Many women dont want Alpha

[BeExcellent]

I will say male companionship is nice. I enjoy that and all it entails with a man who I desire. I love men just as y'all love women. But if I'm going to give my time in a relationship with a man (and submit to all the idiosyncrasies inherent therein) he's going to be exceptional. Otherwise I have fabulous friends of both genders & no trouble finding a lover.

If they don't meet your needs (whatever those may be) why bother?

@guru1000 has a point guys here really should think about. People do have various needs. Men have theirs; women theirs. Beginning "game" and I would argue even intermediate "game" relies on sweeping generalizations and assumptions about "women" collectively. The problem is that the generalized assumptions do not always translate well on an individual level.

That's where guys here get perplexed. Something didn't fit in the box it was expected to fit. Lots of threads here on some variation of this theme all the time. Something didn't match the paradigm. Hell *I* don't match the paradigm, which was Gurus point.

The thing about this site is that in my opinion to reach advanced game level you must be wholly yourself throughout your being. Inner game wins the day. It's a journey to have solid inner game. A worthwhile journey.

As inner game develops and as your eyes adjust to TRP you see things from a much different perspective. Other threads have eloquently elaborated on the stages of TRP.

You will notice things like not all women want alpha etc., and may think that notion seems to run counter to TRP. It doesn't. It's just that something else (typically a deficiency on a personal level such as insecurity, low self esteem etc. as discussed) is overriding.

As @guru1000 often repeats:

Fluidity gents. Nuance. Learn to study people and know thyself. Herein lies great power & influence.

 

[zekko]

I just wanted to point out that some women are insecure so they will not seek out good stable men because they dont feel worthy deep down.

Agreed, and such women can most certainly self sabotage. However, generally speaking, insecurity in a man is much more unappealing and will be met with less forgiveness than in a woman.

Men, I’m afraid in our search for reason and rationality, we have become the illogical gender. We sit here with countless theories, “hypergamy,” “alpha,” “indifference”—trying to fit ALL women into the same box; attempting to fit a square peg into different shaped holes./QUOTE]
This "one size fits all" approach to women has been something I've had a problem with on this forum (and with PUA theory in general) since the beginning.

We are men. We KNOW we all have different personalities, that we all like different things, that we have different tastes and different values. Yet, when we discuss women, for some reason this "Women are all alike" attitude pops up. "All women love jerks, they can't help it", "Women fvck alphas until they hit the wall when they turn 30, and suddenly they all want betas". Any differences are explained away as "the exception that proves the rule" or dismissed as NAWALT.

The problem is that men/PUAs want to narrow down attracting women to a single simple mathematical formula. But there are personality differences in women too. You don't have to date too many to see that.

 

[The Duke]

One thing you rarely see mentioned on this site is the term "calibration". It goes right along with fluidity and studying people so you can best deliver your message/accomplish your goals. A successful speaker will always calibrate to his audience if he hopes to get his point across. You have to get in their head, figure out what makes them tick, and calibrate your message accordingly. Thats the fastest/easiest way to connect & get what you want.

You must adapt to your target. Always. The military does so on a regular basis. Its why we have special forces, multiple weapons systems, and a wide array of aircraft suited for whatever type of target that may be encountered.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

One thing you rarely see mentioned on this site is the term "calibration". It goes right along with fluidity and studying people so you can best deliver your message/accomplish your goals. A successful speaker will always calibrate to his audience if he hopes to get his point across. You have to get in their head, figure out what makes them tick, and calibrate your message accordingly. Thats the fastest/easiest way to connect & get what you want.

You must adapt to your target. Always. The military does so on a regular basis. Its why we have special forces, multiple weapons systems, and a wide array of aircraft suited for whatever type of target that may be encountered.

How about first 'calibrating' your own desire, and then looking for a certain kind of 'target' you are truly interested in AKA selectivity?

The more quality women are also doing this.

PU terminology relates to the quantity of sexual partners as opposed to the quality of a relationship. No wonder the quality of most relationships are going downhill [as PU mentality becomes more mainstream]. It leads to a desire for more quantity, which leads to less quality, which leads to a desire for more quantity, and on and on downward in a vicious circle.

And then we complain about the behavior and the quality of women... ha ha

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

This is pure speculation and shows you don't have experience or understanding.

Even quality women like cads. If you want a quality woman to actually get wet you better learn the rules of this game.

I don't doubt what you're saying. But you had better be really good at game to fool the real quality women. They've seen it all before.

I'm just stating the social ramifications of the devaluation of relationships to casual sex. I just think it's ironic that we promote a certain treatment toward women because of the way women are today - women are becoming this way [all the complaints we hear about women] because of the way we treat them.

Either, men should stop complaining about the behavior of women, and accept the reality of having to game women... and uncritically; or, if these complaints continue to resonate with them, take a look at the larger picture, which will focus on the promotion of quality, first within yourself, then within the woman, and then within society in general. At some point, the Don Juan has to ask which camp he belongs to.... is he re-active to prevailing conditions, or is he pro-active in creating better ones?

We are afterall social animals. This is why we instinctively complain about the current conditions... we know that things could be better... and our own behavior either contributes to that or not.

 

[Tenacity]

One thing you rarely see mentioned on this site is the term "calibration".

A successful speaker will always calibrate to his audience if he hopes to get his point across.

You must adapt to your target. Always. .

This is good for business relationships, but for personal relationships? I don't think so.

You aren't going to get every girl. All you can do is fix your looks, personality, and finances to become attractive, and from there, you let the numbers game play out. The girls that move forward will like YOU for YOU....rather than you trying to fit into whatever "criteria" you think the girl is going to like.

You will approach 20 chicks, get 12 numbers, date 6 of them, fvck 3 of those, and 1 will be in a relationship with you. That's the game. There's no changing it. I'll break it down further:

- If your personality is wild/crazy/goofy like Tenacity, every girl isn't going to like that....but some girls will...the numbers game will reveal the girls who like this personality and that's the women I fvck with.

- I'm black....every girl doesn't date black guys for various reasons (racism, bad reputation, whatever)....the numbers game will reveal the girls who like to date black guys and that's the women I get to pick from.

- I'm sort of arrogant....every girl doesn't like arrogant guys....but some do

- I'm 5'9.....every girl doesn't like guys under 6'0....but some do

- I don't spend a lot of money with chicks....some girls like that.....some don't.

- I'm very sexual....some girls like that....some don't.

You get what I'm saying? If I tried to CHANGE Tenacity to fit into every individual woman's criteria I would be completely screwed. I hate to use the phrase "be yourself".....but quite honestly, if guys focused more on finding out more about WHO they are, WHAT they want, and fixing yourself up to be as attractive as YOU can be....most of your "dating/getting laid" issues with women would cease.

Everybody is always trying to be somebody else. Fvck that. I'm Tenacity. Like it or fvcking hate it.

 

[The Duke]

This is good for business relationships, but for personal relationships? I don't think so.

You aren't going to get every girl. All you can do is fix your looks, personality, and finances to become attractive, and from there, you let the numbers game play out. The girls that move forward will like YOU for YOU....rather than you trying to fit into whatever "criteria" you think the girl is going to like.

You will approach 20 chicks, get 12 numbers, date 6 of them, fvck 3 of those, and 1 will be in a relationship with you. That's the game. There's no changing it. I'll break it down further:

- If your personality is wild/crazy/goofy like Tenacity, every girl isn't going to like that....but some girls will...the numbers game will reveal the girls who like this personality and that's the women I fvck with.

- I'm black....every girl doesn't date black guys for various reasons (racism, bad reputation, whatever)....the numbers game will reveal the girls who like to date black guys and that's the women I get to pick from.

- I'm sort of arrogant....every girl doesn't like arrogant guys....but some do

- I'm 5'9.....every girl doesn't like guys under 6'0....but some do

- I don't spend a lot of money with chicks....some girls like that.....some don't.

- I'm very sexual....some girls like that....some don't.

You get what I'm saying? If I tried to CHANGE Tenacity to fit into every individual woman's criteria I would be completely screwed. I hate to use the phrase "be yourself".....but quite honestly, if guys focused more on finding out more about WHO they are, WHAT they want, and fixing yourself up to be as attractive as YOU can be....most of your "dating/getting laid" issues with women would cease.

Everybody is always trying to be somebody else. Fvck that. I'm Tenacity. Like it or fvcking hate it.

You totally missed the message. You don't seem to understand the social and personal dynamics of relationships very well. Have you ever known a person that is a "people person", they tend to understand this concept very well and could help you. This lack of understanding is part of your issue. Look into improving your social acuity, it will help you keep girls around longer.

I always remain true to my identity. Calibrating doesn't mean you alter who you are.

All the things you mentioned are about yourself. The point here is you need to get inside their brain, its not about YOU! Its about understanding what makes them excited and understanding how they think by asking questions and active listening. Figure out what makes them want to open up. When you figure out what it is, you can connect on an emotional level. Thats the whole key.

Here's an extreme example of what this means. Lets say you were an expert on space exploration. You need to give 2 speeches to 2 different groups. One group is a bunch of middle school kids, the other is a group of engineers. In order to effectively get your point across to both groups, you would need to calibrate/alter/modify your speech in order to connect to your audience. In doing so you will walk away with both groups excited, informed, and pleased they listened to what you had to say. They will feel good about themselves and will be impressed by you.

Its no different than modifying your resume for different job positions.

Figure out what each group wants/needs to hear and deliver the message.

 

[PantyWhisperer]

I don't doubt what you're saying. But you had better be really good at game to fool the real quality women. They've seen it all before.

I'm just stating the social ramifications of the devaluation of relationships to casual sex. I just think it's ironic that we promote a certain treatment toward women because of the way women are today - women are becoming this way [all the complaints we hear about women] because of the way we treat them.

Either, men should stop complaining about the behavior of women, and accept the reality of having to game women... and uncritically; or, if these complaints continue to resonate with them, take a look at the larger picture, which will focus on the promotion of quality, first within yourself, then within the woman, and then within society in general. At some point, the Don Juan has to ask which camp he belongs to.... is he re-active to prevailing conditions, or is he pro-active in creating better ones?

We are afterall social animals. This is why we instinctively complain about the current conditions... we know that things could be better... and our own behavior either contributes to that or not.

I wildly disagree. Men have always been men. If anything, men have adapted to what women want more over the last 40 years. Women are the ones whose behavior has changed and are causing men to just say screw it and move the game back over to PUA type stuff. I don't think we are causing bad behavior in women. They are simply acting like the entitled spoiled brats that they have always been.

 

[Tenacity]

You totally missed the message.

No I understood your message very clearly. I'm disagreeing that your message should apply to personal relationships.

You don't seem to understand the social and personal dynamics of relationships very well. Have you ever known a person that is a "people person", they tend to understand this concept very well and could help you. This lack of understanding is part of your issue. Look into improving your social acuity, it will help you keep girls around longer.

Look do me a favor.....and it's not just YOU....but can you guys stop fvcking psycho-analyzing me every time I make a post lol? What you do is turn general topics into "Tenacity's Issues" when the topic has not a damn thing to do with "Tenacity".

It's getting annoying because you guys are using information I've put in my Anger Thread to "argue" against points I'm making on a topic that's totally unrelated. Keep in mind that the only reason you can do that in the first place is because I'm not anonymous....unlike most of you lol.

The point here is you need to get inside their brain, its not about YOU! Its about understanding what makes them excited and understanding how they think by asking questions and active listening. Figure out what makes them want to open up. When you figure out what it is, you can connect on an emotional level. Thats the whole key.

It's ONE thing to have a good conversation, listen, and try to understand someone. It's another thing to try to change or shift or alter your personality to try to FIT the criteria of every girl you met in order to avoid rejection/incompatibility. From your prior statement, you came off as though you were promoting the latter rather than the former.

My stance is that you shouldn't be trying to FIT the criteria of every girl. You should fix your looks, personality, and finances to where you are attractive....then go out into the field, play the numbers, and manage the women that vibe with your "improved but natural" personality.

Here's an extreme example of what this means. Lets say you were an expert on space exploration. You need to give 2 speeches to 2 different groups. One group is a bunch of middle school kids, the other is a group of engineers. In order to effectively get your point across to both groups, you would need to calibrate/alter/modify your speech in order to connect to your audience. In doing so you will walk away with both groups excited, informed, and pleased they listened to what you had to say. They will feel good about themselves and will be impressed by you.

This is a business related example, I said your approach is applicable for business related relationships but should not be used for personal relationships.

Its no different than modifying your resume for different job positions.

This is a business related example, I said your approach is applicable for business related relationships but should not be used for personal relationships.

Figure out what each group wants/needs to hear and deliver the message.

In business yes, not for personal relationships. For example:

- You are a freshman at a new college, staying in dorms.

- As you socialize you come in contact with a bunch of different "groups" of people. You have the gay group, the lesbian group, the transgender group, the hip hop/urban black group, the punk rock and roll group, the country music group, the gospel group.....etc,

- If you aren't gay, why would you want to SHIFT your personality in order to "fit in" with the gay group? If you aren't into punk rock, why would you want to SHIFT your personality in order to "fit in" with the punk rock group?

Again, this is different if you are SELLING something (business related) to these groups because what's on the display is what you are selling (the product/service), not your personal identity or personality.

 

[speed dawg]

We have been told that becoming "alpha" will lead to success with women. Alpha meaning achieving financial, physical and emotional stability. This is no longer true for American men. Being alpha may be counterproductive. Women are only attracted to alpha when they grow up with an alpha role model, and when they have self love. Without these two requirements a woman will not gravitate towards alpha. She may be sexual with him, but she will fear having a relationship with him and run away.

The first group of women are women that did not have an alpha role model for a father. These can be described as dominant women. They often are feminist and have been brainwashed by western society. They have a "go girl" attitude and view men as dumb. These women do not gravitate towards men that they can not boss around. If the alphas opinion conflicts with her worldview, then the alpha is not a suitable partner. They will become physical with an alpha because they still become aroused by them but they will not date the alpha. They will run away.

The second group is the self esteem issue group. Many women have told me that they have self esteem issues. This caused them in the past to date men that are below them. Below them meaning that these men were inferior financially, physically and socially. They were attracted to these type of men because these men needed saving. These women could feel good about themselves. They felt superior to these men and were in control. These women lack self love. Their self esteems are low so they get very intimidated by men that have a lot going for them. Yes they are still physically aroused by alpha traits but they will run away from the alpha ( usually after sex). This leaves the alpha wondering where he went wrong.

As i have progressed financially, emotionally and physically i have noticed that my sexual partners have decreased. More specifically the women that are willing to stick around has decreased. I had more girls that stuck around when i lived with my parents. One girls actually told me " if you get this promotion i cant be with you. It will be too much. You will be the complete package." This girl was cute, but had self esteem issues and constantly dated down. Many of my female friends have opened up to me and confirmed this observation. What do you guys think?

This post is a big pile of bullsh*t.

A woman who is genuinely into you will break down walls, cancel plans with her mother, blow off her girlfriends, walk barefooted through a snake pit, and climb 35 stories on a wobbly ladder to be with you. This has been true since the beginning of time. I laugh when I hear someone talk about the 'modern world' as if it's something so incredibly different.

How you deal with dominant or self esteem type chicks is what changes. If they pull some nonsense, you pull your attention. If they truly want your attention, no misplaced ideals will get in the way. These things don't change with time.

I notice some differences in the way women view 'classes' of people, though. Usually people just want to stick with their clique. I think that's just another lazy comfort that people go through in general, though, not really an attraction thing. Women most times aren't JUST attracted through physical means, so filtering out by social 'class' is much easier for them to do, while men just want the looks.

 

[zekko]

A woman who is genuinely into you will break down walls, cancel plans with her mother, blow off her girlfriends, walk barefooted through a snake pit, and climb 35 stories on a wobbly ladder to be with you. This has been true since the beginning of time.

If the girl has high interest, this is certainly true. But the attraction has to be there first. I think the point was how to get the girl to have that high of an interest in the first place. Simply being "alpha" may not be enough.

I have known some of this girls who go for lower guys who need saving. I don't know if they have self esteem issues (they may), but they seem to want to be in some sort of caretaking position. Maybe it has to do with their instinct to nurture, maybe it is magnified in these women, or possibly misplaced.

 

[guru1000]

Tenacity, I get what you are saying and I get what Howiestern is saying, but let's look at this from an alternate perspective:

It is often repeated in this forum and in the Manosphere (collectively, "here"), that you are to be who you are intransigently and to never comprise your volition for any particular woman. If she does not fit as is, then discard.

It is also repeated here that a woman will only stick around long-term when you are meeting ALL of her needs.

Well isn't that a paradox for the LTR? Are we to believe that we can be 100% who we are and, concomitantly, meet 100% of a woman's needs in an LTR? Can the numbers game produce such a result? Unlikely.

I understand being 100% who you are and meeting 50, 60, perhaps, 70% of the woman's needs, but meeting 100% of her needs without compromising one inch of our own desires? Shame on you for pandering for a piece of puzzy! Right?

My point?

Concessions will have to be made somewhere for both you and for her to make an LTR work long-term. As much as this may not resonate here, this is the truth for LTR longevity. And for this reason alone, many here don't choose LTRs, as they understand on a deeper level, this is the truth.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

Tenacity, I get what you are saying and I get what Howiestern is saying, but let's look at this from an alternate perspective:

Its often repeated in this forum and in the Manosphere (collectively, "here"), that you are to be who you are intransigently and to never comprise your volition for any particular woman. If she does not fit as is, then discard.

It is also often repeated here that a woman will only stick around long-term when you are meeting ALL of her needs.

Well isn't that a paradox for the LTR? Are we to believe that we can be 100% who we are and concomitantly meet 100% of a woman's needs in an LTR? Can the numbers game produce such a result? Unlikely.

I understand being 100% who you are and meeting 50, 60, perhaps, 70% of the woman's needs, but meeting 100% of her needs without compromising one inch of our own desires? Shame on you for pandering for a piece of puzzy! Right?

My point?

Concessions will have to be made somewhere for both you and for her to make an LTR work long-term. As much as this may not resonate here, this is the truth for LTR longevity. And for this reason alone, many here don't choose LTRs, as they understand on a deeper level, this is the truth.

Or the problem is taking an overly individualistic approach. Now if man be a social animal and develops himself within a social setting then why can't both a man and woman continue to develop themselves within a LLTR?

When you do away with the dry dichotomy of individual and society, and see them just as the distinctions which they are, then human nature is seen as permeable. It is only the self-conscious ego that imagines itself totally isolated and completely self-sufficient. This in reality is an illusion.... or should I say a mass delusion.

 

[guru1000]

Or the problem is taking an overly individualistic approach. Now if man be a social animal and develops himself within a social setting then why can't both a man and woman continue to develop themselves in a LLTR?

When you do away with the dry dichotomies, and see them just as the distinctions which they are, human nature is permeable. It is only the self-conscious ego that imagines itself totally isolated and completely self-sufficient. This in reality is an illusion.

A nature which is fluid feels no violation when it changes its form.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

A nature which is fluid feels no violation when it changes its form.

Yes, I like that! All is flux.

Back to Heraclitus, 'You can't stand in the same river twice'.

That's why poetry is just as important as philosophy.... if not, more. Go with the flow. Avoid the static forms, preconceived dogmas and ideologies. I think the tragedy of the modern world is it has largely lost this impulse. Regaining this impulse requires the restraining of our Rationalism.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

A nature which is fluid feels no violation when it changes its form.

And which is why the inflated ego [the sin of seriousness] finds it painful to change. It has given up on life as a gallant adventure, and instead looks to bunker down behind its own defenses. To dominate its own little self-created world. This is no picture of an abundant life, but a narrowed of experience. I believe this is where the word 'bunk' comes from.

 

[Tenacity]

It is also repeated here that a woman will only stick around long-term when you are meeting ALL of her needs.

And this is what I disagree with because it's just completely and utterly not true.

I understand being 100% who you are and meeting 50, 60, perhaps, 70% of the woman's needs, but meeting 100% of her needs without compromising one inch of our own desires? Shame on you for pandering for a piece of puzzy! Right?

Concessions will have to be made somewhere for both you and for her to make an LTR work long-term. As much as this may not resonate here, this is the truth for LTR longevity. And for this reason alone, many here don't choose LTRs, as they understand on a deeper level, this is the truth.

Yeah but Guru no guy can ever meet 100% of a woman's needs and vice versa. This was the exact issue I was having, I was looking for the chick that checked off the list 100%.....and no such person exists.

Women aren't in LTRs with guys that meet 100% of her needs, she's in LTRs with guys that meet a good PERCENTAGE of said needs. It might be 50%, it might be 60%, but it's not 100% because no such person exists.

Now back to the discussion with Howie.....Howie is saying that a guy should tailor his personality to individual women he meets in order to better connect with them. I just don't think this is a great strategy because as a man with a LIFE, you shouldn't have all of this TIME on your hands to date/fvck EVERY WOMAN any way.

For example, my time only allows for me to spin no more than 5 plates at a time (including if one of those is an LTR), so seeing as though 5 is the very MAX, why in the hell do I need to tailor my personality to every individual woman when I don't NEED every woman?

Plus this shyt is much more enjoyable when you can be your natural personality. It's why I hate when you guys promote "cartoon characters" on guys like Alpha, Beta, DJ, etc. How about let the guy be his natural self but just fix his looks, fix his finances, and know how to carry on a good conversation? Let the guy approach 20 chicks, get 12 numbers, get 6 dates, and spin plates with 3 of them (1 a relationship and 2 are side pieces).

 

[PeasantPlayer]

Women dating BETAS, yet stare me down when they beta is not looking or not around

 

[guru1000]

Tenacity:

Reminder, our discussion refers to LTRs only. Also the percentages are arbitrary just to demonstrate a point for discussion.

Example:

My "nature" is to be a real dvck;
My "nature" is to be extremely sardonic;
My "nature" is to only satisfy myself in bed;
My "nature" is to exhibit many anti-social behaviors;
My "nature" is to show no love or care for my gf.

Every past gf had a problem with these behaviors. In addition, to these behaviors, these gfs had other little needs that I did not feel like tending to. And here is my problem with LTRs.

So if I wanted an LTR with a 9 who had needs, and I bring the behavioral idiosyncrasies listed above among others, the relationship will not work long term. Now of course, I could find a 5 that will deal with all my crap, but, then, again, this would be a concession.

So let's say we go out there, look for a girl who naturally meets 100% of our needs. We look and she does not exist. We and she have a baseline % of needs, which we would be willing to accept, let's say 80%. So we find this girl who naturally meets 70%, and we naturally we 70% of hers. Concessions on both sides will have to be made to meet the baseline %.

I don't feel like being nice in the morning, but I have to be at times in an LTR.
I don't feel like not always being a dvck, but I have to be less of a dlck in an LTR.
I don't feel like curbing my extreme anti-social behavior, but I have to curb that sometimes in an LTR.
I don't feel like showing love or care for my gf at all, but I have to sometimes in an LTR.
I don't feel like satisfying my gf in bed, but I have to sometimes in an LTR.
I don't feel like being monogamous, but I have to all the time (and for other guys some times) in an LTR.

Get the point?

 

[Poon King]

Women dating BETAS, yet stare me down when they beta is not looking or not around

Exactly.

Women who avoid alphas are the same as men who avoid attractive women = They are aware of their own low value.

A woman who knows she doesn't have the game to please and impress an alpha will eventually learn not to bother to avoid pain. Same as a low value man who knows he cannot attract a super model will eventually stop trying. Doesn't mean the attraction isn't there though.