Category Archives: alpha
I wanted to specifically address the issue of whether knowledge and interaction with women bring unique insights and wisdom. I will work off of some posts Novaseeker has made at three blogs on the subject.
I agree that throwing out women wholesale is not the best approach. I do think there are some people in the MRA-sphere who are inexperienced with women and so on. However, many of us are NOT inexperienced with women, have been married to women, fathered children with women and so on. To paint all of us with one brush (and I know you had a tiny disclaimer in there in a wall of text) is dumb. Inaccurate and dumb.
Agree completely. My only question to Nova, (a wise, well read, excellent writer and thinker and really smart guy, someone who I suspect has more wisdom than I do I might add) is does he think he gained wisdom and valuable insight from being married?
One more question…
If all MRAs had little or no personal experience with women would their collective wisdom be greater or smaller?
I think its obvious. Men like Welmer, Nova, and Elusive Wapiti bring more wisdom to the table with regard to mens issues not less. Sure I can speak to marriage and divorce, but not with the insights and authority they can. After all, I’ve never been married or divorced.
But the more important problem with your post is that it equates knowledge of relating to women with “wisdom”. That’s inane. Yes, knowledge of interacting with women is nice to have if you want to interact with women, as most of us do. But does it make us wise? Gosh, that’s one of the silliest things I’ve ever read. Wisdom follows from many things, but understanding how women work and how to relate to them is not one of them.
First I’ll state that many experiences in life bring wisdom. Especially endeavors that test virtue and resolve or require hard work and discipline. Let me use a few examples. Lets take two typical 30-year-old guys. Identical in every way. IQ, values, upbringing, physical attributes, job, education…blah blah blah…except for one thing. One guy served 2 tours in a war zone and the other guy has zero military experience. Who would probably possess more wisdom?
How about the same two guys, but one of them had successfully battled cancer?
How bout the same two guys but one has 10 friends and the other has 0?
How about if one of them is married and has 2 children?
The last example is what I am getting at. I submit that everything being equal, the married with kids guy is probably going to have more wisdom than the single guy. I say this as a single guy myself. Living with another human being, and all it entails, bring valuable insights. Children within marriage, (necessitates interaction and some understanding of women) bring wisdom.
How bout the same two guys, but one of them has had 5 girlfriends and the other has had zero?
I believe, again, everything equal, the guy with 5 girlfriends is going to probably have more wisdom. Relationships, great or terrible, provide keen insights into human interaction. I know I’ve learned from them. I learned a lot about myself. Both my good and bad qualities were more easily recognized.
What I’m trying to get at is that HUMAN interaction, for most people, brings wisdom. I tend to think a car salesman would generally be more wise in the ways of the world than a guy who works the graveyard shift at a warehouse. The former, if he has any curiosity or self awareness,would be able to offer all sorts of tidbits and observations on the human condition which the latter probably couldn’t.
Human interaction doesn’t just bring knowledge, it can bring wisdom as well. I know some not so well educated types who possess much greater wisdom than the college educated ivory tower intellectuals wandering around. The former’s insights come from human interaction, not reading. (Reading can of course provide wisdom though.) I think this is obvious and I don’t see why interaction with women would be any different.
Luckily, all things aren’t equal. For instance, I have two married friends. One is incredibly insightful while the other is as dull as a rusty butter knife. Even though the latter has many experiences I can’t relate to, I consider myself wiser than he is. My other experiences, taken as a whole, trump his.
It is also possible to be wise in some areas and not others. I know a leftist like this. In matters of business and personal relationships he is dynamite. When talking politics he has all the insight of a 10-year-old girl. Trite wouldn’t even begin to describe it.
One of my best friends has very little experience with women. Giving him advice on the subject is, for the most part, futile. When it comes to the ladies, he sucks. That being said, he is one of the most stand up guys I have ever known. I’d go to the gates of hell for him. He is also really astute in other areas. He is deep and philosophical. I value his opinions. With women I have more wisdom, but on other things, he does. I also would say,on balance, he is more valuable to society than I am despite my advantage with women.
One last example. A friend of mine from years ago was solidly an alpha. Going out with him always meant getting stuck with the second best. In some cases, if he was feeling particularly greedy, the third best. Despite his ability with women( and his awareness of the reason for his success) he wasn’t all that profound in other areas. I had him beat. Another friend of ours, completely inexperienced with women, was Benjamin Franklin compared to him.
Some fairly fine philosophers, theologians, scientific and artistic geniuses were celibates, or more or less celibate. The notion that “unless you’re getting laid, you’re a failure at everything else in life, and everything you say is worthless” is therefore beyond stupid — it doesn’t reflect historical reality. It’s dismissive and divisive and is precisely the kind of carping that we men of various strands need to avoid.
Agree on all counts. Particularly the last sentence. I have no desire to call out anyone’s chosen lifestyle.
The idea that a man’s relative success (or lack thereof) with women is the fundamental measure of his manhood…
Well I guess in animal terms it could be argued that way. I don’t think, (or at least really hope not) humans are solely animals though. I would hope I have as much value as Silvio Berlusconi. Heh. Seriously though, I agree with him. I think integrity, honor, and decency are much more vital to being a man than how many pussies a guy has plundered. Ahh, if only integrity and honor made the gina tingle.
, or, even worse, the most important area of his life
In a perfect world I believe marriage and raising children would be the most important thing in most men’s lives. Again, I say this as a single guy with no kids. Even in that perfect world though there would be many single men who contribute mightily to society. In our far from perfect world, it would be a bad idea to blindly follow the marriage/children model. Conditions on the ground have changed and men should act accordingly.
If that means the pursuit of a wife or even a girlfriend isn’t the most important thing, fine by me. Plenty of ways to contribute to society, grow as a person, and live a contented life.
is precisely the kind of over-reaching extremism I criticized over at Chuck’s and at Gantt’s. I am a supporter of men learning Game, as you know, but sentiments like that one are just plain silly.
I’m not sure if he is addressing my position specifically, or ideas he has an issue with in general. If it’s the former I will just say that I sure don’t feel extreme.
To sum up…
Relationships and marriage generally bring wisdom.
There is more than one path to wisdom.
Marriage and children are vital for a strong and vibrant civilization.
Every man being married and having children is not vital for a strong and vibrant civilization.
A mans inherent value isn’t predicated on his ability with women.
Success with women, although I believe it usually brings wisdom, is morally neutral.
There is more than one path to being a decent man who lived a life worth living.
Obsidian, a thoughtful and effective Game advocate left this comment at Ferdinand’s yesterday. I thought I would respond because I disagree with him, both in tone and substance.
Now, before you or anyone else starts howling, lol, lemme also say, that I find the MRA cause to be legit-I just think that some of their tactics, of which bashing Game is one, is woefully offbase.
Too broad a brush. Most MRAs seem to be fine with Game. If I am right, then it is hardly one of “their” tactics. I have no problem if he wants to defend Game from the few MRAs (or anyone else for that matter) who attack it. I do agree that a few MRAs were offbase with regard to their criticism of Game.
If these guy are really serious about making structural changes, again I say they should be involved in the political process, lobbying their Senators and Congressmen, among other things.
Who says they aren’t? I have all sorts of passionate positions, but I’ll be honest, I don’t email congressmen. Why? Because its largely ineffective. MRA is in its infancy. Changing as many hearts and minds as possible is about the only effective strategy right now in my view. Politicians aren’t leaders, at best they are followers.
Now take Glenn Sacks-he’s an MRA that I got mad respect for. He doesn’t spend his time breaking on Playas-instead, he devotes his time to doing just what I said above-lobbying lawmakers, bringing awareness to MRA issues and getting facetime to make his case before a wider public. If all these “opponents” of Game and supposed champions of MRA, HBD and Western Civ are really serious, all they need do is look to Glenn Sacks-he’s shown them the way. They don’t even need to reinvent the wheel.
Agreed. Most MRAs would agree as well I suspect. I know I certainly like his style.
Now personally, I don’t see the MRA movement making any major legal/political headway anytime soon, and for many of the reasons you’ve written about Nova, among other bloggers.
Agreed. So what? I write and discuss all sorts of things that aren’t making headway. In many cases, causes I hold dear are becoming less realistic as time goes on. If anything, its fun to rag on feminists. Do you oppose Roissy when he does this?
Simply put-if you buy into Evo-Psych, and I do-Men are too inherently competitive to cohesive work together to bring about change ala the NOW mold. Not. Gonna. Happen. We’re just not wired that way.
Largely agree. NOW and other leftist ideas will crumble under their own weight if given enough time. To the extent that a mens rights movement can speed up the process, all the better. Should Glenn Sacks, a man just complimented, retire?
Which is why Game is in many ways the perfect solution, because it’s all individually focused. One doesn’t need expensive lobbying efforts or laws repealed and others passed-all one needs is the right material, a dedication to learn, and a desire to change.
Largely agree. Game is the micro to MRAs macro. Game is not a solution because their are no solutions. Game helps though.
Ahh, but you see, that’s the trick-alot of guys out there DO NOT wanna change ANYTHING about themselves. Game is really about growth and self improvement, and many Men are afraid of Change. And again, like Chuck Ross said, the Human Mind can and will concoct all kinds of stuff, all kinds of defences as to why one is a failure. As we all know, Women do this all the time. Now, it seems, so too, do the Menfolk.
Yes, some men don’t work enough at self improvement. Some are even bitter. Some blame women for their failures. Call 60 minutes. How this invalidates MRA efforts is beyond me.
I disagree with your view above-a Man who cannot get laid is a sad sight to behold, there’s simply no getting around that fact. Mind you, I’m not talking about the King of All Playas here-just being able to simply get laid with a decent looking chick every now and then. If a guy can’t make that happen, in my book, just about everything about him is seriously suspect.
This is nonsense. Just about EVERYTHING about him is suspect? I can think of plenty of guys I know, who almost certainly don’t get laid, who are good, decent men. A 60 year old guy that works at a gas station should be viewed with suspicion because he doesn’t get laid? Please. How bout a religious guy that sticks to his principles and avoids pre marital sex? How bout a guy in a wheelchair? Really, I love Game and I love Roissy, but man there is more to life than fucking.
Another thing. Men tend to gravitate to what they are good at. Naturals, or men who run Game with ease, will spend more time and effort trying to get laid.
At some point, for a guy that lacks the natural talents, both mentally and physically, Game and chasing women lose their luster when compared to other pursuits. Lets get real here. Some men, no matter how much they try will always suck with women. This fact doesn’t make them worthless human beings worthy of suspicion. They might just accomplish more than the guy out chasing tail all night too.
I gotta tell ya Nova, I’ve never seen so many sorry excuses for Men before in my life.
Exaggerate much? He could give me his best example of poor MRA behavior and I could counter with all the punks, thugs, criminals and vermin I see everyday in the news. I’d say they are more “sorry” than the most bitter MRA he could find.
I mean that. Guys who throw up every excuse under the Sun as to why they refuse to make any changes in their lives for the better, talking about all this abstract, big macro shit as if they gonna be able to solve it-Ha!
Self Improvement and “big macro shit” aren’t mutually exclusive. Also, men can be brilliant and insightful in one area and terrible in another. The latter doesn’t negate the former. If I think an MRA is bitter with regard to his personal dealings with women, fine. It won’t stop me from finding insight into other things he talks about. Everyone has their biases and weaknesses. By the way, solutions don’t exist. Only mitigations. I’m not dreaming of Utopia and most MRAs that I read aren’t either.
Not buying it one minute. I know the deal. These guys are more than merely afraid. They’re cowards.
I think Obsidian is emoting. I’m sure it feels good. Way to vague. Who are “these” guys?
Style, before he became such, had more balls, and is actually doing more to change the world, than the whole lot of these Keyboard Warriors, there I’ve said it, and I mean it. Because they can’t even change themselves to meet a nice looking lady for a night-how in the hell are they gonna “save” Western Civ? As we say in the hood, “Nigga, puh-leaaasseee…”
Game has plenty of “keyboard” warriors in their own right. This fact doesn’t delegitimize Game. Most MRAs are pretty aware of the long odds they face in “saving” Western Civ. I agree on Style making worthwhile contributions though. What this has to do with another man choosing to fight on another front, I have no idea.
So, no, Nova, with all due respect, and I embrace you as a brother, on this one we just gonna have to agree to disagree. All this stuff about MRA, and HBD, and Western Civ, and Conservative this, and Libertarian that, all of that jazz ain’t nothing but elaborate, High IQ smoke and mirrors covering up the simple fact that A, Game WORKS, B, that those who rail against it most don’t have it and C, they’re either too afraid or too angry/bitter or both, to actually try to change their own lives for the better. And I for one am sick and tired of listening to grownassed Men behave like low class Bitches.
Again, Game and MRA aren’t mutually exclusive. Perhaps I should provide a personal example. Obsidian, I get laid. I’m not G Manifesto or Roissy, but I do alright. It’s possible I’m even more successful than you. Who knows. I enjoy the company of women. I’m not bitter or angry(sometimes I should probably be more angry). I also consider myself a Conservative/ libertarian MRAer. I have no problem extolling the virtues of Game, using it, and pointed out injustice in our legal system and gynocentric cultural bias. I’ll also submit that learning Game should open a mans eyes even more to injustice and cultural decline not less.
Either you think Game and Mens Rights Advocacy are basically incompatible, or you are using a sledgehammer when a fly swatter would do.
You don’t know me, but I’ve been reading you now for close to a year. I often agree with you. I think you provide valuable insights and a good check on some of the things said around the Roissysphere. You seem like a truly decent and good man. Just want to let you know that I respect you. If you read this, I’d like to hear your response.
I wanted to provide a quick balance to what I wrote yesterday. Only fair right? My time is limited so this post will be shorter. I’ve got to go swoop some fly girls tonight. Ok I’m lying. I’m just tired.
Here are a few excesses I sometimes see from advocates of Game. Feel free to add any others. This wasn’t my most thought out piece of work. My past writing speaks to my affinity for the principles and many advocates for Game. Like my thoughts on MRA, this is only directed at a subset.
At times, Game advocates youth and life experience betray them. This is clear in some of their assumptions and lack of imagination.
This lack of imagination causes some of them to have little perspective on the lives of men who aren’t young, unmarried, secular, and in a blue coastal city. (This is one of the reasons why I hype Dave in Hawaii so much.)
Some brazenly view bitterness in all cases as weakness and a character flaw. This speaks to a lack of life experience. In my view, some bitterness is justified and in many cases can trigger healthy and reasonable responses. Game reduces the chances of horrible outcomes with women but doesn’t come close to eliminating it.
Some Game advocates suffer from “one size fits all” syndrome. This can lead to simple minded and unrealistic advice.
Virginity isn’t the bedrock of Western Civilization but neither is rampant promiscuity. I say this not to lecture but as a call for a bit of humility.
I’ll Game, while Rome burns, is a reasonable mindset given the times we live in, but it sometimes leads to dismissive attitudes towards MRAs in general.
Some “keyboard gamers” talk a good Game (heh), but I suspect fall short in the real world.
A few have dismissive attitudes about religion and are unable to understand the benefits, drawbacks, and difficulties a church going life provides with regard to the mating dance. Example: What about men who are religious but also view marriage as an unwise choice given our legal and cultural climate? What are they to do?
Let me end with a word on Roosh and Pro Male/Anti Feminist. Whatever you think of their lifestyle choices, both are outspoken and brave enough to express their views. Accepting the scrutiny that comes with it isn’t always easy. It may not seem like much to hardened bloggers, but I believe it is meaningful. Both my MRA and Game criticisms weren’t directly aimed at either of them either. They just provided the spark for more general observations.
Here are a couple off topic links…
Barack Obama: Alpha or Beta? HT: Lurker from Roissy’s
I wanted to comment on a kerfuffle( yes I used that word) that occurred between proponents of Game and a few MRAs over at Ferdinand’s blog a couple days ago.
If you read here, you know I am both a proponent of Game and consider myself an MRA. Or, more accurately, an advocate for mens rights. I’m not sure if writing, conversing, and thinking about mens issues make me an “activist”. I’m not really a “take to the streets” kind of guy. Hawaiian Libertarian makes a reasonable distinction here.
I see four main reasons why certain MRAs have a problem with Game and its advocates.
1. They don’t understand Game.
2. They view women who require “gaming” to be unworthy of a mans attention.
3. Religious men think it’s immoral.
4.They resent anything short of complete shunning of worthless, entitled, “Ameriskanks” and think of men who don’t share this view as enablers.
For the purposes of this post I will leave aside #1, 2, and 3. They all tie in with each other. I’ve talked about them before and so have many others. I’ll just say that Game isn’t only beneficial to young single guys who wear funny hats and nail polish, trolling nightclubs looking to hook up with “whores” (as opposed to madonna’s who just want “good men”).
Here are my thoughts on #4…
First let me say that if an individual man wants to shun relations with women completely, forgo sex, marriage, and children, fine by me. I don’t have a problem with that. I’m not here to tell anyone how to live their life.
I will say that for the vast majority of men, this option is a non starter. Be they young or old, religious or secular, rich or poor; men want women for sex, children, and companionship. Complete avoidance of women might be an option for a select few, but can never be sold as an attractive lifestyle choice to most men.
In addition, not all women are Ameriskanks. Men can debate the numbers, but who can argue this? Whether you want to say that 95% of women are decent, or 5%, some women are relationship worthy. ( Our legal system makes extreme caution necessary of course.)
So I ask, short of a lifetime of celibacy, what is the best way for an individual man to deal with women in the year 2009? Without an answer to this question I will continue to think that these MRAs are unrealistic, dogmatic, out of touch and perhaps, too personally invested.
I think some MRAs opposed to Game resent it because they feel it is more male capitulation. Women are once again benefiting from men bending over backward to appeal to the special little princess. While it’s true that women are more attracted to men who successfully run Game (intentionally or not), it is men who are benefiting much more in the long run.
Game at the margins, levels the playing field( and what an unlevel playing field it is!) and gives a man more leverage. More leverage means more options. More options means putting up with less of her shit. The time and effort put in to “catering” to her gina tingle is well worth it when you consider the alternative. Sucessfully pushing her attraction buttons may mean the difference between a long marriage and a divorce. Not feeling like a lickspittle, pushover, chump, herb/mangina is also an added benefit.
Another objection seems to be aimed at alpha men. Maybe a little bit of resentment at all the sex they are lavished with, or again, that women are getting what they want by having sex with the men they desire. Game is the wrong target though. Alpha men, of which there are plenty of naturals, would be scoring in great numbers anyway. Game may make an alpha a super duper unstoppable alpha, but it is most beneficial for guys a bit farther down the totem pole.
It seems that some MRAs think female hypergamy and an assortment of others behaviors are unique to contemporary, feminist influenced, American women. It only seems that way because in times past a womans natural animal desires were constrained by cultural norms and the law. Game is a tool that helps a man personally constrain female behavior. It ain’t a panacea, and its effectiveness is limited by human ability, but its better than nothing.
If men accept female nature for what it is then they will be less likely to wage a futile and unproductive war against it. Women have always been this way and always will be. Nothing new under the sun. It would be nice if MRAs don’t start resembling some feminists and their “all men are rapists” ideology. As much as I rail against unconstrained female nature, I would also hate to live in a world where male nature is unchecked. That said, I still resent being viewed as a rapist and a predator.
Ive said it before and I’ll say it again, MRAs are good at pointing out inequities in the law and destructive behaviors women engage in. Game advocates are good at pointing out why women are doing it, and on a micro level, the best way to respond.
Both are necessary and have their place. Female nature isn’t going to change. The only way to curb its excesses is legal and cultural change. Incentives are everything. I’m not optimistic in the short term of this happening, but I do know shunning women altogether is fanciful and counter productive.
Finally, the tenets of Game can work on platonic relationships with women as well. I may sound like a sycophantic supporter of Game when I say this, but I believe a priest can benefit from it. Got to pass those nun’s shit tests after all. I bet their shaming language is strong. Think Meryl Streep in the movie Doubt. I’m exaggerating a bit to make a point. For a more real world example think: co-workers. So yes, I believe even celibate men can benefit from Game.
I don’t see how it is productive for MRAs, who mainly focus on macro issues, to shun proponents of Game. They aren’t mutually exclusive. Men that use the tool of Game on a micro level can be just as supportive of the need for legal and cultural change as the guy going the celibate route.
Litmus tests don’t work for tiny outnumbered “movements” either. It seems to me a big tent is in order if any progress is to be made. If MRAs want to be taken seriously on the micro level, they need to offer more than isolation and celibacy as a mitigation.
I’ve made the distinction between Game and MGTOW( the micro to MRAs macro) before, and after thinking about it, dont think this is quite right. Game is afterall, a tool. MGTOW is more an attitude or way of life. A man going his own way can use Game is my point. ( I believe most MRAs agree with me.)
I’ll end by pointing out that my critique was, I believe, shaming language free. I didn’t call certain MRAs virgins, bitter, or terrible with women. I’m sure some are. I also believe that men more experienced with women have a much better understanding of their nature as well.
In many cases, I believe it to be an unfair charge though. A 40-year-old guy who did alright with women in his 20s, got married at 30, and got ass raped in divorce court at 40 is a common scenario. An inept bitter virgin would be an inaccurate discription in this case. MRAs also come in all ages. A 60-year-old guy deciding to go celibate is a bit different from a 25-year-old. Calling the former bitter and horrible with women is silly. Some men don’t have the desire, temperament, or ability to use Game very effectively. I don’t feel the need to take them to task for it as long as they are as understanding to those who choose to go the Game route.
I welcome any criticism from MRAs that disagree as well. Just leave out the “you are all fools and a hinderance to mens rights” please.
1.This isn’t a criticism of all, or even most MRAs. After all, I would be criticizing myself if I felt otherwise. Most seem to get it.
2. I don’t believe Game is the end all, be all, quick fix to everything ailing America.
3.MRAs are free to continue to dislike Game( I won’t hold it against them in other words), but I hope they reconsider their desire to excommunicate those who feel differently. Again, big tent.
4. Criticism of how the tool of Game is used by individual men is valid and would make for an interesting discussion.
A question for MRAs critical of Game…
Out of curiosity, do you have more contempt for “players” like Roissy or Roosh, or for herb/mangina/swpl/leftist types?
I submit that the former is doing nothing to oppose (and in most cases supports in one degree or another) needed legal change, while the latter works to undermine it.
One last thing…
Talk on the danger of rape allegations ramping up as a result of Game being used with better skill and in higher numbers was discussed in Ferdinand’s thread as well.
A few quick thoughts…
Game shouldn’t replace a man having common sense and good judgement.
This might be a reason to stick to “10 Commandments Game” heh.
Is a woman more likely to wake up and regret sex the next morning with an alpha appearing “Gamer” or a nice guy beta? ( I realize this is just one possible false rape scenario.)
Not a rhetorical question. I could see arguments for both actually. The “alpha” is going to be put in that position a lot more than the beta so his odds of being accused are higher, but the beta is more likely to trigger feelings of “ickyness” than the alpha. If the beta suddenly seems insensitive to her needs, watch out. A woman feels that a beta owes her a lot more for sex, especially the regrettable kind( and will resent the beta), than an alpha. See: Max, Tucker.
This is the one time I would encourage a man to go the lickspittle, fawning beta route. If you were sexing while beta it is in your best interest to do so. At least for a couple days or so. More on this another time.
Elizabeth Braddock: “Winston, you are drunk, and what’s more you are disgustingly drunk.”
Winston Churchill: “Bessie, my dear, you are ugly, and what’s more, you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly.”
I wasn’t going to comment on the Roman Polanski Saga, because frankly, it doesn’t interest me much. I lost the ability to be shocked or outraged by such events long ago. I’m either jaded, or like the lefties like to say, not paying attention. I’m leaning toward the former.
Anyway, Alias Clio made a comment over at Roissy’s that peaked my interest a little bit so I figured I would respond to that.
Hey Roissy, I’m suffering from insomnia so I have a question for you: Roman Polanski – was it rape? Does he deserve to be prosecuted?
Prior to the last week, I didn’t know much about this case. All I knew was that Polanski was living in exile in France because he fled the U.S. after being charged with raping a 13-year-old. Although I haven’t exactly immersed myself in every detail of this sordid affair; I feel comfortable answering in the affirmative to both of Clio’s questions. Yes, I know I’m not Roissy.
You’ve defended Monica Lewinski, sort of, who was over 18 and not (quite) pitched at Clinton by her parents, as Polanski’s victim was. So will you defend her?
‘I’m not exactly sure what she is getting at but I’ll just say that there is a world of difference between a 13-year-old girl and a 22-year-old woman. Not sure why Roissy or anyone else would not defend a 13-year-old girl as long as her story is credible. I haven’t seen Gannon over there in a long time. Heh.
I’m curious, because although there’s some “he said, she said” in this story, I find this victim credible. And Polanski did plead guilty, or so I understand. An alpha male? Or a sociopath? Please don’t tell us that the two are exactly the same.
I find the victim in this case, from the stuff I have read, to be credible as well.
An alpha male? Probably. A sociopath? Perhaps. In my humble opinion, the two are not the same, but they aren’t mutually exclusive either. It is possible to be both. I think most sociopaths would tend to either be alpha or omega. Outliers at either end of the spectrum. Ted Bundy or Scott Peterson the alpha. Jeffery Dahlmer or John Wayne Gacy the omega.
The act itself was not alpha though. Self control is an alpha characteristic no?
She goes on…
JB, it still looks like rape to me, except that if Polanski weren’t famous no one would have heard about it. In fact, if he weren’t famous it might not have happened at all, because the child’s mother would not have left her alone with any old middle-aged man who had promised to get her picture into Vogue. I don’t think that the mother’s actions were intended to end in the rape of her daughter; she was both naive and ambitious, but not evil. But I don’t believe for one moment that the girl consented.
I won’t speak to this particular mother since I don’t know anything about her, but I don’t doubt there are plenty of parents who are willing to recklessly endanger their child’s well being for a shot at fame and fortune. I’ll go farther. Plenty would encourage their young daughters to sleep with powerful men if they thought it would help them break into the cutthroat world of modeling or acting.
There’s some ground for suggesting that Polanski thought the girl had consented, though, or that her mother’s consent had secured her own.
I haven’t seen anything credible in my limited study of this case to suggest consent. Is her age in doubt? Is the drugs or alcohol she was given in dispute? I don’t believe a mother can grant consent for a girl that young either. If I am missing something I would like to know though.
And I can recall a debate about rape both here and at my own website, in which various commentators suggested that any time there was any doubt at all regarding consent, the alleged perpetrator should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Not sure if she means in a court of law or opinion. If she means the former I think that rape trials should be held to the same evidentiary standard as any other legal proceeding. Beyond a reasonable doubt, not any doubt.
This is hardly a typical “date rape” case in any event. If a prosecutors only evidence is the female’s word, the male probably shouldn’t be charged.
I take each case one at a time. In this instance I believe the girl and her mother. From what I know, I believe Polanski raped her beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the girl was 13 makes it much easier.
Of course, this girl was, at 13, under the age of consent to begin with – a complicating factor in the case and certainly one that guaranteed Mr Polanski’s being found guilty. But many men who post here don’t seem to think much of age of consent laws, either.
I can only speak for myself but I believe in them. Within reason of course. I don’t want 20-year-old boys going to prison for having sex with 16-year-old girls for example. I know I am taking a courageous position when I say that I don’t think it should be legal for 44-year-old men to have sex with 13 year olds. A bold stand indeed.
That’s why I’m asking the question. I’m not in any doubt that it was rape. I don’t think the girl or her mother stood to gain anything by making a false accusation of rape, as the case was tried in 1978, a time when feminist legal theory and anti-rape fury had not reached the high level of influence they would in the 1980s.
Greed was still operable in the 70s though.
If the child had wanted to appear in Vogue at any price, both mother and daughter would have done better to remain silent about the rape.
Her last point is a good one. It gives the girl and her mother more credibility. At the very least they could have taken a payoff and went away quietly. The fact that they didn’t is telling.
Thank you Clio for providing me with something to post today. You raised some good questions and concerns.
One last thing though. The victim no longer wants Polanski prosecuted. Here are some words from her I found on Wikipedia:
In a 2003 interview, Samantha Geimer said, “Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us.” Furthermore, “I’m sure if he could go back, he wouldn’t do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he’s paid for it.” In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, “I think he’s sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don’t think he’s a danger to society. I don’t think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever — besides me — and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It’s an unpleasant memory … (but) I can live with it.”
I have a question. Do you think she would be so forgiving if it were a lowly “Average Joe” who had raped her as opposed to a famous director?
Oh, and I did like The Pianist.
A few links…
ABC News story on the case
An excerpt from the victim in grand jury testimony ( graphic in nature)
A feminist( Anne Orangebum) gets into a huff when called on her bullshit
A member of Charlie Manson’s harem, who killed Polanski’s wife Sharon Tate in 1969, died a few days ago
A couple off topic links…
A former aide to Bill Clinton is claiming the ex pres got a bit too friendly with her. I believed her up until she said she got “uncomfortable.” HT: Jammie Wearing Fool
I found a picture of these ugly left wing piglets protesting against private health insurance. Of course my goal in life is to subsidize these two slobs early onset diabetes so they can sit around surfing Jezebel and Feministing all day.
Update: Ace, over at Ace of Spades correctly labels Andrew Young ( John Edwards buttboy/former aide) at the bottom of the post.
A couple days ago I wrote about my irritation with men who brazenly undervalue a woman’s looks for the purpose, in my opinion, of raising their own status and appearing alpha. Needless to say, I find this tactic transparently self serving and ineffective. Reader Silas left a comment that I thought was pretty insightful.
Even supposing that people in the Roissysphere subtract 1-2 points from the average opinion, is that really a bad thing? Part of the mindset of Game requires depedestaling women and viewing yourself as the chooser.
To clarify, I didn’t intend to indict the whole Roissysphere with my complaint. Only a small subset of probably 10% or so.
Frank Sinatra once said that he was for anything that got a man through the night, be it God, or whiskey. I have similar feelings about how a man internally “depedestals” women in the looks arena. If knocking em down a couple points works, great. If imagining a woman with a big dog turd on her head works, thats fine too.
In his book, The Mystery Method, Mystery suggests that when describing women you should limit yourself to two categories: cute, and alright. No category for hot. No category for gorgeous.
I have no objection to this. I think objective analysis should be possible though when not in the process of attracting women. For example, Grace Kelly is not objectively “cute”. She is (err was) beautiful.
In this sense, the 1-2 points that are subtracted from an average woman’s looks aren’t added to women. They are added to you. If you’re a male 7, and you rate a female 8 as a 6, then you already have the view that you are more desirable to her, which will naturally cause you to act more assertively and confidently, thereby increasing her attraction to you. As your scale of female attractiveness is readjusted, you gain more psychosocial value.
Again, if this works for an individual guy to act more confident, have more swagger, and put aside approach anxiety, I’m all for it. However, like actors who keep “in character” offset, some guys think they need to carry this mindset everywhere.
Perhaps they do, but only up to a point. I would hope that a man would have the ability to rationally discuss, and rate a womans looks, as objectively as possible when not in the process of raising his perceived value.
Here is another thought. Why couldn’t a man internalize himself as a 10? No need to worry about her looks. I think that would be more effective in approaching a true 9 than telling yourself the 9 is really a 6. After all, who wants a 6 when they can have a 9?
Does Michael Jordan think he won all of those titles because the other teams weren’t that great, or does he think he won them because he was that good?
However, personally, I would submit that the lower scoring isn’t simply a psychological technique, but is actually a readjustment of a flawed scale. If too many women rate 8-10, then the 8-10 rating simply doesn’t mean as much. By setting the bar for 10 astronomically high, you realize that such a women is actually extremely rare. From a statistic standpoint, it makes more sense that 1’s, 2’s, 9’s and 10’s should essentially be statistical outliers, and that 3’s and 8’s should fall between 2-3 SDs of the average.
Agree completely. This doesn’t require disengenous and harsh rating though. Simply accurate and realistic judging done in good faith.
Let me use an example to demonstrate what I am talking about. This post from Roissy shows what I am getting at. It contains a few outlier comments that are, in my humble opinion, completely off base. The girls in the picture were being called 3s and 4s in some cases. Completely over the top. I’ll let a few Roissy regulars speak to this from the comments section…
The white girls are 7s. Genuinely pretty, but nothing spectacular. The asian appears to be a 6, but she’s at a funny angle, so its hard to say.
A lot of guys have a tendency to depress girls’ ratings just to out macho other guys and prove how ultra-high their standards are. Not an attractive trait.
I might as well have used his second paragraph as a post to what I was getting at. That’s it in a nutshell.
From Roissy himself…
as for the girls… from left, 6.5, 7, 6, 7.5. the girl on the far left looks as though she could go up or down a full point based on viewing angle. she’s a wildcard.
From the 5th Horseman…
Relatively similar to mine (6.5, 8, 6, 6.5). Beauty is objective, and serious observers will not deviate to far from the consensus.
Here are my ratings, FWIW…
7, 7.5, 5.5,7
I also found two rating systems from two smart, well spoken, and prolific posters.
First from PA…
As public service and a mater of urgent necessity, here is the 1-10 scale. It ranks healthy adult women of childbearing age. In other words, it is not applied to children, old women, or women with obvious and unusual deformities.
1 – actively repulsive
2 – ugly
3 – unattractive
4 – unpleasant but tolerable
5 – indifferent
6 – approaching cute
7 – cute with flashes of pretty
8 – consistently pretty
9 – hot
10 – beautiful
By Willie’s standards the four photo girls are 5s. By David Alexander’s they are 4s.
By my standards they are 7 for Red Shirt, 8.5 for Blondie, 5.5 for Asain Chick, and 8 for Romanian Pixie.
Next from Doug1 with a bit different scale…
Your version of the scale seems a bit ideosyncratic. It allows more 10s than seems usual in the PUA community or certainly than how Roissy uses 10. It’s not good to not have an ultimate that’s really up there. Hot is usually used to cover the high area of the scale, not just one spot on it.
My scale (for 18-29yos):
1 – repulsive
2 – ugly
3 – unattractive
4 – not very attractive; tolerable
5 – plain; ok
6 – cute
7 – pretty
8 – very pretty; beautiful
9 – gorgeous
10 – international class gorgeous
That puts the middle of the scale between plain and cute, which seems about right to me for 20s girls. Given the amount of chubbiness around, the average american girl these days may actually fall between 4 and 5.
Both are (not to beat a deadhorse) reasonable.
I didn’t pick this topic only because of what I see online. I have had a couple friends likes this. They try to AMOG the group with dismissive comments about women the others find attractive.
I can remember one incident where I basically went Lloyd Bentsen and told the guy, in so many words, that I knew alpha and you aren’t one. I didn’t use the term alpha of course, but words to that effect.
I have also had friends who were the exact opposite. Every 5 that showed any interest at all was suddenly “so” hot, “fckin” hot, or my all time “favorite”: “smokin” hot. “Sure bro, go for it”, was about all I could usually muster.
I think If I had to choose one or the other, I would prefer the unreasonably tough grader as a wing man as opposed to the soft touch. Maybe. Would depend on a lot of independent variables though. I could see arguments for both. Perhaps more on that another time.