There is no man who is just a "bad boy," or just a "rich a$$hole," or "Alpha," or "nice guy." These are simple descriptors, about as useful as "jock" or "nerd" were in high school. They make it easy for us to dismiss the person, or exalt him. In no way do these labels tell us how a man fares with the opposite sex.
This reminds me of the film The Breakfast Club. I know this is just a Hollywood movie, but its point was that there was more to teenagers than merely being stereotypes, people are deeper than that. That's why it resonated with a lot of people from my generation. Even though at my age the movie seems kind of silly, being as I am so far removed from that high school world.
Rollo Tomassi said:
Once again, from the top, Alpha ≠ Chivalrous, leader-of-men, business success, etc.
As if things aren't confusing enough, let's throw the term alpha out there.
I don't know anyone who is arguing that alpha has anything to do with chivalry, righteousness, or virtue, so I'll set that aside
(Edited to say okay, I just saw Gurr's post -after I wrote this). But I disagree that alpha does not mean leader of men. Women are attracted to a guy who is the top dog, the leader, the best at what he does. That is what they call "situational alpha". I liked a quote from Warrior74, who said "alpha is not a person, it's a position". No one can be an alpha in every situation.
You are talking about alpha personality traits, which is another way to define it. Both are legitimate. Words seldom have just one meaning. You shouldn't dismiss one meaning just because there is another. Both are useful when talking about seduction. But again, a guy who is dominant in one situation may not be dominant in another. Take the alpha male out of one pack and put him in another and he may find himself a beta.
Rollo Tomassi said:
So explain to me why the LEXINGTONS's linked article should have more legitimacy than Ms. Díckens?
I wouldn't argue that either had more legitimacy. But I wouldn't dismiss either one simply on the basis that it was written by a female. Until you examine the content, you don't know.
But anyway, what is so "@sshole-ish" about the qualities of the guy she describes in the article? That he doesn't come up and talk to her right away? What is this guy doing that is so horribly "bad"? Seems to me is major crime is not making her the center of his universe.
She talks about how women don't like guys who gush all over them. That's putting them on the pedestal, treating them as if they were higher value. Obviously that's a turn-off, and there's no dispute about that.
This is one of my major complaints about the stereotypes:
Because the guy doesn't NEED the girl, that makes him a jerk?
Because the guy places his value BELOW the girl's, that makes him nice?
That makes no sense.