(I didn't want to start yet another Alpha/Beta thread, so I figured this would be the best place to post my thoughts.)
From Roissy's
Defining the Alpha Male:
Quote:Quote:
Many want to believe that getting girls is ancillary to being a true alpha male; that the real measure of an alpha lies in his ability to dominate other men, or his command of his environment, or his thirst for swashbuckling adventure. While these are admirable alpha traits, they are nothing but a means to an end. Make no mistake, at the most fundamental level the CRUX of a man’s worth is measured by his desirability to women, whether he chooses to play the game or not. Pussy is the holy grail. That is why the obese, socially maladroit nerdboy who manages to unlock the gate to the secret garden and bang a 10 regularly is an alpha male. And that is also why the rich, charming entrepreneur who because of an emotional deficiency or mental sickness lives mired in parched celibacy is not an alpha male.
We've all seen guys define alpha in such a way as to fit themselves into that category. It's the ego's way of artificially propping itself up. To quote
The Rational Male:
Quote:Quote:
The reason that so many guys get so bent about what defines an Alpha is usually because they don’t fit that general definition very well. So it’s a logical ego defense to make necessity a virtue (once again) and redefine it to better suit their own conditions. It’s exactly the same dynamic as the debate over Looks vs. Game. Game takes priority for those without Looks and vice versa. A personal definition of “what’s Alpha?” becomes whatever plays to an individual guy’s strengths, and women who can’t appreciate them (i.e. all of them) are relegated to being less-than quality women. Sour grapes are sour, but deductively it makes sense; we want to be the embodiment of what we ‘know’ is attractive to women and others.
Roissy, per usual, finds a brilliant way around this problem. But first, follow me on a short tangent:
Women require two things from men in order to successfully pass on their genes:
1) a matching set of quality genes from a man, and
2) protection and provision for their child as it grows.
We've come to call this mating strategy "Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks", and for good reason: while most women would prefer to find a combination of these traits in one man, Mother Nature realized that the sexiest Cads rarely make the best Dads, and selected for women who were able to have their cake and eat it, too.
From Roissy's
The Necessity of Relationship Game:
Quote:Quote:
The researchers believe the findings shed light on a suite of conflicting behaviors that stem from mating strategies that might have provided an evolutionary benefit to women’s female ancestors of long ago but today probably serve no other purpose than to stir the domestic pot.
She calls the urge for a stable long-term partner along with the increased desire for a more sexually attractive mate during periods of high fertility the “dual mating hypothesis.”
Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks is a quality dysphemism for this hypothesis because it so accurately describes a woman's attitude towards sex. We see women having sex with men displaying alpha traits for the sheer pleasure of it, but generally only having sex reluctantly with more beta men in order to get something out of it. If we continue to pull this thread, we end up with something like this:
Why do women choose to sleep with some men and not others? Because women find some men more sexually arousing than other men.
Why do women find them more arousing? Because these men display particular traits that inspire certain emotions within her, such as lust, that other men do not.
Why do these traits inspire certain emotions? Because exposure to them causes her brain to release a particular combination of chemicals, which her conscious self interprets as sexual arousal.
Why does her brain release these chemicals? Because her genes, which determine the functions of her body (including her brain), are set up in such a way as to recognize specific traits in men and to encourage her body to prioritize mating with men who display them.
Why are her genes set up in this way? Because it gives them the best chance of finding another set of genes most likely to produce a healthy offspring, ensuring their "goal" of successfully passing themselves along to the next generation.
To summarize and reiterate: when women have sex, they either genuinely desire the man they're fucking or they do not. When they do, it's because their bodies make them feel that way, and their bodies feel that way because their genes, which control their bodies, are using emotions to help women select the men who represent the best genetic partnership available.
Once we understand this dynamic, it makes sense to evaluate the alpha-ness of a man based on women's genuine attraction for him. And that's exactly
what Roissy proposes:
Quote:Quote:
Due to this enduring confusion about what makes an alpha, I submit the following system...how hot are the women he can attract, how strong is that attraction for him, and how many of those women find him attractive.
This is how we ought to evaluate how alpha a man is (or isn't). Not by achievement, or status, or power, but by the collective strength of women's genuine attraction for him. Genes don't lie. It doesn't matter if you're short, or bald, or old-if dozens of perfect 10s are crawling through barbed wire and broken glass to fuck you for nothing more than the sheer pleasure of it, congratulations, you've been biologically proven to be an alpha.
(Note that we're not necessarily measuring the amount of
sex a man receives, but the amount and intensity of female
attraction. I think we would all agree that a man who pays a 10 to service him is less alpha than a man who attracts an 8 of her own volition. And a man who inspires the arousal of many beautiful women, yet declines to act on the opportunity-say, for religious reasons-should still be considered alpha, even if he dies a virgin.)
Now, I will fully admit that there's no hard and fast way to measure exactly how alpha a man is. It's difficult to compare, say, a man with three 8s as casual fuck buddies to a man who is so beloved by a single 9 that she'll kill and steal just to be with him. Regardless, the key point stands: the only way to objectively determine a man's level of alpha is through the proxy of women's genuine sexual attraction.
Now, all this talk of biology doesn't mean that a man is relegated to whatever attractiveness Mother Nature bequeathed to him at birth. We all know there are a variety of traits that will genuinely turn women on: looks, height, musculature, confidence, aggression, status, wit/social savvy/charisma (i.e., game). And a key takeaway is that
displayed attractiveness is what matters. All the charm in the world won't do you much good unless you open your mouth.
Finally, given this system it should be obvious that no man exists as purely alpha or beta. There's simply a sliding scale between the two extremes. And fortunately a man's place on the scale, while influenced by some inherent traits like height, is primarily determined by his
behavior and the decisions he makes in life.
While some will read this, reflect on their own success (or lack thereof) with women, and take an ego hit in realizing the man in the mirror is not the alpha they imagined him to be, I hope that upon further reflection it inspires hope-hope that with work, a man can change his life for the better.
I was a virgin when I discovered Roissy (and through him, Roosh and the RVF), probably closer to an omega than a beta. Since then I've taken my notch count into the double digits, and even banged as high as an 8. I'm not going to posture and attempt to sell myself as some ultimate alpha, but instead I hope to demonstrate the remarkable effects that a dedication to game and self-improvement can have on a man's sexual prospects. For those reading this now: check out Roissy's archives, put his theories to practice, and with time you too may see yourself emerge from the cocoon of beta in order to soar through this world as an alpha.
![[Image: wink.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/wink.gif)
)
![[Image: rolleyes.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
![[Image: ourworldindata_homicide-rates-in-five-we...-roser.png]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jEr9sKuEHPk/VLj4Ljh3f8I/AAAAAAAAAhc/aafyIaCI-tM/s1600/ourworldindata_homicide-rates-in-five-western-european-regions-1300-2010-%E2%80%93-max-roser.png)
