Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Why Do I Use So Many Categories and Labels?
-By Caleb Jones
I’m generalizing of course, but the vast majority of the kids in my school fell into one or more of those categories. (If you were wondering, I split my time about equally between the nerds and the stoners / new wavers, though some of my friend were jocks since I lifted weights with them.)
I once conducted a social experiment while still in high school that I found interesting.
If I walked up to a jock, and said “You’re a jock”, the reaction would be something like a shrug and “yeah.”
If I walked up to a new waver, and said “You’re a new waver”, the reaction would always be, “You really shouldn’t label people. I can’t be categorized. Who are you to categorize me?”
Years later in my twenties when I became politically active (which made sense back in the 1990s, since we still had time to turn America around back then, unlike today), I repeated this same experiment with conservatives and liberals. (For you non-Americans, remember that the American definition of “liberal” means a leftist or progressive.)
If I walked up to a conservative and said “You’re a conservative”, the reaction would be something like a shrug and “yeah.”
If I walked up to a liberal, and said “You’re a liberal”, the reaction would always be, “You really shouldn’t label people. I have lots of different political opinions. Who are you to categorize me?”
I use categories in my writing, and while it’s clearly helpful for people to understand otherwise confusing concepts, some people get upset when I do this. As just one example, recently a commenter (workgamer) made a comment over in my Thrill of the Hunt / Pleasure of Sex article:
as i do appreciate your blog very much i think this discussion is silly, theres something about american culture that’s so into labels all those people declaring “i’m an introverted/extroverted” that’s driving me insane. i can confidently say i fit into the extremes of both categories on different day’s. use to have great long lasting FB and was happy with that, made me calm. than again today i haven’t answered a chic cause i was feeling like going hunting in the streets. and sometimes i just prefer to watch tv than do any sex. i’m also undefined bisexual so have a personal issue with labeling lol
The points in the above comment is typical of people who complain that I shouldn’t use labels, or that the labels I use are wildly incorrect. Let’s examine this.
Why I Use Labels
I use plenty of labels, most of which are explained in the glossary. When I talk about nonmonogamous relationships, I define three types:
FB MLTR (or WD) OLTR
When I discuss men, I talk about three types:
Beta Alpha Male 1.0 Alpha Male 2.0
When I discuss women, again, I talk about three types:
Dominant Submissive Independent
When I talk about players, I talk about just two types:
Thrill of the Hunt men Pleasure of Sex men
These labels are helpful. They help explain human behavior. They help you to anticipate and prevent problems with other human beings, as well as yourself. In the case of the relationship types, understanding the three types helps prevent all kinds of drama and pain that most normal relationships suffer.
Are all the above categories 100% accurate 100% of the time? Of course not. Clearly I’m not god, nor even a trained psychologist. I don’t have all of the answers and never will.
Are the above categories generally correct, most of the time? Yes. Just because they aren’t 100% accurate 100% of the time doesn’t mean they’re completely inaccurate or useless. They’re quite useful, as thousands of men (and many women!) have clearly demonstrated and indicated, if my incoming email is any indication.
Do These Categories Upset You?
all those people declaring “i’m an introverted/extroverted” that’s driving me insane.
Many times, a guy will read about Thrill of the Hunt / Pleasure of Sex categories, or a woman will read about the Dominant / Submissive / Independent categories, and actually get angry. I don’t mean they just disagree. I mean they actually get upset, to the point of hurling insults at me. Almost 100% of the time that I can verify it, they’re angry because they actually relate to one of the categories but don’t want to admit it for whatever reason.
Just like the new wavers and liberals when I was younger, instead of admitting that the category presented to them does indeed describe who they are most of the time, they want to get angry at the person using the label.
i’m also undefined bisexual so have a personal issue with labeling lol
Exactly. Workgamer is bisexual, which is yet another label people use. Based on the tone of his comment and on the experience I’ve had with other people who hate labels, if I walked up to workgamer and simply said “You’re a bisexual,” he would both deny the label and probably get upset with me. This is despite the fact that A) the label is accurate by his own admission, and B) it’s not meant as an insult, since I think bisexuals are great.
This is some kind of defensive ego thing I don’t really understand, since I’ve never had this problem. Throughout my life, people have attached all kinds of labels to me. None of them have ever bothered me and have never made me upset or angry, even if inaccurate. These labels have included:
With the exception of anarchist and right-winger, every one of those above labels others attached to me were more or less accurate at the time they did it. When I was labeled a nerd, I was a nerd. When I was labeled weirdo, I was weird. When I was labeled and player or womanizer, I was those things. To this day, some of the above labels still apply, like INTJ, libertarian, workaholic and often, asshole.
Not once did I ever get upset at a person assigning the above labels to me. I mean it. Not once. Even when I was labeled an anarchist, which is completely incorrect, I still didn’t get mad, because the label didn’t apply and I knew it.
I don’t get defensive or mad when a label or category is assigned to me that’s more or less accurate. If you call me an Italian, or even if you call me a “wop,” it won’t bother me, because it’s true. I won’t get angry, defensive, call you names, or say that you shouldn't categorize people. I won’t even call you a racist, because quoting facts isn’t racism.
I also don’t get defensive or angry when labels are assigned to me that clearly are not accurate. If you call me a turnip, I might say, “That’s incorrect, I’m not a turnip because of A, B, and C.” But it won’t bother me that you’re calling me a turnip, because I know it’s clearly not true and you’re just being a dumbass. Dumbasses are fine with me. They help make life more entertaining, especially online.
When someone reads one of my articles about certain categories of people or relationships and then gets angry as a response, I know I’ve hit a nerve. I know that the complainer has identified himself or herself as one of the categories and doesn’t like it. If a guy reads about Thrill of the Hunt vs. Pleasure of Sex and then flies into a tirade about how stupid I am, or a woman reads about Dominant / Submissive / Independent and starts calling me a bunch of names, I know what’s going on. That person isn’t pissed at me; they’re pissed that I’ve correctly identified them, and for whatever reason, they don't like what they are. Otherwise they wouldn’t care enough to get mad.
i can confidently say i fit into the extremes of both categories on different day’s.
This is another common argument; if a label doesn't apply 100% of the time, it doesn't apply at all and should not be used.
Are the labels I use absolute? Of course not.
If I call you an “extrovert,” am I saying you’re extroverted 100% of the time, every day of your life? No. I’m saying that 51% of the time or more, your behaviors and desires are extroverted. I’m also saying that you naturally tend towards extroverted behaviors and desires more than introverted ones.
I’m true blue introvert, but there are many days you wouldn’t be able to tell. Seriously. If you happen to catch me at the right time, you could hang around me for two or three days straight and be convinced I’m an extrovert. Some have made this mistake.
Does this mean I’m “sometimes and extrovert and sometimes and introvert” and therefore you “can’t label me an introvert!?!” No. It means I’m an introvert that happens to engage in extroverted behaviors sometimes. I'm still an introvert. The label is accurate.
Does this mean I’m going to get upset and/or defensive if you label me an introvert? Again, no. Your label is accurate, even if I happen to be having an “extrovert day” or even an “extrovert week.” I’m still an introvert, since that’s my natural tendency, and for me to get defensive and say that “you can’t categorize me because I’m both an extrovert and introvert depending on the day!” would be childish and silly.
So if I label you a Thrill of the Hunt man, am I saying that you NEVER have times where you just want to relax and have sex without going out to hunt it? No.
If I label you a Dominant woman, am I saying that you NEVER have days where you prefer your husband set the agenda? No.
If I label you an Alpha Male 1.0, am I saying that you NEVER have days where you’re totally chill and relaxed even while your girlfriend is doing a bunch of things that would normally piss you off? No.
I’m an Alpha Male 2.0. A pretty hardcore one. Do you think I NEVER have days where I get a little dominant or bossy with my women? No.
I’m a libertarian. Do you think I have NO political opinions where I think the government should be in charge? No.
No, no, no!
Just because you aren’t one thing every day of your life doesn’t mean you don’t naturally tend to that one thing most of the time. It's absolutely stunning to me that I actually have to point this out.
If you attack any of the labels or categories I use under the basis that they aren’t 100% absolute at all times, that is ridiculous. Of course they’re not. They’re accurate most of the time. They’re what you naturally tend to, based on your personality. But of course you’re not like that every day.
Misunderstanding the Categories
Another common problem is people misunderstanding the categories I describe. This often makes people confused or even angry. Here are a few examples I’ve seen over the years:
1. People assuming that “FB” means a woman you treat a woman like shit, like nothing but a piece of meat that you fuck and then toss away.
Incorrect. As I’ve said many times, the “F” in “FB” stands for Friend. Men should treat FBs with utmost respect, friendship, and kindness, since that’s how you treat your friends, as I’ve described many times in detail, particularly here.
2. People assuming that the Alpha Male 2.0 is a loner recluse with no friends who sits in his basement all day.
Incorrect. I’ve never said or even implied anything of the kind. Thousands of Alpha 2.0s out there are extreme extroverts (uh oh! another label!) who are highly social, have tons of friends and hang out with people all day long. (Next week I have a blog post going up regarding that exact topic.)
I have said that I am an introvert and that I don't consider my social life (outside of work, family, and women) very important. But just because I have a particular trait doesn’t mean that all Alpha 2.0s share the same trait. Even using me as an example of this misnomer is a bad idea, since I’m usually around people literally all day long (clients, customers, vendors, women, family members, etc.).
3. People assuming that Thrill of the Hunt men don’t like sex.
Incorrect. Again, I’ve never said or even implied anything like this. Just because the other type of player is called “Pleasure of Sex” doesn’t mean that TH men don’t like sex. Often TH men like sex more than PS men. The difference is that TH men enjoy the thrill of the process and achievement of pickup, especially when it’s difficult, whereas PS men don’t like the process of pickup at all and just want the sex. But they both like sex. To suggest that TH men like sex any less than any other type of man is just...dumb.
4. People assuming that Alpha Male 1.0s are assholes.
Incorrect. There are some Alpha 1.0s who are assholes, and there are some Alpha 1.0s who have big tempers, but there are tons of Alpha 1.0s who are the nicest, sweetest, kindest guys in the world. I know several of these guys. Just because I identify someone as Alpha 1.0 doesn’t mean I’m saying that person is a jerk. One has nothing to do with the other. As a matter of fact, the nicest guy I know is an Alpha 1.0.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. A lot of this anger or disagreement over the labels and categories I and others use is simply a result of people not understanding what they’re reading (a very common problem on the internet).
The last complaint is that people will accuse my categories as being inaccurate because they’re too simple or too broad.
This is half right. My terms are simple, by design. You know why? Because I’m talking to literally millions of people here. I’m also conveying complicated, often societally inappropriate topics. This means I’ve got to be as straightforward as I can. Hell, to this day, guys still screw up the FB, MLTR and OLTR categories, despite me talking about these categories for eight friggin' years. And that’s only three categories! Imagine if I had 13 different relationship categories! Holy shit! Talk about confusion.
Let’s talk about Thrill of the Hunt vs. Pleasure of Sex men again. “Blackdragon, that’s bullshit! It’s not that simple.” Correct, it’s not that simple, but it’s still generally accurate. A while back, one of the posters at the NextASF forum wrote an article here that split my TH and PS categories into four categories instead of two, which could then be combined to form eight separate subcategories. It’s a very interesting article. The categories he came up with were indeed accurate, and I agreed with his article wholeheartedly.
Does that mean I’m going to talk about eight different subcategories of player types on this blog or in my books? Hell no. For a pickup forum full of PUA insiders it’s great, but for blogs and books pushing these concepts out to the mainstream, it’s way too complicated. Like I said, people have trouble enough understanding and remembering two or three categories, let alone eight.
Yet, simple doesn’t mean inaccurate. The TH and PS categories are indeed accurate to the vast majority of players or Alpha Males out there.
Speaking of Alpha Males, you’ll notice I have just two types: 1.0 and 2.0. Many guys have asked why I don’t use the nomenclature used by others in the manosphere like Vox Day regarding Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma, Omega, Sigma, and Lambda males.
I’m very familiar with these categories and see no problem with them. But again, if I’m trying to communicate these concepts to millions of men on the internet, the majority of whom are reading at or below the ninth grade level. If I’m talking about Sigma Males, Lambda Males and six more confusing terms all the time, I’m going to confuse the hell out of a lot of people and not get my word out as well as I could.
There’s a reason Donald Trump has been so successful; he speaks very simply. While I don’t speak as simply as he does, you have to admit the method is effective. An opposite example in recent politics is Rand Paul, a guy I agreed with a lot, who constantly spoke like an intelligent, nuanced, articulate college professor, and who got absolutely slaughtered in the Republican primaries.
Nerdy complicated is fun, but in terms of communication, nerdy complicated doesn’t work.
And again, simple does not mean inaccurate. My Alpha 1.0 / 2.0 nomenclature is every bit as accurate as Gamma, Delta, Lambda, whatever, even if it’s not quite as detailed. 1.0s are Alphas who value control over consistent happiness, 2.0s are Alphas value consistent happiness over control. Simple and accurate.
I’ve hope I’ve cleared all this up. Next time you see someone lose their shit because they read about certain categories of people or relationships, show them this article.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
BlindIo 2016-06-02 05:49:52
Was just thinking about this recently. I agree, and it applies to many other things besides the above. For example, call a billionaire rich and what's he gonna do? Probably just wonder why you felt the need to mention it and move on. Call him poor and he might be confused or simply wonder what's wrong with you. On the other hand, call a thief a thief and he will be upset. Call him a honest upstanding citizen and he will be extremely happy that he managed to dupe someone. It comes down to identity. Being a jock is better than being emo and we all know it on an instinctual level, but not everyone can be a jock. Yet we all need to belong to a group, so people end up taking on the best label they can. In short, people only get upset about being accurately labeled when they know it to be true and don't like what they are. And knowing that, makes it possible to live a better life than if you didn't know it.
DJ 2016-06-02 06:09:54
Thanks for the article, I also think labels make life easier. Speaking of labels, manosphere's use of beta is however inaccurate. In nature where hierarchy labels come from alpha is the boss of the tribe (eg your alpha 1.0), sigma is the happy outsider (e.g. your alpha 2.0). Now beta is the 2nd in charge who steps up if something happens to alpha (like vice-president, or Silvio Dante to Tony Soprano), which is still a good position. Omega is actually the submissive one, but all of manosphere incorrectly calls him beta. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology)#Beta_and_omega I've read some other articles of yours too, good stuff. Question - you mentioned that 94.4% of FBs/MLTRs come back to you after LSNFTE. Wondering how you got that number, did you have 125/250/375/500...+ relationships? Talk about efficiency 😀
DJ 2016-06-02 06:12:22
Also would like to see a post of specific examples of soft nexting from your experience. E.g. what the girl did to deserve that, how many days of soft next you give for certain behaviours, if/how the girl protested, and the outcome after soft next.
Joe 2016-06-02 07:13:20
Interesting comments. I would define my category as being a stoner. Waste Ed was my favorite class in high school. Got by with B's and went to work and said to hell with college. My question is when you categorize people are you judging them as well?? I take everyone at face value. Until such time you me reason to believe otherwise. Nvr do I judge. Your life is just that. Yours!
ysg 2016-06-02 07:53:35
You use labels because your brain is trying to make sense of the world around you. It helps if you put people into their own buckets, otherwise the complexity would be overwhelming.
Sean 2016-06-02 08:10:16
If someone is getting upset about labels, I believe it just means they are too sensitive to external judgment. Most people, if I walked up and told them they had blue hair (assuming they don't) would just look at me like I'm crazy and be unaffected. If I walk up to someone and tell them they have blue skin, likewise. Were I to tell them they're a liberal; a thief; a homophobe; a coward; or weak, we enter into the realm of things that are possible, and therefore those labels can injure the ego. I know who I am. If someone applies a false label to me, I'm usually unphased. An accurate one, and comment on how observant they are. To be honest, I still experience ego reactions to labels, but the reactions are pretty weak in their ability to influence my behavior. Perfect? No, but getting better all the time.
Gil Galad 2016-06-02 10:01:56
I think most of the people who dislike being labeled are suffering, 1° from projection, 2° a disturbing inability to understand analytical thinking. 1°: they think your labels are absolute because theirs are. Think about how the typical socialist or feminist thinks: there is a big box/abstraction called "men" (or "the patriarchy", or "the middle/upper class") that's responsible for all the problems of women/poor people. They say reverse racism doesn't exist because "since whites are historical oppressors, they can't complain about racism against them", in other words, there's the label "white" stuck on every white man making him responsible of everything other white men do or did. Same with men's position toward women: "men" were/are oppressors of women, you're a man, therefore you ought to pay. More: they say sexism is caused by "essentialism", ie putting labels such as "men" and "women", but the people who say this are the biggest essentialists themselves: they essentialize man as different from other animals, and refuse to acknowledge biology as having a role in male and female behavior. More: they say there is no truth, everything is relative, cultures should never be compared as one being "better" or "worse", but the above is not relative but absolutely true and should be respected. Etc. They can't suffer labels because their own way of using labels is insufferable and they don't realize that reasonable people use labels in a much better, more flexible way than they do. Which leads me to: 2° They haven't a clue how an organized mind uses categories and metaphors, and their reading comprehension skills are more pathetic than a child's. Tell a woman that "all rape is wrong, but it's still smart to avoid dangerous neighborhoods/carry some kind of weapon etc, just as one doesn't leave his car open with the keys on", and the typical reaction will be "how dare you objectify me/compare me to a car!" She won't realize that the very point of a metaphor is to replace abstractions with objects in order to express an idea more simply. Similarly, a straight girl who shaves her head might NEVER understand if you tell her that "a man's brain is wired to pick up visual clues that you're a healthy member of his species, and short hair is a sign of malnutrition or incertitude of sex, that's why men don't like it": the very idea that our mind uses visual categorization to determine arousal is beyond her. I could go on and on. But maybe the short way to say "projection of your own absolutism and inability to understand the intelligent use of categories" is simply that these people are stupid.
Blackdragon 2016-06-02 10:02:29
call a billionaire rich and what’s he gonna do? Probably just wonder why you felt the need to mention it and move on. Call him poor and he might be confused or simply wonder what’s wrong with you. On the other hand, call a thief a thief and he will be upsetCorrect, but the part I don't completely understand is that you should be proud of what you are. If you call me a libertarian, I'm proud. But if you call a liberal a liberal, often they get upset or defensive (though much less these days, as the Western world continues to move to the left). The same goes if you're a low sex drive guy or a Alpha 1.0 or whatever. There's nothing wrong with these things; you should be proud of who you are.
Now beta is the 2nd in charge who steps up if something happens to alphaI know, that's the true, scientific definition, but the manosphere and the culture changed the definition so I'm going with that to avoid confusion.
Question – you mentioned that 94.4% of FBs/MLTRs come back to you after LSNFTE. Wondering how you got that number, did you have 125/250/375/500…+ relationships?125 relationships??? No, not nearly that many (I'd be really tired). But scores, yes. I've been doing this for almost a decade now.
Also would like to see a post of specific examples of soft nexting from your experience. E.g. what the girl did to deserve that, how many days of soft next you give for certain behaviours, if/how the girl protested, and the outcome after soft next.It's on the topics list already. That and LSFNTE case studies too. Coming soon.
Were I to tell them they’re a liberal; a thief; a homophobe; a coward; or weak, we enter into the realm of things that are possible, and therefore those labels can injure the ego.Yes, but again, you're lumping in "liberal," which is simply a political position, with objectively horrible things like thief or coward. I disagree with liberals but I don't think being a liberal is a bad thing. Again, one should be proud of who they are.
Blackdragon 2016-06-02 10:19:14
My question is when you categorize people are you judging them as well??I'm a judgmental guy, so probably. I try very hard to be objective though. See above about my comments about how I don't consider being a "liberal" a bad thing despite the fact I strongly disagree with them.
bluegreen 2016-06-02 11:32:37
Great article and interesting insight regarding how certain groups of people like their label (i.e. jocks) versus others that don't (i.e. liberals). Food for thoughts. Thanks. Also, thanks for shedding light on the alpha, beta, delta, etc. I experience cognitive dissonance between the PUA/manosphere definitions and the biological definitions. Three points: Reading this article reminds me of the dichotomy between Apollonian and Dionysian, based on the personality of two Greek deities. Some of the issues people have are based on the manner in which they experience life, and not understanding that someone else has a potentially radically different worldview. Check out this interesting article about Nietzsche.
For Nietzsche, those who view things through an Apollonian lens see the world as orderly, rational, and bounded by definite borders. The Apollonian views humanity not as an amorphous whole, but as discrete and separate individuals. Sculpture and poetry were the arts best represented by the Apollonian ethos because they have clear structures and defined lines. Viewed through the Dionysian prism, the world is seen as chaotic, passionate, and free from boundaries. Instead of seeing humanity as being made up of atomized individuals, the Dionysian views humanity as a united, passionate, amorphous whole into which the self is absorbed. Music and dance, with their free-flowing forms, were the arts best represented by the Dionysian ethos.One issue with labels (maybe more self-labels) is that they might affect the future actions of an individual, for better or for worse. It can potentially box in one's thinking. Or it can help someone do great things. (Sometimes it's freeing in a way when you find out who you are and can describe yourself in simple terms, like I am a boxer or I am a musicians, ENTP, etc.) For example, say a "jock" wants to become a mathematician but doesn't want to be a "nerd". He doesn't want all his "jock" friends to know he wants to grow up and solve equations. Will his own self-labeling and the labeling of those around him affect the outcome of his studies? I say in some cases, quite possibly. If someone thinks they're a "nerd", will they play basketball as well as if they think they're a "jock"? It's not to say that someone can't be 90+% of a label. Einstein was many things. We all usually call him a scientist or a genius, not a musician, professor, etc. When I see FWB, I think it's an abbreviation for Friends with Benefits, though I don't know how often it's used. When I see FB, I don't usually think it's an abbreviation for Friend Buddy or Friends with Benefits, though I personally like what this article says. Check out the "definitions" in Urban Dictionary (FB, FWB) The article states:
Incorrect. As I’ve said many times, the “F” in “FB” stands for Friend. Men should treat FBs with utmost respect, friendship, and kindness, since that’s how you treat your friends, as I’ve described many times in detail, particularly here.The glossary states:
FB – Fuck Buddy or Friend with Benefits. A person you’re having sex with at least semi-regularly who is just a friend. There are no romantic feelings or intentions. Spending time with an FB in non-sexual situations is minimal (otherwise, she becomes an MLTR). One can have multiple FBs.It seems like FB is used interchangeably for both "FB" and "FWB". Is that correct? Thanks!
Sean 2016-06-02 11:51:25
Yes, but again, you’re lumping in “liberal,” which is simply a political position, with objectively horrible things like thief or coward. I disagree with liberals but I don’t think being a liberal is a bad thing. Again, one should be proud of who they are.You're right. I wrote in a hurry and did not fully consider the implications of the list as you did. Thanks for the correction.
J 2016-06-02 12:46:44
I think a lot of times people get offended by their label because they asume you are judging them as an outsider. Take the liberal and jock labels from your example - you said you were somewhat close with the jocks in high school, so when you call them a jock, it's like one of their own calling them that. Where as with a liberal, you're obviously not a liberal, so when you label them as such they view it as an attack.
Zoe 2016-06-02 14:21:41
I know you have a blog for your female readers, but I just can't keep myself away from reading BD blog. I think it's mostly because I'm fascinated by how men think. Maybe how men think and behave are fascinating because it's mostly a mystery to me. Your blog is also interesting because some ideas you share can apply to women who want to become more rational thinkers. You also have a lot of intelligent men that comment, and I enjoy reading those as well.
POB 2016-06-02 14:37:00
When someone reads one of my articles about certain categories of people or relationships and then gets angry as a response, I know I’ve hit a nerve. I know that the complainer has identified himself or herself as one of the categories and doesn’t like it.This is so true...not only on the internet, but in general human behavior! The tricky part is when someone does that to you and you are the one getting pissed. Ego management is damn hard.
Wils 2016-06-02 16:51:40
I think I like to label people who don't like to be labeled. Simply because I think they are bigots, and it gives me joy to piss them off.
Blackdragon 2016-06-02 23:22:03
If someone thinks they’re a “nerd”, will they play basketball as well as if they think they’re a “jock”?Good point. However, I looked at it like this: "I'm a nerd, so I'm smarter than all those jocks and will probably make more money than them when I graduate. But what if I could be a nerd AND physically fit like those jocks? I'd be SUPERMAN!"
It seems like FB is used interchangeably for both “FB” and “FWB”. Is that correct?Yes. FWB is the more common abbreviation, but for some reason I've always used FB. I don't differentiate between the terms "friend with benefits" and "fuck buddy," since "friend" and "buddy" are the same thing.
I think a lot of times people get offended by their label because they asume you are judging them as an outsider.Incorrect, and here's why...
Take the liberal and jock labels from your example – you said you were somewhat close with the jocks in high school, so when you call them a jock, it’s like one of their own calling them that.Incorrect. Re-read the article. I said I hung out with the new wavers, and only occasionally hung out with the jocks. When I did this, people clearly new I was hanging out with the new wavers and was not a jock at all.
Where as with a liberal, you’re obviously not a liberal, so when you label them as such they view it as an attack.Then why didn't the conservatives view it as an attack as well? I was a libertarian and they knew it. I was (and still am) for legalization of all drugs, against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the legalization of prostitution, against traditional marriage, think Christianity is utter bullshit, etc, yet none of those conservatives ever viewed it as an attack.
I know you have a blog for your female readers, but I just can’t keep myself away from reading BD blog.Many other women can't either. 🙂
Adam 2016-06-03 17:41:15
With all things like labels, when people drag up an exception, (usually from their own miserable lives), it merely proves the rule. The exception proves the rule. If that wasn't the case then they wouldn't be finding an exception.
Marsupial 2016-06-03 22:56:51
"There are those who say "there are those who say there are two kinds of people: those who say there are two kinds of people and those who don't", and there are those who don't say that. And then there's me. I'm the other kind." ~ J.R "Bob" Dobbs.
Zoe 2016-06-04 10:08:21
Hi everyone, There's an article I meant to come back and read on how feminism has lead to the increase in beta males, but now I can't find it. I tried under the topics "Alpha male under siege" and others, but no luck. Perhaps I'm wrong, and it's on another blog? If that article is on this blog, does anyone have the link to that article? Much appreciated!
Blackdragon 2016-06-04 12:21:36
There’s an article I meant to come back and read on how feminism has lead to the increase in beta males, but now I can’t find it. I tried under the topics “Alpha male under siege” and others, but no luck. Perhaps I’m wrong, and it’s on another blog? If that article is on this blog, does anyone have the link to that article? Much appreciated!I have never written an article about this, since I don't see feminism as this big scary threat most other manosphere bloggers do. I did write an article that stated the opposite, that because men have become so pussified, more women are acting more dominant and bitchy. That's here: https://blackdragonblog.com/2015/10/19/more-beta-males-equal-more-dominant-women-literally/
Zoe 2016-06-04 12:51:45
Thank you, BD. That explains why I couldn't find it. As a recovering former feminist (how's that for a label!), I'd like to understand how feminism has negatively impacted Western culture, especially men. I doubt it's a topic NPR will ever cover. Yes, I'm a liberal. 🙂 I'm off to read your beta male article.
Gil Galad 2016-06-04 14:30:21
I don’t see feminism as this big scary threat most other manosphere bloggers do.@BD: I might disagree with you on this one depending on what you mean. If you mean that the Alpha male 2.0, today, can structure his life in such a way that feminism barely affects him, then you may be right. But if you're saying that feminism is not a problem for men in general, then I'll strongly disagree. I don't know about the US, but in western Europe, education is the new tool with which little boys are being turned into androgynous, apologetic wimps who then wonder why those same girls they were taught to grovel for aren't attracted to them (if they have any sex drive left by the time that same education has drained them of all testosterone). There are few things I consider more repulsive than the brainwashing of children, and this is what is being done today. Men are taught to be ashamed of being men; the number of inhibitions of a male feminist is becoming comparable to those of religious traditionalists. Furthermore, if the trend continues, soon enough the Alpha 2.0 attitude might even become "illegal". It may sound crazy today but you yourself have shared a video on how crazy campus students are becoming in the US. It might be possible some years from now to make the "soft next" illegal, for example. The classical "that's offensive and you should apologize" might become enforceable in some situations. Etc. I was interested in your take on those possibilities back when you spoke of "How Bad Will it Get ?" but you focused on the economic/political side of things.
Blackdragon 2016-06-05 11:51:11
But if you’re saying that feminism is not a problem for men in general, then I’ll strongly disagree.I've already written an entire post about how feminism isn't the thread many of you think it is. It's going up next week or the week after.
Furthermore, if the trend continues, soon enough the Alpha 2.0 attitude might even become “illegal”.Go to this post and read objection 1.
Gil Galad 2016-06-05 12:23:52
It’s going up next week or the week after.Looking forward to it then.
read objection 1I fully agree with what you wrote, although I might find the part about it happening "in the US or greater Europe" more likely than you seem to. That was my point really: an adult who has swallowed the red pill can restructure his life and/or move, but an innocent boy who is being fed feminazi dogma from primary school can only absorb and believe. That's what I'm calling "threat", against boys if it isn't against today's grown men. We may not be affected much but men in general are affected, since those born in these days will be children of the system (and a man who wants to raise kids with reasonable school curricula is indirectly affected). Then again, maybe I'm just failing to realize that children are always the victims of one form of SP or another.
Cheryl 2016-06-06 00:30:03
I loved this ! Always so straight and to the point.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-06-06 01:23:21
I’d like to understand how feminism has negatively impacted Western culture, especially men.Wow! Um.....yeah........start by looking into affirmative consent - the psychotic feminist doctrine that all consensual sex is rape unless first prefaced with severely autistic verbal procedures: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/why-a-college-student-abandoned-affirmative-consent/381650/ Also, study up on "safe spaces" "trigger warnings" "micro-aggressions" and other garbage ideas spewed by feminism. Check out a commonsense red piller ridiculing these concepts to their fat faces: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oss7KmiHLmA
Jack Outside the Box 2016-06-06 02:18:12
It might be possible some years from now to make the “soft next” illegal, for example.BD's "soft next" is already a violation of federal law in the U.S. according to certain judicial interpretations of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)! According to the U.S. Department of Justice, "emotional abuse" (or as it's more traditionally known: Free Speech) is a criminal act which may send you to federal prison under VAWA. John Ashcroft (the Attorney General under George W. Bush in the early 2000s) stated that "undermining a woman's sense of self worth" is illegal under VAWA and he spoke warmly about certain feminist interpretations of that concept, which include "neglecting or ignoring the opinions or concerns of your wife or live-in girlfriend." Several feminist attorneys which I have worked with have confirmed that if any woman is being "ignored" by her husband or live-in boyfriend, it is a clear violation of VAWA's prohibition against "emotional abuse." Although certain judges that I've conferred with on this issue state that in order to make a compelling case of "emotional abuse" under VAWA, the man has to show a "confirmed and repeated pattern of emotionally destructive or apathetic behavior towards his partner which undermines her dignity, self worth, and personhood," whatever the fuck that means! So yeah, legal experts confirm that BD's "soft next" may already violate federal law under certain circumstances. Now here's the good news: 1. In order to make the charge stick in federal court, the soft nexting would have to be "egregious, repetitive, and destructive." 2. VAWA doesn't apply to you unless you're married or live with a woman. Check out this horseshit social justice website. Scroll down to the "do you think you're abused" check list in the blue box and see the last point at the end of the first blue box "Does he ....leave you somewhere in order to teach you a lesson?" http://www.ncadv.org/need-help/what-is-domestic-violence
Blackdragon 2016-06-06 09:53:24
No one will be prosecuted for doing a soft next. You're being an alarmist as usual. Try the decaf.
Gil Galad 2016-06-06 11:03:06
@Jack outside the box: thanks a lot for the info.
Zoe 2016-06-06 14:38:23
@Jack Outside the Box Thank you. I read the Atlantic article and watched the video. I wasn't aware of California's new sexual assault law. I'm aware of this new campus problem with "safe spaces", "micro-aggressions" and other delusional ideas. I had attributed those directly to liberalism, not to feminism. But since these two movements are tightly intertwined, I couldn't possibly disagree with you on whether feminism has given rise to these restrictive behaviors on campus. I appreciate you challenging my belief systems. That's why I'm here reading BD's blog. But I'm female, so I just need to make sure I stay on the sidelines. Cheers.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-06-06 16:56:45
No one will be prosecuted for doing a soft next. You’re being an alarmist as usual. Try the decaf.I never said anyone will necessarily be prosecuted for doing a soft next. Or two. Or three. I simply said that there are crazy people within our legal system who interpret existing laws and federal statutes in such a way that can make the soft next illegal under certain very specific circumstances. When you have laws against "emotional abuse" (which, of course, violate the First Amendment), they are, of necessity, vaguely defined. So called "emotional violence" can be literally anything an irrational woman or revenge minded feminist says it is. And certain legal experts have openly stated on the record that "ignoring a woman" as a regular pattern of neglect may fall under the definition of "psychological violence" and "psychological coercion" prohibited under VAWA. That's all I'm saying. Draw your own conclusions here. I'm just your friendly neighborhood attorney giving you the official word from the legal realm. Assess the threat level yourself. I'm just trying to make you more aware of what's going on in the legal world. That's all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZfp3E9CiDo
Jack Outside the Box 2016-06-06 17:21:39
I wasn’t aware of California’s new sexual assault law.It applies only to college campuses which receive federal and state funding, which, in practice, means all public colleges and universities and 97 percent of all private colleges and universities. It applies against college men having sex both on campus and off campus, with both female college students and non-college students.
I’m aware of this new campus problem with “safe spaces”, “micro-aggressions” and other delusional ideas. I had attributed those directly to liberalism, not to feminism.These ideas were created by feminists and social justice warriors. The concept of "micro-aggressions" originally came from the feminist website Jezebel.
But since these two movements are tightly intertwined, I couldn’t possibly disagree with you on whether feminism has given rise to these restrictive behaviors on campus.The "all sex is rape" concept because "women aren't politically strong enough to consent due to power differentials in a patriarchal system" is a feminist invention. Classical sex-positive liberalism has nothing to do with this mental illness.
But I’m female, so I just need to make sure I stay on the sidelines.Why? We need more females standing up against the sisterhood and for men's rights. Many men's rights activists turn into misogynists precisely because they perceive women as being indifferent to their struggle and remaining on the sidelines. Women can actually hurt the man-hating sisterhood more effectively then men, and I invite you to do so.
Zoe 2016-06-06 17:41:47
Why? We need more females standing up against the sisterhood and for men’s rights. Many men’s rights activists turn into misogynists precisely because they perceive women as being indifferent to their struggle and remaining on the sidelines. Women can actually hurt the man-hating sisterhood more effectively then men, and I invite you to do so.Absolutely! By "staying on the sidelines" I only meant here, in the comment section of BD's blog. Because this blog is primarily for men. That new law in California sounds frightening! It had been a while since I had worn my feminist cape, but I finally buried the damn thing when Dr. Taylor was forced to apologize for his shirt when the whole of humanity should've been focused entirely on celebrating him and his team for one of the most pivotal moments in space exploration. The day that Dr. Taylor apologized in tears is the day I felt ashamed to have ever called myself a feminist.