Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
The reason that so many chumps get so bent about what defines an Alpha is usually because they don't fit that general definition very well. So it's a logical ego defense to make necessity a virtue (once again) and redefine it to better suit their own conditions. It's exactly the same dynamic as the debate over Looks vs. Game. Game takes priority for those without Looks and vice versa. A personal definition of "what's Alpha?" becomes whatever plays to an individual guy's strengths. Deductively it makes sense; we want to be the embodiment of what we 'know' is attractive to women and others.
The problem then is looking at the definition objectively. In an objective light it's difficult to look at ourselves as not measuring up to an Alpha ideal. So it becomes the first recourse to cast suspicion on the whole idea of being Alpha at all. It's a pissing contest between immature men then. Or is it? There is a LOT of observable and provable evidence that many so-called Alpha traits do in fact elicit desired, favorable behaviors (usually breeding precursors) in women.
So then the definition moves into an ambiguous moral ground; is it ethical to be / act Alpha? To be Alpha implies that you necessarily rise above a certain degree of common mediocrity - whether you do so like a guy from hotchickswithdouchebags.com or like a perfect "honorable" gentlemen is irrelevant, you still position yourself above "other guys". To some extent this is selfishness or implies a self-importance that questions moral tenets. I should also add here that women NEVER doubt themselves on moral grounds for outshining their own competition in the sexual market place - they just do so covertly and with a polite smile, unburdened by ethical doubts. Only men attempt to disqualify other men from the sexual marketplace with assaults another's honor, integrity or moral virtue.
And that brings us to the subjectively deductive end of defining Alpha. Every sexual competitor seeks to disqualify their rivals from breeding opportunities. Most animals fight for territory or harem rights. Humans generally do the same combat in the psychological. We seek to disqualify sexual competitors by calling into doubt the sexual credibility of a rival. "Yeah, he's really good looking, but that means he's probably gay" from a man, or "You think that blonde with the big boobs is hot? Girls who dress like that are usually sluts" from a woman are both psychological, sexually disqualifying forms of combat.
This also applies to the observably, provably, sexually successful male capable of OVERTLY flaunting his high sexual value with 2 concurrent women. He must be of low moral character to so flagrantly manipulate his wife and a girlfriend, right? His success, as a sexual competitor, conflicts with what a beta believes should constitute a beta-defined definition of Alpha-ness as it characterizes him personally. Ergo, the polygamist either must be disqualified as a sexual competitor based on subjective (moral) grounds, or the beta is forced to alter his own definition of Alphaness and therefore his own self-estimate.
Every guy has a Game. Everyone thinks they are Alpha in their own way. Even the worst doormat Nice Guy, hammered flat by women for a lifetime, thinks his supplications or Capn' Save-a-Ho mindset is the best way to win a woman's intimacy. He's invested in thinking he's unique in his understanding of how best to arrive at sex with a woman. Likewise, Alpha-ness is a moving target that's conveniently applied or disparaged based on personal circumstances.
Personally I believe Alpha-ness can, and does, have a concrete, objective definition. The problem arises when anyone asserts that they can definitively outline Alpha traits and it conflicts with the subjectiveness and ego-investments of those who define it personally for themselves. So we get a wide variety of what makes a man Alpha - he's the guy of high moral character, princely ambition and integrity, as well as the self-important cad banging his wife and "their" girlfriend. They are BOTH Alpha. Thus I would propose that objective Alpha-ness is NOT exclusive to social status or personal integrity, but rather an attitude of expressly manifested confidence. This can be innate or learned, but the definition is not dependent on moral grounds (or a lack of). A scoundrel and a champion can be equally Alpha or Beta in their psyche's.
The problem then is looking at the definition objectively. In an objective light it's difficult to look at ourselves as not measuring up to an Alpha ideal. So it becomes the first recourse to cast suspicion on the whole idea of being Alpha at all. It's a pissing contest between immature men then. Or is it? There is a LOT of observable and provable evidence that many so-called Alpha traits do in fact elicit desired, favorable behaviors (usually breeding precursors) in women.
So then the definition moves into an ambiguous moral ground; is it ethical to be / act Alpha? To be Alpha implies that you necessarily rise above a certain degree of common mediocrity - whether you do so like a guy from hotchickswithdouchebags.com or like a perfect "honorable" gentlemen is irrelevant, you still position yourself above "other guys". To some extent this is selfishness or implies a self-importance that questions moral tenets. I should also add here that women NEVER doubt themselves on moral grounds for outshining their own competition in the sexual market place - they just do so covertly and with a polite smile, unburdened by ethical doubts. Only men attempt to disqualify other men from the sexual marketplace with assaults another's honor, integrity or moral virtue.
And that brings us to the subjectively deductive end of defining Alpha. Every sexual competitor seeks to disqualify their rivals from breeding opportunities. Most animals fight for territory or harem rights. Humans generally do the same combat in the psychological. We seek to disqualify sexual competitors by calling into doubt the sexual credibility of a rival. "Yeah, he's really good looking, but that means he's probably gay" from a man, or "You think that blonde with the big boobs is hot? Girls who dress like that are usually sluts" from a woman are both psychological, sexually disqualifying forms of combat.
This also applies to the observably, provably, sexually successful male capable of OVERTLY flaunting his high sexual value with 2 concurrent women. He must be of low moral character to so flagrantly manipulate his wife and a girlfriend, right? His success, as a sexual competitor, conflicts with what a beta believes should constitute a beta-defined definition of Alpha-ness as it characterizes him personally. Ergo, the polygamist either must be disqualified as a sexual competitor based on subjective (moral) grounds, or the beta is forced to alter his own definition of Alphaness and therefore his own self-estimate.
Every guy has a Game. Everyone thinks they are Alpha in their own way. Even the worst doormat Nice Guy, hammered flat by women for a lifetime, thinks his supplications or Capn' Save-a-Ho mindset is the best way to win a woman's intimacy. He's invested in thinking he's unique in his understanding of how best to arrive at sex with a woman. Likewise, Alpha-ness is a moving target that's conveniently applied or disparaged based on personal circumstances.
Personally I believe Alpha-ness can, and does, have a concrete, objective definition. The problem arises when anyone asserts that they can definitively outline Alpha traits and it conflicts with the subjectiveness and ego-investments of those who define it personally for themselves. So we get a wide variety of what makes a man Alpha - he's the guy of high moral character, princely ambition and integrity, as well as the self-important cad banging his wife and "their" girlfriend. They are BOTH Alpha. Thus I would propose that objective Alpha-ness is NOT exclusive to social status or personal integrity, but rather an attitude of expressly manifested confidence. This can be innate or learned, but the definition is not dependent on moral grounds (or a lack of). A scoundrel and a champion can be equally Alpha or Beta in their psyche's.
