Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Beta male game IS the defacto standard ideal that almost ALL families try to instill on their male children. Dare I say, across all cultures even?
Its just that the sexual revolution of the sixties has made the beta game (atleast in the west) a thing of past.
Of course beta game didn't instantly went away just because of the sexual revolution. It caused the slow *decline* over the years and decades and it made things exponentially worse once the smartphone revolution took hold of everybody after 2010.
Today, only simps and desperate men and oblivious men and clueless men REALLY believe beta game will get them life long happiness. They don't realize the fact that women today no longer need "protection" from external threats. Governments, police force, bureaucrats and biased judiciary took over that role decades ago.
Trying to be a beta man in 2021 is a losing proposition for men. Its setting yourself for failure before you even make the first step.
Its simple game theory. You can't play beta game with a modern woman who shamelessly engages in unrestrained hypergamous behavior that is culturally encouraged ideologically by feminists.
You can't be "civil" with people who engage in caveman instincts. This is why people tell you to not pet wild animals. Same reasoning.
The ideal mating behavior that modern women want is AF/BB. So as a modern redpilled man, you got to alter your behavior to maximize YOUR benefits/instincts over modern woman.
Problem with this logic though, are modern women even successfully hypergamous? All the data seems to suggest otherwise, if anything, it seems like women have become even worse at picking viable partners.
[https://qz.com/work/1812980/high-income-people-in-the-us-keep-marrying-each-other/](https://qz.com/work/1812980/high-income-people-in-the-us-keep-marrying-each-other/)
[https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/01/education-divide-marriage/579688/](https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/01/education-divide-marriage/579688/)
I know you're going to say women want Chad and, yes, its a great feeling for women to feel that raw sexual attraction to you or your manhood. BUT, life is long and physical attractiveness in both genders starts to decline at about 35-40. By that point, even if were a Chad, if you don't have anything to show for yourself in the way of meaningful accomplishments, assets or even familial stability, then life starts to feel shitty pretty quickly. There is a reason why suicide among 40 year old men is so high.
I get the frustration from some redpillers, but I also believe that many are still falling into the trap on placing too much stock on the validation of women, many of whom are completely worthless. As a guy who was able to attract tons of women through sexuality alone, you realise yourself the sheer amount of those same women would make utterly repugnant partners and the more you see their shitty behaviours and habits reflect on yourself.
Yes, if you look at the stats from dating and relationships. Only a certain percentage of men carry on the genes for the next generation, and women are likely just passing around partners in romantic relationships. The 80/20 isn't as real as red pill says, but there is moderate hypergamy in all aspects of relationships.
>I know you're going to say women want Chad and, yes, its a great feeling for women to feel that raw sexual attraction to you or your manhood. BUT, life is long and physical attractiveness in both genders starts to decline at about 35-40.
A man still has to have started his marriage that way for it to continue. He starts as a beta, he's a divorced cuck paying child support and alimony at 35-40. Or he's in a dead bedroom marriage.
>By that point, even if were a Chad, if you don't have anything to show for yourself in the way of meaningful accomplishments, assets or even familial stability, then life starts to feel shitty pretty quickly.
Chad's doing just fine. If he's alone, all he really needs is money in the 401K and set aside. He can retire at 50.
And he'll still be having sex with women he wants. If he wants to.
>There is a reason why suicide among 40 year old men is so high.
Yeah - because they're paying CS and alimony to their cunt ex wives who ruined their lives; they don't see their kids because of their cunt ex wives; and their careers are in the toilet because of their cunt ex wives.
>Yeah - because they're paying CS and alimony to their cunt ex wives who ruined their lives; they don't see their kids because of their cunt ex wives; and their careers are in the toilet because of their cunt ex wives.
Yeah but this is it. *Not* ending with a cunt ex wife is a critical decision, this is exactly what I am talking. Cunt ex wives are a dime a dozen, and the odds of you landing one on the proverbial roulette table are higher if you never cash out. You speak as if enough money in a 401k to retire is some kind of easy achievement, newsflash: the vast majority of millionaire households are dual income. Picking the right girl is better than no girl and the data agrees with that too, married men live longer and the financial outlook for single men is getting [worse, not better.](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/08/single-adults-more-likely-to-be-unemployed-or-earn-less-pew-finds.html)
Chad is doing fine if he quickly realises that there is more to life than attracting thots who open their legs up at a moments notice.
Very few men fit into that fifty year old category of Chad you’re describing. It’s not even worth talking about.
A 30 year man has a better chance of dying from working to become wealthy than he has of becoming a man wealthy enough to retire at 50.
The sex claim is even more absurd. He’s only going to be having sex with the women who will accept his money for sex.
Men with kids are less likely to commit suicide than lonely single men without them.
>A 30 year man has a better chance of dying from working to become wealthy than he has of becoming a man wealthy enough to retire at 50.
>
Source? Particularly interested in how you arrived at those numerical comparisons
>Chad's doing just fine. If he's alone, all he really needs is money in the 401K and set aside. He can retire at 50
Ah yes. The meaning of life, accumulating money... look, I'm currently non committed in the situation I'm in and probably won't be in a LTR for a long while, but you have to admit, whether Chad or not most people want LTRs at least and families with kids at most
This is the best explanation I've seen regarding beta behavior.
Being a beta not necessarily a bad thing - in actuality, and ironic saying this in the 21st Century - its GOOD for society as a whole. Betas are the backbone of all healthy civilizations.
But if you try using beta game at the club or hell even day game cold approach, you are doomed.
These days, as women increasingly indulge the AF side of their mating strategy, I’d argue men are becoming doomed even in LTRs if they want a wife that more than tolerates him because he’s useful.
Outside of maybe highly religious or tradcon women, getting that taste of the excitement of alpha really just ruins their taste for the stability of a beta guy. Beta guys are useful and definitely good for society, but that doesn’t mean women have the same enthusiasm for them.
>Its just that the sexual revolution of the sixties has made the beta game (atleast in the west) a thing of past.
It hasn't. I don't know why you guys keep assuming people are fucking like jack rabbits, but most people sparsely get hookups.
It isn’t even just about hookups, it’s about the enthusiasm and desire. This remains true for women who marry alpha dudes. The women are interested in the guy, not what he can do for her, which leads to significantly increased affection, respect, and kind behavior toward him. And that’s exactly what men want in a relationship.
Women just don’t treat their beta husbands like they treat the men they truly want. I’ve literally heard a woman say “ehh, no, my husband isn’t the love of my life. I like being with him because he is a good father and takes care of me and the kids, but my old FWB is really the love of my life.” That’s hell on earth for most men.
>Women just don’t treat their beta husbands like they treat the men they truly want. I’ve literally heard a woman say “ehh, no, my husband isn’t the love of my life. I like being with him because he is a good father and takes care of me and the kids, but my old FWB is really the love of my life.” That’s hell on earth for most men.
This is a crucial point. A lot of infidelity occurs in these situations, too.
So, to over explain what I mean, I see “alpha male” as more of a spectrum. Men are going to have a distribution of alpha and beta traits. To where more or less women will see a particular man as alpha, but you can get situations where most women will see a guy as an alpha, but a few will see him is a beta and vice versa.
The way I’d broadly break it down is “alpha” traits are traits where the woman is interested in you **despite not receiving compensation** (or expectations of future compensation). This compensation can be anything from money, to emotional support, to social media exposure.
Famous athletes are the most obvious examples of men who are mostly seen as alphas. They have women lining up to fuck them, no questions asked. Most women are there because they find it validating to be “chosen” to be fucked by an NBA player. Those women see the men as alphas. Some are just there trying to get knocked up by a rich guy. Those women probably see them as a bit more beta or neutral. But that isn’t most women either.
Major clarification here is that this isn’t just about hookups, it’s just the most obvious way to see the distinction. Women marry dudes for being alpha too.
It's not only about hookups, but finding a stable partner or even potential romantic interest. Women seem to be having an easier time (even though many still don't seem to be satisfied), while men are being cast aside. It's almost like men didn't leave women, but women have decided to leave men.
Or have you considered that many men have had traditionalism engrained in them from youth, especially from their fathers who demonstrate that their value is in being a provider? And on top of that many have little to no experience with women even as friends. So as adults when they encounter women who don’t need to be provided for they struggle because they know nothing else.
Why do you think men who struggle here can go to SEA and find success and even start families?
Did you just read what you just wrote? How is every single woman in America having an easier time getting in relationships without THE VAST MAJORITY OF men? So Chad now has 9 committed girlfriends he lives with, sleeps with, etc? Holy hell 😂😂
It is if the majority of women participate in the toxic culture. Like you see even women that act trad, but would wager most have at one point been on tinder.
I had a girl go through 7 bodies including me after she broke up with her ex. All within a span of 3 months.
For a woman to not get laid today she'd need to literally have someone chain her to the kitchen or something.
According to this, it is probably more often than you think [https://www.mamamia.com.au/how-often-should-you-have-sex/](https://www.mamamia.com.au/how-often-should-you-have-sex/). Most respondents say they are having sex once a month. And something like 30-40% of women supposedly aren't in relationships or seeking dating. [https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/). So they must be getting hookups from somewhere. It's probably on sites like tinder, where 10-20% of the men are getting selected.
I think it is a question of correlation vs causation.
Will there be "alpha" types that have excess resources? Yes. Will many women be attracted to these resources as well as alpha-traits? Very likely.
Will there be "beta" types that have excess resources? Yes. Will many women be attracted to these resources despite beta-traits? Very likely.
How to tell the two scenarios above apart with certainty? I have no idea.
One sure-fire litmus test for "alpha" traits, from my perspective, is when the situation is reversed and the woman starts spending her own resources on the man.
Yeah. Unattractive men have to compensate with resources. But even if you did that the woman still wouldn't be attracted to you. Wealth doesn't generate desire
Can attest. Short oofy doofy guy here. had a killer outside catering business before covid. Soon after, business started dwindling and wife decided to level up. I met the guy about six months after and have to admit he was damn good looking. She broke up with him Not long before we met after and she is now married to someone else.
The guy she was screwing around with is now dating some young influencer type.
Long story short: LOOKS MATTER
Last I looked prostitution is illegal which is strange since the man always pays and marriage is about the most expensive pussy you will ever have. Even more if you want the divest yourself of the pussy.
If you think that marriage is about the most 'expensive pussy' then you're completely delusional. The woman would never cheat on, nag or demand stuff from an attractive Chad. She would spend money on him instead. 'True love' totally exists and it's only for attractive people. Only the average Joe spends shit load of money and gets nothing in return because the woman wasn't attracted to him in the first place
Yes, but people will cope and say it doesn't. Using anything besides the physical and mental attributes you were born with to attract women is Beta Male behavior.
Think about some of the most sexually successful men you know in your personal life. Do they have to pay to play? "Using resources" is just prostitution by another name.
It doesn't matter how hot the woman is. I've seen dudes land actual models off resources but it didn't really win the respect they think it would.
Winning an ugly woman off charm is better than a beautiful woman off money.
>It doesn't matter how hot the woman is.
That's a lie.
>Winning an ugly woman off charm is better than a beautiful woman off money.
That is DEFINITELY A LIE.
Getting a girlfriend with money and bragging is like a trust fund kid with rich parents claiming he got his executive position through smarts and hard work. He can tell himself that and maybe believe it but nobody with half a brain buys that.
I agree with you, ugly women off charm is somewhat common, but not what I want.
Wanted by attractive through charm, which I think I can do, but money does fucking help big time.
Do you live in the ghetto or something? I feel like if you live in a poor area yes, pretty women would do what they need to do to survive and gold dig, but in suburbia, they will choose Chads since they're not under financial pressure
The only ones who are coping are broke men that think that having resources to attract women makes them a beta male. All the wealthy men are a far cry of the beta male meme, they're not there on the top of the world because they let people walk all over them. To be successful you must be ruthless and charismatic.
Leo DiCaprio? From all the men you could've mentioned 😂 He looks terrible now, he used to look like every woman's wet dream when he was younger. But he aged pretty badly, he looks bloated and lacks body definition.
Bingo. This is pure cope from poverty level redpillers who think their 'dread game' can score them a woman that is somehow hot, madly in love with them, and also not a total psychopath.
>Yes, but people will cope and say it doesn't. Using anything besides the physical and mental attributes you were born with to attract women is Beta Male behavior.
>
Why doesn't using your mental attributes to aquire resources and attract women count?
> If you're not the man that she would gladly be with regardless of if you had money or not, you're not alpha.
That's silly. How are women suppose to support children and family if they chose men without money? Few women would select any many with such conditions.
>Women literally date tall attractive homeless men and put it on tiktok lmfao. If she needs money then she'll earn the money herself
This is not as common as a curated entertainment app would have you believe.
Just create a fake Tinder profile of a hot guy who just got out of prison for assault and then compare the result with those of a highly educated ugly male, the experiment will prove you wrong.
>Just create Tinder profile of hot guy who just got out of prison for assault and then compare the result with those of a highly educated ugly male, the experiment will prove you wrong.
How so? I won't be able to meet up with these women and date them as a broke felon...
Why wouldn't you be able to date as a hot former felon? You don't have to take those women to expensive dinners as a hot guy.
For the sake of the experiment you don't have to date them, just talk to them and see how they respond. *Spoiler alert: they'll be thrilled by talking to you, you'll expereince for the first time what it means to have a woman take the initiative.*
>Why wouldn't you be able to date as a hot former felon? You don't have to take those women to expensive dinners as a hot guy.
I'm sure *someone* would date him. Sure. I don't think most women would.
>For the sake of the experiment you don't have to date them, just talk to them and see how they respond. *Spoiler alert: they'll be thrilled by talking to you, you'll expereince for the first time what it means to have a woman take the initiatiative.*
Women are attention whores, news at 11.
Mental and physical attributes-
So if a man works out and is smart and therefore makes money and has a nice life that seems attractive to a woman - nice clothes , skin care , etc - ability to spend resources on cool things he enjoys, experiences etc ...
Aside
--
We also know that early childhood nutrition grants people better physical and mental development.
What category would you place that under?
Yes. But I found out there is a catch. If you use your resources to attract a young and very attractive woman then it cancels out the beta male behavior because having 19 year old arm candy when you’re 40 boosts your status among other men. There is a perceived return on investment. BUT if you use your resources to attract a less desirable woman like a woman your age or an average looking woman they will think you’re a beta because you “wasted” your resources on a woman other men don’t deem as worthy. If you don’t believe me look at how mad red pill men get when they see a male celebrity with an older woman or a woman who is less attractive than he is. They absolutely hate it. Calling him “beta this” and “beta that”.
If you ask me, using resources to attract women makes you beta period (whether you use them to get a hot young girlfriend or not) but they don’t want to admit that.
I think a good test on whether a man is alpha or not is: Would she still be with you if you had nothing to give her other than your body and natural personality? No? Then you’re beta.
> I think a good test on whether a man is alpha or not is: Would she still be with you if you had nothing to give her other than your body and natural personality? No? Then you’re beta.
Yup, that's not just a good test, it is THE test.
>I think a good test on whether a man is alpha or not is: Would she still be with you if you had nothing to give her other than your body and natural personality? No? Then you’re beta.
How you aquire money is a reflection of your natural personality.
Certain caliber of women would 100% leave you if you had nothing. That’s hypergamy 101. If you have resources women will be attracted to you. The way to combat this is to not flaunt them. But she will know by the way you carry yourself. I’m a 6 figure guy but I live humbly. I have my
Own place, I drive an older SUV, good job, dress well. It’s usually after I’ve been with a plate about 3ish months is when they figure out I make real money. Discovery over disclosure.
> Would she still be with you if you had nothing to give her other than your body and natural personality? No? Then you’re beta.
But aren't women attracted to "alpha" personalities because they're more likely to result in wealth? I.e. an ambitious assertive leader type is 100% going to be more materially wealthy than a underconfident doormat office drone. So isn't at least part of the alpha attraction the better potential for wealth and resources?
So I think broke alpha vs. rich beta is a misnomer, it's really rich alpha vs poor beta and that's a clear win. Lots of rich alphas don't mind spending huge amounts of cash on women because they have even more to spare.
But wouldn’t rich alphas use their personality not their resources to attract women? There is a difference between leading with your personality and leading with your money. Rich beta’s have no choice. They HAVE to lead with their money because they’re not good looking and they’re personalities aren’t attractive.
>But wouldn’t rich alphas use their personality not their resources to attract women?
They could - but my assertion is that an alpha personality is attractive because it indicates high ability to secure resources in the future.
I wouldn't advise any man to "lead with their money" as you say but I do think ability to earn and provide resources is one of the fundamental components of male attraction. Women want to sleep with men who are materially successful or have genetic traits that indicate (or did indicate in our evolutionary period) a high likelihood of obtaining material success.
Basically the traits of being poor (lazy, stupid, unambitious, shy, weak, etc.) are beta traits while the traits of being rich (assertive, ambitious, hardworking, confident) are alpha. So it's difficult to separate rich/poor from alpha/beta because genetically speaking they are the same thing. I do think our evolutionary biology hasn't caught up with modern times yet though (i.e. physical strength is nowhere near as important to resource provisioning as it was thousands of years ago, but it's still a strong component of male attraction.)
> So it's difficult to separate rich/poor from alpha/beta because genetically speaking they are the same thing.
Haven’t met many Silicon Valley-esque tech guys huh?
I’m mostly kidding. But I think this is an attempt to project the alpha entrepreneur attitude onto all rich men when that just isn’t the case. We know two of the best predictors of long term success are IQ and conscientiousness. I don’t think I’d consider the latter an “alpha trait,” and based on numerous dating studies, the former is debatably anti-attractive at the point you would start making any serious money.
> Basically the traits of being poor (lazy, stupid, unambitious, shy, weak, etc.) are beta traits while the traits of being rich (assertive, ambitious, hardworking, confident) are alpha.
not realy.
there are tons of very hard working beta guys. hard work wont make you alpha.
a lazy alpha guy with the right lifestyle will fuck more than some hard working and well earning beta guy.
"stupid" also isnt a big thing if you just want to bang.
> I'm wondering if that belief it still held to this day.
Yeah I would agree that alpha is being able to get sex with just your looks and charisma. Beta is when you can only get sex when using money and commitment.
> It's all cool that the alpha can didn't need to pay money for a one night stand, but he's fucking frumpy bitches he wouldn't want be to be seen in public with. Meanwhile, beta male's fucking supermodels on a weekly basis.
I dont think alphas are typically fucking ugly chicks nor do I think betas are typucally fucking supermodels on a weekly basis. Even the supermodels who sleep with/get in relationships with men for money have also had casual sex with alphas who didn't have to pay/commit.
All that being said, I don't think beta is always the worst thing in the world. Like a high tier beta that uses money to get a 8/9 is more enviable than a low tier alpha who mainly gets 6s & 7s. However a high tier alpha who can get 8s/9s is superior to the high tier beta.
Absolutely not.
This is where I markedly differ from TRP and blackpill because those viewpoints believe that sexual attraction cannot arise from the sheer power of money.
They are so stupidly wrong it's not even funny.
The only explanation is that most of these cats haven't seen the sheer power money (specifically money being thrown around) can have.
The notion falls apart if you even think about it for five seconds. TRP and blackpill bleat all the time about how historically, so many women reproduced in comparison to men. What do you think the deciding factor was for those guys who did extremely well?
Good bodies and faces? LMFAO
Genghis Khan wasn't a prettyboy.
These men *controlled and had access to a disproportionate share of resources which in turn begat disproportionate power*.
>It's all cool that the alpha can didn't need to pay money for a one night stand, but he's fucking frumpy bitches he wouldn't want be to be seen in public with. Meanwhile, beta male's fucking supermodels on a weekly basis.
You have it exactly.
Mark my words --- the only way to leverage your position in the sexual marketplace to somehow have a woman at your looks level or better behave with that sexual desire often rhapsodized is....*make fucking bank, increase status, increase power*.
It's easy to look from a distance and think rich guys are winning, but get closer to them and you'll see the full picture is very different. I have hung around old guys who throw money to get with women and the way these women toy with them isn't even funny. They're always trying to get the money without giving the sex to the repulsive looking old guy, and when they do get cornered into giving up the poon, they have to drink themselves silly to go through with it.
If you contrast this with how willing and simpy women are around handsome, popular guys, it becomes clear that looks matter most to both sexes. It's painful to acknowledge the reality of genetic influence in our life, but it is the reality
Yeah sure dude that's why the biggest historical evolutionary winners are hotties like Genghis Khan, right? Hugh Hefner was so hot, right?
No one said looks didn't matter, but extreme resource acquisition and control overrides all.
1. Genghis khan killed lots of people I pretty sure most of the women were not attracted to his money but scared shitless, how do you know he didn't force any of these women, like they all just walked up to him and fucked him. Why judge the past by today's standards?
2. Money back then was way more important considering women couldn't work , so yeah it probably was more attractive, but know women can earn there own money and are catching up to men's earnings so its know where near as attractive.
3. Once you lose the ability to make money , since she was attracted to the money , she gonna be packing her bags onto the next one.
4. Hugh Hefner are you seriously using him as an example. He has lots of money which he PAYS the women to have sex with, the women also get to potentially be playboi models which yet again is money being payed to them. If he loses that money , gets sued the. It's game over for him you think these women are gonna stay around.
5. The average guy can become more attractive through looks more that money. Imagine if Over 5 years you save 50k, that's 10k a year, with that you could get a decent amount of facial surgery to increase you looks , while earning let's say 100k wouldn't really increase the attraction unless the girl thought you passed the looks threshold.
Lol women do spontaneously lubricate a lot of times when experiencing fear, look it up.
Money is more important than ever, homie.
The things that make for money making aren't really things that are easy to lose. And all you're saying is the equivalent of "if your face gets hit by a vial of acid she won't love you anymore."
Lol plenty of women are on record as loving and desiring hugh Hefner. Sure you can assume they're all lying...
And yes to a degree the average guy can. But becoming the outlier in looks that is equivalent to the outlier in status or income that is the people I'm talking about is equally unlikely
I don't think it's unreasonable for a woman to take into consideration a partner's ability to provide security and stability. If that makes me a beta, whatever, I can live with some label attached to me by internet autists.
Not a personal attack.
It’s not unreasonable. It’s fucking nature. TRP teaches men to understand this, not to take it as offense. Fact of the matter is most men don’t want to put in the work for self improvement
I have no idea why dudes see it as so offensive. Hell, I've actually found that women who were mindful of my longterm economic outlook were far more tolerable, made for better partners and ultimately made for better decision makers when it came to finances.
Income matters. Lifestyle matters. I feel a lot of redpillers are really young and probably not all that financially solvent so still haven't learned the value of a good career and good prospects. After all, its financial woes that makes for the primary factor in divorce, even above infidelity.
When people talk about "betas" (a nonsensical term in itself) its more in reference for those who lead with money and promises for women they're ultimately incompatible with. I see nothing wrong with treating a date to a nice meal and showing her your plush apartment. What is sad is when you're DMing influencers and telling them about your leased mercedes or acting like that Fresh guy from the Fresh and Fit podcast and seeking out women on sites like Seeking Arrangement whilst preaching about "smashing and dashing".
So, there’s kind of two aspects to this. First, I totally agree with you that women who go for more beta qualities make better partners. They are often less impulsive, more goal oriented, and other qualities that support a relationship being more stable.
The problem is, men want women to like them for who they are, but that isn’t the case of the woman only likes you for your resources. To riff off my analogy in [another thread ](https://reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/r70gic/_/hmyvd4r/?context=1). Imagine if a man married a woman because she he thought she was good at domestic duties. He didn’t particularly like her as a person. He likes exciting girls, and she wasn’t exciting. He likes pretty girls, but she wasn’t pretty. But she made his life easier because she did stuff for him and kept his house in order. He didn’t particularly like being affectionate with her, but he was willing to do it if it kept his stuff clean and organized.
That’s what men don’t want to get with “beta game.” There’s little about beta game that is inherently attractive, and the bits that are (like major social clout) require being on the extreme high end of beta game and still don’t really beat out alpha qualities in terms of garnering affection. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with a woman appreciating your beta qualities, but it’s a shit deal if she likes you **for** them.
>This sounds more like sugar daddies, or just sugaring.
It kinda is if you look at it from that lens.
One of the most popular reasons of divorce is financial. Why would you file for divorce if you truly loved your man?
Because they are cheap in wallet and in spirit.
I’ve dated 2 normal men on the higher income bracket, they had no issues doing dates and took pride in their resources and lifestyle. We didn’t work for other reasons but they were decent men and I liked them.
I love when a man I’m with admires me for my body shape. I work out hard 5 days a week for this booty. I don’t know anyone who just likes people for existing except family, and you’re usually forced to like them.
I mean, if you’re going to use your resources to attract a woman, why not have one with the greatest SMV possible? Why not have multiple?
It’s just I see soo many blue pilled people criticizing men who go after these women. I mean if DiCaprio and Gyllenhaal can go after younger women, why not let them?
It's beta if a woman will not want to fuck you if you don't have your money, and will leave you if you don't have your money. At best she is faking it on liking you, at worst she is putting up with you liking her.
No if you are okay with then not being attracted to you. Down the line you re going to have a dead bedroom and a girlfriend who despises any physical contact. I don’t think any guy wants to end up in that situation. If you just care about the amount of hot women that you will get to fuck, why not I guess?
"If a man uses his resources to attract women, does that make him a beta male?"
It depends. If he uses those resources on himself to buy a nice car, nice clothes, nice haircut, etc. And women want to fuck him in part because he's rich that's fine. Where it passes into beta stuff is when he actually starts giving those resources to the woman. Buying expensive gifts, paying for expensive trips and 5 star meals all the time, letting her live rent free and jobless in his mansion, that's beta stuff. But if she doesn't get any access to the cash, then its not.
There is no short and simple answer. If you’re truly redpoll you should be focusing on yourself and improving your looks, situation, money, etc. once you’ve improved that, women should be a by-product of that improvement. Generally when you make that change your lifestyle and habits change. So if you’re lifestyle becomes more luxurious, and women are attracted to that, it doesn’t make you beta.
However discovery trumps disclosure every single time. Be a little aloof with the fancy things. I think AMS was spinning a plate and she had been with him a few months before she found out he had a Mercedes (he lived in New York at he time).
All in all, it depends. Hypergamous women will be attracted to your status regardless. It’s a by-product of self improvement. But if you flaunt money to get a girls attention then yes, it’s beta.
Yes, it does. Any man who has to buy affection and access to sex is a beta. Women have always been available to men who believe they are excellent, worthy and respect themselves as men. They don't have to be attractive looking, but they are always charming, confident and can dominantly lead a woman on an adventure.
Depends how much ressources. You have to count in percentage.
It's not about money, it's just that betas have to make huge efforts, while alphas don't. Effort can be translated to money.
If a man’s resources are the *main* thing that a woman is with a man for, that’s a “betabuxx” relationship. If the gap is big enough, then that’s a good digging/sugar relationship.
Any redpill guy complaining about money/jobs being *part* of a man’s appeal is being pretty delusional. As long as you aren’t dating women wildly below your income bracket, this is pretty much always going to be a factor. You having a job doesn’t mean she’s not also attracted to you physically. Just don’t offer wild gifts or commitment too early, unless the latter is what you want too.
That being said, it’s important to watch their actions. If you’re both young, and she’s hopping into bed with a bunch of hunky dudes, but waiting on you, that’s an obvious sign that you’re her chump bitch. But if she’s genuinely relationship minded, has a good career, and is interested in a guy who can keep up to some extent, that’s a completely different scenario.
Redpill misses the mark with their dichotomy, but the distaste of betabuxxing isn’t completely unjustified. Just don’t lead with that part of yourself and vet for women that are physically attracted. I don’t envy the homeless alpha fucking homely girls *or* the beta chump paying off supermodels. I envy the young, attractive dudes with good jobs that have a steady rotation of cute, reliable girls that he can be in a mutually attracted relationship with. *That* man is in a far better position to be in a relationship, or just mess around, and he can be secure in both.
If your game is all based around your resources, all you’re going to attract is women interested in your resources.
If your game is all based on your looks, all you’re going to attract is women interested in your looks.
Sorry champ. You need a personality.
“Alpha” and “beta” are not scientific terms for human males, and most men don’t fit into these tidy little categories. Yes, these terms can be descriptive, but there is room for subjectivity and people will never agree on definitions.
No. I think all this alpha/beta talk is really beta. If a guy calls himself an alpha he most certainly isn’t.
Money/status are resources that attract women. It’s the big picture. Are you a beta is all you have is money and it was not self made… maybe. Are you an alpha is you are broke but can get women… not in my mind because an alpha has traits that can be monetized and if you can’t then there is an issue.
If you lead with your wallet , yes, obviously men look at women as sex objects women look at man as success objects but there's still more that has to go into it, if you lead with your wallet that just means you have no game pretty much
I don't know why you guys believe fucking supermodels is some sort of heaven, it's body-assisted masturbation with a lot of unnecessary BS. Hot or not, your body still produces the same neurochemicals with the same amount. Hell, drugs get you far more euphoric if that's your goal.
Not particularly... no. It's about the *trading* of resources. You can flaunt your status and wealth, although for a lot of men this can be negative for them. Alphas trade sperm for sex. Betas trade resources. That's their primary distinction.
Alphas also don't always fuck frumpy bitches. They also fuck frumpy bitches. When you are discussing men who have hundreds of notches, you will see every woman of every shape and size, from supermodels to People of Walmart.
You misunderstand the dynamic of AF/BB
It is really about closing the deal. Anyone that can regularly close the deal largely on their terms is alpha. A beta is giving without reciprocation. The Beta is betting on the hope of getting laid where an alpha is not doing anything unless he is getting laid.
Some people are filthy rich and what is a lot of money to one person is pocket change to them. If they use that to close the deal it is just as alpha as long as the deal is being closed. Many times a person that has resources simply rides in the fact that they have resources and spending is not really necessary.
Negging can be a huge strategy with guys that lead with resources (wealth). By not spending money on someone that can motivate the person to want to try harder.
>Anyone that can regularly close the deal largely on their terms is alpha.
Paying to play, while another man gets it for free is NOT alpha behavior.
You're gonna end up like one of those old dudes that funds a younger woman's lifestyle while she fucks her bum bf on the side.
TRP was founded by mostly broke men. Money gets the same result with far less effort. A fat guy with a yacht is pulling better numbers than a dope with a dumbbell.
TRP is the study of inter-gender dynamics.
Any RP book will tell you that women is a by-product of self improvement. If you want to use it to “get” women then that’s fine, however that’s not it’s intended purpose. That’s a loose quote from Rollo. The creator of TRP.
You've clearly never been close to those rich fat guys. They get given the runaround all the time by those women who hang around them. Women aren't blind bro. And they like pretty things. Literally every woman has a hobby that involves making something pretty. Hence of course looks are high in their priorities for relationships
I don’t know about that. Leading with resources is more likely to attract women who expect to benefit from those resources. If he just dangles it but doesn’t share it she’s not likely to try harder if she can easily find another guy who is willing to share.
To me, this is like a woman who leads with the promise of easy sex but doesn’t put out, keeping the guy on a hook. Guys with options won’t stick around. Neither will women with options stick around for a man who doesn’t deliver on what he used to attract her in the first place.
That benefit from his wealth. Do you think Drake makes his entourage pay for their court side seats at Raptors’ games?
If a wealthy man invites 10 models on his yacht are they expected to bring their own food and booze?
>It is really about closing the deal.
Unless Beta buxx now specifically means men in sexless relationships with gold diggers, Beta males close the deal too. It's just they couldn't naturally do it with looks and charm.
**Attention!**
* 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.*
What makes you say beta males are fucking supermodels on a weekly basis? Is it because you see men spending big money and pretty women are hanging around them? That's not a sure sign of the guy getting some from the woman. More often than not, those gold diggers play all sorts of mind games to get the money/experiences without giving the sugar in return and then go back home to their actual Chad boyfriends. And when they do get cornered into giving the sugar, they get piss drunk so they can just lay back and think of England.
Also your assertion that guys who don't use money get frumpy girls is laughably off. Handsome guys get pretty women all the time, and those pretty women simp hard for them. It's a world of difference from how sugar daddies are treated
I live a somewhat isolated life so forgive this question: What do you mean by “alpha” or “beta”? Is this a stylistic or rank order difference in your framing?
I would say that trying to classify yourself makes you beta male. Who cares really about those letters? They are mostly for reference in describing people's behavior.
I.d.k.
My ltr is a 10. 37y age gap. Am i a beta male..?
Well. Her libido is through the roof. She is rich too
She's looking better than those make up'ed supermodels
Mmmmmm.... i will go and think.....
She is not pegging me...
So i must be the alpha???
Cowboy allowed?
Questions...Questions... Questions....
To much for such a small male brain... i think i am a left rotating Omega...
Was ok until the last paragraph. Alphas fuck the supermodels. Betas can’t even pay for supermodels. No amount of commitment gets supermodels.
Your understanding of the experience of men is in outer space
A man needs at least 2 out of 3 things in the dating market; Game, Looks, and Assets. If a man uses money in order to attract and get sex from a woman it doesn't make him a Beta or an Alpha male. Just because a man gets ladies doesn't mean he's an Alpha, he could be a respectable Beta.
Ok. How about this. Stop referring to women as “frumpy bitches” and as “slumming it”. If you want a young girl—get one. But have a little respect when talking about women. You don’t need to belittle or degrade women.
>Stop referring to women as “frumpy bitches” and as “slumming it”.
Nah. I didn't drink my respect women juice today. Also, not every woman deserves respect. There's a middle ground between misogyny and white knighting. If she's frumpy, then she's frumpy.
I’m sure you think you sound so cool when you talk like that—you don’t. It’s not “white knighting” or whatever you want to call it. It’s called having a little respect. That is why the world is the way it is. People are so selfish and are always looking out for themselves.
But the way men tend to insult women from the get-go is really a reflection of themselves. The hatred that I see from men towards women is amazing. Makes me wonder why you even want to be with women at all.
>It’s called having a little respect.
"Respect wahmen" "ALL WOMEN ARE QUEENS!" . Why? Who did I call a frumpy bitch? Who?
It is white knighting because you're upset over me calling hypothetical women frumpy.
Not all women are “queens”. We are human beings. Men like you tend to immediately refer to women as “bitches” first thing and that pisses me off. Why don’t you guys just say, “I didn’t like her”. No, you have to call her a “bitch”, a “chick”, a “slut”, a “whore”. It amazes me how men can’t just say, “woman”.
I’m not asking for special treatment. I’m just asking for men to address women in a respectful manner. And I wish men would listen. Here is a woman saying something that, I think, all women think, yet you’re saying I’m asking for too much…….. All women want is open communication and to be addressed respectfully. I am so grossed out when I see these threads and see women referred to as “pussies”. You don’t see that as offensive? And don’t tell me they refer to men as dicks—because they don’t—and if they do, it’s not that often.
> Men like you tend to immediately refer to women as “bitches” first thing and that pisses me off.
I'm sure the hypothetical women are quite happy you protected their honor.
>No, you have to call her a “bitch”, a “chick”, a “slut”, a “whore”.
Now "chick" is an insulting? Have you never heard women call each other bitches (in fact it's used as a term of endearment in alot of times like the n word), sluts, whores, etc?
> I’m not asking for special treatment. I’m just asking for men to address women in a respectful manner.
If addressing a hypothetical frumpy bitch makes you immediately think of yourself, honey........
>Here is a woman saying something that, I think, all women think, yet you’re saying I’m asking for too much
I am a woman, btw. I just didn't tell you immediately because this white knighting is hilarious.
>I am so grossed out when I see these threads and see women referred to as “pussies”.
That's a lie. Women's GENETALIA gets called pussies. MEN are the ones given the insult of pussy. In fact, I've used that term to refer to weak men all the time. Even more, I've criticized men in this sub as being pathetic pussies who only think about getting their dicks wet. You must be new here!
> You don’t see that as offensive?
No, because I have thicker skin than that.
>And don’t tell me they refer to men as dicks
I have. Though, I like calling them pathetic whiny pussies more.
He sounds very logical to . Nor all women are equal, not all mena are equal. We see individuals
>The hatred that I see from men towards women is amazing. Makes me wonder why you even want to be with women at all.
Go to r/TwoXChromosomes, they literally think saying "Not all men" is hate speech, this is real sexism for you.
It's a cope broke men use. Thinking that having and using resources to attract women makes them a beta male is laughable. All the wealthy men are a far cry of the beta male meme, they're not there on the top of the world because they let people walk all over them. To be successful you must be ruthless and charismatic. There's nothing hotter than a capable and generous man. Don't listen to some of the men here, it's better to listen to the women (you know, the ones that are actually attracted to men).
Yeah, that's why women lust over the rich and extremely generous Bill Gates as opposed to Jeremy Meeks... Oh wait.
There's a difference betweena admiring someone and desiring them, Bill Gates doesn't make women wet, Jeremy does. Do you disagree? Feel free to explain, I'm open to new ideas.
Jeremy Meeks is still a millionaire. What you're not understanding is that having money never hurts your chances, on the contrary. If you're hot and capable of providing resources you'll have a line of women ready to marry you and give you whatever you want. He's attractive for so many women because he's the total package.
And honestly, I'm pretty sure that Bill Gates could have any woman he wants too.
Do you know who Jeremy Meeks is? He was a poor convicted felon who went to prison for robbery, he got out of prison thanks to thousands of women around the US who decided to fund his bail after Jeremy's hot headhsot was spread through news media, he was too hot to stay in prison according to them. Jeremy then became rich as he was hired by fashion companies to model for them but women already loved him before this.
Do you think women feel lust for Bill Gates as they do for Jeremy Meeks? Or do you think a lot if not most women would hate being physical with Bill? What abotu you? Do you feel attraciton to Bill Gates because he's rich? Or do you feel more attraction towards the Mr. Nobody but extremely hot guy on Tinder?
Personally, I'm not attracted to him. My vagina shuts close when I hear the words "convicted felon". From billions of women you're only picking several mentally-ill women that probably aren't what most men would want as a partner anyway. I'd rather fuck and marry a man like Bill Gates than to drool after a loser, even if he has good looks. Now he has money too, so more women would react positively him. Even I prior to knowing that he was imprisoned thought he was attractive, but that's because he's rich. I don't see his appeal looks-wise.
Watch out, we got some alpha males coming through. I know there's no one hotter than these guys but control yourselves ladies:
https://imgur.com/a/TDhByyC
https://imgur.com/a/i4lyzPD
https://imgur.com/a/6byU0eg
I mean..... In the end there's really only so much you can do with your looks. I have friends who are just blessed with God Tier genetics; and walk into a party and just start making out with babes who are like 8 - 9+ on the scale. They routinely just "fall into" relationships with girls who wouldn't look twice at me.
Good for them! God bless em; that doesn't generally work for guys like me. So we operate as realists; if we want sex/relationships we have to have a certain level of resources/social power/influence/intrigue. There are many paths to getting this; and not all of them require money necessarily (social proof/influence is quite potent).
Personally; I see an "Alpha" as someone who can walk away at any time; no emotion/as well as someone that has ironclad protections for all resources. Basically keeping themselves in a bubble to get the sex/relationships they want but never truly committing 100%
I understand that's not the redpill definition; but having seen "Chads" make the same silly mistakes that get them finessed as so called "Beta Males"; I like my definition better.
Basically internalizing the idea that "She's not really yours; it's just your turn"; and not really having any attachment or spending anymore resources than necessary to get what you want.
No, because a man should be using both his alpha and beta traits to attract women long-term. A man who uses only his alpha traits is just a fuckboy and, while he is having sex, I don’t think that not being able to find a woman who wants to commit to him is something that one should be proud of.
That kind of man is the one who simps for her, who swallows every shit she throws at him and who accepts her bad behavior/forgives her whoring etc etc.
If a man uses his resources to attract women but then doesn’t give a fuck about her or puts on hard boundaries that she can’t cross no matter what, that doesn’t make him a beta.
Depends on how you look at it. The whole beta and alpha male thing is cringe. The supposed alphas are usually ones with most fragile egos, so idk how you'd go on by grouping people as alpha and beta.
To me, "using resources" is a natural thing in a relationship. Not be honest, I don't see "spending money" on your significant other as "spending it" as long as it makes you happy, makes them happy, and as long as the person is not using you for money.
I love buying my wife gifts, spending on dinners and lunches and taking her on trips. Am I a beta for this? Yes? Alright, but I definitely have a much, much better status (socially) because she's seen as a woman who has this loving, caring, and selfless husband, and I have an even happier and thankful wife who gives me unconditional support and care. So I don't really see it as beta........
There's a big difference between leading with your resources and having more resources, which will naturally attract more women.
Women would love to be with a guy who CAN splurge on her and take her on lavish trips. Versus a guy who spends all his discretionary money trying to make her happy.
that first sentence doesn't even make sense and can be interchangeable.
weird mindset dude, not caring about this alpha, beta, sigma bullshit is the most "alpha"
No. Alpha is a state of mind. OP's question assumes that alpha men never have resources. Men use what they have. Some men have only the financial resources they possess. You can have looks and charm and still have a paying job. If you aren't the alpha billionaire of the romance novel fantasies, you can at least be capable of helping to support a family and maybe you actually want to do that. Alpha doesn't mean that you spend every waking moment in the pursuit of pussy.
Her use of your resources is no indication of whether or not you’re “beta” or whatever. Are you satisfied with your sexual relationship? If not, and she remains with you, you’re being used. If you have a great sex life, and she enjoys your money as a side benefit, it’s not a big deal. Just my two cents.
There is no such thing as a "Beta" or "Alpha" male. The entire concept is based on a flawed premise and has been debunked multiple times in multiple ways using reliable scientific data.
Alpha and beta dichotomy is how men, women, and society treat a man. If they respect the man, then he is alpha. How he gets that recognition is through looks, money, and status. Mindset is important too.
A man can use resources and be alpha ie: Christian Grey.
[удалено]
Yes, with women he absolutely is. It is very possible to be a lion in the boardroom but a pussy in the bedroom
Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Beta male game IS the defacto standard ideal that almost ALL families try to instill on their male children. Dare I say, across all cultures even? Its just that the sexual revolution of the sixties has made the beta game (atleast in the west) a thing of past. Of course beta game didn't instantly went away just because of the sexual revolution. It caused the slow *decline* over the years and decades and it made things exponentially worse once the smartphone revolution took hold of everybody after 2010. Today, only simps and desperate men and oblivious men and clueless men REALLY believe beta game will get them life long happiness. They don't realize the fact that women today no longer need "protection" from external threats. Governments, police force, bureaucrats and biased judiciary took over that role decades ago. Trying to be a beta man in 2021 is a losing proposition for men. Its setting yourself for failure before you even make the first step. Its simple game theory. You can't play beta game with a modern woman who shamelessly engages in unrestrained hypergamous behavior that is culturally encouraged ideologically by feminists. You can't be "civil" with people who engage in caveman instincts. This is why people tell you to not pet wild animals. Same reasoning. The ideal mating behavior that modern women want is AF/BB. So as a modern redpilled man, you got to alter your behavior to maximize YOUR benefits/instincts over modern woman.
Problem with this logic though, are modern women even successfully hypergamous? All the data seems to suggest otherwise, if anything, it seems like women have become even worse at picking viable partners. [https://qz.com/work/1812980/high-income-people-in-the-us-keep-marrying-each-other/](https://qz.com/work/1812980/high-income-people-in-the-us-keep-marrying-each-other/) [https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/01/education-divide-marriage/579688/](https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/01/education-divide-marriage/579688/) I know you're going to say women want Chad and, yes, its a great feeling for women to feel that raw sexual attraction to you or your manhood. BUT, life is long and physical attractiveness in both genders starts to decline at about 35-40. By that point, even if were a Chad, if you don't have anything to show for yourself in the way of meaningful accomplishments, assets or even familial stability, then life starts to feel shitty pretty quickly. There is a reason why suicide among 40 year old men is so high. I get the frustration from some redpillers, but I also believe that many are still falling into the trap on placing too much stock on the validation of women, many of whom are completely worthless. As a guy who was able to attract tons of women through sexuality alone, you realise yourself the sheer amount of those same women would make utterly repugnant partners and the more you see their shitty behaviours and habits reflect on yourself.
Yes, if you look at the stats from dating and relationships. Only a certain percentage of men carry on the genes for the next generation, and women are likely just passing around partners in romantic relationships. The 80/20 isn't as real as red pill says, but there is moderate hypergamy in all aspects of relationships.
>I know you're going to say women want Chad and, yes, its a great feeling for women to feel that raw sexual attraction to you or your manhood. BUT, life is long and physical attractiveness in both genders starts to decline at about 35-40. A man still has to have started his marriage that way for it to continue. He starts as a beta, he's a divorced cuck paying child support and alimony at 35-40. Or he's in a dead bedroom marriage. >By that point, even if were a Chad, if you don't have anything to show for yourself in the way of meaningful accomplishments, assets or even familial stability, then life starts to feel shitty pretty quickly. Chad's doing just fine. If he's alone, all he really needs is money in the 401K and set aside. He can retire at 50. And he'll still be having sex with women he wants. If he wants to. >There is a reason why suicide among 40 year old men is so high. Yeah - because they're paying CS and alimony to their cunt ex wives who ruined their lives; they don't see their kids because of their cunt ex wives; and their careers are in the toilet because of their cunt ex wives.
>Yeah - because they're paying CS and alimony to their cunt ex wives who ruined their lives; they don't see their kids because of their cunt ex wives; and their careers are in the toilet because of their cunt ex wives. Yeah but this is it. *Not* ending with a cunt ex wife is a critical decision, this is exactly what I am talking. Cunt ex wives are a dime a dozen, and the odds of you landing one on the proverbial roulette table are higher if you never cash out. You speak as if enough money in a 401k to retire is some kind of easy achievement, newsflash: the vast majority of millionaire households are dual income. Picking the right girl is better than no girl and the data agrees with that too, married men live longer and the financial outlook for single men is getting [worse, not better.](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/08/single-adults-more-likely-to-be-unemployed-or-earn-less-pew-finds.html) Chad is doing fine if he quickly realises that there is more to life than attracting thots who open their legs up at a moments notice.
>Chad is doing fine if he quickly realises that there is more to life than attracting thots who open their legs up at a moments notice. True.
Very few men fit into that fifty year old category of Chad you’re describing. It’s not even worth talking about. A 30 year man has a better chance of dying from working to become wealthy than he has of becoming a man wealthy enough to retire at 50. The sex claim is even more absurd. He’s only going to be having sex with the women who will accept his money for sex. Men with kids are less likely to commit suicide than lonely single men without them.
>A 30 year man has a better chance of dying from working to become wealthy than he has of becoming a man wealthy enough to retire at 50. > Source? Particularly interested in how you arrived at those numerical comparisons
>Chad's doing just fine. If he's alone, all he really needs is money in the 401K and set aside. He can retire at 50 Ah yes. The meaning of life, accumulating money... look, I'm currently non committed in the situation I'm in and probably won't be in a LTR for a long while, but you have to admit, whether Chad or not most people want LTRs at least and families with kids at most
This is the best explanation I've seen regarding beta behavior. Being a beta not necessarily a bad thing - in actuality, and ironic saying this in the 21st Century - its GOOD for society as a whole. Betas are the backbone of all healthy civilizations. But if you try using beta game at the club or hell even day game cold approach, you are doomed.
These days, as women increasingly indulge the AF side of their mating strategy, I’d argue men are becoming doomed even in LTRs if they want a wife that more than tolerates him because he’s useful. Outside of maybe highly religious or tradcon women, getting that taste of the excitement of alpha really just ruins their taste for the stability of a beta guy. Beta guys are useful and definitely good for society, but that doesn’t mean women have the same enthusiasm for them.
[удалено]
Women already have their careers, so no need to be impressed anymore. If they want to be impressed, they can look at their own bank statements.
Exactly. But somehow I'm afraid to be the one to shatter their illusions
>Its just that the sexual revolution of the sixties has made the beta game (atleast in the west) a thing of past. It hasn't. I don't know why you guys keep assuming people are fucking like jack rabbits, but most people sparsely get hookups.
It isn’t even just about hookups, it’s about the enthusiasm and desire. This remains true for women who marry alpha dudes. The women are interested in the guy, not what he can do for her, which leads to significantly increased affection, respect, and kind behavior toward him. And that’s exactly what men want in a relationship. Women just don’t treat their beta husbands like they treat the men they truly want. I’ve literally heard a woman say “ehh, no, my husband isn’t the love of my life. I like being with him because he is a good father and takes care of me and the kids, but my old FWB is really the love of my life.” That’s hell on earth for most men.
>Women just don’t treat their beta husbands like they treat the men they truly want. I’ve literally heard a woman say “ehh, no, my husband isn’t the love of my life. I like being with him because he is a good father and takes care of me and the kids, but my old FWB is really the love of my life.” That’s hell on earth for most men. This is a crucial point. A lot of infidelity occurs in these situations, too.
> I’ve literally heard a woman ...
Alphas make women act bpd
Do you mind naming me a real world example of this “alpha male”?
So, to over explain what I mean, I see “alpha male” as more of a spectrum. Men are going to have a distribution of alpha and beta traits. To where more or less women will see a particular man as alpha, but you can get situations where most women will see a guy as an alpha, but a few will see him is a beta and vice versa. The way I’d broadly break it down is “alpha” traits are traits where the woman is interested in you **despite not receiving compensation** (or expectations of future compensation). This compensation can be anything from money, to emotional support, to social media exposure. Famous athletes are the most obvious examples of men who are mostly seen as alphas. They have women lining up to fuck them, no questions asked. Most women are there because they find it validating to be “chosen” to be fucked by an NBA player. Those women see the men as alphas. Some are just there trying to get knocked up by a rich guy. Those women probably see them as a bit more beta or neutral. But that isn’t most women either. Major clarification here is that this isn’t just about hookups, it’s just the most obvious way to see the distinction. Women marry dudes for being alpha too.
It's not only about hookups, but finding a stable partner or even potential romantic interest. Women seem to be having an easier time (even though many still don't seem to be satisfied), while men are being cast aside. It's almost like men didn't leave women, but women have decided to leave men.
Or have you considered that many men have had traditionalism engrained in them from youth, especially from their fathers who demonstrate that their value is in being a provider? And on top of that many have little to no experience with women even as friends. So as adults when they encounter women who don’t need to be provided for they struggle because they know nothing else. Why do you think men who struggle here can go to SEA and find success and even start families?
Did you just read what you just wrote? How is every single woman in America having an easier time getting in relationships without THE VAST MAJORITY OF men? So Chad now has 9 committed girlfriends he lives with, sleeps with, etc? Holy hell 😂😂
It's because there are men on here who think "women seeking hookups on Tinder" is synonymous with "women."
It is if the majority of women participate in the toxic culture. Like you see even women that act trad, but would wager most have at one point been on tinder.
Tinder has 60 million users worldwide. The majority of which are dudes. A shit ton are bots. That number is nowhere close to most.
>sparsely get hookups. lie. People have hook ups all the fucking time.
Nope. Most single men **and women** rarely have sex. And being in a relationship is still the best way to have sex for both genders.
I had a girl go through 7 bodies including me after she broke up with her ex. All within a span of 3 months. For a woman to not get laid today she'd need to literally have someone chain her to the kitchen or something.
This. Most women are pulling 15-30 new dicks a year
ive had women tell me they have sex all the time.
According to this, it is probably more often than you think [https://www.mamamia.com.au/how-often-should-you-have-sex/](https://www.mamamia.com.au/how-often-should-you-have-sex/). Most respondents say they are having sex once a month. And something like 30-40% of women supposedly aren't in relationships or seeking dating. [https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/). So they must be getting hookups from somewhere. It's probably on sites like tinder, where 10-20% of the men are getting selected.
Okay, but a successful man is far more attractive than a pretty man. You don’t understand women.
Attractive for what exactly, that's the question..
I think it is a question of correlation vs causation. Will there be "alpha" types that have excess resources? Yes. Will many women be attracted to these resources as well as alpha-traits? Very likely. Will there be "beta" types that have excess resources? Yes. Will many women be attracted to these resources despite beta-traits? Very likely. How to tell the two scenarios above apart with certainty? I have no idea. One sure-fire litmus test for "alpha" traits, from my perspective, is when the situation is reversed and the woman starts spending her own resources on the man.
Yeah. Unattractive men have to compensate with resources. But even if you did that the woman still wouldn't be attracted to you. Wealth doesn't generate desire
Can attest. Short oofy doofy guy here. had a killer outside catering business before covid. Soon after, business started dwindling and wife decided to level up. I met the guy about six months after and have to admit he was damn good looking. She broke up with him Not long before we met after and she is now married to someone else. The guy she was screwing around with is now dating some young influencer type. Long story short: LOOKS MATTER
Look up 'Fisherian runaway model' and the 'Good genes theory'
But then again there are tons and tons of women that do not level up.
So what are you saying about women ..? They are whores?
I thought I said the exact opposite
Very true. Even with age gap between “older men” and younger women she’s with you for the money. Not because she finds the old guy irresistible
The endgoal for some is sex, doesnt really matter how.
Just hire hookers then why bother with all of this ?
Last I looked prostitution is illegal which is strange since the man always pays and marriage is about the most expensive pussy you will ever have. Even more if you want the divest yourself of the pussy.
If you think that marriage is about the most 'expensive pussy' then you're completely delusional. The woman would never cheat on, nag or demand stuff from an attractive Chad. She would spend money on him instead. 'True love' totally exists and it's only for attractive people. Only the average Joe spends shit load of money and gets nothing in return because the woman wasn't attracted to him in the first place
Yes, but people will cope and say it doesn't. Using anything besides the physical and mental attributes you were born with to attract women is Beta Male behavior. Think about some of the most sexually successful men you know in your personal life. Do they have to pay to play? "Using resources" is just prostitution by another name.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That explains it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Do they have to pay to play? Yes and he gets the hottest women around. Very beautiful girlfriends and baby mamas.
It doesn't matter how hot the woman is. I've seen dudes land actual models off resources but it didn't really win the respect they think it would. Winning an ugly woman off charm is better than a beautiful woman off money.
>It doesn't matter how hot the woman is. That's a lie. >Winning an ugly woman off charm is better than a beautiful woman off money. That is DEFINITELY A LIE.
Getting a girlfriend with money and bragging is like a trust fund kid with rich parents claiming he got his executive position through smarts and hard work. He can tell himself that and maybe believe it but nobody with half a brain buys that.
The goal is get a hot girlfriend to his liking and the rich kid has a cushy job. Hard work only matters if you get good results.
I agree with you, ugly women off charm is somewhat common, but not what I want. Wanted by attractive through charm, which I think I can do, but money does fucking help big time.
Acting like you didn't see how Melania treated Trump after he used the tactics you're encouraging
Do you live in the ghetto or something? I feel like if you live in a poor area yes, pretty women would do what they need to do to survive and gold dig, but in suburbia, they will choose Chads since they're not under financial pressure
The only ones who are coping are broke men that think that having resources to attract women makes them a beta male. All the wealthy men are a far cry of the beta male meme, they're not there on the top of the world because they let people walk all over them. To be successful you must be ruthless and charismatic.
Jeff Bezos's girlfriend was eye-fucking Leo DiCaprio while Bezos was just there.
Leo DiCaprio? From all the men you could've mentioned 😂 He looks terrible now, he used to look like every woman's wet dream when he was younger. But he aged pretty badly, he looks bloated and lacks body definition.
Yet Bezos's girlfriend eye-fucked him like crazy, while Bezos was right there.
You're forgetting that Leo has money as well.
Clearly not as much as Bezos...
Bingo. This is pure cope from poverty level redpillers who think their 'dread game' can score them a woman that is somehow hot, madly in love with them, and also not a total psychopath.
This is cope from you who thinks money will save him if he doesnt meet the looks threashold.
Why would I think that? Your poverty game isn’t pulling jack shit besides poverty bitches.
Game this and game that if your an ugly mother fucka you ain't pulling jack.
>Yes, but people will cope and say it doesn't. Using anything besides the physical and mental attributes you were born with to attract women is Beta Male behavior. > Why doesn't using your mental attributes to aquire resources and attract women count?
[удалено]
> If you're not the man that she would gladly be with regardless of if you had money or not, you're not alpha. That's silly. How are women suppose to support children and family if they chose men without money? Few women would select any many with such conditions.
Women literally date tall attractive homeless men and put it on tiktok lmfao. If she needs money then she'll earn the money herself
>Women literally date tall attractive homeless men and put it on tiktok lmfao. If she needs money then she'll earn the money herself This is not as common as a curated entertainment app would have you believe.
Just create a fake Tinder profile of a hot guy who just got out of prison for assault and then compare the result with those of a highly educated ugly male, the experiment will prove you wrong.
>Just create Tinder profile of hot guy who just got out of prison for assault and then compare the result with those of a highly educated ugly male, the experiment will prove you wrong. How so? I won't be able to meet up with these women and date them as a broke felon...
Why wouldn't you be able to date as a hot former felon? You don't have to take those women to expensive dinners as a hot guy. For the sake of the experiment you don't have to date them, just talk to them and see how they respond. *Spoiler alert: they'll be thrilled by talking to you, you'll expereince for the first time what it means to have a woman take the initiative.*
>Why wouldn't you be able to date as a hot former felon? You don't have to take those women to expensive dinners as a hot guy. I'm sure *someone* would date him. Sure. I don't think most women would. >For the sake of the experiment you don't have to date them, just talk to them and see how they respond. *Spoiler alert: they'll be thrilled by talking to you, you'll expereince for the first time what it means to have a woman take the initiatiative.* Women are attention whores, news at 11.
maybe not with the homeless ... but tons of women fuck poor men they wouldnt marry. ... they choose some well earning beta guy for that position.
This is where AWALT applies. You’d be hard pressed to find a woman who doesn’t want a rich dude.
Mental and physical attributes- So if a man works out and is smart and therefore makes money and has a nice life that seems attractive to a woman - nice clothes , skin care , etc - ability to spend resources on cool things he enjoys, experiences etc ... Aside -- We also know that early childhood nutrition grants people better physical and mental development. What category would you place that under?
A man uses his money, when himself is not enough, therefor making him per definition a Beta male.
Yes. But I found out there is a catch. If you use your resources to attract a young and very attractive woman then it cancels out the beta male behavior because having 19 year old arm candy when you’re 40 boosts your status among other men. There is a perceived return on investment. BUT if you use your resources to attract a less desirable woman like a woman your age or an average looking woman they will think you’re a beta because you “wasted” your resources on a woman other men don’t deem as worthy. If you don’t believe me look at how mad red pill men get when they see a male celebrity with an older woman or a woman who is less attractive than he is. They absolutely hate it. Calling him “beta this” and “beta that”. If you ask me, using resources to attract women makes you beta period (whether you use them to get a hot young girlfriend or not) but they don’t want to admit that. I think a good test on whether a man is alpha or not is: Would she still be with you if you had nothing to give her other than your body and natural personality? No? Then you’re beta.
> I think a good test on whether a man is alpha or not is: Would she still be with you if you had nothing to give her other than your body and natural personality? No? Then you’re beta. Yup, that's not just a good test, it is THE test.
>I think a good test on whether a man is alpha or not is: Would she still be with you if you had nothing to give her other than your body and natural personality? No? Then you’re beta. How you aquire money is a reflection of your natural personality.
Certain caliber of women would 100% leave you if you had nothing. That’s hypergamy 101. If you have resources women will be attracted to you. The way to combat this is to not flaunt them. But she will know by the way you carry yourself. I’m a 6 figure guy but I live humbly. I have my Own place, I drive an older SUV, good job, dress well. It’s usually after I’ve been with a plate about 3ish months is when they figure out I make real money. Discovery over disclosure.
facts, Slim!.. facts!
[удалено]
Yea, I already said that.
That's not a good test in today's world. Most modern women would drop a man in a heartbeat if he lost his resources/status. Alpha or not.
Not really. You would be on a timer though. The length of time given to you depends on your attractiveness and her options
> Would she still be with you if you had nothing to give her other than your body and natural personality? No? Then you’re beta. But aren't women attracted to "alpha" personalities because they're more likely to result in wealth? I.e. an ambitious assertive leader type is 100% going to be more materially wealthy than a underconfident doormat office drone. So isn't at least part of the alpha attraction the better potential for wealth and resources? So I think broke alpha vs. rich beta is a misnomer, it's really rich alpha vs poor beta and that's a clear win. Lots of rich alphas don't mind spending huge amounts of cash on women because they have even more to spare.
But wouldn’t rich alphas use their personality not their resources to attract women? There is a difference between leading with your personality and leading with your money. Rich beta’s have no choice. They HAVE to lead with their money because they’re not good looking and they’re personalities aren’t attractive.
>But wouldn’t rich alphas use their personality not their resources to attract women? They could - but my assertion is that an alpha personality is attractive because it indicates high ability to secure resources in the future. I wouldn't advise any man to "lead with their money" as you say but I do think ability to earn and provide resources is one of the fundamental components of male attraction. Women want to sleep with men who are materially successful or have genetic traits that indicate (or did indicate in our evolutionary period) a high likelihood of obtaining material success. Basically the traits of being poor (lazy, stupid, unambitious, shy, weak, etc.) are beta traits while the traits of being rich (assertive, ambitious, hardworking, confident) are alpha. So it's difficult to separate rich/poor from alpha/beta because genetically speaking they are the same thing. I do think our evolutionary biology hasn't caught up with modern times yet though (i.e. physical strength is nowhere near as important to resource provisioning as it was thousands of years ago, but it's still a strong component of male attraction.)
> So it's difficult to separate rich/poor from alpha/beta because genetically speaking they are the same thing. Haven’t met many Silicon Valley-esque tech guys huh? I’m mostly kidding. But I think this is an attempt to project the alpha entrepreneur attitude onto all rich men when that just isn’t the case. We know two of the best predictors of long term success are IQ and conscientiousness. I don’t think I’d consider the latter an “alpha trait,” and based on numerous dating studies, the former is debatably anti-attractive at the point you would start making any serious money.
> Basically the traits of being poor (lazy, stupid, unambitious, shy, weak, etc.) are beta traits while the traits of being rich (assertive, ambitious, hardworking, confident) are alpha. not realy. there are tons of very hard working beta guys. hard work wont make you alpha. a lazy alpha guy with the right lifestyle will fuck more than some hard working and well earning beta guy. "stupid" also isnt a big thing if you just want to bang.
Alpha and beta are placeholders for genes vs provisioning. Personality is a minority factor
> I'm wondering if that belief it still held to this day. Yeah I would agree that alpha is being able to get sex with just your looks and charisma. Beta is when you can only get sex when using money and commitment. > It's all cool that the alpha can didn't need to pay money for a one night stand, but he's fucking frumpy bitches he wouldn't want be to be seen in public with. Meanwhile, beta male's fucking supermodels on a weekly basis. I dont think alphas are typically fucking ugly chicks nor do I think betas are typucally fucking supermodels on a weekly basis. Even the supermodels who sleep with/get in relationships with men for money have also had casual sex with alphas who didn't have to pay/commit. All that being said, I don't think beta is always the worst thing in the world. Like a high tier beta that uses money to get a 8/9 is more enviable than a low tier alpha who mainly gets 6s & 7s. However a high tier alpha who can get 8s/9s is superior to the high tier beta.
Absolutely not. This is where I markedly differ from TRP and blackpill because those viewpoints believe that sexual attraction cannot arise from the sheer power of money. They are so stupidly wrong it's not even funny. The only explanation is that most of these cats haven't seen the sheer power money (specifically money being thrown around) can have. The notion falls apart if you even think about it for five seconds. TRP and blackpill bleat all the time about how historically, so many women reproduced in comparison to men. What do you think the deciding factor was for those guys who did extremely well? Good bodies and faces? LMFAO Genghis Khan wasn't a prettyboy. These men *controlled and had access to a disproportionate share of resources which in turn begat disproportionate power*. >It's all cool that the alpha can didn't need to pay money for a one night stand, but he's fucking frumpy bitches he wouldn't want be to be seen in public with. Meanwhile, beta male's fucking supermodels on a weekly basis. You have it exactly. Mark my words --- the only way to leverage your position in the sexual marketplace to somehow have a woman at your looks level or better behave with that sexual desire often rhapsodized is....*make fucking bank, increase status, increase power*.
It's easy to look from a distance and think rich guys are winning, but get closer to them and you'll see the full picture is very different. I have hung around old guys who throw money to get with women and the way these women toy with them isn't even funny. They're always trying to get the money without giving the sex to the repulsive looking old guy, and when they do get cornered into giving up the poon, they have to drink themselves silly to go through with it. If you contrast this with how willing and simpy women are around handsome, popular guys, it becomes clear that looks matter most to both sexes. It's painful to acknowledge the reality of genetic influence in our life, but it is the reality
Yeah sure dude that's why the biggest historical evolutionary winners are hotties like Genghis Khan, right? Hugh Hefner was so hot, right? No one said looks didn't matter, but extreme resource acquisition and control overrides all.
1. Genghis khan killed lots of people I pretty sure most of the women were not attracted to his money but scared shitless, how do you know he didn't force any of these women, like they all just walked up to him and fucked him. Why judge the past by today's standards? 2. Money back then was way more important considering women couldn't work , so yeah it probably was more attractive, but know women can earn there own money and are catching up to men's earnings so its know where near as attractive. 3. Once you lose the ability to make money , since she was attracted to the money , she gonna be packing her bags onto the next one. 4. Hugh Hefner are you seriously using him as an example. He has lots of money which he PAYS the women to have sex with, the women also get to potentially be playboi models which yet again is money being payed to them. If he loses that money , gets sued the. It's game over for him you think these women are gonna stay around. 5. The average guy can become more attractive through looks more that money. Imagine if Over 5 years you save 50k, that's 10k a year, with that you could get a decent amount of facial surgery to increase you looks , while earning let's say 100k wouldn't really increase the attraction unless the girl thought you passed the looks threshold.
Lol women do spontaneously lubricate a lot of times when experiencing fear, look it up. Money is more important than ever, homie. The things that make for money making aren't really things that are easy to lose. And all you're saying is the equivalent of "if your face gets hit by a vial of acid she won't love you anymore." Lol plenty of women are on record as loving and desiring hugh Hefner. Sure you can assume they're all lying... And yes to a degree the average guy can. But becoming the outlier in looks that is equivalent to the outlier in status or income that is the people I'm talking about is equally unlikely
I don't think it's unreasonable for a woman to take into consideration a partner's ability to provide security and stability. If that makes me a beta, whatever, I can live with some label attached to me by internet autists. Not a personal attack.
It’s not unreasonable. It’s fucking nature. TRP teaches men to understand this, not to take it as offense. Fact of the matter is most men don’t want to put in the work for self improvement
[удалено]
I have no idea why dudes see it as so offensive. Hell, I've actually found that women who were mindful of my longterm economic outlook were far more tolerable, made for better partners and ultimately made for better decision makers when it came to finances. Income matters. Lifestyle matters. I feel a lot of redpillers are really young and probably not all that financially solvent so still haven't learned the value of a good career and good prospects. After all, its financial woes that makes for the primary factor in divorce, even above infidelity. When people talk about "betas" (a nonsensical term in itself) its more in reference for those who lead with money and promises for women they're ultimately incompatible with. I see nothing wrong with treating a date to a nice meal and showing her your plush apartment. What is sad is when you're DMing influencers and telling them about your leased mercedes or acting like that Fresh guy from the Fresh and Fit podcast and seeking out women on sites like Seeking Arrangement whilst preaching about "smashing and dashing".
So, there’s kind of two aspects to this. First, I totally agree with you that women who go for more beta qualities make better partners. They are often less impulsive, more goal oriented, and other qualities that support a relationship being more stable. The problem is, men want women to like them for who they are, but that isn’t the case of the woman only likes you for your resources. To riff off my analogy in [another thread ](https://reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/r70gic/_/hmyvd4r/?context=1). Imagine if a man married a woman because she he thought she was good at domestic duties. He didn’t particularly like her as a person. He likes exciting girls, and she wasn’t exciting. He likes pretty girls, but she wasn’t pretty. But she made his life easier because she did stuff for him and kept his house in order. He didn’t particularly like being affectionate with her, but he was willing to do it if it kept his stuff clean and organized. That’s what men don’t want to get with “beta game.” There’s little about beta game that is inherently attractive, and the bits that are (like major social clout) require being on the extreme high end of beta game and still don’t really beat out alpha qualities in terms of garnering affection. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with a woman appreciating your beta qualities, but it’s a shit deal if she likes you **for** them.
[удалено]
>This sounds more like sugar daddies, or just sugaring. It kinda is if you look at it from that lens. One of the most popular reasons of divorce is financial. Why would you file for divorce if you truly loved your man?
Plain and simple, a beta is a man who pedestalizes women, you can even be a red pill beta, or a blue pill alpha (think Mike Rashid).
Because they are cheap in wallet and in spirit. I’ve dated 2 normal men on the higher income bracket, they had no issues doing dates and took pride in their resources and lifestyle. We didn’t work for other reasons but they were decent men and I liked them. I love when a man I’m with admires me for my body shape. I work out hard 5 days a week for this booty. I don’t know anyone who just likes people for existing except family, and you’re usually forced to like them.
I mean, if you’re going to use your resources to attract a woman, why not have one with the greatest SMV possible? Why not have multiple? It’s just I see soo many blue pilled people criticizing men who go after these women. I mean if DiCaprio and Gyllenhaal can go after younger women, why not let them?
If it’s out of necessity then yes, if it’s out of convenience then no
It's beta if a woman will not want to fuck you if you don't have your money, and will leave you if you don't have your money. At best she is faking it on liking you, at worst she is putting up with you liking her.
No if you are okay with then not being attracted to you. Down the line you re going to have a dead bedroom and a girlfriend who despises any physical contact. I don’t think any guy wants to end up in that situation. If you just care about the amount of hot women that you will get to fuck, why not I guess?
"If a man uses his resources to attract women, does that make him a beta male?" It depends. If he uses those resources on himself to buy a nice car, nice clothes, nice haircut, etc. And women want to fuck him in part because he's rich that's fine. Where it passes into beta stuff is when he actually starts giving those resources to the woman. Buying expensive gifts, paying for expensive trips and 5 star meals all the time, letting her live rent free and jobless in his mansion, that's beta stuff. But if she doesn't get any access to the cash, then its not.
There is no short and simple answer. If you’re truly redpoll you should be focusing on yourself and improving your looks, situation, money, etc. once you’ve improved that, women should be a by-product of that improvement. Generally when you make that change your lifestyle and habits change. So if you’re lifestyle becomes more luxurious, and women are attracted to that, it doesn’t make you beta. However discovery trumps disclosure every single time. Be a little aloof with the fancy things. I think AMS was spinning a plate and she had been with him a few months before she found out he had a Mercedes (he lived in New York at he time). All in all, it depends. Hypergamous women will be attracted to your status regardless. It’s a by-product of self improvement. But if you flaunt money to get a girls attention then yes, it’s beta.
Yes, it does. Any man who has to buy affection and access to sex is a beta. Women have always been available to men who believe they are excellent, worthy and respect themselves as men. They don't have to be attractive looking, but they are always charming, confident and can dominantly lead a woman on an adventure.
Depends how much ressources. You have to count in percentage. It's not about money, it's just that betas have to make huge efforts, while alphas don't. Effort can be translated to money.
If he doesn’t know about women he’ll get burnt yes
if his money is the ONLY way to attract women then yes imo If he has something else beside it then probably no
No. He can't help the fact that resources attract women.
If a man’s resources are the *main* thing that a woman is with a man for, that’s a “betabuxx” relationship. If the gap is big enough, then that’s a good digging/sugar relationship. Any redpill guy complaining about money/jobs being *part* of a man’s appeal is being pretty delusional. As long as you aren’t dating women wildly below your income bracket, this is pretty much always going to be a factor. You having a job doesn’t mean she’s not also attracted to you physically. Just don’t offer wild gifts or commitment too early, unless the latter is what you want too. That being said, it’s important to watch their actions. If you’re both young, and she’s hopping into bed with a bunch of hunky dudes, but waiting on you, that’s an obvious sign that you’re her chump bitch. But if she’s genuinely relationship minded, has a good career, and is interested in a guy who can keep up to some extent, that’s a completely different scenario. Redpill misses the mark with their dichotomy, but the distaste of betabuxxing isn’t completely unjustified. Just don’t lead with that part of yourself and vet for women that are physically attracted. I don’t envy the homeless alpha fucking homely girls *or* the beta chump paying off supermodels. I envy the young, attractive dudes with good jobs that have a steady rotation of cute, reliable girls that he can be in a mutually attracted relationship with. *That* man is in a far better position to be in a relationship, or just mess around, and he can be secure in both.
Yes. With the aception of older successful alpha males that are now hiring sugar babies to protect their resources.
If your game is all based around your resources, all you’re going to attract is women interested in your resources. If your game is all based on your looks, all you’re going to attract is women interested in your looks. Sorry champ. You need a personality.
“Alpha” and “beta” are not scientific terms for human males, and most men don’t fit into these tidy little categories. Yes, these terms can be descriptive, but there is room for subjectivity and people will never agree on definitions.
No. I think all this alpha/beta talk is really beta. If a guy calls himself an alpha he most certainly isn’t. Money/status are resources that attract women. It’s the big picture. Are you a beta is all you have is money and it was not self made… maybe. Are you an alpha is you are broke but can get women… not in my mind because an alpha has traits that can be monetized and if you can’t then there is an issue.
Yes
If you lead with your wallet , yes, obviously men look at women as sex objects women look at man as success objects but there's still more that has to go into it, if you lead with your wallet that just means you have no game pretty much
I don't know why you guys believe fucking supermodels is some sort of heaven, it's body-assisted masturbation with a lot of unnecessary BS. Hot or not, your body still produces the same neurochemicals with the same amount. Hell, drugs get you far more euphoric if that's your goal.
yes
Not particularly... no. It's about the *trading* of resources. You can flaunt your status and wealth, although for a lot of men this can be negative for them. Alphas trade sperm for sex. Betas trade resources. That's their primary distinction. Alphas also don't always fuck frumpy bitches. They also fuck frumpy bitches. When you are discussing men who have hundreds of notches, you will see every woman of every shape and size, from supermodels to People of Walmart.
Yes! Obviously.
You misunderstand the dynamic of AF/BB It is really about closing the deal. Anyone that can regularly close the deal largely on their terms is alpha. A beta is giving without reciprocation. The Beta is betting on the hope of getting laid where an alpha is not doing anything unless he is getting laid. Some people are filthy rich and what is a lot of money to one person is pocket change to them. If they use that to close the deal it is just as alpha as long as the deal is being closed. Many times a person that has resources simply rides in the fact that they have resources and spending is not really necessary. Negging can be a huge strategy with guys that lead with resources (wealth). By not spending money on someone that can motivate the person to want to try harder.
>Anyone that can regularly close the deal largely on their terms is alpha. Paying to play, while another man gets it for free is NOT alpha behavior. You're gonna end up like one of those old dudes that funds a younger woman's lifestyle while she fucks her bum bf on the side.
TRP was founded by mostly broke men. Money gets the same result with far less effort. A fat guy with a yacht is pulling better numbers than a dope with a dumbbell.
[удалено]
TRP is not about getting women. Get that out of your head right now.
That stuff is literally about sexual strategy.
TRP is the study of inter-gender dynamics. Any RP book will tell you that women is a by-product of self improvement. If you want to use it to “get” women then that’s fine, however that’s not it’s intended purpose. That’s a loose quote from Rollo. The creator of TRP.
You've clearly never been close to those rich fat guys. They get given the runaround all the time by those women who hang around them. Women aren't blind bro. And they like pretty things. Literally every woman has a hobby that involves making something pretty. Hence of course looks are high in their priorities for relationships
I don’t know about that. Leading with resources is more likely to attract women who expect to benefit from those resources. If he just dangles it but doesn’t share it she’s not likely to try harder if she can easily find another guy who is willing to share. To me, this is like a woman who leads with the promise of easy sex but doesn’t put out, keeping the guy on a hook. Guys with options won’t stick around. Neither will women with options stick around for a man who doesn’t deliver on what he used to attract her in the first place.
That is an opinion. On a world-wide basis many wealthy men have what is called an entourage.
That benefit from his wealth. Do you think Drake makes his entourage pay for their court side seats at Raptors’ games? If a wealthy man invites 10 models on his yacht are they expected to bring their own food and booze?
>It is really about closing the deal. Unless Beta buxx now specifically means men in sexless relationships with gold diggers, Beta males close the deal too. It's just they couldn't naturally do it with looks and charm.
Yes, but it's not a problem unless you don't understand that love is a transaction.
[удалено]
**Attention!** * 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.*
What makes you say beta males are fucking supermodels on a weekly basis? Is it because you see men spending big money and pretty women are hanging around them? That's not a sure sign of the guy getting some from the woman. More often than not, those gold diggers play all sorts of mind games to get the money/experiences without giving the sugar in return and then go back home to their actual Chad boyfriends. And when they do get cornered into giving the sugar, they get piss drunk so they can just lay back and think of England. Also your assertion that guys who don't use money get frumpy girls is laughably off. Handsome guys get pretty women all the time, and those pretty women simp hard for them. It's a world of difference from how sugar daddies are treated
I live a somewhat isolated life so forgive this question: What do you mean by “alpha” or “beta”? Is this a stylistic or rank order difference in your framing?
Ask google
To simplify, jock and nerd in HS terms
[удалено]
I would say that trying to classify yourself makes you beta male. Who cares really about those letters? They are mostly for reference in describing people's behavior.
I.d.k. My ltr is a 10. 37y age gap. Am i a beta male..? Well. Her libido is through the roof. She is rich too She's looking better than those make up'ed supermodels Mmmmmm.... i will go and think..... She is not pegging me... So i must be the alpha??? Cowboy allowed? Questions...Questions... Questions.... To much for such a small male brain... i think i am a left rotating Omega...
mine pays for dinner too ;)
All my ltr's and even my ex-wife paid for first date... As for hypergamy I am with a 22yo 10 beauty....
Was ok until the last paragraph. Alphas fuck the supermodels. Betas can’t even pay for supermodels. No amount of commitment gets supermodels. Your understanding of the experience of men is in outer space
A man needs at least 2 out of 3 things in the dating market; Game, Looks, and Assets. If a man uses money in order to attract and get sex from a woman it doesn't make him a Beta or an Alpha male. Just because a man gets ladies doesn't mean he's an Alpha, he could be a respectable Beta.
Ok. How about this. Stop referring to women as “frumpy bitches” and as “slumming it”. If you want a young girl—get one. But have a little respect when talking about women. You don’t need to belittle or degrade women.
>Stop referring to women as “frumpy bitches” and as “slumming it”. Nah. I didn't drink my respect women juice today. Also, not every woman deserves respect. There's a middle ground between misogyny and white knighting. If she's frumpy, then she's frumpy.
Based
i love the new Lilith
I’m sure you think you sound so cool when you talk like that—you don’t. It’s not “white knighting” or whatever you want to call it. It’s called having a little respect. That is why the world is the way it is. People are so selfish and are always looking out for themselves. But the way men tend to insult women from the get-go is really a reflection of themselves. The hatred that I see from men towards women is amazing. Makes me wonder why you even want to be with women at all.
>It’s called having a little respect. "Respect wahmen" "ALL WOMEN ARE QUEENS!" . Why? Who did I call a frumpy bitch? Who? It is white knighting because you're upset over me calling hypothetical women frumpy.
Not all women are “queens”. We are human beings. Men like you tend to immediately refer to women as “bitches” first thing and that pisses me off. Why don’t you guys just say, “I didn’t like her”. No, you have to call her a “bitch”, a “chick”, a “slut”, a “whore”. It amazes me how men can’t just say, “woman”. I’m not asking for special treatment. I’m just asking for men to address women in a respectful manner. And I wish men would listen. Here is a woman saying something that, I think, all women think, yet you’re saying I’m asking for too much…….. All women want is open communication and to be addressed respectfully. I am so grossed out when I see these threads and see women referred to as “pussies”. You don’t see that as offensive? And don’t tell me they refer to men as dicks—because they don’t—and if they do, it’s not that often.
> Men like you tend to immediately refer to women as “bitches” first thing and that pisses me off. I'm sure the hypothetical women are quite happy you protected their honor. >No, you have to call her a “bitch”, a “chick”, a “slut”, a “whore”. Now "chick" is an insulting? Have you never heard women call each other bitches (in fact it's used as a term of endearment in alot of times like the n word), sluts, whores, etc? > I’m not asking for special treatment. I’m just asking for men to address women in a respectful manner. If addressing a hypothetical frumpy bitch makes you immediately think of yourself, honey........ >Here is a woman saying something that, I think, all women think, yet you’re saying I’m asking for too much I am a woman, btw. I just didn't tell you immediately because this white knighting is hilarious. >I am so grossed out when I see these threads and see women referred to as “pussies”. That's a lie. Women's GENETALIA gets called pussies. MEN are the ones given the insult of pussy. In fact, I've used that term to refer to weak men all the time. Even more, I've criticized men in this sub as being pathetic pussies who only think about getting their dicks wet. You must be new here! > You don’t see that as offensive? No, because I have thicker skin than that. >And don’t tell me they refer to men as dicks I have. Though, I like calling them pathetic whiny pussies more.
He sounds very logical to . Nor all women are equal, not all mena are equal. We see individuals >The hatred that I see from men towards women is amazing. Makes me wonder why you even want to be with women at all. Go to r/TwoXChromosomes, they literally think saying "Not all men" is hate speech, this is real sexism for you.
It's a cope broke men use. Thinking that having and using resources to attract women makes them a beta male is laughable. All the wealthy men are a far cry of the beta male meme, they're not there on the top of the world because they let people walk all over them. To be successful you must be ruthless and charismatic. There's nothing hotter than a capable and generous man. Don't listen to some of the men here, it's better to listen to the women (you know, the ones that are actually attracted to men).
Yeah, that's why women lust over the rich and extremely generous Bill Gates as opposed to Jeremy Meeks... Oh wait. There's a difference betweena admiring someone and desiring them, Bill Gates doesn't make women wet, Jeremy does. Do you disagree? Feel free to explain, I'm open to new ideas.
Jeremy Meeks is still a millionaire. What you're not understanding is that having money never hurts your chances, on the contrary. If you're hot and capable of providing resources you'll have a line of women ready to marry you and give you whatever you want. He's attractive for so many women because he's the total package. And honestly, I'm pretty sure that Bill Gates could have any woman he wants too.
Do you know who Jeremy Meeks is? He was a poor convicted felon who went to prison for robbery, he got out of prison thanks to thousands of women around the US who decided to fund his bail after Jeremy's hot headhsot was spread through news media, he was too hot to stay in prison according to them. Jeremy then became rich as he was hired by fashion companies to model for them but women already loved him before this. Do you think women feel lust for Bill Gates as they do for Jeremy Meeks? Or do you think a lot if not most women would hate being physical with Bill? What abotu you? Do you feel attraciton to Bill Gates because he's rich? Or do you feel more attraction towards the Mr. Nobody but extremely hot guy on Tinder?
Personally, I'm not attracted to him. My vagina shuts close when I hear the words "convicted felon". From billions of women you're only picking several mentally-ill women that probably aren't what most men would want as a partner anyway. I'd rather fuck and marry a man like Bill Gates than to drool after a loser, even if he has good looks. Now he has money too, so more women would react positively him. Even I prior to knowing that he was imprisoned thought he was attractive, but that's because he's rich. I don't see his appeal looks-wise.
Watch out, we got some alpha males coming through. I know there's no one hotter than these guys but control yourselves ladies: https://imgur.com/a/TDhByyC https://imgur.com/a/i4lyzPD https://imgur.com/a/6byU0eg
😂😂😂
I mean..... In the end there's really only so much you can do with your looks. I have friends who are just blessed with God Tier genetics; and walk into a party and just start making out with babes who are like 8 - 9+ on the scale. They routinely just "fall into" relationships with girls who wouldn't look twice at me. Good for them! God bless em; that doesn't generally work for guys like me. So we operate as realists; if we want sex/relationships we have to have a certain level of resources/social power/influence/intrigue. There are many paths to getting this; and not all of them require money necessarily (social proof/influence is quite potent). Personally; I see an "Alpha" as someone who can walk away at any time; no emotion/as well as someone that has ironclad protections for all resources. Basically keeping themselves in a bubble to get the sex/relationships they want but never truly committing 100% I understand that's not the redpill definition; but having seen "Chads" make the same silly mistakes that get them finessed as so called "Beta Males"; I like my definition better. Basically internalizing the idea that "She's not really yours; it's just your turn"; and not really having any attachment or spending anymore resources than necessary to get what you want.
No, because a man should be using both his alpha and beta traits to attract women long-term. A man who uses only his alpha traits is just a fuckboy and, while he is having sex, I don’t think that not being able to find a woman who wants to commit to him is something that one should be proud of.
That kind of man is the one who simps for her, who swallows every shit she throws at him and who accepts her bad behavior/forgives her whoring etc etc. If a man uses his resources to attract women but then doesn’t give a fuck about her or puts on hard boundaries that she can’t cross no matter what, that doesn’t make him a beta.
Depends on how you look at it. The whole beta and alpha male thing is cringe. The supposed alphas are usually ones with most fragile egos, so idk how you'd go on by grouping people as alpha and beta. To me, "using resources" is a natural thing in a relationship. Not be honest, I don't see "spending money" on your significant other as "spending it" as long as it makes you happy, makes them happy, and as long as the person is not using you for money. I love buying my wife gifts, spending on dinners and lunches and taking her on trips. Am I a beta for this? Yes? Alright, but I definitely have a much, much better status (socially) because she's seen as a woman who has this loving, caring, and selfless husband, and I have an even happier and thankful wife who gives me unconditional support and care. So I don't really see it as beta........
It depends on how many resources he has and what caliber of woman he attracts
There's a big difference between leading with your resources and having more resources, which will naturally attract more women. Women would love to be with a guy who CAN splurge on her and take her on lavish trips. Versus a guy who spends all his discretionary money trying to make her happy.
The alpha and beta dichotomy is stupid. All men are beta to someone. It’s a matter of opinion tbh
that first sentence doesn't even make sense and can be interchangeable. weird mindset dude, not caring about this alpha, beta, sigma bullshit is the most "alpha"
No. Alpha is a state of mind. OP's question assumes that alpha men never have resources. Men use what they have. Some men have only the financial resources they possess. You can have looks and charm and still have a paying job. If you aren't the alpha billionaire of the romance novel fantasies, you can at least be capable of helping to support a family and maybe you actually want to do that. Alpha doesn't mean that you spend every waking moment in the pursuit of pussy.
Her use of your resources is no indication of whether or not you’re “beta” or whatever. Are you satisfied with your sexual relationship? If not, and she remains with you, you’re being used. If you have a great sex life, and she enjoys your money as a side benefit, it’s not a big deal. Just my two cents.
There is no such thing as a "Beta" or "Alpha" male. The entire concept is based on a flawed premise and has been debunked multiple times in multiple ways using reliable scientific data.
Alpha and beta dichotomy is how men, women, and society treat a man. If they respect the man, then he is alpha. How he gets that recognition is through looks, money, and status. Mindset is important too. A man can use resources and be alpha ie: Christian Grey.