Tags
Since I first started to read in the manosphere one of the most predominant questions is “What is an Alpha?” Everyone seems to have their own definition ranging from a man who has a whole lot of luck in the woman department to a man who is simply dominant. There are also a lot of people asking where the Alpha comes from. For the sake of this post, I am more interested in Alpha itself (and I think Rollo is mostly spot on in his post).
What is an Alpha?
I think one of the most important things to realize is that Alpha is not Alpha is not Alpha. Yes, there is a base level of characteristics that will define an Alpha. Self confidence, dominance, self assurance, a certain drive to accomplish something important to themselves, etc. However, there is not one kind of Alpha, or rather there is not one level of Alpha. There is the bad boy Alpha (the one most talked about in the manosphere) who’s main claim is that he has been with a plethora of women. But I think this definition falls sadly short. There are plenty of men who are capable of this, but for many different reasons (very often religious) choose not to. They are more interested in living their lives for their chosen mission (that certain drive that these men have, coupled with their mission, is very likely at the center of the other Alpha characteristics). The apex of Alpha, in my opinion, is the man who has his mission and strives to complete it in the most direct, yet moral way possible. Now, a lot of people will think this is a foolish and childish definition, but I think this is because one so very rarely sees men like this these days that people honestly don’t believe these kinds of men exist any more. Also, men like this will not flaunt themselves, so it makes it even more difficult to see who they are. Between these two levels are a sliding scale of different levels of alpha and depending on a given situation men will slide back and forth between levels. Think about it, if you have ten groups of men, within each group an alpha will emerge. Then take those ten Alphas and put them into a room together and there will emerge an Alpha among that group as well. Change the situation and the men will change their hierarchy to best manipulate that situation.
Alphas and Women
Another predominant theory is that women love the bad boy Alpha. On the surface, yes this is true. Most women will be highly intrigued and interested in the bad boy. He displays enough traits that are lacking in so many men these days that she will become attracted to him (and yes, there have always been and always will be women who will lust after the bad boy more than any other man. That will never change). However, I believe that most women, if given a choice between the bad boy Alpha and the good man Alpha, especially when it comes to relationships, would choose the good man almost every time. But again, men like this are so rare, that women will tend to take whatever Alpha they can get their hands on and then hope against hope that she can change him. The other thing to keep in mind that this is talking about relationships. Now that we live in a world of no strings attached sex, more women are lusting after the bad boy because he always appears more exciting. However, more exciting does not equate to stability and when stability is what is wanted, she will go after the good man who no longer has any interest in the woman who spent time and gave herself to the bad boy. Women are also going to pursue different levels of Alpha. The top dog alpha, believe it or not, is going to be far too intense for some women who would rather go for man a bit further down the hierarchy for her own comfort level. A man that she can depend on to be her Rock, yet will display more comforting traits that she may need. She will find the higher Alphas very attractive, but for a relationship they might be too much for her.
Non-predominant Alpha Traits
Alphas will come in all different shapes and sizes and while a woman will be intrigued by most any Alpha, that does not mean she does not have preferences (and these preferences will produce, for her, a slightly different hierarchy of what constitutes the most Alpha man). For example, if I were presented with two Alphas, one a CEO of a Fortune 500 company and one a country man who knows his way around the woods, hunting, guns, and hard outdoor labor I would be far more attracted to the latter. Does that mean that I would find the CEO unattractive? No. But he is simply not my type and while I would admire him I would want to pursue the other man. Attraction does not automatically mean that one wants to pursue a man. It can be as simple as taking notice, admiring, and then going on with the day. It is very much like a man seeing the beautiful 18 year old girl on the beach, watching and admiring her and then turning back to his wife. Unfortunately, many women are no longer taught this and are instead taught to pursue any man they wish.
What women need to do is focus on identifying what type of man they are most interested in spending their lives with and then pursue men whom they find attractive and they respect inside those types. If she simply pursues and gives herself to any Alpha who will have her, she will find herself in a position of no man, especially and Alpha man, wanting her. What, I think, men need to do, is decide first and foremost, what kind of man they wish to be and unapologetically pursue that with everything they are. I have been told that this is dangerously close to the “Just be yourself” advice that women so often give. The difference is that men who follow that advice do it for the sake of women. A man should choose what kind of man he wishes to be for himself and for himself alone.
Yes, I am very concerned about religion and morality, but I don’t think that makes me a weak, “nice guy”. I have only had sex with two women in my life. But I turned down offers. I was interested in a scientific career, and that takes dedication. When I wanted to marry, I chose a girl with the right personality, my religion, my physical type, and a virgin. I have not had sex with a variety of women, but I have had a variety of sex with one woman. Everything I wanted.
When I read about alphas, I eventually conclude that I do simply want to be myself, alpha or not. It is like reading books written by social snobs. I am not going to pretend to like Beethoven quartets, when I really prefer dubstep. Nor, conversely, am I going to pretend to like The Beatles, when I really prefer Venetian church music.
IMO, alpha is the man who with the force of his persona (a shorthand for many psychological and physical traits and their combinations) can make other people do things he wishes them to do, consistently, and often with great enthusiam. Be it working overtime to achieve their “common” goal, jumping into Dien Bien Phu cauldron to a certain surrender, drinking Jimmy Jones’ Kool-Aid or for women providing their intimacy, their prime and protected inter-gender bargain currency.
Have to disagree on the alphaness having necessarily anything to do with morality or goodness of character; the alpha elicits the reaction of his surroundings regardless of the moral content within, depending on the circumstances. He _can_ be virtuous but that’s not a prerequisite.
Yes, and the last sentence is IT.
No, but there is no need for an alpha to have no morality. He can be a Christian patriarch. The important thing is that he has choices. Some betas are evil men with no influence. Some alphas have influence they use for good.
On a point related to a previous post, the most important relationship in a family is the husband-wife dyad or hierarchy. The wife must marry with an attitude of respect, to give the marriage the best chance of success. That has to be in place, prior to children entering the picture.
My personal definition is that an alpha must have the three traits.
1. Options with women.
2. Has conscious knowledge of this.
3. Either: a) exercises those options, b) has done so, but consciously decided stop of his own volition, c) or decided not to on moral grounds.
Beta men can do well with women and even be in leadership roles, but without all three of these they are just greater betas to me.
I have four women pursuing me right now (including my wife) and I know it. So I must be alpha. 😉
Yes, I am very concerned about religion and morality, but I don’t think that makes me a weak, “nice guy”.
I completely agree with you. That is exactly one of the main points I was trying to make. I have more to say; things I realize I inadvertently left out, but it will have to wait. Off to Mass. 🙂
Yes, I agree with this. However, what I was trying to get at, and did a poor job of explaining, is that each woman has a type of Alpha. For some women her apex Alpha will be the bad boy, for some it will be amoral dominant man, for others it will be the CEO. I believe, that as far as marriage and relationships are concerned, that most women want the moral Alpha who will do what needs to be done and will be the families Rock. Now, if she is not looking for a relationship, her apex Alpha may very well be a different type of man.
When a woman in around men, any men really, each man is on a continuous flow of up and down on the Alpha ladder in her mind. He will do something that for a moment will rise him above the other men and the next moment he will do something that will bring him down a bit. This happens to every man she comes in contact with. It is a constant flux with each man moving on the ladder in her mind. Men only typically move a couple of rungs while basically staying in the same hierarchy. Men may switch rungs back and forth depending on the situation. Every once in a while a man will fall off the ladder completely for something he did. Even if she is in a room full of the most Alpha men on the planet, this same ladder phenomenon will occur. If given the opportunity, she will choose the man that is the most Alpha to her. All the men will still fluctuate a bit on this ladder and she will still find the other Alpha’s attractive, but she has chosen her apex and now the onus is on both of them to keep him there.
OffTheCuff,
I agree with your three criteria. I believe those are some base levels of every Alpha. However, it is what he does with these base levels and his other characteristics that will define what kind of man he is. And most women do have a type. Unfortunately these days, they are going for one type in their teens and twenties and then trying to settle down with the type they wish to marry in their thirties. At that point, the men they wish for want nothing to do with them.
Beta men can do well with women and even be in leadership roles, but without all three of these they are just greater betas to me.
Indeed this, in the context of the sexual marketplace definition of the term alpha, with the dominance aspect defined by his sexual options generally, even though he could have insignificant status within the general leadership pecking order in most situations. Take Corey W. or Mr. Skittles, perhaps even within their age group.
I referred to that in much of the general usage (often disparagingly) of the term, some leadership/example (not moral!) role is inseparably incorporated within it. But in the manoshere context that can be dismissed and distilled to the essential evident in the nature – and indeed human race’s past where the leaders were also the sexual patriarchs.
Stingray wrote:
This is where we have to be careful and reel it in a bit. “[Not] capable” and “choos[ing] not to” are indistinguishable in practice and in appearance. And women respond instinctively to capacities, not discipline over those capacities. Now, women may respond morally in another way, but this battle is being fought at the more fundamental level of instinct. Hence the very real white knight phenomenon.
A man with discipline still must demonstrate his capacity for indiscipline. Or else the female well dries up (literally), at least while she is young and fertile. This is a needle no PUA is going to thread (nor will think it necessary to thread when asshole game works just as well), but it is the path to apex alpha. A man must show his strength from time-to-time, not just regard it as intrinsic to his discipline, or else women and men will cease to believe he has it no matter what he says. “I can pick up that chick, but I don’t want to” is bordering on omega fecklessness. We all smell a rat.
The ideal is unwavering discipline punctuated by mercurial outbursts of potency. A clean-cut Marine in the barracks who is swift, silent, and deadly in the field, an efficient warrior who cleans up nice. This is the theory behind Connery’s occasional bitch slap:
Ready to go there? Or is it too soon?
Matt
That said, your observations about bad boy are spot on and should be amplified. A culture of emasculated men and empowered sluts will generate this sorry minimalist dynamic of alpha. Why would a man do more than the threshold requirements when they suffice in a marketplace with almost no competition? Further, why would a man elevate himself above the basement-level standards of easy drunk sluts?
Yes, “think about it” indeed. There is not enough thinking about this incisive observation of yours among the gamesters, and it is sad but perhaps inevitable that a woman would have to declare it. PUAs are situational and artificially constructed alphas, who sell their birthright for a mess of pottage, and demand all other men do as well.
This is why I argue for a separation of the terms “alpha” and “manliness” rather than the PUA mistake of making them synonymous. What PUAs do is manly, and what’s manly in this day and age requires a recovery of the concept of alpha. But the defining characteristics of alpha — leadership and actual (as opposed to mimicked) domination of context — are simply not relevant to The Game. So they get all confused when they try to discuss abstractions.
Manliness is not contextual. Alpha is. An alpha titan of industry might be an omega basketball player and a beta among women. A whole roomful of military men may be beta to the chief enlisted but each individually alpha on a college campus.
I’ve always made sense of PUA nonsense by replacing the term alpha with manliness — then their wisdom is digestible. But the attempt to translate their virtues into other realms is always mockable. It doesn’t have to be that way. Just because they cannot be leaders under every context doesn’t mean they can’t be men in every context.
But now we get to the heart of it. Manliness is defined as assertion. It is true because I say it’s true. We know what alpha technically means, but what does manliness mean?
Manliness seeks and welcomes drama and prefers times of war, conflict, and risk. Manliness brings change or restores order at moments when routine is not enough, when the plan fails, when the whole idea of rational control by modern science develops leaks. Manliness is the next-to-last resort, before resignation and prayer. … [M]anliness wants to boast.
— Mansfield, Manliness
Following our era’s philosopher, Nietzsche, PUAs will assert their definition of alpha above all others and not consider dissent because the very assertion demonstrates alphatude, a.k.a. manliness. Not exactly the Socratic method. So, this alpha-of-the-sexual-marketplace attitude, coupled with a poor understanding of the limits of one’s actual skills, create an alpha-of-the-mind illusion. Every pick up artist becomes a philosopher. Rather than collaborating in dialectic with better men than they, they define “what’s alpha” by asserting it — because assertion works for them in the sexual marketplace. Hence the constant pissing contests about how many SNL’s and fuck-closes they achieved in lieu of responsive argumentation.
So the debate over definitions is fated to go on in perpetuity, for fear of considering another man’s definition as more accurate than one’s own. Greek dialectic is a little faggy, you know? It’s manlier to assert oneself like the sophists, accuracy and non-contradiction be damned. Until the alpha of philosophy — the SMOG, or Socratic Male of the Group — shows up and says what’s what.
In a forum of all words, like those you and I run in, the alphas of other contexts defer easily. They are familiar enough with the dynamic in their bailiwick to know when they have traveled outside their influence and expertise. Those who argue strenuously more often than not expose their insecurity in the words arena, and in so doing give evidence that their claims to Alpha of Another Context are contrived. If they truly were one of ten alphas gathering, they would have experience enough to defer to the alpha of that context. I call bullshit. I’ll give them manly, but I won’t give them alpha, if only because their obvious bluster does not inspire me to follow.
Matt
I did not think about this and I think you make a very good point. However, I asked Maritus about this and what he said was any man with this kind of discipline is simply not going to care what the men and women around him think of him. It simply doesn’t matter, and that disregard of public acceptance is an Alpha trait in itself. His strength and manliness (I much prefer this term as well) will still be demonstrated in his accomplishments and those are enough for him. If others don’t see that, oh well. In my experience, men like this aren’t talking about their prowess or accomplishments much anyway. They are too busy accomplishing.
Sure. We can go there.
I have never seen what he is talking about though. It is too taboo these days. What I have seen, is the rage in the eyes. A man who is could do what Connery is talking about and it is a clearly visible thing. If a woman sees this in a man, and I don’t know how she could miss it (unless she does not have all her faculties) she typically stops what she is doing and remedies the situation, hopefully by leaving. If she continues to push, one must wonder why that is.
and
I’ve seen this time and again. It is always interesting to watch and even take part in, though I find I lose patience quickly with the latter group and often stop reading their comments. There is no point, really as what else do they have to offer? It is those men who are there to discuss, to weigh all the information, who garner my attention. I believe, that there are a few more of these men starting to comment as well. It’s just a feeling really, but I see more and more men talking about moving beyond PUA with much of this information. I think more are beginning to realize that it is not all about women (because really, it’s just another way to place women on a pedestal). It’s about becoming Man.
Well, on the Sean Connery thing, which I haven’t watched this time because I am sort of familiar with it, I do know of at least one female blogger who thinks a slap in the face is a good solution to an hysterical woman.
Me, I think there is a tone of voice, peremptory command, and body language and a bit of the old primate stare, which seem to work for me on the rare occasions I use it with my wife. The sharp tone even works in company. Women can sort of tell if you really mean it, no kidding, and I guess genuine respect is the bedrock of a submissive response. I have had my wife shut up and apologise for interrupting me in front of social workers and teachers. No doubt they were scandalised.
It is not something to do every week, but it is a good thing if you can make it work, from a male perspective. The funny thing is that my wife never seems to mind in the slightest. I often get a favourable response and she seems to forget it within moments. Generally.
But ranting, any kind of “frothing at the mouth”, screaming, and indeed hitting, suggest a man who has lost the plot completely. Sean Connery came out of one of the harshest social milieux of recent times, the Scottish working class. Women probably did get smacked around. But it was pretty much endemic, with the men being far more violent with each other as well than further south. In fact, the further north you went, even in England, the more severely people treated each other, and the more wives had to respect their husbands. Or else.
I just reread my response to this from last night and I realize that it is weak. So, to come out and say my thoughts on the matter, I agree with this. I think a slap is a good solution to an hysterical woman. If I were hysterical, I would welcome this myself, as it would be the fastest way to be brought out of that state. I also no longer believe in the old “A boy should never hit a girl”. I think women have lost that privilege and if a woman gets violent with a man he has every right to stop it and stop it fast.
The fear in discussing this issue is two-fold. First, there are many, many women who will completely disregard anything else I have to say now after saying I agree with this. Second, it is always a bit scary to talk about men doing something like this. It triggers fear, even though what Connery is talking about is straightforward in when to use it, there is always fear of the man who takes it to the next level. It’s an irrational fear, but it’s there nonetheless. It’s almost visceral.
There is evidence that women are as violent as men in intimate situations. And, yes, I don’t think women should get a pass in this area. I will say no more …
Don’t hesitate to say more. I am not opposed to this conversation in anyway. It makes me uncomfortable, but that is my problem and it is irrational. I realize this. If you don’t wish to talk about it for other reasons, I understand. But if it is because of my comment, don’t worry about it. It is a worthy conversation and my discomfort is irrelevant.
This is an entirely different form of “slapping” but it is interesting none the less:
http://gameisarevelation.blogspot.fr/2012/03/slap-women.html
http://gameisarevelation.blogspot.fr/2012/05/slap-women-part-ii.html
Wudang,
Those are quite interesting. I think what makes me uncomfortable is that line that can so easily be crossed. Playful slapping, slapping the backside for fun, slapping a woman back into her senses, I don’t have a problem with these. But there is that line that I would not trust any man other than my husband, my father, or my brother to cross. Maybe that’s the key.
Good post sting. A few notes:
The amoral bad boys gets more women, always. Why? because he takes initiative in areas where the good moral alpha constrains himself and behaves.
Im not christian and dont have religion and I consider myself a “bad” boy. And I have had a lot of women. Still, I have morals, or, I have a sense of right and wrong.
If I didnt have such I would have had twice or more women, I would have knocked doors I shouldnt have, etc.
In your example about the CEO and the farm alpha, what happens when you’re being pursued by the CEO and he’s pressing all your sweet buttons, while the farm alpha is too busy / too polite / not available / looking for a longer, more serious courtship?
So, that.
Bad boys do more numbers game, because the low morality thing lowers the threshold for the shots you can take. And women go with the tingle and swept by the moment. And the result of this is that when you rank alphas by success with women, as the manosphere wants to do, that places the jerk bad boy at the very top, and with reason.
Last, to your parting observations:
Yes, but will the comfort level matter much when he is bearing down on her, the bunny rabbit in his sights? She doesn’t have to do anything, except not run. She just has to lay there.
This all goes to Roissy’s theory of women settling for beta with one eye always on alpha. Which is a true theory. Women cannot rely on their judgments of men who seem dependable enough “to be her Rock” as protection against the momentary lapses of hypergamy. The only real protection is abstinence, complete submission to another man’s will (father’s discretion), and avoiding “near occasions of sin.”
The problem with relying on a woman’s personal virtue and conscience is … they work against her at the moment of truth. Adultery is transgressive, and transgression is exciting. It adds to the tingle, and the tingle adds to the moistening. No, the magnetic pull is so strong that only a father’s shotgun, another alpha’s discretion, or an act of God will suffice to guarantee her chastity. Know that! Relying on the voluntary chastity of women is simply not enough incentive to accomplish virtue in the heat of the moment.
Which brings us to:
I’m not sure I buy this. Type-preference is not stronger than manly essence. It sounds like female rationalizing of an irrational process.
I believe in the sincerity of the woman’s “admir[ation]” but you are discounting the imperatives of “purs[uit]” too easily.
Take the example of the sexually realistic Dagny Taggart (standing in for Ayn Rand) in Atlas Shrugged. She tarts her way through two alphas-in-context (Rearden and the Italian/Argentinian? guy) until she finds the apex alpha in Galt. Any manly man will do for a woman’s purpose, in a way, as long as he remains in the context where his alpha leadership dominates, especially in the woman’s imagination.
But once put into another context, the new alpha-of-the-scene there will draw primal attraction, and her imagination will not automatically avail her. This is how women “pursue.” It is not so much a matter of conscious choice or “I would want to” as it is a navigation through diverse predicaments. Although she can manage her attractions, she cannot choose her attractions. And the management between alpha realms is entirely too difficult for a girl to accomplish alone, without alpha leadership in the moral context.
At the same time, your examples are apt. I don’t recognize any intrinsic, decisively attractive value distinguishing blondes from brunettes, though I do have a marginal preference, all other things equal.
You hit the nail on the head. Way too much of pick-up artistry fails to recognize that “women are no longer taught this,” and are therefore much easier to hook today even after controlling for game. That makes PUAs more invested in method than they otherwise should be, unable to realize how much of their success depends on the unprecedented failures of women in today’s SMP.
Our admirations and our attractions are not the last word in a disciplined soul, whether that discipline comes from within or from without. But the danger for women is overestimating the power of her own discipline (or even the physical ability to flee) when alpha is cornering her.
I can say this with an analogous certainty, because “turning back” from a “beautiful 18-year-old on the beach” to even an equally stunning and loyal wife takes an effort you seem to dismiss entirely too easy. That’s why they call trim on the side “strange,” as in, it’s more than simple beauty that attracts. It’s the different type of beauty that makes the “strange[r]” appealing. A line heard in the many bachelor parties I have attended is, “I love bacon and eggs for breakfast. But every single day for the rest of my life?”
Hence the permanent allure of the mysterious other, The Girl from Ipanema. A good husband may turn his back, but the very absence of consummation will make the “strange” loom even larger and longer in his subconsciousness. The worst thing for any man who pledges a vow of fidelity before God is to underestimate the insidious potency of strange.
Excellent post today.
Matt
Stingray wrote:
I wish he would contribute more directly, as he seems to have plenty of applied wisdom to add.
The man of discipline must care about the limits of the effectiveness of that discipline alone. And I don’t mean “care” by feeding the woman’s ego about how dependent he is on her judgment. I mean he should be aware of the ill side-effects of maintaining one’s reputation from mere assertion and rumor, rather than demonstration.
And it’s not even that faithful women will adjudge their aloof men as necessarily inadequate. But their struggle against instinct is made all the harder, exponentially, and for no reason. Of course she knows what great feats her man can do; that’s why she pledged fidelity to him in the first place. But keeping fidelity is made much easier when she has recent, concrete, and especially visceral reminders of what strengths he is keeping in fighting shape under that exterior discipline.
Matt
Stingray wrote:
Yohami is a great example of this kind of blogger/commenter, may his kind increase. A.B. Dada is another with a truly laid-back alpha vibe. There is an ease and aloofness with which they express themselves that can’t be found in the spastic assertiveness of the typical contributor. The overcommitted type is just exhausting, like toy dogs in purses who won’t stop yipping. Exhaustion works on a certain kind of woman, I suppose.
YOHAMI wrote:
Exactly. That underscores the inflexibility of “the manosphere’s” quantitative standards of measurement. It leads to a hasty dismissal of the “sense of right and wrong” as irrelevant to alphadom.
Rising betas are scared to declare “I have morals” or engage in a discussion of “right and wrong” because the very admission puts them down the “rank” ladder according to community standards. Morals have become the axiomatic sign of naivety or white-knightery because Roissy is so poetically adept at defending the virtues of the dark triad (and supporting it with quack science). So even Yohami wants to declare himself the “bad boy” when there is nothing truly “bad” about simply exhibiting manly traits, although the feminists want you to believe otherwise. There is nothing contradictory about manliness and morality. But like all moral actions, they are harder to accomplish and more difficult to explain.
Matt
I´d say manliness is morality.
http://yohami.com/blog/2011/12/03/living-by-a-code-is-masculine-as-fuck/
Morals are rules. Rules are nothing unless they can be enforced (punishment, rewards). It takes a man to do so.
It takes a man to detach his own ego and embrace the rules and merge with the impersonal. Women cant do it. They have to value themselves first – they are uterus, they carry the baby – they are the treasure. Enforcing the rule aint no small feature.
Without enforcement you get relaxed morality, which… is not morality anymore but preferences.
* * *
I cast myself as a “bad” boy to be as far as I can from the “nice” boy. Niche thing. When I say it early on, it makes people aware Im not afraid of being typecasted – gives them less to shame on, plus it triggers tingles.
Oh, she will go for the CEO. But, if the farm boy shows interest in her, hypergamy will set in and she will be attracted to him. That doesn’t mean she will cheat on the CEO, but she will be attracted nonetheless. Hypergamy will present differently for different women because different women will have different apex Alphas. Heck, even if she does have her apex alpha, hypergamy will still jump in from time to time, for different little reasons. When she has her apex alpha, or even one a bit further down the ladder, she might find other men attractive, but she will have little reason to ruin the great thing she does have.
I agree that they have a reason for placing the bad boy at the top. He is Alpha after all. However, I tend to think of the top dog, the apex Alpha, as an Alpha amongst men and women, but more importantly, men.
Yes.
The top dog is the top dog amongst men. That works better when the ladder / the game / the morals / the system / the structure that supports the top dog / the king / is worth fighting for.
When the ladder is not worth fighting for, then we get what we see now.
No. It is one of the reasons I abhor feminism so much. A woman is totally protected in the things that you described from lapses in hypergamy. But that’s not going to happen (barring a crisis) anytime soon. Women can learn to use their judgement and discretion and, while they may not be the ideal in protection, they can go a long way. Ultimate Alphas (I’m thinking of the Don Draper types) are going to have the pick of the litter and in this SMV, they have little reason to not take their pick as often as they like. Some judgement on a woman’s part will help her decide whether a man is going to sleep around when he likes or not. I know things have changed drastically, but I clearly remember men like this in my day and a lot of us girls were attracted to them, but tried to stay clear so we would not end up notches. If he has you in his sights, it may not be easy, but one can say no.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. But, as I said to Yohami, type preference can induce hypergamy. There can be only one apex Alpha and if she is married to a man who is a manly, yet may not be her preference, if her preference becomes available, hypergamy will set in anyway. I think if she has an alpha she will be far less likely to cheat, but attraction will be there regardless.
Aannnnd, you already explained this further in your post. That is what I was trying to get at.
About womens type preferance. I have been thinking for a while that it makes sense, when you are looking for a girlfriend and not just a hookup, to only go for those women who show strong initial attraction and does not require much work because that should mean you are her type. That should mean that in her eyes you are a point above what you are to most other women and that there is not so much she will be missing and potentially finding in other men.
My rule for hookups too.
Stingray, I have been meaning to ask why the phallic moniker? “Stingray”?
Anyway, if you are willing to have your husband, in theory at least, smack your arse for fun in passing, and slap you into your senses, then you are being reasonable and realistic. Although obviously, it is safer to use a woman’s bottom. As I warned young Game Revelation, there are risks in even playfully slapping a woman’s face.
My wife and I are pretty physical. I was surprised by this. In the right mood, she likes a spanking. It has mostly just been for fun, although perhaps slightly punitive. This is all very jolly, but she seems to come from a rougher school than me. She needs firmer handling than I am sometimes comfortable with. I have told these stories before on the ‘net. But, yes, there were a few occasions during a fraught time in our marriage when I threw dinner on the ground because she was being annoying. I left her to clean up the food and broken crockery. It did seem to teach her a lesson.
I suppose my point is that men and women are not angels. And yes, I have slapped my wife’s face on occasion. If a woman peevishly throws the family dinner in the garbage, a sweetly reasoned argument does not seem to be enough.
As for Dark Triad, I am a very responsible man, but I have a certain lack of empathy which, oddly, has sometimes turned my wife on. And I have seen Dark Triad traits be attractive to women. But I don’t think I am really the Dark Triad type. One enraged female did once describe me on Dalrock’s site as “a sociopath with a highly abusive personality”, but people say all kinds of things.
Properly regarded, the Internet discussion areas are a mirror to one’s true personality, and one learns some surprising things about oneself. One is that I am not as systematic a thinker as I had thought, as this ramble shows. Another is that I think much colder than many men about women. Also, I find I get good responses from women I approve of. I have influenced a few women with my views. I was genuinely surprised to find women responding to my remarks, and to find that I am sometimes perceived as an “alpha”, of some kind. I actually think my wife has intuited this, but she had kept it to herself. She is very possessive.
On re-reading the above, I did spot the irony. Tarzan throw dinner on floor Good. Jane throw dinner out Bad. My only excuse is that my wife was being provocative in both cases.
“My rule for hookups too.”
Why also for hookups?
If it requires work, she’s above of you.
I asked him to before I even got the blog up and running. He said he never would as the minute he started to write posts, it would no longer be my blog. People flock to power and they would naturally flock to him and not me. While I have no problem with this and said as much, he still won’t don’t it.
I get this, but I must say, I have never met a man who has a reputation to maintain that ever does need to make any kind of assertion about it (unless where people never meet, like online, of course). Men like this tend to demonstrate their reputation by simply doing. There are always concrete and recent reminders of strength because they wouldn’t be working toward their own designs otherwise.
Maritus says you should write a book about this. This should be your very first sentence and your very last.
A ladder like this, at some point, will necessarily crumble. I am waiting to see what we will replace it with.
Women are quick to know who holds our interest and who does not. Strong initial attraction is a very good way to screen women.
HA! It took me a minute to even understand what you were talking about. It has never occurred to me that “Stingray” would be phallic! Actually, it has nothing to do with the fish. I have a very strong attraction to classic American heavy metal muscle. The 1962 Stingray (also here) is my favorite.
Men and women do things for different reasons, even though the actions may be the same (or nearly the same). What motivates a person is important.
Maritus = mr Stingray?
Yohami,
Yup.
I told the plate chucking story on a couple of blogs, including on Full of Grace etc. (Laura’s blog). Some poor guy came on and said he tried it with his wife, but he ended up cleaning the mess up himself. Major fail. The whole point is to give the little lady time to reflect as she scrabbles about on the floor picking up crockery.
Eesh. The guy ended up further back than where he started.
Stingray wrote
I will split hairs about this only because it’s a fatal error of the “manosphere.” There is no “one apex Alpha” (Who isn’t God Incarnate), there are only alphas-in-context. Maybe this is the subtlety they are getting at with the term “AMOG,” but I doubt it. In this way you are correct about the power of type preferences.
The way PUAs use alpha, they are clearly not going for “the one above all.” They are talking about a minimum threshold to manliness that can be achieved by any man in any context — or else they wouldn’t waste their time peddling methodology to betas. This precision of terms would help clarify the muddle of the deep-thinking PUA set, but that is not likely to happen. At any rate, the fluid taxonomy is no excuse for their slapdash and superficial investigation into the matter.
So manliness is generally attractive, whereas superiority over other men in certain contexts is additionally attractive, depending on the woman’s estimation of that context. At the same time, achievement of alpha in any context is a reliable baseline indicator of manliness: to achieve tops in any field requires dominating other contending men in that field. Therefore female groupies will abound in every field of endeavor, whether that endeavor is manly per se or not.
Matt
The guy who didn’t have success with dinner-on-the-floor Game was married to a nurse, if I recall, and she just went off on shift, leaving him to clean up. It would have taken a lot of Game to leave it like that for her return.
Like all spontaneous gestures, it needs a bit of thought beforehand.