"Friends with benefits" is nonsense.

Post Reply New Topic

Lots of people want more out of life materially than is likely possible by partnering with someone in your economic and health situation. Some people might be happy in that relationship, but many will not be. Be grateful they're saving themselves (and you) the stress of maintaining such a relationship and the pain of it ending.

Basically, until you encounter someone who's compatible in terms of what they materially expect out of life, no one is actually a viable LTR partner for you; if she's not some type of hippie or crusty punk who consciously rejects the materialism you're complaining about, she's probably not a likely viable partner for you. Some of the other views you express on here might limit how many people who feel the same about materialism/conspicuous consumption are going to be compatible across a broader range of issues.

Imagining that things might work is certainly not the same as actually having them work, or even having a likelihood of working. This isn't just true for you, any man or woman who steps outside mostly encounters people who aren't compatible; some factors further reduce the numbers of potential partners. Unfortunately you're holding a hand that significantly reduces the number of potential partners.

Since when money is so important? You seem focused on economics rather than socioeconomics. There lot of poor families I met, they have kids and they are happy within themselves. Would you divorce someone who lost their jobs due to economic loss of their countries?

Seriously people need to stop being competitive when come to money and physical looks.

On the contrary, people can and will be as competitive as they like, and others need to stop trying to dictate otherwise.

While I agree, I'm very interested in hearing the arguments our 'sexual Marxists**' make.

** Obvious BS phrase, analogous to 'cultural Marxist'.

What about feminists say about this? I find there a double standard from them saying 'women's rights' on their making decisions and choices. Themselves rally for equality in support and against violence/harassment from men, but they still go for macho, alpha and passive-aggressive good looking males for physical part of relationship attracting bad values. They suffer from doing that.

And no I do not reference 'extreme' feminists who really hate men.

You seem to be suggesting that a woman who has a relationship with a macho, good-looking alpha male has no right to complain if he becomes violent.

I hope I'm misreading that.

I'm not an "alpha" male. I wouldn't begrudge a woman who desires such a male, though, though it wouldn't necessarily make me feel all that great. I'd have to accept it, though. And think of ways of attracting women which goes beyond the "alpha" thing.

I know, if I tried to be and act like an "alpha" male, that I would fail utterly. I'd rather act like "myself," rather than act "alpha."

Just because one is an "alpha" male----doesn't mean he's not a nice guy. Just like there are some non-"alpha" males who can be rather nasty.

I don't sense that most women over a certain age desires, exclusively, the "alpha" sort of male, anyway.

I cringe away from that phrase as well. The concept of an "alpha male" is something people toss about as if it had some sort of scientific meaning.

It doesn't. It's not a human category, and even in animal species whose social hierarchy is far more rigidly stratified than our own, the definition is still murky.

I'm pretty well sick of being compared to a brainless ewe who's content to get covered by whichever ram manages to headbutt all the others into submission.

But you can't deny that Alvin the chipmunk was an alpha, I mean....look at this big "A" mark he has on his sweater.

You are making the assumption that everyone has attachment emotions.
I figure there is about at least 1/3 of the population that lack empathy and a conscience.
They have sex for fun, any sort of relationship is for other 'benefits' to themselves eg protection, financial advantage, social status.

Take that into account.

Yeah, but are you an NT?
Because NT's respond to Alpha's, you may not, but you are the exception. He is gunning for the majority of girls, that is where he is likely to have some success. It's a numbers game.

Interesting question.

I'm an Aspie with an adult diagnosis who's successfully masked as an NT most of my 50+ years.

The vast majority of women I know do not respond to angry, macho, abusive men by getting a slick in their panties. Stating that NTs respond to "alphas" is still basing discussion, and decisions, on a thing that doesn't exist and isn't a thing - this concept of alphas.

^ Abusive and angry men aren't alphas.

Alpha men are usually calm, wise and strong willed. Think of world presidents and CEO for examples (Not Trump).

See, this is part of the problem with the discussion. "Alpha man" isn't a phrase with an accepted definition. I'm seeing posters using it to describe macho bad-boy types, and others using it to describe men with emotional, intellectual, and ethical leadership qualities.

Edited to add: could y'all guys get together and decide for yourselves what "alpha man" means to you? I don't think it's a decision for women to make, really, but if you could tell us what it means I imagine any given woman might be able to decide if that's what she goes for.

Even if you look at the most lame PUA sources, they define Alpha like I did. There's more of consensus on its definition than you think.

I haven't seen a man defining it as abusive and angry man.

Macho? Maybe, but again the cool cocky type of macho, not the aggressive type - or maybe only aggressive when it's necessary and rightful. Think of Thor in the marvel movies or the Aslan character in chronicles of Narnia.

I was told to be a gentleman if I wanted a girlfriend but when the girls at school only went for the guys who harassed them both verbally and physically, I was then told "Nice guys finish last." and it still makes me fearful to this day I will have to become what I've wanted to prove wrong (the "real man" social view of the Bible Belt) for so many years. I've been given conflicting messages my entire life and it makes me wish I wasn't born sometimes. I was born prematurely as well so maybe I wasn't supposed to live after all?

Where's the double standard? I'm pretty sure most women who choose macho, good-looking partners don't expect to be assaulted by them. They probably like the fact that their partners could easily beat the crap out of most rivals, though.

By the way, there's nothing macho or alpha in being passive-aggressive; if a manly man has to behave aggressively, he does it in an open and unambiguous manner.