A Response to Jason’s Comments.
Readership: Jason (lastmod); Lexet; Derek (ramman3000); Others who may be interested;
Dear brother Jason,*
This week, you left quite a few comments under Monday’s post, Courtship and Power (2020 February 17), which was Lexet’s critique of an earlier article on Sigma Frame, Models of Courtship and Marital Structure (2018 October 3).
You’ve covered a lot of ground in all your comments, and it took me a while to see what you’re really getting at. Just to let you know I haven’t forgotten about you, I wrote this post to cover some of the issues you brought up.
Here, I cited several of your comments, which are followed by my views on the matter.
On the Male Social-Sexual Hierarchy
“So, a beta, or cuck, or chump, or simp who is married… is alpha because he is leading his life? He works hard at his job, initiative, leads his life… or is still a cuck because he doesn’t agree with Dalrock, or DS, or others… but takes responsibility, works hard, and has initiative…
What I am seeing more and more… in Red Pill, in MGTOW, in the general “help” for men is this:
Being an Alpha is pretty much strictly now a “genetic” thing. You were born a certain way, or have a certain temperament, and now you are deemed “alpha”.
The rest need to study, hair-split words, spend a vast amount of free time reading medieval literature to find out how much of a cuck they are… study, study, study… and then be told “Umm, no… alpha also means this”.”
“I just don’t like people claiming a term that most could and will never attain and how goalposts move and shift like the mist. People claiming this or breaking other men down into scales like this just seems very unchristian to me.”
Concerning the greek letter male hierarchy, I just see it as a generalized typological model. Each type represents a certain kind of attitude, a social strategy, and an area of expertise (and weakness). All men fit into every type in some aspect of their lives, while no man fits perfectly into only one type. If you’re confused about which type you are, then you’ve missed the forest for all the trees. It’s just an abstract model to describe behaviors.
Using myself as an example, I identify as a sigma because it describes my outlook, my values, and the general trend of my behaviors. It doesn’t mean I’ve never ever behaved as an obsequious, supplicating beta, or a cynical, self-righteous gamma, or even a reclusive, nihilistic omega, because I have. Everyone has under certain circumstances at some point in their lives. But the value of having the hierarchy nomenclature is that these terms allow us to label these behaviors and talk about them in an easy-to-understand way.
Concerning the Biblical Legitimacy of the Ontological Power-Based Presumptions in the Study of Courtship Models
“Did Jesus punch evil doers in the mouth? Did he brag about himself being a provider? He was trained or training to be a carpenter but he never once mentioned his provider status. He even told slaves to obey their masters… Did these men refuse to act?
Scripture may clearly define masculinity… Have your yes mean yes, and your no mean no… But I don’t recall anywhere talking “power” and “courtship” or so many steps, models to follow, and when to implement them, or having marriage is being masculine.”
You’re right that (the word) power is not mentioned in the context of marriage anywhere in the Bible. This whole study of courtship models is an attempt to think outside the box and start from the ground up. It’s a fresh approach to the problem. Does that make it wrong or unbiblical? We’re yet to find out. In the meantime, we’ll be learning how things work and why God’s way is best.
Having a proper appreciation for Language Texts
“Why have church if the translation boils down to is “well, you have to know Greek and Aramaic.” So is now being Alpha in the Christian sense, “he knows Greek and Aramaic”? So now anyone else is a beta, chump, cuck, simp for not knowing this? Will the ante be upped further? “Well, he can speak these languages… but what seminary, what university does he teach at, and who did he study under? Which texts did he translate?”
“Why have the bible in English if every word is going to be hair-split, have dual meanings, and meanings that could be, or might be, or should be. This is like the former President Clinton lecturing us on what the word “is” means back in 1998.
Why even worry, ponder or even debate what Jesus said, or Paul, or Moses, or what king said what to whom when we don’t know what they really meant… you know… because we don’t know Greek or Aramaic, and you should… and if you don’t? Well, “trust us” we know what he really meant. So why read the bible, study it… if everything is “Well, that’s up for debate, you don’t know Greek and don’t know what he really meant”
If indeed Jesus’s message was for all, and its “very simple, easy to understand” most followers have made it into something that is a lifelong quest and you still may not know “what it means”. Face it, this faith is for the arrogant, the high intellect and self-righteous. They also spend more time now debating on how a few poets and writers made it into feminism back in 967 AD or whatever.”
Just how important is our mastery of ancient languages (i.e. Greek and Aramaic) when studying the Bible?
If you can learn something from it, then that’s great! But if it is confusing or frustrating to you, or if you know it’s never going to bring you closer to God, nor fulfill your purpose for living, then why break a sweat about it?
We come closer to God through opening our hearts to the truth of the Gospel, not by opening our minds to the Biblical exegeses of John MacArthur or William Lane Craig, et al. (although it does happen that way for some). Some people have the heart to learn more about God, and they share what they’ve learned with others. We can be thankful for that.
The same goes for any other advanced topic, like martensitic phase transformations in equiatomic alloys, thermal/intrinsic stress in thin films, or glissile dislocation generators that increase the entropy in hexagonal crystals. (These are my own areas of expertise, and no, I’m not GeekMOGing.) I don’t blog about these subjects because it’s unreasonable to expect anyone to know everything there is to know about any particular subject, or even take any interest in it.
This is essentially what Derek said when he wrote,
“Scholars do the work of translation and analysis. In seminary the clergy learn language concepts, but otherwise utilize and rely on the material produced by scholars (including whole Bible translations). Nevertheless, large numbers of clergy delve into the original languages in preparation for their weekly sermons. Layman don’t generally have the interest and/or ability to do this, so they rely on the clergy to teach them.
Just because someone has to do it doesn’t mean everyone does, but the output of their work is extremely important. Nobody has to learn other languages. It is okay to be a follower.”
The thing about being a follower is that you have to trust that the authority is telling you the truth of the matter. Much of the argument and debate surrounding the definitions of this greek word or that one, are really about whether we can trust that interpretation as being true. Even experts disagree and falter in trust. No one knows everything with 100% certainty.
I believe this is where you might be running into trouble – you’re afraid to trust. There is a fear that either they might be wrong and lead you astray, or they might abuse your trust. I’m not saying this to ridicule or reject you, but rather to affirm your experience as authentic. I too struggle with trust as a result of childhood issues. But being aware of it is a huge step in overcoming it.
For example, although I may know a lot about one field of study, it’s just not constructive for me to read those research papers about other things I know nothing about, and then criticize the authors for being deliberately confusing and arrogantly high-minded. I have to realize that deep down, the reason why I want to reject those authors/papers is because I can’t trust (or even understand) what they’re saying. Going further, I have to recognize that my inability to trust has no correlation to whether a matter might be true or not. The problem is with me. As I wrote in an earlier post, The Evils of Solipsism (2019 November 19),
“I am foolish, therefore, objective truth exists.”
I could very well be excluding myself from some information that would make my life better. But if I can’t help myself by overcoming my inability to trust, then the next best thing I can do is to know when to put my fork down, and to not be ashamed of admitting my limitations. I can’t assume to be the most noteworthy expert on every matter, and that’s fine. That’s just less work and responsibility for me!
So stick to whatever it is you do best. If you can’t trust the source, and you don’t know any better, then put it on the back burner for a while. If it is really, truly important in the grand scheme of things, you can be assured that God will continue to bring it up again (and again) in a different way, maybe one you can understand next time around.
Honest Discussion Requires a bit of Trust (Faith)
“I encourage readers to leave comments that are insightful regarding the topic, or which might prove useful to other readers.”
Translation: Agree with my post / take on this”
You might be surprised to know that it doesn’t really matter whether you agree or disagree. As far as this blog is concerned, agreement and disagreement are both educational. There are benefits either way. If you agree, then we might build trust. But if you disagree, and you could articulate exactly why you disagree, then you would be contributing some valuable insight to the topic. You also invite others to trust you.
The point of all this blogging and discussion is to hopefully learn some things in the process. I know I have, and I hope you have too.
So have you?
“I read the article, your insights are brilliant. If only men just were Alpha, not beta everyone would be married. I was a loser and a chump and I read your advice, now I am an Alpha, and now I am going to be married to a top tier woman. Thanks! I am studying Greek right now so I can lead, teach and be a real mighty man of God who is doing his bidding: being Alpha, getting married to a woman who just wants men to be aggressive! Thank you so much. You should publish a book!”
Brother, I can see through you. The insincerity here is all too obvious.
I’m sorry Jason. If we haven’t gained your trust, or if you can’t believe anything we’re saying, or buy into the discussion here, then what are we offering to you? What do you get out of reading and commenting?
We want to know what you think, but you’re not telling us your honest opinion, and we feel disappointed that you won’t share your mind with us.
Concluding Statements
Here and on other sites, you’ve said a lot about how lousy (the converged) church is, and how inconsiderate Churchians can be. Most of us can empathize with you about that. We’ve experienced much of the same. But we’re not satisfied with the way things stand, nor will we be content with resigning ourselves to a fatalistic outlook. I hope you could agree on this point.
We know the church is converged. We know the current “Courtly Love” model of chivalry doesn’t work. We know the current “Christian” methods of getting into a marriage are not all that different from the wider secular culture. Thus, it seems ridiculous that people should expect the results to be different just because they show up to a church service once a week and stick a Jesus label on it. There has to be more to the story. But what?
In the previous post, Is Biblical Courtship Possible? (2020 February 19), Ed Hurst pointed out a major ontological reason why courtship in the west is a sham. I think this is quite informative of where western culture stands in relation to both the world’s historical norm and what facilitates God’s blessings. Does that mean we need a revolution first in order to do God’s will? No, it’s just some insight that helps us understand where we are and what we’re dealing with.
We invite others to join us in this discussion, including you, Jason!
What do you honestly think about all these new ideas about courtship models (or any other topic)? Of course, you’re free to disagree, but please do all of us the favor of telling us why.
Best regards!
Your younger brother Jack
* Readers can see more of Jason at his blog, Top Face – The Aging Mod’s Forgotten Story.
Related
- Σ Frame: A Response to Stephanie’s Comments (2017 December 19)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
Thank you for a very thought out reply. I unfortunately don’t have the deft, intellect or skill to answer or reply in a way that would satisfy you.
As for the “Brave New World” of classifying men (Alpha, Beta, Omega, Sigma, Gamma). I just find it odd that professing christians would use terms like this, and all of them are in negative context, except the alpha of course…and use it to address fellow men in these matters when jesus himself didn’t use them….as for the secular world……it reminds me of the Dr. Suess children’s story “The Sneetches” (1961). The framework is not easy to understand because for Alpha behavior I have heard, or asserted it then changes to some other aspect to the context of said behavior and each individual situation; while at the same time declaring a rigidity of personality types / temperments. Added to this are completely different terms equated to mean or interchange with this system. For example, cucks, simps, purple pill, natural man, blue pill…….and then to throw-up all the Game terms for a decade earlier on top of this giving them equitable meaning to the new terms. Overwhelming, and confusing. I just find it’s way to classify men in very negative and unjust fashion.
As for my confusion of what am I? I know I am not an Alpha, which in the ‘sphere reduces me to taking orders, accepting “truth” from people who just by the luck of the dice get to makes the rules. If an Alpha makes a bad decision, or choice…is he now brought before the “alpha tribunal” and it is discussed by the other deemed “alphas” that he is no longer an Alpha and has to go to classes, read books on complex social behaviors and pass a test to regain this status? No? Then stop fobbing this off as a “framework” it’s cult-like rigidity professed by the ‘sphere is unproductive.
As for “courtship models” I find them silly. None of you men said to your potential wife “dearest….I am going to court you, and I am going to use this model.” A good swath of men will never be able to use any model for the fact that most women deem most men as “undesirable” no matter what they do…..and by the ‘sphere’s own admission “most women are not worth marrying” so, most men are just going have to “burn” and accept that god wants them to suffer. Marriage and courtship is now an “alpha” thing now…..and since it is…..why even discuss the ‘courtly love’ thing. Alpha’s don’t have to worry about this…….they are aggressive, take action and are perfect. This model is thrown in because christians and red-pillers are powerless against the culture. Their solutions make most men feel terrible, put most into a position they can never attain (you’re all betas…..you’re a cuck……churchianity christian………all women are soiled doves….). So why discuss these models? Again……you all think men are born a certain way, and their genetics, personality, intellect are set from birth or “by god” and it makes most hopeless. The christian sphere needs me to speak against you in these matters. It has driven men away, to MGTOW, to other destructive behaviors or has embittered them. Instead of sitting back….this must be called out as bunk. Courtship models. Whats next? A dictionary to decode what every single word your wife says “really” means???
When I was a christian. I read the bible three times through cover to cover. Sorry, I am not Alpha with above average IQ. It took me months because I read the KJV (evidently, since it’s not in Greek, I was given 100% incorrect information) and the KJV to its credit….slows you down…..to make sure you are actually grasping the information. I cannot remember what chapter and verse everything is on. Forgive me. I found it to be a waste of time in the end, because every observation I made “was a beta observation” or “well, yes…..but jesus really meant this or that and he was relating to this period, this time, Moses, no, no this situation…..”
I quit going to Bible studies because any insight or anything I gleened for it was “wrong” and bad behavior I witnessed by so called leaders was “justified” while anything I did wrong “required repentance immediately”
So like “Animal farm” which is “good for thee but not for me” attitudes.
As for gifts? Any gift I had I was met with “oh…..you think you are better than others?” and at the same time, I was led to believe god bestowed all the stupid gifts on myself and left the “good gifts” for the folks with good looks, nice teeth, and who were just deemed “alpha”
So much for that.
I have spent my life being told by peers, teachers, so-called friends, women and other travelers “I didn’t have what it takes” and christianity in a sense was my last grasp at something that could just accept me. I found it to be worse than the secular world. You guys are always right……men like me are “messing it up” and I would try to counter the best I could……..”you’re bitter” and the usual shut-up answers.
I will never give up now calling out the secular and sacred in these matters. Sadly, I am not as smart as you all, and this faith is is for the brilliant or quick witted. Anyone else is nod and agree. I lost ten years of my life to drugs and another ten years to this nonsense. I will denounce drugs to the day I die. I will stand up to this BS many of you are peddling as the solution that none of you followed yourself.
LikeLike
A signal element of Christian maturity is knowing the boundaries God sets for you (your domain). That includes knowing that you’ll never please some people, even some very good servants of God. It also means you know your mission and leave to others things that He hasn’t called you to investigate. I’m really glad you made the point, Jack, that no one of us can perfectly match any of the hierarchical definitions, and that we all revert to something less than God intended for us at times.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Yeah, I think types exist to label behaviors. Very few people are one hundred percent anything. We have our stronger moments and weaker ones just like anybody else while many many dudes want to be called alpha since we tend to think it means masculine and the leader or the pack and typically good with women. But it’s a type-not a person. This is a great breakdown. Wow. Excellent post!
LikeLike
Thanks ParkerMcCoy,
People making references to archetypes would be better served if we recognized that we’re talking about a general trend of behaviors.
I’ve seen too many people equate “Alpha = Good”, and “Beta = Bad”. The archetypes have nothing to do with moral value, only social value.
I often think that people mean to describe traits or behaviors, but they’re intellectually lazy and just stick an archetype label on it. For example, lately, “Beta” has become a buzzword for weak, and is used to denigrate other men. But the original idea of the Beta is being popular, winsome, loving, caring, responsible, and well balanced, but just not as confident and independent as an Alpha. People fail to recognize the weaknesses of the Alpha, and the strengths of the other types.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A signal element of Christian maturity is knowing the boundaries God sets for you (your domain).”
Stay in your place until “we” I mean god decides you’re ready
LikeLike
I see that I am way out of my element here. When I first mentioned my take on “alpha” and in Lexet’s post he threw that term around in the way you are now running from. “Oh its a type, not a person” and “its a framework”
In his post about courtship mddels, and his replies to me…..notta one of you mentioned then “Umm Lexet, Beta actually means this……” and “Did you know alpha has weakenesses”
I was accused of intellectual dishonesty, told firsthand that Betas are weak, and it was done in very “put down” way. You guys shift streams, change the rules and again gladhand yourselves for being amazing, and smart……
LikeLike
Jason, apology accepted. I am beginning to understand why you were ranting so much about “alphas” etc. in your comments. I think the root of your confusion is how certain archetypes (e.g. alpha and beta) have come into such common use that they have developed connotations that deviate from their original definitions. This is a real source of confusion. However, you should not jump to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy to blindside you.
We are all learning these things, and we all struggle to put our ideas into the most suitable words.
Ultimately, you’ll have to take whatever you’ve learned and decide for yourself what to believe.
LikeLike
I did not apologize to you nor do I believe that I owe you one………
That’s a laugh!
LikeLike
Congratulations Jason!
That last comment put you into the top five list of the most prolific commenters on Sigma Frame this year, beating out Derek by one comment.
You’re on a roll (literally)!
LikeLike
Keeping score I see. Doesn’t surprise me. Is that alpha or sigma behavior? Does it matter 😉
LikeLike
Not sure… maybe iota.
LikeLike
I wish someone would write an entire blog post designed to encourage me and build me up. Then I would respond with a bunch of snarky sarcastic comments for no discernible reason than my own self loathing.
[SF: The article Scott makes reference to in this video is here: Probabilities.]
LikeLiked by 3 people
On the one hand, there are lots of HOWTOs out there on improving you social charisma. There’s a lot of good teaching on what works with women. And I can assure you that it the teaching and training is a whole lot better one-on-one; generalities only go so far. However, you also have to realize that charisma is like IQ in one way: You can maximize your personal potential, but you will eventually run up against limits. It’s more than mere DNA; it’s the wider context of your life and all the wounds you’ve received and how you responded, etc. God has plans for you, and despite what men might do ignoring Him, nothing in life will bring you more peace than committing yourself to discovering what God considers your best interest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I might be jumping the gun, since the article is not out yet. Perhaps it may tell more than the video. But I do have my own observations and questions. It seems like Scott is saying that being approved of and validated by women leads a young man to have greater confidence in dealing with women, and that this is a positive thing that Scott is equating to a step in social development or a step towards maturity.
I think both men and women naturally cringe when a man relates subserviently towards women, like they are the palace eunuch and their job is to serve the women of the palace. I think we know by nature that is disordered. But Feminism has tried to do a lot to tell us that this unnatural arrangement is preferable, when it is not.
The Bible says:
Some Red-Pilled voices might tell a man to think: “you are the prize”.
But basically to combat Feminism where women are encouraged to find “the goddess within”, men need to remember that they were created preeminently and that women are the weaker vessel, and women are no image of deity, there is no goddess within the woman, they’re just a weaker being, created to serve the stronger vessel which was created to bear the image of God.
So, that being said, I agree that it is better for men to have confidence when relating to women, as one aware of his own God given superiority and general dominion over womankind, and specific God anointed lordship over his wife.
I can also see how that for the 10-20% of men whom women will, seemingly as a herd, validate, that it is far easier to then relate confidently towards them. And that for those at the back of the line, it will be much harder to relate confidently, “like the prize”, towards women, in the face of constant rejection.
I however question whether those men who, through female validation, correctly relate as superior to women, are actually more mature or developed, themselves not knowing why they are superior, but chalking it up perhaps to good looks, height, or money, etc.
In essence they are mimicking the right behavior, confidence in their superiority, solely as a result of females having selected them and conditioned them to be confident. Yes their behavior is closer to what it should be, but that is the result of external conditioning, not some greater maturity that they now possess. And by the same token, those hurting and humiliated men at the back of the line may be quick to react angrily to insinuations that their lack of female validation, and lack of the resulting confidence with others, is evidence of some immaturity or refusal to grow up on their part.
While men should relate to women as being under our care and dominion, I think men should relate to each other as follows:
LikeLike
I don’t think this is Scott’s main point, but comprehensively, his talk does make that assertion. I believe it’s true. The process of maturing requires a social interaction with real-time choices, and it yields results or consequences that provide feedback. Maturity (or growth) happens when one proactively engages in a spirit of trust, develops discernment, increases in self-awareness, and learns through the process. Because of the learning curve, it’s better if this happens at a young age.
But as Sharkly’s comment suggests, not all men have the opportunity to learn valid truth through the process. Instead, some men learn to supplicate and placate women, instead of leading, managing, and caring for them.
LikeLike
I watched Scott’s video and he did not say anything about him maturing this way. He mentioned nothing of trust. You added that. He even said he was clueless. He said he never had to learn a process. He never mentioned a learning curve. Nor did he mention that he pursued women. He said the “IOI’s” were clearly given by women toward him. How was Scott “leading, managing, and caring for women” in his video? Now, I am sure in his marriage he is…… but at sixteen? Where do you get he was doing this then? How is having a girlfriend and having sex with them leading and caring for women?
And the assumption that is hailed as “truth” by you Sigma is that men who don’t learn this learn to supplicate an placate women…. and this thus leads to them being single????? Scott even mentioned that when a man reaches a certain age and this doesn’t happen….. from his observations, it’s probably not going to.
I will thank him now for honesty here on that statement. Probably true. No, not fact. Not 100% and yes, I am sure there is a man out there who is 38, not a mouth breather, okay job, average looks never had a date or a girlfriend but he read a post from DS, Dalrock, or you, and became instant success and is getting married to a 22 year old next month. I am sure there is someone like that out there.
LikeLike
These experiences offer a man opportunities to learn how to interact with the opposite sex. The learning takes time. Making mistakes and missteps is a normal and unavoidable part of the process. Men need to have learned these things before they can be ready for marriage.
People can learn even though they are unaware of the process. In fact, too much cognitive analysis of the process may make one too self-conscious, and lead to doubt and distrust, which manifests as a lack of confidence. This only slows down the learning process.
LikeLike
Shifting the goalposts again…
LikeLike
Rollo has retweeted my video on twitter and asserts that my line of thinking is the basis for the black pill. That is, I am telling men if you aren’t generating attraction right from the start, you might as well give up and “kill yourself.” (His words)
I have spent an entire career trying to get men NOT to kill themselves, so that part was a little hyperbolic. However, I do get where the rub comes from. What I am wondering, out loud as I am apt to do, is can there be some focus on calibrating a mans IOI detection apparatus? That part I think is lacking in much of this discussion.
Novaseeker would respond “Scott has had IOIs from attractive women, or at least women who are attractive to him which is why this is so confusing for him. And that’s fair enough too. So I spitball and brainstorm for solutions. Is the problem one of unrealistic assortive mating selection criteria? Do only the ones that are invisible to you show IOIs so you do not reciprocate? Or is it a little of both? (Not noticing, and not wanting it from the ones who DO show interest?)
I’m not exaggerating when I say I have never had to go more than about 2 weeks without an option placing herself in front of me. And my developmental argument stands–that started at 16 and never let up until I was married the first time at 23. My first wife (who eventually frivorced me) was absolutely crazy about me, and called off her engagement to another man the nanosecond she found out I was on the market again (after a breakup I had). What those experiences did for me is created what sociologists (and red-pill guys have latched onto) call an abundance mentality. It never occurred to me to go looking because I just knew that something would land in my lap. I just had to go about the business of whatever I was doing in the meantime. What I mean is, feedback loops are real. You get good reviews in the form of IOIs right out the puberty gate and they build on themselves to the point where you just expect more of the same.
I don’t know what it is. I am not super model attractive. I am 6’1″ and I take care of myself, but I have the same insecurities and negative traits as just about anybody else. I’m goofy, sometimes self-deprecating, and am very quiet in social settings. I stand up straight, look people in the eye and speak in a pretty low, bass voice, but that’s about it. I just know my limitations and I am comfortable in my own skin.
All of this is why I am not tracking the “natural alpha” verses “learned alpha” stuff. I am a regular guy with what I assume are regular guy experiences. I win some and I lose some. I just never give up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am beginning to see that a man’s accurate discernment of womens’ IOI’s plays a crucial role in determining the outcome of his socio-sexual life story. This subject is well worthy of a detailed analysis, and I expect it will not be a short one. It will probably require a large number of posts to cover it adequately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure that is Jason’s issue, as much as that he is not getting the IOIs.
Jason still lives in California. Thirty three years ago I lived out near where Jason lives, and if I admitted I was a virgin back then, almost every girl would retort back with an offer to help me fix that. They’re not shy out there. They’ll tell you they want to fuck you. Even If Jason missed the eye-contact/lip-biting thing, he wouldn’t miss it when she comes up and tells him she wants to fuck him. If thirty three years of moral decline later, he is still not getting any blatant solicitation, I gotta think his situation is different.
I don’t think I’m good at picking up hints, but still, even as I got older, the women got bolder, and they still make their desire to have me known (even right out here in the Bible belt!) If I were a woman, I’d file for sexual harassment! I recently got moved to night shift over an area that is 2/3rds young women. Thankfully most of them don’t speak much English, so that cuts down on the flirting. But dang! The old ladies are the worst for making inappropriate offers. Put it away boomer! One Black lady asked if I would ever want to try a Black lady. When I told her I was going to remain morally pure, she added, “cuz I got ‘a friend’ who’d like to change your mind.”
LikeLike
Well Scott…… I have heard it said about you on Dalrock that you are just a “natural alpha.”
Great. I cannot hate on a man who just knew by instinct what to do (or not do) concerning the matters of attracting and bedding women. I cannot really be upset at a man who was just born with “good looks on a cultural standard that women like”. I guess in those matters, sure he won the lottery there. Plenty of other men…… yes, are in shape, look decent… easy on the eyes so to speak, good enough career……. but many of these men don’t compete so to speak with a J Crew or LL Bean model and do well in life concerning women. Again….. I guess I cannot be upset at that. Many of these men are decent guys to hang with, get to know… have friendships with. Have met plenty in my walk in life.
Since right now, you seem to be in a listening pose, and I am not “belittling” you here and that is not intended as a “snarky” remark. You may think differently, or want to believe differently, but you will have to take my word that it is not intended in that way…..
What I did like about your video and stream-of-consciousness style was the following:
You actually posed in a way that where an incel….. a forced-hand MGTOW or just some run of the mill single man in a church, or out and about would at least *listen to the video fully. Not that you are justifying or enabling their outlook or behavior. Believe it or not…… the way you set the stage was really well done.
*You did not use confusing terms, contradictory language and “good enough for thee but not for me” mindset….. which is pretty much how men talk to each other today in this ‘sphere.
*You did not list in your video the usual, three to five steps that will make you into some mighty man of God / hit with the ladies / or use some backhanded insult that you just need to “man up” or find your “mission” in life. From the general attitude in the sphere, most men at the age of 12 did not know exactly what they wanted to do, nor did they know what God told them to do.
*As for Rollo’s take on this leading black pill? For a man who never knew a struggle about debating to take his own life, he should respectfully shut-up on this. He can stick to the graphs and charts, complex terms.
I found your video at least trying to find a way, or at least trying to help men perhaps face a reality, and then a “Where do you go now, since this door could be / maybe / is closed?”
Now, I am prepared for when your post goes up to be be a scathing attack on me. Men like me, and my supposed “bad attitude”… I am prepared to “fight them on the beaches” as someone once said……
What I am getting at or trying to (and I just cannot find the right words or way to express it in this medium) is that if this “red pilled world” wants to fight this trend, many are going to have to understand that we are not all born with equal looks, equal social status (whatever label or “framework” you throw on it), equal upbringings and equal IQ…. mental or mature. If a large swath of men need to get inspired or change, or do, or be……. it just cannot be “Rollo says this” and “Roosh did this.” It will take something more.
I have been more vocal on this side and over here for the fact that in some areas you (meaning the sphere) are wrong. Dead wrong….. and the arrogance is astounding…. and you’re talking to man who was a believer and I was still looked down upon as a man by the likes of the place.
Anyway……. I am looking forward to a ration of “excrement” tomorrow and a full on ribbing of me, and men like me. I can take it, but I can assure you it won’t make me come around to the ‘sphere in general’s way of thinking.
LikeLike
What Ed wrote above seems to be an appropriate reply here.
That last sentence in bold is referring to what all a man has learned through his experiences in life (among other things), and how much he has matured in the process.
LikeLike
Okay……. So will you use this response to Scott’s upcoming post and end this whole thing as “the appropriate reply” and does Scott even need to post now? Or will it be something to groupthink upon my evidently “terrible attitude”. No. Scott will be hailed as a genius with whatever he posts (and he is very intelligent no doubt…..) and it will throw back to “You betas / chumps / blue-pilled / simps are messing everything up. Just be Alpha!”
I’ve actually responded pretty well to and for my wounds. It is you men and your attitudes that won’t let them heal. I will not allow you peel scabs and have you cloak it under “helping men” anymore.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, Jason. It seems like everything I write hits you the wrong way. It’s not my intentions to make your sufferings worse.
LikeLike
I think I also see some poor men who don’t supplicate, but yet are torn. They recognize that women are God’s gift to men, and they’d love a gift from God. But God didn’t give them good looks or charisma, and women are flat evil to them, disrespecting and disparaging them, they find women to be selfish and uncaring, and downright rude. Even “good Christian women” go out of their way to make sure these men know they have absolutely no chance, because, “they wouldn’t want to be cruel and lead them on”. These men aren’t necessarily kissing women’s asses, they’re mad at women for failing to be the gift they should be, and mad at men who can’t understand their plight, and mad at God for their whole ordeal.
While I’ve never interacted with Jason in the flesh, and don’t know how he comes across in person, I believe he is right that your answers don’t work for him. A little spritz of “game” and he still gets rejected like always, some guaranteed “Alpha moves”, and the women still aren’t buying it off of him. When he walks in the room, the ladies aren’t all giving each other the look and fanning themselves with their hand. All your answers are, “You’ve got to change, Jason.” Who is saying, “No, the problem is this evil generation of haughty women.”? Assuming Jason’s father was somewhat like Jason, and knowing that he and his wife were both loving and devoted to each other for life… Where does Jason go, besides back to the 1950’s, to get what his father had? Dalrock told Jason to try another country, and perhaps that’s the best advice we have, for now. But we should at least have the honesty to admit that some folks really are being tried by God in ways that we never will be. And that we don’t really have any good answer besides to just endure it for the sake of Jesus Christ, and your own eternal reward will not fail. This world is a cruel and evil place led by Satan, and he delights to torment God’s loved ones.
I believe the solution is that women need to be taught that all men are far above them, as Jesus Christ is high above His bride the church. Women need to lose the rights of men that they have usurped, and go back to when they had to have their father or husband represent them and their family in the workplace, at church, in the voting booth, and etc. Only when women in general are taught that a man like Jason is in fact still high above them, to be looked up to and respected, and that he can offer them a life they can’t achieve on their own, can the social dynamic be returned to where most all eligible singles of both sexes are excited by their prospects. If society were healthy and godly as it should be, and just for argument’s sake, assuming Jason is right at the bottom 10% of men for marriage market value, there should still be about 10% of all women thoroughly happy to get a man like him to marry them, to support them, and to let them get into his pants and be impregnated by him to have his babies. This idea that women have that Jason is beneath them, is just ungodly and wrong! But we and our parents generation have finally empowered them to be that way through giving life to the satanic lies of Feminism and supposing women to be equally in the image of God. Wicked ideas bear evil fruit, and an “equal” woman is a thoroughly unhappy woman. Women need to be repressed again. Then a bachelor like Jason could be seen as the liberating prince freeing her from the exacting scrutiny and unending duties of her father’s house and her father’s patriarchal protection assuring that she and her virginity are on lock down, until he gives her away in marriage. That might sound like a pipe dream, or a tall order, but that’s what needs to be done to fix the sexual dynamics in this world. We need a wholesale restructuring of society back to the patristic age of the church.(we started down the slippery slope beginning in the fourth century AD, in Rome) Or we can offer Jason more tips on his game, like that’s gonna upend Feminism. /S LOL
LikeLike
I won’t post under Scott’s post of today (Feb 24) but I see zero connection to his video here to his post of today. Your wife has to be into from day one or it won’t work…or she may endure a marriage but won’t be in love you?
How does this relate to “meet cute”? How does this connect to “ioi’s” and him doing nothing ever to attract a woman and men who don’t have this happen by a certain age…won’t have it happen?
And I am sure all of Scott’s girlfriends from the 16 year old onward were “into him” so does this logic mean any of these women would have been a great wife? He gets to “test drive” but the rest don’t?
Lost.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Opportunities | Σ Frame
Pingback: Trajectories | Σ Frame
Pingback: Sitting on the Fence | Σ Frame
Pingback: The Cold Christian Shoulder | Σ Frame
Pingback: Revisiting Vox’s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy | Σ Frame