The Outcast Problem - Gamma Male Idealism?

[Lucas88]

I recently came across the theory of the five-tier sociosexual hierarchy which I believe was outlined by an author named Vox Day. This theory places men into the categories of Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma and Omega based on their dominant characteristics and also includes the idea of the rebellious Sigma male who exists outside of the conventional hierarchy.



According to this conception of the sociosexual hierarchy:

Alpha - Strong, charismatic natural leader with high status

Beta - Right hand of the alpha, enforcer in a chain of command, relatively high status

Delta - Mediocre, regular guy, rank-and-file role, what most people imagine "betas" to be

Gamma - Socially awkward misfit intellectual and idealist who believes himself to deserve higher status than what he actually has

Omega - Loser and reject of the sociosexual hierarchy, often a blackpilled incel

https://theadultman.com/love-and-lust/s ... hierarchy/

Fortunately, according to the author, these categories merely reflect general tendencies and nothing is set in stone. Mobility between categories is possible through lifestyle changes and conscious effort.

Now, when I was reading through the gamma male profile (I had never even heard of a "gamma male" before), I immediately thought of our fervent and outspoken traditionalist forum member @Outcast9428 who, in my observation, seems to have a preponderance of gamma male traits. This might account for his characteristic behavioral patterns. Some people here have accused Outcast of being a "beta" (I understand that in the RedPill and MGTOW movements "beta" has become a general pejorative for men who are perceived as weak and unmasculine), but I disagree with such an assessment; I believe that Outcast much more closely fits the category of gamma male.

Here is a concise definition of the gamma male from the same website cited above:

What is a gamma male? According to Vox Day’s Socio Sexual Hierarchy, gamma males are intellectual, highly romantic, ideologically driven men who hold a lower-status position in the social dominance hierarchy—though they desire to be leaders and are envious of the rank and privilege that comes natural to the alphas and betas.

Now, before we continue, I would like to make it clear that I am not writing this post with the intention to insult or disparage Outcast. Even though we have some strong points of disagreement concerning his brand of traditionalism and the most desirable form of society and I even doubt the purity of his motives to some degree due to my own skeptical nature, I don't take any of it personally. Besides, Outcast recently harshly accused me of advocating for hood nigga masculinity and didn't pull any punches. So I will take the liberty of doing the same in my analysis of his personality and motives. As far as I'm concerned, it's fair game.

Without further ado, let me outline the major traits of the gamma male (quoted from theadultman.com) and analyze to what degree Outcast's known behaviors and characteristics correspond to them.

https://theadultman.com/love-and-lust/gamma-male/

1. They’re Highly Intelligent

The main strength of the gamma male is his intelligence.

Gammas tend to be experts in their chosen fields of focus.

In fact, most ‘nerds’ who are highly effective at one or two specific skills would tend to fall into the gamma category.

Outcast is undoubtedly intelligent and admits that he's a bit of a nerd. Even though I rarely agree with him, I recognize that he is more than capable of writing out coherent arguments and expressing himself well. Intellect is definitely his strong point in contrast to his lack of physical development and primal masculinity. I don't know what field of expertise Outcast has but he's mentioned that he graduated from college and seems to read a lot.

2. They’re Kind and Empathetic

Another positive gamma male trait is kindness.

They are good at treating people well, and are also good at picking up on how other people feel.

Unfortunately, they often go too far with this—and many gamma males suffer from nice guy syndrome.

And guess what? Women aren’t too fond of nice guys.

Being a nice guy is a two-edged sword for the gamma. He tends to have good friendships, but suffers on the sexual marketplace.

Gamma males are also highly sensitive to criticism and praise. They LOVE being praised—and are highly sensitive to the criticisms of others. This stems from their lack of self-confidence, and the fact that they rely on others for validation.

Outcast certainly does come across as a kind and empathic person when he's not angrily calling us "degenerates" on the forum for having sex with multiple women. He's a vegetarian and strongly cares about animal welfare and even rejects the Old Testament for its perverse Jew god's demand for sickening holocausts and other forms of animal cruelty. I personally believe that you can generally tell how good of a person somebody is by observing how they treat animals.

Unfortunately, Outcast does indeed seem to suffer from nice guy syndrome. He gives far too much weight to moral goodness (or at least his own interpretation thereof) as though it were the be-all end-all in life and doesn't seem to understand that most women find excessive niceness boring and prefer a guy to have some slightly roguish traits even if they don't approach the level of degenerate thugdom. Of course, Outcast will argue that any kind of roguishness will lead to degenerate thugdom no matter how slight since to him almost everything outside of his own Ned-Flandersesque nice guy paradigm of ethical conduct is to be regarded as degeneracy (even things like playfully spanking a girl's big round ass ). Nuance is usually lost on him when it comes to ethics and conduct.

3. They’re Hopeless Romantics

Gamma males have a really hard time attracting women.

They tend not to be in the best physical shape. They’re not usually objectively ‘sexy’ by society’s standards. And they also have a hard time understanding women.

Because of this, gamma males are especially prone to ‘hopeless romantic’ ideas—the stuff of rom-coms and romantic fairy tales.

They’re big on grand romantic gestures.

The guy who got down on one knee, offering up a rose in a grand gesture to ask a girl to the dance, only to be turned down and told that she ‘didn’t want to ruin the friendship…’ That guy was probably a gamma male.

This sounds like Outcast all over. He ideally wants one woman for life in a strictly monogamous marriage and seems to be deeply into all of the romantic paraphernalia of rom-coms, or in his case, anime!

4. They Believe That the Depth of Their Love Should Hold Value to the Women They Pedestalize

Since gamma males tend to hyper-romanticize and pedestalize women, they operate with a warped sense of how attraction and reciprocal attraction should work.

They tend to believe that the more they love a woman, the more likely she should be to love him back.

This comes from the fantasy of the gamma believing that his affection for the woman he pines after is worth more than the affection of an alpha or a beta. He sees his affection for her as being real and pure.

He believes that he conceptualizes her as a whole person—not just a sex object.

But this stands in stark contrast to reality—and serves as the primary reason for why women are so turned off by gamma men.

This self-perceived hyper-inflation of the value of the gamma’s romantic feelings toward the woman also makes him feel entitled to her love and affection in return.

Since his affection is so valuable and worth so much, she literally lacks intelligence if she doesn’t reciprocate (at least, this is what the gamma believes).

The gamma is jealous and envious of how alphas, betas, and even sigmas are able to pull high-value women with surprisingly little effort—and this materializes into a sort of resentment.

This resentment may be aimed at alphas, betas, sigmas, the woman who scorned the gamma, or maybe even all women in general.

This makes the gamma even less desirable to women, and has the potential to set off a negative cycle of rejection, bitterness, resentment, and low-value that can repeat itself ad nauseam.

Outcast certainly pedestalizes and hyper-romanticizes women - well, only Asian women . He views Asian women as some kind of traditionalistically selected, master race of women without whorish tendencies and basically whose shit don't stink and who are a match made in heaven for tradcon nerdy guys like himself, and he usually has the purported statistics to back it up (in an Alex Jones voice: "I've got the documents!"). I really hope for his own sake that he never gets seriously fcuked over by an Asian woman and subjected to the worst kind of disillusionment.

Given his extreme romantic tendencies, Outcast probably does believe that his own supposedly purer love is worth more than the regular less romantic guy's and indeed he often elevates love as his highest ideal in his passionate defenses of traditionalism, but with Outcast it is more his commitment to traditional conservative values that he believes should entitle him to high-quality women. In his mind, those women who don't find his brand of tradcon masculinity attractive and who instead prefer other kinds of men such as stereotypical alphas and men with primal masculinity are somehow "immoral" and "degenerate". So are the men to whom these women are attracted. Only Outcast's way is "moral". Everything else is wrong and people are just too corrupt to realize it.

5. They Struggle to Succeed on the Dating Marketplace

Gamma males struggle on the sexual marketplace for a few different reasons.

They lack the status and power of the alpha. They lack the ‘mystery’ of the sigma.

They’re intelligent, which is appealing to some women. But women are usually quite put off by the entitled attitude of the gamma. The gamma sees himself as being higher-value than he actually is, and believes that he’s entitled to more than his lot in life simply because he’s intelligent—and this is an attitude that can easily be projected onto the women in the gamma’s dating circles.

This shows up as a massive red flag to high value women, who avoid the gamma like the plague.

Outcast also greatly inflates the value of intelligence (because that's a trait that he does possess) and even wrote on at least one occasion that he believes that men with higher salaries should be entitled to the pick of the best women in his own idealized Japanese-style beta provider society. He also hates that men with other qualities such as physique and primal masculinity (qualities that he doesn't have) are able to attract women with more ease than an intelligent high-earning nerd can. I explained to Outcast in that thread that working harder than others at a job entitles one to a higher salary (or at least that's how it should be in a free market economy) but not automatically to women's affection. That's not how sexual attraction works. There are other factors too. But Outcast seems to want to reduce male sexual selection to earnings and professional status much to the detriment of everything else (other than ideological commitment to his own brand of traditionalism).

6. They Adopt “Secret King” Delusions of Grandeur

One of the most interesting attributes of the gamma male is the manifestation of what’s called the Gamma Delusion Bubble, aka the Secret King Complex, characterized by ‘delusions of grandeur’ that help the gamma to deal with the reality of his lower status within the hierarchy.

To put it simply, gammas often create a false narrative and reality around themselves to help them feel better about being constantly rejected by women and overlooked/dismissed by other men.

They may see themselves as the ‘true’ alphas of the group—except that the group is too ‘unintelligent’ to realize the scope of their genius.

They may see themselves as ‘martyrs’ to the cause they believe in—and believe that the constant rejection and disregard they experience makes them ‘morally superior’ to those who have a better experience within the hierarchy.

They may even go as far as to believe that anyone who is having a ‘good experience’ on the dating marketplace must be a useless ‘player’ or ‘slut,’ thereby cementing their belief that they’re actually better than the people who are more successful than them.

I've called out Outcast about this before and suspect this to be his true motive. Outcast is obviously not satisfied with his position in the sociosexual hierarchy and believes that he deserves to occupy a much higher position due to his intelligence, romantic purity, commitment to traditional values, and purported moral rectitude. He seems to envy the privileged status of masculine alphas who do occupy the higher rungs of the hierarchy and who are desired by a lot of women, and clearly believes that the hierarchy itself is flawed. Moreover, Outcast obviously fancies himself as some sort of enlightened prophet of traditionalism who knows better than everyone else and whose idea of a medieval traditionalist theocracy would fix everything that's wrong with sex and dating if only the unwashed masses were smart enough to listen. Men who don't follow his monogamous philosophy are dangerous degenerates and reprobates who are endangering the moral fabric of civilization (although he seems to make an exception for @WilliamSmith who is a nice, pleasant womanizer ).

7. They’re Conflict Avoidant

One of the most fundamental differences between an alpha male and a gamma male is the fact that gammas are conflict avoidant.

Conflict makes them uncomfortable, so they usually resort to using passive aggression and ‘jabs’ to strike back when they feel that they’ve been slighted or wronged.

I know that Outcast has gone off on me on at least two separate occasions. He once told me that he knows all of my "evil tricks" when I got into a little bit of online fisticuffs with him and disagreed with him about some aspect of traditionalism and even let me know that he has "backbone" and won't be submissive. But that was on the internet. Maybe he's not so conflictive in real life. In fact, he once wrote that a dumb inbred Florida hick outright talked shit about him in front of him and his Asian girlfriend but he didn't say anything back to the guy and felt pissed off about it afterwards and wanted his dad to teach him some fighting techniques. So maybe he could be conflict avoidant in line with his gamma male personality.

I know that if some asshole talked shit in front of me and a Latina girlfriend of mine, I wouldn't think twice about blowing out his ACL with a well-placed Muay Thai kick, slamming his head onto the pavement with a beautiful wrestling throw or busting his elbow with an armbar! Maybe I really am just a crazy, sociopathic r-selected degenerate! I blame it on the primal masculinity and the anabolic steroids which I've still not taken yet!

8. They’re Failure Avoidant

Another difference between alphas and gammas is that gammas are extremely hesitant to put themselves at risk, and have a very vivid fear of failure.

As a result, gammas tend not to score many big ‘wins’ in life. This mechanism keeps them from succeeding/advancing with women, in business, in the workplace, and in their social circles.

No risk, no reward.

I have no idea when it comes to this one. Is Outcast the type to play it safe or does he have a more risk-taking and adventurous side that we don't know about?

9. They Lie to Themselves

One fundamental attribute of the gamma is that they aren’t content with their place in the hierarchy. So they lie to themselves about the reality of their position to feel better about it, instead of trying to fix it.

Gammas may lie to themselves about being a true alpha, a true sigma, that all women who reject them are ‘sluts’ or ‘prudes’ and not worth their time, etc. Whatever they need to tell themselves to mask the shame they feel at not being more successful.

Outcast doesn't seem to lie about the type of man who he is, but his rigid ideological view of the world requires a lot of creative use of the imagination to put it lightly. I don't think that he's the most honest person about reality. Outcast has however accused me of lying, exaggerating or putting on a persona when my testimony of my own experiences hasn't reflected his own preconceptions about how things are supposed to be.

10. They Fail to Understand Women

As a dating coach, I can see how the intellectual gammas tend to be more linear thinkers than most men. This would account for why flirting, engagement, connection, and sexual escalation with women would be so problematic for them.

Sexual escalation, connection, and flirting are subtle games of nuance. There’s more that is spoken ‘between the lines’ than is actually spoken verbally.

This kind of ‘unspoken language’ would definitely be more difficult for linear-thinkers (like gammas) to decode.

While Outcast isn't a complete incel (he's a gamma, not an omega), he does seem quite clueless with women. I think that he would definitely benefit from a good one-on-one session with @WilliamSmith on the topic of dating advice and over a nice sixpack of beers.

Just don't let William drink too much though because his inner Mel Gibson might come out and he'll begin to educate you on the many evils of the Jews and the NWO globohomo agenda!



Anyway, this has been my analysis of Outcast's personality and theorized status as a gamma male. What do you think, Outcast? Do you think that you fit the description of a gamma male? What do others think?

@WilliamSmith, @MarcosZeitola, @Tsar, @Pixel--Dude, et alia

[Outcast9428]

So according to your article, gamma males are the most intelligent, most moral, kind, empathetic, and romantic people in society, and on top of that we are non-conformists committed to our principles no matter what, have self respect, and challenge the status quo?

Gamma males sound pretty f***ing awesome! Sure, I'll happily take up the label of a gamma male.

I told you that you are advocating hood nigga masculinity because you refuse to back away from the assertion that men must dominate other men and sexually dominate women. This is exactly what hood niggas and frat boys believe because they dislike affectionate, romantic sex... They want to combine sex with aggression and violence and they enforce their ideology through PUA culture. This mentality is evil and degenerate. You have refused to back away from this and instead say that men who do not want to sexually dominate women are pussies and an inferior species of males for the same reasons that skanky women say they are inferior, "because they are boring."

Well you know what? f***ing deal with it. f***ing deal with people being boring. People are not permanent clowns who exist for your, or skanky women's entertainment. I don't care if most women think an immoral man is sexy, that is just reflective of the evil that resides within them. Women are too cowardly to commit evil acts themselves though so instead they use their sexuality as a bargaining chip to make men do evil things for them. Well to those women I say... You want drama, you want conflict, and stories of competition? Read a f***ing book, watch a movie or a TV show, play a video game, or hell write your own goddamn story. Stop playing games with people's lives. Stop expecting other people to make their lives into some kind of real life TV show for you to watch.

You think I'm clueless about women? I'm not clueless at all. There's a reason why I don't respect most women and mainly just hold Asian women in high regard. The fact is, you are taking the easy way out and pretending that you're the non-conformist for having done so. Lucas, you are the ultimate conformist. Hating on insufficiently aggressive and dominant males is very popular right now. I'm the one going against the grain by speaking out against sexual liberalism, speaking out against the cult demanding that men give up their morals or else be stripped of sex and female companionship, and trying to give people an alternative that keeps both their manhood and their morals in-tact. I'm the one trying to defend the men who are stomped on by everyone else for no other reason then daring to be born a man and wanting to be a decent f***ing person.

And watching these men's plight, yeah, I don't have any sympathy for the crocodile tears of shitty men as they are threatened with legal restrictions on their ability to bully other men, sexually dominate women, and f**k around. I don't have any sympathy for the cries of "I can't believe you want me to stay with one woman for the rest of my life! I will revolt against your theocratic regime and kill you if you don't let me f**k multiple women!" while the same men talk about how they should be allowed to indirectly strip other men of all love, warmth, and affection for their entire lives. Whether its because they'll become a permanent incel, or because some shitbag slept with his wife justifying it by saying "its not my fault! He shouldn't have been such a beta incapable of satisfying his wife!" or because they will actually buy into your "primal masculinity" thing and become a clown dancing for the amusement of skanky women for their entire lives and never being able to experience the true happiness that comes with having a real female companion instead of just another hole to put your dick in, because all that's available to them is shitty one night stands and f**k buddy arrangements from worthless women who demand that that's all men view them as and threaten to withhold intimacy from men the moment they display evidence of being a decent person.

I'm the one giving them a way they can find happiness and retain their morals too. You are basically saying "f**k morals, just throw them away because skanky women don't like them, they think nice guys are boring and won't f**k you if you're moral."

Your article is not an indictment on the value of gamma males... Its an indictment on the value of PUA culture... Which is basically that PUA culture seeks to put the shittiest, most immoral men in charge of society while suppressing the good, intelligent men who dare to tell them what to do. That hierarchy is only recognized by other PUAs. PUAs try to insist that their culture is the culture of the entire world when the reality is, their culture only really dominates in places like NYC, Los Angeles, London, and Florida.

Ironically, nobody puts p***y on a pedestal like PUAs do. They are willing to sell their soul to the devil just for validation from a bunch of worthless whores. How could a man be anymore pathetic then that?

[MarcosZeitola]

I think the need to group men into neat little categories is inherently childish. Now as for @Outcast9428 I read that a gamma male is supposed to be "socially awkward" whereas Outcast, within his group of friends, tends to be the one to organize things and put together trips. He arranged and financed a trip to Hungary fairly recently, and while there he befriended tour guides and a bar man. So he's socially savvy enough and may even be somewhat of a 'leader type' which does not fit with the "gamma" category. He's also had exes because he keeps talking about some Filipina lady he used to date; he's therefore not a reject who cannot get laid, either.

What category would fit him better? Perhaps the sigma one; in the sense that he chooses to place himself outside of the "regular order" instead of conforming to society as it currently is. In different ways, most of us here on the forum "conform" one way or another. We try to stay in shape, we groom ourselves, we adopt certain personas and act in certain ways not only because it gives US a good feeling, but because on some subconscious level we know it'll help us in dealing with other people; whether it be to befriend other men or to sleep with ladies. And then you have Outcast who has this view of "how things should be". Things aren't the way they ought to be, so he'd like to reinvent things until they fit with his idealistic image of how the world needs to be/used to be.



Outcast places himself purposes outside of the hierarchy because he wants no place in it. He doesn't want to compete with other men, he doesn't want to be a King or a conqueror of men... he's more like Ayatollah Khomeini. That's his "spirit animal" lol. A man who saw a society, namely Iran, felt it had gone astray and decided to set things straight by enforcing his ideals and his sense of morality, inspired by ancient religious texts, upon the population. Now an Iranian woman would have a very hard time cheating on her husband, and a husband would have a hard time cheating on his wife as there simply isn't any woman around for him to cheat with and homosexuality is punishable by death.

Now, granted, Khomeini was quite extreme and I am not sure how extreme Outcast is since he also watches anime and enjoys certain Western comforts. But I wouldn't also say Khomeini was some sort of awkward misfit, or an incel weirdo. He was a very strongly driven man, in his case driven by a hatred of Western-style degeneracy, the Jews, and the West as a whole. He had a very clear vision of how he wanted, in fact NEEDED things to be, and he made it so. I am under no illusion that Outcast harbors visions of personally rearranging society and serving as some sort of all-seeing oracle of morality, lording over us all... he's not insane. His ambitions are more humble. All he does is live his life, try to convince people of the error of their ways from the sidelines as he roots for the likes of Viktor Orban and Putin to "set things straight" and fix what ails us all.

It's quite rare to find a man with a truly coherent view of the world. Who not only bitches and moans about what is wrong in the world but who genuinely has a notion of how to fix things. Most men just complain, and that's all they will ever do. I don't quite agree with Outcast on certain things as well. For instance I believe that the primal masculinity Lucas speaks of does have some genuine benefits, and I believe Asian women aren't immune to a masculine guy's attraction; they just do not come across that "type" of man often enough so you do not often see them together with such a man, but try going to Asia as a manly dude and sure enough, you'll do just fine and win the appreciation of her male relatives on top of the girl's heart because there is simply something about masculinity that get a girls juices flowing.

So, no, I am definitely not in agreement with Outcast in every way. I do believe he is too rigid and prone to explaining his world view, defending his ideals, with statistics that may not always be applicable. Studies have their sample sizes and they are not flawless or perfect. He has his "blind spots" such as when he got almost offended by me describing Asian girls I had known who enjoyed being sexually dominated and who were into freaky stuff, and me suggesting this wasn't a rare thing. He countered this by saying @Lucas88 and @WilliamSmith have their own blind spots too; he argued they would be offended if someone "shit-talks black women" as they adore black curvy ladies. I didn't actually talk lowly of Asian women, nor did I ever attack their character... I merely pointed out they're not as different from other races of girls and that we should not put them on a pedestal as these little pure innocent angels which they absolutely aren't lol.

I don't think there even is an "Outcast Problem", Lucas, to tell you the truth. It's just that this forum attracts a lot of different personalities, some more rigid than others. He's just another man with just another solution to the ills of society. He's young, too, and in years to come his experiences may shape his world view in different ways. May alter it. We do not know. Or he may hold on to his views for the rest of his life. I do hope on some level he would relax his rigid views somewhat but at his core I think he's truly a good and wholesome dude and we need more of those in today's world. The world can truly benefit from a little more people pushing his views. It is unlikely to personally affect you, or me, or anyone on this forum... not unless he does become America's Ayatollah.

[Lucas88]

So according to your article, gamma males are the most intelligent, most moral, kind, empathetic, and romantic people in society, and on top of that we are non-conformists committed to our principles no matter what, have self respect, and challenge the status quo?

Gamma males sound pretty f***ing awesome! Sure, I'll happily take up the label of a gamma male.

Well, it's actually not my article (it was written by the author of theadultmale.com and is based on the theory of Vox Day), but gamma males do indeed tend to have high intelligence, an above average level of empathy, and romanticism, and often purport to having a more developed moral compass (sometimes they really are moral people; other times they simply think that they are more moral than others), but then they believe that these qualities somehow entitle them to sexual access, romance and sociosexual status and are resentful that men with other qualities are often more attractive to women and even proceed to denounce such men and the women who are attracted to them (in your case you are quick to label them as "degenerates"). That's the essence of the gamma male: - his sense of entitlement in light of his own intelligence, empathy, romantic gestures, and supposed greater sense of morality in conjunction with resentment for those who are able to attract women with virtues other than his own.

Gamma males tend to believe themselves and categories of people with which they identify to have a monopoly on traits such as intelligence, empathy and morality, or they think that they are more intelligent, empathic and moral than everyone else, even though plenty of alphas, sigmas and other types of men undoubtedly have high intelligence too and live perfectly moral lives. Gamma males often think of themselves as special in relation to everyone else and this also feeds into their sense of entitlement and hidden king complex.

I told you that you are advocating hood nigga masculinity because you refuse to back away from the assertion that men must dominate other men and sexually dominate women. This is exactly what hood niggas and frat boys believe because they dislike affectionate, romantic sex... They want to combine sex with aggression and violence and they enforce their ideology through PUA culture. This mentality is evil and degenerate. You have refused to back away from this and instead say that men who do not want to sexually dominate women are pussies and an inferior species of males for the same reasons that skanky women say they are inferior, "because they are boring."

Ay por dios, Outcast! For a guy who prides himself on his high intelligence you really lack reading comprehension and understanding of nuances, don't you? I never made the assertion that men must dominate other men and sexually dominate women. I wrote at length about the distinction between positive and negative manifestations of primal masculinity and that I advocate the cultivation of primal masculinity in constructive ways. I even wrote about how martial virtue should be used only for noble purposes and certainly not for bullying other men. But you didn't listen, nor were you willing to address my point, and you still continue to insist that I am an advocate for hood nigga masculinity because of what I assume to be an emotional aversion towards all manifestations of primal masculinity - a quality which you incidentally happen to lack and which you seem to want to condemn in other men.

I said that I enjoy sexually dominating Latinas (because I personally find it fun and am addicted to the wild ecstatic passion), but I don't necessarily dislike affection or romantic sex. I didn't say that men who don't want to sexually dominate women are pussies or an inferior species of males; I said that men with intelligence/wisdom but without primally masculine qualities are incomplete as men since they completely neglect certain masculine virtues/sources of attraction. That is why I view them as "deficient". They're deficient in the sense that they're unbalanced in terms of male development and lack certain core masculine qualities. Then they wonder why they are not sexually attractive to most women. Of course, some men can never consider their own shortcomings; for those men everyone else must be to blame (society, alpha males, "Chads", women, etc.).

Well you know what? f***ing deal with it. f***ing deal with people being boring. People are not permanent clowns who exist for your, or skanky women's entertainment. I don't care if most women think an immoral man is sexy, that is just reflective of the evil that resides within them. Women are too cowardly to commit evil acts themselves though so instead they use their sexuality as a bargaining chip to make men do evil things for them. Well to those women I say... You want drama, you want conflict, and stories of competition? Read a f***ing book, watch a movie or a TV show, play a video game, or hell write your own goddamn story. Stop playing games with people's lives. Stop expecting other people to make their lives into some kind of real life TV show for you to watch.

We don't need to deal with other people thinking that you are boring. It's not out fuckin' problem!

You have a point about obnoxious normie women who use sexuality as a bargaining chip and like to create drama. I steer well clear of those kind of women and limit my social interactions with people in general. Nowadays I only want to have sex with nice and charming Latina milfs who have a lot more psychological maturity than the typical 20 something Facebook thot and who need a good seeing to.

But Outcast, even many good girls still like a guy with some lovable rogue type traits and a sense of mischief. They just find that kind of stuff fun and endearing. It doesn't make them bad people or "degenerates". I think that even good girls can easily get bored of the goody-goody, holier-than-thou types. They just crave a bit of playful token roguishness from a man, even if it doesn't reach the same category of sociopathic, no-good gangbanger roguishness. But the "nice guy" types don't seem to understand that and then, when girls do get bored of them, they always assume that the girls are to blame while in reality the nice guy types simply don't have a nuanced understanding of female psychology.

You don't seem to understand this sort of thing with female psychology either because you have a tendency to see the world only in black-and-white terms and through the lens of simplistic archetypes while remaining blind to subtle nuances or the fact that there are levels or degrees to things.

You think I'm clueless about women? I'm not clueless at all. There's a reason why I don't respect most women and mainly just hold Asian women in high regard.

Yeah right, ikemen-san イケ面さん!

The fact is, you are taking the easy way out and pretending that you're the non-conformist for having done so. Lucas, you are the ultimate conformist.

No, I'm not! I don't see this in terms of conformity or nonconformity. I see it in terms of two opposing arguments. I just have a different point of view and happen to disagree with yours.

But you seem to want to bring into this discussion this contrived idea of yours that I must be some sort of "conformist" because I don't follow your particular brand of "contrarianism". Typical gamma male "my way is special and everybody else is just a mindless conformist" type of reasoning.

Hating on insufficiently aggressive and dominant males is very popular right now. I'm the one going against the grain by speaking out against sexual liberalism, speaking out against the cult demanding that men give up their morals or else be stripped of sex and female companionship, and trying to give people an alternative that keeps both their manhood and their morals in-tact. I'm the one trying to defend the men who are stomped on by everyone else for no other reason then daring to be born a man and wanting to be a decent f***ing person.

I've heard this line of thought or some variation thereof a lot on the Manosphere, but I'm entirely not convinced by it. Men aren't being stripped of sex and female companionship for not giving up their morals. That's just another talking point of whiny incels and quasi-incels who are frustrated that they're unable to attract a woman yet at the same time aren't willing to do self-improvement or develop qualities that are attractive (I'm talking about positive, constructive ones, for the record). They'd rather just complain incessantly about "Chads" and "Tyrones" supposedly taking all of the women and about how the women are bad, and then some of the tradcon types prefer to fantasize about moral, divinely ordained, traditionalist theocracies in which the authoritarian state or priesthood dispenses one virgin bride for each pious incel male!

The truth is that a decent man can indeed get a decent woman, even in countries like the UK. I've seen many examples of decent guys in my hometown in long-term relationships with decent women in spite of all of the debauchery and the terrible culture of binge drinking. If a guy makes some effort, pursues self-improvement and looks for the right kind of girl in the right place he can have that. But so many Manosphere manginas would rather bitch about women on the internet in the countless RedPill forums and such. Maybe they're simply not as desirable as they think they are and are too lazy to put in the effort and find it easier to blame everyone else. Not hating! Just being real!

And watching these men's plight, yeah, I don't have any sympathy for the crocodile tears of shitty men as they are threatened with legal restrictions on their ability to bully other men, sexually dominate women, and f**k around. I don't have any sympathy for the cries of "I can't believe you want me to stay with one woman for the rest of my life! I will revolt against your theocratic regime and kill you if you don't let me f**k multiple women!" while the same men talk about how they should be allowed to indirectly strip other men of all love, warmth, and affection for their entire lives. Whether its because they'll become a permanent incel, or because some shitbag slept with his wife justifying it by saying "its not my fault! He shouldn't have been such a beta incapable of satisfying his wife!" or because they will actually buy into your "primal masculinity" thing and become a clown dancing for the amusement of skanky women for their entire lives and never being able to experience the true happiness that comes with having a real female companion instead of just another hole to put your dick in, because all that's available to them is shitty one night stands and f**k buddy arrangements from worthless women who demand that that's all men view them as and threaten to withhold intimacy from men the moment they display evidence of being a decent person.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your own fantasies.

But yeah, people like myself, @WilliamSmith and @Pixel--Dude will indeed fight to prevent or overthrow your envisioned theocracy should you and others like you attempt to implement it. Not simply because we want to fcuk all of the women, but rather because we don't want to live in an authoritarian theocratic dystopia run by religious nuts who think that they have the divine right to stick their big sanctimonious noses in everybody else's lives and determine what people are and aren't allowed to think! Some of us actually value freedom of thought and freedom of conscience and don't want to live in somebody else's dictatorship. But, of course, we're just "evil" because we don't slavishly follow the "one vision".

I'm the one giving them a way they can find happiness and retain their morals too. You are basically saying "f**k morals, just throw them away because skanky women don't like them, they think nice guys are boring and won't f**k you if you're moral."

No, I'm saying that I don't follow YOUR morals and subjective ideas pertaining to what is right and wrong. That doesn't mean that I don't have my own moral compass. But, of course, I'm just an evil degenerate because I don't follow your particular brand of absolutism.

Your article is not an indictment on the value of gamma males... Its an indictment on the value of PUA culture... Which is basically that PUA culture seeks to put the shittiest, most immoral men in charge of society while suppressing the good, intelligent men who dare to tell them what to do. That hierarchy is only recognized by other PUAs. PUAs try to insist that their culture is the culture of the entire world when the reality is, their culture only really dominates in places like NYC, Los Angeles, London, and Florida.

Again, it's not my article, but it is neither an indictment of gamma males or PUA culture. It is simply a description of the common traits of certain archetypes of males who populate the world. In fact, it's more of a description of different roles in human social hierarchies rather than a PUA piece.

But, of course, you will interpret the article as an indictment of PUA culture in order to reflect your own narrative since you live in a world of total ideological delusion and seem unable to operate in any sphere of objective reality and simply tell yourself what you want to believe and then rail on about everybody who thinks differently is some sort of degenerate while claiming to be nice and empathic.

Ironically, nobody puts p***y on a pedestal like PUAs do. They are willing to sell their soul to the devil just for validation from a bunch of worthless whores. How could a man be anymore pathetic then that?

I'm not a PUA, but guys don't necessarily sleep with women for "validation". I don't even know where that idea comes from. Some men simply sleep with women because they want to, because it's fun, because they are driven by sexual passion. But, as usual, certain RedPill theorists and tradcons wish to fit all phenomena of human behavior into their own little ideological paradigms.

[Lucas88]

I think the need to group men into neat little categories is inherently childish.

I think that placing men into categories such as "beta" or "omega" just to disparage them like so many people do on the Manosphere is quite childish and unproductive, but I do think that some categorization schemes can be a useful theoretical framework for understanding social phenomena and patterns of human behavior if they are well-researched and based on solid observation. This five-tier sociosexual hierarchy is a bit of a rabbit hole that I've begun to explore recently. I started getting video recommendations about the concept of the sigma male and even heard one poster talking about it here and so I decided to look into it a little and found the theory quite interesting. Note that these classifications are not supposed to be perfectly neat categories. The author explains that they are just a general framework and are not fixed or definitive. People can move between them throughout their lives depending on their own life experiences.

I read that a gamma male is supposed to be "socially awkward" whereas Outcast, within his group of friends, tends to be the one to organize things and put together trips. He arranged and financed a trip to Hungary fairly recently, and while there he befriended tour guides and a bar man. So he's socially savvy enough and may even be somewhat of a 'leader type' which does not fit with the "gamma" category. He's also had exes because he keeps talking about some Filipina lady he used to date; he's therefore not a reject who cannot get laid, either.

Gamma males are usually somewhat socially awkward but not completely socially awkward like the omegas. I'm socially awkward myself and am on the spectrum so to speak, but I've still been able to maintain various deep friendships, organize martial arts training groups, travel to foreign countries by myself, befriend local people, and enjoy long-term relationships with two different Latinas. But that doesn't mean that I don't have deficient social skills in relation to the average. I still struggle more than most people. I've just made good with what I have.

Outcast could still be a gamma male. He seems to be a bit of a misfit. If I remember correctly, he once wrote something about how he suspects that he might be a little autistic and that he feels more comfortable with autistic people (although my memory of it is a bit fuzzy). Gamma males are actually regarded as good friendship material and are still able to get girlfriends once in a while. They're not social rejects or complete incels like omega males are.

What category would fit him better? Perhaps the sigma one; in the sense that he chooses to place himself outside of the "regular order" instead of conforming to society as it currently is. In different ways, most of us here on the forum "conform" one way or another. We try to stay in shape, we groom ourselves, we adopt certain personas and act in certain ways not only because it gives US a good feeling, but because on some subconscious level we know it'll help us in dealing with other people; whether it be to befriend other men or to sleep with ladies. And then you have Outcast who has this view of "how things should be". Things aren't the way they ought to be, so he'd like to reinvent things until they fit with his idealistic image of how the world needs to be/used to be.

Mmmm, I don't think that the sigma category fits him very well. Sigmas are lone wolves who are just into doing their own thing, view most interactions with others simply as ways to further their own goals, don't give much importance to relationships, aren't particularly ideologically driven or out to change the world, and are often charismatic and mysterious ladykillers. I think that @WilliamSmith is the quintessential sigma.

Outcast on the other hand is indeed ideologically driven, very much out to change the world, hopelessly romantic, and resentful of the high status and privileges of the men who he disapproves of - all gamma traits. I would also argue that he does indeed care about the sociosexual hierarchy because he has expressed his endorsement for a Japanese-style beta provider society and asserts that high earnings and professional status should determine a man's position and entitle high-earning men to the best females. He simply wishes to reengineer the hierarchy to favor that category of men - the one with which he himself identifies -, and also to discredit other forms of masculinity - more characteristic behavior of the gamma male.

Meanwhile Sigmas don't give a shit about professional hierarchies, don't take them seriously and view money merely as a tool.

For instance I believe that the primal masculinity Lucas speaks of does have some genuine benefits, and I believe Asian women aren't immune to a masculine guy's attraction; they just do not come across that "type" of man often enough so you do not often see them together with such a man, but try going to Asia as a manly dude and sure enough, you'll do just fine and win the appreciation of her male relatives on top of the girl's heart because there is simply something about masculinity that get a girls juices flowing.

Exactly. Masculinity is part of our natural state as men and women are simply wired to respond to it. I believe that this same masculinity has been largely bred out of modern men due to the comfortable modern lifestyle and more recently programs of social engineering and that this is the real reason why these days so many men are so hopeless at attracting women. This is why I strongly advocate the cultivation of primal masculinity for men who want to do better at dating.

I tried to explain to Outcast the difference between positive and negative manifestations of primal masculinity and how positive forms of primal masculinity are helpful for dating success, but he just seems viscerally opposed to all of its forms and won't recognize any of its constructive aspects. He just seems to hate it no matter what.

I don't think there even is an "Outcast Problem", Lucas, to tell you the truth. It's just that this forum attracts a lot of different personalities, some more rigid than others. He's just another man with just another solution to the ills of society. He's young, too, and in years to come his experiences may shape his world view in different ways. May alter it. We do not know. Or he may hold on to his views for the rest of his life. I do hope on some level he would relax his rigid views somewhat but at his core I think he's truly a good and wholesome dude and we need more of those in today's world. The world can truly benefit from a little more people pushing his views. It is unlikely to personally affect you, or me, or anyone on this forum... not unless he does become America's Ayatollah.

Yes, this forum attracts all of the unusual and eccentric characters and unique personalities and that's what makes it so interesting and addictive!

I named this thread "The Outcast Problem" because I wanted to give it a snappy title, kinda like your thread on "The Tsar Solution". I later asked myself whether the title sounded a bit too strong.

For me, the Outcast Problem is not merely about Outcast's traditionalist views (after all, there are other self-identified tradcons on the forum). Rather it is more to do with Outcast's absolute aversion towards all forms of primal masculinity and men with primally masculine qualities (he seems to regard these men as inherently dangerous and as vectors for degeneracy) and his apparent promotion of non-masculine "beta" types as the only "moral" model of man. I've noticed this for a while and suspected that he is secretly envious and resentful of the relative status and privileges of those more masculine men who are widely desired by women - secretly envious and resentful in a very Nietzschean sense. Then, recently, I learned about the concept of the gamma male and his resentment towards other types of men in the sociosexual hierarchy and, seeing that Outcast has a lot of gamma male traits (at least in my analysis), it all just clicked and I believe to have discovered the hidden psychological reason behind Outcast's aversion towards primally masculine men and his zeal for his own brand of traditionalism.

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88

There's no hidden reason for anything. I've been very clear from the start that a healthy, good society puts its most moral and intelligent members at the top of the hierarchy. You're acting like you've discovered some kind of secret that I never hid to begin with. I never claimed to be an alpha male or beta male because what people refer to as alphas or betas never seemed to click for me. I don't even consider myself to be a typical traditionalist because my brand of traditionalism is more radical and utopian/idealistic then the approach of typical traditionalists. I've said here several times that my goal is universal marriage, like what they have in India where 98% of men and 99% of women are married. Most traditionalists think marriage is great, but they don't explicitly say that universal marriage is their goal.

I have always hated the mainstream conservative approach of trying to look moderate and look like you're taking "the middle ground" perspective. That's not how the overton window shifts, and victory for me is not returning to the 1970s. I have something far more ambitious in mind then 1970s America. I do not play into the moderatism game. If I want my vision to become true, then the best way to do that is to be as bluntly honest and transparent about it as possible. I don't believe my vision would fix society... I know it would. And anybody who is logical, rational, and not committed to misguided principles will be able to see that. I have convinced friends of mine who were right-leaning liberals in the past to become radical traditionalists like myself. My ex-girlfriend told me she always felt like promiscuity was wrong on an instinctual level but that she didn't quite understand just how bad it really was until I explained all the consequences promiscuous behavior have on society to her. She started telling her co-workers that Japan was the best country on Earth, and she started to see the term "radical traditionalist" as a badge of honor. She explicitly recognized that traditional values would create good men and help provide good men with the tools and resources necessary to make her a happy woman. She started talking about ways she would punish degeneracy if she ever became governor. Words cannot express how proud I felt of her at times.

There are two types of people, I have noticed, that I simply can't get through to. Type number 1 is the type of person who genuinely seems to believe that personal freedom matters more then anything. I believe this is why I can't get through to you. It is also why I can't get through to my dad. He believes in the same moral values, but he can't bring himself to violate individual freedom. I have an easy time getting through to people who believe in philosophies that prioritize collective human happiness over individual freedom. The second type of person I struggle to get through to, is the type of person who simply doesn't give a rat's ass if other people are happy or not and possibly even wants them to suffer. With the first type of person, I can try to show them why prioritizing individual freedom doesn't really create any substantively good results and isn't really valuable on its own merit. If it did, then we would let kids do whatever they want. We don't do that because we know that kids can make decisions that are bad for their own welfare. They make these decisions out of foolishness, ignorance, lack of foresight, an inability to understand the consequences of their actions, and in some cases... Selfishness. Most adults are the same way. We have rules, laws, instructions, traditions, and guidebooks specifically to prevent this.

Edmund Burke, the founder of traditionalist conservatism, stated that the individual is foolish, but the species is wise. Our traditions are the result of challenges already overcome by our ancestors. Modern people have thrown away all our traditions because they forgot what challenges those traditions arose to solve. We are now learning again why those traditions were enforced for so many centuries.

You imply, or probably believe, that my authoritarianism means I have less substantive of a claim to being a virtuous person. The fact is, I'm not a saint like my father is. My father is a true saint, he opposes evil but he thinks defeating evil by force is wrong too. I have tremendous admiration for his morality... But I also believe that good will never win so long as good people share his philosophy on how to handle evil. History has shown that good only wins when we become pissed off enough at the injustice of the world that we subjugate the bad people in society and force them to behave. That's the entire purpose of criminal law, to subjugate evil. Everybody has some darkness in them. Even good people do. Good people are better off funneling all their dark energy towards defeating evil then allowing that dark energy to make them bad in other ways.

Yes I do advocate for Japanese style beta provider traditionalism... Why? Because Japan has the lowest rate of violent crime in the entire world and is also the most advanced civilization on Earth. Their culture values beauty, innocence, cuteness, intelligence, youth, and morality above everything else. Japan's only flaw, as a society, is that they emphasize work a little too much. Its good to have a work ethic, its not good to stay in the office so long that you neglect your family. I also think they should be more aggressive with the traditionalism... The way Islamic countries are (without being Muslim themselves).

You say the only thing a man who works is entitled to is a salary... But the whole purpose of having a salary is to get a wife and provide for your family. One does not need $80,000 to live a good life on his own. There is no point to even living in a big, luxurious house if you're going to live in it all by yourself. If my labor will not provide me with a wife and family, then I have no reason not to work as little as possible and contribute nothing but the bare minimum to society. If all my labor is going to buy me is video games, rented movies, and a new computer every once in awhile then why the hell should I work hard? Why not take a job that only pays $30,000 or $40,000 a year, have friends move into a house with me and pay rent so I don't need anything more then the bare minimum to pursue whatever hobby I feel like pursuing?

In-fact, this sounds an awful lot like how a lot of young men live these days. Yet society complains about how lazy they are, how nobody wants to work anymore. That everything is falling apart because the young men don't want to work anymore. Have they ever considered that the reason young men don't want to work anymore is because you and the rest of society is dead set on stripping young men of the most important reason, the single biggest motivation there is for working hard/smart? If you encourage young men to do nothing but reach the bare minimum that they need then you will also have a bare minimum society.

The monogamous provider model will allow every man to have his own wife and family. If you are intelligent, you may be able to figure out a way to make lots of money without working particularly hard. If you lack intelligence, you can make up for it with a strong work ethic, as many working class men do. If you are both intelligent and work hard, you will have unfathomable riches. As long as you stay from crime and degeneracy, you can live a happy life in a monogamous, provider male society. This is what made European civilization the greatest civilization for so long. This model is why Asian civilization has surpassed us. Asia kept their faith in the monogamous provider model alive whereas Europe basically said "we don't have to honor our agreement anymore because we have freedom now" to the men who built this civilization for so many centuries.

The truth is though, immoral, criminal degenerates will never get the high quality female companions anyway, because what makes a woman a high quality female companion is inherent to her shunning those type of men as romantic options. A woman is malleable, shaped by the values of her male leader. A good woman is extremely conscious of how important it is to choose a virtuous man to be her leader so that he may not lead her down the path of evil. Accepting the type of man who will lead her down the path of evil as her male leader is proof of her lack of moral fiber, she chose him because she values excitement and thrills over what is morally right, and thus proof that she is a low quality female companion. A good parent understands this as well, which is why they will violently threaten evil men attempting to seduce their daughter while facilitating romantic connections between their daughter and virtuous male leaders. A man of virtue always knows that the girl's parents will be his greatest allies because he knows deep down that he is the most valuable type of man to society, to a parent, and to the girl as well, and thus feels no fear when a woman says "I would like you to meet my parents." A virtuous man can look a girl's parents in the eye and they will know that he will be the best husband she could possibly ask for. Immoral men are always terrified of a girl's parents and dodge the opportunity to meet them at every turn.

A traditional society does not need to forcibly arrange things so that high quality female companions end up with high quality men. Anytime a high quality man and woman find a way to interact with one another, they will recognize one another's superior qualities. High quality men and women will also have disdain for the low quality degenerates of society who prioritize their instincts over the civilized path. What a traditional society does is create more high quality men and women to begin with so that it is not so difficult, if you are a high quality man or woman, to find your equal in society. In a modern, liberal society, a man may find himself in an entire room full of people and not be able to find a single, young, high quality woman in the room who is not already married or courting someone. The search becomes so exhausting that many men give up entirely on finding one. The average high quality man may have to search for years to find his equal in society. A traditional society ensures that a man doesn't have to search and search and search until he is just about to give up, or in some cases, is too old to really enjoy all the benefits of a high quality wife. When a high quality man is ready to marry, a traditional society is eager to provide him with the high quality wife he seeks. It also arranges things so that a high quality man and woman can begin their lives earlier then they would be able to in a liberal society. Such a man can find his life partner when he is in his early 20s... A traditional society will already provide him the means to pursue a career at a youthful stage and be capable of owning a home and putting food on the table for a family of 4-6 people. A traditional society will give a man enough income that his wife doesn't need to pursue a career of her own, and instead can look to caring for her man's children.

[Outcast9428]

What PUAs refer to as "self-improvement" is learning how to become an immoral degenerate. Actual self-improvement is learning to have greater morals, to solidify long term plans for the future, to educate oneself, excel at your job, and make meaningful connections...

The PUA definition of self improvement is figuring out how to walk a thin line between rape and consensual sex competently enough that you turn women on and sleep with lots of immoral skanks without getting yourself thrown in prison. That's not self improvement, that's self-degeneration.

Sex itself is not pursued for validation. However, I cannot see any other reason why a man would pursue sex with multiple women and insisting that it cannot be with prostitutes. PUA culture is obsessed with getting validation from women. If they weren't they wouldn't be so obsessed with sleeping with dozens or hundreds of girls.

[Tsar]

However, I cannot see any other reason why a man would pursue sex with multiple women and insisting that it cannot be with prostitutes. PUA culture is obsessed with getting validation from women. If they weren't they wouldn't be so obsessed with sleeping with dozens or hundreds of girls.

That is because paying a prostitute for temporary sex isn't an affirmation of masculinity, validation, or victory.

A one-and-done thing is buying a one-time experience and it's affirming and validating the money, while the act affirms the weakness of a man.

Not all men who use prostitutes are going to be weak. It really depends on the context.

The way I see it, if a guy uses prostitutes because he has no other options, then he's weak. It's an act of desperation. There's no respect in that.

An Incel that uses a prostitute is still an Incel. He's affirming his weakness and his total failure with women by using a prostitute.

An act of choice is different than a decision due to no other choices.

Human males get affirmation of their masculinity by bedding females who offer it for free or without payment.

Traditionally, this means in the context of a relationship like marriage. But any long-term relationship is enough to give real powerful affirmation. Hookups give affirmation. Prostitutes really only affirm the value of money, but prostitutes don't affirm the value of a male.

A girl freely giving sex to a guy and the more time that a girl spends with a guy both give a guy affirmation. Prostitutes offer neither of those things. It's a purely transactional relationship based entirely on payment for sex and it favors women. People can say men get something out of it and feminists say women are victims, but prostitutes are the ones with the power and men do get something which is less cash and surrendering their power.

I wouldn't go to a strip club because I don't see any value in it. What's the difference between that and watching it free online? I would only enjoy having a girl that I possess or have in my orbit freely giving me a lapdance. There's no real desire it sparks in me because I personally wouldn't value the strippers and it provides no enhancement to my pride or boost to my value as a man.

I think that context is very important. An Incel that uses a prostitute would be affirming his weakness and low status, but a college fraternity or sports team that gangbangs a prostitute would just be doing it for fun because they can. The guys would have other girls as girlfriends.

For one, the Incel, it's an act of desperation.
For the fraternity or sports team, it's a real choice.

Same as if a man is courting a girl but at the same time goes to a prostitute, especially if the society requires girls stay virgins. The man is making a choice to go to a prostitute.

Men who use a prostitute out of desperation and having no other options are simply weak men. There is really no other way to spin it and weakness isn't a desirable trait.

Weakness must be discouraged. There's no easy solution that's will give a true victory.

The acquiescence of power isn't power. I view strength, pride, and honor as some virtuous qualities.

I know that if I used a prostitute, it would be shameful. That's because of what I mentioned. I would be a total humiliation and a total disgrace and be surrendering my pride and become a weak man. I am not weak, I am among the strongest of men.

People might say that using a prostitute is always a choice, so it doesn't matter but that's untrue because everything in life has a context.

Is it a real choice if a man has no other options? No. That's not a real choice.

Maybe if he's old, it's too late in his mind to get a female, and decides it's his best solution but that's not desperation, it's a logical option. He has limited time left and is probably too old for anything long lasting and real. A prostitute or sugar baby is what most guys can get if they're really old.

The same goes for if a guy is hideously ugly or has a grotesque deformity. The same goes for a morbidly obese man. The act of an attractive female whore being willing to be sexual involved for money with these men is affirming the guy more than the money because of the hideous men's completely grotesque nature. A whore willing to have sex with these men even for money would make it more about affirmation of the man because most girls including whores cannot hide genuine disgust or repulsion to have sex with such hideous undesirables.

However, for men in their prime who are normal humans, it is different. Men are not true men without getting real female affirmation.

Female affirmation is one reason why I need a virgin girl in her prime. It's the ultimate affirmation. In my personal circumstances, getting a virgin girl would crown me as a king among men, and I would become a legend. That's the power that it holds because of the context of a guy like me getting a virgin girl in her prime. I definitely envision myself as a true king upon my victory.

Men who are in their youthful prime who receive the affirmation of any youthful girl will always be the most successful in life. There's a spiritual power in it. Female affirmation is one thing that changes a guy's reality in really powerful ways.

I, at my age, become a legend once I obtain a virgin girl in her prime and get her female affirmation. But younger men who receive female affirmation in their youthful prime would be more successful at ordinary life, and their affirmation at a young age gives them more opportunities in life.

Affirmation cannot be bought. Affirmation must be earned. Affirmation is given freely, much like respect.

Transactional things like diplomacy, authority, and power to get a girl is conquest. Female affirmation achieved through any means where it's won in some way would have some value of meaning.

Buying sex with a prostitute is not affirmation and it's no conquest. It's a sign of desperation or weakness if a man has no other options and because he's too weak that he must purchase sex with a whore who would have sex with any customer for the right price means it's just affirming the value of money.

Any man who has a true sense of pride, wants female affirmation, or desires a sense of conquest will not ever use a prostitute.

Nothing I say is a promotion of degenerate lifestyles, only an analysis of nature, human nature, and reality. It also evaluates hidden nuances and hidden aspects relating to this specific topic.

@MarcosZeitola @Lucas88 @Pixel--Dude @Cornfed

[Shemp]

... PUA culture is obsessed with getting validation from women...

That is because paying a prostitute for temporary sex isn't an affirmation of masculinity, validation, or victory.

It's not just self-identified PUAs, it's pervasive in modern culture that broken men get their sense of self-worth based on what girls think about them. Just listen to this pathetic so-called "Tsar": if some pea-brained 13yo bimbo decides to have sex with him, he thinks this constitutes "affirmation of masculinity, blah, blah". No real man gives a rat's ass what a silly 13yo girl thinks. Men are supposed to care about other men, especially high-status men, not wannabe hood niggas like @Lucas88 and company, but men who actually have real power in this world, and to a lesser extent what high status older women think. From Tsar's perspective, young Justin Bieber and similar teen heart-throbs are the pinnacle of masculinity, whereas most grown men despise Justin Bieber, same as we despise wannabe hood niggas.

[Lucas88]

not wannabe hood niggas like @Lucas88 and company

That's coming from a boomer faggot who advises other men to shove dildos up their ass!

[Lucas88]

Yes I do advocate for Japanese style beta provider traditionalism... Why? Because Japan has the lowest rate of violent crime in the entire world and is also the most advanced civilization on Earth. Their culture values beauty, innocence, cuteness, intelligence, youth, and morality above everything else. Japan's only flaw, as a society, is that they emphasize work a little too much. Its good to have a work ethic, its not good to stay in the office so long that you neglect your family. I also think they should be more aggressive with the traditionalism... The way Islamic countries are (without being Muslim themselves).

You say the only thing a man who works is entitled to is a salary... But the whole purpose of having a salary is to get a wife and provide for your family. One does not need $80,000 to live a good life on his own. There is no point to even living in a big, luxurious house if you're going to live in it all by yourself. If my labor will not provide me with a wife and family, then I have no reason not to work as little as possible and contribute nothing but the bare minimum to society. If all my labor is going to buy me is video games, rented movies, and a new computer every once in awhile then why the hell should I work hard? Why not take a job that only pays $30,000 or $40,000 a year, have friends move into a house with me and pay rent so I don't need anything more then the bare minimum to pursue whatever hobby I feel like pursuing?

A man who works is indeed entitled to a salary in accordance with the value of his work but that doesn't mean that he's automatically entitled to the attraction of a woman. Attraction doesn't work that way. It cannot be simply reduced to figures and abstract notions of professional status. It works first and foremost on a primal level and involves marked physical and behavioral components. This is the reason why many beta provider types with high salaries and professional status are still not attractive to women by and large. They don't inspire primal sexual attraction in the women who they pursue. Yet many of those men still believe that they are entitled to sexual access just because of their paycheck.

If those men actually understood female psychology and cultivated primally masculine qualities which attract women on a primal sexual level and allow her to respond with her own primal femininity, many of them would have a lot more success at attracting women whether that be for one-night stands or monogamous relationships. They would be able to attract women through actual attraction on a physical and behavioral level and not just through a salary and abstract status. Primal masculinity is completely natural and we as men are supposed to display those qualities. Unfortunately, it has been suppressed in a lot of men by an overly feminine society and those men have been effectively stripped of their natural masculine instincts. This has been tragic for them. It has greatly reduced their ability to attract women on a deeper level. It has made of them incomplete men - and indeed the beta provider type of male is incomplete because he lacks in other areas of masculinity and male attraction, but instead of recognizing the problem and working to cultivate other attractive masculine traits in himself, he concludes that women are the problem.

I notice how tradcons on the internet almost always exclusively focus on things from the perspective of men but rarely even take into account what women want and need. Then they complain about how they are unable to attract a woman. It's always about "my labor", "my salary", "my reward", "my entitlement", but never about what women actually find attractive or how to give them what they really need to feel satisfied. It's possible to find a good woman and keep her if you cultivate attractive masculine traits, connect with her at a primal psychosexual level and satisfy her in the bedroom. But so many beta provider manginas would rather complain and call the women who are not attracted to them "degenerates", and then the tradcon manginas prefer to fantasize about authoritarian traditionalist social systems in which they are able to control women through financial dependency and thereby force them to "like" them. Tradcon fantasies of socially enforced beta provider masculinity are simply the last refuge of weak, unmasculine men who are not willing to cultivate true masculine qualities and behavior - all while hiding behind a mask of righteousness and moral superiority.

But primally masculine qualities can be cultivated in men through conscious effort. Men must aspire to be a more complete type of man rather than just a betabuxxer if they wish to truly attract women. After all, masculinity is part of our true nature as men.

With regard to Japan, I think that you make some pretty bold and quite frankly naïve assertions about the country for somebody who has never even lived there.

In-fact, this sounds an awful lot like how a lot of young men live these days. Yet society complains about how lazy they are, how nobody wants to work anymore. That everything is falling apart because the young men don't want to work anymore. Have they ever considered that the reason young men don't want to work anymore is because you and the rest of society is dead set on stripping young men of the most important reason, the single biggest motivation there is for working hard/smart? If you encourage young men to do nothing but reach the bare minimum that they need then you will also have a bare minimum society.

The monogamous provider model will allow every man to have his own wife and family. If you are intelligent, you may be able to figure out a way to make lots of money without working particularly hard. If you lack intelligence, you can make up for it with a strong work ethic, as many working class men do. If you are both intelligent and work hard, you will have unfathomable riches. As long as you stay from crime and degeneracy, you can live a happy life in a monogamous, provider male society. This is what made European civilization the greatest civilization for so long. This model is why Asian civilization has surpassed us. Asia kept their faith in the monogamous provider model alive whereas Europe basically said "we don't have to honor our agreement anymore because we have freedom now" to the men who built this civilization for so many centuries.

Society isn't falling apart because young men supposedly don't want to work anymore. That's just nonsense repeated ad nauseum by tradcon catastrophists.

In most of today's modern societies the level of technological and material development is such that full employment isn't even remotely necessary for civilization to continue to function. A country can have a high rate of unemployment and its businesses and infrastructure will still have enough manpower to run efficiently. There's a surplus of available labor, not a shortage. Many men do bare minimum jobs because that's all there is for them to do. The highly specialized and high-paying jobs are always going to be limited and available to only a minority of people. The rest simply do menial jobs where they clock in, do what is expected of them and then clock out because that is all that is needed. It isn't the men's fault. Further labor just isn't necessary for the maintenance of society. In fact, today in the 21st century society is more materially advanced than ever. Alleged male laziness and lack of motivation haven't done anything to impede that. Catastrophization to the contrary is just out-of-touch tradcon hogwash.

Certain models of traditionalism might have been useful in past eras in light of the material conditions that those older societies faced but today in the hypermodern 21st century the material conditions of civilization are very different. There is really no pragmatic reason to enforce strict monogamy and beta provider masculinity upon everyone. Contrary to tradcon predictions, material progress didn't collapse under the excesses of sexual liberalism. Rather it only continued to rapidly accelerate and reach an unprecedented level. Beta provider masculinity has suffered blows in light of technological advancements and the subsequent diminution of the value of human labor. The need for human labor is also expected to diminish even more in the not-so-distant future as automation technologies continue to advance exponentially. The demand for work will be less, the infrastructure of civilization will remain, and material progress will probably accelerate further. People's alleged laziness will be irrelevant. So will the absence of traditionalism.

As I've said before, at this point in the history of material development traditionalism isn't necessary at all from a pragmatic standpoint. It's just a lifestyle choice that certain people can adopt if they want to. Civilization hasn't collapsed because of any absence of outmoded premodern institutions. Tradcons just want to catastrophize in order to convince others that their own superfluous ideology is somehow necessary for the rest of us.

[CaptainSkelebob]

So according to your article, gamma males are the most intelligent, most moral, kind, empathetic, and romantic people in society, and on top of that we are non-conformists committed to our principles no matter what, have self respect, and challenge the status quo?

Gamma males sound pretty f***ing awesome! Sure, I'll happily take up the label of a gamma male.

Well, it's actually not my article (it was written by the author of theadultmale.com and is based on the theory of Vox Day), but gamma males do indeed tend to have high intelligence, an above average level of empathy, and romanticism, and often purport to having a more developed moral compass (sometimes they really are moral people; other times they simply think that they are more moral than others), but then they believe that these qualities somehow entitle them to sexual access, romance and sociosexual status and are resentful that men with other qualities are often more attractive to women and even proceed to denounce such men and the women who are attracted to them (in your case you are quick to label them as "degenerates"). That's the essence of the gamma male: - his sense of entitlement in light of his own intelligence, empathy, romantic gestures, and supposed greater sense of morality in conjunction with resentment for those who are able to attract women with virtues other than his own.

Gamma males tend to believe themselves and categories of people with which they identify to have a monopoly on traits such as intelligence, empathy and morality, or they think that they are more intelligent, empathic and moral than everyone else, even though plenty of alphas, sigmas and other types of men undoubtedly have high intelligence too and live perfectly moral lives. Gamma males often think of themselves as special in relation to everyone else and this also feeds into their sense of entitlement and hidden king complex.

I told you that you are advocating hood nigga masculinity because you refuse to back away from the assertion that men must dominate other men and sexually dominate women. This is exactly what hood niggas and frat boys believe because they dislike affectionate, romantic sex... They want to combine sex with aggression and violence and they enforce their ideology through PUA culture. This mentality is evil and degenerate. You have refused to back away from this and instead say that men who do not want to sexually dominate women are pussies and an inferior species of males for the same reasons that skanky women say they are inferior, "because they are boring."

Ay por dios, Outcast! For a guy who prides himself on his high intelligence you really lack reading comprehension and understanding of nuances, don't you? I never made the assertion that men must dominate other men and sexually dominate women. I wrote at length about the distinction between positive and negative manifestations of primal masculinity and that I advocate the cultivation of primal masculinity in constructive ways. I even wrote about how martial virtue should be used only for noble purposes and certainly not for bullying other men. But you didn't listen, nor were you willing to address my point, and you still continue to insist that I am an advocate for hood nigga masculinity because of what I assume to be an emotional aversion towards all manifestations of primal masculinity - a quality which you incidentally happen to lack and which you seem to want to condemn in other men.

I said that I enjoy sexually dominating Latinas (because I personally find it fun and am addicted to the wild ecstatic passion), but I don't necessarily dislike affection or romantic sex. I didn't say that men who don't want to sexually dominate women are pussies or an inferior species of males; I said that men with intelligence/wisdom but without primally masculine qualities are incomplete as men since they completely neglect certain masculine virtues/sources of attraction. That is why I view them as "deficient". They're deficient in the sense that they're unbalanced in terms of male development and lack certain core masculine qualities. Then they wonder why they are not sexually attractive to most women. Of course, some men can never consider their own shortcomings; for those men everyone else must be to blame (society, alpha males, "Chads", women, etc.).

Well you know what? f***ing deal with it. f***ing deal with people being boring. People are not permanent clowns who exist for your, or skanky women's entertainment. I don't care if most women think an immoral man is sexy, that is just reflective of the evil that resides within them. Women are too cowardly to commit evil acts themselves though so instead they use their sexuality as a bargaining chip to make men do evil things for them. Well to those women I say... You want drama, you want conflict, and stories of competition? Read a f***ing book, watch a movie or a TV show, play a video game, or hell write your own goddamn story. Stop playing games with people's lives. Stop expecting other people to make their lives into some kind of real life TV show for you to watch.

We don't need to deal with other people thinking that you are boring. It's not out fuckin' problem!

You have a point about obnoxious normie women who use sexuality as a bargaining chip and like to create drama. I steer well clear of those kind of women and limit my social interactions with people in general. Nowadays I only want to have sex with nice and charming Latina milfs who have a lot more psychological maturity than the typical 20 something Facebook thot and who need a good seeing to.

But Outcast, even many good girls still like a guy with some lovable rogue type traits and a sense of mischief. They just find that kind of stuff fun and endearing. It doesn't make them bad people or "degenerates". I think that even good girls can easily get bored of the goody-goody, holier-than-thou types. They just crave a bit of playful token roguishness from a man, even if it doesn't reach the same category of sociopathic, no-good gangbanger roguishness. But the "nice guy" types don't seem to understand that and then, when girls do get bored of them, they always assume that the girls are to blame while in reality the nice guy types simply don't have a nuanced understanding of female psychology.

You don't seem to understand this sort of thing with female psychology either because you have a tendency to see the world only in black-and-white terms and through the lens of simplistic archetypes while remaining blind to subtle nuances or the fact that there are levels or degrees to things.

You think I'm clueless about women? I'm not clueless at all. There's a reason why I don't respect most women and mainly just hold Asian women in high regard.

Yeah right, ikemen-san イケ面さん!

The fact is, you are taking the easy way out and pretending that you're the non-conformist for having done so. Lucas, you are the ultimate conformist.

No, I'm not! I don't see this in terms of conformity or nonconformity. I see it in terms of two opposing arguments. I just have a different point of view and happen to disagree with yours.

But you seem to want to bring into this discussion this contrived idea of yours that I must be some sort of "conformist" because I don't follow your particular brand of "contrarianism". Typical gamma male "my way is special and everybody else is just a mindless conformist" type of reasoning.

Hating on insufficiently aggressive and dominant males is very popular right now. I'm the one going against the grain by speaking out against sexual liberalism, speaking out against the cult demanding that men give up their morals or else be stripped of sex and female companionship, and trying to give people an alternative that keeps both their manhood and their morals in-tact. I'm the one trying to defend the men who are stomped on by everyone else for no other reason then daring to be born a man and wanting to be a decent f***ing person.

I've heard this line of thought or some variation thereof a lot on the Manosphere, but I'm entirely not convinced by it. Men aren't being stripped of sex and female companionship for not giving up their morals. That's just another talking point of whiny incels and quasi-incels who are frustrated that they're unable to attract a woman yet at the same time aren't willing to do self-improvement or develop qualities that are attractive (I'm talking about positive, constructive ones, for the record). They'd rather just complain incessantly about "Chads" and "Tyrones" supposedly taking all of the women and about how the women are bad, and then some of the tradcon types prefer to fantasize about moral, divinely ordained, traditionalist theocracies in which the authoritarian state or priesthood dispenses one virgin bride for each pious incel male!

The truth is that a decent man can indeed get a decent woman, even in countries like the UK. I've seen many examples of decent guys in my hometown in long-term relationships with decent women in spite of all of the debauchery and the terrible culture of binge drinking. If a guy makes some effort, pursues self-improvement and looks for the right kind of girl in the right place he can have that. But so many Manosphere manginas would rather bitch about women on the internet in the countless RedPill forums and such. Maybe they're simply not as desirable as they think they are and are too lazy to put in the effort and find it easier to blame everyone else. Not hating! Just being real!

And watching these men's plight, yeah, I don't have any sympathy for the crocodile tears of shitty men as they are threatened with legal restrictions on their ability to bully other men, sexually dominate women, and f**k around. I don't have any sympathy for the cries of "I can't believe you want me to stay with one woman for the rest of my life! I will revolt against your theocratic regime and kill you if you don't let me f**k multiple women!" while the same men talk about how they should be allowed to indirectly strip other men of all love, warmth, and affection for their entire lives. Whether its because they'll become a permanent incel, or because some shitbag slept with his wife justifying it by saying "its not my fault! He shouldn't have been such a beta incapable of satisfying his wife!" or because they will actually buy into your "primal masculinity" thing and become a clown dancing for the amusement of skanky women for their entire lives and never being able to experience the true happiness that comes with having a real female companion instead of just another hole to put your dick in, because all that's available to them is shitty one night stands and f**k buddy arrangements from worthless women who demand that that's all men view them as and threaten to withhold intimacy from men the moment they display evidence of being a decent person.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your own fantasies.

But yeah, people like myself, @WilliamSmith and @Pixel--Dude will indeed fight to prevent or overthrow your envisioned theocracy should you and others like you attempt to implement it. Not simply because we want to fcuk all of the women, but rather because we don't want to live in an authoritarian theocratic dystopia run by religious nuts who think that they have the divine right to stick their big sanctimonious noses in everybody else's lives and determine what people are and aren't allowed to think! Some of us actually value freedom of thought and freedom of conscience and don't want to live in somebody else's dictatorship. But, of course, we're just "evil" because we don't slavishly follow the "one vision".

I'm the one giving them a way they can find happiness and retain their morals too. You are basically saying "f**k morals, just throw them away because skanky women don't like them, they think nice guys are boring and won't f**k you if you're moral."

No, I'm saying that I don't follow YOUR morals and subjective ideas pertaining to what is right and wrong. That doesn't mean that I don't have my own moral compass. But, of course, I'm just an evil degenerate because I don't follow your particular brand of absolutism.

Your article is not an indictment on the value of gamma males... Its an indictment on the value of PUA culture... Which is basically that PUA culture seeks to put the shittiest, most immoral men in charge of society while suppressing the good, intelligent men who dare to tell them what to do. That hierarchy is only recognized by other PUAs. PUAs try to insist that their culture is the culture of the entire world when the reality is, their culture only really dominates in places like NYC, Los Angeles, London, and Florida.

Again, it's not my article, but it is neither an indictment of gamma males or PUA culture. It is simply a description of the common traits of certain archetypes of males who populate the world. In fact, it's more of a description of different roles in human social hierarchies rather than a PUA piece.

But, of course, you will interpret the article as an indictment of PUA culture in order to reflect your own narrative since you live in a world of total ideological delusion and seem unable to operate in any sphere of objective reality and simply tell yourself what you want to believe and then rail on about everybody who thinks differently is some sort of degenerate while claiming to be nice and empathic.

Ironically, nobody puts p***y on a pedestal like PUAs do. They are willing to sell their soul to the devil just for validation from a bunch of worthless whores. How could a man be anymore pathetic then that?

I'm not a PUA, but guys don't necessarily sleep with women for "validation". I don't even know where that idea comes from. Some men simply sleep with women because they want to, because it's fun, because they are driven by sexual passion. But, as usual, certain RedPill theorists and tradcons wish to fit all phenomena of human behavior into their own little ideological paradigms.

Boooooooooooshka!!!!
You landed one right on the nose with this one fella
You f***ing get it!!!
About time someone put this loony in his place!!!
Wading thru all the accusations, p***y beta crybaby posts and boring shite and I come across this absolute gem of a thread!!!!
Ive been getting into it with this small dick little beta fag since I joined....
All because I made a f***ing joke about banging some women even if I was married to some little ching chong bitch from thailand!!
I dont know outcast that well but he hasnt made a good impression at all
In fact
Im not sure he will ever get on my good side again
Bwahahahaha!!!
I dont give a shite tho....
Hes a sexual Marxist who wants to get big daddy government to get him and all his little beta contemporarys some p***y
Outcast talks about his vision for a traditionalist society but for everyone other than him it is a total dystopian nightmare!!!
Imagine telling that alpha badass WilliamSmith he is only permitted to bang a single woman for the rest of his life
Its a f***ing travesty fella!!!
I would fight with you guys to overthrow this mangina dystopia!!!
Anyway.....
Liked this one fella!
Up the lads!!!

[Lucas88]

@Lucas88 is a retard. Anyone knows that men need incentives to work or contribute otherwise they stop caring. If you actually think that western society is in good shape then you haven't been paying attention or are too stupid to understand the problems.

Says the failed incel Mercer who is too much of a loser for self-improvement and feels the need to relentlessly attack other men on the forum out of jealousy because he can't get a woman!

Plenty of men do participate in society and get a woman. Even if they don't have a good job they still work on themselves in other ways and attract women. It's just loser manginas like you who can't get a woman. You prefer to wallow in your bullshit BlackPill negativity rather than growing a set of cojones and acting like a fuckin' man!

I know full well the real problems that the Western world is facing, and they are way more serious than any of the bullshit that you contemptible manginas whine about.

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88

It is amazing to me that you claim to be an anti-feminist when you sound exactly like one. Seeing your posts, I cannot tell the difference between you and feminists that I've argued with in the past. This is why my opinion of British people continues to sink lower and lower. Even when British people claim to be anti-feminist, you're not really anti-feminist. Nobody who supports sexual liberalism can really claim to be anti-feminist because you want to preserve all the changes that they are responsible for. You just dislike radical, Andrea Dworkin style feminism, you don't really dislike feminism.

"You can't get p***y because you're not enough of a man to be liked by women!" You might as well be saying "you don't like feminism because you're scared of strong independent women!" You may not have used those precise words but you might as well have. The whole "you're just saying that because you can't get p***y!" Is a classic feminist response to all criticisms of the changes feminism made to society.

I don't like the type of men you are so determined to defend because I consider them to be the true male feminists. They oppose feminism in the most superficial way imaginable so that they will look controversial and thus "bad-boyish" to feminist women but not genuinely anti-feminist enough to threaten their ideology. If you were a true anti-feminist, you would be advocating for something that actually benefits MOST men, rather then simply benefitting frat boys, club rats, and hood niggas. These are the only men who really benefit from sexual liberalism. All other men have been silenced and told that opposing sexual liberalism and not trying to bang as many women as possible makes them unmasculine. Most men aren't actually promiscuous themselves, they just feel like they have to say "I don't judge" so that the degenerates don't have to feel ashamed of their behavior. And then feminists and liberals throw them a false bone by acting like more sexual liberalism is somehow gonna make things easier for them even though every step towards more sexual liberalism has only made things worse.

Not all girls like primal masculinity. I myself, dislike primal femininity. I feel like primal femininity is basically getting off on being used as an organic fleshlight. It is absolutely related to the sadomasochism epidemic and I am revolted by girls who willingly degrade themselves. Girls should seek a male caretaker who will lavish her in love and affection. People should resist their primal nature.

Being in a relationship did not change my views... I did not suddenly start loving sexual liberalism once I was having sex regularly. I hate sexual liberalism and feminism because it is immoral, joyless, toxic, selfish, and soulless. I will advocate for its destruction until the day I die no matter how much sex I am getting.

You keep trying to say automation has made workers obsolete and I told you the natural response to this will simply be to have women leave the workforce. You didn't bother to make a counter-argument as to why that wouldn't happen. You simply said "you're just tradcon fantasizing!"

I feel like you're a self-hating autist. Most autists come to realize that their autism comes with many traits, some positive, some negative. And they realize it is just another personality type. You on the other hand, view your autism as a disability to be ashamed of because you subconsciously absorbed society's message that autists are an inferior group of men... So you try to be as far away from the typical autistic person as possible.

[Lucas88]

It is amazing to me that you claim to be an anti-feminist when you sound exactly like one. Seeing your posts, I cannot tell the difference between you and feminists that I've argued with in the past. This is why my opinion of British people continues to sink lower and lower. Even when British people claim to be anti-feminist, you're not really anti-feminist. Nobody who supports sexual liberalism can really claim to be anti-feminist because you want to preserve all the changes that they are responsible for. You just dislike radical, Andrea Dworkin style feminism, you don't really dislike feminism.

"You can't get p***y because you're not enough of a man to be liked by women!" You might as well be saying "you don't like feminism because you're scared of strong independent women!" You may not have used those precise words but you might as well have. The whole "you're just saying that because you can't get p***y!" Is a classic feminist response to all criticisms of the changes feminism made to society.

Nah, I'm not a feminist at all. I just have a more balanced view of things and look at things from the perspectives of both genders, not just from the perspective of men. I recognize that women have their own needs and desires too. I don't think that women should have to be controlled by or subjected to some whiny tradcon manginas. But, of course, tradcon manginas will insist that I'm a "feminist" because I don't mindlessly go along with their own solipsistic groupthink and all of their contrived RedPill "truths". Yes, feminism is just female ingroup tribalism, but many movements within the Manosphere are practically the male equivalent. I want a society that is fair to both genders, not one in which weak, sniveling manginas think that they can own women and subject them to their whims in the name of some arbitrary ideology packaged as "traditionalism".

Sure you can support sexual liberalism (although I've never heard anybody call it that in the real world) and be an anti-feminist. What you describe as "right-leaning liberal" societies such as Latin America can be considerably anti-feministic in the sense that they are very pro-male and don't have much tolerance for misandry or contrived feminist talking points. But, of course, now you simply want to arbitrarily redefine things for the purpose of discrediting me, right?

I find it interesting how @WilliamSmith and myself, two non-traditionalists here, actually talk about studying female psychology and learning how to give them what they crave and make them happy and satisfied while many of the self-styled tradcons seemingly just wish to lay down the law and tell women what they are supposed to like and dislike and then label any woman who doesn't conform to their own myopic ideas a "degenerate". Just an observation!

I don't like the type of men you are so determined to defend because I consider them to be the true male feminists.

Bwaaaaa! There's nothing "true male feminist" about the men I defend. You're just being delusional. I explained on multiple occasions what I mean by primal masculinity and its positive manifestations and how it is extremely attractive to women. But you just want to insist that all forms of primal masculinity are inherently bad and that women who are attracted to that sort of behavior are "degenerates" just because you have some sort of aversion towards real masculinity and want to universalize some ultra-gentle beta form of masculinity since it happens to be more in line with your own sensibilities. You fail to recognize the many men with primally masculine traits who still live perfectly moral and productive lives and instead are hellbent of disingenuously conflating primal masculinity with hood niggatry and frat boy bullshit just because you don't want to see a reality that doesn't fit with your own ideological prism. The kind of masculinity which I and others like WilliamSmith endorse has nothing inherently feminist about it.

Not all girls like primal masculinity. I myself, dislike primal femininity. I feel like primal femininity is basically getting off on being used as an organic fleshlight. It is absolutely related to the sadomasochism epidemic and I am revolted by girls who willingly degrade themselves. Girls should seek a male caretaker who will lavish her in love and affection. People should resist their primal nature.

We are not all the same. Different people like different things. There's not a one-size-fits-all standard for what men and women should seek. Some people like gentle romantic affection while others like rougher, more physical types of intimacy. Now, I even agree with you that hardcore BDSM porn which is just sick and perverse should be made illegal in order to reduce its dissemination, but what you consider "degeneracy" and "perversion" seems to extend even to things like playful spanking, rough sex itself and other relatively tame and harmless sexual games. To be honest, I think you just have a few deep-seated sexual hang-ups that completely distort your perception of sexuality. But your own sexual hang-ups don't give you a right to police other people's sex lives (and policing people's sex lives would be largely unfeasible anyway).

Being in a relationship did not change my views... I did not suddenly start loving sexual liberalism once I was having sex regularly. I hate sexual liberalism and feminism because it is immoral, joyless, toxic, selfish, and soulless. I will advocate for its destruction until the day I die no matter how much sex I am getting.

Sexual liberalism is immoral, joyless, toxic, selfish and soulless to YOU. Plenty of other people think differently.

You could simply opt to live a traditionalist lifestyle yourself and with likeminded people and just leave everybody else to do their own thing but I'm under the impression that you just have an obsession with meddling in other people's lives and dictating to others what you think is right and wrong. Of course, this is just your "I'm more enlightened than everyone else" gamma male secret king complex coming out.

You keep trying to say automation has made workers obsolete and I told you the natural response to this will simply be to have women leave the workforce. You didn't bother to make a counter-argument as to why that wouldn't happen. You simply said "you're just tradcon fantasizing!"

I gave you a counterargument that was paragraphs long and even included a reference to a leading technologist but you either don't have good reading comprehension or you just ignore everybody else's points. I explained that around the midway point of the 21st century technological advancements are prognosticated to reach a level so great that automation will completely revolutionize society and make the current system of labor obsolete. Neither men nor women will have to work a 40 hour workweek for production and the maintenance of civilization. Everybody will work much less given that robotics and AI will be able to do the majority of tasks much more efficiently. So even a system of only men working and women staying at home won't even be necessary or pragmatic. Technologists like Ray Kurzweil aren't predicting a slight advancement of automation technologies in the next few decades; they're prognosticating a leap of advancement that will result in a societal transformation of apocalyptic proportions and will require the whole of society to adapt and integrate those changes sensibly.

You might think that this sounds like science fiction (and it's good to be skeptical of things) but just look how much technology has advanced in the last 25 years. Now just think how much more it will likely advance in the next 25 years, bearing in mind that technological development is exponential. Also bear in mind that Kurzweil's predictions concerning technological developments have been coming true with uncanny accuracy since he made them in the 90s.

I feel like you're a self-hating autist. Most autists come to realize that their autism comes with many traits, some positive, some negative. And they realize it is just another personality type. You on the other hand, view your autism as a disability to be ashamed of because you subconsciously absorbed society's message that autists are an inferior group of men... So you try to be as far away from the typical autistic person as possible.

Wrong! You are making baseless assumptions about me as you tend to do with many groups of people.

Autism is just a pervasive developmental disorder which makes many affected lives much more difficult. It isn't something to glorify. I don't hate myself for having autism nor have I imbibed any supposed message of society that autists are inferior, but I'd rather not have autism and have neurotypical social skills and not have to deal with things like sensory overload and fatigue. I don't make any conscious effort to be as far away from the typical autistic person as possible. I'm an individual and just follow my own path without paying much attention to how other autistic people are. I'm just me. I don't know why you would even assume such a thing.