Hollywood Reporter magazine promotes beta males

Sano said:
The pictures don't prove anything, anymore than this proves anything:

Then
1216-GQ-FEPR01-01-prince.jpg


Now
cvm1__square.jpg


Hopefully we got that covered so we don't have to keep going over this.

Sodom and Gomorrah really? You do know that is a fictional story right?

I was actually looking for the study, not fluff piece articles. I did however find it and read it, and it's very fascinating indeed. This is the testosterone study that they are all referring to: https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/92/1/196/2598434

It's actually an analysis of the data from the previous publications on the Massachusetts Male Aging Study.

While it's certainly very interesting that the difference in age matched decline couldn't be contributed to known factors of lower T like higher BMI, more alcohol consumption and less smoking (yes smoking is actually linked to a slight increase in T), it's still not concluse. Don't get me wrong, it's an amazingly well done study, but there are a few important caveats.

One is variance and fluctuations in daily hormone levels. I know they try to account for that with a strict protocol and that the sample size should wash that out somewhat. However, it can still effect the results especially over time considering the shrinkage of the sample size. It's a bit of a stretch though, I'll concede.

Another and much more important consideration is that the men were only taken from the Boston area and included roughly 1300 men at baseline and 900 at the second test. The data can simple not accurately represent the larger demographic of the west. You can hypothesise, but it's not conclusive. You would need several more cohort and longitudional studies across various populations.

Lastly, it doesn't make the link between societal norms changing and lower testosterone. Actually, it speculates that there might be other environmental factors/toxins not considered, or known. What is the most interesting though, was that the decline over time was the same relative percentage from all groups, which is quite surprising.

While they did incorperate sedentary levels (self reported to recall bias possible), they did not account for exercise intensity, type or volume. Also various age-matched psychosociological factors like stress levels, sex life, well-being and the like that could influence hormone levels.

In regards to the study on grip strength, this is the one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26869476

I have access to it so I can read it in full and it needs to be contextualised big time.

There is a pretty clear selection bias. The new study samples young men, 20-34 years, from universities in Nothern Carolina compared to the general population in Milwaukee within the same age group in 1985. How does that accurately represent an average? There is no stratifying of weight, height, exercise regiment, occupation/job or anything.

Secondly, we are talking about a sample size of 63 university students in the 20-24 year old group, 15 in the 25-29 year old group and 4 in the 30-34 year old group. Hardly representative.

It's interesting, but you cannot extrapolate the data to the genpop. Especially not the exact figures and percentages, although you could argue for a trend.

Obviously young people today has less grip strength compared to older generations. We don't use our hands the same at all. There is no substitute for physical labour when it comes to grip strength. We are larger on average though, live longer and most likely stronger in other areas. Depending on the population segment of course.

I completely agree that people should exercise more, sit less at a desk and use their body more in general.


What's your argument? I think you should read that article because it actually supports homosexuality in nature.
Click to expand...
That meme gives you a general idea. There are more weak men today then there were in the past. Like I said before it's usually the elite/rich and powerful that are messed up and I think we all know why.

In my opinion, Sodom and Gomorrah is not a fictional story. There are plenty of other examples of sexual deviance throughout history.

All I said was that levels are decreasing and that we should do something about it. I didn't say what was causing it.

I see a lot of young, skinny David Hogg types running around in my area and I'm sure many other people see them as well in other parts of the world. Anecdotal evidence, the scourge of the internet!

I agree, sometimes studies use small isolated samples.

For sure everyone should be monitoring their health, testosterone levels included. A strong, healthy, well educated, well armed, unified and morally righteous society is always a good thing.

{<redford}


I did read that article and it even said homosexuality was a rarity. It's definitely abnormal.
 
Last edited:
TheGreatA said:
The male adult-boy relationships were merely a symptom of the larger disease that affected the system, at that time, and what ultimately led to its decline. I'm not saying that homosexual relations led to Ottoman decline, I'm saying that their way of conducting sexual relations between upper-class males, and boy slaves captured for their entertainment, was representative of how degenerated and fucked up the system truly was. Dependence on slavery, a rigid aristocracy with little upwards mobility whatsoever, and a general disregard for Islamic teachings except when convenient, all played a part into the stagnation of the Ottoman Empire. The Empire offered a hollow answer to ethnic nationalism, and eventually collapsed after failed attempts at centralization (as seems to be the fate of all such empires).

We can observe many of today's societal problems, too, in people's sexual relations. The state of confusion has become apparent in the younger generations.

Anyway, this is a conversation that is best left for a future date, as then we will have enough meaningful data about the "millenial" generations that are most affected by it.
Click to expand...
Actually the Janissary system declined when they moved from the forced enslavement of Christian boys to allowing freeborn Muslims to enter since it opened up the door to nepotism. The Janissaries were often sent out into the provinces to keep the peace and when they only drew them from the devsherme their Christian background made them more sympathetic to the Christian subjects of the Empire. Once you had Janissary dynasties they lacked this connection and became notoriously sectarian in addition to inefficient due to the nepotism. After the devshirme system was ended they turned into notorious drunks and extortionists.

And when the harem concubines ran the Empire the central government actually had more control and they carried out large public works projects in a time of economic stagnation that acted like a stimulus. When their power waned in the early 17th century you eventually get the slow rise of the provincial elites who ate away at the taxes and an entrenched elite in the capital who stifled the Sultans. Not saying it was a direct cause to be fair but the correlation is fascinating.

The Ottoman Empire declined because they had an outdated and inefficient tax collection system and military in addition to entrenched interests defending both, provincial elites for the former and the Janissaries/religious establishment for the latter. Selim III attempted to reform the military along French lines when he created the Nizam Jadid but got deposed by the Janissaries for it. Mehmed Ali in Egypt attempted the same reforms without the same sort of entrenched and powerful reactionaries to oppose him(his Albanian troops did initially but their threat was diffused) and he created an army that ran over the Ottoman army every time the two fought.

I agree somewhat with the general point about our society being too sexed up and that there's value in a sort of normative sexual standard where deviations are tolerated but more or less out of sight and in general where chastity is a little more valued. But I just wouldn't assign such weighty consequences to so called sexual degeneracy.
 
Last edited:
HunterSdVa29 said:
what's weird, is until a few years ago I had never heard the terms 'alpha' or 'beta' outside of the context of animals/hunting, the Greek alphabet (frats), or the old grocery store chain Alpha Beta (which I think became Albertson's)

I still don't hear it IRL, only on the internet, but still it's constant and all the time. What a change
Click to expand...


Just like with the “manlet” phenomenon you can thank the bodybuilding.com misc forums for spreading the term “alpha and beta” around.
 
Soul Crusher said:
It got the job done and made the point clear.
Click to expand...
lol @ trying to make your point using memes that do not represent reality. Whatever floats your boat. Also, blocked for a week for mocking Jeff Goldblum.
 
Kafir-kun said:
Actually the Janissary system declined when they moved from the forced enslavement of Christian boys to allowing freeborn Muslims to enter since it opened up the door to nepotism. The Janissaries were often sent out into the provinces to keep the peace and when they only drew them from the devsherme their Christian background made them more sympathetic to the Christian subjects of the Empire. Once you had Janissary dynasties they lacked this connection and became notoriously sectarian in addition to inefficient due to the nepotism. After the devshirme system was ended they turned into notorious drunks and extortionists.
Click to expand...

That's precisely what I mean though. The Ottoman society had grown dependent on slavery as a practise, and was never going to be capable of adjusting to the process of modernization, as standing armies got bigger, industrial labour became more meaningful, societal reforms became necessary etc. Throughout their existence, they had basically relied on conquering other people and having them do the labour, and most of the fighting. The sense of entrenched entitlement, which handicapped progress, grew from this very fact.

The degenerate ways of men to act out their sexuality, was merely a representation on what sort of a house of cards the entire society was, when faced with the challenges of the modern era.

One could say that this same entitled mentality insists, among the people who once resided under Ottoman rule, even today.

The Ottoman Empire declined because they had an outdated and inefficient tax collection system and military in addition to entrenched interests defending both, provincial elites for the former and the Janissaries/religious establishment for the latter. Selim III attempted to reform the military along French lines when he created the Nizam Jadid but got deposed by the Janissaries for it. Mehmed Ali in Egypt attempted the same reforms without the same sort of entrenched and powerful reactionaries to oppose him(his Albanian troops did initially but their threat was diffused) and he created an army that ran over the Ottoman army every time the two fought.
Click to expand...

No disagreement over any of that, but you have to ask, why were the Ottomans so incapable of adjustment? Is it not a matter of culture, when people grow entitled and stagnant in their way of thinking? Believing that the world is owed to them, merely on account of their birth?

The Ottoman society held no answers, on how to bring the Middle Eastern populations to the modern era. The modernization process was an overwhelming failure, on account of the people. Throughout centuries, the people had been cultivated to believe in a way of life that they weren't willing to give up on, even though the means of supporting that sort of a lifestyle, no longer existed.

Luckily, or perhaps unluckily (as it has greatly delayed progress in those areas), these people were sitting on top of a resource which would allow them to maintain the facade, long beyond the fall of the Ottomans.

I agree somewhat with the general point about our society being too sexed up and that there's value in a sort of normative sexual standard where deviations are tolerated but more or less out of sight and in general where chastity is a little more valued. But I just wouldn't assign such weighty consequences to so called sexual degeneracy.
Click to expand...

Sexuality is often little more than an extension of existing power hierarchies, on display. How people conduct their business in the bedroom is not the cause of a fall, but it gives insight into how a society is constructed. The Taleban didn't rise in Afghanistan merely because men were fucking boys, but they did rise because of the degenerate system that enabled men to fuck boys, breeding resentment.

A confused state of sexuality on part of the youth, is the sign of a confused state of society, lacking meaningful answers and guidance.

When a man such as Elagabalus, confused about the state of his whole being, takes absolute leadership over an empire, for no other reason than entitled birth, the chances are that this is a society that's probably not going to last very long. Not without change, at the very least.

Men prostituting themselves, seeking incessant hedonistic pleasures, increasingly more "extreme" in their nature, that's clear evidence that the society, or atleast a section of that society, have achieved a level of "privilege" and "liberation" from social responsibilities, that they shouldn't necessarily possess. Not without a much greater capacity for self-control, atleast.
 
Last edited:
AFCrookie said:
Nothing says Alpha like being threatened by beta males.
Click to expand...
Nice catch phrase, but it is fallacious.

If their is a trend to buy chihuahas that yap all the time, and I am super annoying by this trend because these little shits yap at everybody all the time in the street, does it mean that I feel threatened by chihuahas ?
 
KBE6EKCTAH_CCP said:
Nice catch phrase, but it is fallacious.

If their is a trend to buy chihuahas that yap all the time, and I am super annoying by this trend because these little shits yap at everybody all the time in the street, does it mean that I feel threatened by chihuahas ?
Click to expand...
Be quit, Beta
 
KBE6EKCTAH_CCP said:
Nice catch phrase, but it is fallacious.

If their is a trend to buy chihuahas that yap all the time, and I am super annoying by this trend because these little shits yap at everybody all the time in the street, does it mean that I feel threatened by chihuahas ?
Click to expand...

Who hurt you?
 
tonni said:
lol @ trying to make your point using memes that do not represent reality. Whatever floats your boat. Also, blocked for a week for mocking Jeff Goldblum.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it doesn't. It was kind of amusing too. <Fedor23>

If it makes you feel any better I was talking about the character he was playing. <{titihmm}>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,980
Messages
55,458,897
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top