"I can't get a girlfriend because I'm a beta male."

Post Reply New Topic

Your definition is not correct.

The point of being an Alpha is to prevent the betas from breeding which is what happens in a grey wolf pack. It doesn't matter if the Apha is monogamous, if betas are caught breeding the face punishment.

OMG lol

If I am not mistaken, this was debunked, grey wolves in nature don't have alphas - the leaders of the pack are the mother and the father of the pack, and each child will form its own pack.

But chimps and gorillas DO have alpha males, even the matriarchal bonobos have alpha males but they are secondary to alpha females.

AsahiPto17,

You....you look very Gamma to me.



I feel you.

I have just looked to this and you are right. It is not a good example.

I still contend that humans don't have alphas becuase the power dynamic is too complicated for tit to be possible.

There are more successful males however.

One of the reasons why alphas doesn't work in humans is becuase, we are a multi-role species.

Unlike wolves, humans do have alpha males somehow, duck.


In fact, humans do have more sexual dimorphism than canines, women are weaker while female wolves are probably as strong as male wolves.

You would be really living under a rock if you don't notice.

At your schools, didn't you have boys who were very popular among girls, whom girls rush to them for a dance and attention- and those usually are handsome, tall and charismatic?

Why do you think crazy fandom for a male celeb/male fictional character is by far more common among teen girls than teen boys?

Do you seriously believe that, a hot looking/successful/smart guy doesn't have far more options to choose than an ugly/dumb/loser man? It becomes even more apparent when it comes to casual relationships and casual sex.

Surely, we are not the same as the chimps/gorillas, we are of a different genus, alphahood is certainly more complicated in humans, and it's probably "residual" after going more and more monogamous, but even current gather-hunter tribes do have kind of 'alpha males' , this study shows that the Pygmy tribe for instance has limited polyandry, meaning that if the male is a really good hunter, he can be mating with more than one wife - which means that total unskilled ones probably don't get any. http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 2/5/150054

===> That's a kind of a Male alphahood (a more limited version than the chimps) right there, duck, and it's proven by this study.

Also look up for Copycat mating studies in humans, this is another social phenomena humans have related to alphahood.

You remember this? viewtopic.php?f=17&t=286702

This means nothing. Spiders and birds have very strong sexual dimorphism as well, but that doesn't mean they have alphas.



I was very popular with girls in high school, but I am nowhere near what people would term an "alpha". I'm not brawny at all, I'm shy and quiet and have a submissive personality, and I like being somewhat feminine.



Hot looking/successful/smart? I am two of those (I can't say I'm successful). If that's the definition of an alpha male, then I should get all the girls. And yet I don't.



That's not polyandry. That's polygyny. Polyandry is when a woman has multiple husbands, which there have been cases of in some societies. Given that there have been cases of women mating with multiple men, I think the relationship dynamics of humans are more fluid than you think they are.

You're correct, I got confused between the two terms.

Wrong, sexual dimorphism is always a sign of inequality between males and females - true monogamous species don't have sexual dimorphism. For spiders, the female is the stronger gender.

Most birds actually do have alphas - they are the players who f**k the most females while the offspring get fathered by different males; in birds fathers are often not the biological fathers. The sexual dimorphism is often strong in birds too: in many species of birds, males are more aggressive and far more colorful.

Other species of birds like chicken and peacocks certainly have alpha males in the 'harem way', also their sexual dimorphism is strong.



Did they want to date you? Did they show romantic interest to you? There are two types of popular with girls at schools.



For humans, it's impossible for alpha males to get *all* the girls - what I am saying that male alphahood in humans is more expressed in the ability to get more interest with a larger portion of women than other men.




My bad, you're correct, I got confused between the two terms.

Yes, I was referring to polygyny - hunter-gatherers societies had limited polygyny according to this study, that definitely suggests there's alphahood in human.

MOST mammals and birds on this planet have a kind of male alphahood, in most species: the male mating is often based on performance in something, he has to prove its performance in order to mate, while the female chooses. Those who don't perform well have less chances to mate. Check for example this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lek_mating

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 19 Mar 2016, 5:58 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Seriously, the idea of Alpha males (a minority of males who attract the majority of females) is not a myth thing in nature, it is not something invented by PUAs and the like, it's something that exists in biology and it's the most common mating scenario - it's not something to justify misogyny nor it justifies defeatist attitude for guys in dating, even the betas of our relative species like chimps always try to mate too and often succeed- but the alpha thing exists nevertheless.

Very few the species who don't have alphas (ie. wovles and foxes) and truly mongamous - we humans really aren't one of them.

Who said it was a myth?

For one it is model of sexual select, so it exist in the same way ASD does. It is a way of characterising what is observed.

^^ I was referring to those who deny that humans have some forms of male alphahood.

I'm saying you are stretching the definition.

Humans are dominant in different ways, making absolute power in sexual selection less feasible.

I mean you could argue that PUA is based on this, inferior males using techniques to mate, trying to be less inferior.

Of course there are always goign to be more successful males, however that is true of many species. If you make the definition too broad, there is no point applying it.

If that's what you mean by "alpha male", then what about alpha females? You know, the minority of women that the majority of men are attracted to? Don't you think the alpha males and alpha females would pair up, leaving the beta males and beta females to pair up with each other?

My point still stands. Women are not monopolized by alpha males, any more than men are monopolized by alpha females. It is still possible for beta males to attract women.

Yes and yes. I'm not sure what two types of popular with girls you're talking about, so I can't respond to this post all that well, but I will say that girls have pursued me, asked me out, etc. The only thing getting in the way was my poor social skills and the fact that I would often unintentionally alienate them and snub their attempts to date me.



If that's the definition of an alpha male, then any species where there's any difference between different males and/or competition for mates will have alpha males. You've basically made a vacuous statement that some men are more romantically successful than others. Well, no $hit!