Hollywood Reporter magazine promotes beta males

Quequeg said:
By worrying how other people dress and behave?

The truth hurts, keep saving society and showing how alpha you are by whining about other dudes.
Click to expand...

What truth? That I’m concerned over society? That’s one of the core fundamental reasons people follow politics.

Why the hell would you be on a political forum just to tell people not to be concerned over society? If you want to have a reasonable discussion that’s one thing but don’t tell me what qualifies as a thread here unless you’re a mod.

And please point out where I said I’m alpha in this thread. Fake news
 
Soul Crusher said:
The pictures are proving my point. Men had more testosterone and were stronger. Also all I did was type in pussification of men into google and thought the memes were hilarious. Not surprised it triggered a few.

Despite the goofy attire men didn't aspire to be a woman. Men and women didn't dress the same and act the same. Homosexuality was frowned upon. The rich and powerful have always engaged in weird sexual acts and it's mostly them that wore the really strange clothes.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/tove-hermanson/a-timeline-of-mens-femini_b_512995.html

The transgenders you saw in the past were a combination of weird occultists, eunuchs and hermaphrodites. There were of course sexual deviants. Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind. That one female pharaoh wore traditional pharaoh clothing including the false beard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history

I think what we see today is much different.

There are more weak and or feminine men than at any point in time in history. They're not always gay or think they're women. More and more children are starting to think they're girls which is also rather disturbing.

I already posted links but here's more for ya:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...al-men-and-their-dads/?utm_term=.135aaf4a2f62

https://www.healio.com/endocrinology/hormone-therapy/news/print/endocrine-today/{ac23497d-f1ed-4278-bbd2-92bb1e552e3a}/generational-decline-in-testosterone-levels-observed

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/male-physical-decline-masculinity-threatened/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/#96b87968b7fd

https://uk.reuters.com/article/health-testosterone-levels-dc/mens-testosterone-levels-declined-in-last-20-years-idUKKIM16976320061031
Click to expand...
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.

Soul Crusher said:
lol no it's not.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals
Click to expand...
What's your argument? I think you should read that article because it actually supports homosexuality in nature.
 
Last edited:
Lead said:
OP is kinda misleading. This is just about a TV show that features "Beta males". It's like if they showed "Big Bang Theory" on the cover and did the same title or "Rise of the Nerds". Doesn't necessarily mean much.

Also, I never get the concern about men being "beta". That actually makes life super easy if your stay in good shape and don't go that route. My assumption is it's actually skinny/fat guys complaining that they can't be assholes ("alpha") in this society when the reality is they just suck at life and are finding something to blame it on.
Click to expand...
<PlusJuan>
 
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...
Great post!
 
Violence in tv, movies, and video games have no effect on societal violence right?

But magazine covers and tv shows are making people "effeminate betas" .

Interesting
 
ROSCONATION said:
Violence in tv, movies, and video games have no effect on societal violence right?

But magazine covers and tv shows are making people "effeminate betas" .

Interesting
Click to expand...
I wouldn't even say "effeminate" is the right word..
 
Bloodworth said:
Sad to see what the future holds. Idiocracy...
Click to expand...
Yeah but you didn't get the premise to Idiocracy. It was made apparent when you made a thread declaring as much. So you really need to stop saying " Idiocracy"
 
Trotsky said:
Haha, well credit your parents for preparing you for the modern economy instead of making you perform outdated manual work out of some nostalgic normative principle.

Well, I shouldn't say outdated. Heck, our president in 2018 apparently has used quite a few hoes.
Click to expand...
Heh, it was my try to be tongue-in-cheek but I actually wished they focused a bit more on manual labor. Not working the fields for survival but I wish my dad taught me a bit more about car mechanics or carpentry, I learned that stuff a bit later and it's pretty cool fixing your own stuff even if I could pay somebody else.

And the part about being strong is pretty true, I know a few guys in their 60s that are much smaller than me(I'm not very tall but the average height here was something like 5'5") and don't have the stamina of youth and probably couldn't lift that much but they have some crazy grip strength.
Interestingly, some of these manual jobs still pay pretty well, skilled wood workers and mechanics make sometimes as much as an average engineer(a good engineer makes more of course) around here. But then, these trades are also hardly manual only.
 
GOATER said:
You are the one who brought in testosterone...I was simply pointing out that these so called high test men, were very impressed by the masculinity of the Americas/African natives.
Click to expand...
Eh, I think it depends on the age. 16th century explorers thought most people they encountered were small effeminate savages. Most of these natives are like 5' in their native habitats and had clean smooth faces. Compared with the bigger bearded europeans.

tonni said:
Alpha/beta theory isn't even scientifically backed up. It's a good meme for selling self-help books, though.
Click to expand...
Alpha males are present in some animal communities but not all of them and I really don't see them in human communities.
Chimps, for example, you have an alpha that reproduces with ALL the females in his band and leads the other males and fights younger males until he is too old and weak so he gets replaced by a new one.
That simply doesn't happen in human societies, traditional or modern. We're closer to Bonobos in that respect.
It's also linked to physicality in these books but human leaders are hardly always the strongest or brashest. I could kick Trump's ass but he is the leader of the free world, not me.
From my (limited) life experience, I also don't see that stereotype of the misc alpha male being even close to truth even when relating to sexual encounters only. There are lots of guys that are somewhat feminine that have an enormous amount of success with girls and outside of american movies I don't see girls that really like roided jerks that much.
The most popular guys I know are good looking, yes, tall and somewhat muscular, but not roided and are usually successful professionals, especially doctors and lawyers with high verbal intelligence that outwardly project a respectful demeanor even if they're scumbags. Think Patrick Bateman from the American Psycho.
Instead of dickheads like Dan Bilzerian, a try hard manlet.
 
Amerikuracana said:
Yeah it's really unnatural and screwing up everything. Basketball players can only nail 10 white girls a week, and although the embarass us all by doing their best, they can't fk them all.. As much as these guys want them too.

these guys need to not be rooted to heavily, and the guys that are actually "cool," even if not 6'3 and gorgeous, need to start outtingvtgem in their fkn place again. Zero tolerance is destroying the natural order and creating misery at a higher clip than it's protecting people.
Click to expand...
<Huh2>
 
ROSCONATION said:
Yeah but you didn't get the premise to Idiocracy. It was made apparent when you made a thread declaring as much. So you really need to stop saying " Idiocracy"
Click to expand...

Good memory, idiocracy will be California with liberal ideas.

Everything over priced. everyone overly stupid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,253,388
Messages
56,579,315
Members
175,289
Latest member
MonicaHSE

Share this page

Back
Top