By J. DeVoy
Sex is the only reason anybody does anything. Wars have been fought over women, great men have mutilated themselves over them, and men generally acquire money, power and status to increase their desirability and ability to obtain sex. Sure, there’s the benefit of money, fame and the respect of the community, but traditionally sex has been part and parcel of high social standing.
Generally, men who have high standing, thus high desirability and many reproductive options, are the highest ranking males – alphas. Some men are born this way. For everyone else, there are tools to address three major areas that communicate alpha status: body language, psychosocial dominance (game), and status.
Starting with body language, this is a good example of alpha body positioning.
Note the arms calmly at the subject’s sides – not fidgeting or folded out of insecurity. Moreover, the arms and shoulders are thrust slightly back, chest out, unafraid of a potential attack. Legs are at shoulder width, with one foot pointed out at about 45 degrees. As Roissy notes, this pose is nearly identical to Michelangelo’s David.
Beta body behavior is markedly different.
Note the chubby cheeks and deference to his woman. His head is in her lap, for chrissakes! Is this a leader of men? Someone to be trusted with contentious and high-stakes legal matters? No.
Another example:
Chuck Ross has previously discussed the unforgivable betatude of Eminem. In this picture, he’s gripping his famously unfaithful wife, Kim, not once but twice, pulling her as close as he can. These dual death grips symbolize his tenuous grip on Kim’s interest and need to hold on to her at all times, lest she jump onto some other man (again). This also debunks the myth that outwardly successful men can’t be beta – yes, they can.
Next, there is the element of psychosocial dominance, commonly referred to as game. Many people write about game and its application in practical, nuts-and-bolts and, most importantly, free fora across the internet. Books, the best among them being The Mystery Method and Savoy’s Magic Bullets, have been written instructing men how to interact with others and project this dominance in all its forms. At its core are two principles: be cool and interesting.
A similar system exists for women. The most effective man-landing and keeping techniques I’ve ever seen are routinely discussed at Girl Game, which promotes the femininity of women, the importance of cooking, and the need for balance between affection and discretion. This is superior to women who promote using sex alone as a way to land men, or using the dated, boner-killing “rules” promulgated by used up divorced harpies that drive away men faster than having the name Lorena Bobbitt.
Finally, and most importantly for young people, there is the issue of status. Status is the most easily malleable of these factors for young people; they cannot unlearn years of feminization in private schools and higher education. Similarly, they cannot grow several inches or develop facial symmetry without significant surgery. Thus, people looking to expand their options look to increase their status through accumulating degrees, fame, money and other forms of social capital.
It’s no surprise to anyone that the United States is becoming more liberal. The election of Barack Obama and the panoply of entitlements he rode in on, such as universal health care, is just another exhibit in the inexorable conclusion that each generation is more liberal than the last. Among young unmarried people, liberal ideas are more popular than conservative ones, and hold the key to broad social acceptance. Young people, especially young men, will flock to the liberal dogma of political correctness, diversity and environmentalism in order to enhance their social status. As a result, fewer people will be able or inclined to discuss competing viewpoints on pressing issues, dismissing any discussion of them as racism, classism or ignorance, even when the facts upon which they rely are called into question. Worse, these same isms may be invoked to shout down others’ discussion of social problems in the face of controversial and emergent science in areas like genetics.
The reason adopting liberal intolerance for discourse likely confers status is clear from the presidential election’s results – more than three quarters of unmarried women voters went for Obama. Even men who decry and question the relevance of the alpha/beta distinction are likely to fall in this trap through nice guy syndrome. As some women can attest, nice guys are seldom nice, but passive aggressive weenies who label themselves as feminists and spew what they think women want to hear in an attempt to win their sexual favor. Ultimately this fails; these supposedly nice guys ironically blame women for their solitude, but not without furthering their interests for an indeterminable period of time beforehand.
For either reason, the public debate democracy relies upon to thrive and solve its problems is undermined. People are ostracized for pointing out unpopular but scientifically tenable information. Discussion of these ideas is pushed into the nether realms of pseudonymity – there’s a reason Roissy and Ferdinand Bardamu write under pen names – or anonymity. However, the P.C. mongers who create such an inhospitable environment for intellectual discourse then discredit these ideas because they emerged in an incubator where nobody will attach his or her name to such controversies. I would applaud this politicking as brilliant if the collateral effect on society, progress and civil discourse wasn’t so detrimental. In the end, though, it’s all about sex. As long as these white knights of rightthink are rewarded with sex, or think they will be, it will be impossible to move beyond this paradigm.
