# Alpha Male? Beta Male? What does this even mean?



## LTCNurse (Feb 5, 2018)

I'm a female and I don't really understand what anyone is saying when they seem to "put down" anyone who is not an alpha male? 
What IS an alpha male? Does it refer to leadership? Because not all of us (or all men) are leadership types and I think that is ok. However...I think it is important for ALL women that her man be willing to stand up for her and the family when it is necessary and to "fight for" (figuratively or literally if necessary) the safety of the family.


Other than that, I've definitely been attracted to men who were not or would not necessarily be the "leader" in the family. So explain please. This confuses me. I think people are who they are and all of us have ways in which we can improve. It just seems like so many men here are being insulted (I don't know if that is the right word) for not being alpha, so I want to know what alpha means in the minds of posters here.


----------



## LTCNurse (Feb 5, 2018)

P.S. My ex referred to himself as Alpha and he was just a big d**che**g.:|


----------



## PigglyWiggly (May 1, 2018)

LTCNurse said:


> I'm a female and I don't really understand what anyone is saying when they seem to "put down" anyone who is not an alpha male?
> What IS an alpha male? Does it refer to leadership? Because not all of us (or all men) are leadership types and I think that is ok. However...I think it is important for ALL women that her man be willing to stand up for her and the family when it is necessary and to "fight for" (figuratively or literally if necessary) the safety of the family.
> 
> 
> Other than that, I've definitely been attracted to men who were not or would not necessarily be the "leader" in the family. So explain please. This confuses me. I think people are who they are and all of us have ways in which we can improve. It just seems like so many men here are being insulted (I don't know if that is the right word) for not being alpha, so I want to know what alpha means in the minds of posters here.


It's pseudoscience based on legit primate research. Notice we don't hear much about alpha/beta females and they are as varied as we are.


----------



## LTCNurse (Feb 5, 2018)

PigglyWiggly said:


> It's pseudoscience based on legit primate research. Notice we don't hear much about alpha/beta females and they are as varied as we are.


Can you explain it or do I have to google primate research? Does it refer to males status among other males or who gets the female prize? I don't get it. 

And off topic, kinda, in a matriarchal society, DOES it apply to females?:grin2:


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

the theory is that women are more likely to be attracted to men who are more alpha by a definition close to this: confident, masculine, leader (though this doesn't have to be the full of bravado type, more along the lines of I am going here, want to come?), in shape, etc. This is not to be confused by wanna be ahole types. Though Some women do go for the bad boy type.

Beta - tends to put the woman on a pedestal, do anything for her, etc. not allowing the guy to be himself. Though some beta traits are valuable (steadiness, provider, etc.). Too much of these traits CAN cause the W or GF of a man to lose respect for him.

The big confusion really lies in what definitions one applies to each category. And it isn't totally universal, not all women are the same. However, from what I have seen the use of most/many women do roughly follow some of this stuff. It follows some research, but most of it is observation. 

The put downs really don't make a lot of sense to me, as most of the issues that arise are internal to the particular dude, not so much anything else.


----------



## LTCNurse (Feb 5, 2018)

I call bullsh*t on this theory as it applies to human beings in modern society. The first article I reached when I searched is this one.

https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/behavior/behave_2.htm 

It applies to a select group of primates and not to all primates as a whole. Society varies with each species, it says. It also says that in the select species (gorillas I believe) that there IS a alpha male and alpha FEMALE. It also says that the alpha male frequently is cheated on as his females go down the line in social ranking to mate, haha. 

I don't see how this applies to modern human society at all. I will read more because I want to learn but the only way I see this working for us is military or the apocalypse. I think it male shames and in terms of being a female, it really means nothing to me.

WHAT PURPOSE DOES IT SERVE???? Can't we change our way of thinking? Haven't we evolved as human beings so that we don't have to follow a select species of primates' social structure?


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

I could write a long post about dominant traits versus submissive or weak versus strong or whatever.

But when I have read it - in almost EVERY instance - it was used by a man as a bludgeoning tool against another man. The end. Period.

BTW, I am married to a man who would be considered Alpha. But since he actually IS, he doesn't have to drone on and on about it


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

LTCNurse said:


> I'm a female and I don't really understand what anyone is saying when they seem to "put down" anyone who is not an alpha male?
> What IS an alpha male? Does it refer to leadership? Because not all of us (or all men) are leadership types and I think that is ok. However...I think it is important for ALL women that her man be willing to stand up for her and the family when it is necessary and to "fight for" (figuratively or literally if necessary) the safety of the family.
> 
> 
> Other than that, I've definitely been attracted to men who were not or would not necessarily be the "leader" in the family. So explain please. This confuses me. I think people are who they are and all of us have ways in which we can improve. It just seems like so many men here are being insulted (I don't know if that is the right word) for not being alpha, so I want to know what alpha means in the minds of posters here.


I haven't studied the concepts but my version which may or may not equate to the academic understanding. I'm sure there are plenty of guys here who have read the books. 

It generally relates to security and self confidence. An Alpha is very self confident naturally. An insecure guy is not going be an Alpha. An insecure guy may try to show himself as an alpha but typically you end up with a guy who is controlling in relationships with woman and an ***hole in general (see your ex). An Alpha is a guy who is dominant but in a way that draws people in not piss them off. 

Basically one can't just decide to be Alpha. You can't just say your confident and in charge, you actually have to be confident and in charge.

Essentially it's just a label for self confident guys and there are a wide array of guys who would fall under the umbrella.


----------



## LTCNurse (Feb 5, 2018)

naiveonedave said:


> .
> 
> Beta - tends to put the woman on a pedestal, do anything for her, etc. not allowing the guy to be himself. Though some beta traits are valuable (steadiness, provider, etc.). Too much of these traits CAN cause the W or GF of a man to lose respect for him.



This sounds like co-dependency and women do it, too.


----------



## LTCNurse (Feb 5, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> But when I have read it - in almost EVERY instance - it was used by a man as a bludgeoning tool against another man. The end. Period.



YES!!!!!



personofinterest said:


> BTW, I am married to a man who would be considered Alpha. But since he actually IS, he doesn't have to drone on and on about it



Ok, now explain what you mean from that, please.


----------



## LTCNurse (Feb 5, 2018)

happyhusband0005 said:


> I haven't studied the concepts but my version which may or may not equate to the academic understanding. I'm sure there are plenty of guys here who have read the books.
> 
> It generally relates to security and self confidence. An Alpha is very self confident naturally. An insecure guy is not going be an Alpha. An insecure guy may try to show himself as an alpha but typically you end up with a guy who is controlling in relationships with woman and an ***hole in general (see your ex). An Alpha is a guy who is dominant but in a way that draws people in not piss them off.
> 
> ...


So an Alpha can't decide for himself that he is alpha (if he is, he's an a**hole) so who determines the social ranking? Other males or females? Not arguing, don't get it and so far, don't see a basis.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

LTCNurse said:


> This sounds like co-dependency and women do it, too.


for sure co-dependency can be part of it. Low self esteem and total lack of knowledge of what women really want appear to be more common things on TAM as well. 

I do think that the advice given to men on TAM does use the alpha/beta concept a lot, largely just as a 2x4 to pop weak men in the head.... It probably is not relevant to every situation, but it is in many,.


----------



## cashcratebob (Jan 10, 2018)

It can be broken down a number of ways I guess. What a women tends to be sexually aroused by would be considered alpha qualities; in-shape, self-confidence, assertive, being attractive to other women, and socially/economically dominant. What she wants in a long-term committed partner could be (at times) more beta; supporting of a home, good with children, considerate, kind, compassionate, emotionally available. It definitely has some grey area. A woman can exchange sex with for emotional support with a BETA, w/o being as sexually aroused by him. Which is why you see women cheating on their husbands with men who are certainly a peg or two below. 

There are pros/cons to both sets of traits. As you stated, alpha can equal douche-bag. Beta can equal "whipped". Alpha (as you stated) equals protector, BETA is a home-supporter.

There is more to it. I don't fully endorse it but as a man, I think it is extremely relevant to at least understand the ideas/concepts so that we as men can be the best husbands for our wives. It is just one of the tools/concepts in the tool box. 

I have zero understanding of alpha/beta females and really don't care to.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

LTCNurse said:


> So an Alpha can't decide for himself that he is alpha (if he is, he's an a**hole) so who determines the social ranking? Other males or females? Not arguing, don't get it and so far, don't see a basis.


 No you misunderstand what I mean. I am saying if you have a guy who is insecure and has no self confidence and they hear, oh you have to be more alpha, they are going to try and fake it and they will come off as being an ***hole. For me I don't really ever think of the whole Alpha v. Beta thing people just are who they are, it's never good to try and be something other than yourself. On here you see it a lot when a guy has been cheated on and people tell him he needs to be more alpha to keep his wife or GF. I generally stay out of that.


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

Not sure why I am posting this, but long ago in an anthropology class we studied Blue Vervet monkeys. The Alpha male had bright blue scrotum/testicles. Yes, blue balls signified the alpha male monkey. In fact, one famous experiment we read of they took the alpha male that was use to mating with all the females and copulating with some of the lesser Beta males, and they painted his scrotum a more neutral color and then painted the scrotum of a beta male bright blue. Within a day he was the new alpha male just by displaying himself. He was breeding with all the receptive females and he we even mounting and copulating the old paint altered alpha male. 

So, if you ladies want a "real alpha male" get a small can of monkey ball blue paint and have your naked guy stand in front of you while you dip his junk in blue paint. :surprise:






Seriously, Alpha male is a concept based on dominance and social ranking. You are better off figuring out the "marriage material" traits you want in a man.

Good luck.


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

LTCNurse said:


> This sounds like co-dependency and women do it, too.


The book No More Mr. Nice Guy used to be considered a "must read" round these parts. Its basically a re-write of Codependent No More, with an extra chapter at the beginning which explains how society is trying to weaken men.

And NMMNG its written by a man. Which makes it more manly than CNM.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Alphas get all the women and Betas get their leftovers which causes them to orbit around alphas trying to get their scraps which is maybe 20% of the women they can't service so alphas end up with 80% of the women while many betas play video games and compete for the 20% of women that have no other choice but to reproduce with a beta unless they secretly have the alphas' babies while having the betas raise them but if so many alphas have most of the women, how come there are so betas?


----------



## ButWeAreStrange (Feb 2, 2018)

LTCNurse said:


> And off topic, kinda, in a matriarchal society, DOES it apply to females?:grin2:



In most of the matriarchal societies that still exist today and have been studied, it seems like there is usually one head matriarch within a tribal community (like a traditional chieftain role), while the rest of the women all work and provide equally. Same thing for the few polyandrous (multiple husbands per one wife) societies. I guess the female equivalent to the male alpha/beta issue would be a queen bee dynamic? 

There really is no need for an alpha or beta female in these situations since the women all understand their inherent role and equality and have no need to compete the way that males do in a patriarchal one. Most of the power is transferred through lineage/family heads, and in some of the societies the men and women live separately so that the women may maintain their independence and run their households as they wish. Most of the time it's the women in these societies who do the manual labor, finances, and organize the resources for the rest of the community. 

The men in those instances live collectively in bachelor houses (which also removes the concern of alpha/beta dynamics) until/unless they choose to marry into a matriarchal home in which case they move into their wife's house which is usually run by the head of the family.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> I could write a long post about dominant traits versus submissive or weak versus strong or whatever.
> 
> But when I have read it - in almost EVERY instance - it was used by a man as a bludgeoning tool against another man. The end. Period.
> 
> BTW, I am married to a man who would be considered Alpha. But since he actually IS, he doesn't have to drone on and on about it


And here's where I struggle with a lot of the bludgeoning that goes on on this board. Guy's are told you have to be Alpha, thats why your wife cheated, shut her out emotionally, stop being Beta and so on. However, most of the affairs started as emotional affairs which would lead on to deduce the woman was first looking for emotional connection which lead to physical. So by being all Alpha you're playing in to the reason she strayed in the first place. I'm sure that this advice is based on experience and a number of books these posters have read and I've never been cheated on nor have I cheated, (cue the "that you know of" or "yet" comment) but I don't get the logic. It's kind of the chicken and the egg argument. 

As to the attraction thing based on the traits I have read after seeing it pop up a lot on this forum I am probably more Alpha, but I know when I am putting my wife on a pedestal and focused on taking care of her emotional needs she is more turned on. So In that respect I conclude it is totally dependent on the woman. I don't think men are one or the other I think we tend to be a mix of both.


----------



## BarbedFenceRider (Mar 30, 2018)

Here you go....Just to lighten the mood a bit. lol


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

happyhusband0005 said:


> No you misunderstand what I mean. I am saying if you have a guy who is insecure and has no self confidence and they hear, oh you have to be more alpha, they are going to try and fake it and they will come off as being an ***hole. For me I don't really ever think of the whole Alpha v. Beta thing people just are who they are, it's never good to try and be something other than yourself. On here you see it a lot when a guy has been cheated on and people tell him he needs to be more alpha to keep his wife or GF. I generally stay out of that.


I totally disagree that you can't change. Especially because most 'betas' are acting on what they have been taught (wrongly, as it turns out) for years.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Strong, confident men don’t need to push women around, and treat them like crap. That’s not alpha. In my experience, alpha men (I’m married to one) display their confidence and strength (not just tell everyone they’re alpha), and treat women with respect. In turn, women respect them. This idea that to be ‘’alpha’’ means you need to emotionally detach from women, and be a jerk, is not true.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

LTCNurse said:


> Ok, now explain what you mean from that, please.


My husband is a go-getter. No, he's not a multimillionaire, but his work ethic is STRONG. He stand up for himself without being a bully. He doesn't have to "demand" respect because something about him just....commands it? He is decisive, but he isn't "the boss" of us. He's just not a waffler. If he does hurt my feelings or is out of line in any way, he will own it with no problem, but he's not a groveler. He will also let me know if there's a problem, but, like I said, he's not a bully or demeaning. Just honest. He isn't worried about what others think of him, but he's not an obnoxious jerk. He is confident in a quiet way (though his personality is outgoing). Yes, he likes "man" things like fishing and building things with power tools and football lol. But he also loves music, will sweep me up to dance to a slow song on TV, and has taken me to a Broadway musical or two.

He's like my dad's version of alpha. Protector of his family but not overbearing and jealous. A decision-maker, but not unilateral. He doesn't need to "keep me in my place" because he knows himself and doesn't have insecurity he needs to mask.

I see true alpha as substance, and a lot of the men who call themselves alpha display a lot more bravado than substance.

Hint: Any man who needs to publicly "scold" and "dress down" a woman (or a man for that matter) is not actually alpha. They're just an a**hole lol


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

ConanHub said:


> Alphas get all the women and Betas get their leftovers which causes them to orbit around alphas trying to get their scraps which is maybe 20% of the women they can't service so alphas end up with 80% of the women while many betas play video games and compete for the 20% of women that have no other choice but to reproduce with a beta unless they secretly have the alphas' babies while having the betas raise them but if so many alphas have most of the women, how come there are so betas?


I like you a lot, but gthis post is exactly why I almost always roll my eyes when the terms are used.

There's the innate alpha intangible

Then there's the RedPill/Corey Wayne sound byte of alpha, which is what the above is lol


----------



## Middle of Everything (Feb 19, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> I like you a lot, but gthis post is exactly why I almost always roll my eyes when the terms are used.
> 
> There's the innate alpha intangible
> 
> Then there's the RedPill/Corey Wayne sound byte of alpha, which is what the above is lol


Sarcasm meter broken?


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Middle of Everything said:


> Sarcasm meter broken?


Oops...apparently so lol....I guess my meter was too beta....


----------



## Middle of Everything (Feb 19, 2012)

So Alphas are bigger and stronger than Betas.

They kick the Beta's ass. Then they get to bang all the womens.

But Betas are nerds. So the first nerds invented the knife.

Then he brought a knife to a fist fight. Dead alpha.

Then the Beta got to bang all the womens.

Then the Alphas figured out how to use a bigger stronger knife.

They kilcked the Beta's ass. Then they got to bang all the womens.

Then the Beta nerd invented firearms.

The Beta brought a gun to a knife fight. Dead alpha.

Then the Beta got to bang all the womens.

Hopefully the Alphas and Betas were generous lovers throughout all of this and let the womens cum first.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

naiveonedave said:


> I totally disagree that you can't change. Especially because most 'betas' are acting on what they have been taught (wrongly, as it turns out) for years.


I didn't say you can change, but I don't you can be insecure one day and just wake up and decide to be self confident the next. That takes a lot of time and effort I would imagine. I also don't think a guy is totally one or the other. For example a pure 100% "alpha" male (based on my understanding of what that means) wouldn't be great marriage material in the long run. My point originally was an insecure guy can't really pretend to fit the description of an "alpha". I also don't think that a "beta" is necessarily insecure, they just are more submissive and more introverted. Again I am just saying what my understanding is I am not an expert on this topic. These are primarily personality traits and every woman is going to find a different mix of the traits desirable from the next woman. 

I think the trouble with the way these terms are thrown about on this forum is those who haven't read up on them might take it as an alpha is the controlling meathead or the beta is the sheepish lapdog. At least thats the way I took them the first few post I read where it was discussed. And there are guys I've seen post who are obviously very controlling of their spouse and they chalk it up to being alpha which from what little I have read doesn't matchup to what I would view as alpha. 

To be honest the whole alpha beta thing isn't really something I care much about but to understand a lot of posts on here I find I need to gain a better understanding of it.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Alpha is a term used by men who lack confidence and generally are looking for a reason why they cannot acquire or maintain a relationship. It is an excuse to point to what they are not. Beta, likewise is a word to represent what they think they are which is an excuse for why they cannot acquire or maintain a relationship. That's It.


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

happyhusband0005 said:


> .....but I don't you can be insecure one day and just wake up and decide to be self confident the next. That takes a lot of time and effort I would imagine. I also don't think a guy is totally one or the other. .


Actually, if you are the right kind of monkey a little dab of blue paint can make you Alpha in a single day.

There are men who also are transformed very quickly by outside events. Sometimes, a responsible not so alpha male does something heroic and saves multiple lives and gets instant fame, attention and respect. In the military a field promotion for valor can give you a new rank and you are required to assume the stature of your new rank and mentor others who never saw you as worth following or obeying.

Over history there have been many famous duels fought where a bully picked a fight and got unlucky and in a moment conveyed alpha status to the victor.

The point is that yes, one can change. You are right in that in the vast majority of cases it takes time and hard work to transform yourself from a beta male into a male that is viewed as an alpha male. But sometimes, it can happen quite quickly.

I also think that being an alpha male is kind of silly. I don't want my tombstone to read here lies an alpha male. I would rather it read beloved husband, father, grandfather, etc

That is why I like Glover's No More Mr. Nice Guy as he is trying to get men to become integrated, confident men, who are proud of what they can accomplish in life and the relationships they have.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

LTCNurse said:


> I'm a female and I don't really understand what anyone is saying when they seem to "put down" anyone who is not an alpha male?
> What IS an alpha male? Does it refer to leadership? Because not all of us (or all men) are leadership types and I think that is ok. However...I think it is important for ALL women that her man be willing to stand up for her and the family when it is necessary and to "fight for" (figuratively or literally if necessary) the safety of the family.
> 
> 
> Other than that, I've definitely been attracted to men who were not or would not necessarily be the "leader" in the family. So explain please. This confuses me. I think people are who they are and all of us have ways in which we can improve. It just seems like so many men here are being insulted (I don't know if that is the right word) for not being alpha, so I want to know what alpha means in the minds of posters here.


Yeah I also don't know what people mean by that the majority of the time. I think some men seem to understand something different under the term than women do (i.e. how often they get laid and with how many different women). Or how aggressive or how much control they think they have over a woman.

I also don't understand what 'alphaness' is supposed to be a measure of: how 'worthy' of a man you are? I think it's all complete BS.

I am rooting for Omega Man.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

ConanHub said:


> Alphas get all the women and Betas get their leftovers which causes them to orbit around alphas trying to get their scraps which is maybe 20% of the women they can't service so alphas end up with 80% of the women while many betas play video games and compete for the 20% of women that have no other choice but to reproduce with a beta unless they secretly have the alphas' babies while having the betas raise them but if so many alphas have most of the women, how come there are so betas?


I don't get it; who cares about 80% or 20% of women. All you need is to find one good one (and try to keep her). I don't know how many percent that is but I am pretty sure it's less than 20%...


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

I'm thinking that the people who really care about all these percentages are the people who don't get chicks. Or the people who used to not get chicks but now they do, and they're really really stoked about it lol


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

I think the real discerning characteristic of alpha vs beta is that alphas (male or female) tend to be internally driven. They know what they want and take positive steps to attain it. Betas OTOH are externally driven. They try to please others. The reality is that no one is totally alpha and no one is totally beta. All of us possess these traits to some degree and largely in a balance that works for the individual possessing them.


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

This thread is the perfect example of why men should never discuss masculinity with women.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Alpha / Beta came from primate and pack animal behavior - where there are very simple hierarchies. I haven't seen any serious (eg refereed journal paper) using it for humans, but if someone has a link, I'm happy to look.

From what I've seen here, the term is often mangled to have "alpha" mean everything good, and "beta" to mean everything bad. The "alpha" is strong and smart, and brave and protects others, and is physically attractive, athletic, etc, while the "beta" is weak, ugly cowardly self centered etc. By those definitions, yes of course women prefer men who are good in every possible way.

I think human hierarchies are much too complex for a simple description. Human societies have many different interwoven webs of authority and responsibility. 

The idea that the "alpha" (whatever that means) men get "all the women" or even most of the women seems unlikely considering that most men who desire female partners eventually find them and most men are not "alpha" by the usual definition. 

Probably what is meant is that alpha men get the most "desirable" women. To me that implies that everyone's scale of desirability is similar, and at least in my case I know that isn't correct. I expect that the women I'm most interested in are not the ones most men are interested in. In my a woman's interest / understanding of the implications of AI on society, or of how the Oberth effect reduces the effectiveness of high specific impulse engines is much more important than her bra size. 

I think males are not competing for the same women. Perhaps self-identified alpha males are successful at dating women that *they* find attractive - which is great for everyone involved. There certainly women who find that style of men attractive and I suspect those women would have no interest in dating me, or vice versa. Its all good.

If alpha males want to identify me as beta, they are welcome to do so. There are a number of women who are attracted to me that I find attractive (one of them my wife). If those women are neither attracted to or attracted by alphas, that's fine. 

I consider myself an omicron, outside the monkey cage looking in.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

Young at Heart said:


> Actually, if you are the right kind of monkey a little dab of blue paint can make you Alpha in a single day.
> 
> There are men who also are transformed very quickly by outside events. Sometimes, a responsible not so alpha male does something heroic and saves multiple lives and gets instant fame, attention and respect. In the military a field promotion for valor can give you a new rank and you are required to assume the stature of your new rank and mentor others who never saw you as worth following or obeying.
> 
> ...


I have never even thought about or considered the idea of alpha male before reading these forums, and what has probably confused me is that around here it is typically used in the context of guy who have been cheated on or guys in sexless marriages. Thats when the advice shows up. So that is probably the disconnect for me, the advice is related to specific circumstances and not a life in general way. When I first began reading these posts my first thought at the description if I was a woman and was being treated that way it would drive me to cheat. I can totally get guys who are not confident and ambitious and don't take care of themselves are less likely to be viewed as attractive by women, but if your not meeting a woman's emotional needs your not going to keep the ones you attract. So most of the post relating to it here focus on being confident and fit and ignoring her emotionally until she comes crawling back. I have come to see the logic in the way it relates to a cheating wife, as it's a last ditch effort to save the most likely dead marriage, I think it is less logical to me with the sexless marriage side of things as no matter how confident and fit a guy is if he ignores his wife's emotional needs she isn't going to respond positively to him sexually. 

I guess the more I read the more I learn that I am very ignorant when it comes to these situations of infidelity and sexless marriages. But I guess I'm very happy I am ignorant to them.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

OnTheFly said:


> This thread is the perfect example of why men should never discuss masculinity with women.


DH and I talk about things we read and discuss on boards all the time. He has read some of the posts about masculinity. He does not share this alpha/beta theory At All. <shrug>


----------



## Steve2.0 (Dec 11, 2017)

LTCNurse said:


> WHAT PURPOSE DOES IT SERVE???? Can't we change our way of thinking? Haven't we evolved as human beings so that we don't have to follow a select species of primates' social structure?


Thats not how evolution works. Just because the TV and Cars were invented in the last 100 years doesnt mean our bodies have evolved to prefer shifting gears vs. walking to work. Even Porn... research shows that we get huge dopamine dumps because the mind thinks its REAL. So no, we havent evolved into this new social structure around us.

Babies are born with many reflexes that puzzle people (like grabbing something if they feel they are falling) or knowing how to hold their breath under water... as if the primate, tree dwelling days, still linger.

Just because we are in 2018 doesn't mean our deep ingrained core has evolved with it


----------



## Steve2.0 (Dec 11, 2017)

The biggest concern I have with Alpha vs. Beta is everyone projecting what they want on it.

Its kind of like when people say they are "left" or "right" which i find so damn stupid. Are you telling me that EVERY idea and concept of yours perfectly aligns with the left/right party? REALLY? Theres no grey area?

Alpha is not some dude who beats his wife... thats a weak man who needs to be put behind bars


----------



## Johann Sebastian (Mar 20, 2018)

There is nothing wrong with a man showing some benign leadership in his marriage, trying to be more attractive with his wife (or at least less unattractive!), and having some legitimate self-confidence. As in, stop being an emotional doormat, or a pathetic "orbiter." If that qualifies as "alpha" then it's a useful analogy. If on the other hand "alpha" is an excuse to be a misogynist a$$hole, then it's not very helpful in a marriage.


----------



## LTCNurse (Feb 5, 2018)

NobodySpecial said:


> DH and I talk about things we read and discuss on boards all the time. He has read some of the posts about masculinity. He does not share this alpha/beta theory At All. <shrug>


Yeah, nothing I have read here gives credence to this theory at all for me. If we are talking about a need for a man (in a patriarchal society...which I question that we actually have now) to dominate other men to get the best job, woman, power, etc. I still don't get it. Men have vastly different talents and women aren't saying, "Oooooo, I'm looking for a man who can beat the cr*p out of everyone else" or "I'm looking for the next president of the United States". Now maybe some women are attracted to bulk and power and money. But I think most women look for a man who will meet their needs and desires and they vary from woman to woman.

For me, when younger and raising a family, I would want a man who would engage in family life....not zone in on video games, tv, internet, drinking, and the list goes on while the kids tear around the house while the Mom is the caretaker, disciplinarian, money manager (I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan and never ever let him forget he's a man :scratchhead. Is that a Beta male I'm describing who doesn't engage? Or is it an Alpha? Or an A**hole? I'm still confused. Just like I pointed out the message society was giving women at one point (bring home the bacon and all), we rejected it and men can and do also. Be yourself. Be reasonable. Identify your goals and invest your time into making them happen. When you are wrong, admit it. Don't be afraid of growth. Your children are watching you so be honorable. Is this Alpha or Beta?


----------



## LTCNurse (Feb 5, 2018)

One more thing...that article I first posted mentions that in the gorilla society where there is an Alpha male, women cheat on him by going down the social ladder to Beta males. I reject the theory that an Alpha human male (whatever that is) doesn't get cheated on but Beta human males (whatever they are) DO get cheated on. 

"Oh...you got cheated on. You are a Beta male". NOOOOOO. Not true to me, put the 2x4's away guys. There are obviously reasons a man's GF or wife cheats but it could be just because she's a selfish wh*re.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

> I think the real discerning characteristic of alpha vs beta is that alphas (male or female) tend to be internally driven. They know what they want and take positive steps to attain it.


I really like this. It sums up something i couldn't quite put my finger on.

Last night I had trouble sleeping, so I watched a reun of CSI Miami. In it, a PUA at a club was murdered by another PUA. Of course, they delved into the whole PUA training and culture (negging, hooks, etc.)

I couldn't help but think about this thread and sort of imagine which people would play which role. lol

MattMatt could be Horatio, provided he has some sunglasses and a penchant for cheesy lines....


----------



## LTCNurse (Feb 5, 2018)

SpinyNorman said:


> Most primates (all?) live in harems, where the alpha male is the one nobody wants to fight and gets primary/exclusive mating priority.
> 
> 
> .


Nope. Read the article I posted. It's not even true that "most" primates live that way.


----------



## cashcratebob (Jan 10, 2018)

LTCNurse said:


> Yeah, nothing I have read here gives credence to this theory at all for me. If we are talking about a need for a man (in a patriarchal society...which I question that we actually have now) to dominate other men to get the best job, woman, power, etc. I still don't get it. Men have vastly different talents and women aren't saying, "Oooooo, I'm looking for a man who can beat the cr*p out of everyone else" or "I'm looking for the next president of the United States". Now maybe some women are attracted to bulk and power and money. But I think most women look for a man who will meet their needs and desires and they vary from woman to woman.
> 
> For me, when younger and raising a family, I would want a man who would engage in family life....not zone in on video games, tv, internet, drinking, and the list goes on while the kids tear around the house while the Mom is the caretaker, disciplinarian, money manager (I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan and never ever let him forget he's a man :scratchhead. Is that a Beta male I'm describing who doesn't engage? Or is it an Alpha? Or an A**hole? I'm still confused. Just like I pointed out the message society was giving women at one point (bring home the bacon and all), we rejected it and men can and do also. Be yourself. Be reasonable. Identify your goals and invest your time into making them happen. When you are wrong, admit it. Don't be afraid of growth. Your children are watching you so be honorable. Is this Alpha or Beta?


I don't think you've or us have quite nailed down the theory. It isn't solid science by any means from what I understand. Dominance with alpha/beta isn't just strength/power/fear, it is also (and mostly) financial and social dominance. It is the cliché from the movies where the women is attracted to the guy who is attracting a lot of women; or the "leader" of a group of guys. That is just one example. You said it yourself, you want a man who is a protector; in modern terms it isn't acceptable to be a bully, but you want to be confident in your man that he is capable and would be courageous in defending you or standing up for you; one who is not willing to be pushed around. This is by (most) modern definition Alpha. It isn't to say Beta wouldn't defend their women, it is to say they would likely need to let the situation escalate significantly more before engaging. But without a doubt there are men who would stand by in terror, this is certainly BETA. BUT it doesn't need to be, and should not be understood in what as better or worse. As many of stated, guys need both. They need both because both traits stimulate chemicals in a woman that she needs to feel fully attached and attracted to her man. BETA is the nurturing caregiver that is there for the entire family and the emotional needs of his woman. But even in that there is alpha, and any other situation that takes place in a home you could analyze it and see both sets as a strength. 

And this doesn't even begin to address what is already apparent in many posts; that women get tired of one side being too strong. Sometimes it's the girl that leaves her boyfriend because he is a ********* jerk who won't be more committed (read needs to be a little more BETA); the other is what you tend to see on here a lot where the woman finds an alpha (or projects in her mind that he is when he may not be anymore alpha than her current man) and gets swept into an affair.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

There are experiments that show that evolution can affect behavior very quickly, just a few generations

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

This suggests that there has been plenty of time for human behavior to evolve in response to civilization.



Steve2.0 said:


> Thats not how evolution works. Just because the TV and Cars were invented in the last 100 years doesnt mean our bodies have evolved to prefer shifting gears vs. walking to work. Even Porn... research shows that we get huge dopamine dumps because the mind thinks its REAL. So no, we havent evolved into this new social structure around us.
> 
> Babies are born with many reflexes that puzzle people (like grabbing something if they feel they are falling) or knowing how to hold their breath under water... as if the primate, tree dwelling days, still linger.
> 
> Just because we are in 2018 doesn't mean our deep ingrained core has evolved with it


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

For people who believe in the whole alpha / beta concept applied to humans, what are the negative characteristics of an "alpha" male. In what ways is a beta male superior?


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

SpinyNorman said:


> Most primates (all?) live in harems, where the alpha male is the one nobody wants to fight and gets primary/exclusive mating priority.


This is, for example, completely NOT true of chimps. The alpha male is not the one nobody can fight. Because any *two* other males could take the alpha down, working together. And if he gets too big for his boots, they will. The alpha is the best "politician", capable of navigating the male competence hierarchy. 

And no, most primates are not like this - they are all different! Chimps, humans, bonobos, and gorillas, for example, all have different ways of organising all this.


----------



## LTCNurse (Feb 5, 2018)

cashcratebob said:


> You said it yourself, you want a man who is a protector; in modern terms it isn't acceptable to be a bully, but you want to be confident in your man that he is capable and would be courageous in defending you or standing up for you; one who is not willing to be pushed around. This is by (most) modern definition Alpha. It isn't to say Beta wouldn't defend their women, it is to say they would likely need to let the situation escalate significantly more before engaging. But without a doubt there are men who would stand by in terror, this is certainly BETA.


I guess this is a side note, but there is this one shy guy at work, it is difficult to get a word out of him. He is not regarded as a leader, but he is respected for the job he does because he can always be counted on in a crisis. I can also ask him (or even order him) to do something I need done even if it isn't regarding one of his patients (we are in healthcare). He is college age and dating a woman at work who is also college age. One day he called out of work. His girlfriend told us that he got in a fight with another guy who said something inappropriate to her in a social setting. He had two black eyes when he came in and we all regarded him differently. He isn't a leader, he isn't outgoing, he is skinny but not unattractive, he isn't in the "in crowd" at work but he sure isn't wishy washy about his values. THAT is attractive! Yeah, but I'm staying away, lol, just illustrating a point.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

LTCNurse said:


> Yeah, nothing I have read here gives credence to this theory at all for me. If we are talking about a need for a man (in a patriarchal society...which I question that we actually have now) to dominate other men to get the best job, woman, power, etc. I still don't get it. Men have vastly different talents and women aren't saying, "Oooooo, I'm looking for a man who can beat the cr*p out of everyone else" or "I'm looking for the next president of the United States". Now maybe some women are attracted to bulk and power and money. But I think most women look for a man who will meet their needs and desires and they vary from woman to woman.


That is why using terms like alpha are not helpful. It distracts from real qualities that most people DO want. Like confidence, self assurance, emotional maturity, introspection. None of those things have anything to do with being a jerk, beating people up or being president. Anyone who thinks money will get them a woman should feel woe at the woman they end up with!


The terms beta and orbiter obfuscate yucky behavior like being needy (which is different from being emotionally available and vulnerable to a trusted partner) or seeking to acquire a female partner as a thingy to have. Just Ew.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

uhtred said:


> For people who believe in the whole alpha / beta concept applied to humans, what are the negative characteristics of an "alpha" male. In what ways is a beta male superior?


If you are talking about what I have observed in people who proclaim loudly that they are "alpha" the negative would be:

arrogance
crudeness
lack of any tact
view women as things to be conquered
belittling

All of which probably covers up: insecurity

"Beta" charactersitics that I see as good:

Kindness
Not always looking out for number 1 all the time
seeing other people as humans and not things to be conquered or belittled
Patience
Caring about someone other than themselves

That is what I see when thinking in terms of my "forum based" view of what a subset of men call "alpha."

Based on the men I know who ARE actually alpha? Honestly, I can't think of any inherently negative traits. It's the ones faking it or using the term to compensate for some issue or unresolved bitterness that display the negative traits like a neon sign. And then they dismiss all the negative traits by dismissing "betas" and "them females."

It would be funny on the right day. Mostly it's just annoying.


----------



## LTCNurse (Feb 5, 2018)

I remember dating a guy who was a big deer hunter. He tried to...gee...I don't even know...compare dating to deer. Like bucks and the rut (the time when males loose their minds mating with as many females as possible) and how they don't raise their young and I dunno. It was a disaster of a conversation. Can we just stop comparing ourselves to animal societies?


----------



## cashcratebob (Jan 10, 2018)

uhtred said:


> For people who believe in the whole alpha / beta concept applied to humans, what are the negative characteristics of an "alpha" male. In what ways is a beta male superior?


Again, I don't fully support it. But in the context of a modern civilized society, the BETA Characteristics of being a family nurturer/caregiver works to produce well adjusted children. 

Lots of studies point to absentee and/or hyper aggressive fathers having a negative impact on children, in fact producing more hyper aggressive children, males in particular.


----------



## Steve2.0 (Dec 11, 2017)

uhtred said:


> There are experiments that show that evolution can affect behavior very quickly, just a few generations
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_fox
> 
> This suggests that there has been plenty of time for human behavior to evolve in response to civilization.


Im not sure. Are you confusing selective breeding (only picking docile foxes to mate with docile foxes and then 3 generations later you have a friendly fox) or true evolution? 

And Behavior vs. Instincts are different.

Seeing a sexy lady my instincts tell me to "grab her and have her" but behavior of our society tells me that is bad and I dont do it. Doesnt mean that deep down inside I dont want her.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Confidant, success at objectives, caring, take action when needed in different circumstances, able to be alone, able to be part of a couple and be the SO's biggest fan in their objectives. Not needy, and able to appreciate their SO.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Some men recognize their need to improve themselves, but don't know how. Instead of figuring it out for themselves, they try to emulate other men they perceive as being successful. Those are usually the guys doing most of the chest-thumping and self-aggrandizing. They haven't yet figured out that confidence is quiet.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

uhtred said:


> For people who believe in the whole alpha / beta concept applied to humans, what are the negative characteristics of an "alpha" male. In what ways is a beta male superior?


'bad' alpha traits - can be a bully in the relationship, selfish, narcissistic

'good' beta traits - willing to help around the house, willing to give of one's self for the others


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Kay outlined it well in MMSP:

There are 3 chemicals in the human body that build attraction:

Testosterone: Sex Drive
Dopamine: The "in love" excitement feeling
Oxytocin (Women)/ Vasopresin (Men): Pair Bonding

What triggers Testosterone (physical attraction) in Women: Strength/Muscles
What triggers Dopamine in Women: Exciting, Fun, Intense/Engaging that sparks sexual/romantic interest in women
What triggers Oxytocin in Women: Warmth and Companionship of Love (also released in large amount after child birth)

Two of these chemicals revolve around Alpha Characteristics and one Beta. So, there is a certain balance. The problems occur if you go too Beta or too Alpha. Too Alpha may mean you Can't hold a job or end up in Jail on the extreme or you are just plain unstable (leading to a lack of oxytocin craved for safety/comfort). Too Beta may mean your wife gets bored and loses attraction (leading to lack of dopamine/testoserone). 

It seems common that men end up going too Beta after marriage. They may have Alpha Traits in the beginning of the relationship, but lose it- thus the Betaization of Husbands is in no short supply. They defer to their wife and let her lead and cling to the 'Happy Wife/Happy Life' fallacy (usually meaning more placating and supplication which of course turns her off more). They lose their masculinity in short. If their wife gets that dopamine/testosterone hit elsewhere, its all she wrote...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

How is selective breeding different from "evolution". Its not "natural" selection, but the effect the same: certain traits lead to a higher rate of successful offspring. 




Steve2.0 said:


> Im not sure. Are you confusing selective breeding (only picking docile foxes to mate with docile foxes and then 3 generations later you have a friendly fox) or true evolution?
> 
> And Behavior vs. Instincts are different.
> 
> Seeing a sexy lady my instincts tell me to "grab her and have her" but behavior of our society tells me that is bad and I dont do it. Doesnt mean that deep down inside I dont want her.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Plus, deeply engrained there is a reason for women to prefer Alpha. In the early days, the Biggest, Strongest, Fastest Warriors naturally had better chances of survival and bringing home dinner. So, then Strong equaled Provision/Safety/Comfort equaling attraction. Not only that but in the case of breeding, it became wise to choose the male that was better equipped physically to father your children so they have a better chance to survive a brutal environment. The whole modern era of physical prowess not equaling provisioning is rather new to the human brain.


----------



## cashcratebob (Jan 10, 2018)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Kay outlined it well in MMSP:
> 
> There are 3 chemicals in the human body that build attraction:
> 
> ...


This is pretty much it. W/o comparing to other species.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

But has that been true for the last 5000 years of civilization? The most successful and powerful males have not been the most physically impressive. Cesar? Napoleon? Rockefeller? Paul McCartney? Johnny Depp?

That's why I posted the red-fox experiment, evolved behavior can change quickly in response to changing conditions. 

The evolution argument would suggest that men prefer wide-hipped women with extra body fat who have a better chance of surviving child birth and staying healthy when food is scarce. That doesn't match the most common male preferences, so why should primitive males match the most common female preferences?

To be clear, I'm not saying anything is wrong with women or men who have a preference for any body type. I'm just saying that I don't think the typical alpha male physique is on average all that desirable to most women. 




UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Plus, deeply engrained there is a reason for women to prefer Alpha. In the early days, the Biggest, Strongest, Fastest Warriors naturally had better chances of survival and bringing home dinner. So, then Strong equaled Provision/Safety/Comfort equaling attraction. Not only that but in the case of breeding, it became wise to choose the male that was better equipped physically to father your children so they have a better chance to survive a brutal environment. The whole modern era of physical prowess not equaling provisioning is rather new to the human brain.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

uhtred said:


> But has that been true for the last 5000 years of civilization? The most successful and powerful males have not been the most physically impressive. Cesar? Napoleon? Rockefeller? Paul McCartney? Johnny Depp?
> 
> That's why I posted the red-fox experiment, evolved behavior can change quickly in response to changing conditions.
> 
> ...


Alpha is so much more than body type. Even in physical combat, let alone all the other, more common aspects of survival and success, physique is but one component. Even physique alone can be misleading. Ever see Tom Brady or Peyton Manning with no shirt? They're well built, but not really cut in true statue-of-Adonis fashion. No ripped abs or bulging biceps and such. 

But even beyond the limitations of physique, there's all the other, more important factors in survival and success, like decisiveness. Many well built, and even very athletic men, are anything but alpha because they are not good at decision making, either quickness or accuracy. Sure, cave woman may like a particular cave man because he has they physical ability to fight off another cave man who comes sniffing around looking to club her on the head and drag her off to his cave, but all that means nothing unless her chosen cave man can act swiftly and decisively. 

There's a lot of rather physically unimpressive male specimens out there with cream of the crop women. Many women can sense whether or man has the mental/emotional prowess to excel aside from their physical attributes.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

uhtred said:


> But has that been true for the last 5000 years of civilization? The most successful and powerful males have not been the most physically impressive. Cesar? Napoleon? Rockefeller? Paul McCartney? Johnny Depp?
> 
> That's why I posted the red-fox experiment, evolved behavior can change quickly in response to changing conditions.
> 
> ...


 But you are talking about the past 2000 years. This has been conditioned into humans for well over 200,000 years. That's why men that are big, tall, strong is equated with power/success more than a guy that looks like Bill Gates. Well, until the woman figures out he is Bill Gates and worth billions, then her impression changes quick.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> But you are talking about the past 2000 years. This has been conditioned into humans for well over 200,000 years. That's why men that are big, tall, strong is equated with power/success more than a guy that looks like Bill Gates. Well, until the woman figures out he is Bill Gates and worth billions, then her impression changes quick.


Wow


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Did you read the red fox link? Behavior can change in just a few generations under strong selection pressure.

We've had complex societies for maybe 10,000 years, and maybe a lot longer. 




UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> But you are talking about the past 2000 years. This has been conditioned into humans for well over 200,000 years. That's why men that are big, tall, strong is equated with power/success more than a guy that looks like Bill Gates. Well, until the woman figures out he is Bill Gates and worth billions, then her impression changes quick.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I've always been amused by the "clubbing women over the head" concept - I don't think there is any evidence for that sort of behavior being common in primitive societies.  From what I've read, subjugation of women tended to happen after the development of agriculture when there was more specialization. 

But my other question is, if evolution is so strong, why aren't most men attracted to women with a high chance of survival under primitive conditions. 

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

Is likely what primitive men found attractive. Wide hips for child birth. Lots of body fat to indicate good health. Nothing wrong with men who do prefer that body type, but its not the most common preference. 





Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Alpha is so much more than body type. Even in physical combat, let alone all the other, more common aspects of survival and success, physique is but one component. Even physique alone can be misleading. Ever see Tom Brady or Peyton Manning with no shirt? They're well built, but not really cut in true statue-of-Adonis fashion. No ripped abs or bulging biceps and such.
> 
> But even beyond the limitations of physique, there's all the other, more important factors in survival and success, like decisiveness. Many well built, and even very athletic men, are anything but alpha because they are not good at decision making, either quickness or accuracy. Sure, cave woman may like a particular cave man because he has they physical ability to fight off another cave man who comes sniffing around looking to club her on the head and drag her off to his cave, but all that means nothing unless her chosen cave man can act swiftly and decisively.
> 
> There's a lot of rather physically unimpressive male specimens out there with cream of the crop women. Many women can sense whether or man has the mental/emotional prowess to excel aside from their physical attributes.


----------



## Steve2.0 (Dec 11, 2017)

uhtred said:


> But has that been true for the last 5000 years of civilization? The most successful and powerful males have not been the most physically impressive. Cesar? Napoleon? Rockefeller? Paul McCartney? Johnny Depp?


It's not all physique that builds attraction. People in positions of power OR being at the top of their field also generates desire. All those people you mentioned were either powerful, wanted by many women (generates desire), and/or at the top of their chosen field. In that regard, they were 'alpha'

Also, there is no 'selective breeding' happening on humans.. Sure, you select who you breed with, but its NOT at the level of where they are trying to amplify the chances of a certain trait (like in dogs, or your case, foxes.) Heck, they created flightless fruit fries that they use to feed frogs/lizards in the pet hobby... Selective breeding at its finest. 

Stupid humans are breeding with other stupid humans all the time.... You cant expect a more intelligent species in 2-3 generations when you have shows like 'toddlers in tiaras' as a source of entertainment.

Everything we rely on right now was not around 100 years ago... ****, most of it wasnt even around when I was born.
Internet (Youtube, hookup apps), Television, Cars, Social Media, Fast Food stores... None of this existed. So I would be much more inclined to follow advice that taps into our instincts vs. what we think society should be like in the 21st century.


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

uhtred said:


> The evolution argument would suggest that men prefer wide-hipped women with extra body fat who have a better chance of surviving child birth and staying healthy when food is scarce. That doesn't match the most common male preferences, so why should primitive males match the most common female preferences?


Big breasts are certainly still in style.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

uhtred said:


> Did you read the red fox link? Behavior can change in just a few generations under strong selection pressure.
> 
> We've had complex societies for maybe 10,000 years, and maybe a lot longer.


Yea, but you are talking about a few select people that rose to a station of power in spite on their physical attributes. Most people for the past 2,000 or 10,000 were constantly challenged by invaders, food scarcity and otherwise brutal environments. So bigger, stronger, faster still meant better survival chances for oneself and one's genes.

I'm not sure what a domesticated fox proves. You are just taking biologically tame dogs and breeding them with other biologically tame dogs until you have a bunch of tame dogs. These tame dogs would probably die violently in the wild.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

nice777guy said:


> Big breasts are certainly still in style.


Why would that be a survival benefit? It has no advantage when feeding young whatsoever.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

For absolutely no reason whatsoever, I just thought of another negative so-called "alpha" trait - HAVING to be right lol


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

NobodySpecial said:


> Why would that be a survival benefit? It has no advantage when feeding young whatsoever.


I started to say big hips / curves - but I can only speak for myself.

I thought that was part of the attraction - breasts are associated with child rearing. Women who breast feed see an increase in breast size.

I'm going to put the shovel down now before I dig my hole any deeper.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

uhtred said:


> I've always been amused by the "clubbing women over the head" concept - I don't think there is any evidence for that sort of behavior being common in primitive societies. From what I've read, subjugation of women tended to happen after the development of agriculture when there was more specialization.
> 
> But my other question is, if evolution is so strong, why aren't most men attracted to women with a high chance of survival under primitive conditions.
> 
> ...


Lots of body fat isn't good for birthing. Gestation Diabetes among other things. I know lots of men that prefer women not fat, but not skinny.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> For absolutely no reason whatsoever, I just thought of another negative so-called "alpha" trait - HAVING to be right lol


I guess my take from what I have read here is the whole idea of alpha/beta is kind of silly. You can have a guy who primarily has all the alpha traits and is a genuinely good guy who people, both men and women, like and are drawn to. You can also have an alpha guy who is an a*****e. The a*****e is considered this not because of the alpha traits but because of combination with other personality quirks. And the same goes for guys with primarily beta traits. 

At the end of the day who really cares.


----------



## cashcratebob (Jan 10, 2018)

uhtred said:


> I've always been amused by the "clubbing women over the head" concept - I don't think there is any evidence for that sort of behavior being common in primitive societies. From what I've read, subjugation of women tended to happen after the development of agriculture when there was more specialization.
> 
> *But my other question is, if evolution is so strong, why aren't most men attracted to women with a high chance of survival under primitive conditions. *
> 
> ...


Because the more important drive is to simply procreate. And the stake the male has in that procreation is far less therefore, he can procreate with less desirable and more desirable women. 

This is why an attractive feature for men in women, aside from her looks, is the fact that she wants to have sex with him. Which is not typically true for women. Women are literally creeped out by a guy that they aren't into that they know wants to bed them. The same is not true for men, again generally.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

cashcratebob said:


> Because the more important drive is to simply procreate. And the stake the male has in that procreation is far less therefore, he can procreate with less desirable and more desirable women.
> 
> This is why an attractive feature for men in women, aside from her looks, is the fact that she wants to have sex with him. Which is not typically true for women. Women are literally creeped out by a guy that they aren't into that they know wants to bed them. The same is not true for men, again generally.


In other words, biologically, men tend to want to spray their seed in as many directions as possible, whereas women want to discriminate between who will supply the better seed for their offspring.


----------



## cashcratebob (Jan 10, 2018)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> In other words, biologically, men tend to want to spray their seed in as many directions as possible, whereas women want to discriminate between who will supply the better seed for their offspring.


Yep, you said it far more simply.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

To put it a simply as possible.

Alpha men posses the qualities that attract the most women, in particular, those women most desired by men.

True, what attracts individual women varies from woman to woman.

However, if 100 women judge the attractiveness of 100 men, 10 of the men are going to be near the top of most women's list. Those are the Alpha males.

Maybe 50 won't be on ANY lists.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

I'm glad my hubby's reptilian brain isn't his only resource lol


----------



## BobSimmons (Mar 2, 2013)

PigglyWiggly said:


> It's pseudoscience based on legit primate research. Notice we don't hear much about alpha/beta females and they are as varied as we are.


Yes you do. The stud lesbians are often referred to as alpha


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> To put it a simply as possible.
> 
> Alpha men posses the qualities that attract the most women, in particular, those women most desired by men.
> 
> ...


I don't even agree that raw attractiveness is the main determinant factor in either gender's mate selection.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> Buddy400 said:
> 
> 
> > To put it a simply as possible.
> ...


I will say, how many times have we heard stories about men who put up with horrible behavior and treatment from their wives or girlfriends, but they stay because she's "hot"?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Livvie said:


> I will say, how many times have we heard stories about men who put up with horrible behavior and treatment from their wives or girlfriends, but they stay because she's "hot"?


I would not say that this is a many/most/often "male" thing. I would say that this likely to end in serious unhappiness.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't even agree that raw attractiveness is the main determinant factor in either gender's mate selection.


I did not mean attractiveness in the limited sense of physical attractiveness.

I meant attractiveness as in 'whatever it is women find attractive in men'.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Livvie said:


> I will say, how many times have we heard stories about men who put up with horrible behavior and treatment from their wives or girlfriends, but they stay because she's "hot"?


Exactly.

I've seen many posts by husband's having problems with their wife and when they mention what's good about her, they say 'she's very attractive'.

I'm guessing that if we were to define women 'Alphas', it would be the same: those women who men find most attractive.

Being in a relationship with someone most members of the opposite sex are attracted to does have it's issues.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

I agree this is an earthenware container of potent organic fertilizer.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

What red fox shows is that behavior is easily affected by selective breeding. That in a few generations only allowing the tamest foxes to breed ends up with foxes with the genetics to be tame and passive. 

While very few natural or cultural situations would result in 100% selection, it means that if culture changes the probability of someone passing on their genes based on behavior, that preferred behavior can be substantially more common after not many generations. We've had something like 500 generations of civilization, so even with modest selective pressure that could mean that the natural behavior of humans today is significantly different from the natural behavior 10,000 years ago.

Bigger and stronger might have helped average men, but being docile and willing to take orders might have helped as well. All I'm claiming is that the attributes that are evolutionally favorable in civilization are different from those for primitive humans. 




UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Yea, but you are talking about a few select people that rose to a station of power in spite on their physical attributes. Most people for the past 2,000 or 10,000 were constantly challenged by invaders, food scarcity and otherwise brutal environments. So bigger, stronger, faster still meant better survival chances for oneself and one's genes.
> 
> I'm not sure what a domesticated fox proves. You are just taking biologically tame dogs and breeding them with other biologically tame dogs until you have a bunch of tame dogs. These tame dogs would probably die violently in the wild.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

uhtred said:


> I've always been amused by the "clubbing women over the head" concept - I don't think there is any evidence for that sort of behavior being common in primitive societies. From what I've read, subjugation of women tended to happen after the development of agriculture when there was more specialization.
> 
> But my other question is, if evolution is so strong, why aren't most men attracted to women with a high chance of survival under primitive conditions.
> 
> ...


You took me far to literally. We do know that physically stronger males would indeed capture women for their own use (it still goes on to this day to some extent).

But then there's also the transition I mentioned where the qualities to survive and succeed are more than merely physical. Some of the attraction to physique is still there in the psyche (our brains don't always evolve at the same rate as our societies), but so is the attractiveness to other features. That's why I mentioned all the less physical guys who get mates who would be considered very physically attractive--because they demonstrate other qualities of success, or potential for same.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

True in the civilized world. I suspect though that in hunter gatherer societies where food shortages were common, the extra body fat was an important energy resource - that is fat's primary function. 

There are men who prefer fat women, but the majority prefer average to slender women (for whatever reason(



UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Lots of body fat isn't good for birthing. Gestation Diabetes among other things. I know lots of men that prefer women not fat, but not skinny.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

uhtred said:


> What red fox shows is that behavior is easily affected by selective breeding. That in a few generations only allowing the tamest foxes to breed ends up with foxes with the genetics to be tame and passive.
> 
> While very few natural or cultural situations would result in 100% selection, it means that if culture changes the probability of someone passing on their genes based on behavior, that preferred behavior can be substantially more common after not many generations. We've had something like 500 generations of civilization, so even with modest selective pressure that could mean that the natural behavior of humans today is significantly different from the natural behavior 10,000 years ago.
> 
> Bigger and stronger might have helped average men, but being docile and willing to take orders might have helped as well. All I'm claiming is that the attributes that are evolutionally favorable in civilization are different from those for primitive humans.


Until the Zombie Apocalypse comes...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Are you sure? It would be interesting to see an experiment. 



Buddy400 said:


> To put it a simply as possible.
> 
> Alpha men posses the qualities that attract the most women, in particular, those women most desired by men.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve2.0 (Dec 11, 2017)

Sorry, did someone mention breasts? My instincts shot up for a moment there


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I haven't actually seen that on TAM. Mostly men stay for either practical reasons, or because of a (possibly misplaced) sense of duty. 

I can't remember anyone posting that their wife was a horrible person who cheated on them, but they were staying in the marriage because she was very physically attractive. (if I missed such a thread, let me know)




Livvie said:


> I will say, how many times have we heard stories about men who put up with horrible behavior and treatment from their wives or girlfriends, but they stay because she's "hot"?


----------



## Steve2.0 (Dec 11, 2017)

Why is it that all the romantic novels have strapping muscular men on the cover? 
The female on the cover is either:
a) Tightly in his arms
b) Over his shoulders
c) On her knees infront of him

If that isnt women eating up the 'alpha' man imagine I don't know what else to add.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Civilization did result in wars, capture and enslavement of women etc. I'm not sure that was common in pre-civilization humans. Its not easy to know, and we don't know that much about paleolithic human behavior. 




Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> You took me far to literally. We do know that physically stronger males would indeed capture women for their own use (it still goes on to this day to some extent).
> 
> But then there's also the transition I mentioned where the qualities to survive and succeed are more than merely physical. Some of the attraction to physique is still there in the psyche (our brains don't always evolve at the same rate as our societies), but so is the attractiveness to other features. That's why I mentioned all the less physical guys who get mates who would be considered very physically attractive--because they demonstrate other qualities of success, or potential for same.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Agreed, but a lot of women don't read romance novels. Romantic movies often feature a very non-alpha male lead. 




Steve2.0 said:


> Why is it that all the romantic novels have strapping muscular men on the cover?
> The female on the cover is either:
> a) Tightly in his arms
> b) Over his shoulders
> ...


----------



## MyRevelation (Apr 12, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> To put it a simply as possible.
> 
> Alpha men posses the qualities that attract the most women, in particular, those women most desired by men.
> 
> ...


Exactly ... it’s one of those things that’s hard to describe, but you know it when you see it.

Also, if you’re one who denies or doubts “alphaness” is a real characteristic, then it’s likely you’re not one.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

uhtred said:


> Civilization did result in wars, capture and enslavement of women etc. I'm not sure that was common in pre-civilization humans. Its not easy to know, and we don't know that much about paleolithic human behavior.


I'm not a paleolithic expert, so I could be wrong.

I think we can infer pretty well based on individual (not civilization) behavior today. Has anybody not gone to a high school where one guy beat up another guy over a girl? I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think back in the day Grog wouldn't beat up Morg if it might give him access to a desirable female.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

uhtred said:


> Agreed, but a lot of women don't read romance novels. Romantic movies often feature a very non-alpha male lead.


Romantic Comedies, yes, like Ben Stiller comes to mind. Mainly because he is fun to laugh at. 

Otherwise, its a Brad Pitt type.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

MyRevelation said:


> Exactly ... it’s one of those things that’s hard to describe, but you know it when you see it.
> 
> Also, if you’re one who denies or doubts “alphaness” is a real characteristic, then it’s likely you’re not one.


So essentially your saying you can boil it down to a mans ability attract women.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

"Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

I would paraphrase the "wrong" here to include "incomplete" or "inadequate". Or, as Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

The alpha/beta crowd takes a problem as complex as human attraction and mating and vastly oversimplifies it. No doubt we are in some measure the product of our evolutionary past - but we are not certainly unthinking automatons subservient in every way to our hormones and tree dwelling ancestry. 

Am I an alpha or a beta? I don't f'ing care. I found one person to live my life with, found reasonable success in the culture into which I was born, and have passed on my genes to the next generation. My man crush for Ryan Reynolds must remain my everlasting shame, but then what does he care? He was alpha enough to marry Blake Lively. I think we're both doing just fine.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

For a while, this site was rife with threads from women who had lost attraction to their husbands based mostly on the husband being passive or being a follower (beta).

It's really nice in the dating phase, when he's all agreeable, sensitive, willing to do whatever you want to do, etc. But at some point, it seems a lot of women expect their husband to take charge, at least some of the time. It's a rare woman who can and wants to be the leader day in, day out, and even most of them want a man who is their equal. 

(speaking in generalities of course; there are exceptions)


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Until the Zombie Apocalypse comes...


Nope. Fail. You didn't watch "Zombieland". One alpha male stays alive by being the biggest badass with a handgun in the universe. The other (Jesse Eisenberg? How much more Beta can you get?) by following "The Rules". The women stay alive by being smarter than either of them.


----------



## MyRevelation (Apr 12, 2016)

happyhusband0005 said:


> MyRevelation said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly ... it’s one of those things that’s hard to describe, but you know it when you see it.
> ...


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

LTCNurse said:


> Nope. Read the article I posted. It's not even true that "most" primates live that way.


Based on OP I thought my imperfect top of the head info would be helpful but it wasn't so I deleted my post and will stay out of the thread.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Cletus said:


> Nope. Fail. You didn't watch "Zombieland". One alpha male stays alive by being the biggest badass with a handgun in the universe. The other (Jesse Eisenberg? How much more Beta can you get?) by following "The Rules". The women stay alive by being smarter than either of them.


Pffft...TWD is how the Zombie Apocalypse will go down. All the Beta's are killed off by season 2.


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Pffft...TWD is how the Zombie Apocalypse will go down. All the Beta's are killed off by season 2.


Eugene is still hanging around...


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

happyhusband0005 said:


> So essentially your saying you can boil it down to a mans ability attract women.


Yes


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

uhtred said:


> What red fox shows is that behavior is easily affected by selective breeding. That in a few generations only allowing the tamest foxes to breed ends up with foxes with the genetics to be tame and passive.
> 
> While very few natural or cultural situations would result in 100% selection, it means that if culture changes the probability of someone passing on their genes based on behavior, that preferred behavior can be substantially more common after not many generations. We've had something like 500 generations of civilization, so even with modest selective pressure that could mean that the natural behavior of humans today is significantly different from the natural behavior 10,000 years ago.
> 
> Bigger and stronger might have helped average men, but being docile and willing to take orders might have helped as well. All I'm claiming is that the attributes that are evolutionally favorable in civilization are different from those for primitive humans.


But until about 1968, the attributes that affected male / female pairing were about the same as they always were.

How long has it been that a single mom was able financially support her children without a male provider? 20 or 30 years?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

uhtred said:


> Are you sure? It would be interesting to see an experiment.


In Datacylsm, written by the MyCupid data guy, women rated 80% of men as below average.

I know this is kind of an internet meme, but I did actually read the book and, although I'm not certain about the exact percentage, it's true.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Cletus said:


> "Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
> 
> I would paraphrase the "wrong" here to include "incomplete" or "inadequate". Or, as Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
> 
> ...


I don't f'ing care whether or not I'm an alpha or a beta either. I'm very happily married and my wife is very attracted to me. Why should I?

But, if I were single or my wife seemed to be unattracted to me, I'd want to know what women actually find attractive and see if there was anything I could do or behaviors I could modify (and was willing to modify) which might help me improve my situation.

Although, I must admit, it does seem that since learning about some of this stuff (and modifying some behaviors), I have probably succeeded in increasing my wife's attraction to me (somewhat).


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

Buddy400 said:


> Yes


Thank you no that’s a nice simple explanation.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

So if you have to ask, you're not one


How predictably circular 🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I'm absolutely not an alpha. 

I'm an omicron, completely outside of the gorilla enclosure. 



MyRevelation said:


> Exactly ... it’s one of those things that’s hard to describe, but you know it when you see it.
> 
> Also, if you’re one who denies or doubts “alphaness” is a real characteristic, then it’s likely you’re not one.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I know almost nothing about the paleolithic either. In the late neolithic (which I know a tiny bit about), the earlier nomadic groups were far closer to male / female equality, than were the later agrarian civilizations.

It seems likely that "stealing" mates inside of a small tribal group would have lead to all sorts of inefficient conflicts. Later with larger "civilized" organizations it was possible for an organized group to steal from other organized groups - but organized warfare tends to be associated with civilized cultures. 

Its not clear to what extent women from agrarian civilizations objected to being stolen by militarized nomads - since in the nomadic groups they would have had much closer to reality. (this last is just a random thought about how women might have felt).



Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I'm not a paleolithic expert, so I could be wrong.
> 
> I think we can infer pretty well based on individual (not civilization) behavior today. Has anybody not gone to a high school where one guy beat up another guy over a girl? I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think back in the day Grog wouldn't beat up Morg if it might give him access to a desirable female.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

True if sad but its not clear that "alphas" are better "providers". Aren't Betas more likely to hold solid high-paying jobs like accountants, investment bankers and software engineers? 

(assuming there is any human meaning to alpha / beta anyway)



Buddy400 said:


> But until about 1968, the attributes that affected male / female pairing were about the same as they always were.
> 
> How long has it been that a single mom was able financially support her children without a male provider? 20 or 30 years?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Do you have a link? Did they agree on which 20% were most attractive?




Buddy400 said:


> In Datacylsm, written by the MyCupid data guy, women rated 80% of men as below average.
> 
> I know this is kind of an internet meme, but I did actually read the book and, although I'm not certain about the exact percentage, it's true.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Cletus said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Fail. You didn't watch "Zombieland". One alpha male stays alive by being the biggest badass with a handgun in the universe. The other (Jesse Eisenberg? How much more Beta can you get?) by following "The Rules". The women stay alive by being smarter than either of them.
> ...


Except for Eugene...


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

uhtred said:


> True if sad but its not clear that "alphas" are better "providers". Aren't Betas more likely to hold solid high-paying jobs like accountants, investment bankers and software engineers?
> 
> (assuming there is any human meaning to alpha / beta anyway)
> 
> ...


No. An alpha is a good provider. He supports and protects his family. He also has a lot of sexual AND romantic energy!


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

...a beta cannot be counted on to provide and protect, and he often lets his internal feelings of being "slighted" and also temper tantrums get in the way of his sexual energy!


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Also, a male can be an alpha and not classically attractive.. but a women rarely can. A man wants a "hot" woman, not a 4-6. Just read the threads here....


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

uhtred said:


> Do you have a link? Did they agree on which 20% were most attractive?


Not sure if this is the same study. It uses Tinder, not OK Cupid (the book didn't deal ONLY with OK Cupid).

https://medium.com/@worstonlinedate...ably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

Oddly many links to the story fail, as if the author got so much flak, they took it down.

I'll try to remember to look for it in the actual BOOK tonight to confirm (although I don't think real books can be linked to ).


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Not sure if this is the same study. It uses Tinder, not OK Cupid (the book didn't deal ONLY with OK Cupid).
> 
> https://medium.com/@worstonlinedate...ably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
> 
> ...


That is an interesting result. I would hope that it might spark some enterprising grad student to set up an experiment with randomly assigned subjects, controls, and other standard means of eliminating bias. 

Here's a half-hearted attempt I found in 30 seconds of Googling: Female Standards Of Male Attractiveness Are Way Unrealistic - Business Insider

It includes the quote - "On the other hand, it is a rule of thumb in biology that females (of any species) are much pickier than males. "


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Cletus said:


> It includes the quote - "On the other hand, it is a rule of thumb in biology that females (of any species) are much pickier than males. "


That's the weird thing, propose a theory that's totally within the bounds of current scientific knowledge and you're a woman-hating, red-pill misogynist.

I don't know how we're ever going to get anything accomplished in this environment.

If true, this is good to know. For BOTH men and women.


----------



## Bacon&eggs (Jun 7, 2018)

In my opinion the terms Alpha and Beta are misleading. I'm not necessarily going to approach this discussion with a mainstream point of view, but I've been married and in leadership positions most of my life and I've thought about this a lot. 

Growing up in the 70's and 80's with a liberal mother and a quasi-conservative father, I was exposed to different views. Initially I took social cues from my mother, as people tend to do especially when their father isn't around much, but I have changed my views over the last 20 years (though I wouldn't label myself a staunch conservative). My pendulum didn't swing all the way to the right because I think society is mostly lost on this issue. In other words, I think the left-right paradigm is more useless than the alpha/beta terms; so for what it's worth, here are my thoughts. 

First, if we're going to use these terms at all, I think all men must be both alpha and beta males, but we must learn to modulate according to the circumstances (to a lesser extent this is true of women as well). To your point, it does't appear everyone is born to lead, but that might be a symptom of society and not necessarily the natural state of men. Men and women have lost most of their self sufficiency, especially in just the last 100 years, and I feel this dependence on others has more to do with beta males than anything else. 

Up to the 19th and early 20th Centuries, people built and defended their own homes, made their own clothes, and grew and hunted their own food. It wasn't all that long ago that they also often made their own tools. They wouldn't rely on others for much more than a good saddle, a few tools and firearms. 

This kind of personal responsibility is completely and utterly alpha (again, if we want to use that term), and completely desirable as it helps ensure survival and individual liberty in my opinion. A man protected his family and household with his life, and while in public, the code people lived by was different than it is today. If someone took an inappropriate action, there could be consequences (sometimes dire ones). 

That said, it appears cooperation has also been necessary for survival throughout human history. As such, leaders among men have likely always existed (women among women too), so both sexes must learn to lead and be led. I don't like labels, save for a narrow use of these terms. I don't mind talking about an alpha wolf literally, but trying to liken that to humans is misleading in my opinion since both leading and being led are necessary for everyone. It's also a zero sum game. The more leadership a man acquires, the less is available for others who will weaken as a result in my opinion. 

Employing and managing people most of my life, I found that although people want to be led when there is uncertainty, they want to be more independent than managers often suspect. No one likes to be managed too closely, especially me, but I learned to follow before I learned to lead, and to this day, I modulate my inclination for leadership depending on the circumstances. 

Other people, however, men and women, often always want to lead even when they shouldn't. This is a destructively "alpha" trait. It is also a product of social engineering in my opinion as much as anything else. I can't tell you the number of people I've seen in leadership positions who fail just because they felt they should lead even when they didn't have the background or skillset to do so successfully. Is it innate? Or does it evolve from a false sense of entitlement? Or both? 

Outside of work, I think men should almost always carry a big stick but tread lightly (which is very alpha), but we can't forget that we're also social animals. To a greater or lesser degree, this varies from culture to culture, but it cooperation exists at some level. From what I've learned from certain social scientists, Northern Europeans and Northern Asians tend to be more altruistic because they had to cooperate with others more in colder climates. People in warmer climates didn't have to struggle to survive as much, and these differences remain even after thousands of years. And now that we're global, this sometimes creates problems as well. 

We also can't ignore phenomenon that defies societal norms. Many women, for example, love to see their man fight for them. I've been caught up in this situation more than once, and it was a female colleague of mine who put it in perspective for me one day. This was a retired professional woman with a family and grandchildren. I was taken aback when she described one of our once mutual colleagues as a "panther" because she allegedly enjoyed watching her husband fight for her, even though it took quite an emotional toll on him (and almost a physical one). The panther herself said she was known as a cougar (which she didn't deny). It wasn't lost on me that I was considerably younger either. I had to tell that woman twice nothing could happen between us and she was furious and went after me. Society is strange, and many do not adhere to "social norms". 

I keep all this in the back of my mind because it flies in the face of how women are supposed to behave, but it is very common, and to some degree, perhaps universal, but I'm not sure. In other words, how much do we know about human nature for sure versus the artificial constructs we've developed in society? Doctors and scientists are often wrong about so many things, so I take it social scientists are not any different. 

Call me paranoid, but I also believe academics and politicians often engage in "divide' et impera" tactics to make society easier to control, so we're indoctrinated with a lot of disinformation about nearly ever aspect of society. That might appear to be getting off topic, but it's not in my opinion. You have to wonder where some of our values come from (new and old). 

In closing, men and women need to learn to modulate and how, but to what degree is still a question mark because I don't know anyone I can completely look up to about this topic anymore. 

I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes:

“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”

― Mark Twain


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> That's the weird thing, propose a theory that's totally within the bounds of current scientific knowledge and you're a woman-hating, red-pill misogynist.


True enough. I'm an unabashed progressive, but I have a real problem with the stifling of research simply on the premise that the very question is unaskable.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Buddy400 said:


> That's the weird thing, propose a theory that's totally within the bounds of current scientific knowledge and you're a woman-hating, red-pill misogynist.
> 
> I don't know how we're ever going to get anything accomplished in this environment.
> 
> If true, this is good to know. For BOTH men and women.


I don't think there is anything misogynistic about stating that women are pickier. I agree most women are pickier.

The misogyny comes in when men rage against womankind for being picky, implying that they (the men) are entitled to "a shot" with any woman they want, and the denigrate most of the gender just because the 10.5 they wanted wasn't interested in the 4.5 guy. And then they form a website to support each other in putting women in their place and "nailing" them.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> I don't think there is anything misogynistic about stating that women are pickier. I agree most women are pickier.
> 
> The misogyny comes in when men rage against womankind for being picky, implying that they (the men) are entitled to "a shot" with any woman they want, and the denigrate most of the gender just because the 10.5 they wanted wasn't interested in the 4.5 guy. And then they form a website to support each other in putting women in their place and "nailing" them.


Ok. Maybe you should be railing at them instead of us?


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Cletus said:


> Ok. Maybe you should be railing at them instead of us?


I'm not raiing AT anyone. In fact, I am not actually railing at all. I'm being kind of amusingly sarcastic. You know, as all the studmuffins say, being overly sensitive is rather beta 

And yes, I was kidding.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> I don't f'ing care whether or not I'm an alpha or a beta either. I'm very happily married and my wife is very attracted to me. Why should I?
> 
> But, if I were single or my wife seemed to be unattracted to me, I'd want to know what women actually find attractive and see if there was anything I could do or behaviors I could modify (and was willing to modify) which might help me improve my situation.
> 
> Although, I must admit, it does seem that since learning about some of this stuff (and modifying some behaviors), I have probably succeeded in increasing my wife's attraction to me (somewhat).


I'm in much the same position you are, including being happy to find out about these issues before they caused me any problems in my marriage.

Apparently I'm reasonably alpha overall because I have had more success with women than most men (if I understand the statistics correctly), although my past love life certainly isn't the stuff of legends.

And looking back on my life, when I was acting the most alpha (didn't care what people thought, acted decisively) was when I had the most success with women; when I wussed out, then I struck out.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Buddy400 said:


> But until about 1968, the attributes that affected male / female pairing were about the same as they always were.
> 
> How long has it been that a single mom was able financially support her children without a male provider? 20 or 30 years?


Being a single parent is a very difficult life, no matter who you are. In addition to financial concerns, the time, energy, and emotional challenges can be even more taxing. Most women would much rather have a partner in meeting these requirements, even more so if he can provide a comfortable life and some luxuries beyond just having food on the table for junior.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> I really like this. It sums up something i couldn't quite put my finger on.
> 
> Last night I had trouble sleeping, so I watched a reun of CSI Miami. In it, a PUA at a club was murdered by another PUA. Of course, they delved into the whole PUA training and culture (negging, hooks, etc.)
> 
> ...


Don't forget posing. Because posing is all that dude from CSI Miami can do. He is a horrible actor


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> But until about 1968, the attributes that affected male / female pairing were about the same as they always were.
> 
> How long has it been that a single mom was able financially support her children without a male provider? 20 or 30 years?


What happened in 1968?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Ynot said:


> Don't forget posing. Because posing is all that dude from CSI Miami can do. He is a horrible actor


He’s a great actor... so long as you need him to act like a self-righteous wooden figure!

Actually, I could see no difference between his CSI character and his NYPD Blue character. I thought they simply transplanted the same character from one show to the other. If the two characters didn’t have different names, there’d be no way to tell.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

uhtred said:


> There are experiments that show that evolution can affect behavior very quickly, just a few generations
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_fox
> 
> This suggests that there has been plenty of time for human behavior to evolve in response to civilization.


The rate of increase in changes to our society and civilization have for perhaps one of the few times in history exceeded human ability to adapt to it. So humans have barely begun to adapt to the most recent changes. We are still dealing with and adapting to changes that took place over 75 years ago. Women in particular have benefitted most directly from the changes and are more advanced than many men are. I think the alpha/beta argument/discussion/theory is an attempt be some men to make sense of our changing world. As society continues to leap ahead of us, I see the whole thing continuing to evolve and perhaps deepen into a more philosophical school of thought.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> He’s a great actor... so long as you need him to act like a self-righteous wooden figure!
> 
> Actually, I could see no difference between his CSI character and his NYPD Blue character. I thought they simply transplanted the same character from one show to the other. If the two characters didn’t have different names, there’d be no way to tell.


In many ways he is the William Shatner of today.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Ynot said:


> In many ways he is the William Shatner of today.



I had the same thought as I was writing my last post. TJ Hooker = Captain Kirk in 1980s LA. At least those characters were kinda fun in spite of the cheez factor. The Caruso character is just a pompous downer.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Ynot said:


> What happened in 1968?


Nothing in particular. The pill becoming commonplace, the sexual revolution, feminist movement (the one I supported), laws against gender discrimination, that sort of stuff.

Just kind of feels like 1968 was about when all of that that started coming together. 

I could be wrong.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> Nothing in particular. The pill becoming commonplace, the sexual revolution, feminist movement (the one I supported), laws against gender discrimination, that sort of stuff.
> 
> Just kind of feels like 1968 was about when all of that that started coming together.
> 
> I could be wrong.


Just wondering why you chose 1968. I do think it was around that time when some of the old ideals were shattered. As the Vietnam War protests were coming to a head, the grip of the "Greatest Generation" was loosening as Baby Boomers started taking over. So that may have been about the time we started seeing significant changes.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Cletus said:


> True enough. I'm an unabashed progressive, but I have a real problem with the stifling of research simply on the premise that the very question is unaskable.


Enter "The Bell .Curve" by Herrnstein


----------



## Pepe1970 (Aug 25, 2017)

nice777guy said:


> The book No More Mr. Nice Guy used to be considered a "must read" round these parts. Its basically a re-write of Codependent No More, with an extra chapter at the beginning which explains how society is trying to weaken men.
> 
> And NMMNG its written by a man. Which makes it more manly than CNM.


I haven't read the book, just heard about it, I should read it I guess but about that first chapter you mentioned, it's definitely true. Society is enforcing he downgrading of men. You see it in every social Media, how the young generation is growing/ brain washed with the concept that men are weak, stupid and many other bully label media comes up with.

Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

I agree that societee has been downgrading men for Several decades. I mean look at many commercials! The husband is bumbling around while the wife solves the problem. It's a not very subtle message. Also in many sitcoms everybody, including the kids, pick on the husband all the time period if I were a man I would get really sick of that.


----------



## Pepe1970 (Aug 25, 2017)

BarbedFenceRider said:


> Here you go....Just to lighten the mood a bit. lol


Yeah this is exactly what I just mentioned before

Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk


----------



## Pepe1970 (Aug 25, 2017)

OnTheFly said:


> This thread is the perfect example of why men should never discuss masculinity with women.


Nowadays people confuse masculinity with chovinism

Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Pepe1970 said:


> OnTheFly said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is the perfect example of why men should never discuss masculinity with women.
> ...


 Exactly. Many women mistake masculinity for chauvinism. And Mini men mistake chauvinism for masculinity.

OK, typing Mini instead of a many was an auto correct mistake, but it kind of fits hahaha


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> I agree that societee has been downgrading men for Several decades. I mean look at many commercials! The husband is bumbling around while the wife solves the problem. It's a not very subtle message. Also in many sitcoms everybody, including the kids, pick on the husband all the time period if I were a man I would get really sick of that.


A good example- I think a Kia commercial - some dumb slightly over weight husband stupidly locks his keys in the car and has to call his wife, who is in the middle of a space walk fixing a space station to unlock his doors.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> I agree that societee has been downgrading men for Several decades. I mean look at many commercials! The husband is bumbling around while the wife solves the problem. It's a not very subtle message. Also in many sitcoms everybody, including the kids, pick on the husband all the time period if I were a man I would get really sick of that.


An interesting study would be how much is due to the exposure to the type of external influencers you describe vs. the fact that many boys from broken homes have their mothers as their primary role models. I would think a boy having a strong, confident, engaged father would over power the outside influences. 

Example boy falls off his bike and scrapes his knee. Mom rushes over picks him up hugs him cuddles him takes him inside cleans him up bandages him. Another boy falls off his bike, his dad comes over stands the bike up and says here you go buddy, boy gets up dusts himself off hops on and rides away.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> For a while, this site was rife with threads from women who had lost attraction to their husbands based mostly on the husband being passive or being a follower (beta).
> 
> It's really nice in the dating phase, when he's all agreeable, sensitive, willing to do whatever you want to do, etc. But at some point, it seems a lot of women expect their husband to take charge, at least some of the time. It's a rare woman who can and wants to be the leader day in, day out, and even most of them want a man who is their equal.
> 
> (speaking in generalities of course; there are exceptions)


I think its more likely he was leading/taking charge in the dating phase- choosing the when and where. Then in the marriage phase, he flips a switch and turns off the dating phase (afterall dates are expensive and you have a mortgage now), and defers to wife for all the household/kiddo stuff. Bored wife equals unhappy wife...


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

uhtred said:


> I know almost nothing about the paleolithic either. In the late neolithic (which I know a tiny bit about), the earlier nomadic groups were far closer to male / female equality, than were the later agrarian civilizations.
> 
> It seems likely that "stealing" mates inside of a small tribal group would have lead to all sorts of inefficient conflicts. Later with larger "civilized" organizations it was possible for an organized group to steal from other organized groups - but organized warfare tends to be associated with civilized cultures.
> 
> Its not clear to what extent women from agrarian civilizations objected to being stolen by militarized nomads - since in the nomadic groups they would have had much closer to reality. (this last is just a random thought about how women might have felt).


Well, likely the men of her village were slaughtered. The conquering party likely kept the women and children alive. If Harold 'the Hammer' wanted widow #4 as his wife/concubine/mistress than Widow #4 better comply lest Harold chops her head off. Since he chopped her deceased husbands head off, it probably was a fairly easy connection that he'd chop her head off as well. And you know she has kids to look out for. She can't do that without her head. Plus, Harold has muscles and brings home the dinner.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Livvie said:


> No. An alpha is a good provider. He supports and protects his family. He also has a lot of sexual AND romantic energy!


Alpha's were excellent providers up until the past century or so. Now unless you work for yourself you probably need a little beta. It probably isn't wise to tell your boss to screw off, I'm doing it this way. Though you can be Alpha or Beta and bring home the bucks. The Alpha just may spend it on himself instead of his family...


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> Enter "The Bell .Curve" by Herrnstein


Would you believe that I actually considered putting a reference to that very book in my original post?

Then I refreshed my memory on the furor it caused, and decided that because of their poor scholarship it was probably not the best example. I'll be satisfied at this point with accepting peer reviewed research, wherever it leads.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Pepe1970 said:


> I haven't read the book, just heard about it, I should read it I guess but about that first chapter you mentioned, it's definitely true. Society is enforcing he downgrading of men.


Doesn't bother me a bit.

We had our run, and we screwed it up royally. We deserve a little downgrading, I am not ashamed to admit. War, environmental destruction, unchecked exploitation of the working class, ***** grabbing - certainly these are not strictly problems with men as such, but they have all occurred on our watch when we had control of all of the levers of power over just about all of recorded history.

We deserve a healthy dose of humiliation.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Alpha males in the psychological sense, not the societal sense, are men who are complete in themselves, know their worth and value, and who therefore can be kind and gentle with and attentive to their wives yet still refuse to let her run all over her. And he clearly lets her know that - that he loves her like crazy and will stick with her through thick and thin - UNLESS she starts disrespecting him and valuing him, at which time he will start to consider the balance and say 'you know what? I want you but I don't need you, and if you don't start treating me as your equal, I'll pack up my toys and go find someone who will.'

And women - mentally healthy women, at least - LOVE men like that and will in return respect them and treat them right, so as not to lose them.

It's no different from a woman who doesn't recognize her worth and thus lets a man walk all over her: the more she allows it, the less he respects her, and the more he does it.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

> We deserve a healthy dose of humiliation.


I don't think men deserve humiliation. There are some specific men who could do with a bit of humility. 

And you could look at it this way. A lot of good things happened "under your watch" too. Women earned the right to vote under your watch. Granted, women had to help a lot, but isn't that how it SHOULD be? Working together and valuing each other's unique capabilities and contributions?

That's what the new wave of feminism has ruined. By refusing to believe men and women are different with different capabilities and such, they have tried to amalgamate everyone into some....drab, powerless, sludge...except of course for THEM. They get to scream and belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them (including and at times especially other women).


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> That's what the new wave of feminism has ruined. By refusing to believe men and women are different with different capabilities and such, they have tried to amalgamate everyone into some....drab, powerless, sludge...except of course for THEM. They get to scream and belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them (including and at times especially other women).


This goes for society in general, The culture of my group is better than your group has gotten way out of control. Whether its between the sexes, political groups, races, economic groups, whatever. Good news is I think most of us exist somewhere in the in between and don't really get involved in the day to day back and forth. But it doesn't matter if we get directly involved in the back and forth there is still too much tension out there.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

happyhusband0005 said:


> This goes for society in general, The culture of my group is better than your group has gotten way out of control. Whether its between the sexes, political groups, races, economic groups, whatever. Good news is I think most of us exist somewhere in the in between and don't really get involved in the day to day back and forth. But it doesn't matter if we get directly involved in the back and forth there is still too much tension out there.


Yep. I have to remind myself of that. Sometimes I just get sooo annoyed with the PUA/MGTOW/pedestal/grunt grunt look at my ruler thing. Then I sit down and get rational and realize there are only about a dozen or so people I have encountered who are actually like that. And maybe not even that many, since I'm pretty sure some of those are duplicates of the same people who frequent several places just using different names lol.

Just like most women aren't foaming at the mouth with hairy armpits, most men aren't beating their chests or whining online about why the girl he held the door open for won't sleep with him lol


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> Exactly. Many women mistake masculinity for chauvinism. And Mini men mistake chauvinism for masculinity.
> 
> OK, typing Mini instead of a many was an auto correct mistake, but it kind of fits hahaha


So auto correct is your worst enema too?


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

happyhusband0005 said:


> Example boy falls off his bike and scrapes his knee. Mom rushes over picks him up hugs him cuddles him takes him inside cleans him up bandages him. Another boy falls off his bike, his dad comes over stands the bike up and says here you go buddy, boy gets up dusts himself off hops on and rides away.


I think that's more of a cultural difference than a gender difference.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

tech-novelist said:


> So auto correct is your worst enema too?


That was a crappy joke....

sorry


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Tiggy! said:


> I think that's more of a cultural difference than a gender difference.


Yeah. Unless there was profuse bleeding or a head injury, I'd be dusting junior off too lol


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

Tiggy! said:


> I think that's more of a cultural difference than a gender difference.


huh? This is exactly a gender difference. If it was a cultural difference the father would have ''honour killed'' the child for disgracing the family in front of the other mountain villagers.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

OnTheFly said:


> huh? This is exactly a gender difference. If it was a cultural difference the father would have ''honour killed'' the child for disgracing the family in front of the other mountain villagers.


For falling off a bike and scraping his knee?
A bit overdramatic lol


----------



## Pepe1970 (Aug 25, 2017)

personofinterest said:


> I don't think men deserve humiliation. There are some specific men who could do with a bit of humility.
> 
> And you could look at it this way. A lot of good things happened "under your watch" too. Women earned the right to vote under your watch. Granted, women had to help a lot, but isn't that how it SHOULD be? Working together and valuing each other's unique capabilities and contributions?
> 
> That's what the new wave of feminism has ruined. By refusing to believe men and women are different with different capabilities and such, they have tried to amalgamate everyone into some....drab, powerless, sludge...except of course for THEM. They get to scream and belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them (including and at times especially other women).


Right on

Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

Tiggy! said:


> I think that's more of a cultural difference than a gender difference.


Maybe and I'm generalizing, but a mom's instinct is going to be to nurture and comfort, a dads instinct is going to be to tell him to pick himself up and carry on.


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

Tiggy! said:


> For falling off a bike and scraping his knee?
> A bit overdramatic lol


haha, just a bit of hyperbole for effect!


----------



## Pepe1970 (Aug 25, 2017)

happyhusband0005 said:


> Maybe and I'm generalizing, but a mom's instinct is going to be to nurture and comfort, a dads instinct is going to be to tell him to pick himself up and carry on.


That's why we must survive in this world admitting our differences and our places in our life, in our home, in our marriage. Father may lack that nurturing instinct (with some exceptions) and mother lacks the instinct of telling him to pick up and carry on (also with some exceptions)
You we all are a piece on the puzzle in life. We complete each other.

Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> And you could look at it this way. A lot of good things happened "under your watch" too. Women earned the right to vote under your watch.


No doubt that's a good thing.

I still have no problem taking a metaphorical boot in the ass for the fact that it required some 10,000 years of civilization to get there. You will never convince me that a fair portion of the animus against Hillary had no deeper cause than the fact that she was a woman acting according the male principles. 

The so-called Alpha men of recorded history could have all used a little Beta tempering. As Robin Williams put it - "Put a woman in the White House, and there would be no more war. Just intense negotiations every 28 days". 

I'm no man hater. I look down, I see a penis, and I rather like it there. But that silly Y chromosome causes us to act out in the most violent, destructive, and entitled ways that the species has ever invented. And to stay on track, I include in that condemnation the guy who is so absorbed in protecting his mate that he drips testosterone while infantalizing her and picking a fight with every other potential suitor within earshot. The "No True Scottsman" fallacy doesn't wash - you (the collective "you") don't get to define Alpha as "all of the good and none of the bad".


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

happyhusband0005 said:


> Maybe and I'm generalizing, but a mom's instinct is going to be to nurture and comfort, a dads instinct is going to be to tell him to pick himself up and carry on.


Not from my family's background.
Poor working class children would have crumbled if they had been raised to be so mollycoddled and soft.
It is something I've noticed more American's do though (now I'm generalizing lol).


----------



## Pepe1970 (Aug 25, 2017)

Tiggy! said:


> Not from my family's background.
> Poor working class children would have crumbled if they had been raised to be so mollycoddled and soft.
> It is something I've noticed more American's do though (now I'm generalizing lol).


Not from my family, even more from my culture. I come from a communist country where no matter how badly you fall. Forget the bandage just get up and keep going.

Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk


----------



## Pepe1970 (Aug 25, 2017)

Pepe1970 said:


> Not from my family, even more from my culture. I come from a communist country where no matter how badly you fall. Forget the bandage just get up and keep going.
> 
> Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk


No offense to anybody but American culture is very pampering. 
Most people victimize themself when life circumstances hit them. 

Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I think its more likely he was leading/taking charge in the dating phase- choosing the when and where. Then in the marriage phase, he flips a switch and turns off the dating phase (afterall dates are expensive and you have a mortgage now), and defers to wife for all the household/kiddo stuff. Bored wife equals unhappy wife...


I didn't get that impression from the threads. They seemed to have that "he was always like that and it was fun for a while but I can't take it anymore" element to them. 

My perception is also colored by anecdotal experience. That is exactly what happened to my wife's brother, and not once, but twice to my half-brother. They were quite charming and attractive for a while given how amiable they were, but all three times, three separate women left them for someone more of a leader type.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Pepe1970 said:


> No offense to anybody but American culture is very pampering.
> Most people victimize themself when life circumstances hit them.
> 
> Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk


Absolute truth!!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

personofinterest said:


> I don't think men deserve humiliation. There are some specific men who could do with a bit of humility.
> 
> And you could look at it this way. A lot of good things happened "under your watch" too. Women earned the right to vote under your watch. Granted, women had to help a lot, but isn't that how it SHOULD be? Working together and valuing each other's unique capabilities and contributions?
> 
> That's what the new wave of feminism has ruined. By refusing to believe men and women are different with different capabilities and such, they have tried to amalgamate everyone into some....drab, powerless, sludge...


I have never seen this refusal to admit difference. It is often touted here. Where do you see that? I definitely see resistance to the gender based capability assertion as useful. The extension of male and female difference has included concluding that females are bad at math, females are generally less accomplished at athletics. It also wrongly concludes that men are inferior parents and nurturers. Etcetera.

I definitely don't see anyone trying to "amalgamate everyone into some....drab, powerless, sludge..." I see people trying to understand and adapt to a changing culture as it always does.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

> I definitely see resistance to the gender based capability assertion as useful


It depends. Intellectually, there isn't a difference. Physically....yeah. That's why when two men recently smoked a bunch of ladies in a track race....it made a lot of people mad. Even if those men said they were women.

But I digress.

I think a lot of the new, aggressive feminists want to REMOVE the differences by neutering men. I'll never get behind a group of women who imply all men are potential rapists and denigrate other women who happen to want to stay home and raise their families or value ALL life.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I didn't get that impression from the threads. They seemed to have that "he was always like that and it was fun for a while but I can't take it anymore" element to them.
> 
> My perception is also colored by anecdotal experience. That is exactly what happened to my wife's brother, and not once, but twice to my half-brother. They were quite charming and attractive for a while given how amiable they were, but all three times, three separate women left them for someone more of a leader type.


Yea, that makes sense. Its not really about being all Alpha, like I said before beta qualities do have positive effects on women (oxytocin). But you are only triggering a third of the attraction effects and some dude will eventually come along and supply her with some dopamine/testosterone she craves and you will either get the ILYBINILY speech or they will simply cheat and its over. Even All Alpha can get cheated on because the wife is craving the oxytocin from an emotional connection. 

That said, the Betaization of Husbands seem way more prevalent, so it always ends with me recommending Married Man Sex Primer and getting a gym membership. It works, but sometimes I feel like a robot and sales promoter for Athol Kay...


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

Pepe1970 said:


> No offense to anybody but American culture is very pampering.
> Most people victimize themself when life circumstances hit them.
> 
> Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk


While I agree the argument could be made that generally us americans are pampering at least generally in the upper economic classes, I would say the vast majority do not victimize ourselves that's definitely how we have got to where we are today. There is a portion of the country that does but that is a small percentage who don't have their **** together. 

But I get the cultural difference. Those wild communists lol.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

If we are going by what I would more objectively perceive as "beta," it fit my ex to a T.

He was passive. He avoided making decisions. Slowly, over years, EVERYTHING became my job. I don't mean he never helped with the dishes. I mean all the decision-making. All the push of motivation. All the "leadership" for lack of a better word. He would mire in indecision over pretty much everything. When he lost jobs, he would need time to "heal" and only apply for jobs he thought he would absolutely love and would absolutely hire him. I mean it was almost like "Well, this place has a lot of people with blue eyes working there, and I have brown eyes, so they probably wouldn't want me." He was also passive agressive. Instead of talking, he would just refuse things and do little things passively. Or big things.

I was also the emotional support for EVERYONE. And when I had cancer, he couldn't help me after surgery because he had an EARACHE. He was just whiny and unmotivated and indecisive. I basically became "the man."

THAT kind of "beta" is highly unattractive. 

Sorry, he texted me earlier to whine about something I have no control over, and I got triggered.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Cletus said:


> No doubt that's a good thing.
> 
> I still have no problem taking a metaphorical boot in the ass for the fact that it required some 10,000 years of civilization to get there. You will never convince me that a fair portion of the animus against Hillary had no deeper cause than the fact that she was a woman acting according the male principles.
> 
> ...


You've obviously never watch the show 'Deadly Women' on ID... It doesn't simply take a Y chromosome to eff up lives.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> You've obviously never watch the show 'Deadly Women' on ID... It doesn't simply take a Y chromosome to eff up lives.


Dang that show is creepy. Of course, I have always said there is NOTHING meaner than a mean woman. Women can be mean in ways that men never dream of.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> You've obviously never watch the show 'Deadly Women' on ID... It doesn't simply take a Y chromosome to eff up lives.


Meh. There will always be outliers. The outliers always get the headlines.

With the usual caveats about the exceptions, women are not generally the rapists, mass murderers, terrorists, jihadists, school shooters, or violent criminals that men are. Women have their own ways of being mean, for sure, but the difference in cost of human life alone is striking. 

This year, more school children have died at the hands of school shooters - every single one of which was a male - than we have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same time.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Cletus said:


> Meh. There will always be outliers. The outliers always get the headlines.
> 
> With the usual caveats about the exceptions, women are not generally the rapists, mass murderers, terrorists, jihadists, school shooters, or violent criminals that men are. Women have their own ways of being mean, for sure, but the difference in cost of human life alone is striking.
> 
> This year, more school children have died at the hands of school shooters - every single one of which was a male - than we have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same time.


This is true. But I'd also say madmen like Hitler or Stalin were outliers too. The scale of human lives they are responsible for is staggering. But they were just two humans out of billions over the course of the 20th century. And men have had more chances throughout history at producing brutal dictators simply by opportunity. Maybe if women had been in charge, it would have been dramatically better, not sure, different times. The type of people that crave power are usually not the most ethical people either, regardless of gender.

But I agree, men typically are more aggressive by nature, but on the whole it ends up being a small segment that cause havoc . And there are a lot of other factors besides gender at work in those situations. I don't remember school shooting even being a thing until 20 years ago.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> Enter "The Bell .Curve" by Herrnstein


Let's start a thread about that.

It should be fun!


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

happyhusband0005 said:


> Another boy falls off his bike, his dad comes over stands the bike up and says here you go buddy, boy gets up dusts himself off hops on and rides away.


A dad who did that might get arrested for child abuse. 

<hyperbole alert>


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Then how is "alpha" not just the sum of all good things? That is OK but has nothing to do with the traditional definition. If Alpha is everything good and beta is everything bad, then why not just say good men and bad men? 




Livvie said:


> No. An alpha is a good provider. He supports and protects his family. He also has a lot of sexual AND romantic energy!


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Depending on what you mean by "hot", I don't. My priorities are interesting to talk to, compatible / adventurous in bed, and enjoying the same sort of other activities that I do. Beyond some modest minimum, physically attractiveness just doesn't matter that much to me. 

I'd much rather spend a day in the mountains followed by an evening in bed with an exiting but but average looking woman, than a day lounging on the beach with the most physically attractive woman in the world. 

If I become a billionaire, I might hire beautiful women to hang around as decoration, sort of the way I might buy fine art. 




Livvie said:


> Also, a male can be an alpha and not classically attractive.. but a women rarely can. A man wants a "hot" woman, not a 4-6. Just read the threads here....


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well, likely the men of her village were slaughtered. The conquering party likely kept the women and children alive. If Harold 'the Hammer' wanted widow #4 as his wife/concubine/mistress than Widow #4 better comply lest Harold chops her head off. Since he chopped her deceased husbands head off, it probably was a fairly easy connection that he'd chop her head off as well. And you know she has kids to look out for. She can't do that without her head. Plus, Harold has muscles and brings home the dinner.


Yeah. The oppression of the woman is duly lamented but people seem to have no sympathy for the headless guy.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Its very interesting to see data, thank you. 

In the author's writeup though he says:

_Additionally, I am only accounting for the percentage of “likes” and not the actual men they “like”. I have to assume that in general females find the same men attractive. I think this is the biggest flaw in this analysis, but currently there is no other way to analyze the data_

So his assumptions include the idea that all women tend to find the same males attractive. 



Buddy400 said:


> Not sure if this is the same study. It uses Tinder, not OK Cupid (the book didn't deal ONLY with OK Cupid).
> 
> https://medium.com/@worstonlinedate...ably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
> 
> ...


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

uhtred said:


> Then how is "alpha" not just the sum of all good things? That is OK but has nothing to do with the traditional definition. If Alpha is everything good and beta is everything bad, then why not just say good men and bad men?


I would rephrase - In general it is Alpha to have resources to support your family and the strength to defend them. Support really isn't alpha, that would be beta.

Essentially rich dudes have a leg up on the resources and are seen are more alpha due to $ alone.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I do agree that society has been changing very rapidly since WWII and that there is no way evolution could keep up with that. That pace of change is accelerating with online discussions and other very recent innovations. The world is a VERY different place than it was when I was growing up. 

Mostly better, but very different. 






Ynot said:


> The rate of increase in changes to our society and civilization have for perhaps one of the few times in history exceeded human ability to adapt to it. So humans have barely begun to adapt to the most recent changes. We are still dealing with and adapting to changes that took place over 75 years ago. Women in particular have benefitted most directly from the changes and are more advanced than many men are. I think the alpha/beta argument/discussion/theory is an attempt be some men to make sense of our changing world. As society continues to leap ahead of us, I see the whole thing continuing to evolve and perhaps deepen into a more philosophical school of thought.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

A different but interesting discussion. 

There were some tacit assumptions in the bell curve that I think make the results unreliable but I believe it should be discussed on a technical level. (the tacit assumption was that "intelligence" can be described by a single quantity, a scalar rather than a vector. That disagrees strongly with my experience, so it needs to be defended, not just stated). 







NobodySpecial said:


> Enter "The Bell .Curve" by Herrnstein


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Cletus said:


> No doubt that's a good thing.
> 
> I still have no problem taking a metaphorical boot in the ass for the fact that it required some 10,000 years of civilization to get there. You will never convince me that a fair portion of the animus against Hillary had no deeper cause than the fact that she was a woman acting according the male principles.


True. It took 10,000 years for women to get the vote.

But, it took ~9,750 years for some men to get the vote, 9,850 for white men to get the vote and 9,950 years for all men. 



Cletus said:


> The so-called Alpha men of recorded history could have all used a little Beta tempering. As Robin Williams put it - "Put a woman in the White House, and there would be no more war. Just intense negotiations every 28 days".


You're not really saying that "if women were in charge, there'd be no more war" are you?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I partially agree, when the Vikings came to raid they would likely kill all the men and capture the women. OTOH, women in viking society tended to be treated a lot better than women in the medieval towns that they raided. I do not know if the same was true for captured women. (I'm sure someone does know, but I don't). 

Keep in mind though that most men do now want women as slaves, they want them as companions. No reasonable person wants to share a bet with someone who wants to kill them.







UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well, likely the men of her village were slaughtered. The conquering party likely kept the women and children alive. If Harold 'the Hammer' wanted widow #4 as his wife/concubine/mistress than Widow #4 better comply lest Harold chops her head off. Since he chopped her deceased husbands head off, it probably was a fairly easy connection that he'd chop her head off as well. And you know she has kids to look out for. She can't do that without her head. Plus, Harold has muscles and brings home the dinner.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Part of what makes these discussions difficult is that it seems "alpha" means different things to different people. 

The traditional alpha primate is not "kind and gentle", or at least doesn't need to be. It is the one that has intimidated or fought off other rivals for control of the group. Usually biggest and strongest. In some species the new alpha male will kill all the children of the previous alpha male. (not exactly kind).




turnera said:


> Alpha males in the psychological sense, not the societal sense, are men who are complete in themselves, know their worth and value, and who therefore can be kind and gentle with and attentive to their wives yet still refuse to let her run all over her. And he clearly lets her know that - that he loves her like crazy and will stick with her through thick and thin - UNLESS she starts disrespecting him and valuing him, at which time he will start to consider the balance and say 'you know what? I want you but I don't need you, and if you don't start treating me as your equal, I'll pack up my toys and go find someone who will.'
> 
> And women - mentally healthy women, at least - LOVE men like that and will in return respect them and treat them right, so as not to lose them.
> 
> It's no different from a woman who doesn't recognize her worth and thus lets a man walk all over her: the more she allows it, the less he respects her, and the more he does it.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

uhtred said:


> No reasonable person wants to share a bet with someone who wants to kill them.


Hey, don't judge people for their kinks. >:grin2:


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> True. It took 10,000 years for women to get the vote.
> 
> But, it took ~9,750 years for some men to get the vote, 9,850 for white men to get the vote and 9,950 years for all men.


But during those 10,000 years, only men (FTMP) had the power. First it was the strongest men, then it was the richest men, then it was basically the white men. Did you watch "Suffragette"? A bunch of those men did not share their voting rights with grace. So it's not like there was this equal power sharing scheme that just wasn't democracy. It was male rule. 




> You're not really saying that "if women were in charge, there'd be no more war" are you?


No, I'm saying Robin Williams said it. As a joke. With an element of truth. I absolutely believe that there would be less war - until someone's strategic stockpile of shoes was endangered.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

uhtred said:


> I partially agree, when the Vikings came to raid they would likely kill all the men and capture the women. OTOH, women in viking society tended to be treated a lot better than women in the medieval towns that they raided. I do not know if the same was true for captured women. (I'm sure someone does know, but I don't).
> 
> Keep in mind though that most men do now want women as slaves, they want them as companions. No reasonable person wants to share a bet with someone who wants to kill them.


Probably not, but I guess it beats starving to death or getting eaten by a pack of wolves.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

uhtred said:


> Part of what makes these discussions difficult is that it seems "alpha" means different things to different people.
> 
> The traditional alpha primate is not "kind and gentle", or at least doesn't need to be. It is the one that has intimidated or fought off other rivals for control of the group. Usually biggest and strongest. In some species the new alpha male will kill all the children of the previous alpha male. (not exactly kind).


I agree, it gets confusing. Often times Red-Pill will refer to a "Beta Buck" or "Beta Provider" with derision since its assumed the woman had her share of Alpha's and needed to settle down for security. So she finds a Beta to provide for her. There are also scenarios where the woman chooses the Beta Provider only after having the children of an Alpha. So what does that mean? The Alpha can't provide or is unwilling to provide, or simply to busy banging 80% of worlds population of women to give a second thought to any one woman. I'm thinking it may be the latter.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think different people just use their own internal definitions, and don't realize that these definitions don't match. 






UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I agree, it gets confusing. Often times Red-Pill will refer to a "Beta Buck" or "Beta Provider" with derision since its assumed the woman had her share of Alpha's and needed to settle down for security. So she finds a Beta to provide for her. There are also scenarios where the woman chooses the Beta Provider only after having the children of an Alpha. So what does that mean? The Alpha can't provide or is unwilling to provide, or simply to busy banging 80% of worlds population of women to give a second thought to any one woman. I'm thinking it may be the latter.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I agree, it gets confusing. Often times Red-Pill will refer to a "Beta Buck" or "Beta Provider" with derision since its assumed the woman had her share of Alpha's and needed to settle down for security. So she finds a Beta to provide for her. There are also scenarios where the woman chooses the Beta Provider only after having the children of an Alpha. So what does that mean? The Alpha can't provide or is unwilling to provide, or simply to busy banging 80% of worlds population of women to give a second thought to any one woman. I'm thinking it may be the latter.


It is both the former and the latter.

In essence: Alphas run up the bill, betas get to pick up the tab.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

uhtred said:


> I partially agree, when the Vikings came to raid they would likely kill all the men and capture the women. OTOH, women in viking society tended to be treated a lot better than women in the medieval towns that they raided. I do not know if the same was true for captured women. (I'm sure someone does know, but I don't).
> 
> Keep in mind though that most men do now want women as slaves, they want them as companions. No reasonable person wants to share a bet with someone who wants to kill them.


If I kiddingly call my W a slave tonight and you don't hear from me, it means she killed me in my sleep...😎😎😎


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

If the Neanderthal man (stronger, alpha-like qualities) was replaced by weaker but smarter modern humans, does it mean evolution is 'smarter' than women at making the 'right' choice?? >

The alpha/beta model is dying too it seems: A Cultural History of the ?Alpha Male? Concept


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

There are alpha females as well you know...😉


----------



## mclee (Jun 9, 2018)

i think this terminology has beocme quite loaded and got a bad rap because it's been co-opted into the vocabulary of the incel movement, the MGTOW movement, redpillers etc.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Cletus said:


> But during those 10,000 years, only men (FTMP) had the power. First it was the strongest men, then it was the richest men, then it was basically the white men.


It was a very, very small group of smartest men, richest men or white men that had the power. The overwhelming majority of men were every bit as powerless as the women.

In many of these situations, those men's wives held an enormous amount of power; certainly more than the average man.

True, I'd rather have been a man back in the day, but it's hardly the case that women were uniquely without power.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

LTCNurse said:


> I'm a female and I don't really understand what anyone is saying when they seem to "put down" anyone who is not an alpha male?
> What IS an alpha male? Does it refer to leadership? Because not all of us (or all men) are leadership types and I think that is ok. However...I think it is important for ALL women that her man be willing to stand up for her and the family when it is necessary and to "fight for" (figuratively or literally if necessary) the safety of the family.
> 
> 
> Other t*han that,* I've definitely been attracted to men who were not or would not necessarily be the "leader" in the family. So explain please. This confuses me. *I think people are who they are and all of us have ways in which we can improve. It just seems like so many men here are being insulted *(I don't know if that is the right word) for not being alpha, so I want to know what alpha means in the minds of posters here.


I tend to THINK a lot like you.. for instance, anyone who's had children....from birth.. it seems a personality or temperament is set within them, within us even (more introverted, extroverted by nature)... Ultimately an Introverted Phlegmatic man is less likely to be a strong leader type over an Extroverted Choleric temperament for example...

Opposite temperaments do often attract and it works very well so long as the woman RESPECTS the man ..... 

When I 1st landed on this forum, these terms were being thrown around everywhere... it only adds to the confusion when you learn different camps have different definitions... The "PICK UP ARTIST community" is the leader in slaughtering anything GOOD in Beta ....do I have any respect for what they stand for.. NO ! 

Probably because of this... when I hear the term... I automatically think A-hole bragger, women falling at his feet, philandering Playboy / so arrogant he's reduced to a douche bag ...Now I know this is NOT the true definition (of course not) ..yet this instinctively comes to mind...and I have to weed aspects out as I learn more ....to see how I view such a man...if it's A-hole Alpha or "GOOD man" Alpha basically...

As BETA can have good & bad also... it's not all bad...as the Pick Up Artist community has taught. 

I have argued my husband is tipped more BETA over ALPHA... but this is because of the definitions that make the most SENSE to me (below)... . please read the 1st few posts on this thread to hear a defense for BETA.... I agree with those who teach a man needs a balance of BOTH...

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...ns-beta-male-good-all-p-whipped-pathetic.html



> The *Alpha Traits* are those associated with classic “manly man” strengths. Power, dominance, physical ability, bravery, wealth, cool and confidence. Oh and good genes. These are the things that attract women and turn them on sexually. The Alpha Traits are linked to the dopamine response in women.
> 
> *Alpha *= attraction building = Dopamine = In Love = Excitement





> The *Beta Traits* are those associated with the strengths of being a nice guy / “family man”. Kindness, being a good listener, the ability to help with the children, dependability, thoughtfulness, compassion and patience. These all create a sense of comfort and safety for the woman, and relax her because she feels that if she became pregnant, the Beta Trait male isn’t going to abandon her and the baby.
> 
> *Beta *= comfort building = Oxytocin / Vasopressin = Pair Bond = Calm Enjoyment"


So Alpha Traits create attraction and that “in love” feeling, and Beta Traits create the pair bond and makes her feel relaxed enough to have sex. You need a balance of both Alpha and Beta in a marriage to maximize her desire to have sex with you.....


----------



## LTCNurse (Feb 5, 2018)

SimplyAmorous said:


> So Alpha Traits create attraction and that “in love” feeling, and Beta Traits create the pair bond and makes her feel relaxed enough to have sex. You need a balance of both Alpha and Beta in a marriage to maximize her desire to have sex with you.....



I agree that if people used the terminology "beta traits" or "alpha traits" it would make more sense to me. For instance, if in a thread, people are bashing a male for pining after a woman who is leaving/treating him badly or disrespectfully they could say, "you are acting beta and need to do a 180 to let her know you have self respect". But, mostly, I think discussions should just nix the beta/alpha terminology because it means something different to everyone, apparently, and it is rather insulting and demeaning to define someone as beta (or alpha as as*hole) when there is truly a mix of attributes.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Well, to be fair, we also often refer to the book No More Mr. Nice Guy, which has very specific descriptions of the alpha male. And it's not very flattering. I urge anyone who's confused to read that book first.


----------



## Cynthia (Jan 31, 2014)

LTCNurse said:


> Haven't we evolved as human beings so that we don't have to follow a select species of primates' social structure?


No. We have not evolved. If you believe in evolution, go to a park, sit on a bench, and watch the people go by. Clearly we are not evolving. It's a miracle we have even survived this long.


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

rabbithabit said:


> i can sense the personality of alpha guy attitude in his stare at my body parts. beta guy alway focus my face but alpha wander fast to parts he wants quickly to get


Testosterone is a helluva dru…..er…..hormone!


----------



## Hope Shimmers (Jul 10, 2015)

I don't believe in this alpha versus beta crap anymore. I haven't read the whole thread BTW.

My last couple of guys were supposedly "alpha" males. Actually what they were was arrogant jerks. First let me tell you that if a man TELLS you he is an alpha male, then he isn't. True alpha males, if you want to call them that, don't have to label themselves because that is a sign of arrogance. True alpha males don't categorize themselves. I had to learn that the really hard way.

I used to gravitate toward overconfident jerks (ie, my version of "alpha males") because they made me feel safe. Ha HA, what a joke that ended up being.


What you want to find is a man who is strong and confident in himself without being an arrogant ahole. Those kinds of men are silent when they do things that make them that way. They don't brag. They don't call themselves alpha males. They just do the right thing in every situation. They don't lie or cheat (that's a BIG one). They don't spout off at the mouth with a bunch of what turns out to be total crap and lies. They just respect women and TRULY make them feel special and safe.

They are extremely rare, but that's the only type of man I will go out with from here on out. I would rather sit by myself for the rest of my life than associate with the "alpha males' that I have thus far.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

SimplyAmorous said:


> So Alpha Traits create attraction and that “in love” feeling, and Beta Traits create the pair bond and makes her feel relaxed enough to have sex. You need a balance of both Alpha and Beta in a marriage to maximize her desire to have sex with you.....


Except for the last part you might be correct. The fact is that most men with "beta traits" are often the ones complaining about a sexless relationship. So I don't think she "feel(s) relaxed enough to have sex". More often than not she feels comfortable enough to NOT have sex.


----------



## Vinnydee (Jan 4, 2016)

Breaking it down to is primal meaning it would be a male who other males will defer to. The alpha male got the best part of the food. He got the best woman and more of them. It is not much different in modern society where men with power, money or fame attract the best looking women and have men working under them. They can provide for their family better than most other men can and women are still attracted to that. As a woman who would you prefer, all things being equal, a hot looking guy with a good sense of humor who is able to provide you and your children with all the finer things in life. They can provide your children with the best education and leave everyone enough money to have an easy life should they die. Would you want that or a guy who has a low level job, lives from paycheck to paycheck and has physical and mental flaws indicating poor genes all other things being equal.


I am old school alpha. I do not play well with other men as I am very competitive and need to be top dog. Not so much now that I am retired. These days the internet is filled with men wishing that their female partners would have sex with other men and then let them eat the other man's semen. Don't believe me, Google it. It is the largest sexual fetish these days. Men want dominant women which was not the case in my time. Women no longer need alpha males since the police can protect them and they can buy food at a supermarket. Yet it is easily seen that men in positions of power, have fame or wealth, get all the best girls and have power over all the men under them just like our ancient ancestors did but in a more primitive way.


I played football and baseball making all the all star teams every year. I lead a squad in Vietnam and have scars on my face and body from many fights in my younger days. I never told any adult about a bully. I fought that bully until he learned that I was to going to be a beta male like the others he bullied. I was very competitive and driven to succeed above all other men in my field, and did so when I became one of two world recognized experts in my profession. Most people view alpha males as muscle heads who are dumb and A holes. While that is one type of alpha male there are others like we who have very high IQs and no longer have to use our fist to get what we want. We use our brains to rise above other men who work for us. As to getting all the girls, my status did attract a lot of women. Like my ancient alpha ancestors who wanted all the best women for themselves, I settled for just two, my wife and a girlfriend we shared for most of our 46 years of marriage. Our girlfriend's husband is a beta male who when told he either shared his wife with us or she would leave him, decided to share as he got off on being sexually dominated and humiliated. The funny part is that he thinks he is an alpha male as he defines it. Most men would beg to differ.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

rabbithabit said:


> i can sense the personality of alpha guy attitude in his stare at my body parts. beta guy alway focus my face but alpha wander fast to parts he wants quickly to get


So staring at your boobs is all it takes huh?

This thread has to be a joke.


----------



## PreRaph (Jun 13, 2017)

If I was silly enough to take male sexuality, male social behavior and male attitudes towards women, their jobs, their their success or failure, and towards themselves and their emotions, and categorize it all according to some black-and-white distinction between "alpha" and "beta", then I would have even less value than some lower primate.

And I would be just as stupid, but without an excuse.


----------



## Hope Shimmers (Jul 10, 2015)

Vinnydee said:


> Women no longer need alpha males since the police can protect them


:rofl: Yeah, THAT'S why women no longer need alpha males. Because now we have primal, grunting PO-lice, to take care of us, ooooOOOOgah! (pounding chest with fists) :rofl: 



Vinnydee said:


> and they can buy food at a supermarket.


Yep, we don't need you alphas to go out and kill dinner for us with your bare hands.



Vinnydee said:


> Yet it is easily seen that men in positions of power, have fame or wealth, get all the best girls and have power over all the men under them just like our ancient ancestors did but in a more primitive way.


But do they KEEP those girls?



Vinnydee said:


> I played football and baseball making all the all star teams every year. I lead a squad in Vietnam and have scars on my face and body from many fights in my younger days. I never told any adult about a bully. I fought that bully until he learned that I was to going to be a beta male like the others he bullied. I was very competitive and driven to succeed above all other men in my field, and did so when I became one of two world recognized experts in my profession. Most people view alpha males as muscle heads who are dumb and A holes.


No, most people view "alpha" males as thinking they are better than everyone else and being braggadocious.



Vinnydee said:


> I settled for just two, my wife and a girlfriend we shared for most of our 46 years of marriage.


I really have nothing to say to this that won't get me banned.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course! I just thought it was interesting that you very aptly illustrated practically everything I said. I dated lots of guys like you. Never again; not for me.

One thing I figured out was that one of the guys I dated recently (a reporter) who I thought was very 'beta', was actually one of the most 'alpha' men I've ever met. He treated me well, and he wasn't big and strong and muscular and all about himself. I let him go. My mistake, because all he did was treat me well, and I was so used to the opposite crap that I didn't know what to do with it.



Vinnydee said:


> _*I am old school alpha.*_ I do not play well with other men as I am very competitive and need to be top dog.


I rest my case.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Hope Shimmers said:


> What you want to find is a man who is strong and confident in himself without being an arrogant ahole. Those kinds of men are silent when they do things that make them that way. They don't brag. They don't call themselves alpha males. They just do the right thing in every situation. They don't lie or cheat (that's a BIG one). They don't spout off at the mouth with a bunch of what turns out to be total crap and lies. They just respect women and TRULY make them feel special and safe.


Hope, if you read books like No More Mr Nice Guy, THAT is what it describes as an alpha male. A beta male is the type you described previously. People tend to get hung up on slang and stereotypes, rather than the more technical psychological descriptions like in NMMNG. Alpha males don't 'need' anything because they're secure in themselves. Beta males have low self esteem (or other issues) and therefore don't believe they deserve - or can get - what they want, so they find 'ways' to get it: control, shame, blame, covert contracts.

But you're right, seeking that kind of person is the best course.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

turnera said:


> Hope, if you read books like No More Mr Nice Guy, THAT is what it describes as an alpha male. A beta male is the type you described previously. People tend to get hung up on slang and stereotypes, rather than the more technical psychological descriptions like in NMMNG. Alpha males don't 'need' anything because they're secure in themselves. Beta males have low self esteem (or other issues) and therefore don't believe they deserve - or can get - what they want, so they find 'ways' to get it: control, shame, blame, covert contracts.
> 
> But you're right, seeking that kind of person is the best course.


This is really all that needs to be said about this. However it seems to be understood by some misguided people, especially with the influence of the Red Pill philosophy that the bottom line to ranking someone as an alpha is the amount of sex a man has, or even more so the amount of sex partners. If we take that idea to it's zenith then Ron Jeremy would probably be the most powerful Alpha on the planet I guess. Which is just stupid. This doesn't account for men like me who didn't have a lot of sex partners because I didn't want them, and have been married for 14 years. In my case then I guess I am a beta. 

However if some fool were to tell me that was the case especially because of this stupid way of thinking I would just laugh in their face and assume they probably don't have a lot of success with women and are pretty much grasping at straws. I would also assume that that lack of success is probably much more due to their lack of interpersonal skills as opposed to them not being a cop or fireman, or how they hold their frame. 

The world only works like Red Pill if you are dating a women with severe low self esteem or personality disorder. It works at least a little better if your whole motivation is to have lots of sex partners in relationships that last a short period of time. Besides that there are some good parts to it such as getting in shape and being the best you can be, but there are better philosophies that say the same thing which will give you better long term success and potential long term happiness then RP. 

I do agree though that passive men are beta or whatever you want to call them. Truth is they suck to be coupled with and they suck to be in general. However this is a function of their character which has nothing to do with how well they can run a line at some bar or whatever and how tall they are. You can have just as much success by taking a women out to dinner at a very classy restaurant dressed to the 9s, going to an art museum knowing a little about what you are looking at and being able to talk about it, seducing her that way, as you can putting her in your pickup truck and going to a BBQ. The point being do you, pick dates who will jell with you, and most of all BE CONFIDENT in YOU. 

If you spend a lot of time talking or even thinking about Alphas and Betas you are probably not an Alpha.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

You are brilliant, so kill me


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

personofinterest said:


> You are brilliant, so kill me


I am tempted to post the applicable Han Solo gif >

but then all you have to do is read when I use their, and there and know that isn't true!


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

But there are lots of people, which is all "evolution" cares about. 



CynthiaDe said:


> No. We have not evolved. If you believe in evolution, go to a park, sit on a bench, and watch the people go by. Clearly we are not evolving. It's a miracle we have even survived this long.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Is that alpha or just rude?

(another reason I think the term is meaningless)



rabbithabit said:


> i can sense the personality of alpha guy attitude in his stare at my body parts. beta guy alway focus my face but alpha wander fast to parts he wants quickly to get


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

The sort of men you like are not all the rare, just not as visible. 

Guy I work with looks like a nerd engineer. Nice guy, not at all a braggart, just a friendly normal guy. Turns out he competes in inline skating competitions at a national level. Once was out kayaking with his girlfriend and a strong wind came up driving them towards sea rocks with huge crashing waves - serious chance of death. She got exhausted and collapsed. So he rigged up a tow-rope from things he had on had, and towed her kayak behind his away from the rocks to safety. 

Another guy at work walks with a limp. Eventually someone else told the story, that he was ex special-forces and the limp was from an injury when his helicopter was shot down over enemy territory. 

There are a lot of awsome people out there who don't make a big deal of what they are. (and a lot of ordinary guys like me who are not particularly exciting but will still treat their partners well). 




Hope Shimmers said:


> I don't believe in this alpha versus beta crap anymore. I haven't read the whole thread BTW.
> 
> My last couple of guys were supposedly "alpha" males. Actually what they were was arrogant jerks. First let me tell you that if a man TELLS you he is an alpha male, then he isn't. True alpha males, if you want to call them that, don't have to label themselves because that is a sign of arrogance. True alpha males don't categorize themselves. I had to learn that the really hard way.
> 
> ...


----------



## dadstartingover (Oct 23, 2015)

Some of you folks are way over-thinking this.

*Alpha* is a way-overused term that doesn't necessarily mean *"THE biological top dog"*, but rather means *"Not an f'ing wuss of a pushover guy"*. Sometimes this means *"He's kind of an a-hole"*.

The *"Beta"* is the wuss. The dork. The nerd. The *"nice guy"*. 

The dork/jock, nice guy/jerk, alpha/beta thing has been around forever. This ain't new. It's just that lately the internet has blown it up out of proportion and shoved it in our faces. 

Yes, ladies... there's a male hierarchy at play here. Us men all know it and have been at various levels of the hierarchy at some point in our lives. The sad fact is that when you play the jock/jerk/alpha part... you get laid A LOT more. When you put on the nerd/beta/nice guy costume, you're more likely to get married and settle down.

Those beta/dork/nice guy types then come to my website and shoot me emails when their wife is caught banging the alpha/jerk/jock guy. It's so common that it's comical at this point.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Again, everyone is using the terms differently here. (which is why I think they are meaningless). 

Why do you think "nerds" are beta? Maybe in high school but not in real life from what I've seen. 




dadstartingover said:


> Some of you folks are way over-thinking this.
> 
> *Alpha* is a way-overused term that doesn't necessarily mean *"THE biological top dog"*, but rather means *"Not an f'ing wuss of a pushover guy"*. Sometimes this means *"He's kind of an a-hole"*.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hope Shimmers (Jul 10, 2015)

uhtred said:


> Is that alpha or just rude?
> 
> (another reason I think the term is meaningless)


That has nothing to do with alpha or beta. That's just lewd and rude.

It goes along with some people's belief that alpha men are less evolved and more ape-like/unsocialized. Which, if we do insist on this alpha/beta distinction, is the opposite of the truth.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Hope Shimmers said:


> uhtred said:
> 
> 
> > Is that alpha or just rude?
> ...


I dunno. Did you read all that utter crap about jocks and nerds? I'm lot feeling the evolution lol.


----------



## Hope Shimmers (Jul 10, 2015)

personofinterest said:


> I dunno. Did you read all that utter crap about jocks and nerds? I'm lot feeling the evolution lol.


:rofl: I see your point.

Guess it depends on who you ask.


----------



## Luminous (Jan 14, 2018)

For me, the traits of an alpha, are the following:

Virtuous
Honorable
Ethical
Realistic

These characteristics can be applied to any man/woman. They do not seek validation from outside sources. They have a high level of consciousness and conscientiousness. They draw a line in the sand regarding acceptable behaviour and stick to it.

Sent from my HTC_M9u using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

What negative characteristics do you apply to Alphas or positive ones to Betas?



Luminous said:


> For me, the traits of an alpha, are the following:
> 
> Virtuous
> Honorable
> ...


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Ynot said:


> Except for the last part you might be correct. The fact is that most men with "beta traits" are often the ones complaining about a sexless relationship. So I don't think she "feel(s) relaxed enough to have sex". More often than not she feels comfortable enough to NOT have sex.


Yes....I am sure this is very true... my husband always wanted MORE too (his drive was higher over mine the majority of our marraige)... though not for the last 10 yrs... Looking back, he was too NICE /lenient about not getting it or pursuing -- if he felt I wasn't in the mood....never one to push....(unlike myself by the way.. I have a hard time taking no for an answer in this area)...

Yet I know how I am ...and I couldn't be with a man I didn't trust impeccably or worry he may not be faithful...I am one who needs the BETA side in a man...this is not a turn off to me personally... If it was.. I'd have left him 30 some years ago. He is swimming in those traits, the ones I listed about being a good father, listener, etc... I dearly love these things about him..


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

uhtred said:


> The sort of men you like are not all the rare, just not as visible.
> 
> *Guy I work with looks like a nerd engineer. Nice guy, not at all a braggart, just a friendly normal guy. * Turns out he competes in inline skating competitions at a national level. Once was out kayaking with his girlfriend and a strong wind came up driving them towards sea rocks with huge crashing waves - serious chance of death. She got exhausted and collapsed. So he rigged up a tow-rope from things he had on had, and towed her kayak behind his away from the rocks to safety.
> 
> ...














Luminous said:


> For me, the traits of an alpha, are the following:
> 
> *Virtuous
> Honorable
> ...


 All of those can be said for GOOD Beta characteristics too (good Father, trustworthy, faithful, hard working.... ... again why the terms are kinda meaningless...


----------



## Luminous (Jan 14, 2018)

My comment is just one man's opinion. In regards to your comments, it would depend on the dynamic of the relationship... Every characteristic has degrees to it. An 'Alpha' could be trustworthy or hard working, but would have a better sense of self not to be used as a doormat. 

I have seen (and experienced before I toughened up and grew a pair), that a person one would call 'Beta' more often than not, lets things slide that an Alpha would not, in an attempt to 'keep the peace' and avoid confrontation. 

Sent from my HTC_M9u using Tapatalk


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> For a while, this site was rife with threads from women who had lost attraction to their husbands based mostly on the husband being passive or being a follower (beta).
> 
> It's really nice in the dating phase, when he's all agreeable, sensitive, willing to do whatever you want to do, etc. But at some point, it seems a lot of women expect their husband to take charge, at least some of the time. It's a rare woman who can and wants to be the leader day in, day out, and even most of them want a man who is their equal.
> 
> (speaking in generalities of course; there are exceptions)


My Husband is more passive over me... always has been...BUT BUT BUT.. he's still the leader in ways that make him ALPHA enough ....if this can be explained somehow...

Well some call it ALPHA where I can still see it as "GOOD BETA" (the debate continues)... He's always been the breadwinner , he's a Traditional male -in every way... pays for the woman, wanted to marry... worked to support our growing family while I stayed home to raise the kids....makes 3 times more than I do (now that I am working).... handles all the handyman work at home.. need something built.. he can do it and do it well.. need a Transmission changed, a roof laid... he can handle it... and then some.. how do you not LOOK UP to these things.. admire them.. 

He's responsible, honest, trustworthy, I can count on him...he is respected at work -the man to go to -if you need help...he always takes the wheel when driving, unless I want to drive.... I appreciate this in Bad weather, in big cities.. I don't want to drive!..... 

But still he's more passive, it's that phlegmatic temperament .. he is more of a peacemaker... (we need people like this in the world too, or we'd all be at each other's throats, wouldn't we)..... I can stir the pot.. I guess we balance each other out .. if he was with a woman like himself.. they wouldn't challenge each other... I will confront things.. and he's GOOD with that ! 

Where he is strong.. I may struggle.. like patience sometimes.. he is better with helping the kids with homework, for instance, I hate it !.. .. 

Whereas I may take more of an initial lead in saying "Hey.. lets get this done.. lets go here.. let's work on that" (I do help, put my tool belt on)... I may come up with the ideas many times.. but he manages the tools & brings the project to fruition by his lead.... he's never been a slacker.... We do go forth as a team...


----------



## Luminous (Jan 14, 2018)

SimplyAmorous said:


> My Husband is more passive over me... always has been...BUT BUT BUT.. he's still the leader in ways that make him ALPHA enough ....if this can be explained somehow...
> 
> Well some call it ALPHA where I can still see it as "GOOD BETA" (the debate continues)... He's always been the breadwinner , he's a Traditional male -in every way... pays for the woman, wanted to marry... worked to support our growing family while I stayed home to raise the kids....makes 3 times more than I do (now that I am working).... handles all the handyman work at home.. need something built.. he can do it and do it well.. need a Transmission changed, a roof laid... he can handle it... and then some.. how do you not LOOK UP to these things.. admire them..
> 
> ...


From what you have said, it sounds like what some would call Alpha... You said he is passive, yet takes action or stands up when necessary... Responsible... That he is always there for you guys when needed... Virtuous/Ethical 

At the end of the day they are just tags that people throw around, bit like someone being 'left' or 'right'. 

And you are have a point in that if both people in a relationship have 'Alpha' personalities, it would be war without end!  one person generally takes the leadership role in a balanced relationship

Sent from my HTC_M9u using Tapatalk


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

uhtred said:


> What negative characteristics do you apply to Alphas or positive ones to Betas?


If you follow the No More Mr Nice Guy formula, the only thing wrong with an alpha is that he doesn't suffer fools. So if a girl tries to manipulate him because she's insecure, he won't give her a second chance. He doesn't need to cos he knows his worth and knows he'll find a better partner.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

But "not suffering fools" is also a positive trait. It seems that a lot of people use "alpha" to mean "all positive characteristics". That is very different from the traditional definition that comes from animal behavior. 



turnera said:


> If you follow the No More Mr Nice Guy formula, the only thing wrong with an alpha is that he doesn't suffer fools. So if a girl tries to manipulate him because she's insecure, he won't give her a second chance. He doesn't need to cos he knows his worth and knows he'll find a better partner.


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

I had never really heard either term until I discovered TAM. I do think the folks on here take it a bit too literally. I also kind of think it unfairly tries to categorize things in a way that means there are really only two types of men. I guess I feel like its way, way more complicated than that. So many factors and attributes that we have as people that aren't considered at all by either definition of Alpha or Beta. I also hate the way the methodology is applied. Instead of encouraging men to try and be something they aren't to attract someone. Why not encourage them to be themselves, be patient, and find someone that suits them just as they are? 

By TAM's definition I would probably be considered a super alpha...but guess what.... if I am with the wrong partner I could still have all the same relationship problems that many people on TAM feel only so called "beta males" have. I could easily find myself in a sexless relationship, or be cheated on. In fact I have been cheated on. There probably is a difference in how I deal with the fall out....but being "alpha" does not mean I am immune to the relationship challenges of a so called "beta man". 

I guess I feel like it should be more about a man finding the right woman for him, than trying to "alpha" up. No matter how alpha you think you might be, there is a woman out there that could simply be a very poor match for you and vice versa. To me the alpha/beta dynamic for every man is more about the individual chemistry and power balance within his relationship. I actually kind of think its egotistical to assume that your attitude alone can have that much influence over a woman. Trust me, I have a huge, HUGE ego, and even I know better than to think I have anywhere near that much influence.

I guess my last pet peeve about TAM world versus real world is this notion that there is a studly alpha man just waiting to pick up every married woman, and she will be powerless to resist him. Especially if he has that golden ratio, and heaven forbid if he is a "bad boy" too. Some of the assumptions on here about "alphas", bad boys etc, honestly make me question how often people get out. Its almost cartoonish. Its like the idea of what men think women want, instead of what they actually want. It all sounds like "science" written by insecure men for other insecure men. Don't get me wrong, sleazy men will definitely hit on your lady if she is a looker. But can we please stop assuming that its the men that actually have the power based on our alphaness? I got news for you. We don't. Some of us are more appealing than others to the opposite sex, but that doesn't mean its at the level of mind control, and to me that's the power that many on TAM assume that an alpha male has, and its absurd. Just my opinion.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

uhtred said:


> But "not suffering fools" is also a positive trait. It seems that a lot of people use "alpha" to mean "all positive characteristics". That is very different from the traditional definition that comes from animal behavior.


uhtred, that's my point. The ONLY thing they can find wrong with alpha males is that they don't give needy women 3 or 5 or 10 chances, as long as they're putting out.


----------



## MichelleThoughts (Jun 24, 2018)

I think it is an interesting concept actually. I think most people agree that alpha means strong, masculine, in control of himself and his life overall. He gets what he wants and doesn't have to worry about it too much. People, men and women, respect him.

The beta male is the other way. Weaker, probably passive aggressive, frustrated, the type who either cannot attract a woman or is married yet sex-starved or has his wife rule over him.

I find it interesting because my own family is full of beta males. I grew up in bewilderment about why the men in my family, particularly my stepfather, whose relationship with my mother I was most familiar with, just act like doormats. He allowed my mother to rule over him like a slave. I am serious! I don't understand why he stays with her but he does. Whenever they fight, she usually blows things way out of proportion and has acted in some truly outrageous ways but he always says he is sorry and like everything is his fault. Only in more recent years, after over twenty years of this had passed, has he just now started to display signs of resentment for how mean and out of control she has been.

I grew up thinking that the spineless way he and some other men I know is very unattractive and so I married a man who has more self-respect. No one is perfect and sometimes I wonder if I went too far in the other direction! Because sometimes I think my husband can be not as sympathetic as I would like or just plain-old entering jerk territory. But that is not all the time. In those moments when my husband and I are having a conflict, I often find myself afterwards feeling frustrated that he is not as sweet as other men I have known, followed by contemplation about what life would be like if he were more like that with me, followed by realizing that very few people are the perfect balance, and that I would rather have a man who is a little rough around the edges yet productive and strong, than a passive and weak placating man who lets me walk all over him. Then I usually realize what I have been doing wrong and my own role in the conflict, followed by a desire to make up with hot make-up sex. Seriously it is actually really funny. In one hour I often go from really mad at him to really attracted to him because I admire his resilience. Overall, my husband is a hard worker, great father, good provider, and very honest and upfront about his needs in our relationship. So the occasional time when he is less compassionate than I would like is tolerable for me.

I first really thought about this when one of my friends got married and talked about how glad she was that she found a beta man. I was already married at that point but was like, "what do you mean?" I was amazed that this was a quality she actually sought because she wanted to be in charge of him basically. I was really shocked that she would actually want this over the alpha! But I think that at least in the relationships I have known, more often than not, the wife is the alpha and the husband is the beta. Other women have actually been critical of my relationship because they see that ours is different from theirs. And yet I feel like we are way happier. We have been together 15 years, married 13 years, have four kids, and are very in love with each other.

My husband also was briefly married and divorced before we met. His first wife did the common thing I see here on TAM where she was very sexual and giving at first and then denied him sex regularly after a while. Once this dynamic started, he warned her many times that his needs were not being met and that things needed to change or he would leave. Why she didn't have more desire for him is seriously beyond me. Because he is HOT lol. But anyway, he did divorce her. At a point after they were married, he told her clearly that he needed serious change or he would leave her. Then he gave her six months of trying to work it out, during which time she continued making excuses, and then he told her he was done, filed for divorce and started dating again. Right before he separated from her, she ended up trying to literally trick him into impregnating her because she didn't want to lose him, but he figured it out and luckily never had kids with her.

So I figure if he had stayed and put up with all that while letting the resentment and frustration grow, he would have been a beta. But he was proactive and did what he felt was best to set goals and make them happen.


----------



## TheBohannons (Apr 6, 2018)

MichelleThoughts said:


> he told her clearly that he needed serious change or he would leave her. Then he gave her six months of trying to work it out, during which time she continued making excuses, and then he told her he was done, and started dating again.
> 
> So I figure if he had stayed and put up with all that while letting the resentment and frustration grow, he would have been a beta. But he was proactive and did what he felt was best to set goals and make them happen.


Accurate.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

"I think it is an interesting concept actually. I think most people agree that alpha means strong, masculine, in control of himself and his life overall. He gets what he wants and doesn't have to worry about it too much. People, men and women, respect him."

The list has items that may not necessarily be all that related. 

Look for specific qualities you can quantify instead of abstract unicorny notions of alpha-ness or beta-ness.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

That's interesting, coming from you, john.


----------

