"A modern woman not firmly under the control of a responsible adult man will tend to devolve into a bonobo-like state." - Sunshine Mary
When I was about 16 years old a friend and I were at a small party when a 15-year-old girl (with huge tits) pretended she was passed-out drunk because she wanted both of us to have sex with her. We looked at each other, then shook our heads, even though we were pretty high and it was tempting. In those days it was called "pulling a train" and we knew girls who did it - six or seven guys in a row.
Even at that age I knew some girls were extraordinarily promiscuous and that their sexual desires could be base and animalistic. Even then I knew that once women got away from the authority of responsible men this is what they'd do. I was beginning to wonder, "Exactly who are the real barbarians here?"
I once had a 13-year-old girl decide to wanted to lose her virginity to me when I was 17. I declined that one, too. I actually had her clothes off when she finally told me she was 13 (at first she said she was 16 - and looked it) I stopped cold when she told me her true age. After that we were friends for a few years, until I moved away to college. To some degree she started to see me as a father figure - which is when I started to figure out that, just possibly, some of these girls had problems with their fathers.
There were other girls that offered. One was 14, three were 15. I had one of those 15-year-olds tell me that when her mother asked where she had been, she answered, "Out fucking."
I've never had to take the "Red Pill" or "Unplug from the Matrix." Not the way I was raised. These guys today babbling their Manosphere lingo...soft and inexperienced, with fantasies of being James Bond and picking up girls with cheesy lines.
This is why I laugh when posters try to scold me when I mock frauds like "Roissy" and "Vox Day". They're fine when they talk about anything but women and sex. Love? They don't know what it is (by the way, I've been in love three times).
"Alpha." "Dark Triad." "Five minutes of Alpha is worth 50 years of Beta." "Shit tests." I laugh some more. Who came up with this simple-minded comic-book crap?
People tell me "things are different today." You think so? My 81-year-old father told me when he and a friend of his were 13 they'd walk down the street and the whores would call to them from their windows. They'd go up there and just talk to them. The girls would tease them. He said it "was fun." (I've known several hookers, too, and used to run them around at night when I owned a taxi.)
By the way, my father was extremely popular with women and he was 5'6" - he just happened to be nearly movie-star handsome. I didn't inherit it.
You really think things have changed? Heinlein was right.
Women are not irresistibly drawn to "Dark Triad Alphas." Some of the more trashy are, the kind you want to stay away from before their ex-con boyfriends break your jaw, the way one did to a friend of mine when we were 18 (I was in a bar when that particular guy shot a guy several times, killing him. He got a bullet in the head, which spun around inside his skull and left him alive.) But the average woman, no.
But you know how it is - there's a sucker born every minute. And a con man, too.
In reality, there is no telling what a woman likes in a man.
"Alpha Fux and Beta Bux." Make me laugh some more. All those girls I knew in high school did get married - to guys like themselves. None of them did the "Alpha Fux/Beta Bux." And none of them got the "provisioning" and "cash and prizes."
When women are allowed to do what they want, many will become promiscuous. They won't be attracted to "Alphas" and then settle for "Betas." The kind of guys they'll be attracted to will be all over the map.
Ever seen a whore who'd only have sex with "Alphas"? A really promiscuous woman? Nope.
I got to know several groupies when I owned a taxi. None of them were attractive, and they were sluts who'd have sex with football players, rock stars, hockey players. Not because they were "Alphas," but because the girls were complete and utter losers, and by being with those famous rich guys for half-an-hour, they actually felt they were recogised, attractive and wanted and alive (the correct term for these women is "narcissistic," not "solipistic," which is a philosophical concept).
As for what the average woman is attracted to, I knew one who was only attracted to tall, slender guys. Another, only blonds. Another, beards (that one told me when she died she wanted to be buried standing up with a glory hole in the headstone). I also had a relative who was attracted to a guy at a bar because of his Lincolnish stove-pipe hat. She ended up marrying him. But "Alphas" only? Never seen it. Neither have my friends. Not once.
No one can define what an "Alpha" is, anyway. The definitions are all over map, which means there isn't one. It's just personal preference, a fantasy projected onto reality.
I've been told they're narcissists, psychopaths, murderers, rapists, bombers who murder little kids, natural leaders, men who are good-looking and naturally popular with women, men who are trying to be the best they can be (the only definition that works)...just all over the map.
And as for woman being greedy, disloyal back-stabbing whores incapable of love... you can say the same thing about a number of men.
When I was in college I took a class, the name of which I don't remember. I was taught that men see woman as Beauty Objects and women see men as Success Objects, and that women were cooperative and men competitive. Even then I was a bit dubious about that (actually, more than once I thought, "What the fuck? Get you head out of your ass!" Experience trumps theory every time.)
Let's put it this way: it's men who try to use the "best genetic material" to have sex with, not women. And it's men who cooperate, which is why we have civilization. Since women don't cooperate with each other, and instead are envious and competitive, it's one of the reasons they destroy everything they touch.
Men do see women as Beauty Objects but it's not as if every idiot goes drooling after the most beautiful women. Couples almost always end up with someone who about the same in looks and intelligence.
And as for Success Objects, when women were not hired as anything except teachers and nurses, they had to make sure a guy could support her and a family. Of course they had to judge them on their material success.
What is a Success Object, anyway? What a woman defines as successful...therefore she's attracted to him. He grows a successful beard...she likes him. He's successfully tall...she likes him. He's successfully funny...she likes him. He fails with cheesy pick-up lines and ridiculous negs...she doesn't like him.
And yes, confidence does go a long way. But "insanely confident"? Be my guest. I'll call the ambulance for you when you get your ass kicked up in-between your shoulder blades.
The Manosphere, in its desperate attempt to hold onto its ideas, claims that when women do want they want, they'll all go after "Alphas" because they "hate Betas" and will even share "Alphas" as a "soft" harem. This belief is what happens to men who have very little experience in life, so they memorize simplistic bad ideas because it makes them think they've got the Keys to the Kingdom. Reality is a lot more complex.
About a year ago, I suppose, I read a book, What Do Women Want? by Daniel Berger. Lo and behold, it confirmed my experience!
In it he wrote this: "Well, I guess the first thing to say is how struck I was by the distance between reality and the fable that we’ve been taught most recently by evolutionary psychology, that is, that men are driven to spread their seed and women, by comparison, are more driven to find one good provider, and that, therefore, while men are very poorly suited to monogamy, women are much better suited to monogamy. But that just really doesn’t stand up when you look at the science. The science behind that is flimsy, circular. And the science, when you look at it clearly, that stands in opposition to that is actually fairly strong — still emergent, but fairly strong. And so, that was the first thing that was so striking to me."
Understand that? Unconstrained female sexuality is ravenous and promiscuous, and such women don't seek "Alpha Fux and Beta Bux." They fuck anyone they like, and I noticed that when I was 16 years old - because I was one of the objects of their wants. And guess what? It was no big deal, because I was just one of many.
How would it make you feel to know you were one of thirty? Who's really the disposable Sex Object here?
How's that for "Alpha"? That is, not at all. I'm not an Alpha. In high school I was, if anything, a long-haired, pot-smoking, science-fiction reading, hippie-nerd who partied a lot. I looked like Garth Algar. Today, I'd be playing video games and programming computers.
For that matter, I will mention again women can't be that naturally promiscuous and "shit-test" men at the same time. They also can't be attracted to Bad Boy bikers and rich, handsome "Alphas" simultaneously, unless there really are wealthy, tattooed, meth-dealing, bike-riding George Clooneys out there.
My experience has been women's sexuality is far more narcissistic than men's. In fact, I have found women in general to be far more narcissistic than men, which is another reason they're a clusterfuck and whack everything they get involved in.
This is dangerous stuff. It's why all societies have repressed women's sexuaity. Because unleashed, it'll bring down society.
That is just about the only thing the Manosphere has gotten right. The rest is fantasies, cherry-picking, fallacies of composition, and misinterpreting studies.