Vaginal Fantasy Book Club discussion

There have been a number of comments about the male protagonists in several (all?) of the recent picks as being too "alpha" or "possessive". There's also been some feedback in the comments about how that's typical of the genre and that people shouldn't complain over much. It got me to thinking since I've been one of the complainers. I don't dislike the idea of an "alpha" male, but there are some ways that authors typically depict an "alpha" which really irk me and make the character fundamentally unattractive to me.

-If the male character insults, demeans, mocks, or otherwise undermines the heroine.
This is often used to indicate that there is sexual tension between the two characters, but all I can think of is those boys who don't know how to show a girl they like her and decide to push her down on the playground. Very "Anne of Green Gables" with the pigtails in the inkwell or those men who think that if they insult women they will be able to pick them up in bars better. It's essentially juvenile. And I think it undermines the sexual appeal of the character since, in my mind, a man who is dominant has no need to resort to childishness to win over a woman.

-If the male character is super pushy; he orders the heroine around for the simple purpose of asserting his authority or he deliberately disregards her personal space simply because she doesn't like it and because he's "alpha".
To me this type of behavior reeks of insecurity and braggadacio. It's posturing, and a real "alpha" male has no need to posture.

-If the male character sexually overpowers an initially unwilling female partner. Or most of the other scenes which are "rapey". I know those scenes are supposed to key into female (readers') desire to be overpowered, but what does it say about the men who commit them? Any supposedly sexy guy who can't seduce his desired partner without forcing himself on her isn't sexy.

What do others think? Any other "alpha" characteristics which drive you up the wall?

It irritates me when the alpha;
- "knows best", you know; he's the one to take all the decisions knowing what's best for the heroine.
- he thinks there is nothing wrong within their age difference; I understand the idea of fated one etc. but shouldn't he have at least a doubt about the fact he's in love with someone that lived 1/40 of what he lived
- when the alpha male does not think about getting protection. I believe it's a guy's responsability, especially when he's pushing for it, abd putting the loved one in the dangerzone for venereal diseases (licantropy counts) and pregnancy, shows little if no care about her

Lycanthropy is a STD, Kamil? Dang. Did not know that.

Problem: doesn't that mean using a condom is just putting a wolf in sheepskin clothing?

Good one, Gary! :D

I had something really clever and funny that I was going to say and then reading the last two comments I lost it. Literally, I am laughing, but in a good way!

I dislike the claiming of the heroine like shes an object. Like a pair of shoes. "You are mine! Just like these shoes!"

Gary wrote: "Lycanthropy is a STD, Kamil? Dang. Did not know that.

Problem: doesn't that mean using a condom is just putting a wolf in sheepskin clothing?"

not a STD, just something that can be contracted thgrough blood-contact

Simona wrote: "I dislike the claiming of the heroine like shes an object. Like a pair of shoes. "You are mine! Just like these shoes!""

Ah yes- Romancelandia, where no one has free will.

And here's the song about the original alpha male
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK3x2D...

- "Arrogance" as a personality trait. Particularly when it's used to demonstrate that the hero isn't "whipped" after falling in love.
- Declining to apologize, admit mistakes, or take advice or direction.
- Viewing every other male in the story as a eunuch or a threat.

Joia wrote: "- Viewing every other male in the story as a eunuch or a threat..."

but they are a threat... Since the heroine is unaware of her charms, she's like a bleeding lamb lost in the woods to those viscious beasts

Kamil wrote: "Joia wrote: "- Viewing every other male in the story as a eunuch or a threat..."

but they are a threat... Since the heroine is unaware of her charms, she's like a bleeding lamb lost in the woods t..."

I think that sexual jealousy can be done right in a story, but I agree with Joia that many of these alpha males take it way overboard. It does make the character seem more insecure, doesn't it? If he needs to defend the heroine against all other men, then he isn't really that dominant.

Philippa wrote: "Kamil wrote: "Joia wrote: "- Viewing every other male in the story as a eunuch or a threat..."

but they are a threat... Since the heroine is unaware of her charms, she's like a bleeding lamb lost ..."

I'm not saying all the jealousy is good

Jealous in alpha male characters isn't a horrible thing, it's just usually written in a horribly off-putting way.

There's a big difference between a guy seeing someone smile politely at his lady and responding with growling and possessive behavior, and seeing someone actually make a move on her or even act possessive of her and responding the same way.

It's insecure to get jealous of friends, family, or even others who appreciate your lady's finer qualities. Jealousy that shows up when the lady is being hit on by another man is a turn on though. It shows that a guy is protective of you, and interested in you.

I hate that in romance novels jealousy is often portrayed as ridiculous and out of control. Either the alpha male reacts jealously to EVERY male in his lady's life, including fathers, cousins, cats... Or, he becomes so jealous over any interactions she has that he gets angry at her and accusatory, as if it is her fault that he behaves jealously. This just screams "slut shaming" to me and is the worst part of authors writing alpha male jealousy.

Ariel wrote: "Jealous in alpha male characters isn't a horrible thing, it's just usually written in a horribly off-putting way.

There's a big difference between a guy seeing someone smile politely at his lady a..."

I totally aggree with what you wrote, and thank you for saving me the disconfort of having to explain why I have double standards when it comes to jealousy and stalking

Philippa wrote: "...There's also been some feedback in the comments about how that's typical of the genre and that people shouldn't complain over much. "

That's what's starting to bother me. Liking or disliking the genre's typical Alpha male & putting forth your reasons why is one thing, but there's this tone of censure that's been creeping in: if you don’t like it, then you shouldn't be here. “Sure he doesn’t care if he has her consent, but hey – it’s not rape...it’s just the genre!” Yes, that attitude. Alphas may indeed dominate the genre (whether you want him to or not because he knows better... and by "he" I mean the publishing industry and by "knows" I mean knows what sells in bulk to a reading population that doesn’t know how to vote with its credit card) but there are degrees of Alpha-ness that leave room for better writing and more interesting characters.

Part of the VF experience is exposure to different facets of these crossover genres and we've seen strong male characters who aren't the Alpha cliché. I really enjoyed the earlier selections because the main and alt gave us very different characters in the same genre (think of the rapey, taciturn, Alpha male and the woman who swoons over him in The Iron Duke vs the (literal) pack Alpha who knows better than to bring all that chest-beating home to his woman and said woman who'd whack his head in with her parasol if he ever tried it in Soulless) More recent selections are keeping to the Alpha trope for both the main and the alt as if trying to erase the memory of those earlier departures, but even though non-Alphas are a minority, there are plenty of them out there and I wish we'd read more of them. I get bogged down in imagining how I'd feel if one of my friends dated an unrepentant dick like (insert name of VF Alpha who has bothered you the most) and can't see past my dislike of the character to look at the rest of the book with an unbiased eye. Here’s hoping that this month’s heroes aren’t both made in that mould or that next month’s selections don't follow the template.

P.S. Check out the rest of The Iron Seas novels if you get the chance. Every other leading man Meljean Brooks has written for the series illustrates the vast difference between a stereotypical Alpha and a male character with a strong personality: earning respect instead of demanding it, treating the leading lady as a partner and not a prize, acknowledging that her skill set can be more important than his, etc etc. You know, like the decent guys you meet in real life? But with a six-pack. And with experience fighting zombies and/or kraken and/or dirigible pirates. Even within a single series, we see that the Alpha male isn't necessarily a staple of the genre and it is a disservice to the more talented romance-crossover writers to insist otherwise.

Ok, I gotta say, I feel the need to come to the defense of the Alpha male.

I like Alpha males. I like them in life, I like them in fiction (when well written). I like my guy to be a tad possessive of me. I like him to be strong and confident and forthright.

Those issues where he's a little too insert-problem-here? I see those as character flaws. He's not a perfect dude. And the best writers show the change when he realises his flaws and deals with them. The Iron Duke had a lovely example of it. He was horrified when he realised that she didn't actually want what he'd thought she wanted, backs off and tries for a gentler approach. He was flawed, imperfect.

I find it funny that so much criticism of the imperfect Alpha male is here when the exact opposite is taken issue with the females- the Mary Sue perfection. Don't like the imperfect Alpha male, but don't like the perfect Mary Sue. How does a writer win with this?

@eliste. You make a good point regarding the imperfect Alphas and Mary Sues being criticized equally. I've noticed also that weak or dependent females seem to get a lot of criticism, at least on these discussion threads. I'm beginning to think that the problem is not the type of character, but that people just didn't like the character that much and label them with being TOO Alpha, Mary Sue, dependent, or passive. So, perfect or imperfect, someone will criticize any character. As they say, you can't please all of the people all of the time.

leave the mary sue out iof this!

Eliste wrote: "I see those as character flaws. He's not a perfect dude. And the best writers show the change when he realises his flaws and deals with them..."

I think your point here is key. If a character actually realizes his flaws than he is shown as more redeemable. But in many cases the flaws are not addressed. And is it a flaw to "nearly" rape a character? Or to insult her to the point of bullying? Or as Ariel mentioned earlier, to be so possessive as to keep the heroine away from friends and family? All of those traits away from fiction are usually considered warning signs for abuse if not actual abuse itself.

I really don't have issues with the concept of an "alpha" male, but I think that many times this genre is selling the actual alpha type short quite a bit by confusing dominance with abusive possessiveness.

I suppose that the answer to both the "alpha" and "Mary Sue" criticism is that if you write a caricature of a human being based on exaggerated characteristics, then people will have issues with that.

Philippa wrote: "I suppose that the answer to both the "alpha" and "Mary Sue" criticism is that if you write a caricature of a human being based on exaggerated characteristics, then people will have issues with that."

Nicely put Philippa. Romance tends to take a trait and exaggerate it to ridiculous extremes... and then builds a new sub-genre in which that extreme is normal.

If anyone is looking for an urban fantasy romance that illustrates what how not-douchey and not-dangerous an alpha can be, I've just finished How Beauty Met the Beast and it's sequels. They're quick, light, fun reads, and although the hero literally throws her over his shoulder at some point and carries her back to his lair, at no point did I think "Urgh, what a dick!"

Eliste wrote: "Ok, I gotta say, I feel the need to come to the defense of the Alpha male.

I like Alpha males. I like them in life, I like them in fiction (when well written). I like my guy to be a tad possessive. I like him to be strong and confident and forthright."

I wholeheartedly agree! Mainly because I married one! That being said I always find this topic interesting.

A little research info - Alpha is actually derived from the terms alpha and omega which is used to described the hierarchy in most animal communities. The term is now used within the human vernacular to describe dominate/leading males.

Now STOP here! Dominate should never be confused with domineering. And I actually feel that this is where the problem with the douche alpha lead in most romances begins. Other attributes that I think get confused are:

Confident ≠ Arrogant
Strong ≠ Abusive
Protective ≠ Possessive
Commanding/Bold ≠ Controlling

Too many times I think the line is crossed and confused between these words. I'm often reminded of the saying, "all bourbon is whiskey, but not all whiskey is bourbon". The same can be said for the attributes used for the alpha males in books. Unfortunately, many authors choose from the second row of characteristics and too many people confuse the second row with the more positive characteristics in the first row. This frustrates me because then our societal views get distorted and you get characters like Christine Grey who woman then create an ideal from. I personally prefer my alphas firmly from the first row.

I'm going to say something controversial...

I think there is a huge misuse of 'rapey' in many of these discussions. I've been the victim of rape and I've been subjected to guys who wanted to have sex and were very pushy. I've even been in scenarios where I wanted to be convinced to have sex with someone. There is an incredible amount of difference between these.

I think being pushy about sex can be a character flaw. Rape is something else all together. There is no doubt whatsoever when you've been raped, even if you liked the person and were interested in them before they violated you.

Very rarely in these books do I feel someone is actually violating the rights of the heroine. Yes, occasionally I've seen what I think it over the line, but most of the time they are just guys I wouldn't want to date, not guys I want to put in jail.

I think the term "rapey" for all of its flaws is trying to identify that there are gradations of behavior which can lead up to rape and which typically include disregarding a woman's agency in bed. I don't think anyone wishes to diminish the horrible nature of rape through use of the term. But I do think that the less that we accomodate a viewpoint that the types of behavior thought of as "rapey" - while not criminal - are acceptable and normal parts of romance, the better off we are. Perhaps we need a new term for behavior which combines the idea of being very pushy for sex, not caring overmuch for partner's thoughts, and/or physically overpowering a partner in bed despite that partner's wishes. Many of the romance scenes labeled "rapey" by the group contain one or more of those elements.

Also, to agree with Guenevere, I continue to think that any character who exhibits that type of sexual pushiness isn't really an "alpha" male, and more importantly perhaps, isn't someone I would ever find attractive. So, I think the genre is both doing a huge disservice to real "alpha" males, and is trying to normalize behavior that many women would find repugnant and not romantic in real life.

I'm pretty sure we have several words for "rapey" behavior, most of which are not fit for polite company. I have trouble with the equation of an alpha male with exhibiting this sort of behavior. And I don't really understand why romance writers continue to push their male leads over the line from alpha to a$$hole. (BTW, anyone who wants to write a study of this can use that as the title.). Do the women that make up the large part of their audience find appeal in that behavior? Some people enjoy a bad boy, or the idea of recognizing a good man under a rough exterior... That may be part of it?

http://www.heroesandheartbreakers.com...

PointyEars42 wrote: "http://www.heroesandheartbreakers.com..."

I can sort of agree with her point. At least, I agree that having an alpha male counterbalanced with an alpha female does help to mitigate the worst excesses of alpha behavior as depicted in some of these books.

But I still think many times that romance authors are really underselling a true "alpha" by making him a thug. Perhaps the woman has no choice but to forgive his mocking/physical dominance (i.e. invading her personal space)/sexual agression/ uber-possessiveness since she has no real options in the society in which she's depicted. But most Western women today do have choices. How many of us would accept that kind of behavior in a man? If "alpha" is just a synonym for "brute" then is romance literature all about convincing us we're better off with brutes?

Why in all of these depictions of thuggish "alphas" do we not see any true seducers? And by seducers I don't mean men who glower at the women until they swoon and give in, but rather men who use words and sentiment to sway their women. In real life, many of the historical "alpha" males were smart enough to realize that thuggery gets you only so far, and persuasion gets you much further. There isn't anything weak about that either, unless the fundamental idea is that a true "alpha" male in romance is also someone who would never open a book.

Perhaps it's just personal taste, but my own preference is for the highly sophisticated alpha male, both in the classic novels I read and the novels I write
I've tried to create the kind of men that women go after in droves. The question is, how do you live with one of these pricks after you land him, even if you have a siren's power at your back?
Been there, done that. Now I look for men (and portray them for my NA heroines) who are wanting equal relationships...really, not just pretending.
Anne

I just finished Swordspoint and it really got me thinking about character development in these books. I really loved both the main characters. They were both very flawed, there character progression and the progression of their relationship was so subtle and lovely though. In a way they were both alpha in a certain sense, or Ina certain realm, but they were both also clueless and vulnerable in a lot of ways too. I could have pictured either character as possible to have been written as a woman, but they were also very masculine. I would love all the men i read to be written with this type of multidimensionality and subtlety. Just food for thought.

Dylen wrote: "If a man is of high status and good looking, a woman will easily submit to being an object for him.

Two women I made porn tapes with, they both wanted me to treat them however I wanted to. One of ..."

Bahahaha.... I'm aware that you're a troll but I just can't help it, this will be fun for me before you get deleted. You're wrong on all counts. You are attributing "alpha" as if it relates to looks. Alpha are characteristics not physical attributes. What you describe later is not a good looking alpha but a douche!

Here's something for you - think about abusive guys. They always look for a specific personality trait so that they can get away with their abuse. It's the same with you and your little "actor" friend. You surround yourselves with pretty and shallow females who don't mind being treated like that, especially if we are talking about the porn industry (come on! we all know those girls have esteem issues). So just because you look for a personality trait that you can take advantage of doesn't mean you are "alpha", in fact, it means the opposite. I've met guys like you and they don't like me because when faced with an alpha-female guys like you become defensive because you aren't alpha at all, you're little boys playing dress up.

Not sure if this is related or not, but I recently read an article (from a reasonably reputable news source) stating that men who perform chores generally associated with women received less sex. I believe that author's who write stories containing romance between men and women often portray men in classic male roles because of the general association between the males role actions and the 'maleness' of the man himself.

Article available here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-5...

Dylen wrote: "Guenevere wrote: "Dylen wrote: "If a man is of high status and good looking, a woman will easily submit to being an object for him.

Two women I made porn tapes with, they both wanted me to treat t..."

Oh please, you haven't used your account until now and it's only to pick a fight and be controversial. Not a troll my ass! Lol!

Yet again your equating alpha purely on looks. Alpha's are people who others are strongly drawn to because they have strong leadership characteristics. That's not to say they can't and aren't good looking. My husbands best friend is alpha and very good looking (yes, girl throw themselves at him) but he's nothing like you and your ilk. Your confusing your cause and effect. You think woman are drawn to you (effect) because your an alpha (not the cause - the real cause is you're good looking) but the types you attract are shallow with esteem problems so it seems they are perfect for your manipulations into thinking your alpha because you look good and look successful (sounds like smoke and mirrors to me).


Alex wrote: "Not sure if this is related or not, but I recently read an article (from a reasonably reputable news source) stating that men who perform chores generally associated with women received less sex. ..."

I haven't read it yet but I will later. But I have to say that that makes sense. No matter how "cultured or civilized" we may become or think we are we are still hardwired to survival mood of "men hunt, woman care".

Dylen wrote: "Guenevere wrote: "Dylen wrote: "If a man is of high status and good looking, a woman will easily submit to being an object for him.

Two women I made porn tapes with, they both wanted me to treat t..."

Your comments - if I accepted your statement that you are an alpha- would certainly support the idea that an "alpha" male is a brute.

Forgive me for thinking that there are men in leadership positions who are more than their ids.

Alex wrote: "Not sure if this is related or not, but I recently read an article (from a reasonably reputable news source) stating that men who perform chores generally associated with women received less sex. ..."

I read that study as well. One analysis said that "According to the authors, among heterosexual couples, expressions of sexual difference create sexual desire." So, it's more about the idea that as particular chores feed into men and women's ideas of themselves as masculine or feminine then there is greater sexual desire.

I think that's a more nuanced idea than simply "men hunt, women care." It's our cultural acceptance of those roles which make them effective - not the idea that the roles themselves are hardwired. That also allows for growth in the results. The study was based on couples from the '90's. It's possible that as gender roles and responsibilities change that the results would as well, since it's more about how the chores make the participants feel then the chores themselves.

Alex wrote: "Not sure if this is related or not, but I recently read an article (from a reasonably reputable news source) stating that men who perform chores generally associated with women received less sex. ..."

also if I've read the data correctely the average age was 44, and there was no mentioning on the quantity of housework (let's face it; having to cook and clean after 7 kids might drop the libido to anyone) It's hard to say how accurate the research was and who was funding it so for now I'll keep a suspended disbelief regarding such notions

Kamil wrote: "Alex wrote: "Not sure if this is related or not, but I recently read an article (from a reasonably reputable news source) stating that men who perform chores generally associated with women receive..."

Interesting! Yeah, need to get rid of certain variables in order for your data to be conclusive. It reminded me of Mythbusters but for the life of me I can't remember what they say about randomizing the tests or somesuch...

Also, something I just read in the article that needs to be taken into consideration is the physical act of being tired. They have done studies in Japan because of the low birthrates and part of the reason for lower sex seems to be directed toward overworking (which would make sense since Japan overworks more than the US).

Unfortunately, the very term 'Alpha Male' has been so corrupted by PUA clowns that you can't even deploy it without immediately qualifying the mention with, "Oh, I don't mean THAT kind of Alpha..."

Here's what I think happened:

The cliche identifiers of Alphadom - wealth, social power and/or status, erotic appeal, etc. - are less important than the resultant personality expressions: stability, security and self-direction. True Alpha men are not supplicants for female approval. They know their own worth and if you don't like or value them them... it's your loss.

This does not make them sexist, abusive, or contemptuous of women. Alphas can be as feminist and gender-egalitarian as you'd like. They just refuse to play The Mating Game by the long-established, gendered and mercenary rules.

Their situation is akin to people who just don't care about fashion; if their clothes are clean and in good repair, they're happy. The self- and socially-appointed gatekeepers of sartorial propriety have no power over such people. They're not even ANTI-style a la the "punk look," because that would entail caring. They don't care.

The serenity and independence that follow from being perpendicular to war-of-the-sexes battlefields are what give Alphas the "confidence" and "attitude" so often remarked upon.

Here's where the problems begins. Beta men (so to speak) notice the high regard in which Alphas are held - by their fellow men as well as women - and think, "That's the ticket! Where can I get some of that?"

The trouble is... they can't, at least not easily. Genuine Alpha men and women are unusual and infrequent by definition - just as any sort of distinctive trait or condition is... well, distinctive. If Alphas were all over the place, they'd be boring and we'd be talking about something else.

Realizing this, most Beta guys are put off by the amount of self-work necessary to be a true Alpha. Like those who embrace fad diets rather than the need for lifelong good nutrition and proper exercise, Betas look for a shortcut to Alpha-dom. If they can just fake confidence and self-esteem, they think, they will become as attractive as Alphas are.

This is doomed to failure because the essence of true Alpha-dom is that Alphas are NOT faking it. The phony Alphas (Phalphas?) can't or won't confront this so they redouble their efforts and become parodies of confident, authentic masculinity.

This is where the misogynist toxins emerge: the dehumanization, coercion, dishonesty, arrogance, shallowness... all that jazz. Why would one expect a Phalpha to value genuine, volitional and honest relationships with women when his sexual persona is a fraud to begin with?

So, long story short, that's why I think "Alpha male" so often simply means "douchebag."

Eliste wrote: "Ok, I gotta say, I feel the need to come to the defense of the Alpha male.

I like Alpha males. I like them in life, I like them in fiction (when well written). I like my guy to be a tad possessiv..."

AGREED!

I think one of the most significant reasons that the 'Alpha Male' gets slammed so much has less to do with the general characteristics: possessiveness, dominance, machismo, physical strength etc; and more to do with the fact that a lot of writers (especially in the Vaginal Fantasy genres) use those characteristics AS the character.

When the only defining features of a person are stereotypes of one kind or another you almost inevitably end up with a caricature; someone who is difficult to relate to and often frustrating.

The allure of the Alpha male for me lies in their humanity. When yes, they are an alpha male, but their character development is not limited solely to that fact.

I think also that it can be easy to confuse Self confidence with Arrogance; protectiveness with possessiveness; sexual awareness with objectification. Many writers who write for female fantasies make the mistake of confusing them. What you inevitably end up with in these instances is a one dimensional, self obsessed narcissist; instead of a suave, charismatic hero.

Brainfromarous wrote:Indeed. Like the old Bad Writing 101 joke

Yep, sometimes I feel like there are more caricatures in books than actual characters, very frustrating. It often happens even in books I like, if I have to read one more paranormal romance with an emotionally damaged 'bad ass' girl who wears leather pants and boots I just might cry.

I also find it cringeworthy when there is 'witty banter' between two one dimensional characters (usually the female protagonist and her 'Alpha male' love interest. Sigh) That said, when done right it is excellent and entertaining, a fighting as foreplay scenario in a way.

I also rather enjoy many books that don't have particularly strong character arcs, but then sometimes you want the literary equivalent of potato chips, not a salad. Which is in essence why we are all here, a healthy appreciating for literary junk food.

I really only use the term "Alpha" when the character is LITERALLY an Alpha, of a Pack. But then I mostly read Romance Novels with Shapeshifters... :P

All males, heck all humans, are possessive. They get jealous. And I love it when both the male & female protagonists get jealous for the stupidest most innocent of reasons.

I personally, as a guy, love shy Alpha Females. The kind that are confident, but are insecure about their looks. Where everyone but the male protagonist thinks that she isn't attractive by THEIR standards, but she is amazing in the eyes of the male protagonist. And she constantly thinks she isn't worthy of the male protagonist, even though he keeps reminding her how beautiful she is.

An example would be: A man-whore of a male protagonist falls for a plain-looking quirky chick that is smart and confident, but all of his family/friends are shocked that she isn't one of the run-of-the-mill drop-dead-gorgeous girls that he usually beds.

So this Casanova of a lady's man falls in love with a girl who isn't really his, or anyone else's type, and I love the constant mention of that. That love isn't superficial, and what's on the inside matters..

Maybe that says something about me... Who knows? *shrug* :P

Brainfromarous wrote: Well, some women DO say all men are dogs..."

But dogs are [wo]mans bestfriend, and ever faithful ~.^

I enjoy Alpha males as a whole and find the conversation interesting. That being said, I would like to point out that Anne Bishop illustrates a brilliant "dance" between alpha's, beta's, males, and females in her Dark Jewels novels. It's relected in the Blood and Kindred beautifully.

So, I guess my point is that there are stories out there that show respect and appreciation for both alpha's and beta's regardless of gender, you just have to look for them.

The only way to find those great stories is to read, and once you do find them, let others know. Spread the word, so to speak.

Brainfromarous wrote: "True Alpha men are not supplicants for female approval. They know their own worth and if you don't like or value them them... it's your loss."

A person who is truly not affected by being desired or rejected by others is not so much an "Alpha man" as a borderline psychopath. It's not difficult to believe that this is a rare condition, but it's depressing when it's held up as an ideal worth aspiring to.

The actual definition of "Alpha male" is the diametric opposite of that. The Alpha male is simply the individual most respected by the flock, and should the flock for some reason reject him, he will cease to be the Alpha. In the real world, then, an Alpha male is defined entirely by what other individuals think about him.

"Being inner-directed and -validated does not entail thinking that other people don't matter; it simply means you don't empower them to say that you don't matter. That's True Alphadom."

Taken at face value your description still sounds like a mental disorder. We are social animals, naturally adept at reading the reactions of others and use them to guide our understanding of ourselves. Feeling pleasure and joy when others are affectionate towards us and shame and despair when they reject us is a deep-seated part of this mechanism. Lack of access to the second part - the feeling of shame when others reject us - is one of the major traits associated with psychopathy.

Of course, a person with an intact capacity to experience the shame of rejection could conceivably choose to keep a sufficient emotional distance to others so that their negative opinions - or their withdrawal of positive ones - would not trigger any significant feelings of shame. I think calling such a person "aloof" is not wide of the mark.

Maybe it's more an aggregate thing. Solidly competent Alphaguy has had lots of feedback, is confident. Alphaguy is not going to dissolve into a puddle of angst when Newperson comes along and says "You're a total loser!" Alphaguy may explore why Newperson thinks so, but is sufficiently solidly based, with reason, that he doesn't need to prove anything to Newperson.

That's more what I view as an alpha hero. I've seen threads in romance boards where alpha was being equated to aggressive jerk, which always bothered me. Give me a confident take-charge guy who does NOT need to run roughshod over people to get things done.

Serendi wrote: "Maybe it's more an aggregate thing. Solidly competent Alphaguy has had lots of feedback, is confident. Alphaguy is not going to dissolve into a puddle of angst when Newperson comes along and says "..."

That rings true to me. In particular, I think that an "Alpha" who's used to their social circle appreciating them will also interpret the reactions of strangers as appreciative, or as good-natured criticism. Perhaps that's a mental state quite close to the "True Alphadom" presented above, but I think the key is that the road there goes through positive feedback from others (which leads us back to the ethological definition of "Alpha", centered on the flock's behaviour).

The entire obsession people have with trying to put men into the "alpha" and "beta" boxes - even with the inevitable refinements branching out into "gamma," "delta," "zeta," and "omega" - is a little off-putting.

I understand that many folks see it as a useful way of trying to sort out clumps of male behaviors together all at once, but frankly, we can't blame PUAs for wrecking the term. The term was wrecked from the get-go.

It doesn't help that not everybody defines "alpha" the same way, or that we're talking about fantasy where we have very literal pack alphas running around with a dose of intentionally animalistic behavior traits.