A friend sent to me this picture and asked if I see an alpha or beta male in it.
My verdict: Beta.
It was proven later that the guy is a beta male, and I will share the proof at the end of this post. First, my analysis of the picture and how I figured he is beta.
This also serves as a lesson for men on how not to pose for a picture.
Women is leaning away from him
Woman’s legs position also shows she’s distancing herself
Her hand should be placed on him, instead it is in a position as if she is repelled by him
Good thing she is not looking in the camera, or it would have been this Trump Jr situation; but that doesn’t make it good for him
He is looking down instead of in to the camera
His body is turned towards her which is a mistake. He should be front facing
His front hand should have been in the pocket (thumb out) and the back hand visibly on the woman’s back
I see a beta lost in love with the woman who can’t wait to get away from him.
Now my friend shares more pictures of the guy, one where he’s wearing Soy glasses, and in another… well, it screams for itself. Alphas don’t hurt in “love”.
A friend of mine shared this photo with me and asked me to identify the alpha man in it. We often share random photos of men and play Spot the Alpha game.
This is an interesting photo in that there is likely no alpha male in it, and yet it gives rise to this post.
Since my friend asked me to spot the alpha, I knew there had to be a man in the photo that he had in mind as the alpha.
So I gave my answer: First from the left. And definitely not one of those who are on their knees! (Lesson: An alpha man can’t be on his knees. That’s a posture of subjugation.) I gave this answer because I knew that’s the man he must have in his mind.
Why, you ask? Because he doesn’t seem to be excited to be photographed. He is indifferent. Alphas don’t get excited by things that excite non-alphas and betas. They have high self-worth and self-confidence, hence an external stimulus like attention won’t sway their mood.
But then I added: To be precise, none of the men in the photo are likely alphas. If the aforementioned man was standing near the centre with everyone else in the same position, he would undoubtedly be the alpha of the peck. In this photo, however, what would otherwise give the man the alpha vibe is negated by the fact that he is standing outside of the group of people who are together. He is almost not part of the picture.
The alpha would be the one others would flock around. He would have indifferent demeanor in that he would not be all excited and smiley, but that can’t be viewed in isolation. The alpha’s power would show through others’ demeanor around and towards him.
If that man was in a diffetent photo with another man, and had the same posture and indifferent expression, he would probably still pass off as alpha. Having only two men in a photo changes the context. See the example below:
In a photo like the above, it is clear who is happy be photographed with the other. The one who smiles or looks excited shows to be of low value in comparison to the one who looks composed or indifferent.
On a side note, even though the first photo was a fail for Spot the Alpha game, it inadvertently is a good sample for Spot the Soyboy.
Any guess?
Answer: The second from left on his knees. He has the classic Soy face.
Not to mention most of them in the first photo and the smiley man in the second are also probably soy.
Recently we came across an interesting blog: Indian Man’s experience with women. These are interesting tales of a probably youngish PUA who doesn’t use much except his attitude and skills to get laid. We recommend his blog to our readers. This blogger not only seems genuine, but his writing is good and there are many interesting insights and tips in his tales.
As an example, in this reminiscence, he shakes off his rejected mindset and has a good day in Rishikesh:
So I was roaming in the market, a lot of white people going past me. One white woman passes by, I open my mouth but no words come out. Another white woman passes by, I open my mouth, she looks at me for a second and then walks on. Third white woman passes by, I say hi, she is scared and walks even faster.
Okay so I was dejected by then. I started feeling like a creep. Probably the worst day of my life. I bought some fresh baked cookies from the street vendor and started eating. Sugar makes you high and I could do anything to change my sad state. As I was eating, there she came, wrapped in red, blonde hair and brown eyes, the white lady who’d ruin me for other women. She stood next to me and bought some cookies for herself and walked away. She was so gorgeous that I thought she was totally out of my league. And I had been facing rejections also.
In many of your interactions with women, watch out for this interesting but all-too-common shit test.
Let us say you are seducing some woman and it is going well, and she is clearly intrigued by you. She finds you desirable. But maybe your game is not absolutely perfect and she is somewhat hesitant and is not being too physical with you. And let us say you make some moves and she acts a bit annoyed, as if you being a hot-blooded man is somehow a bad thing.
And you understand the situation and don’t annoy her to the point of putting her off. You tease her, continue to make your moves, and when it doesn’t seem to be going further and is petering off, you end the interaction.
Now in such a situation, she might later say (or text you on phone) something like this:
“Hey, it was a fun night. I really like you but can we just be friends?”
Most men would consider this a failure of their seduction attempt and will likely regard it as friend-zoning. Many men will say “OK” and continue their seduction in later interactions. Many will resentfully stop interacting with her. And a few will try to convince her that you “deserve” more than the friend-zoning.
None of these is likely to work. All these are you playing by her rules.
What is likely to work, nay, almost guaranteed to work, however, is this kind of a response:
“Uhh. That won’t work for me. I don’t do friendships with women that I find desirable.”
This is going to get her hamster spinning. Does she want to be “undesirable” for you? Does she want to cut ties with someone who finds her desirable and is unapologetic about it? Does she want to end the interaction at a sour note with someone that she has enjoyed interacting with?
This was a shit test. She was testing whether you are weak and whether you will accept her terms.
If you back down and negate your own desires, there is no chance that she will fulfill those desires. You will then merely waste your time with her in future interactions as she tells you about her career troubles and her love interests.
If you proudly and with clear self-awareness, and with honesty, tell her that friend-zoning is not your thing, that shows her that you are not going to be a beta chump for her. She can move on, or give herself to you.
In our experience, it is almost certain that she will accept your dominance. That is what she was testing for, anyway.
Try it next time something like this happens. You will be surprised how she would want to make up to you for her transgression of suggesting such a dumb idea.
It is a misconception of staggering proportions that to woo a woman you have to show her love. That’s what beta males believe and that’s what you see peddled around in movies and in poetry.
The truth is: To woo a woman, you have to INSPIRE love. That’s what alpha males know.
If you SHOW love, women will know you are a beta. You can buy presents for her, be nice to her, agree to her vile tantrums, and so on. She will not fall in love with you because you are already in love with her and she (given her hypergamous nature) will think that she can do better than you.
If you expect to BE loved, women will treat you like a king. She will cook for you, be nice to you, give you blowjobs, and so on. Since you are not overtly in love with her yet (or there is some mystery about it), she will regard you as the prize.
Most men make the mistake of showing a woman their love and appreciation, in order to be loved in return. They make the mistake of giving her something and expecting the same thing in return.
That does not work in the sexual marketplace. In the sexual marketplace, women are constantly approached by men giving them attention and paying them compliments. If you do that too, you are one of them. She is not going to compliment you back. Never.
If instead, you signal to her that you find her attractive, but that you expect HER to seduce you, that’s what gets them the tingles. That’s what shows her that you are high value and worth pursuing.
Any society or culture which allows full license to female promiscuity and hypergamy does a disservice to its women, and makes them very, very unhappy. But once this licentiousness is in place, it is almost impossible to re-introduce sexual restrictions. For reasons that we will make clear, though women are supremely unhappy in today’s sexual market conditions, any hint that we should go back to traditional restrictions is vociferously and vehemently protested by exactly those women who are the most unhappy and dissatisfied with their relationships.
Now-a-days, the society allows a woman ten to twenty years of premarital sexual “exploration”. Given the dynamics of casual sex, it is open season for alphas. They are in hedonistic heaven, taking their pick from a wide array of women. Betas, however, more than ever, languish in involuntary celibacy or settle for infrequent sex with ugly or drunk women.
Most women in their ten-twenty year period of “fun years” will doubtless come across an alpha or two. The alpha will game them, provide them multiple orgasms, and having added her to their score of notches, move on.
These “alpha widows” now are damaged goods for any normal man. They will always compare their current man with the alpha who pumped and dumped them, and find their current man wanting. They will treat their current man with disdain and will continue to keep their eyes wandering for another alpha like the one they were briefly exposed to.
An alpha widow will not only be a bitch to her man and make him miserable and angry, but she will herself find life to be a pale shadow of what “it could have been”, and be depressed and unhappy.
It is clear that licentiousness has led to her discontentment. But if you suggest to her that perhaps traditional values (chastity before marriage, divorce only in extreme hardship, lack of easy abortion) should be brought back, she will go ballistic and regard you as her arch enemy. Why? Because you are dooming her to alpha widowhood. She wants to be free to fuck, seduce and possibly entrap an alpha again. She failed the last time, but how dare you restrain her from trying again?
Alphas will continue to pump and dump, and a delusional woman will continue to hope for an alpha who loves her and only her. A beta is no good to her, and an alpha will always be beyond her reach.
Mass media is only too happy to feed her delusion. All the romantic Mills-and-Boon trash, the chick-flicks, the magazines and talk-shows, continue to send her the message that she should trust her heart, and that true love (i.e., love of an alpha) will eventually come her way.
Women want to be free to be hypergamous: they want to be free to pursue their alpha. But there are only a few alphas in the real world. These women have tasted alpha cum, and are doomed to be unhappy.
A society which offers sexual freedom and choice to its women destroys their happiness.
Why do betas fail with women To understand this, let’s start with the basics of the sexual marketplace.
Male sexual desire is stronger than in the female. But so is the male survival skill, his martial and physical acumen, and his ability to provide. Hence, (A) the male wants to buy the female sex, and to sell his commitment and protection.
By a fundamental law of economics, (B) the more valuable something is in the sexual marketplace, the less available it is.
Couple these two statements (A) and (B), and voila, the mystery is unraveled. For a woman, to offer her sexuality cheaply marks her as sexually low-value. Whether she is being a slut because she is low-value, or whether she is seen as low-value because of her sluttiness doesn’t matter. In the sexual marketplace, both go hand in hand. And low-value in this case means: no man would want to commit to such a woman.
Similarly, for a man, to offer his commitment and protection cheaply marks him as sexually low-value. Traditionally, commitment and protection were offered by the woman’s kin or, after her marriage, by her husband. In the modern world, there are plenty of women who are no longer protected by their kin, are financially self-sufficient, and are single. For these women, commitment and protection translate into emotional and financial gratification/pleasure by their boyfriend or by her orbiters.
If a man is offering emotional and financial gratification to these women on the cheap (i.e. without any sexual favors from her in return), he is marking himself as low-value. As before, it doesn’t matter whether he is putting her on a pedestal because he is low-value, or whether he is seen as low-value because of his groveling. The fact is that he is offering the only thing he has to offer, his emotions and his time, for cheap. His low-value then translates into: no woman wants to have sex with him.
In short: a slut (a low-value woman) and a beta (a low-value man) are offering their side of the bargain for free. Hence, they are unattractive. Men will use sluts for sex and discard them. Women will use betas as emotional maxipads and discard them.
If you follow so far, then what is the lesson for you as a man? Do not give your time, attention, Facebook likes, greeting cards, gifts, flowers, to a woman unless she is providing you what you want (i.e. her sexual affection). And even then, don’t be too available or too eager.
She must win your attention by her femininity. If you offer your attention to her for free, then she will look for someone who is better than that: who values himself more.
Even if you are in a relationship, you must make it clear by your behavior that you will only be with her and provide her with your company if she is a pleasure to be with: if she offers you something that you want.
A man who debases himself for a woman, is soon debased by his woman as well.
I am 24 years old and in love with a 31-year-old married man who has two children. I met him when I was 18 and he used to live in my neighbourhood. He forced himself on me several times before he got married. But soon after, I started loving him. He used to call me as per his sexual requirement. When I went for higher studies, he didn’t contact me even once. But, when I visited home during my holidays, he called me for the same thing.
I told him several times to talk to me about this relationship but he never bothered. I decided to cut off all contact with him when he told one of my friends that he uses me for his pleasure. Now, it’s been five years and I haven’t contacted him even once. I am now an assistant professor with a reputed college and everything else is going fine in my life but I am unable to forget him. I still love him and haven’t considered relationship with anyone else. He loves his wife and I know whatever I do, he will never realize my love for him.
Notice that —
He has the charisma, natural or learned, to “force himself” on her that attracts instead of repulsing her.
She was in her teens when he was a twenty-five year old man of marriageable age in India.
She is a fucktoy for him and she knows it. And that doesn’t prevent her from developing romantic feelings for him.
He forgets about her existence unless there is a possibility of getting sex from her.
He “never bothers” to give explanation to her on her inquiries about the nature their relationship.
He objectifies and devalues her by telling their friends that she is his bitch.
But she can’t forget him, even after five years of no contact, and loves him such that she can’t consider relationship with anyone else! This despite him being happily married with kids. That is the alpha effect at its best.
Women can’t resist being attracted to men who are psychopathic, callous and emotionally unavailable to them.
Men who treat them like garbage, so far as they have status or charisma, would win any day over white knights.
The testimony of the dark side of their sexuality is the fact that they almost never forget the alpha cads they have been pumped-and-dumped by. Here is another confession by a woman who even after fifty years suffers from the love for the man who took her virginity without giving anything in return.
Eventually, my efforts were rewarded. I was sitting in the library one day when he walked in. I felt white-hot desire and, propelled by almost insane love and longing, walked over to him. From then on, we started a sort of relationship. We would meet at parties and other functions — at which, I have to admit, he paid me scant attention. But I would interpret any little crumb of affection or interest as undying love on his part.
I soon lost my virginity to him, in his room at Henderson Hall, and thought my happiness was complete. I was so besotted that I never even noticed another young man lurking along the corridor, named Bryan Ferry.
The Christmas holidays came and I wondered how I could get through them without him. When I came back, I thought we were an item. But he was still being a very reluctant swain, and although keen enough to have sex, he never once asked me out, or even seemed to want to be seen with me.
I sort of knew it would never come right, yet, wilfully, I ignored all the warning signs. After one of our many nights of passion, more in love with him than ever, if that was possible, I saw him at the top of the steps of the Union Building and ran up to him.
Now, surely, he would return my love. But instead of flinging his arms around me, remembering the wonderful thrill of the night before, he turned away.
He never spoke to me again.
Notice the similarity? Story of women.
We advise men to keep their eyes and minds open for such confessions by women. They are aplenty on the Internet, and they inadvertently provide great lessons for men.
So law has finally caught up with the muscular he-man of the Hindi film industry of the last two decades.
As is usual in Bollywood, he used his connections to get an entry into cinema. His father is the famous screenwriter Salim Khan, and Helen Richardson (the item girl of early Indian cinema) is his stepmother. He was “recommended” to Sooraj Barjatya for the role in Maine Pyar Kiya by one Shabina Dutt/Khan whose brother is Afzal Khan. Family connections? Quite likely.
Despite being 49 years old, he has remained single so far. Known to take steroids and drugs, he has dated some of the most well-known actresses, Aishwarya Rai and Katrina Kaif being the most prominent of them.
He is also notorious for being involved in various brawls and criminal incidents, including:
The 2002 hit-and-run case for which he has recently been convicted and sentenced to five years in jail.
Threatening and harassing his ex-girlfriend Rai.
Illegal hunting of black bucks, an endangered species. For this also he was convicted and sentenced to five years in jail, but he has so far been able to avoid the sentencing through pending appeals and other tactics.
Is Bhai, as he is better known to his fans, a douchebag or a genuine alpha male?
Purushatma defines an alpha male as a natural leader of men. He has the traits and personality of a strong, dominant man, and excels in one or more fields. Due to an alpha’s qualities and persona, he is usually very attractive to females, and other males look up to him as a role model and a leader.
However, in Salman Khan’s case, his fame as a (mediocre) brawny actor is responsible for his public adulation. There are no qualities in him which are worth emulating. He takes drugs for body-building, is a bad actor who in recent films tries to cover his puffed, drug-addled red eyes with sunglasses, and his baldness with fake hair, and despite being single and famous, suffered from oneitis for his girlfriend who later left him to date and marry other men.
Not every rich, famous cad is an alpha. These days, celebrities are worshiped by blind sheeple. But that does not make them admirable. They have branding teams and PR professionals working for them, and they are famous because they are famous.
Not only is Salman Khan not a role model, he is spoilt, entitled, dumb and nothing more than a parasite on society who makes money from people dumb enough to watch his stupid movies.
None of his roles or films have won any kind of nomination, what to talk of an award, in a film festival. All his awards have been either by film magazines or by dubious industry associations. Unlike Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has inspired generations of young men to go to the gym and lift, and who his sheer grit and hard work became one of the most famous men alive, Salman Khan has inspired nobody to become a better man.
Manu Joseph, an erudite Indian journalist, reminiscences thus about his interactions with this spoilt brat:
I have met Salman Khan for a formal interview only once — twelve years ago. Before that, once I spoke to him on the phone for a story. I got his mobile number somehow, and kept calling — he won’t pick up or he would just hang up when I tried to introduce myself. But I think I called him more times than he had called Vivek Oberoi on the night of March 29, 2003, {Oberoi told me that Khan called him 41 times that night to “abuse in the worst language possible and vividly describe how he had sex with his ex-girlfriends (one of whom was Aishwarya Rai).” And Rai was now the girlfriend of Oberoi, the reason Khan was disturbed — just a bit of Indian history for the young}
People wondered why Oberoi kept taking Khan’s calls. The reason was, according to a viral SMS, “His incoming was free.”
I have wondered why Khan kept taking my calls (I would call from various landlines), and my theory is that he was waiting for a call from Ms Rai and it was instead just me. Finally, he answered his phone and said, “What do you want brother?” I told him I am a reporter and that I was working on a story about his desire to kill Oberoi.
Khan sounded surprised that for the purpose of getting his quotes I actually wished to speak to him. He said, “Write whatever you want.” That’s the industry practice he implied. I insisted. And he said, “I am not the best person to talk about myself. You are never the best person to talk about yourself. We all cannot talk about ourselves. One day I will ask you questions about yourself, let me see how many you will answer.”
A few months later I met him for a short profile. The only research I did was calling up a director friend and asking, “Does he really hit people?” I met Khan in a farm house on the outskirts of Bombay. He was bare-chested and cutting his nails with a big knife. He looked at me, and at his nails, and at me and tried to look very menacing. I asked why he didn’t use a nail-cutter like other people. He began to giggle. “It doesn’t work for me,” he said.
I was meeting him to talk about his latest film, which was called, ‘Tere Naam—Unfortunately A True Love Story’. Khan told me, “Unfortunate means ‘sad’. True means ‘pure’.”
He told me that the film was loved by his “classy and massi fans”, which was true.
In the film, he said, and in all his films, “A lot of the hair is mine.”
I told him that according to people, with his performance in ‘Tere Naam – Unfortunately A True Love Story’, “You have crossed a line as an actor.”
“What?”
“You have crossed a line as an actor.”
“Who said that?”
“People.”
“Fools..”
Satish Kaushik, too, said that.
“He would say that. He made the film. He is the director. He’d say it was the best f****** performance I have ever given.”
Khan, like Sanjay Dutt, often turns philosophical. He told me, “After light comes darkness, and…” He lost the thread of the thought somehow, but he eventually found it. “After darkness comes light.”
I found him totally endearing.
Purushatma’s verdict: Salman Khan is a celebrity douchebag, and not an alpha.
purushatma 