My friend and I were discussing this dilemma I had about a girl. I lamented that instead of me, she is now dating somebody 8 years younger (and 3 years younger than her) than I am, and somebody who I could, without even trying, completely demolish, as in beat the crap out of.
(My scenario is more complicated than that, and I know that given a normal situation where two people compete over one girl, the first person to make a move tends to win out)
Now, I was being facetious/joking when I mentioned I could beat him up without trying. I'm never going to beat up a guy in order to get with a girl (beat up a guy who was hurting a girl, yes) of course, but the idea of exerting a genuine alpha dominance isn't as explicit as it used to be. Oddly, my mother told me this past weekend that once upon a time, men would fight/kill each other over women. That's the sort of dominance I am referring to when I was joking. Or another example is my joke about sapping her with my club and dragging her to my cave.
My friend's wording was that due to civility, we can't exert our dominance over others/females. His example is that tall, beefy guys might have problems finding women if they lack civility. Considering this forum has a section on health/fitness, where people attempt to better themselves by being more muscular, plus that I had a huge (250+ lbs) roommate once who never had problems with girls, I don't really know whether his claim is accurate. It might be situationally accurate, but the problem would not be due to the physical superiority of such men as much as it is their game.
Either way, what do you think about the idea that alpha dominance still has to acquiesce to some degree of civility? I'm not full force manly but I am very no-nonsense in my interactions. Does being 'too manly' become an hindrance -- not being many enough certainly is. Also, less seriously, do you think it'd be better if we went back to more cavemen-ish days?
(My scenario is more complicated than that, and I know that given a normal situation where two people compete over one girl, the first person to make a move tends to win out)
Now, I was being facetious/joking when I mentioned I could beat him up without trying. I'm never going to beat up a guy in order to get with a girl (beat up a guy who was hurting a girl, yes) of course, but the idea of exerting a genuine alpha dominance isn't as explicit as it used to be. Oddly, my mother told me this past weekend that once upon a time, men would fight/kill each other over women. That's the sort of dominance I am referring to when I was joking. Or another example is my joke about sapping her with my club and dragging her to my cave.
My friend's wording was that due to civility, we can't exert our dominance over others/females. His example is that tall, beefy guys might have problems finding women if they lack civility. Considering this forum has a section on health/fitness, where people attempt to better themselves by being more muscular, plus that I had a huge (250+ lbs) roommate once who never had problems with girls, I don't really know whether his claim is accurate. It might be situationally accurate, but the problem would not be due to the physical superiority of such men as much as it is their game.
Either way, what do you think about the idea that alpha dominance still has to acquiesce to some degree of civility? I'm not full force manly but I am very no-nonsense in my interactions. Does being 'too manly' become an hindrance -- not being many enough certainly is. Also, less seriously, do you think it'd be better if we went back to more cavemen-ish days?