Random Thoughts on: Alpha Males (again)


I am just been lazy here. I am going to copy from a reply I made on a Roissy thread. The subject was one that sometimes is a topic of discussion over there: the alpha male.

I am not sure that many people read my comments. Both were held in moderation and so first appeared in the middle of older comments not at the end as normal. Of course, it could be because the comments were not that interesting. The important thing is that it allows me add a new post with little work.

This is another Random Thought in the Random Thoughts series of quickfire posts (more like comments than articles).

Below is a barely edited version of my comments on the thread. I provide links to the thread as well as my and other comments.

I believe that the alpha male is one that can dominate other males. In the animal kingdom such domination automatically leads to access to females. The confusion is the human world is the relative level of wooing needed towards the female by the male. Because of the relative level of wooing needed by the female, men that can dominate other men can fail to attract females (they lack wooing skills). Men that cannot dominate other men, can practice those wooing skills and have success. Chivalrous and romantic or idealized notions probably have harmed many an alpha male in that endeavor.

Roissy poster Thursday has proposed separating the two types (high status versus high mate value). I still believe that a true alpha male is on that can dominate other men, regardless of his romantic success. Many of those alphas just need to learn game or unlearn unhealthy beliefs.

Some claim that my definition confuses but I think the PUA definition is what confuses. Their advice goes: to be successful with women act like an alpha male. They then define an alpha male as one who is successful with women.

I think more people (who have not been introduced to the PUAsphere definition) would go with my definition. More men would have an instinctive understanding of the type of man who can dominate others than type of man who is good with women. That lack of understanding is precisely why they read books, attend seminars, and come to sites like Roissy’s).

The dominates-other-men definition probably makes it clearer why a man who is wealthy and has social status is not necessarily alpha. Many managment and professional types with fit this category. Their power over other men comes from a position gained by

More men will have a chance to watch a leader-of-men alpha at work than a successful seducer. Most men probably have a good sense of where they fit on the dominance hierarchy but much less (we tend to trumpet or achievements and downplay our failures) on the seduction hierarchy.

If you want to fake the markers of an alpha man you need to have some understanding of those markers. I think the dominates-other-men version gives a better start to that.

Seduction is a skill, it is not in itself, a mark of a man. Just as learning to draw, paint, or sing well does not in itself make a man alpha, neither does learning seduction.

What I like about the leader-of-men description is that it lays bare the uncomfortable fact that been alpha (or a good seducer) is not just a skill, it is a talent. Some people will have it and others will never be terribly good no matter how hard they work. The PUAsphere definition focuses on the skill but, in a blank slate manner, leaves out the talent. I suppose that is good if it prevents a young man becoming too discouraged but it may lead to frustration when his results do not match his work.

I will grant that the PUAsphere usage is a useful shorthand. In most cases, the context will make what version is intended clear. Perhaps you could look at it as my version is inner game, the PUA version is outer game.

I based this post on replies made on a Roissy/Renegade thread.
My initial comment
Doug1 disagrees
My reply to Doug1

10 Responses to “Random Thoughts on: Alpha Males (again)”

  1. John Says:

    “Alpha” as described by Roissy and his followers is nothing more than an erroneous, vacuous, and ego-centric definition, as well as an abstraction from its true meaning in relationship to the human species.

    The PUA-type that sees himself is “Alpha” is doing what? Dumping a load of D.N.A. into morally aberrant, self-absorbed females who are “validating” themselves through the act of sex. “He was attracted to me and we fornicated away, ergo, I’m pretty and powerful.” All of this delusion wrapped into one truly unlovely and generally disgusting package. Wheeee!

    Alpha? The Roissy P.U.A. afficianados are not “Alpha” in any real sense. As pointed out in the article, do other men follow these fellows in pursuit of any positive objective such as success at work or victory on a battlefield, i.e., are they natural leaders of men? Are these the Alexander the Great’s, the George Washington’s, the Genghis Khans, the George Patton’s, the Henry Fords and the like? Not hardly. They are nothing but successful womanizers in an era when women exercise sexual license on a road with no speed limit. Exceeding the speed limit without any societal Law Enforcement around is considered “Alpha?” It’s nothing but kids in the candy store when the proprietor is in the back room and there is no parent around. “Alpha Not” is a more apt description.

    Let’s examine this a bit further. These supposed “Alphas” loads of D.N.A. are gleefully deposited into the seething mass of those seeking “validation” and “self-approval”, are not those recipients of said D.N.A. using every available means to make certain that there is never an actual joining of said D.N.A. to their “precious” eggs hidden within via the use of counter-contraception measures? Why “Yes”, they are.

    These happily seduced and momentarily validated females have absolutely no intention what-so-ever of reproducing the offspring of the P.U.A., the supposed “Alpha.” She has not engaged in the sex act with “Prince Charming” in the hopes of reproducing the heir to the throne, rather, it is the direct opposite. These females do not want to be impregnated by these self-named “Alphas”, rather, they want to engage in sex acts at will and without consequence, and in the main the females participation in the act is to answer the self-posed question, “Am I pretty?”

    Alpha? “Woof, woof, baby!

    As is so happens, the “I’m an Alpha” D.N.A. donors seed fails to germinate due to conscious chemical protection measures lain against it, and the egg remains successfully untouched. Said egg is finally ejected as the lunar cycle so demands. This is all predetermined, yet this is what is considered “Alpha?” Hardly. The field is biologically sterile, the soils of “Love Canal” as in New York or Chernobyl in Russia, and life does not live there except in a struggling and mutated form. It’s all a death spiral, for the entire event is nothing more than a short-lived physical act engaged in solely to massage the respective egos of the participants.

    “Alpha’s” lead and “Alphas” reproduce, sometimes in stunning numbers. When it comes to the true Alpha, think along the lines of an Attila, not some carouser who has mastered the bar scene or how to work sexually-mixed work environments. In reality these fellows are no different than any successful predator who has mastered the identification of the behavioral characteristics of their prey. In the natural world it is perhaps a limp or the foolish who stray a bit to far from the herd. In the case of the morally confused western woman, sluttish behavior is easy to identify. Slightly more talent is involved in identifying behavioral characteristics in a woman that indicate her life has gone somewhat off the rails. Again, looking for validation, she makes herself both easy and willing prey. Again, “Woof, woof, baby.”

    Given the haughty and self-absorbed nature of the vast majority of “Western women, I cannot blame the males that must co-inhabit the lands with them to avoid marital commitment like the plague. Further, given that these same women have forsaken historical roles based upon and enforced by a particular moral order as well as following as the Founders put it, “Natures Law”, instead they have chosen to follow the path laid out by Jezebel. Treating them as disposable as they now do males is in truth, a just and proper reward. A vacuum is always filled.

    Never-the-less, referring to the successful P.U.A and master of “Game” as an “Alpha” is a misnomer at best, and regarding that, Roissy et.al. could not be more wrong.

  2. Heathcliff Says:

    Roissy and Roosh have both recently written posts denegrating “leader of men” types in favor of the PUA. I think that they are both having a bit of trouble being objective since they are undoubtedly more successful with women than they are in life in general. (Not means as an insult.) Roissy in particular takes the position that the only reason men strive in any endeavor is to win the favor of women. Since this is the case, he is the more successful since he bypasses carreer or other types of success and goes straight to the prime mover. I believe that game is the application of or immitation of the natural confidence present in leaders of men. A minority of successful men may not be good with women but that is likely an anomoly of our technocratic world which may in rare cases reward introverted geeks. Most Mystery/cad type game is an attempt to fake the natural confidence and attitude of abudance seen in leaders of men. You could also argue that this cad type game has a negative effect on society since it is not productive whereas leader of men type game may serve to benefit the male, the family, tribe, etc.

  3. Default User Says:

    @Heathcliff, John

    I have nothing against PUAs. I even think that when discussing seduction “alpha” can be useful shorthand for a man that is good with women. Most of the time context will make clear which type you mean.

    I think that a man’s drive for mastery is separate from his drive for sex. Efforts to improve his game allow a man achieve satiation of both his sex drive and achievement drive. I think achieving success with women can relieve a source of frustration and distraction from a man. Success with women can be a confidence booster that spills into other areas of his life.

    Modern habits and access to contraception confuse the alpha male as father of most children idea. That is many matings no longer necessarily lead to more offspring. The so-called alpha male of today can have many partners but no children.

    Perhaps the problem is that the least cautious and least forward-looking have more children (who also may be less forward looking) not necessarily more sex (they are just more careful with contraception). That said, I think many of the leader-of-men types had many children.

    I suppose the real discussion is sex as sport, versus sex for reproduction. On the sex for sport front the PUAs have their game down.

  4. Word Around the Campfire – the Moveable Feast edition « Hidden Leaves Says:

    […] User: Random Thoughts on: Alpha Males (again) and In the Style […]

  5. Lily Says:

    I had some discussions with Doug over at I think Dalrock’s blog.

    I have nothing against men trying to improve themselves for the purpose of having sex with lots of partners if that is their aim. But IMO having sex with lots of people does not equal alpha.

    They may mimic some traits of alpha males such as confidence in order to help with their aim but they are also taking on female ones e.g. when I watch Style on youtube he’s very much rapport building. I can completely see why if one met either of them one may want to have sex with either Style or Mystery, but neither because one would be thinking oh he’s an alpha male.

    And I really am starting to question whether some of the people on PUA forums go out much in the real world or have much of a social circle or whether the amount of alcohol consumed in the UK is actually a lot higher. Any halfway decent looking guy who dresses ok and does not come across as a weirdo can go out on a Friday night and ‘pull’. Every Friday night. If we start defining all these guys as alphas, the world’s gone mad.

  6. Default User Says:


    Any halfway decent looking guy who dresses ok and does not come across as a weirdo can go out on a Friday night and ‘pull’.

    To a woman, an ordinary but nervous guy may well come across as “creepy.” I suspect that the majority of “weirdo” men are not weird or dangerous, just a little socially awkward.

    I agree that there can be a lot of over analysis in game discussions but that is the nature of the forum. Just as those who are good at mathematics can forget that there are those for whom it is not easy, those who are good at social skills can forget that there are those who lack social ease. Hearing a discussion on changing gear in a car probably sounds like over analysis to someone that has long ago internalized the actions.
    [the difference, I think, is that nobody is born knowing how to drive but some are born with better social skills. That is some have always internalized the needed skills and thus never need to discuss them.]

    I suspect that bar and club scene is largely self-selecting. The more confident and confident and extravert will attend in larger numbers because they are in their element.

    Much of the PUA literature seems to focus on telling men to pretend to be party types, so they can get party chicks. This is , I suppose, not bad advice if numbers of bangs are what you are after.

    I am not sure about alcohol consumption is lower here than the UK or Ireland. I would not be surprised if that were the case. Outside of college age, I do not see much binge/heavy drinking here. Perhaps it is the need to drive that causes that. In the US, if you do not live in the center of a city you will need to drive.

  7. namae nanka Says:

    everything boils down to physical aspects, the mental aspects are there to muddle the waters. Leaders of men, similarly are not simply alpha because the fluidity with which the leadership changes from minute things like one topic in the conversation to the next.
    The point is, unless the female to be wooed has a liking/is involved in that activity, being leader of men is pointless for that activity. a nerd leader might be leader of men and hence alpha but he is not gonna get a majority of women looking up to him by being that.

    Domination is necessary, physical domination is the only reality, others are only mere contrivances built on top of that. Mentally dominating women is a pointless exercise, unless it’s aiding the physical domination in a big way(in which case the man needs to check his self esteem).
    Wit comes naturally to women, dominating women there is a futile exercise, but that seems to be primary way of seduction and hence the failure of many men.

    what game has taught me is to simply behave towards females the way I do towards males, the differences being, lower threshold to get offended by humor, higher threshold for assholery without an ass kicking and gina tingles..but I’m already bored of this vanity.

    “to be successful with women act like an alpha male. They then define an alpha male as one who is successful with women.”


  8. Default User Says:

    I said originally said: “to be successful with women act like an alpha male. They then define an alpha male as one who is successful with women.”
    namae nanka asked: “and?”

    My point was that it may not be helpful to man that wants to be better with women. It amounts to the formula: To be better with women, be better with women.
    Also in the series:
    to be a better singer, be better singer
    to be a better footballer, be a better footballer
    to be a better artist, be a better artist
    to be or not to be [just checking you were reading]

  9. namae nanka Says:

    “To be better with women, be better with women.”

    A=A, and of course that’s it, everything else is balderdash.

  10. Linkage is Good for You: Backlog Edition (NSFW) Says:

    […] User – “Random Thoughts on: Alpha Males (Again)“, “In the Style of Roissy“, “Random Thoughts on: Gay […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: