Thursday, March 11, 2010

Gamma Man.

One of the blogs I like most to frequent is Ferdinand's. His In Mala Fide blog is perhaps the best pop conservative sites out there. The term Pop Conservative is not meant as a slight, it's likely to be far more influential that a highbrow blog since it adopts a style that the average man can appreciate. I like his site not because he mentions my blog, but rather he promotes other blogs which are far more interesting than mine. One that has caught my eye and has impressed me no end is Athol Kay's, Married Man Sex Life. Really, although the blog title might be a bit off putting--he really should call it Wife Management 101--the blog is definitely worth the read. Why? Because Athol "gets" the big picture.

The Roissysphere tends to view relationships as purely sexual. A man status and happiness are measured by the quality of the lay. A man banging 10's is more Alpha and happier than a man banging 8's. While there is a great deal of truth to this in high school, in reality adult relationships need much more than simple sexual attraction. That's not to say that sexual attraction is not important--social conservatives please note--rather grown ups tend to want other things as well: stability, friendship, love etc. Neil Strauss, the populiser of Game realised this; his own relationship with Lisa Leveridge failed. He could pull in the hotties but it appears he couldn't keep them.

The curious paradox is that what seems to keep relationships going long term is a combination of both alpha and beta traits. A man has to possess characteristics which both turn a woman sexually on and turn her off. In Roissy's taxonomy of men, the males are divided into Alpha, Beta and Omega. But Roissy only measures by the ability to get laid. Instead Athol Kay--who is focusing on long term relationships-- builds on this and proposes the Gamma male:
(I've shamelessly borrowed this image and text from his site. It's brilliant)

The Omega Male is easiest to dispense with. He’s just devoid of positive qualities and only the most desperate of women would desire to mate with him. Even then he’ll likely need up being supported by her to some degree. Avoid him.

The pure Alpha Bad Boys certainly do pull the women, but the relationships tend to be short as eventually the women become uncomfortable with the lack of comfort building support. There’s plenty of excitement, and sizzling sex as the attraction is definitely there for her, but she knows from the beginning its not going to last, but she is drawn to him anyway.

The pure Beta Nice Guy also pull women, but they pull differently. They “make sense” on an intellectual level and they are very comfortable to live with. More than likely they are too comfortable, and the woman tends to want to see a display of dominance of some sort before she becomes fully attracted to him. Ultimately the nice guys are just too sexually boring to women to remain completely focused on one. Queue the “I love you, but I’m not in love with you speech”. What is often seen in young women is ping ponging between bad boys and nice guys – she gets a dose of crazy sexual attraction from the bad boy, but then she needs the comfort building and she seeks it from a nice guy, and then the cycle repeats over and over until the music stops around age 35 and she’s scrambling to find a chair anywhere.

The ideal is the Gamma Male. Not often talked about, but they are out there. Usually a Gamma is an Alpha Male that “grew up” and toned down the antics slightly and started being socially conscious and more of a team player. Or they started as a Beta Male that “grew a pair” and started bumping back on the rest of the world rather than just taking it lying down. Either way works as a route. Like Jean-Luc Picard, Gammas use diplomacy but when required to they will respond with adept force. Mostly they are consciously aware of both their own natures, and the needs of women. They adjust on the fly to the situation, sometimes hard, sometimes soft. Gamma’s are the true ideal, but I think the Alpha and Beta terms are so ingrained, that it is simply easier to broken record the idea that if you’re too Alpha the solution is to add Beta, and if you’re too Beta the solution is to add Alpha. You already know what your weak area is. Work on that for easy gains.
A couple of points. Firstly, these are pretty astute social observations and they square up with what I see in practice. Implicit in Mr Kay's observations are that women are sexual beings and that there is a sexual dimension to normal male female relationships. Secondly, for a male, being "nice" alone just doesn't cut the mustard as a woman needs a sexual dimension to the relationship for it to go anywhere; women are inherently sexual beings. Religious conservatives please note, sexual desire isn't something that "foreign" to the female ideal, it's part and parcel of the female package. The romantic meme, that the way to woman's virtue is via the path of "niceness", flaunts real world observation and is not congruent with reality. Finally, when women are asked what type of guy they like, a nice guy is usually the answer. What they of course mean is a nice guy who makes them hot and horny.

The Roissysphere has popularised the notion of the Alpha male. And really, if a life of Hedonism is your goal then that's all you need. Because it's quite apparent that women--when freed from social mores--are just as superficial judges of character as most men are. In our current bathhouse culture, women are more likely to be motivated by their loins than their heart in the choice of a bed mate, especially when drunk. So if your aim is to bed as men women as you can, being Alpha is all that matters. The Beta traits, the traits that are the foundation of lasting love, domestic awe, industry, prosperity are unnecessary. But if these things matter to you, then your going to have to cultivate both alpha and beta traits you're going to have to strive to be a gamma male.

Really, nice guys don't finish last. It's nice guys without alpha traits that finish last.

Read Athol Kay's blog. Its very very good.

(N.B. I don't agree with everything he says, I disagree with his pharmacological opinions i.e how the pill works and the use of anti-depressant medication, but his understanding of psychology in my opinion is spot on.)

12 comments:

Athol Kay: Married Man Sex Life said...

Hi there, thanks for the link love much appreciated.

I'm glad to see the particular post get more attention. It's quite foundational.

SDaedalus said...

Soc Pat, what do you think of Athol Kay's suggestion that one's wife's ovulation date can be determined by reference to her contraceptive pills.

Perhaps the sex education classes I attended weren't really up to scratch, but my impression was that contraceptive pills stopped ovulation altogether.

Can you help in resolving this medical mystery?

Has Athol found a way to supersede the contraceptive pill? If so, this could be a useful weapon for the manosphere, keep 'em barefoot, pregnant & all that.

The Social Pathologist said...

SDaedalus.

I hadn't read all of his posts and glossed over that one. Yes, you're quite right, the pill is meant to stop ovulation. But to be fair, the slight hormonal fluctuations that can come about for the pill use can can case variation in libido, though it is not related to ovulation as such.

The other area in which I disagree with him is with regard to SSRI's, they do have a role and unfortunately a lot of people are depressed. Still, once again, to be fair it would appear that U.S. doctors tend to prescribe them at a lower threshold that I would. Sometimes being depressed at your situation in life is perfectly appropriate and medication is not.

His psychology is spot on.

I placed a qualifier at the bottom of my post. Thanks for bringing the matter to notice.

Athol Kay: Married Man Sex Life said...

The birth control pills will certainly flatten the peaks and valleys of the sexual cycle out. No she cannot techinically ovulate. I certainly do see variance in sexual intertest in many women on birth control pills though. Some women have marked reduction on the pills as well. I will have to amend that for clarity. Thanks.

The SSRI pills are problematic. Some people really do very well on them, but the vast majority simply don't need them. The drug books here also flag Premature Ejaculation as a Dx to prescribe SSRIs, so it seems clear to be that we're moving to frank admission on what happens on these meds rather than as just a possible side effect.

The Social Pathologist said...

Sorry for the spelling SDaedalus, was running out of the house when I made the comment and did not proof read.

The relationship with depression, SSRI's and libido is quite complex and not really predictable. Athol is right, SSRI's are prescribed for premature ejaculation but the retarding effect seems to vary with individuals and the drug. Paroxetine seems particularly prone to cause problems, venlafaxine less so in my experience.

I reckon in my practice about 30% of men on anti-depressants complain about the sexual side effects. Most often its the inability to ejaculate less so than the loss in libido. The problem is that in depression, libido is often quite seriously depressed due to the depression itself.

Once again. I really like Athol's blog, I plan to make a few more comments about some of the posts in the future.

anoukange said...

Yes slumlord! The weird reality that gets left behind in the "imaging" of a lot of these "alpha seduction bloggers" is that they cannot keep girls, nor have the great majority of them never been in long terms, claiming it's by choice. Lies, of course. I have been advocating for the "hybrid" male for some time now and I consider myself to be a gamma female as a result of learning and growing from my long terms. The point that is lost in much of what is chatted about via these blogs is the pursuit of happiness. One is quite shallow if they do not require several levels of existence for a true, complete happiness. They have stunted themselves and will remain only on a surface level, yet they "lead" others...? I don't get it. Thank you for this post.

Frznk said...

Leaders are often superficial people. We want to be led by a bold image, not by anyone flawed or complex.

It also needs explaining that the gamma cannot pick and choose the alpha traits he needs to work on. He must choose what has given others the most success. Being yourself sometimes means not being true to yourself.

Anonymous said...

I have noticed one anonmalie in your concept building which blows a massive hole in your theory: GAY MEN & LESBIANS!

Anonymous said...

I am female. Does it help men if he spent more time outside and socializing and being friendly or neighbourly with people, weight lifting to increase testosterone regardless of muscle building genetic predisposition and smiling and saying hello to all women he finds appropriately interesting instead of staring into laptops or smartphones and reading these articles? I recently had a man say hello on the street and as I turned and said hello back he smiled back no pressure tactics.
The next time I see him we will start a conversation. A man needs to stop making it game and start being friendly. I found his smile and friendly manner both confident and not overpoweringly alpha. Yet...we both got a smile. It was nice and it may or may not lead to more. I think too much reading becomes the culprit instead of the guide. Getting social helps too. If not more....

ronaldglassford said...

This is a great summary, especially with the chart that capsulizes the concepts. I have been discussing these issues with friends, and this kind of summary is very useful.

In other sites, other models like: Alpha, Beta, Delta (can change to Alpha), Gamma (low Beta) and Omega. What you are calling Gamma here seems like higher-alpha-content Beta on other sites.

This nomenclature is actually much more tangible, simpler and the existence of Gamma as you describe, with its unique blend of Alpha and Beta, can be observed very easily.

I think that a bit more indulgence should be given to the Omegas. Some of them use their awkward presentation to their advantage. Another poster here mentioned Russell Brand...Omega or Alpha? I think Alpha, although he is rather unusual in many respects.

Great blog.

Josh said...

Omegas are the "bad boys" just so you know.

Omega = any human who isn't a pack animal

Anonymous said...

What a load of crap...