Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
4 Essential Alpha Male Traits That Will Make Your Life Awesome Regardless Of Women
-By Caleb Jones
BD, it’s really fucking simple. In most of the world, esp in America and places like America ( UK, Canada ) girls who are hot have literally unlimited options. Big cities, social media, and dating websites help fuel the endless army of lower alphas and betas who will kill their entire family just to sniff her pussy. She can get a new guy in under an hour....Over the last week or so I've been thinking about this a lot. A lot of men agree with this position, and there's a lot of anger about it all over manosphere blogs and forums.
Add onto that the fact most guys in America and places like America are huge pussies when it comes to getting ass...This causes her serial monogamy countdown timer to be much shorter than if she was in a world of masculine alpha men who put their mission way above pussy.
Then lastly, the fact society is becoming more forgiving day by day for slutty behavior and you have the last nail in the coffin.
This anger bothers me. I don't think it's constructive or helpful. The problem is, I have to admit FudgeMan and guys with similar arguments do have a point. While I want to say that it isn't true at all, that it's just as easy to have sex with a pretty, high quality girl (and keep her with you for an extended period of time) as it was 25 or 50 years ago, even I have to admit the sad reality is there is indeed a lot of truths in the above argument.
Defining The Problem
Indeed, with things like Facebook, YouTube, OKCupid, Instagram, Twitter, Ask.Fm, and a slew of other social media outlets, there are all kinds of ways even an average-looking woman can get hordes of beta males to slather them with adoring attention, whenever they want, wherever they are, within mere seconds. These avenues didn't exist 25 years ago. Back then, if a cute girl wanted men to tell her how pretty she was, she actually had to get dressed up, get out of the house, go somewhere, and interact with men in a very real way.
Today, she can just whip out her phone while she's taking a dump in the bathroom and make a post on Facebook like the one below. This is a real post I saw on my Facebook feed one day by a young attractive woman:
Everyone should appreciate goodlookin ladys♥It had only been a a few minutes since she had made the post, yet it had already received 45 likes. Most of which were from men. Amazing.
Scrolling down, I saw mountains of follow-up comments from horny betas like:
Guy 1: Smartest thing I've heard all day Guy 2: Amen! Guy 3: Like yourself!
And on and on. To be fair, there were some not-so-positive comments as well, but the slobbering positive ones outweighed the negative ones by about five to one. So yes, this is a very serious problem with strong implications that indeed negatively affect the women you meet in a very real way. This isn't just with young hot girls either. One of the reasons women over age 33 reject Alphas their age so quickly is because they know there's a line of betas standing outside their door ready to obey whatever silly ASD-based dating rules they have. So why should they have to put up with you?
One of the reasons there is so much anger against beta males in the manosphere is because of the great damage betas do to all men by behaving this way with women. Because of their lack of outcome independent Alpha Male traits, they end up "pedestalizing" women even worse than before, making dating and relationships more difficult not only for them, but for us Alphas as well.
The second part of the argument is where things get more complicated. This is the argument that today in America (or the Western world), women are more promiscuous now "than ever" and that we are the most non-slut-shamey culture "in history".
This is false. This statement is often made by men who apparently have not read as much history as I have, or who are thinking about the 1950s but not going any further back in time than that particular decade.
It was extremely easy for men, even for non-Alpha married men, to get laid during the pre-Constantine Roman Empire. They could fuck other women, including prostitutes, and their wives/girlfriends/lovers could care less as long as the bills were paid and/or other promises were kept. In medieval France under the Merovingians, it was socially accepted for even Catholic priests and bishops to have four or five concubines. Cantonese cultures have been very happy with wide-open relationships and marriages all the way up until the late 1970s. And let's not even start with widespread polyamory in African cultures, both historical and contemporary.
I could go on and on with historical examples, and I will expand on this in a future post, but the point is because of ASD, political correctness, the rise of left-liberalism, and the mutated version of feminism now embraced by some women, modern-day society is quite anti-sex in many ways as compared to historical times, as I've clearly demonstrated before on this blog.
Where these guys do have a point is when they compare the 21st century to more traditional times, such as the 1950s or the 1800s. True, women are far more promiscuous in a socially accepted way than in those eras. And yes, I agree that this can and will increase the difficultly level for both Alphas and betas in regard to dating women and having long-lasting relationships.
The Solution...Of Sorts
Therefore, I do grudgingly agree with FudgeMan's point even though I have a lot of caveats to my agreement. The onslaught of betas plus heightened sexual availability for women as opposed to more conservative eras does create a new challenge for all of us.
I'm now going to tell you why none of this matters. Hopefully by the end of this post, you'll be thinking about this condition in an entirely new way.
If the problems listed above make it more difficult for you and I to go out into the real world, have sex with women quickly, and keep the quality women in our lives for a long time, the first question is: How much more difficult is it?
Answer this question:
How much more difficult is it for a 21st century Alpha Male to snag a hot, high-quality woman, and (if he wants) to keep her around for a long time, as opposed to an Alpha of equivalent attractiveness and ability back in 1986?
I was alive and post-pubescent in 1986 (it was the year I started high school) so I'll use that as a comparison point. Back in '86 there was no internet, no cell phones (at least not really), and no social media. While the 80s were no where near as conservative as the 50s (plenty of young unmarried people were getting laid in the 80s, believe me), I do admit that things like divorce rates were much lower, teen pregnancies were much more rare and unusual, BF/GF relationships tended to last longer, and the culture was more Reagan and Schwarzenegger than Hillary Clinton and Tina Fey.
So is it 15% harder now? 30% harder? 50% harder? More?
I don't know, and neither do you. I'm going to randomly pull a number out of my ass just for demonstration purposes and say that it's 25% harder. I have no idea if that figure is accurate or not (and neither do you), but as I'm about to demonstrate, the actual number is irrelevant. Just indulge me and go with the 25% figure for a minute, which I fully concede may be way off (be it too high or too low).
This means that you, the Alpha (or aspiring Alpha) have to work 25% harder than that 1986 Alpha to get the equivalent results he gleaned in terms of dating, seduction, and relationships. This means you'll have to improve by 25%.
Is that fair? No. It sucks. But there's more to the story.
Let's say I told you that the Alpha Male traits you'd have to assume or improve by 25% would also help you in every other area of masculine life.
Because it's true. If you need to work 25% harder, improve yourself 25% more, in order to overcome the realities of the era we live in, that extra 25% are all things you should be doing anyway. Not to get or keep women, but to be a better and happier man.
Specifically I'm taking about four Alpha Male traits you'll have to acquire or improve in order to break through the white noise of slobbering beta males and women who have easier sexual access to men. They are listed in no particular order.
1. Improving Your Physical Appearance
Way too many guys complain that American women "only like muscular guys now". This is a wild oversimplification of course, since when I was a chubby bastard I was doing just fine (though I had to put in a lot more numbers than a ripped guy; I describe the difference here).
Regardless, clearly more lean, muscular guys have an advantage over skinny or chubby guys. Well then, dammit, guess what the answer is? Get more lean and muscular. If it takes you three or four years, it takes three or four years.
The point is, you should do this anyway, regardless of what you want to accomplish in the woman-side of your life. The more lean and muscular you are, the happier you'll be, the more confident you'll feel (in all other areas of life, like your social and business life), the longer you'll live, the more energy you'll have, and the less medical problems you'll have as you age.
I've lost a lot of weight, but do you really think the only reason I did it was to get chicks? I'll concede that was one of the factors, but the biggest reason was that I have diabetes in my family tree, and if I stayed chubby into my 40s I'd probably get type 2 diabetes pretty damn fast. No thank you. That is the number one reason I started busting my ass a few years ago and embarked on the very frustrating journey (at least for me) to lose the weight.
The fact women like my slowly improving body is just an extra bonus.
2. Improving Your Personal Appearance
"Personal appearance" in this context applies to your stance, bearing, grooming, tone of voice, and fashion. If you're lacking in any of those areas, you need to improve. Then the woman-side of your life will get easier. But women aside, you should do this anyway. There's a very noticeable and very real boost in confidence when you are dressed really nice (or cool), and carry yourself with better posture and body language. Hundreds of studies over many decades have proven this to be true.
Even if you never planned on having sex for the rest of your life, you should still optimize your personal appearance. There are so many benefits it brings to you that have nothing whatsoever to do with women.
3. Improving Your Interpersonal People Skills
If you need to improve your people skills by 25% to get more women, then get to work and do it. Read the books. Interact with more people. Spend a little more time out of your social comfort zone. Do some public speaking. Whatever.
But you should all do this anyway. Increased people skills has huge applications for your overall happiness in life and your income. My income shot way up when I really started focusing on improving my people skills around my mid-20s. I was honestly shocked at what a difference it made.
4. Live A More Exciting and/or Interesting Life
Having a cool life makes you more attractive to women. It also boosts your confidence around women. So if your life sucks, or is boring, improve! But dammit, you should do this anyway. You'll be way happier as a man if you're doing cool, interesting, unusual things, rather than sitting at home playing Call of Duty or wasting time at the bar with your buddies.
And don't give me this "but I can't afford to do cool things" stuff. What a stupid excuse. Most of the men I have met who have done the most interesting, exciting things with their lives were lower-income dudes. Stop the excuses. Live an amazing life!
The Bottom Line
Let me be clear:
- Yes, it's harder to get and keep quality women than it was in years past. While it's not nearly as bad as you think, I do concede it's a little harder.
- You must be a better man in order to get these women nowadays.
- You should be this "better man" anyway, irrespective of what you want from women.
Do you see why all this negativity about "more slutty women" or "more needy beta males" doesn't bother me as much as it does other guys? Because these conditions give me yet another reason to improve myself as a man. Improving yourself is hard, and you need all the reasons you can get. Therefore I don't look at this as a bad thing.
Instead, I'm thankful I've taken the time (and will continue to take the time and put in the effort) to improve myself as a man. Not only does it result in success with women far beyond the dreams of beta males (and most Alpha Males too!), but completely independent of women, it makes me a happier, healthier, more fulfilled man.
Isn't that a much more productive way to look at this?
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Darius B 2014-02-02 09:19:21
Hey BD, Great post! Just to add to your points: 1) Studies that looked into correlation between appearance and income showed that people who are considered "good-looking" per average tend to earn more (don't remember exact numbers). Interestingly this has little to do with actually being good looking, but more with the fact, that our brains tend to associate taking care of oneself (grooming, clothes, body language, etc.) with other good qualities, like being reliable, intelligent, trustworthy, etc. Is it fair? Probably not, but that's how it works. 2) Regarding awesome lifestyle, in his book "The Happiness Hypothesis" author Jonathan Haidt discusses studies that show how our lifestyle affects our happiness. Turns out, what we do with our free time is more important than what we do as "a job", that is, for our happiness levels. In other words, person who has a shitty day job, but spends his free time on cool things he loves will usually be happier than someone with a great job, but who spends his free time watching re-runs of some TV show he doesn't even like. So all in all, by following your advice here not only we can expect to be more attractive to women, but also earn more and be happier overall. Sounds like a damn good deal to me. Cheers.
Blackdragon 2014-02-02 10:43:52
Interestingly this has little to do with actually being good looking, but more with the fact, that our brains tend to associate taking care of oneself (grooming, clothes, body language, etc.) with other good qualities, like being reliable, intelligent, trustworthy, etc.EXACTLY.
In other words, person who has a shitty day job, but spends his free time on cool things he loves will usually be happier than someone with a great job, but who spends his free time watching re-runs of some TV show he doesn’t even like.That one is a little more tricky. I'd have to think about that. It might be true, since I know men in both categories.
jack 2014-02-02 12:30:39
I agree with the main point of this post; i.e. self-improvement is king in the modern era, for many reasons not just getting women. However, I still disagree with some of your arguments. Historically, we can debate forever how promiscuous ancient civilizations were. Ancient Rome had 250,000 hookers (a modern Bangkok). Ancient Greece, while it had hookers basically quarantined married women in the back part of the house (the Greeks didn't even want their women walking around town). But the point here is Roissy's "4 horseman of the apocalypse". The big one being contraception. Never have women had such control over their reproductive system and never have they had such freedom in their sexual lives. The post 1960s sexual market is unprecedented. That is what modern men have had to adapt to. The other part of your philosophy I disagree with is your ultimate conclusion about the psycho-sexual temperament of humanity. You see it as fundamentally polyamorous. I don't. Human females started to select for long term pair bonds, ie "Betas", about 1.5 million years ago. Before that, we apparently were as promiscuous as the chimps. But women basically are wired to pair bond with a provider. Where you may be right is that the length of the pair bond is shorter than "till death do us part". How short is up for debate. Maybe serial marriage is better suited to humans, and especially Whites and Asians. Blacks tend to have higher testosterone levels so their mating patterns will be different on average. But that too brings controversy. Finally, as I've gotten into pickup what I've seen is that female mating operates according to predictable patterns. Younger women, less than 26, are often open to casual sex without commitment or with minimal commitment. But as they get older, the desire for sex linked with commitment grows. This is why 33+ women are harder to seduce for quick sex and even if you do they will almost immediately demand commitment. Their time is running out to find a long term companion. They are not psychologically equipped to have sex without emotional security. Younger women because they have more time can deal with the lack of emotional security. So the ultimate point is that women NEED Betas psychologically; ie they need men who will emotionally commit. And as men get older they naturally become more Beta oriented. Why? Because most men will not have the energy to "approach, approach, approach". That is largely the province of younger men. The problem is that post 1960s society, ie Leftist society, has gelded men and created the modern castrated weakling that both you and Roissy lambaste (each in your own way). However, I'm not certain that if society created honorable men with confidence and strength that we wouldn't see better and more frequent committed relationships even amongst younger women. What I'm saying is that I think the problem is cultural and moral, not biological. But as I said, your main point is spot on.
En 2014-02-02 12:47:34
The funny thing about correlations is that you then have to determine whether A causes B, B causes A, or A and B are both caused by C or some combination thereof. I'm just as inclined to say more successful people tend to be better at taking care of themselves, which causes them to look better. Still a correlation, but the causation runs the other way. Of course those good looks also then help them succeed in other aspects of life (especially for women). So that one runs both ways. Success is compounding.
Blackdragon 2014-02-02 12:50:26
The historical arguments I will leave for another time. I will definitely do a post on that. No matter how conservative a man is, no matter much he slut-shames, the reality is there were many eras and cultures where men, even betas, had much easier access to sex than they do now.
The other part of your philosophy I disagree with is your ultimate conclusion about the psycho-sexual temperament of humanity. You see it as fundamentally polyamorous. I don’t.You and I agree because I don't either. Human beings are not fundamentally polyamorous. They are indeed pair bonding creatures. But this pair bonding is A) temporary and B) not completely monogamous (otherwise no one would ever cheat). Human beings are not fundamentally polyamorous, but they're not fundamentally monogamous either. They're something in between. Therefore pursuing the extremes of either is a panacea that won't work for the vast majority of humans.
Finally, as I’ve gotten into pickup what I’ve seen is that female mating operates according to predictable patterns. Younger women, less than 26, are often open to casual sex without commitment or with minimal commitment. But as they get older, the desire for sex linked with commitment grows. This is why 33+ women are harder to seduce for quick sex and even if you do they will almost immediately demand commitment. Their time is running out to find a long term companion. They are not psychologically equipped to have sex without emotional security. Younger women because they have more time can deal with the lack of emotional security.Interesting way to put it. I would put it differently (and I have) but I can't disagree with your overall point.
However, I’m not certain that if society created honorable men with confidence and strength that we wouldn’t see better and more frequent committed relationships even amongst younger women.As I've said before, I don't think that's the goal anyway. I think the goal should be to live lives most congruent with how we really are and what we really want, instead of lives dictated to us by a tiny elite who puts their opinion of what would be "best for society" above what people want and are designed for.
Ned Berbage 2014-02-03 19:44:46
Can't overstress #3. People like to pay the guy they like. They like to do favors for the guy they like. It's not just money or women -- this is invaluable in every aspect of your life. And that goes for getting along with people you don't think you'll ever want anything from. It's good practice, and sometimes it actually pays off. Hard work, though, for an introvert.
William W. 2014-02-03 21:03:29
@jack -- I'd like some links to the research supporting the opinion that "Human females started to select for long term pair bonds, ie 'Betas', about 1.5 million years ago. Before that, we apparently were as promiscuous as the chimps. But women basically are wired to pair bond with a provider." Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá in their book Sex At Dawn seem to argue that humans have been as promiscuous as chimps and bonobos up until about 10,000 years ago when agriculture began, and civilization after that. My guess is that women (and to some degree men as well) are wired to bond with a tribe or clan (a very tight knit community of 150 people or less) that will provide for their needs. Since civilization has pretty much destroyed such communities, the need to bond gets shifted to pair-bonding with another. I wish it wasn't so hard to determine the actual truth about this -- it matters. As BD says, "the goal should be to live lives most congruent with how we really are and what we really want, instead of lives dictated to us". What's worse, I think a lot of what's dictated to us was actually decided centuries ago by people who are now long dead (I need to learn more about Emperor Constantine). There were probably good reasons to dictate such back then (just like slavery was necessary back then to keep society running), but those reasons are no longer valid, and we must work like hell to gain our freedom once again.
lazy guy 2014-02-04 13:58:45
BD, you make good points in this post. I'd say our culture (especially mass media; advertising) brainwashes us to be passive consumers & spectators; complacent with mediocrity (whatever comes easily); having a mentality of being entitled to indulge our whims & impulses (typically to eat & drink things that make you fat, but blind to the price of doing it). Sometimes, seeing how many options you have to improve your life is like waking up, isn't it? Choosing to do things for the rewards you can get without anyone else responding positively, increasing the extent to which you are a self-possessed, self-assured individual, is worth so much...
lazy guy 2014-02-04 15:25:00
testing, testing ... last comment vanished ... testing
Blackdragon 2014-02-04 19:06:17
testing, testing … last comment vanished … testingClick the 5 Simple Rules link at the top of the comments and read the first sentence.
our culture (especially mass media; advertising) brainwashes us to be passive consumers & spectatorsAbsolutely. That's why Societal Programming is so evil.
I need to learn more about Emperor ConstantineThe first Christian Roman Emperor. It was he who first used the force of government to spread the ASD and monogamy of Christianity into the western world. (Though it was Charlemagne who truly established it for the societal long term.)
jack 2014-02-05 10:55:20
Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá in their book Sex At Dawn seem to argue that humans have been as promiscuous as chimps and bonobos up until about 10,000 years ago when agriculture began, and civilization after that. They're Leftists. I wouldn't trust the time of day if they gave it to me. But that's me. (Roissy has written a very interesting criticism of the 'Sex at Dawn' book, Google it). But you have a point, the social-sexuality of humanity is not easy to determine. But I would say that for most people it hovers closer to monogamy than the opposite. That is where I disagree with BD. He sees his open system as feasible for the majority of mankind; ie "women should share alphas". I say no way. I think most humans are bio-chemically best suited for serial marriage at the least. Human happiness seems to correspond to long term family formation. Could that be duplicated with polyamory. I doubt it, at least for 80% of mankind. Regarding the tiny elites that determine society. There will always be the "taste-makers" or definers of society. The libertarian (Randian/VonMisean, etc) view is that those elites and the tastes they set should be done in a context of political liberty (which could be either anarchist or minarchist depending on your view). My argument is that if moral virtue and masculine strength were prized by society then you could see a radically different sexual landscape. I'm not saying a priestly or government class should impose it by force. But a natural philosophic/moral development, just like the counter-revolution of the post 1960s with its radical subjectivism, radical relativism, radical egalitarianism and the entire Leftist ruling elite that they have spawned (with the only real opposition being social conservatives - may god help us, pun intended). Right now, the West is dominated by a cultural nihilism. It has corrupted the sexual market by largely unleashing the female libido in a context of amoralism. It has also gelded men and turned them into psychological weaklings and thus pussy-desperate betas. That imo is cultural and can be changed. But in the end our world and the smv is set for now. And women are what they are and for the time being, they are allowed to run wild with no restraints other than the wall and their desire for children. It is indeed the era of "love in the time of game" as Roissy has argued. So game on.
Blackdragon 2014-02-05 12:39:11
That is where I disagree with BD. He sees his open system as feasible for the majority of mankind; ie “women should share alphas”. I say no way. I think most humans are bio-chemically best suited for serial marriage at the least. Human happiness seems to correspond to long term family formation.Again, you state we disagree where we do not. To be clear: 1. I do not believe in a polyamorous world. 2. Marriage, pair bonding, and raising kids can (and often does) occur without absolute monogamy. 3. A sizable percentage of the human race will always choose long term monogamy as their preferred option, regardless of what else happens, specifically for the reason you state; that humans like to pair-bond. 4. Human beings are not inherently monogamous, but saying that does not mean I think humans are inherently polyamorous. They are neither. They are something in-between those two extremes. I do not believe in a world where human beings have 100% monogamous marriages that last 45 years. That has been tried many times and it's always failed. I also do not believe in a world where human beings are all polyamorous and where the women are "sharing all the Alphas". That would also not work. I believe in a world where most (not all) human beings pair bond temporarily (3 to 20 years, depending on the ages and personalities involved) and while they're pair bonded, they play around on the side with the permission of their partners. That would work. It would satisfy human's need to pair bond AND it would acknowledge the reality that humans hate long-term monogamy.
Rick 2014-02-05 13:42:16
"Absolutely. That’s why Societal Programming is so evil." From my understanding, you only concern yourself with societal programming that has caused your own life pain and trauma, and then you write about ways of helping other guys prevent similar traumas in their lives. Which is good, but you ignore many other forms of societal programming and you promote your own as well. I mean, the 2% rule you wrote about? What do you think that is? That's a form of societal programming. And it's a form of societal programming that can lead to great harm. But you reassure your readers: "You'll be fine." That's the same damn approach the societal programmers you're so against take. There's logical dissonance all over the place in your stances. You use the word "love" (a word society throws around to mean the ultimate when in reality it only describes the present moment) in your analyses. You do realize that you're creating the same crap that you're fighting against, don't you? You're just doing it in a different way.
Blackdragon 2014-02-05 16:14:13
Rick, don't you have anything better to do than to make completely nonsensical points in order to argue just to argue? I told you already I wasn't going to respond to your nihilistic posts any more; now I'm not going to respond to any of your posts. You're free to keep posting here though, and making all the nonsensical points you like, as long as you follow the 5 Simple Rules. Or perhaps you should go outside for a walk or something. Find a hobby maybe.
Rick 2014-02-05 19:08:03
You're very hypocritical, Blackdragon. You call my posts "nonsensical" and then condescendingly deflect my arguments and don't address them (either you're incapable of understanding or you're just avoiding them). This is the exact tactic employed by the practitioners you hate on, and for the same reasons. I don't believe you to be an ass though, just as I don't think Mr. Disney Fairytale to be an ass. You both employ the same "logic" (or lack thereof): you don't look at the biggest picture at stake. Your picture, Blackdragon, is a bit bigger than Mr. Disney Fairytale but you're falling well short of viewing life for what it really is.
diggy 2014-02-13 11:20:29
Im 35. I agree with the position that 20-25 years ago it was easier. But everything seems to have been better 20-25 years ago. I agree that its a lot harder now than it was. The guys that bitch about this are just weak and insecure. The greatest thing I learned from the PUA community was the mind set of abundance. It doesn’t matter where you are there are freaky women that want you to lead them. BD doesn’t live in a LA, Phoenix, Denver, or Dallas where beautiful women flock. Yet he seems happy with his lifestyle because he sees an abundance of woman where he has created an air of choosing which ones he wants. The cream of the crop anywhere is damn tasty. To the victor goes the spoils! Yes, its harder than it was. Yes, its easier than it was also. We have also pussified the men out there. Act like a man and you stand out of the crowd way more than before. Learn what women want and you stand alone in a large crowd. I get more vibe now than I did 20 years ago because I was a beta. Becoming more alpha or manly has made me better in a weaker environment but still better than ever. Its time to start looking at what you do have and not what you don’t have and work within that.
BeV 2014-02-19 01:15:07
I agree with you BD. Can't there be more Alpha guys? Or should I say guys who takes care of their appearance, have good manners, take up an interesting hobby which will indirectly expose them to new people? It irritates me when 20-ish year old guys let themselves go so early, still staying with their parents, be couch potato and don't take any interest in ANYTHING whatsoever. These are the guys I have the biggest urge to bitch-slap them and say "Get a life already!" -_- Geez!
Blackdragon 2014-02-19 15:08:32
Yes, men are contributing to the problem too. I've got a future blog post about that. These guys in their mid to late 20s still living with parents...yikes. I moved out the split second I turned 19.
Perfect Tens | The Blackdragon Blog 2014-05-05 05:01:55
[…] Which, again, you should be doing anyway, regardless of women. […]
alpha male traits 2015-01-21 15:09:42
great article, it is very important as a man to always be moving forward and seeing things in a positive light. life is fun and all about taking risks. Alpha males make outrageous moves and do things that most people wouldn't have the balls to. have fun, take risks and move forward.
M_ich 2016-08-10 06:04:54
One of the reasons there is so much anger against beta males in the manosphere is because of the great damage betas do to all men by behaving this way with women. Because of their lack of outcome independent Alpha Male traits, they end up “pedestalizing” women even worse than before, making dating and relationships more difficult not only for them, but for us Alphas as well. Basically, they are so beta as to turn beta women into alpha dominatrixes drunk with power (no matter if it's only virtual and social-mediatic. They'll end up conflating cyber-reality with reality, and their behaviour in real settings will reflect their virtual life experiences.)
Zxzz 2017-11-13 06:45:26
Hey BD, just read your book The Unchained Man. Excellent. You said in your book to be a little more interesting men should start doing outdoor and cool activities like skiing or something like that. Women find that better than some intellectual indoor hobby like chess. Thing is I'm introvert and while im quite good at talking and asking questions, I think I sometimes find myself not able to talk about myself much on dates. So just wanted to know since you're an introvert too, what kind of these outdoor hobbies do you have? You never talked about them so just had some curiosity.
Blackdragon 2017-11-13 10:55:23
So just wanted to know since you’re an introvert too, what kind of these outdoor hobbies do you have? You never talked about them so just had some curiosity.I have talked about them in great detail... at my other blog. I talked about outdoors stuff here, among other places.