Alpha Mail: missing the point

In which I am implicitly asked why I am not resentful of Dr. Helen's success with her new book:

ask [Dr. Helen] why she doesn't use her husband's last name and if she'll be sharing the profits from the book with bloggers like yourself & heartiste that she "borrowed" from your blogs.

This question was, of course, in reference to Dr. Helen's Ask Me Anything on Reddit yesterday.  And it revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives intellectuals, or at least, some intellectuals.

First, I am very pleased that Dr. Helen to utilize some of the concepts introduced here at Alpha Game, and I strongly suspect that Roissy et al feel the same.  I am much more concerned with the ideas I have articulated becoming popular wisdom than I am about receiving public credit for them; note how my demolition of the religion causes war has entered the mainstream and even scientific journals without credit ever being given to me.  Dr. Helen was very generous and careful to credit her various influences, which is considerably more than I can say for a number of public commenters and scientists.

To the extent she borrowed them, she is welcome to keep them and utilize them to the best of her ability. Die Gedanken sind frei.

Second, ideas are not only free, but modular. I built on Roissy's ideas.  Roissy built on Neil Strauss's. Dr. Helen hasn't necessarily built on them, but she is performing an equally important role in popularizing them and putting them in front of an audience that will never consent to listen to either Roissy or me.  As I've noted with regards to Susan Walsh, it is women who will ultimately bring the truth of Game into the mainstream, not the men who developed its concepts.  In our society, most women simply disregard men's opinions to the extent they are even capable of understanding them, which means that female translators are more or less necessary if any coherent new ideas are going to penetrate the female-dominated mainstream.

Third, I have written nine or ten books.  I never bothered writing a book about Game or the socio-sexual aspects of society because I am more interested in writing other books, such as The Irrational Atheist, The Return of the Great Depression, and A Throne of Bones.  I have published nearly 1,400 pages of fiction in the last year, I am in the middle of writing the second of five 850-page novels, and so I am glad Dr. Helen wrote Men on Strike because, among other things, it means I didn't have to do it.  And I am delighted that her book is meeting with such success because it is an important subject and one of vital interest to millions of men and women across the Western world.

As for Dr. Helen's, I don't even know if that is her actual name or simply her professional name.  Regardless, that's her business, not mine or anyone else's, and I could not care less if she wishes to call herself Dr. Helen Smith or Helen of Troy.  It is the individual who merits one's regard, not the label.

Alpha Mail: more sexlessness

FE wants to know how long is long enough? 

"Sex is not the entirety of marriage, but it is a foundation and a necessary aspect of it.  A sexless marriage is intrinsically oxymoronic and cannot be expected to last without an amount of external support."

So how long?

Another (recent) reader seeking your opinion.  I married a 34 yo virgin three years ago.  I am x years older.  Sex was down to twice a week within a year.  Stopped completely [two years] into the marriage.  Now she has decided that I am not allowed to even *touch* her without asking permission.  She says that I frighten her -- even while acknowledging that I have never been violent, never been verbally abusive, never even raised my voice in anger.  Her main complaints are that I am a poor listener (past girlfriends would say I'm pretty good, for a guy) and that I turned to porn when I was unsatisfied sexually (guilty as charged -- and I've since made much progress in giving it up).

It's now been 8 months with the no sex.  Our Christian counselor is perplexed as to why I have a problem with having to ask for permission before rubbing her back, stroking her neck, or giving her a peck.

So how long?

Legally, one year.  Realistically, I think the marriage was over the moment she announced that her husband could not touch her without asking permission.  If that's the case, then the marriage obviously does not exist because the husband has no more marital rights than anyone else on the planet.  A woman like this has issues that have nothing to do with her husband; whatever is going on inside her head may not be her fault, but the reality is that she is no more mentally fit to be married than a woman with an IQ of 30.

Any woman who is genuinely frightened of a man who has never so much as lifted his voice is psychologically screwed up in ways that the average man cannot possibly understand, let alone fix.  And any woman who carries on her play-acting to this extent when she isn't genuinely frightened is a psychopath of whom the average man should be more than a little frightened himself.  She's the sort who will kill her husband in his sleep and claim self-defense.

Alpha Mail: the sexless marriage

JG asks advice concerning fidelity to an asexual wife:

I am normally reluctant to discuss my personal business with others, but after reading TIA & RGD and lurking on VP for a few years (and now AG) I have come to place a lot of stock in your analytical abilities and was hoping for your insight. It's somewhat complicated so I'll do my best to trim the fat and avoid boring you with any unrelated rambling.

A dozen years ago I started dating a girl from where I worked at the time, who left her 1st boyfriend to 'trade up' to me. She is 7 years younger than me, was 20 at the time. We hit it off very well and became very close, but I noticed one odd problem: there was no sex or sexuality. That baffled me, as I was unaccustomed to 'dry spells', but I thought perhaps she just needed time, which I allowed. After 6 months things started happening, but only just barely...as in, once a month or so, no foreplay allowed, and she would get noticeably restless after a few minutes.
Despite this, I felt close enough to her that I eventually proposed, and we got married. (I know, sounds delta or gamma or something but that's where I was then).
After a while, even the minimal sex stopped altogether. She flinches if I touch her near a sexual area, it is clearly unwanted. No amount of flowers or jewelry or other traditionally romantic gestures has ever deactivated her force field. After ruling out theories like closet lesbianism, an inexplicable nosedive of Game, previous sexual abuse, that I might unwittingly be an odorous troll, etc, I eventually realized she may well be one of the statistical minority of people who are genuinely asexual, which pretty much killed my sexual desire for her since she has none to reciprocate with; I just have no physical interest in any woman who has none in me, or with whom I have no strong bond. So, I no longer pressure her with notification of frustration over my unmet needs.

Of importance is the fact that at some point I evolved from agnosticism to a strong interest in following God, whereas she remains unconvinced and uninterested, even though she is aware of the abundance of supporting evidence that might otherwise cause the intellectually honest to reconsider their previous skepticism. However, this has never been a source of friction between us, we're both pretty laid back. So I feel compelled to honor my commitment to her despite her absence of sexuality. And despite being otherwise somewhat misanthropic, she in turn leans heavily on me, having formed some deep bond that doesn't include any intimacy beyond holding hands. Not even kissing. (both non-smokers, good oral hygiene, so not an olfactory problem) So, I had no idea what spiritually acceptable recourse I may have.

Although I'd be interested in your commentary on that, here's where it gets more complicated: In your opinion, is it technically possible to cheat on a person with whom you have no sexual relationship? The reason I ask is, I met a woman at church and we were drawn to one another and have been in regular contact. She and I are strongly attracted to each other, and none other, but she periodically reminds me that if my faith in God is not a top priority like hers, then she will have to sever our relationship. Her faith is strong, and at times I have given her some very reassuring input when she has questions, or when her atheist friends attack her beliefs. In turn, she tries to keep me on track, spiritually. She is aware of my unusual marital situation, and proposed a solution I didn't expect: sharing me with my wife, but with exclusive sexual rights. (she has a very...vigorous drive)

I would much prefer to have everything straightforward and out in the open with nothing to hide, and I can't help thinking that since my wife has permanently said 'no' to me sexually, then she has essentially forfeited the right to say 'no' to this, but then again, I'm sure she will somehow not see it that way, so I have been procrastinating having "the talk" with her because historically, she has a meltdown if she feels our stability is threatened. However, the other woman is becoming increasingly anxious about it, and wishes I would proceed with all due haste.

Although I'm not looking forward to "the talk", I'm about ready to pull the trigger on this but first I need to know: I'm sure that mainstream 'Churchianity' would make no provision for any non-standard relationship but given the unusual circumstances in my situation, if I were to conduct myself responsibly towards these 2 women according to our individual relationships and spiritual principles, do you feel that such an arrangement would find disfavor in Gods eyes? Aside from my unmet needs, aside from the presumably conflicting desires of both women whom I love in different ways, aside from disapproval from those with strictly conventional perspectives, above all else I would greatly prefer not to displease God. If it were permissible, I'd have to tell my wife that it comes to this. If not, I'd have a different talk with the other woman. So I am requesting the aid of your advanced analytical abilities as well as your spiritual perspective. If you have made it here to the end of the email, I would like to thank you for your consideration of this matter, and I look forward to your perspective on it.

Considering that he's essentially talking about de facto polygyny here, for which there is not only copious evidence that it is Biblically acceptable, but soon to be entirely legal in the USA as well.  I am a little skeptical that the wife will be as accepting of the expanded structure as the other woman, but if she's genuinely asexual and is sufficiently intelligent to protect her own long-term interests, she might accept it with an amount of relief.

Regardless, I think JG has a free hand here, as the wife has clearly violated her marital vows to love her husband and has failed to perform her primary marital duty.  She's fortunate that he takes his vows as seriously as he does, because there is little question that he has firm grounds for a divorce, if not a legitimate annulment.

Sex is not the entirety of marriage, but it is a foundation and a necessary aspect of it.  A sexless marriage is intrinsically oxymoronic and cannot be expected to last without an amount of external support.

Why feminized societies will fail

The Female Imperative is too exclusionary to permit sufficient social cohesiveness.  From a VP reader in China:

An interesting experiment - I decided to test Vox's idea that women working was bad for society and gender relations in general. I can get away with little sociological experiments occasionally as I am a [REDACTED] teacher in China. I teach high school boys and girls. The sample size here was about 12 girls and 9 boys. Recently we had "women's day" here in the PRC and on this day at about 10am I brought in a bunch of snacks and drinks for the class. Teenagers are always hungry so when I busted these out I got their full attention. Since it was women's day I assembled the snacks and drinks out on the main table and let the girls choose first. The foodstuffs here were packs of spiced meat, chicken feet (a favorite here), and various and sundry other things. Girls picked first - one bag each and one drink. They naturally took the best stuff on the first cut and the boys got what was left. An interesting thing happened.

The girls refused to share anything *except* with the two most popular boys in the class. Those two were pretty much free to travel between the desks eating as they wanted from whatever bag the girls had on their desks. The less popular boys either didn't try or were flatly refused in a not very nice way. The best food here went to the two boys (and one in particular) who dominated the social scene while the remaining seven sat with their bag of lesser desirable foodstuffs.

Two days later with the same class I declared a boy's day and broke out snacks again, approximately the same mix as before. This time however I allowed the boys to choose first and same as before, the first crew took the best things leaving the dregs for the rest. However, after everything was distributed the girls, all of them, visited and stuck near the boys with the best snacks. As the boys coming first were random, it wasn't the two most popular that got to pick first. Overall though there was a far greater amount of mixing, the social scene was much more evenly distributed boys and girls, and moreover, everyone got to eat some of the best food. Even the gamma/delta/omega boys got female attention and begun to act a little more confident. They had something the girls *wanted* which inverted the power structure and made the girls nicer as compared to the observed harpy bitchiness encountered two days prior. There was a lot less snapping (which the girls engaged in on womens day when they had the food and a less popular boy wanted something) and what snapping existed was playful rather than malicious. Even the ugly girls got a share of the good stuff, exactly the reverse of the boys experience. I can easily state the overall happiness of the class was greater on this day then when the girls had first pick. In other words when the girls have the power - they don't use it well and the whole class suffered. Nothing was even close to fair, and a super majority of the boys are left out doing nothing productive unless you consider sitting alone being resentful productive.

While I realize this is hardly on par with a real actual experiment with controls, white lab coats, etc. it was quite interesting to watch this play out on a micro basis. I don't think it is a stretch to imagine that something akin to this is occurring in the outside world continuously. Let the boys pick first and they naturally and happily provide for the girls. This requires no coaxing or incentives. Let the girls have the power and they naturally shut out all but the most popular boys, leaving the rest to solitude. Everyone was a lot less happy also.

This, writ large, is exactly what we're seeing develop in the West.  Ever wonder how polygamy got established in the Middle East?  Here's a hint: it wasn't because of the men, it was because of the women.  Remember, it wasn't the women who drove monogamy in the West, but rather, the Catholic Church.

Alpha Mail: Women in science

What really happens when women study science:
Practicing Engineer for 20 years. Georgia Tech Grad.  Thinking back on Women in Science I have known:

Case #1 : Ph.D. in Physics which took 11 years including undergrad.....lasted nearly 1 year in Industry, now a happy housewife with 2 kids. Husband is a productive scientist. She's smart but was miserable for 11 years + the 1 year of productive work she did.

Case #2: Masters Degree from Georgia Tech in Industrial Engineering. Worked in Industry for 4 years i.e. less time than she was in school, now a House Wife with 3 kids.

Case #3 Super Smart Lesbian. Ph.D. Physics....Serial Entrepreneur....multi-millionairess...Briefly became Undersecretary of Energy....Big shot director of multiple universities...on the board of several large corps....wonderful person, gifted teacher.

Case #4 My Old Boss....Ph.D. Physics....~10 years developing high tech before becoming a Six Sigma Black Belt...which is some sort of a management fad....very high income...no kids...had a cat but had it put to sleep when it interfered with her lifestyle.

Case #5.....Ph.D. Physics....Member of JASON Advisory Group....Mother, world famous scientist and pioneer...wonderful person....Mover and Shaker...

Case #6 Ph.D Physics...10 years to get degree lasted 2 years in Industry 2 years in Academia...now a housewife...

Case #7 M.S. Biology....married to a drug addict....underpaid and overworked...only breadwinner supporting worthless husband and 2 kids.

Case #8 Ph.D. Physics.....11 years of college....Initially burned out after 2 years of Industry but returned and is working as a productive scientist....She has dogs instead of children....

This might be a useful list to show both young men and women who have it in their heads that one's destiny is determined by one's academic credentials.  The fact is that MOST women who obtain STEM degrees, and more than a few men, will not remain in any scientific or engineering field for long.

This is particularly worth noting for young women who think they are not going to have families due to what are most likely nonexistent careers in science and engineering.

Alpha Mail: can she handle the truth?

CS wonders if he should tell a moderate chunker the real reason he's not interested in her:

Much respect to you for your recent posts in response to NK Jesmin, the nauseatingly maudlin Shattersnipe and the portly, uberreactive atheist. Recently, its starting to seem like the entire brigade of fatuous leftist ideologues is surpassing peak shriek in that their inane emoting in response to equality blasphemers like you is becoming more widely perceived as pathetic and tiresome rather than alarming.

You holding firm to the truth, no matter how offensive, got me thinking: I just went out on a date with a girl and, long story short, the only real flaw with her is that she is too heavy (not fat fat but needed to drop 10-15 lbs). We have communicated enough that I'll actually have to provide an explicit reason why I don't want to go out again. The only honest answer I could give is that she is too heavy.

Do I tell her this (even if gently hinted at in euphemistic language)? I know doing something like this sounds completely socially retarded (a couple friends have told me as much) but think about it; if I tell her "we just want different things", "we live too far apart", "I'm seeing someone else" or some other bs, her hamster will be fueled by one of these excuses and she'll fail to confront the real problem which has lead to her being rejected by me and likely any other man with at least a modicum of SMV. Plus, any other excuse I give is a lie. If I tell her the truth she'll likely cry and be upset but at least she can confront her real problem. What do you suggest?

I suggest that this is an excellent application for the Golden Rule.  It's not your responsibility to fix her.  It's not your job to convince her to stop needlessly stuffing her face.  All of us who could stand to lose a few pounds, (and I could stand to cut about five myself), know perfectly well that we're carrying extra weight and what we need to do to get rid of it.  It's just a matter of willpower and lifestyle modification.

Most men have been rejected by women before.  So, do you appreciate the truth or do you prefer the white lie?  If you'd rather have a woman tell you that the reason she isn't interested in seeing you again is that you're too short, or too poor, or too laddish, then be straightforward with her.  That sort of honesty is appropriate for an individual of your straightforward nature and she will likely expect it from you.

If, on the other hand, you tend to prefer the face-saving deception, then that is the tactic you should take. But don't insult her intelligence; if you're going this route the decent thing to do is to make it credible and give her hamster something with which to work.  The one thing to avoid doing is to tell a lame white lie, which only compounds the rejection with an insult.

Alpha Mail: IQ has its downsides

For a smart guy, it has taken AB an awfully long time to realize that mere intelligence is no guarantee of anything:

What would you recommend for a high-IQ person who seems to have no ambition or ability to get things done?  Do you know of a resource for smart people with self-discipline problems?  Now the wordy background, in case it helps: I'm a [forty-something] programmer and [retail shop] owner, and have been broke or nearly so most of my life, because I always seem to make just almost enough money to get by.

I was tested at an 8th-grade level going into kindergarten, and at a 160 IQ when I was 13.  I'm not a savant in any particular area.  Though math was my best and favorite subject, I got all A's in everything (when I wanted to) and my ACT scores were 32+ on all subjects.

I don't think I'm lazy exactly, because I'll work hard on a killer sudoku or building something in my back yard when I'm into it.  I tested positive for ADD a few years ago, but the medication seemed to make no difference except reduce my need for naps, so I gave that up.

The problem comes when I have a job to do: if I don't absolutely have to do it right now and will be totally screwed if I don't, I put it off.  I try to make lists, leave myself notes, give myself pep talks, but nothing helps much.  When the creditors are knocking and I need the money to keep from going to court, then I sit myself down and tear through a job to get paid, and feel stupid that I didn't do it much sooner.  So I *can* do the work, and I'm fortunate that I'm smart enough to do it fast, but it's still a miserable way to get by.  Ten billable hours a week would cover my living costs, but I don't manage that most of the time.

It started in school, when I could do the homework during class while all the other kids were still learning the lesson, or in a pinch I could knock out a 3-week essay on the bus in the way in.  Then it got worse, to where I'd turn stuff in late and use the extra credit to get back up to an A.  In real life, the consequences are worse, of course.

As best I can figure from bouncing ideas off a counselor, the problem is that I hate having to do anything on anyone else's terms, and when it came to mental work, I've never had to.  Terminal stubbornness, basically, and having no self-discipline.  I'll spend an hour writing and polishing a comment for someone else's blog, but when I think about spending an hour working on a job that's over deadline, I get tired and start rationalizing a nap.  Even with my own projects, I get started well, but I think I start to balk when I reach the point where I'd be going live soon, because then I'll be obligated to support it.

Sorry to go on so long, but as you can probably tell, I've been struggling with this for a long time, and I hate wasting my God-given brains this way (and giving smart people a bad name).  If you have any suggestions, I appreciate them, and also your time in reading this.

High intelligence, superlative athleticism, and great beauty come with the same handicap; the expectation that the mere possession of it is sufficient to merit the high regard of others and material success.  My recommendation is that AB belatedly get over his intelligence, realize that no one but him actually gives a damn about it, and focus on developing his self-discipline so he has the wherewithal to pay attention to a task longer than the average male kindergartener with ADD.

Some very smart people don't seem to realize that talking about their intelligence is no more intrinsically interesting to normal people than listening to strong people talking about how strong they are or pretty people talking about how pretty they are to them.  Nor do they realize that their obsession with one facet of their lives tends to render them rather low in the socio-sexual hierarchy. There is a reason, after all, that Roissy subtracted a point for IQ over 120 in rating male attractiveness.

The chief problem here isn't a lack of focus per se, but rather that intelligent people can rationalize practically anything, no matter how stupid or self-destructive it is. 

If AB really wants to change his life, then I recommend first getting involved in an activity where intelligence doesn't help much, if at all.  Full contact martial arts is a great way of truly understanding the irrelevance of intelligence versus hard work.  Weightlifting is also good; the iron doesn't care and you can't persuade it off the bar.  He doesn't need to develop a work ethic, but rather, a work habit.

The second thing is to learn to start completing tasks.  Pick a small, reasonable goal and do not permit any divergence from it until it is accomplished.  Then pick a larger one, and do it again.  There is a sort of decision paralysis that tends to afflict the highly intelligent; the more options one can see, the harder it can be to choose between them.  But in this case, the perfect is not only the enemy of the good, it is the enemy of accomplishing anything.

The third thing is to get over the fear of failure.  The intelligent often pre-rationalize their failures by refusing to throw themselves sufficiently into their projects and responsibilities.  But this is simple self-sabotage and an exercise in repeated frustration.

AB is starting late.  These are lessons he should have learned by his mid-twenties.  But in such cases, better late than never.  The prime objective is to avoid getting trapped into the high-IQ gamma mindset, in which everything happens to the gamma for reasons beyond his control and nothing is ever his fault.

Alpha Mail: Women Ruin Everything: Cosplay edition

The scales are gradually falling from JD's eyes:

I've been really enjoying AG and VP, although in different ways. While reading VP I find myself nodding and saying "Yes, that's what I always thought!" While reading AG I find myself feeling a growing sense of horror at the thorough and complete incorrectness of everything I'd been taught. I believe the truth of your assertions are self evident once one is aware of them and contrasts them with PC assertions and evaluates which better explains reality. I think you're doing a valuable service for people who haven't heard any other view point.

Anyway, I ran across an article that, using my newly scaleless eyes to evaluate from a new perspective, I found interesting. The woman attends sci-fi cons and dresses up in attractive sci fi costumes, then is upset when (a) other women criticize her appearance (b) men compliment her on her appearance. It's the women's snide criticism that really gets to her, so naturally, most of the article is devoted to bashing the male privilege culture at conventions.

Well, naturally.  Because it must be the men's fault that they don't do a better job of protecting her from hearing judgmental and offensive comments about the shortness of her skirt from the obese shoggoths of the sort that can be seen in the background who resent being reminded of what actual human women look like.

SF/F is escapist literature that possesses particular appeal to those with a lot from which to escape.  There is nothing wrong with that, but combined with feminist dogma, the white-knighting gamma males that inordinately attend these conventions, and the aforementioned shoggoths, it's a recipe for the sort of hilarious Red on Red attacks that result in these sorts of articles and left-liberal authors being castigated for Insufficient Kowtowing to one or another sacred cows.

I've attended one convention in my life, and I have never seen a bigger or sadder collection of fatties and freaks anywhere.  The bizarre thing was that for all of their supposed devotion to inclusion, they were also snarkier, more sensitive, and more judgmental about each other than the gay men working out in the gym at the Northwest Target Center.  There was one post-op transsexual there who looked like a lumberjack hippie and all the shoggoths were glaring pure poison at "her" because "she" was using the women's bathrooms.  I'm not all surprised to hear that the entire scene has devolved into a morass of competitive offense-taking.

UPDATE: So far, the registration requirement has prevented 221 Anonymous spam comments from getting through.

Alpha Mail: becoming a better man

A foreign reader asks how he can improve himself as a man, a Christian, and a member of Western civilization:

I'm a regular reader of your blogs and also have read some of your books (and must say, I haven't read such good SF in a long time). I'm a 19 year old and I just got in college, where I'm studying eletrical engineering and have a sort-of relationship with one girl in another country, I go to the gym, and reading not only your books and blog, but others in this corner of the internet I realized how wrong was my belief in the nonexistence of God, so I'm making my way back to christianity. I was some time ago what I would describe as a lower beta, but since the I made some improvements.

I'm still kind of shy, being really an introvert, and altought I know I should overcome it by talking more, I just can't have a good conversation with any of the people my age, as almost all of them are just brainwashed liberals, so all conversations end with them saying something really stupid, me agreeing and then politely excusing myself and going somewhere else. Not only that I don't have the drive to go to places, visit other countries (maybe because I've already done that in my childhood), but, at the same time, I don't think only sitting at home reading books and going to gym is going to make me a better man.

So, what I want to ask you is this: what should a 19 year old like me do to become a better man, a better christian, and and to help restoring western civilization and it's people?

Gym is good. Reading is good. But what is missing from your description is interaction with others and service to them.  I sense a little fear in your description of your mediocre conversations; why are you agreeing with really stupid things?  Since you are a Christian, remember that you are not given a spirit of fear, but a spirit of boldness. You cannot become a better man by compromising with lies and foolishness out of fear.

So, that's the first step I would prescribe for you. The next time someone says something really stupid, don't agree with them, but politely explain to them why they are incorrect.  Don't be disagreeable; sometimes it is okay to simply smile and hold your tongue. But do not ever falsely agree with something.

I'd also look for an opportunity to volunteer somewhere. As an introvert, you need a reason to get you out of the house, so find one that will allow you to help others in some manner.

The ancient Greeks believed in strength in body, mind, and soul.  With the gym and with your books, you're already addressing the first two. But now you need to address the latter too.  And always pray to God for guidance. He will provide it, even if it is to places you had never imagined going.

Alpha Mail: quick hits

Grace asks for marital advice:

These posts are great- but do you have any advice for women who have husbands who refuse to have sex? In my case I am not a supermodel but an not overweight/blatantly unattractive and I exercise, wear makeup, dresses etc. My husband looks at a lot of porn and even pays significantly for porn sites monthly. He goes months without having sex and refuses to talk to me about it. I don't believe in divorce but don't know what to do. Do you have any suggestions?

Wrong blog.  Go to Athol Kay's place, which is on the right sidebar.  I really don't spend a great deal of time thinking about how to seduce and otherwise turn on men.  My take is that if a man isn't interested in sex with a woman who isn't fat or unattractive, she is probably either boring in bed or bossy.  As for the porn, I note that it is an effective way of circumnavigating the female use of sex as a relationship control device without walking out.

A contemplates scientific fairy stories aka evolutionary stable strategies:

This is just an odd theory of mine, and I should caveat that I don't believe in the merits of evolutionary psychology, but wouldn't an evolutionary psychologist suggest that it is a good thing for LTRs to have reduced sexual activity over the long haul?

I have no doubt that some evolutionary psychologist will suggest it now as an ex post facto explanation now that it has been observed, but as it happens, this is the reverse of what evolutionary psychologists previously suggested.  As, you will note, was mentioned in the article linked in the post.

Ioweenie wonders about the ideal way to communicate a willingness to engage in domestic violence:

My husband has never raised a hand to me, but he certainly has raised his voice. Having seen the escalation of his temper, and knowing he is by design far stronger and far more willful than I, I've understood not to push. How do men here believe this cautionary line is most effectively drawn? 

By making it clear that women are not considered off limits and one is perfectly willing to defend oneself by "hitting a girl" if the situation requires it.  Since I began my martial arts training, I have made it clear to everyone, of both sexes, that while I will not start a fight, I will finish it.  Unsurprisingly, (outside of three general brawls), I've never had to hit anyone outside the dojo although I remain perfectly capable of doing so.  With men, as with nations, it is the peaceful who are prepared for violence who are the least likely to be forced into it.

Desert Cat wonders if women can surmount the Female Imperative:

I wonder if it is possible for any woman, however "red-pill" to ever fully escape the gravitational field of the Feminine Imperative. 

They can, but they will always do so in a rational manner.  Emotionally, they will not because they cannot.  That is why even a woman who fully assents to the civilizational agenda can find herself unconsciously reacting in a manner consistent with the very Imperative she decries.  Female reason can, and often does, trump female emotion, but it is a constant struggle that is more difficult for some women than others.  In general, the more emotional the woman, the harder it will be for her to escape the aforementioned gravitational field.

No more Anonymous comments

As legitimate blog traffic has increased at Alpha Game, so has the spam.  Nearly all of it is posted as Anonymous; in the last two days I had to delete 163 Anonymous spam comments, 37 of which made it past Blogger's spam-trapping.  Because it is a waste of time reading each Anonymous comment to determine if it is spam or not, from now on, I am going to delete all Anonymous comments as spam.

This means typing your name in the comment will not avoid deletion. Note that being deleted as spam may have the result of making it harder for you to comment here and elsewhere as Blogger may blacklist your IP address.  This doesn't mean you have to register with any of the various options, but as a minimum, you will have to use a Name in the Name/URL when posting comments in the future.

Alpha Mail: Obamacare and the Female Imperative

Jill is being devoured by the rage monster:

The reason why men will have such hikes in their insurance costs is that there is to be no disparity between what men and women pay. Women, on average, pay a lot more for (individual) health insurance. They pay more because they go to the doctor more often. They are the ones who are more likely to take their kids to the doctor for head colds. They, to a much higher degree than men, have been manipulated into "preventative" healthcare (and this doesn't even get into maternity care and well-baby visits). So they cost the system more. Men will simply be subsidizing their more frequent use of medical care. Men work the most dangerous jobs and die younger, on average, than women do, but they don't tend to go to the doctor for preventative care.

Why should men have to do that? Good question, but a little late to be asking that. Obamacare was foisted on all of us, both men and women, whether we want it or like it. Some would say we should get as much out of the system as we can, but I, personally, would rather not. Really, how is it going to help me to take prescription meds? I have so much rage at this issue already that when you bring up the "female imperative" the rage monster just eats me up inside. I don't want Obamacare any more than you do.

I have to confess, I'm not clear concerning towards whom Jill's rage is directed.  Is it the fault of any one individual woman that the Obama administration sees political benefit in serving the Female Imperative?  Of course not.  Are there women who oppose Obamacare despite the fact that estimates indicate that they will personally benefit from it?  I assume there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of them.

But this doesn't preclude understanding the political realities that are driving this latest government intrusion upon the tattered remnants of American liberties.  Nor does it change the fact that one of the primary problems in resisting the growth of government is the refusal of many women - not all, to be sure - to oppose policies such as no-fault divorce, VAWA, and domestic abuse-related laws on the grounds that they might one day personally benefit from the enshrinement of the Female Imperative into law.

Alpha Mail: Truth is worth the price

AC is a little surprised at my willingness to be forthright about the physical realities of combat:

I came across your blog via Vivalamanosphere and was stunned to discover that you're an author. The fact that you have this on your blog for all of your fans to see is mind-blowing to me:

"Of course, if we're going to start bringing reality into swords and sorcery, we should probably also take into consideration the fact that even a large, well-trained woman couldn't last thirty seconds against the average warrior.  The correct and realistic portrayal of an armor-era woman is either one who is dead and buried after her brief foray into warrior womanhood or at home, caring for the children that she started bearing in her teens.

"Awkward and combat-inefficient breast plates are the least of the problem. What it is time to retire is the absurd and ahistorical "warrior woman".

"The amusing thing is that throughout the comments, no one even stops to realize that the entire premise of women attempting to fight with swords is physically ridiculous.  If you doubt me, just hand a sword to the closest woman the next time you're in a medieval museum."

This kind of talk sounds like Red Pill wisdom (reality). I would never expect this from someone who writes successfully enough to have multiple books out (and fantasy books!), especially when their pen name and blogging name appear to be one in the same.

You have my utmost respect; how do you do it? Don't you have potential publishers you alienate when you call something out for what it is like this (assuming they even matter anymore).

I'm slaving away at writing terrible trash so that I can one day refine my craft to a point where people might actually want to buy my work, but even if I am able to work hard enough to reach such a point, I can't imagine being bold enough to blog in a way which might alienate potential readers. And yet, here you're doing just that with not just a radical opinion (truth), but one that might get you thrown in jail in some parts of Europe.

It's inspiring; again, how do you get away with it? I feel like a coward now for believing I must not allow a pen name to be married with opinion, and yet I can't bring myself to stray from that when I'm still working out not writing mountains of trash.

I'm definitely going to start reading your work; in fact, I just bought A Throne of Bones. Is there a better book to start for a new reader like myself?

I don't get away with anything. Of course I alienate potential publishers.  I've been told by numerous people, including Tor authors, that Tor Books will never publish me because Theresa Nielson-Hayden has openly declared that I am a very bad, evil, dangerous, and mentally deranged individual.  I've had signed book contracts cancelled because a woman in the marketing department took offense to something I wrote on my blog.  I have lost jobs and job opportunities alike as a result of failing to toe the equalitarian line.  I just lost the SFWA election by what must be near-historic margins, with more than 90 percent of the voters supporting my opponent.

So what?  I have nothing about which to cry or even to complain.  There are always ways around the gatekeepers, and truth combined with talent and perseverance will eventually triumph in the end.  I have it easy in comparison with a great mind like Ludvig von Mises, who was blackballed from nearly every university in Europe and the United States while writing the books that upended both Marxian and Keynesian dogma.

I just keep writing and my audience keeps growing.  Today, it is one million monthly readers.  Soon it will be ten million. Every attempt to marginalize the writer who sticks to writing truthfully about reality is bound to fail in time, because truth is always more compelling than lies.  Write what you believe, write what you want, not what you think others might want to hear.  And never write out of fear.

In answer to the question, unless you are already a fan of epic fantasy, I would recommend starting with either The Wardog's Coin or A Magic Broken before diving into A Throne of Bones.  At 850 pages, it is perhaps a bit of a beast for the casual fantasy reader.

Alpha Mail: is it already over?

A reader who understandably wishes to remain anonymous requests advice:

I am hoping you can give me some advice or point me in the right direction. My wife and I are having trouble and she is about to move out. There is no other man or anything like that. The marriage just deteriorated for both of us.

I just read your post, "Maxim 2: make her jealous" and it just slapped me hard in the face that in the 3 years of marriage I forgot almost every damn thing that I learned about game that I used to win her in the first place. I was an alpha dog fucking her and ever other girl I could find. Now, I am some boring predictable husband that simply provides her a safe comfortable live. Worse, I thought it was enough. Shame on me.

I want to save the marriage if I can because I certainly like her well enough and she is gorgeous but mostly because of the financial ruin it will wreck on me. She doesn't work and I will pay a fortune for her and our child if she leaves, which will seriously cramp my style when finding another girl. If I do the things she needs I think we would both be happy.

She hasn't left yet and it is like she is waiting for me to react a certain way. I think my game hasn't been terrible in the last few days in trying to keep her to stay - but I don't think it has been great either. I didn't ask her to stay or do anything pathetic. Instead, I bought lots of very nice clothes to up my wardrobe, started making myself scarce, and showing no signs that it bothered me that she is leaving. I told her that I wanted the same thing, that I already felt free and the idea of hunting again made me feel alive. I also told her that I am going to start dating a girl from work (which is true if I want to).  But, I really want to say, "I remember what I need to do and I am going to take you upstairs and show you right now".

I think I have the inner game mostly right but I am not sure of the best immediate tactical steps I need to do to get her to stay so I can do for her what she needs. It may be too late and if that is the case then so be it. But I am going to try. I am concerned that any affection will simply signal AFC and any indifference will simply tell her that it is over and she should go. I am thinking that maybe it is best to let her go and then be the alpha dog to get her back. Not sure - as I have no experience here. If I could, I would be the first to leave but I can't because I own the house and there are kids involved.

I would appreciate any advice you can give.

First, let me point out that Maxim 2 is Roissy's advice, not mine. Second, while I'm loathe to intrude upon what is more properly Athol's territory, I would say that before this man attempts anything, he must first ascertain if his wife is already engaging in an affair.  It sounds to me as if that is at least a possibility, even if she denies that is the case.

Third, I think he has to stop dancing around the issues. If he really wants to say something, he should say it. How can he worry about showing affection being too AFC when he's afraid to say what he really thinks, and tell her what he really wants? There can be a fine line between Indifference Game and actively driving a woman away.

He's obviously running the MAP, which is necessary, but in this case apparently insufficient.  If she's really so unconcerned that she doesn't care if he's dating other women or not, it's already over and his attempts to win her back are likely to be futile.

Alpha Mail: yes, they're shooting at you

John comments that "a war on men" is an uphill battle:

I noticed you and Helen talking about how when young men "do nothing" they are collaborating with the enemy.

But let's take my university for example. There are professors (male and female) that openly advocate feminism. There are many beta orbiters around even the feminist women. No girl will ever openly associate with your cause (and as per the feminine imperative, the problem is ignored by society if it doesn't affect women).

You are right we have to try, but it is an uphill battle of sorts. Cause we have to go against society, male and female.

Imagine a discussion between two soldiers in a battle. They are outnumbered and outgunned. The enemy is advancing. Their only hope of survival is breaking through the enemy lines and escaping to a more defensible position. Then one of them turn to the other.

"But we can't do that.  They'll SHOOT at us!"

Yes. Yes, Sherlock, they will.  If you speak up, they will shoot at you. If you show any sign of resisting the Female Imperative, they will badmouth you. If you do betray insufficient enthusiasm for their equalitarian society, they will try to deny you employment and attempt to harm you in any way they possibly can.  Ironically, they will actually be more likely to have sex with you, but they'll certainly declare very loudly to all and sundry that they would never permit you to come anywhere close to them even as they send you pictures of them to show you what you'll supposedly be missing.

Now ask yourself this question: why?  Why do they do this?  Why will they attack you?

The reason is that they are trying to defend the Female Imperative.  They are seeking prevent men from doing the one thing that will take all of the power over men they have amassed away from them.  If you speak up, you may well pay the cost.  But if you don't speak up, if you don't stand up, it is guaranteed that you and everyone else, men and women alike, will pay considerably more.

Alpha Male: the magic preference

A commenter on the timeless female hair post goes in for yet another futile attempt to shame men into claiming they find short hair attractive:

I am a female and I have cut my hair short several times. My experience has been that the quality and 'interestingness' of the men I attract goes up significantly when my hair is shorter. Men who are easily attracted to short haired women tend to be less conventional, smarter, better read, more cosmopolitan and self-defined, bolder and more fun, and not to mention better in bed! I have talked about this with numerous other women and many have said the same thing about their short-hair experiences.

My hair is longer now. This has advantages in that I think more men are attracted to me overall. However there are also more bland, tedious and annoying men in this mix. Longer is fine for now, but I often think about cutting my hair short and suspect at some point I will. It is a fun change of pace -- and, as I am sure any human being who has an ounce of awareness or empathy for how stifling conventional feminine beauty expectations can be for women -- liberating! All women should try it at least once -- regardless of what this cranky, silly, and might i add unabashedly self-centered, author-boy thinks.

Wow, that's amazing!  Merely possessing the ability to be easily attracted to women with short hair will magically make one smarter, better read, and not to mention, better in bed!  I'm surprised she didn't go for the whole enchilada and inform us that being easily attracted to women with short hair who are more than 30 pounds overweight will add $100,000 to a man's annual income and three inches to his sexual organ.

(Seriously, men.  This is how stupid women believe you are.  They genuinely think you will jump through any hoop just to win their approval.  Why do they think this? Because being surrounded by deltas and gammas constantly kowtowing to their every momentary whim has taught them that you will.)

Read between the lines. All women should try it at least once... because that will make this long-haired woman more attractive by comparison. And more importantly, note that women will readily say anything, no matter how ridiculous, in their attempts to get you to submit to their frame. The most effective way to deal with this is ask for explanations about their reasoning, which will of course rapidly reveal that it is sheer rhetorical nonsense.

How does reading more make a man attracted to short hair?  Precisely how does a preference for short hair make a man better in bed?  Exactly what is more fun about a man who prefers short hair?

Alpha Mail: why are the geek fallacies wrong?

Some Dude is attempting to grok his gammatude in order to surmount it:

Being a geek/rabbit who would like to escape his nightmare, I saw that every single fallacy you wrote is something I believe in. In all truthfulness, I simply don't understand why they are false.

I believe you that they are false, because I can look at outcomes, what I feel is one thing, but how does it relate to the result?

So my question: could someone elaborate a little on WHY those are fallacies?

This is a fair challenge.  Let's look at each of the five fallacies. And keep in mind as we do that although I agree they are fallacies, this is not my list.

1. Ostracizers Are Evil

It is impossible to have a functioning group without an ostracism function. In Japan, they have a saying: "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down". Unless the group has the ability to ostracize, it has no ability to perform its primary role and establish its identity.  Now, this does not mean that ostracism is intrinsically good, only that it is a necessary tool and can be used for either good or evil.  Ostracizers, therefore, can themselves be good or evil. The irony, of course, is that no group ostracizes more instinctively or vehemently than low-SS geek groups of the sort we see at Whatever and in the present SFWA.

2. Friends Accept Me As I Am

Friends care about you and have your best interests in mind. This can be, but is not necessarily, synonymous with accepting you as you are. Also, since humans are dynamic beings, what you are changes over time and not necessarily in a good way. A true friend will not simply accept your incipient descent into depravity and depression because that is who you are, he will attempt to arrest it. Accepting you as you are is an excuse for inaction and indicative of indifference, not friendship. And substantive and legitimate criticism is one of the greatest gifts a friend can give you; who else cares enough to be honest with you?

3. Friendship Before All

Friendship is important. But friendships are transient, as they are heavily dependent upon time, place, interests, and maturity level. I was all but inseparable from several friends in high school and college, but I haven't had contact with them in literally decades. To put friendship before all is to remain in a state of developmental retardation. There is a season for everything, and friendships need to be allowed to go through their birth-death cycle just like everything else.

4. Friendship Is Transitive

It's not.  It's that simple. In high school, I had my jock friends and my geek friends... and none of them even met most of the girls I was dating. In college, I had my freshman year friends, my best friend, my independent friends, my Greek friends, my teammates, and my roommates.  There wasn't a whole lot of overlap between the groups. After college, there was the night club scene, the band, the dojo, and the workout crew.  Again, some overlap, but not a great deal.  Some of my friends liked each other, others might as well have been aliens from different planets speaking different languages as far as they were concerned.  If a pair of friends get along, great.  If not, it's no big deal.  So long as everyone is civil, it's fine.

5. Friends Do Everything Together

To the Sigma, this doesn't sound ridiculous, this sounds "we had better lock you up so you don't kill yourself trying to lick the lawnmower blade" insane.  Everyone needs their space. Everyone has divergent interests. Everyone will be close to different people at different times in their lives. The idea that friends must do everything together is fundamentally indicative of fairly severe social immaturity and a complete lack of observation.

Alpha Mail: Hamsters and hair length

The fact that more than two years later, women with short hair are still stumbling upon and having conniptions about the post entitled Women: don't cut your damn hair is not only amusing, but underlines the truth of Sailer's Law of Female Journalism: "The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking."

Their vanity and self-delusion is such that not only does the mere observation that they are intentionally making themselves look less attractive to men upset them, but causes them to throw all of their long-haired sisters under the bus without hesitation.

Consider the following examples:

Women not doing everything they can to please your sense of what is aesthetically pleasing? Oh poo, what woman would be so foolish to do something for themselves? WHY CAN'T WOMEN JUST ALL LOOK THE WAY I FIND THEM ATTRACTIVE. No one gives a shit about your opinion you sexist shit.

Which, of course, is why she's upset by it.  Because she doesn't care. She is missing the salient point, which doesn't concern my sense of what is aesthetically pleasing, but rather, the fact that I happen to share a sense of what is aesthetically pleasing with the vast majority of men.

Haha you guys are so pathetic. I have alternated between long and short hair and while I get more attention with long hair, I tend to get more quality guys with the short. Why? Probably because I'm confident and show that I don't give a fuck what people think.

Of course, when you're dating breathing fuckdolls with nothing else to offer then I can see why it would be such a big deal for you! Oh wait I forgot you're a bunch of virgins :-\

Also, any women who think they need to have long hair to find a man is equally pathetic. Think for yourselves for once! 

This is female illogic at its acidic best. She presents the illusion of dialectic in appealing to her own experience, but then waxes purely rhetorical in her attack on men and women alike. And keep in mind, this vituperation is all in defense of the perceived attractiveness of her hair length!  When it comes to her perception of her own sexual value, there is no conflict too small to justify a woman going full wasp-defending-the-nest mode in an attempt to maintain her self-justifying delusions

This woman doesn't even bother with any pretense at reason:

To all the men that equate women's attractiveness by how long hair is - you are saddos. No doubt you're all sitting in the spare bedroom of your mother's house, typing away with your sad little lives on your computers, belittling women inbetween wanking away to internet porn because you can't actually get any real sex from a real woman. And why can't you get any real sex? You're sad misogyists. Women pity you. But not really (hehe). Have fun getting rickets boys. You deserve them.

In other words, she asserts that men who dare to so much as have a preference concerning what they happen to find attractive are saddos who hate women and can't get sex from them. Fascinating. But at least she is honest and admits that when women claim to "pity" someone, they really don't.

And here is another shining example of female logic:

Hey asshole, here's a reason why women cut their hair short; because you, and men like you, are not the end all arbiters of what is attractive on a women, nor are your opinions the sun that our world revolves around.

So, such women care so little about men's opinions that they are driven to do the precise opposite of what is indicated by those opinions.  Right.

This woman, on the other hand, admits to what most men instinctively grasp is true: a woman who chops her hair off is intentionally, for one reason or another, attempting to make herself look less attractive to the opposite sex:

Personally, I have seriously considered cutting my hair off(as in really short-pixie cut) precisely because, like some before me have said, it lowers or even completely wipes away "attractiveness". One thing is for sure: it is practically IMPOSSIBLE to objectify a short-haired woman(unless she has a freakishly sexy, hour-glass figure,and shows it off, like Marilyn Monroe did) . Short hair basically makes your face, your features stand out and forces people to look you in the eyes, treat you as a person. Plus, from a strictly aesthetic point of view, you can still look gorgeous, like Halle Berry or Charlize Theron have proven, times and again.

It is true that Halle Berry and Charlize Theron are attractive with short hair. But what so many women fail to realize is that they are attractive IN SPITE of their short hair, and that they are even more attractive with long hair.  And also, they are failing to take into account that very, very few women are as attractive as these two women who are very wealthy due to their exceptional genetic gifts.

However, without question the most amusing response has been from women who are so willfully perverse and self-defeating, and care so little about my opinion, that no less than four of them declared they were cutting off their hair in response to my post. To which news I can only respond: do you know what men REALLY find unattractive? Shaving your head and having a giant spider tattooed on the top of your naked scalp! And don't you dare send me the pictures afterwards either!

Alpha Mail: Stalking the Sigma

Anais wonders where to find these rare and difficult, yet highly attractive beasts:

I don't see a way to email you here, so I will venture to ask my question about Sigmas... I'm obsessed with them. I'm an attractive young woman (not attractive enough to marry a Very Alpha alpha, but I think it's reasonable to shoot for a lower alpha/higher beta if we're talking about the "normal" hierarchy) who swoons primarily for Sigmas. I love reading this blog because it helped me put a name to the kind of men I have always fallen madly in love with. I'm an introvert myself. I get plenty of attention on dating sites, out in the world, etc . . . but Sigmas don't seem to congregate on Match.com or often show up at a random party. I have never been into hook-ups or casual relationships, and my only long-term relationships have been Sigmas met in totally unlikely ways.

Maybe this is a hopeless question, as the only place I have ever encountered significant concentrations of Sigmas was at the quirky college I attended- but where is a good place to meet them? I live in a big East Coast city (not NYC). When I encounter them in the wild, they usually really like me.

The fact that Sigmas are relatively rare does not mean they are impossible to find. They are not unicorns. On the other hand, they are less easily spotted than Alphas, who thrive upon being the center of attention, and they aren't necessarily going to come to your attention in a pack of loud, rambunctious men out having a good time.

But there are a few tricks that may prove useful in identifying them in the wild.

1. Look for the guy who is out in the group, is an obvious part of it, but keeps breaking away from it, especially to pursue women. Sigmas are solitary hunters. They don't need the emotional support from their friends to pursue women, and tend to think that their friends only get in the way.  If you see a group of guys, and one of them seems to periodically vanish and return, he could be their Sigma.
2. Pay particular attention to the guy who locks eyes with you, disappears for a while, then later appears unexpectedly at your side or behind you. Sigmas like to take people off-guard.  The guy who smiles and approaches you directly probably isn't a Sigma.  He is more likely the guy who initially makes you feel slightly alarmed and WTF was THAT?
3. If a man seems to be intentionally trying to turn you off or irritate you, he may be a Sigma.  Sigmas relentlessly test and qualify women in order to categorize them.  Of course, he could simply be a jerk. Or a social incompetent. 
4. Does he cut you away from the crowd? Sigmas aren't herd animals and will always prefer a quiet conversation of two to group banter.  If you're looking for a Sigma and you sense the man with whom you're talking is separating you from everyone else, you may be in luck.  Or he may just be a serial killer.
5. Do others look to him for leadership? And does he provide it or does he shy away from it?  If the latter, you may have struck sigmatic gold.
6. Does he make you feel that if you don't take your pants off, he might just go ahead and do it himself without bothering to ask you?  And do you find it worrisome that somehow, that doesn't seem to upset you the way you know it is supposed to? You may have found the type of introvert you seek.
7. Does he engage you in conversation/flirt with you/have sex with you without even asking your name? Probably Sigma.

If you're seeking a man who isn't a part of the social hierarchy, then keep an eye out for those who ignore its rules, demonstrate contempt for it, and appear to be playing an entirely different game.  If you're at a party, look at see who is off by themselves in a dark corner. You should be able to identify them readily enough.

Those who are glaring at people, nursing drinks, and mumbling to themselves are the Gammas. The one who is simply watching with a slightly arrogant smile on his face is the Sigma.

Alpha Mail: to fight or not to fight

Z requests a situational post-mortem:

I have a question about a fundamental aspect of game. Once, I was having some fun with a 7-8ish woman on the dance floor. Turns out she had a boyfriend (of course this wasn't stopping her from grinding on me). Needless to say the boyfriend punched me in the face without warning. It was a badly aimed, weak punch that caught me in the forehead and did no physical damage. He stopped after the first punch and we just stared at each other. I wasn't afraid of him in the least bit, but I also didn't feel like getting kicked out of my favorite club. I decided peace was the proper course. I offered him my hand and said honestly "I didn't know she was taken." After a moment he shook my hand, nodded, and walked off with the girl.

It bugged me a bit after the fact, however. I started to question if my decision to pursue peace was the right one. Was that an act of submission? Was that showing weakness? Should I have fought it out even though, in my estimation, not getting kicked out of or banned from the club outweighed the mediocre attractiveness of the woman?

In other words, in fundamental game theory, was that a Beta move, or worse.. a Gamma/Delta move?

It was a Beta move and it was also almost surely the right move in today's society. The Alpha move would have been to confront, because Alphas will risk almost anything rather than accept such a blow to their ego without immediately retaliating.  Remember, as hard as it is for men to understand it, women are instinctively attracted to violence and mindless thuggery. An Alpha will almost always choose to fight if challenged, let alone if actually struck.

The reason it was a Beta move is because Z didn't really back down. Extending a hand and making peace in that situation is not backing down, it is an offer to a mutually agreed-upon cessation of hostilities. He was entirely ready to fight, but was also willing to walk away if sufficient respect was proffered.  As is often the case, the Beta way is the one that leads to the easiest and most reasonable outcome.

This used to happen to my brother all the time. He was a very good-looking Beta, so a girl would smile at him, he would smile back, they would start getting cozy, and the next thing he knew, an angry boyfriend would punch him in the face. He never got into a fight because he had the combat instincts of a newborn lamb and it took him about thirty seconds to find an equally interested girl after walking away. And he never seemed to learn that he could save himself a lot of trouble if he simply opened with the question "are you here with your boyfriend?"

Walking away in a self-respecting manner isn't weak. A fellow Dragon was once accosted in a nightclub; he dropped into a fighting stance that indicated a recognizable familiarity with the martial arts, as did the other guy. They stared at each other for a moment, until my friend asked the other guy: "So, do you want to match styles?"  The other guy laughed and said "No, not really."  As with Z in the case of the forehead-puncher, they both recognized that the costs of fighting were simply too high. In a fight between two reasonably trained martial artists, even the winner runs the risk of being hurt pretty badly.

In Z's case, the risk of being arrested, kicked out of the club, or even shot rendered physical conflict undesirable. It's not the Alpha act, but then, Alpha is not synonymous with wise or optimal.

But neither is the act of walking away Delta or Gamma.  The Delta thing would be to chest up to the guy, shout at him, and basically make a scene until safely held back by others. Then the Delta would spend the next two hours growling how he would totally have kicked the other guy's ass if only he hadn't been prevented from doing so.  It's remarkable how many guys have "almost" been in a fight and yet somehow never seem to quite cross that fine line demarcating violence from mere confrontation.

The Gamma would likely pretend to be more badly hurt than he was, and hold his hands to his face while shrieking "you hit me", threatening to sue, and urging others to call the police.  He'd make wild threats about imaginary people he knew, from mobsters to military men, who would wreak deadly revenge upon his assailant. At no point would the thought of simply fighting the other guy himself occur to him.

The Omega wouldn't have been in the nightclub at all. The Sigma, of course, wouldn't have gotten punched, as he would have already had sex with the girlfriend in the women's bathroom or the parking lot. There is a reason, after all, that Roissy refers to a certain kind of ALPHA as "the sneaky f-----".

Alpha: Exercises le droit du alpha by openly stealing girl or obtaining phone number in front of helpless, angry boyfriend.
Beta: Attracts girl, boyfriend confronts
Delta: Hits on girl, boyfriend confronts
Gamma: Hits on girl, girl is creeped out and asks boyfriend to confront
Omega: Levels up.
Sigma: Has sex with girl or leaves with girl, boyfriend has no idea.

The good news is that if you're forced to deal with angry boyfriends on a regular basis, you are almost surely a Beta or better.  The only men who have to put up with that sort of thing are men whom women deem worthy of actively trading up for. This is also why higher rank men tend not to behave in a very jealous manner; they know from first-hand experience how little use jealousy is once a woman's eye starts wandering. 

I lost one girl to the guitarist of the Black Crowes and another to the backup guitarist of Guns-N-Roses when both bands were at the height of their fame. I didn't protest in the slightest. Having usually been on the other side of that situation, I knew how pointless it was for the socio-sexually overmatched to attempt resistance.  And after all, there are always more girls on the girl tree.