Red Pill TheoryUnderstanding "Alpha Fucks; Beta Bucks" (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat


The one thing that bugs me about this subreddit is how useful redpill concepts are prone to redefinition over time because the democratic aspect of reddit (one user, one vote) results in the less informed mass to get control of the narrative. At least in the blogs of the manosphere, the Master gets to stay on the pulpit and delivers the right message, to be then discussed by the rest of the congregation, allowing the message to stay the same over time and maintain its usefuleness.

The misunderstanding that bugs me the most on this sub is about AF;BB, as I was reminded again recently with the "Don't just split every situation into AF/BB" post yesterday by /u/JustHornyLoser that got over 250 points (90% upvoted). Archived link here: https://archive.is/8G7nz

Now, that score is not entirely undeserved. /u/JustHornyLoser 's post is only a thought experiment but it does shine a light on a real phenomenon: that you can be a sexually attractive man ("alpha") only to have your partner cheat on you for a more sexually attractive man than you ("alpha"). It's real, it happens. Hence the upvotes.

What's wrong is /u/JustHornyLoser 's argument being that the branch swinging act does not mean that guy #1 has suddenly become a "beta bucks". Except he kinda did, since the thought experiment was that guy #1 was a "boyfriend of 1.5 years" and therefore committed to providing. EC /u/MattyAnon pointed it out clearly but he got only 14 points for this.. far behind /u/JBo4Three 's 93 points for "Some women are simply sloots" which is not only an admission of failure of trying to understand a phenomenon according to redpill theory but also pretty close to be a grave admission of NAWALT ("Some women are simply sloots" aka "some women aren't going to branch swing for a better alpha if one comes along"?)

But let's remove the "boyfriend of 1.5 years" part of the scenario and assume the same story with guy #1 being not a boyfriend but a redpill-aware, plate-spinning man. The thought experiment becomes one where the girls branch swings from an "alpha" to a better "alpha", which doesn't make the first one a "beta" all of a sudden right? Aka, "Don't just split every situation into AF/BB" right?

Well, yes and no.

The problem here is in people's understanding of the whole "AF/BB" concept.

The concept is a massively useful one, but not completely straightforward and therefore got redefined over time on this sub as something akin to: Men can be classified in two groups: sexually attractive "alphas" and pathetic unattractive loser "betas".

The problem is that this is completely wrong. Absolutely not useful.

Let's try to clear that up.

"AF;BB" is the red pill expression for a concept modified from "short-term;long-term sexual strategy of women" from evolutionary psychology.

AF/BB are not a dichotomous classification of men. It's the statement that the sexual strategy of women is dual: on one side they are sexually attracted to some sexually attractive man, and other other side, she is willing to exchange sex for providing (and the insurance of future continued provision) from a not-necessarily-attractive man.

Add to this Hypergamy (or the basic behavior of humans to maximize their return if you wish) and the sexual strategy of woman becomes clear: Fuck the most sexually attractive man you can get at the moment, and obtain providing from the most dependable/wealthiest man you can get at the moment.

The most important lessons to learn from the concept.

  1. "Betas" are not "losers". Betas are "for a given woman at a given time and in a given situation, the men who demonstrated a capability to provide, the willingness to do so to her, and the insurance to continue doing so". If you are in a committed relationship with a woman, you qualify for the term. It does not mean you're a loser. It does not mean you're unattractive. But it does mean you are in the real risk of seeing her genuine sexual interest in you wane eventually to be replaced by a "unwilling-sex-against-continuation-of-providing" type of contract.

  2. Stop thinking there are two "types" of men, and you gotta work to become the "right" type of man. You won't be "alpha" for every girl, in every situation. "Alpha" is contextual. "Alpha" is the most sexually desirable man at the moment, for a given girl. For a nurse during the day, "alpha" is the chief physician. For that same nurse out at night with her friends, "alpha" is the leader of the band on stage. For that same nurse on a trip to Brazil, "alpha" is that hot local bartender with a tanned body. And in /u/JustHornyLoser 's thought experiment, "alpha" is for a moment guy #2: exciting, new, fitter than boyfriend guy #1.

    That being said. There are a number of things you can do that can reasonably be assumed to increase your chances to be the alpha for the largest number of girls, in the larger number of contexts. This is what TRP advises you to do if you so wish. And TRP gives you the theory from which you can find the other particular things you can do to become (or remain) the alpha for a particular girl at a particular moment in particular context, if you so wish.

  3. You don't become "beta" when you stop being her "alpha" of the moment. First off, as point #1 above discussed, "beta" means "the dependable provider", not "the second most desirable man around". For the nurse I discussed above, if the chief physician is at the night gig to her he was just a nobody sipping a beer at the bar. If the band leader was visiting Brazil at the same time to her he was just that weak-ass white tourist. If the Brazilian dude was at the hospital, to her he was just yet one other sick client in need of help. There's not betas. They're just invisible on the moment in that context.

When /u/JustHornyLoser says "don't automatically assume that if someone gets cheated on he is BB" he is right and wrong. It's not the cheating that makes you the BB, it's the fact that you were in a relationship with her to start with. And if you are a given woman's "alpha" at a given moment and she cheats, it only meant that on that moment, the "alpha" was not you anymore.

And in any case, every "situation" (the sexual behavior of a woman) can be explained in the light of that sexual strategy as defined by red pill theory.


AF;BB is an important concept. Get it right.

It does not mean "Men can be classified in two groups: sexually attractive "alphas" and pathetic unattractive loser "betas"."

A girl not wanting to fuck you on the moment does not make you a "beta bucks", irrespective of your attractiveness. Agreeing to provide her with your wealth and attention in a sexually committed relationship does.

AF;BB only means: Women are wired such as to desire to (1) fuck the most sexually attractive man she can get at the moment, AND (2) obtain providing from the most dependable/wealthiest man she can get at the moment.

From this concept, every sexual behavior of a woman can be explained. Get it right.

[–]SilverGryphon 225 points226 points  (43 children)

you can be a sexually attractive man ("alpha") only to have your partner cheat on you for a more sexually attractive man than you ("alpha")

It can't be emphasized enough that she is never yours, it's only your turn.

[–]catchingtherosemary 92 points93 points  (35 children)

i feel like I should write this 100 times every day so it doesn't hurt.

[–]sherlockgamesin1440p 1 points1 points [recovered]

Learned it a year ago. Still hurts a little.

[–]catchingtherosemary 17 points18 points  (33 children)

ah my ex gf is back in my life after leaving me by saying "i had sex with someone else". we technically werent bf gf but were lovers / friends-with-benefits for like a year and half. i have since red pilled and i know already in the first few days of establishing communication have come on too strong. shes been all good, making me food, hugging, kissing. she of course says things like "you are a beautiful man", "youve always been sexy". i want her to say "i miss you im sorry" and shes beating around the bush. it looks like i have to go no contact for a week. she did say "we love each other" but "cant be lovers anymore"

[–]ovrload 100 points101 points  (30 children)

going back to your ex is always going to be a recipe for disaster

[–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl 62 points63 points  (14 children)

going back to your ex is always going to be a recipe for disaster

Totally. Because you're playing by her sexual rules, never yours. The first time around, she submitted to you. The 2nd time around, she's getting you to submit to hers. Even if you think you have the power in the relationship, you don't. She's an ex for a reason. Keep her there.

[–]ovrload 24 points25 points  (8 children)

Just don't understand how people expect going back with their exes will become better. It failed the first time. Why do they think it will work the 2nd? The trust is gone. Once it gone it's over . Also another thing is guys becoming friends with their exes is another bad move. Sure if you don't have feelings for her, but you do just block her from everything.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

But what if she kept the dog you got together and you wanna see it? It's a rough situation dude, though not nearly as rough as dudes that had kids with girls they now hate.

[–]Dragon_Garoo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I am literally in this situation. I miss my dog, fuck, I raised that dog with my plate... and I never see it. Fuck it. Will it matter when I'm dead? Nope. It was just a fucking dog. An accoutrement to your life. Hell, I didn't even want it because I knew it was either A) a precursor to her getting pregnant and raising a kid (and given how she did at that, nope) or B) a soothing blanket for her feelz when she up and left. It was B.

You'll forget the dog eventually, and not having that link, will help you forget her too. I'm over a year out. A year from now? Won't fucking care an ounce.

Remember that if you really caught the feelz hard, we are programmed as men to be loyal and that's why it's so hard to get over them. Women can flip the 'love' switch really quickly and easily. It's how they have survived war and invasion. So just ride it out, fuck if you can get some, do things for you. Meditate or do pushups or ANYTHING when things hurt you in the feelz.

I had an ex that I literally fell in love with at first sight, thought I would die when we broke up. 4 years out, I'm philosophical about her. Wish her all the best. No hard feelings. Definitely wasn't like that for the first two. I could NOT imagine if we had a common pet and tried to share it. It would have been torture.

[–]ShotgunTRP 7 points8 points  (2 children)

I had an ex who contacted me after 6 odd months of breakup. She was arguably my hottest and a demon in the sack. So I tapped it again being 100% clear from the word go that I was absolutely not getting back into a relationship with her. She was probably desperate for attention and we fucked for maybe another 6 odd months to a year before she wanted something more solid.

It worked, probably because I never let her get promoted past fwb

[–]ovrload 3 points4 points  (1 child)

congrats for not falling for her bs attention

[–]ShotgunTRP 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There's a rollo article where he talks about reconnecting with an old flame. Something like they can never be promoted to old status (old ltr = Fwb max. Old fwb = plate Max). I stumbled by accident on to the formula.

I just knew we could never be ltr again cos of baggage. And knew I could maintain a plate /fwb arrangement and take the eventual L when it came..

Before she made the decision to move on she said something along the lines of "I wish u would've put a ring on it before we broke up the first time". A Ltr compliance test I'm certain.

[–]p3n1x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just don't understand how people expect going back with their exes will become better.

It isn't 'common sense' for everyone, especially for men with little experience. This is like asking why people do stupid shit period...

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I still think there's confusion on this point. Going back with an "Ex" you were traveling down the traditional path with, sure, it's a problem. A plate who drops out of the rotation because she went monogamous with some guy can probably be picked up again later. I don't see the problem there.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl 3 points4 points  (1 child)

You would be correct. Let them go to lock down someone else.

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

Glad to get an EC's perspective on this. Broken plate != "Ex".

Seems like the about the best "failure mode" of a relationship is a woman going exclusive with someone else because she couldn't lock you down.

I maintain there's a lack of attention to this point on TRP. Blackdragon makes a huge point out of his 94% return rate for LSNFTE. I'm not taking him as a guru, but out of anybody on the manosphere (outside of Uncle V and MattyAnon) I find him quite credible.

[–]L0neWolfAlpha 1 point2 points  (1 child)

So true. Thought I was in control ended up getting burned again. DO NOT GO BACK TO AN EX EVER!

[–]briskestbrisket 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Returned to ex that I loved from the bottom of my BP heart. This is how I discovered the red pill. It's a rocky road to getting over the level of oneitis I had for her. We went way back and she was always there for me through a shitty adolescence. Then she burned me like no other. Never in a million years did I think she would. AWALT has no exceptions and your ex is like that too. Stay away. Remember the good times; Forget about the girl. Move on.

[–]Dragon_Garoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't go digging throught your trash, trying to find treasures.

She left for a reason; you taking her back is a sign of weakness, one that will nag at her, and eventually she'll remind herself of a variety of bullshit reasons to leave again.

Bang her? Sure, if you can keep frame and not get the feelz. Otherwise? NEXT.

[–]catchingtherosemary 4 points5 points  (13 children)

i keep reading this on red pill and I hate it. part of why i think im different is because i always avoided actually calling her my gf and i feel like that led to a lot of the problems. edit: i can hear "oneitis" echoing from the halls

[–]Phoenixtorment 20 points21 points  (1 child)

part of why i think im different is because i always avoided actually calling her my gf and i feel like that led to a lot of the problems

Everyone with a classic beta experience here thought we were "different" and would "evade" all the problems.

[–]catchingtherosemary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

well it is a bit different right that i didnt call her my gf but we were together

[–]RyanMAGA 6 points7 points  (10 children)

i keep reading this on red pill and I hate it.

Yep, that's the red pill for you: the harsh truth, not the reassuring lie.

i can hear "oneitis" echoing from the halls

Yep, that's exactly what it is. At some point you will realize this and move on. Will it be today or in ten years when she divorces you and steals your children? Only you can decide.

[–]JaYogi 0 points1 point  (7 children)

What if I got her pregnant.. now what?

[–]RyanMAGA 4 points5 points  (6 children)

From a financial perspective the only sane thing to do is to convince her to have an abortion. If it takes a $20,000 cash payment, do it.

From a reproductive perspective it isn't exactly clear. If she aborts this baby you have one fewer, but since you'll be in a far superior financial situation you'll be able to start a new family sooner. Having a child by another woman makes you more desirable to women; it is the ultimate in preselection.

From an emotional perspective.... killing your unborn baby is probably pretty hard, I wouldn't know. However you will save yourself a huge amount of heartbreak later, something that I am familiar with.

[–]JaYogi 1 point2 points  (4 children)

We talked about getting an abortion, I explained how raising this kid would just not be right for it, because of our past. Now she's 15 weeks... I'm scared I'm going to regret being with her, I already don't trust her.

[–]catchingtherosemary 0 points1 point  (1 child)

are you saying she will divorce me and steal our children because she has already broken up with me once?

[–]1empatheticapathetic 4 points5 points  (1 child)

It's a game bro. She knows what you want and you need to know what she wants.

[–]catchingtherosemary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you saying I should ask her what she wants or i should know via red pill?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

one of the most important things to know and understand. This fact that its only our turn will save so much pain and suffering falsely thinking that people are never going to cheat or want to fuck others and act on that impulse. Just face the fact that people can be attracted to others and fuck them and they WANT to fuck them given the chance.

[–]pondhockeyguyrevived 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A long term relationship requires maintaining a position as the most alpha out of those willing to be her beta bucks. The addage "she is never yours, it is only your turn" remains hold true, but the length of the term is not determined.

[–]rjvideography 1 point2 points  (2 children)

This thought process is inline with radical feminists about men.

Do you think that monogamy pressures men into thinking that they NEED to get married or "settle down?" Or do you think less men are seeking marriage for this reason?

[–]SilverGryphon 4 points5 points  (1 child)

When we had real monogamy, men were more inclined to get married. When feminism rose and female infidelity prospered, the number of men seeking marriage declined.

[–]rjvideography -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

But infidelity is higher amongst males, that's a historical fact. Look up the Ashley-Madison Wiki Leak case, most of the registrants were married males.

It seems that you've got it backwards.

[–]Gallobrax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everything here down to the comments (most of them) are solid. I will humbly make the suggestion that there is another element at play. Indeed, while the OP is spot on with the AF/BB categorization I'd argue that it's not as simple as branch swinging to a more attractive partner. Instead, women like to play games, and the moment you stop leveraging power over the dynamic is the exact same moment she will play someone else's game. To term it as simple hypergamy is part of the reason many have confused this to begin with. It's more complex then it appears and while biology and AWALT are major components they are not the only ones.

Great post.

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

That's partially why I think the dichotomy should dismantled in favor of a continuous scale. Low value men have to boost with cash. Women are subconscious actuarials figuring out the maximal product of gene quality by chance of survival.

When she has a committed stream of sustainance she can branch swing for the best genes with out calculating his provisional willingness.

[–]stephcurrythrowaway 47 points48 points  (16 children)

I remember recognizing this phenomenon slightly at a young age. I saw men who got loved for being a sucker/simp and I saw men who got loved for being an alpha.

My goal was then to somehow and become the ultimate in between guy of both. I'll simp when needed and act alpha when needed.

Didn't work one bit.

[–]KidWonder101 9 points10 points  (1 child)

You could/should simp rarely and randomly with an LTR. It's not bad to be an alpha and show a little "beta compassion" to your LTR if she DESERVES it.

Examples of deserving behavior is respect, being aware of boundaries, constant sex and spontaneous BJs, etc.

At the end of the day, as long as your chick knows you can drop her at any moment and get a better chick she'll respect you.

[–]stephcurrythrowaway 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah I agree. But that's more of an 80/20 concept. 80 percent alpha and 20 percent simp mode. Which can work well.

My issue I was 50/50 purely and it was hard af. I found myself trying to appeal/kiss ass to woman but also being a dick at the same time. Essentially I would act alpha then when a girl got mad I simped. So I lost frame EVERYTIME. This really shows the importance of frame and standing your ground.

When I decided not take no shit for women and not really care what they wanted the pussy increased. Strange concept honestly for those not exposed to red pill.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl 24 points25 points  (5 children)

The pendulum swings one side to the other. Balance between the two is not achieved by hanging in the middle. Choose your side and live accordingly.

[–]stephcurrythrowaway 62 points63 points  (2 children)

Thanks. I'm gonna become a cuck now.

[–]Arnoux 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Just a honest question.

How can you choose if you want a couple of children? You certainly can't be an alpha, because chicks uses pill, insist on using condom or just do abortion if you don't want to support. If none of it happens, you may be ordered by court to pay support, so you become beta by it.

There is a very little chance to have children and be alpha in the same time. You gotta be the best looking, and fuck way below your SMV and be lucky that she won't go to court.

So if you want children you got to provide so you become beta. In the past being alpha was a good sexual strategy, nowadays not profitable, but only for the best of best.

Any thoughts? Do I have to accept that I am just a nice beta? :D

[–]Holyburrito 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You can be a provider and still have alpha traits. LTR redpill is much more difficult, but it can be done. Maybe not forever, but long enough to have a family sure. Hold frame 24/7 and don't fail more shit tests than you pass.

[–]uebermacht 2 points3 points  (6 children)

How did you managed it then? =)

[–]stephcurrythrowaway 0 points1 point  (4 children)

That's the point. I didn't. No one can be truly both equally 50/50. It just doesn't really work. Maybe I wasn't trying hard enough but still.

I wouldn't want to be a beta buck anyways

[–]Bing400 -1 points0 points  (3 children)

You've gotta pick a side. Be an agent. You have to make a decision and bear that responsibility. If you are neutral, what are you? You are dead. You are nothing.

We always say that man is different than most animals, we're different than a great Oak. Why shy away when that difference forces you to pick a side? Picking a side hurts, it means you commit to something as opposed to committing to nothing. But we're men, we need to pick a view an should on to it.

[–]stephcurrythrowaway 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yeah that's been a personal problem before. Often times I find myself with multiple decisions to make and instead of taking action I remain stagnant. It essentially means I lose no matter what.

Men need to accept there will be losses in life. You can't avoid them. You just have to go through them and learn from them.

Make a choice.

[–]Bing400 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I hear you man. It's hard eh? It's not easy.

I think vegans face this problem too, they like to think of themselves as not cruel, they reject the flesh of others as sustenance. But the very fact that to live, one must consume another living being, as in "my existence is more valuable than yours" sort of forces us down that road. But then how do you stop from going all out and avoid being overly cruel by denying the world for your own benefit? No wonder a whole branch of philosophy is dedicated to ethics. There's no way out of this.

[–]stephcurrythrowaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah. I feel true men need to be relatively empathetic towards society and the world but at the same time accept the loss of certain people who just simply won't accept your methods.

This is why I remain off social media mostly. I haven't posted on Instagram in over a year or Twitter in over 3 months.

I simply stopped caring what others were doing. I care more about my life and my plan. I accept the loss that others won't care what I do anyways. So why should I care?

Being a true alpha is tough. But so worth it

[–]nazis_are_socialists 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's called Alpha Bucks. Be as alpha as possible and act beta as needed.

[–][deleted] 34 points35 points  (3 children)

Not a bad place to add thst every woman will tirelessly work to convert any "Alpha" in her life to "Betas"

That's how important the provisional aspect of a mans sexual strategy is to her.

I have a long term plate who recently started asking me about my finances. She also has been inviting me to lunches and films (non sexual meet ups).

I'm fully aware what is going on and since I don't want a relationship thats non sexual I just keep declining.

Just a matter of time til she fears me slipping away

"That conceited asshole wont hang out with me unless sex is on the table? Ill show him, I'll give him the fuck of his life AND pay for everything too!"

[–]briskestbrisket 20 points21 points  (0 children)

And it doesn't matter how far down the road she is in whatever form of a relationship she has with the "Alpha" in question. The time you both have invested thus far means nothing to her. Once she breaks your frame, she's on the market ASAP shopping for her new AF dude. But she will still give you just enough to keep using your sorry BB ass

[–]le_wolfe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And so in the process of making you a beta provider, she might herself act like a provider.

[–]Roaring40sUK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not a bad place to add thst every woman will tirelessly work to convert any "Alpha" in her life to "Betas"

So, true, (most) every plate I have ever spun, tried this and used all the tools in her box (heh) - manipulation, guilt trips etc etc.

[–]DarkRenaissance 37 points38 points  (5 children)

Bang on, thought the same thing when I read MattyAnon's comment. This reminded me of mods saying long ago that upvotes do not matter, the red pill sub operates as a patriarchal meritocracy, not democracy. Problems occur because the sub is operating on a democratic platform. Hope the mods post this as an announcement.

[–]1SirKolbath 12 points13 points  (0 children)

This reminded me of mods saying long ago that upvotes do not matter, the red pill sub operates as a patriarchal meritocracy, not democracy.

I vaguely recall, about two or maybe two and a half years ago, a post got around 130 up votes and was deleted by the mods because they didn't feel it met the quality standards. I was fairly new here at the time and was happily shocked to see that the mods applied their standards evenly. I've always appreciated and respected that here.

[–]Phoenixtorment 2 points3 points  (3 children)

If upvotes do not matter, why are they not turned off on this subreddit?

[–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl 2 points3 points  (2 children)

There's a difference between 'removing a popular post that doesn't fit the guidelines' and 'turning off voting'. Sort TRP by top posts ever and read the best ones.

[–]Phoenixtorment 2 points3 points  (1 child)

'removing a popular post that doesn't fit the guidelines'

How is that different from other subreddits?

[–]DarkRenaissance 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does it matter as long as the objective of the sub is achieved?

[–]MrWisdom39 13 points14 points  (5 children)

A girl not wanting to fuck you on the moment does not make you a "beta bucks", irrespective of your attractiveness. Agreeing to provide her with your wealth and attention in a sexually committed relationship does.

Well said Op, this will help me in the future

[–]uebermacht 11 points12 points  (17 children)

So, monogamous LTRs with women are useless?

[–]DonaldBaelish 35 points36 points  (1 child)

Since we are men who are widely aware of how a woman acts , monogamous LTRs are not as useless as they sound , for us.

The point OP is making is that for the average man , every LTR will somehow end with the woman being in charge. Every average man , no matter how alpha he has been in the beginning of the relationship , will be converted into a beta. Women know how to do that fucking professionally.

The average man's problem is that he does not know what buttons to press and how to play the game. The average man will hear his woman not wanting to go on a vacation with him and he will cancel his vacation. The average man will hear his woman not wanting to go out with him and the boys and he will cancel his plans.

You can see his girlfriend chat with more than two or three boys. Will he ever chat up a girl? No , he won't. Men are afraid of causing dread. Men are afraid of women.

The average man will sit silently while his girlfriend is mad that he did not wash the dishes and screaming that she is doing them for the last damn time. Just read that sentence. Do you know how much men are afraid of their "serious" relationship to fall apart? Even if it is the shittiest of relationships ever?

We are blessed , lads. Use your knowledge. Don't be afraid of LTRs. If nothing else , you will at least gain some experience.

[–]TalesAbound 5 points6 points  (11 children)

That seems to be what he's implying, but I have to say there's plenty of evidence to think otherwise.

[–]shneakypete 1 points1 points [recovered]

It's not what he's implying. What he's saying is it's the sexual strategy of women. Betas exchange wealth and resources for sex but alphas mate with the women to pass on genes. Part of the strategy of a long term relationship with an "alpha" is creating dread and letting your woman know you are a desired man and you could get a different woman at a moment's notice.

[–]KitaShika 4 points5 points  (8 children)

Part of the strategy of a long term relationship with an "alpha" is creating dread and letting your woman know you are a desired man and you could get a different woman at a moment's notice.

My ex used to do this to me. He was always flirting with other girls and making it clear that I was easily replaceable. He used to give me a lot of backhanded compliments. He was better at this than anyone I've ever met.

I did everything for that man, paid for his stuff, came rumning when he called, bjs you name it. I didn't even talk to other men because I knew that he didn't like it. I wasn't allowed to wear revealing clothes in public. Hell, he even had another girlfriend at one point (who didn't know about me) and I paid for her birthday present.

I was his bitch completely. He controlled what I thought, what I said and what I did.

He made me cry so much but I just thought that's what love was (pain mixed with the joy).

I was miserable- I even thought about killing myself at points.

I thought he was irreplaceable though- how could I leave?

But I did leave- I'm not sure what gave me the strength but I decided that loving someone was not a good enough reason to stay with them when they actively made attempts to fuck with your mind.

I'm happy now.

Don't fuck with someone's head like that and don't stay with someone who fucks with yours.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

You could tell this story anywhere else on the internet an receive an outpouring of sympathy.

Yet, when you tell this story here, most TRP readers will simply say, "damn that dude has strong game."

[–]KitaShika 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I'm not necessarily seeking an out pouring of support but I have more faith in these guys than you do.

I don't think they'll think: "damn that dude has strong game."

I just want to humanize women a bit on this sub. Dating isn't supposed to be some kind of game where you fuck with your partner's mind.

Sure some people do that kind of shit but those are not the girls and guys that you want to date.

My story is exactly how this bullshit goes- it's not good for the guy or the girl. It's better just to be honest and open about what you want and what you feel.

You don't need someone else to be happy and no love is worth suffering for.

[–]CalfReddit 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It sounds like the guy overdid it, being too controlling. He fucked up.

[–]KitaShika 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think that you need to be controlling at all. Just assertive. Don't neg and don't mess with her just be straight up.

If a woman is trying to manipulate you then call her out on it.

If you are always sacrificing for her or complimenting her but getting nothing back then tell her that you want the relationship to be 50/50.

If she expects you to pay for things tell her that you view her as your equal and so you think that she is just as capable of paying as you.

This is all once she is your gf though. Which is not to say that you should neg girls that you are interested in. If you like a girl, tell her and ask her out (in person). If she says no then no big deal she wasn't right for you.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Well.. but you was fucking him and giving him BJ's for a long time so from trp view, the man has great working game...

[–]KitaShika 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Funny thing actually. We had sex like 6 times in those 5 years because he didn't like it. Nope he "only wanted BJs".

In truth he just had no self confidence.

[–]CalfReddit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For you it may sound like the behavior explained here is the same as what he did but it isn't.

Plus only wanting BJs is egoistic. I always want to make the woman crazy, sex is something you do together and shouldn't be one sided.

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

frankly - I like BJ more because good JB is like vagina and.. no risk of pregnancy...

[–]analyticaltoafault 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Concise, complete, and accurate.

Fucking A, right man.

[–]anrii188 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Thanks for the explanation, i always hated the "alpha=macho" definition, that clarify things in my head. But i have a question : Have women with sexual morality disappered from the face of the earth? I mean women like 60 years ago would set for one partner (generally by marriage) who is the "alpha" and the "beta" of her life, he is her sexual partner that she doesn't betray and the provider for her and her kids, generally speaking. But now seems like things have gone berserk. There is no trust between partners anymore. Each one is expecting or fearful to be stabbed in the back :/ Also we're seeing conflicts between genders with the rise of feminism, MGTOW and so on. What crosses my mind now is "Alpha fucks a lot of chicks" but "Alpha fucks up the society with them" as he can destroy good relationships and women become more greedy and adventerous. The same goes the other way of course. What do you think?

[–]Disciple_of_Libertas 1 point2 points  (1 child)

There's a good piece on the sidebar that explains how this all came about in the 1960s.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (4 children)

This is a solid look at a poorly understood topic. One issue which is implied by this discussion but not opened up here or in the original post is the "purple" belief systems. In the original post, the OP talk about being cheated on or the termination of an LTR. He then makes some assumptions which are correct at a surface level but also based on some purple logic. The purple logic is that humans are monogamous and that there is such a thing as a the disney happily ever after relationship.

The false assumption is that if you are alpha as fuck you can have a permanent and happy relationship. This is trying to achieve a blue pill goal using red pill methodology. Whilst people continue to cling to this blue pill dream of a perfect LTR which never ends, they will continue to apply erroneous beliefs about what men can do with red pill practices. TRP is sexual strategy mixed in with understanding of female sexual strategy, throw in some men's rights and seasoned liberally with some misogyny.

Ar the end of the day the original idea about "red pill" is seeing reality through the illusion. This illusion includes false goals such as happily ever after. The AF: BB acronym is a useful learning tool but it is limited and it is (like most red pill teachings) training wheels for betas. Until people can unlearn that disney bullshit, they will not see reality, they will continue to swim in a blue pill pond using red pill flippers and snorkel. Really who wants just one woman for life? I would rather have many, many different relationships.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bang on.

I made a short post about it some time ago https://archive.is/67vEi

But it's easy to see that's the most bitter part of that bloody red pill. It's incredibly difficult to deconstruct that massive ego investment. So I don't expect people who don't have yet a solid grasp of basic red pill concepts to be able to get over that massive next-level hurdle.

[–]TrueFacets 0 points1 point  (1 child)

But the thing is that the 1Men - 1Women concepts seems consistent in many cultures and it was clearly the most successful system for 2000 years. If we break it up what will happen ?

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

Humans are serial monogamists. Mating for life is only natural among monogamous species

[–]Actanonverba11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup. How many times have we seen posts about "Alpha Chads" who settled down with women and got cheated on? The OP helps remind me of why: once a man is locked-down in a committed relationship, he is no-longer an Alpha, he is a Beta. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but nature being what it is, your partner will eventually lose attraction to you, sexually, and she has a high chance of wandering.

At least, I hope I'm understanding things correctly.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl 6 points7 points  (15 children)

What's wrong is /u/JustHornyLoser 's argument being that the branch swinging act does not mean that guy #1 has suddenly become a "beta bucks". Except he kinda did, since the thought experiment was that guy #1 was a "boyfriend of 1.5 years" and therefore committed to providing. EC /u/MattyAnon pointed it out clearly but he got only 14 points for this..

And once again, science to the rescue!!

Here's an article which talks about a woman's fading desire after about 1.5 years (LTR).
Basic tl;dr if article: chicks loose interest in sex because you're just a boring provider and her hypergamous nature needs alpha cock.

All the betas that try to implement TRP without really swallowing the pill will only find themselves butt hurt again. Cause once they get the girl, they relax, and stop gaming/leading/stimulating. Nevermind the more you do, the more they get used to, so you must keep doing more. That's why marriage is life on hard mode.

Anyway, the article offers the most laughable solutions which is why she lost interest in the first place.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 14 points15 points  (14 children)

Nevermind the more you do, the more they get used to, so you must keep doing more.

This is true, but it's even worse than that.

By committing to her, you have proved to her that she can do better. Women know.... or at least their biology knows through evolution.... that she can fuck hotter guys than she can tie down. Therefore if she can tie him down, his genes are not as good as those from a man she can't.

This is why early commitment is a terrible idea - it proves to her that you don't have other options. It's also (I posit but cannot prove) why women get bored after a few years. By sticking around you've proved to her that she can find hotter, at least to fuck. Hence she tries to lock in your provisioning while checking out sexually.

[–]causeandcorrelation 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Jesus christ. So it not just about securing provisioning, it's about testing it's security to the stress of external sexual competitors?

This is depressing. It seems like the female game just flows to cuckolding.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Jesus christ. So it not just about securing provisioning, it's about testing it's security to the stress of external sexual competitors?

Not just testing the stress of external sexual competitors, but actively fucking those competitors, especially if she feels she can get away with it.

This is depressing. It seems like the female game just flows to cuckolding.

Cuckolding is optimum for women. The only reason they don't do it more is that men wouldn't stand for it.

Now that many men will stand for it (or the government makes them), this is on the increase.

[–]causeandcorrelation 7 points8 points  (2 children)

This complete sisification of men has resulted in them having to fetishise their own humiliation just to be able to get some sort of sexual engagement with their SO`s. Sexual liberation isn't about liberation from shame. It is liberation from having to commit to a beta, since alphas exist in such a sellers market.

[–]Dead__Hand 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Fascinating point re: fetishization.

I wonder if there have been any studies done investigating whether particular fetishes (e.g. cuckolding, domination and especially financial domination, humiliation, etc) are increasing in men. If they are, I wonder if this could be explained as a form of rationalization on the part of men subject to the BB end of AF/BB.

[–]causeandcorrelation 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think without doubt. It is simply the realisations of the female imperative. The betas fall first, and while there are benifits for the unplugged, overall men as a whole, relationships as a whole and even women will suffer deleterious consequences

[–]Actanonverba11 0 points1 point  (8 children)

This goes into the idea about men being the gate-keepers of commitment. Our most precious resource is our time. Once we have surrendered that, the "game/chase" is over; we've lost what leverage we had in the relationship.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 1 point2 points  (7 children)

< Once we have surrendered that, the "game/chase" is over; we've lost what leverage we had in the relationship.

Absolutely. It's why you should never be in a position where you can't walk away.

You should always structure things so that it's in her best interests to stay rather than leave. It's why marriage is such a terrible idea.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorRian_Stone 2 points3 points  (6 children)

You can always walk away.

The trick is to be willing to walk away. We have EC's who have walked away, knowing they would lose custody of their children. Some burned their assets to the ground, rather than give it to her. Still some are biding the time until the kids are out of the house, and further still, some are getting strange on the side while they wait.

Marriage is risk, it's designed that way, the ultimate in giving a woman comfort. Marriage or not, your only useful tool is to walk away if it's no longer valuable for you.

You can make more money, you can have more kids, or get to know them as adults after mommy weaponizes them and they get over it.

You can't win back more life though.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Marriage is risk, it's designed that way

Yeah, the risk is one sided though. The woman rarely loses. The man rarely wins.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorRian_Stone 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Of course it is. How often are women going to be able to build enough capital to risk at all?

I'm saying it was designed that way. The concept of less risk for men goes against the nature of marriage. The part they forget to keep was the benefit. At least enough benefit to make it attractive.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 0 points1 point  (3 children)

The part they forget to keep was the benefit. At least enough benefit to make it attractive.

Yeah. The selfish short-term modifications to marriage have been increased freedom for women and exploitation of already-married men.

Many men are now looking at the deal and thinking "fuck that".

Sadly a lot of others still do it, because "she's not like the rest". I don't think it's so bad that women are thinking "hmmmmmmm I better offer a bit less of a shitty deal". They seem to just double down on their entitlement.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorRian_Stone 0 points1 point  (2 children)

So far, the big reason I've seen is guys saying 'I want children' or girls saying 'I won't stick around if he doesn't'

The former makes no sense, and I've yet to see how to address that, the latter is obvious.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The former makes no sense

Right. It's very hard to see how marriage makes her more likely to stick around, given that it comes with payouts for her leaving.

"I won't stick around if he doesn't" is something women threaten but don't seem to follow through on. And as you say, the answer is stunningly obvious but too many men live in scarcity.

[–]segagaga 14 points15 points  (6 children)

It's worth emphasising, as you said, that technically alpha doesn't exist in men. It's not genetics, it's not an intrinsic worth, It is how any woman views a male at a given time and thus is entirely fluid and often inconsistent, as you pointed out.

Don't believe in Alphas, because it is something that women believe in. Every man has the capability and capacity to become an Alpha to some woman at some point if he simply works on himself. Never let yourself be trapped into the female notion that you can be born Beta and thus forever unworthy. Women do not understand at the most basic level that being in a state that gives an impression of Alpha takes work, takes trial&error, takes timing and effort. The Awakened man understands that all these aspects that makes a man "Alpha" or "Beta" are fluid and changeable.

Alpha and Beta should only be discussed in the context of what they are, the product of a woman's hamstering. AF/BB is a thought concept that helps us to understand a female's sexually-driven decisions. Men are not actually team A or B.

(Great post OP, this sub needs a shakedown from time to time)

[–]MisterKissBang 1 points1 points [recovered]

Alpha and Beta should only be discussed in the context of what they are, the product of a woman's hamstering

No way.
Men among themselves also perceive alpha and beta traits/status.

[–]segagaga 1 point2 points  (4 children)

If men cannot be anything other than what they are born with, then TRP literally has no point to existing, as we would all be genetically locked.

Whether they perceive it or not, A/B is something invented by man to describe time-specific behaviour in natural hierarchies, not even humans. Even in nature, it is well recognised by scientists that the individual who is currently at the top, is not permanently so. Any man who judges other men as being either Alpha or Beta is not only ignoring natural law but also ignoring human nature.

An Alpha is whichever male maintains access to females whether by force, attraction, threat, infanticide or hierarchy. But only while he can do so. A child cannot be an Alpha, because it cannot contest an existing Alpha. But that existing Alpha will not always be young or healthy, and the child will not always be small and inexperienced. In time their roles will reverse. Irrevocably judging others as A/B is the woman's game, because she is deciding which to fuck.

[–]MisterKissBang 1 points1 points [recovered]

I agree that dominance is fluid.
It's fluid in an individual (Good days, bad days, different periods of one's life).
It's fluid in social situations.

The point I was disagreeing with is that dominance is only relevant in the context of women.

[–]segagaga 0 points1 point  (2 children)

But that is not what I said. Sure you can discuss dominance, but what I'm specifically refering to is AF/BB. It's a mental exercise, a concept to describe female decision-making. It is not itself a logical or applicable concept and you shouldn't be applying it to people or life.

It's to address the attitude of some here who trashtalk like "lol beta cuck losers" and therefore its obvious they do not understand that none of it is permanent. Be wary of who you judge. You may find them dominating you in another time and place. Etc etc. Human hierarchies and civilization are too complex for AF/BB, which is why women are often observed making incredibly stupid relationship decisions, which is why AF/BB exists as a explanatory concept, because to us they often do not make sense as logic or reason is not applied.

[–]MisterKissBang 1 points1 points [recovered]

But that is not what I said. Sure you can discuss dominance, but what I'm specifically refering to is AF/BB.

Then I agree.
I assumed you meant dominance in general when you used the terms Alpha and Beta instead of AF/BB.

[–]segagaga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, the issue is people should say "That guy is dominant!" rather than "This guy is Alpha!". Alpha is a scientific term, which a lot of people are not even qualified to understand properly. Even a common expression like "This guy is hot right now!" is actually more accurately applied because people have a better sense that youth and beauty is fleeting.

[–]SpaceViolet 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Just spin plates.

If you never commit to one girl (thereby allowing one woman to monopolize your time and resources) then it is logically impossible to get beta bux'd.

Trash her ass when she starts to try and shoulder her way into relegating you to the "provider" position.

Fuck you, bitch. There are many more like you and better than you (abundance mentality).

[–]Hltchens 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"The weak are meat, and the strong do eat. "

[–]1PantsonFire1234 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You already eluded to it OP but your post and that of the other guy are pretty much arguing the same point to a degree. And to bring this to light you could make another thought experiment where you are the better alpha (fitter, better genes, higher smv, bigger dick) and she'd still cheat with another guy.

The point here is that yes women think in terms of AF/BB, but they aren't running off some one line script like a computer from the 50s. Sometimes different is just enough, sometimes they are just bored or mad. Even if you are the better man in reality, a woman can always hamster things upside down if it serves her in the moment. You maybe had a fight or she's suspected you cheated. Perhaps she is drunk with girlfriends and they are all getting some and she wants to get some to. Her boyfriend ain't there and everyone in the club isn't really better than him. But hey this guy sort of looks like that dude from Twillight, she liked Twillight. Weeee, hamster activated.

The point is that EVERYTHING about the manosphere bottles down to men trying to come to terms with modern western women behaving like absolute cunts. And no I'm not in the anger phase. I'm stating that no matter what you do, how you win at the SMV game or out alpha everyone. Your girl will still cheat, because she can and her life revolves around her.

For us men we feel powerless in some ways and the manosphere is an effort to regain control. And yet we can't, there's absolutely nothing we can do at this moment to keep a girl from fucking us over.

[–]AnimalFactsBot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hamsters usually live in burrows underground during the day, they are crepuscular which means they come out at twilight to feed.

[–]Roaring40sUK 1 point2 points  (1 child)

A girl not wanting to fuck you on the moment does not make you a "beta bucks"

In fact, you could be the AF in her eyes, but if she is looking longer term for a BB, she could dump you, when the right BB comes along..

This has happened to me - "I want more than this", only to have her come back 6 months later "He was too nice"..

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is one of women's classic behavior that a solid understanding of AF;BB can help you understand or predict, and that a simple "be more alpha" unfortunately doesn't cover.

[–]LiveAFTSOV 1 points1 points [recovered]

Great write up, but I have questions:

other side, she is willing to exchange sex for providing (and the insurance of future continued provision) from a not-necessarily-attractive man.

How can one tell which side of their strategy they fall under?

you are in the real risk of seeing her genuine sexual interest in you wane eventually to be replaced by a "unwilling-sex-against-continuation-of-providing" type of contract.

How do you ensure this type of contract is avoided?

Is it possible to avoid such a contract if in a FWB situation?

If you are in a committed relationship with a woman, you qualify for the term.

What is commitment? You commit to a FWB, surely, or what about if you have a "girlfriend", but you still date other women and they know? Is that a commitment?

Hope to get further insight

[–]CurlsGetsGirls 7 points8 points  (2 children)

1- for example a girl post wall will look for a beta to provide for her, and single moms too; However, A 21 yr chick who's riding the CC is of course looking for someone to fuck her brains out. Always aim to be fucking the 21 yr chick (or anything you like)

2-you avoid this by not failing her shit tests and not getting too comfortable in the relationship and letting yourself go (aka being a loser). Yes, you can avoid that with a FWB too by not letting yourself go or turning into a loser because if you do, the FWB/GF will get as dry as a desert, and wouldn't want your dick anymore.

3-commitment is when A) both the bf and gf agree to not fuck anyone else, and B) for the bf to provide for the gf. If you think about it sucks since the bf gets to do 2 things and the gf has to do just one. You don't commit to an FWB because it doesn't follow the 2 rules above.

[–]CalfReddit 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Plus, I think when a girl really wants to have sex with you, wants to try everything and shit, it's also more AF than BB.

Really often that I read on AskTRP that GFs don't do BJs, anal or even just daily/weekly sex anymore

[–]CurlsGetsGirls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Yeah, mostly because she's not afraid to lose you anymore since you're already committing to her, so she stops trying to please you to keep you. Why would she? She already succeeded at keeping you by making you give up your commitment. That's when dread game comes into play.

[–]Shakydrummer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't just bring her into your frame, become the frame.

[–]yallapapi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A better way to state this would be that af/Bb is not an attribute but a state. It's temporary and can be gained and lost in an instant, like being hot or cold

[–]NegusaNagast 0 points1 point  (0 children)


[–]Luckyluke23 0 points1 point  (1 child)

well this post just fucking blew my mind!

so what you are saying is: you can only be YOURSELF at all times. there is no " becoming alpha".. she chooses in the moment whether you are alpha or not.

there for, you can only be yourself.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't get how you could understand that from my message.

This would be true if women's decision into who is alpha is completely random and not conditioned at all by any measure of performance of men. Which is not the case.

If anything, I'm saying you need to figure out how to become the alpha in any context, and work on yourself to change yourself into that.

There are things you need to change because they are the features of the alpha in all conditions: fit, clean, confident, social.

And there are things you need to change because they are the features of the alpha in a particular context: you work in a hospital? make your way to the top of the local hierarchy. You want to pull that girl in your friends' group? Become the leader of that group.

[–]syf3r 0 points1 point  (1 child)

posts like this reminds me why trp should never be democratic and why reddit is not the best platform unless posts are heavily checked.

thanks for the clarification. I admit that I too had an incorrect understanding of afbb, and I suspect that a lot of it stems out from reading posts with incorrect usage of it.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is why I advise people continuously here to not spend the majority of their time on the daily feed, but in the 100% certified good content. Side bar. Manosphere blogs. Recommended books. Check my post history for the one with my recommended readings / bookmarks.

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

I use two concepts to help me understand the phenomenon.

First is the situational alpha

A bodybuilding DJ at the club, with solid frame is describable as alpha... When he's in his element. But put that guy on a wilderness vacation and the fit lean guide who knows the area, how to white water raft, etc. Now who's the AMOG?

Put either of those guys in a house party, along with the funniest, most gregarious conversationalist, and depending on how the conversion goes, the role of the AMOG will shift. Talk about fitness? Bodybuilder. Vacation tales? The guide. Swapping funny stories? The gregarious guy.

The second concept is that any aspiring AMOG should choose the group carefully

If I'm not AMOG, I don't act alpha. In my professional circles, I'm feared and respected. I'll AMOG there. But a pickup game of floor hockey? Yeah not so much. I seek out situations and groups where my aptitudes naturally elevate me to a leadership position.

If I can't be a leader in that situation, I either put in my time and improve my aptitudes and status through effort, or I find a new group / social environment.

Food for thought.

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

I'm grateful for this post because it clearly defines beta bucks as $, when some of the other examples in this forum equate it to being bucked off the horse. My understanding of the concept just increased because I can now associate it better with the provider role of the perceived beta.

[–]clme 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your description of BB is clear for the case of a boyfriend who supports financially and otherwise the girlfriend. But what about the case where the two live separately and when they go out or travelling they share expenses 50/50? Can you still say boyfriend = provider = BB?

[–]sonder_one 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Women act according to their perception, which is usually far away from reality. They are intensely emotional, hormonal, insecure, irrational creatures. Otherwise known as children.

Learning to manipulate their emotions to your advantage is something you need to do, at least sometimes, to get what you want in life, but you can't manipulate every woman at every moment, so when you don't, remember how little her perception has to do with your actual value.

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

Thanks for this.This has been a hot topic floating around here for the last couple of days, great to see an elder stepping in and clarifying things. Alot of people need it since reading the sidebar and top posts is just too hard for the average manic adhd babies of today.

(Edit: Upon reading i was reminded of the contextual element of Alpha as well as the inevitable fact of betadom from monogamy.

Turns out i'm a hyper baby as well.)

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A girl not wanting to fuck you on the moment does not make you a "beta bucks", irrespective of your attractiveness. Agreeing to provide her with your wealth and attention in a sexually committed relationship does.

Yup. That was a major point of The King Arthur Speech post. The problem wasn't what Legal Cohabiting Female did. It was what I did and didn't do.

[–]MisterKissBang 1 points1 points [recovered]

The terms Alpha/Beta seem obsolete to me.

If you're saying someone is alpha, what does it mean? Are you saying they have alpha personality traits? Are you saying their are alpha in a particular social context?

Too confusing.

When talking about personality, I think we should call people with descriptive adjectives:
-Dominant VS submissive
-Outspoken VS reserved
-Confident VS insecure

When looking at a person within a social context, we should qualify their position:
-Central VS marginal
-Leader VS follower
-Influential VS Insignificant

And finally, we It's confusing on many levels:

  • It suggests it's all genetics
  • It suggests it's a universal status
  • Etc

And finally, in the context of female perception, it would be more clear to use provider instead of Beta Bucks.

I just can't come up with a good term for Alpha Fucks.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I actually agree. Those terms were good placeholders at the start, but they're responsible for some serious misunderstanding now.

Even Rollo use "beta" sometimes for "reliable provider" and sometimes for "frustrated clueless chump", which are not the same concepts.

alpha = "sexually attractive right now"

[–]SocietalEngineering 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You are taking a very simple concept and turning it into something more accurate yet too complex.

Keep it simple, stupid.

Be alpha.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I actually partly agree with you. And "Be alpha" is simpler, but less accurate. For example, it won't help you passing comfort tests, dealing with ASD, dealing with a woman with PMS, or dealing with a woman in her epiphany phase.

It's like Newton's vs Einstein's theories of gravity. Newton's model is simple enough to be understandable by schoolboys and sufficiently accurate in most purposes, but if you can understand and implement Einstein's and need that accuracy in some of your applications, why would you bother with the less accurate version?

[–]SocietalEngineering 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Love the Einstein vs Newton analogy, I'm stealing that. That's exactly it.

The reason we still use Newton is because it's easier to communicate. That's all. Your post is relevant to the more nerdy red pillers here, certainly. But that isn't the majority.

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

The whole Alpha/Beta shit is tiring.

An example of the irrationality: A wall street banker that makes millions per year and has access to top shelf pussy through hookers (not to mention, not having to deal with women's shit) isn't Alpha because he has to pay for it.

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

I lament that I only have one upvote to give. Well explained.

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

The problem with this, is that it's basically a 2nd lvl mgtow kinda thinking. Most men, even on this subreddit will say no thank you to that.

Humans are a predator K selected species and what you are implying with this logic is that we are basically r selected like pray species. Sexual strategy for most men, even in this skewed sample which is your audience never meant having scores of sexual partners but rather finding a stable fulfilling relations that is not basically walking on eggshells of your own alphaness being constantly measured and evaluated and one misstep away from her monkeybranching onto someone else or just straight out dumping you.

People are here for various reasons and it's not your or anyone's job to "school" them on what they should want. You preaching nihilism and absurdism and short-term egotripping hedonism of just adding numbers to notches will appeal to a lot of guys. Certainly me when I was a teenager but after a while it's merely exhausting. For most men after they figure out they can actually get laid if they put in the work, say the right words in the right sequence and dismiss a shit test here and there they can penentrate her.

However sex is not merely an error of evolution and a sensory cheat to be exploited while competing with every other man on the number of them to rub your ego. That is pathetic. More can be achieved. What more? Reproduction is about evolution. That is why we have two sexes. What evolution? Going beyond what you would describe as "human nature" but is, in fact, merely r selected sexual behavior.

The goal is to find genes worthy of mixing your with them and psychology that will support the offspring. Being promiscous in a sterile way is just jerking off your ego providing false rewards for a very high price, especially for guys who are not naturals in it (facial structure, testosterone levels, hair quality, height, extraversion, quality examples of male to female relationships in the family, reading body language and being a quick conversational thinker or naturally funny).

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

Man's perspective: Abundance-related-issues.

  • Individual outcomes should not be over-valued

If a woman chooses a different guy = on to the next one. Maybe run a 'post-mortem analysis'(or manosphere equivalent), where you RATIONALLY(not emotionally) look at what just transpired and whether there is anything that you can improve, or use to your future benefit.

In the case of the 1.5year LTR, maybe he didn't keep enough options open to shrug it off? Maybe he slipped into a oneitis frame? Or maybe that individual outcome was not positive, and he's a monster TRP operating at a high level with a great 'long game' who understands that no one has a 100% success rate.

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

Very good read, absolutely redefined alpha/beta for me. Thank you