between. The problem with using “fat” is NO one really knows what it means and that means its being used in a degrading rather than helpful way.
That’s WRONG. I have a HUGE problem with anyone being told they “SHOULD” do anything.
I didn’t say ONLY. YOU might think I need to lose weight. Male models, guys who are wealthy DON’T. Take a look at how many times Kim K. gets called fat (a woman Blackdragon admits he can’t take his eyes off of). They are saying it to DEGRADE her and put her in her place. She might not be a rocket scientist but she’s definitely enchanting.
Couldn’t tell you. I didn’t say that women didn’t also OWN the suicide problem, I said that men shouldn’t bully and shame to CONTROL.
I didn’t complain that men are the way they are, I said “don’t claim to be voice of moderation (Like Blackdragon does) AND then ANYTIME someone challenges you tell them it’s because they are too old, too fat or whatever.
I will answer Blackdragon’s comments, shortly.
This place is an echo chamber and you guys get CRAZY if anyone asks questions you aren’t comfortable with. On any given day, I come over here and Lovergirl is getting beat on by at least 3 of you and quite frankly, it’s hilarious and I admire her spunk. Does that mean I agree with her on everything, NO! But I can tell you that the problem with labels is NO ONE knows what they REALLY mean and using labels is another way to degrade and shove someone in a box.
OH, now I’m angry. LABELS. Opinionated While Female. You know good and well BD, that I don’t confuse you with ROOSH, so delude yourself all you want and the guys reading this.
Go ahead and read what I wrote to Gil Galad. I think it clarifies what you were asking me.
You can try to shove me and your daughter into whatever boxes you’d like, but as someone who doesn’t get the bulk of her self esteem from her looks, it’s not going to be very effective for very long.
Your entire system is based on phony baloney. That’s why the down to earth women who meet your standards give you DRAMA.
Since you were so kind to “translate” what Demi Moore meant, let me do a translation for you.
DRAMA-When men’s preconceived notions are challenged they call out DRAMA and pretend like women are the crazy ones and ALWAYS leave. BD is constantly saying all women leave because that’s we what we do.
Weren’t you the one who left your wife?
*crickets chirping”
@BlackDragon
That’s from the comments section of the SMV post.
This is the problem with you.
You complain about ASD, but I guess, I’d reply…..Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
You degrade women. Your daughter sees that example. As Abraham Lincoln said “your actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear what you SAY.”
Political correctness detected! Employing red pill countermeasures now:
Without comparison, losers will remain losers and no one will be inspired to do anything. There will be nothing left to shoot for. And everyone will be told that swimming in their own filth makes them beautiful and special. Comparison is the thief of all politically correct delusions.
I know it can be hard for a person to admit that they’re a loser when they compare themselves to others, but that comparison, while painful at first, is the first step towards long term happiness.
What you call degradation, I call inspiration, or tough love. You interpret things the way losers do. Consequently, losers never improve because being told to improve is “hate speech” as it “hurts their precious self esteem.”
If people like you ran the world, we’d still be in Africa swinging from trees and throwing our own excrement at each other!
A man’s sexual preferences are innate. Finding someone sexually disgusting is a perfectly legitimate opinion. If you choose to think like a loser by calling it “degradation” that’s your choice, but you’ll never achieve anything in life.
The above attitude which you condemn is the source of all self improvement in this world. The above attitude which you condemn is what builds bridges, invents cars, airplanes, computers, the Internet, and literally everything else.
If people thought like you, even toilets would have never been invented because you “shouldn’t degrade the forest.” “You should be happy with what you have because comparison is the thief of happiness.” HAHAHA!!! Get the fuck out of here!
There is no such thing as “objectifying women.” That is a completely mythical mental construct invented by obese lesbians. It does not exist in reality. It is a false, politically correct, interpretation of male attitude perpetuated by depressed women who, from Darwin’s point of view, would be referred to as “genetic garbage.”
Hot women (i.e. the sexual winners) never complain about being “objectified.” In fact, if men were to stop “objectifying” them, they would lose all of their power over men. Imagine these hot women no longer being able to get beta men to do what they want by simply sticking out their chests or flipping their hair, because betas were to start taking feminist doctrine seriously. The hot women would declare war against feminism and burn you at the stake.
The only women who feel “objectified” are those who can’t control men – the ugly ducklings who lament men’s lack of interest in their “beautiful souls.” HAHAHA!!! So they want hot women to get rid of their own privilege to spare the feelings of genetic garbage.
As a wise man once said: “Feminism is a sexual trade union which demands, through tax payer dollars, an equal share of the money which men voluntarily bestow upon hot women to be allocated to the less worthy.”
Saying that a man should primarily value a woman for her personality is an inherently bisexual statement. Men have awesome personalities too. Am I a bigot for refusing to have sex with them? Or do looks matter?
The only way your feminist utopia can work is in a world where heterosexuality is abolished (which is the ultimate goal of radical feminism).
Irrelevant!
Every human being must take ownership of their own emotions. Emotions cannot be given to another person. Emotions can only be voluntarily felt by a specific person for reasons which are their own.
I do not cause anxiety in girls. Those girls choose to feel anxiety due to their specific personalities, while other girls, with different personalities, don’t feel anxiety at all, despite being exposed to the same thing.
Bottom line – your feelings of anxiety mean less than shit to me! You own them! Not me! Change yourself. Change your interpretation of things. Reframe! Or go see a therapist and cry! I don’t care what you do! But don’t you dare insist that I change something about myself because of the tears of the weak!
Instead, the weak should be told to become strong. If they can’t, then evolution will separate the wheat from the chaff and our species will evolve into something beautiful.
Please don’t hinder evolution with your “feelings above truth” nonsense! Ideas like yours lead to censorship and the destruction of free speech for the sake of the weakest evolutionary links among us. And I’d rather live in a free country!
Correct! They are only sexually valuable if they meet a certain weight standard or look a certain way. Once they meet those standards, other things, like personality, start to matter. But if they haven’t even met the minimum standards for sexual attractiveness, the only thing they can ever hope for is platonic friendship from men.
To want some different is to demand that everyone become a bisexual, or an androgynous asexual (see above).
Nature.
Heterosexuality
Biology
DNA programming
Beauty is symmetry!
BD doesn’t degrade women either. Again, your interpretations are not the interpretations of one of life’s winners. And every time women like you discourage the assertion of masculinity and dominance, you are discouraging the existence of female heterosexuality, because female heterosexuality is precisely triggered by the assertion of male masculinity and dominance!
These standards aren’t arbitrary. Thinking they are just makes the weak feel better. When a man is sleeping with an obese woman, nine times out of ten, it’s because he can’t do any better, or because he has low self esteem.
Because of women like you who teach our sons that masculinity is “toxic” and male heterosexuality is “objectification.” Boys are being taught to hate themselves by people like you and your solution is to tell boys, “you shouldn’t be ashamed of being feminine, it’s okay. You don’t have to kill yourself. Just be feminine without shame.” And then when women’s vaginas dry up like the Sahara desert and these boys complain, they are told to “check their entitlement” and that they shouldn’t “objectify women” by wanting sex with them!
People like you are the child abusers and you provide more of the same garbage medicine for a cure, instead of just letting boys be masculine, even if it means some weaklings will get their feewings hurt.
HAHAHA!!!!
Blogs don’t create a culture! Jesus, stop being such an SJW!
Tough love, inspiring.
And to help them. Preying on insecurities provides an opportunity to help people with those insecurities!
Because you’re a politically correct SJW with “special snowflake syndrome.”
Which is the only way winners win and happiness is allowed to flourish. You try to please everybody and you’ll end up pleasing nobody.
The harsh fact of life that you haven’t learned yet is that someone always has to lose in order for there to be any happiness at all!
Please drop your PC feel good horseshit and take the red pill!
@Marie:
I never said “should”, or not in the sense you understood. It goes like this: dear girl who thought shaving her head or gaining fifty pounds was cool, I respect your choice, but IF you’re interested in heterosexual men, then that appearance is largely suboptimal in attracting them, and it’s not because of “patriarchal brainwashing” or “fascist esthetics” but because men are what they are, and a species is what it is. There is no “should”, there is no law enforcement – god forbid -, there is only a piece of free information I’m handing you: if you want this, that is what’ll get you there.
For the rest, we don’t have a huge disagreement so I’ll leave it there.
@Jack:
Dude we have our differences, but you come up with lines that are really dangerous for the integrity of my ribs. I’m saving this one along with the “sexually frustrated suicide bomber”, totally using them as soon as I get the chance to insult someone, LOL
Jesus Christ, Jack I get why you are saying what you’re saying, but I read you and BD is constantly tell you to switch to decaf and how you’re an alarmist for saying men will be arrested for soft nexting. You are extreme. I enjoy it. It makes me think.
I’d debate you point by point but the fact of the matter is, you did nothing but call me a loser and alluded to many other things that aren’t what I said. If you want to believe I’m an obese, loser lesbian. That’s fine.
Well obviously because you say it’s true. It must be.
My biggest belief in life. Failure isn’t getting knocked down. It’s not getting back up.
I’m the kind of person that is continually trying to improve myself.
I’m more accomplished on paper than a lot of men my age. That doesn’t make me superior, though.
I will get plastic surgery to improve my looks for myself, to maintain my current looks and to be more appealing overall.
I understand the realities of this world
I’m tired from your tirade and want to go enjoy the fireworks.
I will be back though.
@Gil Galad
Read what I said above about plastic surgery. I don’t delude myself about anything when it comes to the reality of life.
You guys are mad I questioned your hero and instead of engaging me, he just called me a troll like the rest of you.
Again, DRAMA….When men don’t like what you have to say.
By the way Marie, you’re fixating on this drama thing, and you’ve got it wrong. There is a very specific definition of drama on this blog, and it’s not “when women challenge a man’s beliefs” or whatever. There are several women on this blog who regularly comment and with whom I and other men disagree and discuss at length with no big problems arising, and we are not calling this “drama”.
Your initial comment contained a plethora of accusations either ridiculously exaggerated or flat-out wrong, “degrades any men who haven’t achieved this level as betas, pussies or whatever. He also degrades women”, “bullying and preying on people’s insecurities”, the absurdity of putting BD and Roosh in the same sentence (still laughing about this one, it sounded like talking about “the dangers of protein and cocain”), the completely fallacious conclusion drawn from the body shape poll AND the suicide rates, the simplistic “BD is a former fat guy, implies: he’s doing the fat-shaming ex-fat guy thing”, the utterly wrong understanding of what alpha 2.0 is about and how it “degrades” betas and alpha 1.0, etc. No wonder you got a heated reaction, which other women on this blog, including when they strongly disagree, did not.
That, and you’re too essentialist about what’s bullying and what’s not. These are a matter of degree rather than kind. Just like you tried to suggest that individual conceptions of an ideal body vary, individual perceptions of what’s “bullying” and what’s just being opinionated/snappy etc can vary, and one can’t just cater to all sensitivities just to avoid conflict. I’m not aware that anything on this blog is of the “bullying” kind, and judging from your own standards for what bullying is, we’d have a pretty authoritarian society if you were in power indeed.
@JACK
one last thing. Since women like me are responsible. What do we do to change it? I’ll take that mantle up. I’ll do something. What you said above is so wrong in how I behave it’s not even funny.
So Jack, I want men to stop killing themselves at a rate that’s 4 times what women do. I agree there are certain realities. But I recently watched the Ted talk Confessions of a Depressed Comic. He doesn’t mention anything about masculinity and he doesn’t seem the type to be considered a loser.
Neither were the men in my life that I lost.
So I ask you….Depression. Suicide. HOW do we make it FUN?
I’m a cursing smart ass for sure.
An angry woman. At times, but mostly I just empathize too much.
Still haven’t heard a decent answer from ANY of you of where is the balance or line, between striving for greatness vs completely overcompensating for past failures that make us feel bad?
Comparison is good. It’s also a detractor for Happiness. WHERE are the lines in all of this?
At what point is not listening to what other men expect from you ok?
If Alpha 2.0 is all about consistent happiness, how do you determine when’s enough? When can you stop living up to the expectations of comparison?
To find an example of me “degrading” women, out of thousands of comments I’ve made here the best you can find is me saying that small boobs turn me off.
If you have any actual points to make (which I doubt), just let me know. Otherwise have fun with your irrational rants.
@Blackdragon
I was harsh when I came in. That was something I was paying you to help me with. Instead I got email tirades about how I wasn’t going to be socially accepted because I was too fat. I told you that I lifted weights for years, you NEVER saw a picture of my body, yet you just kept going. I felt cheated out of a minimum of 10 days of coaching I paid you for because you lost it over this issue.
That comment wasn’t something I dug for.While it might appear I have read every word you’ve written, I haven’t. I just have a good memory.
You are correct that the comments about how hot could Lovergirl be with all the children she’d had and they asked if she had a C-section, you didn’t pile on with those commentators.
Where is the line for women as objects? You must think it’s your daughter and I can say, I don’t blame you. On multiple occasions when you and I were interacting, you compared me to your daughter. Every woman on the planet is someone’s daughter.
You brought this on yourself by having different standards and reactions when I questioned the direction we were headed while I was paying you to advise me. This email that I’m commenting with, it’s my casual sex email. You know who this is. ANYTIME you want this to end, YOU just need to send HARD NEXT to my personal email. I will never look back. I think I’ll be the 3rd woman you’ve done it to.
How many times did I have to follow up to get you to sign an NDA? How many times did you exceed the timeframe for responding?
I was definitely affected negatively by your own perceptions. My business? The guarantee applies to BOTH men and women, not just women. Because I don’t think men should treated differently.
You have made me completely Unemployable and I’m grateful, but I know that if someone disagrees with you, you DOUBLE DOWN on your opinions, rather than consider them. You also tried to imply that I DOUBLE DOWN on weird. Guess what? I give all men RESPECT until they insult my intelligence and show me disrespect. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you did not do the same for me.
I was honest from the get go, told you that your mind was brilliant and hoped to know one another for a very long time, didn’t care how. I don’t need to CONTROL anyone. I will raise questions because I AM NOT A SHEEP.
I think you played games because of your ALPHA 2.0 system. I was paying you to help and you couldn’t really call me on the things I truly needed to be called on.
I’ve never made less than $80,000, since the age of 21. That doesn’t make me a special snowflake, it makes me a woman who busts her ass and sacrificed to achieve that.
Where is the line? If it’s you daughter, I don’t think anyone would think that’s unreasonable.
You always say that if we locked men in a room, away from their moms, wives or girlfriends, they would admit to things that are the truth. I’m sure that’s true.
I wonder what would happen, if I locked all the women you’ve been involved with in a room. I wonder what they would say? I think they would tell me you are a very good man, but they have felt anxiety or shame over their appearance because of your fixation.
Don’t change if you don’t want to, but I know how my father’s issues with his weight affected me. Him referring to himself as a fat ass gave me massive amounts of shame and anxiety.
You guys can do whatever you’d like, but don’t behave in ways that cause issues with women and then act like it’s OUR problem.
You want more women to accept and embrace this lifestyle and these conditions?
Give us the benefit of the doubt when we come in here and want to know how men really think. That’s why we are here.
Treat us the same way you’d treat your daughter, if you were wanting to change her mind.
I’m finished and unless someone wants to truly give some great insight, I won’t be back.
I went out on a limb for you, and now here you are, throwing a creepy tirade on my blog.
What you’re doing here is grossly unprofessional and a little creepy. This blog is a place to discuss ideas. It isn’t a place to air your irrational personal issues, with me or anyone else. Any more comments about your personal opinions of me will be deleted. If I have to delete more than one comment, you’ll be banned. Any email you send me about this will be deleted unread, since I don’t do drama. I hope you get the help you need and wish you the best.
That’s enough of a HARD NEXT for me.
Thank you
You needn’t worry about me ever coming back.
I’m breaking my frame and coming back here to apologize.
I’ve decided to write my apology using a 4 step copywriting formula.
Step 1. What I’ve got for you
An apology to Jack and whoever else I was dismissive of when I disagreed with Blackdragon.
Step 2. What it’s going to do for you
Perhaps nothing, but I wanted you to know that it was wrong for me to respond with bullying when I felt bullied by Blackdragon and the collective group of men here as a whole.
Step 3. Who am I?
To some of you, I’m a fat psycho bitch. To others, I have no idea who I am to you. In reality I’m no one special. I’m just another person pursuing the American Dream to live the kind of life I want to live. Blackdragon called me unprofessional. Rather than defend myself, I’ll just own it. I shouldn’t have behaved the way I did.
4. What you need to do
I encourage you to speak your truth and constantly compare yourself to yourself and your own strengths/capabilities. I encourage you to live your life the way you want to live it. I encourage you to be unemployable. If a “fat psycho bitch” can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that she never has to work for “The Man”, you can do it, too. “The Man” is corporate America and he has way too much influence on our day to day lives. I encourage you to be crazy. Those who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, normally do.
I won’t be back because Blackdragon has made it clear I’m not welcome, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong on everything.
Now, I’m going to be weird and tell all the men reading this something really out there.
I love you (yes, even you, Jack) and all your spirit and I want to see how you all can change and impact the world. Even if it’s just your own world.
“but woman soon becomes the man in the relationships and hates it”
If it’s a beta with a submissive woman, basically the least submissive of the two will take the manly role.
It’s not granted to be the woman. I’d say “but IF the woman becomes the man…”
————————-
“Or she will be verbally dominant / aggressive in her tone and things she says, even if she’s smiling/laughing while she says it. Another tell is that Dominants become irritated very easily, either with something you do or say”
She grows irritated very very easy specially when you reply to her in kind, using the same tone, the same reasoning and logic, she just used.
Tip: reject her before she leaves first: she’s not used to that, and will always remember it with annoyance.
It’d be nice to get a chart like this one on on male-male friendship. I am an independent (synonym for “Alpha 2.0) male, and have to say I absolutely cannot stand dominant men either.
Of course, you know this. But ceding to a little of against-women bias never hurts does it.
———————-
“There’s no way in hell a narcissist could be in a relationship with zero drama.”
Maybe only one. If the play drama as professional actors, maybe that’s enough as a vent?
Incorrect. Or at least that has not been my experience or observation. 100% 0f the time I’ve seen two submissives get into a relationship, the woman eventually takes charge. I’ve never seen a man do it.
@Blackdragon After a break up and hard NC, how do you handle the dominant and submissive woman when they start to text you again? You will probably tell us to avoid the dominant woman, but what about the submissive if you want to get back in a relationship or to have her as a FB?
What to do if you want the to have the dominant woman as a FB after relationship?