Because women have relaxed their sexual standards and because the sexual market has become laissez-faire allowing the invisible hand to “finger out” the marketplace, men have developed an entitled attitude towards sex. Humans regularly display a self-assessment bias where a majority think that they are better than average (80% of people think they are above average intelligence). The male subset of humans is no different in their fallacious conclusions. Since women give up sex easier than they used to and because men think that they are at least as deserving as the men who are actually getting it, they develop a “why not me” attitude when they are relegated to sexual Siberia.
Because it has turned society on its ear, feminism and sexual liberation have created a logical dilemma for men; they would prefer to uphold the ideal of marriage, monogamy, and sexual socialism, yet they want to engage in easy-peasy sex with a woman who meets their attractiveness threshold. When they don’t get what they expect even though they abhor the thought of such behavior for the rest of the men in society, they get angry. But these two positions are incompatible.
Sexual Socialism: Haves versus Have-Nots
Humans align on a social hierarchy that basically determines their sexual attractiveness. While the middle portions of this hierarchy can become convoluted the general timbre of this concept is that there are men at the top who control their sexual destiny while there are men at the bottom who control their sexual destiny only insofar as they control which hand they jack off with and which porn sites they subscribe to. In other words, by nature, there are haves and there are have-nots.
This is an important point to harp on as it is at the root of all social disenchantment from affirmative action policies to gender-neutrality to disparate sexual experiences among males. Like most face-offs between haves and have-nots, the position of the have-nots supports socialist mechanisms in order to keep up with the Jones’ as they say. We see this argument in economics all the time. In particular, advocates for welfare and entitlement programs complain that the wealth gap is continually growing – the poor are getting poorer. But this is patently untrue; the poor are getting richer if rich is defined as “having more stuff”. It’s just that the rich are getting even more rich; they are getting even more stuff. But by historical standards, the economically impoverished are wealthy. They have TVs, cars, cell phones, and travel further distances and see more things than even the wealthiest people of past eras. But financial economics much as sexual economics – and empowerment through it – is all about relativity in the have-nots’ eyes. The have-nots’ ammunition and their power is gleaned from convincing us that life should be fair when we all know that it is not.
Male Entitlement Exists Even Under Female Hypergamy
The current sexual regime is monogamy with a tendency towards female hypergamy. Now, men have to make their sexual choices within this type of regime. The male hierarchy which allocates mate/date pairings has ostensibly adapted to the current sexual regime that has existed for over 30 years now. Most men in the mating/dating market have existed under this type of regime; this implies that our nakedly rational expectations – without cultural influences – would have shifted in order to form a sexual market equilibrium. In other words, mens’ sexual tastes and preferences should have shifted to account for their true-to-life options. If they haven’t aligned over time, there is some barrier – which I’m calling entitlement – standing in the way.
Female hypergamy has this effect: it slices off a portion of the bottom end of the male spectrum of the sexual attractiveness hierarchy. Male 1s, 2s, and 3s – the omegas of the bunch – are virtually eunuchs. They are the worker bees or the compost heap of humanity depending on how much you want to sugar-coat their precarious situation. But this is how it has been for most of human history. If we have 100 men and 100 women, 10% (the hierarchy is not a uniform distribution) of men don’t factor in to the sexual marketplace. The other 90 men become distributed across the 100 women; the attractiveness scale adjusts to where the distance between the highest ranking male and second-highest male is greater than that for the women. From this point on, after the omega males who have always existed have been dealt with, men and women pair up in accordance with their own ratings i.e. male 7s pair up with female 7s.
Because beta males could find mates – if they wanted to – their entitlement lies in their refusal to settle. When I say that men feel entitled, part of my argument rests on the feeling that men don’t accept the women who will accept them. To these men, because of untethered female hypergamy female 6s go after male 7.5s and get them. Since the inverse of this would have to be true – male 7.5s can only get female 6s and below – entitled men feel that they are “falling through the cracks of the new sexual marketplace”. But I maintain there are barriers to falling through these cracks – chubby womens’ bellies provide one such remedy.
A man’s attraction to a woman is based on several things, and this is where his entitlement comes in to play. Female 3s do have sex with men which implies that men are able to have sex with female 3s – some man is able to stomach the idea of having sex with these 3s. Those men are most likely 3s or 4s themselves who don’t have many other options, but the point is that men are physically capable of maintaining an erection around these women (it won’t be as quality as an erection around a 10, but it will do) if that woman is all they can get. So any man who can’t get an erection around these 3s is suffering from a construct which tells him that he is above banging out 3s. Usually this construct is his own memory of his past sexual dalliances. Perhaps the man is used to getting 5s or he sees men who he thinks he resembles having sex with 7s. When he sees a lot of good-looking women spreading their legs for men he thinks he compares favorably to, he’s naturally going to think that he has been shafted when those very same women aren’t interested in him.
Examples of Entitlement
So what does sexual entitlement actually look like? Entitlement is expressed in different ways. Men show it on the micro-level by having lofty expectations of the women they decide to date, and it is displayed on a more macro level in that men are unwilling to settle for a woman that they should rationally be willing to settle for.
First off, let me say that, in the past, I’ve felt overly entitled to sex. I have developed an attitude that if a woman doesn’t have sex with me soon after I begin wooing her I will stop pursuing her. This entitlement is felt by many men and it stems from our preconceived notion that all women are sexually empowered and that we meet their threshold of “do-ability”. This entitlement is manifest in other ways too. Perhaps we feel that a particularly good-looking woman should prefer us based upon our qualities over the types of guys she usually goes for. If those women don’t like our particular swagger or our look, we call them “bitches” or we impugn their intelligence. In many instances in the Manosphere I’ve witnessed men constructing self-defense mechanisms by which they make the argument that a particular (slutty) woman isn’t worth their time and energy. But we all know that these men would capitulate to this woman’s advances at the drop of a hat.
There is also a sense of entitlement in the complaints men have about the women available to them. A large enough number of men complain that they don’t want to date fatties and ugly women, but the truth is, those women are the only viable options for these men. The title of my post sums it up: Alpha Dreams and Beta Genes. Most men have beta dispositions and lead beta lives, yet they want to score on the same level as alpha males. But as we all know, there is a relatively fixed hierarchy that dictates the distribution of alphas, betas, and omegas through society. Too far gone are the words of wisdom that men in these parts are loathe to utter: “Take what you can get.” If you read any Manosphere comment board, you’d get the impression that most of these men are apex alphas who wouldn’t settle for anything less than an 8. But it would be a huge coincidence if alpha males came together on these comment boards in such high numbers. Chances are that most of us around here would do well to score a 5; while plenty of us would do well to score anything at all.
This attitude was captured in Charlotte Allen’s now famous Weekly Standard article titled “The New Dating Game”. She wrote, regarding Mystery, the Game salesman whose profits are maximized by convincing as many men as possible that they can score 8s,9s, and 10s:
“Mystery advises his readers not to bother with any female who rates lower than a 6…on the 1 to 10 scale, while assuring them that if they follow his advice, they can readily score a “supermodel hot” 10.”
One wonders what Mystery would do if one of his readers was Quasimodo or the Elephant Man. I don’t really need to blather on any more about this point as it has pretty much made itself.
Anecdotal Evidence
I’ll use my roommate as an example of male entitlement. He is in his late 30s, has had legal problems that involved jail time for a non-violent felony, and he works with me as a waiter. Physically his looks are on par with your average man in his late Thirties. He had a dry-spell for quite a long time which is no surprise given his circumstances. He had a couple of opportunities to bust his slump – one with a slightly chubby 25-year old chick from work with a decent enough face. Even though she rates more attractive than him, my roommate didn’t want to pursue anything because this chick didn’t get him amped up enough for him to put in the leg work. She wasn’t hot enough for him to put forth any effort to ask her out, go out with her, or even have sex with her. So instead of doing something about his problem – his perpetually unsatiated horniness – he complained about how there weren’t any hot chicks around for him to bang. I pointed out to him on a couple of occasions that hot chicks don’t grow on trees and they aren’t rationed out to every man like loaves of bread during the Depression (although *that* would be an entitlement program I could get behind). His response was always that he couldn’t force “it”.
George Sodini is another example of male entitlement and the Bolshevekian sexual have-nots who I’m arguing against. Sodini had sex less than 100 times in his life; by the time he commited his murders in his late 40s, he hadn’t had sex in almost 20 years although he seems to have had more than one partner in his life. These facts, on their face and compared to men throughout history, indicate that Sodini was sexually fortunate. Many men in our recent history and in prehistoric times went celibate their whole lives. Research on mitochondrial DNA shows that perhaps only 40% of men who ever existed on this Earth reproduced implying that a lot of men went completely celibate in the olden days. Once again, while he wasn’t sexually rich by any means, Sodini’s error is that he compared his sex life to the sex lives of the men around him and determined that he was sex poor. He went on a rampage against a group of women because the women he wanted in general wouldn’t give it up to him. Sodini saw himself as some ranking – maybe a 4 or a 5 – and saw that he couldn’t get the women he believed a 4 or 5 should get. But if he wanted to and if his market analysis wasn’t out of whack from the male entitlement running rampant in the wake of feminism Sodini could have settled for a female 3. But Sodini decided to go on a rampage and then kill himself rather than settle for this fate. While Sodini’s behavior can never be justified, it would be more understandable if he were part of the omega class who didn’t even have the option to settle. But Sodini pined after young, nubile women who were far outside his grasp. He sought to date women many years younger than himself rather than women in their 40s who may have been happy to date the decent-looking and financially secure gunman.
Porn and Hollywood
Of course, porn and Hollywood imagery plays a role in male sexual entitlement. The real women that strut in front of us usually can’t hold a candle to the women we see on our computer screens; this makes for less desire to pursue them (not just because our libidos are drained but because they don’t meet our threshold of attractiveness). So even when female hypergamy chops off a portion of the male underclass, male porn use does the very same thing to the female underclass. These two opposing vectors balance each other out and – nullifying the distortion of female hypergamy – align the attractiveness ratings of “doable” men and “doable” women.
To say all of this boldly, men need to take stock of the women that seem willing to form relationships with them. By taking a sample of 4 or 5 of these women, a man can figure up his own ranking on the attractiveness scale. If a man is successful with 4s,5s, and 6s, then he is most likely a 5. To pine for 7s and complain when he doesn’t get them is entitlement through and through. If a man gets rejected either women are systematically blamed for it or the particular woman has something wrong with her. The problem is, women have become just as entitled by the sexual revolution as men. This dual-headed entitlement, these two Tectonic sexual forces rubbing up against one another, creates a situation where the only people having sex nowadays are those that meet in bars or those that meet in church. To blame his position on the underlying social structure is to ignore the reality of his situation; he is what he is – if he wants sex he has to take what is available to him. If he chooses to forgo sex because the women available to him aren’t up to snuff, he is left with very little room to complain about anything. Other than his genes. He can complain about his genes if he wants to.
Like this:
Like Loading...
‘The problem is, women have become just as entitled by the sexual revolution as men.’ In the traditional Orient, women obeyed men. Now the Yankee Doodles have screwed up themselves and distorted the minds of Oriental women. It is time for the Yankee Doodles to die off and be replaced by Mexican Drywalleros. Then men can command women once more.
insightful.
two things:
1) men have an advantage in the porn/hypergamy sense — it’s easier (or shall we say less difficult, at the least) to turn a random girl to a facsimile of a pornstar than to turn a random guy into a facsimile of an alpha.
2) you should avoid using technical terms such as “law of large numbers” unless you fully understand them (the “law of large numbers” has nothing to do with the increased presence of extreme data points in large samples)
sorry to be pedantic, but, in terms of analogies, if a girl is hot it becomes more important to point out the errant cheese dangling from her chin; likewise, your writing & its mistakes
[Chuck: Fixed. When I'm lost for words to explain a particular concept I'll often just type in whatever keeps popping into mind as a placeholder until I come back to think about it a little more. Since this piece is so wordy I overlooked that. But thanks for pointing out the cheese.]
Seminal writing, Chuck. Congrats.
I esp. agree that the feeling of being rich or poor are relative feelings. Agree that entitlement is a construct. Especially agree that the male brain is hard wired toward a positive self-assessment bias.
…and Thank you for the comments on porn imagery. I listened to a professional photoshoppper (History Channel) discuss his work. He averaged a 27 item list per image: whiten sclera, lengthen arms and legs, saturate iris color, etc. I once did a one-step photoshop of my own image, and was delighted with the result.
The ubiquity of obese women at the mid-attractiveness range (4-6), throws the equation off. Those women effectively demote themselves to 2-3 status, leaving a lot of 4-6 males without a female counterpart.
So these ‘entitled’ betas are between a rock of unattainable women (7-10) and a hard place of having to dumpster-dive for fatties beneath their natural rank.
[Chuck: But the question is, what determines their natural rank? To a degree, and since women are considered the choosers, a man's rank is determined - as roissy defines it - as the quality of women he beds on his own terms. So there isn't as much place for *should*; instead we have to focus on *is*.]
What the obesity epidemic did is mismatch a normal male omega-alpha bellcurve with an abnormal female fattie-hottie U-curve. Lotsa guys in the middle got gypped.
SRSLY, I don’t think that many guys are entitled. Most mid-range guys woudl be happy with an average, non-obese girl whith a compatible personality. But those girls are rare, depending on the geographic region. Most otherwise average girls got swallowed by a fat-tsunami, the rest have found themselves with an inflated SMV, and got too uppity for their male counterparts in the middle of the bell curve.
A ubiquitous sight in lower-middle-class mid-Atlantic US: a ruggedly handsome working class guy with a solid job and good character, accompanied by a stuck-up gargantual whale of a wife.
[Chuck: Although I don't think that pairing is necessarily ubiquitous, there are two contradictions I could counter that point with. First, the observation and the comment "what is that girl doing with *that* guy?" made to indicate that a particular chick is too good looking for whichever guy she's with is a widespread observance. Second, women don't age as gracefully as men. By the time they hit their 30s, those women look worse compared to younger women than the men do compared to younger men.]
One whos name can’t be pronounced,
I am guessing because you’re saying “traditional orient” you are a “yankiedoodle”. I may be mistaken here, however, the facts indicate, that through China’s one child policy and traditional belief system, where in male children are more desirable than female children, there has become a large imbalance in the female/male ratio. There are now hundreds of eligible males to relativly few eligble females. This results in a massively exagerated state of hypergamy where a woman can cut large swaths of the male population from the gene deposition tournament. I think few would contradict my assumption that fewer men are breeding than ever before in history. However, this is not isolated to China but is a systematic infection that is spreading to other countries.
Regards,
MagneticNorth
@PA,
mismatch a normal male omega-alpha bellcurve with an abnormal female fattie-hottie U-curve.
Do you live in the projects?, the ghetto?
Almost all women I see are average in appearance, until I travel to the unemployed side of town.
No, I live neither in projects nor in the ghetto. At work (professional office) I see a higher than average number of all-right looking women. But a visit to the mall or around the town’s touristy areas offers, alas, presents me with views of the mid-section of our society, wherein most young adult women are fat.
But the question is, what determines their natural rank? To a degree, and since women are considered the choosers, a man’s rank is determined – as roissy defines it – as the quality of women he beds on his own terms. So there isn’t as much place for *should*; instead we have to focus on *is*.]
I’m on board with that, but there does have to be an element of *should.* A compeltely unregulated seuxal market tends to not just hypergamy, but also to open homosxeulaity, pederasty, incest. Our society will always put *some* manner of regulation on the market, so there will always be a *should.*
Humans aren’t asocial cats, so there will always be a libertarianish fallacy in arguments that assume solo-agency on the part of men and women’s mating habits. We will always steer toward and away from potential partners by a *should.* An incest taboo is just one such *should* that we take for granted. Anotehr, less taboo-soaked one, is to not try to bang your buddy’s girl. And so on.
What I’m driving at is that there wil lalways be social regulation of the sxeual market, the question being, what kind of regulation? What we are accustomed to in our society, and what we instinctively if not always consciously promote as normal men (like you or I), is a *should* that promotes sustainable practices. Within that frame, it is clear that there IS a natural ranking of both men and women. This ranking matches people of roughly equivalent qualities of male power/charm with female beauty/character.
Roissy’s definition of female-selected alpha is a good working definition, a useful practical measuring stick. But at first causes, it is a tautological definition.
[Chuck: There should be *shoulds* when it comes to moral practices such as incest and screwing your buddy's girl. But there is no proper *should* when it comes to allocating women to men. I think those two things are seperate issues.]
No offence, but this is pure feminism. Lady Raine had a similar thesis, although she did not express it quite so articulately.
[Chuck: I understand that this may align with things that some feminists believe, but I don't think that makes my argument inherently feminist. That's like saying that just because I agree with some sort of eugenics that I'm a Nazi since Nazis also believed in that practice.
People around here have argued about the evils of feminism quite a bit; it is taken as gospel that feminism has altered the sexual landscape; I'm just adding another negative effect onto the list - feminism and sexual revolution have provided an impetus to male sexual entitlement. I think the feminist argument would say that men have always felt sexually entitled, but that isn't my position.]
In “Elementary Particles” Houellebecq convincingly illustrated how free love (unregulated sexual market) will invariably arrive at serial killing. Camille Paglia similarly argued in “Sexual Personae” that left to their own devices, humans will tend toward sadism and torture.
[Chuck: Better yet, how about Bret Easton Ellis in "American Psycho"? Ellis' Patrick Bateman, Houellebecq's spoof on Charles Manson in "EP", and another character of his in "Whatever" who almost killed an interracial couple because the chick rebuked his advances display the sense of entitlement I'm talking about. Yes, hypergamy may have fostered this, but if there are any *shoulds* in society, the *should not kill people* has to enter the fray long before the sexual entitlement convinces them to go on their killing sprees.
So I interpret the serial killing and the pathology as a manifestation of male entitlement which results from the unfettered sex market.]
@PA,
What we are accustomed to in our society, and what we instinctively if not always consciously promote as normal men (like you or I), is a *should* that promotes sustainable practices. Within that frame, it is clear that there IS a natural ranking of both men and women.
“sustainable practices?” Are you a cattle breeder? You grade livestock and breed for eugenics?
You attempt to use analogy to support your “sustainable practices”. Hypergamy is not homosexuality. Hypergamy is not pederasty. Hypergamy is not incest. All analogies are incomplete.
Houellebecq wrote fiction and did not “convincingly illustrate” anything.
“sustainable practices?” Are you a cattle breeder? You grade livestock and breed for eugenics?
More unprovoked belligenrece, and you can talk to yourself.
“Sustainable practices” means assuring stability, averting barbarism, and sustaining a thriving civilization. Stuff like laws, religions, and customs have been in place for since dawn of time.
Houellebecq wrote fiction and did not “convincingly illustrate” anything.
That’s why I said “illustrate,” not “prove.” He did it convincingly enough for me.
Every buddying PUA needs to read this.
Guys have to shine a harsh light on their lifestyle and what they bring to the table before assuming any entitlement.
Well done
I don’t like the dismissal of the obesity epidemic (fat-tsunami) and its affect on the sexual marketplace – is it entitlement to think that a 5-male, who is reasonably healthy and not obese, SHOULD be able to bed a 5-female, who is also reasonably healthy and not obese?
PA makes a good point saying that some girls in the middle of the curve range (4-6), have an inflated sense of SMV. Personally, I know a few middle-girls who talk, act, and think that they are god’s gift – I would say they think they are a 7-9. I saw the transition occur in one when she entered the single bar scene and thus, an excess in male attention was given to them, boosting their self-perceived SMV. She (a typical 5) literally went from unassuming, almost depressed, to diva-status, in about a year’s time.
I also would like to suggest that when a 4-6 girl gets a 7-9 male to screw her, she starts to get a little entitled on her own, no? She craves, desires, and is entitled to that higher value male.
This is not to say I disagree with your premise about male sexual entitlement; the example of your co-worker is just plain stupidity on his part. People who complain, instead of act, are pussies.
:: slow 80s clap ::
When I was in freshman year of college, I had the attitude of “Everybody’s getting laid except me!” and alpha-resentment that I think actually made me less successful with women. Only when I discovered that I could not expect what I hadn’t earned did I take the steps to improve myself.
The serial killing that Houellebecq was talking about in E.P. was related to free-love hippie movement finding its natural fulfillment in Charles Manson, if memory serves right.
But there is no proper *should* when it comes to allocating women to men.
But there always will be to a significant degree. Polygamy, for one, is illegal.
Really excellent post.
Does anyone know where to find reliable statistics on obesity in America? I’m really curious to see where obesity rates are for women aged 18-35 and if they’re any higher than the national average. Maybe if they are, then PA’s argument that obesity has a more profound effect on the sexual marketplace than Chuck’s article accounts for would hold some weight (heh).
Agreed. Seminal writing. Although the mental exercise of picturing myself as the male equivalent of some fat bitch didn’t exactly make my day. But I guess a good part of self knowledge is to see yourself as others do.
I would question only in the sense that so many more men than women seem to be totally unacceptable to the opposite sex. I guess you could turn that round and say that women are more on top of their game. Hmmmm, don’t know….
People around here have argued about the evils of feminism quite a bit; it is taken as gospel that feminism has altered the sexual landscape; I’m just adding another negative effect onto the list – feminism and sexual revolution have provided an impetus to male sexual entitlement.
A solid exposition overall and an intriguing argument in the snippet above. Can you flesh this out more? How could it be linked to the evils of feminism? Are you saying that due to today’s more flexible sexual environment, that a man no longer feels constrained by the dictates of church and chivalry, but, influenced by a highly sexualized culture, is now more demanding? Back in the village, in the old days, men would more comfortably settle for a 3, and would have to go thru extensive ritual to get even that. In these days however all bets are off? So the irony is that the fems have helped remove a layer of protection and consideration once granted to women? Now females are given a hard, even scornful “fleshometer” analysis as to if she measures up to media images? Just want to be sure if this is where you are coming from on this score.
It would be an ironic result of the sexual liberation/fem movements, and would not at all be incompatible with the fem counterpoint that men have always felt entitled. Sure they have, but in the old days, church and chivalry mediated and softened and redirected this feeling, channeling it into avenues where even a 2 or 3 had a better chance on the market. If correct, your thesis would have long term implications as well- for today’s “8″ make drop to a “4″ as the ravages of age and divorce kick in. At the “4″ level, she would still be subject to the scornful, fleshy scrutiny of “entitled” men… adding double jeopardy to the already reduced status of the aging divorcee or single mom with a stack of kids and bills in tow..
The trouble is that, as Wright pointed out in “The Moral Animal”, in a situation of “de facto polygyny”, women float up the mating pole, so guys are going to be faced with a shortage of peer level females on all levels other than omega, and will need to “settle” downwards if they wish to mate. In other words, it behooves most female 6s to decamp for male 7-10s to see if they can snag one into a commitment. And we both know many male 7-10s will bang cute female 6s several days a week. So the male 6s are left with … female 4s and 5s. Sure, they can get laid that way, but it seems very odd to say that guys who don’t want to settle “downward” in terms of sexual market value are therefore “entitled”. Shouldn’t they have a reasonable expectation to mate with a 6 of they are a male 6? In the current market, though, 6s are busy banging male 7-10s. That’s the issue, not entitlement.
That may be the “new reality” for men, but if it is, it sucks ass. The old regime of enforced monogamy matched people better than this one does because, again as Wright points out in his book, a system of de facto polygyny results in female drift up. Which benefits the top men and the women who are floating up at the expense of the peer SMV men they are floating upward from.
I agree that men who wish to mate and are not at the top of the pole need to settle, in many cases for women who are 1-2 below them, in objective terms. That’s just the market we live in today. It’s bad for men, of course, and I also understand why a good number of men are opting out of it. I agree that porn has an impact, but it isnt the main one. The main one is the kind of female upward drift that Wright talks about in his book.
I find this all very interesting to look at as an outsider. I’m in my early 40s and have done my genetic duty, proved my genetic fitness and so on, so it’s entertaining to see guys in their 20s try to justify what is, to my eyes, an objectively screwy situation. But if it makes it easier, then I guess it makes sense. Salve is salve, after all.
**********
But this is patently untrue; the poor are getting richer if rich is defined as “having more stuff”.
**********
Well, what if I choose to define “richer” as being able to afford food that doesn’t reduce you to a toxic blob of dough?
Well then, I guess that is that.
Great post chuck.
Maybe men need to formulate their own subjective ranking system to account for women’s hypergamy and allow themselves to adjust their expectations accordingly to prevent any sexual frustration. We currently have an objective 1-10 scale. But as you point out, if a male 6 compares himself to a female 6 and concludes that he should be able to bang her, he will probably be frustrated because he is working on a sliding scale and his expectations will go unmet more often than not. Each man needs to formulate a personal scale. For example if I’m a 7 then I should be happy banging 5.5′s – 6′s and above. These 5.5′s and above should be graded on a personal scale. A 5.5 is a Nick 7 and a 6 is a Nick 8. As you can see a Nick 10 is roughly an 8.5 – 9. It just so happens that the hottest girl I’ve ever banged (and realistically would ever be expected to bang) is objectively an 8.5 – 9 but on my scale is a Nick 10. An objective 10 is simply out of my league (and thus not even on my personal scale) and I should never expect to bang her if I want to maintain my sanity.
Well done, sir.
you are all gay; this will ground your sensibilities
Pingback: Weekend Link Fest – Bolivian-American fusion edition « Seasons of Tumult and Discord
Pingback: Word Around the Campfire – First Mow of the Season edition « Hidden Leaves
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Had to Get Away Edition
I find myself amused by the notion that men are permitted to blame their genes. How very kind of you, Overlord, to permit us to blame our genes.
I was also reminded of the song:
“No one owes you, no one’s to blame
Save for bad genes or DNA
Ask your conscience the why and how
Do it then
Do it when
But, do it now”
In short, I do not acknowledge you as an authority, so I will blame whatever and whomever I please, regardless of whether you acknowledge my right to blame.
[Chuck: I never tried to represent my authoritarianism; I'm merely a guy who has an opinion. Take it for what it's worth to you as a socially maladroit freak.]
George Sordini’s action would have been more understandable if he were an Omega? Oh bull! A middle-aged Omega would have lost any sense of entitlement towards women whatsoever.
[Chuck: So either you're saying Sodini wasn't an omega but he felt entitled or he was an omega in which case he did feel entitled? Sodini was an omega by today's definition of the word, and my argument is that omegas in our society - because sex has been cheapened and put on display due to feminism - feel entitled to sex. Therefore Sodini, being an omega, felt entitled to sex which explains his desire to kill them.]
On the other hand, how many woman throughout history never had children? It’s part of life that the minority of each species end up getting to have sex.
[Chuck: Dr. Roy Baumeister and John Thierney at Tierney's Lab have asserted that 40% of men in history reproduced while 80% of women have. So, no, a majority of women *have* reproduced. So it seems that only the majority of men experience this particular part of life. It sucks, as Novaseeker said, but that's how it is.]
Pingback: Alpha Dreams and Beta Genes: Male Sexual Entitlement
Chuck originally wrote:
‘To blame his position on the underlying social structure is to ignore the reality of his situation;’
Chuck then tried to back-pedal with:
‘ I never tried to represent my authoritarianism’
Chuck apparently doesn’t speak English. What he should have written is, “I never tried to represent myself as an authority.”
In fact, that’s a lie, because in the first quote he represented himself as an authority on what is real and what is not.
A liar is sad, but a liar with bad grammar is just pitiable.
John Walters:
If I don’t speak English then how the fuck did you read this piece? I mean, if you want to get pedantic, that is a legitimate question for me to ask.
As far as your “I don’t have to listen to you nyah, nyah” tirade, such an argument applies to everything you could read on the internet. You don’t have to listen to anyone; to repeat that argument as if *your* decision not to listen to me is the correct decision to make implies that you are presenting yourself as an authority. The internet is full of authority representation, and it is always true that “I don’t have to listen to you as an authority”, so you made a redundant point.
And you got it right on your first comment; you should address me as Overlord.
The sexual market is not a laissez faire: there is tremendous government intervention tilting the playing field in favor of women. The beta male, who offers modest financial security and dependability, is mocked, but only while the value he provides is extracted from him by the government.
In previous eras, in order to get someone to provide for her, a woman had to marry the guy. Now, she takes his money anyway through welfare payments, food stamps, etc.
The beta’s willingness to commit and be dependable is also mocked, but only because a woman can rape him in a divorce court, or extract child support payments anyway.
This, I believe, is part of the entitlement: betas really are entitled because they’re giving up their resources for these things anyway. Teh wimminz aren’t all that independent.
[Chuck: This turns out to be a "commons" problem. Betas may contribute a lot to *society* but they don't contribute a lot to any single woman - at least not enough to allow for them to have any legitimate claim on any singular woman.
And I'll admit I didn't clarify my laissez-faire argument as clearly as I should have. By that I meant that women are now free to choose men without any economic or social impediment. They now choose them based upon "natural" qualities - good looks and alphaness.]
Why it’s gotta be fat chicks? That’s shooting a little too high for most “lesser betas” and “omegas.” There are plenty of withered (but thin) old hags and toothless meth heads with bad skin to go around, right? Why not go for them?
Most shy, unattractive nerds will take whatever they can get, and will be slobberingly grateful to do so. The fat chick, on the other hand, will bring to the table ingratitude, an entitlement mentality, and–if she’s over 30–wary and resentful kids and a likely hostile ex.
The meth head, on the other hand, has already lost her kids to social services, alienated her ex, and will be slobberingly grateful to get her daily amphetamines. And if you have some sort of problem with the idea of meth…there’s always crack!
[Chuck: This is a good point. Fat chicks have gotten a bad rap; there are always druggie bitches that can fill in the "cracks" even better than the fatties can.]
But, in all seriousness, I can’t imagine most of the people who read “the Roissysphere” being 1s, 2s, or 3s, for the simple reason that there aren’t many people that unattractive. Maybe you are less generous with rating attractiveness than I am, but people below “4″ on the 1-10 scale definitely stand out in a crowd. Examples of male “4s” would be Rocky’s brother-in-law Paulie (Burt Young) or the rather fugly producer Jerry Bruckheimer. The guys in the “1″ category are probably the truly unfortunate, like the legless, noseless leper I saw in Brazil. And even that guy became bearable to look at once you saw he interacted normally with people–people he was begging from–apparently making small talk and telling jokes.
I guess I also don’t rate beauty that highly–I can always find the flaws in somebody’s face. Scarlett Johansson, for instance, would be a 7 in my book. Sophia Vergara, a high 7 or maybe an 8…I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an authenthic 8 or 9 in my life.
[Chuck: The hotness scale, like most other human attributes (height, weight, penis size), is normally distributed i.e. bell curve.
Ten percent of the population are 1s,2s,9s, and 10s. Maybe half fall into the mediocre category of 4s,5s, and 6s. Another 20% lie in the two categories on the low end and the high end, respectively. So, depending on where you live, you've seen some 9s and 10s; they're as rare as the 1s and 2s.]
Hello there,
As a FAT CHICK, I would like to applaud your writing as you are the only male I have read that doesn’t reek of bitterness, blaming, whininess regarding this issue. One thing that is interesting to me is how fat girls no matter how pretty, pure, sweet, cute, etc. Is considered the ultimate bottom of the barrell for men. It’s quite a shame because I have a Beta male and now we are on a diet/excersize routine together. We always joke about how we are tow “hot people” that are covered up by fat. We both need to lose around 75-100 pounds, but all those other pieces on my part that a man would want are there. I dont have kids, I’m not worn out. I’m 30 but look like I’m 25. I’m kind and smart and faithful. I cook and clean and love sex. I was the perfect woman, except I wight 275 pounds standing at 5’9”
I just wanted to share my story with this board because as I check out what men are saying, I am always surprized at thier lack of creativity. But then again, since men want sex and women want love that is a contributing factor.
But I have to disagree that women hodl all the cards. As a FAT CHICK, I have never been able to agree with this notion that men hold regarding women being the CHOOSERS. I have always felt like men were the choosers. But your article really cleared it up for me. Now I know that when men say the word “woman” what they really mean is : HOT SKINNY CHICK.
All, i have to say is that I’m well on my way to becoming a hot thin woman, and I’m doing it all for my man who loved me while I was fat. I’ve already shed 25 pounds. He’s doing well too. He’s my beta computer nerd. Socially ackward. but romantic and sweet as hell.
I can’t wait to reward his pudgy ass with my new hot body and ride his not-huge cock all night long!
And if you think i’m a troll, I’ll happily communicate with you off board so you can see I’m real.
Anyway, I think some guys need rescue a fat- girl. Put her on a diet and she will be yours forever!!!
Another side of male entitlement: Society allows men to get angry. Women are not supposed to get angry about anything, really, but anger towards men for their inflated egos and their disdain for “6 and under” females? Ultimate taboo. Resentful, bitter? Only men seem to be able to express those feelings openly. You know the way lots of men will stand around, loudly appraising every woman who walks by, openly assigning each one a number on their rating scale, judging each of her body parts separately? A woman who is considered “hot” is supposed to be grateful and smile or say “thanks, guys!” A woman who receives a negative or mixed “review” is supposed to bow her head in shame, and hurry home to “fix herself up.” For the past few years, whenever a man gives me his unwanted critique in this obnoxious way, I turn around, look him straight in the eye, and give him my own head-to-toe critique and assign him a ratings number. You should see a man’s face when a woman does this, especially if she gets loud and angry. Or laughs and makes fun of him, mocks and “shames” him. Invariably, he has this wide-eyed, open-mouthed expression of shock and disbelief. That look says everything about male entitlement: “What??? Am I hallucinating? Lady, you just aren’t following the script. I’m supposed to judge you and report back to you about YOUR sexual attractiveness. You aren’t supposed to turn the tables on me! Besides, all this time, I’ve been convincing myself that I’m a perfect stud. Could I maybe…possibly…have been wrong?”
I would like to see a lot more women confront men who do this kind of thing – and give them a taste of their own bitter medicine. There are other ways, too, if you can’t get past the “good girl” training and directly confront a-hole or douchebag types. You can ask him if he wants a nice, hot cup of coffee. Then, serve it to him. In his lap. Accidently, of course! (Make sure it’s smokin’ hot first. The guy DESERVES the
hottest, right?) Men like this never see it coming. I’m not suggesting that any woman pull a George Sodini. But don’t be polite or passive when a man behaves badly. I get much more respect from men (AND women) since I quit being so “understanding” about such male “needs” (entitlements, really) as sex on demand with no strings attached, chasing the “perfect 10″, judging and “reviewing” the “hotness” of every passing (female) stranger, and so on.
My relationships are better in every way. I don’t expect to be put on a pedestal, but I do insist on common courtesy.
I noticed that you classified George Sodini as an omega who couldn’t get ANY sex. Don’t think so. He is slightly better than average looking (for his age – and sorry, guys, lots of men don’t age gracefully!) and had a very good job. He was socially and emotionally retarded, yes, which lowered his appeal…but an average-looking woman close to his own age would have dated him. Again, the problem was that male sense of entitlement to a Playboy Mansion lifestyle. What got him so furious was this: extremely pretty or beautiful girls in their early 20s wouldn’t have sex with him. And, notice how Sodini didn’t kill the young beauties who rejected his advances.
Instead, he killed women in their 40s who might very well have dated him. Why did he focus his rage on women who HADN’T turned him down? It’s because Sodini was furious at these middle-aged, average women for aging, for not being knockouts and for being his only choice. He preferred to remain alone and frustrated, holding out for the gorgeous, shapely young babe who would someday come dancing into his life…someday, tomorrow, next week, next year.
But the dream girl never showed up. Reality was starting to set in. He couldn’t stand it,so rather than adjusting his expectations, he went on a rampage. Those PUA snake oil salesmen were a big part of the problem. If only Georgie Boy had gone to a PUA seminar with that shotgun…
Sorry, I made a mistake about Sodini. I was reading your post on my i – phone and talking to someone at the same time, so I skipped over the paragraph where you mention that King George the Entitled wasn’t “omega” and COULD have gone out with women regularly, but chose his own miserable fate. It’s just that soooo many people (male people, especially) have portrayed Sodini as a poor, sad, lonely man who was spurned by the entire female population – boohoo, waaah, bring out the violins, etc…sob, sob, just a victim of Those Evil Bitches Who Won’t Put Out.
@The Article
I have a problem with this theory/logic. I used to even buy it at one time, until I saw the real world doesn’t bear it out.
Here’s the thing. In the real world, guys who are 3s regularily bang 8s and even 9s occasionally. In the real world, there’s a ton of 8-9 guys who are dating a beastly 3.
I always wondered about this… First I bought into the “game” nonsense, but after many years of it, and learning its not the answer, I finally learned the truth.
The real secret of guys who get better (more) chicks is simply getting rejected more. Its that simple. Truth is… ITS ALWAYS a numbers-game. If you’re a 4 guy, you can go for 3s all day long, but you’ll still only get 10% of 3s… Which is not that much better than 5% of 9s.
I have a friend who buys the theory above about lowering criteria. Guess what? He’s a 7. He goes for 2s and 3s (literally, I couldn’t believe it for a while). Guess what? Does he walk up to 2s and 3s and they’re like “omg I’m yours, please take me!!!” NO. He still has roughly the same batting percentage he had only trying to get 8s and even 9s.
The truth is, I believe this theory above is nothing but a mega-complex rationalization for not being able to take rejection from 9s. In truth, guys who subscribe to this theory, find that their ego is less hurt when getting rejected by a 3, so they don’t mind playing the numbers game on 3s.
Summary:
In the real world, things are more flexible. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying a male 2 can get female 10s… What I am saying however is that in the real world your exercise of equating male 4s to female 4s fails miserably. There is no comparison, and 1) ratings are very subjective (up to 4-5 grades) 2) different people focus on different things…
In essence, there is nothing inherently wrong with a male 3 wanting 7s or even 8s… What IS WRONG, if he believes they should drop in his lap without him having to do work. But guess what, he needs to do work for female 3s too.
So the entitlement comes in “I want to get hot chicks effortlessly dropping into my lap, and never be rejected by one”… Simply wanting them, is in itself not entitlement.
Ok, I just read something else COMPLETELY unsubstantiated by the REAL world.
Chuck, in a comment you said:
“”The hotness scale, like most other human attributes (height, weight, penis size), is normally distributed i.e. bell curve.
Ten percent of the population are 1s,2s,9s, and 10s. Maybe half fall into the mediocre category of 4s,5s, and 6s. Another 20% lie in the two categories on the low end and the high end, respectively. So, depending on where you live, you’ve seen some 9s and 10s; they’re as rare as the 1s and 2s.”"
Huh? You’ve obviously never travelled. I just came back from greece (athens and thessaloniki). The average female there is a FREAKING 4. I mean something like 70% of girls are below a 5. A freaking 7 in athens is treated like a godess, and I saw just one 7 per week. Btw, I approach a lot, and the moment I see a cutie, I start up a conversation. Any 7-8-9 I met happened to be eastern european or tourist. Greek chicks never went over a 5.
Guess what? Greek guys? They all freaking look like freaking models. I mean, in greece every single couple is a freaking male model holding hands with a freaking 3. Every single couple. The average greek guy looks like a model, and I’d say 90% of greek males are above an 8 on the scale.
So how does that fit into your distribution? Then, let’s go back to my part of the world… Eastern europe.
Over here, walking down the street, a good 80% of girls are above a 7, and I’d says as much as 50% are above an 8. How the heck does that fit into your model of a bell-curve? I think you’re trying to make the world a lot simpler than it is, and you want there to be bell-curves, even if they’re not. If you don’t believe me… Travel a little… All your theories break apart with a little travelling.
Both men and women do this same mistake. Here’s an example. I hate feminist theories for how ridicolous they are? But if I were to make ONE slight tweak in feminist theories, all of a sudden I’d agree with 99% of feminist theories. Do you know what that tweak is?
If you go into feminist theories and replace “men” with “alpha males”, all of a sudden every feminist theory becomes true. Ok, ok. I’m exaggerating… they’ll still have some flaws. But it goes from ridicolously insane to “ya I can see how they came to believe this stuff”.
So whenever men generalize about “women”, they’re thinking a megan-fox look a like at work. Whenever women generalize about “men”, they’re thinking about the rich cocky Lawyer who’s banging every chick in the neighbourhood.
Actually, people who researched his life, found he never even did get rejected lol. In other words, he wasn’t even trying, or approaching. He expected hot women to throw themselves at him :d Its not like he got rejected by a 100 hotties and then flipped out. Btw, I honestly think if he asked out a 100 hotties, he’d have laid at least a few. Thing is, he never tried.
Mr. Psycho in his twisted mind was actually pissed off at “how easy hot women get sex”, while he “has to work for it”. He was really pissed off at himself for not having the balls to do the work, so he chanelled his anger outwards towards women for not having to do any work.
This article was cute and amusing. Nothing more.
I’m not impressed.
This is just yet another of countless articles on the Internet seeking to blame men for anything and everything, yet fails to hold women accountable for a single iota.
Pingback: Genre et Jeu vidéo (2) : Les femmes comme récompenses « Genre!
Pingback: Genre et Jeu vidéo (2) : Les femmes comme récompenses « Actualités Alternatives « Je veux de l'info
Pingback: Cultures G » Blog Archive » Genre et Jeu vidéo (2) : Les femmes comme récompenses
i don’t understand this ambiguity in ideologies when it comes to different spheres..
you propose socialism when it comes to economy, wealth etc, and at the same time propose a sort of sexual capitalism when it comes to ..erm..sex..
Dude! You used to post on Usenet all the time, right? What are you now, in your forties, fifties? If not, I think you may have a long lost twin because you write exactly the same way. Anyway, your analysis are (as) sharp (as ever).