Yo, dudes: Alpha males are a myth, according to actual experts on wolves

Manosphere misogynists like to tell themselves fairy tales about women. Their favorite such tale, repeated endlessly, is one called “The Cock Carousel” – sometimes referred to in expanded form as the “Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel” or the “Bad Boy Cock Carousel.” (Hence that Rooster-riding gal you see in this blog’s header about half the time.)

Despite the different names, the story is always, monotonously, the same: In their late teens and twenties, when they’re at the height of their sexual appeal, women (or at least the overwhelming majority of them) have sex in rapid succession with an assortment of charismatic but unreliable alpha males and “bad boys” who make their vaginas (or just ‘ginas) tingle. Then, sometime in their mid-to-late twenties, these women “hit the wall,” with their so-called sexual market value (or SMV) dropping faster than Facebook’s stock price. As Roissy/Heartiste puts it, in his typically overheated prose:

So sad, so tragic, the inevitable slide into sexual worthlessness that accompanies women, the withering tick tock of the cosmic clock stripping their beauty in flayed bits of soulletting mignons like psychological ling chi. A sadistic thief in the night etching, billowing, draping and sagging a new affront to her most preciously guarded asset.

While many women try to pretend they’ve still “got it,” even at the ripe old age of thirty, they inevitably have to either get off or get thrown off the “cock carousel.” At this point the more savvy women glom onto some convenient “beta male” who, while somewhat lacking in sexual appeal, will at least be a good husband and provider for them – and in many cases the children they’ve had with alpha male seed. Those women who don’t accept the new reality are destined to end up alone and childless, surrounded by cats.

To borrow the phrase South Park used in its episodes about Scientology and Mormonism, this is what manosphere men actually believe. Not only that, but they claim that this fairy tale is based on real science.

So who are these mysterious alpha males that get the women so excited? As one guide to pickup artist (PUA) lingo puts it:

In animal hierarchies, the Alpha Male is the most dominant, and typically the physically strongest member of the group. For example, in wolf packs, the “alpha wolf” is the strongest member of the pack, and is the leader of the group. This position of leadership is often achieved by killing or defeating the previous Alpha Male in combat. Alpha wolves have first access to food as well as mating privileges with the females of the pack.

Social status among human social groups is less rigidly defined than in the animal kingdom, but there are some recognizable parallels. Although people don’t often engage in physical violence to achieve dominance, there are still recognizable leaders in different fields who have wide access to material resources and women.

Because the qualities of the Alpha Male (such as social dominance and leadership) are attractive to women, many PUAs have adopted these ideals as models of emulation. In fact, the term “alpha” has come be shorthand for the qualities of an attractive man, and it is a common refrain among PUAs to be “more alpha” or to “out alpha” competitors.

There’s a certain logic to all this. But unfortunately for the PUAs and other manospherians the notion of the Alpha male is based on bad science. The notion of Alpha dominance, as the definition above notes, came originally from studies of wolf packs. Even if we assume that wolf behavior is somehow a good model upon which to base our understanding of human romance  – as manosphere men and evolutionary psychologists tend to do – the science behind the Alpha male wolf has now come completely undone, with many of those who promulgated the theory in the first place decades ago now explicitly repudiating it.

The problem, you see, is that the studies underlying the notion of the alpha male wolf, who aggressively asserts his dominance over beta males in order to rule the pack, were all based on observations of wolves in captivity. In the real world, wolf packs don’t work that way at all. Most wolf packs are basically wolf families, with a breeding pair and their pups. When male pups reach adulthood, they don’t fight their fathers for dominance — they go out and start their own families.

As noted wolf behavior expert L. David Mech, one of those who helped to establish and popularize the notion of the alpha wolf in the first place, explains on his website:

The concept of the alpha wolf is well ingrained in the popular wolf literature at least partly because of my book “The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species,” written in 1968, published in 1970, republished in paperback in 1981, and currently still in print, despite my numerous pleas to the publisher to stop publishing it. Although most of the book’s info is still accurate, much is outdated. We have learned more about wolves in the last 40 years then in all of previous history.

One of the outdated pieces of information is the concept of the alpha wolf. “Alpha” implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle. However, most wolves who lead packs achieved their position simply by mating and producing pups, which then became their pack. In other words they are merely breeders, or parents, and that’s all we call them today, the “breeding male,” “breeding female,” or “male parent,” “female parent,” or the “adult male” or “adult female.” In the rare packs that include more than one breeding animal, the “dominant breeder” can be called that, and any breeding daughter can be called a “subordinate breeder.”

So the dominant male wolves – those whom manosphere dudes would still call the alphas – achieve this position not by being sexy badasses but simply by siring and taking responsibility for pups. To use the terminology in the manner of manosphere dudes, alphas become alphas by acting like betas. That’s right: alphas are betas. (For more of the details, see this paper by Mech; it’s in pdf form.)

Also, they’re wolves and not humans, but that’s a whole other kettle of anthropomorphized fish.

About these ads

Posted on August 22, 2012, in alpha asshole cock carousel, alpha males, bad boys, beta males, evo psych fairy tales, heartiste, MGTOW, misogyny, PUA, worst writing in the history of the universe and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 558 Comments.

  1. Yin and yang is sexist? Binary, I get, but sexist?

  2. No, not sexist if you follow Chinese alchemy especially.

  3. sexyconfidentwoman

    There is no such thing as a alpha it is an excuse that men use when they can’t be bothered to work on their own personal development and would rather say I don’t express my feelings because I am a man.

  4. Almost every man I have seen in my life who is in a relationship with a woman has gotten a very bad deal, women appreciate nothing. The alpha – beta shit does not matter. Anyway, I think most of these guys who are into pua or follow the alpha stuff must be bigger losers than me because I can get laid without much difficulty, almost anyone can. There are so many promiscuous and unselective women out there I cant see how any man would have difficult y getting laid unless he had major birth defects or was totally out of his mind and was unable to stop talking to himself for even a few hours. Even if a guy is hideous but able to hold a job he is probably sane enough to find a slut to fuck. There is no reason for any man not to be able to get laid without much difficulty in this age of promiscuity.
    How does this relate to the article? The guys who believe this stuff are suckers who believe whatever they read online. I think women have no value beyond their sexual and reproductive role and that if it was not for sex they would be killed at birth but getting laid is pretty easy, especially in a big city. If looks are all that matters, all a man has to do is go up to a lot of hot women and one will fuck him, no matter what he looks like. There may be cases of men who are so fucked up that they cant do this but they are rare. Women give it away a lot more freely than they care to admit.
    Fortunately for myself and the female gender that no matter what a woman looks like I lose interest in her minutes after she opens her dirty mouth. Girlfriends are for suckers, wives are for fools and casual sex is not worth the effort or putting up with the rotten personalities that almost all women have.
    As far as a woman’s appearance goes, I never used to care much because I believed that women had some other value besides their stink hole but they don’t, a man might as well get the youngest hottest woman he can find if he is stupid enough to give into his sex drive because nearly all women are worthless.
    P.S. I do not mean to offend anyone. I am just trying enlighten people about how some men see women, once they remove their rose colored glasses, see beyond a woman’s sexuality and lies and see what she really is, a bitch, a slut and whore with no redeeming qualities.

  5. . I think women have no value beyond their sexual and reproductive role and that if it was not for sex they would be killed at birth

    Your mother must be so proud.

    Fortunately for myself and the female gender that no matter what a woman looks like I lose interest in her minutes after she opens her dirty mouth.

    Fuck off.

    I do not mean to offend anyone. I am just trying enlighten people about how some men see women, once they remove their rose colored glasses, see beyond a woman’s sexuality and lies and see what she really is, a bitch, a slut and whore with no redeeming qualities.

    Riiiiight, sure. So you “enlighten” by trotting out all the tired, worn-out tropes about women.

    Joe, go blow yourself. Why do I think the only way you could get laid is by crawling up a chicken’s ass and waiting?

  6. I think women have no value beyond their sexual and reproductive role

    I do not mean to offend anyone.

    One of these statements is not true. Fuck off, necrotroll.

  7. cassandrakitty

    I don’t mean to offend you, joeblow, but I think you’re rather less intelligent than the keyboard I’m typing these words on, and that therefore you should shut your pie-hole. I also suspect that the cartoon stink-lines of misogyny that waft forth from you probably cause most women to avoid you like you were a week-old pizza with mold growing on it.

    I do hope this doesn’t make you feel that I’m being rude.

  8. Wow. That was the most hateful thing I’ve seen a troll write since I started commenting here. That really says something.

    I know lots of straight guys who are very happy in their relationships you stupid troll. Maybe the problem is that you and your friends are all assholes and don’t know how to relate to other humans?

  9. I debated whether to let that comment through, but thought it was astonishing enough that you all should see it. He’s banned from making further comments, though.

  10. joeblow:

    You are a horrible, horrible person.

    That is all.

  11. It’s rare that they come right out and say women should be killed, and if it were up them we would be if it weren’t for sex. Joe’s outright awfulness is almost refreshing after the mealy-mouthed troll tapdancing we usually get.

  12. P.S. I do not mean to offend anyone.

    P.S. No one takes you seriousy.

    Fortunately for myself and the female gender that no matter what a woman looks like I lose interest in her minutes after she opens her dirty mouth.

    I’d say that’s very fortunate, the less you speak to women the more everybody wins.

  13. This is such a try-hard troll, I’m finding it hard to take at all seriously.

  14. Damn it, every post I’ve made lately has been a sacrifice to the Blockquote Monster.

  15. Seems like he’s eating the /…

  16. @Kitteh

    Yeah, I think he actually believes referring to women’s genitalia as “stink holes” is edgy. That’s just low rent trolling. Are there any aspiring Manboobz trolls out there who will step up and challenge Michael for the coveted ‘Best Troll of 2014′ statuette?

  17. Are there any aspiring Manboobz trolls out there who will step up and challenge Michael for the coveted ‘Best Troll of 2014′ statuette?

    I doubt it, Brooked, I doubt it! Mikey/Farmer Brown is the only one in the running at present. Though his last couple of sock efforts (I think he was Random Poster – anyone confirm that?) were poor stuff. I think he’s run out of steam.

    All that waffle about how easy it is to get laid, how awful women are, blah blah blah, was just bog-standard nonsense, the sort of thing I’d expect from a teenager.

    Hey, maybe it was Mr Nostrils aged 14 3/4 from the other thread!

  18. What a silly troll. Hey, kittehs and other knitters, I found this cute picture for you!

  19. Joe,
    Nice try, sweetums. Women scare the living shit out of you. We scare you so much that you had to come to the is old thread and try your very best to be awful, in the hopes that you might make us question ourselves. It didn’t work. All I find myself questioning is how someone like you can be so consumed with fear and bitterness. You’re not very bright. You’re hateful. Being you really must be a nightmare. No wonder you wish to find someone to subjugate and devalue. You can’t feel better, so you try to make others feel worse. You can’t get positive attention or earn praise so this little cry in the dark is your best attempt at being noticed. Even then, desperate for recognition as you are, you’re still too scared to post it under your real name, you sniveling coward. Maybe instead of spending your energy hating others, you might try to fix yourself. You don’t have to be a bigoted creep. You don’t have to be ignorant. You don’t have to be so afraid. Those are choices you made and you can decide to make new choices when ever you want.

  20. Joe, you are not edgy. We get it. Some woman somewhere did not appreciate you enough — (pfffft) now it’s payback time, immature style!

    What’s this:

    “I think women have no value beyond their sexual and reproductive role and that if it was not for sex they would be killed at birth..”

    No. No rise out of me. You’re trying waaaaay too hard. I know a butthurt loser when I read one.

    “… but getting laid is pretty easy, especially in a big city.”

    Is it? Why so bitter then?

    “If looks are all that matters, all a man has to do is go up to a lot of hot women and one will fuck him, no matter what he looks like.”

    You’re showing your ass here, Joey. A handsome man can get laid. OK. Then you go on to say women will fuck anyone, despite a man’s looks. What the fuck are you trying to communicate?

    “There may be cases of men who are so fucked up that they cant do this…”

    Do what?”…go up to hot women?”

    “… but they are rare.”

    Who is rare? Alphas? Betas? What?

    “Women give it away a lot more freely than they care to admit…”

    Citation needed. Your bitterness is showing, by the by. You wanted someone, she didn’t want you and she ended up with someone else…we get it, asshole. Slut-shaming is a stress-reliever for you. Loser.

    “Fortunately for myself and the female gender that no matter what a woman looks like I lose interest in her minutes after she opens her dirty mouth.”

    We believe you — not.

    “Girlfriends are for suckers, wives are for fools and casual sex is not worth the effort or putting up with the rotten personalities that almost all women have.”

    You’re so unpleasant that all of these hypothetical relationships are foreign to you. Got it.

    “As far as a woman’s appearance goes, I never used to care much because I believed that women had some other value besides their stink hole but they don’t,”

    Um, you do care. You made a reference to “hot women,” so you, at some point, made a distinction in your mind. When you did not manage to obtain a “hot woman,” you decided to call her vagina a “stinkhole” out of revenge.

    “… a man might as well get the youngest hottest woman he can find if he is stupid enough to give into his sex drive because nearly all women are worthless.”

    Uh, what? “Youngest hottest woman he can find…” I thought you “…never used to care much” about a woman’s appearance. You’re going to have to defend yourself here, bud, ’cause you are an awful writer.

    Also, you’re a sore loser. Work on your personality and the fact that you are a sexist, hateful, rather remedial asshat — and maybe someone might give you the time of day. Otherwise, you are your own worst enemy.

  21. cassandrakitty

    By “get the youngest hottest woman he can find” I assume he means “go to the mall and hang out in the food court creeping on tweeners”.

  22. …That cat looks so jazzed about that yarn.

  23. The incredibly happy cat is the best part of that picture.

    And so much more important than the troll who pooped in this thread.

  24. Dumbass necrotroll is no match for a kitten with yarn. I forgot what joe said now, because kitty . . .

  25. Humans are essentially in captivity.

  26. cassandrakitty

    OMG, did Explore Nature come back? We missed you!

  27. Wait, F, if all of us are in captivity… then who are we captives TO? The Elder Gods?

  28. There is a hierarchy like this in ape ethology though and we are apes, so does it not follow that humans would have alpha and beta males?

  29. We’re in captivity to the Furrinati.

    Obviously.

  30. There is a hierarchy like this in ape ethology though and we are apes, so does it not follow that humans would have alpha and beta males?

    No, because we are in fact a different species than the species that have that hierarchy, and different species behave different ways?

    Alternately, no, because we are a sapient species capable of decision-making based on rational thought rather than instinct?

  31. Tell me more of the social structure of our close relative species “ape.”

  32. which one, If i remember correctly, humans are about quually related to the bonobos and the common chimps, which have different social structures.

    “cause we are a sapient species capable of decision-making based on rational thought”
    Doubtful. I think the important characteristic of the human species is their mastery of tools, not their sapiency. They may have that capacity but it seems that they are not using it so much.

    “then who are we captives TO? The Elder Gods””
    Are you really sure you want to know..

  33. There is a hierarchy like this in ape ethology though and we are apes, so does it not follow that humans would have alpha and beta males?

    Somebody straight up failed biology.

  34. There is a hierarchy like this in ape ethology though and we are apes, so does it not follow that humans would have alpha and beta males?

    Putting aside the social constructedness of sex and its discursive influences on biology, there is no evidence that there is a hierarchy of men within humankind. And it is not enough to merely point out that a certain non-human species has such a male hierarchy.

  35. The homo-pan split was what, 5 or 6 million years ago? While it’s true that we share a lot of DNA, that’s a long time for species in both genii to evolve some pretty big differences. It’s not like a chimp gave birth to a human one day.

    Is genii the correct plural of genus? It’s been a while since I’ve taken Latin or biology classes.

  36. genera, i think

    Another totally non-related question. Id some neanderthals, floriensis or denisovans had survived until today, would/should they be recognized as humans in conventions, law and so.

    Sometimes it feels lonely to be the only species in the genus

  37. We *are* quite closely related to chimpanzees, that’s true.

    Oddly, what is rarely brought up is how closely we’re also related to bonobos…

    Another totally non-related question. Id some neanderthals, floriensis or denisovans had survived until today, would/should they be recognized as humans in conventions, law and so.
    I think in that scenario, we’d have another look on what we call “human rights” IRL to begin with. IRL, things are easy, because our species is in fact the only sapient one on the planet. if that were not the case, maybe we’d have rights based on sapience, and not on a single species.

  38. Point for talacaris! Genera is right. :)

    As for the “How would we deal with extant early hominids, legally?”

    I’m kind of all for the ‘If they have a language capable of transmitting novel (to them) ideas, let’s treat them like humans’

    I’d try to keep it as broad as possible, just so we wouldn’t repeat the whole “We’ve just arrived here, and they can’t speak English/Latin/whatever, so they must be incapable of behaving like real humans’ thing.

    At the same time, my furrinati can totally convey meaning in dog-speak (not technically language that we recognize), but I’m not sure if him voting would be a good thing. Maybe a million years from now. Cephalopods might beat canids in the sapience race, though.

    Defining sapience is tough…

  39. IRL, things are easy, because our species is in fact the only sapient one on the planet.

    As far as we know.

  40. Interesting question though.

  41. cassandrakitty

    I often feel that maybe we’re just not acknowledging the fact that we’re not the only sapient species because of a combination of ego and unwillingness to admit that if we’re not the only sapient species then maybe we don’t really own the planet, and maybe that means we need to treat it (and other living creatures) better.

  42. Well, it’s a matter of definition. There just is no clear, pre-determined border between sapient and non-sapient, so we have to define one, even though the differences between single species can be pretty gradual. So there is the risk of circular reasoning: We define sapience so that we are sapient and nobody else is, and then based on that claim we are the only sapient species. However, I do think the intelligence difference between us and the next intelligent species is in fact so considerable that, even though the details of where *exactly* to draw the line, it is fair to hold ourselves special in that regard: That in fact we are sapient while other (living) species aren’t.

  43. cassandrakitty

    Given how bad we’ve historically been at designing intelligence tests that don’t, for example, assume that thinks like the test designers and shares the same cultural reference points = more intelligent, I really don’t think we’re objective enough about this to say with any confidence that we know for sure either that we really are that much more intelligent than every other species or that we’re the only sapient species. There’s also the difficulty inherent in measuring intelligence in a species that we don’t know how to communicate with.

  44. The communication issue seems to be the main thing; no matter how intelligent dolphins are, there’s no point in giving them the vote if you can’t you can’t explain to them what they’re voting for and why. So there may be practical reasons to *act* like we’re the only sapient species even if we aren’t.

    But, yes, “humans are special, not like those other animals” is no doubt a big factor too.

  45. Incidentally that was one of the last really dogmatic beliefs I held onto, that there was some sort of inviolable difference between people and animals.

  46. cassandrakitty

    I’ve also seen people attempt to argue that we can’t say that, say, crows may be sapient if we don’t think other birds are, which is just silly, because people argue that humans are sapient and chimps/gorillas/whatever aren’t all the time. The communication issue really is the key, though. We just don’t have any way to definitely confirm sapience without communication, not matter how we’re defining “sapient”.

  47. Harry Turtledove wrote a series of stories, collected as “A Different Flesh”. They’re alternate history of a sort; the point of divergence is the absence of the Bering land bridge. The Americas have a population of Homo erectus, but no H. sapiens. As a result, history is altered in many ways. One of the recurring themes is how humans treat the ‘sims’, as they’re called. Not beasts, but not people either.

    It gave me the idea for a similar AH, in which the Americas are likewise cut off from Eurasia, but capybaras evolve into a sentient, sapient, tool- and fire-using species. When they and humans encounter each other, neither perceives the other as anything other than bizarre monsters.

  48. It gave me the idea for a similar AH, in which the Americas are likewise cut off from Eurasia, but capybaras evolve into a sentient, sapient, tool- and fire-using species. When they and humans encounter each other, neither perceives the other as anything other than bizarre monsters.

    Do they go to war?

  49. cassandrakitty

    I was wondering if Robert had seen your capybara.

  50. no matter how intelligent dolphins are, there’s no point in giving them the vote if you can’t you can’t explain to them what they’re voting for and why

    You’re totally humansplainin’. DOLPHIN SUFFRAGE NOW!!!

  51. p.s. I love the new Pierre.

  52. Katz, didn’t get that far. Knowing me, I would have twisted the story to avoid that – I don’t even have war in my Civilization games. Given how frequently H. sapiens has resorted to warfare IRL, that is wildly unrealistic.
    Regarding Dolphin Rights, that’s touched on in the Uplift War SF series. I haven’t read enough of it to speak about it, though. In brief, humans have modified dolphins to be fully sapient, able to communicate with humans and vice versa, and use specially modified technology.

  53. Goes back to the old “doesn’t speak my language, ergo is barbarian/unintelligent/non-sapient”, doesn’t it?

    And on the original nonsense from Gemma – the species that have hierarchies also have them for the females (who’re the real pack leaders in some at least) yet that never gets translated into MRA bullshit about humans. I wonder why? /s

  54. cassandrakitty

    Even before people started admitting that the whole alpha wolf thing was the wrong way to frame things they would talk about alpha females as well as alpha males. People see what they want to see.

    Aside – I actually love talking about linguistics and theories about how language shapes our ability to think/what we’re able to imagine, so I’m not trying to shut down those kinds of conversations, I just get a bit eye-roll-prone when people act like our ability to measure intelligence isn’t compromised by all kinds of prejudices. Seriously, this is undergrad psychology and sociology stuff, there’s lots of information about the ways in which cultural imperialism, sexism, and all kinds of other nasty human emotional baggage have shaped the way we frame this stuff out there.

  55. I can get laid without much difficulty

    Given the rest of what you said in your ugly wall-o-text, I doubt that very much. Nobody wants to sleep with an asshole who thinks she’s worthless beyond sex and reproduction.

  56. Even before people started admitting that the whole alpha wolf thing was the wrong way to frame things they would talk about alpha females as well as alpha males. People see what they want to see.

    Yeah, but do MRAs? I can’t recall having seen them do anything but talk about whether womenthings are HB10s or not.

  57. cassandrakitty

    PUAs occasionally refer to very beautiful women as alpha, or at least I’ve seen Roissy do so (he had some ridiculous calculator at some point). Regular MRAs, nope, I think they assume hot women are beta and un-hot women are naturally supposed to be omegas, but our evil commufeminaziliberal society has allowed them to be un-omega’d, which is terrible.

  58. I think it’s because they imagine that all women are catty and in a constant state of competition with each other; one woman can’t be “dominant” because all women are constantly trying to tear each other down.

  59. cassandrakitty

    Which is funny for me because I went to an all girls boarding school, no guys around most of the time, and when you have a social group that’s all women/girls there are most definitely dominant personalities and clear leaders, and everyone knows who they are.

  60. Unomega sounds like some terrific new vitamin found in obscure plants.

  61. cassandrakitty

    Or a very unpalatable fish. Don’t eat the bony-finned grouper, it has un-omegas.

  62. Or the bony-finned groper, aka the PUA.

  63. cassandrakitty

    Even cannibals have some standards.

  64. the species that have hierarchies also have them for the females (who’re the real pack leaders in some at least) yet that never gets translated into MRA bullshit about humans.

    For a lot of those hierarchical groups, a male infant of a high-ranking mother gets a lot more scope and opportunity for leadership and domination among the youngsters. The offspring of the low rank/ no rank mothers have to just take whatever the other youngsters dish out – as well as take on the role of scapegoat when a higher ranked female wants to put its mother straight about what’s what, having to watch while her little one gets beaten up by another adult.

    Guess which male infants are more likely to grow up to become dominant males? Those with dominant mothers or with low-ranked mothers?

    Me? I’d just give up and go join the bonobos. They’re not all sweetness and light themselves, but they’re a hell of a lot easier to live among than chimps or baboons or name-your-ape/monkey-species.

  65. Heheheh can’t you see the dudebros squealing about HYPERGAMY and evil sluts and single mothers being to blame for their poor chimp/baboon/whatever sons not getting a Fair Deal in Life?

  66. This discussion is extremely interesting, and relevant to me as well. I love world-building in a fantasy scenario, and have been writing about this relatively low-fantasy world where humans and another close relative (roughly that world’s equivalent to Neanderthals) have evolved to a medieval stage. Humans being the dominant, more technologically advanced race, they start seeing their cousins as evil monsters similar to Tolkien’s orcs once their attempts to drive away these ‘uppity beasts’ from resource rich areas fail. There are other sapient species as well, all made to represent a certain typical fantasy race.

    It deals a lot with the problems of imperialism and conservative thought, but also the question of where exactly the limits of sapience lie in a world where there are several very different types of “higher intelligence”.

    Sadly, no capybaras. :-(

  67. I just HAD to look it up myself when you said the whole alpha wolf thing is nonsense. Sweet Jesus you were right! And from what I’ve read, even Chimps are known to be more calm and egalitarian than their captive brothers. Not to the extent of bonobos, of course. But I still believe piece and calm are in our nature, so I’ve always had a problem alpha talk.

    I mean, if we were built upon the notion that only a few men have value, wouldn’t it be a HUGE gender equality issue? In a sense, it is. While the richest people on earth are all men, most of the homeless are men, and the remaining women get welfare and shelter which often reject men. To me this is a false structure. We aren’t apathetic in nature, we just interact with too many people. Without such strong empathy, movies and books would have no meaning.

    Thanks for an awesome article debunking more pua BS.

    MOTHER OF GOD joeblow! I’ve had bad relationships and even false accusations filed against me, but I simply cannot become THAT bitter. Its like a male version of the SCUM manifesto.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,800 other followers

%d bloggers like this: