Disadvantages dating hot chick
Every once in a while, I like to go browse through some various blogs, forums and subreddits specializing in men’s dating advice to see what theories are being espoused.
It’s not terribly surprising (to me) to see that the idea of “being alpha” is continuing to be tossed around as the end-all/be-all of dating; it’s a part of the DNA of men’s dating advice – the complaints of Nice Guys lamenting the popularity of assholes, nerds complaining about jocks getting all the girls and of course, the obsession in PUA circles with status games and “shit tests” – that is, acting in such a manner as to “test” a man’s status by trying to make him supplicate or otherwise disqualify a man from being a potential sexual partner.
Meanwhile women must husbandto those males who exhibit the greatest level of genetic and sociable desirability: that is, men who not only exhibit exterior signs of health and fitness but who are also sufficiently “alpha”.
However, because of the need for protection as well as supporting the child until it reaches maturity, a woman may choose to pair up with a “beta” for material gain while sneaking off to have sex with the more desirable alpha males.
The idea of sex and parentage in a hunter-gatherer society was one of community; in an agricultural society, it became one of strict possession. Women – and potential children – became possessions, with sexual access becoming something to be strictly controlled and regulated.
Everything about humans from the size of our testicles to the shape of our pensises to the noises we make during sex is evolutionary testament to the fact that sexual exclusivity is attributed to nature.
The idea of the “high-value, alpha male” is a popular one – in fact, it’s one of the regular arguments in the comments sections, especially whenever I post about masculinity or what makes men attractive to women.
The problem, unfortunately, is that the cultish worship of “alpha” is incredibly toxic, poisoning interactions between men and women and actually making it It’s tempting to ascribe behaviors to “nature” as a way to give the the gloss of authority and excuse one’s desires with “we’ll, this is just how it’s supposed to be, can’t do nuthin’ about it.” But if one is going to attempt this, it helps to actually understand what the real natural behavior is instead of making assumptions based on what we WANT to be true and ultimately begging the question.
bonus if he’s : it is easy to apply in the macro view – submissive, needy men aren’t terribly appealing to the majority of women after all – and offers a one-size-fits-all solution to sex and dating. Just be more “alpha” and they’ll come flocking to your door like mice to peanut butter.The woman and the alpha – in this view – gets the best of both worlds; the alpha gets to spread his genes while the woman gets not just superior genetic stock for her offspring but also physical and material support as well.Meanwhile the poor cuckolded beta is stuck having his genetic line cut off while expending resources raising another man’s child.Up until about 10,000 years ago (a not even a blink of the eye, evolutionarily speaking), humans lived in small disparate communal groups with no real concept of individual ownership or even parentage.
Sexual relationships weren’t a question of monogamy or harem-like structures but polygynous and polyandrous.Unfortunately once again: this is an an intellectual fallacy, an attempt to use nature and evolution as a way to justify the way one things to be.