"I want a girlfriend/boyfriend", and other such relationship advice

[muggiwhplar]

They all have more or less the same biological functions, thoughts, and desires.

 

That concept makes some people uncomfortable though since it conflicts with the idea that there's a perfect little angel out there somewhere that's not like the rest

[Ginger_Warrior]

I don't know.

 

I just feel like there's a middle ground somewhere between softly timid Beta and blood surging Alpha. They're both flawed in different ways, so neither side's shortcomings validate the other.

[muggiwhplar]

I can't really think of any ways in which legitimate alphas are flawed (as far as he's concerned)

 

Betas are [kitties] who, if they're lucky, will get laid and get into a relationship and pedestalize their girlfriends. Their girlfriends will get bored quickly and eventually want someone more confident and exciting. The stereotypical "nice guy."

 

There's the "traditional alpha" who's confident and gets laid a lot, but he's super needy and territorial and needs to control everyone in his life and needs to be heard and respected by everyone, or else he'll fly into hysterics and create massive drama. The stereotypical "jerk."

 

As I've said before, the vast majority of men belong to one of those two categories, so women are led to believe that men are either nice guys or jerks; black and white. So they bounce back and forth between those two types, wondering, "Where are all the good men?"

 

And finally there's the "real" alpha who's confident and carefree. He gets laid easily whenever he wants and women never have to worry about getting bored of him or being controlled by him because he doesn't give a shit about controlling other people. He has bigger fish to fry and women are not the center of his universe. The only "flaw" that an alpha has is that he cannot be monogamous without slowly regressing into a needy alpha or a beta. Which is why women eventually (but temporarily) leave this guy to go date nice guys or jerks; because at least those guys will promise exclusivity, even if deep down they know it's a promise that is impossible to keep.

 

Everybody wishes that there was another type of man-- a man who's confident, carefree, and who will always remain exclusive and loyal to his one special woman and never bore her or cheat on her or boss her around. But that man does not exist because it is impossible for such a man to exist. Exclusivity demands neediness and control.

 

So women have to choose between:

1. dating a guy who will treat her very nicely, but will be way too needy eventually bore the shit out of her

2. dating a guy who will turn her on, but will treat her poorly and eventually become too overbearing for her

3. dating a guy who will turn her on and treat her very nicely, but will never stop seeing other women too

[Major Dash]

I like option #4.

[muggiwhplar]

If you can find a man who is capable of fitting the "job description" of #4 forever (not just for a few years); and you can develop a reliable, tested system to teach other men how to become a permanent #4, you'd become the richest person in the world. :P

 

there's a reason why women are the ones who initiate the vast majority of breakups...

[Ginger_Warrior]

Surely, it's a bit more complex than being simply "Beta" or "Alpha". If I asked a fairly simple question, such as "Do you blame yourself for past failures and successes?", a typically expected Beta response would be "I blame myself for failures and external factors for my successes", while an Alpha would be expected to state the diametric opposite. In reality, the vast majority of healthy adults would say something like "Well, I've definitely had successes in life which I've worked hard for, but I'll admit to having hard times too, some of which I brought on myself." Where would you begin to categorize the middle ground? Moreover, how would you prove either is better in the interests of a relationship, where any answer you can give would have significant problems with generalizability.

 

People are very different and generally want different things from different people depending on differing personal circumstances. If I'm a generously busted, attractive, nubile woman in a street bar, I'd probably be interested in vastly differing traits to a 75-year old granny suffering from terminal lung cancer, or even a middle-aged mother-of-three in a semi-detached property in a nice, leafy neighbourhood whose partner just lost their job due to redundancy. I haven't met a single person in my whole near-twenty four years of living who could simultaneously provide everything needed in all three examples. If such as person exists, my hats off to them. How can any one theory possibly account for such extremely different needs?

 

I think some of what the whole Alpha thing says has validity. Nobody (except psychopaths and serial abusers) likes being clung on to; for any girls reading this, that's as much as true for women obsessing over a man too. My only problem with it is that, like much of pop psychology, it seems to depend far too heavily on categorizing people into neat boxes and ignoring the middle ground, whereas in just about every other field of statistics, things generally follow a more general trend and always regress to a mean. Also, as far as I can tell, the theory seems to be based on an appallingly small amount of useful data which has been extrapolated and cherry-picked for use in men's magazines, alongside advertising space for expensive brands and 'treatments' (this isn't so unusual; it's par for the course when it comes to magazines because, after all, that's the business model, and happens quite normally with pharmaceuticals and cosmetics).

[muggiwhplar]

 

Surely, it's a bit more complex than being simply "Beta" or "Alpha". If I asked a fairly simple question, such as "Do you blame yourself for past failures and successes?", a typically expected Beta response would be "I blame myself for failures and external factors for my successes", while an Alpha would be expected to state the diametric opposite. In reality, the vast majority of healthy adults would say something like "Well, I've definitely had successes in life which I've worked hard for, but I'll admit to having hard times too, some of which I brought on myself." Where would you begin to categorize the middle ground? Moreover, how would you prove either is better in the interests of a relationship, where any answer you can give would have significant problems with generalizability.

 

No you're making this too complicated. It's as simple as a yes or a no, on the following qualities: carefreeness; confidence.

Beta: not confident; not carefree

traditional needy alpha: confident; not carefree

Alpha: confident, carefree

 

That's it.

 

 

People are very different and generally want different things from different people depending on differing personal circumstances. If I'm a generously busted, attractive, nubile woman in a street bar, I'd probably be interested in vastly differing traits to a 75-year old granny suffering from terminal lung cancer, or even a middle-aged mother-of-three in a semi-detached property in a nice, leafy neighbourhood whose partner just lost their job due to redundancy. I haven't met a single person in my whole near-twenty four years of living who could simultaneously provide everything needed in all three examples. If such as person exists, my hats off to them. How can any one theory possibly account for such extremely different needs?

 

Depending on a woman's current circumstances, she will either prefer a lover (needy alpha or alpha) or a provider (beta). Ideally, she'll have both at the same time. The problem is:

 

1. Monogamy means women cannot have both.

2. Alpha and beta traits are mutually exclusive; therefore one man cannot be both a lover and a provider and fulfill both of her needs (not for an extended period of time, at least). She needs multiple men to accomplish this.

 

If she's smart, she'll have both in her life at once, as opposed to constantly bouncing back and forth between the two extremes via monogamy. You already seem to realize this though, even if you seem reluctant to further examine the implications of it.

 

 

I think some of what the whole Alpha thing says has validity. Nobody (except psychopaths and serial abusers) likes being clung on to; for any girls reading this, that's as much as true for women obsessing over a man too. My only problem with it is that, like much of pop psychology, it seems to depend far too heavily on categorizing people into neat boxes and ignoring the middle ground, whereas in just about every other field of statistics, things generally follow a more general trend and always regress to a mean. Also, as far as I can tell, the theory seems to be based on an appallingly small amount of useful data which has been extrapolated and cherry-picked for use in men's magazines, alongside advertising space for expensive brands and 'treatments' (this isn't so unusual; it's par for the course when it comes to magazines because, after all, that's the business model, and happens quite normally with pharmaceuticals and cosmetics).

 

The "middle ground" in a relationship is polyamory; with one night stands on one end of the spectrum and traditional monogamous marriage on the other end. And the best type of man to be for polyamory is an alpha, because it is the only type that can handle it. The other types are far too needy and controlling.

[Ginger_Warrior]

All those things are variable. I can care lots about somebody one day, not give a toss about them the next. I might not care as much as someone else about a certain thing; but still care more than a third person. Am I Beta or Alpha?

 

Example: I care about my career. I take the responsibility of it very seriously. I also refuse to do extra shifts in order to promote promotion opportunities. On the one hand I'm Alpha because I take my job seriously, but apparently not that much, although under your interpretation I can't really be "less" Alpha, so I'm Beta. But am I any less Beta than someone who lounges around and does [bleep] all? Well, no. I'm just Beta. Apparently I'm the same, unless you accept the theory doesn't allow sufficient scope to categorize people accurately.

 

It's not me overcomplicating things. If anything it's you doing the opposite by treating people as black boxes whose programming renders that incapable of alternative attitudes and behaviour. But as we observe everyday, people don't act one of two ways. There's a whole spectrum out there.

[muggiwhplar]

 

All those things are variable. I can care lots about somebody one day, not give a toss about them the next. I might not care as much as someone else about a certain thing; but still care more than a third person. Am I Beta or Alpha?

 

I'm not talking about caring about someone in the sense of "this person means a lot to me." I'm talking about caring in the sense that, your relationship and this woman hold extreme weight over your own happiness. Alphas are happy regardless of their relationship status and their women's behavior. Betas and needy alphas depend on their partners to behave in a certain way in order to remain happy.

 

If you depend on luck to get laid and meet women, you're a beta by default because you lack confidence.

If you have control over your sex/dating life, then you're either a needy alpha or an alpha because you're confident.

 

When you're in a relationship, if you worry about what your girlfriend does when she's not around you, or if you worry about what would happen if you two broke up, or if she cheated on you, etc; then you're either a beta or a needy alpha because you're not carefree.

 

 

Example: I care about my career. I take the responsibility of it very seriously. I also refuse to do extra shifts in order to promote promotion opportunities. On the one hand I'm Alpha because I take my job seriously, but apparently not that much, although under your interpretation I can't really be "less" Alpha, so I'm Beta. But am I any less Beta than someone who lounges around and does [bleep] all? Well, no. I'm just Beta. Apparently I'm the same, unless you accept the theory doesn't allow sufficient scope to categorize people accurately.

 

I'm talking about relationships. You're talking about careers, which is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

 

It's not me overcomplicating things. If anything it's you doing the opposite by treating people as black boxes whose programming renders that incapable of alternative attitudes and behaviour. But as we observe everyday, people don't act one of two ways. There's a whole spectrum out there.

 

I think you're just underestimating how predictable human beings are in modern relationships.

[muggiwhplar]

You might want to read this and this if I'm still not making sense. Hopefully you'll understand his articulation of the concept better than mine >_>

[Noxx]

I believe there might be a #4. Kind of a combination of one, two, and three. Probably more Beta than Alpha. This is the guy that's shy. He's the nice guy. Not extremely confident. Hesitant to initiate a conversation. Not great at starting a fire, but pretty good at keeping it going. If he get's lucky, great. If he doesn't, he's not going to care much ("I wasn't expecting to get laid, anyway").

If he does get laid though, he's probably going to try and pursue a relationship. If he succeeds, he's going to make that girl (or guy) a bit part of his life. Not his whole life, but a very big part of it. But as soon as he get's into a relationship with this girl/guy, he's going to become more confident. "If she likes me, and wants me, then surely others do too?". He's still going to stay exclusive to her, because he doesn't want to risk [bleep]ing up what might be his only chance at regular sex. But he's going to become slightly more dominant. Probably just enough to fool her for a while, before she catches on to him. This is not his home-ground, so eventually he's going to make a mistake.

 

I agree that relationships, for the most part, are extremely predictable. Statistics had to have come from somewhere, am i right? But one thing to keep in mind, especially in modern days, is culture. It has been for a while (and is becoming more so every day) "acceptable" for people of different cultures to date/marry/whatever. And this is where the game changes. Many cultures to this day raise their offspring different to the traditional "western" way. If you were raised a certain way up to the age of 21, it's going to be very hard for you to change that even if you have complete freedom for the rest of your life.

 

I know this might seem extremely vague, so i'm willing to explain if i need to. But if you get what i mean, then great.  

[muggiwhplar]

Yeah just sounds like a "cool" beta

[Noxx]

You mean "I am what i am, whatever" or "I think i'm the shit but i'm too scared to let people know"?

[muggiwhplar]

a cool guy that people get along with... he just isn't really confident or experienced with women so he's susceptible to all the usual things that being a beta entails.

 

being beta doesn't mean you're a loser or anything. it just means you're not confident and not carefree when it comes to women. you avoid taking risks.

[Noxx]

Sounds about right.

[muggiwhplar]

No that's not true at all.

 

Just because I don't get depressed if someone I care about exits my life doesn't mean I'm afraid of becoming close to people. And just because I'm close to someone doesn't mean that I'm going to become depressed if something happens to them.

 

I just view the world differently than most people do. So I react to things differently than most people do too.

 

 

I think you're falling into the trap of thinking that in order to be "close" to someone, you have to put your heart (happiness) on the line or else you're somehow cold/shallow/immature/afraid/lonely/selfish... which is actually the opposite of how you should be dealing with these kinds of things. And I think you're assuming that since I do my best to view things as rationally as possible without emotional interference, that I also am completely emotionless in my relationships too. Which isn't true either. Your emotions have a very specific purpose in your life, and so does your rational mind. Use your rationality for long-term decision making and planning, and then use your emotions to enjoy the process of working towards those plans and enjoying the rewards of doing so. Most people use their emotions for long term planning and then can't figure out why their lives are so chaotic.

 

The friendships and relationships that I have with others are by far my greatest source of happiness. But just because I put a high value on my relationships doesn't mean I'm going to bend over backwards for them or sacrifice my happiness and wellbeing for them. As much as I love my friends, family, and women, my number one priority in life is myself; my own happiness and wellbeing.

 

Some people will call that selfish. But the people that call that selfish are usually the same people who get their hearts broken and live emotional rollercoasters, going in and out of depression. No thanks. I'd rather be happy and judged by unhappy people than be unhappy and validated by other unhappy people.

 

I'd also argue that I would be a worse friend/family member/son/sibling/lover if I wasn't so happy. That's part of the reason why people enjoy my presence-- I'm different from other people. I make people forget about their problems when they're around me because I'm so carefree. And I make my friends feel really special and good about themselves. All that I ask is that people treat me with respect and don't bring drama/negativity into my life; and I will return the favor. :P

[muggiwhplar]

Also... it's funny how the only way to present a strong argument in here is to argue as logically as possible. Yet in doing so, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people here think I'm just an insensitive [wagon] :lol: As much as I'd love to appeal to emotions, and have people be more open to my ideas, my ideas would no longer be as valid and rational if I were to do that, unfortunately.

 

#INxJ-problems

[muggiwhplar]

 

Relationships end. you and the girl your dating will get bored sooner or later then the other based on how your personalities rub on each other and other factors. With that in mind I find your posts to be true as a general rule, a needy guy will get dumped first. But it has less to do with girls being this anti-needy guy machines that I feel you portray them as then both sexes want relationships and want ends to them at certain points and the needy type wants that relationship to last longer then the not needy type does so they try to keep a dead relationship alive after its clearly over. I feel you either gloss over this unintentionally or only see it as one sided because of negative experiences. Again no judgement I am honestly curious.

 

Well no, like BD mentioned in those links I posted a few posts back, women do desire betas at certain points in their lives. They like having someone to be able to control, especially if their current/previous partner was an alpha whom she couldn't control. They like betas because beta will give them lots of attention, spend money on them, listen to their problems, give them babies, etc. Keep in mind alphas could do all those things too I guess... but just not really to the degree that a beta will be willing to do it.

 

 

I believe based on what i've read you agree with me here, that only keep a relationship that makes you happy and don't stick around past the point where its not. This of course applies to friends and family too.

 

Pretty much yup.

 

 

I understand that you advocate being honest with people 100% of the time about how you feel. I just don't get why you don't say that and instead go on about the beta alpha stuff, unless you are unaware that you are advocating honesty with yourself and everyone around you. I guess you try and explain that through vocabulary like traditional carefree alpha verses alpha, but it just inhernently creates a pecking order and e-peen environment. People are not like that, we are just a brain who's attachment psychology is molded around our environment and to a certain extent our genetics. I believe therapy is good for a lot of people, I've commented on a few in this thread that clearly need it. I think that when more people go to therapy and less people go to 'alpha' they will actually fix their problems. At any rate would you agree that the ideal is for a person to be genuinely honest with how they feel towards others and to be aware with what their feeling and why they feel that way. To me its obvious that when Saq justifies why he didn't pursue some girl further its that he is unaware of his social anxiety or unable to deal with it, or when Mandy doesn't tell a guy she likes him its for similar reasons [The whole gender norms don't mean anything for individuals, you get people who express feelings honestly and those who don't despite norms]. I was curious about your percieved lack of attachment by the same lenses, that maybe you too have fears that drive your actions unconsciously.

 

The whole alpha beta thing sort of is a pecking order, depending on where your priorities are. If you want to be consistently happy (and basically everybody does, whether they realize it or not), then it'd be insane not to pursue "alphadom." And again, all that means is being confident and carefree. No harm in that. As far as therapy goes, unless they have a seriously legitimate disorder, I don't think it's really necessary. These kinds of things can be fixed by reading forums and self-help books and then putting the advice into action. Most people in this thread just haven't been pushed enough to want to break the cycle so they keep repeating the same behaviors. I've said before that I had social anxiety when I was in high school, but it went away pretty quickly when I joined my fraternity and spent all of my time around guys who had very strong social skills; as opposed to spending all of my time in my room by myself.

[muggiwhplar]

Sorry-- replied to your post last night just before I went to bed and was tired as [bleep]. Forgot to address your point about honesty...

 

I advocate "honesty" with yourself almost all the time; the only exception being when you're in a personal transformational period, doing the whole "fake it till you make it" thing until you've successfully integrated a new part of yourself. If that makes sense >_>

 

Being honest with yourself is scary because it's painful having to admit that you've done something stupid or wrong, or that you might've wasted a significant part of your life on something. But as long as someone remains dishonest, then they will continue to remain less happy and make poor decisions.

 

And I advocate honesty with significant others when it comes to the big stuff. If you're unhappy with your relationship, you should probably figure out why that is and do something about it. But if your girlfriend is doing something that's making you feel jealous or needy or something, then being honest with her about how you're feeling would probably be a bad idea :P Better to just keep it to yourself and figure out why you feel that way and fix that on your own.

 

As far as my own personality goes, yes I can almost always tell when I'm being an idiot and when I'm making stupid decisions. By now my brain basically "knows" that if I'm making a decision based on fear (or any other negative emotion, such as laziness), then I'm probably being stupid and making a poor decision. The first half is actually being able to know when you're being stupid; the second half is changing your behavior so you make smarter decisions. So if I ever feel unhappy, I usually know exactly why that is-- it's because I did something (or didn't do something) based on my own fears or laziness or whatever. I never feel sorry for myself because I know it's my own fault that I'm feeling that way. And the only way for me to quit feeling that way is for me to change and do something about it.

 

Hope that answers your questions >_>

[muggiwhplar]

I know that society would like us to think that "REAL MEN are open with their feelings!" But I honestly can't see anything good that comes from that. It's only going to make her less attracted to you and cause more drama in your relationship, and it's completely unnecessary to discuss such a thing.

 

If you're going to be 100% honest, you might as well tell her about how you'd love to [bleep] on her sister's face too and see how that goes :P

[muggiwhplar]

I'm not "afraid" of it. I simply don't see the logic in doing something that has nothing but potentially negative or neutral consequences. You'll have to convince me why being open about such things can make me happier in order to change my mind.

[RpgGamer]

"Afraid" doesn't do justice to its nomenclature in this instance, but I see where Ring is going with this. I'm also an advocate of pure honesty for better or worse. It makes me feel happier doing so. Sharing my feelings, relating to people on a deeper level than exaggerations and white lies could allow. While it's totally okay to filter things and keep things to yourself, some of my best friendships have been created by being obnoxiously openly honest with each other. 

 

Does this apply to relationships as well? I suppose that delves into the fundamental differences between friendship and romantic partnership. 

[muggiwhplar]

I suspect that it makes you "happier" in the same way that drama does >_>

[Giordano]

I have to agree with Muggi on this. I never liked when people talked about their petty emotional problems with me and it gives them an aura of...attention-seeking? Neediness? That they're still a kid?

 

 

*This is relevant to the topic a couple of pages back...*

Therapists simply help you solve your own problems, they even say it themselves: the patients must make their own revelations. The need to change must come from within.

[Ginger_Warrior]

For clarity's sake: define 'petty'.

 

You at least have to concede there are situations in life where being totally and completely carefree is an unnatural, even downright unhealthy, reaction.