CMV: the alpha beta distinction is a false dichotomy that leads to frustration. There’s no such thing.
By - mayoissandwichpus
Re-flaired to CMV as this is an affirmative claim.
alpha = many positive outcomes with women
beta = few positive outcomes
It's not even a debate, there's a clear group of men who have a lot of positive outcomes and a clear group of guys that has very few.
I'm nerdy, neurotic, and most of all very socially anxious. The opposite of an alpha. Yet I'm not short and have a good face so I've have had way above average success rate with women. I don't think the distinction is about the body count, it's a social dominance hierarchy and is primarily intrasexual. (It's correlated and exusts because of women, of course, but still)
>very socially anxious ... way above average success rate with women
There's no way to verify but to take your word on it, which is why individual cases don't really mean anything to me.
Well even if you verified it a single example still shouldn't mean anything. But I was arguing against your model by presenting an alternative one. Male intrasex dominance predicts sex #, I agree with that, what I disagree with is that it is the same thing. I think it's a related but different concept. Alphas to me bring up images of guys who are often physically stronger but most of all confident and courageous. They are *dominant* (socially), betas are *not*. My example illustrates one way a man can reliably get pussy while not being dominant. Another example is the neurotic artist who bangs a different coked up art egirl each weekend. Competetive or even greater amount of pussy, couldn't look an alpha in the eyes.
I didn't say anything about dominance being a requirement, you're making false assumptions. I do think there's a strong correlation between social dominance and outcomes with women -- absolutely, but again your single (alleged) counterexample doesn't invalidate a strong correlation and it certainly doesn't constitute a whole alternative model of its own.
Maybe if you could refer to certain large group of men who tend to be very high social anxiety but very successful with women I'd start coming around to an alternative model, but I very much doubt you'd be able to.
No that's not what I meant. You said the alpha/beta distinction is # sex encounters. **I** said it was dominance. They just happen to be correlated because the primary motivator to be dominant (aside from innate genetics *is sex*. Even **if there wasn't a single dude who wasn't an alpha but still got laid**, I would still stick by this definition I gave because I believe it's more salient. We're looking for what alpha/beta means (diff. in dominance), not what it causes (diff. in # sex encounters).
I agree with the outcomes for one offs. But for life partners? Or a meaningful relationship? Lots of hot sex with a life parter you can trust is way better than a string of one offs IMO. It’s an incomplete model. Maybe that’s all it’s good for is one offs. I think that can make sense. It’s the kindergarten of relationship models.
The guys not getting one offs don’t feel any better about not getting them because they are better in relationships if they can’t get in a relationship to start with though...
I hear this. I think the frustration many these guys experience is related to chasing the wrong ideal. If you see a person as a product, you want to make the best product it can be and then advertise it by putting it in front of eyes that may what that product. That’s how all products make money. Fix the product, then market it. Does being alpha mean no longer being introverted? Can a person chose that? I knew a 51 year old woman who was a mother of one of my close friends get married to a 27 year old guy. He said she was so happy inside. He was coming around the house and everyone thought he’d go for the daughter or one of his friends. He said she was the best one. Joy is like a light in you. It shines. It’s on your face, in your speech. Then go meet people. A girl will chose you.
What ideal are you talking about tho?
Most men are looking for women their age with their relative SMV, because these are the ones that they have the most potential with. Yet for many men they won't get to be successful in that department.
>Fix the product, then market it.
Never works, they just leave for someone else once they are fixed (this is gender neutral). If a 7/10 man takes up a 3/10 women and helps her become a 7/10 woman, she will leave for a 9/10 fucktoy. The same happens in the reverse situation. This is a more likely outcome for ugly people are not use to being seen as attractive/ and such (this goes with money and status too), so they are more likely to fall for temptation and such.
Humans are not products, they are animals that are built to create the strongest babies (based on what they think will lead to the strongest baby.
I think you misunderstand, I believe they mean that you fix yourself before you go out and date, not fix your partner
No, it's across the board.
For example -- in a marriage, alphas never ever allow themselves to get henpecked by their wives. That's 100% a beta male negative outcome.
Dead bedrooms where the male fails to elicit tingles for sexytimes, also 100% beta male negative outcome.
Because the alpha can do that. A beta will just quickly be labeled as abusive and/or creepy for trying to behave like a alpha. And even a alpha will eventually be seen as such as she will fall out of love with him.
And especially in this environment, such behavior has dire consequences. Yelling at your girl wrong can end up with you losing everything now or in the future if something is retroactively changed.
Which is why criminals and super rich men are the only ones that act like alphas anymore. You either fall a ton on the social hierarchy or are so high up you cannot fail.
Which is why TRPs advice is to become the alpha, not just behave like one.
This is such a sad and pathetic reply.
>B-but we make better life partners, or at least comparable!!
No, no you don’t.
Do I defend a comment I never made...? Nah I’m good
Yes, alpha/beta isn't an actual phenomenon, but post hoc rationalization.
For me it's just a very useful model that seems to magically clear up a lot of questions. So I'll just go ahead and keep using it until a more useful model comes along.
alpha/beta is blanket labels for "mentally strong and physically strong" vs "mentally weak and physically weak". Because that where it all do settle in the end.
beta guys are mentally weak. They do not stand up for them self and what they think and want. They do not defend them self and fight back then they are picked on by others.
alphas are the opposite.
Mentally weak compared to whom? How do you objectively measure mental strength?
For a man, it is like letting other people or events, situations affect your emotional state.
If you get angry, start shouting and swearing because your car broke down or something stop working, that is an example of mental weakness.
Mental strength is being stoic and stable, like a rock. Not being thrown off your feet by situations, events happening to you or around you.
Being an coward and lacking a spine (stand up for you self) and balls (courage) is also related to being mentally weak. As an man, if some on the street pick on you or throw insults at you, do you run away like a coward (beta behavour, act weak) or do you stand up for your honor and defend yourself (alpha behaviour, act strong).
Not much you can do about standing up for yourself when you're physically weak. All the courage in the world won't save you if you're just not dumb enough to cause a fight you'd lose. A lot of men meme themselves into thinking they're courageous and then get hospitalized.
Yeah, an alpha is a guy women want to have sex with. Alphas don't have to promise anything. Alphas don't have to provide cash or prizes.
Automod, please. This post has been re-flaired as CMV, so all first-level replies must challenge the OP's view.
The people who say alphas and betas don't exist usually never played team sports growing up.
Just something I've noticed
Maybe this is a cultural thing? Are you in the US?
I played a lot of different team sports in school and college, but never felt there were alpha/betas that carried through off the field.
Alphas are more taking, aggressive, outgoing, willing to succeed etc. You can see it very clearly in sports if you actually paid attention as alphas are the players that steer/lead the team.
Have you ever thought about the idea that some kids, who you'd call alphas under other circumstances, would rather be playing another game/by themselves.
You could never have told I had any chad qualities from watching me playing team sports, ever, 'cause I hate them.
Nothing about this signifies that I possess none.
In football (the one that's actually played with your feet), team leaders aren't alphas, they're strategists. They're less physically capable than the star players but they get the team in shape at practice, represent the franchise on national TV, scream at their colleagues when they suck ass... I can safely say they don't pick the alphas to steer the teams, alphas CAN'T do that. Alphas, if they existed, which they don't, are generally the star players. They're not the sterring wheels, rather they are the motors.
Well, would be
Haha I did but that’s probably insightful. Football, basketball and softball in jr high but in high school I was a track and field guy. I ran the 800, Triple jump,high jump and pole vaulting. I was always categorized as alpha and a leader or whatever was popular at the time since kindergarten. I just felt it was always a useless distinction.
So... I think the right answer to change your view is "check your privileges".
It's useless since you are apparently an alpha and for you it's normal. Now imagine you weren't born with your genetics
True I don’t share many of these frustrations. I should have kept me out of this since I’m not the topic. The things spoken about in the original post don’t depend on being extroverted. Lots of girls like quiet shy guys. Lots of quiet shy girls out there want to live quiet lives, gamers, travelers, painters, musicians.
Anecdotaly, both this opinion you're presenting and mine, comprised of "No, you're very wrong", are anecdotal.
Yeah but I think Op is talking about it in regards to women and the TRP definition.
Obviously in sport there are winners and losers.
Who the hell are women sleeping with?
The winners, the alphas in sports...and everywhere else.
Do you see nasa scientists or even men like Elon Musk, Robin Williams and Jeff Bezos having all the luck with ladies?
No, Elon Musk (one of the most successful betas) has been on record saying he has given up on relationships a while back.
Alphas are the ones that get the girl. If you do not like it, tough. Life just does care.
How do you know Elon doesn’t get the ladies
He literally dated Amber, you know the dude who abused Johnny.
He can get the ladies as well as any incel can, with $$$$$$.
But no money, no honey (which is why BEZOS got divorced the moment his wealth looked like it peaked).
I don’t think men care as long as they’re getting laid. Relationships are transactions
Yeah no shit being good looking helps get ladies : no one is disputing that.
What??? Elon Musk is in a LTR with a famous musician who’s pregnant with his baby.....
He's a betabux by definition. In his biography it is clearly stated that his second wife (IIRC) only got interesting in him the day they met when Elon told her he was a millionaire.
Well even so it erases the previous claim that he has sworn off relationships.......
Nope, he said it in said biography, just because he chickened out doesn’t mean he didn’t say it.
Kinda erases the validity of that statement if he changed his mind tho 😂
Women have different requirements for casual sex and relationships, as we saw here : [https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/m8o93p/the\_main\_criterias\_women\_use\_when\_it\_comes\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/m8o93p/the_main_criterias_women_use_when_it_comes_to/)
Casual sex is for alpha guy, relationship is for billy beta.
So no, it's not a false dichotomy.
> The alphas are respected by betas because they look after the pack. Not just by protecting them, but by caring for the weakest of the pack.
In what species?
Wolves don't have an alpha\beta hierarchy.
They do, that's where the term comes from. There are many studies comparing the hierarchy in captivity and the wild.
In captivity the beta's are more likely to challenge the alpha, due to limited resources. In the wild they rarely do.
There is one paper and the author itself later published a follow up showing his previous analysis had been wrong.
OK, I don't care enough to go fact hunting.
The stereotypes exist, but TRP has reversed the qualities. What makes an alpha, or any good leader, is empathy, compassion and care for subordinates.
Women value these qualities in men.
Automod, please. This post has been re-flaired as CMV, so all first-level replies must challenge the OP's view.
Use whatever nomenclature suits you, but there's no denying a social hierarchy exists.
Sure it's not as fixed or as one dimensional as, say, wolf packs or gorilla troops (though there are occasionally physical fights for dominance). We are human's after all, we are more complex. But there are definitely people who hold more sway, more influence, more 'power' in any group and one's that don't.
So pick your vernacular, but saying that hierarchies don't exist is just silly.
I’ll think about this.
If you don’t think alphas/betas exist then you’re most likely a beta, or a woman.
High value male that fucks lots of women and leads men = Alpha
Low value male who struggles with women and is bossed around by men = Beta
Also, there’s nothing wrong with Betas, we need them to make the world go round. Heck, betas are more important for human survival. We only need a few alphas. Too many alphas and things start getting aggressive, crime rate shoots up etc.
One thing all advanced economies were successful at was curbing alpha tendencies. Setting up laws to stop the strong physically bullying the weak.
>the alpha beta distinction is a false dichotomy that leads to frustration. There’s no such thing.
From.my 50+ years on this planet, living on different continents and in a variety of countries, you're wrong.
There's definitely an Alpha/Beta distinction, which is visible in every sphere of the world.
Even in dating there's a distinct difference and many betas have cottoned on to this. Up to 30, it's definitely better to be an Alpha, but once your over 30, the beta gains an increase.
I know guys who are 30+, into casual sex and pushing their beta qualities hard. Women want to husband up these guys and get played for casual sex or FWBs.
Why can’t alpha traits stick after 30?
>Why can’t alpha traits stick after 30?
They do, but most women know to marry a provider, not a hunter, so betas have it a bit better.
Okay but that’s for women over 30. A man over 30 wants women under 30 so he’s still in a game competing with alphas. Right?
>Okay but that’s for women over 30. A man over 30 wants women under 30 so he’s still in a game competing with alphas. Right?
Correct, but it's chess versus checkers. Most Alphas at that age 20s, are still jocks and they're facing off against business sharks.
TBH I think I posted with so-called betas in mind. They’re frustrated and sad. Seeing the wold as a “that guys is better than me and so is he” is a horrible life. I can see how this short hand version of the world can help some but I think it’s an incomplete model and is mostly hurtful. It’s cagey.
>TBH I think I posted with so-called betas in mind. They’re frustrated and sad. Seeing the wold as a “that guys is better than me and so is he” is a horrible life.
It's the same victimhood mentality and complex that feminists have. It's really sad.
>I can see how this short hand version of the world can help some but I think it’s an incomplete model and is mostly hurtful. It’s cagey.
Yep, but the sly still manage to curry favour.
>There’s no scientific evidence for a human alpha.
There is. Somewhere between half and 33% of men in prehistoric times even managed to breed. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human-gene-pool
That implies a genetic heirarchy of male fitness where some men have much greater sexual success than others. You can also do neat things like trace the ancestry of much of asia's Y chromosome back to a single male (Genghis Khan), proving that a small percentage of men were able to have *vastly* more sexual success than others...
Anyhow. I'll distill your argument, you used one female relative's advice (already builiding on quicksand here) that women seek "security". What is security? Money + trajectory + height + fitness + good teeth + shoes + listening to her + encouraging/supporting + assertiveness + emotionally open + feel safe physically + being confident + loving yourself + going to therapy + being funny + good man + good qualities + work hard + listen + share + eat healthy + go to the gym (but do it for *yourself*) + learn stuff + stand your ground + willing to walk away + ......
It's basically an infinite list of traits women like. Your grand theory on women is "just be all the things they like bro." If your idea, "security", explains everything all at once then it explains nothing. It's circular reasoning. What do women like? Making them feel secure. And how do you make them feel secure? By being all the things they like.
**This is what comes of asking women for advice.** You have learned nothing and gained a false sense of assurance, which, to be fair, is what the female relative should be doing if she thinks you need a boost in the realm of dating. It's all just a psychological trick. But you probably should refrain from regurgitating a wall of text like the above one as if you've arrived at some kind of profound insight. Come to think of it, this applies to most redpill posters as well... but that's a separate argument.
Haha ok. You’re right, asking a woman what women want is stupid. You fixed me. It could also be keeping your eye on the ball. Lots of frustrated dudes worried about a thing that isn’t real. Not sure how breaking down reasons why women don’t find you attractive and working on them one by one could be a bad thing.
Also those studies are subjective bullshit. It changes every few years. It gets published but it’s impossible to really know. If you have a study about now, I’d apologize.
> Haha ok. You’re right, asking a woman what women want is stupid.
Women never, ever, ever, **ever** tell the truth about what they want. Literally they will without fail say one thing and then be seen dating a man who is the exact opposite.
And studies are only subjective bullshit if they disagree with you.
Tbh and in all fairness a lot women don’t know what they want. Don’t ask a 19 year old what she wants. I’d be better off telling her what I think she wants and seeing how it sits with her. Women often think intuitively. It’s not better or worse just softener and works well when she’s in a good space emotionally. I think it takes some insight and a bit of confidence to figure it out and stand your ground. There’s some things all women want and some things that vary.
Yeah don’t be a dick about it. I dont have a tribe. Anything talking about 2 million years ago or even 100,000 years ago is subjective. Were we paleo, vegan, carnivorous? We don’t know. Scratches on a bone aren’t evidence of a knife. It’s evidence of a scratch. I’m a science guy. If the data tells me I’m wrong then I’ll change my worldview.
It's not a bad thing, however women absolutely do perceive an alpha/beta distinction and it matters.
Your sister, cousin, aunt whoever it is will tell you whatever is most useful for you to hear. If you were exuding alpha traits and asking for advice (of course you wouldnt be, but still) she'd be spinning some yarn about how women just *know* who the top dogs are among men, how you're definitely one of them, and you should feel confident etc. You are probably not exuding those traits so she provides reassurance with a different set of words/ideas de-emphasizing the importance of male hierarchy... women are good at delivering a desired emotional payload using whatever rhetorical packaging is needed.
In any case, the truth is that women do sense such things and care about them. The quarterback at your high school had more female options than the rest of the team. The jocks as a whole had more options than the normies. The normies had more options than the nerds. The MOG of a given friend group gets offered the most pussy. The lead singer of the band gets the most groupies. In short, women gravitate towards leaders, wielders of male power.
Look at female-oriented literature or shows or shoujo or smut... the male love interest is invariably the most exceptional, dominant male in the story. Hell, there is an entire genre about werewolves where the male love interest is LITERALLY called "the alpha" and wants the female lead for his queen.
Alpha-hood is an actual thing and women desire it. It's an ugly truth but there it is. Most people's minds just kind of... shy away from that fact because our culture is so focused on egalitarianism and fairness and, most of all, the good old Judeo-Christian "if you do good you will be rewarded". In the realm of sex and dating that is true only to a point, and beyond that point lies the murky, unspoken realm of female sexual selection -- with its merciless, amoral, raw power seeking brutality. There's a dark side to everything. Life is no fairy tale or simple-minded morality play.
I appreciate your reading my whole post and your thoughtful response really. It’s long.
I’m trying to make the claim that all the facts you say are totally accurate regarding the football player getting girls. Yes broad shoulders and confidence and all that. It’s just put in the wrong box. Alpha beta is an incomplete theory that can’t contain the topic, entitles assholes and frustrates wimps who won’t take responsibility for their lives. It has men chasing the wrong thing. I don’t expect to change the world in a Reddit post but it’s super obvious this is a bullshit distinction. It’s like doing long division still and thinking all the worlds math just need to fit into the 4th grade box. This isn’t 4th grade. We do calculus and geometry as adults. Also beware of those published “findings” just reinforcing your world view. No one knows for sure what we ate, or who had sex and why for sure. It’s just conjecture.
Truth is hard to arrive at regardless, but I caution you to also be skeptical, because ... doesn't it seem extremely convenient that everything you need to do to be successful with women happens to also be things society generally encourages people to do? Ie, work hard, be healthy, look good, be confident, therapy, listening, sharing, self esteem, etc etc
There's nothing in there that it's any way inconvenient. There's nothing about being selfish or a dick or a bastard in any way, shape or form. It's all just really bland advice. "Be a good person and improve yourself." Like... what, realistically, are the chances that feminine sexual selection *just so happens* to 100% line up with what today's society deems to be the correct lifestyle?
Advice and theories that can't deviate from societal standards are useless. That's why TRP happened to begin with. Bluepill "thinking" is stifling. Somehow nothing remotely morally or socially wrong ever works its way in there. That's how you know it's a sham.
Alpha is dominant. Women want dominant men, women only ever *settle* for Betas, aka men who are not dominant. This is the way.
This fits into the “security is happiness” box pretty well. Maybe replace “dominance” for “leadership qualities.”
That is still the alpha quality that women seek. Kinda sad, really. When you investigate this even superficially you realize she only loves his value, she doesn't value his love.
^ he knows de wei of using a kok
To be fair as a man who been through the whole insecure phase. I naturally started doing those things you mentioned as a started feeling more confident in in myself. The drive has to come from inside
Bless you for this. I thought this was going to be a fight the whole time. Hope you’re feeling better.
Thank you I have been! I’ve been working out, working and going to school for a while now, but mentally I was too negative so it didn’t do me any favors, even if I looked good or had money. I started taking antidepressants and I got really close with my friends and I think that helped me get my confidence back. I’m still working though. You’re on the right in my opinion, but you can’t be doing it for someone else, that’s not true confidence
Ever think the guy who reproduced was the guy who stayed back in the cave while the other men went off in a pack to hunt mammoths or raid other tribes?
Ever think this is a scummy way to reproduce, what does it say about the women and the man that does it?
How do the women on this sub find newer ways to be disgusting?
>Ever think this is a scummy way to reproduce, what does it say about the women and the man that does it?
That their children will die in that cave?
That's why dudes that "go out" get laid a lot still in our days haha.
What would the proper way for a cave lady to reproduce be?
Shame on our tribal ancestors.
I guess it would shock you quite a bit to learn that in tribal cultures the children were raised by the tribe and not a nuclear family.
Tribal societies hold strict rules about fraternisation, they'd never let a guy stay in the cave with the women.
Arabic cultures are not ancient tribal cultures, separate living spaces are a rather new invention of religion, not something that our ancestors worried about in caves.
Do you know anything about aboriginal cultures? Don't they teach the basics of that stuff in grade school where you live?
Aboriginal cultures strictly separate men and women. That is what I'm telling you.
Australian Aboriginals title it "men's business" and "women's business" and men are strictly not allowed to be with the women once they reach young adulthood.
I think cavebro gets his skull caved in when me and the boys get back from our mammoth hunt and find him trying to force himself on Chadgar's wife like the cowardly non-hunting weirdo he is. Then his remains get discovered 21590 years later by anthropologists who are forced to conclude that early humanity was plagued by endemic violence
If you want to see the future alphas go to kindergarden or preschool and watch.
Yeah absolutely. I remember when my younger brother was in the kinder he was already "popular" among his peers, girls wrote him cards and even the moms of his little girl friends joked about how cute he was and that their daughters said they wanted to marry him some day hahaha I mean at what age kids start to understand about social dynamics dude...
It was cute to see you know, but in retrospective my older brother and I knew already he was going to pull some hotties when he grew up and no shit he does.
Mom told me one girl in the kindergarden even brought me a cake for my birthday. I have no memories about that at all! xD
The frustrating thing about alpha/beta is that it still emphasizes character traits when it's really all about looks.
This is basically it. Looks and social status with women is their primary inclination of attraction.
It really is positive feedback;
1. Get attention from a young age for being a beautiful child
2. Gain confidence social skills and self esteem
3. Makes you more appealing, get even more attention
4. Join a sports team and use good genetics to get to the top
5. Become even more appealing
6. This carries on for life basically, it starts in school and goes to the workplace and beyond positive reinforcement and feedback of ever increasing attention
It's an approximation that works and is therefore useful and helpful.
Alpha and beta are not mutually exclusive categories. A man ideally should have both alpha and beta traits. TRP is about teaching men with either too many beta traits and too few alpha traits or men with neither alpha or beta traits how to develop alpha traits that appeal to female nature. The distinction is important, because a man who has too few alpha traits is not going to attract women no matter how hard he tries.
I disagree with TRP's negative generalizations of all women and their over-focus upon certain aspects of masculinity, but I do agree with that them that many men do need to improve themselves to make themselves more sexually attractive, and that means developing alpha traits that actually attract women.
On this I’ll agree 100%. Improve yourself. We’re visual thinkers and want to simplify this but even seeing these qualities on a sliding alpha beta scale is misguided to me. I can see that’s it’s the beginning of a helpful mnemonic but it’s very limited in scope. Also many see it literally. A good illustration parallel all the way through. If you keep drilling into this, it’s just a blind alley.
I agree that it's dumb to get too obsessed about it. I'm personally not constantly assessing my alpha qualities and beta qualities and trying to enhance my alpha ones while suppressing my beta ones.
On the other hand, back when I was a young man and women were friendly to me but none of them were sexually attracted to me and I couldn't find a girlfriend, I wish I had known about alpha vs. beta qualities and had known about what to do to make women more sexually attracted to me besides just "being nice" to them.
I’ll have to think about that. You were playing chess but weren’t actively going for the checkmate and didn’t know how to do that. The alpha beta mnemonic was helpful for you. I see a couple trolls in here trying to trigger women saying it’s everything but it’s just trolls.
Sure, pretty much. I didn't really know what kind of things impressed women other than "niceness." I didn't have a good role model when it came to knowing what to do when it came to attracting women. I think that TRP makes too many generalizations about all women and what they supposedly all like, but I didn't have a clue about what any of them liked. The "beta traits" that I had made me a good friendly conversationalist for the women who I knew, but not somebody who they wanted to have sex with.
Look, in TRP we use Alpha and Beta as a way to describe specific traits you may or may not have. The moment you start taking these things literal is the moment you leave the red pill and go off into stupid land. I’m naturally a people pleaser... we describe this trait as beta not because of university studies of primates or some such, but because in our vast experience this trait typically turns women off and leads to exploitation. So we work towards being Alpha in this category to achieve better life results.
Being a people pleaser is a beautiful trait with some obvious pitfalls. Very sexy to some women. Isn’t the issues you’d be dealing with more about being assertive, having boundaries, trusting yourself? Not being more aggressive or confrontational? You’d be fighting your own nature.
If you want to have a more advanced red pill discussion... the way we describe ourselves is often inaccurate, because human nature is a paradox. Yes, I was essentially born with people pleaser traits, but I was also aggressive and assertive. The latter traits where simply beaten out of me over time as I attended school. We find assertive boys to be threatening and so we take steps to make them passive, whether that’s by drowning them in feminist bullshit or medicating them into mindlessness. Luckily I had indoctrination and not the medication. That allowed me to much more easily overcome it once I was an adult and become more of my authentic self. I’ve turned into an extremely generous person who also fights for what I want.
I know the change was extremely dramatic for most people who have known me over the years.
What country? Sounds horrible.
USA my friend. I just grew up in a super liberal state.
Me too. My mom wouldn’t do meds. She was a health nut and got us off sugar and soda. Put me and my brothers on a strict no wrappered foods Whole real Foods diet, no MSG. She also believed in gender roles even though she was a powerful alpha mom. Freakin love that woman.
She sounds great! Gender roles do not mean giving up your core personality.
Alpha and beta refers to what women find sexually attractive and what they don't.
Alpha traits (which include many of the toxic traits like aggression, selfishness, being confrontational etc.) Are sexually attractive to women but destroy comfort . Brta traits are sexually unattractive but build comfort (which is needed for relationships) . For casual sex beta traits range from irrelevant to detrimental while alpha traits are king. For relationships you want mostly alpha in order to be sexually attractive to the woman but also need some beta in order to maintain the relationship. Think of it as a scale with attraction on one end and comfort on the other.
Again, these are traits. We call alpha man someone who has mostly alpha traits and few beta traits .
Yeah if this line of thinking is trying to teach men who listen and care they should be aggressive and confrontational, it’s misleading them. I don’t believe GOOD women find aggression and selfishness to be sexually attractive. That’s sticking your dick in crazy to me. I know there’s screwed up women who say they like to be hit and yelled at and controlled. Some young daddy issue girls like to be sport fucked but they are half baked people who have no idea what they want. You’re taking advantage of immaturity. Maybe this is why betas get frustrated. They’re looking to have sex with a women who likes a selfish aggressive man. Plenty of women don’t. Most women don’t.
Many classically alpha beta traits aren’t mutually exclusive. Being assertive flirty using humor for social domination means you can still be a good listener and a peacemaker.
>I don’t believe GOOD women find aggression and selfishness to be sexually attractive.
ALL women find it sexually attractive. Good women just don't require a lot of it in order to maintain attraction. Basically the only thing that separates bad and good women is how much alpha they require in order to be into the man and how much beta traits turn them off.
>They’re looking to have sex with a women who likes a selfish aggressive man. Plenty of women don’t. Most women don’t.
All of them like such a man. Some just make the conscious choice to avoid him.They still get hot for him
>Being assertive flirty using humor for social domination
Humor for social domination? Lol. Is the class clown dominating the classroom?
>means you can still be a good listener and a peacemaker.
You can but you will be less attractive to her.
That was some cringe shit
> I conquer a room with humor.
That's precisely what a beta would say :/ You don't need any kind of humor if you have already conquered the room with your presence, dude.
A damn novel to obfuscate a very simple concept.
Alphas are guys women fuck because they want to.
Betas are guys women fuck because the guy has resources they want.
It's as simple as that. Betas always pay. Alphas don't have to. Alphas can be generous if they want but their appeal is independent of the provision of resources.
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
also men conflate alpha = "bad body" and beta = "good guy" when many, many beta men are not good people at all.
Regardless of whether or not the beta is good/bad, it's still an L of a position.
idk i am a financially independent woman so in the same position (financially stable but single) there are a lot worse places to be. at least i am stable.
It's more upsetting to a woman when beta guys act bad because who are they going to marry after fucking the bad boys?
idk ask older women. i don't have to marry for money.
That's got nothing to do to with it.
that's the entire point.
*Career women* get the most outraged when beta guys don't play the role they expect of them. That's why they start saying "Where are all the good men".
So women in relationships are the ones saying "where are the good men"?
Old women say "Where are all the good men".
but they don't mean "where are the average betas i didn't give a chance to?" they actually mean "good men". Men misunderstand this constantly. We aren't talking about you!!!!
I think the funniest thing about the alpha/beta concept is that the alphas are meant to be seen as superior, even though we're basically just using them for sex and couldn't care less about them as human beings. It's sad that so many men want to be dehumanized.
Is it sad though?
Women dehumanize themselves on Only Fans for money now.
I don't think they have any delusions about how their fans feel about them. Plus, they make money.
I’m just saying when a woman agrees to fuck a chad and hope for the best she’s dehumanizing herself as well.
It’s just crazy that so many women are okay with sharing the top 15-20% of men just for the “chance” they’ll end up being selected.
I can't speak for all women, but I don't have casual sex with the intent of getting a relationship out of it. Casual sex is for men who I find attractive physically, but who don't meet the rest of my standards. So yes, I'd consider those women dumb, too. But I have yet to meet one in real life.
So then you also agree that having casual sex with a attractive man is also dehumanizing yourself right?
And also agree that if you’re having casual sex with said man, that other women probably are too?
I'm talking about being dehumanized by your partner. No one, man or woman, should be convinced that casual sex has any emotional or romantic connection to it.
And of course they're having sex with other women. I'm usually having sex with other men. But I never do repeats, so that's really irrelevant. Repeat sex is relationship sex.
I have a buddy who claims to had casual sex with 100 women at least.
He’s got light green eyes and is like 5’10 but his personality is very outgoing and charismatic and he’s very funny and charming.
He was of course in a frat in college. I’ve never met someone else with a crazy outgoing personality quite like his.
He can probably talk about any woman into getting with him if they are even the slightest amount open to him.
Am I jealous?
Yes, cause I’m not like that at all.
But honestly I don’t have the personality to be like that. I don’t find pleasure in being like that.
I’ve always wanted one good woman that I of course was attracted to and me and her be in love and have kids and live a happy life.
It sucks because I know my friend has had sex with women who I would consider wife material but that these women fell for his “game” and slept with him and then shortly after he’ll get bored with them and move on.
It hurts to know even great women will pick men who they know it probably won’t work out with and give themselves to him willingly.
Guys want to feel special too. And if the image of what my friend represents is all it takes and is more important to women instead of more important traditional values then it’s a huge bummer for me and my dreams of finding a woman who hasn’t boned 5 or more attractive chads who believes in preserving themselves for their future husband.
I understand women are going to have sex before marriage. I have done this as well. I’ve never had a willing one night stand with anyone. If the sex was from relationships then it’s far more acceptable than pleasing a carnal selfish desire with another male body.
IMO it cheapens the woman’s sexual value if multitudes of other men have already got it from her.
It’s way harder for the average man to have sex than the average woman.
So if a woman is having a lot of sex with different men outside of relationships then it’s a huge sign of her general attitude towards sex and even her character and future potential of pair-bonding.
When I have sex, very rarely is it just a carnal experience, even if we were just friends with benefits.
Can't sympathize with that. I'm pretty adamantly against traditional values and would never be with a man who wasn't also. Since I don't want kids, sex is really just good for orgasms.
In contrast to dehumanizing betas without sex?
If all you want is sex, make that choice. Don't get in a relationship (it's not that difficult lol). Just don't cling to some fantasy that we care more about the men we use for sex than the men we actually want to share our lives with.
Do you think women are delusional enough to believe that the men who just want to fuck actually care about us? lol
Sounds like your rationalizing men using u for sex.
I'm not sure you know what is dehumanizing for men and what is not and assume anything just to gain power of them. Kinda dehumanizing in the first place.
Reminds me of the nice guy rhetorics.
I don't need to rationalize. I've had casual sex, only for the guy to try and contact me again to set up a date. It was pathetic, but funny. If he had wanted a relationship, he shouldn't have been so quick to get in my pants.
And that's kind of the point... I don't care what is dehumanizing for them. If I'm just fucking them, I give zero fucks about their feelings, how their day was, whether I hurt their feelings, etc. So to say that that's what you're aspiring to, rather than something you'd settle for just to scratch an itch...
You sound a bit hurt yourself. I hope you find peace my friend.
I'm engaged and doing just fine. Save your good thoughts for all the men who think fucking = love ;)
I do have empathy with them as well
I used to before finding this sub. Now they just sound like children. But it seems like most of them are in their teens and 20s, so that's not far off anyway.
sex goes both way unless it is rape. And "Alpha" use women only for sex too and
> couldn't care less about them as human beings.
We're aware. Do you think I care if someone is using me if I'm using them as well?
Then why do women post hate about incels, if it's not because they dehumanize them?
One, you'd have to ask a woman who does that. I think incels are trash because they insist on rape being legal, but I've never felt compelled to post about them.
Two, what does that have to do with the value of sex?
But women overtly judge men by their sexual experience, and that's the standard that you all walk past and see as completely acceptable.
Women are using incel as a derogatory term toward men.
They aren't calling them rapists, they are calling them incels.
There's no and.
Then I'm still waiting on your point
Why do you have a problem with how we want to be treated? Why is it sad? How is it any of your business really?
You usually make it our problem when you vilify women for not getting what you want.
We get vilified as a gender too, get over it already.
LOL let me know when you guys do.
This is basically the ONE place men complain.
Women complain everywhere all the time.
I'm talking about vilifying, not complaining. I've watched men do horrible shit to women, and I've had horrible shit done to me as well. But if I hated men as much as some of the men here seem to hate women, I certainly wouldn't be engaged to one right now.
>men here seem to hate women
Some women. Some here are pretty decent people.
>Edit: sorry accidentally marked this CMV. This is a debate or discussion. You won’t budge me on this. But I want to hear the other side.
I'm pretty sure thats 90% of the CMV's but you're at least suppose to pretend you are open hah.
You've chosen to identify your thread as a CMV. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to have your view challenged may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Asking few or no genuine questions;
>* Seeming more interested in arguing or convincing others than understanding opposing views;
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Explicit statements of an intent to change the other posters’ minds; or
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to CMV OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The "Alpha/Beta" thing is speaking generally, not specifically, so it doesn't account for the men that you're referencing. Exceptions don't prove the rule false, in this case because a handful of nice attractive men who treat their partners well doesn't erase all of the ones that don't. Neither do the nice ugly guys with girlfriends or wives erase all of the ones that don't, because that's not how it works.
If you're going to say there's no such thing, then I guess the guys on both sides are imagining their lives as they are and their lives are that way because they made them that way.
I was trying to bring all men in by destroying the box. I don’t think I care about exceptions either. The data set is too big for this categorization. It’s basically this works except it doesn’t work because it isn’t the right way of labeling it. And lots of men see this scale as real.
>I was trying to bring all men in by destroying the box.
Well uh yeah that's not how it works. Saying "it isn't like this" doesn't actually change anything or make it "not like this." If you're going to debate, you would actually have to show how it isn't "like this" by providing some kind of evidence in your argument that it isn't. Saying "it just isn't" doesn't do that.
> It’s basically this works except it doesn’t work because it isn’t the right way of labeling it. And lots of men see this scale as real
Yes because there are usually clear differences between people, save for the exceptions that are mixed or not typical. You're either physically attractive or you're not, assertive or not, confident or not, charismatic or not, have a decent job or not, and so on. With enough of these checks, you get "alpha," and without enough, you get "beta," because there are guys that a lot of women will want/pick first, and there will be guys that women pick last, or not at all.
It is real because these results are real, and we can see them.
Alpha/ beta dichotomy isnt about female wants and needs in the first place. Female attention is just a second grade consequence.
Alpha/Beta is about male hierarchies.
Stop focusing on female sexual selection when you plan out your behavior. It leads to misery.
100% agree with the second half. The first half sounds like either divine right “I was born better than you” or as if it’s a competition where there’s winners and losers. It’s possible to win and others win too. That’s the ideal outcome. Me being rich doesn’t have to make you poor. You can be rich too and I hope you will be.
Good point, but that means we have two systems. One win/lose and one win/win. Health and wealth of our society depends on moving the needle towards the second one.
I argue that ignoring alpha/beta dynamics wont improve moving the needle as they are the emotional default basis.
Goodness I don’t see any of my relationships that way so don’t feel it as default. Maybe it’s my personality type. I’m the protagonist. It’s like 2% of the population.
“Protagonist (ENFJ) is a person with the Extraverted, Intuitive, Feeling, and Judging personality traits. These warm, forthright types love helping others, and they tend to have strong ideas and values. ... Your breath can radiate love or muddy the room in depression. Your glance can awaken joy.”
I think the health and wealth and the survival of the world depends on becoming a win/win society. So does Elon Musk and Bill Gates. Even teaching alpha beta dynamics is just leading people in the wrong direction. It imprisons introverts and enables assholes. It’s like phrenology. Total pseudoscience bullshit. I think we’re better letting people be who they are. We don’t need a single goal for what makes people happy in life like more money or things or higher body count.
Look at the wealth and health of our society. You take for granted or for innate what has been a process of thousends of years.
Why do you think low income is more prone to violence?
We still have laws that imprison people for life to make an example of crass win/lose (defined as crime) situations ultimately leading to huge lose for the initial win. Our whole discourse of (social) justice is based around moving the needle even just a bit.
It's not three generations since the biggest attempt of win/lose, the second world war, shook the world to its core with its horror.
Redefining the myth alpha/hero/or however you wanna call as the one working for others to win as well as his win is a perpetual process and it's crumbling all the time. You don't change the feelings towards societal roles by saying "thats bullshit". Because it isnt.
You’re making my point, so weird. Seeing alpha beta encourages assholes to take shit. So we’ll teach people that. You’re a beta so I’ll take your stuff and kill you. I’m an alpha so I’ll be the taker thanks. Low income is prone to violence so can we win/win this? Yes. It’s possible. Been done. Worker co-ops let everyone own the company and everyone share the spoils. Doesn’t involve taxing or wasteful spending. Just good old fashioned capitalism with a win/win overlay. After 1000 years of endless wars, Europe decided it didn’t want to do that anymore. It’s very obvious to me this isn’t a zero sum game that needs to be mourned and I need to feel sad and empty that others take girls from me or money or whatever. I’m ok if other think that. You’re chasing bullshit and if you catch it, you’ll just have a pile of shit.
I disagree. Win/win situations are a cultural achievement while win/lose situations do happen more without cultural frames opposing it.
I'm only arguing to accept human nature and to integrate the knowledge into solutions how to better the world.
Europe didnt stop wars because they just felt like it. Effort was undertaken to enforce win/win so much that more people embrace it to the high risk high reward (and high loss) win/lose we've had for millenia.
But lets take it back to dating: nothing as competitive than female sexual selection. How do you enforce win/win situations here? It's asymmetrical and more difficult than the cooperative economical alternative to war on state levels.
Men compete for womens sexual selection. = Win/lose in male competition. How to move it to win/win?
Win/lose assumes there’s only 2 girls and 3 boys. There are effectively infinite women, more than you could date in a lifetime. You getting a girl doesn’t mean I can’t. Just try again tomorrow. For LTRs, the girl that wants you I would totally hate being with and my girlfriend would make you pull your hair out. We can both get what we want.
I don't think that's even close to reality. What do you think about 80/20?
Sorry, 80/20 win lose? As opposed to 50/50 which would be a win/win? You could see it that way if you wanted to but why would you? In business, I want everyone I do business with to make money and be glad they partnered with me. I don’t need to screw the other guy to get mine. I think I do better and make more money by not seeing it from a position of scarcity. It seems an unhealthy way of viewing it. I’m happy if my friends have success. I can make my own success.
Women have very similar grievances: doesn’t talk, bad conversationalist, won’t text me back, doesn’t take interest. OLD is a great example of how a well curated profile and good consistent conversation can get you a lay or a girlfriend. One guy showed me his profile pics and I said “dude you need to smile. You look sad.” “That’s all the smile I can muster.” “Bro, she sees that you hate yourself right in your photo. She’d be a dummy to swipe you. You’re going to spray all your sadness into her life.”
Male hierarchies ? Please explain the concept?
You got one who says what to do and lots of ones who do what is said to be done
That’s what I imagined... a leader and his followers. Which one are you?
It's not that easy with civilization. There's many situations in which you are one or the other depending on your (perceived) competence.
The leader / follower dynamic is prominent only in teen years, with work it's just boss and employe.
I'm self employed so it's not really present for me. But i'm in no place peak competent, so i'm a follower.
I’m not a male so I don’t even have to worry about all this nonsense lol My curiosity led me all the way here. I stumbled unto TRP one day... It’s like an alternate reality over here, a whole new world. Sounds very primitive this concept.
It is very primitive! Our social roles are very much related to the emotional body. Not much room for sophistication.
But there's hierarchies for women as well, albeit less overt.
This is made up. It’s not a social construct. It’s a male construct.
Every thought is made up. You wanna stop talking because of it?
Models are to predict the future and this works well enough. Got any better?
This alpha beta concept is made up. There’s a hierarchie if you say there is but it only exists over at TRP and for those who choose to accept role a in it. It’s strange to me that anyone would accept to be a follower. There’s no scenario In which another woman is somehow better then me so she tells me what to do and I blindly follow orders.
what you are saying isnt wrong ... but we usualy talk about sexual attraction... that is happening within seconds or minutes.
i think "alpha betta" is a big simple and generalized ... but there ARE some broad types of personality ... and one tends to get more sex than the other...
For seconds or minutes and one offs it sounds like this has any meaning. Not sure if my view has changed but it’s seems best to keep this distinction in its place. It’s the kindergarten of relationship advice. Charm is great for about 10 minutes. Then you’ll need some substance in conversation. Maybe it’s a race to see how fast you can bang a girl before she sees it was all charm and no substance. Not being sarcastic toward you, just thinking out loud.
charme,swagger, whatever is very real ... and it isnt "no substance".
there are lots of men who have "substance" but cant promote it... cause women (and men too) LOVE charme,charisma,swagger.
we have a multi billion dollar industry ... the industry of entertainment ... that is fueled by charisma and charme... politics is 3/4 charisma... "Charisma" matters a lot more than "substance"... and it always did.
its the best we have right now to describe male types. and its generally true/factual
The whole theory is factually wrong, debunked and disgraced.
its correct, its just what a particular women defines as "alpha" can greatly differ. Some women want the most nerdy types, some want the most physically strong, etc.
The point is, men have to be better than women to get dates/romance/sex from said women. Hence patriarchy