Interesting Alpha vs Beta analysis based off TV Show

[Knight of Roses]

Just some thoughts for discussion.

For those that follow the Netflix show: The Kingdom, it's about a family of MMA fighters.

There is a character on there, Jay Kulina, who is an MMA fighter. Typical Alpha behavior; runs into this cute girl at the beach, and quickly makes her a plate. Several, days of sex fueled fun. Later on, he finds that she lives in the home of another male, named Paul. Paul is a lawyer and provides a home for her, and in return, she likely gives him sex as well as companionship for basketball games, dinners, charity events, etc.

Jay eventually confronts Paul and has a discussion with him; Paul states that the girl is so against living in Poverty, she has been crying for days in order for Paul to marry her. Jay understands this and finally moves on.

Now, looking back, these two seem to be in traditional Alpha v Beta roles correct? Jay got the sex, but he didn't end up with the girl. Is this common? Perhaps, as the Alpha he should be pleased with the fact that he could spin her as a plate for as long as it lasted and then move on. Paul on the other hand, receives sex (and the girl in the long run) but at a contractual agreement (Free rent as well as other expenses).

What do yall think?

 

[andreihaha]

That Jay guy is not a role model. I can't see someone as alpha if he's not the only guy she's banging.
Alpha behaviour is supposed to be dominant.
That's still just fiction.
But yeah, in reality, a lot of women settle for a provider. Some have sex with some other guy(s), some don't and remain unsatisfied for the rest of their lives, while others end up loving the guy and have a succesful marriage.
I try to make it kinda clear from the first interactions with a woman that I will not be a provider. Not by words, but by my actions. It's a good way to weed out the ones looking for a provider only.

 

[RangerMIke]

I really don't like the whole "alpha" v. "beta" comparison. Women are a lot more complicated than this, and every woman is different.

Every person has emotional and rational needs. Our default is emotional decision making, occasionally allowing rational analysis... but in situations with long term ramification... rational decision making eventually wins out, mostly because you can not maintain the emotional high. Eventually you have to rationally justify your decision.

We accuse women of this, and it is true they can be more emotional... but men make emotional decisions as well. If men didn't make emotional decisions, they would NEVER get married or buy a new car. They also wouldn't gamble... drink... I've seen men empty their bank accounts trying to keep a woman happy. Spend WAY too much money on sports cars, boats, and bunches of BS you don't really need. I know a guy that paid $88,000 for a Mercedes S Class... he really didn't have the money for it, but it was meeting an emotional need. He kept telling me it was an 'investment'... well, nothing that loses thousands of dollars in value ever year is an investment. But he was rationally attempting to justify that.

Women and relationships are the same. If you are a man and are meeting her rational needs, well... you might call this 'beta'... being 'beta' was a better long term strategy 50 years ago... but the problem with this strategy in modern western culture is that the government can force you to meet her rational needs (alimony, child support, 'equitable' division of assets) this frees her to meet her emotional needs elsewhere.

What is called 'alpha'... well... that is just a man that meets her emotional needs. That's it... now it is true that a man that meets a woman's emotional needs fits a typical pattern that a majority of women will attractive, but there is no guarantee that being a buff stud with money and power will work for every chick. It really all depends on the chick.

The only way you can maintain a LTR is to be the man that meets her emotional as well and rational needs, while walking that tight rope while she is shaking the rope.

 

[Who Dares Win]

I also disagree with this alpha/beta stuff, its way too over hyped.

Regarding what the general culture means by "alpha" I would say that a married man can still be an alpha as much as a caged lion can when the zoo keepers feed him and the lionesses.

 

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

Most Alpha men do not display good mate behavior, but have good genes... Most very good looking men who are broke still struggle to find an actual relationship i would say.

 

[BadBoy89]

Women and relationships are the same. If you are a man and are meeting her rational needs, well... you might call this 'beta'... being 'beta' was a better long term strategy 50 years ago... but the problem with this strategy in modern western culture is that the government can force you to meet her rational needs (alimony, child support, 'equitable' division of assets) this frees her to meet her emotional needs elsewhere.

Good post. +1.

This is why men should always focus on being her lover and not her provider. Women say they love providers and marry them, but subconsciously they resent them because they can walk all over them. They are sexually attracted to lovers, the strong dominant alpha men type. This is also why men should never get married. As women get older and their looks deteriorate, they expect MORE from the man.

All alpha means is living by your own terms. Beta is living on someone else’s terms.

 

[Lynx nkaf]

I'm just now thinking that there is no scenario where a woman lives with an alpha unless its her nuclear family member, is that correct?