Are Alpha Males Struggling to Remain Relevant?
Those of you who read HUS regularly know that I frequently sing the praises of Beta males. While many women respond positively to such talk, it often ticks off the men. Mostly, they’re discouraged Betas who are bitterly convinced that women only want Alpha assholes. They often find comfort at sites that teach seduction techniques and strategies to help men pick up women. In the parlance of those Pickup Artists, a Beta male is a guy who doesn’t get laid. An Alpha male is a guy who gets laid a lot. Period. Of course, this implies that Alpha traits are not genetic, but can be learned. It is true that certain Alpha-type behaviors can be learned, and can make men feel more confident with women. But be careful what you wish for, and be selective about which traits you mimic. Women in 2010 will choose Beta much of the time.
The article Alpha Romeos in Fortune Magazine profiled the work of Robert Sapolsky, a renowned primatologist at Stanford. He studies baboons, who have one of the strictest sex/power pyramids among primates. They are very hierarchical, and mate according to rank. That means that only about 50% of the males have sex, and the other 50% sort of sit around moping. According to Sapolsky:
This strict sex/power pyramid creates the perception that baboon life is the most extreme example of a male-dominated, chest-thumping society in the primate world.
However, Sapolsky’s research has led him to conclude that the reality is far more subtle and complex.
Scientists are now finding that even the most successful alphas are often out-reproduced by lower-ranking males who have taken up “alternative strategies” to tribe life. Modern primatology has uncovered surprisingly strong reproductive rates among male baboons who have dropped out of the male-male nonsense altogether.
What’s going on? I turns out that these “highly affiliated nice guys spend the bulk of their time hanging out with the females, picking bugs out of each other’s fur and playing with the kids.” When Alpha isn’t looking, they sneak off and have sex. Sapolsky believes that this baboon behavior has enormous implications for human love affairs. In humans, as in other primates, there is enormous female choice in mate selection.
Female choice is built around male-female affiliation rather than the outcome of male-male aggression. It’s this totally bizarre discovery that females like to hang out with guys who are nice to them. The males having gal-pal sex aren’t just ineffectual branch potatoes. Often they are animals who have made it some distance up the baboon ladder–even in some cases all the way to the alpha position–and then had something like a revelation. They’ve won a few fights, looked around, and decided that the hypercompetitive hierarchy thing just isn’t for them. They downshift. They make a lifestyle change. Their overall health improves immensely, they make some friends, and they have a better chance of knowing who their kids are.
Sapolsky believes that the ability of these “nice guys” to walk away from conflict is correlated to higher development in the cerebral frontal cortex, which allows them greater impulse control. Among the more dominant baboon males, less impulse control often becomes a problem.
Most baboons can make basic strategy but lack the patience to execute. They just can’t prevent themselves from leaping out and doing some dumb-ass thing that blows their whole plan.
That sounds just like some human primates I know!
There is no one scientific definition of Alpha in studies of human behavior, but Alpha male traits are generally assumed to derive from high testosterone levels, which produce dominance and aggression. Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers, has even employed the Dad/Cad dichotomy to describe them, labeling Alphas the “cads,” who may not be good mating partners.
Ten thousand years ago, Alpha traits were essential in ensuring survival for the whole community. Alphas organized and led men in their search for food, and in conquering enemy tribes. The emotion of jealousy presumably evolved when Alphas returned to find their women pregnant. Since paternity is not easily deduced even today, and was indeterminate then, it became clear that Alphas had every reason to worry that their women were mating with Betas on a regular basis. As I wrote recently in this post, women desire Alpha for a few days just prior to ovulation, in order that she may acquire his strong survival genes for her offspring. The rest of the month she prefers Beta, who is much better company and likelier to stick around.
Today, we have an information economy. Both innovation and delivery depend on many of those traits historically associated with Betas: intelligence, the ability to work collaboratively, the ability to forge sustained alliances, creativity. Many of the most successful men in the United States present as Beta types. Indeed, some have questioned whether Barack Obama is a classic Beta male, due to his conciliatory treatment of ruthless Alpha leaders. Alpha males do continue to exert strong leadership, and many of them have risen to positions of power. However, they are often not particularly effective as the heads of large organizations.
In 2006, Harvard Business School press published The Alpha Male Syndrome by Kate Ludeman and Eddie Erlandson. Essentially, it confronts the difficulty that many Alpha males are having in being effective within their organizations, and lays out prescriptive approaches to enable Alpha males to adapt successfully to a contemporary environment. Erlandson was a vascular surgeon, who found that 75% of his patients were Alpha males. While Alpha behavior is a continuum, with inspirational leadership at one end, at the other end we find:
- Explosive anger
- Ruthless competitiveness
- High aggressiveness
- High urgency
A drive that once assured the survivial of the toughest has become maladaptive. Today brains count – a physical pipsqueak can be a giant. Emotional intelligence inspires more loyalty than dominance.
Here are the abilities that Ludeman and Erlandson believe Alphas naturally lack:
- Motivating
- Inspiring
- Teaching
- Communicating
- Modeling integrity and personal growth
They attribute much of the problem to the tendency of the Alpha brain to get highjacked, much as Sapolsky found with respect to impulse control:
Human emotions evolved as short-circuit organizers to speed up survival decisions. The purpose was to prevent the thinking process from interfering with the instinctive response to danger. Alpha males tend toward these impulses, and affect their environments by influencing others. Alpha adrenaline junkies wind up making themselves ill and create a toxic environment for everyone else.
Societies change far more rapidly than the human brain evolves. In the last 150 years, we have experienced and moved beyond the industrial era in the U.S. Brute strength and force of will are not only less important than they used to be, they can actually hamper innovation and growth.
Of course, female brains evolve at the same slow pace. Women still prefer Alpha four days a month (biologically speaking), and he is the man most likely to get her juices flowing when her fertility is highest. For us, just as for the male baboons, it’s a question of impulse control, and those of us who are smart will develop an alternate strategy.
The smart Beta male would do well to be ready. The U.S. economy will continue to provide beta-friendly opportunities for advancement. If Beta can learn the Alpha behaviors of self-assurance and independence when he interacts with women, he will have it all within his reach.
Related posts:
I don't think any member of the political class, much less the president, can be described as having a beta personality. Waaaaaaaaay too much narcissism is required.
However, I do think the use of baboons in this example is perfect considering how much of the mating dance seems to be about showing your ass, in all definitions of the term…
Well, that's an interesting point. I think it might be difficult to correlate narcissism with alpha/beta, because it's a personality malfunction, usually thought to be caused by emotional lack in childhood. It's true that narcissists are dominant and aggressive, but it's hard to say whether that's a result of high testosterone, or residual anger.
Or perhaps Alphas are learning to act more like Betas in a world that rewards Beta behavior and considers Alpha traits difficult. Obama may indeed be an Alpha, but he's adapted to promote a collaborative, good-listener, highly intelligent type persona.
Haha, the article also said that male baboons frequently greet one another by yanking each other's penises. I guess we can be glad the similarities to humans don't extend that far.
We have had similar discussions at our site Leftos.com. We recently had the discussion over current day chivalry (http://www.leftos.com/forum/view/332)….We saw many of our users suggest that chivalry is not gone it just has changed. Many cited technology, societies etiquettes, and women's rights as the reason for this. This could be the same type of thing with the Alpha Male. Maybe it's not that they are gone or a non-factor but rather they have “morphed” into our society to fit in with todays culture??
Hey, Leftos, I just checked out your site – very cool! A site where the sexes can share and illuminate one another sounds great to me. Thanks so much for leaving a comment. I do have some thoughts about chivalry. Since women now enjoy equal rights in society, I think it's unfair to expect men to perform chivalrous acts. However, that doesn't mean they are unwelcome – most women will give a guy bonus points for excellent manners. I also think women need to adopt chivalrous behaviors – giving up a seat on the subway to a pregnant woman, child or senior, for example. I have found that going through one's day performing these small acts of chivalry improves my mood and helps me connect with other people.
I'm very wary about this sort of discussion. There's one really salient factor that I think you're leaving out, and I think it changes the implications of this research.
**Most females get pregnant (many by alpha males during the four days when their juices are out of control) before their hormones calm down, and when they are still particularly susceptible to Alpha tactics. Remember my post on the recent study showing mate copying among females who are particularly inexperienced? It's true that there isn't a causal relationship between age and mate copying, but there is a strong correlation in societies like ours.
Once a girl gets pregnant and has a baby, things change. For one thing, there's an alpha male in her life (at least legally) and as we all know, there are a LOT of women who keep going back to their alpha asshole exes, even though they know better. Those four days of hormones are really powerful.
I don't know this for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that if we sampled the girls who hook up with the Speed Seducers on the first night, we'd find a HIGH number of them in their ovulation phase.
I think a better strategy for Betas isn't necessarily to keep acting “just like betas” and wait for women to become sane in their twenties. (Bet you didn't think about it that way, did you)
Instead, I think there are techniques used by alphas, players, and speed seducers that REALLY ARE tickets straight to a woman's juices. They aren't wrong in and of themselves. They're how females instinctively choose mates. Betas don't have to be assholes to use things from Speed Seduction to generate interest. Think about it. If two guys are talking to a girl, and the alpha does all the alpha stuff, and the beta thinks, “I don't have a chance,” his body language is going to change, and he's going to be less attractive to her. If, on the other hand, he adopts behaviors that he knows are attractive to women, she might find him more attractive, and might use some of her remaining rational brain cells to say… Hmmm… I'm physically attracted to both of these guys, but Beta seems genuinely interested in what I'm saying. And then… wow! She has a beta, and a beta is getting laid by a high value female. Everybody gets what they want.
We also need to think about this in terms of short vs. longterm strategy. Most women don't *know* they're engaging in short term mating behaviors when they are. They're trained nearly from birth that good girls don't do that. However, the reality is that they do, and they want to. Betas who wait until women are engaging in long term mating behaviors from females will have to wait until they're in their mid thirties a lot of the time. That's great for the females who land them… but… yeah, I can see how guys would get upset at being told they just have to settle for less sex in their 20s.
Speed seduction, at its heart, is applied psychology. Yes, some of it is grossly exaggerated. Those guys didn't make millions selling the complete truth. Nobody ever does. (People almost never want the truth. You know that.) However, we can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater. Consider that we know that scientifically speaking, laughter is very good for us. We tell people who are depressed to watch comedies, and to laugh — even if they're forcing it — because we know that laughter DOES change their physical state, even if they didn't feel “instinctively” that this was a good time to laugh. We can train sad people to laugh more, and they become happier.
So… what's wrong with training betas who don't get girls very often to use behaviors that maybe don't feel completely natural, but will change their attractiveness to women? They don't have to become assholes. They don't have to have one-night stands. All they really need to do is get more chances with girls they're interested in.
So… yeah, I know this site is mainly for girls, but I think behavior is a two way street. If women can learn to be a little more selective, and override their instincts, they can also learn to be a little more selective when presented with two males, both displaying attractive traits. (HINT: The alphas will demand sex right away. The smart betas will turn down sex while telling her how much he really, really wants it, and then suggest another date tomorrow.)
Yes, Hamby, this is exactly right, I agree 100%. A while back I wrote a post (Stop Putting Out for Alpha Asshats) and it brought guys who practice Game to my site in droves. Some of them were incredibly rude and unpleasant, but there were some who explained why Game works, just as you have done here. A couple of them turned out to be bloggers about Game who I respect. And I realized that what you are saying is true – developing one's social skills in a way proven to appeal to women is smart strategy. So often good guys fall short in areas I'll call balance and timing. They show their hand way too early.
The problem with seduction techniques arises when they are applied in ways that involve deceit or aim specifically to damage a woman's self-esteem. I strenuously object to that, but there is plenty that guys can do to be effective with women, and not cross the line into abusive tactics. So we are in complete agreement here.
I'm actually working on another video post (they're a LOT more work) called “How to Get the Girl Without Being a Jerk” or something like that. I guess it's my own amateur version of Game, in a way. Because when guys act like jerks, they do get girls into bed. But it's a relationship killer. And I think a lot of smart betas paint themselves into a corner – they get the girl by acting like an asshole, now what? I've had guys tell me it's exhausting.
I think women can be smart and selective when betas display attractive traits. It is the best of both worlds, and everyone wins, as you say. That's why I ended this post by saying that if betas can learn to display the alpha traits of self-assurance and independence, they will be successful.
Hey Susan…thanks for checking out our site. Feel free to jump in and add to the discussion. We have some really interesting conversations amongst our growing user base. We really like your site and discussions here also. We'll definitely keep checking it out and commenting!
What you should be saying is that guys should just learn to be MEN not “alpha males”.
When meeting a girl just convey confidence first and foremost (show her you like who you are and maybe she'll want to get to know you), independence (if you can show her that you can take care of yourself then you can probably also take care of her and a potential family), strength (not physical strength just have a strong personality and show her you're headstrong) and grooming also goes a long way. don't over do it. a lot of girls don't like facial hair that looks too groomed so if you're scruffy just give it a trim and rock it (don't make it seem like you're putting too much effort into anything. you'll end up looking like a tool). iron your clothes. smell also goes a long way. get a nice cologne and don't over do it. the more subtle it is the closer she'll need to get to smell it. have a warm but manly smell and it'll just make her want to snuggle into your chest and have you hold her. also don't be too loud or obnoxious. be funny but keep a subtle difference. it'll add an air of mystery to you. let her get to know you. don't try to tell her everything at once.
Hi Juan, thanks for leaving this great comment. Yeah, this is what it's really about. It's about personal development, and men who want to be successful with women need to develop attitudes and skills that get the job done. It's pretty much what you've talked about here. My only disagreement is about cologne–women actually love a guy's natural smell (which includes testosterone). We also select men partially on smell, so if you cover up your natural scent, you are removing a strong indicator for women. Of course, don't go crazy and stop showering, haha. It's a clean, natural smell that women love.
Yeah, where are these guys on the spectrum? '20 something men want kids…' Huff Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-stepp/twent...
My guess? Many of them are wholly missed by much of the women 'sowing their wild oats' in their 20's. They're likely safely married, divorced or even remarried by the time some of the 30 something women wake up and finally start diligently searching for some compatible, decent & honest bloke to start a family with. Someone needs to do the math. But that never seems to affect the underlying behavior here. Cheers, 'VJ'
That's a very interesting and surprising article, VJ, thanks for the link. Yes, someone does need to do the math. You can't squeeze blood from a stone, and you can't squeeze very many plump and juicy eggs out of 30-something ovaries.
I think it's more than just confidence and independence, though, and I guess that's my broader point. You're also familiar with “push-pull,” I'm sure. I honestly can't remember what Gamers call it, but it's when you display interest alternatively with disinterest, or mix compliments with teasing/negatives. (Negging, in Game-Speak.)
The thing is, push-pull isn't inherently bad. If it's done right, it's damn fun. It builds rapport. It creates tension. Women love all that stuff. There's a very significant difference between being an ass and letting a woman know (either through words or body language) that she's not the only girl on the planet. Being an ass is just being an ass, but letting a woman know through your words and actions that you're interested, but not sure yet, and that you have other shit to do… that's sexy when done right.
It also sets up a healthier, non-codependent relationship. When a woman sees from the beginning of seduction that a man will jump through any hoop put in front of him, it sets the tone for an unhealthy give-take dynamic. However, when he makes it clear from the beginning that he is strong enough to express and control his own wants and desires, it makes the rules clear — “I want you, but I'm not willing to give up my whole self to get you. You have to give, too.”
Again, I know I'm coming from the male side here, but I think it's tempting for women sometimes to believe they can have their cake and eat it, too. Betas that never stand up for themselves are boring, and usually not as successful in life. Alpha — asshole — qualities work in both life and relationships, and with all things, it's about balance.
Juan, when you write
“just convey confidence first”
what is this “confidence” you speak of, and where can I get some? Can it be bought or rented?
Seriously, you make a grave error if you think the habits and behaviors of confidence can just be wished into being whenever one wills it. Natural confidence is the result of one's past experience of being treated well; people who haven't been treated well are extremely unlikely to have natural confidence, without being disconnected from reality (making it even harder for honest but mistreated people). For many people, the advice “just act confident” is, by itself, meaningless, sort of like saying “just be taller.” Confidence is not a single line or a single act; its a whole suite of habits, not something one can do on command if you don't already know how.
The practical advice of people like Susan and the Gamers [there's a name for a band] is to fake it, at least at first. I wouldn't deny that this is practical, though it may take a lot of work for some. What I object to is your equation of conveying confidence with learning to “be MEN”. This basically means that a past history of mistreatment or rejection becomes a shameful secret, that must be hidden, risen above, and never honestly mentioned. Personally, I think that acting like a man means to maintain a sense of justice, to resent injustice, rather than insisting that those who've been mistreated must always hide that fact in order to be accepted into society.
So, yes, confidence will do a lot to improve one's life. But for honest people, “faking it” can come at a very high cost.
You're right. Women want men to be about 80% nice, 20% bad. We require all the attributes that make for good partnering, but as you've pointed out, the other 20% gets us wet. And yes, push/pull is sexy. Have you ever had the experience where there was someone of the opposite sex who you didn't get along with at all? You just kind of rubbed each other the wrong way, and the friction produced incredible sexual tension. I can remember that in my twenties – there were guys I didn't even like much, but our not getting along, due to political differences or whatever, made them seem incredibly hot, at least for a while. We weren't compatible in the least, but it was passionate, and fun. It felt like breaking the rules. That's what it feels like to women when they are with a bad boy – it feels rebellious, and that is empowering. The best relationships capture that passion early on – it won't last forever, but it's a good start.
I've seen the 20-something wanting-kids pattern before. In fact, one of my friends is living on $42 a week because the judge slapped him with child support for pretty much all of his unemployment so he can't even afford a cab to go to job interviews.
I'm nothing if not brutally honest, and while my friend was dating, I asked him about his condom use, and he said he wasn't very good about using them. I asked why, and he gave me a bunch of bullshit reasons. When I asked him about kids, it turned out that he's wanted to be a dad for years. Trouble is, he couldn't find anyone to marry him, so he subconsciously was trying to knock a girl up.
So… warning to guys. This shit can be unconscious, too. If you can't figure out why you refuse to wear condoms, examine your paternal instincts.
I should add, this isn't a bum. This is a victim of the recession who was making $40k a year two years ago.
I should also add here that this indeed is a way of 'increasing your inclusive fitness' w/o all the 'bother' of marriage or even a LTR. And it's a yes, well known & ‘time honored’ strategy too for Both sexes. Conscious or unconsciously done. Family planning requires thought, preparation & action. Still, it’s not rocket science & it requires actually surprisingly very little math. But this is a much larger topic than covered here, and cannot be accurately subsumed in the same simple dichotomy of the 'alpha vs beta debate'. Not all ionizing radiation is the same either. Go figure! Cheers & Good Luck! ‘VJ’
I've seen the 20-something wanting-kids pattern before. In fact, one of my friends is living on $42 a week because the judge slapped him with child support for pretty much all of his unemployment so he can't even afford a cab to go to job interviews.
I'm nothing if not brutally honest, and while my friend was dating, I asked him about his condom use, and he said he wasn't very good about using them. I asked why, and he gave me a bunch of bullshit reasons. When I asked him about kids, it turned out that he's wanted to be a dad for years. Trouble is, he couldn't find anyone to marry him, so he subconsciously was trying to knock a girl up.
So… warning to guys. This shit can be unconscious, too. If you can't figure out why you refuse to wear condoms, examine your paternal instincts.
I should add, this isn't a bum. This is a victim of the recession who was making $40k a year two years ago.
I should also add here that this indeed is a way of 'increasing your inclusive fitness' w/o all the 'bother' of marriage or even a LTR. And it's a yes, well known & ‘time honored’ strategy too for Both sexes. Conscious or unconsciously done. Family planning requires thought, preparation & action. Still, it’s not rocket science & it requires actually surprisingly very little math. But this is a much larger topic than covered here, and cannot be accurately subsumed in the same simple dichotomy of the 'alpha vs beta debate'. Not all ionizing radiation is the same either. Go figure! Cheers & Good Luck! ‘VJ’
[...] See the original post: Are Alpha Males Struggling to Remain Relevant? | Hooking Up Smart [...]
[...] Read the original post: Are Alpha Males Struggling to Remain Relevant? [...]
[...] Are Alpha Males Struggling to Remain Relevant? | Hooking Up Smart [...]
“Alpha leftovers for everyone!!”
While this may be acceptable among various primates, I think that any self-respecting beta will think twice about a woman's past.
Darwinism will dictate that the less discriminating betas will be more apt to couple up, while the discerning beta will think twice (or thrice) about the degree to which his potential beloved has squandered her attentions on the wrong kind of men.
Approaching and passing 40 has given me great appreciation for freedom, and spending my money as I see fit. Additionally, female companionship is easier to get, though I don't see marriage potential in most of them.
I think the future for guys like me is having female friends and dating interests, but marriage and kids is essentially out.
The danger in any negotiation (and dating is no different) is that you may hold out too long, and the other party walks away. I think that too many women wait until they have experienced utter defeat in trying to date jerks, and assume that a grateful beta is always available.
This is not an act of pride, it is an act of preservation. When a woman is so emotionally worn from going after alpha asshats, as you say, she brings far less positive energy to the new relationship with her beta male.
The beta male will end up paying the price for that woman's decisions and any associated bitterness.
Decisions have consequences, and one of those consequences is that the higher betas will not commit to these women. These women will likely have to go down to a lower beta (Roissy calls then 'Herbs') to find a wedding ring.
Rick! Good to see you! I think you know that I believe the phenomenon of women getting used up by Alphas and turning to Betas (Plan B) in their 30s is vastly overstated. It's a convenient belief on Roissy and other Game sites, but I've never seen an iota of evidence for such a claim. It's bound to be true for some women, but I believe there are many women looking for men of good character from their earliest days of sexual activity. The dilemma for women is that Alphas approach, display their natural gifts at wooing the woman, then often display disappointing character traits, or an unwillingness to commit. Women can be very open-minded about Betas from Day One, but if those guys are not showing up, there's no opportunity for interaction. Game is useful in that it gives men social skills that mimic the Alpha's natural behavior with women.
It seems to me that online dating might be useful here. I personally know half a dozen attractive women in their 30s, who have had just a handful of sexual partners. They're looking for dads, not cads.
In general, I think you are correct.
To the extent that betas like myself were not assertive enough, I accept that many women will take what offer is presented, i.e. the assertive bad boy.
That said, my polemic is a little more geared to those women who have had offers from decent guys and have been a little haughty about their options.
Another point – perhaps perversely, it would bother me less if my future wife fooled around a bit mostly from being horny than of she continually obsessed over the alpha asshats. It is the previous emotional damage that concerns me, not the previous physical contact.
That is not to say that I would marry a girl who ran a bl0ejob concession stand at the sex fair, however. Balance, of course, in all things.
I ended up back here because of running across your comments over in the Roissysphere. I have spent a couple months plowing through a lot of material there and also in the MGTOW group. It is interesting to see the stratification of the various levels of beta male (of which I am one).
This would perhaps be worthy topic for a post, should you be interested.
It may be a good idea to become familiar with the “shaming language” topic, since I see you were accused of using it (I don't believe it was your intent).
For better or worse, any comments that appear to fall into one of these categories will likely result in vitriol rather than dialogue.
While it may seem unfair to you that this is the case, please understand that many men have been a the receiving end of this language for years, and received it from people who intend malice, not dialog.
The following link is from a social conservative site, so take that as you will, but this link includes a great comment that sums up what many men think.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013995.html
Money quote:
“All of the above problems have consequences. The vast majority of women have entered a tournament where they are leveraging their prime years trying to snag a man that is either too attractive or too successful, or both, for them. When they fail and inevitably reach north of 30 without a husband, they then scramble around and marry a man they would've ignored before. Unfortunately, a woman with a history of dozens of sex partners all more attractive than her current husband is not fit for any long-term relationship. Divorce is inevitable. This is probably why women are surveying as very dissatisfied.”
It is worth reading.
You can decide yourself if it has any merit, but what is already decided is that many men feel this way, and will act accordingly.
When decent average guys see no reward for participating in and building society, they check out.
Angry women can whine all they like, and throw the entire lot of shaming language at us, and it will fail.
Once we have realized that following the dictates of women will STILL not result in satisfying relationships, the shaming language loses its power over us.
Since you are a lucid voice, it would be worth weighing in on.
One caution: You will not be trusted initially. You know that already though.
Of course. Everything you say here is entirely reasonable. Essentially, what I hear you saying is that you want a woman of good character, and why shouldn't you? The woman who is emotionally damaged and “used up” by jerks would probably never have been good for you, even when she first started down that path. One thing I think guys do is the same thing women do – focus on the obvious hotties. With everyone gunning for the select few, that's a lot of disappointed men and women. It's a waste.
That's true – and they have the right to demand the same of me.
I have a theory (only a theory), I don't know if you agree or not, but here it is:
With all of the attention the obvious hotties get, perhaps when an average guy pays attention to an average girl, she suspects him of being low status and rejects him.
This is logical, even if unfair. The gamers call this preselection – if another girl does not have him already, how good could he be?
The other factor playing into this is that Average Gal may not be flattered by the occasional attention from Average Guy.
Perhaps the occasional attention from a high-status guy (even for less than honorable purposes) “feels” better. Maybe an high-status guy's predatory interest pushes her romance/danger/excitement/attraction buttons more.
Just a thought.
I believe your theory is 100% correct. Women feel validated when Alpha chooses them, even if it's just a random hookup. Alpha is willing to have sex with any willing woman, he is not too choosy. That means a relatively less attractive woman can have “success” with the most preselected men. Of course, her success is short-lived, but hope springs eternal. Meanwhile, the hottest women are often deemed “not worth the trouble” by men who can easily get sex, so they start putting out to get in the game. The level of intrasexual competition among women is intense. That's why I've said in another post that 80% of women are having sex, with just 20% of the men.
Re Average Guy, I have one small anecdote, so take it for what it's worth. I took a young friend shopping the other day – she's in finals, but wanted to return home with gifts for her family. We went into the Apple Store. She told me one of the guys at the Genius Bar was cute. He was cute, in a Harry Potter sort of way. A guy that I'm sure gets overlooked all the time. But he was talking and smiling with a customer, he seemed articulate and friendly. I told her I was surprised she'd go for him – she's had her share of asshats. She said, “There are a lot of cute guys around if you're looking. I'm trying to have more awareness. I bet that guy is really nice.” Now, in all honesty, this is a young woman who is close to me and reads my stuff religiously. Perhaps she was saying what she knew I would want to hear. But I considered it a small triumph – she didn't meet him, we were helped by someone else – but I felt like her eyes and her mind were more open than they used to be.
Rick, thank you for sharing this. It's thoughtful and relevant. I have had an interesting history with practitioners of Game. I abhor Roissy, I believe he is a brilliant sadist who despises women. However, I do acknowledge his intelligent discourses on Game. My favorite Game blogger is Obsidian, he is really smart, loves Game, and is of strong moral character. He is a gentleman. Unfortunately, I have found him to be the exception. I have invested considerable time and effort in trying to relate to these guys – I have read, I have listened. I acknowledge that at times I have become defensive and used angry language in the heat of the moment. But at the end of the day? A lot of these men are beyond dialogue. They HATE women. It's not just a matter of trust. The Fifth Horseman, for example, is so bitter, so arrogant, so eager to demean, no real communication is possible, or even desirable. I do not wish to earn the trust of such a person.
I get it that men are bitter and angry, I understand that. I know that I called you bitter at one point – though, since I did that, I have received emails so angry that I realize you are a veritable pocketful of sunshine! You are rational, intelligent and open-minded.
I began writing because women are disappointed and discouraged. These Game types will not rest until I hold women accountable. I get where they are coming from, but the problem is, they don't get where I am coming from. I don't have the stomach for it, frankly. Life is short, I love my family, my friends, and my readers. I don't think it's a good use of my time to try to win over men who will never, ever, have a good opinion of women.
As an Apple shopper, you might get a laugh out of this (warning, extremely NSFW):
http://www.phun.org/newspics/funny_friday/4076.jpg
Merry Christmas, enjoy the snow.
Hey, Dilithium, the link wouldn't take me to the specific jpg, so I wasn't sure what it was. Thx anyway, though, I always appreciate a good laugh. Merry Christmas to you too!
I get that this is a generalization, but I don’t think you can reduce people to “alpha” or “beta”. So-called “alpha” types seem to be rather insecure, constantly afraid of looking weak or unmanly, or losing at something. Is that confident? Is that strength? The men I most admire are confident and relaxed. Self-assured, not cocky. Cockiness looks like you are trying too hard, with a fragile ego and overcompensating for something. Yet the relaxed confident types would probably get labelled as “betas” while the immature loudmouths are “alphas”.
I just think this whole terminology doesn’t match up to real people. The loudmouths, showoffs, players, and bad boys don’t strike me as 1) superior or higher ranked 2) more successful in life. They spend every night at clubs, spend all their money on their car and clothes, and are generally pretty dumb. We’ve all met these types and everyone can see through their fake schtick and tall tales.
Nowadays, smart guys are dominating society. Goldman Sachs and Google and Facebook or Amazon …. They are all rich and powerful. Dumb jocks don’t excel in the modern economy. Most “players” end up kind of sad and sleazy as they age. I’m just not buying that these clear cut categories actually apply to our society anymore.