Tuesday, January 02, 2001

Why I Like "The Book of Bonecrcker"

Since coming across The Book of Bonecrcker on NiceGuy’s forum back in 2006, I have read it probably every six months or so. There’s something about Bonecrcker’s style and insights that “sit right” with me. He is obviously well schooled in “game” while not being a slave to it. He was trained with a Ph D in Psychology and later rebuffed the profession, choosing Chiropractic instead, once he realized that Psychology is no longer about that which it was originally intended to be about (treating mental illness). This training in Psychology, however, affords him some meaningful insights into human nature. When he posted these bits and pieces on NiceGuy’s forum, he was not particularly arguing with anyone, but rather, he showed up and posted like mad for a few weeks and then disappeared, as if he had a purpose of sharing his information with others and once his mission was accomplished, he could leave and move on to other pursuits. Perhaps he was also clarifying his own thoughts and experiences by writing them out. Needless to say, I find reading Bonecrcker “comforting,” which is why I read it so often. To say that I am a fan is an understatement.

While Bonecrcker is definitely out for number one and makes no “bones” about it, his views on being out for number one also includes living by a healthy moral code. - something I find the game community lacks glaringly. One thing you will notice as you go through his posts, is that he has a different view on the “Alpha-Beta” paradigm. His version differs from that of online game-guru Roissy. While I have a lot of respect for many of Roissy’s insights and his writing ability, I don’t believe all of his “male classifications” are correct. Roissy simply views “Alpha” as whatever it is that makes a man sexually attractive to women and considers them all universally “Alpha.” “Beta” is a weak-willed schmuck who get ruthlessly manipulated by women, and “Omegas” are sexually deviant losers who barely ever get laid except by the fat BBW dregs of women that nobody else would touch with a barge pole. Bonecrcker, however, bases “Alpha” on high mating survival value, “Beta” as most men (ie. normal people), “Omega” as the criminal-scum class into which also falls the sexual deviants who seek out multiple sex partners and can’t form stable relationships, and finally Bonecrcker includes a fourth class of men called “Zeta”, which is the weak-willed man who rarely gets laid – and when he does, he is ruthlessly manipulated by women.

I have several times tried to discuss the differences between Roissy’s views and Bonecrcker’s views, but almost instantly a coterie of Roissy’s followers (who are in their own parlance, Beta boys for blindly following Roissy’s Alpha stance rather than thinking for themselves) will begin to moan and wail about shoving moral values down their throats. The thing what I find kind of ironic is that I don’t really talk about “moral values” when I try to bring up that there seems to be two kinds of men that women are attracted to – for different reasons – but simply that there seems to be two classes of men that are sexually attractive. As soon as it is pointed it, it must become clear to many in the game community that this would imply moral values still exist, and that we might not be justified in screwing like monkeys, cuckolding each other ruthlessly, and encouraging a highly violent male hierarchy, like chimps have. It appears to me that many men are only too happy to throw all semblance of moral values out the window and base a man’s worth solely upon the number of pussies he manages to plunder.

Bonecrcker’s views match up better with my own life experiences in that I know some truly Alpha men who get “the best” chick and they tend to stick together, and I know – and have been close friends with – about three high number-count men who have each slept with 250 to 450 women each. These guys would be Alpha by Roissy’s description, but Omega by Bonecrcker’s in that they are sexually deviant, have no ability to form stable relationships (not only with women, but also with men), and are far more from the criminal/scum class rather than a high survival male Alpha. My high number-count “friends” are no longer friends because over time I have observed they have stabbed everyone in the back. They also were extremely tough – they had to be, since so many other guys wanted to kick the shit out of them. They got little co-operation from other males after time, often got into 3 to 5 fist fights a year, two did stints in prison, and they tended over time to become transitory, as after time too many enemies meant it was “time to move on.” They sure got laid a lot though! Contrast this to a couple of friends of mine who I view as true Alphas in the Bonecrcker sense, wherein they were dominant men – with both men and women, but they were highly popular (had lots of male co-operation), and they dated the best chick and she stuck around and beat off the other chicks with a stick.

Think of it in male terms as what a guy finds sexually attractive in females. Sure, you can argue it is all based upon sex, and I wouldn’t disagree with that… but are all chicks attractive to a guy simply for the same sexual reasons? For example, when you are out on the hunt as a young guy looking for some pussy without much commitment, would you go for that “girl next-door” who is a “nine” and has only had one or two boyfriends in her life, or would you go for that chick you know is sexually loose, has had many boyfriends, is a “seven,” and you heard can suck the chrome off a trailer hitch? Well, if I were just out for some short term fun, I might value the slut over the prude. However, if I were out for starting a family, I would value the prude over the slut. Both are sexually attractive, in some ways the same, but vastly different in others. This is the same thing what I believe is going on with women. They are attracted to both high mate-value “Alphas” and low mate-value “Omegas,” (or criminal-scum-sexually deviant men). Both attract them, but for different reasons. That women end up settling for “Betas” to marry rather than high value Alphas is no different than a man who has spent his youth banging pretty sluts who are “nines” but settles upon a virginal “seven” to marry – choosing other “Beta” traits such a loyalty and fidelity over the looks scale - same goes for a woman who settles for a less sexually attractive male to settle down with. However, just as a man “settles” for a seven with higher survival value, the man would still choose a “nine” with the same survival value, as women would rather marry an “alpha” than a beta. Most men can’t marry “nines” any better than women can.

Now, this does not mean that Bonecrcker morally preaches at you to be an upright, proper “Alpha.” Just the opposite. In fact, he outright recommends adopting several “Omega” traits – such as not forming stable relationships (anti-survival) in order that men’s needs are met in a severely fucked up society that is hostile to males. However, you can tell from reading him, that imitating these traits does not need to entail becoming a dirt-bag piece of scum. One can recognize the differences, and choose to live a decent moral life, while protecting oneself from the dangers of our matriarchal society without actually being an evil scumbag who screws over all other men he encounters in life. I find this to be a significant difference between between Bonecrcker and others discussing game for the single man. I believe men (and even women) are more than mere monkeys, incapable of living higher than our hindbrains, so I prefer Bonecrcker’s route. It also more closely resembles what I have personally witnessed in human behaviour throughout my life.

On to The Book of Bonecrcker