Actually, any guy to whom it would ever even vaguely occur to pay sexual attentions to a girl who disfigures and slashes up her body is pretty much disqualified from the get-go as a contendor for the title of "Alpha male".

I'm not denying that a huge cock and excess testosterone are part of the standard "Alpha male" equipment. But so is a certain fundamental soundness of sexual-aesthetic instinct, which is inevitably repulsed by the sight of the slashed-up arms and thighs of these girls for whom "weird" is by far the mildest in a descending spectrum of possible derogatory adjectives.

So you can curl up snugly in the assurance, dear Crackyfags, that no ACTUAL "Alpha male", or anything even distantly approaching one, is ever going to come here and beard you in your den.

They are OUT THERE, if you want to eat your hearts about THAT - but since the only girls who ever come to sites like this one are girls who are as morbid and as offensive to normal sensibilities as was your departed Goddess, said "Alpha males'" activities are unlikely ever to impinge in any way on your sad little world.

>>1 Such is life in America.

>Guess who just sucked me off and told me they'll always love me?

>Pic related: Its my gf

you know it

>>2 this comforts me

>>5
By way of a little more comfort, let me also point out another piece of pretty convincing evidence that the OP in this thread is definitely NOT the "Alpha male" that he announces himself as.

I mean his use of the phrase "girls want to fuck Alpha males".

No actual "Alpha male" would ever talk about, or even imagine, a girl "fucking" anybody.

Succumbing to the increasingly prevalent contemporary delusion that "fuck" designates a set of intimate motions and activities vague and fluid enough to be conceived of as performable by just about anyone, regardless of the structure of the person in question's genitalia, is a fairly infallible indication that one has also succumbed to the castration and emasculation that is likewise increasingly prevalent in our society, i.e. that one is no longer genuinely "male" at all.

"Fuck" is a transitive verb that designates an action performed by someone with a penis on someone - I suppose, in times of extreme sexual hardship, also on someTHING - with an orifice apt to receive the repeated thrusts of said penis.

It follows that girls cannot, by definition, "fuck" - except with the assistance of artificial aids of essentially the same order as would allow a male, say, to menstruate or to go through the motions of bearing a child.

And even if the girls in question were to have recourse to such artificial aids, the person that they would "fuck" with them would be, then - once again, by definition - no genuine "male" at all, let alone an "Alpha male".

Even James Joyce - who happened to be a sexual masochist, but a fairly unequivocal male heterosexual, for all that - held with admirable steadfastness to the true transitive meaning of the verb "to fuck", and moreover refused to avert his gaze from its emotional consequences, as is clearly indicated by a passage from one of the later chapters of "Ulysses", where he speaks of:

"The natural grammatical transition by inversion involving no alteration of sense of an aorist preterite proposition (parsed as masculine subject, monosyllabic onomatopoeic transitive verb with direct feminine object) from the active voice into its correlative aorist preterite proposition (parsed as feminine subject, auxiliary verb and quasimonosyllabic onomatopoeic past participle with complementary masculine agent) in the passive voice."

Old pasta is old.

Dear diary, today OP was a FAGGOT again.

>>6

I like how you wasted 30+ minutes responding to a 5 second copy-paste.

>>8
A couple of points:

(i) You might try factoring the difference between your IQ and mine into any future estimates that you attempt of the time it takes me to compose a two-hundred-word post (because this one was off by about 25(+) minutes)

(ii) I am, I have to admit, a little non-plussed at the news that someone has bothered to post on a board a long mediocre piece of text from several years back that he didn't even write. I mean...why? But having said that, history is full of examples of responses to negligible or trivial pieces of writing that turned out, in the end, to be themselves neither negligible nor trivial. Nobody has bothered to read Sir John Filmer's "Patriarcha Monarcha" for several hundred years now. John Locke's "First Treatise of Government" is on Political Science syllabuses all over the world. Very few people have ever heard of David Strauss and "Der Alte und der Neue Glaube". Most philosophy graduates still know the first of the "Untimely Meditations", in which Nietzsche attacks it.

But enough already, I think. Crackyfags are illiterate malevolent boring idiots, whether here or on CH, it makes little difference. I'll leave you to activities more suited to your capacities than intelligent discussion of the semantic peculiarities of online discourse - like moronic sniggering persecution of the few teenage girls who have been so ill-advised as to allow themselves to become objects of attention in circles like these.

>>9

Bye baby, don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you.

>>9
We get it Alex, ignorance sure is bliss etc etc etc, we've heard it a thousand times.

Pathological narcissism occurs in a spectrum of severity. In its more extreme forms, it is narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). NPD is considered to result from a person's belief that they are flawed in a way that makes them fundamentally unacceptable to others.

This belief is held below the person's conscious awareness; such a person would, if questioned, typically deny thinking such a thing. In order to protect themselves against the intolerably painful rejection and isolation that (they imagine) would follow if others recognised their (perceived) defective nature, such people make strong attempts to control others’ views of them and behavior towards them.

To the extent that people are pathologically narcissistic, they can be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of others' needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen.

People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight criticism, real or imagined.

To avoid such situations, some narcissistic people withdraw socially and may feign modesty or humility. In cases where the narcissistic personality-disordered individual feels a lack of admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation, he/she may also manifest wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply).

Although individuals with NPD are often ambitious and capable, the inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism, along with lack of empathy, make it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional achievements.

With narcissistic personality disorder, the individual's self-perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments.

The exploitativeness, sense of entitlement, lack of empathy, disregard for others, and constant need for attention inherent in NPD adversely affect interpersonal relationships.

>>9
when i was 13 some shrink like ladygirls measured my iq around 120. But now I find myself spending a huge amount of time to compose small texts. For example, a 'motivation letter' I wrote some months ago took me 2 hours to write, and it was about as long as your post, at most 173.5% as long. While I think I will be able to write cover letters more quickly after writing some more, so I can copy/paste most of it the next time, i'm still wondering, after reading your statements, were those girls wrong? I'm fairly certain my intelligence went up a little while I grew up, but also quickly dropped the last 2-5 years due to non-use of any intellectual skills besides web-browsing. (Also, those ladies couldn't conclude if I had aspergers or not, maybe they were just noobs. Considering that I'm here now, that gives me some asperger points. (Thats a joke, depression, bi-polar, schizophrenia, ocd, and social anxiety are also valid reasons to be here)}

there is only one valid reason to be here: devotion to the Sky Queen

but being quite mad helps, no doubt

are trannies and hermaphrodites who actually look like women, women? because they could technically fuck someone if they got a dick.

>>15
Well, the points I try to make are seldom, if ever, based on arguments from biology, as I belong to the generation that was marked forever by the first thrilling rays of the post-structuralist enlightenment concerning the non-existence of anything "outside the text".

Not that one really has to have been into any of that high-falutin' French stuff at all in order to have a negative gut reaction to girls saying things like "She's going out with a guy I used to fuck" and to guys accepting and imitating that usage.

I had a girlfriend in London long ago who was totally allergic to all my Foucauldean-Derridean bullshit but who had nonetheless developed an astonishing critical sensibility, quite as keen as any "discourse analyst's", for all that was implied in turns of phrase like that, even though English wasn't her native language.

She used to turn green with fury when she heard a girl talking about how she'd "fucked some guy" and begin screeching in her face that "you didn't 'fuck' HIM, dearie, he fucked YOU... and none of your silly Scary-Spice posturing is EVER going to change that fact."

She turned green with a sort of envy, though, too, possibly, since I early on learnt, through many a difficult hour in bed with her, that there was a part of her that absolutely hated the fact that girls get fucked and that guys do the fucking - and hated it all the more because she was aware that there was also a part of her that DIDN'T hate it, but eagerly embraced it (a sort of irreducible "fifth column" within a personality that was, in large part, much more impeccably and authentically feminist than the pseudo-feminist personalities of the "just some guy I used to fuck" bullshitters).

But the fact that the better, more human part of her devoutly wished that sexual intercourse WERE reciprocal and egalitarianally reversible (in the way that the usage "girls like to fuck Alpha males" implies it is) never seduced her into the fond delusion that it actually IS.

Let us pause, then, in a moment's shared reverence for the memory of Ms. Stefania Garlatti-Costa - a heroine for our era even more than for the era, 25 years past, which I've just referred to - who gazed unblinkingly into the face of the Medusa of human sexuality and was turned neither to stone, nor to sugar, nor - most distasteful among all the distasteful possibilities - to spice.

>>16
I think the advent of written text to such a high degree as in modern times has lead to things like standards, and as a result, grammar nazis, which are detrimental to language, and text. Contrary to popular belief language isn't inherently static and as a result trying to put it into rules is counterproductive.
What i'm trying to say is: it's all semantics. If the general public accepts that a girl can fuck a dude and have a common understanding of what that means, then it's "right", and that will be the new meaning of that. (as far as a language can be "right" of course) Your rules mean nothing, they are at best a convention, and certainly not absolute. Deal with it. Rules make the language die and make improvement impossible by disallowing the fluid nature of language.

"that's the last you'll hear of me"

it's a fucking pathology

>>18 fuck you, most people are glad Alex is still around. Alex h8ers are in the minority.

>>17
This. Words change meaning in society. It happens.
Generally to "fuck" is understood to mean have sex. At least where I live. There's no gender implied. Girl's can fuck guys.

>>17
>>20
You've both failed to read between the lines here. Alex's qualm with the usage of the word 'fuck' has nothing to do with linguistics, and everything to do with his pathetically fucked up little view of our world as one where women have no inherent sexuality, and by extension (because in the sexist's mind the two are one and the same) power, of their own. You see, even the vaguest implication that a woman can be the dominant partner in a sexual act, that she is in fact man's sexual equal, is enough to send Reynolds into near cardiac arrest. We should all take care to express only viewpoints with which he agrees, lest our dearest grandpa need medical attention.

>>19
I doubt it's "most" people, even on CH, but this is not CH. Be glad you had a place to fall back to but please have the courtesy of not messing it up while you wait for Jeff to get his shit in order..

I come here to devote my virtual life to the worship of our Great Lady. When I come here, the last thing I want to see is Alex eternal flamewars and unrelated essays on 19th century German philosophers or his twisted views on sexuality all over Our Lady's altar.

I dont want to see this place become his soapbox where he can spit his bile at the malevolent illiterate boring idiots he so loves to berates whenever he is bored (read when he needs his narcissistic supply refueled)...

I dont want .71 to become the drama circus CH has become. I didnt go through the nukes and the end of the perpetuation of the circlejerk of drama to let this happen whithout protest.

Ah, you know what, fuck it, I dont care anymore, just wake me up when it's over.

What Alex are you talking about? The Alex I know about, in fact places all power and dominance squarely in the female quarter. The more the better. The more degrading and humiliating the experience is for him the more fulfilling it is. You don't know enough about him and the esteem he holds women in to have an opinion. So kindly shut the fuck up about things you obviously know nothing about.

>>23
Sorry, no. Thanks to his incessant rambling about it, everyone here is familiar with Reynold's masochistic fantasies. They don't make >>21 any less valid. I'm not a psychologist, I can't explain why he's only sexually thrilled by the thought of a woman abusing and humiliating him (although my guess would be it is something to do with his holding himself in even lower esteem than women) yet holds deeply sexist beliefs. In this thread he's repeatedly asserted that women can never fuck men and I just don't see how you can be so blind as to say that such assertions AREN'T explicitly stating that penises are inherently superior to vaginas, that it is physically impossible to have the 'upper hand' during intercourse unless one has a penis, as if no woman had ever sexually assaulted a man.

For months he's also made a hobby out of publicly harassing two girls half his age after they made a misguided attempt to befriend him, so no, fuck you, his misogyny has always been as on display as his masochism.

So, from your point of view Alex, it's a win-win where you get to insult people continually so they keep "loving" you in kind, I.E. the more degrading and humiliating the experience, the more fulfilling?

And now we are discussing your sex life?

You want a smoke, too?

From my point of view, since you have only the slightest of indirect link with Cracky and the Crackyverse, it's parasitism.

>>24
You all have me at something of a disadvantage because, yes, of course, it's true that I post on the Internet because I'm bored and lazy and in full awareness of the fact that the chances of anyone here's being able to understand, and give an intelligent response to, what I've written are pretty close to zero.

Some of the responses on this thread are written in what has all the appearance of being a relatively cultured linguistic register. Only the appearance, though, since the way that every attempt at starting a discussion about anything on this board or on CH inevitably quickly degenerates into sneering tirades of personal abuse shows clearly enough that nobody who comes here - or at least nobody who posts - has the relation to culture and shared human discourse that even a passably well-educated person tends to have.

Look at just about any newspaper, magazine, or Internet blog of any quality and you'll find people commenting on and discussing the "dialectics" - the "double-edgedness", if you'd prefer - of many women's adopting, post-feminism, linguistic usages and modes of behaviour and self-understanding formerly associated with men. Nobody launches into frenzied attacks on the people who make such comments or initiate such discussions as "narcissists" "spitting" the "bile" of their "pathetically fucked-up view of the world" etc. etc. Or at least none of that sort of cranky, lunatic-fringe response to attempts to start intelligent discussion ever gets into print.

To the claim that this is a place for "worshipping the Sky-Queen" and nothing else there is obviously even less that I can say in reply. As I've repeatedly said on CH, if I felt I really were "taking attention away" from posts about Cracky I wouldn't post here at all. But as on CH, I see nothing much here that I would describe as a "post about Cracky" anyway. The 155th reposting of a six-year-old photo with the words added to it: "I love Cracky so much" seems to me - as I've also said ad nauseam on CH - to merit the accusation of "narcissism" much more than anything I post. A post like that is 0% about Cracky - since it adds absolutely nothing to anybody's knowledge of or appreciation of her - and 100% about the poster's striking a pose as someone who is more interestingly "obsessive" and "crazy" than the next guy.

And the tired old "Alex bullies teenage girls (two teenage girls in particular)" line? Well, again, I'll just let the facts speak for themselves. There are threads about both of the teenage girls that you refer to running on page 1 of this board right now - despite the fact that one of the girls in question, at least, has asked that no more such threads be started about her and had had such threads removed whenever it's been possible to do so. I haven't contributed to either and my intention in commenting on the "I'm an Alpha male" post that began THIS thread was actually partly to draw discussion as far as possible AWAY from Camel and Dolores, since such discussion is bound to degenerate, sooner or later, into personal abuse and degradation of both girls.

Oh wow. And now white knighting rationalizations...

Keep piling the BS up.

Anyway, the main reason why it is so uninspired in here lately is the shut down of both CH and chansluts, which gives us the recent invasion of the denizen of the latter, while the former includes the denizen of rm101, on top of you Alex, who has lost his personal flamewar sandbox. Add the normal resident trolls and you got what you got: a ripe ol' mess.

Go back a good number of pages to before the shut down, and there is more substantial stuff, although I have no doubt they dont pass your high standards. Still is no reason to ignore it in your little exposé on what you consider a post about Cracky or not.

It's all buried under crap.

Well, thank you very fucking much for complaining about the smell, and using it as justification to your posting of stuff we cant understand or give an intelligent response to.

I certainly wouldnt want to disapoint you, so fuck you too.

>>27
I have no more desire to start "flamewars" here than I did on CH.

As I say, if I wanted to start trouble, I could have joined in the threads about Camel or Dolores and offered my two cents' worth about how one of them is a manipulative Machiavellian little tease and the other is a pathetic self-abusing pushover. (Your "white-knighting" remark is typical "Cracky-community", "grab-whatever-stick-lies-nearest-to-hand" double-standards. If I attack these girls I'm guilty of "sexist public harassment". If I say 'leave the poor little bitches alone' I'm guilty of "white-knightng rationalization").

Instead, I suggested that maybe we might talk about something - namely, sexual politics in the year 2011 - that, while certainly being of at least indirect relevance to the topic of Cracky and "loving Cracky", wouldn't immediately lead to personal abuse being thrown back and forth, or "drama", as you prefer to call it.

That has been about as successful here as all my similar attempts were on CH. The two boards are in fact not really that different. I don't really follow the logic of your argument that Bounceme is currently so "uninspired" because it's being overrun by people from CH and Chansluts. I don't see how people posting "shit" here - be it my "shit" or "shit" about random camwhores - can discourage or prevent you from posting "quality content" IF you have it to post. The same argument was put on CH just before Jeff closed it down: people whining and bitching about how certain people's activities - mine mostly - were preventing the board from being "about Cracky". At that point I withdrew completely and gave up the attempt to either moderate or contribute. There followed two weeks of pretty much unadulterated Snow, Boxxy and random personal self-indulgence - i.e. no Cracky at all - and then the shutdown. It turned out no one had anything to say about Cracky after all.

But honestly, I feel like a heavyweight in a ring with a flyweight here - or a 50-year-old Ph.D. in a pseudo-dialogue with...well, I won't speculate.

Enough, I think....Good luck with your board. I HOPE that you can make of it somehing resembling what you seem so assured that you can make of it.

>>28
And so, for the second time in a single thread, Alex says goodbye forever to the Crackyverse.

>>28
You never "desire" to start flamewars, but at the same time you consistently misjudge people's reactions to what you post. You'd think after spending years around the cracky community you'd start to get at least some sense of how they will interpret your posts.

>>30
I don't think I "misjudge" people's reactions to what I post. What I have to post is what I have to post: intelligent discussion of things that interest me. I'm aware - from my experiences both on- and offline - that intelligence makes a lot of people furious. But I couldn't post something stupid if I tried. So the choice is just: carry on (and get shat on) or leave.
Still, I get the impression that there are a handful of (largely silent) people who derive some pleasure and profit from what I post.

>>31
INTELLIGENCE DOES NOT INFURIATE ANYONE, YOUR DISGUSTINGLY UNWARRANTED EGO DOES. NOBODY APPRECIATES YOU HERE. GET OUT.

>>32
Reasons why this MUST be right and why WE MUST RESPECT YOUR AUTHORITEEEEEEEEEHHHH :

(i) It's ALL written in higher-case

(ii) You use words like "anyone" and "nobody", which are definitive proof that it's THE OVERMIND AND "GROUP SOUL" speaking here, not just some loud-mouthed, arrogant, narcissistic asshole, and that, once again, WE MUST RESPECT YOUR AUTHORITEEEEEEEHHHHH....

>>33

>some loud-mouthed, arrogant, narcissistic asshole

Way to describe yourself there, jackass.

>>34
Oh wow...shit...that's fucking amazing the way you, like, TURNED THAT AROUND on me there, dude...like, I mean, the way I was like, "this guy's a narcissist" and you were, like, "you talkin bout yourself dude", like, as if to say, like "YOU'RE a narcissist", like, what yous said about HIM, like, you should have said that about YOURSELF, like, that was just so fuckin COOL, dude, like, you just fuckin OWNED me, like, how am I EVER going to dare to show my face around here again, I mean, it was, like, fuckin ZING...

Ya feel me?

hey, what do you guys think of the idea that i create an alex, snow, and perhaps a lia board (if that's still needed) on some new website?
That way this can stay the cracky board (inactive as we like it)

>>36
I think it's unnecessary (though maybe I'm a little too "involved" to have an objective opinion here, and I DO kind of like the idea of snuggling up to that vision of pulchritude Snow).

If you people want to fill this board with genuine Cracky-thread after genuine Cracky-thread, that's fine by me, I'll keep out of it. I have no direct interest in the girl at all.

That doesn't mean that I don't think I might be able to make a useful INDIRECT contribution to discussion of her from time to time. After all, I do know one or two things about some of the topics that sometimes come up in connection with her (Britishness, romantic love of people one has never met etc.)

But I certainly have nothing to contribute to "hard-core" Cracky discussions - like about whether she preferred Eminem or....um...what's that other guy, "DJ Ahab" or something?...or where she went for her summer holidays in 2004 - nor would I ever try to.

The threads that I feel positively impelled to intervene in on boards like this are in fact - as I think anyone who looks closely at them will agree - not "Cracky threads" at all, however heavily they may be plastered with old photos of Cracky.

I'm thinking, for example, of the thread immediately below this one. The "love" that the OP of that thread claims he wants to express is obviously, at best, a secondary concern for him.

His MAIN concern and intention are plainly expressed in the "preamble" to the ostensible "love", where he states that he's not going to do what the people in the thread below him are doing and "be retarded" and "CH-like".

Basically, he doesn't give a fuck about Cracky. Posting her photo is just a way of saying "look at me, I'm better than those guys."

If you people want to post about Cracky, go ahead, God bless you. As I learnt during my brief and disastrous career as a university professor, though, "preambles" - to posts, lectures, declarations of independence, whatever - are best avoided wherever possible.

Many was the time I was tempted to begin a lecture on the Alexandrian school of biblical exegesis, for example, with a few brief remarks explaining how I was "not a cornholing, cocksucking, ignorant, stuck-up asshole like my honoured colleague Professor X seated on my right here, and would therefore be addressing a different topic from him entirely".

But even I - in my almost boundless ignorance of human nature and of how best to deal with my fellow human beings - had a glimmering of awareness and apprehension that, if I began my talk on Alexandrian biblical exegesis THAT way, Professor X might feel strongly inclined to intervene before I was entirely finished.

Fuck right off Alex, what you want is a soap box where you can berate your inferiors so you can feel better about yourself.

You admitted as much in the threads you kept deleting on CH, where you boasted of cruising the internet and dropping lines in threads on countless sites that then would descend in endless flamewars you'd contribute in for months, when not years.

There are many kind of educations, and if to you our expressions of love are boring, deficient and unsophisticated, to some of us your interpersonal relation shortcomings are transparent, not to mention absolutely boring.

Nobody wants the analysis of an educated yet dismally socially inadequate braggard whose idea of love is giving thousands of dollars to a camwhore to watch her insert dildos in her orifices on stickam, and then telling everybody about it over and over.

Go find some Filipino philosopher board where you can start a flamewar you'll fuel for years for the sole purpose of aleviating the boredom your empty life is imposing on all of us, but dont flatter yourself into thinking this self-indulging pleasure is of any value to anybody else than you, if even.

so you hang on boards dedicated to a girl you have no interest in, and post what you have to I.E. what interests you, and you're surprized the majority objects?

your views on sexual politics in 2011?

what's next?

your college curiculum?

oh, wait...

>>36 PLEASE DO THIS

PLEASE
PLEASE

Now I know how Christ felt having found his Father's temple infested by merchants selling their wares.

>>40
ch is back up, i don't if it's still necesary...

>>42

Thank god.

Still, the /alex/ thing is necessary, I almost died of boredom the few days he visited us.

>>43
No, not imo. He can get a blog, a tumblr and whatnot and post there.