The new trophy wife (or girlfriend): Alpha-Women

[So Many Ways]

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
Sorry, but this is the biggest lie ever to be floated out by the 'Today's Woman' crowd. Men could care less what a woman earns or what she does to earn it - it's simply not a factor in attraction for us - we don't take a woman's status or wealth into consideration, all she has to be is hot. That is a guy's one condition for intimacy, physical attraction. She's gotta be hot - whether she makes six figures or is in the pit of poverty is irrelevant in attraction. Oprah and Star Jones' husbands still have to get aroused, and all the money in the world wont be any better an aphrodesiac.

Status, wealth and the other rewards that result from 'professional' life are conditions women have for men in attraction. That's not to discount men being physically attractive or other conditions, but women have far more conditions for their intimacy than men, and these conditions are predicated on characteristics that prove a man as a good provider for her and any future offspring's security. These male characteristics (or sometimes just the prospects of a man attaining them) are defined by women as having value and are therefore attractive. Attractive enough to make a man with these qualities one to be competed over with other women. Women define what is masculine, they define what male traits have value for their investment of intimacy. Men define what is feminine, they define what female traits have value for their investment of their provision of security and meeting the condition criteria women place on them for their intimacy.

Women in the professional realm would like the conditions for attraction to be predicated upon their professional status (wealth), individual merit and/or aspects their personal integrity, and a whole list of esoteric qualities, but they still fight against men's basic impulses - she's-go-to-be-hot! If a woman is attractive a man is more than happy to have her foot the bill regardless of comparative incomes, it's just icing on the cake for us, but this is analagous to a woman who marries a rich guy who also happens to be good looking.

The 'Today's Woman' crowd love to use this pseudo-fear that men are expected to have in response as to why guy's ought to be ashamed of themselves for basing their attraction of the physical by blaming it on 'men's fragile egoes' or how they 'feel threatened by professional women'. It comes down to an expectation and entitlement from their 'professionalism' that men should redefine their own attraction based on what women find attractive in the masculine.

The ideology then grinds it's teeth at the men 'qualified' to date professional women for having a tendency to hit on women far younger, less 'powerful' and (surprise) generally in much better physical shape than the 'professional' they should be dating. For this they're called 'infantile', 'immature', or the behavior is regarded as a character flaw, or a desire to relive his youth with a 'trophy wife' - interesting that this term should come from the same faction to complain about the evils of objectifying women. All the man is doing is following his primary impulse, she has to be hot!

As most women bemoan, men have a tendency to see women as sex objects in attraction. Women have a tendency to see men as success objects. The problem with this 'professional woman' mythology is that professional women want to be success objects, but nature keeps confounding their efforts.

Now, all of that said, if a woman's choice is to enter the public realm and pursue a career in the same fashion that men have for years, more power to her. Great, you go girl, so long as they understand the responsibilities and liabilities of doing so. They should also thoughroughly understand that men will define what is attractive for them, not women, professional or otherwise.

Well said.

Not only does a woman have to be attractive, she needs to be kind and nurturing. If she has those qualities and she happens to make $20,000 per year or $200,000 per year, it doesn't matter to me too much. To me, there are other traits that are more important than her income or her status. If she has a lot of debt however, that could be a problem if you're thinking of marriage.

I like how you exposed the myth of the whole "intimidation" factor. Nicely done.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Bump. Just wanted to revive an interesting thread.

 

[Tboner]

I gave up on finding a woman as intelligent as me, made more money than me or had as high self esteem. Hey you gotta be realistic.

 

[Wyldfire]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The new trophy wife (or girlfriend): Alpha-Women

Originally posted by al77
Why marry up? You know the answer - instinct to get a better male provider. She doesn't want to gain anything.. she just follows her instinct.

It is actually very simple: If you want just to date her, and want no LTR of any kind - sure, A-women should be fun.
If you want a woman for a long term, A-woman will not agree do marry down....the instinc is much strong than any kind of logic.

The only women who care about "marrying up" are gold diggers. They are the "arm pieces" referred to earlier in this thread. Zero substance, high maintenance, will always be looking for a richer man whom she'll ditch you for in a New York minute. Oh...and she usually bones the gardener while wearing the lingerie she bought on her sugar daddy's credit card.

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

"Yes, without a problem: It's about time that women start pulling their own weight!"

Hahaha, I'm laughing at all of you who voted this.

You will be eating your words after your 3rd divorce. These types of women make lousy wives, lousy lovers, and lousy mothers. But to each his own I guess.

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

Originally posted by Oxide
She can make more money than me, she can have a nicer car and a job, she can play xbox better than me, all that matters is when i am having sex with her she knows it is ME who dominates.

Sorry this is dumb. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

WON'T HAPPEN. She will constantly remind you she makes more than you and when you try to be the "man", she will make it clear she feels otherwise. You will inevitably hear the dreaded, ball busting line: "I make more money than you" and you will officially become a modern man being pushed around by the modern feminazi. She will not respect you as a man if she's in more of a dominant position than you. These types of women don't succumb to the "man dominates" gender role, ESPECIALLY if they make more money than you.

But I guess some people have to be screwed over before they believe.

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

Originally posted by Joe The Homophobe
Women have no place in the workforce. But since we live in corrupt modern times nothing we can do about it. Now does it matter if a woman is successful as long as you are in control of the relationship, she looks good and is no b|atch??

this is the problem gentlemen. Successful women are b|tchy and hard to control. A man can go out with any woman as long as the natural balance is respected and he is in control.

Exactly. Great! I would have no problem with a "breadwinner" women....but the problem is the attitude that comes with these women. And just like he said, these types of women are hard to control and will fight the natural gender roles VEHEMENTLY prancing around about being a modern women with balls.


Would any of you want to marry Amorosa from The Apprentice? Didn't think so.

Amorosa is just one of these b1tchy "breadwinner" type women who is UPFRONT about her b1tchiness. Pretty much all of them are like this but just hide it. Then later in your marriage/relationship this ugly beast turns its head and you're in trouble.

 

[Visceral]

You could go either way on something like this.

Men aren't attracted to physical butchness so it stands to reason that we're not attracted to mental and material butchness as well. A woman who acts "like a man" is just as repellent as a woman who looks like one.

And the traits necessary to succeed in the business world - aggression, dominance, ambition, competitiveness, leadership, enduring hardship, etc. - are some of the most masculine traits out there.

That being said, I'm sure you could also spin this "alpha female" thing to reflect badly on us, that we're not "alpha male" enough to attract and assert ourselves over these women.

Unless she's also a lesbian or a man-hater, the second case is probably what's going on here. Alpha females are just not attracted to men that, from their perspective, seem weak, timid, and useless. Unless, of course, they're looking for trophies or pets ...

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

One last word about this "intimidation" GARBAGE.

Men are not "intimidated" by women (AFCs aside). There is one reason and one reason alone a real man would find a "breadwinner" women unappealing and it has nothing to do with intimidation.

It has to do with, again and again and again.....NATURE. EVERYTHING comes back to nature no matter how complicated relations become. A "breadwinner" woman generally does not make a good, nurturing mother simply by virtue of her not being able to put in enough time due to her high profile career. Now this is if she even WANTS children (many of these women don't).

Logically, a man following the theory of survival of the fittest would want to spread his seed and a women would want to take the best seed ideally. If this man sees a women who he feels is not going to be able to properly take care of his seed, she will seem much less attractive to him. Thus, the "breadwinner" woman becomes less attractive to the man on a subconscious level. It has nothing to do with "intimidation". That is just feminist bullsh1t to cover up the truth that men are just following their instinct and women are conflicting with this instinct.

Why are women with large breasts attractive? Because they look good? Because men are pigs? Because men are superficial? NO!!

Women with large breasts are attractive because large breasts are a natural sign of fertility that we pick up on. Thus, when a man sees a women with large breasts it arouses some attraction subconsciously because he sees her as capable of taking care of his seed/child. Little figurines dating way back (over 15000 years) depict a pregnant looking woman with with large breasts. Many of these were found all over Europe. Clearly, large breasts and the idea of fertility/pregnancy were connected naturally.

"The sizes and proportions of the Venus figurines vary. The Willendorf figurine, and several others of its type are endowed with large breasts, a large stomach, and swollen thighs, and is obviously pregnant."

source: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/artifacts/venusfigurines.html

Of course you'll see some corrupted feminist drivil about this being "oppressive" to women, that they are expected to meet unrealistic standards, and misleading/incorrect information about attraction varying on breast size blah blah blah. But the fact is that the idea of large breats and the ability to bare children are linked on a subconscious level and there is nothing "superficial" or "oppressive" about following our natural instincts.

 

[thecraftylefty]

Rollo is absolutely right. And TillTheEndofTime has some great points.

There no way in hell I would be in a relationship with a woman I don't find attractive. No amount of money can persuave me otherwise. It's just not going to happen.

The prospect of dating the female equivalent of Bill Gates (heck, even Oprah) would do nothing for me. I would be unhappy because she wouldn't excite me, get my blood pumping, turn me on, and I need that from a woman I'm involved with. She wouldn't have that glimmer about her that attractive women do. Screw the money, the woman has to be, has to be, attractive in my mind.

Here's the order of importance:

1) Attractiveness level
2) Personality/Intelligence
3) That's it


thecraftylefty

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Originally posted by thecraftylefty
...
Here's the order of importance:

1) Attractiveness level
2) Personality/Intelligence
3) That's it


thecraftylefty

I'm gonna toss something out there that seems to be important to a lot of guys even though their aspects may be on opposite sides of the spectrum.

SEXUAL EXPERIENCE (some guys want a freak, others want a virgin).

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Bumping because I enjoyed this thread.

 

[wayword]

Trust me, you definitely want a woman who can pull her own weight AT LEAST, if not also chip in for joint bills. Which shouldn't be that hard since women get paid more than men these days in male-dominated fields due to pro-female bias. Anyways, studies have shown that women (and probably men) both still prefer that the man earn slightly more than she does. So, There's probably a sweet spot there.

If she earns MORE than you, she will feel you're a slacker loser. If she earns too far less than you, you will feel the same about her. Best to avoid extremes and hit the target zone in between.

 

[00Kevin]

If you mean alpha woman by what she does in the kitchen for her man. Then yes I would.

From that perspective women do need to start pulling their own weight. As it stands now they expect everything from you and they provide nothing in return. In fact they take away your role as a man out of fear, insecurity, and avoidance of thier natural instincts.

In my mind an Alpha female is a woman that acts like a real woman and not a man. She is an Alpha nurturer and not an alpha provider.

I just don't understand why a man would want a woman that tries to do all the same things that he does. These women are insecure with being women in the first place and are out to prove something. That makes them too wacked out mentally for anything serious.


God / evolution created men and women for a reason. The reason for this is that specialization is the key to success. It would be like hiring a marketing director for your company only to find out that he is trying to do the same job as the financial director. You are paying for a marketing director not someone to perpare the financials.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...I just don't understand why a man would want a woman that tries to do all the same things that he does. These women are insecure with being women in the first place and are out to prove something. That makes them too wacked out mentally for anything serious...

Interesting. How many experiences have you had with these types of women?

 

[00Kevin]

Interesting. How many experiences have you had with these types of women?

ok well I had a girl friend that was like this once and I also know a few women from places I have worked. They all think and ***** about the same things. They are using their relationships and marriages to promote social deconstruction.

When you are in a relationship with them they keep a list of rights and wrongs and they try to make EVERY little thing a power play. They fail to show appreciation for all the hard work you do. Canadian women are perhaps the worst for that.

After many hard lessons learned, I now only date women who are trained to be loving from childhood and show respect for men.

 

[Titanium]

Interesting topic. I should really read the other posts first before I comment but I kind of like raw perspective, at the risk of repeating anything already said.

When I think of the alpha woman (or man), I don't immediately associate this with status; I consider status to be an attribute of an alpha, being a somewhat dynmaic process. When I think of 'alpha', I immediately consider one's inherent personality first.

That said, my spin on things....is that an alpha female is best to pair up with a man who is, in most ways, equally alpha / or more alpha than her. He's probably the only man that can truly feel comfortable and non-threatened by her.

I base this on three things:

1. Gendre.
That men and women should retain, to some extent, their masculine and feminine roles...and that 'swapping roles' is a strange and unnatural state for a relationship to be in - in my opinion. (ie where the woman becomes the man and the man becomes the woman). But maybe some people like that, and perhaps I am just traditional...


2. Respect.
Respect is a code that alphas interact by...and the alpha female is not excempt. Pairing up with a weak soppy counterpart - (someone that an alpha ultimately can not respect), is a recipe for disaster. Again, having to do with traditional facotrs, and that the man has to ultimately be the man. He has to give the alpha woman reasons to respect him.

I think its easier for an alpha male to pair up with a 'weak' personality than it is for an alpha female. Societal expectations or religious influences may play a role in this. And the dark egotistical side of alpha can purposely seek out a weak counterpart and weaken them further (is that true alpha or just someone with control issues?). Anyways, I fail to see how such relationships can truly be healthy.


3. Balance.
An alpha female and alpha male can serve to balance eachother out. In any relationship, no one should ever be too dominantly Alpha or too subordinately Beta. And the balancing routine that can occur between two alphas...both playful and for real... can be very hot. One of those relaitonships where sex is top priority.



I am probably overly in favour of alpha. I think that weak people deserve eachother and strong people deserve eachother's strength. I despise weak people, and that's something I need to work on.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

ok well I had a girl friend that was like this once and I also know a few women from places I have worked. They all think and ***** about the same things. They are using their relationships and marriages to promote social deconstruction.

When you are in a relationship with them they keep a list of rights and wrongs and they try to make EVERY little thing a power play. They fail to show appreciation for all the hard work you do. Canadian women are perhaps the worst for that.

After many hard lessons learned, I now only date women who are trained to be loving from childhood and show respect for men.

To me it sounds like these were women who were bitter about being taken advantage of by men in the past so now they are looking for retribution. Guys do the same thing also. Whenever anyone needs to "keep score" it's a tell tale sign of a feeling of inequality.

Personally, subservient women bore me. I married one and it was great when I felt that a man "ruled" the relationship. Too much pressure and not enough fun for me.

Now I dig it when a women plans a date with me, comes by and picks me up and takes me out to dinner or where ever. It shows that they have creativity and a high interest level and don't expect the guy to pay for everything not follow old stereotypical rules.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I'm resurrecting this thread yet again. I'm going to really start getting particular about the women I scout and their financial solvency.

This weekend I cut yet another woman from my roster who wanted a guy to save her. Don't get me wrong, sweet girl, very attractive, very giving (to a point), smart, has dealt with her historical baggage and could hold her own in bed. However, her agenda seemed not to find a life partner, it was to find a life supporter.

She had let it slip a couple of times about some doctor who use to fly her around and put her up in hotels in cities in which he was speaking (hint, hint). She also suggested that I should take her somewhere for the holidays instead of doing the typical friends and family thing (hint, hint).

The thing that struck me most was when she was last at my house and was commenting on the place. She liked it but it was very "bachelor like" and wondered how I felt about sharing a place with someone (hint, hint). It reminded me about the woman who helped me move into the place who said that she'd gladly live in my garage in order to be able to keep a lot of her stuff. WTF???

Now trust me, I in no way flaunt my status when sarging women. I live a comfortable life in comparison to many of the "normal" guys out there. But it is a bit disconcerting that so many women want to be purchased like (dare I say) wh0res.

I'm thinking that I need to go literally limit myself to scouting women of means (probably with more than myself) in order to sidestep the antiquated notion of a man having to take care of a woman (as opposed to taken care of a family). The only problem would possibly be convincing them that I wasn't after their money.... Or am I????

Anyway, I just wanted to stir up another discussion about the benefits of sarging Alpha-women or at least women who are happily self sufficient and only want the companionship of a man instead of needing his support. Oh yeah, she has to be hot of course!

Oh yeah, don't forget to cast your vote in the poll if you haven't already.

 

[wayword]

Uh, a male engineer making $80K can still be a pathetic beta when it comes to relationships. In fact, many are. Whereas some broke-azz thug straight off the streets can be an alpha. In fact, many are.

Same thing with women.

So, the first cultural bias here is equating wealth with "alphaness." When they are NOT one and the same.

I don't care how much she makes...per se. What's more important is her persona.

More importantly, I don't want a bossy, naggy, domineering, pants-wearing bych who feels she's entitled to get whatever she wants from me. And this type can come in many forms. The key is that she ultimately feels "superior" (alpha) to you and expects you to do her bidding (instead of vice-versa). A taker who expects you to cater to HER needs, instead of a giver who tries catering to YOURS.