Definition of a “natural alpha”

February 1, 2014 § 29 Comments

Natural alpha(n): any man who ever learned anything true about women from anyone other than a pickup artist.  (Note that the things the natural alpha learned are still Game, even though they came from ritually impure sources).

§ 29 Responses to Definition of a “natural alpha”

  • sunshinemary says:

    You forgot part of the definition. Any man whose wife actually wants to have sex with him is also a natural alpha (or so I’ve been told approximately a million times), though probably that’s because such a man learned something true about women from non-pua men at some point, so maybe your definition is complete.

  • Zippy says:

    Sunshine:
    No, that’s a Bull Alpha.

  • tbc says:

    So I guess just about every man walking around in 1950’s America was a ‘natural alpha’?

  • sunshinemary says:

    that’s a Bull Alpha.

    I loathe this term, just absolutely despise it.

  • Elspeth says:

    I hate that term as well, “bull alpha”.

    What the heck does that even mean?

  • Zippy says:

    Ask the people who use the term seriously, not the guy who satirizes its use.

  • peppermint says:

    So I guess just about every man walking around in 1950′s America was a ‘natural alpha’?

    Yes. They knew that the difference between men and women and that they are men.

    And knowing what you are is the first step towards knowing what your Creator wants you to do.

    There are very few people today who have not been so thoroughly proseltyzed with equalism since birth, seduced with the promise of more *&%*# if they will rebel against God in a wildly unnatural, counterproductive way.

    And what does their school tell them? How to use contraceptives, that women and men want exactly the same thing, which is endless permutations of sex.

    And what does their pastor tell them? To put a ring on her finger before having sex. Which is really helpful to a guy who doesn’t understand how to attract any attention from the opposite sex in the first place. But then again, he can’t contradict all that indoctrination in a few minutes, and he needs to stay respectable.

    And then this garbage collector says, psst hey kid, want to know how to get *&%*#? Act like a man, and if you additionally worship Satan, you can be rolling in *&%*# like me.

    And so the young men of my generation discover how to be men, which is the first step towards becoming Christians.

  • Mike T says:

    I don’t know who you are reading, but the definition of natural that I’ve seen everywhere is that a natural alpha is simply a man to whom this stuff has pretty much always come naturally. That is to say that at best he only needed mild instruction in how to be a man growing up. He wouldn’t need PUA-taught Game because most of that is second nature to him.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    You’ve missed the tone of the post. Comboxes are riddled with examples of men (either directly or by account of their wives etc) who didn’t have to read Heartiste to learn how to be a man. This is dismissed as irrelevant because these men just must all be “natural alphas”; the things they know are labeled “Game” despite their non-PUA source; and the line of Christians burning a pinch of incense at the Altar of the Sixteen Commandments is preserved.

  • jf12 says:

    Natural alpha:
    1. He’s handsome.
    2. He’s attractive.
    3. He’s not unattractive.
    Alpha has everything to do with how multiple women react to him, and nothing else really. Women try to please an alpha, and women do not demand being pleased by an alpha.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    Again, missing the point of the post.

  • Natural alpha:
    1. He’s handsome.
    2. He’s attractive.
    3. He’s not unattractive.

    Ha, I see what you did there. Nice SNL reference.

  • Alte says:

    You can practically wallow in natural alphas around here. They seem to have very masculinized brains, with high logical abilities and low empathy.

  • jf12 says:

    @Zippy
    You mean “You aren’t allowed to give a definition. I was just kidding that there could be one.”

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    No, Zippy is pointing out something that I have mentioned several times, as well. To wit,
    Mention that you don’t use “game”, don’t like “game”, reject the core concepts of “game” and you will be told by proponents of the same that, well, you don’t know women, you can’t ‘get’ women, and you are feminized, indoctrinated, etc.
    But if you show that to be incorrect (‘actually, I have no trouble getting women, I have a strong, long-lasting marriage’ etc.) and you are *still* dismissed? Why?
    “You’re just a natural alpha.”
    or as I have been told a number of times,
    ‘You’re a natural alpha so you have nothing to teach me or others’
    Just like “NAWALT”, ‘natural alpha’ is a term used to dismiss others when it is obviously irrational to dismiss others based on the content of the acronym or phrase.
    It is a symptom of the insular thinking endemic amongst PUAs and the others who adhere to “game”. It demonstrates the tautological thinking inherent to “game” and the inability of almost everyone I have encountered who embraces “game” to critically examine it. This is one of the reasons I consider “game” to be no more or less than an outgrowth and element of third-wave feminism.
    Let’s really look at both these terms
    1) NAWALT as a dismissal – it is merely the acceptance that “game” only works on a subgroup of all women and, even then, has an admitted terrible ‘success’ rate.It is the open admission that the so-called ‘women’s psychology’ of “game” is far from a universal and, thus, isn’t generally true or useful.
    2) Natural Alpha as a dismissal – this is the tacit admission that “game” is not flexible enough to grow or change and that it is also incompatible with any other form of ‘success’. I would contend that it is also used as an excuse for refusing to look at any evidence that might prove “game” incomplete, wrong, or immoral.
    On a related note one of the things I have found most amusing is the broad acceptance I find amongst advocates of “game” that *of course* natural alphas reject “game”.

  • johnmcg says:

    Who benefits when solid, marriagable men start behaving like minor league pickup artists?

  • jf12 says:

    Who benefits when married men start acting like minor league pickup artists towards their own wives? The men, the wives, the children, the society, …

  • Zippy says:

    Aquinas Dad:
    “Just get it” is also becoming a slogan used to short circuit thought and keep the Game tautology hermetically sealed. ‘Natural alpha’, ‘NAWALT’, and ‘just get it’ form the walls of the Temple.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    “Who benefits when married men start acting like minor league pickup artists towards their own wives?”
    No one.
    No. One.

    I’ve been married almost 22 years; 5 kids. What is “game” going to teach me? I am not ‘picking up’ anyone. I am not trying to ‘work the numbers’ to ‘score’.
    How many of Heartiste’s rules does just *being married* break?!

  • Zippy says:

    The irony being that “Christian Game” is itself a big exercise in “just get it”. One must “just get” how to separate the amoral (“tools”) from the immoral (“toolbox”) while intensely studying the writing of perverts – perverts we are supposed to simultaneously admire for their “wisdom” while we discern and reject their foolishness. One must “just get it” by engaging in hundreds of approaches and, you know, learning from them and stuff, realizing and accepting that almost all of them will fail. Etc, etc.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Zippy,
    Good point

  • DeNihilist says:

    About 99.7 fail rate if Krauser is to be believed…..

  • Alte says:

    “it is merely the acceptance that “game” only works on a subgroup of all women and, even then, has an admitted terrible ‘success’ rate”

    You are conflating two different things here. I would contend that they are half-right: Game works on most women, but it alone will hardly ever lead to having sex with any particular woman because women are more than just the sum of their reproductive parts.

    Conjuring up the infamous “tingles” aren’t usually enough to get her to sleep with you, anymore than appetite is enough to get her to eat something you’ve cooked. The offering has to be convenient to her, up to her standards and tastes, and reconciliable with her moral views. Even if she’s half-starved and drooling, you probably won’t be able to get her to eat rotten meat — not even if you add a nice garnish. If you did, with enough effort and patience, finally stumble upon a woman who would eat your maggot-ridden steak, most of you wouldn’t be daft enough to turn around and say, “See? See? Deep down, all women just want rotten meat! You just need to add the right garnish,” as if you’d discovered gravity. Which is essentially what the PUAs are doing.

    I think most men would be shocked to realize how many men women find at least mildly attractive, but women reject the sexual advances of men they find attractive all. the. time. Really. The Old Testament rape clauses touch on this very fact. Modern rape statistics also make this clear, as much as feminists would rather claw their eyes out than admit. We have to reject nearly all of the men we find attractive, even if we don’t have any scruples, because otherwise we’d spend all day on our back and would never know who the father of our children was.

    The sexes aren’t that different, in this regard. Wearing makeup and a push-up bra will make you more attractive (even to the men who swear otherwise), but that doesn’t mean that every man within a five-mile radius will follow you home. Most of them, most of the time, will have a good reason to say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

  • DeNihilist says:

    Alte, are you saying the woman are actually human?, The other side of the same coin? Perish that thought woman!

    {SARCASM! if you didn’t already know}

  • jf12 says:

    @Alte “I think most men would be shocked to realize how many men women find at least mildly attractive” Yes, I refuse to believe women when they (uniformly) say this.

  • DeNihilist says:

    jt – on the first date with who was to become my wife, I told her straight that I look at beauty. Whether it be a sunset or a woman, I would look. So over the years I have pointed men whom I thought were handsome and get her opinion. Yes, there are a lot of men that woman find attractive, from my experience.

  • Alte says:

    It differs with women over their menstrual cycle, but there are days when I get sort of dizzy when there’s too much testosterone in the room. LOL

    It’s surprisingly hard to get a man you find attractive to notice your existence in a non-platonic sort of way. You could fall into some guy’s lap, and he’d just be like, “Miss, are you lost?” Half of the PUA success depends upon actually taking notice of IOI.

  • jf12 says:

    Alte, “It’s surprisingly hard to get a man you find attractive to notice your existence in a non-platonic sort of way.” I know. Believe me, I know better than you! Since almost all men (except the apex) do not constantly receive IOI, the daemon process in a man’s lizard brains instantly cues whenever he notices (or imagines!) a woman is finding him attractive. You mention finding a lot of men attractive on some days out of the month (like about 10% of the days according to experiments). Now imagine you have an order of magnitude more libido every single day without letup, and correlated with that you find an order of magnitude more people more sexually attractive than you ever have before.

    Because it is so hard wired to recognize IOI, that is the reason adult betas find it so difficult to respond to. Yes, I mean that. A beta has scanned (involuntarily, remember) constantly for IOI since he was 12, and the few times he thought he actually got and he actually tried to respond to, he got nuclear rejected, so he has (almost involuntarily) shut down the “respond to IOI” part of his lizard brain in self defense.

  • YBM says:

    Took a year break from the cuck/man-o-sphere and I come back and you’re still the only one making any sense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Definition of a “natural alpha” at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: