This article was written by TJ Martinell.
If you’re a masculine geek, chances are you’ve read or know something about the Red Pill and “game,” which concerns what men and women actually find attractive in each other compared to what we’re taught they do.
Depending on which point you started at (geek turned masculine or masculine turned geek) you may have been resistant to some of the “Red Pill” truths because of what they seemingly implied about how men should be, and the kind of men they should befriend. For example, you may have noticed that too often the men who had women chasing after were the kind you wanted nothing to do with because they were flaky, unreliable, untrustworthy, and self-centered.
One of the most confusing truths surround the concepts of “alpha” and “beta,” with alpha traits those which women find arousing compared to the beta traits that do not. Since the common context of these discussions is “how do I get girls?” alpha behavior is considered correct, whereas “beta” behavior is not. However, this creates huge problems when applied outside that context (and even within).
As Rollo Tomassi of the Rational Male book series has pointed out, alpha is a mindset, not a demographic. It’s not a Calvinistic notion in which you are destined to be one or the other.
But neither is alpha/beta meant to be a moral code designating right/wrong.
Why does this matter?
Because men who absorb some of these truths can get confused. They mistake a man who is good with women as a man they want to associate with or aspire to be. They fall prey to what too many women do – use female arousal to determine a man’s character. While many “Red Pill” writers have highlighted the fact that women are naturally drawn to men with dark triad traits such as sociopathy and not classical virtues, many men who study Red Pill truths are motivated by a desire to better attract women. As a result, it is easy to use those traits as the template and not rely on other criteria or moral code.
However, if you use what women find arousing in men as criteria for the kind of men you want in your group, you are headed for trouble.
In other words, don’t confuse a cad with a potential brother.
This cannot be emphasized enough. What makes a woman lust over a man in many instances makes another man want to punch his lights out, and for good reason. Many of the virtues that men find desirable in other men they want to befriend such as reliability, dependability, honesty, directness, and consistency at best do not generate excitement in women and at worst actually repel them for making them "bored."
Let’s put it this way. You’re trying to get a group together to meet up on a weekly basis and play a card game like Bang! at some game shop, cigar lounge or wherever else. What kind of men do you want to invite? Men who will tell you straight up if they are going to come or not, who show up on time if they say they will come, and who are easygoing or happy-go-lucky. You want men who will not play games with you or the other gents you invite.
Within that camp falls men who have good game, but it will also include men who do not. Being Casanova and a good brother are not mutually exclusive. However, they’re not mutually inclusive, either. Some good men are simply not good with women and get along better with men because they struggle with behaving differently with women. As long as they are not a “white knight” and hold certain masculine principles, it is wise not to exclude or avoid them based merely on that criteria.
It also prudent to be avoid men who judge other men primarily by their history with women, because chances are they see success in this regard as the moral standard. And just as good men often enough can't separate brotherly traits with game, cads will often see "game" behavior as appropriate to use on other men.
Remember: you're looking for a comrade, not a lover.
Comments