fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3524 ]

[ SECRET POST #3524 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3524 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 48 secrets from Secret Submission Post #504.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

https://thepracticalconservative.wordpress.com/tag/socio-sexual-hierarchy/

ps don't take this seriously

Nah, fuck that shit

That is some really weird fanfiction.

I think ABO is complicated enough.

I am gonna go with Delta. I am a pretty average person.

this just doesn't make any sense to me, and I'm more than happy to plug myself into a fucked up imaginary sexual hierarchy

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/03/socio-sexual-hierarchy.html

NAYRT

The original linked on that blog post makes more sense to me.

u wot m8

No really, I don't know if I can even with this.

N/A: female.

OT but: What's the difference between guys who treat sex and dating as "a game" and the guys who try to incorporate dating-sim logic into real life?

The former appear to look down on the latter but aren't they doing the exact same thing?

Some of the game-playing ones can actually be healthier. It depends on whether they view women as fellow players, out to have a good time and score some good sex, or as the subjects/targets of the game.

I knew someone who approached every female like they were in a dating sim

they didn't get anywhere, BUT they were completely harmless and actually ok to be around because he just figured he'd fucked up, or "chosen the wrong dialogue/action" if a girl didn't show him interest... in short, it wasn't the girl's fault if he didn't score and he didn't hold a grudge against them for turning him down

in my experience guys who treat sex and dating as a game tend to think that the same tricks can be used on everyone, and if they fail, the girls are somehow "faulty", like they're broken pieces of furniture or something...

I think both are really creepy, but one is more overtly harmful (i.e. the one that blames the woman for the game failing is more likely to get violent or harass her afterwards).

However, the idea that you have to use the right dialogue to succeed and it's your fault for doing it wrong and just...looking at it only from that specific angle is still really fucked up because it still implies that women are formulaic and lack agency. Like if you click the right buttons you can just make us do what you want and we don't actually have a choice in the matter.

"Gamma: The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex. This mostly depends upon whether an attractive woman happened to notice his existence or not that day. Too introspective for their own good, gammas are the men who obsess over individual women for extended periods of time and supply the ranks of stalkers, psycho-jealous ex-boyfriends, and the authors of excruciatingly romantic rhyming doggerel. In the unlikely event they are at the party, they are probably in the corner muttering darkly about the behavior of everyone else there... sometimes to themselves."

So in other words, everyone who believes in this chart?

If I were a guy, I'd probably be a Beta.

And so much for FS not taking things seriously, eh? LMAO

I tried, honestly, but I can't understand the categories in the thing OP linked to because the blog post one is all referential. Did they mean the original chart that the blog post is referencing?

I dunno. The link OP posted made sense to me (and amused me).

Re: Where are you on the socio sexual hierarchy

kaijinscendre - 2016-08-27 22:48 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Where are you on the socio sexual hierarchy

(Anonymous) - 2016-08-27 23:00 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Where are you on the socio sexual hierarchy

diet_poison - 2016-08-28 02:49 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Where are you on the socio sexual hierarchy

(Anonymous) - 2016-08-27 22:52 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Where are you on the socio sexual hierarchy

(Anonymous) - 2016-08-28 02:12 (UTC) - Expand

Beta, but then I'm a Type B female, so no real surprise there.

Lmao

Ugly men with matching personalities wonder why nobody will touch their pee-pees, rank themselves, hilarity ensues!

I tried but I don't understand
there are too many categories, yet strangely not enough sufficient information

what do they mean by weird? what if you don't have a sexual preference?

Sigma: contrary to what Vox says, it’s just a tendency of the other categories. Betas are actually very Sigma-ish compared to all the other groups because weird guys tend to make poor leaders of men but are themselves often loyal and trustworthy. A lot of Sigmas are just weird Betas and most of what’s left is weird Deltas.
so what's a sigma then?

"Vox" Oh. Glad I didn't follow that link.

God you're just taking this too ~~~seriously~~~

There aren't any. This is all bullshit.

This stuff usually makes me mad but right now I'm just baffled because I don't really understand it (and have no idea which category I'd fall into).

And I mean, I assume the parameters would be different for women anyway.

I'm trying to pick one but it's just so...stupid. So so sooo stupid.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only