Beta males - why do woman dislike them?

Post Reply New Topic

Wait. I had dim girls just wanting to use me to fulfill their sexual needs… maybe I'm not as smart as I thought.


Great. I'm a snooty b*st*rd. What time should I pick you up?

(Actually, I've never been called snooty, just arrogant. so you've got me out-snootified. grew up around it and distanced myself from it./parenthetical tangent)

wish it was peaceful like that in my county - I read the police blotter and it is a full page of mayhem. and this in a county of only 60k people! [the majority of 'em yahoos]

I dont think its a question of confidence or not....for me anyways. Rather what is rational. Why would any sane person go looking for violence. Anything that requires chest beating is weird when we largely live with conscious organisation as a species. I can see chest beating being necessary with our animal brethren who live by instinct and through role playing.

I will only use violence to subdue if I have no other choice as we do live in a world where there are people who do not take no for an answer.

What's a beta male?

Is it some allusion to the animal kingdom, where a couple of bucks will fight until there's a victor and said victor gets the does?

You don't really see that happening in human society. If anything, I've found women to care for the loser of a fight more than the winner.

Last edited by Dillogic on 25 Aug 2015, 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Beta males are unremarkable, careful men who avoid risk and confrontation. Beta males lack the physical presence, charisma and confidence of the Alpha male.

Quite a lot of unquantifiables there.

-Unremarkable = basic run-of-the-mill looking man?
-careful and risk avoidant = that's smart, and goes back to survival of the fittest; if someone dies driving their car fast to impress a chick, then they've just lost that lottery
-Physical presence = could be a number of reasons for that; lacking in those things, or trying to blend in to avoid confrontation

It seems like an odd concept to me. Perhaps people with lower levels of intelligence find these things important, as they're more primitive? Or, people can only read what they see, and since most people are nonverbal creatures, that has the biggest say over how they define attractiveness?

in reel life, IMHO, capt. kirk=alpha; spock=beta. or in real life, Bill Clinton=alpha; al gore= beta.

Both of them seem like pansies to me (real life ones).

I wouldn't put them on the alpha scale going by the animal kingdom.

Andrew Jackson seems like what you'd call alpha in that regard.

ok, a better example would be Gen. George Patton=alpha; Gen. Omar Bradley=beta.

Humans are animals, women are biologically programmed to emphasize male effiency, just as men are programmed to seek out female fertility, humans are animals and weak men create a visceral disgust in women, though they don't like to admit it. That stuff is hard-wired into them through millions of years of evolution and probably before we were even human because a weak male = a threat to the security of the tribe/colony/herd.

There's also the fact that women were routinely raped as a normal part of warfare up untl RECENT centuries, thereby encouraging bloody traits in males for the security of the tribe, humans are war-like and this corruption manifests in women that stay with their abusers. The thing about those violent men is that they show bloody traits, which the women is attracted to because those were the traits needed to survive through much of human history. Warriors do NOT need empathy because the same force that lets you kill/rape is the same energy that prevents empathy. If you feel for another, you feel for their weakness, but a warrior has no mind for such a thing since he has been bred to HATE it, and women are programmed to DESPISE it because it is a threat to the tribe.

Humans need to start dealing with reality as it is, rather than how we wish it were, it would prevent a lot of grief. We come with a TON of evolutionary baggage. This is something that I believe Machiavelli pointed out in The Prince, we need to deal with humans as they are, which is animal, there is no human ideal of love before those animal inclinations. Nine times out of ten a woman prefers a wealthy/manly husband, and nine times out of ten a man prefers a busty/fertile bombshell. This is nothing new or clever, it's just animal nature.

Humans need to realize this, and then emphasize their spirituality, which is something that animals don't have. As the bible says the flesh is rebelling against the spirit; the spirit is rebelling against the flesh (Galatians 5:17). I'm not going to preach Christianity but it's up to you to find what sort of spirit to pursue while you're here on this animal world (though I do recommend Christianity since it is very aware of how our animal nature always gets in the way of love).

If any of you have/will have children, please teach them that humans are animals, and will act on their instincts nine times out of ten, some humans can resist, but don't be surprised when humans do as the animals do, because humans are well... animals.

Experiencing this the hard way inclines people towards cynicism, but I think people have misplaced expectations of humans, and women tend to be placed on that god-awful pedestal as if they're above animal inclinations when it's the complete opposite.

Teach your children that humans are animals, sooner or later they are going to learn it the hard way. From there we can choose to pursue an ideal form of love, and even if we can't have it in this life, some form of spirituality can at least emphasize a better existence in the next one.

^^^

It's a reason why people sometimes act like animals, but is it a good enough excuse to act that way?

Ok. Women predominantly prefer confident males. This is clear. But the evolutionary basis of the Warrior factor doesn't explain the situation adequately for me.

For example:

If it's true that as humans we are wired to prefer dominance, and if we humans are all inherently geared to shun and marginalize weakness, then what explanation can you offer as to why Alphas who are in the military are committing suicide because they want no more part of the killing they're compelled to do as their job? They're just weeding out the weaker of the species, so why all the grief and remorse about it?

If Warriors have no mind for others, then why are there veterans who have separated from the military who have so much guilt over what they participated in and trauma over what they did to those weaker than them that they won't ever talk about it even with their closest relatives and sometimes continue to have nightmares about their experiences sometimes for the rest of their lives?

If Alphas have this deep Warrior program inside of them, why is it that so many Warriors are traumatized by battle and their participation results in them being eaten up with guilt over the brutality they committed? Wouldn't evolution have caused them to be more able to handle the emotional aspects of being a Warrior if being so were truly preferable?

mebbe because at least some of them might be betas?

Or perhaps they are more aware of their actions.

I think these labels serve little use with a conscious species and it may well be that these vets have given some thought to what it is they are doing as opposed to going along all gung ho.

Because any guy who is discussing "beta" and "alpha" males makes in the context of dating is the sort of guy women (usually sensibly) avoid like the plague.