What is a real 'alpha male' like in a romantic relationship?

I find it humorous how women talk so often about wanting 'alpha' men. The reason they want 'alpha' men is because they want the men to lead the romantic relationship. In my experience, that's not at all how it works.

The two most 'alpha' men that I have known personally are/were my father and my grandfather on my dad's side. Why do I call them 'alpha'? They both were self-made men who made their dreams come true while staying independent of the system as much as possible. They did it through privately run businesses and shrewd investments. They are/were so 'alpha', they don't/didn't need anyone else too much to achieve what they wanted.

What kind of a relationship did they have with women? It is/was 50/50 or bust. My father's first wife, my mother, was too dominant, so he divorced her. He found a woman who meets him half way. She stays out of his personal business and gives him the freedom he needs to do what he has to do. My grandfather was the same way. My grandmother and my stepmother are almost carbon copies in that respect. They have/had a 50/50 relationship with their spouses because they both knew that it was necessary to make it work. As a side note, both of them would have been dominant with weaker men.

From my firsthand experience, I know that it couldn't have worked any other way. Neither my father nor my grandfather would have wanted more than 50/50 control in their relationships. They have/had more important things to do than that.

In the cases of my father/grandfather, here are my conclusions:

1. If they had to take more than 50% of the responsibility for "leading" the relationship, they would have left. Taking more than 50% of the responsibility would have been a waste of energy in their eyes.

2. If they had to take less than 50% of the responsibility for "leading" the relationship, they would have left. They would have felt like they were being dominated, and that would be completely unacceptable to them.

Two people is too small of a sample size to come to any conclusions. I'm just passing my experience along.

a reply to: Profusion

Other than trying to escape to someone who'd commonly
treat them other than badly, they just stick with the
devil they know if he's a real FLAMING Alpha.. and you get:


Just saying, I was the odd (decent) man out in one of those
triangles... and you get what you play for.

originally posted by: Profusion
I find it humorous how women talk so often about wanting 'alpha' men. The reason they want 'alpha' men is because they want the men to lead the romantic relationship. In my experience, that's not at all how it works.

I don't know what alpha male means. I do know that some women have no problem approaching a male and it is no big deal, so if a man is too scared to approach a woman, then he isn't brave enough and would lose out.
Watching ducks and other fowls, it is nice when two approach each other... no one leading anything.
Hope in'm making sense.
Have a good night.

a reply to: Profusion
For some odd reason I thought of this song while I read your OP. Sorry.

a reply to: Profusion

Mhm alpha males, manly men in ties... jk
Protection. I don't mind if he cheats on me as long as it doesn't happen too public. I am happy to take care of him, with healthy food, a clean home, etc. but I want him to be strong and successful, more mentally than physically.
Someone to look up to and lean on.

overmasculated dickheads are usually cheaters anyways.

a reply to: Profusion

I think that for a meaningful answer . . . one would have to define fairly precisely what an "alpha male" meant to you.

There are a lot of varieties. LOL.

And that's just the healthy, real ones . . . then there are the posers and pretenders.

a reply to: Peeple

imho

You are worth far more than to have anyone cheat on you for any reason/excuse.

And, imho, if someone won't/can't keep it in their pants . . . they are not very mature and not very healthy. They are merely acting out a serious degree of RAD, Attachment Disorder.

Run the other direction.

Sigh.

a reply to: BO XIAN

No I don't see it that way, tbh men and women are designed to either produce children in the first 3 weeks or split ways. That's a biological fact.
So this till we die thing is against our nature. If you want to stay together it is purely for stability.
And then the trust and honesty becomes more important than the sexual attraction which naturally fades a bit over time, from 3 times a day to 3 times a week.
So I prefer a honest relationship as long as I am the official number 1. And everybody is happy.

a reply to: Peeple

Not my reality.

Families are priceless for a list of reasons.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Stability. There's your list.

originally posted by: peppycat
I don't know what alpha male means. I do know that some women have no problem approaching a male and it is no big deal, so if a man is too scared to approach a woman, then he isn't brave enough and would lose out.
Watching ducks and other fowls, it is nice when two approach each other... no one leading anything.
Hope in'm making sense.
Have a good night.

I started a thread that's related to what you just wrote.

The Truth About Mating

Quoting from the video below (starting about 3 minutes and 20 seconds in):

In this culture, we have this rule that the female is supposed to be the trophy, be attractive, and that the males is supposed to aggress. He's supposed to be the one to make the moves, to woo, and, you know, kind of penetrate the end zone so to speak. It's all big kind of football metaphor with the female as the trophy. It's a nice theory.

And, we human beings, what's interesting about us is that we love a logical model, we love a logical paradigm, a script by which to live. We love it so much that very often as long as it seems to provide a structure, we don't even bother to pay attention to whether or not it's what we naturally are drawn to do anyway. OK, we tend to devise systems irrespective and completely oblivious to what nature seems to be compelling in us. What I mean by that is the following, I've just described the kind of things we're all kind of indoctrinated with in terms of how to proceed with mating.

Now, there's an interesting movie, it's called The Tao of Steve...In the movie [Steve] basically talks about, he's this sort of character, this kind of an Eastern, Buddhist-inspired kind of lazy kind of fellow...He's amazingly successful with women. Amazingly successful, and nobody can understand it. The movie is brilliant, brilliant dialogue. What he ends up telling this one guy who wants to know his "secret", he says, "Look; you've just got to be excellent." He calls this the "Tao of Steve" because he says there's an archetype of guys, we see them like Steve Austin or Steve McQueen or so and so forth. There is a quality of these guys named Steve, it's a kind of "Steveness."

And, they never chase the female, they are just ostentatiously self-absorbed in some form of excellence. OK. And, they are the trophy. The males are the trophy. These "Steves" are the trophy that the females then pursue. And, I hate to tell you something folks, but that is the natural order of things...If you ignore what we're told is the truth about how males and females should come together, and, if you just look at what's actually going on, you will notice, that when males and females are coupling up, successfully, it's because the male initiated nothing and was merely being himself, at whatever his personal best is in whatever realm his personal best is. And, the female sat and watched for a while and initiated everything. And, his job was to do nothing but just oblige.


www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Profusion thanks for taking time in your reply post... can't say I agree or disagree.
I do know that as a poor and near death survivalist, my options of men are slim. What woman that is poor approaches a man with money or wants him to approach her either?
So I stick to my caste and approach or don't approach a man, there is no archetype or structure to follow... you either feel love or you don't.
Men are supposed to be essentially yang(aggressive, with understanding of their yin) vice versa for women, receptive... understanding their yang...
It is more in balance with this theory I personally follow, that a man woo's a woman and in return she woo's back.
Any how, thanks for reply.

a reply to: Profusion

alfa-pets

a reply to: Skid Markvideo don't work on my tablet, was that a Muppet? Looked like one of the two critique guys from Muppets.

a reply to: peppycat

I like your points about yin and yang! Nice

a reply to: Quantum12thank you Q12. Happy your posting and wish you a wonderful Tuesday!

a reply to: Peeple

I think the way it usually works, or is supposed to work, is that by the time the "3 weeks" (that time of infatuation / puppy love / romance) is over, you fall in love or "bond emotionally" (through sexual and emotional intimacy) and so you stay together.

The people who move on after romance, or puppy love, are the kind who have trouble making bonds (generally they have been hurt in the past after having bonded with someone).

Geese I've courted for months without a kiss in more than three weeks... and guess what?t intimacy was especially enlightening as we remained friends for years and friends with his😃wife that he met after we parted.
Patience with no expectations leads to better learning. There is no set rule when following the path of lovers/intimate relations.

Relationships are as varied as the people who engage in them, and there are a few basics everyone looks for. Beyond those basics, however, you will find a wild and colorful world where what works for one, does not work for another.

The old adage "One size fits all" is not true. Just like the whole "Alpha male" and "Alpha female" adage, there are different types, and everyone has their own ideas an opinions.

My friends think I'm some sort of Uber Alpha, 'cuz I have two women who absolutely love and adore me. However, I seldom raise my voice, or beat my chest. I'm protective, but not over-bearing. I let the girls make mistakes, instead of telling them how to do things, I might make a suggestion if I am asked. I don't enforce any sort of control, but I am there to help pick up the pieces, and dry their eyes when something goes wrong, or things don't work out the way they hope they do. I listen when they talk, and only try and fix things when they ask. (I do a LOT of listening... )

I'm not an alpha, at least I don't think I am, but I am comfortable in my own skin, and I will stand up for what I think is right, and step in when things are wrong to set them right, if I can. I don't get bent out of shape with those who voice their opinion of what they think of me, nor do I bend to what other think I should be. I can listen to criticism, but it does not mean I will accept it as fact.

I don't take myself seriously all the time, and I'm quick with a joke, or something to make others laugh.

I don't compete, unless the prize is worth the competition, because not everything should be a competition. There is no point to it. Games should be fun, not constant in a relationship, just like with drama, it has it's place, too, as do debates and disagreements. Compromise is also a lost art, it can't always be sunshine and rainbows, and you can't always have your way.

Am I an alpha, probably not, but does a label or title, or such really matter to me? Probably not.

Just some food for thought, from someone with a perspective.