# The Importance of Alpha?



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

During a conversation with my STBXWW recently, she mentioned that in our earlier years, I had been 'more attentive' (and accordingly, we had a much better sex life). However, later, I had become 'less attentive', which of course was her justification for serial cheating.

The funny thing is, here's how I recall our relationship: In our early days, I was a selfish person.. generally used to being single and successful with women. We both worked (she even made more money), but she cleaned and cooked, I played video games, and basically just took her out to hang out with my friends. Pretty much not a great person. Eventually I matured, caught on when she complained, and improved myself. Many years later, she's without a job (and then a SAHM with a kid in daycare), I'm earning, I'm watching the kid when I get home so she can take a rest, I'm taking him out on weekends so she can relax, helping out with dishes and trash and lawn care and whatnot, and generally being (IMO) a much better partner. However, this is the 'bad period' for her.

Reading around elsewhere here, and sites mentioned such as marriedmansexlife.com, I'm starting to think that, because I continually conceded this ground to her in the interest of taking care of her feelings, I became the beta and she lost sexual interest. In fact, on our last date, she basically bossed me around -- sending me to get drinks, having me hold hers so she could dance, and things like that. I even mentioned how some guy and I got into a pissing match because he tried to jump line to get a drink, and she said "Next time just call me in honey, I'll handle it." That made me furious.. I stopped being selfish in order to be kind, and it seems I'm just punished for it.

Now, the concept of being 'alpha male' in a relationship is a thorny one, and I'm wary of MRA-types and typically very supportive of women. But I've also been hearing from very independent women as well that, yeah, they still like the guy to be a bit of the boss.

So, long-time marrieds here.. thoughts? Counterarguments? I'd like to get a bit outside the echo chamber I've been immersed in if I can. Next relationship, do I need to continue to make a conscious effort to maintain alpha status (to an extent, of course) in order to keep respect and fidelity sacred, or was I just married to an example of a person who wasn't representative of a lot of women?


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

I think it is a fair summation.

There is the caveat that if a woman is a selfish prick, she will see selfish acts as sticking up for yourself and a selfless act as being weak. Choosing to be kind will make no sense to her beyond an act of conceding weakness. It is a great logic, but it can lead to making yourself attractive to unpleasant women first and foremost.

Also, there will be times when you are ill or tired, unemployed, lose close family etc. If maintaining constant alpha is a requirement it will not work.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Alpha is important, but so is beta. Balance is the key.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I can only say that it has worked very well for me.

I didn't really know the term before coming to TAM but I have been very alpha since age 17 on.

I didn't study but just did what came naturally.

I can't say I was a major a-hole all the time but everyone knew not to cross me.

Women threw themselves at me and today is my 20th anniversary, 24 years together, and Mrs. Conan still throws herself at me.

She describes me as good, hard, strong but not nice.

I am very affectionate and loving but I never let her forget she is being loved by a tiger.

I don't think it is for everyone. There are men much softer than me that seem to do ok. 

Your WW probably needs a short leash and strong handed dominance to be satisfied and remain faithful, if she is even capable of faithfulness.

She may simply be a slvt that should never have married.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

ConanHub said:


> Women threw themselves at me and today is my 20th anniversary, 24 years together, and Mrs. Conan still throws herself at me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Congrats :smile2:


----------



## afab (Jul 28, 2015)

What you write is quite 'normal'. Why must a kid be in daycare when the mother is stay at home. What does she do all day if she doesnt work. I suppose she has no 'interests' except to 'lord' it over you because she once worked 'more' than you.


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

This book explains some of the alpha/beta sort of.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Married-Life-Primer-2011/dp/1460981731

Another https://heartiste.wordpress.com/

And good old Tom https://blowmeuptom.com/:grin2:


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

GusPolinski said:


> Alpha is important, but so is beta. Balance is the key.


Yeah, that seems to be the message of the marriedmansexlife blog. All alpha certainly seems a step too far.

It just seems counterintuitive at first.. it's always been pushed to put yourself in the other person's shoes, try and view their arguments as reasonable, and I can do that pretty well. Of course, you have to trust that they're not trying to manipulate you, and obviously in my case I got screwed because of that. But I wonder if it's not human nature to push boundaries a little bit, even as a 'good' person, and expect to be rebuffed and even respect it. That's what I'm fishing for here.. women to comment on that.

If alpha is the way to go.. fine, I can play that. It's not my natural form, but it's not like it's not a little fun to just put your foot down and be boss.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

Another issue is that the "nice guy" referred to as a error, is not nice, but a sniviing, emotionally selg-indulgent mummy's boy.


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

afab said:


> What you write is quite 'normal'. Why must a kid be in daycare when the mother is stay at home. What does she do all day if she doesnt work. I suppose she has no 'interests' except to 'lord' it over you because she once worked 'more' than you.


Yeah, that has been a major point of contention for going on 2 years. She kept complaining she didn't have enough time to herself and she was stressed out, and my counterpoint was basically.. "I know SAHM's are undervalued, and I get that you are doing plenty, but between daycare, the time every day that I watch him after work, and me watching him a good chunk of the weekend by myself, I think this is a time management issue for you". Since then, she held it over my head as 'destroying' her, we couldn't have sex for 9 months because she was so devastated that I thought she was so worthless, etc etc etc. This of course is roughly around where the cheating started, I don't know before or after.

Now I've realized it was some manipulative BS, but my biggest mistake was probably apologizing to her for suggesting that she had to work on her time management.. that's where I made a 'beta move'. Although it may have been too late at that point, who knows. The more I talk about it, the more it reminds me she's most likely just a bad person.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Look everyone, I am doing extensive research into the "omega male" and would like to advocate that he be included in ALL discussions here since so little is known about him! Excluding him without ever even mentioning him is the same as bullying, so please include him from now on, OK!!!!!

I am working on a project to advocate for the omega man, and pretty soon no one will know what hit them!!!!

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

truster said:


> During a conversation with my STBXWW recently, she mentioned that in our earlier years, I had been 'more attentive' (and accordingly, we had a much better sex life). However, later, I had become 'less attentive', which of course was her justification for *serial cheating*.
> 
> The funny thing is, here's how I recall our relationship: In our early days, I was a selfish person.. generally used to being single and successful with women. We both worked (she even made more money), but she cleaned and cooked, I played video games, and basically just took her out to hang out with my friends. Pretty much not a great person. Eventually I matured, caught on when she complained, and improved myself. Many years later, she's without a job (and then a SAHM with a kid in daycare), I'm earning, I'm watching the kid when I get home so she can take a rest, I'm taking him out on weekends so she can relax, helping out with dishes and trash and lawn care and whatnot, and generally being (IMO) a much better partner. However, this is the 'bad period' for her.
> 
> ...


A good mix of what are referred to as alpha and beta traits is a good thing. Don't be an @ss. Don't put up with a partner who's an @ss to you. 

However, serial cheaters are basically broken. No amount of alpha, or beta, or balance of the two, is going to do anything to keep a serial cheater from cheating. What a healthy alpha/beta balance _will_ do is make you the sort of person who won't stick around to deal with the narcissistic and emotionally abusive behaviors that a serial cheater exhibits.


----------



## JohnA (Jun 24, 2015)

ConanHub,

Brilliant !!! Exactly what I mean when I urge people to a good guy not a nice guy !!!

A nice guy enables 

A good guy en-nobles. 

An alpha never enables.


----------



## afab (Jul 28, 2015)

So thats the problem she thinks you consider her worthless. I suppose its true and there is not much you can do about it.
I would say youre marriage sounds like its finished but there is kid at stake.
The question is does she want a divorce. If she doesnt then there may be a slim hope. 
I am sorry, not all problems can be solved.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

JohnA said:


> ConanHub,
> 
> Brilliant !!! Exactly what I mean when I urge people to a good guy not a nice guy !!!
> 
> ...


I, of course, have to like on this! Blush!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

afab said:


> So thats the problem she thinks you consider her worthless. I suppose its true and there is not much you can do about it.
> I would say youre marriage sounds like its finished but there is kid at stake.
> The question is does she want a divorce. If she doesnt then there may be a slim hope.
> I am sorry, not all problems can be solved.


You really need to read his other thread.

Any why in the Hell would it matter whether or not SHE wants to divorce...?


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

afab said:


> So thats the problem she thinks you consider her worthless. I suppose its true and there is not much you can do about it.
> I would say youre marriage sounds like its finished but there is kid at stake.
> The question is does she want a divorce. If she doesnt then there may be a slim hope.
> I am sorry, not all problems can be solved.


Well, that's what she has been saying for the last 2 years or so, despite my clarifications, apologies, and offers of MC... but really, now I know it was most likely manipulation or weak justification for her multiple affairs.

The divorce is already in progress, whether she wants it or not.. that part is not in question :smile2:

I'm just thinking forward, looking at lessons learned, and trying to gather some constructive thoughts about how I might act differently to the next person in my life when they come along.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

Holy Smokes! I can't overstate how important ALPHA male is, having been married to a BETA male for 20 years.

There are no words to emphasize what it means to be loved, PROTECTED, made love to, ravished, by an ALPHA male.

My Beta husband always offered girly girl cr*p, excuses, and apologies. Lovemaking (on the rare occasion) was timid and lukewarm.

My Alpha male lover makes his wishes known. Verbally, emotionally, physically, in no uncertain terms. (Btw, nothing EVER against my wishes. He's just so d*mn Alpha that I can't resist him!)

_**growl...**_


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

truster said:


> Yeah, that has been a major point of contention for going on 2 years. She kept complaining she didn't have enough time to herself and she was stressed out, and my counterpoint was basically.. "I know SAHM's are undervalued, and I get that you are doing plenty, but between daycare, the time every day that I watch him after work, and me watching him a good chunk of the weekend by myself, I think this is a time management issue for you". Since then, she held it over my head as 'destroying' her, we couldn't have sex for 9 months because she was so devastated that I thought she was so worthless, etc etc etc. This of course is roughly around where the cheating started, I don't know before or after.
> 
> Now I've realized it was some manipulative BS, but my biggest mistake was probably apologizing to her for suggesting that she had to work on her time management.. that's where I made a 'beta move'. Although it may have been too late at that point, who knows. The more I talk about it, the more it reminds me she's most likely just a bad person.


You actually apologized for making that comment? Yeah, pretty beta. (But calling her out in the first place was kind of an alpha move.)

But going along w/ a SAHM putting a kid in daycare to begin with? Waaaaay more beta, IMO.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

truster said:


> Well, that's what she has been saying for the last 2 years or so, despite my clarifications, apologies, and offers of MC... but really, now I know it was most likely manipulation or weak justification for her multiple affairs.
> 
> The divorce is already in progress, whether she wants it or not.. that part is not in question :smile2:
> 
> I'm just thinking forward, looking at lessons learned, and trying to gather some constructive thoughts about how I might act differently to the next person in my life when they come along.


MMSLP can help you get there. You mentioned that you've already been reading the blog, so that's good.

That said, _some_ of it starts to sort of stray a bit toward the angry MRA fringe, so I'd advise you to be cognizant of that (sounds like you already are). IOW, take what applies and leave the rest.


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

GusPolinski said:


> You actually apologize for making that comment? Yeah, pretty beta. (But calling her out in the first place was kind of an alpha move.) But going along w/ a SAHM putting a kid in daycare to begin with? Waaaaay more beta, IMO.


Actually, that was my idea, he's an only child and I wanted him to get some social exposure to other kids. It was half-days, but that grew to maybe 6-hr-days over time as the WW needed more time for her oh-so-difficult-life.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

truster said:


> Actually, that was my idea, he's an only child and I wanted him to get some social exposure to other kids. It was half-days, but that grew to maybe 6 over time as the WW needed more time for her oh-so-difficult-life.


Fair enough.

And hey, FWIW... it probably _was_ pretty difficult for her to manage a home, husband, and child while juggling multiple lovers.

:lol: :rofl:


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

Bugged said:


> Nope, I don't agree.
> 
> You were married to someone without morals and a cheater, that's all.
> If that's the kind of woman that complains about you not being _alpha_ (again, whatever that means)..why on earth do you want to attract women of that kind again??:surprise:
> Doesn't make any sense to me.


Well, that's what I'm trying to tease out.. how much of the issue is my WW, and how much is just a common (but not universal) desire among women? I've found myself surprised somewhat to find that faithful and independent women have still expressed that 'take charge' attitude to be essential to their desire.

Basically, what I'm looking for is a teammate, not someone for me to dominate or to dominate me. But if putting a little extra focus into assertiveness is the correct way to get that, then I'm certainly willing.

Thanks for your input, though, I figured it would probably not apply to every woman (after all, does anything apply to billions of people universally?) Still, I am also hearing the opposite, so am still thinking at this point that a conscious decision to maintain the alpha side of my alpha/beta mix may be a good idea to keep respect and desire high in the long term. Would still love to hear from other women here.


----------



## JohnA (Jun 24, 2015)

Truster have you followed though on your course of action on your first thread ? Have your used her actions to gain control on custody and surppot ?

To do so is the essence of Alpa, not I bagged X women (that's the OM gig.)

Know the person you are dealing with ! Who is your WW ? Read 16 rules of poon. What I find sad is how many women fit his profile.

Please respond.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

truster said:


> Well, that's what I'm trying to tease out.. how much of the issue is my WW, and *how much is just a common (but not universal) desire among women? *


Ummm... woman here.

I can ASSURE you... when a woman is with a man who pleases her in all ways, is sexually fulfilling, is strong and dominant, doesn't cow-tow... she doesn't stray.

And likewise... when a man is with a woman who strives to please him in all ways, is receptive (and takes the initiative) in bed, LISTENS to him instead of yapping and harping OVER him, *supports* him in both his WORK and HOME life...

THEY DON'T STRAY. There are NO AFFAIRS.

Because EACH are striving to meet each other's needs. In the bedroom, in normal daily issues, in dealing with intimacy needs, etc.


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

JohnA said:


> Truster have you followed though on your course of action on your first thread ? Have your used her actions to gain control on custody and surppot ?
> 
> To do so is the essence of Alpa, not I bagged X women (that's the OM gig.)
> 
> ...


The divorce is in process, and supposedly we have a strong case if she starts any trouble.

'Bagging women' is certainly not my goal.. keeping one particular woman down the road is. I left that whole 'sexual conquest' crap behind me in my 20's, and maybe a little 'alpha' with it (sometimes 'alpha' and 'selfish' can feel very similar, which is why I became uncomfortable with it as I aged).


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

happy as a clam said:


> Ummm... woman here.
> 
> I can ASSURE you... when a woman is with a man who pleases her in all ways, is sexually fulfilling, is strong and dominant, doesn't cow-tow... she doesn't stray.
> 
> ...


I'm jealous, this is exactly the sort of relationship I'll be looking for.. two people with equal respect for each other. Even if it sounds like one has to be a *little* more assertive sometimes :grin2:


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

truster said:


> I'm jealous, this is exactly the sort of relationship I'll be looking for.. two people with equal respect for each other. Even if it sounds like one has to be a *little* more assertive sometimes :grin2:


Guess what? You can have it too!

I wasted 20 years in a lackluster, mis-matched marriage with an LD husband. Raised two kids, finally bailed.

The main reason I am here on TAM is to encourage people NOT TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE I DID. Don't wait two decades to get out. If it's not right, it's not right.

There is a better life on the other side if you are willing to take the chance.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

truster said:


> Thanks for your input, though, I figured it would probably not apply to every woman (after all, does anything apply to billions of people universally?) Still, I am also hearing the opposite, so am still thinking at this point that a conscious decision to maintain the alpha side of my alpha/beta mix may be a good idea to keep respect and desire high in the long term. Would still love to hear from other women here.


What different women want is different. But you knew that already!

I'm with Bugged: Alpha is for pack animals, not humans. I have no interest in chest-thumping, growling, or whatever other dominating behaviour. I find it a total turn off! And absolutely, I would want someone who is my equal, who is loving, caring, kind, respectful. I do not see these behaviours as "beta", I see them as characteristics of a decent human being.

Also, I don't think being selfish and playing video games was the key to the early success of your relationship. You might want to re-think that part.

And I'm betting that being a good person, a better partner, was not the source of your downfall either. More likely, IMHO, is that in long-term relationships people often start taking each other for granted, no longer noticing or appreciating all that they bring to the table. Or, they get bored, and go seeking novelty, excitement, adventure. These sorts of things lead all kinds of people into some pretty bad behaviours. 

And FWIW, any advice you get from the poon-hunters about how women love to be treated like sh!t is only going to ensure that you end up with a woman who wants to be treated like sh!t. All of the poon and alpha stuff is, again IMHO, drivel dreamed by some bitter adolescents who resent women for not dishing out the oodles of sex they thought they were entitled to.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

It's worth noting the following...

1) Human beings ARE pack animals.

2) There is a stark difference between "alpha", "faux alpha", and "hyper-alpha d**chebag assh*le". In all fairness, though, the latter two are often pretty similar, at least on the surface.


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

always_alone said:


> What different women want is different. But you knew that already!
> 
> I'm with Bugged: Alpha is for pack animals, not humans. I have no interest in chest-thumping, growling, or whatever other dominating behaviour. I find it a total turn off! And absolutely, I would want someone who is my equal, who is loving, caring, kind, respectful. I do not see these behaviours as "beta", I see them as characteristics of a decent human being.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the feedback. This is the idea I obviously started with, before doubting myself. But to clarify, I wasn't pointing out my earlier selfish behavior as something to return to, but just to illustrate the situation she thinks back to fondly that I thought, in retrospect, would have been repulsive.

How long have you been married without what you perceive as a necessarily alpha/assertive mate? What sparks the fire in place of that?


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

Bugged said:


> Nope, I don't agree.


I meant to ask you the same question as always_alone.. how long have you been married without what you perceive as a necessarily alpha/assertive mate? What sparks the fire in place of that? That would be an interesting insight to see how the other relationships keep that fire going.


----------



## BlueWoman (Jan 8, 2015)

I don't know what other women want. What I want is an equal. I am pretty strong and competent, I know how to take care of myself, but I would love to have someone that I could share the burden with. Caring and kind men are sexy, but door mats are not. It's a tough line to walk I imagine.


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

Also, I guess 'alpha' is a bit of a loaded term... I suppose I mean 'assertive', but there's certainly, as I said, some frayed boundaries where 'assertive' and 'selfish' can sometimes look similar. What 'alpha' seems to be, to the women who like it, is a sort of trust in a man to be strong.. but it's hard to say what that means too, and where the 'safe' line is REALLY. It kinda feels like trusting a guy to be a benevolent leader? Idunno. Maybe someone can provide more concrete examples of positive assertiveness that aren't tied to the subjective judgement of the person asserting themself. Or maybe it's just when ya like someone they're assertive, and when ya hate em, they're selfish


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

After going through this for some time, I don't think the alpha/beta/omega conversations are as enlightening as PUAs would like them to be. I think what it boils down to is the following:
- be assertive and know what you want. The whole "happy wife, happy life" deal is a passive-agressive covert contract where everybody loses. Being assertive doesn't mean you don't listen or provide what she wants; it means you are clear on what YOU want. It also means calling people out on their BS rather than rolling over.
- be flexible and think long-term. Success today might mean failure long-term. Be wise.
- pay attention to your appearance, fitness, hygene, physical fitness... in other words, do the stuff that attracted her to you to begin with.
- have a plan, stan. What do you want?
- date your spouse and rock their world in the sack as often as possible. When you initiate, do so directly, not passively. Own your sexuality and be prepared to state what you want clearly and without embarrassment. 
- don't be a douche. I guess that goes without saying.

I don't see how that's really any different for the boys than the girls, really.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

truster said:


> Thanks for the feedback. This is the idea I obviously started with, before doubting myself. But to clarify, I wasn't pointing out my earlier selfish behavior as something to return to, but just to illustrate the situation she thinks back to fondly that I thought, in retrospect, would have been repulsive.
> 
> How long have you been married without what you perceive as a necessarily alpha/assertive mate? What sparks the fire in place of that?


I've been with my SO for 17 years. And I wouldn't say that he isn't assertive, because he is, but he is not all about the chest-thumping DGAF dominance that the "alpha" implies.

What most attracts me to him is that he is a good soul, in many ways a much better person than I am or ever will be. He looks out for people, treats them with respect and kindness, helping to boost others up when they are having a hard time. Makes my heart melt.

Saying all that, I do agree with the others who are pointing out that "doormat" isn't terribly attractive. I absolutely don't want him to bend to my every whim, or be my personal slave, or ever feel like I can walk all over him. I love that he's his own person, and is true to himself, and wouldn't want it otherwise. But I especially love that he's wise and gentle, loves animals and children, and all sorts of other things that "alphas" are simply not supposed to be.


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

marduk said:


> After going through this for some time, I don't think the alpha/beta/omega conversations are as enlightening as PUAs would like them to be. I think what it boils down to is the following:
> - be assertive and know what you want. The whole "happy wife, happy life" deal is a passive-agressive covert contract where everybody loses. Being assertive doesn't mean you don't listen or provide what she wants; it means you are clear on what YOU want. It also means calling people out on their BS rather than rolling over.
> - be flexible and think long-term. Success today might mean failure long-term. Be wise.
> - pay attention to your appearance, fitness, hygene, physical fitness... in other words, do the stuff that attracted her to you to begin with.
> ...



This is really all I'm thinking as far as 'alpha'.. no mind games, no stupid tricks. The only difficult tightrope to walk here is being clear with what YOU want, when SHE wants something different. What is appropriately 'assertive' then? I'm starting to think that's a subjective question, answerable only in retrospect and even then varying for each bystander.

I'm guessing there's no easy answer to this, other than "your level of assertiveness probably has no bearing on whether your WW was a manipulative pile of crap"


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

BlueWoman said:


> I don't know what other women want. What I want is an equal. I am pretty strong and competent, I know how to take care of myself, but I would love to have someone that I could share the burden with. Caring and kind men are sexy, but door mats are not. It's a tough line to walk I imagine.


Indeed.

Carrying a big stick helps, though...


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

always_alone said:


> Saying all that, I do agree with the others who are pointing out that "doormat" isn't terribly attractive. I absolutely don't want him to bend to my every whim, or be my personal slave, or ever feel like I can walk all over him. I love that he's his own person, and is true to himself, and wouldn't want it otherwise. But I especially love that he's wise and gentle, loves animals and children, and all sorts of other things that "alphas" are simply not supposed to be.


So here's my probably impossible question -- what's the difference between 'not bending to my every whim' and 'not taking my important concerns into account'? This is the tightrope I keep struggling with, and this is where I worry I got burned before.. trying to address a concern she was trumping up as supremely important when it was just a whim.

Maybe it's just something that works out naturally when two self-confident people are actually trying to be honest and good to each other instead of one manipulating the other. That's certainly my hope.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

always_alone said:


> I've been with my SO for 17 years. And I wouldn't say that he isn't assertive, because he is, but he is not all about the chest-thumping DGAF dominance that the "alpha" implies.
> 
> What most attracts me to him is that he is a good soul, in many ways a much better person than I am or ever will be. He looks out for people, treats them with respect and kindness, helping to boost others up when they are having a hard time. Makes my heart melt.
> 
> Saying all that, I do agree with the others who are pointing out that "doormat" isn't terribly attractive. I absolutely don't want him to bend to my every whim, or be my personal slave, or ever feel like I can walk all over him. I love that he's his own person, and is true to himself, and wouldn't want it otherwise. But I especially love that he's wise and gentle, loves animals and children, and all sorts of other things that "alphas" are simply not supposed to be.


Again, balance is the key.

Everyone has both alpha and beta within them, and each both counter-acts and suppresses the other. The trick is to have and abide by boundaries, deal-breakers, and limits while simultaneously NOT being a snarling, lunk-headed neanderthal d**chebag.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

truster said:


> Now, the concept of being 'alpha male' in a relationship is a thorny one, and I'm wary of MRA-types and typically very supportive of women. But I've also been hearing from very independent women as well that, yeah, they still like the guy to be a bit of the boss.
> 
> So, long-time marrieds here.. thoughts? Counterarguments? I'd like to get a bit outside the echo chamber I've been immersed in if I can. Next relationship, do I need to continue to make a conscious effort to maintain alpha status (to an extent, of course) in order to keep respect and fidelity sacred, or was I just married to an example of a person who wasn't representative of a lot of women?


I'm an independent woman who's been with the same man now for over 20 years (married 16). 

This whole idea that all women secretly want an Alpha Male to dominate them just doesn't work for me and never has. 

It might be a personality thing but I've got a strong personality and would never enter into a relationship where I was expected to surrender to my husband's will just because he's "Alpha". I'm too independent and 'willfull' myself. We'd kill each other. :surprise: 

On the other hand, I could never accept a relationship with a doormat for a husband whose whole existence revolves around pleasing me. I could see myself getting complacent and bored pretty quickly.

So where's the happy medium? For me, there were two traits that have always kept me interested in my husband:

*confidence *: He's got a high sense of self-worth but it's is balanced by his humility. IMO confidence is the key to keeping the sexual chemistry alive.

and 

*honesty on boundaries*: He doesn't and has never tried to control me or my behavior. Instead he's been honest about his boundaries and expectations on the relationship and has left it to me to decide whether I want to be a part of his vision or not. We're well matched on this since I've done the same with him.

I can't say whether these attributes are Alpha-worthy or not but what I can tell you is that they contribute to the attraction I feel for my husband. I wouldn't have made it this long with him otherwise.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

You can be the perfect mix of alpha and beta, or whatever the magic formula is, and if you are with a spouse that just has character flaws that prevent them from being able to function in a normal relationship without cheating then you are simply not the problem. And likewise, since you are not the problem with that kind of broken person, it doesn't even matter if you are too beta, or imperfect in some way, it's simply that the cheater doesn't value being loyal (despite whatever loyalty you have for them).

So work on making yourself more confident, attractive, fit etc for your own quality of life, but never do that in order to try to manipulate someone into being something you want/need (particularly if that's not who they are already), because you just can't you'd simply be wasting your precious time on earth.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

happy as a clam said:


> Ummm... woman here.
> 
> I can ASSURE you... when a woman is with a man who pleases her in all ways, is sexually fulfilling, is strong and dominant, doesn't cow-tow... she doesn't stray.
> 
> ...


Problem is it takes two people that are not only capable, but also willing, to do all those things consistently. Not straying isn't the hard part, the hard part is that people can't be all that all the time, we face challenges individually, together and with others and we don't always react perfectly. When things go just a little off course, many people are lost and confused and there is always a chance that coupling back together to face the challenge doesn't always happen, and when that happens if either spouse doesn't have faith in themselves, their partner or their marriage that's when marriages face catastrophe.

And the reason I think most marriages don't work out is because at their cores, nice people tend to attract not so nice people, so your scenario above truly is a rarity. During the honeymoon period most people are still in it for the sake of being in it, so the core values don't start to appear until at least a few years in, and then a few years of second-guess and next thing they know it's a 7 year itch.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

always_alone said:


> What different women want is different. But you knew that already!
> 
> I'm with Bugged: *Alpha is for pack animals, not humans. I have no interest in chest-thumping, growling, or whatever other dominating behaviour. I find it a total turn off!*


To each, his (or her) own. I happen to vehemently disagree. Alpha describes STRONG MEN... Not "pack animals." Just because you find it a total turn off DOESN'T mean that most women do. (My suspicion is that you don't necessarily feel this way... Perhaps you have "settled" with a beta and are looking for justification?)



always_alone said:


> And absolutely, I would want someone who is my equal, who is loving, caring, kind, respectful. I do not see these behaviours as "beta", I see them as characteristics of a decent human being.


Strong Alpha males are also quite capable of being loving, caring, kind and respectful. My Alpha male is all of those things. In fact, he is the most tender, sensitive man I have ever met.

Don't characterize all men based on your compartmentalization... There's no "pigeon hole." Some men are a "man's man." Some are not. Decide which one turns you on, floats your boat.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

happy as a clam said:


> To each, his (or her) own. I happen to vehemently disagree. Alpha describes STRONG MEN... Not "pack animals." Just because you find it a total turn off DOESN'T mean that most women do. (*My suspicion is that you don't necessarily feel this way... Perhaps you have "settled" with a beta and are looking for justification?)*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of the bolded, which one is it Happy? AA clearly does not need a "man's man, throat stomping killer bear of a partner to have her relationship needs met, so why accuse her of settling? Is it you that needs to not characterize all women based on your own compartmentalization?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Lon said:


> Of the bolded, which one is it Happy? AA clearly does not need a "man's man, throat stomping killer bear of a partner to have her relationship needs met, so why accuse her of settling? Is it you that needs to not characterize all women based on your own compartmentalization?


I get what she is communicating.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

Lon said:


> Of the bolded, which one is it Happy? AA clearly does not need a "man's man, throat stomping killer bear of a partner to have her relationship needs met, so why accuse her of settling? Is it you that needs to not characterize all women based on your own compartmentalization?


Yikes. Sorry to stomp on your toes, Lon. I have no need to compartmentalize people. As I said, "To each, his (or her) own." Whatever floats one's boat. After all, I am not the one who hurled insults at Alpha males, compartmentalized them all as "pack animals", and called them a total turnoff.



ConanHub said:


> I get what she is communicating.


:smthumbup:

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

GusPolinski said:


> Alpha is important, but so is beta. Balance is the key.


This 

Also the point about being a good guy, not a nice guy is spot on. 

One thing that rarely gets discussed here that can have a huge impact on relationships is EQ


> the capacity to be aware of, control, and express one's emotions, and to handle interpersonal relationships judiciously and empathetically.
> "emotional intelligence is the key to both personal and professional success"


The best men are those that strive to be great men. Not whiny, misogynistic pricks, not lazy or rude slobs but men that are striving to be the best they can, treat others with respect, love and empathy.
Men that are confident and do not let others walk all over them.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Any woman who asks you to do a favor, then looks down on you for doing so, is not worth your time.

Personally I believe that what is important is strength WHEN IT MATTERS. I don't care who decides where we go for dinner, or what color we paint the house. What matters is not backing down on things that REALLY matter, and being willing to take risks to protect others if necessary.


----------



## ReptarGirl (Feb 23, 2015)

It's tough to ever compete with a true alpha, especially if you know you are deep down a beta. Be yourself and hopefully that will be enough.


----------



## Forest (Mar 29, 2014)

Sounds like someone's trying to make excuses and invent convenient psychobabble scenarios to lay things off on someone else.

All the alpha crap within a marriage is a smokescreen. If someone looks like a selfish turd, they probably are.

Just a bunch of dumb doubletalk. People are either responsible, decent and caring or they aren't.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Maybe it's not an alpha/beta problem truster. Maybe you were arrogant and ****y which I'm sure looked like confidence to her but you weren't actually confident. Time has a way of exposing the difference. The good news is that you can become confident and the bad news is that she'll never believe it so you have to move on to someone else. Then again maybe I'm projecting and it's nothing related to your scenario. .


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> Personally I believe that what is important is strength WHEN IT MATTERS. I don't care who decides where we go for dinner, or what color we paint the house. What matters is not backing down on things that REALLY matter, and being willing to take risks to protect others if necessary.


That's basically always been my philosophy.. I'm confident around my peers, and around women, but I'm also pretty easy-going and consider most things not worth an argument.. so in general I'll concede a 'whatever' unless I actually have a real stake in the outcome. I generally don't care if I'm one nugget short in an order or if someone brought a salad I like anyway instead of fries. I guess I just let a toxic person who abused that (along with some manipulation) sow doubt that maybe I should've been bickering over dumb things here and there to show I'm not a pushover.

It's been good to hear the range of opinions here.. I'm not really *aggressive*, but I'm confident, and that seems to be the key. This has been a helpful conversation. 





richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Any woman who asks you to do a favor, then looks down on you for doing so, is not worth your time.


As an aside, the STBXWW has a not-always, but recurring habit of surveying a chore done, and reporting back mainly about the part that wasn't quite right. I once asked "Do you know the phrase 'Don't look a gift horse in the mouth?'"... and she literally had not. Looking back, that story tells volumes.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

truster said:


> ............................
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That would make my head spin, nothing more annoying that being micro managed. I don't even do it with my kids let alone a grown man. Only exception with kids is if it involves serious danger but even then I let them take steps on their own, taught them how to light the fire place, never put guards around the oven etc

Sounds like she was treating you like a child, maybe next time stop that sort of behaviour as soon as it starts.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Holland said:


> That would make my head spin, nothing more annoying that being micro managed. I don't even do it with my kids let alone a grown man. Only exception with kids is if it involves serious danger but even then I let them take steps on their own, taught them how to light the fire place, never put guards around the oven etc
> 
> *Sounds like she was treating you like a child, maybe next time stop that sort of behaviour as soon as it starts.*


I'm pretty sure the divorce papers w/ which she'll soon be served will go a long way toward that.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

ReptarGirl said:


> It's tough to ever compete with a true alpha, especially if you know you are deep down a beta. Be yourself and hopefully that will be enough.


Kind of depends on what you mean by "competing". Most self-respecting guys won't "compete" for _any_ affection that rightfully belongs to them.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

GusPolinski said:


> I'm pretty sure the divorce papers w/ which she'll soon be served will go a long way toward that.


Yep. I meant in his next life, take this lesson and enforce it.

Then again OP you did behave like a man/child at the start of the relationship, sadly the die was cast very early on so it is not a big surprise that at the end she was micro managing you. All good life lessons.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Holland said:


> Yep. I meant in his next life, take this lesson and enforce it.














Holland said:


> Then again OP you did behave like a man/child at the start of the relationship, sadly the die was cast very early on so it is not a big surprise that at the end she was micro managing you. All good life lessons.


Eh... she likely knew what she was buying into when she said "Yes".


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

GusPolinski said:


> *
> Eh... she likely knew what she was buying into when she said "Yes".*


Yep and that is on her, hopefully they both have learnt about life from this.


----------



## ReptarGirl (Feb 23, 2015)

GusPolinski said:


> Kind of depends on what you mean by "competing". Most self-respecting guys won't "compete" for _any_ affection that rightfully belongs to them.


Nothing is your right. And the emotions of a woman do not belong to her husband.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

ReptarGirl said:


> Nothing is your right. And the emotions of a woman do not belong to her husband.


That is called poly.

My intimacy and affection belong to my wife and vice versa. But we have a classical definition of our marriage.

Even in poly relationships, there is a primary that does have rights over who affection and intimacy is shared with and the right to call off all intimacy and affection if desired.

If you claim no accountability for your behavior in the realm of romance and intimacy then you are single. You have no right to a claim of any sort to anyone. If no one has claim to your emotions then you certainly have no claim to anyone either.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

Holland said:


> Yep. I meant in his next life, take this lesson and enforce it.
> 
> Then again OP you did behave like a man/child at the start of the relationship, sadly the die was cast very early on so it is not a big surprise that at the end she was micro managing you. All good life lessons.


That's why I thought it was so weird she thought of those as 'the good old days'.

Yeah, I thought about that and I own up to my role there. I concede that an unhealthy start like that will lay groundwork for an unhealthy future. I don't feel enough responsibility to forgive a person for serially cheating and lying after that was years in the past, but enough to not pull that crap the next time around. I do appreciate the decade of experience to become a better person to be in a relationship with.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

GusPolinski said:


> Kind of depends on what you mean by "competing". Most self-respecting guys won't "compete" for _any_ affection that rightfully belongs to them.
> 
> 
> ReptarGirl said:
> ...


I think you're spinning Gus's comment. Marriage vows do set expectations of what partners agree to be to each other. That's a rightful expectation my wife and I have for each other.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

ReptarGirl said:


> Nothing is your right. And the emotions of a woman do not belong to her husband.


Exactly the reply I expected.

*cough*


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

GusPolinski said:


> Exactly the reply I expected.
> 
> *cough*


You are such a brat Gus. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

GusPolinski said:


> Exactly the reply I expected.
> 
> *cough*


From the general public or from RG specifically? I skimmed most of the thread, bad form yes.

But as a general answer I would say that my partner has lots of rights, he should not/does not have to compete for affection from me. Visa versa.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Holland said:


> From the general public or from RG specifically? I skimmed most of the thread, bad form yes.


The latter.



Holland said:


> But as a general answer I would say that my partner has lots of rights, he should not/does not have to compete for affection from me. Visa versa.


See, that's just it... said rights are earned, and I've _certainly_ earned mine. And, though my wife holds said rights in trust, they ARE *MINE*... until, that is, she decides to rescind them.

And, should that happen (and whether or not it happens because she's decided to extend them to another instead), I'd have a right to KNOW.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Brat. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> Brat.


You're confusing me w/ my younger brother.


----------



## Apexmale (Jul 31, 2015)

happy as a clam said:


> Holy Smokes! I can't overstate how important ALPHA male is, having been married to a BETA male for 20 years.
> 
> There are no words to emphasize what it means to be loved, PROTECTED, made love to, ravished, by an ALPHA male.
> 
> ...


I can't imagine ever being beta in any way! My wife is precisely my wife because of the way I live. Alpha isn't a status or a character that turns on and off. Alpha is a lifestyle. Women like yourself can spot an alpha 100 miles away.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

truster said:


> During a conversation with my STBXWW recently, she mentioned that in our earlier years, I had been 'more attentive' (and accordingly, we had a much better sex life). However, later, I had become 'less attentive', which of course was her justification for serial cheating.
> 
> The funny thing is, here's how I recall our relationship: In our early days, I was a selfish person.. generally used to being single and successful with women. We both worked (she even made more money), but she cleaned and cooked, I played video games, and basically just took her out to hang out with my friends. Pretty much not a great person. Eventually I matured, caught on when she complained, and improved myself. Many years later, she's without a job (and then a SAHM with a kid in daycare), I'm earning, I'm watching the kid when I get home so she can take a rest, I'm taking him out on weekends so she can relax, helping out with dishes and trash and lawn care and whatnot, and generally being (IMO) a much better partner. However, this is the 'bad period' for her.
> 
> ...


There is something else that could be going on. 

In a new relationship people usually start out so much in love that the overlook things like a selfish spouse, but over time it erodes their love for the person. It could be that by the time you started to change, she had already crossed over from the infatuated/romantic love to one where the warts in your relationship looked 10 times bigger than they were. Once it gets there, it's very hard to fix.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

Truster, I suspect it is a personal preference. With a few caveats: alpha to me is just a convenient way to describe the level of assertiveness, confidence, leadership in a person. Faux alphas and as$holes often masquerade as alphas. True alphas it's just who they are without reading books on how to be that way. 

I like take-charge and assertive men with just the right dose of "edge" who is the leader of the home. A man who commands respect rather than demands it. This however is not the preference of all women. Some want an equal partnership and some want to be the dominant partner. I think what's important is to be who you are and to seek to find a mate who is compatible with that. Just don't be an as$hole or a "faux" anything. 

Any body else need any life advice? I'm wide awake until it's time to get up.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## aine (Feb 15, 2014)

I think woman generally want men to be who they are and be human but not be overbearing pricks. They want the man to take the lead generally but not treat their woman as a doormat in the process.
It is easy to let a man take the lead if he is a gentleman about it not bossy and selfish. If he cares about his woman this will happen naturally. 
Unfortunately some men think that taking the lead means they decide everything, their word is law, their way is the only way, they must come first, etc, that does not work. 
Being a push over running after the woman and bending over backwards doesn't work either. A man has to know his own boundaries and hers too in the way she treats him. 
Men must get respect from their women as much as women must get affection, care attention, etc from their man.
As someone said it must be a balance of both alpha and beta and each woman is different.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

truster said:


> As an aside, the STBXWW has a not-always, but recurring habit of surveying a chore done, and reporting back mainly about the part that wasn't quite right. I once asked "Do you know the phrase 'Don't look a gift horse in the mouth?'"... and she literally had not. Looking back, that story tells volumes.



While we were dating, my husband did that a couple of times as well. I suspect that he was still considering his options with his just a friend ex -- the situation that brought me here.

I think when people are looking to get rid of you -- boss / lover / whatever -- they start cataloging as many reasons as possible what's wrong with you. If they keep you around, that would just be proof as to what a good guy / gal they are that they are giving you a second chance. 

But if they wnat to get rid of you, they already have their reasons set out.... and likein your case, she has already warned what at least some of those reasons are. You had been warned.

So now when people complain about stuff to me, I sift through it asking whether there is a real reason for their complaint or if they are just preparing to move me out. 

People want to feel good about themselves. So to be able to do mean things to someone and not feel bad about it, they have demonise you first.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Bugged said:


> Again,IMO human societies are too big and complex for the alpha/beta stuff to fit...:wink2:


Yes, this! I find the whole alpha / beta thing to be overly simplistic and pretty much useless for describing human interactions. In the animal world it refers to a very specific pecking order, and is about dominance over the pack, dominance that then gets challenged by the younger males, and they keep duking it out, winner gets the title until someone else comes along.

This is absolutely not the kind of behaviour I find attractive!

I mean, even Happy as a Clam who insists she loves a man's man, all alpha'ed up comes back at me to inform me of how kind and sensitive her man is. Yet these traits are typically called beta, and anyone being instructed on how to alpha up is told to lose these traits, and DGAF.

So then the instructions become: be a mix of alpha/beta. And I have to then ask: what on earth does this even mean? Humans have very complex social interactions, and are always a mix of all kinds of characteristics and traits, some more compatible than others.

So the upshot then is be authentic, try to be the best person you can, and look for someone who fits with you, your goals, values, ideals.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

truster said:


> So here's my probably impossible question -- what's the difference between 'not bending to my every whim' and 'not taking my important concerns into account'? This is the tightrope I keep struggling with, and this is where I worry I got burned before.. trying to address a concern she was trumping up as supremely important when it was just a whim.
> 
> Maybe it's just something that works out naturally when two self-confident people are actually trying to be honest and good to each other instead of one manipulating the other. That's certainly my hope.


I don't think his needs to be a tightrope walk. When I say "catering to whims", I don't mean never doing something to please a whim (eg go to the store to pick up ice cream), I mean don't assume that just because she wants something, it is your job to provide it.

And when I say something like "meet her important needs", I don't mean be perfect in every way, but simply pay attention, listen, respect.

In the end, we're all pretty far from perfect, and so there has to be some leeway to spoil and forgiveness for wrongs. If someone can't manage that, you probably don't want to be with them anyway.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Apexmale said:


> I can't imagine ever being beta in any way! My wife is precisely my wife because of the way I live. Alpha isn't a status or a character that turns on and off. Alpha is a lifestyle. Women like yourself can spot an alpha 100 miles away.



Do you work to provide for your wife and/or children?

Do you ever show your wife ANY affection that isn't -- in that exact moment -- linked to sex?

Do you perform household chores? Mow the lawn? Rake leaves? Wash dishes? Fix stuff that's broken? Cook? (And yes, even if it's grilling...)

Are you able to have an intelligent conversation w/ your wife (or anyone, really) in which you express disagreement w/o resorting to insults, threats, or the like?

Those are all BETA qualities.

Neither "pure" alpha nor "pure" beta is sustainable long term. Both are necessary, but a healthy balance is key.


----------



## EVG39 (Jun 4, 2015)

a. *Next relationship, do I need to continue to make a conscious effort to maintain alpha status (to an extent, of course) in order to keep respect and fidelity sacred, or was I just married to an example of a person who wasn't representative of a lot of women*?[/QUOTE]

Truster,
I am so very late to the party here that I hesitate to respond, especially in light of the already good advice you have received from a number of posters. But I do have one or two points to make that haven't been said already or haven't perhaps been emphasized enough.
You are asking a question you already know the answer to deep in your bones. You knew it when she told you to hold her drink and went to go dancing. You were the kind of man that she knew she could do that to. You also knew that there was another kind of man she would never do such a thing to. You used to be that kind of man in fact. And it hurts that you that you weren't that man anymore. So there is your answer buddy, yes it is important to be alpha in your relationship. Why, not just because alpha "works". It does. And you know that already . After all would you want to be the kind of man "successfully" in a relationship where you end up holding her drink while she danced with another? Didn't think so.
So here is how I answer your post. Yes to being alpha but I frankly don't think you have to worry about going too far or being a "douche" or not being in balance, etc. Your behavior in your last relationship as you outlined in your original post reveals how you, like so many of us married men, end up being so thoroughly and completely betasized that we couldn't end being uber alpha if our lives depended upon it. 
So what to do, what to do.
Kill your beta. Kill it deader than a doornail.
Go all full tilt out for alpha and then, eons later, you can swing the pendulum back to get in balance. If necessary.But don't try to tip toe up to the center now friend, tear the band aid off and go all the way to the other side. Because what you think right now in your beaten down soul is balanced is still pretty beta I'd bet.
How to do it? Tons of resources out there and the one you cited in your first post is a great place to start. Also read all the posts under the sticky in the men's clubhouse about being a better man. Great stuff, helped me a bunch. 
But most of all stop giving a crap what other people think except one person. And that's the man in the mirror. As the great philosopher Ricky Nelson, said you cant please everyone so you might as well please yourself. 
Good luck. You have a golden opportunity to reinvent yourself. Go do it. Now is the time to act.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

EVG39 said:


> So here is how I answer your post. Yes to being alpha but I frankly don't think you have to worry about going too far or being a "douche" or not being in balance, etc. Your behavior in your last relationship as you outlined in your original post reveals how you, like so many of us married men, end up being so thoroughly and completely betasized that we couldn't end being uber alpha if our lives depended upon it.
> So what to do, what to do.
> Kill your beta. Kill it deader than a doornail.
> Go all full tilt out for alpha and then, eons later, you can swing the pendulum back to get in balance. If necessary.But don't try to tip toe up to the center now friend, tear the band aid off and go all the way to the other side. Because what you think right now in your beaten down soul is balanced is still pretty beta I'd bet.


Because he held her drink? LOL! Why do you assume she was dancing with another man? (Often women dance with other women or by themselves.)

What makes you so sure that OP needs to reinvent himself? He might already be a prized catch, just with a bad picker.

Okay, okay, I know, some women really do dig the chest thumpers out to display their machismo to all and sundry. But is all of this just to catch those women? 

'Cuz that sounds pretty "beta" to me.


----------



## EVG39 (Jun 4, 2015)

always_alone said:


> Because he held her drink? LOL! Why do you assume she was dancing with another man? (Often women dance with other women or by themselves.)
> 
> What makes you so sure that OP needs to reinvent himself? He might already be a prized catch, just with a bad picker.
> 
> ...




Nope, read my closing paragraph. None of it is done to catch women. All of it is done to find himself. Which he has lost. Read his OP.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Where's Machiavelli when you need him?

I think there is something to the alpha / beta/ gamma/ omega paradigm both for men and women. 

I think men do need to worry about not being looked upon as a beta provider. There are women who will drop their panties for the thrill an alpha type. Some will be realistic and know it's a fling. some women will assume that they are capable of snagging an 8+ for an LTR. 

As for myself as a woman. I've had to learn to be less forthcoming with men and let them fill in the gaps ...... proof that they are truly interested.

When I met my future husband, he had unfinished business. He claimed that he didn't find her that attractive; she was fat, he said. I saw that she self-described as 50 pounds overweight. 

But...... she was the type of woman who organised social activities. So for any man who feels the need to outsource his social activities, they wind up dependent on her..... and at her beck and call.

And she was also feisty, in your face, and from a few threads I had started here and on a couple of other message boards, however feisty might be defined by an individual, a lot men seem to find the concept attractive. How often do we see a man saying with a gleem in his eye: "You really know where you stand with her." 

But getting back to the alpha male........ An alpha male, IMO, is only interested in one woman. While he has good manners in social situations, it's clear who he is with. So, no, he doesn't kneel and shuffle to every and any woman hoping that SOMEONE will like him.

An alpha male is someone who more often than not is decisive and consistent in his decisions.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

NextTimeAround said:


> But getting back to the alpha male........ An alpha male, IMO, *is only interested in one woman. While he has good manners in social situations, it's clear who he is with.* So, no, he doesn't kneel and shuffle to every and any woman hoping that SOMEONE will like him.
> 
> An alpha male is someone who more often than not is decisive and consistent in his decisions.


:smthumbup:

Women constantly check out my Alpha.

He doesn't even notice them. He's with me.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I agree and disagree with bugged.

I think alpha and beta are just convenient terms.

I believe humans are more valuable/complex than the terms can encompass.

However. Disdain for and dismissal of an assertive, aggressive but not bullying, protective, strong in mind and body male is silly.

Her rationalizations about the modern world don't actually work in the real world.

I have protected many women over the years in many situations.

Their response to my actions has been uniform. Admiration, sexual arousal.

I protected a woman from two rogue dogs one night. I was grabbing a snack for a night shift and saw a woman crouching near the door of the store trying to catch her breath.

She saw me looking and told me that dogs were trying to get her.

I looked out and, sure enough, two large dogs were looking at her out in the parking lot.

I had her walk with me, placing myself between her and the dogs.

I was capable and willing to kill them and they knew it. They tried to work around to get her but I just shifted our positions. The whole time I talked calmly to her, letting her know not to be afraid.

I got her safely to her car and she thanked me. I thought we were done but she then propositioned me for a date. I informed her I was married and left for work.

In many other instances, the results of protecting women has had similar results every time.

I have two radical feminist friends. They argue to the point of exhaustion there is no difference between men and women besides gender.

But I am the first person they think of when a creep threatens them. It is an instinctual, visceral reaction.

With that being said, I am very attracted to powerful women. Strong capable people are attractive. There is a vast array of beauty in mankind but it never flourishes without the strong protecting it.

I loved Bob Ross and his caring attitude but I wouldn't hire him as a bodyguard.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

^ ^ ^

EXCELLENT post, ConanHub!!

:smthumbup:

It's visceral. Bottom line, people (men and women) are attracted to strong people. It's Darwinian...


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

EleGirl said:


> There is something else that could be going on.
> 
> In a new relationship people usually start out so much in love that the overlook things like a selfish spouse, but over time it erodes their love for the person. It could be that by the time you started to change, she had already crossed over from the infatuated/romantic love to one where the warts in your relationship looked 10 times bigger than they were. Once it gets there, it's very hard to fix.


Maybe.. it's entirely possible, and saying 'but I changed *eventually*' doesn't absolve me from any guilt from poisoning the river from the beginning.

OTOH, this was her third marriage, so part of me wonders if she's not just a habitual fault-finder who eventually builds up enough to check out. I've asked her if she ever explores the whole 'three failed marriages' thing with her IC, but she "doesn't consider that important".

I'll never really know what if, but exploring these ideas is good preparation for the next relationship. The discussion is appreciated.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

truster said:


> OTOH, this was her third marriage, so *part of me wonders if she's not just a habitual fault-finder who eventually builds up enough to check out.* I've asked her if she ever explores the whole 'three failed marriages' thing with her IC, but she "doesn't consider that important".


Ummm... I would say you're definitely on to something here.

Three failed marriages?

People bring all their unresolved baggage into new relationships. If they don't "fix" the issues, history just repeats itself over and over.

Your wife has bailed/checked-out in every marriage she has ever been in. Ask yourself, *what is the common denominator here??*


----------



## Hardtohandle (Jan 10, 2013)

I'm embarrassed to say this but I will because it's a reality. 

The ExGF said to me can you do anything more than just cry to prove you can be a man I can trust not to leave me again.

So there you go.. Granted we are trying to work stuff out. But I know I am in a lower position atm and need to work to move up the Alpha chart so to speak.. Which I did immediately to put her in check.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Hardtohandle said:


> I'm embarrassed to say this but I will because it's a reality.
> 
> The ExGF said to me can you do anything more than just cry to prove you can be a man I can trust not to leave me again.
> 
> So there you go.. Granted we are trying to work stuff out. But I know *I am in a lower position atm and need to work to move up the Alpha chart so to speak..* Which I did immediately to put her in check.


Dumping her for good would go a long way toward accomplishing that.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

happy as a clam said:


> Holy Smokes! I can't overstate how important ALPHA male is...
> 
> My Alpha male lover makes his wishes known. Verbally, emotionally, physically, in no uncertain terms. (Btw, nothing EVER against my wishes. He's just so d*mn Alpha that I can't resist him!)
> 
> _**growl...**_



Happy, 

I know you love an alpha husband that really wants to get home and tear into his waiting wife, but will you please ask him to stop cutting through my back yard with his truck? For god's sake, the two of you can wait the ten extra seconds it takes to actually drive around the corner to your house.

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

Bugged said:


> I can't stand aggressiveness people. Aggressivness is a sign of either 1. *Fear *or 2.*Lack of self control.*
> 
> Moreover I'm sorry but women, do NOT need to be protected by men.
> I have lived on my own( having Asperger's!!) for most of my life. Never needed any man to _protect _me.
> ...


As you said, it doesn't happen very often that a man has to protect a woman. 

The point is that most women are attracted to men that 'could' protect them. Men that are bigger and stronger. Men that are muscular and fit and confident.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

The Alpha/Beta thing is overused and only very limitedly useful if at all (IMHO).

The Alpha traits we purport to admire are used to describe pack animal behavior, but there are many traits in the pack animal world we would not want to emulate.
For example, for pack animals, the primary characteristic of the Alpha male, (or Alpha female in many cases) is aggression, protection of the pack and breeding.
Their are not many 'nice' characteristics of a pack Alpha male. They are domineering and must constantly fight to hold their territory, or be replaced with a stronger, more aggressive male. Hence, Aggression breeds aggression. They eat first. They must subdue unmercifully any unruly or threatening behavior male or female within the pack.
They have their choice of ANY fertile female in estrus in the pack. They must constantly assert their dominance.
When they get old and weaker, they are outcast and succumb to decease or predators, or die in a fight. I could go on.

There's not much 'nice' about this. It's purely about survival of the pack and the species and not much more. It's not about a fulfilling life (at least in human terms).
So if we want to cherry pick and choose certain traits, throw away others and mix and match, there's not much left is there?
It renders the term pretty useless. 

pop psychologists need to move on from this and and start discussing human characteristics beyond simplistic terms.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

ConanHub said:


> I agree and disagree with bugged.
> 
> I think alpha and beta are just convenient terms.
> 
> ...


To me, alpha, in its human context, simply means socially dominant while beta means not. Socially dominant depends on the person as well as the crowd, in some crowds the ability to beat up anyone else makes you top dog ,in other crowds it's your income, while in others it's your ability to lead and organize. Most people have many overlapping social circles and the most admired men are ones who are socially dominant in multiples of their overlapping social circles.

I for instance am quiet, fairly passive, too patient for most people and a live-and-let-live kind of guy, I am most certainly what most people would consider beta and do not even bother trying to dominate in any of my social circles. I do possess a lot of the traits that you suggest make you more alpha though, I have stood between aggressive dogs and women & kids, I am always courteous and put those who are respectful to me at ease and comfort, I make decisions on important matters (when others are actually ready to hear what I have to say). But I receive no recognition for this and have never had a woman proposition me for a date, and this is fine with me I do these kind (and masculine) acts for nothing other than the feeling of doing the right thing. I can physically defend myself against any unarmed person but have never even faced the need to.

I suppose I could be considered alpha by others if I was more assertive, gregarious, uninhibited or just had more physical presence, and I'm sure that would be sexually attractive to a larger pool of women, but that's not who I am and trying to be someone I am not doesn't work for me. I am however incredibly attractive to my GF because she just so happens to be turned on by a guy like me (as opposed to socially dominant ones).


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

jorgegene said:


> The Alpha/Beta thing is overused and only very limitedly useful if at all (IMHO).
> 
> The Alpha traits we purport to admire are used to describe pack animal behavior, but there are many traits in the pack animal world we would not want to emulate.
> For example, for pack animals, the primary characteristic of the Alpha male, (or Alpha female in many cases) is aggression, protection of the pack and breeding.
> ...


Yes those characteristics aren't nice, but you can't deny that is drives MANY women crazy.


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

happy as a clam said:


> Your wife has bailed/checked-out in every marriage she has ever been in. Ask yourself, *what is the common denominator here??*


Oh, I think I know at this point :grin2: I suspected pretty heavily anyway, but poring over this forum has really helped solidify things a little more every day. I'm a pretty confident person, but it's only been maybe a week or two since uncovering the affairs/filing for divorce so there's still those moments of doubt.

Actually, I just stumbled across the MLC thread, and.. HOLY CRAP does that explain things to an unbelievable extent. Like, I can look back at the calendar and see the whole thing play out exactly as described.. every checkbox checked, in order. 40's, major illness, directly afterwards doing a personality 180 into this whole mess. I'm pretty much past worrying about my own 'alphaness' and confidence now, and see it for what it is. I'm just hoping her MLC plays out before the kid gets hurt, because it sounds like something impervious to logic (and in my experience so far, it is).


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Bugged. I also have a lot of experience in martial arts. I think all women should be equipped to defend themselves.

You are thinking ideologically though, not realistically.

I have sparred with top women competitors that regularly take national championships.

They like sparring with men for one reason. We are a lot stronger and sturdier than women partners.

I love capable women but the difference in actual combat situations is very clear.

My youngest sister is a very powerful woman. She is 5'10" and very strong. She beat a man who tried to attack her senseless but he was older and my sister is exceptional for a woman. 

I don't know how many times you have been attacked or in danger but would be interested to hear how you handled it.

I have seen a very different reality than the one you want to exist.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Lon said:


> Yes those characteristics aren't nice, but you can't deny that is drives MANY women crazy.


you're right!

because on a VERY primitive level, it's about breeding.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Bugged, my GF doesn't need a man to make any decisions for her, is not dependent on me for anything other than relationship needs and has even taken a couple self defense classes. She knows how to inflict pain if she wanted, but she's only 5'-0" and frequently gets pursued/stalked by creepy men (and sometimes small groups of them) that physically intimidate her (as would I if I were alone when being stalked). Maybe you live in a particularly storybook land where bad people are uncommon, but where I live the creeps are ever-present. She is, unfortunately, always calculating her safety because she needs to, and walking with a man she knows (me, her dad, a couple of her co-workers) not only makes her feel safer, but actually to be safer.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I don't think people even have a consistent definition of "alpha". It seems to range form someone with strength (physical or other) and courage, to a loud-mouthed bully who insists on getting his way.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

jorgegene said:


> you're right!
> 
> because on a VERY primitive level, it's about breeding.


And that's pretty much what this whole website is about


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I don't think people even have a consistent definition of "alpha". It seems to range form someone with strength (physical or other) and courage, to a loud-mouthed bully who insists on getting his way.


And all those are indeed truly forms of an alpha, depending on the crowd.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Lon said:


> And that's pretty much what this whole website is about


and here all this time, I thought it was suppose to be about RELATIONSHIP.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Bugged said:


> I've always lived in western Europe.
> EVERYONE should avoid dark deserted alleys...I'm 5'9'' but I'm slender...I don't think I was ever very strong...


Well obviously YOU haven't needed a protector, but there genuinely are some (particularly women who are largely targeted by sexual deviants) that do need the protection of an escort. Some places, like campuses, have specific "walksafe" programs set up (but even those get infiltrated by male sexual predators from time to time). Police are usually too busy to provide personal bodyguard services, and so often there is no official service to guarantee this safety.

I should point out though, women who may be unsafe walking alone don't need an alpha to discourage 99% of predators, merely another person - preferably male since they are the best deterrent... the escort can be just about anybody capable of walking on their own two feet.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I like the mechanism of your mind Bugged just not your ideology.

You are correct on many fronts and I agree with you on many fronts.

Admiration and sexual attraction are powerful forces that aren't always ideological however.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

Hmm....Yet another "alpha" thread, eh? Whodathunk...

The way I see it, being an "alpha" or a "beta" or a combination of both is who we are. It isn't learned in a book, it is learned over time by how we observe our parents and others in relationships. It is learned as we ourselves build our own experiences. We become who we are based on experience and observation.

My wife told me a few months ago that sometimes I can be "too alpha" and my senior employee once told me that my persona is somewhat..."intimidating", but in the same breath, I don't like to kill animals, I get all teary eyed over strong emotional instances in movies and stories, I like cuddling and holding my woman..kissing her gently...intimacy...love it.

Will I "throw it down"? You betcha if I have to. I'll add to the whole "Women need defending" issue with this...It is entirely situational. I've seen my wife dish it out at someone who is giving her a hard time and I know she can handle herself just fine, but in one instance a few years back, a neighbor started an argument with her and I thought he was going to strike her (clenched fists, yelling at her, getting in her face)...You can be assured that once it got physical, I ended it. Had I not intervened, it could have been bad as my wife is only 5'1" and this dude is 6'4" and easily 250lbs.

I'll close with...I believe that there is someone out there for everyone. One doesn't need to change their behavior, they just need to find the right person. Just as everyone has particular tastes in appearance(s), I'm sure everyone has certain personality traits that they desire in a mate, yes? I'm drawn toward women who are fiery and strongly opinionated, other men are drawn toward a woman who may be somewhat demure. My wife as she puts it likes her men "blond, built, and brainy", other women may prefer a man with a slighter build, or darker hair...or something else altogether.

Anyway...just rambling.


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

I will add that women do act "differently" toward a man who defends her. After I beat this guy down that was ready to attack her, she got this odd expression and said "I've never had a man fight for me before."...It wasn't a bad "look", but more of a look like..."Wow...he would actually throw it down to protect me." kinda look. It is a bit hard to describe.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

> I'll close with...I believe that there is someone out there for everyone. One doesn't need to change their behavior, they just need to find the right person. Just as everyone has particular tastes in appearance(s), I'm sure everyone has certain personality traits that they desire in a mate, yes? I'm drawn toward women who are fiery and strongly opinionated, other men are drawn toward a woman who may be somewhat demure. My wife as she puts it likes her men "blond, built, and brainy", other women may prefer a man with a slighter build, or darker hair...or something else altogether.


Absolutely! I don’t know why some women can't seem to grasp that every one doesn't like the same kind of man. It's like if you don't like a certain type of man no one else should either.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

happy as a clam said:


> ^ ^ ^
> 
> EXCELLENT post, ConanHub!!
> 
> ...


Not a fan of Darwin but agree.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> Admiration and sexual attraction are powerful forces that aren't always ideological however.


Perhaps not, but we all have different triggers for admiration and sexual attraction. I have known "protector" guys, and while I certainly do appreciate a certain level of help when I am in a sticky situation, I do not find the need to see threats around every corner or the white knight swooping in to make everything all better particularly admirable or sexually attractive.

Let me clarify: I'm all for doing the right thing and helping people out in a jam, and agree this is an attractive quality. But IME, the "protector" types tend also to be posturing, need to display their dominance, and often make a really big deal out of little things that could be handled much more simply and with a whole lot less aggression and machismo. That sort of behaviour to me is a distinct and total turn off.

In the end of all, there was never anyone to help when I've been in sticky situations. The "white knights" I have known were mostly just itching to start fights or appear the hero, but weren't actually ever there when I might have needed them.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

I swallowed the red pill because I thought that being too beta was the reason why my wife did not want enthusiastic sex. It took me a couple years to figure out but I have come to the conclusion that the alpha my wife likes is the one that is sure of himself in bed. The guy that can figure out EXACTLY what makes his woman melt in bed. I think that's all the alpha my wife needs. A growling, grunting, manhandling, eat her alive kind of guy. 

The other part of the alpha that I think my wife likes is someone that does not complain, does not whine about what they did or what they have to do and NEVER gets out of control angry. I AM a nice guy, in the sense that I live for my family. I am johnny on the spot regarding fixing and updating things at the house. I give my family the very best of everything (that I can afford). That is Beta, but good beta.

If I f$ck my wife like a supermodel I just picked up at the bar, earn money and take care of her, take care of myself, the family and home, take the pain of life like a man with determination along with a mild disposition, that's all any woman could ever want or need. IMO.

BTW: Screw the Alpha male. What you really want to become is the Sigma Male. That's who women REALLY want. IMO


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Perhaps not, but we all have different triggers for admiration and sexual attraction. I have known "protector" guys, and while I certainly do appreciate a certain level of help when I am in a sticky situation, I do not find the need to see threats around every corner or the white knight swooping in to make everything all better particularly admirable or sexually attractive.
> 
> Let me clarify: I'm all for doing the right thing and helping people out in a jam, and agree this is an attractive quality. But IME, the "protector" types tend also to be posturing, need to display their dominance, and often make a really big deal out of little things that could be handled much more simply and with a whole lot less aggression and machismo. That sort of behaviour to me is a distinct and total turn off.
> 
> In the end of all, there was never anyone to help when I've been in sticky situations. The "white knights" I have known were mostly just itching to start fights or appear the hero, but weren't actually ever there when I might have needed them.


You are talking about fakers and posers.

I am no white knight. More of a barbarian with a soft spot.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Perhaps not, but we all have different triggers for admiration and sexual attraction. I have known "protector" guys, and while I certainly do appreciate a certain level of help when I am in a sticky situation, I do not find the need to see threats around every corner or the white knight swooping in to make everything all better particularly admirable or sexually attractive.
> 
> Let me clarify: I'm all for doing the right thing and helping people out in a jam, and agree this is an attractive quality. But IME, the "protector" types tend also to be posturing, need to display their dominance, and often make a really big deal out of little things that could be handled much more simply and with a whole lot less aggression and machismo. That sort of behaviour to me is a distinct and total turn off.
> 
> In the end of all, there was never anyone to help when I've been in sticky situations. The "white knights" I have known were mostly just itching to start fights or appear the hero, but weren't actually ever there when I might have needed them.


You are describing the desire for a Sigma male.


----------



## Hardtohandle (Jan 10, 2013)

GusPolinski said:


> Dumping her for good would go a long way toward accomplishing that.


Gus, You've read my sh!t for over 2 years.. 

I just cannot do it.. At least not yet.. 

Look I love her and missed her.. But part of me missed her 4 year old daughter.. She was all over me that little girl.. 

I think in many ways I'm just as fvcked up as she is.. 

But yea crying wasn't one of my best points..


----------



## Cara (Aug 15, 2010)

truster said:


> During a conversation with my STBXWW recently, she mentioned that in our earlier years, I had been 'more attentive' (and accordingly, we had a much better sex life). However, later, I had become 'less attentive', which of course was her justification for serial cheating.
> 
> The funny thing is, here's how I recall our relationship: In our early days, I was a selfish person.. generally used to being single and successful with women. We both worked (she even made more money), but she cleaned and cooked, I played video games, and basically just took her out to hang out with my friends. Pretty much not a great person. Eventually I matured, caught on when she complained, and improved myself. Many years later, she's without a job (and then a SAHM with a kid in daycare), I'm earning, I'm watching the kid when I get home so she can take a rest, I'm taking him out on weekends so she can relax, helping out with dishes and trash and lawn care and whatnot, and generally being (IMO) a much better partner. However, this is the 'bad period' for her.
> 
> ...


I believe the man needs to be the boss in the marriage and family. I believe it is the factor that most influences whether the family is a success (functional, loving, organized, husband and wife strongly intimate, prosperous, well-behaved, respectful, religiously engaged, etc) or a failure (basically the opposite of all the things I listed for success and more). 

I have been married almost 8 years and the lack of alpha in my husband is one of the main factors (but there are others) in the fact I have no attraction to him at all. Because he is so passive and weak I feel like I don't need to do any of the things my husband deserves simply because he _is_ my husband and due them. As someone who has always been "the right-hand-man" in my romantic relationships and friendships I feel like I am directionless in my relationship with my husband. I am a great follower, an effective, competent co-pilot, a role which is vital in every marriage. I don't know how to effectively lead my family and I do not want the position, but I have been drafted since my Captain is too busy slumped in front of the TV rubbing on his phone. 

Lacking alpha effects all aspects of a man's character and it will always make women react negatively to a man. A man without a sufficient level of alpha is someone whom a woman _can_ treat with respect, but she has a very difficult time _feeling_ any respect for him. 

What you saw as selfishness in your younger self, IMO, was seen by your STBXWW as self-reliance and putting yourself first. While women enjoy being chased, we also like to feel we need to do X Y Z to keep you around. If there is no challenge we become bored. You say you stopped being selfish to be kind, but kindness is not the word for it. You were being _nice_, which is squishy and weak and feminine to a woman. Being kind is taking her feelings and opinion into account but still being the final word in the marriage. Kindness is being the leader she needs, not helping with chores. 

A strongly alpha man is interesting. He is in control and makes women feel safe. He is attractive (even if not physically) and women want to be near him. He makes things happen (even if it is just deciding on where to eat without a half hour of "Idaknow, where do _you_ want to go?") and is capable of making important life decisions on his own. He is reliable and does what he says he will do. Women know they can rely on him and know they have to work to remain his (_very_ attractive). An alpha man is magnetic. 

I read MMSL Primer a few years into my marriage and it was like the clouds parted and I saw a light at the end of the depressing, loveless tunnel I was in. Unfortunately my husband did not feel the same way and now we are roommates who are also parents. 

I am not saying that every man needs to be all alpha, all the time, but I am saying that if a man is not giving as much alpha as his woman needs and does not change his behavior, it is only a matter of time before she cannot take it any more. She will either retreat and shut down (my reaction) or stray. 

Many women are strong enough to resist getting their "fix" outside the marriage, it seems you STBXWW was not one of them. Her cheating is in no way your fault, but I believe that any person who is not getting what they need in the most important relationship in their life is at a real risk for looking for it outside the marriage.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Cara, 
Do you really think the man has to decide where to eat?
I think it a bit D$ckish to decide that for my wife and family. "We are going to eat here today."
This is the alpha stuff I had real trouble with. I like eating where I want to eat, but I also don't want to be an overbearing douchbag.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

This thread just proves that women's taste for men run all over the map. There's no one size fits all. What some would find attractive, others might find repulsive and vice versa. 

For me, I have always found intelligence, passion, and drive to be more attractive qualities than brute strength. Someone who leads using his brain and not his brawn. Maybe if I had grown up in a different time, I would think differently, but for now it's the MacGyver types that keep my interest. 

At the end of the day, it all comes down to compatibility. IMO the best way to find the best match is to be your genuine self, whatever greek letter(s) of the alphabet that happens to be.


----------



## lucy999 (Sep 28, 2014)

OP, I haven't read the whole thread. FWIW, I prefer Alpha Alpha Alpha to the nth degree. Especially in bed. I'll admit it's a fine line to walk and a double-edged sword. One wrong move and it could be a disaster.

However, I would urge you to just be yourself. Not every woman likes an alpha. Why would you want to act unnatural and force yourself to be who you aren't? Eventually the facade will fail and then where would you be? If you're not feeling it, don't be it.

I get why you're asking and I think it's great that you're reflecting on your current relationship and future relationships. But just be yourself. :grin2:


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

lucy999 said:


> OP, I haven't read the whole thread. FWIW, I prefer Alpha Alpha Alpha to the nth degree. Especially in bed. I'll admit it's a fine line to walk and a double-edged sword. One wrong move and it could be a disaster.
> 
> However, I would urge you to just be yourself. Not every woman likes an alpha. Why would you want to act unnatural and force yourself to be who you aren't? Eventually the facade will fail and then where would you be? If you're not feeling it, don't be it.
> 
> I get why you're asking and I think it's great that you're reflecting on your current relationship and future relationships. But just be yourself. :grin2:


Sometimes "yourself" is manipulated by constant societal conditioning. Getting information about this sort of thing helps you connect with your true self, even if it's not what you're currently displaying. I think I have always been alpha, however, our culture has shoved smoke up my asss for so long, sometimes you don't even know WHO you really are.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

UMP said:


> Cara,
> Do you really think the man has to decide where to eat?
> I think it a bit D$ckish to decide that for my wife and family. "We are going to eat here today."
> This is the alpha stuff I had real trouble with. I like eating where I want to eat, but I also don't want to be an overbearing douchbag.


It's fine to ask, "Honey, where would you like to eat?", but if she starts waffling on it, or starts throwing out stuff like "I don't know, where do you want to eat...?", you should be ready to say, "I'd like a steak. Let's head to the Outback."

...and then _immediately_ drive to the Outback.


----------



## Cara (Aug 15, 2010)

UMP said:


> Cara,
> Do you really think the man has to decide where to eat?
> I think it a bit D$ckish to decide that for my wife and family. "We are going to eat here today."
> This is the alpha stuff I had real trouble with. I like eating where I want to eat, but I also don't want to be an overbearing douchbag.


I didn't say anything like what you inferred. An alpha is _capable_ of making a decision about where we will go (on a date, to dinner, which movie, which store, which hotel, whatever) without asking. 

Making everything into a communal decision is such a turnoff for a woman. I rarely care where we go for ___________, I just want to go with my husband. A man who cannot make a decision on something this simple without input is a whatever the weak form a douchbag is.

Maybe what you see as overbearing toward your wife someone like me sees as decisive and being a leader in a man. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Cara said:


> I didn't say anything like what you inferred. An alpha is _capable_ of making a decision about where we will go (on a date, to dinner, which movie, which store, which hotel, whatever) without asking.
> 
> Making everything into a communal decision is such a turnoff for a woman. I rarely care where we go for ___________, I just want to go with my husband. A man who cannot make a decision on something this simple without input is a whatever the weak form a douchbag is.
> 
> Maybe what you see as overbearing toward your wife someone like me sees as decisive and being a leader in a man. Different strokes for different folks.


From your description above, it sounds like you are a submissive who wants a dominant/sub relationship dynamic. If your husband cannot fill that dominant role in your life then you are probably better off finding someone who can. Have you discussed your submissive needs with him?


----------



## Cara (Aug 15, 2010)

Lila said:


> From your description above, it sounds like you are a submissive who wants a dominant/sub relationship dynamic. If your husband cannot fill that dominant role in your life then you are probably better off finding someone who can. Have you discussed your submissive needs with him?


I have two kids so there is no way I will go looking for anyone else while they are still in the house. 

I spent about 4 years telling him (sometimes begging him) for what I need. It is not something he is interested in. I do not mention any of my real needs anymore.

To the Dom/Sub idea: I do not want that sort of a relationship, I just want my husband to behave like a man. And to treat me like a woman. I want to be a "traditional" wife.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

UMP said:


> Cara,
> Do you really think the man has to decide where to eat?
> I think it a bit D$ckish to decide that for my wife and family. "We are going to eat here today."
> This is the alpha stuff I had real trouble with. I like eating where I want to eat, but I also don't want to be an overbearing douchbag.


here is how I view this. If I don't choose, it will take an hour for her to do it. I also tend to choose places I know she will enjoy. I know she hates BW3 with a passion, kids love the place. Soooo, we don't go there as a family, unless it is a group thing. I take the kids there when she has a tupperware parry or what not. 

So it isn't d$ckish, unless you ignore what you know about your wife. It is like benevolent leadership.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Cara said:


> I didn't say anything like what you inferred. An alpha is _capable_ of making a decision about where we will go (on a date, to dinner, which movie, which store, which hotel, whatever) without asking.
> 
> Making everything into a communal decision is such a turnoff for a woman. I rarely care where we go for ___________, I just want to go with my husband. A man who cannot make a decision on something this simple without input is a whatever the weak form a douchbag is.
> 
> Maybe what you see as overbearing toward your wife someone like me sees as decisive and being a leader in a man. Different strokes for different folks.


Can you give us more detail as to what you find repulsive about your Beta husband. This always interests me and I think other men will also be interested.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

GusPolinski said:


> It's fine to ask, "Honey, where would you like to eat?", but if she starts waffling on it, or starts throwing out stuff like "I don't know, where do you want to eat...?", you should be ready to say, "I'd like a steak. Let's head to the Outback."
> 
> ...and then _immediately_ drive to the Outback.


LOL! That is us. Outback is my go to.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

always_alone said:


> ...In the end of all, there was never anyone to help when I've been in sticky situations. The "white knights" I have known were mostly just itching to start fights or appear the hero, but weren't actually ever there when I might have needed them.


 sorry to hear this AA, as for myself, too many times I find out only after the fact that my friends were in a sticky situation and could have used my help but didn't reach out to me at all. And likewise I am bad at reaching out to others since I'm not usually very good at accepting help until I'm desperate. I freely help out my friends whenever I get the chance but I often am in my own rut and have occasionally had to watch helplessly as loved ones suffer through their struggles. When I can help I do so because it fulfills me, and while I will sometimes lap up being seen as the hero or the white knight I, like many other people, really aren't doing it just to get something out of the deal.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

UMP said:


> Can you give us more detail as to what you find repulsive about your Beta husband. This always interests me and I think other men will also be interested.


He also cheated on her. Passive, cheating weeny boy.

Not the type to stir the blood of women.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

naiveonedave said:


> here is how I view this. If I don't choose, it will take an hour for her to do it. I also tend to choose places I know she will enjoy. I know she hates BW3 with a passion, kids love the place. Soooo, we don't go there as a family, unless it is a group thing. I take the kids there when she has a tupperware parry or what not.
> 
> So it isn't d$ckish, unless you ignore what you know about your wife. It is like benevolent leadership.


My problem is my GF has a yearning to go back to her whole raw food lifestyle she had when she felt her best... since I met her both of us have gotten a little too "fat" and started honing the candida and other carb craving flora in our guts, and typically I'm the one that wants to give in to those cravings first. I know where I want to go for supper (greasy burger) but I'm also equally happy eating a salad chock full of greens, seeds, berries and nuts - problem is we can't "go out" to get that stuff we have to make it ourselves because there is not a single restaurant that can do make what we need here. Plus when there is a good looking salad on the menu we can't resist the steak just under it on the menu. And when I have my son with me it's a whole other ball game since he just won't touch anything in any restaurant (except chicken strips), even the foods I provide for him at home are a no go when prepped by anyone else (severe mistrust on his part) - so this limits my choices even more.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

GusPolinski said:


> It's fine to ask, "Honey, where would you like to eat?", but if she starts waffling on it, or starts throwing out stuff like "I don't know, where do you want to eat...?", you should be ready to say, "I'd like a steak. Let's head to the Outback."
> 
> ...and then _immediately_ drive to the Outback.





UMP said:


> Cara,
> Do you really think the man has to decide where to eat?
> I think it a bit D$ckish to decide that for my wife and family. "We are going to eat here today."
> This is the alpha stuff I had real trouble with. I like eating where I want to eat, but I also don't want to be an overbearing douchbag.



Guys, why does it have to be so complicated? Can't you just ask your wives "Hey, how about {_sushi, burgers, steak, whatever you're in the mood for_} today?" or "I'm kinda jonesing for {x} today. What do you think?"


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Lila said:


> Guys, why does it have to be so complicated? Can't you just ask your wives "Hey, how about {_sushi, burgers, steak, whatever you're in the mood for_} today?" or "I'm kinda jonesing for {x} today. What do you think?"


Ha! Wish that worked w/ my wife...


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

Lila said:


> Guys, why does it have to be so complicated? Can't you just ask your wives "Hey, how about {_sushi, burgers, steak, whatever you're in the mood for_} today?" or "I'm kinda jonesing for {x} today. What do you think?"


It's not that complicated once you know the 'trick', but the implication that how you phrase the simple act of getting food can directly affect your sex life is a bit unsettling :smile2:


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Is it just me or did a few posts just disappear...?


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

Lila said:


> Guys, why does it have to be so complicated? Can't you just ask your wives "Hey, how about {_sushi, burgers, steak, whatever you're in the mood for_} today?" or "I'm kinda jonesing for {x} today. What do you think?"


That's not complicated to do, if someone tells you the 'trick'.. but the idea that there is a link between how you phrase an innocent question about dinner and how well your sex life is doing might be a complicated thing to figure out


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

GusPolinski said:


> Is it just me or did a few posts just disappear...?


Not just you..


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

truster said:


> Not just you..


Thought so.

Aaaaanyway...



Lila said:


> Guys, why does it have to be so complicated? Can't you just ask your wives "Hey, how about {_sushi, burgers, steak, whatever you're in the mood for_} today?" or "I'm kinda jonesing for {x} today. What do you think?"


Ha! I wish that worked w/ my wife.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

GusPolinski said:


> Is it just me or did a few posts just disappear...?


Dang! I always miss the good stuff...


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Lon said:


> My problem is my GF has a yearning to go back to her whole raw food lifestyle she had when she felt her best... since I met her both of us have gotten a little too "fat" and started honing the candida and other carb craving flora in our guts, and typically I'm the one that wants to give in to those cravings first. I know where I want to go for supper (greasy burger) but I'm also equally happy eating a salad chock full of greens, seeds, berries and nuts - problem is we can't "go out" to get that stuff we have to make it ourselves because there is not a single restaurant that can do make what we need here. Plus when there is a good looking salad on the menu we can't resist the steak just under it on the menu. And when I have my son with me it's a whole other ball game since he just won't touch anything in any restaurant (except chicken strips), even the foods I provide for him at home are a no go when prepped by anyone else (severe mistrust on his part) - so this limits my choices even more.


I guess if no one serves what your GF wants, you are kinda stuck. Plus if you give into temptation at the restaurant, why don't you give into it at the grocery store?


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> He also cheated on her. Passive, cheating weeny boy.
> 
> Not the type to stir the blood of women.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sounds like he stirred some woman's blood. Just not Cara's.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

happy as a clam said:


> Dang! I always miss the good stuff...


I missed it too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

truster said:


> That's not complicated to do, if someone tells you the 'trick'.. but the idea that there is a link between how you phrase an innocent question about dinner and how well your sex life is doing might be a complicated thing to figure out


Could you elaborate on this comment? What's the 'trick'?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Joey2k said:


> Sounds like he stirred some woman's blood. Just not Cara's.


He attracted a lizard, I'll give him that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

Lila said:


> Could you elaborate on this comment? What's the 'trick'?


I don't mean 'trick' like you're fooling someone, just a 'trick' like a tip on how to do something. I'm just saying, what you're saying to do is certainly easy to do once you know to do it, but the link between the phrasing of "what do you want for dinner" and the health of your sex life might not be obvious to a person were it not pointed out explicitly.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

happy as a clam said:


> Dang! I always miss the good stuff...





ConanHub said:


> I missed it too.


It was nothing more than @truster and I replying to the last comment that @Lila appended, and we've since re-posted said replies.


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

Lila said:


> Could you elaborate on this comment? What's the 'trick'?


Dang, posts got deleted again. Must be a forum issue.

I don't mean 'trick' like to deceive, I mean 'trick' like a tip on an efficient way to do something. I'm basically saying, yeah, what you're saying to do is certainly easy to do.. it just may not be obvious to many folks that how you phrase "what do you want to eat" might have a direct effect on the health of their sex life


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Something weird is going on. I posted a reply just a few moments ago and, per the "Recent Discussions" over to the right, it's the most recent reply, but it's not showing up.

Anyway, you didn't miss anything, happy and CH... truster and I had each posted a reply to Lila's last comment, and we've since re-posted them.

ETA: LOL... now it's showing up.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

GusPolinski said:


> Ha! Wish that worked w/ my wife...


exactly, I would still be waiting to figure out what restaurant to go to last weekend.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

@truster: Okay, now I understand. Thanks for clarifying.....twice :wink2:
@GusPolinski: Yeah, weird with the lagging posts. Must be those recent spammers invading TAM. :laugh:


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

GusPolinski said:


> Ha! Wish that worked w/ my wife...





naiveonedave said:


> exactly, I would still be waiting to figure out what restaurant to go to last weekend.


This is exactly why I ask questions and read forums on TAM. Your descriptions above reinforce to me the idea that not all women are the same....which is a great way to bring this thread back to the OP's question "The importance of Alpha?". It depends on who you ask.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

naiveonedave said:


> I guess if no one serves what your GF wants, you are kinda stuck. Plus if you give into temptation at the restaurant, why don't you give into it at the grocery store?


Which is what we often do, but would be nice to be pampered by having someone else make the meal so we could just enjoy each other's company over a glass of beer or wine.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Lila said:


> This is exactly why I ask questions and read forums on TAM. Your descriptions above reinforce to me the idea that not all women are the same....which is a great way to bring this thread back to the OP's question "The importance of Alpha?". It depends on who you ask.


I totally agree with what you are saying. Each woman is different. However, based on my reading (TAM, books) and observation, most men in the Western World are on average a bit too beta/a bit not enough alpha, because society has trained them to be that way. In some cases, you get good enough matches, in others, as several women in this thread posted, they really want a more alpha man. And by alpha - it means leadership/solid foundation and not a d*ckhead.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

Cara said:


> I didn't say anything like what you inferred. An alpha is _capable_ of making a decision about where we will go (on a date, to dinner, which movie, which store, which hotel, whatever) without asking.


:iagree:

My man will say to me, "Here's what I'd like to do..." (followed by dinner details, movie choices, suggestions for a fun date.) Often it's a complete surprise... a motorcycle ride, shooting guns at the range, a late night picnic. Or pizza and wine night in bed with candles.

I LOVE the fact that he already has plans made. If I have a different opinion, he's certainly open to suggestion. If I don't have a better idea, I happily go to the Cave Man Steakhouse :grin2: with him. And to see a cool movie.

It's all good.

(My Beta ex used to whine at me in a nasally voice... "Whaddya wanna DOOOO???" And then shoot down every suggestion I made. *blech*)


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

happy as a clam said:


> :iagree:
> 
> My man will say to me, "Here's what I'd like to do..." (followed by dinner details, movie choices, suggestions for a fun date.) Often it's a complete surprise... a motorcycle ride, shooting guns at the range, a late night picnic. Or pizza and wine night in bed with candles.
> 
> ...


This is something that I recently learned (over the past couple of years) that has served me well. I try to do exactly as your H and it works. We do some cool stuff and little resentment/bickering as a result.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> You are talking about fakers and posers.
> 
> I am no white knight. More of a barbarian with a soft spot.


Not quite true, but I'm having difficulty putting it into words. The type I am talking about is definitely what would legitimately be called alpha, brawn, machismo, protector types. Always ready to rush in to fight, dominating, and expect others to go along with them.

I just don't respond to that kind of persona. At all. It doesn't make me feel safe to have someone who reacts with violent impulses, it makes me feel like I'm even more likely to be in danger. It doesn't turn me on to have someone trying to lead me, or take over, or pilot the ship, or whatever else it is that alphas are supposed to do. It turns me off. I'm just not really the kind of person who can be led, and efforts to do so will only serve to pi$$ me off.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Isn't it rather beta to become alpha because that is what your wife wants.....


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Lon said:


> sorry to hear this AA, as for myself, too many times I find out only after the fact that my friends were in a sticky situation and could have used my help but didn't reach out to me at all. And likewise I am bad at reaching out to others since I'm not usually very good at accepting help until I'm desperate. I freely help out my friends whenever I get the chance but I often am in my own rut and have occasionally had to watch helplessly as loved ones suffer through their struggles. When I can help I do so because it fulfills me, and while I will sometimes lap up being seen as the hero or the white knight I, like many other people, really aren't doing it just to get something out of the deal.


Thanks, lon. Don't get me wrong, I do know that some people are j genuinely kind and helpful, and will look out for others without expectations. When I have seen someone in trouble, and there is some way I can help, I will too. Just because it is the right thing to do.

And I didn't really mean to imply that these protectors were just looking to get something out of the deal. I was speaking more to a particular personality type, one that is competitive, aggressive, likely to react with violence or anger, or bowl others over in pursuit of their goals, commanding. 

IME these types may present as protectors, but are often also the ones starting the fights. Or if not actually starting them, but quick to "protect" when there's no real threat, nothing to be protected. That it turns out they aren't actually there when push comes to shove was more of an aside.

At any rate, this type is a big turn off for me. I've always been drawn to the more laid back, thoughtful ones.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Not quite true, but I'm having difficulty putting it into words. The type I am talking about is definitely what would legitimately be called alpha, brawn, machismo, protector types. Always ready to rush in to fight, dominating, and expect others to go along with them.
> 
> I just don't respond to that kind of persona. At all. It doesn't make me feel safe to have someone who reacts with violent impulses, it makes me feel like I'm even more likely to be in danger. It doesn't turn me on to have someone trying to lead me, or take over, or pilot the ship, or whatever else it is that alphas are supposed to do. It turns me off. I'm just not really the kind of person who can be led, and efforts to do so will only serve to pi$$ me off.


You are describing cartoon characters. I don't know what kind of buffoons you are ascribing alpha traits to but I don't resemble your descriptions and neither do the men that I would ascribe alpha traits to.

The men I know are extremely capable with nothing to prove. We are a pretty laid back group of guys.

We would be put off by the weirdos you are describing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cara (Aug 15, 2010)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Isn't it rather beta to become alpha because that is what your wife wants.....


Perhaps, but if a man comes home to find his wife waiting for him on her knees with a coc(k)tail, _both for him_, it may just be worth it. >


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

Cara said:


> Perhaps, but if a man comes home to find his wife waiting for him on her knees with a coctail, _both for him_, it may just be worth it. >


Umm....heh...Well, there is that.  *grin*


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Bugged said:


> Honestly the women claiming they want an alpha male come across as cartoons as well...damsels waiting for the hero to solve all of their their problems..even as small as deciding where/what to eat...I mean C'MON!!!!>
> What is it, intellectual laziness magnified????
> I've come to the conclusion that it takes a *beta woman* for an *alpha male*...if I were a man..it would be a huge TURN OFF to always have to make decisions because it takes 1h to my partner to even decide where to go for dinner...what a drag...:surprise:


I already reached the conclusion that your derision of men like me would naturally spill over to derision for our women.

We are all obviously inferior, pathetic boobs compared to how much more intelligent and advanced you obviously are and our women are helpless morons that are only good for sex. 

That about sum it up for you? I believe your powers of perception beyond your own bias to be fairly lacking.

BTW. I saved that woman from two rogue dogs. Last time I paid attention, dogs didn't carry weapons.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

Bugged said:


> Uptight? Me?
> I'm not the one advocating the husband/wife relationship should be something that would look ridiculous even in a Regency Romance Novel...


Who's advocating this?

My Alpha is about the last person you'd think of as a leading man in a romance novel. Honestly Bugged, you also seem to be conjuring up a buffoonish stereotype in your mind.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> You are describing cartoon characters. I don't know what kind of buffoons you are ascribing alpha traits to but I don't resemble your descriptions and neither do the men that I would ascribe alpha traits to.
> 
> The men I know are extremely capable with nothing to prove. We are a pretty laid back group of guys.
> 
> We would be put off by the weirdos you are describing.


I am not describing weirdos or cartoons, I am describing people I know. Maybe I'm not very good at it?

Or maybe I just need you to tell me what alpha actually means to you, because frankly, the term seems to be a totally shifting target. One minute most men have been beta-ized because they are too "nice", and the next minute, the alphas are the nicest of them all. One minute, only aggressive, decisive, commanding guys are alpha, the next minute, any laid back dude can qualify. So confusing!

In the animal kingdom, alpha is always the top dog, and only the top dog. The one that not only can but does beat out all the young upstarts that want to overthrow his dominant position. As soon as he is overthrown, he is no longer alpha. It is a position, and it is earned by fighting.

Now you're telling me in the human world applies to any old laid back guy, just as long as he can decide what he wants for dinner? :scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

FrenchFry said:


> Me too. So the whole food discussion always makes me cringe because if my husband asks "what I want for dinner," and I take a second to decide and he picks without giving me a chance--I will hate the meal, even if it's my favorite restaraunt. Especially steak. Ugh, I'm mad just thinking about it.
> 
> (This just happened recently. Good mexican food completely ruined.)


LOL. The solution to the dinner issue in my house is easy (at least for me). My SO is an amazing cook, and I have learned that when he asks me what I want for dinner, and I tell him, he will make it. If I say "surprise me", he will often pull out all the stops and whip up some amazing feast that I wouldn't have even thought of. So my stock answer to the whaddya want for dinner question is now "Surprise me."


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

Bugged said:


> he was taling to AA, not me.


You're right. I caught that and edited my post at the same time you were posting.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

happy as a clam said:


> :iagree:
> 
> My man will say to me, "Here's what I'd like to do..." (followed by dinner details, movie choices, suggestions for a fun date.) Often it's a complete surprise... a motorcycle ride, shooting guns at the range, a late night picnic. Or pizza and wine night in bed with candles.
> 
> ...


I do exactly that but many times my wife will say "no, let's just stay home and I will cook." I've tried to get my wife to do so many exciting things. I would take a motorcycle trip across the country and she won't even get on one for 5 minutes. I would book a trip to Europe, nope. Shoot guns? I have 35 of them and a shooting range in my back yard. Nope, won't touch them either. At least she's getting more creative in bed, so it ain't all that bad :grin2:


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

thefam said:


> LOL! Girl you know all this alpha male talk *makes your panties wet*. That's why you hang out in threads like this._Posted via Mobile Device_





thefam said:


> Lighten up Boo. It's not that serious. Just poking a little fun at you because you seem so uptight.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_





thefam said:


> Come on Bugged you know I was kidding. *Every one knows your panties don't get wet. *
> 
> But seriously you seem unable to grasp the simple fact that not all women are like you. It's like you feel like you must convince womanhood to think like you do about men, sex and marriage. And because you can't do so with what you call "logic" then *you resort to hurling insults as if you can shame someone into thinking like you.* Seriously you seem like an angry woman who is unhappy with who you are so you want everyone else to be unhappy with who they are.
> 
> ...


 @thefam, you made some good points in response to the OP's question but you triggered at something @Bugged said and resorted to posting back handed insults. These comments seem uncharacteristic of you. You are doing the same thing to bugged ("resort[ing] to hurling insults") as you claim she's done to you. Don't resort to condescension to get your point across. You're smarter than that.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Do we all agree that indecisive and wishy-washy are traits that most women find unattractive in a guy. That's the intent I see behind comments about where to eat out and guys saying we're ready pop out an answer.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Can't we all get along
Here is my bottom line. I am married to one woman, I hope till the day I die.
Now, what I am looking for is a mutually happy marriage. To me that means frequent amazing sex and contentment. Searching for that solution is very, very interesting to me. In the last 3 years we have made leaps and bounds towards that goal. A little alpha here, a little beta there, whatever works.

To me, TAM and all other web sites like TAM all combine to help ME become the best husband I can possibly be. Now, that does not mean it will work for every single man or woman. Everyone is different and wants or needs different things. Our combined goal should be sharing what has worked, apply that individually for real life testing and so on.

Bugged, 
You can tell me whatever you want to. It does not bother me in the least. I find you very interesting for the simple fact that you are different. To me, different is good because maybe I can learn something, yes, even from "Bugged."

I love this place!


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Bugged said:


> *
> Marriage is evil.*


Marriage may be evil to you. For me, it has literally kept me alive.
My wife is without a doubt the most excellent blessing in my life. Is she perfect? Hell no, but who cares, none of us is perfect, or even remotely close to perfect.

My wife is perfect enough for me.

Marriage is amazing!


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

Lila said:


> @thefam, you made some good points in response to the OP's question but you triggered at something @Bugged said and resorted to posting back handed insults. These comments seem uncharacteristic of you. You are doing the same thing to bugged ("resort[ing] to hurling insults") as you claim she's done to you. Don't resort to condescension to get your point across. You're smarter than that.


Well not insults at me personally but at women who are not like her. But o-k-a-y I guess you're right. [hangs head] 

I apologize @Bugged. It was insulting rather than humorous.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PreRaphaelite (Dec 15, 2012)

You know, according to what most folks think is an alpha male, I ain't one and I have no desire to be one. And yet, I'll stand up for myself if I have to, I have a strong sense of independence, and I don't worry if I'm macho enough or not.

My wife is quite dominant, but once told me something that struck a strong chord: dominant as she is, she doesn't want to walk all over me. She likes the fact that I stand my ground, sometimes too much and too defensively, but hey, it happens. When she discusses something with me and wants to argue, she wants someone who will argue back, but who won't fly off the handle or just give in, and if I'm wrong, have the ability to admit I'm wrong.

Honestly, so much alpha and beta talk, no matter how much you try to correct it, complicate it, etc., as long as you keep talking "alpha" and "beta" you end up being caught in cliches. You constantly have to prove that you're not talking about the cartoon alpha and beta, and the discussion goes nowhere fast.

I've no doubt in my mind that there are a lot of women out there who get excited by a dominant male, and more than a few women LOVE a dominant male in bed as a fantasy and a kind of play-acting. And they probably love to dominate the dominant male in bed as another part of the fantasy. At least some of the time. And that's just it...some of the time, not all the time.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

PreRaphaelite said:


> And yet, I'll stand up for myself if I have to, I have a strong sense of independence, and I don't worry if I'm macho enough or not.


Well, 
That IS alpha, REAL alpha. IMO


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I am not describing weirdos or cartoons, I am describing people I know. Maybe I'm not very good at it?
> 
> Or maybe I just need you to tell me what alpha actually means to you, because frankly, the term seems to be a totally shifting target. One minute most men have been beta-ized because they are too "nice", and the next minute, the alphas are the nicest of them all. One minute, only aggressive, decisive, commanding guys are alpha, the next minute, any laid back dude can qualify. So confusing!
> 
> ...


You are seriously making this more complex than it has to be. If you have read my earlier posts, I believe the terms alpha and beta are simply convenient terms that are not fully capable of describing the human experience.

The men you are describing are buffoons. The men I am describing are extremely effective. Men you can trust with your life and the lives of your loved ones.

We do lead because people want us to, not because we need to.

We don't thump our chests and cause problems where none exist.

I didn't start the term use of alpha. You don't like it, fine.

We are confident, capable, strong, trustworthy, protective, assertive(when needed), aggressive (when called for), brave, self sacrificing (when called for), determined, responsible men.

We lead because we are very capable and many, not you, desire us to.

The women that we attract are many and they aren't idiots. I am friends with men who have put everything on the line for others. They have done hard and necessary things that hurt their hearts but keeps innocents safe. There are many vets and several cops in my group. They are all married for many years, happily, with wonderful children.

The people you describe don't fit my description or the men I am honored to know. We are honestly some of the best men to be around because we won't start trouble but we'll damn well put it down fast when someone else starts it.

I have talked more people out of starting a fight or doing something stupid than I can remember and my friends are the same. 

Call what you will but we are not the cartoonish buffoons that you are describing. Only women with problems would like the strange men you are describing.

My wife is a wonderful woman in fantastic shape, not easy at 55, who is generous and so selfless that when our son was born, I arrived in the delivery room a few minutes late, this woman who had just given birth looked at me and told me she was sorry that I didn't get to see our son born. I was overwhelmed with her love for me.

She has devoted much of her time to children and the elderly. Sometimes for pay and many times volunteering.

The wives of my friends are wonderful women as well. I haven't seen one "trophy" in the group.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

thefam said:


> Well not insults at me personally but at women who are not like her. But o-k-a-y I guess you're right. [hangs head]
> 
> I apologize @Bugged. It was insulting rather than humorous.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> ...


I think you were just trying to lighten the mood.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

PreRaphaelite said:


> You know, according to what most folks think is an alpha male, I ain't one and I have no desire to be one. And yet, I'll stand up for myself if I have to, I have a strong sense of independence, and I don't worry if I'm macho enough or not.
> 
> My wife is quite dominant, but once told me something that struck a strong chord: dominant as she is, she doesn't want to walk all over me. She likes the fact that I stand my ground, sometimes too much and too defensively, but hey, it happens. When she discusses something with me and wants to argue, she wants someone who will argue back, but who won't fly off the handle or just give in, and if I'm wrong, have the ability to admit I'm wrong.
> 
> ...


actually, standing up for yourself is alpha.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Ok, I hate the whole ALPHA/BETA thing too (wasn't that a supermarket chain back in the day?), but since 
the whole thread is talking about it, I'll throw my own view of ALPHA man.

an ALPHA man is a leader of men (and women). Ernest Shackleton was maybe the finest example of that.
He led his crew of the endurance in Antarctica through one of the most exhausting, hopeless, and unbearable ordeals ever on record.
He never let his men know any hint his own desperation. His men always came first. He would give up his own rations for them.
His sole driving preoccupation was to keep their morale high enough to keep going and survive.
He never wavered from his purpose even in his own severe suffering.

Even after eventually finding land and leading a remnant of his crew to civilization again, he went back to search for any survivors, and buried those 
who didn't.

"We had seen God in His splendors, heard the text that Nature renders. We had reached the naked soul of man."

That was an alpha man.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Bugged said:


> Nope, it's mostly the advocates of the dominant alpha male that talk on behalf of women (or the women that alledgedly want an alpha male that talk abou what a _woman _wants). I, as usual, speak for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your logic is based on your perceptions. Your perceptions are limited by your autism.

How can you comment with authority about an institution that you yourself are not a participant in?

You are very trapped in your own head, deciding that what goes on inside you is reality and obviously logical.

It makes some of your conclusions very off.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
IMHO he was a GOOD man. A courageous, honorable man who put others before himself.

I hate the Alpha / Beta labels - they are way to fuzzy to be useful and allow people to self-justify or belittle others. They let people confuse symbols like big trucks and power sports cars with real strength. They let people confuse stubbornness with strength of character and social bullying with leadership.






jorgegene said:


> Ok, I hate the whole ALPHA/BETA thing too (wasn't that a supermarket chain back in the day?), but since
> the whole thread is talking about it, I'll throw my own view of ALPHA man.
> 
> an ALPHA man is a leader of men (and women). Ernest Shackleton was maybe the finest example of that.
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening all
Can we please limit the personal arguments / insults. Its really not helping the thread. 

Suggestion - make comments on other people's COMMENTS, not on the people themselves.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Bugged said:


> I'm sorry but before you speak about my autism you'll have to be more specific...what is exactly that I don't perceive correctly?
> That a woman doesn't need a man to protect her?
> The fact that if a woman is taught to protect herslef she's much more safe than relying on a man to chaperon her?
> Or that not all women want to be led?
> ...


I am certainly no more insulting than you and your inability to see that is part of the problem with your perceptions.

You are very insulting of successfully married men like me and the women who are successfully married to men like me.

I have been happily married for 20 years. You don't seem to recognize the lack of logic in you berating me or your derision for a woman like my wife who has done something successfully for two decades that you have not even attempted.

I am not a coder. How logical would my criticism of you in your vocation be? About as logical as your criticism of men like me in marriage?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Bugged said:


> Honestly the women claiming they want an alpha male come across as cartoons as well...damsels waiting for the hero to solve all of their their problems..even as small as deciding where/what to eat...I mean C'MON!!!!>
> What is it, intellectual laziness magnified????
> I've come to the conclusion that it takes a *beta woman* for an *alpha male*...if I were a man..it would be a huge TURN OFF to always have to make decisions because it takes 1h to my partner to even decide where to go for dinner...what a drag...:surprise:


My wife is neither a cartoon or a helpless damsel in distress.

She is not intellectually lazy.

Your inferences are highly insulting. Your inability to recognize how insulting you actually are is a problem with your perceptions.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Bugged said:


> Can you quote what is it that you're talking about?
> I don't think i ever insulted you or your wife..I'm afraid you'll have to quote, otherwise I'll have to ingnore the criticism...


You have been nothing but critical of men like me and the women who marry us.

You show extreme condescension towards us as if we are pathetic and inferior to you.

Your lack of logic in criticizing an institution you yourself can't seem to navigate is clear, just not to you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

@Bugged now keep in mind I didn’t say at me personally. But here are just a few of your insults:

"Honestly the women claiming they want an alpha male come across as cartoons as well."

"What is it, intellectual laziness magnified????"

".if I were a man..it would be a huge TURN OFF to always have to make decisions"

There were more in this thread but I'm on a mobile device right now and its just too inconvenient to look for, then cut and paste them. Do you not consider those insults? If not, how would you categorize those descriptions?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Thundarr said:


> Do we all agree that indecisive and wishy-washy are traits that most women find unattractive in a guy. That's the intent I see behind comments about where to eat out and guys saying we're ready pop out an answer.


I think this is the crux, and as a sometimes indecisive kind of guy, I built up resentment towards my ex W who was at least as wishy-washy and indecisive, yet somehow its only the men who are seen as beta/week when they are like this and then their wives build up a sense of superiority. my ex W even went around telling her friends that she literally was superior to me (thus doomed marriage).

yes I could have stepped up my game more, but it was impossible for me to be so all the time, why did I need to carry the responsibility all the time and allow her to get away with not having to make even the most trivial decisions?

I think this boils down to relationship needs, for many women it is clear that having a man lead the relationship is a genuine need which is necessary for continued sexual attraction, and many men seem to have a genuine need to lead their relationships. But for me and obviously atleast a few others, having to lead or be lead is just not a relationship need, nor does it create or destroy sexual attraction... it doesn't have to be any more complicated than this.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

thefam said:


> @Bugged now keep in mind I didn’t say at me personally. But here are just a few of your insults:
> 
> "Honestly the women claiming they want an alpha male come across as cartoons as well."
> 
> ...


no this is not even a close argument, her subjective opinions are not attacks, your insults were and were out of line.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Can we not argue about arguing anymore? or do y'all want the thread locked?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Lon said:


> Can we not argue about arguing anymore? or do y'all want the thread locked?


Talk to bugged. I haven't held her or her bf in derision because they aren't like me and my wife.

Or more precisely, people like her and her bf.

She is making pathetic assumptions about her relative strength as opposed to women who desire alpha type men.

My wife is quite the ass kicker and armed as well. Don't know why she keeps assuming that women who want alpha types are weak in mind and body.

She has even stated her preference for men who aren't that much bigger than her, which is fine, but that doesn't mean that women that love men who are much stronger / larger or more powerful in leadership are weaker, mentally or physically, than her.

She is pushing this argument. I didn't start deriding her or her preferences.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

P.S. I can see where other posters displayed their dislike of men that could resemble your bf.

You did, however, start quoting my conversation with AA.

Peace Bugged.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> The men you are describing are buffoons. The men I am describing are extremely effective. Men you can trust with your life and the lives of your loved ones.
> 
> We do lead because people want us to, not because we need to.
> 
> ...


What you describe sounds like a very honorable and good person. And there is nothing wrong with that!

It's just that what you describe isn't actually "alpha", at least not in the sense that it is used in the men's self improvement literature. The person characterized there is one who DGAF, looks out for himself, and is always positioning himself to signal his "value", to be the BMOC, the highest pecker in the pecking group (if you will). This also reflects how the term alpha is used in animal behaviour studies.

I agree absolutely: there is nothing attractive about this picture. But that is what alpha means (usually). What you describe is infinitely more complex, and involves what are typically called "beta" traits that men are often advised to eradicate: in particular self sacrifice and putting everything on the line for others.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

Bugged said:


> It was the description Always_Alone made of the alpha male that got her accused or depicting them as cartoons...so I replied that the way the women are depicted here makes them look like cartoons (It takes my wife one hour to decide where to have dinner)
> 
> read my next post
> 
> ...


Well it's all just your opinion. If I make the Statement that all purple people are ignorant, it's just my opinion. It does not negate that the Statement is also an insult to purple people.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Bugged said:


> indipendent people generally speaking don't want others to _take charge._.


This isn't always true. For example, turns out that many of the most alpha of guys, the most ruthless and dominating power figures, actually quite enjoy and often will seek out a woman who will give him a good spanking for being such a "naughty widdle boy." 

What you see in the real world isn't always what you see in the bedroom. Just ask any dominatrix.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> You are seriously making this more complex than it has to be. If you have read my earlier posts, I believe the terms alpha and beta are simply convenient terms that are not fully capable of describing the human experience.
> 
> The men you are describing are buffoons. The men I am describing are extremely effective. Men you can trust with your life and the lives of your loved ones.
> 
> ...


Beautiful! Simply beautiful!

@always_alone... you are really off the mark in your condescension because you are operating from a different definition of "alpha" than most people use.

ConanHub's points are on target.

My father, who was the most ALPHA male I've ever known, risked his life and his entire squadron during the Vietnam War to rescue ONE soldier (18 years old) who had been separated from his platoon. Lost in the jungle. Surrounded by enemy fire. The kid panicked.

My dad talked to this kid for TWO HOURS via radio, talking him down from "the ledge", telling him to hang in there, help was on the way, directing him away from enemy camps (they had an aerial view).

Why did he risk an entire squadron to save one young pup? Because he was not afraid to be a man, make the call, take the risk, take the flak. (Beta-whiners might have said, "Why do we HAAAAVE to go back for HIIIIM??? He's ONE man. We are TWELVE!!! Too risky!!) Thank God for Alpha men like my dad. *Btw, ALL twelve members in the squadron were 100% on board with the rescue effort.*

You know what? That young man is still alive today. Married, 7 children, still keeps in touch with my family today. And he attended my dad's funeral at Arlington.

Sheesh.

Conjure up all the defiinitions you want. Some people like beta-whimpy dishmat men. Most of the rest of us don't.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Bugged said:


> ??Seriously i don't know what you're talking about...what do you think you know about my BF? I mean this as a serious question?


You are actually somewhat incoherent.

I'm going to leave our conversation because you actually aren't comprehending it.

Peace.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

Bugged said:


> You want me to say that to me a man that is INCAPABLE of making a decision where to go eating is NOT a turn off???
> Are you serious or what?
> Can't you see that this criticism is *absurd*????


Notwithstanding the fact that I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I wanted you to state that "a man that is INCAPABLE of making a decision where to go eating is NOT a turn off??", I fail to see how it would be anything more than a personal preference which might be absurd in your eyes but a mutual opinion for someone else.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

UMP said:


> If I f$ck my wife like a supermodel I just picked up at the bar, earn money and take care of her, take care of myself, the family and home, take the pain of life like a man with determination along with a mild disposition, that's all any woman could ever want or need. IMO.


I have done all of those things aplenty in my life, and not once have I nor any of the women around me considered me an alpha male (well, maybe not always the mild disposition). 

Maybe alpha male doesn't really mean the guy with the good looks and the deplorable excess of *******, but it's always the picture that my mind paints when I hear it.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> You are actually somewhat incoherent.
> 
> I'm going to leave our conversation because you actually aren't comprehending it.
> 
> ...


 @ConanHub... before you leave this thread, I hope you see my post above about my Alpha-male Hero, my dad.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

@thefam...

Why, oh why, did you ever issue that apology???!!!

Your comments were 100% spot-on! No need for beta apologies...


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

happy as a clam said:


> Beautiful! Simply beautiful!
> 
> @always_alone... you are really off the mark in your condescension because you are operating from a different definition of "alpha" than most people use.
> 
> ...


I think part of the problem is that AA is using a different definition of alpha than us.

We view alpha traits as good. AA likes those same good traits.

She views alpha traits as bad. We would despise those same bad traits.

We have a language barrier.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I don't think people even have a consistent definition of "alpha". It seems to range form someone with strength (physical or other) and courage, to a loud-mouthed bully who insists on getting his way.


For relationship purposes: Alpha = man whom many women want to have sex with.

Yes, it's really that simple.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

happy as a clam said:


> @ConanHub... before you leave this thread, I hope you see my post above about my Alpha-male Hero, my dad.


Really love the story of your dad! I'm not leaving the thread yet, just ending one conversation on this thread.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

happy as a clam said:


> Sheesh.
> 
> Conjure up all the defiinitions you want. Some people like beta-whimpy dishmat men. Most of the rest of us don't.



IMHO, there is a whole lot of middle ground between super alpha war hero who risks his entire squadron (good thing that one worked out in the end!) and beta wimpy dishmat.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

happy as a clam said:


> @thefam...
> 
> Why, oh why, did you ever issue that apology???!!!
> 
> Your comments were 100% spot-on! No need for beta apologies...


LOL, HAAC. But you know, personal standards and all. Well I have used up half my Mommy-free day on TAM so I'm going to bow out now also.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Isn't it rather beta to become alpha because that is what your wife wants.....


Yes, especially if the wife tells the husband that's what she wants. This is not an unusual problem for women who are in that position...


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

technovelist said:


> For relationship purposes: Alpha = man whom many women want to have sex with.
> 
> Yes, it's really that simple.


or in pack lingo, alpha = man women want to submit to.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> IMHO,* there is a whole lot of middle ground between super alpha war hero *who risks his entire squadron (good thing that one worked out in the end!) *and beta wimpy dishmat*.


^^^This :iagree:

That's why applying very vague classifications to determine desirability of men is never productive. As you stated earlier, humans are way to complex for that.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Bugged said:


> A man that
> 
> doesn't lead, wants to be led
> doesn't make decisions, makes someone else have the last word
> ...


Men and women aren't the same. Thus, something that is a turnoff for women when men do it may not be a turnoff for men when women do it.

For example, *very few* women would be interested in supporting a man who does not work, whereas *many more* men are fine with supporting a woman who does not work.

There are many other examples, but that should illustrate my point.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> I think part of the problem is that AA is using a different definition of alpha than us.
> 
> We view alpha traits as good. AA likes those same good traits.
> 
> ...


Yes and no.

I can see that you are talking about a very particular kind of man, an honorable one, a competent one, an effective one that makes serious sacrifices for the benefit of others. And if that is all that you mean by alpha, well, we probably do have at least some level of agreement that "alpha" can encompass admirable qualities. 

But the kind of person I am talking about is very typically labelled as alpha, and not what would normally be labelled as bad. Maybe in some cases, but I am also talking about people who are very capable, powerful, often successful, leaders. 

Unlike many (some?!?! most?!?!), I am not particularly impressed by status, wealth, people in positions of power or authority. Such people are widely thought of as "alpha" because they accomplish a lot, others defer to them, they lead, they get what they want, and they are the top of the pecking chain. 

Personally, I am not at all attracted to such people or the lifestyle that often surrounds them, which can involve ruthlessness, easy acceptance of indirect costs or collateral damage, a dog-eat-dog worldview that rejects altruism or sacrifice as being for the foolish, weak, or, if you will "beta wimpy dishmat."


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

technovelist said:


> For relationship purposes: Alpha = man whom many women want to have sex with.
> 
> Yes, it's really that simple.


Well, if it's that simple, then any handsome dude with a wee bit of charm is as alpha as it gets.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> I can see that you are talking about a very particular kind of man, an honorable one, a competent one, an effective one that makes serious sacrifices for the benefit of others. And if that is all that you mean by alpha, well, we probably do have at least some level of agreement that "alpha" can encompass admirable qualities.
> 
> ...


Terms aside, I think we agree on this.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

technovelist said:


> For relationship purposes: Alpha = man whom many women want to have sex with.
> 
> Yes, it's really that simple.


*Conversely, an Alpha female, by the very same token, is a woman that many men, regardless of their being individually identified as Alpha, Beta, and all the way up to Omega, want to have sex with!

This Alpha-Beta nomenclature thing definitely works the same way for women as it does for men!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

arbitrator said:


> *Conversely, an Alpha female, by the very same token, is a woman that many men, regardless of their being individually identified as Alpha, Beta, and all the way up to Omega, want to have sex with!*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


There is no such thing as an Alpha female.

That is because *most* females are sufficiently attractive for many men to want to have sex with them. Thus there is no particular status achieved by a woman just because many men want to have sex with her.

The reverse is not true, of course, as most men are *not* sufficiently attractive for many women to want to have sex with them.


----------



## Cara (Aug 15, 2010)

ConanHub said:


> The men I am describing are extremely effective.


You just said it all right there.


----------



## Cara (Aug 15, 2010)

Bugged said:


> I never said anything about sex..it wasn't me who said that women who want an alpha male wait for their husband on their knees with a drink in their hands...*the epitome of the sex-slave*>


I was only suggesting a scenario where a wife chooses to do something thoughtful and loving for her husband who she appreciates. If that is defined as "sex slave" sign me up!


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
some women are not attracted to men of the type that are traditionally considered "alpha".

Of course if you define "alpha" as sexually attractive to a particular woman, then ......

In the same way, not all men are attracted to submissive women. 




technovelist said:


> For relationship purposes: Alpha = man whom many women want to have sex with.
> 
> Yes, it's really that simple.


----------



## Cara (Aug 15, 2010)

Bugged said:


> whatever...what does SHE do..a *mister*y...


(Bold added for emphasis)
One of the best Freudian slips I've read in a loooong time!:grin2:


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

technovelist said:


> There is no such thing as an Alpha female.
> 
> That is because *most* females are sufficiently attractive for many men to want to have sex with them. Thus there is no particular status achieved by a woman just because many men want to have sex with her.
> 
> The reverse is not true, of course, as most men are *not* sufficiently attractive for many women to want to have sex with them.


like a bull in a field of heffers?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

If an Alpha male is described as a man that women want to have sex with then any man with any attributes could be considered an Alpha since different women desire different things.

A more precise description would be the time of man that more women want to have sex with than other types of men. 

These men do display some common attributes, so that's what we're talking about.

It is to be expected that many women (such as AA and Bugged) do not desire this type of man. But generally, more women want this type of man than any other (by definition).

Personally, I've seen a lot that indicates that many (most?) women desire dominance in the bedroom. Supposedly, this dominance inside the bedroom does not necessarily extend outside the bedroom but I find that a little hard to reconcile (who just decides what will happen during sex but is then indecisive when choosing a place to eat?).

There is a lot to the "choosing the restaurant" meme. I discovered this personally. Many men think that catering to the woman's needs is the best way to make their women happy and are stunned to find out that it has exactly the opposite effect most of the time. Personally, if I don't have a preference I say "I honestly don't have a preference but I'm happy to man up and make the call" and I usually end up making the decision. My high powered successful tech consultant wife digs this sh!t. Who knew?

I was always about making my SO happy and subsuming my needs (and, of course, building up resentment that mine weren't met). I figured out where I was going wrong before meeting my current wife, so everything ended up just fine. 

I do think this is gender related. I rarely hear men complain about women being too submissive. No doubt something to do with brain chemicals, lizard brains and evolution.

This IS very important for young men to know (what they choose to do with the information is up to them). I do think popular culture today leads men to believe that they should cater to their woman's needs and these men need to hear that that may not be the case. Also (and this will piss a lot of women off), I believe that a lot of women have a significant difference between what they say they want and what actually makes them happy.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Buddy400 said:


> ...I do think this is gender related. I rarely hear men complain about women being too submissive. No doubt something to do with brain chemicals, lizard brains and evolution.


my ex W was too submissive, it was her excuse for being lazy (at least lazy in meeting my relationship needs or explicitly communicating hers)


----------



## EVG39 (Jun 4, 2015)

Best definition of Alpha I ever read was also the most succinct. An alpha is a man that women want to love and other men strive to be. Thus it is far more than just sexual attraction. No boy wants to grow up to become some PUA trolling for a skank's attention in a Club. But he does grow up to want be like the pro ballplayer, the commanding general, the captain of industry. Think Joe Montana leading the niners to victory yet again in the last minute. His teammates saying we would follow that guy to the gates of hell. That's an Alpha. It's Whitman crying from the depths as he mourns Lincoln "O Captain, my Captain". Lincoln the Alpha.
And here is the takeaway. Alpha, real Alpha is not and cannot be defined by women.
It is defined by men. By the men who follow the Man. The Alpha.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

EVG39 said:


> Best definition of Alpha I ever read was also the most succinct. An alpha is a man that women want to love and other men strive to be. Thus it is far more than just sexual attraction. No boy wants to grow up to become some PUA trolling for a skank's attention in a Club. But he does grow up to want be like the pro ballplayer, the commanding general, the captain of industry. Think Joe Montana leading the niners to victory yet again in the last minute. His teammates saying we would follow that guy to the gates of hell. That's an Alpha. It's Whitman crying from the depths as he mourns Lincoln "O Captain, my Captain". Lincoln the Alpha.
> And here is the takeaway. Alpha, real Alpha is not and cannot be defined by women.
> It is defined by men. By the men who follow the Man. The Alpha.


and ironically by doing so restrict the number of women they themselves will be able to have sex with, lol.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

always_alone said:


> IMHO, there is a whole lot of middle ground between super alpha war hero who risks his entire squadron *(good thing that one worked out in the end!)* and beta wimpy dishmat.


Seriously??

And this statement is PRECISELY why they send MEN into combat... Not people who "rationalize" the mission.

(Ba ha ha!!! Laughing quietly to myself now!)

So glad it was my Dad and others just like him who fought our wars.

Not people who would second guess. Second guessing military ORDERS equals dead troops.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

good evening:
If you define alpha as that which men wish to be, then it is by definition a positive thing. I don't see this as the same as the more conventional definition of alpha which is a specific set of behavioral traits, not a collection of those traits that we consider to be positive.

I think this discussion is pointless because people are using the word "alpha" to mean completely different things. 

Discussing the "meaning" of words is pointless. Pick an authoritative reference (OED, wikipedia whatever) and then argue based on that specific definition.






EVG39 said:


> Best definition of Alpha I ever read was also the most succinct. An alpha is a man that women want to love and other men strive to be.
> snip


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

happy as a clam said:


> Seriously??
> 
> And this statement is PRECISELY why they send MEN into combat... Not people who "rationalize" the mission.
> 
> ...


So all soldiers are alpha then, as well as most other men too? I don't get why you'd disagree with that statement, she was saying there is a massive distinction between a decorated hero and a deadbeat. Your dad was obviously a hero, she was pointing out that there are very few with that kind of distinction.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

EVG39 said:


> Best definition of Alpha I ever read was also the most succinct. An alpha is a man that women want to love and other men strive to be.


And there's the kicker, at least from my point of view. Because the very qualities that women seem to find attractive in an "Alpha" are seen as flaws by other men: c0cky, arrogant, pushy, full of themselves. 

Is that the damnable misery of it? To be adored by women, you have to be disliked by other men, or vise versa?


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Joey2k said:


> And there's the kicker, at least from my point of view. Because the very qualities that women seem to find attractive in an "Alpha" are seen as flaws by other men: c0cky, arrogant, pushy, full of themselves.
> 
> Is that the damnable misery of it? To be adored by women, you have to be disliked by other men, or vise versa?


haha, yes the faceless symbolic alpha is hated by men. The alpha we know or knew is studied and emulated though. Maybe you were studied at some point when you were the big fish in a little pond.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Joey2k said:


> And there's the kicker, at least from my point of view. *Because the very qualities that women seem to find attractive in an "Alpha" are seen as flaws by other men: c0cky, arrogant, pushy, full of themselves. *
> 
> Is that the damnable misery of it? To be adored by women, you have to be disliked by other men, or vise versa?


OK I am not an alpha male type of gal but anyway the type of man you describe here is of no interest to me unless it was a ONS, just a use and lose him type of situation.

Defence force types are a major turn off for me. Tradies, yuk, Uniforms such as Police and Fire fighters are great for the visual but I would not want to live a life with one of these guys.

I am drawn to the alpha male with a good balance of beta also which is why I love men with high EQ's.

I would sell my Grandma for a tall, sexy man in an expensive business suit. I love my white collar, successful man with enough cash to have a great, action packed life, big and strong enough to carry me off to bed, alpha enough to TELL me we are going to bed and beta enough to be the most amazing, giving lover I have ever had.

A pure alpha has no appeal to me.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Joey2k said:


> And there's the kicker, at least from my point of view. Because the very qualities that women seem to find attractive in an "Alpha" are seen as flaws by other men: c0cky, arrogant, pushy, full of themselves.
> 
> Is that *the damnable misery of it*? To be adored by women, you have to be disliked by other men, or vise versa?


Nice "Tombstone" quote, by the way.


----------



## lucy999 (Sep 28, 2014)

PreRaphaelite said:


> My wife is quite dominant, but once told me something that struck a strong chord: dominant as she is, she doesn't want to walk all over me. She likes the fact that I stand my ground, sometimes too much and too defensively, but hey, it happens. When she discusses something with me and wants to argue, she wants someone who will argue back, but who won't fly off the handle or just give in, and if I'm wrong, have the ability to admit I'm wrong.


Beautifully stated. Your wife took the words right out of my mouth.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

flipflops said:


> The only alpha thing my husband does is provide. Other than that, I've grown to resent him for being unable to lead and protect. We've been married 21 years and I can't wait for the day I can leave. But, that's for another thread. I 100% emotionally disconnected myself from him a couple of years ago.



FWIW, providing is a beta quality.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Anyone wanting to know what alpha looks like in different forms?

- Clint Eastwood. Good alpha in everything he's been in.
- Brad Pitt. Crazy alpha in fight club and in loser alpha in Thelma and Louise
- Hughe Jackman. Broken alpha in X-Men series, beta in Kate & Leopold.
- Charlie Hunnam. Stereotypical POS alpha in Sons of Anarchy as Jax Teller.
- Andrew Lincoln. Barely sane alpha in The Walking Dead.

Now for the cartoonish d0uchebag alpha see Ben Stiller in Dodgeball .


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

The 10 Best Alpha Male Characters to Learn From - The Dating Captain


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

happy as a clam said:


> So glad it was my Dad and others just like him who fought our wars.
> 
> Not people who would second guess. Second guessing military ORDERS equals dead troops.


I thought one of the defining features of alpha was that they *didn't* take orders. They *give* orders and make their own rules.

:scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I believe that a lot of women have a significant difference between what they say they want and what actually makes them happy.


The only thing that pi$$es me off about you saying this is your implication that it is *only* women who say they don't respond to alpha that you seem to think "have no idea what actually makes them happy."

But I'm willing to bet you'd agree that *every* woman who says she wants an alpha man to dominate her knows *exactly* what she wants.
Am I right?

I personally have no problem recognizing that an awful lot of men much prefer submissive women and have no time of day for one who isn't, and also acknowledging that there are an awful lot of women who will only tolerate a dominant male, one who will take on leadership, decision-making, captain of the ship roles.

I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge that these people do know what makes them happy, and are going after what they want.

But you won't accord women like me the same consideration. Why is that?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> A more precise description would be the time of man that more women want to have sex with than other types of men.
> 
> These men do display some common attributes, so that's what we're talking about.


Again, if the definition of alpha is about how many women want to have sex with you, then good-looking is the common attribute. With dashing good looks and a wee bit of charm, nothing else much matters. Even laid-back, poetry-writing, purse-holding, cry at the chick flick, basically homeless beach dude will get a goodly amount of nookie if he's hot and easy enough to get along with.

If he isn't hot, then he needs to have something women might want --eg lots of money or fame -- that they can benefit from.

And just to be clear, here I am not referring to people who have successful or quality relationships. Just those who fit the definition of "getting more sex"


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> good evening:
> If you define alpha as that which men wish to be, then it is by definition a positive thing. I don't see this as the same as the more conventional definition of alpha which is a specific set of behavioral traits, not a collection of those traits that we consider to be positive.
> 
> I think this discussion is pointless because people are using the word "alpha" to mean completely different things.
> ...


----------



## Pollo (Oct 17, 2014)

I don't understand how people try to be alpha or beta. You just need to listen to your instincts and do what's right.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Pollo said:


> I don't understand how people try to be alpha or beta. You just need to listen to your instincts and do what's right.


They're just labels. You can see where a really aggressive guy might want to tone things down or a really passive guy might want to work on being assertive? Adapting is one of our instincts.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

GusPolinski said:


> You actually apologized for making that comment? Yeah, pretty beta. (But calling her out in the first place was kind of an alpha move.)
> 
> But going along w/ a SAHM putting a kid in daycare to begin with? Waaaaay more beta, IMO.


One of my wife's classmates in college was a nanny and taking classes part time. Classmate got a new job and was working for a family with two kids. Dad was a surgeon, mom was a SAHM. Pretty much anyone she told about it did a WTELF?

Yep, within a year Dr dad caught SAHM effing around on him.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

GusPolinski said:


> Nice "Tombstone" quote, by the way.


A lot of good lines from that movie.



Thundarr said:


> The 10 Best Alpha Male Characters to Learn From - The Dating Captain


On that note, I have to disagree with Wyatt Earp from Tombstone on your list. He may have been a tough guy when dealing with the Cowboys, but he was kind of a bozo with the ladies. He let Mattie treat him with contempt and disdain and just took it, and Josephine took the lead in their relationship.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> But you won't accord women like me the same consideration. Why is that?


I think it's because there's a disparity between a woman's rational brain and her "lizard" brain (the one shaped by 100,000 years of evolution). Physical ability to provide, protect and lead and emotional traits to be stoic, fearless and confident were far more important in history than they have been in the last 50 years. The rational brain has adapted to modern times and conditions (which I have no problems with) but the lizard brain is slow to catch up. When speaking, it's the rational modern brain we hear. Actions can me mixed up and emotions are probably mostly the lizard brain. I imagine this confuses a few woman as well; that the qualities they think they want in a man don't actually produce any sparks.

I don't think this exists for men simply because they don't have the discrepancy to the same degree. Their rational and lizard brains both want the same thing.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Pollo said:


> I don't understand how people try to be alpha or beta. You just need to listen to your instincts and do what's right.


What if your instincts are telling you to do the wrong thing?


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

flipflops said:


> The only alpha thing my husband does is provide. Other than that, I've grown to resent him for being unable to lead and protect. We've been married 21 years and I can't wait for the day I can leave. But, that's for another thread. I 100% emotionally disconnected myself from him a couple of years ago.


Providing is not alpha. It is beta.
That's why it doesn't create attraction.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I think it's because there's a disparity between a woman's rational brain and her "lizard" brain (the one shaped by 100,000 years of evolution). Physical ability to provide, protect and lead and emotional traits to be stoic, fearless and confident were far more important in history than they have been in the last 50 years. The rational brain has adapted to modern times and conditions (which I have no problems with) but the lizard brain is slow to catch up. When speaking, it's the rational modern brain we hear. Actions can me mixed up and emotions are probably mostly the lizard brain. I imagine this confuses a few woman as well; that the qualities they think they want in a man don't actually produce any sparks.
> 
> I don't think this exists for men simply because they don't have the discrepancy to the same degree. Their rational and lizard brains both want the same thing.


But life just isn't an episode of the Flintstones. Fact is that for all of history, women have been contributers. I don't know where this prevalent idea of women sitting around making babies and waiting to be protected comes from, but historically, anthropologically, and biologically it is flat out false. Mama lizards, for example, protect their eggs and their young, while the male buggers off to mate with someone else. 

Ergo, my lizard brain is not telling me to find a provider, it is telling me I need to be the one to step up and care for young because even though he has some pretty colours on him, and a nice scent, he isn't going to be around to protect me or provide anything but a bit of sperm.

And on the flipside, why on earth would men even be here with so many relationship difficulties if all they wanted/needed from women is to inject a bit of sperm into them? If what men really want is just some hot bods to poke -well, there has never been a shortage of women who will accommodate this.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Bugged said:


> Couldn't agree more and we go back to the ' If Danny De Vito had played Mr Gray he would probaly have come acros as a stalker/sleaze/abuser...' >


Oh for sure. It would be a horror flick, not erotica at all


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I think it's because there's a disparity between a woman's rational brain and her "lizard" brain (the one shaped by 100,000 years of evolution). Physical ability to provide, protect and lead and emotional traits to be stoic, fearless and confident were far more important in history than they have been in the last 50 years. The rational brain has adapted to modern times and conditions (which I have no problems with) but the lizard brain is slow to catch up. When speaking, it's the rational modern brain we hear. Actions can me mixed up and emotions are probably mostly the lizard brain. I imagine this confuses a few woman as well; that the qualities they think they want in a man don't actually produce any sparks.
> 
> I don't think this exists for men simply because they don't have the discrepancy to the same degree. Their rational and lizard brains both want the same thing.


Except there isn't any science that supports this view, Buddy. This was something that was made up by a bunch of men who already wanted to "prove" that "men this and women that and blah blah blah".

Feel free to dispute me, with some kind of scientific evidence.

There isn't any.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

ConanHub said:


> I can only say that it has worked very well for me.
> 
> I didn't really know the term before coming to TAM but I have been very alpha since age 17 on.
> 
> ...


Most women can be super nice to each other, but we don't really want that in a man. At least I don't. I remember my H, when he heard me say, "I'm thirsty," would immediately get up, make me a glass of water, and bring it to me. I told him to stop.

I don't want an A-hole and I don't want a doormat beta, either. It sounds hard to understand, but it's really not. Imagine the chosen wife from "Coming to America," the one who barked when told to bark and hopped on one leg when told to? No one sane wants that in a spouse, and I know that if I get a hint of that, I'm turned off. Doesn't mean you can be a good guy and helpful and all of that, but don't ever let it slip past that line. I guess you'll have to figure out where that line is. 

I suspect that your wife feels like you crossed that line somewhere along the way and now she's not attracted to you.

By the way, many many women hit a point in the marriage where the sexual attraction fades. There are tons of threads on TAM about that. Worth looking into.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

flipflops said:


> I disagree that it's not alpha.


Providing is not alpha or beta, just like keeping a clean house typically doesn't raise a woman sexually in a man's eyes.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Ergo, my lizard brain is not telling me to find a provider, it is telling me I need to be the one to step up and care for young because even though he has some pretty colours on him, and a nice scent, he isn't going to be around to protect me or provide anything but a bit of sperm.
> 
> And on the flipside, why on earth would men even be here with so many relationship difficulties if all they wanted/needed from women is to inject a bit of sperm into them? If what men really want is just some hot bods to poke -well, there has never been a shortage of women who will accommodate this.


When looking at history even a century ago, Survival of offspring (that's us) would have favored children of men who want to provide for their kids and women who are attracted those men. It's only recently that things have changed.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> When looking at history even a century ago, Survival of offspring (that's us) would have favored children of men who want to provide for their kids and women who are attracted those men. It's only recently that things have changed.


This isn't necessarily true. You are only looking at it through a certain lens.

There have been cultures where women band together to raise children and do so whether men are around to help or not.

You can't just look at the brief history of the USA and declare that this is "evolution". There is a whole lot of history other than our own to examine.

It would be helpful if people would stop trying to take an evolutionary stance when discussing physical attraction. There is so much more to sex and attraction than making babies and caring for them. We are so far past living off just instinct that it doesn't make any sense to keep trying to find instincts that justify our attractions.

There are submissive men and there are dominant women, there is a huge attraction between these groups. There are LBGT people who have attractions that make no sense in the "baby making" view of attraction. There are asexual people who don't feel sexual attraction to others. ALL of us are part of evolution, not just the he-men and baby-makers. I wish people who have one set of attraction triggers would stop trying to force their own set upon others and call others "wrong" if they won't comply with it.

There is no "wrong" in attraction...there's also no rules that it has to be a certain way.

If your attractions follow the basic lines of he-men and baby-makers, that's fine, and yes there are many like this. But there are so many who are not like this, and trying to claim your way is "the way" is ridiculous. (This isn't directed at you personally Thundarr, it is directed at the idea that anyone hast he right to claim what attraction must be for others).


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

SurpriseMyself said:


> Most women can be super nice to each other, but we don't really want that in a man. At least I don't. I remember my H, when he heard me say, "I'm thirsty," would immediately get up, make me a glass of water, and bring it to me. I told him to stop.


Do you realize how bad this makes you (and every other woman who has said similar in this thread) look? Doing something nice for your wife/girlfriend makes her less attracted to you? This is why so many men are throwing their hands up and checking out.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

Joey2k said:


> Do you realize how bad this makes you (and every other woman who has said similar in this thread) look? Doing something nice for your wife/girlfriend makes her less attracted to you? This is why so many men are throwing their hands up and checking out.


I don't want a man to do anything for me that I can do for myself. 

Men who do this stuff are unthinking in my view. It's so simple to hold the door (don't do it because I'm your girlfriend or a woman, you do it because it's polite and people should generally do it for the other). Don't make a sandwich for me unless I'm just too busy to do it, and don't call it chivalry whatever you do because it's not. 

If doing nice things for a woman that she can do herself is all it takes, no man would be single.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> This isn't necessarily true. You are only looking at it through a certain lens.
> 
> There have been cultures where women band together to raise children and do so whether men are around to help or not.
> 
> ...


You make my observation sound like an indictment but it wasn't. Evolution isn't a dirty word and it doesn't rule us either. I just commented on an aspect that's common throughout history that favored our survival. There's nothing more to than that. You mention your comment wasn't directed at me which makes sense.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

But your point Thundarr is often used by men and women who want to say that attraction evolved in only one certain direction and that no other direction is valid. I'm not saying you were making that point, about attraction.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> But your point Thundarr is often used by men and women who want to say that attraction evolved in only one certain direction and that no other direction is valid. I'm not saying you were making that point, about attraction.


Yes I've seen that. We look for simple answers to a complex questions that frustrate us. We make blanket statements to, put people in appropriate (not) categories based on gender, age, ethnicity, political affiliation, religion, etc. We project our experiences. And if all that's not enough, we don't communicate well IRL and even worse on virtual medium.


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

SurpriseMyself said:


> I don't want a man to do anything for me that I can do for myself.


I hear what you're saying SM, but what about us guys that "want" to do it for our spouse? I know that my wife can make her own coffee (we make it by the cup w/ an aeropress), yet every morning I make it for her and bring it to her...a gesture...an "act of service" which happens to be one of her love languages.

Of course, I've never considered whether the "act" is alpha or beta...never really thought of the term until arriving here to be honest. I just thought of it as a nice gesture of love for her. Nothing more...nothing less.


----------



## Apexmale (Jul 31, 2015)

Evolution goes back millions of years and it hasn't been until the last 20 to 50 years that humans have changed but only due to emotions and compassion. As humans, we love to think we are immune to the laws of mother nature but our instincts only change when they need to for the survival of our species and in the last 20 to 50 years... there has been no need. As you noted, even 100 years ago... the survival of human offspring greatly relied on men willing to provide for thiers. There are plenty of humans who's purpose would have only been to provide a food source for the strong of other species. But in the last 20 to 50 years, human emotion and compassion have driven us to make sure that even the weakest of humans are afforded a chance at life. When more and more of the weak worldwide are given this chance to procreate, the creation, upbringing, and presence of Alpha males are becoming obscured by negative labeling. Also, in the last 20 to 50 years, women have adapted by leaps and bounds and no longer need the assistance of their male counter-part to guarantee survival of off-spring. 

I'm so curious to see what the next 50 years or so will bring.


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

Apexmale said:


> I'm so curious to see what the next 50 years or so will bring.


Decay.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Apexmale said:


> I'm so curious to see what the next 50 years or so will bring.
> 
> 
> bandit.45 said:
> ...


Some change is good but Idiocracy is a hilarious movie that's topic relevant. Granted it's slapstick and low budget.

Idiocracy (2006) - IMDb


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Thundarr said:


> Some change is good but Idiocracy is a hilarious movie that's topic relevant. Granted it's slapstick and low budget.
> 
> Idiocracy (2006) - IMDb


That movie is actually an IQ test in itself.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Bugged said:


> Uhm so you're going to tell your daughter she needs someone to lead her? Otherwise she will be unhappy?
> I'm sure our grandmothers were much happier than us..oh yes..and pigs can fly...>
> 
> 
> To me it's just a matter of culkture and upbringing...some women still buy the snowwhite/cinderella/princess crap...


No. Missed the point. I was theorizing why things might be the way they are. Not how I'd prefer things to be.

I'm not interested in a woman that needs to be led. 

My daughter, being a bit aspie, is largely driven by her rational brain and doesn't need or respect this in a man.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> But life just isn't an episode of the Flintstones. Fact is that for all of history, women have been contributers. I don't know where this prevalent idea of women sitting around making babies and waiting to be protected comes from, but historically, anthropologically, and biologically it is flat out false. Mama lizards, for example, protect their eggs and their young, while the male buggers off to mate with someone else.
> 
> Ergo, my lizard brain is not telling me to find a provider, it is telling me I need to be the one to step up and care for young because even though he has some pretty colours on him, and a nice scent, he isn't going to be around to protect me or provide anything but a bit of sperm.
> 
> And on the flipside, why on earth would men even be here with so many relationship difficulties if all they wanted/needed from women is to inject a bit of sperm into them? If what men really want is just some hot bods to poke -well, there has never been a shortage of women who will accommodate this.


The only thing I see in your response that's related to my post is the question of whether women ever needed men for protection. I'd think yes. From other men. From enemies of the group. These days it's less important but I'd imagine many women would feel safer walking down a dark street with a man next to them (brother, friend, date or husband).


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Oh for sure. It would be a horror flick, not erotica at all


You and Bugs seem to be agreeing that whether or not a man is a "creeper" is dependent on whether or not you are attracted to him, right?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Except there isn't any science that supports this view, Buddy.


The view that the rational brain is often in conflict with the "lizard" brain? That a "lizard" brain exists? Or what the nature of the conflict is in women specifically regarding attraction to males?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Joey2k said:


> Do you realize how bad this makes you (and every other woman who has said similar in this thread) look? Doing something nice for your wife/girlfriend makes her less attracted to you? This is why so many men are throwing their hands up and checking out.


But I don't think women are to be blamed for this. It's just the way it is. 

It's on men to figure it out.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Or what the nature of the conflict is in women specifically regarding attraction to males?


There is no conflict in the way you are speculating. And if there is any sort of scientific back up fro what you are saying, I'd love to see it.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Joey2k said:


> Do you realize how bad this makes you (and every other woman who has said similar in this thread) look? Doing something nice for your wife/girlfriend makes her less attracted to you? This is why so many men are throwing their hands up and checking out.


Well I'm going to go against this notion because I simply love it when Mr H does all the incredibly nice things for me. There is MORE attraction from me to him when he runs me a bath, cooks the dinner, makes my morning coffee etc I could list 100 things easily.
I do plenty for him too, things he can do for himself like his washing, ironing his shirts, making him a coffee, running him a bath.

I am as independent as they come, always have been but there is something very blissful about a household that runs on love, kindness and consideration.

He and I are both a good mix of alpha and beta qualities and IMHO that makes us a very good match, we have the perfect balance for us.

Interesting thing is that from what I can gather he was much more beta with his ex who is crazy as a cut snake, the balance was way out so after many years while he was still very successful with his career he just went onto auto pilot at home and did everything just to get through the day of walking on eggshells and survive to the next day.

Nothing means anything unless the balance of the two people involved is right for each other. I need a man that is both strong and kind because that is who I am.
We have plenty of male v's female differences but character and personality wise we work very well.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> I can only say that it has worked very well for me.
> 
> I didn't really know the term before coming to TAM but I have been very alpha since age 17 on.
> 
> ...



You and I seem to be cut from the same cloth. I have never been accused of being "nice". In fact, at times that has been a source of contention with my W because she IS very nice. 

I have to work very hard at being kind, compassionate and considerate of others. It's just not something that comes naturally to me. I am very hard working, generous, affectionate and fiercely loyal.

To OP's question though, I think women want to feel protected and secure above all things. I don't mean to suggest that all women need that but that somewhere in their core being, they are more attracted to men that are strong and oftentimes with that strength comes a bit of an edge....if you know what I mean.

For example, I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've ever brought my wife her morning coffee but if she ever calls me in distress and/or really needs me, I'm there for her in minutes, if it's possible. 

My W walks our dogs on the beach almost daily. A few years back, a guy says some very rude and insulting things to her because my W got angry with him for letting his dog run free on the beach and basically be a nuisance to our dogs. There are leash laws that this dude was obviously not concerned with.

Anyway, after the guy is really ugly to her, she calls me on the phone and tells me about it and how upset she is. Well, I head over to the beach, as I work from home and we're only 2 blocks away, run about 2 miles down the beach to where she was and then confront this @SSClown.

Needless to say, he was quite surprised to see me and I'm pretty imposing to begin with, let alone when I'm obviously angry. I made him walk over to my wife and apologize to her for his behavior.

Now I'll never win any awards for being the most thoughtful and kind husband but I got my wife's back and she knows it. She has also told me and shown me, in no uncertain terms, how much she appreciates being fought for and I think that is what really attracts a woman to her man. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> The only thing I see in your response that's related to my post is the question of whether women ever needed men for protection. I'd think yes. From other men. From enemies of the group. These days it's less important but I'd imagine many women would feel safer walking down a dark street with a man next to them (brother, friend, date or husband).


Buddy, everything I wrote was related to what you said. You told me that the "lizard" brain was why women wanted alpha men, and that women who are out of touch with their "lizard" brain and don't respond to alpha just "don't know what they really want."

And in my post, I pointed out that even lizards do not have lizard brains, that is lizard behaviour is not motivated in the way you think our "lizard" brains are.

Evolution has not conspired or planned or even accidentally unfolded in a way that supports your "women just want a man who will protect her" way. If you look to our animal ancestors, you will be hard-pressed to find a single example of what you are saying is the "nature" of women.

Female lizards determine fitness of their mate based on pretty colours and phermones. It has nothing to do with "alpha", or being protected. Male lizards don't, I'm afraid, walk their females home on a dark night.

It is true that some other parts of the animal kingdom, the alphas do mate more. And so I suppose I get why so many men want to hold these species up as the ideal for them to strive for. But note that even in those species, the females will often choose to mate with the beta males.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> You and Bugs seem to be agreeing that whether or not a man is a "creeper" is dependent on whether or not you are attracted to him, right?


No, no, not me. I have no use for Christian Grey no matter how good looking. I was merely pointing out that the measure "gets more sex" applies to those who are good looking. And the *only* way that this character could be viewed as sexy or desirable is if the good looks are there. Otherwise, he is pure creeper.

And if alpha = gets more sex, then all good looking guys are alpha, no matter how nice or weak they are. They could be ballet dancers that cry for Bambi every time they watch it, and they will still get more sex --because they are good-looking.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Holland said:


> Well I'm going to go against this notion because I simply love it when Mr H does all the incredibly nice things for me. There is MORE attraction from me to him when he runs me a bath, cooks the dinner, makes my morning coffee etc I could list 100 things easily.


Absolutely agree! Which is why, for the life of me, I can't figure out all of this alpha=good/beta=bad stuff, or these implications that I don't know what I want.

My rational brain AND my lizard brain love it when I am treated well.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

always_alone said:


> No, no, not me. I have no use for Christian Grey no matter how good looking. I was merely pointing out that the measure "gets more sex" applies to those who are good looking. And the *only* way that this character could be viewed as sexy or desirable is if the good looks are there. Otherwise, he is pure creeper.
> 
> And if alpha = gets more sex, then all good looking guys are alpha, no matter how nice or weak they are. They could be ballet dancers that cry for Bambi every time they watch it, and they will still get more sex --because they are good-looking.


I agree that good looking people have more access to sex.

But average looking alpha guys get more sex than average looking beta guys.

and

Rich alpha guys get more sex than rich beta guys.

Guessing it isn't great for poor ugly beta guys.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

SadSamIAm said:


> I agree that good looking people have more access to sex.
> 
> But average looking alpha guys get more sex than average looking beta guys.
> 
> ...


You assert this like you have some sort of evidence to back it up. What makes you think this?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> No, no, not me. I have no use for Christian Grey no matter how good looking. I was merely pointing out that the measure "gets more sex" applies to those who are good looking. And the *only* way that this character could be viewed as sexy or desirable is if the good looks are there. Otherwise, he is pure creeper.
> 
> And if alpha = gets more sex, then all good looking guys are alpha, no matter how nice or weak they are. They could be ballet dancers that cry for Bambi every time they watch it, and they will still get more sex --because they are good-looking.


I wouldn't agree that the only criteria that attracts women to men is looks. Although you do have the advantage over me of actually being a woman. I hear lots of things from women here regarding confidence and other attributes.


----------



## convert (Oct 4, 2013)

always_alone said:


> No, no, not me. I have no use for Christian Grey no matter how good looking. *I was merely pointing out that the measure "gets more sex" applies to those who are good looking. And the *only* way that this character could be viewed as sexy or desirable is if the good looks are there.* Otherwise, he is pure creeper.
> 
> And if alpha = gets more sex, then all good looking guys are alpha, no matter how nice or weak they are. They could be ballet dancers that cry for Bambi every time they watch it, and they will still get more sex --because they are good-looking.


Sort of like this?:
https://screen.yahoo.com/sexual-harassment-000000677.html


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
We've had physically modern humans for about 100,000 years. We've had civilization for about 10,000 years and large scale complex civilization for maybe 5000. The ratio isn't all that large. 

Tests with animals (foxes) have shown that new behavioral traits can evolve in just a few generations. (they bred very pet-like foxes in just 5 generations). 

Its quite possible that modern humans have quite different behavior than our wild ancestors. 




Apexmale said:


> Evolution goes back millions of years and it hasn't been until the last 20 to 50 years that humans have changed but only due to emotions and compassion. As humans, we love to think we are immune to the laws of mother nature but our instincts only change when they need to for the survival of our species and in the last 20 to 50 years... there has been no need. As you noted, even 100 years ago... the survival of human offspring greatly relied on men willing to provide for thiers. There are plenty of humans who's purpose would have only been to provide a food source for the strong of other species. But in the last 20 to 50 years, human emotion and compassion have driven us to make sure that even the weakest of humans are afforded a chance at life. When more and more of the weak worldwide are given this chance to procreate, the creation, upbringing, and presence of Alpha males are becoming obscured by negative labeling. Also, in the last 20 to 50 years, women have adapted by leaps and bounds and no longer need the assistance of their male counter-part to guarantee survival of off-spring.
> 
> I'm so curious to see what the next 50 years or so will bring.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Buddy, everything I wrote was related to what you said. You told me that the "lizard" brain was why women wanted alpha men, and that women who are out of touch with their "lizard" brain and don't respond to alpha just "don't know what they really want."
> 
> And in my post, I pointed out that even lizards do not have lizard brains, that is lizard behaviour is not motivated in the way you think our "lizard" brains are.
> 
> ...


I think your response was more about what you thought I was saying than what I was actually saying.

My reference to the "lizard" brain was short hand for the System 1 (or intuition) vs. System 2 (reasoning) as described by Daniel Kahneman and Dual Process Theory. I wasn't talking about the brains of actual lizards.

The idea is that System 1 is affected by evolution. If lions kill people, people will develop an instinct to run away when seeing a lion. Even in a future world where all lions are tame, the instinct will still be there. The reasoning brain would realize that this isn't needed, but you'd already be far away from the lion before the reasoning bran kicks in and causes you to stop running. Eventually, after many, many years of tame lions, this instinct might disappear. In the meantime, your "lizard" brain will be telling you to run while your rational brain says "don't run" because evolution hasn't caught up to reality.


----------



## Apexmale (Jul 31, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> We've had physically modern humans for about 100,000 years. We've had civilization for about 10,000 years and large scale complex civilization for maybe 5000. The ratio isn't all that large.
> 
> Tests with animals (foxes) have shown that new behavioral traits can evolve in just a few generations. (they bred very pet-like foxes in just 5 generations).
> ...


Those are very good numbers. Humans can change behavior within one generation though. Human instinct and human behavior are different. Human instincts are driven by mother nature while human behavior is driven by progress. 

Humans are the only species that realize that our time here is limited. We are the only species that realize we will die. That is why we are so driven by progress and have become the dominant species here on this planet. We can change human behavior within one generation, it's instinct that we can't change unless mother nature sees a need for it. Human behavior changed the day we discovered fire. Human behavior changed the day after we discovered the wheel. Human behavior changed the day after black powder.

There are plenty of Alpha males within our human society today, it's thier behavior that people hate. Too many Beta's are pushing for equality and humans, like all other species, are not born equal. Alpha's remain very significant in our society. It isn't necessarily a status, it's a lifestyle.


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> I think your response was more about what you thought I was saying than what I was actually saying.
> 
> My reference to the "lizard" brain was short hand for the System 1 (or intuition) vs. System 2 (reasoning) as described by Daniel Kahneman and Dual Process Theory. I wasn't talking about the brains of actual lizards.
> 
> The idea is that System 1 is affected by evolution. If lions kill people, people will develop an instinct to run away when seeing a lion. Even in a future world where all lions are tame, the instinct will still be there. The reasoning brain would realize that this isn't needed, but you'd already be far away from the lion before the reasoning bran kicks in and causes you to stop running. Eventually, after many, many years of tame lions, this instinct might disappear. In the meantime, your "lizard" brain will be telling you to run while your rational brain says "don't run" because evolution hasn't caught up to reality.


As an aside, I highly recommend this book. Nobel-prize winning, experimentally thorough work, and not as dry as you would think. It turns out there are oodles of situations in everyday life where simple brain tricks designed to exploit the gaps between System 1 and System 2 can really help. The one I remember offhand is that they figured out that, in a situation without a lot of information, human tendency is to not make an active decision, because if they accept the default choice they feel less responsible for a bad outcome. This led to a movement to make the optional 'Organ Donor' choice be set to 'yes' by default instead of 'no' on license renewal, which led the Organ Donor rate in those states to go from like 25% to closer to 80%.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Its quite possible that modern humans have quite different behavior than our wild ancestors.


I'm sure we do. However, 50 years ago there was little reason for a man to avoid sex with a willing, tipsy woman he met at a bar.

Now, with DNA testing and sexual assault claims, a man would be crazy to do that. But, I'd imagine that 50 years isn't enough time for evolution to adjust.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

Perhaps this might clarify a few things, since many here seem to be struggling with a "common definition" of Alpha... My suggestion? If you're unclear as to the definition, go back and read NMMNG...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Also....he is fictional. Quite an important point I would think?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I think your response was more about what you thought I was saying than what I was actually saying.
> 
> My reference to the "lizard" brain was short hand for the System 1 (or intuition) vs. System 2 (reasoning) as described by Daniel Kahneman and Dual Process Theory. I wasn't talking about the brains of actual lizards.
> 
> The idea is that System 1 is affected by evolution. If lions kill people, people will develop an instinct to run away when seeing a lion. Even in a future world where all lions are tame, the instinct will still be there. The reasoning brain would realize that this isn't needed, but you'd already be far away from the lion before the reasoning bran kicks in and causes you to stop running. Eventually, after many, many years of tame lions, this instinct might disappear. In the meantime, your "lizard" brain will be telling you to run while your rational brain says "don't run" because evolution hasn't caught up to reality.


I understand you perfectly well, Buddy. And my point is very simply this:

You want to say that we "evolved" to have certain behaviours, and that we will continue to do these same behaviours even when our rational brains have learned they are no longer necessary. What I am saying is that these behaviours are no more a part of evolution or our subconscious structures than any other behaviour. Even for those species that do have "alpha" males who lead the pack, the females often choose to mate with the betas. And fact is, there isn't always a male alpha, and when there is, he isn't protector and provider, he is sperm inseminator. 

Point being that what you are attributing to "evolution" is not, in fact, how we have evolved to be.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

happy as a clam said:


> Perhaps this might clarify a few things, since many here seem to be struggling with a "common definition" of Alpha... My suggestion? If you're unclear as to the definition, go back and read NMMNG...



I would highlight the social... I believe what many people want to suggest as alpha v beta is simply a matter lacking social skills. 

Leadership is a contextual item and confidence is a matter of being grown up. 

It is too bad for both males and females social skills are no longer emphasized. I always told my youngest son to get and keep a job you need to:

Show up on time 
Don't expect to have to be shown every aspect of your job (take some initiative)
And, get along with co-workers. 

That last one can be important when companies have to trim their workforce. "That guy who no one can get along with... He is usual the first to go".


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Bugged said:


> I'll add..what a really _*embarassing *_trait..to put others first...the whole Christianity is ridiculously beta..must be the reason it is declining...
> >


Umm, well, yeah. At least if you ask Nietzsche ... who was one heck of an alpha dude.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> I understand you perfectly well, Buddy. And my point is very simply this:
> 
> You want to say that we "evolved" to have certain behaviours, and that we will continue to do these same behaviours even when our rational brains have learned they are no longer necessary. What I am saying is that these behaviours are no more a part of evolution or our subconscious structures than any other behaviour. Even for those species that do have "alpha" males who lead the pack, the females often choose to mate with the betas. And fact is, there isn't always a male alpha, and when there is, he isn't protector and provider, he is sperm inseminator.
> 
> Point being that what you are attributing to "evolution" is not, in fact, how we have evolved to be.


Do you agree with the intuitive vs. reasonable structure, agree that evolution plays a part in intuition but just not agree that there is a conflict between intuition and reasonable in this case?


----------



## helolover (Aug 24, 2012)

Just Get It |


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Do you agree with the intuitive vs. reasonable structure, agree that evolution plays a part in intuition but just not agree that there is a conflict between intuition and reasonable in this case?


I agree that intuition and reason are different processes, but disagree that evolution plays the role in intuition that you think it does. I also don't agree that there is necessarily a conflict between intuition and reason. There can be, of course, but often there isn't. 

I also think it can be incredibly difficult to disentangle the two, given that reason is also a product of evolution, in the form of a wonderfully large brain and cerebral cortex.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

happy as a clam said:


> Perhaps this might clarify a few things, since many here seem to be struggling with a "common definition" of Alpha... My suggestion? If you're unclear as to the definition, go back and read NMMNG...



Risk taker v calculated risk taker, the former I'm not sure could be considered alpha but a potential Darwinian award winner. The calculated risk taker is smart enough to realize what risk are worth the undertaking and which ones simply are not smart.

Not liking failure and actually learning from your own failure is what separates success from the rest. I will assume this to be alpha?


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

Ikaika said:


> Not liking failure and actually learning from your own failure is what separates success from the rest. I will assume this to be alpha?


What stood out to me regarding that characteristic in the pic is that both Alpha and Beta do not like to fail...yet under the Alpha column it is identified with a "thumbs up" meaning a positive characteristic, and under the Beta column it is identified with a "thumbs down" meaning that it is negative?


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

MountainRunner said:


> What stood out to me regarding that characteristic in the pic is that both Alpha and Beta do not like to fail...yet under the Alpha column it is identified with a "thumbs up" meaning a positive characteristic, and under the Beta column it is identified with a "thumbs down" meaning that it is negative?



Perspective is everything in life, isn't it. I would assume that to mean that an Alpha views failure as an opportunity to improve and try harder or try something different to achieve success the next time whereas a Beta may just view it plainly as failure and give up and never try again.

That's just a pure guess, by the way.


----------



## unblinded (May 27, 2015)

happy as a clam said:


> Perhaps this might clarify a few things, since many here seem to be struggling with a "common definition" of Alpha... My suggestion? If you're unclear as to the definition, go back and read NMMNG...


Honestly happy, this chart is the silliest part of the Alpha-vs-Beta argument (and that’s saying a lot when you consider how ridiculous this argument is).


•	How would you define confidence? Screaming that one’s opinion is right, or being quietly confident that you know what you’re talking about without arguing?


•	How would you define effective leadership? Would you follow an Alpha off the nearest cliff? He’s confident, after all…


•	What is masculine? Does the Beta wear lipstick? What’s going on here?


•	Social? Do Betas hide in the closet? I’m sure I’ve seen them out and about. Sometimes even (GASP!), talking with others.


•	What component of embarrassment would we consider ‘strong’ or ‘weak’? If one is never embarrassed, is there no limit to what society would consider inappropriate behavior on the person's part?


•	Puts other people first? Heck, we can’t have any of that…


•	Direct and honest? Methinks both Alphas and Betas can do accomplish this.


•	Takes risks? I’ve seen many a fool utter “watch this”, then go on to injure themselves seriously. 


•	Wants to be perfect? This is just silly…


•	Does not like to fail? How is this different than wanting to be perfect?


•	Comfortable around the opposite sex? If Betas are uncomfortable around the opposite sex, how were so many of them able to get married. We’ll set aside how this silly metric dismisses same-sex couples…


•	Gets very emotional? Would extreme anger count as emotional? Judging by the discussion, anger and aggressiveness are not Beta traits…yet they are clearly emotional behaviors.


I think that chart is a caricature of male personalities.


----------



## Bam85 (Feb 13, 2015)

Who you are and who you want to be with highly determines which category you fall into. I think an Alpha male will always want a Beta female. They'll simply butt heads with most Alpha females. Likewise, two Betas will bore the crap out of each other. Only two Omegas will be able to date each other as they're both strange enough to entertain each other without being bored or overstepping boundaries.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

unblinded said:


> Honestly happy, this chart is the silliest part of the Alpha-vs-Beta argument (and that’s saying a lot when you consider how ridiculous this argument is.)


To each his own. You don't have to agree. Just consider which camp you're likely in.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

Bam85 said:


> ...I think an Alpha male will always want a Beta female. They'll simply butt heads with most Alpha females.


Not necessarily true. If we were to go by some of the alpha characteristics in the article, then I am an alpha and I have always been drawn toward strong women (I grew up in a matriarchial family). My wife can defnitely "throw it down" and she isn't afraid to exert herself...a trait which I admire and respect.

About 30 years ago a friend tried to hook me up with one of her friends, right. Nice girl, quite attractive, but completely "beta" as in submissive. I went out on 2 dates with her and she seemed to want to take it to the next level and all I wanted to do was to get away. I mean, this girl acted as if I could do no wrong! It was always "Yes, anything you say..." kinda stuff...UGH! No thank you.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

The chart is correct. I am excessively beta and no woman has ever wanted to have sex with me. Including my wife. Despite good education, good job, etc.

So guys, if you want sex, you cannot allow fear (and past failures) prevent you from sallying forth to conquer your foes. You may not have confidence that you will prevail. But you must have determination that you will die trying rather than accept defeat. I always accepted defeat. And hence have never claimed victory.

Yes, you may end up a Darwin Award winner. Better that than the life of a sex-starved beta.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

Holdingontoit said:


> The chart is correct. I am excessively beta and no woman has ever wanted to have sex with me. Including my wife. Despite good education, good job, etc.
> 
> So guys, if you want sex, you cannot allow fear (and past failures) prevent you from sallying forth to conquer your foes. You may not have confidence that you will prevail. But you must have determination that you will die trying rather than accept defeat. I always accepted defeat. And hence have never claimed victory.
> 
> Yes, you may end up a Darwin Award winner. Better that than the life of a sex-starved beta.


This makes me want to push you out of the way. And smirkingly smite you.

Actually, I'd be happy for you to hand me an ass-kicking if it snapped you out of this defeatist crap.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> The chart is correct. I am excessively beta and no woman has ever wanted to have sex with me. Including my wife. Despite good education, good job, etc.
> 
> So guys, if you want sex, you cannot allow fear (and past failures) prevent you from sallying forth to conquer your foes. You may not have confidence that you will prevail. But you must have determination that you will die trying rather than accept defeat. I always accepted defeat. And hence have never claimed victory.
> 
> Yes, you may end up a Darwin Award winner. Better that than the life of a sex-starved beta.


Umm... Ouch?!?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## unblinded (May 27, 2015)

happy as a clam said:


> To each his own. You don't have to agree. Just consider which camp you're likely in.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's a cop-out. There are no 'camps' of 'Alpha' or 'Beta' males. People exhibit personality traits that are a combination of the influences of experience, environment, and upbringing. For instance, a loud-mouth may consider the quiet guy in the corner to be a weak 'Beta'...until the 'Beta' stomps him into the ground. Then does the 'Beta' become an 'Alpha'? How does that work? 

Consider a more cogent example. President Obama is considered, both, strong and weak by the *same electorate*. He's been attributed with behavior indicative (at least on this thread) of 'Alpha' and 'Beta'. Regardless of one's opinion of the man, this is how unhinged the whole 'Alpha'/'Beta' argument is.

A comment has been made numerous times on this thread, but it bears repeating: people are trying to overlay a simplistic pack animal construct onto humans who operate in a wholly dissimilar environment. It doesn't work...no matter how much people want it to.

In my humble opinion, people who try to force themselves into categories are shortchanging themselves from the start. I consider the human experience to be far too valuable to settle for "I am a (fill-in-the-blank)."


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

unblinded said:


> For instance, a loud-mouth may consider the quiet guy in the corner to be a weak 'Beta'...until the 'Beta' stomps him into the ground. Then does the 'Beta' become an 'Alpha'? How does that work?


lol that happens more than people think. Usually it's guys who don't like the dance scene but take their girl out sometimes. They have to drop dirty dancing, leg humping, gropers on occasion until their girl decides to dance a little less sexy. Alcohol is a problem .


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

unblinded said:


> That's a cop-out. There are no 'camps' of 'Alpha' or 'Beta' males. People exhibit personality traits that are a combination of the influences of experience, environment, and upbringing. For instance, a loud-mouth may consider the quiet guy in the corner to be a weak 'Beta'...until the 'Beta' stomps him into the ground. Then does the 'Beta' become an 'Alpha'? How does that work?
> 
> Consider a more cogent example. President Obama is considered, both, strong and weak by the *same electorate*. He's been attributed with behavior indicative (at least on this thread) of 'Alpha' and 'Beta'. Regardless of one's opinion of the man, this is how unhinged the whole 'Alpha'/'Beta' argument is.
> 
> ...



I understand what you're saying and I can agree to an extent but I do think there are "various camps", if you will, that guys fall into. We see Beta behavior to the extreme on the CWI board with the fearful, almost doormat-ish behavior.

I view it very simply. An Alpha or someone who exhibits Alpha behavior a good bit of the time, is someone who is confident, knows what they want, knows who they want in a mate, and is determined to get it or die trying. They are not afraid to lead and have strong personalities.

A Beta, by definition, might be someone who would rather follow, isn't all that confident and certainly not as determined to get what they want.

I think inner confidence is the key. I think confidence is attained through one's upbringing, one's experiences and one's successes and accomplishments. Confidence is also either reinforced by others or dissuaded in the same manner.

I encourage my two sons to work hard to achieve both academic and athletic success because accomplishment is what brings about confidence, not false confidence, but real confidence because one had to work very hard for their success.

I believe doing something difficult and completing it and achieving some degree of success with it is what brings about confidence to try something else or even something more difficult. For example, true confidence can then encourage one to pursue a leadership role of some kind and then one is well on their way to being more on the Alpha side of the ledger.

I believe this is of paramount importance for young men as they are making the journey towards adult manhood.


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

While my husband exhibits all the alpha traits in that chart he also exhibits beta traits. I think he's the perfect balance. My husband is a firefighter and part of his job is putting others first before his own safety. A pure Alpha couldn't be a firefighter, they're too selfish.


----------



## unblinded (May 27, 2015)

Mostlycontent said:


> I think inner confidence is the key. I think confidence is attained through one's upbringing, one's experiences and one's successes and accomplishments. Confidence is also either reinforced by others or dissuaded in the same manner.
> 
> I encourage my two sons to work hard to achieve both academic and athletic success because accomplishment is what brings about confidence, not false confidence, but real confidence because one had to work very hard for their success.
> 
> ...


But does one need to pursue success in every area to be considered an 'Alpha'? What if a person is not interested in sports at any level, yet is an academic beast? Is he an 'Alpha' or 'Beta' male?

I think the problem lies in the fact that people label males as 'Alphas' solely because they exhibit a certain set a character traits that appeal to some (e.g., a woman who wants to be told what to do and when to do it). Accordingly, males who do not exhibit those same traits are 'Betas'. It doesn't matter that, in most cases (as that earlier chart demonstrated), there are clear contradictions to what is 'Alpha' and what is 'Beta'.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

You guys are way over thinking this. A woman is attracted to who she is attracted to. It doesn't matter where he falls on the "alpha beta scale." It doesn't even matter if the scale doesn't exist in your mind. Women and men like who they like. I'm puzzled why some men and women posting in this thread seem bitter about the type of man/woman that a person chooses. Take the time to to find the right one for you.


----------



## inhope (Nov 17, 2010)

thefam said:


> *A woman is attracted to who she is attracted to. It doesn't matter where he falls on the "alpha beta scale." *
> It doesn't even matter if the scale doesn't exist in your mind. Women and men like who they like. I'm puzzled why some men and women posting in this thread seem bitter about the type of man/woman that a person chooses. Take the time to to find the right one for you.


I agree.
It is all too ridiculous to place every male personality under the Alpha and Beta headings.

Men are complex beings and many are so very Alpha in some aspects of their life and so very Beta in other aspects too. Many women love that actually, a masculine man that also loves kittens or cries at soppy movies or is sometimes very vulnerable or can be embarrassed easily. 
Few want to be with a hard rock of a man who never lets down his guard and always wants to be the leader and the winner in everything he does.

Women like what they like, that like can change too as life goes on. 
What seemed attractive Alpha or Beta wise, may no longer be what they want later, but that doesn't mean they will not seek out the exact same traits in a new partner. 
Sometimes that like or hate is more personal and individual than some men would like to admit to. 
She didn't like me because I am a Beta, is probably not true, she probably just didn't like YOU, it had nothing to do with your perceived Alpha or Beta status.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> I can only say that it has worked very well for me.
> 
> I didn't really know the term before coming to TAM but I have been very alpha since age 17 on.
> 
> ...


Even after all these years, she still throws yourself at you because I'm guessing that you've always known how to maintain the Alpha-Beta balance. 
None of the extreme is helpful but the balance is crucial to maintain a woman's sex-appeal towards her man.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

thefam said:


> You guys are way over thinking this. A woman is attracted to who she is attracted to. It doesn't matter where he falls on the "alpha beta scale." It doesn't even matter if the scale doesn't exist in your mind. Women and men like who they like. I'm puzzled why some men and women posting in this thread seem bitter about the type of man/woman that a person chooses. Take the time to to find the right one for you.


however, more women are attracted to alphas, so if you want a 'larger pool' to pick from you need to more alpha.


Also, it is not like you are one or the other, you are a combination of both, in most cases. You need to figure out how to balance the traits out.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

naiveonedave said:


> however, more women are attracted to alphas, so if you want a 'larger pool' to pick from you need to more alpha.


Well I'm not going to be the one to say that since I'm biased. LOL!


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Why is no one talking about "sigma" ?
Here is a description I found:

Sigmas are all around you. They cook your meals, they haul your trash, they connect your calls, they drive your ambulances. They guard you while you sleep.Sounds familiar? Here are some common traits of the Sigma in game, life, and dominance.

Genius/Cleverness 

Determination to not be dragged into a system where they are either ruler, or servant. 

Unique experiences that changed them both for the good and the bad, it motivates and informs but never warps 

Success at something obscure, but valuable 

Always sort of..off key..in a room full of people who will raise their hands in approval of something the Sigma is the one who will raise their hand against it and not care what the others think. 

Odd sexual successes, the pretty girl gets down in the stair case with the Sigma then moves on and never talks about it again. 

Walking in cold, the Sigma tends to draw eyes to them, instead of returning eye contact, we do what we came to do without the whole backslapping "hey how ya doing" BS that a Beta will do, we may nod a head to the eye contact but not be troubled by it either way. 

Sigma knows instinctively that a Beta will roll up, we ignore them and bother with the Alpha if we feel like it 

Will also have fun, oddball, but true stories to tell the women eat up like chocolate to the point they often say "tell me more"..which of course..we won't

Important difference b/t Alpha and Sigma is empathy, we won't put up with someone punking someone weak out. Sigma knows this and thus avoids social situations where that is likely to occur 

In general a good test of Sigma is how many places a Sigma male is invited to, or events to go to, how good she looks that does the invite, that we turn down not out of fear..we have better things to do then put up with that bull****. 

Have an on/off switch, when a Sigma wants to, we can charm any women, we know it, but why bother? 

Common saying among women about a Sigma is "..there is something about him.." ie "I tried to throw him some ***** and he turned me down" 

A high sense of perception on social dynamics. 

Sigmas also tend to attract beta male followers, as if he could also build an army. Tyler. 

The Sigma always reads the group environment, and will seldom put himself in a social situation where he does not possess leverage. 

Ejection, sigma will quickly vanish if he doesnt get what he wants
Charismatic, I think this is a defining quality 

Sigmas are darker on whole, they are not happy chirpy individuals, unless it is needed to gain something. 

Shock factor, there is always a shock factor and inability for people to read them 

Not mainstream, they will never reflect an ideal, they are fringe members, but situated at the top of the fringe


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Traits that are often associated with alpha or beta can be positive or negative depending on the details. 

Alpha: Strength of will is positive, but stubbornly holding to an idea when you know you are wrong is negative.

Beta: emphasizing with others is positive, being made ineffective by emotion is negative. 

Alpha: Being a leader whom people follow is positive. Using your political or physical position to bully others is negative.

Beta: Sacrificing yourself for others is positive. Being a doormat is negative.

Alpha: Taking risks in a good cause is positive. Being reckless and looking for risks for the sake of the risk is negative.

Beta: Listening and learning is positive. Never talking is negative.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> The chart is correct. I am excessively beta and no woman has ever wanted to have sex with me. Including my wife. Despite good education, good job, etc.
> 
> So guys, if you want sex, you cannot allow fear (and past failures) prevent you from sallying forth to conquer your foes. You may not have confidence that you will prevail. But you must have determination that you will die trying rather than accept defeat. I always accepted defeat. And hence have never claimed victory.


I'm willing to bet that if true, this has a whole lot more to do with your unremitting negativity than it does with anything that might remotely be construed as "beta". 

Even the women here who are unabashedly pro-alpha are quick to say that their super-alpha hotties are also kind, considerate, would do anything for others, self-sacrificing, love kittens and children, will bring them coffee in bed, and so on.

I don't know where the alpha myth came from (well actually I do, it was a bunch of bitter and resentful adolescents who thought that they were entitled to hot cheerleaders boinking them every day), but it is a myth. Some women will get off on watching men fight for her or making them jostle for social status or position. But not too many.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

always_alone said:


> I'm willing to bet that if true, this has a whole lot more to do with your unremitting negativity than it does with anything that might remotely be construed as "beta".
> 
> Even the women here who are unabashedly pro-alpha are quick to say that their super-alpha hotties are also kind, considerate, would do anything for others, self-sacrificing, love kittens and children, will bring them coffee in bed, and so on.
> 
> *I don't know where the alpha myth came from (well actually I do, it was a bunch of bitter and resentful adolescents who thought that they were entitled to hot cheerleaders boinking them every day), but it is a myth.* Some women will get off on watching men fight for her or making them jostle for social status or position. But not too many.


Does it really matter where it came from if it is a valid description? Let's take the expression "on fleek". It's a description that's not in the dictionary and that irritates people when it's used. Does that mean that what it's meant to describe is not is a valid description? No because I got my eyebrows done yesterday and they are definitely ON FLEEK worthy.

Just kidding but I think you get the point. 

But now that I've read that Sigma description I think it may be more descriptive of the Hubs....


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

thefam said:


> Does it really matter where it came from if it is a valid description?


That's the thing, though: I don't think it's a valid description. I think it's a word that used to have some amount of meaning when applied to animal behaviour, but has been so loosely and randomly applied that it now functions basically as a way for some people to boost themselves up (and/or put other people down) for some arbitrary set of quilties that they've decided are desirable (or not).


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

always_alone said:


> That's the thing, though: I don't think it's a valid description. I think it's a word that used to have some amount of meaning when applied to animal behaviour, but has been so loosely and randomly applied that it now functions basically as a way for some people to boost themselves up (and/or put other people down) for some arbitrary set of quilties that they've decided are desirable (or not).


What I mean by valid is if I say I like man who doesn't take shet because it keeps me from getting complacent and because a man who takes shet is unattractive to me. I also want him to be confident (NOT arrogant), assertive (not boorish) and to lead his family. Then I say yeah an alpha male and society agrees to call this man "alpha". Just because the name "alpha" was assigned to this personality in an unconventional, non-scientific manner does it make this personality set a myth? 

Or is your objection...What exactly is your objection?

ETA I re-read your post and I understand your view now. So after all this discussion what's your answer to the OP? Are you an advocate of be yourself and find someone you're compatible with?


----------



## unblinded (May 27, 2015)

thefam said:


> What I mean by valid is if I say I like man who doesn't take shet because it keeps me from getting complacent and because a man who takes shet is unattractive to me. I also want him to be confident (NOT arrogant), assertive (not boorish) and to lead his family. Then I say yeah an alpha male and society agrees to call this man "alpha". Just because the name "alpha" was assigned to this personality in an unconventional, non-scientific manner does it make this personality set a myth?
> 
> Or is your objection...What exactly is your objection?
> 
> ETA I re-read your post and I understand your view now. So after all this discussion what's your answer to the OP? Are you an advocate of be yourself and find someone you're compatible with?


You say women like who they like (which I agree with). Afterwards you describe your ideal man, then say you and society consider that an alpha when, in reality, society could just consider him an a$$.

That seems to be playing both sides of the fence, don't you think?


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Not saying a man has to be purely Alpha or only Alpha to be successful with women. But a man needs some Alpha. Pure Beta men do very poorly. As others have said, many women prefer a mix over pure Alpha. But very very few women prefer pure Beta. The more toward the Beta end of the spectrum a man leans, the more he needs to work on mixing in some additional Alpha.

FWIW, I was not as unremittingly negative 25 - 35 years ago when I was dating. I have become unremittingly negative as the noose has tightened around me. Was not smart enough to slip it back when it was wide enough to fit around my head. Now I am very negative because I know the only way to slip the noose (or at least the only way whose cost I am willing to pay - typical Beta attitude) is to cut my head off.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

unblinded said:


> You say women like who they like (which I agree with). Afterwards you describe your ideal man, then say you and society consider that an alpha when, in reality, society could just consider him an a$$.
> 
> That seems to be playing both sides of the fence, don't you think?


No I was just trying to understand why AA is saying he doesn't exist, he's just a myth. But I didn’t read her post carefully enough. 

Although the example was hypothetical, I don't think you can say society thinks that man is an as$. 
That's just your opinion, perhaps the people in your sphere of influence. You don't speak for society any more than I do. 

I was sort of playing both sides of the fence, though.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
So Islamic extremists are alpha? They will not compromise on their beliefs. They take risks in support of those beliefs. They will not back down from violence if necessary. They react violently to any perceived slight or insult. They expect their women to be subservient to them and do what they want with them. (NOTE - I am only talking about Extremists, not all Muslims!).

Buddhists are beta. They placidly accept the world as it is and find happiness in live without struggle. They worry about improving themselves (but their own measure) and do not care what others think of them.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Buddhists are beta. They placidly accept the world as it is and find happiness in live without struggle. They worry about improving themselves (but their own measure) and do not care what others think of them.


You obviously haven't seen all those movies where guys line up to piss on the gates of Shaolin Temple and then proceed to get their asses kicked.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> Not saying a man has to be purely Alpha or only Alpha to be successful with women. But a man needs some Alpha. Pure Beta men do very poorly. As others have said, many women prefer a mix over pure Alpha. But very very few women prefer pure Beta. The more toward the Beta end of the spectrum a man leans, the more he needs to work on mixing in some additional Alpha.
> 
> FWIW, I was not as unremittingly negative 25 - 35 years ago when I was dating. I have become unremittingly negative as the noose has tightened around me. Was not smart enough to slip it back when it was wide enough to fit around my head. Now I am very negative because I know the only way to slip the noose (or at least the only way whose cost I am willing to pay - typical Beta attitude) is to cut my head off.



I think you nailed it here. I don't think anyone is pure Alpha or pure Beta. I think all men are a mix of both but as you suggest, it is far better to be more Alpha than Beta though.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> So Islamic extremists are alpha? They will not compromise on their beliefs. They take risks in support of those beliefs. They will not back down from violence if necessary. They react violently to any perceived slight or insult. They expect their women to be subservient to them and do what they want with them. (NOTE - I am only talking about Extremists, not all Muslims!).
> 
> Buddhists are beta. They placidly accept the world as it is and find happiness in live without struggle. They worry about improving themselves (but their own measure) and do not care what others think of them.


While this may be somewhat tongue in cheek, not sure, it does seem to make some sense that this type of lifestyle and behavior might appeal to young men around the globe, doesn't it.


----------



## Apexmale (Jul 31, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> So Islamic extremists are alpha? They will not compromise on their beliefs. They take risks in support of those beliefs. They will not back down from violence if necessary. They react violently to any perceived slight or insult. They expect their women to be subservient to them and do what they want with them. (NOTE - I am only talking about Extremists, not all Muslims!).




This is a very good point. One of the better one's that I have seen so far. But IMO, if a man is driven by religion, he is a beta.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

unblinded said:


> But does one need to pursue success in every area to be considered an 'Alpha'? What if a person is not interested in sports at any level, yet is an academic beast? Is he an 'Alpha' or 'Beta' male?
> 
> I think the problem lies in the fact that people label males as 'Alphas' solely because they exhibit a certain set a character traits that appeal to some (e.g., a woman who wants to be told what to do and when to do it). Accordingly, males who do not exhibit those same traits are 'Betas'. It doesn't matter that, in most cases (as that earlier chart demonstrated), there are clear contradictions to what is 'Alpha' and what is 'Beta'.


Yes, by definition, it appears that some things must exist in order to be Alpha or more Alpha. I think inner confidence is key but also key should be some sort of strength, preferably physical strength, in addition to just confidence.

Look at who society has cast as heroes in all of these Action Movies. John Wayne, Chuck Norris, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Cruise, Denzell Washington, Sean Connery, Mark Wahlberg, Duane, The Rock, Johnson are just some of them. What do they all have in common? They're big, muscular, can fight, are handsome and are very masculine, at least on screen.

I tried to cover a large generational time period but you get the main idea. While many of these guys' characters may be smart, their primary asset is their strength, their looks, their size or their fighting ability......or a combination of all of those.

This is the model guys in society are given as to what is Alpha IMO and what MOST women would find attractive.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Apexmale said:


> This is a very good point. One of the better one's that I have seen so far. But IMO, if a man is driven by religion, he is a beta.



Not really sure what you mean by that? Are you suggesting that a man driven to violence by his religious beliefs is Beta or that any man whose behavior is influenced by his religion, which would be a great many of us, is Beta?

For example, I wouldn't consider Samson to be Beta at all. :smile2:


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> For example, I wouldn't consider Samson to be Beta at all. :smile2:


You kiddin'? He's the poster boy for beta. That dude got manipulated by every woman that ever came anywhere near him.


----------



## Apexmale (Jul 31, 2015)

Mostlycontent said:


> Not really sure what you mean by that? Are you suggesting that a man driven to violence by his religious beliefs is Beta or that any man whose behavior is influenced by his religion, which would be a great many of us, is Beta?
> 
> For example, I wouldn't consider Samson to be Beta at all. :smile2:


Mostly all Alphas and Betas are influenced by some religion. But to be primarily driven by religion, as in nothing else matters, is a Beta characteristic.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Cletus said:


> You kiddin'? He's the poster boy for beta. That dude got manipulated by every woman that ever came anywhere near him.


I think the only woman that caused him trouble was Delilah. Aside from that, he killed 100 men with the jawbone of a donkey. That's about as Alpha as one could get.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> I think the only woman that caused him trouble was Delilah. Aside from that, he killed 100 men with the jawbone of a donkey. That's about as Alpha as one could get.


It was 1000, actually, but not even his best a*hole act - that was killing 30 men to pay off a bet he lost because of (you guessed it) a problem with a woman. If that's alpha, it's only reinforcing the bad stereotype. Sort of a 1 trick pony - kill every Philistine in sight to feel good as a man.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> Look at who society has cast as heroes in all of these Action Movies. John Wayne, Chuck Norris, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Cruise, Denzell Washington, Sean Connery, Mark Wahlberg, Duane, The Rock, Johnson are just some of them. What do they all have in common? They're big, muscular, can fight, are handsome and are very masculine, at least on screen.


Tom Cruise is a tiny little guy who needs to stand on stools so he doesn't look so short beside his co-stars. Oh, and a hardcore Scientologist, which I'm assuming counts as a "beta" religion? He is an a$$hole to women, though, so maybe that's enough to make him alpha?

As for your "most" comment about women, I think you'll find that we're more individual in our tastes than all of that. A woman who loves Sean Connery, for example, isn't so likely to go for the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger --and vice versa.

You do realize most of these action heroes are written for a male audience?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> This is the model guys in society are given as to what is Alpha IMO and what MOST women would find attractive.


This is a huge assumption. I think people are like sheep and will tend to follow what is put in front of them in this type of preference.

People who are not constantly shown these certain images don't necessarily think they are the epitome of manhood. I don't think it is logical to just consider what we, in this society where certain images are literally shoved in our faces thanks to people spending lots of money on advertising to SELL you things, consider attractive as the standard for what all of human kind finds attractive.

Also I'd like to counterpoint the list of guys you named with a list of guys who women I have known over the years have positively swooned over.....

Tony Shalhoub, Ben Kingsley, D*ck Cavett, Joseph Campbell, Leonard Nimoy, Michael Cera, Peter Falk, Jack Klugman, Alan Alda, Justin Bieber, Dudley Moore, Elijah Wood...

My point is that these men are all types who wouldn't get the leading man role, yet I personally know women who have gone gaga for them. 

I could make another list of the guys who are straight up freaky who women I know have swooned over.

Women's tastes are quite a bit more diverse that you think if you think "most" women go for the men on your list. Yes a fair number of women do, but not most. There are too many other types of fascinating, beautiful, smart and talented men to only be hot for the list you made.

Granted, these lists of mine are also celebrities and therefore, the starstruck effect is no doubt part of their appeal, too. But I also know real men who have far more in common to the guys on my list above and have women who are in love with them and/or married to them. 

If all the hype about how most women only want alphas was true, then nature would have dumped off all the men who don't fit that profile and then all babies would carry on those genes. But that isn't what has happened. Instead we see an incredible diversity of what "type" people go for, not just of alpha/beta types as you are suggesting, but also different races, cultures, and societies creating vastly different types of people....and yet we keep on getting it on, getting married, being in relationships...with ALL of these types.

Not just the alphas.

That's why none of this makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint.

And I say this as the wife of what you would think of as a perfect alpha-beta mix type of sex god. Yet there's no contradiction in what I'm saying. All of my closest girlfriends are not attracted to my husband in "that way". He isn't their type. I watch who they go out with or marry and am similarly not attracted to their guys. We have diverse preferences, like most women do.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I have, but in the traditional martial arts movies, the kung-fu masters are very unassuming. They only fight when there is no other choice - then the kick ass. 

Beta doesn't mean incompetent, it means aggressive. 

The guy in the old "kung fu" TV series was the ultimate beta, always trying to avoid conflict.



Fozzy said:


> You obviously haven't seen all those movies where guys line up to piss on the gates of Shaolin Temple and then proceed to get their asses kicked.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Tom Cruise is a tiny little guy who needs to stand on stools so he doesn't look so short beside his co-stars. Oh, and a hardcore Scientologist, which I'm assuming counts as a "beta" religion? He is an a$$hole to women, though, so maybe that's enough to make him alpha?
> 
> As for your "most" comment about women, I think you'll find that we're more individual in our tastes than all of that. A woman who loves Sean Connery, for example, isn't so likely to go for the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger --and vice versa.
> 
> You do realize most of these action heroes are written for a male audience?


I think you misunderstood my point. I said that most women find these characteristics attractive in men, not these particular men necessarily.

I understand that Cruise is small but he is considered handsome by many women and comes across as a "tough" guy in most of his movies.

That's the main point. I still maintain that most women find the traits I mentioned such as being handsome, tough, muscular, decisive and strong as the kinds of traits very attractive in men.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Bah! On one hand I despise all this "Alpha" "Beta" "Omega" crap, yet on the other I see it has helped many men pull themselves out of doormat behavior - growing some fking balls in the process.

Wonder if all this sh-t should be considered a necessary evil


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> I think you misunderstood my point. I said that most women find these characteristics attractive in men, not these particular men necessarily.
> 
> I understand that Cruise is small but he is considered handsome by many women and comes across as a "tough" guy in most of his movies.
> 
> That's the main point. I still maintain that most women find the traits I mentioned such as being handsome, tough, muscular, decisive and strong as the kinds of traits very attractive in men.


If the traits the man has are attractive, then surely the man himself is attractive? And if not, then comes the million dollar question: why not?

I don't know who these "most" women are, or where you get your stats, but IME most women have no use for hyper muscle bound super tough guys like these action heroes.

Indeed, most of these heroes are created for men. They are aspirational, all about feeding male fantasies of being a hero, saving the world, and then having damsels hanging off them that they can discard with a sweep of their manly hand. There is a female demographic for some of these movies, of course, but mostly the audience is male. 

Consider, for example, Superman. He, of any character I can think of tells exactly the story you also want to tell. As his ordinary nice guy self, Lois overlooks his attractiveness, takes him for granted. But when he is the world saving hero, she swoons. But look at who the primary consumers of Superman comics and movies is: boys. These stories are telling the same stories that men tell each other on TAM, but that doesn't make them true.

The stories that women tell each other are very, very different. This doesn't make them any more true, of course, but they do show how what we think about other people reflects more about us than it does about them.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Yes, women are not uniform and there are women who find betas attractive. But the reality remains that in todays USA the problem for most men who are not getting as much sex as they wish they were, the problem is too much beta, not too much alpha. Most men who show up on internet discussion forums complaining about a lack of sex are too submissive, not too domineering. Most men who show up here asking for help are accepting less effort from their wives than they should demand. We don't get many men who come here complaining "I am so big and tall and strong and competent and handsome, I don't understand why women fail to appreciate my awesomeness". We mostly get men complaining "I have a decent job and I am pleasant and help with the chores and help with the kids and she still won't have sex with me". The "cure" for these men is to be more alpha. Which may include having the guts to find another partner. The fact that there are exceptions doesn't mean that what I described above is incorrect as to the dominant problem facing men on these forums.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> Yes, women are not uniform and there are women who find betas attractive. But the reality remains that in todays USA the problem for most men who are not getting as much sex as they wish they were, the problem is too much beta, not too much alpha. Most men who show up on internet discussion forums complaining about a lack of sex are too submissive, not too domineering. Most men who show up here asking for help are accepting less effort from their wives than they should demand. We don't get many men who come here complaining "I am so big and tall and strong and competent and handsome, I don't understand why women fail to appreciate my awesomeness". We mostly get men complaining "I have a decent job and I am pleasant and help with the chores and help with the kids and she still won't have sex with me". The "cure" for these men is to be more alpha. Which may include having the guts to find another partner. The fact that there are exceptions doesn't mean that what I described above is incorrect as to the dominant problem facing men on these forums.


There is no doubt that this is the #1 recommended cure for all TAM men. However, I am highly skeptical that it actually ever cures anything at all. At best it seems to be a catalyst to end the marriage. At worst, the situation is as bad as or worse than before.

There are a few success stories as well, of course, and so I'm not saying that developing a backbone isn't sometimes a solution. But your assumption that a person can't be too domineering is way off base. Maybe men don't come here complaining of that, but women sure do. Having to put up with an overly controlling or dominating man is absolutely one key reason for switching off the sex taps.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

always_alone said:


> There is no doubt that this is the #1 recommended cure for all TAM men. However, I am highly skeptical that it actually ever cures anything at all. At best it seems to be a catalyst to end the marriage. At worst, the situation is as bad as or worse than before.
> 
> There are a few success stories as well, of course, and so I'm not saying that developing a backbone isn't sometimes a solution. But your assumption that a person can't be too domineering is way off base. Maybe men don't come here complaining of that, but women sure do. Having to put up with an overly controlling or dominating man is absolutely one key reason for switching off the sex taps.


dunno, working well for me. W and W's friends even see it, though they don't use alpha/beta terms.

I actually think that many of the beta men here married the wrong person, so getting out may be the right thing to do. If you read MMSL and NMMNG, one thing that betas tend to do is pick women who 'need' saving, which probably means that a large fraction of these marriages are somewhat doomed, due to issues from both the H and the W.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> But the reality remains that in todays USA the problem for most men who are not getting as much sex as they wish they were, the problem is too much beta, not too much alpha. Most men who show up on internet discussion forums complaining about a lack of sex are too submissive, not too domineering. Most men who show up here asking for help are accepting less effort from their wives than they should demand.


The problem with this thinking is that we do NOT hear from happy men who are having plenty of sex...they would have no reason to come here. So you cannot possibly guestimate the number of D*ck Cavett types who are having all the sex they ever wanted with wonderful women who love them, because you aren't going to find them here (I personally know several men like this).

When it's going good, you aren't going to hear about it at all from these men.

Trying to say that the whole entire population is the same as the population who show up on relationship forums is not accurate at all. In fact, this is a self selected group of people who have relationship problems...therefore by definition, it is not a representative group of the average population.

The same way that a forum of people who are into body building will not be a representative group of the average population.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Greetings!

I would think a basic understanding of what "in general" and "averages" means helps in regards to dating, attraction, and so on. There's definitely applicability as well to maintaining a relationship too. 

Women are attracted to muscular, good looking men that are masculine, charming, and have good potential as providers.

Yes, the contrarians say, "well, I love shy, unemployed nerds that are scrawny and/or fat, so there!" Simply because there are exceptions, doesn't negate the general truth that can be seen in reality every day.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> I would think a basic understanding of what "in general" and "averages" means helps in regards to dating, attraction, and so on. There's definitely applicability as well to maintaining a relationship too.
> 
> ...


So you are saying that the majority of men in relationships are muscular, good looking men who are masculine, charming, etc. because that's who women are attracted to?

That's so funny because when I walk down the street, I see average men of average height and looks, and yet they are usually also in relationships with women who are attracted to them.

Sorry but the real world doesn't uphold your theory, or else we would see far more of the type of men you say women are mostly attracted to in the world taking up most of the women in the world, yet that is not what we see.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> So you are saying that the majority of men in relationships are muscular, good looking men who are masculine, charming, etc. because that's who women are attracted to?
> 
> That's so funny because when I walk down the street, I see average men of average height and looks, and yet they are usually also in relationships with women who are attracted to them.
> 
> Sorry but the real world doesn't uphold your theory, or else we would see far more of the type of men you say women are mostly attracted to in the world taking up most of the women in the world, yet that is not what we see.


Greetings!

No, I didn't say that only muscular, good looking, charming men are in relationships. However, muscular, good looking, charming men gain access to far more women, and much easier process, than men who don't have such attributes, in general.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> No, I didn't say that only muscular, good looking, charming men are in relationships. However, muscular, good looking, charming men gain access to far more women, and much easier process, than men who don't have such attributes, in general.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't think this is true...what really happens is that good looking men and good looking women end up together. 

So if what you really meant was that good looking men have access to more good looking women than average looking men do, you are correct.

However, as we are told on TAM all the time, the average man is attracted to the average woman....so really, there's no one standing out in the rain with no one to love.

Being that we have to sterilize ourselves and use birth control and constantly worry about over populating the planet, and also being that MOST of us are truly average looking....I still do not see the point you are trying to make.

Lovely, wonderful and totally average people are everywhere, loving each other, having sex, coupling, getting married, and having children. There has never been a shortage of people to love or have sex with, and there never will be.

If one particular man is having trouble finding a lover or partner, I'd say that one particular man has one particular set of issues of his own that is preventing him from finding what he wants.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Greetings!

I learned such truth first hand. In high school, while I was in decent shape, good looking, but shy, girlfriends were significantly fewer, and required much more effort to develop. I didn't realize this at the time, or think about it too much. It just was what it was. I didn't really have any complaints.

Then, I joined the Marine Corps. 😄

My eyes were opened in amazement at the difference! Lol. Then, being very muscular, good looking, and charming and very confident-instead of shy and a bit awkward--the difference was like night and day!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> I learned such truth first hand. *In high school*, while I was in decent shape, good looking, *but shy*, girlfriends were significantly fewer, and required much more effort to develop. I didn't realize this at the time, *or think about it too much*. It just was what it was. I didn't really have any complaints.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but I don't consider what we experienced in high school when we were shy, awkward, inexperienced and clueless to be something we can compare to how we really are as adults and who we attract and are attracted to. 

So you grew into a man and women were then attracted to you.

Some men have the opposite experience and peak in high school where many girls are attracted to them, and suddenly when they are adults women pay no attention to them.

This has far more to do with maturity and individual personality than it does with "alpha" traits.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Greetings!

So, being shy, awkward, out of shape, and dressing like a Walmart reject will gain the same success with women as embracing "alpha" attributes?

Even as an adult, the distinction is huge. 😄

I've had friends that weren't "alpha" at all. Did they find girlfriends? Yeah, they did. However, not nearly as many, and with far less effort than my "alpha" friends experienced, as adults.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> The problem with this thinking is that we do NOT hear from happy men who are having plenty of sex...they would have no reason to come here. So you cannot possibly guestimate the number of D*ck Cavett types who are having all the sex they ever wanted with wonderful women who love them, because you aren't going to find them here (I personally know several men like this).


I did not say the problem for MEN is being too wimpy. I said the problem for men coming to internet forums complaining they don't get enough sex is often too much beta.

Yes, there are arrogant jerks who come here complaining. And usually it is fairly simple to detect their attitude. To those we can tell them "be nicer to your wife, meet her needs, do some dishes and laundry, take the kids away and give her some alone time, and go on date nights". And that advice may well work for the "too alpha" types. But we don't get a lot of those guys posting here (as you say, we get their wives).

The guys we get who are complaining (as opposed to being complained about) are the guys who are too beta. And the alpha vs beta chart is a helpful tool for those guys. Saying it is "too simplistic" or "not universally helpful" or "won't work on all women", all of which are true, does not mean it is not a useful tool for a substantial number of guys who show up here.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> So, being shy, awkward, out of shape, and dressing like a Walmart reject will gain the same success with women as embracing "alpha" attributes?
> 
> ...


There is a huge spectrum between a walmart reject and an alpha bro. The two extreme ends of the spectrum would be expected to have extremely different experiences. Most in the middle will have normal experiences and in this case, normal experience would indicate they will meet and mate.

There is really a lot of thinly veiled resentment by some guys toward guys who seem to have easier access to "more women". Yet plenty of average wonderful men meet and mate with only one or two average wonderful women and are wonderfully happy.

If having access to "more women" is a mans main goal in life, this says to me that man doesn't have a lot going on for him. If he defines his value by having "more women" than other men, to me this shows a serious lack of character.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with this thinking is that we do NOT hear from happy men who are having plenty of sex...they would have no reason to come here. So you cannot possibly guestimate the number of D*ck Cavett types who are having all the sex they ever wanted with wonderful women who love them, because you aren't going to find them here (I personally know several men like this).
> ...


We can agree to disagree, I guess. Because I personally don't believe that advice is good for most guys.

More tailored advice for their specific personality types without encouraging them to be different than they really are is better, IMO.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> We can agree to disagree, I guess. Because I personally don't believe that advice is good for most guys.
> 
> More tailored advice for their specific personality types without encouraging them to be different than they really are is better, IMO.


It is probably not good advice for all men, but, imo, it is good advice to pretty much all married/LTR men who are not having 'frequent' sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

naiveonedave said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > We can agree to disagree, I guess. Because I personally don't believe that advice is good for most guys.
> ...


My opinion is that those men should stop blaming their wives for being themselves, and they should admit they are in a mismatched relationship and seek out a better matched one.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Greetings!

Hmmm...I didn't realize that what I said was so provocative and "avant garde". Lol.

It's simple. 
*in general*, women are more attracted to men that are muscular and in good shape. 
*in general*, women are attracted to men that look good, and dress well. 
*in general*, women are attracted to masculine men. *in general*, women are attracted to charming, sociable men.
*in general*, women are attracted to gainfully employed men that have good potential to provide.

*in general*, men that embrace such attributes will be happier, more successful, in relationships with women than men that do not embrace such attributes.

Are such truths so provocative? To me, they seem quite self evident and easily observed reality.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Hmmm...I didn't realize that what I said was so provocative and "avant garde". Lol.
> 
> ...


the reason that feminists don't like this, is it implies that women can't control everything, including who they are attracted to...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Centurions said:


> *in general*, men that embrace such attributes will be happier, more successful, in relationships with women than men that do not embrace such attributes.


I would say that in general, these men may have more dates and a higher partner count...but not that they are more successful in relationships. They will be divorced at a rate of 50% just like everyone else.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> However, as we are told on TAM all the time, the average man is attracted to the average woman....


No. Everyone is attracted to the good looking types. The average looking ones tend to settle for each other. That does not mean the person they are with is the person they truly desire.



Faithful Wife said:


> so really, there's no one standing out in the rain with no one to love.


Not the emotional experience of many males outside the "good looking" camp. For females, it is frequently the case that they get plenty of offers, but not so many from males they are interested in. For males, it is frequently the case that they are not getting many offers at all. In that situation, it often feels like they ARE standing in the rain with no one to love. Which leads to becoming desperately attached to whichever female eventually shows a willingness to consent. While ignoring the red flags that she is not truly attracted to him sexually. But is merely using him for stability, emotional comfort, financial assistance, parenting assistance, etc. Anything except sexual fulfillment.

Same as women who have sex with a hot guy they just met because they finally got an offer from someone they wanted. And then they are surprised to find that he was just using her for sex.



> If one particular man is having trouble finding a lover or partner, I'd say that one particular man has one particular set of issues of his own that is preventing him from finding what he wants.


Correct. We are suggesting that an excess of beta and a lack of alpha is a likely candidate for the particular set of issues the man must overcome.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> No. Everyone is attracted to the good looking types. The average looking ones tend to settle for each other. That does not mean the person they are with is the person they truly desire.


If you are speaking for yourself here, great.

If you are speaking for others, I disagree and find your statement offensive and ridiculous. I know many "average" people who are highly attracted to their "average" spouses and significant others. You don't speak for them.


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

Ooh ooh ooh! Al Pacino..."Scarface". 

ALPHA!


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

FrenchFry said:


> naiveonedave said:
> 
> 
> > the reason that feminists don't like this, is it implies that women can't control everything, including who they are attracted to...
> ...


Exactly...so..."Say hello to my little friend."


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

naiveonedave said:


> the reason that feminists don't like this, is it implies that women can't control everything, including who they are attracted to...


Since you aren't a feminist and based on your posts have literally no clue what feminists think or why they think it, perhaps you could stick to talking about what YOU don't like and what YOU think. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> I would say that in general, these men may have more dates and a higher partner count...but not that they are more successful in relationships. They will be divorced at a rate of 50% just like everyone else.


And where is the data that supports the theory that you hope to be correct?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

NextTimeAround said:


> And where is the data that supports the theory that you hope to be correct?


Information on Divorce Rate Statistics


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

So let's look at the original post. Truster was arrogant and selfish at the beginning. His wife mistook these for confidence and strength. Not because she's a woman but because she's a human. Let's face it, arrogance look a whole lot like confidence and selfishness looks a lot like someone with boundaries. As his false confidence was exposed and he attempted to become less selfish, he became less attractive to her. Of course she re-wrote history to say he was less attentive because that's what we do.

So truster matured and wasn't so selfish and arrogant but in doing so he exposed that he was never confident but only arrogant and he never set hard solid boundaries but had done whatever he wanted. The problem (truster's problem) is that his actions originally looked similar to actions of someone with confidence and principle but those are character traits he didn't have (yet). Yes him continually conceding ground was a bad thing. Yes him being bossed around was a bad thing (for either gender). Yes him not going ape-sh~t crazy when she ridiculed him was a bad thing (for either gender).

So to Truster's original question to long term marrieds, here is my answer:
- No you do not need to continue to make a conscious effort to maintain alpha status in order to keep respect and fidelity sacred. What you need to do is make a conscious effort to maintain your boundaries and if the person you're with takes you from granted or demoralizes you then you pack their suit case. These trait associated with alpha are just symptoms of a guy who has his sh~t together. Women who have their sh~t together display similar symptoms but there just isn't a label to attach it to.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> My opinion is that those men should stop blaming their wives for being themselves, and they should admit they are in a mismatched relationship and seek out a better matched one.


I don't see how my post is the men blaming their wives. It is quite the contrary.  MMSL or NMMNG talk about men changing to get what they want, not just b*tching about how horrible their wives are.

So bail, just because once a week isn't enough? Seems crazy to me, especially if it used to be much more frequent.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't think this is true...what really happens is that good looking men and good looking women end up together.
> 
> So if what you really meant was that good looking men have access to more good looking women than average looking men do, you are correct.
> 
> ...


Greetings!

No one is being left out in the rain? Lol. There are many single men that are drowning in a flood of tears, frustration, and desperate hopelessness from being rejected by women on a constant basis. On better days, these men console themselves with the sparse comfort that beyond a few polite platitudes, most women ignore them entirely.

These men--in general--do not have some special snowflake set of particular problems that prevent them from being successful in relationships with women. Their problems are not extraordinary, unique--or insurmountable.

These men can experience an entirely new world of social acceptance, romantic relationships, and greater joy in life by embracing "alpha" attributes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> No one is being left out in the rain? Lol. There are many single men that are drowning in a flood of tears, frustration, and desperate hopelessness from being rejected by women on a constant basis. On better days, these men console themselves with the sparse comfort that beyond a few polite platitudes, most women ignore them entirely.
> 
> ...


75 - 85% of EVERYBODY ends up married at least once in their lives, and more than this end up having sex in their lives. Of those who never marry, many choose not to marry but have one or more LTR's. Of those who choose not even to do that, many are asexual or simply not interested in having a close human relationship.

No alpha required...it is just statistically going to happen to nearly everyone.

Any one individual who is alone for a period of their lives is going to eventually not be alone.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

FW: Depends on how you define "success". Plenty of us guys measure success, if not by high partner count, then by ease of obtaining partners. So more ease = more success whether the guy decides to act on that ease or not. And more alpha (to a point) = more ease.

And if success = avoiding divorce and alphas are equally likely to divorce (but not more likely than betas), seems to put more emphasis on ease of access. Because you are saying alpha has same rate of long term relationship survival, but alpha has more partners. How is that not "better" than same rate of divorce but less access to partners?

I would think your best argument would be that alphas are more likely to end up divorced because of some combination of (i) easier availability of partners and (ii) selfishness results in alphas being less hesitant to divorce than betas (or less likely to compromise, leading the alpha's partner more likely to divorce).


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> FW: Depends on how you define "success". Plenty of us guys measure success, if not by high partner count, then by ease of obtaining partners. So more ease = more success whether the guy decides to act on that ease or not. And more alpha (to a point) = more ease.
> 
> And if success = avoiding divorce and alphas are equally likely to divorce (but not more likely than betas), seems to put more emphasis on ease of access. Because you are saying alpha has same rate of long term relationship survival, but alpha has more partners. How is that not "better" than same rate of divorce but less access to partners?


If a man defines his success by ease of obtaining "partners", with no regard to whether these partners are actually good people or a good match for him, only that there are plenty of them, then how can he complain when he can't seem to have good relationships? I'd say the same about any woman who defined her success by ease of obtaining "partners".

Not my problem.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

But FW, ease of obtaining partners is a totally different challenge for men and women. So to say "I would feel the same about women" is comparing apples to oranges.

Part of this alpha discussion is about safety vs non-threatening. Beta men are non-threatening. Alpha men are threats to their opponents but provide safety to their allies. Some women confuse the absence of threat from beta men with being safe. Often these women fear hooking up with an alpha guy because they find him slightly threatening. But this is the guy who, when they are bonded, will help her feel safe enough to relax, let down her guard and hyper-vigilance, and enjoy sex. The beta guy who is non-threatening is also not strong enough to produce a feeling of safety, so his partner never can relax, so she never enjoys sex.

If you have been lucky enough to never have confusion about this, kudos. But it is a real issue in the world, and one of the paradigms we see play out again and again. The woman who is tired of being "played" by alpha guys so she agrees to date / marry the pleasant beta guy. And initially she likes the experience. Because she can rely on his fidelity. And this newness fuels her initial desire for him. But then something happens that causes her to feel threatened. And she finds her beta guy does not invoke feelings of safety. She can't trust him to protect her. So she feels unsafe. Tenses up. And no longer desires him. The "cure" in this situation is for the guy to develop more alpha so his wife can relax and feel safe.

Or, as you say, he can just dump her and go looking for a woman who does not need to feel safe in order to relax and enjoy sex. I predict that, even if he finds this mythical woman, she will come with various characteristics he does not necessarily find helpful. Developing some alpha might then be seen as the lesser problem.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> But FW, ease of obtaining partners is a totally different challenge for men and women. So to say "I would feel the same about women" is comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> *Ok, how about I'll say it this way...if a woman was whining that she couldn't find plenty of rich men or hung men or tall men, even though she could find "men", I would not feel sorry for her one bit. Wah to her and wah to him.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Bugged said:


> why is having _*many *_girlfriends a good thing?
> I'm a germaphobe, *I loathe promiscuous people*...they can do what they want of course but *to me it is a huge minus.*
> I get that the main stream alpha crowd won't agree...but if you think this is a plus to everyone just think again.>
> 
> ...


Greetings!

Having *many* girlfriends is a very good thing. A man with many girlfriends is a *man with options*. A man with many girlfriends is not *desperate*. Women can smell desperate men from a mile away and typically find such men "creepy"--and reject them swiftly. In addition, a man with many girlfriends usually gains high levels of confidence.

In general, women are very attracted to *men with confidence*.

That's a win-win situation any day of the week. That's why it is good for a man to have *many* girlfriends!! Lol!

Oh, and a side note--in general, women are more attracted to men that are desired by other women. Most women are not overjoyed being pursued by socially inept, Jabba the hut fat-beards with Cheetos-stained fingers that spend most of their day in their mom's house while chained to their computer playing video games, as a result of their constant rejection from women. At the end of the day, the forms may vary, but the result is always the same. Women like men that are successful with women.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

It's sad and a bit frustrating to have guys who actually don't have a clue what women want so adamant in putting words into our mouths and thoughts into our heads. 

It is probably this (rather arrogant, c0cky, and dare I say alpha) behaviour that leads to their poor relationships and sex lives, rather than anything "beta".

If "ease of partners" is your measure of success, then just join a rock band. It worked for the Ramones, it can work for you. And we all know that how many sexy groupie sycophants are hanging off your arms is the absolute measure of your success and desirability and all that could possibly matter in this world.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Centurions said:


> Most women are not overjoyed being pursued by socially inept, Jabba the hut fat-beards with Cheetos-stained fingers that spend most of their day in their mom's house while chained to their computer playing video games, as a result of their constant rejection from women.]


Just to clarify: are you saying that every man who doesn't fit this description is alpha?


----------



## inhope (Nov 17, 2010)

I think there is a myth developing here, that men with many gfs, casuals and hook-ups are desirable to most women, and that I do not think is in the least bit true.

I think many women are as turned off by such men, as men are turned off by women with many bfs, casuals and hook ups.

In the good old days when a woman was grateful for the attentions of any man, then perhaps his "wild oats" was tolerated, but now women nave choices, then a man who cannot keep it is his pants is as welcome to a woman, as a women who is always losing her knickers is to a man.
Past actions predict future behaviour, no woman seeking a LTR would deliberately choose a manwh*re


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> But FW, ease of obtaining partners is a totally different challenge for men and women. So to say "I would feel the same about women" is comparing apples to oranges.


I'm sorry, but this, and all that follows after it is utterly bs.

You want to look at women as just trophies to be won in some great c0ck of the walk showdown, well that's on you, and has nothing to do with the way that the rest of us conduct our lives and relationships.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Centurions said:


> Oh, and a side note--in general, women are more attracted to men that are desired by other women. Most women are not overjoyed being pursued by socially inept, Jabba the hut fat-beards with Cheetos-stained fingers that spend most of their day in their mom's house while chained to their computer playing video games, as a result of their constant rejection from women. At the end of the day, the forms may vary, but the result is always the same. *Women like men that are successful with women*.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Women are here repeatedly saying that they do not want a man who is a sl*t, they want a one-woman man...yet this is completely ignored...because some of you have apparently drunk the koolaid that says all this other crap.

Also, there's always the extreme examples given, Mr. Alpha Dude Bro versus Mr. Loser Living In the Basement...nothing in between seems to register. Yet almost everyone is in between.

And almost everyone eventually marries at least once...

So your theories do not add up.

The happiest people I know are people who are in a relationship with one really well matched person. Yet you guys make it sound like that could NEVER happen.

Well, it does happen.

Stop reading bullcrap blogs and books about this nonsense and look around in in the real world at real examples of love. Stop feeling that YOUR problems are common to everyone, they are not, they are specific to you. If you feel you need to be more alpha, great, do it. But don't project that upon everyone else.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> But FW, ease of obtaining partners is a totally different challenge for men and women. So to say "I would feel the same about women" is comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Part of this alpha discussion is about safety vs non-threatening. Beta men are non-threatening. Alpha men are threats to their opponents but provide safety to their allies. Some women confuse the absence of threat from beta men with being safe. Often these women fear hooking up with an alpha guy because they find him slightly threatening. But this is the guy who, when they are bonded, will help her feel safe enough to relax, let down her guard and hyper-vigilance, and enjoy sex. The beta guy who is non-threatening is also not strong enough to produce a feeling of safety, so his partner never can relax, so she never enjoys sex.
> 
> ...


Greetings!

Holdingontoit, very insightful, sir. Strong, masculine, muscular, confident, charming, social, looking good, dressing sharp--all good attributes to embrace for a man, whether he is single or married. I'm boggled why the women here seem to be not only against embracing such attributes, but seem to champion men doing just the opposite!

Out in the real world, no, not all men can embrace "alpha" attributes to the same degree as other men, but by whatever degree they are able to do so, will be far more positive in their relationships.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Centurions said:


> Holdingontoit, very insightful, sir. Strong, masculine, muscular, confident, charming, social, looking good, dressing sharp--all good attributes to embrace for a man, whether he is single or married. I'm boggled why the women here seem to be not only against embracing such attributes, but seem to champion men doing just the opposite!


If you are boggled that all women are not the same, that they have varied preferences and desires, that they are not cut-outs of the same robot pattern who have no personal tastes that are divergent, then of course you will find this confusing.


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

Having been married for 20+yrs, three older sisters, and a Mom, what I've learned is that if you want to know what a woman wants, ask a man who has been successful with them. Whatever metric you choose, whether PUA/pump and dump, serial monogamy, short term or long term relationships, or successful marriage, asking a woman will only result in further heartache. 

I don't claim 100% on this, but more often than not, it's true…(in my experience…..and other standard disclaimers inserted here).

I wonder how many divorces resulted from the whole ''Stuart Smalley/sensitive/emotive'' BS that was foisted on men. It certainly didn't come from a real man. Nothing dries up a vag quicker than an emo male!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Straight out of the alpha/PUA/MMSL standard line of bullcrap that "women don't know what they want". Just because you bought some nonsense hook, line and sinker doesn't mean it is true.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

OnTheFly said:


> Having been married for 20+yrs, three older sisters, and a Mom, what I've learned is that if you want to know what a woman wants, ask a man who has been successful with them. Whatever metric you choose, *whether PUA/pump and dump, serial monogamy, short term or long term relationships, or successful marriage, *asking a woman will only result in further heartache.



this is where labels can be difficult. In the bold part I see these as exclusive individuals. It could be assigned to an individual throughout exclusive periods of his life. But, a PUA, serial/multimodal pump and dump requires a different mind set than LTR/LTSiM. The person may not have completely changed to the outside world but internally these are not compatible traits. So is the person still alpha if they switched modes from PUA serial/multimodal pump and dump to LTR/LTSiM? If they did can they really ever achieve LTR/LTSiM if they switched off the serial/multimodal pump and dump? That seems to be the premise is this argument, wife no longer attracted to the male that desires LTR/LTSiM. If not, then they, alpha male, becomes a cheater and certainly can never achieve LTR/LTSiM. Or, is there a constant edge and battle to push off cheating for the LTR/LTSiM? Under this premise, the wife is happy but the alpha male remains miserable and incompatible to his situation; always prone and tempted to cheat. Maybe this is where (historical) polygamous relationship originated. I'm just trying to understand this whole label deal. 

So I'm trying to get these two strait in my head... The head above my neck. Where do we find this balance if one can be achieved?

Ok, enough with my self philosophical rant.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Faithful Wife;13365706[B said:


> I don't think this is true...what really happens is that good looking men and good looking women end up together.
> 
> So if what you really meant was that good looking men have access to more good looking women than average looking men do, you are correct.
> [/B]
> ...



I think what Centurion is suggesting, and I agree, is that the good looking, more Alpha men could get the good looking women and also the average looking women if they so choose. This is clearly not an option for the average looking or below average looking man.

Sure, these guys also can find relationships and love but have fewer options than the handsome, muscular, charming types.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> *Holdingontoit, very insightful, sir. Strong, masculine, muscular, confident, charming, social, looking good, dressing sharp--all good attributes to embrace for a man, whether he is single or married. I'm boggled why the women here seem to be not only against embracing such attributes, but seem to champion men doing just the opposite!*
> 
> ...


My opinion is that many women are married to guys who are not these things and they are just defending them. The other options are that they aren't attracted to such men, which I find hard to believe, or they aren't capable of attracting such a man.

For a guy to say that I prefer the overweight, frumpy woman to Heidi Klum, for example, is equally ridiculous.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> If you are boggled that all women are not the same, that they have varied preferences and desires, that they are not cut-outs of the same robot pattern who have no personal tastes that are divergent, then of course you will find this confusing.


Greetings!

You must have failed Philosophy 101 and the basic course in Logic, didn't you? Nice *straw man* fallacy, FW.

I never argued that I was boggled by "all women"--just the women here. I also never argued that women are robot cut-outs, and don't have "varied preferences".

I've simply argued that the core "Alpha" attributes are positive and good for men, and *in general* are attractive to women.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> My opinion is that many women are married to guys who are not these things and they are just defending them.
> 
> I'm actually married to an alpha sex god who is 6'3" and muscular, but thanks for your speculation on the matter. You are wrong.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> You must have failed Philosophy 101 and the basic course in Logic, didn't you? Nice *straw man* fallacy, FW.
> 
> ...


Yes it is clear that you believe you know what women "in general" are attracted to. Yet what you are describing is not what the women here are saying, therefore you are boggled.

Trust me, I get it. You think you are right and in the face of evidence to the contrary, you assume the evidence is wrong, not you.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

FW,

If you did marry an Alpha husband, you would be agreeing with Centurion and I, therefore, your contrarian viewpoint makes your claims harder to believe.

Methinks thou protesteth too much.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Except you missed the part where I said I am attracted to many other types of men, and I am also attracted to women. 

I am attracted to individuals. They are never the same and don't follow any pattern other than the chemistry they have with me specifically.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Not my problem.


then why do you insist you no the answers to why some men don't have much sex or that the rate of sex drops dramatically over the course of marriage, since it isn't your problem?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

naiveonedave said:


> then why do you insist you no the answers to why some men don't have much sex or that the rate of sex drops dramatically over the course of marriage, since it isn't your problem?


When I said "not my problem" I meant "it is not my problem that some here don't know what they are talking about". :x


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Bugged said:


> the only thing that a man that is successful with *many *women can give you is HPV.
> Nothing else.
> Sorry..you should stop reading blogs like ROK and stuff like that.
> They're ludicrous.


Nice try, but there's no point. All these guys care about is who has the line up of groupies waiting to bang them. Nothing else registers.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> And again we have the example of two opposite ends of a spectrum, as if there is no one in the middle. Saying these kinds of things do not make your argument seem mature or logical.


Oh, I get it now: it is all pure projection. 

Because these guys all want Heidi Klum, and feel like their wives are second rate (or worse) because they are not Heidi Klum, and they feel like failures for not achieving Heidi Klum, and don't actually give a rat's a$$ about anyone "less than" Heidi Klum, they assume that all women feel exactly the same way about them.


----------



## Middle of Everything (Feb 19, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Oh, I get it now: it is all pure projection.
> 
> Because these guys all want Heidi Klum, and feel like their wives are second rate (or worse) because they are not Heidi Klum, and they feel like failures for not achieving Heidi Klum, and don't actually give a rat's a$$ about anyone "less than" Heidi Klum, they assume that all women feel exactly the same way about them.


I hope by these guys you mean label put people in boxes addicts. Not all guys.:wink2:

The OP's wife is just a bad person. And SHOCK people are different.

Otherwise Faithful Wife has said all I can in this re-hash bs thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Oh, I get it now: it is all pure projection.
> 
> Because these guys all want Heidi Klum, and feel like their wives are second rate (or worse) because they are not Heidi Klum, and they feel like failures for not achieving Heidi Klum, and don't actually give a rat's a$$ about anyone "less than" Heidi Klum, they assume that all women feel exactly the same way about them.


Of course there is also the other part of the bro-dude blogs and manuals that claims "looks aren't important to women, just act alpha, drive a nice car, and have lots of money, and you can have Heidi Klum". Yet in other places, these men claim you have to be physically perfect to attract women....which is where they go on to explain that hey, don't worry short, unattractive guy, as long as you have money and cars, you can still have Heidi!

Oh, the hypocrisy and delusion. Makes me giggle.

Meanwhile, all over the world, average people fall in love, get married to, and have babies with other average people. How on earth do they accomplish this? Compatibility, shared values, chemistry, individual preferences, and genuine authenticity of course. But since the average dudes who only want Heidi Klum have no interest in anything except bagging her, they aren't going to bother looking around at reality nor finding themselves a wonderful, totally average woman. Can't sell books, coaching, or get blog hits by teaching those guys to be authentic. But of course, they are eager to read nonsense that gives the hope of bagging Heidi Klum.

(By the way, Athol Kay has declared that Heidi Klum, being 40 and all, is not that hot anyway as she is old and dried up, like all women over 40...just thought I'd toss that lovely bit of crap in there for fun).


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Centurions said:


> I've simply argued that the core "Alpha" attributes are positive and good for men, and *in general* are attractive to women.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You haven't yet understood the lesson of not speaking in generalities here. It doesn't matter if the generality is completely, mostly, or only a little bit true - you will not be allowed to support it publicly. Everyone is a unique snowflake, and there is no collective predictive power to be gained by thinking in broader strokes. 

But you will learn.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

There are great things to be learned using generalities, Cletus.

For instance, 75% - 85% of all people in the US will be married at least once in their lives, and even more than that will be sexually active (more than once, even!).

Also, 75% - 85% of the guys I've heard from who buy into the alpha/beta line of thinking sound like all they are interested in is how to bag a cheerleader, with no regard for her as a person.

There ya go, generalities are good. 

When it comes to a relationship between two people, yep, totally true those two specific people are special snowflakes with a very specific chemistry. But somehow this is seen as a ridiculous assumption. Instead we should assume that if he is not rich and she is not Heidi Klum, they both settled for each other. They could not possibly be attracted to each other or happy.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Nice try, but there's no point. All these guys care about is who has the line up of groupies waiting to bang them. Nothing else registers.


since the forum topic is sex in marriage, I assume all the married men want is more frequent and meaningful sex w/their wives. 

Alpha has helped me immensely.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

naiveonedave said:


> since the forum topic is sex in marriage, I assume all the married men want is more frequent and meaningful sex w/their wives.
> 
> Alpha has helped me immensely.


Then why does the topic always get steered back to what "generally" women are into? Why is the topic not "your wife is an individual, she likes what she likes, you need to find out what she likes and be that"?


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Mostlycontent said:


> My opinion is that many women are married to guys who are not these things and they are just defending them. The other options are that they aren't attracted to such men, which I find hard to believe, or they aren't capable of attracting such a man.
> 
> For a guy to say that I prefer the overweight, frumpy woman to Heidi Klum, for example, is equally ridiculous.


Heidi Klum?

No thanks. Not into sharing my wife w/ others.

Apparently neither was Seal.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Also, 75% - 85% of the guys I've heard from who buy into the alpha/beta line of thinking sound like all they are interested in is how to bag a cheerleader, with no regard for her as a person.
> 
> 
> When it comes to a relationship between two people, yep, totally true those two specific people are special snowflakes with a very specific chemistry. But somehow this is seen as a ridiculous assumption. Instead we should assume that if he is not rich and she is not Heidi Klum, they both settled for each other. They could not possibly be attracted to each other or happy.


what they are interested in is banging their wives like they did when they were dating/newlyweds

Your 2nd paragraph is pretty spot on, but you omit one key fact, they used to have a lot more sex, so what changed? In many cases they (the men) became too beta, life got in the way, they got bald, gained weight, decided it was easier to say yes dear than to fight.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Hmmm...I didn't realize that what I said was so provocative and "avant garde". Lol.
> 
> ...


Well, I agree that they will get more access to women.

However, this does not necessarily mean that they will be happier.

If fact, if a woman is too far above a guy's league, he's almost certain to be unhappy.

But, just try convincing guys that they'll be happier if they have less options to have sex with hot women and you'll probably have a lot of trouble making your case. It's like convincing people that they don't need more money to be happy. That's true. But, I still have a hard time believing that a Ferrari and lots of sex with hot women (two or more at a time!) wouldn't really make me any happier.

When I was 24 years old, I had a brand new Corvette. I sold it to pay for college, assuming that I would eventually get another one. Family got in the way. After driving Honda Civics and Hyundai Elantras for 34 years, I bought a souped up new Camaro SS. I realized that a hot, fast car didn't really make me any happier and I sold it 3 months later (luckily, it hadn't lost much value). I never even tried "launch control"! 

It turns out that I'm perfectly happy driving a Hyundai Elantra. 

But it's a lot easier having had the hot car to believe that I didn't really need it.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Then why does the topic always get steered back to what "generally" women are into? Why is the topic not "your wife is an individual, she likes what she likes, you need to find out what she likes and be that"?


because random strangers on the net don't know me or my W. Or I them/their spouses. So if you give advice, it usually has to be general, because you don't know enough. And generally, what I have found on SIM and other boards is that many men who feel like they aren't getting enough, usually have lost there ability to attract the W. And usually advice like man up, alpha up, works to re-build attraction.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> But, just try convincing guys that they'll be happier if they have less options to have sex with hot women and you'll probably have a lot of trouble making your case. It's like convincing people that they don't need more money to be happy. That's true.


Actually, having more money does make you happier, it's just that the point of diminishing returns comes a lot sooner than most realize. Probably the same way with having a hot spouse.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

naiveonedave said:


> Your 2nd paragraph is pretty spot on, but you omit one key fact, they used to have a lot more sex, so what changed? In many cases they (the men) became too beta, life got in the way, they got bald, gained weight, decided it was easier to say yes dear than to fight.


A little research and education will show any person who wants to learn it, that nearly ALL relationships have more sex in the beginning. Adjusting our expectations, realizing that no one really knows what their baseline level is for libido when they are teenagers experimenting, and understanding that sex requires more than attraction, would help anyone in this position.

And yes, sometimes that will mean hey, you aren't going to "get more sex" from your wife, she is who she is, even if you had more sex in the beginning like everyone does. In those cases, people would do better to mutually decide to split rather than whining forever or constantly trying to change each other.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

naiveonedave said:


> because random strangers on the net don't know me or my W. Or I them/their spouses. So if you give advice, it usually has to be general, because you don't know enough. And generally, what I have found on SIM and other boards is that many men who feel like they aren't getting enough, usually have lost there ability to attract the W. And usually advice like man up, alpha up, works to re-build attraction.


IMO, asking random strangers on the internet for specific advice about your own issues where, as you say, no one knows either of you individually, has very limited success.

You have said the alpha stuff has worked for you and I do believe you. Yet there are thousands it has not helped.

If anyone is relying on random internet stranger's advice rather than actually talking to their spouse, I'm going to say this is a big part of their problem.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> You must have failed Philosophy 101 and the basic course in Logic, didn't you? Nice *straw man* fallacy, FW.
> 
> ...


There are a couple of posters here that just refuse to deal with any generalizations at all. It's as if there is no bell curve and that you're just as likely to find something on the tails as in the middle.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Speaking for myself Buddy, I simply refuse to apply what "women" or "men" like to what one particular woman or man likes. That's my only beef with it. You and others can see this as if we don't believe in bell curves, but you are wrong in what I'm saying or what I believe. No worries, I don't expect to actually be heard or understood...it is much easier to just brush off what I'm saying and stay focused on what "women" like in general, because that's sooooooo relevant to married men who are supposedly here talking about their wife, not "women".


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Speaking for myself Buddy, I simply refuse to apply what "women" or "men" like to what one particular woman or man likes. That's my only beef with it".


That's the core of the misunderstanding.

When talking about 2 non-specific people, if you are going to say anything at all about them, you have to talk in generalizations (one can certainly argue whether or not the generalization is true).

When talking about 2 specific people; there is no reason to think that generalizations automatically apply to them. 

When I'm trying to solve a problem, it's worth knowing what idea generally solves the problem even though I know that this does not mean that this idea will solve my specific problem. I don't want to look at each and every problem as unique and try to solve it from 1st principles, discarding any knowledge I've previously learned.

I believe almost everyone here that talks in generalities knows that they are talking in generalities.

It seems as if you think that they are talking about things that they believe apply to each and every woman without exception. 

We're not. Really.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> It seems as if you think that they are talking about things that they believe apply to each and every woman without exception.
> 
> We're not. Really.


Ok Buddy, I'll play.

Can you show me some kind of research about what the average woman finds attractive? Something that did not come from a PUA or red pill blog, and is not a survey done on college students by showing them pictures? Also it has to be something that includes a different matrix for what we find physically attractive just to look at or consider having unattached sex with, versus we find attractive in a man we would consider a relationship with (since you guys are the ones who claim there is a difference in what we find attractive in those two scenarios). Also it needs to include more than just what women in the US find attractive, since women in the US do not define what is attractive to every woman on earth.

If there is such research, I'd love to see it.

But that's not what gets presented to us here when we are TOLD what "most women find attractive". Instead, we are TOLD the same thing you guys are TOLD when you go to red pill and PUA blogs....and unless there is some way to SHOW that what they say is true, why on earth would I feel obliged to just blindly believe that nonsense? There is no proof of what they say, yet you guys gobble it up and believe it as if there is an absolute standard of what "most" women are attracted to. Based on literally nothing but the word of other men who write these blogs and books.

Instead of being seen as being discerning since I won't just accept non-supported claims made by PUA gurus, I am seen as "not accepting reality" or having special snow flake syndrome. 

Again, show me the evidence that what women are attracted to "in general" is alpha dude bros. EVIDENCE, not just "well you see it all around you, the captain of the football team dates the cheerleader" and that nonsense.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> If anyone is relying on random internet stranger's advice rather than actually talking to their spouse, I'm going to say this is a big part of their problem.


True. But then TAM could just automatically reply to a poster's asking for relationship advice with "talk to your spouse about it".

That would be great advice, but boring.

And sometimes, they've already tried that.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> True. But then TAM could just automatically reply to a poster's asking for relationship advice with "talk to your spouse about it".
> 
> That would be great advice, but boring.
> 
> And sometimes, they've already tried that.


And 50% (or more) of all marriages will end in divorce. Boom.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Middle of Everything said:


> I hope by these guys you mean label put people in boxes addicts. Not all guys.:wink2:


Oh absolutely! I am speaking very specifically of the "alpha is always good, all of the time, guys only get sex when they are alpha, and all women want only alpha guys" mindset.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Then why does the topic always get steered back to what "generally" women are into? Why is the topic not "your wife is an individual, she likes what she likes, you need to find out what she likes and be that"?


Not to mention the emphasis on the importance of of a man having many options, how he can only be desirable if there are *lots* of women after him. Because, of course, women aren't at all individuals, and we only go for those guys that every other woman goes for.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Then why does the topic always get steered back to what "generally" women are into? Why is the topic not "your wife is an individual, she likes what she likes, you need to find out what she likes and be that"?


I think for a lot of guys the answer to this question is "playing the odds". Some guys have a lot tougher time actually figuring out what their wife likes, especially when she hasn't figured it out for herself. So instead of stumbling around in the dark, they play the odds and hope for the best.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok Buddy, I'll play.
> 
> Can you show me some kind of research about what the average woman finds attractive? Something that did not come from a PUA or red pill blog, and is not a survey done on college students by showing them pictures? Also it has to be something that includes a different matrix for what we find physically attractive just to look at or consider having unattached sex with, versus we find attractive in a man we would consider a relationship with (since you guys are the ones who claim there is a difference in what we find attractive in those two scenarios). Also it needs to include more than just what women in the US find attractive, since women in the US do not define what is attractive to every woman on earth.
> 
> ...


Like I said, it's perfectly valid to disagree about whether or not the generalization in question is true or not.

If you said "I think that generalization is false", I'd have no objection. But it seems to me that your counter is always "not all men/women are like that". I have no problem with anyone arguing over a premise. It just drives me nuts when someone seems to disagree with the idea that generalizations do exist and can, in certain situations, be useful. This is how I interpret your responses (I could be interpreting them wrong).

Personally, I have some theories but none that I'm invested enough in to defend. I'd be happy to get you to agree that *any* group of attributes in a man or woman is more attractive to the opposite gender than any other specific group of attributes. Something along the lines of surveys that rank the top ten attributes that women look for in men.

If we can establish that such a ranking exists and that it makes sense to talk about such things, then we can quibble about the details.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> I think for a lot of guys the answer to this question is "playing the odds". Some guys have a lot tougher time actually figuring out what their wife likes, especially when she hasn't figured it out for herself. So instead of stumbling around in the dark, they play the odds and hope for the best.


Given that any individual partner may not be able to articulate what they want in a mate, or even on the chance that what your partner says he or she wants in a partner is not necessarily the same thing that gets them all hot and bothered, it's not a bad first attempt strategy.

Always bet on the house.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> I think for a lot of guys the answer to this question is "playing the odds". Some guys have a lot tougher time actually figuring out what their wife likes, especially when she hasn't figured it out for herself. So instead of stumbling around in the dark, they play the odds and hope for the best.


As I said to Buddy on a previous post, I could accept this and find it logical....IF there was some kind of meta study that actually proved what those odds are.

Attraction and what people want within a relationship is not something that can be easily lined out and statistically shown. And yet these guys claim it is easily shown and that they know what women "in general" are attracted to x, y, and z. But when you ask for evidence that supports that women are attracted to x, y, and z, you get links from PUA blogs and articles in Cosmo and stories about cheerleaders and football captains.

Who is the odds maker and what criteria are they using?

So far, no one can answer this, no matter how many times I ask. Yet again, I am seen as the generalities police because I won't swallow what some idiot on a PUA blog says without any evidence.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> As I said to Buddy on a previous post, I could accept this and find it logical....IF there was some kind of meta study that actually proved what those odds are.
> 
> Attraction and what people want within a relationship is not something that can be easily lined out and statistically shown. And yet these guys claim it is easily shown and that they know what women "in general" are attracted to x, y, and z. But when you ask for evidence that supports that women are attracted to x, y, and z, you get links from PUA blogs and articles in Cosmo and stories about cheerleaders and football captains.
> 
> ...


Not saying it works. I'm just saying that's why it happens. If men had something with actual science to back it, I'm sure they'd try that instead. As it stands, all they have to go by sometimes is popular opinion.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Like I said, it's perfectly valid to disagree about whether or not the generalization in question is true or not.
> 
> If you said "I think that generalization is false", I'd have no objection. But it seems to me that your counter is always "not all men/women are like that". I have no problem with anyone arguing over a premise. It just drives me nuts when someone seems to disagree with the idea that generalizations do exist and can, in certain situations, be useful. This is how I interpret your responses (I could be interpreting them wrong).
> 
> ...


Still no evidence right?

Without it, what am I supposed to agree to. What are these generalities you are speaking of? The ones on the PUA blogs, right?

With other subjects, looking at statistics makes sense in trying to predict outcomes.

With this subject, there are no statistics, yet some of you guys act as if there are some.

THAT is my problem. No matter how many times I ask "who is the odds maker and what criteria are they using?" I never get a response. Because there is NO data that supports the alpha bro nonsense. 

If there is some, find it for me. Then I will happily discuss it.

Meanwhile, I will continue to watch what goes on around me in the world, where average people meet and fall in love or just have sex with other average people, all the time.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> Not saying it works. I'm just saying that's why it happens. If men had something with actual science to back it, I'm sure they'd try that instead. As it stands, all they have to go by sometimes is *popular opinion*.


If they would present it as POPULAR OPINION instead of "facts" I would have no issue here.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Except you missed the part where I said I am attracted to many other types of men, and I am also attracted to women.
> 
> I am attracted to individuals. They are never the same and don't follow any pattern other than the chemistry they have with me specifically.



I think it was Buddy that pointed it out that most everyone here is speaking in generalities and you are speaking in specifics, namely for yourself.

If you're suggesting that you are unique and outside the spectrum of a generalization of women, then that's fine, but that is not what most of us are describing. I and others are making generalizations of "most" women and I stand by that.

I would guess, based on your own self definition, that you may indeed be outside the norm. That is not a bad thing nor is the comment intended as such, but one has to recognize when their own preferences and life experiences might fall in that category.

For example, if I was into hardcore S&M, I certainly wouldn't leap into an argument about generalizations of men because I would already know that I am well outside the norm and candidly wouldn't be all that qualified to speak for the average tastes or desires of other men.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> I think it was Buddy that pointed it out that *most everyone here is speaking in generalities* and you are speaking in specifics, namely for yourself.
> 
> If you're suggesting that you are unique and outside the spectrum of a generalization of women, then that's fine, but that is not what most of us are describing. *I and others are making generalizations of "most" women and I stand by that*.


And as I asked Buddy, if you would like to show me some kind of evidence what "most" women are attracted to, I would be happy to discuss it with you or anyone else.

Yet that evidence doesn't exist.

Go ahead and look for it and let me know. I'd love to see it if there is ANY properly researched data that proves women generally are attracted to alpha dude-bro's. 

But the fact is, such research doesn't exist and the minimal research done on what people find attractive in no way conclusively shows women like alpha dude-bro's.

Therefore....what you and others claim to be what women are generally attracted to is nothing more than what the media and PUA blogs are TELLING you that women are generally attracted to. And you swallow it as if it is "truth", without wondering "hey, I wonder how they came up with those generalities?"

When you actually do look deeper into how they came up with those generalities (and I have), you will find that it is smoke and mirrors and bad science, all with one agenda: to sell you books.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> As I said to Buddy on a previous post, I could accept this and find it logical....IF there was some kind of meta study that actually proved what those odds are.
> 
> Attraction and what people want within a relationship is not something that can be easily lined out and statistically shown. And yet these guys claim it is easily shown and that they know what women "in general" are attracted to x, y, and z. But when you ask for evidence that supports that women are attracted to x, y, and z, you get links from PUA blogs and articles in Cosmo and stories about cheerleaders and football captains.
> 
> ...


FW, I have missed a bunch of pages but was reading a lot of your comments along the lines of relationships, one-women men etc... And while those are certainly important they go much beyond pure sexual attraction. Have you never heard the term "there are the ones you fck and there are the ones you marry"? I have seen countless examples of this in both genders. (in fact I am obviously one such example, always being the marriage material kind, and been told that by GFs multiple times, and on at least one occasion left behind so that my female partner could go seek out the other kind of guy).

Alpha/beta are just models that get all applied to socio-sexual hierarchies, and they are more applicable to the ONS, casual sex, PUA night club scene then they are to long term relationships. But they are still in play which is why places like MMSLP exist and why this thread is as long as it is.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lon said:


> FW, I have missed a bunch of pages but was reading a lot of your comments along the lines of relationships, one-women men etc... And while those are certainly important they go much beyond pure sexual attraction. Have you never heard the term "there are the ones you fck and there are the ones you marry"? I have seen countless examples of this in both genders. (in fact I am obviously one such example, always being the marriage material kind, and been told that by GFs multiple times, and on at least one occasion left behind so that my female partner could go seek out the other kind of guy).
> 
> Alpha/beta are just models that get all applied to socio-sexual hierarchies, and they are more applicable to the ONS, casual sex, PUA night club scene then they are to long term relationships. But they are still in play which is why places like MMSLP exist and why this thread is as long as it is.


Lon, I have my own opinions about why MMSL exists.

When you say alpha/beta are just models that get applied to socio-sexual hierarchies, you are talking about only a certain group of people who do this. There is no research that shows any of it is actually applicable to attraction.

If everyone were here saying "my opinion is this" rather than "women in general like this" and presenting their opinion as if it is a fact, I would have no issue here.

I totes agree there are some you f*ck and some you marry. But even then, I wouldn't be so bold as to say there are generalities in which is which, because there are too many variables....what age you are, if ever married, if divorced, etc.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Personal said:


> Who's Heidi Klum? I had to look her up since I had never heard of her, anyway now that I've seen pictures since I have my own tastes aesthetically she does nothing for me at all.


Who knows? I just used her name because someone else indicated she was obviously desirable and wonderful.

I'm sure she has great appeal for some.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

I bought a Jeep for my oldest son to drive when he got his license about 10 years ago. It sounded like a Ford Pinto so I put really throaty duels on it which made the thing sound like a V8 and a bad arse V8 to be more specific. The thing is, it sounded bad but it wasn't really bad and anyone driving it knew it. That's what I think of when people talk about stepping up their alpha. Just like I made my Jeep impersonate a V8 sound for coolness, stepping up the Alpha is usually impersonating character traits rather than actually becoming the person those traits spill out from.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Still no evidence right?
> 
> Without it, what am I supposed to agree to. What are these generalities you are speaking of? The ones on the PUA blogs, right?.


Nope, I haven't read any PUA blogs. So I don't know what they are (although I've got some idea).

I'm talking about generalities in general. :smile2:


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Who knows? I just used her name because someone else indicated she was obviously desirable and wonderful.
> 
> I'm sure she has great appeal for some.



Heidi Klum was/is a Super Model and may have been a former SI Swimsuit model as well. I picked her as an example primarily because I couldn't think of any of the other ones names. Obviously, I don't keep up with such things, and neither do you apparently.

FWIW, that's where the name originated.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> And as I asked Buddy, if you would like to show me some kind of evidence what "most" women are attracted to, I would be happy to discuss it with you or anyone else.
> 
> Yet that evidence doesn't exist.
> 
> ...


Why would you require some sort of pseudo scientific statistical study, which would probably be wrought with inaccuracies and bias from the start, to change your position on this?

None exist because none are necessary if you live in the real world and use the powers of observation.

In my own life I have seen the results. I've seen it with my friends, some former college athletes like myself, and some not. I've seen it everywhere I go in society. I happen to live in a beach community and I can tell you that the women definitely desire the more muscular, tan men, unless I'm completely misreading all of their glances and stares. I don't think I am.

I've also raised a daughter and know what she and all her friends found attractive in men and no, pasty white, scrawny weaklings were not on their radar.

Now some women may find those sorts attractive or more likely, have to settle for them because they aren't able to do better. These people can and do find love but they are not usually at the top of the "Desire Meter".

At least, I have not seen any evidence to date to support that position.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

argh! stupid quote feature....


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> *Why would you require some sort of pseudo scientific statistical study*, which would probably be wrought with inaccuracies and bias from the start, to change your position on this?
> 
> None exist because none are necessary *if you live in the real world and use the powers of observation*.
> 
> ...


I don't require a pseudo scientific statistical study, I require a real one that is reasonably accurate and broad reaching if anyone is going to claim they know what the bell curve of attraction is. As you say though (and I have been saying) no such thing exists because it can't exist, there are too many variables.

So then you say we can just use our powers of observation and report what we are seeing around us. 

Awesome! That means we are simply reporting what is true for ourselves and our cohorts. I totally agree, this is an interesting topic and can be very useful.

Except, what if what I see around me doesn't match what you see around you? Why do you think what you are seeing is "the general population's view" and what I'm seeing isn't? If we are all only going off of "what we see around us" and I see far more diversity of preferences and attraction than what you see, I'm gonna call bs on you saying your view is "correct" and more common than what I see.

You should see how the kids look at each other where I live, and what criteria they have. It would possibly shock you. But guess what? They are all hot, young, and checking each other out (and screwing each other), no matter how much skin shows or doesn't show. We get naked a lot around here, too, but we also have to stay bundled up for much of the year. Your experience doesn't trump mine. Because yes, I agree that young healthy people will always have their eyes on each other, everywhere they go (and the rest of us have our eyes on them usually, too, because they're hot).

I raised two kids, one each. My house has been filled with giggly girls in love with scrawny white boys, multiple times over the years. My kids and several of their friends, mostly in the geeky-cute range (who grew up to become bearded hipsters), had multiple slumber parties, camping trips, proms, dance parties, fund raisers, school events, and so much more....and my experience in this is every bit as relevant as your is. Every scrawny weakling who has been through my house eventually has girlfriends or wives...and many of them are considered total hotties by many women.

This that you said "_Now some women may find those sorts attractive or more likely, have to settle for them because they aren't able to do better_."...is simply mean and judgmental of you. Who others are attracted to is not something you get to dictate. Even if it makes no sense to you and you don't see it happening, scrawny white boys get laid.

Everyone, everywhere, eventually gets laid, some get laid more. If you want to get laid more you should ask sexually successful people about it. Your version of success will determine who you ask. 

Here are some actual, measurable and totally logical statements.

Most people get married at least once in their lives.

Nearly all people are sexual and have sex in their lives.

Most people are average on any bell curve you can make, including the attraction bell curve.

And for some reason, people are trying to say that only the hottest people at the "most attractive" end of the bell curve* get a lot of sex or have relationship success. Even though, statistically, almost everyone is getting it on at some point.


*Keeping in mind again, that this bell curve of least to most attractive can never actually be made in any accurate, far reaching way.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

FW,

If you think my comments are mean and judgmental then so be it. I will continue to stand by what I say. I would be interested to know where you live as the standard for attractive may be completely different than where I live. The beach communities in Florida and California as well are where many of the beautiful people are. They are going to be more attractive by most standards than people from other areas.

That has been my observation and the observation of many in these parts. I still contend that most women are attracted to strong, muscular, tan, confident men than some of the types you describe. There are always outliers and those types will be found attractive by somebody and likely get married some day.

That does not mean that they are found attractive by the majority or that they could have their "pick", if you will. The Alpha types will however have their pick most likely. And let me also say that while most will have sex, most will not have sex with the kind of attractive woman the Alpha is most likely to get. That's the difference.

You see, the Alpha could have his pick and likely your pick as well while the reverse is not true. That's a big difference and a rather important one to most men.

Finally, I would add that I do think my opinion on this subject counts for more than yours. At the risk of being self congratulatory, I am an Alpha male and have been most of my life. I have a good idea of what constitutes being an Alpha. I have a lot of friends, some of which are also Alphas and some that are true blue Betas, and know what kinds of mates they can attain. 

The more Alpha ones have clearly done better in my estimation. If this topic is how to be more Alpha and up your sex rank with your wife or significant other, I and others like me would be in a better position to answer that question than you likely would. If this thread were about how to be more "womanly" or less domineering or some such thing to improve your sex with your SO, I would clearly defer to a woman's point of view. Alas, it is not though.


----------



## inhope (Nov 17, 2010)

I actually think this, up the Alpha and f*ck your wife 6x a week is pretty offensive to women as there is an implied "whether she wants it or not".
Now "bossing around" and playing the Alpha to some women may give results in the short term, many women do want to please, but such abuse and fundamental disrespect usually comes unstuck, unhappiness and resentment builds and she is then out the door, leaving the husband dumbfounded. What did I do wrong?

I think many such strict Alpha/Beta believers, do not understand or respect women at all, their emotional intelligence quotient is in their boots, everything is too black and white and they have no concept of subtlety and what makes individual women tick. 
Any intelligent women will write them off pretty quick as a dead loss.


----------



## brooklynAnn (Jun 29, 2015)

My idea of an Alpha male:

-He knows who he is and what he stands for.

-He takes care of himself, in order to take care of those he loves.

-He is clear in his needs and desires. No wishy washyness.

-He has goals and ambitions for himself. 

-He protects those that he loves. Financially, making sure we are secured and safe. Making sure that even when he is not with us we will be safe.

-He knows how to be kind and generous.

-He knows when to be soft and when to be hard. No pun intended.

-He knows when to rely on his support system. We are his back up team.

-He trust his woman. Because she fuxks up and it's done. No baby why you did this. Line in the sand is clear and defined.

-He protects us from danger. I have seen my husband move so fast and had a guy up the wall with his hand around his neck and his feet dangling, because he talked **** about raping me. Trying to show how bad ass he was in front of me. You know like saying oh what is your man gonna do, he must be a puxxy. What he did not realize was that my calm and collected husband is a former marine.

-He is calm and collected. Not quick to anger.

-He loves me. Makes sure I know that by his actions and words.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> I happen to live in a beach community and I can tell you that the women definitely desire the more muscular, tan men, unless I'm completely misreading all of their glances and stares. I don't think I am.


So we're back to alpha = good looking? 'Cuz I think we established pretty early on in this thread that, yes, good looking people are considered attractive by a lot of other people, and yes, they probably have more "options".

Of course, if bagging the hottest babes is your primary goal and measure of success, then yes, being very good looking will certainly help you with that.

But what about all those other alpha traits: dominating, aggressive, gets what they want, is BMOC? These traits actually aren't all that attractive. Well, correction: they are for some, but most certainly not all.

And, let's not forget that some people might have other goals than bagging the hottest babes. Take my SO and his friend for example: My SO is kind, generous, looks out for people, treats others well, laid back, and has all sorts of wonderful qualities that are always dismissed as beta and unattractive. His friend is totally GQ, very good looking, always had lots of "options" even though he's a selfish a$$ and treated women like dirt. Fast forward from high school: My SO is in a LTR where he can have as much sex as he wants (and then some), where he says that he is treated like a king and doesn"t know what he did to deserve it. His friend is currently with a woman who cheats on him regularly, and leaves him to look after the kids while she goes off on vacations and to parties by herself.

Who is the winner? The guy with tons of options or the guy with one?

I know my SO used to envy his friend, but I think the tables have turned.


----------



## inhope (Nov 17, 2010)

always_alone said:


> Who is the winner? The guy with tons of options or the guy with one?
> 
> I know my SO used to envy his friend, but I think the tables have turned.


I think in theory, the pure Alpha sounds like it should work, but in practice there is, a usually ignored side to the equation and that is the female perspective, to all this machismo.
So whilst we may appreciate some of the points of the pure Alpha man, I guess not many women would actually want to live with him long term.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

I tend to agree with mostly content, when a hot looking girl approaches, most guys tell their buddies "she is out of your league" even before they know a single thing else about her, and most guys understand what our buddies are saying. Of course, the hot looking girl is definitely not out of every guy's league, just the betas. We can delude ourselves into thinking we're an alpha and approach her, and virtually always get rejected (unless we are good at that game or else just attractive -alpha- enough for her). Alpha guys won't relate to what I'm saying, nor will most attractive women, the rest of us get it though.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
It is possible that alpha guys get hot babes because that is what they are looking for. I don't particularly want "hot babes". I find a lot of women attractive and appearance is not that high on the list of what matters. I much prefer interesting, non-crazy, self-reliant, adventurous, non-sensitive. 

If I see an attractive large-breasted, high-heel wearing woman, while I may think she is "attractive" in some abstract way, I tend to also think "there is no way she is hiking to Guggi Hutte dressed like that...".

In bed enthusiasm and passion count for a lot more than appearance.

I'm not saying that beautiful women cannot have all these qualities that I care about. Just that beauty is not the most important criteria to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> You see, the Alpha could have his pick and likely your pick as well while the reverse is not true. *That's a big difference and a rather important one to most men.*
> 
> Finally, I would add that I do think my opinion on this subject counts for more than yours. At the risk of being self congratulatory, I am an Alpha male and have been most of my life. I have a good idea of what constitutes being an Alpha. I have a lot of friends, some of which are also Alphas and some that are true blue Betas, and know what kinds of mates they can attain.
> 
> The more Alpha ones have clearly done better in my estimation. If this topic is how to be more Alpha and up your sex rank with your wife or significant other, I and others like me would be in a better position to answer that question than you likely would. *If this thread were about how to be more "womanly" or less domineering or some such thing to improve your sex with your SO, I would clearly defer to a woman's point of view. Alas, it is not though.*




As I have said many times, my beef is when anyone is trying to assert that what they think the bell curve is, is actually based on any type of research or science. Your post above actually addresses nothing I have asked for....you are merely going ahead with your opinions. Which is fine, since you do say they are your opinions.

However, you believing your opinion weighs more than mine? Because you're an alpha male?

Puh-leeze. I'm a hot as hell bisexual gymnast, have always had wonderful success in pulling men (and women) toward me with my body, face, and mind, and I'm married to an alpha sex god who has never gone a day without female attention. We both have the sex life we've always wanted and have never had to worry about getting dates, sex, LTR's or any other type of companionship we wanted.

And yet...I'm not so arrogant as to assume that what I or my husband want is what set the standard of the "general" population.

When you say that men wanting to take their pick of women is their measure of success, I say, that's your opinion and only your opinion. Being married to a man who could do that more or less, what I love best about him is that he doesn't act that way or feel that way or even think this is a big deal.

You see it is true for me too....however, I realize that just because a man may be interested in my surface features, doesn't mean we are compatible or that he is a decent man or that he would give a crap about me as a person. This is also how my husband has described his experience....that just because a woman may be beautiful, it says nothing about her character and so therefore, it doesn't mean he is necessarily interested even if she is coming on to him. Beautiful people are everywhere...it matters very little actually.

Being dazzled by what is on the outside is NOT how every man works, even if it is how you work. Wanting endless amounts of free sex with different women is also NOT how every man wants to operate, even if he can.

Here is a book that gives some data on that exact subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Challenging-Casanova-Beyond-Stereotype-Promiscuous/dp/1118072669

But of course, you will not read it and will hold on to what you believe is true and continue to project that it is true for everyone.

That's ok, too. As long as you are saying it is your opinion, and not fact. You may suspect that your opinion is fact, but it is not...

As well as being a sexy goddess married to a sex god, I have a sex blog and am part of the very large sex blogging community. I have some knowledge and my finger on the pulse of what a lot of people who are highly sexual are saying and doing. So my opinion is not based on only my limited life experiences, it is also based on a much bigger picture that includes a lot of people who talk about sex all day.

What I've learned more than anything else, is that highly sexual people are not the non-discerning types who only wish for more and hotter conquests that you seem to think "most men" are. I feel I give a lot more credit to "most men" than you do, by acknowledging that they actually have standards.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
People who behave in a "alpha" fashion do well with women who wants someone who behaves that way. They will do badly with women who don't want me who behave that way.

I don't know or particularly care what the percentages are of women who like alphas. The women I personally find interesting seem to be interested in a different set of traits.

What matters is how well you interact with the people YOU like to be with. I expect you would be bored silly with the women who's company I enjoy, as I likely would be with the ones you spend time with. 

A super-model likely would have no interest in me - but then I would likely have no interest in her. That's fine, we don't all need to be attracted to the same people. 












Mostlycontent said:


> snip
> You see, the Alpha could have his pick and likely your pick as well while the reverse is not true. That's a big difference and a rather important one to most men.
> snip


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> There are a couple of posters here that just refuse to deal with any generalizations at all. It's as if there is no bell curve and that you're just as likely to find something on the tails as in the middle.


Greetings!

Damn straight, brother! It's just amazing. You'd think the idea of embracing some solid, general principles was like trying to nail jello to the wall! Lol! Let's say we have two friends, James and Robert.

James is 6'4", and a bloated hog-beast. He typically dresses in shorts and flip flops, or sweats and a t-shirt. His hygiene is poor. He's loud, obnoxious, and crude. He works as security for some warehouse.

Robert is 5'9", and thin. He has a crazy beard which you suspect has some creatures nesting somewhere in there. Lol! Robert is shy, quiet, and awkward. He works as a dishwasher at some diner.

Both men are single, lonely, and unhappy. Both experience constant rejection from women. In truth, most of the time women ignore them entirely. You know both of these men though, as nice, fun, intelligent guys, good friends, despite their flaws.

In both cases--and many others, even friends that are married and in a roughly similar place, they would all benefit from--

(1) Going to the gym, changing their diet, working out and building a strong, muscular physique.

(2) Embracing masculine behaviors and attitudes, being more mature, having good hygiene, smelling good.

(3) Developing some charm and learning to be more social. Learning appropriate social skills, diversifying their topics beyond a narrow few.

(4) Improving or changing jobs, handling their money better, dressing sharp. Learning how to dress better, shoes, ties, jackets, hair cuts, beard trim, looking *good*.

Such principles--embracing "Alpha" attributes of being muscular and in good shape, being masculine; being charming and social; being gainfully employed, handling money well;--would all be very positive for them, and yet, both of them are individuals, and quite different from each other. Despite such, they both have similar frustrations and failures with women.

And yet, in general, the same principles of "Alpha" attributes would help them both.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> People who behave in a "alpha" fashion do well with women who wants someone who behaves that way. They will do badly with women who don't want me who behave that way.
> 
> I don't know or particularly care what the percentages are of women who like alphas. The women I personally find interesting seem to be interested in a different set of traits.
> ...


Greetings! 

Good point, Richard. However, I believe you are misunderstanding the principles. Embracing "Alpha" attributes is not necessarily for the purpose of attracting "super models". Embracing "Alpha" attributes makes you a better man, a happier and more confident man. You gain the extra benefit of having more, different women attracted to you.

White, black, Asian, Latinas--all enjoy men with such attributes. Plump, thick, thin or hard-body, young or old, or in between, they all are attracted to men that embrace such "Alpha" attributes--in general.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Mostlycontent said:


> Why would you require some sort of pseudo scientific statistical study, which would probably be wrought with inaccuracies and bias from the start, to change your position on this?
> 
> None exist because none are necessary if you live in the real world and use the powers of observation.
> 
> ...



Greetings!

Outstanding post, my friend. 

I didn't need a PUA site, or a book--or some "study" from BFE to tell me women, in general, are attracted to in men! Lol! Like you, real life experience and observation goes a long way and does just fine.

On my Marine base, we had clubs that were open to civilian women. On Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays these clubs were *packed* with women, wall to wall, of all colors, shapes and sizes. From LA, Long Beach, to San Diego, and Orange County, they filled the clubs. Like sharks to a feeding frenzy, my fellow Marines would arrive, and yet there was always more and more women. Sometimes I think the *women* were the Sharks coming to the feeding frenzy! Lol

Always, while most all Marines there look good--the men that dressed sharper, were charming and social, got attention from far more women--of all kinds--than the shy, less charming men that remained sitting in the dark shadows.

In civilian clubs, the same dynamics work. At work, in restaurants, the beaches, you can see the "Alpha" attributes working the same principles of attraction with women, day after day, whether they are white, black, Asian or Latina.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Good point, Richard. However, I believe you are misunderstanding the principles. Embracing "Alpha" attributes is not necessarily for the purpose of attracting "super models". Embracing "Alpha" attributes makes you a better man, a happier and more confident man. You gain the extra benefit of having more, different women attracted to you.
> 
> ...


This is so sad.

Even when another man comes along and says "what you are describing isn't what *I* want", you still insist you know better than he does what he wants.

Whatever. I tried again to take on the men who think they can speak for everyone and who think they and only they get to decide what "most people want"...both men and women, mind you, these guys claim to know what most women want and that women themselves DON'T know what they want, so he's here to tell you exactly what you want, ladies....

Unbelievably sad that these guys keep sharing these ideas with others.

However...I will go along with my day, observing reality instead of assuming what I want is what everyone wants...and I will continue to see average men and average women, happily flirting, dating, falling in love, and being sexually attracted to each other. Because THAT is reality.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

FW: If your experience is mostly among sex positive people who are comfortable talking about sex and blogging about sex and having sex, and whose experience is that they generally have never had problems finding a partner, then your life experience is completely irrelevant to the life of a beta male who has had little success attracting a mate. He isn't among the men you know. And the pool of women he can attract is not among your cohort.

It may well be true that not all women look for alpha characteristics. And many / most women are not looking for an entirely alpha male with zero beta aspects. No one is saying there is no such thing as too much alpha. We are just saying that there is certainly a thing as being too beta for many / most women. And that if a man has not had success with women so far. He should at least explore the possibility that he is currently too beta. and see if he can be comfortable becoming more alpha. Not pretend he is. But change himself. Hit the gym. Focus at work. Make real changes in his situation. We are not telling him to pretend or to be something he is not. We are telling him to be the best version of himself he can be. And some times, that means to stop being lazy (= beta characteristic) and work harder on self improvement.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Holdingontoit said:


> FW: If your experience is mostly among sex positive people who are comfortable talking about sex and blogging about sex and having sex, and whose experience is that they generally have never had problems finding a partner, then your life experience is completely irrelevant to the life of a beta male who has had little success attracting a mate. He isn't among the men you know. And the pool of women he can attract is not among your cohort.
> 
> It may well be true that not all women look for alpha characteristics. And many / most women are not looking for an entirely alpha male with zero beta aspects. No one is saying there is no such thing as too much alpha. We are just saying that there is certainly a thing as being too beta for many / most women. And that if a man has not had success with women so far. He should at least explore the possibility that he is currently too beta. and see if he can be comfortable becoming more alpha. Not pretend he is. But change himself. Hit the gym. Focus at work. Make real changes in his situation. We are not telling him to pretend or to be something he is not. We are telling him to be the best version of himself he can be. And some times, that means to stop being lazy (= beta characteristic) and work harder on self improvement.


Greetings!

OMG!!! Holdingontoit, you get it! What planet are you on, brother? I was beginning to think I've been speaking Chinese instead of English, or I must have Teretz Syndrome or something! I'm not crazy!!! Lol!

Very nice, sir. I like how you explain stuff!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> It may well be true that not all women look for alpha characteristics. And many / most women are not looking for an entirely alpha male with zero beta aspects. No one is saying there is no such thing as too much alpha. We are just saying that there is certainly a thing as being too beta for many / most women. And that if a man has not had success with women so far. He should at least explore the possibility that he is currently too beta. and see if he can be comfortable becoming more alpha. Not pretend he is. But change himself. Hit the gym. Focus at work. Make real changes in his situation. We are not telling him to pretend or to be something he is not. We are telling him to be the best version of himself he can be. And some times, that means to stop being lazy (= beta characteristic) and work harder on self improvement.


Your paragraph expressed my thoughts on this topic and I think the thoughts of some men who have commented but were then misinterpreted as well. There's no conspiracy among the men at TAM to push MMSL and PAU agendas.


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

Thundarr said:


> There's no conspiracy among the men at TAM to push MMSL and PAU agendas.


It's not a conspiracy, I agree, but friendly advice from men to other men…..''it worked for me, it could work for you''.


----------



## T&T (Nov 16, 2012)

Male here,

I know quite a few men and would describe just a couple as "alpha" That doesn't mean PUA a$$hole.

Most men fall into the "alpha/betta" mix

I know a couple that I would describe as "betta"

Only one complains about never getting laid. TAM is distorted that way...


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Mostlycontent said:


> *Now some women may find those sorts attractive or more likely, have to settle for them because they aren't able to do better. These people can and do find love but they are not usually at the top of the "Desire Meter".*


Comments like these are exactly why most intelligent people ignore all of the alpha/beta b.s. It does nothing to promote a healthy approach to forming relationships. 

By definition most men (and women for that matter) are considered to be of 'average' physical attractiveness. Assuming your comment is fact, then the women these men date/marry really wanted that 'alpha' but settled for them. This is most men's worse nightmare. It's destructive thinking yet we continually see this push for men to change so as to avoid this pitfall. "Don't be the guy your girlfriend/wife settled for".

I would also tell you that this 'alpha rules' agenda is just as destructive to women. It implies that if their tastes in men do not run along the 'alpha' stereotype, then there is something wrong, aberrant, or strange about them. "What's wrong with you woman, don't you know that you're _supposed_ to find those big, strong, tanned guys hot?"

Using Florida as your example is just awful IMO. Based on your description I'm going to guess that you live in S. Florida since C. Florida is known as 'God's Waiting Room', N. Florida is an extension of the South, and the Panhandle beaches are lovingly known as "the ******* Riviera". Well I know a little something or 12 about S. Florida having spent the majority of my formative years living in Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, and Miami Beach. S. Florida is known for it's beautiful residents but it's also known for it's healthy population of Gold Diggers and cheaters. Statistics show that it has one of the highest divorce rates in the country. Actually, now that I think about it, it _does_ sound like the Mecca for Alphas.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Damn straight, brother! It's just amazing. You'd think the idea of embracing some solid, general principles was like trying to nail jello to the wall! Lol! Let's say we have two friends, James and Robert.
> 
> ...


:iagree: completely.

Nailed it!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> FW: If your experience is mostly among sex positive people who are comfortable talking about sex and blogging about sex and having sex, and whose experience is that they generally have never had problems finding a partner, *then your life experience is completely irrelevant to the life of a beta male who has had little success attracting a mate. He isn't among the men you know. And the pool of women he can attract is not among your cohort.*
> 
> It may well be true that not all women look for alpha characteristics. And many / most women are not looking for an entirely alpha male with zero beta aspects. No one is saying there is no such thing as too much alpha. We are just saying that there is certainly a thing as being too beta for many / most women. And that if a man has not had success with women so far. He should at least explore the possibility that he is currently too beta. and see if he can be comfortable becoming more alpha. Not pretend he is. But change himself. Hit the gym. Focus at work. Make real changes in his situation. We are not telling him to pretend or to be something he is not. We are telling him to be the best version of himself he can be. And some times, that means to stop being lazy (= beta characteristic) and work harder on self improvement.


sigh.....

So I share a bit about myself (in response to you telling me your experience and opinion are more relevant than mine), and you assume that's all there is to me, you assume you know what the entirety of my experience is....what my history is...who I know and who I've talked to...but again, you're wrong.

I won't bother going into how I know and understand more than you assume I know, or who has been in my experience and why, or even what my experiences have been...because at this point, I'm pretty sure you'll just make more assumptions, no matter what I share about myself.

So instead I will share these blog posts I wrote after I created some surveys that asked the HD partners in sexless relationships some important questions (several people at TAM also took the survey). My purpose for writing these blog posts is to raise awareness about how painful and depressing a sexless relationship can be for the HD. Read them or don't...but please stop assuming you know more about me than you do.

Sexy+Positive Blog: Why Do Some Relationships Become Sexless?

Sexy+Positive Blog: Survey Says Sexlessness Sucks

Sexy+Positive Blog: Survey Respondents Describe How Much Sexlessness Sucks

The bottom line is...it is not always just "beta losers" who end up in sexless relationships...and in fact, there is no reason to be so unkind to people as you are being in making those types of claims and stereotypes. But don't let me stop you, you know everything and your opinion is always right, according to you so ... carry on....


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Lila;13383898[B said:


> ]Comments like these are exactly why most intelligent people ignore all of the alpha/beta b.s. It does nothing to promote a healthy approach to forming relationships. [/B]
> 
> By definition most men (and women for that matter) are considered to be of 'average' physical attractiveness. Assuming your comment is fact, then the women these men date/marry really wanted that 'alpha' but settled for them. This is most men's worse nightmare. It's destructive thinking yet we continually see this push for men to change so as to avoid this pitfall. "Don't be the guy your girlfriend/wife settled for".
> 
> ...


It's still true whether you like it or choose to believe it is irrelevant. I know a number of couples where either or both pretty much settled for what they could get rather than what they really wanted.

Most know their own sex rank or at least some idea of where they stack up against others of the same sex. Some are unrealistic and their tastes are far above what they can actually attract - the sloppy fat guy who only finds the super model types attractive, for example. Well, he's not likely to get what he really wants, now is he.

Now I'm not saying this happens to everybody but I guarantee you that there is a fairly high percentage of couples who are NOT with their first choice. Can they still fall in love and have a happy, contented life? Absolutely they can but that doesn't change the fact that they may have had to settle for someone other than what they really wanted.

Hell, we do this with jobs and careers all the time and people don't get all bent out of shape about that. It's exactly the same with choosing a mate.

Typically, you don't get everything you want in life. Why would choosing a mate be any different.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Outstanding post, my friend.
> 
> ...



You and I see things the same way.....from the same lens, if you will. But then again, Alpha types tend to do that. Truth be told, I'm more a mix of Alpha and Sigma than anything else.

I definitely march to the beat of my own drum.

Whatever the case, it's nice to have discussion with those who would actually be in a position to discuss Alpha traits and characteristics as it relates to this thread rather than feeling the need to pass judgment on every post.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> As I have said many times, my beef is when anyone is trying to assert that what they think the bell curve is, is actually based on any type of research or science. Your post above actually addresses nothing I have asked for....you are merely going ahead with your opinions. Which is fine, since you do say they are your opinions.
> 
> However, you believing your opinion weighs more than mine? Because you're an alpha male?
> 
> ...



I don't think you intend it, or maybe you do, but you come across as extremely judgmental and arrogant. 

You said repeatedly that you don't mind me giving my opinion because I stated it was my opinion but then you continually pass judgment on it and every other post that several men are making as though you are some sort of pretend authority. 

You appear to have a rather inflated opinion of what you think you know. Nobody here crowned you judge of anything, let alone anything concerning Alpha characteristics.

The second portion I highlighted is the whole point of this thread. Men are asking and/or discussing how to be more Alpha so that they can up their sex rank or have more sex.

I'm really not sure why you are so defensive or contrarian on all of your views on this thread but it seems like there's something under the covers that you are defending or protecting.

You can claim that plenty of women don't prefer Alpha males or Alpha qualities but you don't really don't know nor are you qualified to speak for all of them. By your own definition, you are an "outlier" yourself in comparison to women so how would you possibly know. 

The men on this thread are generalizing and you are offering specifics, of which speaking for yourself is the only thing you are qualified to do.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> I'm really not sure why you are so defensive or contrarian on all of your views on this thread but it seems like there's something under the covers that you are defending or protecting.


You're just new here. You'll get used to me.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

always_alone said:


> So we're back to alpha = good looking? 'Cuz I think we established pretty early on in this thread that, yes, good looking people are considered attractive by a lot of other people, and yes, they probably have more "options".
> 
> Of course, if bagging the hottest babes is your primary goal and measure of success, then yes, being very good looking will certainly help you with that.
> 
> ...



AA,

You bring up some good points. I don't think you have to be a great looking person to be considered Alpha. You can't be ugly, mind you, but I don't think you have to look like Hugh Jackman either.

I think being Alpha is in part a learned behavior for men. My father would be the Poster Child, if there was such a thing, for being an Alpha male. 

He was a two sport star in college, president of his fraternity, married the head cheerleader, had an illustrious career with a prestigious company, then started his own business, made a ton of money and retired early at the age of 62 as a multi-millionaire.

He would have added being a professional baseball player to his resume if he hadn't thrown his arm out before he got called up to the Majors. Apparently, the common practice of 4 days rest between starts wasn't the norm for pitchers in 1960 and he pitched most every day.

Now I don't know how everyone would define Alpha but that would be it for me. Obviously, bedding a lot of women wouldn't be a criteria used in those days because that just wasn't common practice.

I also enjoyed athletic success, although not anywhere near my father's level, and played in college as well. Suffice it to say, I spent a lot of time around other Alpha males during that time as well so perhaps I could have a bit of a skewed perspective with regard to this topic.

If I backtrack a minute though, every guy that I knew, from adolescence on, would always dream of the big house, fancy car and beautiful wife at their side. When we got older and realized its importance, we would toss in a rewarding career or lucrative job as a goal to be added to the list.

Now achieving these things didn't necessarily make you an Alpha male but they were a good start. I can tell you that any and all talk on this subject always, and I mean always, involved a beautiful women at your side. It's how most guys measure one another. That's not to say that other things didn't count but if you had the most beautiful girlfriend, that pretty much trumped everything else.

Achieving that goal in whole or in part is what generates threads like this one. How does one do that exactly? It absolutely helps to be attractive and helps even more to be very attractive. One can have chiseled good looks or one can be moderately attractive, possess a magnetic personality or be supremely confident.

I believe one's attitude counts for just as much in becoming more Alpha. If one wants to be more confident, then they need to do things that build their confidence. First and foremost, they have to get in shape and stay in shape. They need to look as good and as sharp as they are capable of. Don't be afraid to try things. Put yourself out there in a leadership position or role of some kind. Go coach the community basketball team for example. These kinds of things can boost self confidence and you're doing some good in the community too. Working on yourself allows you to feel more in control and self assured and you can begin to project an air of strength and confidence.

It may sound kind of silly but I distinctly remember when I first got to high school that I spent considerable time working on my walk. I wanted to walk like a stud and project studhood (yep, I just made up a word). I looked around and saw what guy or guys I thought were cool and had their act together and then just emulated them. I didn't employ some sort of exaggerated gait because that would have just looked stupid. Rather I was subtle in what I did, you know, chest out and head up kind of thing with just a tad bit of swag to it. It didn't really matter if I believed I was in full stud mode. It just mattered that the girls did. My thoughts are that if your wife or SO things you're a stud, she's less likely to wander away. 

So I do think someone can become more Alpha with some effort and attitude changes.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> You're just new here. You'll get used to me.


FW,
I've actually been around here a little while but can only post in spurts because of my work. I can post now but my window will be closing once we hit the holiday season as that is when my business makes its money.

I enjoy the banter and don't intend to offend but I can come on a little strong sometimes. If I did, I apologize. You seem like a good sport about things.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Mostlycontent said:


> *It's still true whether you like it or choose to believe it is irrelevant. * I know a number of couples where either or both pretty much settled for what they could get rather than what they really wanted.


No @Mostlycontent, it is NOT truth....it is _your _perception of the truth based on your life experiences in the culture, community, and/or country you were raised. Your evidence is all anecdotal. Many who have argued against your position can come up with just as much anecdotal evidence to the contrary. See, it's all about perceptions because as @faithfulwife mentioned over and over in this thread, there is no scientific evidence to prove anything. 



Mostlycontent said:


> Most know their own sex rank or at least some idea of where they stack up against others of the same sex. Some are unrealistic and their tastes are far above what they can actually attract - the sloppy fat guy who only finds the super model types attractive, for example. Well, he's not likely to get what he really wants, now is he.
> 
> Now I'm not saying this happens to everybody but I guarantee you that there is a fairly high percentage of couples who are NOT with their first choice. Can they still fall in love and have a happy, contented life? Absolutely they can but that doesn't change the fact that they may have had to settle for someone other than what they really wanted.


When I was living in S. Florida I might have agreed with you but then I moved and experienced the rest of the world. I believe your perceptions (as defined above) are poisoning your thinking. Just as you can "guarantee a fairly high percentage of couples" who settled, I can guarantee a fairly high percentage of couples who didn't. Who's right? 

The overall gist I'm getting from your posts is 1) the standard of attractiveness is the modern westernized one presented as 'Alpha' (big, strong, tan - IOW Men's Muscle Magazine model), 2) this trait is pretty much the only one that determines your success with women, and 3) Success is characterized by bagging the woman who meets the standard of attractiveness in the modern westernized world (cheerleader with the beauty pageant smile). While this is great for those who were lucky enough to have won the genetic lottery, it relegates the rest of us to the 'settled for' category, no? 

IME, this is simply not true. Average looking people find loving partners all of the time without settling. They enter into successful long term partnerships with people they genuinely love and find attractive, even when those partners don't meet the standard of beauty.

As others have said on this thread, inner beauty comes packaged in all shapes and sizes. Rather than focusing so much attention on the exterior, which may or may not improve based on many factors outside one's control, why not advise men to focus on the inside - finding their happy. From personal experience, happy, positive men attract others to them regardless of their exterior shell. 

I for one agree with the scientist who state that humans have evolved beyond the peac0ck. It takes more than a pretty exterior, some cool moves, and sturdy nest to attract human females.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Centurions said:


> White, black, Asian, Latinas--all enjoy men with such attributes. Plump, thick, thin or hard-body, young or old, or in between, they all are attracted to men that embrace such "Alpha" attributes--in general.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Right. Because we all know that men are very individual in their tastes, but women are all exactly the same in every way, and always respond to exactly the same things in every way. :scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> Finally, I would add that I do think my opinion on this subject counts for more than yours. At the risk of being self congratulatory, I am an Alpha male and have been most of my life. I have a good idea of what constitutes being an Alpha. I have a lot of friends, some of which are also Alphas and some that are true blue Betas, and know what kinds of mates they can attain.


And this makes your opinion of what women like and are attracted to count more than any woman on this thread ----why exactly?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> Now I don't know how everyone would define Alpha but that would be it for me. Obviously, bedding a lot of women wouldn't be a criteria used in those days because that just wasn't common practice.
> 
> I also enjoyed athletic success, although not anywhere near my father's level, and played in college as well. Suffice it to say, I spent a lot of time around other Alpha males during that time as well so perhaps I could have a bit of a skewed perspective with regard to this topic.
> 
> ...


I'm really glad for you that you have achieved such studhood, and that all of your friends look up to you because of the beauty pageant winning head cheerleader that you married. Really.

And if bagging the hottest women in the world to make your friends envy you is your (ones) primary goal, then by all means, knock yourself out.

But we're not all playing this game. I personally have never had any interest in jocks, for example, or in cheerleading. And maybe you think I'm just a crazy outlier because, fact is, women like me weren't actually among the hordes who were throwing themselves at you.

But the reality is that our numbers are quite significant, and indeed, I would say that in fact probably the majority of people have priorities other than bagging the hottest date to make their friends jealous.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Mostlycontent said:


> But then again, Alpha types tend to do that. Truth be told, I'm more a mix of Alpha and Sigma than anything else.
> 
> I definitely march to the beat of my own drum.


Technically, from what you described about yourself there is no sigma there at all, everything about your successes comes from your deliberate desire to fit the alpha mold (which in itself is the most beta trait, but the distinction is that you seem to have achieved the biggest aspects of that goal). A sigma would not have written 90% of what you wrote.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Right. Because we all know that men are very individual in their tastes, but women are all exactly the same in every way, and always respond to exactly the same things in every way. :scratchhead:



Greetings!

Wrong. That's just it. You and others are too hyper-focused on individual particulars and special snow-flakes--and not comprehending the concept of general truths as a *foundation* to build on. No one gives a damn about Susie Cupcake in Alabama.

"Alpha" attributes, are indeed applicable to women as well, though in somewhat different form. The advice still is solid and holds true for women as well. Not everyone is attracted to the exact same thing, but there are common elements that in general, most people are attracted to. There are also common elements that men and women *are not* attracted to.

Let's say we have a friend, Maria Hogbeast. Maria Hogbeast is 5'6" and huge. She doesn't wear makeup or perfume, has poor hygiene, and dresses poorly. She's also very shy, and too limited in her social skills and conversation--she gibbers endlessly about "16 and pregnant" and the Kardashians. She's unemployed too.

Maria Hogbeast would benefit from embracing "Alpha" attributes, modified for women.

(1) Go to the gym. Work out, get in shape. NO--she doesn't need to be a super model! Losing her huge belly is a good thing. Yes, there's a few special snowflake men that are fine with huge hog beasts, but in general, most men are not. So, getting in decent shape would be good for her!

(2) Being more Masculine. In her case, more feminine. Putting makeup on, perfume, styling her hair nice. Learning to dress in better clothes.

(3) Being charming and sociable; cultivating topics other than "16 and pregnant" and the Kardashians.

(4) Getting a job; being gainfully employed. Boosts her confidence, increases social circles, shows she can contribute, shows some ambition and motivation in life. Men, in general, are not attracted to dim, lazy hog beasts that sit on their azz all day watching tv and getting fatter.

If Maria Hogbeast embraced the common "Alpha" attributes modified for women, she would attract more men, better men, and she would be happier in life. These attributes are attractive to men, in general, whether they are white, black, Asian or Latino.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## inhope (Nov 17, 2010)

Centurions said:


> (1) Go to the gym. Work out, get in shape. NO--she doesn't need to be a super model! Losing her huge belly is a good thing. Yes, there's a few special snowflake men that are fine with huge hog beasts, but in general, most men are not. So, getting in decent shape would be good for her!
> 
> (2) Being more Masculine. In her case, more feminine. Putting makeup on, perfume, styling her hair nice. Learning to dress in better clothes.
> 
> ...


But surely many so called Beta men, also go to the gym, dress well, are charming and sociable, and are gainfully employed too.
I do not feel those are particularly Alpha traits.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Lila said:


> No @Mostlycontent, it is NOT truth....it is _your _perception of the truth based on your life experiences in the culture, community, and/or country you were raised. Your evidence is all anecdotal. Many who have argued against your position can come up with just as much anecdotal evidence to the contrary. See, it's all about perceptions because as @faithfulwife mentioned over and over in this thread, there is no scientific evidence to prove anything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not from South Florida nor have I ever lived there. Us natives consider that Cuba.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Lon said:


> Technically, from what you described about yourself there is no sigma there at all, everything about your successes comes from your deliberate desire to fit the alpha mold (which in itself is the most beta trait, but the distinction is that you seem to have achieved the biggest aspects of that goal). A sigma would not have written 90% of what you wrote.



Lon,

I meant that I am definitely not the social ladder climber type, which is more of a Sigma trait than an Alpha one. In fact, I don't care much at all about my social standing or if I fit in all that well.

I understand that to be pure Sigma but could be wrong. My wife is also the non conformist type as well.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

always_alone said:


> I'm really glad for you that you have achieved such studhood, and that all of your friends look up to you because of the beauty pageant winning head cheerleader that you married. Really.
> 
> And if bagging the hottest women in the world to make your friends envy you is your (ones) primary goal, then by all means, knock yourself out.
> 
> ...


Your response just demonstrates how much you don't understand. Quit pretending to know how men think when you really don't.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> Your response just demonstrates how much you don't understand. Quit pretending to know how men think when you really don't.


???? I'm pretty sure I was describing what *I* (and some other women who are like me) are attracted to. :scratchhead:

You are the one that said a beautiful cheerleader hanging off your arms trumps everything else for men.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Centurions said:


> (1) Go to the gym. Work out, get in shape. NO--she doesn't need to be a super model! Losing her huge belly is a good thing. Yes, there's a few special snowflake men that are fine with huge hog beasts, but in general, most men are not. So, getting in decent shape would be good for her!
> 
> (2) Being more Masculine. In her case, more feminine. Putting makeup on, perfume, styling her hair nice. Learning to dress in better clothes.
> 
> ...


Yes, I know. I have been told such stuff all my life. If only I was more feminine and "girly", if only I would bat my eyes more, flirt more, if only I would gush more, laugh at his jokes, make him feel like a man, not so threatened. If only I was prettier, more charming and gregarious. If only my heels were higher, my hair longer. 
Yes, I've been told all my life what men want "generally speaking.". 

I'm quite certain that turning myself into those things is not going to make me a happier person. YMMV.

Sincerely,
Susie Cupcake


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

So what I'm gathering today is that alpha is anything or anyone who is NOT a 900lbs unemployed boring idiot who watches TV all day long.

Am I getting warmer?


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

always_alone said:


> ???? I'm pretty sure I was describing what *I* (and some other women who are like me) are attracted to. :scratchhead:
> 
> *You are the one that said a beautiful cheerleader hanging off your arms trumps everything else for men*.



I wonder how much Jon of Jon and Kate plus 8 rues the day when he felt that he had scored a hot Princess Di look alike cheerleader.

I wonder how much was it his decision to get fertility treatment after the first 2 kids.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Mostlycontent said:


> *I'm not from South Florida nor have I ever lived there.* Us natives consider that Cuba.


My bad. I just thought that when you said the bolded below, you were talking about the cities in Florida regularly ranked as the best cities for good looking people by Travel and Leisure experts. 



Mostlycontent said:


> If you think my comments are mean and judgmental then so be it. I will continue to stand by what I say. I would be interested to know where you live as the standard for attractive may be completely different than where I live. *The beach communities in Florida *and California as well *are where many of the beautiful people are. They are going to be more attractive by most standards than people from other areas*.



Just goes to prove what I mentioned earlier, our "truths" are actually individual perceptions based on our unique life experiences, our culture, and/or community. One person's standards of attractiveness is not universal.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

From what you explained: practicing to walk a certain way, focus on sports, always trying to take the lead, lucrative career, big house, fancy car and always having a pretty girl at your side, it sounded exactly like you were climbing the social ladder.

You are right about the sigma though... non-conformity is not a typical alpha trait, alphas though by definition, determine what things others attempt to conform to. Sigmas don't place any value on conformity for themselves or others.



Mostlycontent said:


> Lon,
> 
> I meant that I am definitely not the social ladder climber type, which is more of a Sigma trait than an Alpha one. In fact, I don't care much at all about my social standing or if I fit in all that well.
> 
> I understand that to be pure Sigma but could be wrong. My wife is also the non conformist type as well.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Yes, I know. I have been told such stuff all my life. If only I was more feminine and "girly", if only I would bat my eyes more, flirt more, if only I would gush more, laugh at his jokes, make him feel like a man, not so threatened. If only I was prettier, more charming and gregarious. If only my heels were higher, my hair longer.
> Yes, I've been told all my life what men want "generally speaking.".
> 
> I'm quite certain that turning myself into those things is not going to make me a happier person. YMMV.
> ...


Greetings!

Well, "Susie Cupcake", if you are perfectly happy and content with your romantic life with men, then good! You don't need to change a damned thing, now do you?

However, if you are not happy and content, then you'd need to make some changes, whether you like it or not. It's just reality.

I have a friend that is a hogbeast. Dresses in frigging shorts and flip flops. Has poor hygiene, and is unshaven and short on cash. I tell him all the time--as he complains about not having a woman in his life--it's like, "dude, dress better. Hit the frigging gym! Stop being a hogbeast. Get your hygiene on track and start looking good. If you want a woman in your life, you have to get with the program. That's what women like. Stop pissing and moaning about how life is unfair, you're a special snowflake, and why can't women accept you as you are! Not gonna happen. Get it in gear, or you'll be lonely with just porn to keep you company, brother! That's just reality."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Mostlycontent said:


> AA,
> 
> You bring up some good points. I don't think you have to be a great looking person to be considered Alpha. You can't be ugly, mind you, but I don't think you have to look like Hugh Jackman either.
> 
> ...


Greetings!

Mostly content, you mention several points in your post that I think are excellent. These points are aspects of the larger "Alpha" attributes in general, though there are subtle nuances to them that can have a huge impact on men's relationships and success in attracting women. I'll elaborate as follows:

(1): Looks--good looking, moderately good looking, etc. As you noted, it's a huge advantage for a man to be "very good looking": however, it's important to reiterate, this is a dynamic, a fluid range. A "average" man, maybe has a big nose, big ears, whatever characteristics that keep him from being at first glance, a model or such can still enjoy great confidence and social success with women by focusing on other elements--developing a strong, hard body that just makes the women blush: having the kind of toned body that inspires women so much, they gladly overlook whatever salient deficiencies he has. Secondly, as the old expression goes, "the clothes make the man". Dressing sharp, having a good haircut, smelling really good--all such details in his appearance can really add up to a lot of powerful attraction to him from women. Any man can do these things with focus, effort and motivation and benefit immensely. And for the ladies, again, it's not really about being an air brushed model with a Colgate perfect smile. Not at all.


(2): Attitude: here again, you hit on a key element that has deeper dimensions that enhance attraction from women, build confidence in the man, and payoff with greater success in every area of a man's life. Developing some social smoothness, broadening his sense of humor; developing tenacity, drive to complete goals; pursuing ambitions and cultivating success. Walking with swagger; being comfortable in diverse social settings; embracing some elements of social sophistication, from wines and cuisines, to travel, building/construction, clothes, colognes, history, and so on. A lot of elements for a man that is frustrated and struggling with women--even married men as well--that developing such knowledge and honing attitudes can generate greater success in life, and with women.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

always_alone said:


> ???? I'm pretty sure I was describing what *I* (and some other women who are like me) are attracted to. :scratchhead:
> 
> *You are the one that said a beautiful cheerleader hanging off your arms trumps everything else for men.*


That is exactly right. I am describing what the vast majority of men find important, particularly when I was in high school and college, and perhaps much beyond that. I thought I made that point very clear in my post.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

NextTimeAround said:


> I wonder how much Jon of Jon and Kate plus 8 rues the day when he felt that he had scored a hot Princess Di look alike cheerleader.
> 
> I wonder how much was it his decision to get fertility treatment after the first 2 kids.


Are you suggesting that Jon got railroaded into having 8 children? I have no idea as I've never seen that show or have any idea what it's about.

Did having 8 children ruin her figure? Hell, one would think it would but I've never seen it.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Lon said:


> From what you explained: practicing to walk a certain way, focus on sports, always trying to take the lead, lucrative career, big house, fancy car and always having a pretty girl at your side, it sounded exactly like you were climbing the social ladder.
> 
> You are right about the sigma though... non-conformity is not a typical alpha trait, alphas though by definition, determine what things others attempt to conform to. Sigmas don't place any value on conformity for themselves or others.


I understand what your saying, Lon, but that wasn't really my motive. I played sports because I enjoyed it and was good at them, particularly football. I wanted to play in college and was able to do that, which by the way, wasn't nearly as fun as I had imagined it would be. Did it help with the ladies? Of course it did but I would have played anyway because I had the ability to.

The fancy car and big house were just things my own father had attained and so I figured I suppose I needed to have those things as well. 

I think we all can and in some cases do evolve. After two plus decades with the big, prestigious company, I decided that I wanted something else and started three very different businesses until I found the one that hit it pretty big.

The whole point of this thread and the other Alpha/Beta thread (yes, there's more than one of them), is that we are a mix of varying traits but we can also change. I agree with that. I've become much more Sigma as I've gotten older. I suppose in part because being more Alpha in my youth attained its objective and now I prefer marching to the beat of my own drum.

As it relates to this thread and becoming more Alpha or the importance of Alpha more specifically, there are tons of examples on how to do that on CWI. Becoming more aloof, independent and strong are results of doing the 180. All of it was/is designed to make your cheating spouse re-attracted to you or to up your sex rank, if you will, and save your marriage.

Those are clear instructions on how to be less Beta - weak or dependent on your spouse and become more Alpha - strong and and self sufficient.

I have always felt that staying in shape and looking good is the best way to preserve the attraction that I have in my marriage and keep the wife from desiring someone else. I believe if your spouse thinks you look really nice, they are much less likely to risk losing you by fooling around outside the marriage. Obviously, that's no guarantee for anyone who subscribes to my way of thinking but it sure does reduce the risks considerably IMO.

I always find it somewhat humorous whenever I come across people who have recently divorced or are in the throws of divorce because they almost always, to a man or woman, decide to lose weight and go back to exercising regularly. I laugh because I cannot help but think that if they did those things while they were still married that they likely wouldn't have lost their spouse to someone else and/or gotten divorced in the first place.

Obviously not every marriage dissolves because of infidelity but many of them do or their spouse just loses interest in them. It's kind of like having a strong military. If you do, most are too afraid to ever try anything against you.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Yes, I know. I have been told such stuff all my life. If only I was more feminine and "girly", if only I would bat my eyes more, flirt more, if only I would gush more, laugh at his jokes, make him feel like a man, not so threatened. If only I was prettier, more charming and gregarious. If only my heels were higher, my hair longer.
> Yes, I've been told all my life what men want "generally speaking.".
> 
> I'm quite certain that turning myself into those things is not going to make me a happier person. YMMV.
> ...



That's the real conundrum, isn't it? How do you change your circumstances or situation if you aren't willing to try something a little different. I'm rather fond of the saying "if nothing changes, nothing changes".

I suppose it really depends on your objective and how badly you wish to achieve it. If you want to attract a guy or perhaps a different kind of guy that normal, make some subtle changes that you feel comfortable with.

Us guys are pretty easy to work with. Always keep in mind that men have an ego so cater to that and you'll likely have some success. That doesn't mean that you have to always agree with them on bat your eyes at them but in my experience, always trying to "one up" a guy isn't going to work in your favor. What's the old saying, "win the battle but lose the war".

Since you don't want to make some of the changes that you mentioned above, try just being easy to talk to and likeable. That goes a really long way with most guys. If they enjoy your company, they'll want to be around you.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> You are the one that said a beautiful cheerleader hanging off your arms trumps everything else for men.





Mostlycontent said:


> That is exactly right. I am describing what the vast majority of men find important, particularly when I was in high school and college, and perhaps much beyond that. I thought I made that point very clear in my post.


I'm very surprised by your response @Mostlycontent. 

You mentioned raising a daughter. Did you explain to her this claim that all men want the beautiful cheerleader hanging off their arm? Did you tell her to 'sit there and look pretty' and she would attract men for a relationship? Did you tell her to focus her attention on maintaining her good looks because barring those, she would not attract her 'alpha'? 

I've mentioned it before but I'll do it again. It's this type of belief that makes young men resentful and angry; and young women have confidence and body image issues. They feel helpless since they'll always be part of the 'settled for' group because they didn't win the genetic lottery. {sigh} It's all a b.s. but we still see this idea pushed over and over again.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Lila said:


> I'm very surprised by your response @Mostlycontent.
> 
> You mentioned raising a daughter. Did you explain to her this claim that all men want the beautiful cheerleader hanging off their arm? Did you tell her to 'sit there and look pretty' and she would attract men for a relationship? Did you tell her to focus her attention on maintaining her good looks because barring those, she would not attract her 'alpha'?
> 
> I've mentioned it before but I'll do it again. It's this type of belief that makes young men resentful and angry; and young women have confidence and body image issues. They feel helpless since they'll always be part of the 'settled for' group because they didn't win the genetic lottery. {sigh} It's all a b.s. but we still see this idea pushed over and over again.


Greetings!

Lila--I think that while the stereotype of the Quarterback or the Cheerleader, as a status marker, can be exaggerated, I think that Mostlycontent is driving at is that the "process", the mindset, can be at least as important, if not more so. After all, there can only be one quarterback, and there's only a dozen cheerleaders. The positions of such, socially, physically, and mentally, provide some strong, positive benefits.

In high school, Lila, I lost the "genetic lottery". I wasn't tall enough to be the quarterback. However, I did make the team. I played as a defensive end, and linebacker. I was big, and strong, and rugged. I had a nose for the ball, and quick, short range reaction speed. I was good at making interceptions, tackling, and sacking quarterbacks and shutting down running backs. I worked out, got bigger and stronger. I developed teamwork, leadership, and discipline.

All of which benefitted me immensely socially, physically, and emotionally. Girls likewise may not all be cheerleaders, though the embracing the attributes that make a good cheerleader can similarly benefit any girl that does so, in many ways. I think that can be very positive and beneficial.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Mostlycontent said:


> Are you suggesting that Jon got railroaded into having 8 children? I have no idea as I've never seen that show or have any idea what it's about.
> 
> Did having 8 children ruin her figure? Hell, one would think it would but I've never seen it.


1. I think having already 2 healthy chilIdren is blessing enough in life. I can't imagine that it is often the man's idea to pay for fertility treatments just to have a third child.

2. It was due to Kate's religious beliefs not to have selective abortions and she kept all six fetuses. I wonder if it had been up to Jon, what would he have preferred to do.

3. They were living off of charity before they got their own reality show.I'm sure that's a blow to any alpha man.

4. Even the few times my husband watched the show, he noticed how much Kate henpecked Jon which led the way to their divorce.

5. the children developed behavioral problems due to cameras being on them 24/7, something that the father could not control because they needed the money.

Actually, Kate thrived from becoming a celebrity. Gossip magaizines would even report when she got a new haircut, so no it wasn't her looks that caused problems in the marriage.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Lila said:


> I'm very surprised by your response @Mostlycontent.
> 
> You mentioned raising a daughter. Did you explain to her this claim that all men want the beautiful cheerleader hanging off their arm? Did you tell her to 'sit there and look pretty' and she would attract men for a relationship? Did you tell her to focus her attention on maintaining her good looks because barring those, she would not attract her 'alpha'?
> 
> I've mentioned it before but I'll do it again. It's this type of belief that makes young men resentful and angry; and young women have confidence and body image issues. They feel helpless since they'll always be part of the 'settled for' group because they didn't win the genetic lottery. {sigh} It's all a b.s. but we still see this idea pushed over and over again.


I actually didn't have to say anything to my daughter. She was already pretty and she had her mother as her role model. Her mother, my wife, has always maintained her beauty and stayed in wonderful shape.

Unless my daughter was obtuse, she noticed that her mother was exceptionally pretty so she likely connected the dots that men like pretty women. I don't know why that's a bad thing because it's the truth.

We all know that kids watch what you do and not what you say anyway. If both her parents modeled the importance of staying fit and looking good for one another, then I'd guess that she got that message. I'm all for being the best you can be for your mate or potential mate, whatever quality or qualities that might be.

My daughter married a good man and they've been happily married now for going on 8 years. Whatever we did, it seemed to work out well. I give the majority of credit to my wife for raising such a wonderful young lady.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Mostlycontent said:


> My opinion is that many women are married to guys who are not these things and they are just defending them. The other options are that they aren't attracted to such men, which I find hard to believe, or they aren't capable of attracting such a man.
> 
> For a guy to say that I prefer the overweight, frumpy woman to Heidi Klum, for example, is equally ridiculous.


There is a fourth option, which is that some women do not want men to *learn* how to attract women, because then those women might make the mistake of having sex with someone who is behaving as an alpha but is really a beta. 

Thus, for these women, men are supposed to "just get it" (i.e., just be alpha), rather than learning how to *act* alpha, so that those women can avoid betas pretending to be alphas.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Mostlycontent said:


> I understand what your saying, Lon, but that wasn't really my motive. I played sports because I enjoyed it and was good at them, particularly football. I wanted to play in college and was able to do that, which by the way, wasn't nearly as fun as I had imagined it would be. Did it help with the ladies? Of course it did but I would have played anyway because I had the ability to.
> 
> The fancy car and big house were just things my own father had attained and so I figured I suppose I needed to have those things as well.
> 
> ...


I dont believe most people change all that much. I tried to up my alpha for awhile but got nowhere with it, partly because I didn't have a good mentor I could truly relate to, but mostly because I just didn't want to play the ridiculous game. I have a lot of the sigma traits and not just because I was programmed that way but also hardwired that way. But I don't call myself a sigma on the sociosexual spectrum, my sigma qualities don't attract high sex rank girls and if those playing that game were to judge me, my introversion would lead them to a low beta ranking of me and if I were not half-decent looking I'd be in their omega camp.

Of those that abstain from the sociosex game, none of us were ever alpha, or had a high sex rank, if we were good players it wouldnt be in our interest to quit, just as all stars in any sport would cause a huge outcry if they walked away from the game.

So once you do withdraw from the ratrace you find yourself in the company of a whole bunch of other real people with similar values. We are the underbelly of society, few of us have the qualities that get glorified so their are not many high sex-ranked people here, nor strong personalities, and it is rare for us to make a lot of relationships, but when we do they are genuinely content ones where we are finally free to be ourselves. If you live in my segment of the population then howdy, but if you still play the sociosexual game, as anything more than an onlooker, you are not the underbelly class.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Lila--I think that while the stereotype of the Quarterback or the Cheerleader, as a status marker, can be exaggerated, I think that Mostlycontent is driving at is that the "process", the mindset, can be at least as important, if not more so. After all, there can only be one quarterback, and there's only a dozen cheerleaders. The positions of such, socially, physically, and mentally, provide some strong, positive benefits.
> 
> ...


Yep, you are correct, Centurion. I mentioned that having a beautiful woman on your arm was what virtually all men desire. I didn't say that she had to be a cheerleader, although I suppose that can be used as a stereotypical sign of beauty and status.

As I mentioned earlier, the type of woman you have or can attract is one of the ways men judge one another or size one another up. It's obviously not the only way but it definitely matters. 

If you think highly of a person, man or woman, and then meet their spouse and are completely unimpressed, it would likely negatively impact your impression of them. Conversely, the opposite is also true.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Mostlycontent said:


> I actually didn't have to say anything to my daughter. She was already pretty and she had her mother as her role model. Her mother, my wife, has always maintained her beauty and stayed in wonderful shape.
> 
> Unless my daughter was obtuse, she noticed that her mother was exceptionally pretty so she likely connected the dots that men like pretty women. I don't know why that's a bad thing because it's the truth.
> 
> ...


Congratulations to you, your wife, and your daughter for being genetic lottery winners. However, I think this discredits your advise since you've never had to live the life as a non-genetic lottery winner. You've never had to walk a mile in the shoes of someone who's had to 'work for it'. 

You nor wife or your daughter had to put much effort into, well, being 'pretty' or 'handsome'. It's a natural quality you were all born with. Do you have to work on maintaining it? Sure, but it's not something you have to create out of very little or nothing at all.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Lila said:


> Congratulations to you, your wife, and your daughter for being genetic lottery winners. However, I think this discredits your advise since you've never had to live the life as a non-genetic lottery winner. You've never had to walk a mile in the shoes of someone who's had to 'work for it'.
> 
> You nor wife or your daughter had to put much effort into, well, being 'pretty' or 'handsome'. It's a natural quality you were all born with. Do you have to work on maintaining it? Sure, but it's not something you have to create out of very little or nothing at all.


Lila,

I was given a set of circumstances and made the best of it. I've seen a number of people who were genetic lottery winners, as you call them, who clearly are not any longer because they made no effort to maintain it.

I would tell you the same thing I would tell Lon. Make the best of what you do have. I view finding or keeping a mate in the same way as the Job Interview process. A company is going to interview you and 12 other people. How do you stand out?

You've got to do something to make yourself noticeable amongst the other dozen candidates. Whether that's your sense of humor, your personality or your physique. Find your strength or cultivate one and play to it.

When I was first entering high school, I had not yet hit my real growth spurt so I felt I needed something, some kind of edge to compete with all the other guys. I found lifting weights to get bigger for sports was something I had to do but realized it also had the benefit of making girls more attracted to me. I stumbled on that somewhat by accident at the time, I'll admit.

Once I realized that having a chiseled body could make me stand out, I ran with it. You know, find your strength and play to it.

As a man gets older, there are fewer and fewer guys who bother to maintain their physique so you really stand out. The same is true of women, I would imagine. That has been my experience anyway.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Centurions said:


> ....I think that Mostlycontent is driving at is that the "process", the mindset, can be at least as important, if not more so. After all, there can only be one quarterback, and there's only a dozen cheerleaders. The positions of such, socially, physically, and mentally, provide some strong, positive benefits.


I disagree Centurion. I don't think mostlycontent is "driving at the "process", the mindset" at all. The bolded statements in his post below lead me to believe that he believes physical beauty, for males but especially as it pertains to females, trumps all other qualities. He's of course entitled to his opinion but it doesn't make it true for all. 

While I do agree with you that people should make the best of the qualities with which they were born, I don't think 80% of the population (the average and below average lookers) should be relegated to 'throw away' pile because they weren't born with the 'beautiful' genes. 



Mostlycontent said:


> Yep, you are correct, Centurion. I mentioned that having a beautiful woman on your arm was what virtually all men desire.
> 
> *As I mentioned earlier, the type of woman you have or can attract is one of the ways men judge one another or size one another up. * It's obviously not the only way but it definitely matters.
> 
> *If you think highly of a person, man or woman, and then meet their spouse and are completely unimpressed, it would likely negatively impact your impression of them. Conversely, the opposite is also true*.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Lila said:


> I disagree Centurion. I don't think mostlycontent is "driving at the "process", the mindset" at all. The bolded statements in his post below lead me to believe that he believes physical beauty, for males but especially as it pertains to females, trumps all other qualities. He's of course entitled to his opinion but it doesn't make it true for all.
> 
> While I do agree with you that people should make the best of the qualities with which they were born, I don't think 80% of the population (the average and below average lookers) should be relegated to 'throw away' pile because they weren't born with the 'beautiful' genes.


I do think physical appearance is very important and virtually millions of other men feel the same way. Other qualities absolutely matter but one never gets to them if they aren't first drawn to you because of attraction. I'm sure many would like to live in a world where physical appearance didn't count but that is not how it is nor has it ever been for thousands of years.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Mostlycontent said:


> I do think physical appearance is very important and virtually millions of other men feel the same way. Other qualities absolutely matter but one never gets to them if they aren't first drawn to you because of attraction. I'm sure many would like to live in a world where physical appearance didn't count but that is not how it is nor has it ever been for thousands of years.


Many women who wish that physical appearance didn't count are very unattractive. Perhaps that is not a coincidence.


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

technovelist said:


> *Gloria Steinem was a Playboy Bunny.


Granted…..but she hit the wall pretty hard!


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

OnTheFly said:


> Granted…..but she hit the wall pretty hard!


She's 81 years old. Just being alive at that age is pretty good.


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

Bugged said:


> ahahahahahahahhahaha
> what are you doing?Shaming her for growing old ...guys do you realize how pathetic and desperate you sound shaming the freminists for growing old or being ugly?
> no seriously..I can't stop laughing...
> >
> this thread has, as usual, turned into a concentrate of misogyny..what a BORE...


um, excuse me, your devil emoticon has micro-aggressed my feelings, you need to go to jail….now! Also, I didn't give verbal, enthusiastic consent to being laughed at!! Pls, big government, put her in jail!!!


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

technovelist said:


> She's 81 years old. Just being alive at that age is pretty good.


Really? 81? I'm going to have to google for some pix of her in the bunny suit.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

OnTheFly said:


> Really? 81? I'm going to have to google for some pix of her in the bunny suit.


Interestingly, my mother was a "Bunny Mother" at one of the Playboy clubs many years ago. As I recall her explanation of that job, she was supposed to keep the women out of trouble, one of the rules being that they weren't supposed to date customers.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Mostlycontent said:


> I do think physical appearance is very important and virtually millions of other men feel the same way. Other qualities absolutely matter but one never gets to them if they aren't first drawn to you because of attraction. I'm sure many would like to live in a world where physical appearance didn't count but that is not how it is nor has it ever been for thousands of years.


And this brings me back to my original point that our experiences create our perceptions of what is and isn't truth. See IME, physical beauty has had very little to do with my ability to attract men to me. 

I've said it before on TAM, I'm pragmatic enough to recognize that I'm just an average looking woman. Nothing spectacular about me. Not too thin, not too heavy (although I could probably lose a few pounds), curvy but in as much as women are supposed to be. Not necessarily a beautiful face, just.....average. Yet I've never had trouble attracting men. And when asked "How?", I honestly can respond "I don't know" but throughout my life people have told me there's just something about me. I like to think that it's my positive vibe. I'm generally happy and smiling. 

I've also known men in my life who pragmatically speaking, did not meet the physical standard of an 'Alpha' as most of you define it to be, yet they have much success with women. Could it be the way they move their bodies or the look they convey in their eyes? Who knows but whatever _it_ is, it works. 

So this is my truth based on my life experiences as an average looking woman. I've always been my genuine self and have never had a problem attracting people who are compatible.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

technovelist said:


> Many, although certainly not all*, feminists are very unattractive. Perhaps that is not a coincidence.
> 
> *Gloria Steinem was a Playboy Bunny.


Do you have to turn_ everything_ into a tirade against feminism? GTFO with that noise! 

No one has said anything about feminism on this thread. But you, out of the blue, chose to insult feminists....FOR NO REASON! It's uncalled for.

Do us all a favor and keep your insults to the anti-feminist threads in the men's forum.


----------



## the guy (Aug 3, 2010)

It's all about the brains.

I *WAS* the biggest beta in the group here.

I'm well built with healthy upper body strength, wide shoulders, flat stomach, big chest/arms, nice jaw lines and a thick penis. I enjoy building and love working up high off the ground....I *was*....ya *WAS* a wife beater!!!! (hence the biggest beta on TAM)

I didn't become an alpha until I took the step to fix my shyt... I didn't like who I was and did my time in anger management and in county jail and came out the other side a better man....an alpha male who can control his shyt and take responsibility for the phucked up mess I made.

Folks..it not what other think you are...it's who you want to be! Phuck everyone else!

I have the tools, boundaries and control of who I want to be...not what other people try to make me...

I control me...so who knows If that makes me alpha or beta or what every....I know I take care of my own shyt and if you want to hang out then your welcome if not then don't screw with me.


----------



## Mrs.Submission (Aug 16, 2015)

GusPolinski said:


> Alpha is important, but so is beta. Balance is the key.


This. 

I used to be a screeching and bossy wife. My husband's beta response to that was not helpful. The day my husband put me in my place and told me that he would leave if I didn't change was the best day for our marriage. Counseling and my decision to be more submissive unleashed the Alpha in my husband. Now we couldn't be happier. My husband knows when to turn on the beta and when to be Alpha. 

I suppose the trick is learning the best times to bring out the Alpha and Beta.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Lila said:


> Do you have to turn_ everything_ into a tirade against feminism? GTFO with that noise!
> 
> No one has said anything about feminism on this thread. But you, out of the blue, chose to insult feminists....FOR NO REASON! It's uncalled for.
> 
> Do us all a favor and keep your insults to the anti-feminist threads in the men's forum.


I have edited my comment to remove the reference to feminists.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

technovelist said:


> I have edited my comment to remove the reference to feminists.


Yes, apparently you chose you change the language to insult me. {sigh}. You do realize that what you did was a beta behavior as defined in NMMNG, don't you?


Oh well, so much for continuing the discussion on this thread.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Mostlycontent said:


> I actually didn't have to say anything to my daughter. She was already pretty and she had her mother as her role model. Her mother, my wife, has always maintained her beauty and stayed in wonderful shape.
> 
> Unless my daughter was obtuse, she noticed that her mother was exceptionally pretty so she likely connected the dots that men like pretty women. I don't know why that's a bad thing because it's the truth.
> 
> ...





technovelist said:


> There is a fourth option, which is that some women do not want men to *learn* how to attract women, because then those women might make the mistake of having sex with someone who is behaving as an alpha but is really a beta.
> 
> Thus, for these women, men are supposed to "just get it" (i.e., just be alpha), rather than learning how to *act* alpha, so that those women can avoid betas pretending to be alphas.



Greetings!

Tech, I agree man, that men can learn to be "Alpha"--but how would say for example, a "beta" man *act Alpha*?

If he's an emo hogbeast with poor hygiene and dresses like a Walmart reject, and he embraces "Alpha" attributes: develops more masculine attitudes, dresses sharp, improves his social skills and charm, improves his hygiene, and gets to the gym and becomes an iron beast, it seems to me that he has *become Alpha*. There is no *acting*. Does that make sense? These changes, in scope, we're talking 6 to 18 months, maybe two years, depending on how much of a hogbeast he was at the beginning. These are real changes, a total transformation. Help me understand, brother!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Bugged said:


> poor idiots...my already low opinion of 'average' men has sunk to Mariana trench depth after reading this forum..carry on guys..I'm having fun.>


Preferring to have a beautiful women does not make one an idiot. Quite the contrary actually as my wife has been an even bigger asset because of her appearance. 

Tell you what, go find the most physically unattractive man you can find and marry him. Then you could come on this board and tell us all how physical attraction doesn't matter in order to be happy and you'd then have some credibility.

I'm betting that you and other women who are objecting to this approach would suddenly change your tune real quickly. Face it, we all want to be with someone we find attractive and don't purposely seek out those we find unattractive. That's just a silly argument by some that simply want to argue for no reason at all.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Lila said:


> And this brings me back to my original point that our experiences create our perceptions of what is and isn't truth. See IME, physical beauty has had very little to do with my ability to attract men to me.
> 
> I've said it before on TAM, I'm pragmatic enough to recognize that I'm just an average looking woman. Nothing spectacular about me. Not too thin, not too heavy (although I could probably lose a few pounds), curvy but in as much as women are supposed to be. Not necessarily a beautiful face, just.....average. Yet I've never had trouble attracting men. And when asked "How?", I honestly can respond "I don't know" but throughout my life people have told me there's just something about me. I like to think that it's my positive vibe. I'm generally happy and smiling.
> 
> ...



Greetings!

But Lila, *you* are obviously happy and content. There's lots of beta men that have problems attracting women. That's why it's important for those men to learn. Likewise, women that *arent successful* at attracting men need help. You're not either of those. 😄
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Mostlycontent said:


> Preferring to have a beautiful women does not make one an idiot. Quite the contrary actually as my wife has been an even bigger asset because of her appearance.
> 
> Tell you what, go find the most physically unattractive man you can find and marry him. Then you could come on this board and tell us all how physical attraction doesn't matter in order to be happy and you'd then have some credibility.
> 
> I'm betting that you and other women who are objecting to this approach would suddenly change your tune real quickly. Face it, we all want to be with someone we find attractive and don't purposely seek out those we find unattractive. That's just a silly argument by some that simply want to argue for no reason at all.


Greetings!

"Poor idiots"? Wow, why such hostility and contempt? Just boggles me, my friend!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Tech, I agree man, that men can learn to be "Alpha"--but how would say for example, a "beta" man *act Alpha*?
> 
> ...


Yes, all of the physical changes are important too, but the attitude changes are the key. And those are a case of "fake it until you make it" for many men.

Does that make sense?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> But Lila, *you* are obviously happy and content. There's lots of beta men that have problems attracting women. That's why it's important for those men to learn. Likewise, women that *arent successful* at attracting men need help. You're not either of those. 😄
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But Centurion, this is a chicken or the egg argument. Am I happy because I attract men or are men attracted to me because I'm happy? See what I mean. It's definitely not because I'm some beauty queen. 

I've managed to stay happy because I didn't buy into the "all men only really want trophy wives/gfs" mentality even though that _was_ the belief system where I grew up, S. Florida. If I'd bought that line of thinking, I probably would be very depressed and have huge body image issues. 

I think there's a big price to pay when one forces changes to become someone they are not. There's a male poster on one of the other threads who just spoke to this issue.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Lila said:


> Yes, apparently you chose you change the language to insult me. {sigh}. You do realize that what you did was a beta behavior as defined in NMMNG, don't you?
> 
> Oh well, so much for continuing the discussion on this thread.


I made no reference to you at all.

And the reason I changed my comment was in response to your point about feminism not being the point of this thread. You were right about that, so my comment as originally posted was inappropriate to this thread.

Changing one's behavior in response to a valid complaint is not beta. Changing one's behavior in response to an *invalid* complaint is beta.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Mostlycontent said:


> I do think physical appearance is very important and virtually millions of other men feel the same way. Other qualities absolutely matter but one never gets to them if they aren't first drawn to you because of attraction. I'm sure many would like to live in a world where physical appearance didn't count but that is not how it is nor has it ever been for thousands of years.


There's arecent article in the NYT (about a month ago) which reported on a study of couples. Can't remember the number of couples observed but the conclusion was that couples in which the looks were mismatched (ie a 9 with a 4, or something like that) were also couples who met in situations in which they had a lot of time together before they started dating...... like school, work, church, other social activities.

Couples who were more closely matched in looks started dating each other closer to the time that they actually met.


----------



## BradWesley (May 24, 2013)

Reading this thread is both funny and amusing. It' s like reading the script of a bad sitcom.

When some of you guys finally figure out the socio-sexual hierarchy, come back and try again!

But hey thanks for playing the game.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

technovelist said:


> There is a fourth option, which is that some women do not want men to *learn* how to attract women, because then those women might make the mistake of having sex with someone who is behaving as an alpha but is really a beta.
> 
> Thus, for these women, men are supposed to "just get it" (i.e., just be alpha), rather than learning how to *act* alpha, so that those women can avoid betas pretending to be alphas.


I find this post to be hilarious. 

"Acting Alpha" and "being Alpha" are the same, unless decided by the person judging them. 

How, exactly, is acting, different than being?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> That is exactly right. I am describing what the vast majority of men find important, particularly when I was in high school and college, and perhaps much beyond that. I thought I made that point very clear in my post.


So why are you accusing me of not understanding men when I repeat that this is what they care about? :scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Lon said:


> So once you do withdraw from the ratrace you find yourself in the company of a whole bunch of other real people with similar values. We are the underbelly of society, few of us have the qualities that get glorified so their are not many high sex-ranked people here, nor strong personalities, and it is rare for us to make a lot of relationships, but when we do they are genuinely content ones where we are finally free to be ourselves. If you live in my segment of the population then howdy, but if you still play the sociosexual game, as anything more than an onlooker, you are not the underbelly class.


I'm thinking that being alpha is a whole lot of work: sounds to me you have to spend your day sizing yourself up against everyone out there to make sure you can keep justifying why you're so much better than everyone else.

I'm guessing the number of people who give a rat's a$$ about "socio-sexual hierarchies" are a decided minority.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

always_alone said:


> I'm thinking that being alpha is a whole lot of work: sounds to me you have to spend your day sizing yourself up against everyone out there to make sure you can keep justifying why you're so much better than everyone else.
> 
> I'm guessing the number of people who give a rat's a$$ about "socio-sexual hierarchies" are a decided minority.


I was watching a nature show tonight about bighorn rams and it was rutting season. There were no clear alpha males but each acted as though they were the alpha, little rams head butting big rams, big ones going after little ones, sometimes they go for the other males hindquarters, it was a veritable football team locker room. The ewes made not getting caught easy by simply prancing around until more than one male would chase her at a time, then the male rams would just keep bashing skulls amongst each other until they were all too beaten up to perform. All the males would go for the same ewe, whichever solitary ewe seemed to be targeted had to do the prancing, the other ewes went unnoticed and just grazed while all the rutting seemed to be happening around them. Can you honestly say that people are not that much different from the rest of the animal kingdom?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

technovelist said:


> Many women who wish that physical appearance didn't count are very unattractive. Perhaps that is not a coincidence.


We can say the same thing about unattractive men.. they also wish that physical appearance didn't count. People are people.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> We can say the same thing about unattractive men.. they also wish that physical appearance didn't count. People are people.


Yes, but unattractive men can improve their attractiveness to women a lot more than unattractive women can improve their attractiveness to men, because "men are shallow"*. So men aren't as committed to that notion, in general, although of course there are exceptions.

*Note: the physical attribute of men that ranks the highest among women is height, which of course is very difficult to change. Explaining why that preference isn't shallow is left as an exercise for the reader.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

technovelist said:


> Many women who wish that physical appearance didn't count are very unattractive. Perhaps that is not a coincidence.


What a nasty thing to say. Do you know many women and what many women think? NO you don't.

I have no problem saying that I am a very attractive woman but absolutely I wish that physical appearance didn't count so much. It is a crappy world to live in for women when it is their appearance that matters more than their intelligence, compassion, skill set etc. 

My girls are gorgeous people both physically and as humans. We have fun in regard to good grooming, hair, nails etc but the bigger emphasis in life is on being good people, World citizens, critical thinkers, kind and compassionate young adults.

Honestly some of your comments are full of such hatred for women, why the need to be a complete tool?


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

NextTimeAround said:


> There's arecent article in the NYT (about a month ago) which reported on a study of couples. Can't remember the number of couples observed but the conclusion was that couples in which the looks were mismatched (ie a 9 with a 4, or something like that) were also couples who met in situations in which they had a lot of time together before they started dating...... like school, work, church, other social activities.
> 
> Couples who were more closely matched in looks started dating each other closer to the time that they actually met.


Interesting, isn't it? When people have known each other for some time, they can become more or less attractive.

What would be equally interesting is to know the success of those marriages. Do the couples more equally matched have a better, equal or worse rate of divorce than those of two people who are mismatched?

Even more interesting, although highly unlikely to find, is the rate of infidelity amongst those couples. Are couples who got together quickly because of more intense sexual attraction more likely or less likely to stray?

How about mismatched couples? Logic would seem to indicate that there would be a higher rate of infidelity amongst couples who are mismatched in physical appearance but that would be just a guess. Obviously, that wouldn't like take into account the religious views or moral character of the people involved so the results wouldn't be completely conclusive but it would be interesting none-the-less.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

always_alone said:


> So why are you accusing me of not understanding men when I repeat that this is what they care about? :scratchhead:



Because I really don't think you do understand how men think or perhaps you do and just don't like it or don't care. Take your pick.

I have commented on several of your posts and even tried to offer positive input but it's clear that you just wish to argue and bicker. I'm really not interested in that.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

technovelist said:


> Yes, but unattractive men can improve their attractiveness to women a lot more than unattractive women can improve their attractiveness to men, because "men are shallow"*. So men aren't as committed to that notion, in general, although of course there are exceptions.


LOL.. really? This sounds like the tripe that is pushed by PUA and MRA.. you know about how women lose value over time and men gain value. What a crock. 

It takes about as much to turn an unattractive women into an attractive one as it does to transform an unattractive man. 




technovelist said:


> *Note: the physical attribute of men that ranks the highest among women is height, which of course is very difficult to change. Explaining why that preference isn't shallow is left as an exercise for the reader.


Ah, but there is a difference. The answers that people give when asked questions is not the same as how they live their lives.

It would make sense that women find taller men attractive. That does not mean that women will only date and marry taller men. I see plenty of short men with women every time I go out.


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

I used to really have a thing for short guys back in the day. lol


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

The only people who seem to find the concept of being alpha of such great importance, tend to be those who are so obviously not... And the more they talk about the subject, the more it shows...


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

I find it fascinating how much we eschew our biology in this arena, but then totally go for biology to hog heaven in things like causes of homosexuality. There is some aspects about male/female relationships where more alpha is needed (at leat on average), lead in the bedroom being near the top.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> Because I really don't think you do understand how men think or perhaps you do and just don't like it or don't care. Take your pick.
> 
> I have commented on several of your posts and even tried to offer positive input but it's clear that you just wish to argue and bicker. I'm really not interested in that.


:scratchhead: Even when I agree with you, I'm disagreeable? 

Well, in that case, let me just say that my experiences, approaches and attitudes are very different than yours. You're right: I don't know much about the quarterback --head cheerleader dynamics. My only point is that it isn't particularly reasonable or helpful to judge absolutely everyone by that metric.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Lon said:


> I was watching a nature show tonight about bighorn rams and it was rutting season. There were no clear alpha males but each acted as though they were the alpha, little rams head butting big rams, big ones going after little ones, sometimes they go for the other males hindquarters, it was a veritable football team locker room. The ewes made not getting caught easy by simply prancing around until more than one male would chase her at a time, then the male rams would just keep bashing skulls amongst each other until they were all too beaten up to perform. All the males would go for the same ewe, whichever solitary ewe seemed to be targeted had to do the prancing, the other ewes went unnoticed and just grazed while all the rutting seemed to be happening around them. Can you honestly say that people are not that much different from the rest of the animal kingdom?



What I find particularly fascinating about the alpha lovers is that they are always complaining that women are only interested in a very small population of men. The alphas, of course. But the reality is always that they are all exactly what they think women are: focused on a very small selection of cheerleaders (or "cheerleaderlike" women), completely hyoergamous, and very big on materialistic displays of wealth and success (big house, fancy cars, etc.)

I mean, if that's want you want out of life, kewl. But I'm pretty sure not all men are interested in butting heads over and over again to protect themselves to some ewe --and then thinking they've somehow "won" when they have her head over their mantle ---errr, I mean, as a trophy in the showcase, errrr, I mean, on his arm.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
People have different goals in life, they are playing different games. That's fine - enjoy working toward your goals. Just remember that other people have different goals, are playing different games. I guess it is inherent to the "alpha" concept to believe that your own goals are the most valuable.


----------



## Mrs.Submission (Aug 16, 2015)

Mostlycontent said:


> Preferring to have a beautiful women does not make one an idiot. Quite the contrary actually as my wife has been an even bigger asset because of her appearance.
> 
> Tell you what, go find the most physically unattractive man you can find and marry him. Then you could come on this board and tell us all how physical attraction doesn't matter in order to be happy and you'd then have some credibility.
> 
> I'm betting that you and other women who are objecting to this approach would suddenly change your tune real quickly. Face it, we all want to be with someone we find attractive and don't purposely seek out those we find unattractive. That's just a silly argument by some that simply want to argue for no reason at all.


I must say that I agree. What is the point of pretending that physical attraction is not important? We all want to be with someone that we find attractive and there's nothing wrong with that. 

I don't understand why some of us cannot disagree without name calling. We're all adults and we should be able to handle disagreements while still being respectful. Calling someone an "idiot" just because they have a different opinion isn't helpful or mature.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mrs.Submission said:


> I must say that I agree. What is the point of pretending that physical attraction is not important? We all want to be with someone that we find attractive and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> I don't understand why some of us cannot disagree without name calling. We're all adults and we should be able to handle disagreements while still being respectful. Calling someone an "idiot" just because they have a different opinion isn't helpful or mature.


Any man who claims that all women want the EXACT same type of man, is an idiot, IMO.

Women are not the same, we are not robot cut outs, we are individuals who have different, specific preferences. Anyone who thinks otherwise, again, IMO, is an idiot.

Frankly, I'm surprised there are so many of them.

They are entitled to their opinion, and I'm entitled to the opinion that this makes them an idiot.

And I'll be the first to say that HELLS YES physical attraction is important to women.

But when someone drifts into saying "oh yeah it is important to women, but women only like one certain type of man physically" I'll call bullsh*t on that.


----------



## Mrs.Submission (Aug 16, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> Any man who claims that all women want the EXACT same type of man, is an idiot, IMO.
> 
> Women are not the same, we are not robot cut outs, we are individuals who have different, specific preferences. Anyone who thinks otherwise, again, IMO, is an idiot.
> 
> ...


Did you ever think that the needless name calling might make you look rather idiotic as well? I agree that we are all entitled to our opinion and all women are not the same. I just don't see the point of using derogatory terms for others just because we don't agree with them. It smacks of immaturity and poor communication skills.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Any man who claims that all women want the EXACT same type of man, is an idiot, IMO.
> 
> Women are not the same, we are not robot cut outs, we are individuals who have different, specific preferences. Anyone who thinks otherwise, again, IMO, is an idiot.
> 
> ...


I agree to a point. The 80/20 research is out there. But my guess is that most of the 20% has to do with more generic stuff like not overweight, good amount of muscle, general shape of the face, symmetry, etc,.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mrs.Submission said:


> Did you ever think that the needless name calling might make you look rather idiotic as well? I agree that we are all entitled to our opinion and women are not all the same. I just don't see the point of using derogatory terms for others just because we don't agree with them. It smacks of immaturity and poor communication skills.


I stand by my opinion of what an idiot says.

Never said I wasn't immature, and quite a few people think much worse about me than that. I take my share of being called names around here. No sweat.


----------



## BradWesley (May 24, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Any man who claims that all women want the EXACT same type of man, is an idiot, IMO.
> 
> Women are not the same, we are not robot cut outs, we are individuals who have different, specific preferences. Anyone who thinks otherwise, again, IMO, is an idiot.
> 
> ...


FW

I guess by your comment, you're not from Stepford, CT?

LMAO


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
This is a marriage forum and presumably most of the posters are interested in long term relationships. I think the wiser (eg older) of us realize that in an absolute sense looks don't last. None of us are going to look as sexy at 60 as we did at 20. So if you prioritize appearance in a relationship you are setting yourself up for a problem in the long term. 

Short term is completely different - go for the hottest person you can find if that is what you want. Though for me, if I were looking for short term fun, I would care a lot more about how exciting adventurous someone was in and out of bed, then in how attractive they were (within reason). YMMV



Mrs.Submission said:


> I must say that I agree. What is the point of pretending that physical attraction is not important? We all want to be with someone that we find attractive and there's nothing wrong with that.
> snip


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> This is a marriage forum and presumably most of the posters are interested in long term relationships.* I think the wiser (eg older) of us realize that in an absolute sense looks don't last. * None of us are going to look as sexy at 60 as we did at 20. So if you prioritize appearance in a relationship you are setting yourself up for a problem in the long term.
> 
> Short term is completely different - go for the hottest person you can find if that is what you want. Though for me, if I were looking for short term fun, I would care a lot more about how exciting adventurous someone was in and out of bed, then in how attractive they were (within reason). YMMV


Depends pn what ou mean by appearance. I think it's a good idea to stay in shape, dress well and appropriately and look like you give a [email protected] 

Some extra weight and going bald does not have to be a disaster. But becoming obese and doing comb overs is most definitely a disaster.

And just to pre empt those who might ask or at least wonder, I'm in good shape, in the process of taking off 20 pounds I gained from steroids (due to chemo) and well, in better shape than a lot of women 20 to 30 years younger than I am.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> This is a marriage forum and presumably most of the posters are interested in long term relationships. I think the wiser (eg older) of us realize that in an absolute sense looks don't last. None of us are going to look as sexy at 60 as we did at 20. So if you prioritize appearance in a relationship you are setting yourself up for a problem in the long term.
> 
> Short term is completely different - go for the hottest person you can find if that is what you want. Though for me, if I were looking for short term fun, I would care a lot more about how exciting adventurous someone was in and out of bed, then in how attractive they were (within reason). YMMV


Yes in a relationship there is so much more to it than looks. But where I think men, and many women too, get all exited about and hung up in this discussion about sexual attraction and sex rank/sociosexual hierarchy is concerning those kind of people who the mere appearance of makes their onlooker sexually aroused. I, and most other beta/average guys have rarely been with such a woman. I've never settled for a partner that I didn't think was beautiful, but I've never once been successful with the kind of woman that I salivate for just looking at. There are enough such women all around in any given place to notice, but when I have been single and approached or just wanted to approach them I could never get over my hang up of how sexually attractive they were to me and thus was never able to actually make a connection. My selection of mates has always come down to the most attractive that I'm still able to hold a conversation with. I suspect the "alpha" just doesn't have such a built in self-limiting disability.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Any man who claims that all women want the EXACT same type of man, is an idiot, IMO.
> 
> Women are not the same, we are not robot cut outs, we are individuals who have different, specific preferences. Anyone who thinks otherwise, again, IMO, is an idiot.
> 
> ...


Greetings!

Besides failing Philosophy 101, you also failed Basic Reading, didn't you, FW? I don't believe anyone said *ALL WOMEN* are attracted to the *EXACT SAME* type of man.

What about *in general* women are attracted to in shape, sharp-dressed, charming and sociable men with masculine attitudes, good hygiene, and have decent jobs--don't you understand? Do you have Teretz Syndrome or something? What is up with your self-righteous, arrogant and hostile attitude?

*in general* IMPLIES that there are exceptions and outliers. The advice to improve themselves by embracing basic "Alpha" attributes is aimed at beta men that are single, and struggling to be attractive to women. It's also useful for married men that are, or have become too beta.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Keep on believing what you want, Centurions, and I will do the same.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
interesting- my response is very different. For me a fair number of women have a combination of physical appearance, expressions and ways of moving that I find sexually attractive. There is not a huge ranking above that though. I've never see a woman who cause a "I want to have sex with you right now" feeling based on appearance. I generally desire women only after I have interacted with them.

I see women that I think are very beautiful - but it isn't quite a sexual attraction so much as an artistic one. I like looking at them, but I don't necessarily want to have sex with them. I see women that I know meet traditional standards of beauty, but I am not particularly attracted to them.

I am however quite high libido. There are a number of women I know, that absent social restraints, I would want to have sex with. This is not generally their appearance so much as my interactions / mutual flirting. 






Lon said:


> Yes in a relationship there is so much more to it than looks. But where I think men, and many women too, get all exited about and hung up in this discussion about sexual attraction and sex rank/sociosexual hierarchy is concerning those kind of people who the mere appearance of makes their onlooker sexually aroused. I, and most other beta/average guys have rarely been with such a woman. I've never settled for a partner that I didn't think was beautiful, but I've never once been successful with the kind of woman that I salivate for just looking at. There are enough such women all around in any given place to notice, but when I have been single and approached or just wanted to approach them I could never get over my hang up of how sexually attractive they were to me and thus was never able to actually make a connection. My selection of mates has always come down to the most attractive that I'm still able to hold a conversation with. I suspect the "alpha" just doesn't have such a built in self-limiting disability.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> For me a fair number of women have a combination of physical appearance, expressions and ways of moving that I find sexually attractive. There is not a huge ranking above that though. I've never see a woman who cause a "I want to have sex with you right now" feeling based on appearance. I generally desire women only after I have interacted with them.


I've heard a number of men describe their feelings this way.

That feeling sexual attraction (or even arousal) does not necessarily mean "I want to have sex with that person".

Most men don't want to have rampant sex with every attractive woman they see.

Of course, a bunch of men will now come and tell me I've got it wrong, that EVERY man wants to have sex with EVERY attractive woman he sees. Which would put Richard as a liar, too.

But I know better.

Men are not pigs who are unable to discern between right and wrong times and places and people to have sex with. Feeling sexual attraction or arousal, in itself, is not enough to make a man want to have sex right here and now, even if they could.

Not saying they don't ever feel DTF right here and now, sometimes they do. But mature men that have any amount of experience know that even at those times, they don't just follow home the first woman who turns them on. There needs to be mutual attraction and desire.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

It's not rocket science nor even mildly controversial to understand that you can improve your odds of landing a first date, and hence subsequent dates, with someone of the opposite sex if you - 

Have a job
Have cut your hair in the calendar year
Don't smell of bong water and perspiration
Can string more than 3 words together when speaking
Look reasonably fit instead of sporting a beer gut
Have all of your teeth
Laugh a little 
Many others not listed

Everyone who isn't digging in their feet in pursuit of an agenda knows this. It's why we shower, brush our teeth, and spruce up for a date. Wear decent clothes. Lie about our weight on our online dating information. Post the most flattering picture we can find. Because while these preferences may not be universal, they are universal enough that everyone understands them, and everyone who wants to be successful in the mating game adheres to them, at least a little. They are the traits that a high percentage of the population finds more attractive than the alternative. It's why you hit on 16 and hold on 17. 

Being a little overweight won't kill you. Going bald won't kill you. Being unemployed won't kill you. But every strike against you lowers the number of potential suitors who will be bothered to give you the time of day. Ask anyone who has spent any time on an online dating forum. There may be a dating pool jonesing for the orange fingered Cheetohs eating X-Box playing 35 year old living in his mother's basement, but it ain't all that deep.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Have a job
> Have cut your hair in the calendar year
> Don't smell of bong water and perspiration
> Can string more than 3 words together when speaking
> ...


Not one thing on this list is "alpha".

My beef is with the "alpha" crap. I've never said that people don't need to improve in certain areas if they aren't having luck. Just which areas is under question. Some would say it has to be the "alpha" stuff, and I would say, "no not necessarily...not every woman is the same".

(And by the way, I know plenty of men and women who smell like bong and sweat who do just fine with the opposite sex....hippies unite!)


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Sure, those things on average will help, but I don't seen them as "alpha" traits. (maybe this thread has drifted off and we aren't talking about alpha any more). 

I have always had a job. I do cut my hair, stay clean, wear reasonably nice clothes. I have been know to construct sentences containing as many as thirteen words. I'm of fairly slender build. I have all my teeth and none of anyone else's. I laugh all the time. I also fly airplanes, climb mountains, give technical talks to hundreds of people. Women seem to like me and flirt with me. 

But I'm not alpha (or any other letter in an archaic language). I don't try to rule the herd - people listen to me when what I say makes sense. I do not try to claw my way to power in my organization, but I do my best for the organization and the people who work for me. I do not challenge other males for mating rights - I met a girl I liked 35 years ago, and we are still together. 






Cletus said:


> It's not rocket science nor even mildly controversial to understand that you can improve your odds of landing a first date, and hence subsequent dates, with someone of the opposite sex if you -
> 
> Have a job
> Have cut your hair in the calendar year
> ...


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Not one thing on this list is "alpha".
> 
> My beef is with the "alpha" crap.


If there were traits in a man that 50% + 1 of the female population found attractive, it would behoove a man to exhibit those traits when seeking a mate. It doesn't have to be an every-woman thing to be useful. 

Whether any of the alpha stuff is real or not I'll leave to the folks in the white lab coats. I don't know. 

The animal kingdom is full of alpha mating tendencies, including our closest relatives. Are we so fully evolved and advanced that our evolutionary roots are completely lost? I doubt it. Every time someone does a study in this area, they find that women like a certain kind of face. That a man's attractiveness increases according the car he drives. That tall men are judged sexier than short men. That a man with a deep voice makes way more women weak in the knees than a high pitched voice. Certainly you know that some of these questions have been studied? Why do you find the results so uncompelling? 

There is absolutely a set of male characteristics - some you get by genetics, others you can grow on your own - that will make more woman find you more attractive than will find you less attractive. Someone with endless time on his hands could probably search the literature and come up with the Perfect Man that has the optimal mix of these traits that would maximize his chances with the opposite sex. 

You will be VERY CAREFUL TO NOTE that I did not say that every woman on earth would find him attractive. That's not the point. Dating is a numbers game. The more tickets you buy, the better your odds of winning the lottery. But you can make you odds so much better if you happen to know a couple of the numbers ahead of time. 

This discussion is limited to the notion of making yourself attractive to a stranger of the opposite sex. This is the "get your foot in the door" discussion, which may or may not correlate well with the things you need to do to make a long term relationship successful. But I would still opine that the things which make you swoon in the first 3 days remain strong motivators of attraction through the years.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> *This discussion is limited to the notion of making yourself attractive to a stranger of the opposite sex.* This is the "get your foot in the door" discussion, which may or may not correlate well with the things you need to do to make a long term relationship successful.


No, actually, the title itself means we are discussing the importance of ALPHA. Not "making yourself attractive to a stranger of the opposite sex". And as is always the case in these discussions, it devolves into the same sh*t, different day with people insisting that "women like such and such"....and they imply ALL women like "such and such".

This is my only beef.

If we COULD actually discuss making yourself attractive to a stranger of the opposite sex, I would love that and would give my thoughts on how to do that, too. But that's not what this thread is. I wish it was.


----------



## Mrs.Submission (Aug 16, 2015)

Cletus said:


> It's not rocket science nor even mildly controversial to understand that you can improve your odds of landing a first date, and hence subsequent dates, with someone of the opposite sex if you -
> 
> Have a job
> Have cut your hair in the calendar year
> ...


I notice that losers tend to seek out other losers. A friend of a friend is 33 and she lives at home. She claims that she cannot work due to ADHD and she is too nervous to drive or take public transit. She also does not exercise because she feels that her ADHD makes exercise "impossible", so she sports a big gut yet continues to whine about her appearance. 

Her boyfriend is 48 years old and unemployed. He still lives with his children's mother and my acquaintance is godmother to one of the kids. I think the woman is clearly very desperate.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> Not one thing on this list is "alpha".
> 
> My beef is with the "alpha" crap. I've never said that people don't need to improve in certain areas if they aren't having luck. Just which areas is under question. Some would say it has to be the "alpha" stuff, and I would say, "no not necessarily...not every woman is the same".
> 
> (And by the way, I know plenty of men and women who smell like bong and sweat who do just fine with the opposite sex....hippies unite!)


I check off every single item on Cletus' list, on paper I am the perfect guy. Except I'm introverted, quite anti-social, carry around way too much humility and do not have many means to put my value on display to potential mates. If I were more alpha I'd have a wide audience to show my qualities to, but I would no longer be who I really am. Every relationship I've had started out with a huge bang, girls were amazed to find out all my great qualities that Cletus listed, they'd fall for me but then eventually lose interest after a couple years, likely because of the perception I overpromise and under deliver. People expect too much then are disappointed. This is why women avoid betas, passive and submissive guys, because despite our tremendous qualities it is usually boring and ends up going nowhere interesting.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cletus said:


> You will be VERY CAREFUL TO NOTE that I did not say that every woman on earth would find him attractive. That's not the point. Dating is a numbers game. The more tickets you buy, the better your odds of winning the lottery. But you can make you odds so much better if you happen to know a couple of the numbers ahead of time.
> 
> This discussion is limited to the notion of making yourself attractive to a stranger of the opposite sex. This is the "get your foot in the door" discussion, which may or may not correlate well with the things you need to do to make a long term relationship successful. But I would still opine that the things which make you swoon in the first 3 days remain strong motivators of attraction through the years.


This discussion began as a question of the importance of alpha for an LTR type situation. But now it is all about getting your "foot in the door" and "playing the lottery"?

How did that happen? 

It strikes me that this propensity to always play dating as a numbers game is precisely the reason we see so many disastrous relationships. Just play the odds, be whoever it is you are "supposed" to be (because it's popular!), spin the wheel, never mind who you are, what you need, (and you'll get the big prize)! 

How is that supposed to work out for the LTR? How could it?

I know you are fully wedded to this idea that the alpha truth is a universal truth broken only by the few outliers and "exceptions" that no one cares about. And that it doesn't matter how many studies I link to that show quite clearly that these alpha truths only pertain to a small portion of the animal kingdom, and not even by those that are our closest ancestors, or how often I can demonstrate concrete counter-examples to your sweeping generalizations.

But the reality is that when push comes to shove, when you actually start pressing about what it means to be "alpha", all you ever get is a laundry list of vague qualities that are vaguely considered attractive.

So, basically, alpha just means, don't be an obese, lazy, idiot with nothing to offer to anyone or anything?

I'm pretty sure that's most of us! 

And how it looks in real life is a bit different than the chimpanzees


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZjZn6ABaK8


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Bugged said:


> THIS is what you wrote
> 
> you judge people on the basis of how attractive their SOs are..you have the mindset *of a teen age girl*...how old are you?13?
> 
> ...



The irony of your post is not lost on me. You read a post not directed at you and took it personally. You then responded like a jilted schoolgirl, complete with name calling, fake laughter and emoticons. Do you really have to ask whose 13 here?

Your posts are filled with such vitriol and anger. It only demonstrates weak-mindedness and how easily manipulated you are.

You do realize that nobody has the power to make you angry unless you give it to them, right? Stop giving away your power so easily.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Mrs.Submission said:


> I must say that I agree. What is the point of pretending that physical attraction is not important? We all want to be with someone that we find attractive and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> I don't understand why some of us cannot disagree without name calling. We're all adults and we should be able to handle disagreements while still being respectful. Calling someone an "idiot" just because they have a different opinion isn't helpful or mature.



I completely agree. Name calling is unattractive but name calling by a female is extremely unattractive. It conjures up images of a trailer park tramp sitting in her lawn chair cussing and spitting tobacco into a spittoon.

Why some people choose to respond like mental midgets is a mystery to me.


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

always_alone said:


> This discussion began as a question of the importance of alpha for an LTR type situation. But now it is all about getting your "foot in the door" and "playing the lottery"?
> 
> How did that happen?
> 
> ...



See, I think people can change and they can incorporate more Alpha techniques and characteristics. As I mentioned previously, CWI has some good advice on what married men and women, but particularly men, should do in the event of infidelity.

The advice suggests they do a 180, to detach from one's wife, get back in shape and go about their daily lives to promote independence, which in turn promotes strength to the wayward spouse. Once the wayward spouse sees that the betrayed spouse doesn't seem all shaken up and devastated, they view them differently. They see them as someone who is stronger than they thought and more confident as well.

This is all designed to save the marriage, if that is possible, and breaking from the existing habit of showing weakness or appearing too much like a doormat. That is obviously very unattractive.

In theory, applying this sort of logic and employing these kinds of techniques when your not in an infidelity situation should also work. Perhaps a marriage where it has become sexless or one in which the man wishes to change the dynamic and get his wife to really notice him and desire him again on a more frequent basis.

I do think it's a worthy discussion and has merit. Where it goes sideways is when people jump in and start pushing agendas or just disagreeing because they have anger issues with the opposite sex.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> This is all designed to save the marriage, if that is possible, and breaking from the existing habit of showing weakness or appearing too much like a doormat. That is obviously very unattractive.
> 
> In theory, applying this sort of logic and employing these kinds of techniques when your not in an infidelity situation should also work. Perhaps a marriage where it has become sexless or one in which the man wishes to change the dynamic and get his wife to really notice him and desire him again on a more frequent basis.
> 
> I do think it's a worthy discussion and has merit. Where it goes sideways is when people jump in and start pushing agendas or just disagreeing because they have anger issues with the opposite sex.


Actually, where it goes wrong is when someone suggests that this advice actually isn't good for everyone, and won't solve all marital problems. Then the alpha-promoters get their backs up and start talking about how important it is to play the numbers, try to appeal to the most women possible, and how extremely important it is for a man to have hot babes hanging off his arm, and of course, the *only* way this can happen is if he plays the alpha game.

I read this story about a guy, a true story, where he said that he wasn't allowed to be himself. No chance to relax, no chance to let his real thoughts and emotions through, no chance to get real and be vulnerable, no chance to admit to any sort of weakness at all because then his wife wouldn"t think him sexy. "Authenticity is for the birds," he declared, "what's important is that my wife have sex with me.". So he spends his days being the most alpha a$$ he can be, fully believing that *all* women love that, but is still wondering what happened because he has no one to really talk to, no real connection to his wife -- even though they have sex, turns out that it feels a bit hollow because he knows deep down that she doesn"t really love him for him. He is just playing a role for her.

Now, I imagine there is nothing more beta than a man who wants to be fully appreciated and loved for who he is, for all of his self, not just how hot he is, how much money and fancy stuff he has.

But I'm betting that these beta types have better and happier relationships than those who are desperately trying to keep their wayward spouses in line by being the alpha-est dog on the block.

Don't get me wrong: If my SO cheats on me, I too will detach in a hurry and start thinking self-preservation. But I don't think this is either alpha or a particularly useful path to successful relationships for most people.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
maybe this is part of the disagreement on "alpha". I don't particuarly want 50% +1 women to be attracted to me. There is a (possibly small) subset of women who I do like being attracted to me (though being married, I don't act on that attraction), and I think they are less likely to be attracted to "alpha". 





Cletus said:


> If there were traits in a man that 50% + 1 of the female population found attractive, it would behoove a man to exhibit those traits when seeking a mate. It doesn't have to be an every-woman thing to be useful.
> snip


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> No, actually, the title itself means we are discussing the importance of ALPHA. Not "making yourself attractive to a stranger of the opposite sex".


I thought we were discussing the importance of alpha in the context attraction to the opposite sex. 

I'll have to get back to you later. Hugh Jackman and I are going out for drinks. I have a bet with him that I can get more interest from the women than he can. Now I don't have his chiseled jaw, imposing frame, height, washboard abs, a full head of hair, or burly baritone, but I have no doubt that my inner beauty will just shine through to win the day. 

I think I can take him. Especially if it's karaoke night. I saw Les Mis. 

:x


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

always_alone said:


> This discussion began as a question of the importance of alpha for an LTR type situation. But now it is all about getting your "foot in the door" and "playing the lottery"?
> 
> How did that happen?


Sorry. Did I veer off script?



> It strikes me that this propensity to always play dating as a numbers game is precisely the reason we see so many disastrous relationships. Just play the odds, be whoever it is you are "supposed" to be (because it's popular!), spin the wheel, never mind who you are, what you need, (and you'll get the big prize)!


It could be you're right. 



> How is that supposed to work out for the LTR? How could it?


The way it could work, if there's any truth to the proposition, is that you can be many things at once. You can cultivate those aspects of your personality that are attractive to the opposite sex without violating your nature nor your integrity. There's only so much you can do about your looks, but you do the best you can with what you have. But an unattractive man will never be the guy that everyone else in the room is jealous of.




> I know you are fully wedded to this idea that the alpha truth is a universal truth broken only by the few outliers and "exceptions" that no one cares about. And that it doesn't matter how many studies I link to that show quite clearly that these alpha truths only pertain to a small portion of the animal kingdom, and not even by those that are our closest ancestors, or how often I can demonstrate concrete counter-examples to your sweeping generalizations.


Yes, we know, you're the queen of the counter-example. You've made something of a cottage industry out of it here. Which is a great tactic if you're arguing with people who make statements about things being universal truths or pertaining to absolutely everyone.

'Cept I don't see anyone here saying that. Strawman, meet argument. 

My statement is simple, and I'll spell it out so you don't feel inclined to embellish it: all men are not equally attractive to most women. There is some set of both behavior and male beauty traits that will attract more women than they will repel. If that doesn't fit your definition of "alpha", then please, Please, PLEASE ignore this comment. 

As evidence of my thesis, I give you George Clooney. Q.E.D.



> So, basically, alpha just means, don't be an obese, lazy, idiot with nothing to offer to anyone or anything?


No. I have those qualities. A am not alpha. My brother, who also has those qualities, is an alpha. I have 50 years of side-by-side comparison to go by. And he is unequivocally more attractive to the opposite sex than am I. Always has been. Always will be. When we walk in to a room together, no one's head turns towards me. It's his appearance, it's his attitude, and a whole bunch of intangible stuff that makes the whole package. 

That doesn't make me Quasimodo. It doesn't consign me to a life of lonesome deprivation. It just means I have to work a little bit harder to get and retain the attention of a woman. For him, it just happens. Over and over and over...




> And how it looks in real life is a bit different than the chimpanzees


That's because you female hairless apes don't have a swollen backside when interested in copulating. But you have the next best thing - the miniskirt. 

(I know, I know - you don't have a sense of humor either. Mea culpa).


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Sorry. Did I veer off script?


My point wasn't about veering off script, it was about the fact that these discussions always, always claim that alpha is important for LTR, and that the reason we are talking about it is because it is about the long-term, about making marriages work. And yet, they are never actually about LTR. They are about who turns heads when they walk into a room. 

Who cares? 

Tell me, if your alpha brother is so adept at holding the attention of a woman, why is it that he needs to do it over and over and over again? 

You mention George Clooney. Why yes, he is pretty good at turning heads. How good is he at actually having a meaningful relationship? Not so much!

And, it's true, you never claim that what you say is "universal", but you do always insist that it is mostly true and anything else is an exception and an outlier. And I'm pretty sure you understand very well what is meant by those terms. My counter-examples, however, are not about one-offs; they are not about outliers and exceptions: they are about what are absolutely significant parts of the populations that we are speaking about. Of course people like George Clooney who are very good looking and have awesome scriptwriters that make them look like interesting people, not to mention money, gather a lot of interest. But this is simply not the only model that works. Many, many, many examples have been given throughout this thread, but you are only every willing to acknowledge the one model. I still don't get why. 

Truth is that the characteristics that typically define alpha are not about LTR or relationships at all. They are about spending your life competing with other men and hoping that means you get to pork lots of women.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Not one thing on this list is "alpha".
> 
> My beef is with the "alpha" crap. I've never said that people don't need to improve in certain areas if they aren't having luck. Just which areas is under question. Some would say it has to be the "alpha" stuff, and I would say, "no not necessarily...not every woman is the same".
> 
> (And by the way, I know plenty of men and women who smell like bong and sweat who do just fine with the opposite sex....hippies unite!)


Actually, none of them are beta. One could argue that the laughter portion is self confidence which is alpha.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Actually, where it goes wrong is when someone suggests that this advice actually isn't good for everyone, and won't solve all marital problems. Then the alpha-promoters get their backs up and start talking about how important it is to play the numbers, try to appeal to the most women possible, and how extremely important it is for a man to have hot babes hanging off his arm, and of course, the *only* way this can happen is if he plays the alpha game.
> 
> I read this story about a guy, a true story, where he said that he wasn't allowed to be himself. No chance to relax, no chance to let his real thoughts and emotions through, no chance to get real and be vulnerable, no chance to admit to any sort of weakness at all because then his wife wouldn"t think him sexy. "Authenticity is for the birds," he declared, "what's important is that my wife have sex with me.". So he spends his days being the most alpha a$$ he can be, fully believing that *all* women love that, but is still wondering what happened because he has no one to really talk to, no real connection to his wife -- even though they have sex, turns out that it feels a bit hollow because he knows deep down that she doesn"t really love him for him. He is just playing a role for her.
> 
> ...


The betas may have better relationships, but they are not here with issues, because they have better relationships. I do know that many men have success stories in the bedroom by adding some alpha. The key word is 'some'. Mainly things like get in shape, drop the whininess, get active and lead. The fact that you are so dead set against these 4 things is soooo perplexing, because I just don't see why this is so controversial. Other than feminism telling women that they need to be the leader. Which, by the way, has never worked for me.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

always_alone said:


> My point wasn't about veering off script, it was about the fact that these discussions always, always claim that alpha is important for LTR, and that the reason we are talking about it is because it is about the long-term, about making marriages work. And yet, they are never actually about LTR. They are about who turns heads when they walk into a room.
> 
> Who cares?


That depends on if it matters, does it not?

I am engaging in speculation here. I am assuming that the things that initially attract you to a person remain important in a long term relationship, as a force that helps you keep some portion of desire alive when the grind of daily life wears off the newness of the relationship. 

Do you find this notion unreasonable? 



> Tell me, if your alpha brother is so adept at holding the attention of a woman, why is it that he needs to do it over and over and over again?


He was in a 25 year marriage to one of the most attractive and nicest women I have ever known. His Type II bipolar eventually killed his marriage, but that's orthogonal to the argument.



> You mention George Clooney. Why yes, he is pretty good at turning heads. How good is he at actually having a meaningful relationship? Not so much!


I can't say. He's once divorced, which is as common as breathing air these days, and now he's married to an attractive and intelligent woman. A woman who, FWIW, is almost certainly out of my league. 



> And, it's true, you never claim that what you say is "universal", but you do always insist that it is mostly true and anything else is an exception and an outlier.


I don't think I do, but perhaps we're assuming things about each other. When I say most, I mean it in the strictest "more than half" sense, just like an election. That leaves a whole lotta room for "not most" that is not outlier territory. When I say "on average", I mean "mean", not mode or median. 



> And I'm pretty sure you understand very well what is meant by those terms. My counter-examples, however, are not about one-offs; they are not about outliers and exceptions: they are about what are absolutely significant parts of the populations that we are speaking about.


I don't for one minute disagree with any of this. But I will still use the word "most" in the sense that I have defined it above. And we can both still be completely right.

If 60% of the women in the world find a certain kind of man attractive, that still leaves 2 out of every 5 who does not. I can say "most" and be correct. You can say "yeah, but" and still be correct without my statement being wrong. 



> Many, many, many examples have been given throughout this thread, but you are only every willing to acknowledge the one model. I still don't get why.


Are you confusing me with some amalgamation of other posters? I'm not even a big alpha proponent - I think this thread is the first I've ever had anything to say on the matter in my entire time here. Hell, I'm an example of the alternative. I'm not alpha, and I've had my share of girlfriends and a long relatively happy marriage. That still doesn't change the fact that every man here knows from among his peer group a subset of his brothers who have easy and instant access to most of the women in his circle. Just like some women can attract nearly any man they desire. 

I admit that this kind of man or woman is not predisposed to have successful LTRs - I would make a small wager that those at the absolute apex have more trouble by virtue of having so much temptation and so many options. 



> Truth is that the characteristics that typically define alpha are not about LTR or relationships at all. They are about spending your life competing with other men and hoping that means you get to pork lots of women.


The OP made the case that acting more alpha in his relationship improved his attractiveness to his mate. Who am I to tell him he's wrong? It empirically works for some, or at least they think it works. It wouldn't work on you. Not much interesting to read into that statement, but why must you insist that it cannot be useful? And if it's useful, then the next obvious question is "how likely is it to be useful?"


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

naiveonedave said:


> The betas may have better relationships, but they are not here with issues, because they have better relationships. I do know that many men have success stories in the bedroom by adding some alpha. The key word is 'some'. Mainly things like get in shape, drop the whininess, get active and lead. The fact that you are so dead set against these 4 things is soooo perplexing, because I just don't see why this is so controversial. Other than feminism telling women that they need to be the leader. Which, by the way, has never worked for me.


I am not at all opposed to getting in shape, not being a whiner, and being active. Not even slightly. I just don't see how they are at all related to "alpha". As for the "leading" portion, it's not that I'm dead set against it, it's just that I know for a fact that there are an awful lot of relationships where this advice would do more harm than good. If it will help, all is well and good. But here on TAM it is presumed to be the best and only solution for every relationship problem known to man. It is this that I object to.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

always_alone said:


> I am not at all opposed to getting in shape, not being a whiner, and being active. Not even slightly. I just don't see how they are at all related to "alpha". As for the "leading" portion, it's not that I'm dead set against it, it's just that I know for a fact that there are an awful lot of relationships where this advice would do more harm than good. If it will help, all is well and good. But here on TAM it is presumed to be the best and only solution for every relationship problem known to man. It is this that I object to.


just so you know, my take aways from MMSL, which basically is the married man's "get more alpha" book, is pretty much just that. Better shape=more alpha, not whiny=more alphas, etc.

I just don't see it doing more harm than good on TAM. I think the reason it is offered up so much on TAM, is most of the male posters asking for advice are very much milk toast. I know I was in the beginning. Milk toast is the definition of the bad parts of beta, hence the posts telling the OP to man up/be more alpha. 

I agree with you that it is probably not the best advice for everyone, but if you only do the: get in shape, stop whining, start leading, don't be a doormat, at the very worst the man would improve himself. if any man goes overboard on the alpha, that is bad.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cletus said:


> The OP made the case that acting more alpha in his relationship improved his attractiveness to his mate. Who am I to tell him he's wrong? It empirically works for some, or at least they think it works. It wouldn't work on you. Not much interesting to read into that statement, but why must you insist that it cannot be useful? And if it's useful, then the next obvious question is "how likely is it to be useful?"


Yeah, but OP was postulating that when he was acting utterly selfishly and playing video games all the time, that it was *this* that was making him attractive. And that when he became a decent partner, started thinking of others, that's why the decline began.

Do you really think that's plausible? Should we be counselling guys to just sit around and play video games all day and to hell with their spouse? Not even the alpha-promoters think that's a winning combination (although they do seem to believe that selfish=good). 

And yes, I get that there are some women who can pretty much wrap any man around their little fingers, and some men who have women constantly throwing themselves at him. But I don't get why this automatically means we have to start emulating them. Or start thinking that they have some solution to happiness that the rest of us don't possess. 

If your only endgame is to have the most people possible hit on you, then maybe it's worth looking to them for a lesson or two. Otherwise, again, who cares?

As for "most" being more than 50%: I'm glad to see that you are not assuming that it's only outliers and exceptions that might hold to and be successful with a different view. I do still wonder, though, where you get your numbers from and why you are so convinced that "alpha" = attractive to 51% of women. 

Is there any guy at all that's actually attractive to 51% of women? I'm doubting it because, well, Justin Bieber would be too young for almost any woman over the age of 21; George Clooney would be too old for any woman younger than about 45, maybe 40 if you push it; Ryan Gosling might be a good candidate, but I'm not sure he counts as alpha -- and apparently, he has no interest in being crowned sexiest man alive. Brad Pitt, another possible contender, was made the subject of a "he is so ugly" facebook page.

Just because you turn more heads doesn't mean you are turning most heads.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

naiveonedave said:


> I just don't see it doing more harm than good on TAM. I think the reason it is offered up so much on TAM, is most of the male posters asking for advice are very much milk toast. I know I was in the beginning. Milk toast is the definition of the bad parts of beta, hence the posts telling the OP to man up/be more alpha.


I think the advice is useful for some people. And certainly, I would never, ever, ever, counsel anyone to be a whiny doormat. That wouldn't work for anyone.

But I do see it doing more harm than good on TAM. It is advised over and over and over again, regardless of circumstance and without any knowledge of whether the poster is or is not milquetoast. And it often doesn't help at all. Worse, it often introduces conflicts and problems where there were no such problems before. 

I personally wish that the advice here was more sympathetic to and understanding of different personality types and relationship dynamics. The idea that we are mostly carbon copies of each other, and that only certain dynamics are tolerable or can be successful is very limiting, and not particularly helpful to those of us who do not fit easily into the most popular stereotypes.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

always_alone said:


> But I do see it doing more harm than good on TAM. It is advised over and over and over again, regardless of circumstance and without any knowledge of whether the poster is or is not milquetoast. And it often doesn't help at all. Worse, it often introduces conflicts and problems where there were no such problems before.
> 
> I personally wish that the advice here was more sympathetic to and understanding of different personality types and relationship dynamics. The idea that we are mostly carbon copies of each other, and that only certain dynamics are tolerable or can be successful is very limiting, and not particularly helpful to those of us who do not fit easily into the most popular stereotypes.


I guess I have yet to see a thread where a guy 'alphas up' and that the was the wrong thing. But I have not been here too long, so maybe it is just me?

I agree on the dark red, but it is hard to get that much info from the OP, at least in most of the threads I have read.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> And yes, I get that there are some women who can pretty much wrap any man around their little fingers, and some men who have women constantly throwing themselves at him. But I don't get why this automatically means we have to start emulating them. Or start thinking that they have some solution to happiness that the rest of us don't possess.
> 
> .....
> 
> ...


Speaking for my H and myself, sure we both turn a lot of heads and have never been lacking in dates or people trying to pick us up.

But I definitely do NOT have the key to happiness, and neither does he.

We also are both divorced once already and have a complicated relationship with each other which most people wouldn't want any part of...so clearly we have no advantage in relationships.

We are both damaged people, we have major flaws that many would reject us for....which you can't see just by looking at us. So even if someone does want a piece of me based on looks alone, he or she may not once he or she actually gets to know me.

Being checked out a lot or getting asked out a lot really doesn't make me feel like I have any advantage. The thing is, most guys who are clearly checking me out or who ask me out are no one I would be interested in...so what good exactly does it do ME?

Also, even though I'm attractive to many, I've been rejected a lot in my life. Just because I'm attractive to many doesn't really up my chances with those who I am not attractive to...we like what we like and don't like what we don't like. 

Would a lot of guys want to f*ck me if I was handing it out for free?

I've been rejected in that scenario, too. So even if "a lot" would want to, the ones I've had my sights set on are not necessarily the ones who would.

You can see someone and rank them an 8, 9, or 10...yet still that person may be the LAST person you would date for any number of reasons. You may even be an 8, 9 or 10 yourself, and that does not mean you'd be a match and have mutual strong attraction to another 8, 9, or 10.

My experience has been that people find me attractive in general and I get hooted at from passing cars and random strange dudes like to find reasons to talk to me. Yet none of these has EVER brought me even ONE good date.

OTOH, I have many friends and relatives who are of average looks who are in great relationships with people they are mutually attracted to, where they both have a great character and shared values. And they did not meet each other via someone hooting out the car window at them.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

always_alone said:


> it's not that I'm dead set against it, it's just that I know for a fact that there are an awful lot of relationships where this advice would do more harm than good.


I think this may be the crux of the disagreement. Many are responding "it is often harmful advice". Which I think is correct in general as to all marriages.

But I think the core disagreement here on the forum is that some of us believe that male posters who show up on TAM complaining about a lack of sex are not representative of most husbands in the world. Or even most husbands not getting much sex. Some of us believe that the husbands who tend to show up on TAM complaining about the lack of sex tend to be "too beta". And hence "alpha up" is good advice for most of those men. Because we perceive that the those men who are already "too alpha" or "too selfish" or for whatever reason would not benefit from advice to "alpha up" tend not to show up on TAM at all, much less complaining about the lack of sex.

Of course "alpha up" will not universally solve the lack of sex in all marriages. But it will help some marriages. Even some of those discussed in this forum.


----------



## Mrs.Submission (Aug 16, 2015)

Bugged said:


> uh oh..you post on public forum do you realize that?
> If you want to keep a conversation private between you and someone else use PMs...
> trust me..people that judge on appearances are LUDICROUS to me..I wouldn't need them to make ice cubes...>>>
> 
> ...


:rofl::rofl:


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Cletus said:


> If there were traits in a man that 50% + 1 of the female population found attractive, it would behoove a man to exhibit those traits when seeking a mate. It doesn't have to be an every-woman thing to be useful.
> 
> Whether any of the alpha stuff is real or not I'll leave to the folks in the white lab coats. I don't know.
> 
> ...


Not an evolutionary thinker but this is a well thought out and fairly accurate post.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Not discounting anyone and throwing out the term alpha, Cletus is really killing it with his posts.

Well spoken.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Bugged said:


> uh oh..you post on public forum do you realize that?
> If you want to keep a conversation private between you and someone else use PMs...
> trust me..people that judge on appearances are LUDICROUS to me..I wouldn't need them to make ice cubes...>>>
> 
> ...



Well, you're in trouble then because everybody makes judgments on appearance. In fact, we make them within the first 7 seconds of meeting one another. 

You must think that everyone is ludicrous then, which I'm sure would make you the most popular person in your neighborhood.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> Not discounting anyone and throwing out the term alpha, Cletus is really killing it with his posts.
> 
> Well spoken.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Cletus is a wise fellow, despite his slack-jawed demeanor


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Actually, where it goes wrong is when someone suggests that this advice actually isn't good for everyone, and won't solve all marital problems. Then the alpha-promoters get their backs up and start talking about how important it is to play the numbers, try to appeal to the most women possible, and how extremely important it is for a man to have hot babes hanging off his arm, and of course, the *only* way this can happen is if he plays the alpha game.
> 
> I read this story about a guy, a true story, where he said that he wasn't allowed to be himself. No chance to relax, no chance to let his real thoughts and emotions through, no chance to get real and be vulnerable, no chance to admit to any sort of weakness at all because then his wife wouldn"t think him sexy. "Authenticity is for the birds," he declared, "what's important is that my wife have sex with me.". So he spends his days being the most alpha a$$ he can be, fully believing that *all* women love that, but is still wondering what happened because he has no one to really talk to, no real connection to his wife -- even though they have sex, turns out that it feels a bit hollow because he knows deep down that she doesn"t really love him for him. He is just playing a role for her.
> 
> ...


For the most part, this all goes wrong when the two sides talk *past* each other instead of to each other.

One side proposes that certain male traits are attractive to* many *women.

The other side says that those traits aren't attractive to *all* women.

Both statements can be correct.

Then there's the definition of what these traits are. One side will list off 5 traits. The other side focuses on disputing trait #2 instead of working towards agreement on what the positive traits are.

Alpha traits could best be described as traits that attract more women than others. They must exist, by definition. We should be able to argue about what they are, but we can't even get close to having a worthwhile discussion.

Where discussing Alpha traits is most helpful is when they are counter-intuitive. Many men (and boys) are under the impression that the best thing they can do to attract women is to put them on a pedestal. They couldn't be more wrong.

Knowing what alpha traits are doesn't mean that a man has to act (or should act) upon that knowledge. There was a long thread on TAM about a guy whose wife was losing interest in him. It turned out that by employing alpha traits, he was able to regain her interest. But, he wasn't really happy about having to "game" his wife in order to get her to want to be intimate with him. In every other aspect of his life he had to play the "game" and he really would rather just be himself and relax when he was at home.

If I had to "game" my wife into being attracted to me, I wouldn't bother. But, it helps to have an idea as to what's going on and realize that you're not going to fix it by doing more house work. 

So, it's an important topic and it would be nice to have a discussion about it. But, apparently it's not going to happen because many women here apparently live in mortal fear that all the men here are going to turn into PUA asshats.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I have a new analogy. Movies.

There are many genres of movies. There are also big budget ones and small budget ones and everything in between. We give Oscars to what the Academy considers the best movies and actors, etc. each year. But the Academy is a group of people who have bias, and many every day movie watchers don't agree with their choices.

People have their individual tastes in movies, but we can make statistics out of which movies have been seen by more people, have made more money, have run the longest in theatres, and such.

So even though we do have some statistics to go by for which movies win Oscars and which make the most money...how much consensus will there be on any particular movie, even a well loved or much hated one?

Only the people buying movie tickets can vote with their wallets. Meanwhile, a large number of people don't ever pay to see movies in the theatre and rarely see them on the small screen.

So let's say a man and a woman separately decide to make a movie. What kind of movie will it be?

Well, that depends. Do they have a big budget, or no budget? Is their goal to make a block buster, or an indy art film? Do they want to attract movie goers, or are they trying to make a statement, or are they wanting to change the world by spreading new ideas or information? Are they making a slasher flick, a rom com, or a documentary?

Let's say the man and woman each being asking around for other's opinions about the movie they intend to make. What kind of suggestions will they get?

I'm sure they would get every possible suggestion:

Slasher flicks are the way to go!

Has to be an action film!

Oh, a rom com, that's your best bet!

No way, only an art film will be respected.

Heck, make a porno, that's fun!

- - - - - - - 

So they take all these suggestions to heart, but in the end, they really are still restricted by their budget and their particular talents.

People can advise them all day long to "go for the block buster!" because the most people will see the movie and "you'll be famous!"

But if the individuals have no desire to be famous, only to make a great film, that advice will be useless. Or the converse could be true.

Someone may send the film maker some data about how our eyes are attracted to certain things on film and it is suggested that there is an evolutionary reason we can't stop staring at flickering lights in dark theatres.

Yet this data is relatively useless, no matter how it is applied. A good film is a good film only to certain people. And even films that appeal to a lot of people will still only get a slice of the pie of ALL people.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I have a new analogy. Movies.


I'll play. There are certain things known to movie makers that will influence popularity of a movie such as topic, sequels and stars. 

As a rule, the movies that follow those guidelines make more money than those that don't. In fact there's a certain "script" that screenwriters usually follow.

That doesn't prevent epic disasters like Ishtar and the best movies (critical acclaim, profit, etc) are often those that break the rules and do what they truly believe in.

However, that doesn't mean that a potential filmmaker should pay no attention of what "generally" works.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> However, that doesn't mean that a potential filmmaker should pay no attention of what "generally" works.


Again....what if his/her goal isn't to make money or gain fame.

What if his/her goal is to make a statement, or make art, or express themselves, or just put a particular story they are fascinated with on the screen?

What if they have endless money to spend on their film but they don't have a goal of recouping their money, only to make people think?

Everyone does not have the same goal.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> Again....what if his/her goal isn't to make money or gain fame.
> 
> What if his/her goal is to make a statement, or make art, or express themselves, or just put a particular story they are fascinated with on the screen?
> 
> ...


Then they wont be in the cinema game and no major studio will shoot their script. If they are lucky they may get an art house to allow them to display their work but nobody is going to front any money other than the artist themselves. Well, perhaps their parents if they have ones with substantial savings. They will pour their heart and soul into it, and may even have a beautiful piece of art but the chances of many people ever experiencing it are slim. This is how it works for thousands and thousands of indie film makers. Once in awhile they will strike it big and you will happen to hear about it, but you only ever hear about 0.1% of films ever made because in general you watch your films on the big screen or once in awhile you may go to the small art house cinema and watch something you likely never heard much about unless you are a university art student or else it went viral on YouTube.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lon said:


> Then they wont be in the cinema game and no major studio will shoot their script. If they are lucky they may get an art house to allow them to display their work but nobody is going to front any money other than the artist themselves. Well, perhaps their parents if they have ones with substantial savings. They will pour their heart and soul into it, and may even have a beautiful piece of art but the chances of many people ever experiencing it are slim. This is how it works for thousands and thousands of indie film makers. Once in awhile they will strike it big and you will happen to hear about it, but you only ever hear about 0.1% of films ever made because in general you watch your films on the big screen or once in awhile you may go to the small art house cinema and watch something you likely never heard much about unless you are a university art student or else it went viral on YouTube.


And if they made a piece of art they are proud of, and consider it their life's masterpiece and were fulfilled by the entire process of it....couldn't this be compared to a person who meets and mates with their beloved life partner? Even though they didn't get famous or rich, they got the fulfillment (ie: love, sex, both, etc) they were seeking and they were thrilled with the results of it.

Whereas on the sidelines, there are people saying "you are a failure because no one will ever see your movie even though it was good"....why would the film maker care, if their intention was never to gain fame or money, only to make art and express themselves?


----------



## Mostlycontent (Apr 16, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> And if they made a piece of art they are proud of, and consider it their life's masterpiece and were fulfilled by the entire process of it....couldn't this be compared to a person who meets and mates with their beloved life partner? Even though they didn't get famous or rich, they got the fulfillment (ie: love, sex, both, etc) they were seeking and they were thrilled with the results of it.
> 
> Whereas on the sidelines, there are people saying "you are a failure because no one will ever see your movie even though it was good"....why would the film maker care, if their intention was never to gain fame or money, only to make art and express themselves?


FW,

Your analogy is applicable to a degree but it's virtually impossible to compare a capitalistic scenario with one that is clearly not. By an large, their goals and objectives aren't the same.

I understand what you mean, but being an idealistic movie maker who doesn't care if his/her films make any money is likely to have a very short career.

As others have stated, there is a formula or quasi formula that most use because it has shown statistically to be more successful.

I think that's all any of us are saying on this Alpha issue. Will it always work? No. Will it work some of the time or even a majority of the time? Potentially yes might be the answer. I don't think it's accurate to say that it will never work as some here have implied because we've seen and read stories to the contrary.

You can't paint everyone or everything with the same brush but you can find things that a majority of the population might find attractive and shoot for that. Your individual results may vary from there.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

How about we look at the guys in the movie.

The one that the woman finds herself hating ... and then remarkably if not begrudgingly, finds herself swooning over?

Everyone says they hate that formulaic stuff.

Yet ... everyone goes to see it. Because the formula works. 

You know, like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mostlycontent said:


> Your analogy is applicable to a degree but it's virtually impossible to compare a capitalistic scenario with one that is clearly not. By an large, their goals and objectives aren't the same.
> 
> And the goals and objectives of people who are dating are not the same, either. You assume "all men" or "most men" have the same goal, yet they do not. Some men simply want to find one woman who loves them for who they are, where you are saying this isn't the case, that "most men" want several women hanging off each arm, and all of the women must be cheerleaders.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Deejo said:


> How about we look at the guys in the movie.
> 
> The one that the woman finds herself hating ... and then remarkably if not begrudgingly, finds herself swooning over?
> 
> ...


Define "works". And no not "everyone" goes to see it...there is actually a fairly small percentage of the population that sees any one movie.

What percentage of the population (or even of women) does it work for, how does it work, and how did you tabulate your data?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Deejo said:


> How about we look at the guys in the movie.
> 
> The one that the woman finds herself hating ... and then remarkably if not begrudgingly, finds herself swooning over?
> 
> ...


I hated that movie but like your point.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I loved that movie but disagree with his point.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> What percentage of the population (or even of women) does it work for, how does it work, and how did you tabulate your data?


How about you show me the data you have on why your husband is hot and you desire him?

Surely you did this research prior to getting hitched?


You keep asking for data and science.

It's like asking for scientific evidence for why kids like getting presents on their birthday.


You should be pleased, that nowhere in this study, do they use the word, 'Alpha' to refer to human subjects. Further, you should be pleased that this study also validates your proposal that women enjoy sex just as much as men. The metric is promiscuity. The outcome is defining a sexual phenotype. AKA someone who is going to come up with a strategy to bang ... a lot. That's my quote, not the study's.

Stay or stray? Evidence for alternative mating strategy phenotypes in both men and women | Biology Letters

Or, you could try; 

The Red Queen
http://www.amazon.com/The-Red-Queen-Evolution-Nature/dp/0060556579


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Here are some generalities that can be backed up by stats. 

Most people are straight and are attracted to the opposite sex.

Most people have sex and most people get married at least once.

Most people are in the average range of attractiveness.

How do these things get twisted into ideas that are not supported by statistics?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

ConanHub said:


> I hated that movie but like your point.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My point was primarily sarcastic.

How often do we see women swooning over Michael Cera in movies.

Now how about Tom Cruise? Even in his 50's. Or Sean Connery?

Who do you think most women are going to fundamentally DESIRE?

Maverick and Bond, or socially awkward kid from Arrested Development?

I don't think we disagree CH.

I do often wonder why keep arguing about it though ... with our fairer colleagues.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Deejo, the first link did not take me to the study so I can't see what and who it was based on. The other link was apparently based on some hypothesis but I could again not see the basis.

If you like I can find you some research that fully supports what I am saying based on hypothesis also.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> Here are some generalities that can be backed up by stats.
> 
> Most people are straight and are attracted to the opposite sex.
> 
> ...


So you didn't like my study? I'm shocked ... :smile2:

On a serious note, I often don't understand why you get your heels dug in on this.

You acknowledge that 'game' is a thing ... and that it works. Nobody argues with the notion if your flabby and frumpy, that getting buff and dressing better garners more attention.

At the end of the day for me, this indeed comes down to mating strategy ... and the bottom line is MOST guys are going to want to do the things that get them LAID more, whether they are with their soul mate, or Tinder buddy.

So if the discussion of behaviors that leads to that metric has a moniker, what is the big deal?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Deejo said:


> ConanHub said:
> 
> 
> > I hated that movie but like your point.
> ...


Because again, there are no reliable stas that prove what you are saying.

If we create a thread asking women who they think is hot (which has been done here before) you will get a huge number of vastly different answers. The answers will be based on women's individual preferences, some influenced by the ages of the respondents, and many other factors.

The only thing you would be able to determine from it is that straight women are typically attracted to men.

The only thing in common about the men they pick would be that they are generally healthy by outward appearances.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo, the first link did not take me to the study so I can't see what and who it was based on. The other link was apparently based on some hypothesis but I could again not see the basis.
> 
> If you like I can find you some research that fully supports what I am saying based on hypothesis also.


Nah ... I'd rather just argue. 
It's hot.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some generalities that can be backed up by stats.
> ...


Please show me any reliable stats that show that "most men want to do the things that get them laid more". 

I can show stats that show that "most men want to be in love and be loved" more than they want to get laid more.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

truster said:


> Next relationship, do I need to continue to make a conscious effort to maintain alpha status (to an extent, of course) in order to keep respect and fidelity sacred, or was I just married to an example of a person who wasn't representative of a lot of women?


So to address your opening post and question, rather than argument that has gone on here for years ... and likely will until the sun burns out ... or at least the internet is just broadcast directly into our cortex ...

What you need in your next relationship isn't necessarily, 'Alpha'.

What you need is a clear understanding of what YOU define as respect, and require in terms of reciprocity in an intimate relationship.

You need boundaries. And you need to hold them. Not to hold onto to any woman, but to have a clear and distinct vision of the man you want to be. The individual you hold yourself accountable for being.

I simply call it a code of conduct.

You will certainly benefit from understanding what behaviors you may exhibit that foster attraction and desire with a woman, or many women, and what behaviors undermine it. 

You don't have to be someone else to be attractive.

But you do need to know who you are, and be that guy, making apologies to no one for it.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> Please show me any reliable stats that show that "most men want to do the things that get them laid more".
> 
> I can show stats that show that "most men want to be in love and be loved" more than they want to get laid more.


I can't. You said the link is broken.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Here's the abstract:



> *In all comparative analyses, humans always fall on the borderline between obligate monogamy and polygamy. Here, we use behavioural indices (sociosexuality) and anatomical indices (prenatal testosterone exposure indexed by 2D : 4D digit ratio) from three human populations to show that this may be because there are two distinct phenotypes in both sexes. While males are more promiscuous and display higher prenatal testosterone exposure than females overall, our analyses also suggest that the within-sex variation of these variables is best described by two underlying mixture models, suggesting the presence of two phenotypes with a monogamous/promiscuous ratio that slightly favours monogamy in females and promiscuity in males. The presence of two phenotypes implies that mating strategy might be under complex frequency-dependent selection.*


So, here is what I get out just the abstract. Which I already knew ...

Some individuals ... of both sexes, leverage behavioral or cultural traits to create MORE opportunities for themselves, to have sex.

The discussion of Alpha traits at it's core, is discussing mating strategy.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Then there's the definition of what these traits are. One side will list off 5 traits. The other side focuses on disputing trait #2 instead of working towards agreement on what the positive traits are.
> 
> Alpha traits could best be described as traits that attract more women than others. They must exist, by definition. We should be able to argue about what they are, but we can't even get close to having a worthwhile discussion.


Well, at least part of the problem is that there are a million different definitions of "alpha'. Some people want it to mean "whatever is attractive to women". Some people want to tie it to evolutionary theory, and insist that it has to do with leadership and dominance. And on and on. 

So, let's just agree for the sake of argument: alpha is purely defined as what you suggest "will attract more women than others". Where does this take us? Right back to where we started: good looking people are attractive and will turn more heads. Failing good looks, they had best be famous. 

Ergo, calling someone "alpha" is saying nothing more than saying they are very good looking. Or are somehow famous. (Unless they're women, of course, 'cuz then only good looks counts. Nothing else does.)


Good enough?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

And don't be this guy ...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Here's the abstract:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ummm, but that isn't what the study is about at all. What it's saying is that there is a bimodal distribution for both men and women, where some are inclined to monogamy and some to polygamy. 

It doesn't say anything about leveraging traits to get more sex at all. It is about promiscuity vs fidelity -- but you can have an awful lot of sex in a monogamous relationship.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Deejo said:


> How about you show me the data you have on why your husband is hot and you desire him?
> 
> Surely you did this research prior to getting hitched?


Here's some data on this...

I have many hot and horny girlfriends.

Not a single one of them is hot for my husband. They all consider him "attractive" and "a good guy", and they can all clearly see that we are into each other and can understand the dynamic between us. Yet none of them are feeling it themselves.

Why?

Because we are individuals with varied preferences.

Likewise, I'm not hot for any of their guys.

We've been friends for a very long time, and over the years have compared notes about guys we were into. Our preferences NEVER overlapped.

"You like him? Ew, so not my type".

or...

"Yeah, he's kind of cute but I don't see him as a totally hot guy like you do".

or similar responses happened, every single time. Meanwhile, the one of us who was hot for the guy in question had our reasons for it. But is there any way we could convince another woman to see it, too? Nope. They either feel it or they don't.

And on that point....

When I first met my husband, I was attracted to him but I definitely did NOT see him as the uber hottie I see him as now. Because the attraction got stronger as I fell in and and as we found we were so amazingly sexually compatible.

He hasn't changed his look one bit but my attraction for him has skyrocketed.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> I do often wonder why keep arguing about it though ... with our fairer colleagues.


Because invariably you keep putting words in our mouths about what we like and do not like.

I get that men can only find the likes of Kate Upton and Kim Kardashian attractive, and that all men think exactly the same way about what constitutes an attractive woman, and that unless we undergo massive makeovers (with some cosmetic surgery) and become like these celebrities, are nothing more than consolation prizes or settled for. 

And that's fine. Like what you like.

But don't tell me what I like! Just because there are a million teeny-boppers screaming for Justin Bieber doesn't mean that he actually has much in the way of attractive qualities that men would be well advised to emulate in order to get laid more. 

Just because a million women find Tom Cruise handsome, doesn't mean many of them are actually interested in banging his overly-controlling Scientology-loving a$$. And just because Sean Connery was probably voted sexiest man alive more times than anyone else doesn't mean women are still lusting after his aging body. 

What I find myself arguing against most in all of these discussions about "alpha", is the endless assumption that there is *one* metric that all women respond to because "that's how we're wired". But it ain't true. There are all sorts of traits that can get men laid more -- but what exactly those traits are differ depending on which woman is thinking about laying him. 

Does that mean that we can't make some overly-general generalizations about things that are attractive? No. We can say things like, yes it helps to be good-looking, yes it helps to be a household name, yes it helps to not be a total a$$hole, yes, it helps to stay in reasonable shape.

But mostly these pieces of advice are pretty vague and meaningless -- especially when it comes to the end goal of getting laid more.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Deejo said:


> I do often wonder why keep arguing about it though ... with our fairer colleagues.


Always answered this and I will, too.

I don't know why you keep arguing with me, but I will tell you why I keep arguing with you and others.

If "most" women are attracted to only a certain type of man, then why are "most" men going to be married in their lives at the same time that "most" men are of average looks. (Same sentence can be said using the reverse gendering).

Why is this fact ignored in these discussions?

No one can give any stats that disprove this. It seems to me that this should be obvious, since it is proven by statistics over and over....yet there is no statistics that "most" men or women like any particular thing, other than the opposite sex, and a partner that is generally healthy.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> \.
> 
> If "most" women are attracted to only a certain type of man, then why are "most" men going to be married in their lives at the same time that "most" men are of average looks. (Same sentence can be said using the reverse gendering).


There are many possible answers to that question, some of them supporting your hypothesis, some of them not. 

Maybe the fact that half of all marriages end in divorce is because too many people are settling for something that they weren't all that attracted to in the first place, or manufactured temporary but ultimately not long lasting attraction.

Not proposing this as truth, just sayin'.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> There are many possible answers to that question, some of them supporting your hypothesis, some of them not.
> 
> Maybe the fact that half of all marriages end in divorce is because too many people are settling for something that they weren't all that attracted to in the first place, or manufactured temporary but ultimately not long lasting attraction.
> 
> Not proposing this as truth, just sayin'.


Ok how about this...(not discounting what you just said either, but I could point out why it doesn't add up to "most women want alpha males" very easily...but anyway)...

If the evolutionary hypothesis is true, then why are all males not tall and attractive in a movie star way? Wouldn't the genetic pool have been directly affected by these claims?

Yet instead, what we see is a huge diversity in humans. Which to me would indicate that women are attracted to a huge diversity of men, rather than "mostly tall alpha studs".

There are two evolutionary theories here. One theory is that men populated the earth mostly by rape, and the other is that women are the choosers. In EITHER scenario, wouldn't it be expected that the genetic pool ended up being that all males were taller than they are now and had more in common physically with each other than they do?


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok how about this...
> 
> If the evolutionary hypothesis is true, then why are all males not tall and attractive in a movie star way? Wouldn't the genetic pool have been directly affected by these claims?


You forgot about sexual dimorphism. Shorter women have more offspring.

Evolutionary Battle of the Sexes Drives Human Height

Yep, you saw it here first: yet _another_ battle of the sexes. Women do in fact prefer taller men. Whatever you do, don't follow the link that talks about how women prefer sexier men over dependable men when ovulating.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> You forgot about sexual dimorphism. Shorter women have more offspring.
> 
> Evolutionary Battle of the Sexes Drives Human Height
> 
> Yep, you saw it here first: yet _another_ battle of the sexes. Women do in fact prefer taller men.


Alright then disregarding height....what about all the other qualities that you and others claim "most" women are attracted to?

(Height is not exclusive to "alpha" males anyway, plenty of betas are tall.)


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I have a new analogy. Movies.


What I like best about this analogy is that it allows for easy distinction between popularity and quality. A distinction that's often completely overlooked in these alpha conversations. 

I also think the genre analogy is useful, as we do tend to gravitate towards people who share our worldviews and values. If someone hates romantic comedies, for example, odds are they're not ever going to watch one, no matter how good (looking) it is.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> What I like best about this analogy is that it allows for easy distinction between popularity and quality. A distinction that's often completely overlooked in these alpha conversations.
> 
> I also think the genre analogy is useful, as we do tend to gravitate towards people who share our worldviews and values. If someone hates romantic comedies, for example, odds are they're not ever going to watch one, no matter how good (looking) it is.


And yet Deejo already replied to me that going for the "formula" film is always the best answer. Because money.

Apparently, he doesn't believe that some people would rather make art than money.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cletus said:


> You forgot about sexual dimorphism. Shorter women have more offspring.
> 
> Evolutionary Battle of the Sexes Drives Human Height
> 
> Yep, you saw it here first: yet _another_ battle of the sexes. Women do in fact prefer taller men.


Isn't this telling us that men prefer short women? :scratchhead: I mean, if short women have more babies, this says more about the men who inseminates them than the woman, yes?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> And yet Deejo already replied to me that going for the "formula" film is always the best answer. Because money.
> 
> Apparently, he doesn't believe that some people would rather make art than money.


Well, from what I've gathered about alpha men on this thread is that they are quite obsessed by money and status, and ensuring that all of their friends envy how hot their SO is. 

So you know, blockbuster popularity will always win, no matter how stupid the characters are or how banal the writing.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Alright then disregarding height....what about all the other qualities that you and others claim "most" women are attracted to?
> 
> (Height is not exclusive to "alpha" males anyway, plenty of betas are tall.)


Let's not lose sight of the fact that the very thing you proposed as a counter-example turns out to actually be the thing you were arguing to reject - it just competes with a counter force in women that keeps it from dominating the genome. *The alpha trait of height as a predictor of improved reproductive viability is born out in this study.* And then all you short women go about having extra kids and nullify it. 

So I thank you for helping me prove my point. 

Maybe evolution doesn't even apply to some of these traits - perhaps appreciation of many of these traits is learned and shifting over time - which makes them important only in the time in which they hold sway over a population. Which doesn't mean they aren't important, just not innate to the species. A guy looking to get laid in 1910 probably wore a bowler and a mustache. 

If they are in our genes, and have an evolutionary heritage, then perhaps those qualities are actually increasing in the population but no one knows how to measure them. Perhaps Gould was right with his theory of Punctuated equilibrium, where evolution proceeds in fits and starts with long periods of stability in between. And just maybe more of the men from 500,000 years in the future will have broad shoulders, square jaws, and deeper voices. 

Humans are a very poor species with which to study evolution. We've reduced the effects of natural selection through society and medicine. We mix and intermingle so much that it's now rare for any sub-group to become perfectly isolated from the rest of the population. And we're smart - smart enough to ignore our evolutionary urges when we so desire.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Isn't this telling us that men prefer short women? :scratchhead: I mean, if short women have more babies, this says more about the men who inseminates them than the woman, yes?


Sure seems that way, doesn't it? 

I guess one of the alpha female traits is to be of average or below average height.

Who hasn't heard a tall women complain that she suffers in a very shallow dating pool?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Let's not lose sight of the fact that the very thing you proposed as a counter-example turns out to actually be the thing you were arguing to reject - it just competes with a counter force in women that keeps it from dominating the genome. *The alpha trait of height as a predictor of improved reproductive viability is born out in this study.* And then all you short women go about having extra kids and nullify it.
> 
> So I thank you for helping me prove my point.
> 
> ...


I agree with the bolded.

*Now how on earth do you come up with taller = alpha?*

I have never said that women don't prefer taller guys when surveying people....(men prefer them too, they hire them more, etc)....but where is there any proof that alpha = taller?

Perhaps taller = an indication of health, and therefore, since all species can detect health via visual cues, that could be the reason for the choice. (Or it could be as you said, just a cultural thing).


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Greetings!

Embracing "Alpha" attributes is not applicable only to men that won the "genetic lottery" and have movie-star good looks. Any man can embrace such attributes, and be more successful, with women *in general*. Not all women. Not *every* woman, but *MORE WOMEN, IN GENERAL*.

For example, James Hogbeast.

James Hogbeast:

(1): is 6'4" and huge. He's a Hogbeast.

(2): James dresses poorly.

(3): James has poor hygiene.

(4): James is emo, whiny, and feminized.

(5): James is awkward and socially retarded.

(6): James has a part time job flipping burgers.

James, by his own admission, fails with women, and is routinely rejected by women. By the way, James Hogbeast does not have "movie-star" looks.

James Hogbeast joins the Marine Corps. Two years in, *everything* has changed for James. He's no longer Hogbeast...he's Ironbeast now. James is far more attractive to women, *in general* now, and before, he had no girlfriends. Now, however, he has many girlfriends. Oh, and James still does not have "movie-star" good looks, but he does look good. Everything changed for him...no "genetic lottery" required.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Maybe evolution doesn't even apply to some of these traits - perhaps appreciation of many of these traits is learned and shifting over time - which makes them important only in the time in which they hold sway over a population. Which doesn't mean they aren't important, just not innate to the species. A guy looking to get laid in 1910 probably wore a bowler and a mustache.


Exactly, which has nothing to do with evolution or biology, except for the fact that they are men and women are attracted to men.

That's why it is silly to say "most" women like such and such and then try to blame this on evolution.

The best you can do is segregate a certain group of women by age or class or whatever and ask them what they like. They may have similar answers, but the answers won't be the same as the same group in another time period or another culture.

If it is truly biology and evolution, we would not see so much variation and it wouldn't change with fashion changes.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Exactly, which has nothing to do with evolution or biology, except for the fact that they are men and women are attracted to men.
> 
> That's why it is silly to say "most" women like such and such and then try to blame this on evolution.


That's an argument from false dichotomy. If such a thing as an alpha male exists, he could be alpha from a combination of many things, some of them evolutionary, some of them situational, and some of them learned.

Yesterday's alpha Don Draper is seen as today's neanderthal. But that doesn't mean he wasn't king of the sh*t pile in 1962. And even when he's behaving in a way we today find unacceptable, he still looks pretty damned good doing it.



> The best you can do is segregate a certain group of women by age or class or whatever and ask them what they like. They may have similar answers, but the answers won't be the same as the same group in another time period or another culture.


Never argued otherwise. You'll never hear me say that what's attractive today is immutable, but you'll also never hear me say that biology plays no part. Complex problems don't have simple answers, and I won't try to give you any. 

If alpha exists, then "Being alpha" is almost certainly both situational and biological. 

Your application of evolutionary theory is a little naive too. Variation is the prime engine of evolution. In your world, sickle cell anemia (to mention one of a gazillion genetic disorders) should have been removed from the gene pool a long time ago. That one actually kills people. If you're truly interested in the topic, read some Stephan Jay Gould. He's fantastic.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Sure seems that way, doesn't it?
> 
> I guess one of the alpha female traits is to be of average or below average height.
> 
> Who hasn't heard a tall women complain that she suffers in a very shallow dating pool?


Oh, don't worry. I'm fully sold on the idea that men only are attracted to about 2% of women, and get rest of us are consolation prizes at best. 

The challenge is for the men to keep butting heads to see who scores that 2%

That said, really then it doesn't matter what most or many women like or are attracted to. It's what that 2% will respond to. I get it.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Exactly, which has nothing to do with evolution or biology, except for the fact that they are men and women are attracted to men.
> 
> That's why it is silly to say "most" women like such and such and then try to blame this on evolution.
> 
> ...


I'm realizing now that alpha doesn't mean anything at all beyond "what might get men laid.". If they are getting laid, they are alpha even if they cry every time they see Bambi, even if they are the whiniest video game playing "hogbeast" out there. "Beta", on the other hand, means "not getting laid.enough". Doesn't matter if he is tall, rich, famous, successful, dominant, whatever. Not enough sex = beta.

Of course, this should change all the stereotypical advice doled out to men on being alpha, because it really doesn't have anything at all to do with anything but amount of sex -- but I'm betting we'll still keep trotting out the same old popularity contests to "prove" alphadom.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> That's an argument from false dichotomy. If such a thing as an alpha male exists, he could be alpha from a combination of many things, some of them evolutionary, some of them situational, and some of them learned.


Except, I'm the one who is saying that alpha males do not exist.

And I have always been saying that what attracts us involves biology, culture, psychology (current to your own peers and yourself).

The guys around here are the ones who keep saying it is ALL alpha and ALL evolution. Not me. (Not saying you are saying that.)

However, you do keep saying (I think) that "alpha traits" are what "most" women want, and I keep asking you to prove any certain traits are "alpha", based on some kind of statistics.

I'll keep waiting...knowing that no such statistics exist.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I'm realizing now that alpha doesn't mean anything at all beyond "what might get men laid.". If they are getting laid, they are alpha even if they cry every time they are Bambi, even if they are the whiniest videotape playing "hogbeast" out there. "Beta", on the other hand, means "not getting laid.enough". Doesn't matter if he is tall, rich, famous, successful, dominant, whatever. Not enough see = beta.
> 
> Of course, this should change all the stereotypical advice doled out to men on being alpha, because it really doesn't have anything at all to do with anything but amount of sex -- but I'm betting we'll still keep trotting out the same old popularity contests to "prove" alohadom.


The funny thing about this is....I could easily give guys tips on how to get more sex, and they have nothing to do with alpha or beta, yet they would certainly work.

A few times I've heard people saying you should ask people who are successful at what you are trying to accomplish for advice, not just ask scientists or your peers who are not successful at it.

And quite a few people (not meaning here at TAM) have asked me for advice based on that criteria.

And I've gotten some feedback about their success....which is overall pretty good.

But nah, these guys who want more sex here and across the interwebs would rather ask dudes who didn't naturally know how but learned a bunch of schemes and rapey crap from other creeps, and pass that around to each other.

(shrug)

It works for some.

But I'd be sooooo interested in getting some stats on that, too.

For every book or coaching session sold to those guys, I would guess a very low overall success rate if you added them all up and asked them to report on it.

On the websites, of course you're only going to read the glowing testimonials.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Your application of evolutionary theory is a little naive too. Variation is the prime engine of evolution. In your world, sickle cell anemia (to mention one of a gazillion genetic disorders) should have been removed from the gene pool a long time ago. That one actually kills people. If you're truly interested in the topic, read some Stephan Jay Gould. He's fantastic.


Sickle cell offers protection against malaria, and so is highly adaptive in certain environmental contexts.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> The funny thing about this is....I could easily give guys tips on how to get more sex, and they have nothing to do with alpha or beta, yet they would certainly work.


It strikes me that, first and foremost, it would be helpful to improve their pickers, and instead of assuming that they are playing a lottery, and that all hot women are created equal, maybe pay a bit more attention to who she is as a person, to compatibility, and to shared values.

Also helpful would be to get awesome at sex. I know the de facto assumption is that they are already so, but given how few women orgasm, I suspect this might not be so totally true.

And my third tip would be to spend more effort in building a connection rather than playing games around being detached, uncaring, happy enough to move on to the next girl.

But maybe that's just me? :scratchhead:

Not sure, and I'm not one of the popular ones, so maybe I'm missing something important.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I'll keep waiting...knowing that no such statistics exist.


I will take a quick look 'round when I get some free time and see what turns up. Perhaps I'll find that there's no good evidence one way or the other. Perhaps I'll find it's been debunked. That should give you ample time to produce the data showing that affirmative consent will reduce the date rape frequency. 

We'll meet in the middle.


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> But I'd be sooooo interested in getting some stats on that, too.
> 
> For every book or coaching session sold to those guys,* I would guess a very low overall success rate if you added them all up and asked them to report on it.
> *
> On the websites, of course you're only going to read the glowing testimonials.


That would indeed be interesting, and I'm inclined to agree that the overall success rate would be somewhat dismal after reading the tripe on many of those sites.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> I will take a quick look 'round when I get some free time and see what turns up. Perhaps I'll find that there's no good evidence one way or the other. Perhaps I'll find it's been debunked. That should give you ample time to produce the data showing that affirmative consent will reduce the date rape frequency.
> 
> *We'll meet in the middle*.


Ok, how about Benihana's?


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> The guys around here are the ones who keep saying it is ALL alpha and ALL evolution.


*waves hands* Umm...and there are some of us "guys" that feel the whole Alpha/Beta/MMSLP/MRA/PUA (I think I covered them...heh) happens to be a load of horseshyte...just sayin FW, k?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Again....what if his/her goal isn't to make money or gain fame.
> 
> What if his/her goal is to make a statement, or make art, or express themselves, or just put a particular story they are fascinated with on the screen?
> 
> ...


Am I safe in assuming that they don't want to *lose* money?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Am I safe in assuming that they don't want to *lose* money?


No.

One of my parameters was that some of them may have an endless budget, yet no need or desire to recoup their money.

The point was, there is a huge variety in the desires of the film makers, their budgets, and their goals.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MountainRunner said:


> *waves hands* Umm...and there are some of us "guys" that feel the whole Alpha/Beta/MMSLP/MRA/PUA (I think I covered them...heh) happens to be a load of horseshyte...just sayin FW, k?



You're right...I was only referring to the guys who DO claim those things. Plenty of you guys keep offering "not me, this doesn't describe me"...yet you are ignored by those guys just like I am. Because you don't fit what they want to believe, therefore they just call you "an outlier".


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's some data on this...
> 
> I have many hot and horny girlfriends.
> 
> ...


Now this is very interesting ... to get to the absolute truth of this matter, it's probably best that I just come out there and personally interview a statistical sample of your colleagues.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Yeah, but OP was postulating that when he was acting utterly selfishly and playing video games all the time, that it was *this* that was making him attractive. And that when he became a decent partner, started thinking of others, that's why the decline began.
> 
> *Do you really think that's plausible?*


Unfortunately, I do. 

In my naïve, innocent days I wouldn't have.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Sure seems that way, doesn't it?
> 
> I guess one of the alpha female traits is to be of average or below average height.
> 
> Who hasn't heard a tall women complain that she suffers in a very shallow dating pool?


So, I was thinking more about this, and while it's true that Kim Kardashian is quite short, Kate Upton is 5'10. I don't suppose that she or any other of the supermodels that are the ideal that all women must be ranked against are suffering a shallow dating pool. 

And since 5'10 is actually quite short for a supermodel, maybe we actually need to re-think at least some of our easy assumptions about what is or is not attractive to most people?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Unfortunately, I do.
> 
> In my naïve, innocent days I wouldn't have.


So I assume you will be playing a lot more video games in the future? And generally acting like a selfish git who doesn't care about his partner?

And counseling all other guys to follow suit?

Let me know how that works out for you, would you?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> Ummm, but that isn't what the study is about at all. What it's saying is that there is a bimodal distribution for both men and women, where some are inclined to monogamy and some to polygamy.
> 
> It doesn't say anything about leveraging traits to get more sex at all. It is about promiscuity vs fidelity -- but you can have an awful lot of sex in a monogamous relationship.


Sure it does. 

Do you think people just walk around wearing promiscuity buttons, or do you think they may think and act in a particular manner that makes them appealing to potential partners, regardless of their relationship status?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Now this is very interesting ... to get to the absolute truth of this matter, it's probably best that I just come out there and personally interview a statistical sample of your colleagues.


I've told ya before a few times...I already have some hotties in mind for you.

But you keep either getting girlfriends and traveling and not coming out here and stuff like that.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Oh, don't worry. I'm fully sold on the idea that men only are attracted to about 2% of women, and get rest of us are consolation prizes at best.


I'm getting a feeling for what motivates you.

Basically men are pigs for displaying certain behaviors. So it's of the utmost importance to establish that women don't display any of those same behaviors. Otherwise, women would be no better than..... men.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> I've told ya before a few times...I already have some hotties in mind for you.
> 
> But you keep either getting girlfriends and traveling and not coming out here and stuff like that.


Yeah ... I know ...

I'm pretty much monogamized at the moment.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Cletus said:


> I will take a quick look 'round when I get some free time and see what turns up. Perhaps I'll find that there's no good evidence one way or the other. Perhaps I'll find it's been debunked. That should give you ample time to produce the data showing that affirmative consent will reduce the date rape frequency.
> 
> We'll meet in the middle.


Statistics absolutely solve all important questions. That's why there are never any disagreements between statisticians. Hearing statistics spewed by competing political candidates has always served me well when deciding who to vote for.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> So I assume you will be playing a lot more video games in the future? And generally acting like a selfish git who doesn't care about his partner?
> 
> And counseling all other guys to follow suit?
> 
> Let me know how that works out for you, would you?


Probable? No.

Plausible? Yes.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Sure it does.
> 
> Do you think people just walk around wearing promiscuity buttons, or do you think they may think and act in a particular manner that makes them appealing to potential partners, regardless of their relationship status?


The study says nothing about this. This is purely your set of assumptions.

And yes, I do think that people will act in ways to make themselves appealing to others, whether in a monogamous relationship or playing the field. Lots of men and women, for example, will pretend to be interested in things that bore them silly, or will tell stories that they think will make them look good, and will often be on their very best behaviour, careful to conceal their flaws. They may keep their house in better order, wear nicer clothes, shine their shoes, name drop, dish out compliments, act gallant, scare off the "competition", hide their porn stash, write love poetry, send naked pictures, buy surprising gifts, or bake brownies. I know a guy who remodeled his bathroom with a giant two person tub to make himself more attractive to potential mates.

Point being is that yes, we do things to impress each other, but the actual concrete *what* we do, and *what* actually impresses are all over the map.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I'm getting a feeling for what motivates you.
> 
> Basically men are pigs for displaying certain behaviors. So it's of the utmost importance to establish that women don't display any of those same behaviors. Otherwise, women would be no better than..... men.


?????? You couldn't be further from the truth. I do not think women are better than men, or should be thought to be so. I do not actually believe that men only look at superficial characteristics, and even when they do, I see that very different configurations of superficial are considered to be top rank.

What I'm trying to do is show just how absurd the claims being made about women are by reversing the spin. I'm secretly hoping that when I get called out for calling men pigs and putting words in their mouths that I can then point out that this is exactly the same sort of claptrap being said about women.

And that while there may be some tiny grain of truth in the numbers game theory of relationship success, it is most certainly only a small piece of the story, and absolutely not the most important one. 

Especially if the end game is to get laid.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> Most people are in the average range of attractiveness.


Ok, back this one up.

I personally don't believe this is the case, which the whole premise of the sociosexual spectrum, alpha-beta, model. The average person is the average amount of attractiveness, but the distribution curve is not symmetrical, or at least not for men. The 20/80 rule (or some ratio thereabouts) applies to men. "Most" guys fall below the "average" attractiveness because the top guys skew the curve and the median guy never has women swooning over him.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lon said:


> Ok, back this one up.
> 
> I personally don't believe this is the case, which the whole premise of the sociosexual spectrum, alpha-beta, model. The average person is the average amount of attractiveness, but the distribution curve is not symmetrical, or at least not for men. The 20/80 rule (or some ratio thereabouts) applies to men. "Most" guys fall below the "average" attractiveness because the top guys skew the curve and the median guy never has women swooning over him.


Most people fall in the middle of every bell curve, including objective attractiveness.

I did not say that most guys having women swooning over them. I did say that most men get married and most men have sex.

However, just because multiple women aren't swooning over an average guy doesn't mean that his wife or girlfriend isn't swooning over him. It doesn't mean she is, either...but I've known so many average men and women who, being in love, were absolutely swooning over each other. Haven't you known these people? There are so many of them. Many more of these than the types who have multiples swooning...wouldn't it just be expected that the people on the high end of the bell curve would have more swooners, men and women? And does that excessive swooning really mean only those people will have lots of good sex? There is really no reason and nothing that concludes that average people have any less satisfying and mutually fulfilling sex (including being attracted to their partners).

The 20/80 "rule" is a bunch of nonsense that PUA blogs came up with, and I don't buy any of the alpha-beta model crap by the way. But I still responded to the spirit of your post.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's some data on this...
> 
> I have many hot and horny girlfriends.
> 
> ...


I disagree... I believe they don't go after hin because you and him have healthy boundaries and as a result you both have surrounded yourselves with people in your lives who all also respect boundaries, or at least you and your H's.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> If the evolutionary hypothesis is true, then why are all males not tall and attractive in a movie star way? Wouldn't the genetic pool have been directly affected by these claims?


Who is to say they haven't been evolving in a way which has fostered those traits? I believe I have even read this from evolutionary scientists that have said we have been evolving those particular physical traits in men for millennia.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lon said:


> I disagree... I believe they don't go after hin because you and him have healthy boundaries and as a result you both have surrounded yourselves with people in your lives who all also respect boundaries, or at least you and your H's.


So you think they are secretly hot for him and just wouldn't tell me?

:lol:

I've known these women for decades, have seen who they are attracted to (and have never felt the same), they've seen who I'm attracted to (and have never felt the same), and I know what they look like when they perk up around a guy they are attracted to (we've been on many man hunts together, as well as just everyday environments)...but you think they'd be able to successfully hide from me a strong attraction for my husband?

It is cute you think that. But it isn't true, sorry.

He just isn't their type. Simple as that.

ETA: I have been around women who are clearly attracted to my husband...just wanted to point this out. It is only my close handful of long term girlfriends I'm talking about who I know are not attracted to him that way.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lon said:


> Who is to say they haven't been evolving in a way which has fostered those traits? I believe I have even read this from evolutionary scientists that have said we have been evolving those particular physical traits in men for millennia.


Which traits? If we have been evolving certain traits, it will be obvious and easily identifiable. So which traits are you talking about?


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> Most people fall in the middle of every bell curve, including objective attractiveness.
> 
> I did not say that most guys having women swooning over them. I did say that most men get married and most men have sex.
> 
> ...


I didn't disagree with your statistically backable suggestion that most men have sex, nor that most men marry. I only took exception with your assumption that most men are close to average attractiveness. We are taking probability density function of a frequency distribution curve here, but what makes you assume it is a bell (normal distribution) curve? That is what I was asking to be backed up, because from my own personal observations over my lifetime I am convinced it is very skewed, as is the number of sexual partners men have over the course of their lifetime (which I've tried to argue before is not in parity or follow the shape of the frequency distribution for women, the only thing they necessarily have in common is that the total frequency under the curve is the same)


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> So you think they are secretly hot for him and just wouldn't tell me?
> 
> :lol:
> 
> ...


No, I think they respect your relationship with him so that they don't allow the kind of nurturing of desire for him the way you nurtured it once you began a relationship with him.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> Which traits? If we have been evolving certain traits, it will be obvious and easily identifiable. So which traits are you talking about?


The "signs of physical health" such as height, athleticism, musculature and the 'golden ratio'... You know the things that coincidentally go hand in hand with higher testosterone levels during development.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lon said:


> I didn't disagree with your statistically backable suggestion that most men have sex, nor that most men marry. I only took exception with your assumption that most men are close to average attractiveness. We are taking probability density function of a frequency distribution curve here, but what makes you assume it is a bell (normal distribution) curve? That is what I was asking to be backed up, because from my own personal observations over my lifetime I am convinced it is very skewed, as is the number of sexual partners men have over the course of their lifetime (which I've tried to argue before is not in parity or follow the shape of the frequency distribution for women, the only thing they necessarily have in common is that the total frequency under the curve is the same)


Ok, you are right, I do not have back up. But since everything falls on a bell curve, I assume objective attractiveness (as determined by a big enough group of people of both genders to find objectivity, or as determined by some set of visible parameters that can be measured based on what people say they find attractive) would also fall on a bell curve.

If you are talking about subjective attraction, I agree there's no way to document that and I also agree it may not match the objective attractiveness bell curves. It would also be different depending on the age group of those determining who is attractive, and the age group of the subjects. And it would be different in different cultures, different social classes, etc. 

Also, "sexually attractive to me personally, rate them 1 to 10" is a different question than "is this person attractive, rate them 1 to 10".

My point, again, was on objective attractiveness of all people combined together. How could this NOT be a bell curve?

But I don't have any stats to show you on either one. I'm sure they exist, though.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lon said:


> The "signs of physical health" such as height, athleticism, musculature and the 'golden ratio'... You know the things that coincidentally go hand in hand with higher testosterone levels during development.


Except none of those things are "alpha traits". A beta could be all of those.

And I don't see any clear evidence that men are evolving with more of these traits anyway, though I have heard we are slowly getting taller...but I don't think this is proven to be a species wide evolutionary thing. I've also heard men now have less testosterone than they did in the past, but again, this isn't shown to be a species wide thing, it could be an environmental thing.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lon said:


> No, I think they respect your relationship with him so that they don't allow the kind of nurturing of desire for him the way you nurtured it once you began a relationship with him.


So.....you think that "every woman" would be attracted to my husband? Or that just my friends are and don't foster their attraction?

That's so odd because even he knows that not every woman is into him.

Do you really think that? This is fascinating to me...but again I can assure you...it isn't the case.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, you are right, I do not have back up. But since everything falls on a bell curve, I assume objective attractiveness (as determined by a big enough group of people of both genders to find objectivity, or as determined by some set of visible parameters that can be measured based on what people say they find attractive) would also fall on a bell curve.
> 
> If you are talking about subjective attraction, I agree there's no way to document that and I also agree it may not match the objective attractiveness bell curves. It would also be different depending on the age group of those determining who is attractive, and the age group of the subjects. And it would be different in different cultures, different social classes, etc.
> 
> ...


No, not at all... Random things fall on a normal distribution, but mate selection is by no means random.


Faithful Wife said:


> Except none of those things are "alpha traits". A beta could be all of those.
> 
> And I don't see any clear evidence that men are evolving with more of these traits anyway, though I have heard we are slowly getting taller...but I don't think this is proven to be a species wide evolutionary thing. I've also heard men now have less testosterone than they did in the past, but again, this isn't shown to be a species wide thing, it could be an environmental thing.


Neither can/will I cite any research about this, just merely acknowledge that indeed things we find sexually attractive about the other sex absolutely affects genetic selection. The fossil records will certainly show trends but like you mentioned about the hormones, there are so many other factors that are pulling in other directions so it's certainly not species wide or continuous throughout our evolutionary history.



Faithful Wife said:


> So.....you think that "every woman" would be attracted to my husband? Or that just my friends are and don't foster their attraction?
> 
> That's so odd because even he knows that not every woman is into him.
> 
> Do you really think that? This is fascinating to me...but again I can assure you...it isn't the case.


I'm saying what attracted you to him will attract others as well. And then there is the whole "preselection" thing too.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lon said:


> No, not at all... Random things fall on a normal distribution, but mate selection is by no means random.
> 
> Selection isn't random, but if:
> 
> ...


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Here is what I don't get.

The Original Poster, whose thread has been hijacked by this pointless debate; like many who have come here before him has had his heart broken by the same woman more than once.

He recalls a time when he was overall more invested in himself and less invested in her seemed to translate into a greater level of interest on her part.

And he wonders if following that mechanism will serve him in a future relationship.

What is your input to him?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> What is your input to him?


We gave it. He said he was good, and had settled the whole alpha issue in his mind, thanked us all and left. Presumably because for him it was a genuine question, he now has the answer he wants, and is not at all interested in debating it any further.

Can't say I blame him. The main reason I engage is because I think it is really, really sad that so many men here think there is only one way for them to be and that is an indifferent *********. And so much so that they tell each other all sorts of lies and myths about women to reinforce those views. 

For a help forum, there really should be a warning on it that says only alpha men and their cheerleaders are welcome.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Lon said:


> Ok, back this one up.
> 
> I personally don't believe this is the case, which the whole premise of the sociosexual spectrum, alpha-beta, model. The average person is the average amount of attractiveness, but the distribution curve is not symmetrical, or at least not for men. The 20/80 rule (or some ratio thereabouts) applies to men. "Most" guys fall below the "average" attractiveness because the top guys skew the curve and the median guy never has women swooning over him.


Lon, lon, lon: please tell me you don't fall for this sh1t. You're smarter than this.

This study only looks at men and women 15-44, but as you will see 97% of men and 98% of women had sex in the last year (of the study). Three in five men and women said they had one sexual partner in the last year, and only 16% said they had no sex at all. More men than women had more than one sexual partner.
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

Kinsey reports sexual frequency by age and relationship status. Turns out, if you are over 60 and single, your 80/20 hypothesis holds. Otherwise, it's a load of bunk. The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources]

ETA: Another litter tidbit for you


> 3% of men have had zero sexual partners since the age of 18, 20% have had 1 partner, 21% have had 2-4 partners, 23% have had 5-10 partners, 16% have had 11-20 partners, and 17% have had 21 or more partners (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, Michaels, 1994).


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Lon said:


> Neither can/will I cite any research about this, just merely acknowledge that indeed things we find sexually attractive about the other sex absolutely affects genetic selection. The fossil records will certainly show trends but like you mentioned about the hormones, there are so many other factors that are pulling in other directions so it's certainly not species wide or continuous throughout our evolutionary history.


I'm confused! How is it that we have been constantly evolving to have more and more desirable traits, but that somehow only 20% of men are having all of the sex? :scratchhead: And this is supposed to be an improvement?

Are you telling me that it used to be that no men were good looking enough to get laid, but maybe with another 20,000 years, we'll get it up to 30%?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Not a single one of them is hot for my husband. They all consider him "attractive" and "a good guy", and they can all clearly see that we are into each other and can understand the dynamic between us. Yet none of them are feeling it themselves.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


I have a friend who really digs the bear type: burly and hairy. Personally, I don't dig that look at all, and we never were interested in the same guy.

That's one tiny example. But I've so often seen women swoon over guys that I really don't quite see the appeal that it doesn't surprise me in the least. And I'm sure they feel the same way.


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> That's one tiny example. But I've so often seen women swoon over guys that I really don't quite see the appeal that it doesn't surprise me in the least. And I'm sure they feel the same way.


Yep...Heck I know that there's A LOT of women out there that melt over Ryan Gosling and I simply don't get it. I personally find the guy somewhat effeminate, but maybe that is the appeal to many women...To each their own I say, right?


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, you are right, I do not have back up. But since everything falls on a bell curve,


No, that's not correct. Don't know about Lon's suggestion, but there are many other kinds of distributions that are not 'normal' - i.e., the mean is not exactly in the middle. Poisson is one of the more important in queueing theory, for instance, and is a much better approximation for your average wait time at a crowded ATM just to use an example. 

The Gaussian distribution is common but not ubiquitous. If human attractiveness is not normally distributed, then you could certainly have a situation like Lon suggests. It's an interesting speculation.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> No, that's not correct. Don't know about Lon's suggestion, but there are many other kinds of distributions that are not 'normal' - i.e., the mean is not exactly in the middle. Poisson is one of the more important in queueing theory, for instance, and is a much better approximation for your average wait time at a crowded ATM just to use an example.
> 
> The Gaussian distribution is common but not ubiquitous. If human attractiveness is not normally distributed, then you could certainly have a situation like Lon suggests. It's an interesting speculation.


Ok but whether it is or isn't normally distributed, aren't "most" people still going to be considered in the "average" range of attraction?

You guys do know what I mean here. And even if there's an unevenly distributed range, you also know it isn't like there will be a huge discrepancy, you know that most people get married, you know what "most" people around you look like....the point I was making is still the same.

It isn't as if only the hot people are getting married and having sex. If 80% or more of us get married, that is going to include mostly average people no matter how you slice it. That was my point, and you guys know it.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> We gave it. He said he was good, and had settled the whole alpha issue in his mind, thanked us all and left. Presumably because for him it was a genuine question, he now has the answer he wants, and is not at all interested in debating it any further.
> 
> Can't say I blame him. The main reason I engage is because I think it is really, really sad that so many men here think there is only one way for them to be and that is an indifferent *********. And so much so that they tell each other all sorts of lies and myths about women to reinforce those views.
> 
> For a help forum, there really should be a warning on it that says only alpha men and their cheerleaders are welcome.


Oh.

Well then ...

Until next time.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Alpha Beta always makes for great debate.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> ?????? You couldn't be further from the truth. I do not think women are better than men, or should be thought to be so. I do not actually believe that men only look at superficial characteristics, and even when they do, I see that very different configurations of superficial are considered to be top rank.


It's really confusing when you say things like:

"Oh, don't worry. I'm fully sold on the idea that men only are attracted to about 2% of women, and get rest of us are consolation prizes at best. "

I see that a lot from you. I've often considered that you're being sarcastic, but then I think "Here she goes again", maybe she really believes that.

As much fun as sarcasm can be, it can be really confusing for the people you're trying to communicate with. I the point is just to type things on the internet, that's fine. If you goal is to communicate, it really doesn't help.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> It isn't as if only the hot people are getting married and having sex. If 80% or more of us get married, that is going to include mostly average people no matter how you slice it. That was my point, and you guys know it.


My point is that hot people don't need marriage to get sex. People that are sexy only get married because they want to be married. People that are not sexy use marriage to get sex.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Lon said:


> No, not at all... Random things fall on a normal distribution, but mate selection is by no means random.
> 
> Neither can/will I cite any research about this, just merely acknowledge that indeed things we find sexually attractive about the other sex absolutely affects genetic selection. The fossil records will certainly show trends but like you mentioned about the hormones, there are so many other factors that are pulling in other directions so it's certainly not species wide or continuous throughout our evolutionary history.
> 
> I'm saying what attracted you to him will attract others as well. And then there is the whole "preselection" thing too.


I just read "The 10,000 year explosion" which is about human evolution (and has absolutely nothing to do with MRA crap".

Something interesting that they said (and I just sort of noted it and read on) was that throughout history, while almost all women passed on their genes, only about half of men did.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Lon said:


> My point is that hot people don't need marriage to get sex. People that are sexy only get married because they want to be married. People that are not sexy use marriage to get sex.


I think it's really, really sad that you think this way. 


Because, quite frankly, the thought that all I am is some consolation prize for some guy who's looking for a hole to stick it into regularly just breaks my freaking heart, and is such a big turn-off it makes me want to give up on relationships altogether or switch teams -- or something.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Fortunately lots of me do NOT get married just to get sex. I absolutely did not. In fact the great tragedy of my marriage is that my wife seems less interested in sex with me than are many other women. If I wanted sex I would have divorced long ago. 

Sex is important, but it is not the only thing by any measure. I am married because I love my wife. I wish she would have sex more often, but her other qualities make up for that. 

I can't speak for other men, or for percentages but if *I* married you, it would be because you were interesting, because I enjoyed your company, because I fell in love with you. I would also hope for great sex, but it wouldn't be the reason I got married. 





always_alone said:


> I think it's really, really sad that you think this way.
> 
> 
> Because, quite frankly, the thought that all I am is some consolation prize for some guy who's looking for a hole to stick it into regularly just breaks my freaking heart, and is such a big turn-off it makes me want to give up on relationships altogether or switch teams -- or something.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Because, quite frankly, the thought that all I am is some consolation prize for some guy who's looking for a hole to stick it into regularly just breaks my freaking heart, and is such a big turn-off it makes me want to give up on relationships altogether *or switch teams* -- or something.


If you do, I get the toaster oven!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lon said:


> My point is that hot people don't need marriage to get sex. People that are sexy only get married because they want to be married. People that are not sexy use marriage to get sex.


This is just your opinion.

See Richard's opinion also.

Who is right?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> If you do, I get the toaster oven!


A toaster oven? Oh man, I thought for sure it would be a free tablet!


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> This is just your opinion.
> 
> See Richard's opinion also.
> 
> Who is right?


Me.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Lon said:


> My point is that hot people don't need marriage to get sex. People that are sexy only get married because they want to be married. People that are not sexy use marriage to get sex.


And then if their wives aren't ENTHUSIASTIC!! about sex, that makes the husbands rapey for wanting to have sex with them.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
People do things for different reasons. I wonder though - will anyone claim that *they* got married for sex, or is this just a claim that people make about *other* hypothetical people who got married?

It is possible that people who themselves are not married are projecting their feelings onto those who are. 





Faithful Wife said:


> This is just your opinion.
> 
> See Richard's opinion also.
> 
> Who is right?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > This is just your opinion.
> ...


Tell us your opinion. Please.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > If you do, I get the toaster oven!
> ...


They have been slow to catch up with technology at the gift department at HQ. We get a catalog to choose a gift from and for me it is always a toss up between the toaster oven and a hair dryer. I already have several of each (I am a leading recruit ambassador!) so I've started giving them out as Xmas gifts.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> People do things for different reasons. I wonder though - will anyone claim that *they* got married for sex, or is this just a claim that people make about *other* hypothetical people who got married?
> 
> It is possible that people who themselves are not married are projecting their feelings onto those who are.
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

technovelist said:


> And then if their wives aren't ENTHUSIASTIC!! about sex, that makes the husbands rapey for wanting to have sex with them.


Tell us one person who has ever said this here.

If you are talking about me, just say it.

I have never, ever known any woman who considered her husband rapey, and I've never heard of a case like that here and I have NEVER talked about ANY "rapey" husband here.

*So who the hell are you talking about? Get specific instead of just throwing mud.*


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> People do things for different reasons. I wonder though - will anyone claim that *they* got married for sex, or is this just a claim that people make about *other* hypothetical people who got married?
> 
> It is possible that people who themselves are not married are projecting their feelings onto those who are.


I can tell you that I would not have gotten married if I didn't expect frequent sex with my wife.

Was that my only criterion? Absolutely not. But it was a requirement.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Lon said:


> My point is that hot people don't need marriage to get sex. People that are sexy only get married because they want to be married. People that are not sexy use marriage to get sex.


That's a grim outlook Lon. I think average looking men can do really well once getting past anxiety issues or fear of rejection. That's part of being confident.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Thundarr said:


> That's a grim outlook Lon. I think average looking men can do really well once getting past anxiety issues or fear of rejection. That's part of being confident.


Having always to worry about the possibility of being accused of sexual assault based on a Yes Means Yes law (if such should be enacted as part of the criminal law) should make any man fearful. 

Other than sociopaths, of course.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Tell us your opinion. Please.


I think partially it's generational, partially cultural, partially individual.

Older generations, especially from some cultures DID look at marriage as the prerequisite for having sex. As such, yeah--they did get married primarily to have sex. They did it young, while the hormones were going crazy. Still see a lot of that in some areas (looking at YOU, Utah!)

For me--not so much. I was already having sex before I got married (not "hot" btw--I just found a good match). My mistake like a lot of people was in my expectations and assumptions going into the marriage that it would be a lot easier than it turned out to be. I thought marriage would continue to be as effortless as the dating phase. Har de har.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

technovelist said:


> Having always to worry about the possibility of being accused of sexual assault based on a Yes Means Yes law (if such should be enacted as part of the criminal law) should make any man fearful.
> 
> Other than sociopaths, of course.


Lol, if any guy feels the need for a notarized contract to feel safe then he's effectively taken himself out of the gene pool and made things easier for other guys. If I were single I'm sure I could do fine and not be in trouble.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Thundarr said:


> Lol, if any guy feels the need for a notarized contract to feel safe then he's effectively taken himself out of the gene pool and made things easier for other guys. If I were single I'm sure I could do fine and not be in trouble.


Exactly, so only alphas would have sex. Win-win!

Except for the "minor" problems that occur when most men feel disenfranchised in the sexual department. See Japan for an example of how well that is likely to work out.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

technovelist said:


> Exactly, so only alphas would have sex. Win-win!
> 
> Except for the "minor" problems that occur when most men feel disenfranchised in the sexual department. See Japan for an example of how well that is likely to work out.


I see. You're saying that getting past fear and being more sure of one's self is part of becoming more alpha.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> I think it's really, really sad that you think this way.
> 
> Because, quite frankly, the thought that all I am is some consolation prize for some guy who's looking for a hole to stick it into regularly just breaks my freaking heart, and is such a big turn-off it makes me want to give up on relationships altogether or switch teams -- or something.


I think you're being way too negative about all this.

Lon pretty much describes how sex worked until 1960.

Things have changed greatly since then. But that doesn't mean that our brains, which evolved for 100,000 years under different conditions, have caught up yet. It's going to take a while for both men and women to adapt. I think it would be better to acknowledge the biology that's working at cross purposes with our rational brain and take that into account than just pretend that it doesn't exist.

And, if I'm right that most women value commitment more than sex and most men value sex more than commitment (and I'm well aware that you and FW don't think I'm right), then there's always going to be an element of trading sex for commitment going on.

To take your point of view, even if most men are just looking for a "hole to stick into", that doesn't mean that all men are the same. Also, there is no reason that you have to provide the hole for those who do think that way.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> Lol, if any guy feels the need for a notarized contract to feel safe then he's effectively taken himself out of the gene pool and made things easier for other guys. If I were single I'm sure I could do fine and not be in trouble.


Agreed! I only know one guy amongst all my relatives, friends, acquaintances, friends of friends, and so on that has been accused of rape. And he damn well deserved it! And I *know* this to be true.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I think you're being way too negative about all this.
> 
> Lon pretty much describes how sex worked until 1960.



I hear this sentiment all the time on TAM, that wives are mere consolation prizes for men that can't get laid by the people they want.

If a woman wants to trade sex for commitment, that's her prerogative, but I absolutely don't. If you don't want me and are just looking for somewhere to stick it, then absolutely, stick it somewhere else. I neither need you or want you. 

My fear is that most people won't actually tell you that's how they feel about you. I'm pretty sure Lon does not share his real feelings with his gfs. Just us. And I do sincerely hope that my SO doesn't feel the same way, because then I've been had. And have lost my self-determination to make my own choices and leave his a$$ in a ditch.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I hear this sentiment all the time on TAM, that wives are mere consolation prizes for men that can't get laid by the people they want.
> 
> If a woman wants to trade sex for commitment, that's her prerogative, but I absolutely don't. If you don't want me and are just looking for somewhere to stick it, then absolutely, stick it somewhere else. I neither need you or want you.
> 
> My fear is that most people won't actually tell you that's how they feel about you. I'm pretty sure Lon does not share his real feelings with his gfs. Just us. And I do sincerely hope that my SO doesn't feel the same way, because then I've been had. And have lost my self-determination to make my own choices and leave his a$$ in a ditch.


I'm so sorry all this crap hits you like this. I get what you are saying and I read the posts you are talking about. It baffles me that people here say some of the things they do. Though, TAM does not match my experience IRL and the people I know. There are some that use each other as holes and sticks, but they are pretty easy to suss out. Most people I know earnestly want to love and be loved, and they expect sex to come naturally out of that. Even the ones who have casual sex do not treat people so disrespectfully as some of the things we hear here.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Thundarr said:


> I see. You're saying that getting past fear and being more sure of one's self is part of becoming more alpha.


That's part of what I'm saying. The other part is that it is impossible to be sure that you are alpha enough not to be charged with "retroactive rape" at some point in the future.

Thus, you would pretty much have to be insane *ever* to have sex with *any woman* if you were subject to such a law.
Or even to be in the presence of any woman without witnesses who could testify that you hadn't committed some sexual offense against her.


----------



## californian (Jan 28, 2010)

truster said:


> Basically, what I'm looking for is a teammate, not someone for me to dominate or to dominate me.


Great idea! The alpha/beta concept is too restrictive and two dimensional. Your actions have little to do with what you got, your wife always been that way, it just took time to find out. Don't regret being nice to her or even a bit too understanding. In fact, it caused her to manifest who she really is sooner and saved you a bunch of time. You can sleep well knowing you werent an ahole to her. Now is the right time to figure out how not to get involved with a similar person again. Were there any warning signs in the beginning that you think you should've paid more attention to?


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

technovelist said:


> That's part of what I'm saying. The other part is that *it is impossible to be sure that you are alpha enough not to be charged with "retroactive rape" at some point* in the future.
> 
> Thus, you would pretty much have to be insane *ever* to have sex with *any woman* if you were subject to such a law.
> Or even to be in the presence of any woman without witnesses who could testify that you hadn't committed some sexual offense against her.


How are you making these connections techno? There are threads about that California mandate about how college campuses should conduct sexual assault accusations. Maybe that's a good place to vent because it has little to do with alpha/beta discussion especially since it's not criminal law. You know professors can't put you in jail. As it stands, I've never heard anyone say that not being accused of rape is an alpha trait.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I hear this sentiment all the time on TAM, that wives are mere consolation prizes for men that can't get laid by the people they want.


AA, I personally think you focus on negative sentiments that back up what you believe and ignore others that contradict it. Wives are not consolation prizes for men. Maybe some are but many ( I think most) are not.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Thundarr said:


> How are you making these connections techno? There are threads about that California mandate about how college campuses should conduct sexual assault accusations. Maybe that's a good place to vent because it has little to do with alpha/beta discussion especially since it's not criminal law. You know professors can't put you in jail. As it stands, I've never heard anyone say that not being accused of rape is an alpha trait.


I do know that professors can't put you in jail. I was referring to the possibility of such a law being passed as part of the criminal code.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> AA, I personally think you focus on negative sentiments that back up what you believe and ignore others that contradict it. Wives are not consolation prizes for men. Maybe some are but many ( I think most) are not.


Yes, I know. There are lots of good guys, right here on this thread even, saying all kinds of great things, and instead of praising them, I call attention to the most hurtful in the pile.

There's no excuse for it, really. It's just that when I read these things, I feel this jolt of pain run through my brain. Those comments are quite literally pushing on my current struggles and darkest fears. It's very difficult for me to flip the switch on that.

Plus, I also think that there is some value in calling these things out. I mean, I personally can't think of a bigger turn-off than a guy who can't see past the skin, who thinks that because a chick is hot, she somehow has this super "sex-market value", that she is, in fact, more desirable, better, and that any guy who "scores" her is to be valued and envied. 

It's fine, your (not talking about you personally here) choice, if this is really how you want to live your life, but if you are struggling with sexlessness, unable to meet women you find desirable, and who want to have sex with you, then maybe it's worthwhile to examine these attitudes a little more closely. And instead of assuming that "alpha" is the answer and the problem must be either that women are fvcked in the head or you just aren't alpha enough, to start realizing that this whole alpha paradigm is a MASSIVE turn-off to an awful lot of women. You may think you're playing the numbers and increasing the odds, but all you're really doing is guaranteeing that you keep chasing after the sorts of things you're "supposed" to have, but that don't actually bring much in the way of happiness or fulfillment.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Thundarr said:


> That's a grim outlook Lon. I think average looking men can do really well once getting past anxiety issues or fear of rejection. That's part of being confident.


I'm not saying that for unhot people sex is the only benefit they get out of marriage, nor does what I say exclude the idea that they may be in mutually satisfying and exceptionally happy and loving marriages. But if they want sex with someone attractive then a commitment to marriage is about the only way they are going to find it.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

always_alone said:


> My fear is that most people won't actually tell you that's how they feel about you. I'm pretty sure Lon does not share his real feelings with his gfs. Just us. And I do sincerely hope that my SO doesn't feel the same way, because then I've been had. And have lost my self-determination to make my own choices and leave his a$$ in a ditch.


To be clear, I share my feelings with my GF all the time (very beta) but am not usually that blunt about tis topic with her because we disagree on the subject. She too does not believe in the alpha/beta crap... however, when I'm in a zone where I'm doing alpha sh1t is when we both get aroused the most and have the best sex... likewise, when she is being utrafeminine with a nice sharp edge and makes me feel like her man, it also leads to great sex. She won't admit it and says that it's my whole package that gets her so interested in me, and that the alpha stuff is for little insecure boys, and she goes on to praise me for all my beta qualities... but when I dwell in the beta rut too much (too much analyzing, too much talk about parenting, too much sharing of my emotions etc) the sex tends to taper off, I don't pursue much and she becomes less responsive.

So even though she doesn't believe the alpha/beta crap is true at all, and I believe her when she says she doesn't, I happen to believe otherwise, and that her actions don't match her words, because I experience it firsthand continuously in my life since I was an insecure little 14 year old until this day despite my experience and maturity. With that being said, even though my level of "alphaness" does have an affect on her and our relationship in contravention of her beliefs, she really is a good match for my mix, and I hers. I do not need to up my game to keep her interested, I just have to be honest with her and let things happen the way they were meant to between us.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Lon said:


> She too does not believe in the alpha/beta crap... however, when I'm in a zone where I'm doing alpha sh1t is when we both get aroused the most and have the best sex... likewise, *when she is being utrafeminine* with a nice sharp edge and *makes me feel like her man*, it also leads to great sex. She won't admit it and says that it's my whole package that gets her so interested in me, and that the alpha stuff is for little insecure boys, and she goes on to praise me for all my beta qualities... but when I dwell in the beta rut too much (too much analyzing, too much talk about parenting, too much sharing of my emotions etc) the sex tends to taper off, *I don't pursue much* and she becomes less responsive.


The bolded bits stood out for me. I suspect that she is honest about what she's into, and the whole alpha needing an ultrafemme woman is your bag. 

So own it, if that's what turns you on. Don't slough it off onto her (and by your implications, all other women).


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

always_alone said:


> The bolded bits stood out for me. I suspect that she is honest about what she's into, and the whole alpha needing an ultrafemme woman is your bag.
> 
> So own it, if that's what turns you on. Don't slough it off onto her (and by your implications, all other women).


I think _most_ woman want an "alpha" in the bedroom same way _most_ men want their women to be "*****s" in that area.


----------



## happybuddha (Aug 9, 2014)

Lsiten I have tried being Alpha with my wife and it didnt work. It seem to cause her pressure.
She started telling me that I just think about sex..all of the time. I think you can follow married man sex primer
and all of these things but if your spouse is imbalanced and perhaps some things are affecting their health that 
could be more of the issue.

I have over the last few months just focused on me being the best for me, no matter what she says and 
not initiating any more just focusing on changing me, last week she woke me up at 5 am and wanted me.
That is a great change however its been 4 months since we had sex.. up until a week ago - my focus has
caused my wife to want to change - she is seeing a doctor this week and she seems to be more concerned 
about changing for the better ...

I am very focused on me improving - vs. looking for her approval , I just figured if I initiate and she doesnt 
respond why would I want to have sex with someone who does not want to have sex - ( I am trying to not 
take it all personally ) but really how could we have great sex if she is not into it ) meanwhile I keep getting 
leaner and more in shape ...LOL..and feel sexier for me !!


----------



## truster (Jul 23, 2015)

californian said:


> Great idea! The alpha/beta concept is too restrictive and two dimensional. Your actions have little to do with what you got, your wife always been that way, it just took time to find out. Don't regret being nice to her or even a bit too understanding. In fact, it caused her to manifest who she really is sooner and saved you a bunch of time. You can sleep well knowing you werent an ahole to her. Now is the right time to figure out how not to get involved with a similar person again. Were there any warning signs in the beginning that you think you should've paid more attention to?


Sadly, not really. I actually dated quite a bit back in the day, and was very selective. I'm a planner by nature, and like to make sure every little thing is in place before committing and I watched vigilantly for red flags. There were no violent outbursts, no lies that I knew of. You could argue that she was a better person than I was in those years, although I never did anything extreme (emotional/physical abuse, cheating, drugs, etc). We dated 5 years (lived together most of that) before marriage. I made sure I found a person who was caring and was self-supporting. Hell, when we met, she was making twice what I was. Everyone I know loved her, and I know plenty of people who would speak the truth if they didn't.

It all just changed, though. She lost her job and didn't care about getting another one. Years later after her illness she just went to therapy and got caught up in "not being codependent", which quickly translated into just being straight selfish and mean. It was honestly night and day. I don't know if it's a MLC thing. She does, in retrospect, exhibit (in my amateur internet analysis) some behaviors and past experiences common with mild BPD. Both would explain the drastic personality change.. they involve very black and white worldviews, and might explain why she thought I was the best thing ever even when I wasn't, but was quick to paint me as the worst thing ever when her mood soured, even though I had become a much better partner.

The only 'warning sign' I can think of is that she had friends that would joke that was very good at making her own reality (aka bending events to her stories), but it never really came up in negative scenarios. It's not the kind of thing that would be a red flag looking forward, only in retrospect.

I think I've learned quite a bit about being a better partner, and perhaps that I should look for someone who enjoys similar down-time activities to me, as the older we grow the more time is down-time and the less time is spent partying. But personality-wise, I don't think the experience has given me any new red flags to look out for, sadly. I agree with the other thread that's floating around -- I suspect this sort of out-of-the-blue behavior could happen to any marriage.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

happybuddha said:


> I have over the last few months just focused on me being the best for me, no matter what she says and


this is likely actually you being more alpha..... Depending on what you are doing to change. So what are you doing?

Not seeking her approval = alpha, btw.


----------



## happybuddha (Aug 9, 2014)

However I am also not having frequent sex. or focused on sex


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

happybuddha said:


> However I am also not having frequent sex. or focused on sex


the mmsl theory would be to not worry about the outcome (sex) until you have gotten to be the you that you want to be. At that point, if she isn't interested, she isn't interested and you either put up w/no sex or D or at least discuss counseling. You probably should read the book.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> I wonder though - will anyone claim that *they* got married for sex, or is this just a claim that people make about *other* hypothetical people who got married?


I got married for sex. I got what I deserved. A wife and no sex. :grin2:


----------



## happybuddha (Aug 9, 2014)

I read mmsl...and even got coaching from author ...he claimed she needs to see a doctor....it didn't matter if I turned into hottest guy on earth she wouldn't be affected based on her health I guess ...she's got an appointment this week....we will see


----------

