# Alpha/Beta modern myth



## meson (May 19, 2011)

Interesting:


----------



## xxxSHxYZxxx (Apr 1, 2013)

it's really not that interesting. They don't even explain the consept that well. it seems more like they are talking about "Bros" more than "Alphas"

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk


----------



## TBT (Dec 20, 2011)

@meson Book 'The Wolf' mentioned here. What Alpha Wolves are REALLY Like | The Art of Manliness

Interesting website.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

Alphas are real. Virtually every species of intelligent pack or herd animal (including humans) has a variation of the alpha/beta structure in place. 

That's how evolution used to weed out the beta losers of society. The betas would not get the fertile mates and they'd go crawl into a hole and die.

They still do the same but now they go on the internet, make dumb youtube videos, and cry about it to boot. This forum alone proves its existence.


----------



## dadstartingover (Oct 23, 2015)

Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of human behavior will tell you that yes, there are dominant and submissive personalities. We overuse the term "alpha", well... because it sounds cool, and the whole "alpha wolf thing" he mentions in the video. The guy makes a mistake and focuses on the language too much. Who cares what we call it? It's real.

The old terms were "wimp" and "tough guy". Dominant/Passive. Dominant/Submissive. Alpha/Beta. Lover/Provider. All the same thing... and we're silly to think that the differences don't exist. It's wishful thinking by people that feel their superior intelligence and keen sense of empathy are enough to overcome thousands of years of animalistic behavior. 

There's nothing wrong with saying that more dominant human beings exist and are rewarded for their behavior over those that are meek. It's this way at the job, on the field and in relationships.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

The concept of alphas was originally applied to non-humans. The previous post suggests that in at least some cases even that was incorrect. Then the concept was mis-applied to humans who appear to have a different social structure. Then people started mutating the definition to suit whatever they wanted it to mean at the moment.

Was Mahatma Gandhi an "alpha"?


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

BetrayedDad said:


> Alphas are real. Virtually every species of intelligent pack or herd animal (including humans) has a variation of the alpha/beta structure in place.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So, our first bipedal ancestor appeared 5 M years on the African Savannah and since that time we have not been able to breed out beta males? I'm trying to follow your assumption of the survival of the fitter aspect of these males, with no apparent mating partners and their genetic material ending up on the floor of a lonely cave. 

I would revise to suggest that, yes primates tend to breed in dominant charismatic individuals. However, survival of our species depends more on cooperation (exploitation in some extremes, dominance individuals over the rest). Since there would likely be more workers than leaders (necessity for species survival), this would suggests that most males are in crude terms beta and not the outlier alpha, which is more a genetic trait than anything else. Either you have it or you don't and thus pass it on or not. This is how evolution works. 

I think the assumptions of alpha beta can be overblown and very often confused by some. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

If I were a leader of a tribe, last thing I would want is to have no one to lead. If there is no one to lead, my genetic material will lay waste on the savannah.

We survive as a tribe and die as an individual species. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

There are naturally dominant type men and naturally submissive type men. Same with women. 

The problem comes IMO when a submissive tries to act dominant. It becomes far less attractive than being submissive is. That is what I've been seeing more of in dating. Guys trying to act alpha. It's not appealing. 

Be who you are and someone will be attracted to it. Not all women want the alpha guy. Finding a mate is about compatibility not finding the best one you can but getting the best one for you that wants who you are.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

Ikaika said:


> So, our first bipedal ancestor appeared 5 M years on the African Savannah and since that time we have not been able to breed out beta males? I'm trying to follow your assumption of the survival of the fitter aspect of these males, with no apparent mating partners and their genetic material ending up on the floor of a lonely cave.


What makes you think the evolutionary process ever stops? That one day all the betas would be gone? Someone has to be the beta even in a group of two. As long as there is competition among a given population, there will always be a superior group and an inferior group. Yesterday's alpha could very well become tomorrow's beta if his inferior competition is eliminated. 



Ikaika said:


> I would revise to suggest that, yes primates tend to breed in dominant charismatic individuals. However, survival of our species depends more on cooperation (exploitation in some extremes, dominance individuals over the rest). Since there would likely be more workers than leaders (necessity for species survival), this would suggests that most males are in crude terms beta and not the outlier alpha, which is more a genetic trait than anything else. Either you have it or you don't and thus pass it on or not. This is how evolution works.


Okay so where is the disagreement? Alphas will naturally be the small minority the majority strives for. They will get first pick of the most desirable females and as many as they can handle (Who says they only need to have one. This also explains why you find many lonely beta men but not nearly as many lonely females despite females being higher in number.) The remaining population settles for each other and become the "worker bees" with the lowest rung males left to masturbate to internet porn and essentially lay down and rot.

This DELUSION that we all somehow ALL equal and have outgrown basic evolutionary traits needs to stop. It's science fiction that only hurts the have nots. The haves will still get laid.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

BetrayedDad said:


> What makes you think the evolutionary process ever stops? That one day all the betas would be gone? Someone has to be the beta even in a group of two. As long as there is competition among a given population, there will always be a superior group and an inferior group. Yesterday's alpha could very well become tomorrow's beta if his inferior competition is eliminated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Never said evolutionary process stops. Where I disagree is to assume that only alphas breed and that eventually the alpha trait is all that is left. This would not be a functional tribe. We are tribal and survival depends on it. 

I would go step further and suggest that in the end more workers (betas) will exist in a population than leaders (alphas). Plus, an alpha is likely to have beta offspring due to hidden recessive traits. That is evolution. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Let's go back to the wolves. If we wanted to look at a functional pack and think in terms of alpha/beta, the strongest may represent the leader, but the fastest are the workers. The betas with their speed chase the fast moving prey into the waiting grasp of the alpha. So, without the fast beta traits, the alpha would starve. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Baboon troop alphas die from tuberculosis after claiming tastiest trash for themselves. Troop prospers in wake.

No Time for Bullies: Baboons Retool Their Culture - The New York Times


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

Ikaika said:


> Never said evolutionary process stops. Where I disagree is to assume that only alphas breed and that eventually the alpha trait is all that is left. This would not be a functional tribe. We are tribal and survival depends on it.


Well I never said betas don't breed. The lowest ranked betas don't breed and your average ranked beta is not breeding with a dime piece.



Ikaika said:


> I would go step further and suggest that in the end more workers (betas) will exist in a population than leaders (alphas). Plus, an alpha is likely to have beta offspring due to hidden recessive traits. That is evolution.


Again agreed. Also, alpha and beta also are not static traits. You can jump categories though it is incredibly difficult. A 2/10 beta will never be a 9/10 alpha but a 7/10 beta could under the right circumstances become an alpha and vice versa. Example: alpha gains 100 pounds and goes bankrupt, he's no longer a stud.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

BetrayedDad said:


> *Well I never said betas don't breed. *The lowest ranked betas don't breed and your average ranked beta is not breeding with a dime piece.
> 
> 
> 
> Again agreed. Also, alpha and beta also are not static traits. You can jump categories though it is incredibly difficult. A 2/10 beta will never be a 9/10 alpha but a 7/10 beta could under the right circumstances become an alpha and vice versa. Example: alpha gains 100 pounds and goes bankrupt, he's no longer a stud.




I don't know what you mean by jumping categories. But, if we are considering a strict adherence to an alpha trait and beta trait from an evolutionary point of view then genetics without bioengineering seals ones fate. We could assume that nurture may play a role, but often in biology we assume nurture can support (or not) ones genetic blueprint. As to how much is an endless debate. 


You didn't exactly say they don't breed but implied it was something that eventually dies out. 



BetrayedDad said:


> That's how evolution used to weed out the beta losers of society. The betas would not get the fertile mates and they'd go crawl into a hole and die.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

I think it is a funny discussion. In humans, the alpha beta thing is just a way to describe, in an easy to understand context, the way things are. There is no #1 alpha, nor a zeta man. There are good and bad qualities in both. And I think that some of male/female interaction is clearly impacted by things described as beta or alpha traits. 

I also disagree that you can be a beta and not get out of always being one. A lot of traits can be at least partially learned. I was incredibly shy as a boy/teenager, which is very beta. I am no longer shy and I am much closer to alpha in shy/openness around women. Totally learned behavior. My dad was/is still pretty shy, it is what I learned as a yung-un. I unlearned that based on dealing with teenage girls. They responded positively to "Lets dance" vs " would you kinda, maybe want to dance with me.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

Ikaika said:


> I don't know what mean by jumping categories. But, if we are considering a strict adherence to an alpha trait and beta trait from an evolutionary point of view then genetics without bioengineering seals ones fate. We could assume that nurture may play a role, but often in biology we assume nurture can support (or not) ones genetic blueprint. As to how much is an endless debate.


You continue to view this in a box. The traits that determine an alpha vary from pack to pack. One packs alpha is another packs beta if they have more dominate alpha males. I might come up empty at one party and hook up with multiple women at another. The is no "perfect alpha" that's why you CAN'T breed all the beta out. It's a dynamic trait to SOME degree. Obviously, no amount of "nurture" is going to help me if I only have one leg. You can stereotype in a general sense what the "most alpha" of us ought to be but there is no finish line. Like there is no such thing as perfection. We can only strive for it.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

I married what could be defined as an alpha man, but he doesn’t drag me by the hair at the end of the day, back to the cave for sex.  And ‘’beta’’ men aren’t ‘’losers.’’ I think that these terms while they serve a general purpose, really don’t make much sense overall, because men are a compilation of a variety of traits. My personal definition of an alpha man is someone who is confident in himself, and doesn’t feel the need to put other men down to boost his own ego.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

BetrayedDad said:


> You continue to view this in a box. The traits that determine an alpha vary from pack to pack. One packs alpha is another packs beta if they have more dominate alpha males. I might come up empty at one party and hook up with multiple women at another. The is no "perfect alpha" that's why you CAN'T breed all the beta out. It's a dynamic trait to SOME degree. Obviously, no amount of "nurture" is going to help me if I only have one leg. You can stereotype in a general sense what the "most alpha" of us ought to be but there is no finish line. Like there is no such thing as perfection. We can only strive for it.




Sounds to me like you agree with the video @meson posted #1. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> I think it is a funny discussion. In humans, the alpha beta thing is just a way to describe, in an easy to understand context, the way things are. There is no #1 alpha.


wrong.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

BetrayedDad said:


> Alphas are real. Virtually every species of intelligent pack or herd animal (including humans) has a variation of the alpha/beta structure in place.
> 
> That's how evolution used to weed out the beta losers of society. The betas would not get the fertile mates and they'd go crawl into a hole and die.


Um, no. 

Read up on pack vs. herd social structure in animals, they have completely different behaviors, are motivated by different instincts and have different social structures. Pack social structures do not even include males in some species and herd social structures usually have no clear leader.

Packs usually have more than one Alpha (wolf packs have been documented with up to 6 Alphas, for example) and Betas play an important role in any pack and, they do not "crawl into a hole and die" (LOL). Beta's do breed, however the opportunities for breeding are more rare than for Alphas.

Wild horses have perhaps the most complex of animal social structures because they are organized into multiple packs that live within a large herd.

Alpha's are real (and necessary) in the animal world however when human's define Alpha they are describing a completely different thing. Generalized statements comparing animals to humans (as above) are not helpful for understanding how humans use the term "alpha male/female".


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I see no agreement at all on what "alpha" means. it makes the whole discussion a little strange. 

Humans are not pack animals. They do not fight for breeding rights with females. Human society is very complex with multiple roles, not just a simple alpha / beta scale.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

uhtred said:


> I see no agreement at all on what "alpha" means. it makes the whole discussion a little strange.
> 
> 
> 
> Humans are not pack animals. They do not fight for breeding rights with females. Human society is very complex with multiple roles, not just a simple alpha / beta scale.




I believe this is what the original post video suggests. Bingo. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Betrayed,

The argument you are having with Ikaika is a great example of what happens when a higher level of aggression meets a higher level of knowledge/skill. 





BetrayedDad said:


> You continue to view this in a box. The traits that determine an alpha vary from pack to pack. One packs alpha is another packs beta if they have more dominate alpha males. I might come up empty at one party and hook up with multiple women at another. The is no "perfect alpha" that's why you CAN'T breed all the beta out. It's a dynamic trait to SOME degree. Obviously, no amount of "nurture" is going to help me if I only have one leg. You can stereotype in a general sense what the "most alpha" of us ought to be but there is no finish line. Like there is no such thing as perfection. We can only strive for it.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)




----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I never have the patience for videos.





Ikaika said:


> I believe this is what the original post video suggests. Bingo.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

uhtred said:


> I see no agreement at all on what "alpha" means. it makes the whole discussion a little strange.
> .


This is so true. I've seen so many definitions of alpha guys. 
Some think it's the loud guy at the bar,
The frat boy with the 6 pack. 
I think he's more likely a d-bag than an alpha. 

I've seen tough and rough Dom guys who think they're alpha but they are really just selfish jerks. 

I've seen c*cky, I can get any woman in this place, every woman wants me. I am the king of making a woman c*m (he literally said this) Flirts with the waitress and never acts like they are 100% into you and could replace you anytime. They are, IME, weak and scared men with low self esteem compensating with a fake, big ego. 
But lots of people look at him like he's some alpha guy cause he gets girls (for very short times) and is always charming the ladies. 

My bf is quiet, kind of shy, dominant without speaking it. Doesn't go after the hottest girl and doesn't have a big ego. Shows he cares and never flirts or looks at other women. 
I consider him alpha. Others probably wouldn't. 

I've seen what things like mmslp thinks is alpha. I disagree with like 90% of it. 

What is an alpha man?


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

Lol, the school principal called our 11 year old son an "Alpha" and we are okay with it. She meant he's a leader and there's responsibility that comes with that because other kids like to follow him.


----------



## Middle of Everything (Feb 19, 2012)

So now am I "alpha" if I dont check ALL the boxes? 
6'3" 250lbs yoked with a 6 pack. I pull in HIGH 6 figures. I look AMAZING. Im confident and take what I want.

But Im hovering around a Forrest Gump IQ and I pack 3 inches. 

So am I alpha?

But seriously even an interesting video by a likely VERY successful youtube celeb stirs up this bull****? Oh and rock on @Ikaika


----------



## Jayg14 (May 23, 2011)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Be who you are and someone will be attracted to it. Not all women want the alpha guy. Finding a mate is about compatibility not finding the best one you can but getting the best one for you that wants who you are.


This is good advice, but consider this: many men today, including yours truly, have done this, and it's not working. So we read about others having success with another mindset, and try it.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Jayg14 said:


> This is good advice, but consider this: many men today, including yours truly, have done this, and it's not working. So we read about others having success with another mindset, and try it.


and guess what, being more masculine works (which is really what alpha is, be more masculine).


----------



## Jayg14 (May 23, 2011)

naiveonedave said:


> and guess what, being more masculine works (which is really what alpha is, be more masculine).


You're 100% correct. But people tend to counter with "just be yourself". Guess what? That doesn't always work.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

At its heart, being alpha means being willing to trigger conflict or separation in order to obtain your desired goal. Alphas will pursue what they want at the cost of risk to their current relationship (employment, social , sexual, etc). Betas will accept not attaining what they want in service to maintaining harmony within the relationship. High levels of beta is highly correlated with not engaging in much sex in the context of a long term sexual relationship. If your partner is absolutely sure you would never leave or never cheat no matter how much they refuse to engage in sex with you, that itself is a major turn off.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

naiveonedave said:


> and guess what, being more masculine works (which is really what alpha is, be more masculine).




I see it this way - there a fewer natural leaders than followers. The two are important to any tribal group. From less of an evolutionary aspect to one of a more cultural point of view, a person's station can be trumped by simply being a mature responsible adult, if that is what is meant by masculine then cool. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Jayg14 said:


> This is good advice, but consider this: many men today, including yours truly, have done this, and it's not working. So we read about others having success with another mindset, and try it.


And this is what makes one alpha, having a goal and taking the ACTION required to meet it. In your case, what you were doing wasn't working, so you went a different route. 

One problem with modern definitions of Alpha as applied to humans is that it tends to focus on what the group thinks is important and not one the individual thinks is important. So we apply the term alpha to CEOs, sports figures and anybody else who seems to have found what most of us haven't obtained (including hot women, lots of women etc) In reality, each of us can have just about anything we set our minds on as long as we are willing to take the action needed to get it. The problem is most of us want a heck of a lot more than we are willing to sacrifice (ie take action) for.

Alphas are the ones willing to take action to be the best at whatever it is that they as individuals wish for. They don't care what society thinks they should accomplish.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Jayg14 said:


> This is good advice, but consider this: many men today, including yours truly, have done this, and it's not working. So we read about others having success with another mindset, and try it.


Not working how? To get a pretty, desirable woman or to find someone compatible with you? That's not going to be instant. 

You may not get the hot girl in the bar but she may not be compatible with you. 

I've found most often with men who complain they can't get a woman just can't get the women they want. There are plenty of women wanting a man just like them but are deemed "undesirable" just like you.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Not working how? To get a pretty, desirable woman or to find someone compatible with you? That's not going to be instant.
> 
> You may not get the hot girl in the bar but she may not be compatible with you.
> 
> I've found most often with men who complain they can't get a woman just can't get the women they want. There are plenty of women wanting a man just like them but are deemed "undesirable" just like you.


believe me, this is horrible advice for any man who is not having any success with women. Just read sexless M stories from men on this site, it is all you need to hear. 

What you are stating is what men have been told their whole lives, but is in reality, what women think they want men to be, not want the want them to be a baser level.

Next your going to tell me to do more housework to get more sex in marriage..... There are studies that blow this right out of the water...


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Ynot said:


> And this is what makes one alpha, having a goal and taking the ACTION required to meet it. In your case, what you were doing wasn't working, so you went a different route.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Interpretation: your happiness or contentment should not be based on someone else. You should be as happy and content alone as you are with your spouse. Got it, cling-ons (Klingons) are not attractive. Agree. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

naiveonedave said:


> believe me, this is horrible advice for any man who is not having any success with women. Just read sexless M stories from men on this site, it is all you need to hear.
> 
> What you are stating is what men have been told their whole lives, but is in reality, what women think they want men to be, not want the want them to be a baser level.
> 
> Next your going to tell me to do more housework to get more sex in marriage..... There are studies that blow this right out of the water...


and there are studies that show men who do more housework get laid more. It's a wash pretty much and all comes down to an individual woman's personal emotional needs. Cause we are all different and don't all fit into one box of what we want. 

I'm not saying to find a woman you aren't attracted to but there are plenty of wonderful women that are being looked right past because they aren't the top. The problem is some men view a woman as a trophy or reward and not as a life partner. Geeky guy in movie saves the day and gets the hot girl. He feels entitled to the hot girl. Doesn't even matter who she is attracted to, he wants her. Hence wanting the best one they can get and not looking at things like "does she actually like who I am" Same with using money to up your standing to attract "better" women. Anyone with this view of women will have a hard time maintaining any sort of relationship anyway, then it gets blamed on the system and social standings when really they didn't have the EQ needed to sustain a relationship with emotions and needs and actually caring what SHE wants and is looking for. It's all about upping your image to get a better, more attractive, younger, woman. Who won't like you in 10 years, and you'll be sexless and she may cheat cause she was never attracted to you. She liked your money, your perceived status and was using you for yours as much as you were using her for her trophy-ability ... just throwing that out there. 

Get someone who actually wants YOU and you don't have to worry about not doing the dishes too much in case she loses attraction. There's no games, no faking.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Jayg14 said:


> You're 100% correct. But people tend to counter with "just be yourself". Guess what? That doesn't always work.


I am very happy just being myself, it's certainly easier than trying to be something I am not.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I don't want the "hot girl at the bar". If she is at a bar she presumably drinks, I don't. If she is "hot" in the conventional sense she probably spends a lot of time on her appearance. I don't want to spend time with someone who puts a lot of effort into looking good. If she has nothing better to do in the evening than sit at a bar looking for dates, she probably has a pretty boring life. 

I want the astrophysicist, or flight instructor who I meet out doing something interesting. I want the mud-splattered woman on on a back-country trail. I want the Washington lobbyist I'm sitting next to on a flight. (these are all women I've run into and were I not married would have been happy to date). 

The alpha males are welcome to the girls. The omicrons are optimizing for something very different.


----------



## Dannip (Jun 13, 2017)

Beta statement for sure.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Personal said:


> I am very happy just being myself, it's certainly easier than trying to be something I am not.


Yes it is easier to be yourself. The problem is that so often the true self is beaten and battered by the expectations of society. Especially for men, but even for many women. That most times few people have a clue who they truly are. 

Society wants those who will comply, it does not want free spirits and discourages such thinking. Look at how many are doped up in school because they are ADHD, instead of just being recognized as being young people with energy to burn. Schools and the corporations who later hire their students much prefer willingly compliant individuals who will sit all day in their cubicles toiling away filing and compiling, because they are easier to control. Real individualism is discouraged at almost every step of the way.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

Ikaika said:


> Sounds to me like you agree with the video @meson posted #1.


It sounds to me that you agree far more than you disagree on this subject.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> and there are studies that show men who do more housework get laid more. It's a wash pretty much and all comes down to an individual woman's personal emotional needs. Cause we are all different and don't all fit into one box of what we want.
> 
> I'm not saying to find a woman you aren't attracted to but there are plenty of wonderful women that are being looked right past because they aren't the top. The problem is some men view a woman as a trophy or reward and not as a life partner. Geeky guy in movie saves the day and gets the hot girl. He feels entitled to the hot girl. Doesn't even matter who she is attracted to, he wants her. Hence wanting the best one they can get and not looking at things like "does she actually like who I am" Same with using money to up your standing to attract "better" women. Anyone with this view of women will have a hard time maintaining any sort of relationship anyway, then it gets blamed on the system and social standings when really they didn't have the EQ needed to sustain a relationship with emotions and needs and actually caring what SHE wants and is looking for. It's all about upping your image to get a better, more attractive, younger, woman. Who won't like you in 10 years, and you'll be sexless and she may cheat cause she was never attracted to you. She liked your money, your perceived status and was using you for yours as much as you were using her for her trophy-ability ... just throwing that out there.
> 
> Get someone who actually wants YOU and you don't have to worry about not doing the dishes too much in case she loses attraction. There's no games, no faking.


never seen a reputable study that suggests doing more housework gets you laid. All I have ever seen say to get more, meet her needs and be a man, not a wimp.

This whole thing, imo, has nothing to do about getting hotter/younger women. It has all to do about attracting and maintaining attraction with the 'one'.

Most men have been taught (especially in the west) to be more beta. Unlearning this makes you more yourself, maybe, but this is also 'manning up.' I do agree that you need to find someone who wants you and you really need to figure out how to meet your W/gf needs. But the initial attraction and lasting attraction, for many men, improves by manning up.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

MEM2020 said:


> Betrayed,
> 
> The argument you are having with Ikaika is a great example of what happens when a higher level of aggression meets a higher level of knowledge/skill.


LMAO. 

1) Who's "arguing"?!? I thought we were just having a discussion? Isn't that what this place is for?

2) As a moderator, and for the benefit of the members, can you at least pretend to be nonjudgmental?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I always say when I am speaking as a moderator. 

Always. 

I was not. And I am not now. 

I am and was speaking as a fellow citizen. 

Going forward I will make sure to explicitly state that I am not speaking as a mod, when that is the case. 

For clarity sake - you have done nothing that would warrant any 'mod' type comments. And I respect your right to express your opinions on this topic as much as anyone. 







BetrayedDad said:


> LMAO.
> 
> 1) Who's "arguing"?!? I thought we were just having a discussion? Isn't that what this place is for?
> 
> 2) As a moderator, and for the benefit of the members, can you at least pretend nonjudgmental?


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Personal said:


> I am very happy just being myself, it's certainly easier than trying to be something I am not.


It's definitely easier. But is it always better?

What if a person's true self is a bad person? Lazy? Violent? Isn't it better for them to behave differently?


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Fozzy said:


> It's definitely easier. But is it always better?


Not always.



Fozzy said:


> What if a person's true self is a bad person? Lazy? Violent? Isn't it better for them to behave differently?


Perhaps.

Although if I am a bad, lazy or violent, I hope I would still choose to be authentic to who I am.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Fozzy said:


> It's definitely easier. But is it always better?
> 
> What if a person's true self is a bad person? Lazy? Violent? Isn't it better for them to behave differently?


Behave different? No. Cause you are basically tricking someone into not knowing who you truly are and it comes out. Always. The men who were "acting alpha" always had negative traits that slipped out eventually. 

If a woman doesn't like sex should she behave differently so she can get a good man?

Any date I had I started going through their FB information to see what they liked and followed. Anything of this new age "be alpha" crap (mgtow, redpill, articles and people who believed in this stuff) I'd just turn down. 

I'm not interested in playing games. And I saw a lot of men playing the stupid games I see thrown around as advice to get a girls attention. 

My bf is totally nerdy. I love it. He's a little quiet and gives me full 100% attention always. Never acts like he could get someone else so I'm not special. He's never pretended to be anything he's not. Never has an ego.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Behave different? No. Cause you are basically tricking someone into not knowing who you truly are and it comes out. Always. The men who were "acting alpha" always had negative traits that slipped out eventually.
> 
> If a woman doesn't like sex should she behave differently so she can get a good man?
> 
> ...


I think you are mistaking faking for changing. Much of the behavior that is deemed 'beta' is learned behavior. some of it is toxic (think the classic NMMNG-covert contracts type). I think that in many cases, this type of change can be relatively easy to do and is impactful. 

Your experience suggests that all men can find and sustain attraction by finding the right girl, I would say that many men's experience IS not that, not in the least. 

Also, I think there tends to be some men who, after marriage, become a bit complacent, putting everything ahead of their own needs, which makes them look weak, which, can in some instances cause the W to lose attraction. I know that the latter happened to me.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Find and sustain a woman's attraction by 
- picking the right woman
-continuing to date 10-20 hours of alone time per week
-meeting her emotional needs and being with someone (your right woman) who meets yours

1/3 isn't gonna cut it. 

The biggest problem in losing attraction is no alone time. Not dating. No one can sustain love without that alone time each week. 
No kids, no electronics. Actual dates. 

When you attracted her you were dating her. You were meeting her needs and she was meeting yours. You were spending the time to look nice and impress. 

Then you get married and live together so why bother date? The kids are always around. Alone time may be an hour at night watching the same tv show.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> I think you are mistaking faking for changing. Much of the behavior that is deemed 'beta' is learned behavior. some of it is toxic (think the classic NMMNG-covert contracts type). I think that in many cases, this type of change can be relatively easy to do and is impactful.
> 
> Your experience suggests that all men can find and sustain attraction by finding the right girl, I would say that many men's experience IS not that, not in the least.
> 
> Also, I think there tends to be some men who, after marriage, become a bit complacent, putting everything ahead of their own needs, which makes them look weak, which, can in some instances cause the W to lose attraction. I know that the latter happened to me.


Yes. My natural inclination is toward laziness. I fight against that inclination because it's bad for me and for people around me as well. I don't see that as being dishonest about who I am, I see it as trying to be a better person.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Not working how? To get a pretty, desirable woman or to find someone compatible with you? That's not going to be instant.
> 
> You may not get the hot girl in the bar but she may not be compatible with you.
> 
> I've found most often with men who complain they can't get a woman just can't get the women they want. There are plenty of women wanting a man just like them but are deemed "undesirable" just like you.


My experience as a man is different. I agree the hot girls don't want me and guys like me. I disagree that there are plenty of women who want guys like me. It is not a matter of lowering my standard as to physical appearance to get to the "level" of woman who desires me. My experience is that there is no such level or set of women, and I have to "up my game" for any woman to find me attractive.

You, as a woman, may have many female friends who say they are just looking for a nice guy to settle down with. They may even believe that. From the guys side of the fence, they are lying to themselves. They say they want that, but when faced with a beta guy they find him unattractive. They may, when they start to hear the biological clock ticking, even date and have sex with and marry that beta guy. But once they have the ring and the number of kids they wanted, they stop finding him attractive enough to continue to have sex with. Not every woman is like this. But many are. Enough that warning men against this dynamic is useful to beta men.

I have a lot of respect for women who are open and honest enough to "next" guys who don't turn them on. Not saying that women should find beta men attractive. But if a woman marries a beta guy for security and co-parenting, I have zero sympathy when she later finds it difficult to continue to have sex with him. What did she expect was going to happen? My suggestion is full honesty. If you are marrying a guy who is not that great in bed but looks to make a good provider and father, tell him that. Explain that he doesn't do all that much for you in bed but you want him to be your husband and the father of your children and you will make every effort to continue to service him sexually 
even though he doesn't do much for you in bed and you have had better before. If he marries a woman after she says that, then he has no one to blame but himself if the sex dries up after the kids arrive.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

I agree some women do that (marry the good on paper guy for security) and I think it's crappy. 

In many cases it is a matter of lost attraction. She was attracted to him and wanted him but it settled into married with kids life and th y stopped dating and trying to woo each other. Then attraction dies. 

In the first case being more "alpha" may help if for nothing else then to scare the security blanket from her and make her behave better, for a while. It won't last imo Though I'd go with the "leave and find someone who wants you" approach. 

In the second alpha isn't going to do crap. 

I have specific kinks that need a specific dominant trait in a man so personally anyone without that is a pass but I have many friends who adore their beta man. They show them off, the brag. He is their world and they are over the moon in love. 
And some of my friends who ended up with an alpha guy are just done with his crap and want to leave. 

Truly we all have different tastes. Just like men don't all want the same kind of woman. There is no 1 specific type of man we all want. 

Some things me and my fellow girlfriends all collectively don't like:

pouting, whining, being passive aggressive, having a temper or angry outbursts - even at the guy on the road or the lazy coworker you have to deal with, I'm not talking just at her- flirty, not giving enough attention or really listening. Bad in bed... that's a given. 

These are behaviors we may not like but aren't specific to alpha/beta. You can be a beta guy who doesn't pout and whine.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Most of the stories I read here - the guy was provided with an unmistakable pattern of behavior before the ship actually left port. 

And ship leaving port = getting pregnant 

Most - not all - but most of the stories I read - engagement ring produces noticeable reduction and actual wedding produces sharp downturn. 

People convince themselves that the person they love will become the person they are compatible with - this simply isn't true.

And the vast majority of male posters on here with a toxic sexual dynamic - behave in a way that shows a clear preference for relationship stability over a decent sex life. 

So - they come to TAM bitterly complaining about a person whose possible departure - terrifies them.




Holdingontoit said:


> My experience as a man is different. I agree the hot girls don't want me and guys like me. I disagree that there are plenty of women who want guys like me. It is not a matter of lowering my standard as to physical appearance to get to the "level" of woman who desires me. My experience is that there is no such level or set of women, and I have to "up my game" for any woman to find me attractive.
> 
> You, as a woman, may have many female friends who say they are just looking for a nice guy to settle down with. They may even believe that. From the guys side of the fence, they are lying to themselves. They say they want that, but when faced with a beta guy they find him unattractive. They may, when they start to hear the biological clock ticking, even date and have sex with and marry that beta guy. But once they have the ring and the number of kids they wanted, they stop finding him attractive enough to continue to have sex with. Not every woman is like this. But many are. Enough that warning men against this dynamic is useful to beta men.
> 
> ...


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

So true Mem. Many of the stories start with her never really been into sex, didn't like oral, wasn't adventurous. 

I think we get a lot of "sex isn't everything" and "sex shouldn't be the most important thing" so you go years before you realize that ya, it kind of is. 

There should be far more talk about making sure you are sexually compatible before you marry. Right up there with if you want kids, how many, what religion will you be, where will you live etc.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Yes

For me it was a required point of compatibility. 

And - there's a sort of interesting conversational back and forth that transpires when I raise this. It sort of goes like this: The guy says, well I just made this life time commit, didn't want to break it and be the bad guy blah blah blah. 

This is - I think a male flaw wrt to conflict. They see it as - accept what they are getting or get a divorce. 

Which leaves out by far the best option which is the unfiltered honesty package where you share that:
1. Their desire to please you is way way less than when dating.
2. Their attraction to you also seems way down.
3. No hurry - but there will be no baby making until this is resolved to your satisfaction. 
4. And oh by the way - if she just isn't that into you and mainly sees you as a provider / coparent - than the marriage needs to end





SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So true Mem. Many of the stories start with her never really been into sex, didn't like oral, wasn't adventurous.
> 
> I think we get a lot of "sex isn't everything" and "sex shouldn't be the most important thing" so you go years before you realize that ya, it kind of is.
> 
> There should be far more talk about making sure you are sexually compatible before you marry. Right up there with if you want kids, how many, what religion will you be, where will you live etc.


----------



## chillymorn69 (Jun 27, 2016)

MEM2020 said:


> Most of the stories I read here - the guy was provided with an unmistakable pattern of behavior before the ship actually left port.
> 
> And ship leaving port = getting pregnant
> 
> ...




The persons departure terrifies them because of the monatary loss. And the time loss of seeing and being a large part of their childrens life.

Plus who wants to have to start doing laundry again,>


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

chilly,
Seems like you skimmed what I wrote. 

There is rarely any money transfer when the marriage is short and childless. If any, it is a small amount. 





chillymorn69 said:


> The persons departure terrifies them because of the monatary loss. And the time loss of seeing and being a large part of their childrens life.
> 
> Plus who wants to have to start doing laundry again,>


----------



## chillymorn69 (Jun 27, 2016)

MEM2020 said:


> chilly,
> Seems like you skimmed what I wrote.
> 
> There is rarely any money transfer when the marriage is short and childless. If any, it is a small amount.


Lol sorry your assessment of skimming was spot on!


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Is that so crazy? Sex is easy to obtain in return for a modest amount of money - either by explicit or implicit transactions. A good relationship is much more difficult to find. Why shouldn't people value the thing that is rare. 





MEM2020 said:


> snip
> 
> And the vast majority of male posters on here with a toxic sexual dynamic - behave in a way that shows a clear preference for relationship stability over a decent sex life.
> snip
> them.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

MEM2020 said:


> And the vast majority of male posters on here with a toxic sexual dynamic - behave in a way that shows a clear preference for relationship stability over a decent sex life.
> 
> So - they come to TAM bitterly complaining about a person whose possible departure - terrifies them.


But isn't that the definition of being beta? Preferring stability to obtaining desired goals? Fear of conflict and possible failure / loss?

If the guy was the kind of guy who, upon seeing red flags, would dump her, then he wouldn't be beta. If the guy was the kind of guy who has a clear preference for a decent sex life over relationship stability, he wouldn't be beta. If he thought there were plenty of women who would find him attractive instead of feeling that his current wife is the only woman in the world who would have sex with him at all, he wouldn't be beta.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Even alpha guys have a hard time leaving their homes, children, families and stability. Go through court, pay child support, find a new home, get their kids half - at best - the time. It's not something that should be taken lightly because meh, other women will want to sleep with me. 

It may be easy to find someone else to have sex with but that's not the entire picture.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> pouting, whining, being passive aggressive, having a temper or angry outbursts - even at the guy on the road or the lazy coworker you have to deal with, I'm not talking just at her- flirty, not giving enough attention or really listening. Bad in bed... that's a given.
> 
> These are behaviors we may not like but aren't specific to alpha/beta. You can be a beta guy who doesn't pout and whine.


I disagree. To me, it is inherent in being beta that you would pout and whine rather than taking action to address the problem. To me, being beta is being passive aggressive, pouty, whiny, conflict avoidant, etc. 

A guy can be decent, pleasant, quiet, sensitive, connected to his emotions and still be alpha. To me, being beta isn't about being "nice". Being beta is about not being open and honest about how you feel, what you want, and what you are willing to do to get it. It is not having the confidence to trigger conflict when you are unhappy. Which then results in being whiny, pouty, passive aggressive and then exploding when the frustration and resentment becomes overwhelming.

So, to me, a beta guy is pretty much always going to display all the negative characteristics you and your female friends intensely dislike. Which is why the advice to unhappy guys to be less beta is frequently the correct advice. 

As I have said many times, it doesn't take many posts to pick out the selfish jerk alphas who are complaining that their woman has caught on to their poor behavior. Yes, we can tell that guy to go back to dating and wooing his wife and reaffirming how much he loves her. Most guys who show up on TAM complaining about lack of sex are not that guy. Most guys who show up here are betas whose wife does not find him attractive. For those guys, wooing her enough is not the problem. The problem is being too fearful and conflict avoidant. He needs to be less of a puppy dog and more of a wolf.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

I guess it depends on ones definition of alpha and beta

Whiny and pouting, those are behaviors not traits IMO

I see alpha and beta differently than you do. I think that's one of the biggest problems is that everyone is taking about something else when they say these words lol


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I don't think there is any consistent definition of beta. 

That aside, does "alpha" mean prioritizing sex over other things? If anything that seems like someone who is being controlled by their physical desires.

Imagine a man with a loving wife and children, but his wife no longer wants sex. Is it alpha to leave his wife and children in order to get sex? Or is it alpha to decide that his marriage is more important than sex?

He has two goals and it is impossible to have them both. 




Holdingontoit said:


> But isn't that the definition of being beta? Preferring stability to obtaining desired goals? Fear of conflict and possible failure / loss?
> 
> If the guy was the kind of guy who, upon seeing red flags, would dump her, then he wouldn't be beta. If the guy was the kind of guy who has a clear preference for a decent sex life over relationship stability, he wouldn't be beta. If he thought there were plenty of women who would find him attractive instead of feeling that his current wife is the only woman in the world who would have sex with him at all, he wouldn't be beta.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

A comment on this article is pretty much how I feel about a lot of the "be more alpha" books and tactic
Let's Talk About the Modern Alpha Male

"Going from a passive-aggressive whiny little B to an aggressive-aggressive whiny little B isn't much of a makeover."

Because truly it has nothing to do with alpha and beta but they believed they were "nice guys" who deserved the girl. They saw "alpha guys" get the girl so they think they should be like him to get the girl


To me alpha vs beta men are simply the natural leader, natural dominant types vs the men who aren't. There's nothing wrong with either. There will only ever be so many people who are natural leader types. I'm not. Doesn't mean I'm whiny. 

Alpha men CAN be jerks and aggressive and mean. Beta men CAN be whiny and pouty and sad. 
Those behaviors don't inherently make them who they are. 

If a whiny guy wants to be less whiny then that is great but it really has nothing to do with alpha and beta and women only liking alpha guys... no one likes whiny people.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I'm going to create a totally separate thread on this topic. 

However - for now - I will make some limited comments.

For some reason folks generally seem determined to see an either/or in the mix of alpha/beta traits a person has. 

As an example - by default I'm an analyst, not a warrior. I will only fight you if I feel there is no other option. 

And - I'd like to add - that I find the semi contemptuous tone used to describe beta traits - appalling and uncalled for. 

That said - I'm keenly aware that some of my traits are - different - than yours. What bothers me is this idea that having a predominantly beta profile is a bad/lame/likely sexless thing. 





Holdingontoit said:


> But isn't that the definition of being beta? Preferring stability to obtaining desired goals? Fear of conflict and possible failure / loss?
> 
> If the guy was the kind of guy who, upon seeing red flags, would dump her, then he wouldn't be beta. If the guy was the kind of guy who has a clear preference for a decent sex life over relationship stability, he wouldn't be beta. If he thought there were plenty of women who would find him attractive instead of feeling that his current wife is the only woman in the world who would have sex with him at all, he wouldn't be beta.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I don't agree.

The trait is: a strong desire for sympathy

The way that trait is expressed is often through whiney and pouty behavior. 





SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I guess it depends on ones definition of alpha and beta
> 
> Whiny and pouting, those are behaviors not traits IMO
> 
> I see alpha and beta differently than you do. I think that's one of the biggest problems is that everyone is taking about something else when they say these words lol


----------



## chillymorn69 (Jun 27, 2016)

you could be beta in one aspect of your life and alpha in another.

and you could be so alpha that you end up just being a **** head.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

MEM2020 said:


> That said - I'm keenly aware that some of my traits are - different - than yours. What bothers me is this idea that having a predominantly beta profile is a bad/lame/likely sexless thing.


It may bother you that being a beta male is highly correlated with being sexless, but it is nevertheless undeniably true. So if the male in question wishes to have a good sex life, being beta is a bad / lame thing to be.

There may well be a pool of women who find beta men desirable. However, large scale experience indicates that this pool of women is far smaller than the number of males whose natural inclination is to exhibit beta traits.

Another aspect of being beta: deference to others seen as higher in the pecking order. Beta men view all / almost all women as higher in the pecking order based on their ability to provide or withhold sex. Yes, there is such a thing as being too dom and that can turn some women off. But being 100% sub is a major turnoff to a very high percentage of women. So yes, that aspect of being beta (too deferential and submissive) is bad and lame and results in sexlessness.

Most women need to feel safe to be willing to become aroused and to admit / express their arousal. A man who is too deferential / submissive can't be trusted to keep her safe (if he won't fight for himself, how can he be expected to fight to keep her safe), so she finds it difficult to become aroused or to express that openly to him. Again, bad / lame / sexless.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> It may bother you that being a beta male is highly correlated with being sexless, but it is nevertheless undeniably true. So if the male in question wishes to have a good sex life, being beta is a bad / lame thing to be.


The important thing to understand is that when we're talking about Alpha's and Beta's here on TAM, we're not talking about traits that lead one to become a better human, a better contributor to society or the better all-around fellow.

We're talking about men who are better at attracting the interest of women.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

As can be seen, women are violently opposed to beta's trying to act like alphas.

This is a bit confusing because, if women preferred alphas, you'd think that they'd appreciate any efforts men would make to display traits that they prefer.

So why the outrage? Why the "just be yourself and you'll find many women who want you just the way you are".

As @Holdingontoit keeps trying to point out, there really aren't many women who want Betas "just the way they are". 

I heard a theory once that seemed to explain it. It makes sense, although I'm not committed to it.

The idea is that it's VERY important for women to know who they're committing the rest of their life to (at least it was, when they had to depend on the man to support them and their children).

Any attempt to "fool" them into thinking that you're desirable when you're really a Beta in Alpha clothing could have disastrous consequences for them.

So it's VERY important for women to try to talk Beta guys out of trying to appear Alpha.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

I really don't think that's the case at all. 

I don't want a man who is acting like something else because then we aren't compatible. 

I need a self confident dominating man, any false ego or damaged thinking is dangerous for me. I am *very* careful to not pick a guy who has these views. 

I don't want the kind of man who tries to be more alpha to get a woman because I don't respect that kind of man. These men don't have the views about women that I respect and are compatible with. 

I respect beta men. I respect alpha men. 

I could give a crap if the man I am with has money, status or desirability to anyone but me. But he needs to be compatible.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

MEM2020 said:


> Most of the stories I read here - the guy was provided with an unmistakable pattern of behavior before the ship actually left port.
> 
> And ship leaving port = getting pregnant


There's a lot of new research about instantaneous and responsive desire being done.

A generalization is that about 75% of men are the first and 75% of women are responsive.

Everyone has instantaneous desire while the relationship is new (if not, you've really got problems), so you can't tell much from this experience.

In addition, childbirth is well known to affect female libido in addition to the psychological effects of seeing oneself as a 'Mom' rather than a 'Wife' and physical changes that affect body image.

Men's sexual desire is fueled by testosterone and is steady; declining slowly with time.

Women's sexual desire is situational, goes away more easily in committed relationships and is driven by changing hormones.

So, I don't really see how it's possible in the first few years of a relationship to identify any particular woman's sexual compatibility with you 20 years into the future.

What you CAN determine is the woman's status as a giver or a taker. A Taker who finds herself with responsive desire may well, thinking only of herself, just decide that sex isn't very important anymore. A Giver in the same situation is likely to find ways to use her responsive desire to maintain a healthy and satisfying sex live with her husband.

Only get involved with people who are not selfish and who are genuinely concerned about your happiness.

* And, of course, be every bit as concerned with her happiness as she is with yours.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I really don't think that's the case at all.
> 
> I don't want a man who is acting like something else because then we aren't compatible.
> 
> ...


Well, the theory says that this female behavior is below the level of consciousness (you wouldn't know that you were doing it for that reason).

So I'm covered there :wink2:


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

Buddy400 said:


> Well, the theory says that this female behavior is below the level of consciousness (you wouldn't know that you were doing it for that reason).
> 
> So I'm covered there :wink2:


These kinds of "theories" are made by a bunch of whiny men who have 0 understanding of actual women and need to blame their lack of getting women on some kind of unconscious crap going on instead of realizing that ALL KINDS of men get good women who are incredibly happy with them. 

These kinds of theory making men barely even like women let alone have what it takes to maintain a healthy relationship with one.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I need a self confident dominating man, any false ego or damaged thinking is dangerous for me. I am *very* careful to not pick a guy who has these views.
> 
> I respect beta men. I respect alpha men.


I think you are making my point for me. You may respect a beta man, but you don't find him attractive and you would be very upset if you found out, after having sex with him, that he wasn't as alpha as you originally thought. Which is fine. I can understand why you feel that way and the way you feel is quite common and perfectly OK.

But from the man's side, if he finds himself among the "too beta to be attractive" he can either learn to act more alpha and he can remain undersexed. Yes, I know you want him to wait around to find his "unicorn" (woman who finds beta males sexually attractive) but he may want to have sex more often than once a century. So if his goal is to convince a woman to have more sex with him, he needs to convince her he is more alpha than she realized. I am not telling beta men to pretend to be more alpha. I am telling them to break through their fears and become more alpha.

Or not. But to accept that if the answer is "I can't" or "I won't" then they will probably continue to engage in less sex than they wish they did. I realized I won't, so I stopped having sex with my wife. Accepting that alpha and beta are real and impact sexual opportunities does not imply deception or manipulation. Although I can see it might be susceptible of that in some cases.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

"I need". Me personally. Not all women. I personally need that because I am a sub. 
Someone who is naturally dominant vs faking dominant is a must for me and my safety. Any man who followed ANY of this crap would be deemed a danger to me and my safety. Hence why I check for it first. 

I am friends with women who are dommes and need and are attracted to a submissive man. 

We are all different!


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

uhtred said:


> Was Mahatma Gandhi an "alpha"?












On a serious note, I reckon this whole "alpha/beta" debate is pretty meh, for both men and women. Some men may prefer a confident woman, take charge, alpha blah blah, others look for humility in a women, even submissiveness. I believe from personal experiences and observations, women are the same, some women may like muscle men, others find them repulsive, some women may like a man who's a leader, others may find his traits a turn off.

My recent lover had always told me what she found attractive about me and looking back at her compliments these traits may not even seem "alpha" but were in fact actually very much "beta"

The whole dating game is a joke quite frankly, just putting yourself out there is enough. Life will take its own course. To increase chances of finding the right one, is simply positioning yourself with other compatible people and eventually nature will just take its course and two will figure out circle fits in square.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy (Jun 2, 2011)

I just remembered something that I will give to the boys side here. 

Confidence when online dating. 

There were a few types of guys out there. 
The ones who were "hey" and expected me to turn that into a conversation. 
The "wanna f*ck" or other disgusting messages boys
The endless "how was your day?, good yours?, mine was good. Yours?" boys. *Get to the point*
The "here are a list of reasons why you should date me" boys

And the ones like my bf. We had met before but didn't speak then. He just sent "hey, would you like to go out for coffee sometime?"

Confidence while being respectful. Lovely. 
He was the only guy I met from online. I doubt I would have if I had the endless "so... do you like coffee" conversation. 

He told me that he figured he might as well. Worst case I say no. 

He is always first and foremost respectful and sweet and makes me the centre of his world and does all kinds of things people would label as beta, but that confidence. Quiet confidence. No bragging, no ego, no fishing for compliments. 

IME the least confident guys are the ones who talk about it the most. The men who brag about the girls, brag about their money or how great they are in bed. The guy that flirts with all the girls and acts all c*cly. Insecure men. 

Sexiest thing in a man or woman is confidence. But you can be confident and a total nerd at the comic convention without a 6 pack and be shy (yes you can be shy AND confident) 

Still yet, this is not a man thing. Women need confidence too in order to attract a mate. It's a universal thing. 

I'm guessing some guys call that being "alpha" but I really don't think anyone needs any of the other silly rules and regulations of the "how to be an alpha male" handbook. Just be confident.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

You can't be certain you are long term sexually compatible, but you sure as heck can tell if you are incompatible. 

And you can gauge how selfish/selfless they seem to be. 




Buddy400 said:


> There's a lot of new research about instantaneous and responsive desire being done.
> 
> A generalization is that about 75% of men are the first and 75% of women are responsive.
> 
> ...


----------



## TaDor (Dec 20, 2015)

Adams ruin everything - Alpha Males.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

RandomDude said:


> On a serious note, I reckon this whole "alpha/beta" debate is pretty meh, for both men and women. Some men may prefer a confident woman, take charge, alpha blah blah, others look for humility in a women, even submissiveness. I believe from personal experiences and observations, women are the same, some women may like muscle men, others find them repulsive, some women may like a man who's a leader, others may find his traits a turn off.
> 
> My recent lover had always told me what she found attractive about me and looking back at her compliments these traits may not even seem "alpha" but were in fact actually very much "beta"
> 
> The whole dating game is a joke quite frankly, just putting yourself out there is enough. Life will take its own course. To increase chances of finding the right one, is simply positioning yourself with other compatible people and eventually nature will just take its course and two will figure out circle fits in square.


Stupid Ghandi nuked me EVERY TIME.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think there was a bug. Under some conditions Ghandi woudl be so peacfeul that the measurement wrapped and he went into insane nuke mode. (or maybe that IS reality)



Fozzy said:


> Stupid Ghandi nuked me EVERY TIME.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Fozzy said:


> Stupid Ghandi nuked me EVERY TIME.





uhtred said:


> I think there was a bug. Under some conditions Ghandi woudl be so peacfeul that the measurement wrapped and he went into insane nuke mode. (or maybe that IS reality)


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

The whole Alpha/Beta thing has never been of concern to me - which, ironically, is probably pretty Alpha!

My 2 cents on it is that the whole chest-thumping, confident, "I get all the hot chicks" bravado is all well and good if you want to get laid and that's about it.

The ones who talk about it most, and try to explain to everyone else how they, too, can be the alpha male, and that Beta losers suck and finish last - that's not Alpha behaviour. Super ironic.

Leaders lead. Act like you've been there before. Bragging isn't "manly", it's a cry for attention. And a cry for attention means you need attention and an ego boost.

As the women in this thread can attest to, being an Alpha male isn't what most of the Alpha males (here, especially) think it is.

Yeah, the bravado might get them laid, but that's about it. If you measure your success in life by how many chicks you can bang, or the level of chicks you're banging, the jokes on you.

In terms of actual Alpha vs Beta behaviour, esp. in relationships/marriages, I went from one to the other, and it has nothing to do with chest-thumping, testosterone, blowhard behaviour. It's simply a subtle shift from acceptance to non-acceptance, when it comes to what one wants in life.

With my ex-wife, I was a true "yes dear" husband. What I thought was making her happy was having the complete opposite effect. Lesson learned.

Now, I challenge my wife - and lo and behold, she acknowledges it. She's a strong personality, and nobody had ever challenged her before. She genuinely appreciates this, and says so.

The main difference between being an Alpha male and a "true" Alpha male is not being an *******. Many guys just don't get this. It's all well and good when you're 18-25 and haven't quite figured life out yet. You're almost expected to be an ******* at that age. And yes, *******s will get laid. And a high priority for 18-25 year old guys is getting laid.


----------

