I would like to point something out. I know lots of men with varying experience with women. I have known a number of men who were “super-players.” They’re Alphas by default because according to one definition, if you’ve had sex with 100+ females, you’re Alpha, period. Only 6% of men have had sex with 100+ females.
What I always find, 100% sure, that the more experience a man has with women, the more of a player or womanizer or whatever he is, when I bring up this subject, whether he’s heard of the theory or not, he immediately latches on to this Alpha – Beta – Omega thing and says, “Well of course! Of course that is true! Anyone knows that!.”
And I notice that the less experience a man has with women, the more he tends to reject this whole theory.
Now that is telling me something.
Also I notice that men’s rejection of the Alpha- Beta – Omega theory is heavily tied into male feminism. The more feminist or liberal the man is, the more he rejects this theory. That to me smells like they are rejecting it on ideological grounds.
Honestly I do not see how any man can live on this Earth long at least in Western society and not notice that this theory is what he’s been seeing right in front of his face for all these years.
3
20
20
20
I have the exact opposite experience: the more unsuccesful with women and sexually deprived a man is, the more likely he is to be receptive to the idea of a male hierarchy.
This always made sense to me: our society doesn’t like the idea of human hierarchies, and that some people are just flat out better than others. It likes to think that so long as you’re virtuous and hard-working, everything will come to you.
Of course, everyone likes to think they’re hard-working and virtuous, and if you’re a succesful “player” who’s getting laid with lots of women and you’re thriving, you have less motivation to “rock the boat”, so to speak.
That lie is harder to swallow though if you’re an Omega male who couldn’t get one fuck if his life depended on it and who’s hated and scorned by everyone around him simply for not measuring up to society’s ideal of what a man “should be”.
Statistically, I have done great in my life, and I always thought it was because of some mysterious sex appeal, charisma, killer personality, psi energy field, or killer Game or whatever. Forever I have said that getting women is 100% attitude and 0% anything else. Now after exposure to Looks Theory and I am getting a rude awakening. Women have been saying I am goodlooking my whole life, and it is rather humbling to think that I did all of this simply with a pretty face and all my killer attitude and Game and charisma and charm and all had nothing to do with it. It’s rather humbling. I thought I did all this on my own, but maybe God did it for me.
It depends on whether a man find it ok to screw and run. 90% of men can be polygamous if they try harder.
It takes 2 hands to clap and it also depends on the attitude of your women and how lose they are.
In a more morale society the 10% alpha will need to confine themselves to 10% of the prostitute and slut while the rest of the 80% remains more or less monogamous.
In such scenario, basically the 10% most dirty man and fucking 10% most dirty women and the rest of the society are spared. It is basically a many to many relationship for 10%.
When a society is sexualize, 10% of the man would have access to around 80% of the women. It has become sort of a one man to many women, if we simplify the scenario.
http://lookism.net/Thread-HBO-Bill-Maher-on-mass-shootings-and-their-roots-in-inceldom