We know that humans are descended from only a minority of prehistoric men, half the number of women who reproduced. The men who were successful in passing along their genes were the ones who embraced risk and succeeded in their quests. Men who failed the challenge, or who were too risk averse to attempt it, ended their lines with their own deaths. Therefore, in a very real way, we are all descended from dominant, successful males. (For the record, those challenges were not all heroic. At least one biologist has argued that the most violent early men successfully reproduced via rape, which is why the rape gene is still in our DNA today.)
The alpha/beta nomenclature as applied to humans only goes back to 1970, when David Mech coined the term to describe wolf behavior. It was later adopted by Game encoder Mystery to describe the pecking order among males. Biologists also sometimes refer to “dads” and “cads” in their work, generally to describe specific personality traits that correlate to short vs. long-term mating strategies. Over time, we’ve conflated the two concepts. (A Google search for the term alpha male produces many pages of links to Pickup Artist and Seduction sites with products to sell.)
Women select long-term mates according to a long list of traits. Those include alpha traits like social dominance, physical prowess, and symmetry. They also include what might be called beta traits, including ability to provide, kindness, honesty, demonstration of love and affection, intelligence, compatibility, dependability and industriousness.
WARNING: Alpha traits alone are suitable for short-term mating only!
In the current era, the men at the very top of the dominance hierarchy – the most alpha of all alpha descendants, are highly problematic as husbands and fathers, as reflected in rates of marriage, infidelity, fatherhood and divorce. Proceed with extreme caution.
If you harbor dreams of marriage and family, I encourage you to give the beta male traits the utmost consideration. Since betas represent more than 75% of the population, there’s a large pool of men with a potentially optimal mix of alpha and beta traits. It is also possible for men to learn alpha behaviors, raising their own testosterone levels in the process. I believe it is far more difficult to teach natural alphas, or cads, how to empathize, cooperate and share. They are not designed for marriage or fatherhood.
Why should you look for a beta male?
1. He’s more highly evolved.
From Andrew at the blog Evolvify:
Anthropology argument against tribal alpha-male narrative
There is no good reason to believe that humans evolved in hierarchical tribes between tens of thousands to two million years ago. To the contrary, there is a mountain of evidence showing that humans evolved in largely egalitarian bands that punished attempts of dominance with social sanctioning, banishment, and death (Boehm 1999). Yes, that’s basically saying that alpha males got offed by their social group — not exactly a benefit to reproduction.
Evolutionary argument against tribal alpha-male narrative
Without going into tedious detail, it’s unlikely that the alpha-male behavioral type (however imprecise that classification may be) is particularly adaptive. Traits that confer significant reproductive advantage tend to spread through a population rapidly. That basically means that traits that consistently vary widely among a species are probably not under significant selection pressures. If being alpha was the ne plus ultra of mate wooing strategies, there would be a whooooooollle lot fewer “betas.”
It is very possible that there are few genetic betas, but that the culture, i.e. feminism, has “betatized” a significant portion of males. In which case, rectifying the culture should restore equilibrium. It’s also possible that the alpha beta divide will remain a constant 80/20 regardless of characteristics. There must always be a most dominant male. The question is, can one have too much of a good thing?
John Durant at Hunter Gatherer makes the interesting observation that dominance strategies among hunter gatherers would likely have included many of the traits we’ve come to call beta:
Whatever strategies those alpha males did to successfully reproduce, are, by definition, dominance strategies.
The following are all dominance strategies: height, intelligence, humor, athletic prowess, health, kindness, creativity, wealth, status, violence, deception, honesty, and more.
2. He plays well with others.
The Worth Ethic Corporation is a consulting firm founded by Kate Ludeman, PhD and Eddie Erlandson, MD, both Harvard Business School professors. They specialize in helping companies treat Alpha Male Syndrome (no, this is not a joke).
Dysfunctional alphas create resistance, resentment, and revenge. People admire their competence, but they hate reporting to them or teaming with them. When we’re invited into a company as consultants, most of the complaints we hear are about alpha males who are driving people crazy. We’re told about alpha managers who demoralize their staff with autocratic, abusive, or micromanaging tactics; about alpha coworkers who are demanding, impatient, and unwilling to listen; about alpha peers who fight to get their way even when they’re demonstrably wrong; about alpha subordinates who solo rather than collaborate. The gripes we hear have usually been part of the corporate milieu for some time, consuming far too much employee time and energy. The cost in absenteeism, turnover, stress-related health problems, and the loss of loyalty and motivation is enormous.
… a great deal of wreckage is caused by boys behaving badly. While alphas of both sexes are aggressive, competitive, and prone to anger, the male of the species is far likely to become ruthless, intimidating, and belligerent. These common observations were borne out in our research: men scored much higher than women on virtually all measures of alpha risk factors.
Ludeman and Erlandson’s research has identified the following risks that are present along with positive alpha attributes. As you can see, the context is the workplace, but parallels to relationship behaviors should be obvious.
Alpha Attribute Alpha Risk Dominant, confident, takes charge Doesn’t develop strong leaders; intimidating; creates fear; stifles disagreement Charismatic, magnetic leader who leads the way Manipulates to get his way, uses charm to lure people down his path Aggressive, competitive Competes with peers; alienates colleagues; reluctant to give others credit High achiever with a strong sense of mission Takes high levels of performance for granted;expects the impossible and fails to acknowledge what’s required to achieve it Bold, creative, innovative thinker Arrogant, stubborn, overly opinionated; imposes own views; closed to others’ thinking Persistent, tenacious, determined, steadfast Drives self and others to exhaustion; urgent; impatient; thinks rules don’t apply to him Strong appetite for newness and change Overzealous; undervalues organizational alignment; launches into action before gathering support from others Farsighted; sees what’s possible So focused on future that present and near term are neglected; loses sight of business viability Sees what’s missing Can be critical, demeaning; fails to appreciate others’ contributions; people feel demoralized
There’s not much you can do if you work for an alpha boss. But do you really want to come home to this guy for the next 50 years?
3. He’s more likely to be creative, artsy and funny.
4. He’s capable of emotional connection (assuming he isn’t caught up pretending to be an alpha who is incapable of emotional connection).
Mark Manson of the blog Postmasculine:
The Alpha worldview pigeonholes women into two simple, robotic drives: pursue the Alpha, use the Beta. This is fantasy. A role that’s purely an extension of the guy’s Alpha/Beta fixation in himself, a broken record playing inside his own mind. And not to mention it gives women little to no credit to both their nuanced preferences, as well as their ability to act on their own free will. When I see a man judging female behavior in these terms, my first reaction is always to think: this guy has spent way too much time chasing the wrong kinds of women.
And finally, perceiving the world in these terms sabotages real relationships and strong emotional connections . If the definition of Being Alpha is somewhere in the vicinity of holding your personal drives above others, and the definition of an emotional connection with a woman is to empathize with her and literally see and feel the world through her eyes, then we have a major conflict of interest. The two are mutually exclusive. Genuine emotional connection, by definition, requires one to experience and relate to the drives, motivations and will of a woman. This is simply impossible if you’re enmeshed in a self-serving and social-bulldozing mindset.
5. He’s nurturing and caring.
He’ll take care of you when you’re sick. Over the course of having and raising children, confronting illness and plain old aging, this is not to be dismissed lightly.
6. He’s much less likely to cheat.
Key predictors of whether a man will cheat are the personality traits of conscientiousness and agreeableness. Promiscuous men are low in both, hardwired for short-term mating only.
Agreeableness: A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.
Conscientiousness: A tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behavior.
The strongest personality predictor of short-term mating is impulsive sensation-seeking. Studies have consistently linked sensation-seeking to short-term mating, including men’s patronage of prostitutes. Impulsive sensation seeking is closely associated with the Big Five dimensions of low agreeableness and low conscientiousness.
7. He’s far more likely to marry and stay married.
Could be his divorced counterpart has higher T levels:
In an American study men with just slightly more testosterone than average were 43% more likely to get divorced than men with normal levels, 31% more likely to leave home after marital problems and 38% more likely to cheat on their wives.
8. He wants to be a dad, and he’ll be good at it.
He’s three times more likely to have kids.
“Some alphas compete with their own children,” says Eddie Erlandson, MD.
9. He’s healthier.
Alpha males are stressed out and more likely to have cardiac disease.
While they may appear cool and calm, many human alphas thrive on adrenaline, the hormone that primes the body to fight or flee in times of danger. Those short bursts of power helped our ancestors outrun predators. But if the perceived threat never lets up, the chronic state of alarm increases cortisol, too, and can eventually weaken the immune system, raise blood-pressure, cholesterol and insulin levels, block arteries and spread inflammation.
Some alphas have so-called Type-A personalities, a combination of aggression, impatience and anger first linked to a higher risk of heart disease in the 1960s. Hostility is the main culprit, according to more recent research. A study of 1,750 Canadians in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology last week found that people who displayed signs of hostility—whether they admitted feeling hostile or not—had twice the risk of cardiovascular problems as those who did not. “Not all alpha males are Type A, but the combination can be deadly from a health standpoint,” Dr. Karasu says.
…Beta males, by contrast, are nice guys, peacemakers and team players. They make good husbands, fathers and friends. Some experts say they tend to be happier than alphas, since they aren’t driven by the need to be on top.
10. He’s not a sociopathic narcissist.
He’s nice to be around and interested in others. From Brett McKay at The Art of Manliness:
We’ve probably all seen those men who can enter any room and instantly command it. I’m not talking about the loud and boisterous dolt who makes a scene with obnoxious alpha-male jackassery. I’m talking about the man who exudes a silent magnetic charisma that electrifies the entire room just by his presence. People feel better when this type of man is around and they want to be near him.
…If you really want to be the man in the room that people are drawn to, focus your interest on them. Many men have the false idea that if you want to command the room, you have to make everything about you. These misguided souls wear flashy jewelry or skin tight clothing that shows off their well-chiseled body. Their conversation focuses on them- their cars, their bench press, their sexual exploits, etc. While a few pinheads will be impressed with this sort of thing, the vast majority of the population will think it’s a bunch crap.
The reality is that the magnetic gentleman-the man who can walk into any room and own it- is others focused. People want to feel loved, appreciated, and important. Sadly, many people these days aren’t feeling much of that. Perhaps their boss never compliments them or their wife never voices any appreciation for all that they do. If you can fill that void in people’s lives by focusing on them and acknowledging their importance, you’ll instantly bring them under your magnetic influence.
{ 868 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
The stories with macho men are generally written for and watched by men. Most women think bulked up guys in action flicks are gross.
This is obvious on geek fandom were the girls were Summer’s girls (Cyclops before he became a cheating bastard) and the boys were all Wolverine fans and once Batman became brooding billionaire while Superman was boyscout. And of course Kirk was the man while all the ladies wanted Spock, YMMV.
A man can be the greatest thinker in the world, if he’s unable to “get pussy”, than all of his self-developings and reflecting and changing were just hamster spinning.
Would you call Isaac Newton’s work hamster spinning because he never got laid on his entire life?
@Susan
When I read the title of your article, I thought to myself that you might as well title it “10 Reasons to Eat Your Vegetables”. I think the key word here is “reason”. Often times people (women AND men) don’t choose who they like based on reason at all. We’re in the realm of the emotional here. Mark my words, this is a subject where you’ll get a lot of empty head nods.
@Courtley, Ted & others about “Your best self”
Birds of a feather…
I’m sure almost everyone commenting knows people who do the equivalent of smoke a bowl and play XBox all day (not that I don’t approve of either of those activities- just sayin’). Those people can have each other, and most of the time they find each other somehow lol. In general, I find that people who have lots going on (not just going to work and the gym every day) have more options for meeting and connecting with people.
Even if you’re not interested in long-term mating, it’s important. Who wants to be bored? Who wants to be boring? If all you have to talk about is work, unless you work at Facebook, are in the music/film industries, or do something else really interesting to the masses, there’s not much excitement in that for most people.
And another note about “your best self”. It’s the most important goal you will have in your life, period, IMO. Here’s the thing- if people can’t understand your best self, they won’t always see the value in it. I think some of the guys here are getting at the fact that game-wise “inner game” isn’t the only card in the deck. You still have to be smooth and articulate, have swag, whatever, if you want the best results. This is VERY true. That stuff is like exercise, though- the more time you spend around people, the stronger it gets, which is why I think the internal stuff is more important, because only YOU can decide what you want, actively pursue it, and be self-directed. That inner piece is for your own benefit, not really anyone else’s.
“Would you call Isaac Newton’s work hamster spinning because he never got laid on his entire life?”
Not if he honestly didn’t want to get a girl.
But most guys want to get girls. Even those of us that want firm, committed relationships want girls.
If in this apparently hyper-sexed culture you can’t even get a second glance from a girl, you feel like an absolute loser. If you get lots of female attention, you can more easily feel like a winner.
I’m sorry – I’m like a broken record quoting Mark Manson. But he basically has this stuff figured out. And it leads to abandoning the idea that there is anything unique or interesting about “Game.” Though I should say I completely agree with everyone on the basic premise, which is that masculinity is important and also sort of fucked right now. For reasons having to do not so much with feminism, so much as the circumstances that made feminism possible.
http://postmasculine.com/butchering-the-alpha-male
http://postmasculine.com/the-ipanema-boardwalk
In both of these posts the point is the same: all social interaction is heavily context-dependent, and happiness is complicated. This is obvious to anyone, until they start engaging in superstitious evo-psych based speculation.
Of course Boethius knew these things 1500 years ago:
“A troublous matter are the conditions of human bliss; either they are never realized in full, or never stay permanently. One has abundant riches, but is shamed by his ignoble birth. Another is conspicuous for his nobility, but through the embarrassments of poverty would prefer to be obscure. A third, richly endowed with both, laments the loneliness of an unwedded life. Another, though happily married, is doomed to childlessness, and nurses his wealth for a stranger to inherit. Yet another, blest with children, mournfully bewails the misdeeds of son or daughter. Wherefore, it is not easy for anyone to be at perfect peace with the circumstances of his lot.”
I recommend to anyone interested in getting women to stop worrying about women and start working on themselves.
“Would you call Isaac Newton’s work hamster spinning because he never got laid on his entire life?”
If Isaac Newton’s mind state was “I’m gonna develop my best self and think of all these genius ideas then maybe women will find me attractive” then yes, his hamster was on overdrive. Smart hamster, though.
“Would you call Isaac Newton’s work hamster spinning because he never got laid on his entire life?”
I don’t know Newton’s personal life well enough to comment on it directly, but think of this:
If Newton has done slightly less work ‘for humanity’ (in otherwords, served himself instead of being a slave to your needs and having you clap your hands in appreciation at the beta chump while you go and have sex with another man), and followed his biological impulses, he could have passed on his genes. Instead of all the laws of mathmatics he forwarded, he could have forwarded just 80% of the total instead of 100%.
Then, those kids with genes he passed on, they could have taken up their fathers work after he passed on. He could have passed on his brilliance AND his work drives, dedication, ethics, and morals through the generations to his children. And the world would have been a better place for those genes and those behaviors that are guided through raising children.
So. Yes. If Newton did in fact fail to have kids – evolutionary failure.
And I smirk as you judged others for thinking otherwise. You show you’d rather have a man slaving away for society’s good, and thus your own good, rather than find his own happiness. My hat is off to you. Thank you for this wonderful illustration of women’s ability to reward slave behavior as heroic, morally just, and the ‘right thing to do’ with lip service while going to another male to have sex and procreate with them.
This reminds me of artistic people saying the best drive for creativity is love-unrequitted, or all art comes from love-unrequitted or something like that. Men will turn themselves into geniuses and masters when motivated enough by the vadge, but that still doesn’t mean they have fully developed themselves as men. Hell, according to the newly revised hierarchy of needs, K-fed has attained a higher level of manhood than Isaac Newton.
http://g.psychcentral.com/news/u/2010/08/maslow_pyramid_needs.jpg
Lord, as an artist I hate those kinds of artistic people who say everything creative comes from love. Those are the ones talking from a ‘everything is bright and beautiful in candy land’ perspective.
No – everything creative comes from passion, which comes in as many flavors as ice cream. Generalized ones are passions of anger, of seeing injustice, of exploring the unknown, and, yes, of love and heart break as well. Passion comes in all shapes and sizes – and it takes both skill and passion to make a great piece of art that will resonate within the core of what makes us human.
Sorry, I might not be a romantic when it comes to women after the red pill, but I still am within art.
@Susan
Game is to men what femininity is to women? I think I like that idea. Something about that analogy explains the antipathy you noticed between men and “being beta.” Beta lacks masculinity.
@Leap of a Beta:
“You show you’d rather have a man slaving away for society’s good, and thus your own good, rather than find his own happiness. My hat is off to you. Thank you for this wonderful illustration of women’s ability to reward slave behavior as heroic, morally just, and the ‘right thing to do’ with lip service while going to another male to have sex and procreate with them.”
I’m pretty sure this is a religious impulse, too.
Mark 10:44 (King James Version – 2000)
“And whosoever of you will be the first, shall be servant of all.”
Also, I’m pretty sure that Newton had some form of Asperger’s syndrome.
He was a really odd fish.
He could also have directed his interests in alchemy into women, since no one cares about his alchemy obsession.
The historical accounts of Newton often say that he did his best work before the age of 22. He spent the next 22 years of his life solidifying and codifying that work (“inventing” calculus) and doing weird things like alchemy, and the last 44 (yes, he lived to be 88) defending his status in the academic world and as head of the Royal Society. He was supposed to have been a bit of a bully at the end, too.
@SW
I agree both men and women are restraining themselves sexually quite a bit (or they’re settling down quick), judging by the CDC numbers. On female narcissism, I’m not so sure those kinds of women would even be interested in the guys you describe above. I’ve met a couple over the years, and they’ve been easy to spot. Not just by appearance, but what comes out of their mouths. Sometimes you can judge a book by its cover and the inside flap.
I guess by contrast, you’ve kind of described which men women shouldn’t date. Narcissism certainly doesn’t discriminate. Twenge’s 1st book is filled with examples of the worst of both worlds. I mean, what would you say about guys who feel entitled to sleep around as much as possible, and then later marry some hot, chaste babe? Not the majority of guys, and not very realistic either.
“And while I agree with you about popular culture, it’s difficult to escape its insidious effects.”
It’s all mostly fiction, even so-called reality TV (i.e. poorly edited game shows). Patterning one’s life and preferences off stuff like that, well, you’ve basically shrunk the pool of potential mates who’ll ever take YOU seriously : |
@Leap of a Beta:
“I’m not religious any more, but stop accepting what the church is telling you and instead read the scripture itself and contemplate the differences in culture between the time it was written and now.”
Almost all of my problems arose from reading scripture in the first place.
You would have loved my approach to turning the other cheek.
When I was younger, and I would be bullied or attacked, I would never physically defend myself. I just allowed myself to be pummeled.
Surprisingly, it does confuse an attacker when they are beating your head against the floor while you are calmly negotiating with them or when they are punching you in the face and dragging you around and you are trying to ask them to cease attacking you. Generally, it’s not a response that they are used to.
My early life synthesis could best be explained as a combination of libertarian thinking (there is no society, there is no group, I am a unitary being), random literal scriptural reading (sola scriptura!), coupled with authoritarian conservatish moralism (I will never swear. I will never lie. I will never do drugs. I will never engage in fornication. I will never rebel against the moral order. And if you engage in these activities I will tell you that you are evil.). Made for an interesting combo and some less than beneficial social interactions.
That’s not my thinking these days, particularly since my unique approach to the problem of existence wasn’t exactly effective.
JP said:
“That’s not my thinking these days, particularly since my unique approach to the problem of existence wasn’t exactly effective.”
_____________________
I think the only dudes who would find otherwise end up as lead singers in bands like Fugazi and Minor Threat. And that’s the same guy.
@VD
Where did you dig up a copy. I haven’t even seen it in decades now. All I have left from that era is my copy of Imperium (proudly a Conflict Games copy, per-GDW).
Unless we’re thinking different Fifth Frontier War.
Where did you dig up a copy. I haven’t even seen it in decades now. All I have left from that era is my copy of Imperium (proudly a Conflict Games copy, per-GDW).
I have several. I even made a VASSAL version you can download, complete with the rules, with Marc Miller’s permission.
¨what would you say about guys who feel entitled to sleep around as much as possible, and then later marry some hot, chaste babe?¨
Does such a man actually think about enititlement or strategically think about what he is doing or is he merely getting the best out of life that he can, like anyone else? Certainly, any man able to achieve the above described scenario is considered a hero and an inspiration, no?
I helped write a game years ago. Murchad’s Legacy. Linked to in my name.
Joe said
Beta lacks masculinity.
————————————————————
nail, meet head. Fundamentally, thats how I see it too, joe.
“Certainly, any man able to achieve the above described scenario is considered a hero and an inspiration, no?”
No.
He shouldn’t be an inspiration.
But unfortunately the rules of the game have changed and now it’s “take what you want.”
“Certainly, any man able to achieve the above described scenario is considered a hero and an inspiration, no?”
In a perfect world, he’s not. In today’s world, he is.
It’s the excitement – betas just don’t generate excitement, alpha’s do. That is the basic difference. That is what I meant by “boring”…
——————————————————————-
yes yes a thousand times yes
Susan, have you written any other posts on self-development for women?
Susan:
“Women can spot a psycho bitch who will cheat from a mile away. (And yeah, I can’t believe I didn’t call Adam right either.) So we see “tells” where guys would never think to look. ”
I never thought of this untill I came here but I am sure it is true. This should be an area where men can learn a lot from women. I`d be very interested to have the women here elaborate on what such tells are. I`d also really like to see either pictures of women that make you suspicious or clips from movies where female actors behave in ways that are bad tells but guys might miss.
Not sure Isaac Newton’s work on physics and (especially) on calculus was motivated primarily by a desire to help his fellow-man….more likely, his main motivation was enjoyment of the intellectual challenge.
Alchemy, OTOH, might have seemed more directly useful….the fact that these methodologies would fail was not yet known, of course.
“But unfortunately the rules of the game have changed and now it’s “take what you want.’”
The narcissist doesn’t stay married for life, to someone he loves completely. He’ll treat women as disposable, at best, even if he does marry. So unless you want to emulate that, he’s the opposite of heroic inspiration.
There is no one single game that all men and women are forced to play. Pick the one where you stand the best chance of success. Preferably one where the players have higher standards of behavior.
courtley says
Do you really not know any men who were like the confident, outgoing, successful jock-type alphas who also ended up making great husbands and fathers after they settled down? I feel like I’ve met many men like this who take a huge masculine ego boost from being the head of a healthy, happy family and marriage. They’re also pretty damn ‘alpha’ in demeanor, competitiveness, success, etc.
———————————————————–
you just described my husband
May 19, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Susan:
“Women can spot a psycho bitch who will cheat from a mile away. (And yeah, I can’t believe I didn’t call Adam right either.) So we see “tells” where guys would never think to look. ”
I never thought of this untill I came here but I am sure it is true. This should be an area where men can learn a lot from women. I`d be very interested to have the women here elaborate on what such tells are. I`d also really like to see either pictures of women that make you suspicious or clips from movies where female actors behave in ways that are bad tells but guys might miss.
————————————————————
yeah but will men believe us??
“Is this true? If so, then why all the pushback on relationships? I’ve had three readers who dated PUAs and it was disastrous. The PUAs did want to fall in love and have a relationship, but they also had a serious itch to get back out there. We’ve been discussing this a lot recently – having a lot of sexual partners may doom future attempts at monogamy.”
This is hard to tell for sure but I believe it is or that it is close to being true. The reason is twofold. One is that on all of the non PUA webforums I have been hanging I have encountered a ton of guys that to some extent have been into PUA and most of them came in the category of got laid with 5 girls and then found a great girl and settled down with her. Those guys rarely took any workshops or got in very deep but usually read a couple of ebooks. The second reason I believe it is the case is that on PUA boards I have heard this claim a million times from the guys there. They say guys show up there, get some game, gets some girls gets oneitis and disapears.
For some guys it takes only a little bit of learning to get quite good but for a lot of guys it takes an incredible amount of work. Some people really have to work hard to get just decent and to get really, really good most guys need to work a lot. There are only a few special men who are willing to do that and of course those will really, really want to get laid a lot. Those who get good enough to teach others and those who dominate the forums and those who blog about PUA and related stuff in the manosphere are very far from average in their motivations. Those motivations will vary but it will reflect someone who is very far from average in some way.
Jen, your enthusiasm for a certain kind of masculinity surprises me. These days, it’s rare. It’s been actively discouraged for a long time now.
This will ring a bell with Susan and those of use “of a certain age.” http://www.lyricsfreak.com/c/crystals/and+then+he+kissed+me_20275913.html
I’m rather sad that this kind of courtly behavior has disappeared.
Ramble: ” Personally, I think that the most instructive era is the early 1900′s.”
Why? This made me curious.
So. Yes. If Newton did in fact fail to have kids – evolutionary failure.
I’m not discussing evolutionary failure but the idea that his genius meant nothing because he died a virgin.
Second Einstein banged everything that moved and the kids he had never became scientist.
And I smirk as you judged others for thinking otherwise. You show you’d rather have a man slaving away for society’s good, and thus your own good, rather than find his own happiness. My hat is off to you. Thank you for this wonderful illustration of women’s ability to reward slave behavior as heroic, morally just, and the ‘right thing to do’ with lip service while going to another male to have sex and procreate with them.
???? Do you know I married a virgin to my beta husband whose number is on single digits whose son I’m carrying as we speak? I’m rewarding a good smart man with progeny, love, sex, support and good Dominican/Indian food. So fuck you a thousand times to the high heavens.
Anacaona…
Domincan food?
Sounds interesting….maybe some descriptions, I guess at your blog so as not to get too far off topic here…
Domincan food?
Do you know I’m Dominican right?
) . Someone told me that our food is very rich like soul food so it should be good. I will let you know when I have something I think is worth sharing, I will be happy to let you know when I start 
I’m actually collecting pics of some foods I do, to share at the blog at some point in a future cooking section (BTW Susan what happened to the cooking section here. I miss it
Ana,
My apologies, in the middle of my writing I began to write as if I was addressing the average american female – which is so far removed from you that it’s ridiculous to even try and articulate. I have the utmost respect for you as an incredibly intelligent and self aware woman who has made all the right choices in this SMP and has a lack of hypocrisy that is uncommon and all the more startling for it. I can only hope that the past discussions we’ve had, as well as the future ones, can demonstrate to you the sincerity of these words and actions of my respect for you.
@Leap of a Beta
Is okay, for a moment there I though on asking who are you since you surely had been around to know that I would never think/feel like that. I have to admit that you touched a nerve since I read for the first time that Sir Isaac Newton died a virgin (1995) I felt so sad about it I even have a novel planned in which him and another famous virgin get marry and have the kids they didn’t had in real life just as to think that at least in my universes this injustice can be corrected. I don’t think I ever read “never got married” or something along those lines from bios or tombstones without feeling incredibly sad now more than ever that I know exactly what love and sex are. I usually don’t curse that much either, sorry for getting overboard I’m blaming the pregnancy :p
Anacaona, Isaac Newton’s genius benefitted society greatly. However, it benefitted him none, biologically speaking.
Anacaona, Isaac Newton’s genius benefitted society greatly. However, it benefitted him none, biologically speaking.
Well that is true. The phrasing “hamster spinning” does makes it look like there is nothing of value on the person that doesn’t reproduce. Separating it from bio and society speaking sounds a lot more accurate.
@ Ana
All good. Apparently it was a touchy subject for both of us. I’m with you on being sad he didn’t have kids. I’d have much rather he accompished a bit less for his genes to have been passed onto kids and continued to benefit society instead of being an evolutionary dead end. Sounds like you feel the same.
@Leapofbeta
Yeah aside from the worst members of our species (I’m not sorry that Hitler and Eva Brown died childless I might say I’m actually happy that was the case, to use one famous example) I always felt sorry for loneliness and childlessness. I know you are not a believer but in Genesis the only time God has a reason to create anything is when he says: “It is not good that Man should be alone…” I took that as one of our most fundamental truths, YMMV.
Ana
I would consider myself a believer without calling myself religious or Christian. It’s complicated but boils down to not agreeing with the way religion is taught/practiced in modern America and the connotations majority of the populace rightly place upon it.
That being said, I agree whole heartedly that people are not meant to be alone.
Maybe the best way to explain it is that I am….. Heavily influenced by Christian morality as taught in the bible. I think that’ll do, for now.
Religions contain truth. Problems arise when men believe they contain facts.
re Bellita at 429, following me at 421:
Is this about calculus again?
What if it is? What point are you making, exactly?
Seriously, now, Esau, you and I have been over something similar before
Then why are you replying here? Don’t get me wrong, I’m flattered — sort of — that mine among hundreds of comments should warrant your attention; but I’m just curious as to why this caught your eye.
and I really don’t know what you want women to say.
How about we start with the low bar, of women just not saying things that are wildly, insultingly and destructively untrue? Would that be a good day’s work, enough for a start?
Bellita, I don’t know if you’ve ever taken care of a lawn of grass, or lived with someone who did. In a temperate zone, the eternal problem is crabgrass. You pull it up, weed it out, and by next week it pops right back up again. And so it is, with this kind of statement:
“If you really, at the core of yourself, want a long-term relationship, focus on the OTHER things you love about life and the world and put some energy into that. That is, I think, so key to becoming someone who radiates that real, raw, incredibly ATTRACTIVE form of positivity–in either sex.”
(This one is from Courtley at 448 in this thread, but I don’t mean to pick on her in particular; the exact same species of weed springs up eternally, this one was just within easy reach.) Do you grasp why this passage, as written without qualifiers, is the purest … garden fertilizer? As I wrote above, I’ve seen the experiment done and I know how it turns out. I’ve seen the men who followed what they loved with great passion, put tremendous energy into it, learned, achieved, and raised their talents almost to a new art form, and were very positive people overall while doing it — but, these efforts most certainly did NOT result in a “raw, incredibly ATTRACTIVE form of positivity”, if we judge by who was actually attracted to them. This weed is just a pretty lie, and a tough and spiny one at that.
You asked for my request to women, and this is a reasonable starting point: when a woman starts to write or say things like “X is the key [for a man] to being attractive!”, she should first make sure that it’s actually true as stated and not just another pretty lie. If she is made aware of a population of people who actually did X, and it failed to make them attractive — and if, in fact, there’s actually a observable negative correlation between doing X and being attractive — then she should stop and realize that (1) she’s wrong, and (2) she’s being vastly disrespectful and insulting to all the people who did X and had it fail; she’s just sweeping them out of existence, and really should apologize.
There, that’s the low bar, the easiest kind of self-improvement: stop telling self-serving pretty lies. Got it? Get back to me when there’s been progress on this one, and then we can talk about the next steps in the program.
@SayWhaat
I’ve written about femininity, but it may be worth revisiting, or if you have any other ideas, I’d love to hear them.
@Anacaona
I have been to a couple of great Dominican restaurants in Boston. The food was very delicious, I would love for you to blog about some recipes.
You are actually the first person to mention the cooking section, haha. It was a worthwhile experiment, but too OT I think. This is not really a lifestyle blog.
@brightstormday
“When you stated that beta males are more evolved, Susan, I’ve thought the same thing.”
Yeah, this. And I think that has worked its way into our DNA already to some extent. At some point, dudes who could make fire or invent wheels to make labor easier for everyone had to start being considered betters mate than just those with brute strength. And for a long time, at least in European cultures if their literature is any indication, women were steered towards stable provider types by their families and away from cads; and these couples had tons of kids. I look at my family history and see my mother and grandmother married to faithful, intelligent, and certainly not de-masculinized “betas” and it makes sense to me that I find this sort of men attractive also.
I have been to a couple of great Dominican restaurants in Boston. The food was very delicious, I would love for you to blog about some recipes.
Neat! Any particular dish that you remember fondly (no sancocho please I never liked it so I never learned how to make it) it would be easier to start if I have some petitions.
You are actually the first person to mention the cooking section, haha.
The history of my life…
@Esau
“(This one is from Courtley at 448 in this thread, but I don’t mean to pick on her in particular; the exact same species of weed springs up eternally, this one was just within easy reach.) Do you grasp why this passage, as written without qualifiers, is the purest … garden fertilizer? As I wrote above, I’ve seen the experiment done and I know how it turns out. I’ve seen the men who followed what they loved with great passion, put tremendous energy into it, learned, achieved, and raised their talents almost to a new art form, and were very positive people overall while doing it — but, these efforts most certainly did NOT result in a “raw, incredibly ATTRACTIVE form of positivity”, if we judge by who was actually attracted to them. This weed is just a pretty lie, and a tough and spiny one at that.”
Well, we must hang out with different kinds of people. In my circles, people with interests are generally interesting and it’s beneficial to them both professionally and personally.
The point I’m really getting at here is that a lot of so-called “beta-ness”, in the Manosphere sense of being unsuccessful with women, is really just being BORING. This is distinct from being sweet, or compassionate, or sensitive, or ethical, or anything else that it is often mistakenly assumed by Manosphere-ists that women don’t want.
The other thing I should point out before we take this conversation further is that when I say “women” I’m implying women like myself–those that want a serious, monogamous, long-term relationship ultimately culminating in a healthy marriage. If by “women” you mean college-age chicks in clubs looking for attention and a ONS, we are probably going to be talking past each other quite a bit.
Recommending “beta” traits or “beta” men is really just asking “alpha” men, or in other words very attractive men to be easier relationship partners.
In other words, it’s trying to force alpha men into beta holes – to try to force the sexy, exciting bad boy into a father /provider role.
Anyway, women’s advice is kind of suspect in this department for a number of reasons. What women want seems to change pretty regularly on any given day – she realizes her bad boy causes her pain, but keeps going for him, and can never quite make up her mind.
Secondly, the points sound self-serving – she’s often describing what’s best for her, r what’s
She’s often describing what she feels is best for her, nit what actually works in the SMP, nor what’s best for society or for humanity.
It does seem to me that alpha traits, or that simulating them through “game” will lead to a larger number of more attractive partners, for most men.
And we’re biologically programmed, im afraid, to see that as a very desirable outcome.
As rewarding as fatherhood and long term LTR’s can be, we’re still as men imbued with deeply competitive drives. All of the advice or shaming or legislation won’t change that.
And of course we’re all generalizing greatly here – a few attractive women may genuinely be attracted to and prefer “betas.”
But in general I think dominance, strength, leadership, self-absorption, and ambition will equal greater success for us, in both the SMP and in much of life.
To say otherwise is to wish, rather than to observe what truly IS.
Travis:
“I never have trouble attracting women, I have trouble attracting (or even finding) QUALITY women. The type that I would be willing to settle into a long term relationship (or eventually marriage) with”
————————-
>Until I came to these parts of the ‘net, I wasn’t familiar with the story of the guys who have been ignored or who are too intimidated to approach women…..
But I have heard YOUR SMP story before (decade+).
I’ve known a couple of guys just like you (older than you are)- attractive, athletic, socially adept, no problem getting attention from attractive (and not so attractive) women. The only difference is they’re white collar or business owners, but same story as yours.
They could get a boatload of sex if they wanted to, but what they really wanted was one chaste attractive girl with good character who behaved like a lady. I remember them saying that it was like finding a needle in a haystack, the few were taken off the market quickly.
They never found that needle, but I have to also relay to you that, IMO, it was partly because they wasted *years* in relationships with women that they knew very well they’d never marry when instead, they should’ve taken the task more seriously like this one particular guy who did and succeeded.
Best of luck to you.
Travis:
“Both men AND women are going to have to change their behavior drastically, if there’s ever going to be any hope of going back to the nuclear family. Otherwise, it’s just not worth it…”
—————
Ditto.
Regardless of which gender’s sexuality was let loose first, the result is the same, the carousel gets saturated and quality people & intact families becomes a rarity. I just wish there was a solution, but most people lack the discipline and there’s nothing significant keeping them in line, so it’s each man for himself.
All, please consider this required reading:
http://postmasculine.com/evolution
The part about “multiple phenotypes” within a given population is very, very relevant and important to conversations on HUS.
There really are women out there looking for dominant men and if you use Game, you may be able to snag them for ONS with varying success. There really are women out there screening against too much dominance and looking for commitment and kindness, and if you use Game for ONS you will be rejected by them.
If you’re cool with the first scenario, more power to you–Susan says that often enough. The thing is, there are a lot of angry male posters on this site who are supposedly philosophically invested in the first scenario, yet resentful towards alllllllll women for behaving in ways that makes it possible. This would indicate, to me, that they must have some inclination towards monogamy and long-term fidelity. Using hardcore Game tactics will not attract women who want the same.
So what WILL attract the phenotype of women who want to be long-term partners and perhaps mothers? Who have the qualities and abilities to do so? Being an asshole is a poor strategy, but so is being painfully shy and hiding in the basement–largely because people who do that don’t really meet many people at all, male or female. And meeting people is sort of a necessary first step to any meaningful relationship.
This is where the whole “be your best self” and “cultivate your passions” and “be more positive and interesting” comes from. Social skills are important and being able to engage people in conversation is important. If you’re a man with poor social skills seeking a life partner, the issue isn’t that you’re not ‘enough of an asshole’ but that you simply don’t know how to connect well with people and that needs to change. Of course, if you’re ‘that guy’ and you want to be a playa then by all means, learn ‘Game’ . . . but you can’t come back and bitch online about how all women ‘just want alpha assholes’ if you choose to behave in ways that self-selects out the promiscuous, non-committed type of woman in the first place.
I think there’s a certain segment of the Manosphere out there who want the promiscuous hot girls to happily fuck “betas” who behave like betas with the same enthusiasm they do alphas, without any desire to ever tie a man down. These guys are resentful that the beta women who DO desire them also want commitment, and resentful that women who are content to just be used for sex have standards for their ONS that they don’t easily meet.
I have no other words for these dudes but entitled and ridiculous and worthy of no one’s respect. They are the equivalent of women who want to marry the Kobe Bryants and Chris Browns of the world and then expect total fidelity and adoration from them while they get overweight and more unkept with every child. It’s just simply called being spoiled.
@ Michael Singer
Lose your personal autonomy while taking personal responsibility and becoming more introspective?
Really?
“I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
What do you mean ? Please feel free to explain
Micheal Singer, I can’t make any sense of your post. Are you saying that dating betas…hurts betas? I don’t want to call out your arguments without first understanding what the hell your point is. Put, in simple terms what you are advocating.
@Esau
What if it is [about calculus]? What point are you making, exactly?
I was making an affectionate inside joke. I guess it fell flat. But you were all about calculus back then, remember?
Then why are you replying here?
Precisely because it’s something we’ve been over before!
I’m kind of surprised that you’d have to ask. And when we were discussing it over at Bb’s place, the conversation steered more toward the use of a certain kind of language than to the core of your argument, which means that this is the inevitable sequel.
I’ve seen the men who followed what they loved with great passion, put tremendous energy into it, learned, achieved, and raised their talents almost to a new art form, and were very positive people overall while doing it — but, these efforts most certainly did NOT result in a “raw, incredibly ATTRACTIVE form of positivity”, if we judge by who was actually attracted to them. This weed is just a pretty lie, and a tough and spiny one at that.
The last time you said something like this to me, I wondered (meaning no malice) what else was going on in the context of these men’s lives. Not because I thought they were at fault but because I honestly wondered why people who were following the supposedly magic formula weren’t getting any results. And I wonder the same thing whether someone is a woman or a man. My mother recently told me that a female friend of mine has been having bad luck with men because of her “aura.” (Not in the literal “New Age” sense, but in the figurative “giving off vibes” sense.”) So I asked, “How does that help? How is someone supposed to change her ‘aura’?” My mother just shrugged. It’s a mystery.
There, that’s the low bar, the easiest kind of self-improvement: stop telling self-serving pretty lies. [Emphasis mine]
Esau, think you’re right about the advice not being universally true to the point of being essentially flawed, but at the same time, I think you’re reading more into what’s going on here than there actually is.
I’m reminded of Leap of a Beta’s comment on a certain feminine reaction to men like Sir Isaac Newton: “You show you’d rather have a man slaving away for society’s good, and thus your own good, rather than find his own happiness.” (Yes, I know he didn’t mean Ana.) If your full interpretation of the advice, “Follow your own passion and you will be attractive” is something on the level of “Arbeit Macht Frei” propaganda, then you’re fighting an enemy that doesn’t exist.
When someone says, “Follow your own passion . . .” they are usually advising you to do something that will benefit yourself first and foremost. (“You” used in the general sense, because I don’t want to write “he/she” over and over.) Attractiveness, if it ever also comes, is a secondary benefit. (Sometimes it never comes at all, in the case of women who follow their passion for debate into Law.) Having said that, if you have followed your passion only because someone guaranteed that it would make you more attractive to the opposite sex . . . in that case, then, yes, you were lied to and owed an apology. But I don’t think that’s what women are saying here.
@VD
Thank you for responding to me. I agree with you.
@Michael Singer
For one to take full responsibility for themselves, autonomy is necessary.
So I’m not really sure what you’re trying to tell women to do/be.
@Bellita and @Esau
Look, I should qualify the disputed statement by saying that I think there’s other things that factor into being attracted besides just cultivating your interests. You must also have social skills and be able to relate to other human beings, and genuinely like at least some of them. Have friends. Have a social network. All of these things are a part of what I and I think Ted meant by “being your best self.” We live in a time when it’s very easy for naturally shy people to isolate themselves and not have much meaningful community or connections in their lives. You can really good at your hobbies and read a lot about your interests and yes, still not be attractive to people because you lack the skill to easily engage someone in conversation about them.
Still, I stand by my advice, even if it wasn’t complete–developing interests and being an interesting person is vital to connecting both romantically and just with people in general because it gives you SOMEthing to talk about, and having and pursuing interests is one way by which people measure each other’s social value in our society.
But again, I’m writing about people who want LTRs. If either is writing about being able to get ONS that’s a different track–though I still think being an interesting person who does cool shit because you want to is probably a plus, and I think a lot of Game blogs talk about this to some extent as well.
@Courtley
I actually agree with you. I’m just trying not to discount Esau’s experience that some people who took the same exact advice found that it didn’t work, even as I disagree with his full conclusion.
“(This one is from Courtley at 448 in this thread, but I don’t mean to pick on her in particular; the exact same species of weed springs up eternally, this one was just within easy reach.) Do you grasp why this passage, as written without qualifiers, is the purest … garden fertilizer? As I wrote above, I’ve seen the experiment done and I know how it turns out. I’ve seen the men who followed what they loved with great passion, put tremendous energy into it, learned, achieved, and raised their talents almost to a new art form, and were very positive people overall while doing it — but, these efforts most certainly did NOT result in a “raw, incredibly ATTRACTIVE form of positivity”, if we judge by who was actually attracted to them. This weed is just a pretty lie, and a tough and spiny one at that.
You asked for my request to women, and this is a reasonable starting point: when a woman starts to write or say things like “X is the key [for a man] to being attractive!”, she should first make sure that it’s actually true as stated and not just another pretty lie. If she is made aware of a population of people who actually did X, and it failed to make them attractive — and if, in fact, there’s actually a observable negative correlation between doing X and being attractive — then she should stop and realize that (1) she’s wrong, and (2) she’s being vastly disrespectful and insulting to all the people who did X and had it fail; she’s just sweeping them out of existence, and really should apologize.”
Co-fucking-sign.
Women’s advices to “be yourself” or “be your best self” are indeed pretty lies that will hurt many men who take them to heart. The key to attracting women is to be your most sexually desirable self.
Coming late to this, figuring it would be more of the same, but there’s another “descending” issue.
Look up “mitochondrial Eve”. Depending on the source, we are descended from one–or a max of thirty-three–women going back about 200k years.
It is difficult for nature to kill large numbers of people such that the species disappears altogether. Usually, it takes a while, leaving time for some to reproduce, some of whose offspring also reproduce.
For H. Sap to be reduced to no more than three dozen, if not a single woman, means we had a small, tiny, eeeny population in the first place, which was then subject to catastrophe.
Just imagine if mitachondrial Eve had had a different view of things….
@Underdog
But what women? Ones who want to be a life partner, a wife? Or ONS-seekers?
How are you framing this conversation? I am talking about monogamous LTRs and the women who seek them.
On another site, mostly political, the subject of alpha/beta arose, partly as a metaphor for part of the political process, and there were comments following two lines of thought. One was the political issue and the other alpha/beta man/woman thing. The beta was the guy with the plastic lunch box–the site is heavy on metaphor–and that took off.
Part way through the discussion, a woman said when she hit forty, she realized she had wasted a lot of time on tormented Romeos or somebody, and was now interested in honor and integrity and suchlike.
One guy commented, thanks for proving what we said. When you lost your youthful hotness, you decided to settle for the plastic lunch bucket guy, after having scorned him for a couple of decades. Words to that effect. Thing is, the woman had given no sign of a clue that she’d proven what everybody else had said.
As to being your good self and letting women come to you, I’ve said it before. In college, I had two tracks with women. Those I dated and those I worked with in class, civic projects, employment. For some reason, I didn’t chase women in the latter category. I did my best self in the situations and dealt with the women as if they were people–being caught not being one hundred percent talking to the eyes–and they came after me. I figured that out about twenty years later, but it still counts.
@Ana, 492
I kind of find myself in a dilemma here, as I’m rather disappointed that genes from manipulative and corrupt persons propagate in society and its gene pool. But on the other hand, there is a micro-scene, where you might be surprised how the dynamics of a child and its father work out. To mention a notorious case: L. Ron Hubbard and his son Quentin Hubbard. To have your own son call your tightly run organization a sham is a major slap in the face.
Remember Kim Jong-il? Two of his sons fell out of his grace. I tend to be careful judging a child by its parents, otherwise you end up in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Do you know how most of us men react when there is a dispute and surrounding people tell us to calm down and not go violent when we are clearly not (like SW mentioned about Charlie in Girls)? There’s a good chance we will actually get upset even more, because we’re so sick of that stereotype. I think feminists recognized this early on and it’s now a toolbox tactic for them. It’ll probably explain why the MRM uses rationality and laughs at feminists, it’s a tactic that counters the feminist tactic successfully.
well, you already know my take on this.
@Courtley
“But what women? Ones who want to be a life partner, a wife? Or ONS-seekers?
How are you framing this conversation? I am talking about monogamous LTRs and the women who seek them.”
All women.
The “cultivate your interests and be an interesting and sociable guy” approach is fine from a life choice perspective, but it’s not true that this is an effective mate attraction strategy. On balance, I think this is a good approach to life because you’re more personally fulfilled in doing things this way, but it simply is not the case that it will attract women. Attracting women is based much more on having alpha traits.
The degree/concentration of alpha traits desired does differ among individual women, with some desiring more and others less — or, perhaps better stated, some willing to accept less either because of a rational assessment of their own market value, or the conscious decision to make a trade-off of less alpha for some beta that they want for commitment, rather than attraction, purposes. But the key to attraction is displaying the degree and kind of alpha attractors the particular woman finds attractive. That’s much more a driver of attraction than actually *being* an interesting person or being engaged in a life passion or whatever people like to talk about when describing that approach to life.
Men will get more mileage and a better ROI in terms of attraction itself from developing their alpha traits. If they are interested in LTRs and want to attract women who want LTRs, they still need to develop the alpha traits, but also need to do so not at the complete expense of the beta traits — they need to maintain a tightrope walk of alpha and beta, to get the “balance” right for an LTR, whereas if they are looking for sexual encounters, they need to dial back the beta almost completely and be full-0n alpha, because it’s mostly full-on alpha that women who want casual sex are going to be interested in having casual sex with. But in either case, the man needs to primarily focus on developing his alpha characteristics — this is much more important, in terms of developing attraction, than developing a life passion and “being his best self” — sometimes your “best self” just isn’t attractive if it isn’t alpha enough, sorry.
@ Courtly
A article written about dating “the benefits” of dating Beta’s begs the following questions.
- why didn’t one see these screaming obvious benefits ( 10 mentioned) ?
- when did these benefits become important ?
- if one hasn’t been dating betas- what has one been dating ?
- What is ones previous relationship / sexual experience ?
- can recreational sex make a male/woman slut stay faithful?
- can recreational sex make irresponsibility turn into commitment?
- What has one done to prepare for marriage / children ?
Can man or a woman who has led a promiscuous lifestyle fulfill the vows of monogamy ?
Here is the rub – to consider these benefits ( there are considerably more) post promiscuous/ sexually activity is too late ( male or female).
Why ? More reality questions to be answered.
- What are the consequences of promiscuous/ sexually active lifestyle ?
- What recourse has one done to stop promiscuous/ sexually active lifestyle and prepare for a monogamous relationship with children?
This is a bitter reality. One is seriously damaged emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and the majority suffer from physical disease.
If you need further explanation – your on your own on this one.
II
“For one to take full responsibility for themselves, autonomy is necessary.
So I’m not really sure what you’re trying to tell women to do/be.”
1. let gets the words straight ( go back and read what was said).
2. “taking full responsibility” and its implications requires demonstrated morals, character, integrity to name a few. To “take full responsibility” means different things to people. In this context – it means remaining true to those who are counting on you, staying true when you have given your word, and not taking pleasure at anothers expense even when one isn’t happy.
This is high caliber and only seen in people who have been raised that way and their parents have been raised that way and so forth.
3. In a marriage and even more so with children – there is no such thing as personal autonomy – it goes out the window.
If you need further explanation on this one – you are on your own.
As mentioned – dont look to date Beta’s. Your value system is wwwaaayyy off.
If you do, work on changing yourself first.
Btw, I have yet to meet a American woman to this very day who is feminine, chaste, and in good shape ( mentally, physically, and spiritually).
@Brendan @Underdog
Did either of you read the blog post from Postmasculine that I linked to? If not, I’d appreciate it if you did so. I don’t want to make the same arguments over and over again but it really is quite important that you distinguish what kind of women we’re talking about here.
Now, Underdog, if you’re going to refuse to engage the conversation with your “all women” statement, how about you tell me what kind of women YOU are currently seeking, regardless of success. Do you want to be a player or do you feel more wired for a relationship? Do you go out cruising in bars for chicks or try to meet people through common interest groups or do you hang out in church looking for a chaste old-fashioned wife? There’s people using all of these methods and more as their “mating strategy” (whether they’re aware of this or not). What’s yours? Give me an idea of who you interact with, and how.
(Brendan, did we have this conversation before?)
@Brendan
I suspect some of what you think of as “alpha traits” I am probably describing as being an interesting and engaging person who Does Cool Stuff —makes art, makes music, travels, takes photos, goes camping in the wilderness, designs clothes, reads literature, reads The Economist, these are just some of the ones I find attractive. For other dudes, obviously sports and fitness are huge interests that many women admire (or enjoy themselves). Or cars or building computers and so on.
So, yes, there’s some crossover here and again, part of what I’m saying has been essentially advocated in Game blogs and books.
And yes–as I said several times–dudes who want ONS should probs be more alpha, I don’t do ONS myself and while some of the women that I know who do still tend to go for geeky beta types, in a typical meat-market bar alphas rule the ONS market, no argument there.
To get an LTR, yes, the “beta” traits Susan laid out are going to be more attractive. YOU said, and that’s part of my point. And to those “betas” who want an LTR I think part of “alpha-ing” it up could be developing those interests and being more interesting. I dislike using ‘alpha’ in that sense, as I tend to use it exclusively to mean Dark Triad player-types and their wannabes, and perhaps that is where we are writing past each other.
So in other words…a lot of women really do want NICE (as in kind, sweet, thoughtful, compassionate) guys, but they also want nice guys with some social skills and depth and interests. I’d argue this is fundamentally different than wanting dominance or narcissism in a mate.
@Michael Singer
Are you religious? If you want to see chaste, feminine American women, get yourself to the right kind of evangelical church and you’ll be surrounded by ‘em. Or a lot of Mormon congregations in places like Utah and Idaho.
They marry young, though. I would know, I grew up like that (evangelical). I’d appreciate not being lectured about how skewed my value system is, thanks, as a 26-year-old American woman who has never had a one-night stand and only ever pursued/been interested in very “beta” (sweet, relationship-oriented) guys. You seem to be yet another person who equates “American woman” with like, Snooki.
And I still think you’re misusing the word “autonomy.”
From dictionary.com:
“au·ton·o·my [aw-ton-uh-mee]
noun, plural au·ton·o·mies.
1.
independence or freedom, as of the will or one’s actions: the autonomy of the individual.
2.
the condition of being autonomous; self-government, or the right of self-government; independence.”
All adults should be autonomous, and if you want women to be ‘moral’ you need to give them the autonomy to make that choice in the first place. I’m sure you disagree, though.
But, seriously. Check out the churches.
Where in the States do you live?
Courtney, I have been friendzoned and have seen my friends be friendzoned by too many LTR-minded “nice girls” to buy into that fairytale anymore.
Courtley –
Yes I read his article. I’ve been to his site before — I’m not a big fan of it, but he’s entitled to his opinions.
My point of disagreement with you is that “becoming an interesting and sociable person” is not really alpha attractive. It’s good in and of itself, but it isn’t in and of itself alpha attractive. Alpha attractive isn’t necessarily dark triad (although that’s certainly one vein of it, and one that isn’s particularly well suited for LTRs), but it isn’t about “being your interesting and sociable self”, either. It’s about expressing/displaying some degree of dominance, both socially and personally. The degree needed differs by woman and context and also by what the man himself is looking for, but it’s needed in *all* contexts to some degree. In that sense, it’s similar to the “different phenotypes” approach in that different women and different contexts are going to require different levels of dominance expression in order to be competitive in terms of attraction — no disagreement there. My point is that *all* contexts require some of it — the amount is a question of degree, based on the context/person.
In that sense, I very much agree with Athol Kay, who believes that successful LTRs require a good mix of alpha and beta with the emphasis on the alpha attractors simply because these are most often in short supply, relative to the beta traits, among most contemporary men. And, Athol isn’t talking about being an interesting and sociable person with a life passion. He’s talking about calibrating raw expressions of dominance in order to maintain attraction in an LTR.
Brendan said
In that sense, I very much agree with Athol Kay, who believes that successful
LTRs require a good mix of alpha and beta with the emphasis on the alpha
attractors simply because these are most often in short supply, relative to the
beta traits, among most contemporary men. And, Athol isn’t talking about being
an interesting and sociable person with a life passion. He’s talking about
calibrating raw expressions of dominance in order to maintain attraction in an
LTR.
———————————————————
I am a married woman and I agree…even tho I am in on it…it really is true.
@Underdog
You didn’t answer my questions.
@Courtley
1.
Ad hominem’s so early ?
Address the issue, otherwise ones response is ex facia.
2. Religious ? Nope. That is the problem – God is so far from religion. There is a vast difference between God and religion. Western Christian evangelicalism is so far removed from God and is the main culprit since behavior is often the same if not worse than the secular.
There are far too many “crossless Christians”.
I am a Jewish Disciple of Christ of which puts me at odds with 98% of Western Christians since they believe and act as if they can act like the secular world and Jesus will forgive them. They take Pauls writing and abuse them to their own destruction ( 2 Peter 3:15-17).
Btw, I have the highest regard for Mormons and have a number of my closest friends are of the Mormon denomination – I just dont get the Joseph Smith theology with my Jewish roots – I can pounce them with scriptures in OT/NT but chose not to. (Truth seekers will eventually lead into a deeper revelation of Jesus). They have “demonstrated righteousness/holiness” as a majority quite well and far better than Evangelical / Spirit filled Christians.
With that being said, I have taken on Pauls viewpoint on staying chaste and single as in the context of 1 cor 7 specifically 7:38. Prosperity and education has ruined both men and women emotionally, spiritually, mentally and left them without the understanding of consequences and the discipline of self control. ]
Btw, Paul was the only one right during his life and everyone else was wrong. He stood against the political, financial, religious system, as well as other disciples. Whether this is alpha, beta, omega, or all three. This is what I am after.
2. American churches- dont get me started. They are so far off base from the scriptures and the teachings of Christ and are equally delusional as the Islamic view of 70 virgins after murdering innocent people.
3. Truth and consequences go hand in hand. There are plenty of high powered social and science studies that clearly show outcomes for everything.
It takes guts and courage to present the data.
What I find interesting is how anti-religions attack truth and reason
4. One more time on “personal autonomy” NOT “autonomy”- GET IT ?
How does “personal autonomy” NOT “autonomy” in a relationship work ?How can one remain independent in a relationship with a spouse & children ?
The wife has her personal autonomy and the husband has his.
Have fun with this one – En Gaurde
Courtley, from a man’s perspective, you’re wrong, and Underdog and Brendan are right. You’re making the mistake that dominance equals assholery, and that good girls don’t need any of the crude stuff. My wife definitely requires a baseline level of leadership, and she was shirley married a lot younger than you (23).
I still had to: approach her, introduce myself, lead the conversation, ask her number, offer to walk her home, kiss her, call her the next day, ask her to visit my place, ask her to my room, and sexually escalate over the course of a few days. Every step of the way I had to fight my upbringing that I was being a predatory jerk, since this wasn’t “courtship” by any means. None of those basics were taught to me, I had to figure it out after a few years of nothing happening at all.
Men need two things: 1. Self improvement independent of women, 2. Be able to act attractive to women, and lead them sexually. One is not always the other. (I beat Through The Fire And Flames on Expert in Guitar Hero – are you hot for me now?)
Seriously, avoid giving romantic advice to men… especially not your future sons. You sound a lot like my mother, who gave me similar useless dating advice that set me back a good 5 years or so.
@Brendan
OK, maybe it would be more helpful if you could give me an example of what a raw expression of dominance would be in your opinion? I do read and quite enjoy Athol’s site sometimes, though some of what he advocates men do to display their dominance would make ME personally uncomfortable.
I mean…I suppose someone without ANY inner ‘dominance’ whatsoEVER would be unattractive. But I wouldn’t actually use the word dominance,’ I would say healthy ‘assertiveness’ that comes from being an adult who enjoys life and has opinions that mean something to you. This is, though, to me, just one aspect of what it means to be an emotionally, mentally healthy and engaging human being–you can stand up for yourself if you need to. So yes, a man who really lacked that in ANY capacity is probably not viewed as a very good mate.
I think what Athol talks about (and you describe) are expressions of dominance towards the woman in question herself; what I would say I’m looking for is just someone who can take a stand if necessary, not someone who needs to bolster their masculinity by controlling or putting me down in some fashion. I’d differentiate between dominance and assertiveness, in other words–dominance is a means of control of the other person, while assertiveness is about standing up for yourself or perhaps for both of you as a couple, to other people.
I’m not sure if you’d agree with the differentiating between assertiveness and dominance, or if you’d see what I’m calling assertiveness as just a low level of dominance. I don’t want to get too into semantics, though.
@Susan
In light of this idea of women being programmed for betas/low levels of dominance and some women being programmed, on the other end of the spectrum, for very high levels of it, do you really think it’s a good idea to encourage women who seem to need/want lots of dominance to date betas? Couldn’t that turn into the sort of demanding bitch/henpecked pleaser-husband scenario that tends to be one of the common dynamics of miserable marriages?
The friends I know who do say things like “I want a real man” or “I want someone who could put me in my place” and such (and yes, among my friends this is a minority) tend to be women who are rather powerful/aggressive/have controlling tendencies themselves. Which sounds rather negative, but I don’t mean it that way–it is simply who they are, and part of why they crave dominance in a relationship is, I think, because they know how disastrous it would be for them to partner with someone they could push around. It would bring out their inner control-freak, as compliant people tend to do with controlling people.
I know you’re adamantly against women every marrying full-blown alphas, but I think some women are just being forthright and realistic about what would actually work for them. For these women, I would agree with some other posters that marrying very beta-type guys would be a bad idea.
Fortunately, most women do not have this temperament and thus do not require or sexually desire extremely high levels of dominance in a relationship.
Like I said in an earlier post. For women, “be your best self” is simply enough because of their role as the passive selector in the mating process. Men need a complete different skill set that requires them to be active and sexually dominant. For a man, just “be your best self” alone is very, very bad advice.
Courtley –
In part it is “standing up” for oneself, of course, but in part it’s also a significant degree of sexual leadership/dominance per se. They don’t tend to separate as much as one might think (that is, a guy who isn’t “standing up for himself” will almost always be in the context of a marriage where the sex isn’t working well, either). Not of the fetishistic variety (necessarily), but of the kinds of ways of interacting that Athol Kay describes. Captain/First Officer is the model he seems to advocate the most for “general” level of dominance/leadership in LTRs (not based on Christian ideas .. he’s an atheist), but of course he gets more specific when speaking of sexual leadership/initiation/dominance for good reason — the sex lives of many LTR/marrieds are terrible in our culture (and a great source of marital unhappiness, dysfunction and, eventually, divorce), and they’re often terrible because the relationship lacks what Athol is talking about (i.e., attraction is deteriorated and missing), and what Jen (and many other women) eventually admit as well, when pointed out to *and* experienced by them. There are many women on Athol’s blog, for example, who reinforce this.
It’s basically the same as what OffTheCuff is saying as well: not just standing up for yourself, but actually leading/initiating in a meaningful way. Not being an asshole or an abusive domineering type, but leading, calmly and resolutely and effortlessly. It works differently in different contexts, and how that “looks” will be somewhat different in each relationship and, again, somewhat tailored to the specific woman in question in the details, but the overall picture is remarkably similar as between relationships when you zip up to the 30k foot level and view them on a more macro level rather than delving into the specific ways and means (which, again, will differ based on context).
@OfftheCuff
Well, if you all are not equating dominance to ‘assholery,’ then good, we agree somewhat. I’m trying to get some of you to spell out your mental images of the term that is over-used in the Manosphere but means, I suspect, quite different things to different people. My only ‘dating advice’ would be that acting the asshole will not likely get you the quality ladies. Being the initiator and ‘escalator’ of the relationship isn’t assholeish in the slightest and yes, many women expect that but again, I think a lot of Game/Manosphere advice goes farrrrrr beyond tips on how to pull off those basic things. Obviously, though, much of Game is focused on ONS so naturally they will talk about tactics for that. I’m not trying to encourage anyone to go after ONS or give advice on how to do so. You’re right, I have little experience there. I’m trying to shed light on what 20something women who want monogamy with someone who has the qualities Susan described in this thread might be look for and what could hinder guys who want the same from connecting with them. For me, one big hindrance would be if a guy was boring and un-engaging. I like conversation.
Another hindrance would be controlling, domineering, possessive or narcissistic behavior.
Your description of YOUR definition of dominance in your own relationship (that led to marriage) is very helpful; hopefully other posters can give theirs as well.
@Joe
Great song…even made the opening scene of Adventures in Babysitting over two decades after the Crystals sang it.
But today? Today trying that is risking a sexual assault complaint if you misjudge it. Even if you dodge a legal bullet a college student can expect to be thrown out.
Women wanted absolute, complete protection from creeps and they got it…even the romantic ones.
@Brendan
Yes, many of the sex lives of long-term married couples are in a state of total despair and this is a huge problem. Agreed completely. I would blame a lot of this on women’s complacency rather than on lack of male dominance, but I know Athol reports a lot of successes among readers, so there’s obviously something to what he’s saying.
I would make a huge distinction between intiating/leading in a relationship and dominating though, but you’ve now written something similar yourself.
Susan said a few pages back that most of the divorces she’s seen were from alphas who cheated. All of the ones I can think of in my social circles among 20s-30s married, educated couples came down to the men being too controlling/possessive/domineering/demanding. No one cheated, but the women in question did not ultimately feel safe or respected. Now, this isn’t a very high number of people, most of the young marrieds I know seem pretty happy, but that is the perspective I am coming from here. Men can definitely overdo the dominance thing to detrimental effects in their LTRs. The men in question may have been somewhat ‘alpha,’ I’d say, but certainly not swaggering players. I highly doubt any of them were Manosphereists, but these situations do feed my concern for some of the advice being given out there. I’m not going to argue with anyone’s personal experience to the contrary, I’m just telling you mine.
@Underdog
I didn’t meant to imply that it, ALONE, was enough. You also have to be able to communicate your passions and interest and yes, having initiative is important as well. Initiative is great! Let’s start using the word initiative in place of dominance, I think that is far, far more accurate and helpful for men seeking LTRs.
@Courtley
Okay, common interest groups is full of fail.
Gamer culture (tabletop, not video): With a 20:1 male:female ratio it’s hard. Looking in that culture is the only time I got truly friend zoned by a late 20s woman claiming to be ready to settle down and start a family but was really more interested by getting banged by two early 20s players (one who even made her leave after sex…guy would make Dark Game PUAs proud).
SCA: You’d think this would be the place, after all it has slightly more women than men. However, if you don’t fight heavy you find you’re the beta boy among the alphas. I’ve seen beat up, ugly, but good heavy fighters in the 40s and 50s work their way through all the 20 something new female members in a local group.
In fact, I think it was the SCA where I finally learned the hard way that “being yourself” and “following your passion” was bullshit. I followed it out of interest, have been a herald, developed a good working knowledge of how to do things in Angl0-Saxon England from Alfred to Edward with a side trip to SubRoman Britain and…well, I didn’t fight heavy. Even the old and fat hold out for a heavy fighter in the SCA (the consummate example of 4s thinking they’re going to nail down a 9 if I ever saw one). Out of fairness, the SCA does seem to have men who skew towards liking larger women in general.
Hashing: A drinking culture and thus closer to bar culture than most so the fact that classic manosphere alpha/beta plays out here is no surprise.
Endurance sports: Mostly alpha guys anyway and male/female ratio gives them an advantage as the women can be picky.
English Country Dance: You would think, given that more men than women are into it, this would be the place. Two issues: women tend to date outside of it if they are young and single and, well, most aren’t young even if they are single.
Nope, meeting women by “following your passions” can be a pretty sad strategy. Outside of S&M clubs/groups it’s been almost 100% fail for me.
Courtley, I prefer the term “leadership” since the PC types tend to get their panties in a bunch at the word “dominance”. But it truly is dominance, upon serious examination. It is related to assertiveness, but not the same thing. You can surely be assertive and submissive (or, in PC: “follower”). Think of dominance not as someone who is controlling and has 99% of the power, but rather, someone who has 51%. It’s the Captain and First Officer, not the Pharaoh and pyramid-building slave.
Rewards for being at least a bit dominant/alpha:
Went to my granddaughter’s dance recital this weekend. She’s almost five. It was in an upscale suburb north of Detroit. Big deal, probably sixty little girls altogether.
Most of the moms looked as if they were about fifteen years away from Homecoming Court.
To be successful in the world, a guy has to be something of alpha, and apparently enough of that slops over to, or is part of, his relationship actions.
And, according to my observations…Susan is right.
“Nope, meeting women by “following your passions” can be a pretty sad strategy. Outside of S&M clubs/groups it’s been almost 100% fail for me.”
Hahaha. Common interest and sexual attraction are not the same thing, isn’t it?
Initiative is necessary but not sufficient – as soon as she throws a shit test your way, your “initiative” will fold like a card table along with her attraction.
But, I grew up on Long Island, which is close to the epicenter of douchebaggery. Experience shows me the assholes and the asshole fans do just fine. I would think they’d all be fat or single or divorced now, but it’s not the case.
My 2 cents on the common interest bit.
Men are always sexually attracted to women. Just standing there is good enough. It can usually be assumed.
Men must/have to create any attraction that exists (at least if your in the 80%).
For a woman a common interest can be enough to attract a man because all she has to do is be in the right location at the right time.
The same is not true for men, it is for the 80% a conscious effort to become attractive. Just doing your thing will not create attraction.
Thats where I think the confusion comes from.
Men are attracted to women all the time. Women see this via common interests and assume common interest = attraction.
Women are not attratced to most men all the time. Being in the correct proximity is not enough for a man to attract a women.
I will however say, common interests/clubs etc. are a good way to meet new people and open up new social circles. This seems kinda duh though.
My mother recently told me that a female friend of mine has been having bad luck with men because of her “aura.” (Not in the literal “New Age” sense, but in the figurative “giving off vibes” sense.”) So I asked, “How does that help? How is someone supposed to change her ‘aura’?” My mother just shrugged. It’s a mystery.
I already mentioned that sick of being pursued by assholes that were old enough to be my father and mostly married I took modeling classes and I’m pretty sure I upped my SMV and men of the age I was interested in looked at me more but they still wouldn’t approach I did noticed that when I was out with my girlfriends or just not thinking on attracting someone I got a ton more approaches than when I was “dolled up” and looking. So my guess is that somehow from all the times I tried to keep myself guarded against the ones I didn’t liked I developed “bad vibes” I wish I could say how to fix it but I didn’t got rid of them till I was dating my now husband since I wasn’t looking anymore I was always relaxed and fun looking and got a ton more approaches, had I mentioned that I always though God has a sick sense of humor? He does :p
I kind of find myself in a dilemma here, as I’m rather disappointed that genes from manipulative and corrupt persons propagate in society and its gene pool. But on the other hand, there is a micro-scene, where you might be surprised how the dynamics of a child and its father work out. To mention a notorious case: L. Ron Hubbard and his son Quentin Hubbard. To have your own son call your tightly run organization a sham is a major slap in the face.
I know what you mean but even with what I said I mentioned that Einstein’s kid didn’t reached his level I got the theory that having the seeds for certain traits (whether pure evilness and/or genius) is not enough there are other things like timing and place to make a copy of themselves so even though reproduction upped your chances of a mini-me it might take generations for it to reach a similar level, YMMV.
Women wanted absolute, complete protection from creeps and they got it…even the romantic ones.
Yeah we all have to deal with the uncomfortability of being pursued by a man we are not attracted to as a way to let the ones we are attracted to have a way to approach us too. You have to take the good with the bad the mistake was wanting to assure women that they could only get the good part of life and dating, not how the universe works, YMMV.
@Lokland:
“Being in the correct proximity is not enough for a man to attract a women.”
That wasn’t my experience growing up in the late 80′s, early 90′s.
The question is whether you would want to date the women you passively attract.
Guys, we’re falling to a common mistake.
By “be your best self” they mean be interesting enough to catch her interest and keep it. Nothing more. They could care less if you’re passionate about math, sports, or saving the world. They care about if you’re able to keep her interested in your interests. You can do that by being either an asshole or being a kind but dominant leader taking her on that with you. Either way though, she has to feel the tingle and be interested.
The reason, as far as I can tell, they give bullshit advice like what the last thread of this has gone into is because they simply don’t see the boring men that never capture their interest that are doing EXACTLY what they’re saying here. They only see the INTERESTING men that do what they’re saying here. So they have no idea that there’s a large segment of men doing exactly this. No idea that their advice has a pre-requisite because those men might as well exist within a separate reality for all they matter to women. If you don’t catch the interest of a woman with this “Be your best self” thing, you might as well get used to simply being treated as a piece of furniture in her world that happens to eat, drink, breath, and serve her needs.
That being said, I do think being your best self is a great thing. Its healthy and good for you. Just realize that if you want to attract women, you also have to be dominant and be damned good at advertising yourself as a man of quality to them.
Cause otherwise you could be the best damned man in the country, but it won’t get you anywhere with women.
@Esau
I think I know why we’ve been failing to see eye to eye!!!
If you will indulge me just one more time while I take the scenic route . . . There is a friend of mine who likes to remind people that sin doesn’t mean “doing something bad,” but “missing the mark.” And although I agree with him, I usually have no idea what he is saying in specific contexts, because he doesn’t always say what “the mark” is. But I didn’t see that I didn’t see until after I read a movie review that used the Greek word telos and explained that even a really cheesy movie can be considered good if it achieves the end which the filmmakers intended. And then it all became clear.
Now, what you’re saying here is that the “Be your best self to be more attractive” advice misses the mark. And not only misses the mark, but also misses it very, very badly. But if that is so, then what is the mark?
That is what I was wondering when I asked you what you want women to say. And your answer was frustrating because it was just about what you want women not to say. It would be easier to know that something is a weed if I knew what lawn grass is supposed to look like.
Does it, perhaps, look like what Leap of a Beta wrote in 548?
Anacoana,
I worked with a woman who was fabulously attractive, fifteen on a ten-point scale. And not the Audrey Hepburn look, either. Refined features, terrific figure.
She gave out what I think was a deliberate aura. “Don’t even think about it,”. I noted that, even in meetings with colleagues she’d worked with for months.
One on one, should you be fortunate enough to achieve one on one, such as a small team in a project, she was fun and relaxed. I suspect that, if she’d thought you needed the aura, she would have figured out how to avoid one on one.
Smart, too.
@ Travis
Addendum to #504
Darnit! In my usual rush, I left out some crucial information.
In addition to searching for their SMV equivalent (7+), and looking for women of good character/low Ns -another reason these guys had difficulty finding “quality women” was due to their looking for a very narrow niche in the market- specific ethnicity/religious beliefs, don’t know if that’s your case too?
The guys who were successful were those who applied a more aggressive strategy in their search, discarded requirements that satisfied other people (family) and didn’t waste time with women they knew they’d never consider for an LTR.
@Alias:
“Darnit! In my usual rush, I left out some crucial information.
In addition to searching for their SMV equivalent (7+), and looking for women of good character/low Ns -another reason these guys had difficulty finding “quality women” was due to their looking for a very narrow niche in the market- specific ethnicity/religious beliefs, don’t know if that’s your case too?”
My favorite (personal) narrow niche is “top 1% of intelligence”.
Life gets even harder when you immediately toss out 99% of the female population and *then* go for 7+, so to speak.
@ Courtley
“You must also have social skills and be able to relate to other human beings, and genuinely like at least some of them.”
The social skills necessary for being an interesting party guest are NOT the social skills necessary for attracting a substantial portion of the female population.
There are different sets of “social skills” and they are meant to be applied in totally different situations with totally different end games.
In other words:
There is no such thing as “social skills.” You might as well ask an astronomer to build a submarine to travel to the center of the Earth because you saw it on TV once and all scientists are the same, right?
The social skills necessary for being an interesting party guest are NOT the social skills necessary for attracting a substantial portion of the female population.
There are different sets of “social skills” and they are meant to be applied in totally different situations with totally different end games.
Yup. This.
Honestly, the notion that you just have to be your “best self” with some “social skills” is basically BS.
You are absolutely correct to point out that “social skills” is quite broad. The truth is it is very possible to be quite sociable in a quite affable, pleasant manner that is also quite asexual, and really does nothing to generate any attraction or sexual tension. Trust me, I know this quite well from my historical personal experience.
It’s really the difference between being “friendly and pleasant” versus “charming and charismatic”. It really is a very specific set of social skills and method of social interaction that will sometimes spark sexual attraction.
The difficulty is that for 99% of women, you can’t simply ask them what the guy *SPECIFICALLY* said or did to generate attraction. It will always be answered with an ambiguous sort of “I just felt it” or “I had CHEMISTRY with him” or on the flip side “I just didn’t feel any spark”. In contrast, I can think back now and often isolate the specific exchange where I sparked the attraction or on the flip side lost the interaction.
Just to pinpoint one key difference. In the vast majority of my social interactions, I would NEVER engage in any sort of playful teasing. But this is key aspect of social interaction where you want to either generate or sustain some type of sexual attraction/charge.
So when a woman says interesting she really means charming. I happen to think my knowledge of financial markets and deep interest in history makes me interesting, and for someone who shares those interests I probably would be, but for 99.9% of women, a conversation on those topics is going to be a tingle killer. In contrast, a more superficial conversation basically about nothing, but laced with the right social techniques is going to be much more effective for generating attraction and seeming interesting.
Those last two posts are spot-on, ADBG and Mike C.
I think that it can be useful to conceptualize this issue as sort of signal detection problem. Imagine a line drawn in the sand; on one side of the line is the man, on the other side of the line is the woman’s mate-detection system. When the detection system is activated, she feels attraction, tingles, etc.
The line represents a filter, and the filter attempts to reduce the man to a series of scores based on his ability to procreate, provide, and protect—the “looks, money, badass” triumvirate. Let’s call these the “performance factors” for now, but they could easily be termed the Alpha Traits as well.
The performance factors may represent the man’s potential value as a mate to the woman’s genes, but having these traits does not mean that the man would be willing to share them with her. To determine this, the woman also needs to determine the man’s “commitment factors” (the could also be called Beta Traits).
An integrated framework might attempt to define the Alpha Traits by units of performance and the Beta Traits as percentages or efficiency ratios. A *very simplistic* expression of a man’s mating value to a woman might go something like this:
(Alpha: Performance Factor) * (Beta: % Commitment) = True Mating Value
In other words, you could theoretically have the most formidable badass in the world, a man with a Protector Performance Value of, say, a full 100 pts. Imagine that this man would be willing to abandon his family during an emergency and leave them to die. Despite his high badass trait score, his commitment % would be so low that he would have a low mating value based on the product.
On the other hand, a normal man of average protection ability who was willing to fight to the death for his loved ones (100% commitment) might have a high protector value.
Money becomes very interesting in this framework because a very, very wealthy man could conceivably deploy a small percentage of his resources towards a relationship and still outperform a financially-struggling man who was operating at full sacrificial commitment level.
BB, interesting theory. It’s obviously nonlinear, but that gets the point across. I would actually reduce the “performance factor” down to its essential element: competition – those things that are zero-sum and places him on the male hierarchy. The commitment traits are not.
Thanks, OffTheCuff. I think that you are absolutely right and that the man’s attraction value is probably based more on the female’s assessment of the presence of the three alpha traits, while his actual value as a long-term reproductive partner is different because it would be the product of the alpha traits and his willingness to share them (as expressed by the commitment percentage approximations).
The man’s own calculus will of course attempt to calibrate his commitment level to the woman’s value to him as a long-term partner. Thus, one woman’s dream husband could be another’s cad-player nightmare, depending on his assessment of commitment cost/benefit where a particular relationship is concerned.
We can note that typical chick-fantasy porn literature features a male lead who are both extremely alpha (high scores in all dimensions) and—eventually, at least—completely committed to the female lead (often to the point of unnatural obsession). In fact, it usually goes a step beyond this and the female lead’s chief dilemma is how to choose between TWO competing, hyper attractive, obsessed alpha male types.
Wish there was an edit function so I could clean up my grammatical errors and typos…
@Ana
I know but I was looking forward to have a minime that hated me when she was a teen to pay off my mother. Is the only fair thing to do
LMAO. You know, my mom’s biggest disappointment in life was that she never got to witness me getting some payback for my adolescence.
@OfftheCuff
I am betting that Long Island/NYC girls are bigger shit-testers than women in a lot of other places. No offense, New Yorkers, but you do kinda have a rep.
Out in the Pacific Northwest where I grew up people are famously a bit more relaxed. Stuff like that is very interesting to me when comparing different experiences.
Also–to the rest of you–I think the phrase “be your best self” is getting misused and abused here. I was responding, way back in the thread, to Ted, and I think we were both talking not just about the ol’ “be yo’self” thing, but more about specific types of self-improvement to become a happier, more interesting person. So in other words, what I’m recommending to be a more viable LTR candidate
@Mike C
Interesting vs. charming is . . . an interesting point. Again, you have to be able to engage and communicate your interests. I’ve said that several times now. If you don’t HAVE any, though, if you’re not putting some energy into things you really love that is just for you, that dullness is going to be a huge disadvantage. I don’t see anyone really disputing that, even as they repeat again all the basic Game advice about dominance and being able to flirt and tease. I’m not saying that charm or being able to tease or whatever is unhelpful, but again, I talk a lot with young women and I know what they identify as attractive. Generally, what the guy is ‘into’ is something that comes up a lot–and of course having common interests between the two is ideal, I think, in any LTR for both men and women.
Second Einstein banged everything that moved and the kids he had never became scientist.
Einstien had three known kids: a daughter by his first wife Milena named Liserel, who either died or was adopted away, and two sons, one schizophrenic, by a second wife. His one healthy child, Hans Albert was a civil engineer; his son Bernard was a physicist.
The friends I know who do say things like “I want a real man” or “I want someone who could put me in my place” and such (and yes, among my friends this is a minority) tend to be women who are rather powerful/aggressive/have controlling tendencies themselves.
I’ve known a few women like that, but I tend NOT to count them among my friends. One thing I notice about them is that they often want a man to control them because they have no self-control. They want a man to do that for me. In working with teens, I used to see a lot of this among female atheletes (high T?).
@ J “One thing I notice about them is that they often want a man to control them because they have no self-control.”
Very good observation – I have noticed this too.
Here are a few common denominators: premarital sex, single parent, absent father, broken home, cohabitation parent. Btw, which result in emotionally FUBAR for life due to no discipline, no concept of consequences, and inability to communicate / connect / bond with members of the opposite sex.
Just a IMO ( in my observations).
@Mike C
It will always be answered with an ambiguous sort of “I just felt it” or “I had CHEMISTRY with him” or on the flip side “I just didn’t feel any spark”.
IME, “spark” and “chemistry” are really random. If I were to advise a guy how to do that, I would say the answer is “Be whatever quirky thing a random girl is attracted to.” You can’t produce chemistry; it’s too random and depends on really individualized triggers. Instant chemistry for me, for example, depends on having thick black stubble. Smooth and blond? No chemistry. Sorry.
Just to pinpoint one key difference. In the vast majority of my social interactions, I would NEVER engage in any sort of playful teasing. But this is key aspect of social interaction where you want to either generate or sustain some type of sexual attraction/charge.
That can indeed be learned, but I’d still rather have it from a guy with black stubble.
So when a woman says interesting she really means charming.
No, those are two different things. A deep conversation about history is actually interesting to me, no matter whom I am having it with. If it’s with a guy with thick, black stubble…well, meet my DH.
@Michael
Here are a few common denominators: premarital sex, single parent, absent father, broken home, cohabitation parent.
Often, but it’s not always upbringing. I’ve seen some kids from good homes who were just naturally hard to deal with due to bad bio-chemistry. It’s complicated.
@J – define a good home / good parents ?
That is my point – there is a tiny minority of kids who come from a intact home which consist of healthy parents ( single digit here imo)
Btw, kids who come from them have their situations to deal with too. However, they are equipped to deal with it much better and hence the opportunity for a better outcome.
@ Michael
I think defining a good home in detail would probably lead into a discussion about values that’ll be longer than I have time for, but we can agree on a home with two healthy parents. In my neighborhood, that’s actually the majority, and I still see some screwed up kids, many for no apparent reason. Sometimes, people just have bad luck with their kids. I do agree though that, even for a kid who’s swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool, good parents are a definite boon.
OT, but that’s a pretty dog.
@ Courtley
“I’m not saying that charm or being able to tease or whatever is unhelpful, but again, I talk a lot with young women and I know what they identify as attractive.”
A lot of guys don’t understand THIS part. THIS is the part they need help with. THIS is the part they want to fix.
A Definite Beta Guy
“A lot of guys don’t understand THIS part. THIS is the part they need help with. THIS is the part they want to fix.”
True.
Plus, women generally don’t know what they’re attracted to. What they say they want is 9 times out of 10 not what they really want. Put an average woman in a room with a guy who shares her common interests and a guy who only knows how to sexually push her buttons and I guarantee you she’ll end up with the latter.
@Courtley
“Generally, what the guy is ‘into’ is something that comes up a lot–and of course having common interests between the two is ideal, I think, in any LTR for both men and women.”
More than ideal, probably essential these days, if you want the relationship to last. Add a strong friendship component, and limit dating to people in your extended social circle (vs. complete strangers), and you’ve got the foundation for something successful.
By the way, from this man’s perspective, your advice in #448 and #512 was very excellent indeed. Some variation on it worked for me lo those many years ago, and pretty much for every guy I know who’s settled down successfully. This focus on basic, initial attraction (important, but short-term) obscures the real issue, being that compatibility between any two people is extremely complex.
There’s no magic formula that will work every time, or even most of the time IMO. However, some qualities certainly work much better than others. Whatever label (beta) or phrase (best self) you use to describe these traits, expect them to be used as pejoratives online : |
@Mike C
Agree 1000%
@Courtley
Most girls have a remarkable ability to suddenly take great interest in anything a guy she’s tingling for is into. And that’s usually a good thing for LTRs.
A shared interest will not generate a tingle, but a tingle can generate a shared interest.
@Herb
Re: common interests, most of the couples in happy, stable LTRs that I know bonded over common interests to some degree. How successful meeting someone in one of those groups is will depend, of course, on the group and on the individual doing so. I was replying to Underdog, who throws a lot of Manosphere terms around without giving me a good idea of where he is coing from. You’re more apt to flesh out what you say with your own personal experiences.
@JimmyHendricks
“Most girls have a remarkable ability to suddenly take great interest in anything a guy she’s tingling for is into. And that’s usually a good thing for LTRs.”
I mean, I’ve seen men and women fake interest in something that someone they think is hot is into, but if it’s not genuine it’s not a very good foundation for a successful, long-term relationship.
“A shared interest will not generate a tingle, but a tingle can generate a shared interest.”
Complete, 100% bullshit and falseness. I have never gotten turned on/seriously attracted to a guy until I discovered we had some common ground. But if you’re talking about ONS ‘tingles,’ then we’re not talking about the same thing anyway.
@Megaman
Glad you agree.
And yes, it’s important to note that working on yourself and developing the ability to befriend and engage people and being genuinely happy about life and your interests are not some kind of guaranteed ‘magic formula’ for getting all the sex and love you want. The fact that so many posters seem to interpret any proffered advice as such is very indicative of the way in which they’re approaching the entire subject.
Common interests and generally being interesting people with specific passions has been a big part of all my friends’ successful relationships. I think it’s much more important to young people today than it was to my parents’ generation. How much a couple has in common has become a huge benchmark for how good of a match their social circle will assess them to be–it simply goes without saying that people who like the same music/sports/films/art etc. are more likely to dig each other and make a good couple. I don’t know anyone in their 20s in my “real” non-online life who would ever dream of disputing this. It is common sense.
@A Definite Beta Guy
Honestly, a lot of what I think shy, insecure, awkward, un-interesting guys–the sort of stereotype of the beta, as opposed to the way Susan or I would actually use the word–seem to THINK of as ‘charm’ is really just the ability to relax and engage people in genuine conversation because they like people and like talking to them about things they both like. Yes, this still doesn’t come easily to everyone but trust me, getting more comfortable with yourself and having things to talk about a is a huge part of this over-mystified ‘charm.’
I meet guys in real life all the time who know how to do this and who have no trouble finding a nice, cute girlfriend if they want one. They usually aren’t dating the “cheerleader” type though–but they’re also definitely not dating overweight, frumpy or super-masculine women, either. They’ve got realistic standards and enjoy life and have basic interpersonal skills and things generally work out all right for them.
IME, “spark” and “chemistry” are really random.
I disagree ***STRONGLY*** with this. I have no doubt you sincerely believe this, but honestly this just goes to show the notion that women by and large don’t understand their own attraction triggers. Which leads me to this:
If I were to advise a guy how to do that, I would say the answer is “Be whatever quirky thing a random girl is attracted to.” You can’t produce chemistry; it’s too random and depends on really individualized triggers.
This truly is God awful, terrible advice for men. Essentially, it is “just be yourself” and then hope the bolt of lightning hits with the random girl that just happens to be attracted. If this were in fact true, then learning any sort of “Game” would be a waste of time. On some level, all Game really is, is taking the IDENTICAL PRODUCT (your collection of attributes, physical attributes, hair color, stubble or no stubble, education, career, interests, etc.) and simply MARKETING them in a different way using different interaction skills and techniques. Anyone in marketing will tell you the advertising message is often 10x as important as the actual product.
Here’s something kind of interesting….I found it bizarre at the time, but years later I understood the dynamic and what had happened. Anyways, I met this girl, and we actually crossed paths about 2 years apart. I don’t think she remembered me from our first meeting when we met the second time 2 years later. In both meetings, I was is in top physical shape (lean an muscular and I’m 6’3″). First meeting, nada, zilch, zippo. Second meeting, I basically could have fucked her, but I didn’t (long story there involving me having a conscience). I WAS THE EXACT SAME GUY. Only difference was during the second meeting, I had accidently stumbled on using what would later be considered some Game. As I looked back on my interactions with women, and where I had successfully created attraction, there is absolutely nothing random about any of it. In each case, I can look back, and say I did A, B, C, X, Y, Z and that is what worked to get her attracted.
Instant chemistry for me, for example, depends on having thick black stubble. Smooth and blond? No chemistry. Sorry.
Ha. I’ve got dark brown hair, dark brown eyes, Mediterranean background. Before my GF dated me, her type was blonde, blue-eyed types and that was mostly who she had dated. No doubt, most women have some “type” but that type is far more malleable then you seem to be implying, especially with the right guy with the right charm.
No, those are two different things. A deep conversation about history is actually interesting to me, no matter whom I am having it with. If it’s with a guy with thick, black stubble…well, meet my DH.
OK, I’ve got to finally ask, what does DH stand for. I’m guessing H is husband.
@Michael Singer
Only you can decide what you believe and what sort of religious community that is right for you. The point I was making was merely that if you’re willing to jump through the right hoops, there’s still a substantial amount of very sexually/morally conservative young people in North America ensconced in certain religious communities.
You might not be able to affirm what Mormons believe, but you seem to agree with my assessment that a lot of young Mormons are not behaving sexually in the way you describe ‘Americans’ as behaving. They’re a separate demographic from the sort of over-generalized American population, at least when it comes to sexual behavior. So there ARE people out there adhering to moral standards you prefer. Whether or not any women in that community could be potential relationship partners for you or others who think likewise is a bigger question, of course, but they do exist.
@Court
“They’ve got realistic standards and enjoy life and have basic interpersonal skills and things generally work out all right for them.”
Not to say they won’t spend periods of time single (true for women, too), but this is it in a nutshell. Projecting a little optimism, showing a little interest, being friendly, having a sense of humor, not overcompensating, this is essentially a social balancing act. But I think it’s one that most guys on Team R are capable of, even if they don’t have a ton of experience dating.
Also, you mentioned earlier some so-called “beta” males wanting to score with easy women, but resenting that too many women are easy. You’ve highlighted a major hole in the SDS, one big enough to drive a truck through : )
The performance factors may represent the man’s potential value as a mate to the woman’s genes, but having these traits does not mean that the man would be willing to share them with her. To determine this, the woman also needs to determine the man’s “commitment factors” (the could also be called Beta Traits).
An integrated framework might attempt to define the Alpha Traits by units of performance and the Beta Traits as percentages or efficiency ratios. A *very simplistic* expression of a man’s mating value to a woman might go something like this:
(Alpha: Performance Factor) * (Beta: % Commitment) = True Mating Value
In other words, you could theoretically have the most formidable badass in the world, a man with a Protector Performance Value of, say, a full 100 pts.
Fascinating thoughts…and I think spot on. I think this supports the notion of a mix of alpha and beta. I think one interesting follow-up is that a man’s % commitment level will vary depending on the particular woman. One of the biggest myths I see out there is this notion that you can throw ALL men into either those only interested in casual uncommitted sex opportunities or those only interested in committed monogamous relationships. There are guys no doubt who are only interested in one or the other but I think most guys are willing to bounce between the two depending on the girl, and so a guy’s beta % commitment variable is actually somewhat dependent on the girl.
Also, you mentioned earlier some so-called “beta” males wanting to score with easy women, but resenting that too many women are easy. You’ve highlighted a major hole in the SDS, one big enough to drive a truck through : )
Human nature. Many poor and lower-middle class people resent the rich while wanting to be rich themselves. Envy is a strong emotion.
@Courtley
If that were true than orbiting would actually work.
Look, I completely agree that common interests are great for compatibility in a LTR. But any guy who thinks they’re enough to get the fire started is in for a world of pain and failure.
J
“ME, “spark” and “chemistry” are really random. If I were to advise a guy how to do that, I would say the answer is “Be whatever quirky thing a random girl is attracted to.” You can’t produce chemistry; it’s too random and depends on really individualized triggers. Instant chemistry for me, for example, depends on having thick black stubble. Smooth and blond? No chemistry. Sorry.”
———-
J,
This would contradict the fact that a woman can *gradually* become attracted to a man and it negates that a man can actually kill a woman’s attraction for him by saying/doing something stupid.
It would be “love at first sight” or nothing.
I worked with a woman who was fabulously attractive, fifteen on a ten-point scale. And not the Audrey Hepburn look, either. Refined features, terrific figure.
I had a friend that used to call this women “cold beauties” he said that he could see objectively they were pretty but couldn’t think of him having sex with them (For the ones that saw Black Swan surely remember the scene that shows this concept)
Funny enough I had the same issues as salesperson when I was doing passive sales (fixed salary no commission or commission’s not big enough to make a difference) I was really good so good that I tried the commission route but once I had in my mind that it was selling or not paying my bills something “went off” with my customers and I couldn’t close a sale no matter how easy it was. Is obvious I can’t still control my “aura” in one aspect.
In contrast, a more superficial conversation basically about nothing, but laced with the right social techniques is going to be much more effective for generating attraction and seeming interesting.
Appalling but true I had a female friend that was a flirt and really successful with guys that use to criticize me because all I wanted to talk to guys about was books “You are going to die a spinter” she used to say. Oh well I can talk books with my hubby it just took me 10 years of solitude, totally worth it
Money becomes very interesting in this framework because a very, very wealthy man could conceivably deploy a small percentage of his resources towards a relationship and still outperform a financially-struggling man who was operating at full sacrificial commitment level.</I.
I don't know I always though that a man that makes a dollar a day but shares 0.50 cents with you is more valuable that a man that makes 1000 dollars a day and shares 100. It shows how important you are for him and better to reign on hell than to serve on heaven, YMMV.
LMAO. You know, my mom’s biggest disappointment in life was that she never got to witness me getting some payback for my adolescence.
Heh I know she would think the same, seriously in my culture girls are the ones that stay around taking care of the family boys belong to whatever punani is in turn. My mother was actually complaining that from all her kids she has outside the house (me, sociopath, little brother) I’m the one that calls her all the time to see how is she doing. So yeah different expectations from a culture breed different things, me thinks.
Einstien had three known kids: a daughter by his first wife Milena named Liserel, who either died or was adopted away, and two sons, one schizophrenic, by a second wife. His one healthy child, Hans Albert was a civil engineer; his son Bernard was a physicist.
???! Don’t get this explanation please clarify.
No doubt, most women have some “type” but that type is far more malleable then you seem to be implying, especially with the right guy with the right charm.
Yeah I was a sucker for really dark hair , hubby is a ginger. I’m a bit ginger myself (brown reddish hair) so I can call him a ginger,only a ginger can call another ginger, ginger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVN_0qvuhhw
@ Courtley and Mike C
“Complete, 100% bullshit and falseness. I have never gotten turned on/seriously attracted to a guy until I discovered we had some common ground. But if you’re talking about ONS ‘tingles,’ then we’re not talking about the same thing anyway.” – Courtley
What she is saying here is not that they are able to connect over any actual common experiences, common interests, common anything. What she really means is that the man is able to connect with her on an emotional level.
You can do that by having something in common or, as I mentioned earlier, having the ability to make her care about the things you care about. It is rare for men to be able to do the second, and more common to be able to do the first. Add in hamsterizations, a desire to please, and the need to ‘be true to oneself” and…..
Well, you get women that don’t know why they’re attracted to specific men, only that they are, feel like they can explain why, but really have no idea.
For instance. According to Courtley I could instantly talk to her about history and she would enjoy it. However, I would be very surprised if she was able to switch from an enjoyable conversation to on of actual sexual interest unless I was both able to connect with her emotions (have strong opinions about a debated historical topic) and also ramp up the escalation of physical proximity/touch while also throwing in a few sexual innuendos.
Otherwise I’d be regulated to just friends, an interesting guy, and someone that would serve her needs when she desired an interesting conversation on the topic of history
NEXT
@Leap of Beta
“What she’s really saying here” is a raaaaaather problematic statement to use about someone on the Internet. Let’s avoid such nonsense. I won’t put words in your mouth, you won’t put any in mine.
And you’re simply misguided, I’m afraid, on this point:
“According to Courtley I could instantly talk to her about history and she would enjoy it. However, I would be very surprised if she was able to switch from an enjoyable conversation to on of actual sexual interest unless I was both able to connect with her emotions (have strong opinions about a debated historical topic) and also ramp up the escalation of physical proximity/touch while also throwing in a few sexual innuendos.”
Ha. A ‘few sexual innuendos’ from someone I’d just met would kill the sexual/romantic interest for me, let me tell you. So classless and unoriginal.
However, as I’ve said in, I think, almost every post I made on this thread, I will defer to your opinions and experiences when it comes to getting women into your bed for one night never to see them again. Don’t take my advice if that’s your main goal.
Anyway, I mean sure, being interesting and engaging on a topic I’m not particularly interested in could be enough to get me to check it out–but this could (and has) happens to me quite often through my female friends as well. It’s not an exclusive trait of ‘male sexual dominance’ or whatever.
And of course emotional connection and physical attraction are massive factors in all of this, I never said that connecting over common interests could stand independently of all other factors of sexual and romantic attraction, simply that they can be both a very effective hook and a great asset to the strength of an LTR in the long run. I was responding to JimmyHendricks’ quote that interests were only perceived to be attractive but were in actuality ENTIRELY irrelevant, and only attraction to the male’s display of dominance mattered. Well, sorry, but no–I’ve been in situations where one guy might be taking lots of initiative and being very charming on some topic I find absolutely dull, while another far quieter guy who displays some level of interest in things I also like catches and holds my attention just by those factors alone. He doesn’t even have to be intentionally engaging me, he could be chatting to one of his guy friends and if he’s talking about things I am into, I’ll make some effort to at least talk with him a bit and gauge him a bit more. I eavesdrop shamelessly in big groups-sometimes it’s a much better way to get a feel for someone.
@Courtley
“Complete, 100% bullshit and falseness. I have never gotten turned on/seriously attracted to a guy until I discovered we had some common ground. ”
It must be easy as hell to seduce you.
Courtley: “…so anyways, I like turtles.”
Guy: “No way! Me, too!”
Courtley: “OMG, I’m so wet!”
@Underdog
Yeah man, that’s exactly how it works. You’re an expert on female sexuality.
@Underdog,
FFS dude. Do you honestly think Courtley’s point was “mutual interest=insta-fuck”? It’s been established we’re not talking about ONS’s here anyway. The argument is about the importance of developing yourself (while retaining a baseline level of sociability) is a viable way for men to get an LTR. It’s not about wether having a shared interest in polish trance music will lead to a same-night lay.
Are you still interested in this debate?
“”I worked with a woman who was fabulously attractive, fifteen on a ten-point scale. And not the Audrey Hepburn look, either. Refined features, terrific figure.
I had a friend that used to call this women “cold beauties” he said that he could see objectively they were pretty but couldn’t think of him having sex with them “”
Ana. I can see I wasn’t clear. Everybody thought of having sex with her. We were a two-person team, which meant, among other things, I was watching out for her–we were in a dicey area–and I found out I had to correct others of the group who were rude. This sounds more civilized than it was. Fortunately, although I was born cuter than the Gerber baby, things went downhill fast and people listen to me when I get agitated.
Thing is, her aura was probably deliberate, or at least an unconscious way to get through the day with minimal hassle. When she was with one or two friends, it was completely different.
She dressed every day, from the second frost–we started in Michigan–on in a shift with absolutely no shape. Figured she figured she’d have less hassle than if she wore a tank top, I suppose.
I’ve been in commission sales for almost forty years. Sales trainers tell you to act as if you have a couple of thousand bucks in your wallet, so you don’t need the sale. If you need the sale, as you say, something is off. “Make me sell this to you. You sure?”
ONS, LTR, what does it matter? If the man can’t attract/seduce the woman, his chances at either with her is zero.
@Courtley:
“Only you can decide what you believe and what sort of religious community that is right for you. The point I was making was merely that if you’re willing to jump through the right hoops, there’s still a substantial amount of very sexually/morally conservative young people in North America ensconced in certain religious communities.”
Then you get people like me who are sort of in a cult of one.
Apparently, I’m effectively Mormon in mores and general attitude. Although I drink coffee and alcohol.
I’ve also learned to keep my mouth shut in terms of what I think.
No one wants to hear my opinions. It’s generally not a good way to get along well in the world.
@Courtley:
“Common interests and generally being interesting people with specific passions has been a big part of all my friends’ successful relationships. I think it’s much more important to young people today than it was to my parents’ generation. How much a couple has in common has become a huge benchmark for how good of a match their social circle will assess them to be–it simply goes without saying that people who like the same music/sports/films/art etc. are more likely to dig each other and make a good couple.”
I’ve never been able to figure out how people form social circles after school is finished and you’re in a career. My number of actual friends has dropped to essentially zero and has remained there for some time.
Once you have a career and family, you seem to have little time for things you actually enjoy doing.
Mike C,
As I understand it, ‘DH’ stands for ‘Damn Husband’.
Seems a little harsh, I know, but there we go. Housewives are sure angry these days.
@drunicusveritas
I’m really not sure why my message is not computing here.
In recommending men with beta traits I am speaking to women. I am encouraging them to avoid cads altogether for marriage or parenting. I don’t want to force alpha males into a beta hole – in fact, didn’t I end the post by saying so? It cannot be done. Adding beta traits to natural alphas is not a good strategy – you can’t add long-term mating traits to a man programmed for short-term mating. Women should be searching for the man with the most beta traits that they are attracted to.
Why are you afraid? Go for it! I’m not shaming men in the least. You have every right to opt for short-term mating.
And women have every right to reject manwhores.
May the best man win.
@Courtley
This has been apparent to me for some time. Lots of guys want to learn Game and then roll with the most alpha of alphas to get access to ONSs (all the while saying they’re not getting with sluts, but high quality girls).
It is perhaps unsurprising that everyone wants to be at the top of the pyramid, and many young men perceive that as having unfettered access to flings, or even the opportunity to pump and dump at will.
The problem is that the target market for this strategy is comprised of the most hypergamous women.
As a wannabe writer of fiction, I once spent some time on a romance writers’ workshop board. It appears that the female character’s job is to tame the raging alpha.
So, says I, what happens when another raging alpha comes along.
“Aubrey, that’s another book.”
Since Jude Deveraux has written at least three dozen, and the romance novel biz is bigger than the GDP of a number of members of the UN, it appears there’s a lot of that going around.
@Underdog
Why are those mutually exclusive? I would have thought they were one and the same, unless by most sexually desirable, you mean Asshole. In which case you’re targeting a specific female population.
@dannyfrom504
I do, but I think everyone else could benefit from your perspective
@Court
“Yeah man, that’s exactly how it works. You’re an expert on female sexuality.”
: )
I think Susan’s pointed out numerous times that female attraction triggers are distinct (with a bit of overlap) for short-term vs. long-term mating. It stands to reason that women only interested in a LTR would have very different priorities in a potential mate. Overt displays of sexual interest early on may get him written off. Of course, the general consensus seems to be “the hookup key opens every lock every time”. It’s sophistry played on a broken record.
@Michael Singer
I believe you’re new here, but I would describe my readership as primarily young women who have not been promiscuous. The truth is that only 10-20% of college educated women ride the alpha cock carousel. I’m talking to the other 80%.
In doing so, I am providing a counterpoint to cultural beliefs about which men make suitable long-term mates.
This is a truly extraordinary statement in a country with more than 150 million females. I suggest the problem is you.
@Courtley –
I don’t doubt your sincerity but in my own experience common interests do not attract. They can create the basis for a friendship, but it is other factors that differentiate the guy who you have common interests with but who is friend zoned as compared with the one who isn’t. Lots of guys who know quite a bit about history and could have an interesting conversation with you about it but only some of them are going to be attractive. That’s why it’s more important for men to focus on the development of what is attractive more than anything else. It isn’t like these guys don’t have deep interests — most normally do. That isn’t the issue. The issue is that they aren’t attractive and it’s for other reasons. They are not displaying attractive traits.
My ex-wife and I shared a lot of common interests and we still do. They didn’t impact our attraction to each other or the dissipation of the same over time — other things did. And the common interests remained intact. They aren’t really, in my experience, very important in attraction or in maintaining attraction in the long run. My current gf and I have fewer interests in common and are actually therefore more interesting to each other due to our differences. But in any case it wasn’t our interests that attracted or hindered attraction, because in many cases they’re different.
@OTC
You’re talking about behaviors, not traits. I think that’s a very important distinction.
A man can be fully self-actualized and be a monk, in which case he is not going to attract women.
A man can be his “best self” but if he doesn’t display, he will go unnoticed.
Game is about behaviors – strategic tactics that may be congruent with a man’s self, or entirely artificial in the “fake it till you make it” sense. When I read male bloggers talking about Inner Game, my sense is that they are addressing the issue of incongruence, of encouraging men to do the inner work that makes that alpha behaviors compatible with their inner life. In that way, the “display” doesn’t have an expiration date, i.e. “How long to I have to ignore her before I can start being attentive to her?” If I were a guy I would find this piece critical – going through life wearing some kind of behavioral armor to sustain someone’s attraction sounds exhausting and unpleasant.
« 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
{ 6 trackbacks }