Game is founded on Evolutionary Psychology, and the fundamental premise is that women will find men more desirable if they were either naturally born with an alpha (Pickup Artist) personality, or learn how to mold themselves into that type of personality. So why is it that alphas (as a personality type) are so rare, and betas so plentiful? If there were really selection pressure towards alpha type personalities, alpha should be the most common personality type. The answer is because as currently defined, alpha isn’t about delivering what women are actually attracted to, but mimicking it close enough to activate their primal instincts. As a fisherman, I do this all the time. Which of the following crawfish looks like a tasty meal to you:
If you chose the second one, I’d wager you are an alpha chaser. You fell for the color, the exciting movement and the stimulating rattling sound of the fake, and overlooked the barbed hooks entirely. Ouch!
The thing is, as a fisherman I don’t care why a fish bites; I’m just looking for a meal. The same goes for the PUA. They don’t care why you sleep with them, so long as you do.
However, as a fisherman I’m also aware that not all fish will fall for such a poor imitation of a crawfish. After all, it doesn’t smell like a real crawfish and given the eye placement it is swimming in the wrong direction! But this doesn’t matter to me. Catching real crawfish and bringing them with me is time consuming and a lot of work. So while I might have more success if I used live bait, I also would have to work much harder and delay my fishing time significantly. Why bother when the fake works so well? Plus, I can take added pride in the sporting nature of my method of take. Those live bait guys have it too easy; all they have to do is lazily dangle the bait and it sells itself. I have the skills to overcome the challenges involved with not having the real thing. I know how to cast in such a way as to not spook the fish, and how to vary the retrieve speed, etc to maximize my chances of success.
Most fish resist their initial instinct to strike when presented with a lure that mimics the food they actually want. They become suspicious that something this easy and this perfect just fell into their laps. Crawfish usually don’t swim past a fish wiggling tantalizingly and making a racket. A smart fish will take a closer look and use some skepticism. Then they realize this isn’t a tasty meal at all, but a trick. They let it swim on past for another fish who isn’t as bright to bite. If I see a school of fish on my fishfinder, I’ll cast into them and see if one of them bites. If they do, dinner! If they don’t, I’ll try a few more casts and then paddle to another spot to try again. This is how PUAs work as well. A core teaching of game is to notice when a woman is likely to be responsive to their alpha mimicking signals. If she doesn’t respond, they move to another target.
I mention this last part because there is a presumption in the manosphere that all women only want to be with alphas. There is basic truth to the fact that women are generally attracted to alpha qualities, and learning some game will help any man become more attractive. But not all women are falling for PUAs. The majority of women still marry in their twenties, despite ready access to PUAs. And the median lifetime partner count for women is only 3.8 (this includes the husband for those who marry). So obviously the women riding the alpha carousel are not the norm, even though it may seem that way to both the women themselves and the alphas they are chasing.
In the past a woman who fell for a cad instead of a less outwardly flashy but more solid and successful beta paid a high price for biting at the lure instead of the real deal. However, she generally still had children and even though they were at a large disadvantage they were often able to survive to adulthood. However, with birth control and the large stigma in the US against middle class women having children out of wedlock, falling for the fake could mean not reproducing at all. Certainly the alpha himself has a strong incentive in the form of child support to ensure that he doesn’t get her pregnant. Plugging this back into the Evo Psych equation, how many generations before this starts to have an impact on the personality type distributions of middle class men and women?
Boiled crawfish photo courtesy PDPhoto.org
Genuinely, it’s very simple.
Most women find alphas of the particular type they’re attracted to (I’ve never been a fan of Caveman Game myself) very attractive at first. Why deny this?
But if they think about it, they realise these guys are going to only bring them heartbreak. The best course of action is to admire from a distance (watching an alpha in full flight is always fun, a bit like viewing a sabre-toothed tiger in a safari park) but not to get involved.
So if you’ve sense, you go for someone that maybe isn’t quite as madly attractive initially as the alphas, but whom (and this is important) you do find attractive to some extent AND who values you & has character while still being their own person.
It is possible to fall in love with someone gradually, you know. Quite a lot of women manage it. Obviously they would have to be women of character too though.
This male compulsion to turn a bitch into a nice person might be aiming a little too high. Leave the bitches to the players. They deserve one another.
The difficulty is picking someone who is worth it. Again, although most alphas are bad news, not all non-alphas are good news either.
PS: avoiding the most extreme manifestations of betaness would probably help too.
But a lot of women who think they’ve changed their husbands for the better haven’t changed them a bit. They’ve just become more attracted to the original version.
Hey man, love the blog. But I’m wondering – where are you getting the information “that alphas are so rare, and betas so plentiful”? It’s roughly split between all the dudes I know.
I’m tempted to quote each bit separately and explain how much I agree with it. But instead I’ll leave it at I agree with each of your points!
That’s great Dalrock, thanks. If I come across any examples in bios or literature to illustrate this, I’ll post them here or on my blog.
The difficulty is that the type of people, whether in real life or fiction, whose stories make bestsellers & write bios are usually the ones incapable of finding happiness in relationships.
It’s the ordinary people who have a better chance of this. Great talent & achievement usually doesn’t coincide with the ability to maintain a lasting relationship with someone else. There are of course exceptions.
Will anyone choose the second image? The first one looked much more appetising even on very first glance.
Personally, I find it quite hard to discuss in pure alpha/beta terms, because many natural alphas aren’t players and many betas don’t seem to have problems attracting women.
I think some people are making it a lot more complicated than is necessary. Many women love betas, they just want men to act well masculine. There’s really need to take it to the other extreme.
@sd
Caveman game is great if it’s someone being super passionate because they desire you 😉 Well mild caveman game, I wouldn’t want to be knocked over the head. Better than being asked permission!
Slightly off topic. Interestingly, just had a phone call from a male friend who is planning on sex with someone tonight, he is staying at her house and was discussing tactics and he was going to go more down the asking for permission route and I suggested something and he said oh of course that’s going to work, why didn’t I think of that. Needless to say, I wasn’t recommending the other extreme of asshole game 😉
It’s the ordinary people who have a better chance of this. Great talent & achievement usually doesn’t coincide with the ability to maintain a lasting relationship with someone else. There are of course exceptions.
I think you had it right in the paragraph above. Happy people are somewhat boring. Some people need to fill their lives with drama, and they make great conversation.
Sadly these folks are typically oblivious as to how much happier others are than them. They don’t notice the average person who found a way to be happy with what life had to offer. They think everyone is like themselves, or that their own unhappiness is the result of some unforeseeable misfortune.
I should add that I’m not trying to influence folks who are dead set on making bad choices and being unhappy. You just can’t fix people like that. The best option is to keep a safe distance so the resulting explosion doesn’t engulf you too.
There are others who might accidentally stumble into bad choices without thinking about it because all of their peers are doing the same. I don’t expect to influence these folks directly, but maybe I can influence the overall conversation which could have an impact. So Susan Walsh or grerp might pick up an idea and run a different direction with it, etc. Eventually some people on the edge might walk back instead of jumping off.
Interesting article, had just come across another blog minutes before I read yours.Anyway it makes light of some of the points you have made.It’s about a woman who is cheating on her husband
http://secretloverslane.blogspot.com/2010/08/nice-man-date.html
sorry bad grammar meant to say shes light..oops
regarding lifetime partner counts and the cocka carousel
roissy writes frequently about the drastic variations in “the norm” from one place to another (ie from urban centers vs rural)
I think many women are choosing Greater Betas and many PUAs confuse those for Omegas.
My husband is a “jerk”, he doesn’t listen to me, leads at all times and is the boss–there’s no mistaking who wears the pants in our family–but he is also loving, faithful , protective, hard working and respectful of our marriage, this akes him “beta” in the PUA sphere but this was the old fashioned concept of “husbandly” qualities–the modern pussywhipped, submissive “beta” husband has always been an object of derision and the lothario has been alternately admired and pitied at different stages of his life
Dalrock,
Your post assumes (as most of evopsych does) that nature trumps nurture every time. However, not all behavior is genetically influenced, and even if behavior 95% genetic, gene expression is not static, it closely responds to changing conditions across time and cultural domains.
Thus, as I’ve said before, for best accuracy, we’d do well not to speak of alphas and betas, but only of alpha behavior and beta behavior. In men, social dominance behavior is contextually generated, meaning that a man with strong alpha behavior at work or in his chosen hobby, may be very beta in financial dealings or with beautiful women. It’s fluid, and our distinctions between alpha/beta/omega are man-made. Nature makes no such distinctions. An Omega who suddenly and for only a day in his life, figures out how to talk to a woman, get her into bed, and impregnate her, he’s an alpha for as long as he behaves in that way, and that behavior, in many instances, is learned. If it’s not learned, nor learnable, we have no business blogging & discussing game–and clearly it is. Also, it seems from many of your commenters, it’s clear that alpha/beta distinctions in ironclad terms don’t hold water. Humans and their behavior are too complex to be classified with such simple stratum, because what happens behind closed doors is often much different than what’s seen in the public, light of day.
We learn from our parents much of our behavior. This is why broken homes encourage slutty behavior in women, and cluelessness in men. As men, we learn from our fathers through passive (subconscious) observation, and since that observation occurs over time, from early childhood on up, it’s also heavily influenced by the changing cultural landscape. Mark Bachman, over at the now-defunct Better beta blog, wrote a great post about how alpha fathers can raise beta sons. The crux is, in his father’s day, women were ladies, and alpha behavior consisted (in part) of chivalry, being a gentleman, and a little bit of chauvinism, but mostly a lot of respect–because his wife had earned it through her mutual respect, fidelity, and strong character. Those days are long gone.
Back to the point–in any cultural milieu, a natural distribution of alphas, betas, and omegas (by behavior) will occur, but will be fluidly shifted by culture in all but the most extreme personality types. Natural alphas can be taught to be beta-ized in relationship in one context (post-feminist America), or natural betas can be taught to alpha behaviors (frontier America, Native American culture, Game culture.)
Long story short, to answer the question at the conclusion of your post–it won’t be ANY generations from now, because it’s happening now. We’re already seeing the blowback from feminist culture is occurring (game, in part) and so is the pendulum-like return-swing, (game backlash, pushback against feminism, etc.)
You can see this in the rising number of spinsters with cats, and in the slow but inexorable rise of the antifeminist movement, both male & female. They are both behavioral backlash to the behavioral contextual environments of game & feminism, respectively.
This should have said
“There’s really *no* need to take it to the other extreme.”
🙂
Dana. I like what you wrote. Feminism has polarised men. Some have gone to the extreme of being supplicatory, ‘whipped, betas. Others have reacted by becoming caricatures of manliness, aping alpha behaviour by being “players”.
I try to steer a middle course. It is not easy. Your husband sounds like he has it about right. I am a devoted husband and father, but I am not “submissive” in the relationship. It’s funny you mention “not listening”. A few little tricks like that can turn a woman’s attitude right around. I would say to any husband who feels he is too submissive in his marriage to try a few simple things, like not jumping to attention and answering smartly when one’s wife asks a question. Even little things like that can affect the entire dynamic of a relationship.
@(R)Evolutionary
Your post assumes (as most of evopsych does) that nature trumps nurture every time.
I can see why it might seem this way, but this isn’t what I’m arguing. Nature and nurture work together. But the fact that game can be learned doesn’t change the fact that there are naturals. I roomed with one in college. Also, PUAs do pride themselves in the raw ability of their game. A PUA who is rich, famous, tall, good looking, etc doesn’t have the same bragging rights as a short, fat, poor guy who overcomes his deficiencies with great game. There is also a middle ground where a beta might use game to boost his attraction signals to more closely match his real status. Lastly, I think if every time I talk about nature or nurture I felt compelled to go into a detailed explanation about how the two work together, gene expression, bell curves, etc. it would be a very long and rambling post. Comments like yours help provide the needed balance and context, but I don’t think it belongs in the posts themselves.
With that said I didn’t see anything in the rest of your comment that I don’t agree with. I’m working on a post to talk about the nurture side. Hopefully I’ll have it ready for Sunday.
Pingback: So you want alpha? | Dalrock
Pingback: Weekend Link Fest – Too Damn Hot edition « Seasons of Tumult and Discord
Pingback: Word Around the Campfire – the Hungover edition « Hidden Leaves
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: White is Right Edition (NSFW)
Dalrock–
Game is founded on Evolutionary Psychology
I don’t know that that’s true. ROISSY grounds his game philosophy in Evo Psych without a doubt and he’s been very influential in the game community in doing that especially.
However i don’t think Mystery grounded it in that. It was more trial and error for him and some insights from magic entertaining as well. (He was a magician before becoming a game guru.) Ross Jefferies of NLP who came earlier and never really developed as successful a systematized method of game grounded his stuff in some clinical psychology concepts. Other game gurus as well seem to be grounded in Mystery and often DeAngelo empirical stuff. Lots of experimentation.
Interesting. Thanks for the correction.
Hi Dalrtock’
Sorry to be tardy to the party, but better late than never! Here are some reactions to the post:
If there were really selection pressure towards alpha type personalities, alpha should be the most common personality type. The answer is because as currently defined, alpha isn’t about delivering what women are actually attracted to, but mimicking it close enough to activate their primal instincts.
I would agree that betas, if we define beta as your average husband, are more common and that game teaches betas to mimic the “more attractive” alpha behaviors. I like (R)Evolutionary’s discrimination between rank and behavior and his notion that both are fluid. I think he is correct and that is why a good definition of alpha/beta is hard to come by. It’s like trying to hit a moving target.
As a fisherman, I do this all the time. Which of the following crawfish looks like a tasty meal to you…
I love this analogy! We now have surf and turf!!
However, as a fisherman I’m also aware that not all fish will fall for such a poor imitation of a crawfish.
There’s steak vs. sizzle! Althought I’ve been shouted down at CR for saying this, the brighter “fish” don’t fall for game-at least not more than once or twice. Roissy is fond of saying that “game is status.” Perhaps in some settings it is, but the fish who elude being fried do get smarter and learen to discriminate between real and fake status. The phenomenon of carousel rider settling for beta provided is, IMHO, a result of this, but so is a girl like HUS’s Amanda getting smarter after one hurt.
So while I might have more success if I used live bait, I also would have to work much harder and delay my fishing time significantly. Why bother when the fake works so well?
Depends on your taste in fish. Do you like carp or orange roughy? It takes the carp longer to learn to avoid the fake bait. I maintain that even in this day and age, quality girls still want quality guys. Many of the fish PUAs brag about bagging are bottom feeders.
Most fish resist their initial instinct to strike when presented with a lure that mimics the food they actually want. They become suspicious that something this easy and this perfect just fell into their laps.
Then Doug1 accuses them of being “future-oriented” and not hot. 😉
This is how PUAs work as well. A core teaching of game is to notice when a woman is likely to be responsive to their alpha mimicking signals. If she doesn’t respond, they move to another target.
Yep. Ever see the episode of King of the Hill where Boomhauer takes Bobby to the mall to teach him to pick up girls? Boomhauer approaches a bunch of girls before one responds.
There is basic truth to the fact that women are generally attracted to alpha qualities, and learning some game will help any man become more attractive.
Yes, but the smart ones will dump a guy who sizzles but doesn’t offer steak.
But not all women are falling for PUAs. The majority of women still marry in their twenties, despite ready access to PUAs.
Exactly.
Plugging this back into the Evo Psych equation, how many generations before this starts to have an impact on the personality type distributions of middle class men and women.
In looking at the large families that I encountered at family-friendly venues, I’d say that tomorrow belongs to Herb.
Hi Dalrock,
Sorry to be tardy to the party, but better late than never! Here are some reactions to the post:
If there were really selection pressure towards alpha type personalities, alpha should be the most common personality type. The answer is because as currently defined, alpha isn’t about delivering what women are actually attracted to, but mimicking it close enough to activate their primal instincts.
I would agree that betas, if we define beta as your average husband, are more common and that game teaches betas to mimic the “more attractive” alpha behaviors. I like (R)Evolutionary’s discrimination between rank and behavior and his notion that both are fluid. I think he is correct and that is why a good definition of alpha/beta is hard to come by. It’s like trying to hit a moving target.
As a fisherman, I do this all the time. Which of the following crawfish looks like a tasty meal to you…
I love this analogy! We now have surf and turf!!
However, as a fisherman I’m also aware that not all fish will fall for such a poor imitation of a crawfish.
There’s steak vs. sizzle! Althought I’ve been shouted down at CR for saying this, the brighter “fish” don’t fall for game-at least not more than once or twice. Roissy is fond of saying that “game is status.” Perhaps in some settings it is, but the fish who elude being fried do get smarter and learen to discriminate between real and fake status. The phenomenon of carousel rider settling for beta provided is, IMHO, a result of this, but so is a girl like HUS’s Amanda getting smarter after one hurt.
So while I might have more success if I used live bait, I also would have to work much harder and delay my fishing time significantly. Why bother when the fake works so well?
Depends on your taste in fish. Do you like carp or orange roughy? It takes the carp longer to learn to avoid the fake bait. I maintain that even in this day and age, quality girls still want quality guys. Many of the fish PUAs brag about bagging are bottom feeders.
Most fish resist their initial instinct to strike when presented with a lure that mimics the food they actually want. They become suspicious that something this easy and this perfect just fell into their laps.
Then Doug1 accuses them of being “future-oriented” and not hot. 😉
This is how PUAs work as well. A core teaching of game is to notice when a woman is likely to be responsive to their alpha mimicking signals. If she doesn’t respond, they move to another target.
Yep. Ever see the episode of King of the Hill where Boomhauer takes Bobby to the mall to teach him to pick up girls? Boomhauer approaches a bunch of girls before one responds.
There is basic truth to the fact that women are generally attracted to alpha qualities, and learning some game will help any man become more attractive.
Yes, but the smart ones will dump a guy who sizzles but doesn’t offer steak.
But not all women are falling for PUAs. The majority of women still marry in their twenties, despite ready access to PUAs.
Exactly.
Plugging this back into the Evo Psych equation, how many generations before this starts to have an impact on the personality type distributions of middle class men and women.
In looking at the large families that I encountered on vacation at family-friendly venues, I’d say that tomorrow belongs to Herb.
Just recently came across this in my surfing, thought it might be apropos of this post:
“But a yearning for supremacy can create its own set of problems. Heart attacks, ulcers and other stress-related ills are more common among high achievers — and that includes nonhuman achievers. The blood of alpha wolves routinely shows elevated levels of cortisol, the same stress hormone that is found in anxious humans. Alpha chimps even suffer ulcers and occasional heart attacks.
For these reasons, people and animals who have an appetite for becoming an alpha often settle contentedly into life as a beta. “The desire to be in a high position is universal,” says de Waal. “But that trait has co-evolved with another skill — the skill to make the best of lower positions.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1126746-7,00.html
If one buys the evolutionary argument, could it be possible that, although individual pressures favor alphas, pressures on the civilizational level favor betas? Some claim that civilization is built on betas. If this is true and a civilization reaches a point where it does not have enough betas, might not it (or at least a significant portion of its alpha population) be wiped out, either by competing civilizations or from within?
I’m so damn sick and tired of hearing about “alpha males” and how women just love them and anyone can become one, “just buy this book” or whatever. I love beta men/nice guys. I hate PUA douchebags, who are neither nice nor remotely alpha. That “roissy” guy looks like the boy who gets beat up at elementary school…by girls. In a word, he’s a punk. Check out a picture of him sometime. LOL. Then, there’s the other prize specimens who market themselves as PUA masters or something, but half of them look gay and the others appear to be mentally ill, mama’s boys or just the poster boys for ultimate douche-baggery. Their greatest ability seems to lie in conning the deeply confused, the desperately horny, the immature and just plain losers into wasting money. Women who fall for this stuff must be terribly naive or, more likely, have no self-respect and questionable values. I tried the “submissive little woman” thing a couple of times. I wound up hating my partner and hating myself. It isn’t me. Put me with a controlling or domineering man and it’s Apocalypse Now, basically. It is unhealthy all around. So I say, “Hurray for the beta man! The nice guy is the right guy!” Oh – and screw that “evolutionary psychology” douchefest: do we live in a tree or some bat-infested cave? Are we uncontrolled animals without thought or will? What a way to think. What a way to exist.
Dana’s husband has it right!? (This is for David Collard and incidentally, Dana herself) Dana describes him as a “jerk” who is “always the boss.” As for the ” not answering” trick that “will turn a woman’s attitude right around”: I lose all interest, caring, attraction and respect for anyone who does that. I would normally just dump a clown who tried that with me. If there was some reason I had to stay, I would become selectively deaf whenever he spoke to me, especially when he needed something. If a man ignored me while immersed in TV or video, computer or whatever, he would soon find that these machines weren’t working or the electricity/cable/whatever kept shutting down or working improperly. He might have car trouble, too, or have a stomach ache after ordering me to cook, for instance. Normally, though, I would just leave or, better yet, kick him out. There’s also the option of a more attentive, responsive kind of man. I reward kindness, caring, helpfulness, good listening, etc…a lot. My husband never tries to pull any macho stunts. He spoils me, frankly. But then again, I love him every minute of the day, one way or another. Not just sex, but compliments, encouragement, hugs and kisses, food, massages and taking care of him when he doesn’t feel well. At least a dozen “I love you”s a day. I love our home life – it’s peaceful and happy. I’ve lived with a man who wanted to play Big Boss one-up one-down games with me. I kept wishing he would work late or just not come home at all. I stopped wanting him sexually, even though he was gorgeous and hot. We were in a constant war. I mean, like “War of the Roses”. I felt sick from the stress. Now, with a laid-back, gentle beta, I feel so much better. I think there are a lot of women who lie to themselves about being so submissive and preferring a controlling man.
Pingback: Ask An Asshole: Round 1 | Freedom Twenty-Five
I think PlayerHater demonstrates that the success of ‘Game’ (is the no more specific name?) has its limits. In that not all women go for it. Not saying that many or even most don’t, but there’s a good few that don’t.
The woman’s optimal reproductive strategy is for the beta to raise the alpha’s children (unknowingly). She believes the alpha’s kids will be more likely to pass on their (and her) genes than the beta’s, but committing to the alpha is risky – since she needs help supporting the children. From a risk-management perspective, it’s probably better to settle for the beta. After all, she can always try to slip in an alpha later.
Why does she believe the alpha’s genes are more likely to be passed on? Simple: all the girls want to bang the alpha. It’s possible there’s some survival benefit in alpha-ness, but it could simply be sexual selection.
Just found your blog last night, and I can’t seem to get enough of it — wow. Very thought-provoking, both in the posts and in the comments. I’ve been mostly randomly sampling your work, and I don’t even remember how I got to this post in particular. There’s a million directions I could go here, but I’ll try to keep my comment focused, especially since I’m not really familiar with the game-beta-alpha terminology (and I hate sounding stupid!) 🙂
My husband is probably what you would call a beta. What I wanted — and had a very difficult time finding, though ultimately I did — was a strong, decent man with a deep faith, an excellent work ethic, a love for home and family life and a definite weakness for me (!). I’m with playerhater — the bossy, powerplay kind of guy does not interest me at all (though, on the other hand, neither does a guy I could just push around. I wanted a *real* relationship here). Why would I want someone like that, when everything in me longs for a stable loving family life, for me and for my children? Even from an evolutionary standpoint, I don’t see how women would “prefer” a PUA (Pick-up artist?) over a stable, loving, hardworking long-term lover. Women who claim to “want a baby” (and would settle for the “alpha”-est player to provide that for her through some kind of subconscious evolutionary drive?) don’t have a clue: Raising kids, though the most rewarding thing I’ve ever done, is hard work. I couldn’t do it alone — or worse, alongside some self-involved uber-adonis. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding herself, to the detriment of her children. (I hope that doesn’t sound like I didn’t care about the *attractiveness* of my husband, and was only playing some kind of game of my own! Yikes.)
OK, so that’s not too focused after all, and probably stupid to boot. (Especially since I’m responding to an old post, so I’m not likely part of any particular conversation at the moment!) Whatever. I’ll be back!
[D: Thanks for sharing your thoughts Eileen, and welcome to the blog!]
“Plugging this back into the Evo Psych equation, how many generations before this starts to have an impact on the personality type distributions of middle class men and women?”
I have no idea. What do you guys think?
Beta males and “nice guys” are easily seduced by women. This makes them easy targets for exploitation, friend zoning, and playing cannon fodder. Most nice guys and beta males come out of relationships with women emotionally damaged.
Women use seduction and sex to control men. Sex can only control men if some level of seduction takes place. Otherwise, every man would simply go after the easiest woman. The woman must charm the man then hold sex over his head. Players don’t fall for “charm” because they are charmers themselves. They don’t have the fairy tale dream in their head of women as “beautiful blameless princesses”. Players see women as they really are: horny, opportunistic, and manipulative (but lots of fun). The average nice guy or Beta simply can’t get this reality through his thick skull.
The result is women are less sexually attracted to beta males, BUT they find them more “useful” overall for emotional support, raising kids and of course BUYING SHIT. It’s the beta male that women see as a walking credit card and psychiatrist. He is the “keeper” who will be her willing slave for life at his own expense. His reward for this is sex at calculated times. This sex becomes less frequent as the relationship continues. Why? Because while women love a slave, they don’t respect one. The more a woman’s respect for a man degrades, the more she will find him sexually repulsive.
In short, the beta pays a HIGH price for what alphas and players get for FREE (and usually first). Think long and hard about that sentence until it sinks in.
The Difficult Man Wins
Players and alphas are very difficult men for women to deal with. This is part of what makes them so attractive: They make women WORK. This type of man creates a natural challenge for any woman who meets him.
Women like to believe that once they have a man’s sexual interest, they have some degree of control over that man. If this man has many sexual options, the woman will only work harder to make herself stand out. Most women can’t bare the idea that they are unattractive, especially to a man with many options. This is one reason the classic “talk to the ugly friend” trick works so well on women in groups. When you target the ugly girl in the group, it threatens the ego of the most attractive one.
Just like men love having sex with women, women love having power over men. The harder this power is to achieve, the more desirable the man. A man who can be enslaved by almost any woman doesn’t make a woman’s vagina tingle because she doesn’t feel special. I’ve discussed the female ego before. A woman’s ego is massive and a big part of her self-esteem comes from the control she has over men. A woman is not content if this control only comes from her looks (as it does with most beta males and nice guys). She is fully aware that her looks will fade one day. She needs to know she can control a man with her personality as well (seduction). Therefore, if she can attract a man with her looks, yet fails at enslaving him, it damages her ego.
This is why alpha males and players are the “heartbreakers” of the male gender. Not because they are bad people, but because they value their freedom more than they value women. This is something women can never understand, so they set out to enslave these men. When they fail, they become bitter and emotionally damaged. They end up settling for a beta male or “nice guy” who they can enslave easily, but they never really respect him. They control and abuse the beta male and in the worst cases, divorce him… taking his kids and money away from him. This is often punishment for not being her “dream man” and for all her past heartbreaks.
Conclusion
Players and alphas get the meat when it’s fresh. Once it starts getting stale they replace it with fresher meat. Beta males happily accept stale meat and in some cases rotten meat. Then they get upset when the meat makes them sick.
Player’s and alphas know meat has a shelf-life. It is only good for so long before you have to throw it away (read Relationship Material for clarification on female hypergamy). The beta male does not understand the “shelf life” concept. He will buy meat and keep it for years, believing its “good” no matter what. He believes “meat is meat”. He pays a high price for this belief.
Pingback: Shooting Up Close or Why Monogamy is Not Required | Experiment&Standardize
This is the type of rebellious cunt you want nothing to do with.
Pingback: “Thank you, driver, for getting me here…” | 80-Proof Oinomancy