There is a lot of dogma in the game community and at Roissy’s. However dogma can be good for clarifying ideas. When you have grasped the ideas you can let go of the dogma.
Likewise alpha and beta are useful terms even if I prefer to see them in a broader scope than “gets laid a lot.” I believe that the alpha/beta distinction is useful perhaps more as a metaphor than a hard classification. I use the terms in a broader context than the PUAsphere. Alphas are the top 15 percent while betas are mediocre.
In my view a man does not become alpha by “getting more chicks,” he becomes more alpha and as a result has the chance to “get more chicks.” My definition is more in the leaders-of-men, builder-of-empires mold. Of course men that lead and men that have empires normally have little problem attracting women, but it is a benefit and not a goal.
I think many men come to “game” thinking that it will fix their life only to find that it doesn’t. Many PUA/Gamesters are hedonists looking for nothing more than a quick hit, but for many more men their failings (or feelings of failure) with women are symbolic of something else.
The thing that is wrong with beta males, the thing that causes them to suffer, the thing that causes all that pain, is their own nature. They are either fighting against their own ferocious nature (because chivalry, male feminism, SWPLness, etc.), or are NOT fighting against their own mild nature (introversion, agreeableness, etc.).
A man should be extravert, confident, competitive, ferocious, and perhaps a bit frightening. He should paint the world in bright hues and not insipid grays. He should sound like the rumble of a kettledrum not the delicate flutter of a harp. He is a salty, spicy broth and not a subtle, sweet sauce. Mediocrity is not something he knows and is not something he puts up with. He should not be mild. He should not be happy with a mediocre life. A man that is living a mild and mediocre life is not a man and is not living.
A man is judged by his position in society, by his accomplishments, and by his ability to lead. Mild men do not achieve great things, the do not lead great armies, and usually do not gain great status. But deeper than that, at some level a mild man is not living up to his masculine potential. He is hiding that warrior that is deep inside but in doing so leads a smaller more shriveled existence. A mild, gentle, and sweet woman is a wonderful thing. A mild, gentle, and sweet man is (to be polite) not a wonderful thing.
I think Roissy’s Beta of the Month and Look at this Herb threads sum it up well. What is wrong with the men described? Are they evil? Have they caused great harm? Are they destructive? Most look like decent guys, few could be called ugly, most are probably fairly smart and well educated, and they probably all hold middle class jobs. So what is wrong with them? What causes that visceral distaste (men and women)?
The problem: These men are mild. They are shadows of the real thing. They are a faded carbon copy, barely recognizable.
I think C. S. Lewis has some evocative phrases that he used in a different context but are useful here. He used the terms “men without chests” and “trousered ape.”
PUAs are the trousered apes. They are monkeys performing tricks in return for having peanuts thrown at them. Some of the monkeys get very good at the tricks but they are still monkeys and they are still performing tricks. For some men a diet of peanuts is good enough, these men are the PUA “alphas.”
Beta males are the men without chests. They are mediocre, unremarkable, and unnoticed. They are invisible beings that come and go and leave not a trace. There is not even some disturbed dust to mark that they may have passed through. It is not that they don’t have a shadow, it is that they are only a shadow.
The Alphas are the men of passion and drive. They are those ferocious beings that rock the world and achieve great things. They leave more than a trace, in fact they leave an indelible mark. They are not trousered apes but they do have chests.
I have heard it said that no woman leaves the house hoping today is the day she is not swept of her feet. No man should leave his house hoping he is unable to sweep a woman off her feet today. No man should want to be one of many interchangeable chumps. Every man should want to be the one that rocks her world. Sweeping her off her feet and rocking her world is our job, we should do it well.
Even if bagging hot chicks were his only concern I still feel that a man should move beyond game (pretending to be alpha) and seek to become a better man (naturally alpha). They player will always be playing, he will always “on.” That is tiring. The man that has built on his mission, has built his confidence, and earned his status will not have to play; he will just have to be. If a man wants to keep a woman attracted (LTR) he cannot do it by playing alone as that is too tiring, too prone to slips. When he has earned his place he can just follow the old advice and “just be himself.” He can do that because “himself” is now an attractive thing, he can put away the furry hat because he is home.
For some pickup is about playing a trick, for some it is about magic tricks. For me it is about magic, the kind of magic that does not involve coins and playing cards. It is the magic that happens when a man is fully comfortable in his place in the world. It is the magic that happens when a men truly knows he is a good catch, because he is. It is the magic of the alpha man.
As I said in my Real Beta Revolution thread this is about finding a place in this world. The drive for status and respect is probably driven, at a primal level, by the desire to attract mates. However, trying to short circuit that to just get lots of sex would not fulfill me. I guess that I am more of an idealist than a hedonist (which may put me at odds with many in the seduction/PUA community).