Think hard about guys you know who get a lot of women. Include everyone from celebrities to friends to “PUA’s.” As you list these men, ask yourself this question: What do they all have in common?
The traditional answer, based on evolutionary psychology, is status. The alpha male gets the girl, and the beta males get the scraps.
When poets and musicians get laid, we are told that those men are contextually alpha. Yet girls understand that a man playing at open mics is not an alpha.
We also see men who are broke but “has a plan” do well with women. The most charitable thing we can say of such men is that they are aspiring alphas. But alphas, they are not.
We also know men who are unrepentant losers who do well with women. Women even call their own boyfriends losers, and wonder why they remain in a relationship with such men. How can a loser be alpha?
Lone wolfs also get laid, and many romance novels center around a mysterious, unaccompanied stranger. How can a non-conformist loner arouse women, since a loner cannot, by definition, be alpha?
The arm chair evolutionary psychologists are correct about the unconscious nature of attraction. They are wrong, however, to attribute attraction to status.
If you think deeply, you’ll realize that every player you know is one of four types of guys:
- Muscle guys;
- Men of action;
- Writers and speakers;
- Holy men.
Do you know any legit writer – even if legit means talented-and-broke- who wants for female attention? Do men who are always on the move, doing hobbies like rock climbing and hiking, want for women? Joel Ostein’s wife was hot long before milllions in book sales, and ugly Rasputin seduced women who were married to men far above him in status.
All of these men do well with women because they complete women. They do not complete all women in the same way, but each woman is only half complete until she meets her other half.
Women, as Carl Jung wrote in The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, are part of a collective unconscious:
My thesis then, is as follows: in addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents. – Carl Jung
A feminine woman desires one of four times of men, as Marie-Louise von Franz noted in Man and his Symbols:
The animus … exhibits four states of development. He first appears as a personification of mere physical power – for instance, as an athletic champion or ‘muscle man.’ In the next stage he possess initiative and the capacity for planned action. In the third phase, the animus becomes the ‘word,’ often appearing as a professor or clergyman. Finally, in his fourth manifestation, the animus is the incarnation of meaning. – Marie-Louise von Franz
Von Franz used Tarzan as an example of the first time of man; 19th-century British poet Shelley (romantic man) and Ernest Hemingway (hunter, war hero) as men of planned action; a politician as a man of the word; and Ghadi, a man of spirit, bed more women than any of us ever will.
If you are not getting the kind of women you desire, it’s not because you’re beta. It’s because you do not personify the masculine archetypes.