45
46

Must all women go for alphas? Do women "get what they pay for" when choosing alphas over betas, and vice versa? (self.asktrp)

submitted by bravestlittletoaster

I'm an open-minded woman (NOT a troll, I swear!). Please be gentle, I really just want to know more about this outlook- I first started looking at TRP because it had been mentioned negatively in other subreddits, but, from what I saw, it doesn't actually seem that bad. In fact, I find myself almost agreeing with some of the things you say.

I've noticed one of the big things that TRP talks about is Alpha vs. Beta and how women want the Alpha, the chase, etc. So the Alpha is the tough guy, the "bad guy", the guy who's a bit of a jerk but in a sexy way, right? Yeah. I'd definitely agree that's what a lot of girls go for. And I've always thought that girls who go for that type get what they pay for. You can't go for a guy because he's a sexy-jerk and then expect him to be secretly a nice guy or become shocked when he cheats or suddenly loses interest. I think this is something that irritates me about many women in my gender: they pass over betas for their beta-ness, but want alphas to be secretly betas too or are surprised when an alpha acts like an alpha.

That said, is there no place for betas? I'm dating and am madly in love with a super beta guy. When I first met him, he was an older virgin, shy/awkward but really nice- just bad with talking to women. I was instantly smitten and continue to find his beta-ness charming. Additionally, I think because he's a beta, he's a much better S.O. for me than many more "alpha" men would be (i.e. he's thoughtful and sensitive to my feelings). I just couldn't imagine going for an Alpha anyway- Does that mean there's something wrong with me, or do I just not fit in the TRP view?

Could TRP agree that women get what they pay for in terms of Alpha vs. Beta? Or does it hold more strongly to the view that Alphas > Betas?

Thanks so much for your time. I hope I haven't offended anyone. Please be gentle with me. I really do mean well- I just want to understand your perspective more; I might even agree with it.

edit: Thank you so much for all the responses on here. I have a much better understanding of TRP and actually really agree with a lot of your points. I also now understand that the hating-women stereotype on reddit completely misses the point you're actually trying to make.


[–]TRP Vanguardnicethingyoucanthave 47 points48 points  (6 children)

Alpha literally just means "most attractive." And "attractive" is defined as whatever women want it to be. If women were fucking math majors, then TRP would say things like, "zomg he got 1600 on his SATs! So Alpha!"

...and, here's the really crucial bit: math majors would then start acting like jerks.

See, it's not being a jerk that makes a guy attractive. It's that getting what you want easily and often tends to spoil you. When people say that women like jerks, they're confusing cause and effect.

It's like saying that being a douchebag makes someone rich. That's backwards. The truth is, being spoiled and rich often makes a person grow up to be an entitled douchebag.

Women like whatever they like, as is their prerogative. But the reason they like certain things comes down to very old instincts. Certain behaviors (I don't mean being a jerk, but being dominant for example) conferred selective advantage.

There is variation in every generation, of course. There are indeed women out there who love the meek math major. The core blue-pill lie is to point to those outlier women as proof that the majority of women's preferences aren't really a majority. I honestly don't know why they do that.

On the flip side, there are men who start thinking about this stuff and conclude, "ah ha! I'll just be a jerk!" They are missing the truth too.

That said, there are certainly women who are now trained to associate "jerk" with "alpha" - in the same way that Pavlov conditioned dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell. Nonetheless, the underlying instinct was to salivate for food. Just as the underlying instinct in (the majority of women) is to figuratively salivate over certain behaviors in men.

Those men, finding that they can get away with being jerks, often become jerks. So it's possible that women are conditioned to that. Nonetheless, your best bet is to offer food - not ring the bell. Ringing the bell will get a reaction from a subset of individuals, namely those that are conditioned to it. But every dog loves food.

[–]bravestlittletoaster[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Very well said. Thank you! I don't want to copy pasta from something I said elsewhere here, but I completely agree with your cause-and-effect correlation.

What do you think about studies that show that women have a broader/more varied taste in men than men do in women?

edit: Sorry!!! I'm trying to find the source!

edit 2: Here you go: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/wfu-ra062609.php

[–]SocialDarwinist 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Female attractiveness is based almost exclusively on appearance. Your boob and hip size and ratios tell us at a glance your suitability for breeding. Good complexion is a sign of healthy chemical balance. I assure you that men can find a broad range of attractive women throughout the world.

Male attractiveness is based on appearance, wealth, social status, physical strength, and a variety of other traits that demonstrate that he his a good provider/protector.

It seems like women have a broader view of attractiveness, because there are more criteria to evaluate, but for men, the question comes down to "How likely is this woman to provide healthy babies" and for women, the question is "How likely is this man to provide exceptional children."

Men have it easy, we can look at you and tell if you're suitable for us. Women have to evaluate more subtle criteria, which is why they shit test about money and control. A guy can fake having money or social standing, which is the basis of "game", but that's no different than a woman faking her fertility indicators with boob jobs and liposuction.

[–]bravestlittletoaster[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Another very good point! Thank you so much!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I wasn't such a man, this comment would've brought tears to my eyes. Beautiful.

[–]ballahcareum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This has cleared up a huge misunderstanding for me. Very well written post!

[–]radicaIcentrist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Damn dude, this post was on point. I'd give you gold if I believed in giving my money to reddit lol

[–]SocialDarwinist 19 points20 points  (6 children)

The problem may just be with your working definition of "Alpha". A lot of RP stuff gets framed by the pickup artists, it seems like in that culture, anyone who isn't a "bro" isn't an alpha.

Women will ALWAYS want someone better than them. It's nature's way of making sure that you produce the best babies possible and that men perform to their best in order to father the most children. In your case, all you've really said is that your boyfriend is older than you. From that I can gather that he probably has more money than you and you view him as a potentially good provider. In your eyes, he's got some alpha traits.

Alpha guys don't have to be jerks. They just can't be doormats. Have you ever listened to the radio show "This American Life" with Ira Glass? The guy comes across as "beta" to the core. He's soft spoken, talks about touchy-feely stuff, has a little bit of a lisp, wears horn rim glasses, and so on... but still, the guy is actually what we call "Alpha as fuck". He has his own radio show where he talks to millions of people, manages a team of reporters, and creates a well-produced product consistently, and makes a bunch of money doing it.

Alpha is not a binary "is he a jerk or not" thing. It's a collection of traits (appearance, wealth, education, humor, political power, etc.) that set a man apart from others.

A guy can be shy when talking to girls, but if he drives a Lamborghini they will find him and talk to him. A guy can grab a six-string and bellow out a mournful tune about some lost love, if he does it on a stage in front of 100,000 people he's going to have a groupie sucking his prick after the show. A guy can live in his parent's basement, if he's a gym rat that looks like an Adonis he's still going to be able to get laid.

TL;DR There are a lot of "Alpha" traits that pull tail. Being a "jerk" is just one of the shortcuts.

[–]CornFlakesR1337 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This subreddit is on fucking fire today because of quality comments like these.

[–]radicaIcentrist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A guy can live in his parent's basement, if he's a gym rat that looks like an Adonis he's still going to be able to get laid.

gonna have to disagree with you on this one, based on my own experience

I wouldn't describe myself as a gym rat or Adonis but my physique is at least one standard deviation above the average for males my age, and my face is above average in attractiveness as well, yet I'm nowhere near drowning in it... I'm also not living in my parent's basement but I'm broke and my place is a shithole. There may be factors at play too but I'm just saying that looks alone do not pussy guarantee.

[–]bravestlittletoaster[S] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

In your case, all you've really said is that your boyfriend is older than you. From that I can gather that he probably has more money than you and you view him as a potentially good provider. In your eyes, he's got some alpha traits.

Just to clarify: When I said he was an "older virgin", I meant he was a virgin at an age older than his peers usually considered acceptable (i.e. he wasn't 17 or something). He also going for a less high-paid career than my own. He's definitely not a provider as you describe.

But I don't really need a provider anyway. I've always made my own money. What I do need is someone who can help take care of things at home (cooking dinner, tidying, taking care of kids).

[–]SocialDarwinist 11 points12 points  (2 children)

TBH, the "I don't need a provider" attitude is masculine trait and a display of low value in women. Income does not impress men in the way it impresses women.

Wanting a man who will "cook dinner, tidy, and taking care of kids" tells me that you want to switch the gender roles and find a man you can wife. About 15% of women fall into the Sheryl Sandberg camp, you may be one of them. You want to dominate the relationship, which is fine, but you run the risk of getting into a relationship where the man's alpha traits improve over time, and your sexual value (which is based primarily on your appearance) decreases. At that point he's going to leave or be miserable for the rest of his life.

Then again, the two of you may be perfectly happy. Best of luck.

[–]ForYourSorrows 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Whats the other side of that? If a man's alpha traits improve over time, and a womans sexual value decreases, then what keeps a relationship together in the traditional relationship roles?

[–]SocialDarwinist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cooking, cleaning, and child-rearing. Guys place value on these services and keep a woman who does them.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (11 children)

the guy who's a bit of a jerk but in a sexy way, right?

Remember that the women say what's sexy, most of the time just being a jerk gets you laid.

they pass over betas for their beta-ness, but want alphas to be secretly betas too or are surprised when an alpha acts like an alpha.

They want to be secure without having to make any effort, the don't want to make betas out of their alphas, they want to control the relationship to stop feeling that they are powerless and prone to be dumped. Ironically when they are in power and control of a relationship they lose all interest. If you don't allow them to overpower you they feel like they have to keep chasing for a while, after some time they might just accept that they are not leading and happily follow you.

I was instantly smitten and continue to find his beta-ness charming.

What do you define as beta? is he trying to get up your skirt with favors? he is your girlfriend with a penis? He puts up with any of your random shit-tests?

Could TRP agree that women get what they pay for in terms of Alpha vs. Beta?

I disagree, you seem to think that all alphas must be cheating assholes, there are plenty of dudes who are alpha ( at least in attitude) and are overall good and loyal to their partners and wives. The main difference is that an alpha will not put with the shit that most women do nowadays, they will happily walk away after some annoying shit-tests.

[–]bravestlittletoaster[S] 7 points8 points  (10 children)

What do you define as beta?

So is there a difference between "alpha/beta amongst other men/people", "alpha/beta in pursuit of women" and "alpha/beta in relationships"? Because when I was talking about my SO as a "beta", I meant in the first and second respect.

I found his beta-esque shyness/awkwardness attractive. The whole "gah I don't know how to talk to girls" thing was really adorable- but this was all in the context of someone who was actually really funny/sweet/interesting. He just couldn't get up the courage to ask me out- there was no chase involved, but that didn't really bother me. I think the way he approached sex in the early days was also quite beta. I know now that he's very sexual, but in the early days, he was the one slowing things down, making sure I was comfortable and trying to establish a friendship/relationship first. I think our relationship is more or less egalitarian, although if anything makes it unequal, it's the fact that he feels this (what I'd call) semi-beta-esque need to take care of me (not in a caveman-protective way, but in a make-you-soup-when-you're-ill and give-backrubs-on-bad-days way), which I don't really feel like I actually need.

Ironically when they are in power and control of a relationship they lose all interest.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, or at least I haven't ever known this to be true in any of my relationships. It's certainly not true in my current one. I'm definitely not subservient or being led or fighting to lead in my relationship, but I am very happy.

By the way, thank you so much for taking the time to respond to my question! I really appreciate your insight!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

semi-beta-esque need to take care of me (not in a caveman-protective way, but in a make-you-soup-when-you're-ill and give-backrubs-on-bad-days way)

I think that's pretty reasonable given that you are in a LTR.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, or at least I haven't ever known this to be true in any of my relationships. It's certainly not true in my current one. I'm definitely not subservient or being led or fighting to lead in my relationship

I wish I could believe you but women shit-test all the time, think of everytime you requested something that your SO had to do something extremely inconvenient for him in order to please you, that time you questioned his judgement for some vague feeling or that time. . These kind of things that most (specially princess-wannabe) girls do nowadays are fights for power, these things often are exhausting things to do and most men who comply to that kind of shit see themselves slowly transformed into a doormat. Perhaps he answered those moments with enough character to pass to your eyes as a fit, confident partner.

I'm not sure if I'm adequate to talk about the RP way, since I'm kinda on my own way here ( not in the MGTOW way either) . But I've noted that every single couple I know there is a balance of power. Sometimes both participants are oblivious to that fact, but I think that earlier it came naturally as "having a spine", but I'll try to explain. (Keep in mind that I'm not a native english speaker)

As far as I have seen in most relationships (most of the time unhealthy ones), there is a feeling that the guy "is lucky" to have a girl and he has to bend over backwards to please her. So a man actually has not only to be: a provider, empathic, nurturing, caring, attentive, try to not become fat and bald on the other hand women aren't expected to do a single thing. Most of the relationships I have seen to fit in this description end up with an angry, desperate guy, who has let himself go, is unnattractive, insecure and frustrated of all kind of shit that he has to put up with. Shit usually hits the fan when the woman dumps the beta chump for someone fresh (an alpha or just a younger beta).

I feel like the red pill is an answer to this common archetype, while unpopular many of these "mysognistic things" like not putting up with entitled requests were passed generation through generation by fathers ( a figure that now it's lacking). Many of these things build up attraction for obvious reasons, women love confident men not doormats, most women prefer more healthy and strong partners, most girls will lose respect for a whiny guy. I think the whole RP movement is just "manning up" and cultivating aspects of masculinity that have been left behind for more "feminine" ways.

Edit: added stuff;

[–]bravestlittletoaster[S] 6 points7 points  (8 children)

I wish I could believe you but women shit-test all the time, think of everytime you requested something that your SO had to do something extremely inconvenient for him in order to please you, that time you questioned his judgement for some vague feeling or that time.

I really can't think of a time when I consciously "tested" my boyfriend to see if he was worthy. If I'm guilty of asking him to do anything, it's because, like everyone, man or woman, I'm lazy and it's better when someone else does it. That said, I return the favour with these kinds of things. I also try not to ask for things that are unreasonable because I know he'd do them for me happily and I don't want to take advantage. I can see how, if he were in a relationship with someone else, that it would be easy for what you're describing to happen. That said, I think it's possible for a woman to appreciate her beta-man without taking advantage of him.

So a man actually has not only to be: a provider, empathic, nurturing, caring, attentive, try to not become fat and bald on the other hand women aren't expected to do a single thing.

From what I gather from /r/redpillwomen, isn't part of the whole TRP thing that women should reclaim the subordinate role in the household and allow men to make decisions for them? So isn't men-doing-everything-and-women-just-taking what TRP promotes? Can you explain this aspect at all, or is it a RP-Women adaption? I find it the hardest to understand.

P.S. Your English is fab for a non-native speaker. Would've never known if you hadn't said so!

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (7 children)

That said, I think it's possible for a woman to appreciate her beta-man without taking advantage of him.

Indeed it is, as it is for a man to appreciate his woman and not cheating on her at the first chance. But it goes against most of what the feminist culture stands for, as it is a struggle for power.

So isn't men-doing-everything-and-women-just-taking what TRP promotes?

No.

Being subordinate in a relationship doesn't mean don't making any choices or doing nothing at all. It means be willing to make things easier for your significant other, it means to be supportive, it means to be grateful for things that your partner does for you, it means to be respectful of your partner. It means not to belittle your partner nor held him to a different standard than you held yourself. It also means counting on him to protect you and take care for you but also not stopping him from being who he is and remembering that he does need his space and needs covered. It means reminding yourself that you aren't the center of his universe.

What RPWomen should go for, is to remind girls that they aren't the perfect little princesses that popular media tells them to be. That if they want to be treated like ladies they have to work to become ladies, and that every action in the real world has a real consequence.

[–]bravestlittletoaster[S] 1 point2 points  (6 children)

What RPWomen should go for, is to remind girls that they aren't the perfect little princesses that popular media tells them to be. That if they want to be treated like ladies they have to work to become ladies, and that every action in the real world has a real consequence.

That whole princess thing has always really annoyed me- Jewellery commercials are the absolute worst with this. Blech! This might be way off, but what you're describing here and above sounds almost like a kind of egalitarianism in a relationship. This almost seems compatible with egalitarian feminism. Would an RPWoman or RPMan be happy with a completely equal relationship- one in which both partners "bring home the bacon", provide for childcare equally and care for and respect each other equally? Or must there still be some gender roles?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (4 children)

I'm not a fan of women working, not because I think they shouldn't but because I think they got deceived. I think that women in the workforce was a foul play to reduce the overall wages. Women working only has brought more distress and absence in families, men and women nowadays work more only to earn the half that our fathers earned, childs grow up in nurseries taken care by complete strangers, they grow with anxiety issues, and all kinds of personality disorders.

I think however women should work if they want to, but assume the consequences that it will have in their potential family life. Time is scarce for women to make a family, and most men don't give a rat ass about their income when searching for a mate.

I think traditional gender roles are way better as they could make shine the best aspects of both women and men. Men would be made stronger by enduring hardships. Women became more nurturing and attentive to take care of children.

Egalitarian feminism does not exist widespread because men and women want different things from life. Most women I know that have fullfilled the "egalitarian feminist" ideal are now unmarried and unwanted, and wondering why they will have to froze an egg in the hopes of having a child. They lived a man's life, but they don't know what to do with the consequences. That's because feminism doesn't fullfill a straight's girl desires from life, it's great for WGTOW and lesbians, but is poisonous when it comes near family dynamics.

[–]bravestlittletoaster[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Meh, I've never put much in the there-has-to-be-a-parent-at-home. I had a babysitter after school every day growing up, and I don't think it had much of an impact on my childhood or on my or my sisters' behaviour. I saw my parents in the evenings and I think the fact that they weren't there from 3PM-6PM made me appreciate the time I had with my parents even more. It also meant we could live more comfortably on both salaries.

Would you support a woman working while the husband stays at home with the kids? Especially if the mother makes more money and the father is better with the kids?

I think I would find stay-at-home motherhood stifling. I love work!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you support a woman working while the husband stays at home with the kids? Especially if the mother makes more money and the father is better with the kids?

In the real world(tm) the guy would end up deppressed become unattractive and the girl would dump him and get herself a better man.

[–]FinnianWhitefir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like to armchair psychologist too much, but let me compare something here... You said that you had a babysitter and less time with your parents and it didn't affect you much. You also claim that you would find stay-at-home motherhood stifling, which goes against the vast majority of your gender. You claim you don't enjoy powerful dominant males and prefer powerless males, which goes against the vast majority of your gender.

What if that lack of attachment and attention from your parents left you needing to be powerful and in control (I.E. the provider) and wanting control over your S.O. (I.E. date less powerful men). If we remove "jerk" from alpha, what would be your issue with dating a powerful, dominant, successful attractive man who also took your opinions seriously?

[–]caxica -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Reduced real wages versus our fathers' and grandfathers' generations are more due to the loss of the manufacturing base in our country to places like Mexico and China where the labor market has been much cheaper historically. However this is changing somewhat and manufacturing jobs are coming back to the US albeit at lower wages than our immediate forefathers would have accepted.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This might be way off, but what you're describing here and above sounds almost like a kind of egalitarianism in a relationship

I noticed that you might have misunderstood what I said, I mean "work to become ladies" means working on themselves, having good manners, be appreciative, supportive, etc.

[–]1likechoklit4choklit 4 points5 points  (2 children)

A lot of red pill theory applies to folks in late teens/early twenties. It doesn't account for gay or bisexual folks. It is downright rapey if they are into bdsm and don't respect boundaries. The thing is, people are attracted to all of the traits that you talk about. An assertive man will have more sexual success, particularly if he is honest about his intentions: it gives women the autonomy to choose whether or not to engage with him. The romanticization of beta-romance sucks in real life for women because the dude is being dishonest about his intentions (he wants to bone) while talking about these high minded cultural touch stones (devotion, love, etc). Assuming a beta man is honest, however: he has traits that hit women right in the libido: he entertains her as a fellow human being, not pussymeat, he believes her if she has had a sexual assault, he expresses feeling that aren't lust or anger.

That said, human dynamics need to have some ebb and flow. Assertive guy is sick, he wants human caring. Beta guy still needs to compete for a job.

Finally, TRP generalizes about women, but it is only accurate for young, non-self-reflective, entitled women. It begins with that as an assumption, and that is why it is so effective in the younger years of life. According to TRP, I'm aberrant because I would fuck the shit out of older past the prime single mothers. Like somehow their sexual value is decreased because they 1.)successfully reproduced and 2.) have 10-15 years on a virginal post adolescent. And for those women TRP breaks down, because in almost every case, they don't want a long term partner to "trap," they want a good old fashion prolonged orgasm with someone they can trust will value it.

And I think that it is important to turn your question back on yourself. Why are you attracted to the innocent guffaw of a man? Do you like the doting? Do you enjoy the power dynamic of being the tutor?

If a fit young man with obvious control of his self walked up to you at a bar, started small talk, and invited you to some fun after-bar activity (hookah, jazz club, etc.), how long would you consider it? If you don't like that scenario as much as this, perhaps you are just a hypo-dominant: are you more likely to look at the sharp dressed innocent mormon 18 year old on your doorstep as a sexual opportunity?

The other dynamic about beta men that you are likely to enjoy is the nearly assured monogamy. No worries about your beta guy being efficient enough to bone behind your back. That is a type of valuable security, I'm not judging if you enjoy that. Who the fuck wouldn't enjoy a guarantee on fidelity?

[–]bravestlittletoaster[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wow. This is such an amazing answer and has given me so much to think about.

The assured monogamy is definitely a plus and you're right, I probably like the power dynamic. I suppose, though, that mostly I appreciate that there is something closer to a level playing field with a beta male. There's nothing inherently unattractive about the fit young man scenario, but, when I've experienced this in real life, it often feels somewhat sexually threatening (not in a rapey way, exactly, but more in the way that I know what he wants and he's going to call the shots to get us there. I adore sex, but something about the alpha males makes it intimidating). I've also felt safer sleeping with the beta males- even in non-committed relationships- because there's more of an assumption that, if things go badly, STD or otherwise, he's more likely to be supportive.

[–]caxica -1 points0 points  (0 children)

According to TRP, I'm aberrant because I would fuck the shit out of older past the prime single mothers.

Thanks for bringing this up. I generally prefer younger girls sexually but I'll be damned if there aren't some smoking 40 year olds out there who I would love to dick down. TRP acts as if women lose all sexual value after like 27

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Simplicity at its finest; are you hot? Are you attractive for the general public? I don't expect an answer to the question because I would never get a completely honest answer if you aren't. Less attractive women settle way easier, you aren't a target to power males. You know what you have is safe and he's probably no top choice beef either. Complacently accepting of each other keeps you both safe.

I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time I was, but I dont think I am.

[–]zetabetafeta 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"most women in my gender"

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 0 points1 point  (6 children)

There is nothing wrong with you and you fit into the TRP-view but don't realize and/or acknowledge it.

Give this a read: http://therationalmale.com/2011/08/23/schedules-of-mating/

It would be interesting to know how old you are btw.

[–]bravestlittletoaster[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

I think I can say that I subscribe to some of the observations of TRP, but I don't know if I'm on board with the conclusions. I think I could agree that most women are biologically drawn to the alpha, but, that considered, I don't think they should necessarily try to go for the alpha or that the alpha is the best kind of guy in a LTR. I'm also really opposed to the idea of assuming the subordinate role in the relationship, particularly since my SO is not a "typical male". I totally agree that, at least in getting a guy into a relationship, women often have to be a "gatekeeper of sex", but once you're in the relationship- at least in mine- I don't think that kind of relationship has to continue.

And I'm 22.

Thanks for the article by the way! Very interesting- especially the Good Dad vs. Good Genes bit!

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 1 point2 points  (3 children)

You assume, that it is a concious decision, while TRP-view would say it is not at all since mating is a program running in all of us with different parameters and routines for male and female.

There actually is nothing wrong in you being attracted to a possible good provider as your SO may be. But TRP would say, that you would upgrade if you are given the chance to. Read about hypergamy.

Alpha behaviour simply communicates, that a male is higher in status since he can "afford" to behave the way refered to as being an asshole, because he's got more options than this one to mate.

That is what comes into play when talking about the pick-up-community, where a man will copy these behaviours to cloak himself as being an alpha male, in the beginning (fake it til you make it).

So basically "taking the red pill" would mean to accept it as a fact that there are things driving you, that are behind your control and that denying these facts result in unhappiness because your conciusness and subconciousness are not consonant.

But it also includes, that you acknowledge, that women ultimately want an alpha male with beta (provider) traits, which sadly is a unicorn.

You may like to head over to our sisters at /r/RedPillWomen/ and read a little bit of their stuff too.

[–]bravestlittletoaster[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Alpha behaviour simply communicates, that a male is higher in status since he can "afford" to behave the way refered to as being an asshole, because he's got more options than this one to mate.

I completely agree. This is literally what I have always said about the "jerk" type- there's a reason they're usually stereotypically good-looking (muscular physique, etc.). If women want "hot" guys to be nicer, they should stop sleeping with the ones that treat them like shit.

TRP would say, that you would upgrade if you are given the chance to.

I hope this isn't true :( I can't imagine a possible upgrade! I've read some stuff at /r/RedPillWomen, and some of it's great, but I also get the feeling that their definition of "alpha" entails that I would need to be a beta in my relationship, and I just don't think that would ever suit me.

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

that I would need to be a beta in my relationship, and I just don't think that would ever suit me.

Why think of it in this way? Think of it as being the alpha female of a alpha male. King and Queen, you know?

TRP likes to refere to it as captain and 1st mate, meaning that you only surrender to your SO leading the relationship. But this implies that he is capable in doing so. If you search in yourself deep enough you will find that you ultimately want a man, that tells you what to do, but who you will want to listen to, because you admire him and his way of making decisions and taking actions, because you think he is "better" than you, without downgrading yourself to being less important.

It's in no way a master and slave relationship. If a Red Piller is interested in a LTR he will look for qualities in a woman. Being submissive is only one of them and doesn't mean he wants a weak person. He wants a queen he can regard as being worthy to be treated as queen and that includes being strong minded.

And don't forget that you will constantly test him on his qualities, if he still is alpha. If youwant to, or not.

That is btw one aspect of the pill we men have to take. That there is no rest, even not if we have found "our unicorn". We will always have to fight even the smallest fights to maintain where we are and keep the relationship healthy and running. It is our responsibility and if it fails there is none to blame but ourself and WE have failed.

[–]1likechoklit4choklit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you want a compelling alternative explanation for human mating habits, the book "sex at dawn" is pretty illuminating.

[–]xiko 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Serious question. Are you on the pill?

[–]bravestlittletoaster[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Interesting question- No. I'm not. Why?

Is there a connection between being on the pill and attraction to beta males?

edit: Actually, I went on the pill about six months in to our relationship, but went off it about a year ago, as it was causing migraines.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there a connection between being on the pill and attraction to beta males? Yes -- personal experience

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Are you on birth control? It directly effects your hormones and WILL effect what you find attractive. My first wife got off birth control and almost immediately found she was not attracted to the beta qualities I had been exhibiting. EDIT--Nevermind found the answer below (no)

[–]bravestlittletoaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was not on birth control when I met my SO, but did go on it for a little while, though I'm off it now. I think the birth control actually made me less attracted to him, not more, but that could be because the pill totally killed my libido.

I'm sorry about your wife though. I hope everything's ok!

[–]ohsweetword 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think people simplify what being an Alpha means. It doesn't always mean being a jerk, or a jock, or a bad boy. Those are just easy and quick examples that we can see every day.

TRP extends into long term relationships, though that's rarely covered here. Being Alpha means having control. Over your life, your body, your money, and your woman and family.

A real Alpha will out-preform the "jock", the "badboy" or the "jerk" every time.

Your "Beta" might not be a beta at all. But it's hard to say with the very little bits of information you have given. It depends on a lot of things like age, economics, and other factors. It also matters how old you are and things like that.

[–]randarrow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most of these responses are good. I want to add that there is a perception that although some women will marry beta men, they will not stand by them. Would you stand by him if your kids enter school? If your kids graduate? If he loses his job? If he or you get sick or become sterile? If you meet your dream man?

Perception here is that not only will women outside of conservative social environments or advanced age not stand by him, that they will try to destroy him as they leave.

IE, can you avoid hypergamy and monkey branching?

[–]FortunateBum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whatever you do in life, NEVER have this conversation with him.

That said, women get the highest-status guy they can attract. Men get the hottest woman they can afford. Simple economics.

[–]pokemonlvr 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Just wanted to say: Thank you for approaching such a controversial subreddit with such a humble attitude and open mind. It's really refreshing for someone to be open to other points of views.

In my view, TRP, in particular their view on women, is a generalization. It may not hold true for every woman, but if we average all women, almost all will have these traits. Even if they suppress them, they are there.

That's just my view on it however. I know a lot of other RedPillers hold a much more extreme view.

[–]bravestlittletoaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks so much! I really appreciate your saying this. I think TRP gets a bad rap sometimes- its reputation around reddit is definitely not reflective of a lot of the stuff on its subreddit and the conversations I've had here.

[–]NahDudeFkThat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm dating and am madly in love with a super beta guy.

i lol'd

When I first met him, he was an older virgin, shy/awkward but really nice- just bad with talking to women. I was instantly smitten and continue to find his beta-ness charming.

Betas, especially the physically decent ones, tend to do pretty well with lower quality women (low quality as in both physically and personality-wise). I'm not trying to offend you here, but I'm willing to bet you don't average above a 5

Additionally, I think because he's a beta, he's a much better S.O. for me than many more "alpha" men would be (i.e. he's thoughtful and sensitive to my feelings). I just couldn't imagine going for an Alpha anyway- Does that mean there's something wrong with me, or do I just not fit in the TRP view?

Your hamster is running marathons.

Of course you'd love to get fucked by an "alpha," even if he pumps & dumps you. 5 minutes with a Casanova, champion motherfucker beats 5 years with a sensitive chode pushover who has little seduction skills.

Just look at where you ended up in.

[–]mrpoopistan -1 points0 points  (2 children)

No one gets what they pay for because from an evolutionary standpoint sex is an agnostic activity.

Read The Red Queen. It goes a long way toward helping you understand the nuts and bolts of why sex works the way it works versus some other possible alternative configuration.

[–]bravestlittletoaster[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

So humour me here: There's this mating behaviour in a lot of animals (lots of birds/reptiles) where alpha males try to mate with as many females as possible in order to maximise the number of their offspring, but leave the parenting to the females, meaning they're more vulnerable. Beta males, on the other hand, mate with one female and then remain with them, even taking on parenting responsibilities, in order to ensure that their one offspring makes it to adulthood.

These are two different techniques that males use in nature; can't females find one kind of mate preferable to the other?

edit: Sorta realising my point here doesn't clearly respond to you, because I think I've misunderstood what you mean by "sex is an agnostic activity". Can you explain that more for me please?

Thanks so much and sorry for my apparent tangent above!

[–]1likechoklit4choklit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You forgot the fact that in all those animals models there is cheating. Those protective beta males (in birds) run off of filander in other nests, while others visit his nest. Like 40% of eggs in a nest do not belong to the male that built it.

Humans current mating model has been influenced by 10,000 years of agriculture (with concepts of land ownership and person ownership.) Before that we were foragers that probably boned everyone in the group, often orgiastically, seeing as how the bonobo and chimp do the same.