Hey liberal Adam here to tell you that there is no sexual hierarchy

Hey liberal Adam here to tell you that there is no sexual hierarchy.

There is an economic hierarchy. But no sexual hierarchy.

So no complaining! No thinking!

Other urls found in this thread:


Pure autism reasoning like this makes it clear how little people know what they are talking about. The term alpha-male could have come from a description of a magic dragon in a fairy tale and it still wouldn't mean that which the term refers to doesn't exist.

Whenever I hear an anti-materialist argument, I reach for my Makarov

you´re right about the autism reasoning but sexual hirarchy is a spook

it's not as rigid or well defined as class hierarchy but i don't see any getting around the fact that people with the most conventionally attractive physical features have the most "sexual capital" or whatever you want to call it.

Don't pretend people don't rank their bedpartners.

No they don't. Men sometimes do that.

Scientists BTFO

women do that all the time

what is Lulu?

That's very sweet of them.


TV personalities are on the top of the sexual hierarchy

Listen to any male celeb interview talk about their love life pre and post television

chad misinformation

gulag all incels

A self publishing platform

That means almost everyone would be gulaged at some point

if you honestly think that getting ranked in any way especially when you most of the time don´t even gain knowledge of it matters as an isolated fact you´re spooked comrade

social capital certainly does exist but "sexual capital" very rarely matters since most people don´t know how to gain anything from it
most males are just in this "hurr i pushed my meat into someone elses meat that means i am better" way of thinking

Go into bar and actually be in demand and have options. Actually have people court YOU.

Go on Tinder and get a match every swipe.

For every 4-10 IRL propositions, you have the muh privilege to eat dinner with a woman. Interest the woman, impress her, lead the conversation, don't creep her out, and mayyybe you'll get to have dinner with her again.

Go on tinder and swipe 200 times before a 3/10 shows minor interest.

It does matter, if there is someone else you can't live up to, you become not-that-person.

I agree with him

That's true, but I also feel how "sexual capital" is appraised is incredibly subjective. There was a study done using dating sites, and what they found is that people are generally pursuing people with similar attractive, or less than attractive features.

liberals like free markets

point being, that just because you're hot, doesn't mean you're not always going to be the first person person someone is going to pursue.

This is because sociology is still infected by marxism and its idioms. Same problem with social and cultural capital.

I slept with 500-600 women per year, and then contracted AIDs. A lot of my basketball star friends have women throw themselves at them and have sex every night.

But no of course there's no alpha males /sarcasm

What the fuck does that have to do with marxism?

Having sex with every male in your community so they'll let your forage in their territory and wont kill your babies is a matriarchy?

I slept with 35,000 women. About 2 women per day.

But proles, c'mon there's no alpha males.
Also, here's some cheap textbooks!


Jesus fuck all christ, you people are retarded.


sexual capital doesn´t matter in the same way that sex doesn´t matters, again "muh i´ve slept with so many girls i am better"
also have you ever used Tinder?

soo you´re saying that i always have to be at the top of a ranking because if i am not someone else would be?
either you´re not able to articulate a logical argument or you should start sucking dick so that no one can out perform you

capital is something you gain after an act, so my point was that there is something to be won from having good sex with someone, for example getting a job or something idk

In the amount of time you've dedicated to integrating incel as part of your identity you could have hit the gym and lost your virginity.

Anyone have any actual scientific proof of the "sexual hierarchy"?

Not in itself, no.


kinda like asking for proof if there's a knowledge hierarchy

In science if they don't use the term alpha (which they DO, all the fucking time, even for homo sapiens), they use "sexual high status"

Anyone claiming otherwise has never read anything about evolution or evolutionary biology

That's what you're doing though
Throwing out sociology that's convenient.

Then explain, faggot

That's not how science works, dummy.

No. Try to actually understand what people are saying instead of deliberately misinterpreting it so that you can put a "soo" before and make it look ridicolous.
You're not even able to differentiate an explanation from an argument.

Good point, my normie friend Adam sleeps with 500 women per year. It's totally normal And I don't know of anyone who is more sexually in demand than anyone. I also have never read about how sexual competition works in evolution.

If you need "scientific proof" of something as common sense as "attractive and charismatic people are more desired than the opposite" then you're very autistic.

Evolutionary biology and sociology doesn't even fucking work without sexual hierarchy


"The female rank orders based on both aggressive and submissive behaviours and the male rank orders based on both submissive and dominance behaviours were highly correlated to the rank order that both sexes had in the entire inter-sexual hierarchy based on submissive behaviours (female aggressive behaviour: rs = 0.98, n = 9, p < 0.00001; female submissive behaviour: rs = 0.98, n = 9, p < 0.00001; male submissive behaviour: rs = 0.93, n = 10, p = 0.0001; male dominance behaviour: rs = 0.99, n = 10, p < 0.00001)"

"Moreover, qualitative studies highlight a racialized sexual hierarchy in which White men are considered to be the most favored sexual partners and men of color are preferred least."

"many men in the gay community hold towards Asian men, which not only place Asian men lower on the sexual hierarchy"

"methods in contacting the men without understanding fully exactly how the hierarchy influenced men's responses to partner notification. The findings suggest that STI control efforts must take the sexual hierarchy and its privacy implications into account

"are muh privileged by virtue of their status on the sexual hierarchy."

Capital as an attribute of man as an empirical subject finds its origin in marxism, as does pretty much all of sociology. This empirical approach is ill-suited to intrinsically ambiguous things like sexual and romantic attraction.

It's not my fault you can't science.
Seriously though, if you have something that interesting, actually conduct a double blind study and find results instead of being a passive aggressive twat on an imageboard.

i didn´t misinterpret anything you literally wrote "if you can´t live up to a person, you become not that person" as if
a. like stated, there is anything wrong with not being at top of something
b. in this case there is any inherent value in someone thinking you were the best fuck of his life
so you´re being redicolous both on a formal level as well as in this specific argument
also an explanation is part of an argument and in this specific case this "explanation" implicated an opposing argument to mine


and this was unecessary for the troll, give him 20 studies and he'd be like "I don't believe it"

It wasn't just Marx, though. Adam Smith did the exact same thing when explaining capital lel

Also, human capital was a term popularized by Gary Becker

popularized does not equal invented

there was this New Republic article last week that said hypergamy was invented on RooshV and Redpill forums, when that word was used in scientific studies for decades before any of that existed

Which is why I brought up Adam Smith, the person he got it from.

I have tons of friends who have less attractive bfs . I never udnerstood this whole "alpha beta" thing. I think most guys are just raised on unrealistic porn and think that they are entitled to a super model waifu and get mad when they can't get that. Also most incel guys are EXTREMELY anti-social which more than anything else is probably the reason why they can't get a girl to have to sex with them.


What would prove it to you? Men exist who have less difficulty having sex, and who have more power, and other men exist who have more difficulty having sex, and have less power.

Thus, there is a way to list men from most attractive to least.
Thus, there is a way to list men from most powerful to least powerful.

This proves that there is a sexual hierarchy in the way that some men have greater sexual prowess, and that there is a sexual hierarchy in that men can be ranked from most powerful to least powerful.

It's kind of just common sense taken from the fact that no two men are exactly identical.

It's true that some men complain because they don't have harems of women cuz they grew up on porn.

But other men are just trying to go from 0 ever to 1. Or one partner ever to 2.

And of course sexual status among men is influenced by sociability emotional strength etc, much like among women it's influenced by outward signs of fertility

looks like someone's forgetting about Patriarchy

You seem to be really bad at intuitively grasping someone's writing, and mistake your own lack of reading comprehension as a logical error on their part.

It's not a matter of right/wrong.
I would never imply something like "inherent value" because it would be something like a high height or a warm warmth.

True, though I would squarely place this sort of sociological enframing (usually called "materialism" on this board) as being rooted in Marx, against whom Adam Smith pales in comparison.

No it would not you fucking idiot value is always given by a surrounding system and nothing has any self contained contained value whatsoever


Lol yeah but that means that you are spooked into not only thinking that way, but thinking that thinking that way in natural.

Even if that were true, which I'm still not seeing how, materialism doesn't even begin with Marx, either. Smith has had deep role in shaping sociology, since economics is also a social science.

Which is what I said.

Stirnerites are psychological creationists.

Didn't click, lol

Addressing it like it's a product of natural tendencies is literally "human nature" but for sex.

Semantic faggotry is all most of the left has

There is absolutely a sexual hierarchy. Anyone who thinks there isn't an attractiveness ranking scale (based mostly on looks for women, and social status/dominance for men) is deluded and probably comfortable with their ranking so they don't have to think about it. Yeah incels can be annoying and their behavior isn't helping them get laid, but isn't that further proof of the existence of sexual hierarchy? By relentlessly complaining and being insufferable, incels only sink further down to the bottom of the ladder, since this behavior reduces your Attractiveness Level. On top of this, they are socially punished not just for their obnoxious behavior, but because normies on some level are insecure about their own sexual ranking and can help boost it by demonstrating that their ranking is higher than these incel losers. Above all they don't want the existence of a sexual hierarchy to be exposed because then they would probably feel like shit, realizing that their sex life and relationships are not due to their Merit and Hard Work, but instead due to accidents of genetics and/or upbringing.

In a way those who deny sexual hierarchy are like those who deny capitalist hierarchy - notice how the bourgeois always justify their position as the result of Individual Hard Work and Merit? Exactly the same as normies, who say incels should just "hit the gym" much like porkies say to poor people, "stop being lazy."

That said I would not place the sexual hierarchy as fundamental in importance as capital. But it is still fairly important and should be acknowledge. The frustration that fuels the alt-right and pol/tards is not just - or even primarily - economic. Its sexual. The sexual is political, and that doesn't just apply to feminists on the left but also incels on the right.

I am starting to get really tired of debating with you
By writing that "inherent value" would be the same as warm warmth you basically wrote "i would not write that something has an inherent value because value already implies inherency or vice versa"

I don't really see how you can disagree with the idea that women find some men more attractive than others. (The opposite is obviously also true… some women are more attractive than other women and have more sex). The fact that anybody had that much more sex, while others struggle for it should be proof enough. It's like asking for a double blind experiment for whether or not humans need oxygen to survive.

I also don't think that was Adam's point at all. The idea is of "alpha males" specifically. Not just how often certain people have sex. The point is that being an alpha male is some genetic factor that we inherited from our monkey (and apparently wolf) ancestors and this is of course untrue. You aren't genetically born with pheromones that attract or repell the other sex. That's the point of pointing out that smaller nerdy chimps can become the dominant male by performing favors for other chimps.

there is no scientific basis for sexual hierarchy, it's all in the spooked heads of the gullible masses

I have a feeling they know this. They've given up and have turned nihilistic and verbally (and sometimes IRL) violent. We live in really shitty times that society says we're all living in this post-sexual-revolution utopia, but clearly we don't.

oh yea

Improved material conditions, particularly relating to living and child rearing expenses dramatically helps the problem.

Also god damn take the anchor off

Hoo, boy! 'Cuz it's only been what, a few DAYS since the last one?

Have any of you ever considered, I dunno… maybe girls don't like it when a guy obsesses over pussy? Because I'm desperately resisting the urge to call you guys beta losers, among other things!

Literally every incel I've met on here just seems to care about getting their dick wet or my homemaking skills. Why on earth would I date or even sleep with someone who doesn't even see me as a person?

Both of these men are equally attractive. Science told me so.

attractiveness is a spook, getting dick wet is its intended purpose, and tbh doing that is quantifable in money.


Patriarchy is an important component of the sexual hierarchy, but sexual hierarchy is not reducible to patriarchy. Even if men and women's power were equalized in the political and social realms, that would not eliminate the existence of attractiveness rankings. And attractiveness rankings are not purely a cultural or social construct, as many feminists seem to argue. Men by and large are always going to find in-shape women more attractive than 400 pound women, and women will find a confident, socially successful guy more attractive than a basement-dwelling nerd. Actually not acknowledging this part of the sexual hierarchy probably makes equalizing men and women's power in the social and economic realms impossible, because they are definitely connected. Attractive people make more money than unattractive people for instance, this is scientifically proven.

sexual attractiveness isnt a spook, its biological, broadly speaking.

sexual attractiveness can be used to leverage social capital to meet an end, which is a form of power.

just because you were raised to feel like the dude on the left is sexier doesn't mean its true. It's like how the "ideal" body is slim, even though majority of men throughout history prefer heavier women.

Hasn't this basically been untrue until recently? Being fat was a sign of wealth and hence a positive trait, I thought.

thank you for proving the patriarchy exists

I accidentally said what
this guy said.

But that's also my point. I think what Adam is pointing out is that there is no real genetic factor to being dominant male, or alpha or whatever. These things are socially determined and contingent to particular groups. And his point wasn't even about having sex specifically. Hence why, the jock who crushed it at the bar, couldn't follow the DND game. People here, including the OP made it into that exclusively.

Patriarchy theory can be a convenient way of rationalizing away the existence of attractiveness rankings. There is a psychological component to this that is fueling the gender wars. Instead of feminists blaming patriarchy and the alt-right blaming the jews or whatever, we could set aside our personal insecurities and look at the material reality head on.


And Smith has his precursors whom also had their precursors, perhaps rooted was therefor the wrong term to use. Still, the view of man as a collection of empirical attributes which follow the logic of capital as the enframing of sociology can be traced to marxism.

I'm sure it takes a lot of mental energy to process texts that aren't literal and immediate, you can train yourself in this though.

What I was attempting to convey is that like height and warmth, value is always the value of, so that arguing against the value given to something by stating that it isn't inherent, is use of a truism which doesn't say anything about the subject being discussed.

Well yeah there is a certain range that is a social construct. But have there been societies where morbidly obese women and socially inept, weak men are considered the pinnacle of attractiveness? If so I would like to know.

Maybe not socially inept. I've been told Japanese girls are more attracted to weaker, skinnier guys. But I don't know how true that is.

Here's a neat nytimes article somewhat related to this.

Agreed. The world before the sexual revolution was one where the primary psychological repressive injunction was to put limits on your pleasure, to not engage in "sin." Now it is the exact opposite and everyone feels a commandment to enjoy, to engage in all the sexual fantasies unleashed by the sexual revolution, including what they see in porn. And when that is frustrated, you get the alt-right and incels.

I think the important thing is to see the broader social forces at work and not make it into purely a matter of individual character, which is kind of a reactionary way of looking at it in my view. But typical on the left, especially liberal left.

Interesting how they didn't mention anything on the flux of "attractiveness rating".

For men, generally 80% of online profiles of guys are rated "below average" while for women 60% of profiles are "below average".


It's gonna take a lot more than a few mildly coherent points to fix the Age of Loneliness here.

are you an idiot or something? sexual attractiveness is a thing. what it is can vary but it as a thing that exists is a biological truth.

Interesting - I think that there is a degree of flexibility when it comes to the construction of the attractiveness scale, which might vary according to different conditions. In a modern urban environment physical strength can be less important whereas in a time of war and struggle I would guess that physical strength is considered more attractive.

its cultural. eastern beauty standards arent the same as westerners.

I wish people would stop appealing to biological truth as the final say on the subject though. I think maybe it's what he's trying to say. (I hope). It's weird to appeal to only biology for insight into things that have to do with aesthetics or social psychology, or sociology, or whatever.

If you need a thesis for a paper, then go for it.

it isnt weird, its an appeal to a material truth. psychology and sociology are filled with false constructs and an argument based on them is basically just opinion. an argument based on actual biology isnt just an opinion. it's as close to an objective material reality as you can get

Why should we think things are either 100% pure biology or 100% pure social construct? In my view culture and society mold the clay of biology, but the clay is not perfectly flexible so that you can just put it any shape you want. Or at least some shapes are very difficult to achieve. A sociological explanation without any reference to biology at all is non-materialist in my view because culture works on minds which are embedded in minds which are embedded in biological bodies and so on. There is no free-floating realm of culture which does not interact with us on a biological level in some way.

How is this not also Smith?
You can trace this line to both. If you threw out Marx, the same exact thing would happen because people were looking at Smith from a sociological perspective. Economics and sociology have been intersecting since the beginning, and pretending you can disentangle the influence as clearly Marxist or Neo-classical is much more difficult task than you make it out to be.