"Women don't cheat on Alpha males"
- Thread starter BigDallasDick8x6
- Start date
I have a question. I understand not wanting to be with one person any more and wanting to be with someone else, but why not just break up with the man you call a "beta" male instead of cheating on him? That's the part that I don't get. It's the choice to stay with him if you don't think he's good enough that doesn't make any sense. I don't cheat because I choose to break up with a guy if I don't think there's a future between us.
Something_Else
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Posts
- 86
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 8
- Points
- 228
- Location
- United States
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
Looking at this from a number of perspectives, I can agree AND disagree with this notion.
However, the issue is really predicated on a number of things. 1.) There is a universal "alpha male" that anyone/everyone can identify and know of. 2.) That women's loyalty and faithfulness is PREDICATED by someone other than themselves. In other words, they can't control themselves from being a whore. Only a "true alpha man" can?!
hmm
Now to see from the agreement side...
Typically, the "alpha male" has egocentric and narcissistic tendencies - they tend to have a grandiose sense of self, are self-absorbed & think highly of themselves. They can create the 'illusion' to others that they're always on top of things - even when they themselves are totally clueless.
This is important to note, because the kind of person that is attracted to an "alpha male" does not see their own self/person as an equal to them; hence, calling someone an alpha - logically presumes one is the beta if they're together, because alpha & alpha are equals which inherently/innately makes it illogical and impossible to occur.
That is how I agree with this 'notion' that "alpha males" don't get cheated on. Because, the person they attract has to view "him" as the 'better than' while viewing themselves as the 'lesser than'. And in that bizarre psychological dance, it is possible for the 'lesser than' or 'beta' to view themselves as an extension of the "alpha man" as bizarre as that may seem.
Now here's how I disagree with this, simultaneously.
If you view human beings as EQUALS. Then this is utter bullshit. If you believe that everyone has the capacity to be ACCOUNTABLE & RESPONSIBLE for THEIR OWN actions; then again...this is nonsensical.
That psychological dancing that I spoke of earlier cannot occur if the other views that relationship as an EQUAL.
And in regards to cheating...
Some people have different reasons for that. It usually deals with lack of self-esteem, however. Having multiple sexual conquests being seen as validation of one's sexual prowess. Because if the relationship is unsatisfactory or undesirable, one can always simply COMMUNICATE that. Those with integrity & pride tend to do those things. Those that lack those attributes or struggle with it, tend to 'blame the victim' - or the "nice guy". Which can allow for the thought of "women don't cheat on Alpha males" to take place.
That's my observation on things.
However, the issue is really predicated on a number of things. 1.) There is a universal "alpha male" that anyone/everyone can identify and know of. 2.) That women's loyalty and faithfulness is PREDICATED by someone other than themselves. In other words, they can't control themselves from being a whore. Only a "true alpha man" can?!
hmmNow to see from the agreement side...
Typically, the "alpha male" has egocentric and narcissistic tendencies - they tend to have a grandiose sense of self, are self-absorbed & think highly of themselves. They can create the 'illusion' to others that they're always on top of things - even when they themselves are totally clueless.
This is important to note, because the kind of person that is attracted to an "alpha male" does not see their own self/person as an equal to them; hence, calling someone an alpha - logically presumes one is the beta if they're together, because alpha & alpha are equals which inherently/innately makes it illogical and impossible to occur.
That is how I agree with this 'notion' that "alpha males" don't get cheated on. Because, the person they attract has to view "him" as the 'better than' while viewing themselves as the 'lesser than'. And in that bizarre psychological dance, it is possible for the 'lesser than' or 'beta' to view themselves as an extension of the "alpha man" as bizarre as that may seem.
Now here's how I disagree with this, simultaneously.
If you view human beings as EQUALS. Then this is utter bullshit. If you believe that everyone has the capacity to be ACCOUNTABLE & RESPONSIBLE for THEIR OWN actions; then again...this is nonsensical.
That psychological dancing that I spoke of earlier cannot occur if the other views that relationship as an EQUAL.
And in regards to cheating...
Some people have different reasons for that. It usually deals with lack of self-esteem, however. Having multiple sexual conquests being seen as validation of one's sexual prowess. Because if the relationship is unsatisfactory or undesirable, one can always simply COMMUNICATE that. Those with integrity & pride tend to do those things. Those that lack those attributes or struggle with it, tend to 'blame the victim' - or the "nice guy". Which can allow for the thought of "women don't cheat on Alpha males" to take place.
That's my observation on things.
Last edited:
Having been on both ends of this perspective during the first wife (cheated on and cheated), I would say anything is possible. People fall into and out of love, sparks fly, relations fizzle, work, travel, finances, careers, needs, wants, desires and the list goes on for what starts the ground work for "cheating" or relationships just going to shit. In some cases the relationship probably shouldn't have started in the first place (Vegas syndrome).
You aren't the only one that finds this to be confusing. I hear all the time about so an so and such an such cheating because so an so did not do this or that. And i'm always wondering when self respect comes into play.
Incocknito
Sexy Member
"The best available data on paternity testing has come from the United States. That is, 28% of putative fathers were found not to be the biological father...."
Misattributed paternity rates and non-paternity rates
The advent of Paternity Testing kits has led to many men discovering that they were deceived into believing they are biologically related to the children they were and/or still are raising. Around 30% of men who use Paternity Testing kits discover they are not biologically related to the children they are raising. [5]
Paternity Fraud
I have read that anywhere from 10-30% of men who carry out paternity/DNA tests discover that they are not the biological father. This is not the same as 10-30% of all men.
This does not include the men who do not carry out DNA tests, who have no reason to, etc. So it could be a lot higher. Even some women don't know who they had sex with, a lot of them go off who they "want" to be the father which is not always the same as who is the actual father.
And I was led to believe that a masculine face is an alpha male trait. As is a long ring finger/second toe and a V-shaped torso. According to studies women are attracted to this sort of man 14 days out of the month. Which incidentally is the most fertile time of their period. So it's not impossible and could be quite common for a woman to have a fling with an alpha male sometime during her 'time of the month' but go back home to a beta/more "dependable" male and have him raise the kid.
Especially if you consider that if she's in a relationship with a beta male, she's probably having regular sex with him too around the same time as having a fling with the alpha.
Also suck on this:
One in five CSA mothers name the wrong father | Mail Online
One in 5 is 20%. And this is only the women that go through the CSA. Generally I think most people going through CSA are either divorced or single mothers. So the number is probably higher if you include the women who are in relationships and 'fooling' a "beta" as in the scenario above.
But this doesn't mean that you will always be cheated on if you're not an alpha. Whatever your status you can make someone love you and even become obsessed with you. That's my experience anyway. But maybe I'm alpha
Misattributed paternity rates and non-paternity rates
The advent of Paternity Testing kits has led to many men discovering that they were deceived into believing they are biologically related to the children they were and/or still are raising. Around 30% of men who use Paternity Testing kits discover they are not biologically related to the children they are raising. [5]
Paternity Fraud
I have read that anywhere from 10-30% of men who carry out paternity/DNA tests discover that they are not the biological father. This is not the same as 10-30% of all men.
This does not include the men who do not carry out DNA tests, who have no reason to, etc. So it could be a lot higher. Even some women don't know who they had sex with, a lot of them go off who they "want" to be the father which is not always the same as who is the actual father.
And I was led to believe that a masculine face is an alpha male trait. As is a long ring finger/second toe and a V-shaped torso. According to studies women are attracted to this sort of man 14 days out of the month. Which incidentally is the most fertile time of their period. So it's not impossible and could be quite common for a woman to have a fling with an alpha male sometime during her 'time of the month' but go back home to a beta/more "dependable" male and have him raise the kid.
Especially if you consider that if she's in a relationship with a beta male, she's probably having regular sex with him too around the same time as having a fling with the alpha.
Also suck on this:
One in five CSA mothers name the wrong father | Mail Online
One in 5 is 20%. And this is only the women that go through the CSA. Generally I think most people going through CSA are either divorced or single mothers. So the number is probably higher if you include the women who are in relationships and 'fooling' a "beta" as in the scenario above.
But this doesn't mean that you will always be cheated on if you're not an alpha. Whatever your status you can make someone love you and even become obsessed with you. That's my experience anyway. But maybe I'm alpha
Ok i'm curious so i'll go ahead and ask. If in fact we are talking about the general definition of an alpha male as in supremely confident with a never ending supply of bravado then why would they get a test in the first place? Seriously your data states that there are some that do...not all. Which is to be expected. Some people like humping exhaust pipes.
Hmm i wonder how many women get cheated on so called alpha males. Hell i wonder if theres such thing as a alpha woman. lol
Hmm i wonder how many women get cheated on so called alpha males. Hell i wonder if theres such thing as a alpha woman. lol
Last edited:
I partially agree with your point. That is to say, I agree with this portion that I've quoted. I don't think any of that has anything to do with so-called alpha males, though. I think what you wrote explains why some women cheat, but not all.
There are different reasons for cheating other than just wanting more drama. Here's another reason why some people cheat: they're afraid of being alone so they would rather secure a new mate while they still have one than be single and dating around.
I know someone who sounds like what you described, seeking excitement, but I also think she was afraid of being alone, and I also think that she had low values when it came to deceiving her mate, and I think she was prone to self-deception and self-justification when she wanted to be selfish. I think it took all those factors for her to be a serial cheater. She cheated on her first boyfriend with his best friend, then eventually broke up with her first boyfriend for the second one. I think she enjoyed the illicit nature of their relationship and I think she didn't want to be without a boyfriend just in case things didn't work out. She married that guy. When she cheated on him, she blamed him. She said that he tempted her by regaling her with tales of his adventurous past. She married so young that she wanted to experience the things he did. She cheated on him with three men before she was caught. She attempted to keep each relationship going, too. After she was caught she added more blame to him. She said he neglected her by making lots of "big gestures" (really incredibly romantic things that took ages to plan and pull together) but not enough little daily gestures of love. I thought it was all BS. The problem was that I was there the entire time. I remember. He was really great to her. He wasn't only really great to her, he was so great that I envied her. She confided just about everything with me and if she had complaints, she would have told me. She had few complaints before she was caught. I believe her excuses were just justifications. She has never taken any responsibility for cheating on him. She still insists it was all his fault that she decided that she wanted to take on lovers. She still acts like she's the wounded party.
I think she wanted more excitement in her life, but I also think that she was capable of the kind of mental gymnastics required to avoid admitting fault and to justify anything that she wanted to do. Some people are really good at convenient self-deception like that.
The problem with the "alpha" label when a woman applies it to a man is that she can reduce him to a "beta" label by deciding to sleep with someone else. It's a self-justifying belief system. Hey look, I slept with someone else, I guess he was a beta after all. It's a convenient justification.
Last edited:
Exactly.
The same study found that the other days of the month women are more attracted to more feminized faces. So half the month more masculine, the other half of the month, more feminine. They get equal time. That's only relevant for women who are seeking mates. It has nothing to do with infidelity. A faithful wife isn't going to sleep with anyone except her husband, regardless of who she is attracted to, so it doesn't matter what time of the month it is.
I'm not going to click on the Daily Fail.
Last edited:
Incocknito
Sexy Member
But how are they working that out? Unless the whole population is carrying out paternity tests on every child they conceive.
The evidence from the Child Support Agency in the UK is the most reliable. That says that 20% of women are committing paternity fraud. And that is just women who go through the CSA. Many women do not.
I think it is much higher than 1-2%. What the hell does "inspection" even mean? Is that about father and child sharing features?
20-30% of women taking paternity tests are misattributing paternity.
How do you know that the overall stat is not 10x that unless everyone takes a paternity test?
If you find that 30% of people who eat at McDonalds are obese would you really try to argue that only 2-3% of the "general population" are obese?
The paternity test stats count for something, they are a microcosm of the rest of society.
The evidence from the Child Support Agency in the UK is the most reliable. That says that 20% of women are committing paternity fraud. And that is just women who go through the CSA. Many women do not.
I think it is much higher than 1-2%. What the hell does "inspection" even mean? Is that about father and child sharing features?
20-30% of women taking paternity tests are misattributing paternity.
How do you know that the overall stat is not 10x that unless everyone takes a paternity test?
If you find that 30% of people who eat at McDonalds are obese would you really try to argue that only 2-3% of the "general population" are obese?
The paternity test stats count for something, they are a microcosm of the rest of society.
Whoa, and I thought you understood. That statistic is the average of all paternity testing services. It's not a balanced test using statistical models to carefully randomly sample from each subset of the population in order to determine what percentage of the population are misattributed paternity cases, it's the statistics taken from everyone who has chosen to take a paternity test, which would mean every case where there is a dispute, suspicion, or reason to doubt paternity only. So in other words, if you doubt the paternity of your own child enough to pay for paternity testing, based upon the overall statistics among people who pay for paternity testing, you would have a 70% chance of being the father.
My hubby knows he's the father of my child, so he isn't going to have him paternity tested, so my hubby won't be included in those statistics. Do you understand? That statistic automatically excludes all couples wherein the parents have no doubt about the paternity of the child!
Your example was flawed because unlike the sample group of "30% of everyone who ate at McDonald's" you aren't sampling everyone who had a baby, you are only sampling the people who chose to take a test.
Another example: If 25% of all diabetes tests come back positive, it doesn't mean that 25% of the general population has diabetes because only people who have reason to believe that they have diabetes get tested for it. The population of people tested for diabetes doesn't represent the general population.
Likewise, if divorced women have a high rate of misattributed paternity, it doesn't mean that women who are still married have the same rate of misattributed paternity. However, that article failed math, but what else would I expect from the Daily Fail?
"Its figures for 2007-2008, obtained under freedom of information rules, show that out of 3,474 DNA paternity tests ordered, 661 - 19 per cent - named the wrong man. It is the highest proportion since the agency started collating figures nationally."
According to that article, that percent refers to contested cases. The article doesn't state what percentage of all CSA mothers had their case contested. In another article it stated that only 3% of all CSA cases are contested. 19% of 3% comes out to .6% of all CSA mothers with failed paternity tests. That's less than 1%. In fact, the second article states that sometimes multiple tests are ordered for the same mother, which would reduce that number even more. In the second article it states that currently 16% of all tests ordered fail.
From the article:
"There were 112,800 applications made to the Child Support Agency, with paternity contested in around 3 per cent of cases – successfully so in 0.5 per cent of cases.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...entity-fathers-CSA-battles.html#ixzz1lcExvVIa
Last edited:
I've heard of theory that explains the milkman father theory that a lot of women look for a stable provider to live the life they want but for offspring they look for alpha males to ensure the best genetics are passed on.
seems likely.
seems likely.
Drifterwood
Superior Member
The 30% results come from US paternity testing, where the "father" asked for the test, and in these cases nearly one third were found not to be the father.
Smaller (much smaller) studies found the results that Guy references, i.e. that non paternity rates are related to wealth and social status, being perhaps ten times higher if you are down the pecking order.
The lesson that I would take from the results is don't ask the question, which of course is what some people would like. :smile:
No one seems to be denying the "fact" that the higher up the pecking order you are, the lower the possibility of non paternity. If that makes you a so called alpha male, I wouldn't like to say, but clearly that social advantage gives you an advantage in genetic monogamy and paternity.
What exactly is an alpha male and how do you separate him from the "beta" male, I guess that's the term...
Drifterwood
Superior Member
It's a dumb generalisation and doesn't mean anything that can be held as exclusive; so I would drop it.
Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
Whoa, and I thought you understood. That statistic is the average of all paternity testing services. It's not a balanced test using statistical models to carefully randomly sample from each subset of the population in order to determine what percentage of the population are misattributed paternity cases, it's the statistics taken from everyone who has chosen to take a paternity test, which would mean every case where there is a dispute, suspicion, or reason to doubt paternity only. So in other words, if you doubt the paternity of your own child enough to pay for paternity testing, based upon the overall statistics among people who pay for paternity testing, you would have a 70% chance of being the father.
My hubby knows he's the father of my child, so he isn't going to have him paternity tested, so my hubby won't be included in those statistics. Do you understand? That statistic automatically excludes all couples wherein the parents have no doubt about the paternity of the child!
Your example was flawed because unlike the sample group of "30% of everyone who ate at McDonald's" you aren't sampling everyone who had a baby, you are only sampling the people who chose to take a test.
Another example: If 25% of all diabetes tests come back positive, it doesn't mean that 25% of the general population has diabetes because only people who have reason to believe that they have diabetes get tested for it. The population of people tested for diabetes doesn't represent the general population.
Likewise, if divorced women have a high rate of misattributed paternity, it doesn't mean that women who are still married have the same rate of misattributed paternity. However, that article failed math, but what else would I expect from the Daily Fail?
"Its figures for 2007-2008, obtained under freedom of information rules, show that out of 3,474 DNA paternity tests ordered, 661 - 19 per cent - named the wrong man. It is the highest proportion since the agency started collating figures nationally."
According to that article, that percent refers to contested cases. The article doesn't state what percentage of all CSA mothers had their case contested. In another article it stated that only 3% of all CSA cases are contested. 19% of 3% comes out to .6% of all CSA mothers with failed paternity tests. That's less than 1%. In fact, the second article states that sometimes multiple tests are ordered for the same mother, which would reduce that number even more. In the second article it states that currently 16% of all tests ordered fail.
From the article:
"There were 112,800 applications made to the Child Support Agency, with paternity contested in around 3 per cent of cases successfully so in 0.5 per cent of cases.
Read more: Women could be forced to pay for paternity tests to prove identity of father's during CSA battles | Mail Online
You are correct, however, the results of testing contested paternity are still relevant to those who are Not tested.
There is no methodological basis on which to suppose that those NOT contesting paternity have any lower incidence of having at least one child by another father. They simply have not been suspected.
Statistically, for every X number of women who simply do not cheat, there must be a woman who has a child by another father, who is either much better at concealing her infidelity, or who may have done it so few times as to not arouse suspicion in her mate, or whose mate is simply too oblivious to even notice.
Further... NOT sampled in the study are the number of women who cheat, but who specifically do not get pregnant because they take precautions. ( oddly- science shows that despite their talking the pill or using condoms, they still are far more likely to cheat when ovulating- showing that these women's desire for alternate men is still driven by evolved reproductive biology )
Based upon these exclusions, the sample couples with contested paternity is most likely reflective of what can be seen in society at large.
Cheating Women Not caught nor suspected come from two populations, those who had an illicit child, and those who did not... and these cancel out any bias in women who do not cheat not being subjected to testing.
The fact that such a large percentage of tested women show correct paternity, shows clearly that women who are not cheating ( or did not have a child as a result of cheating) ARE part of the tested sample.
All this adds up to the fact that the results of paternity testing can be fairly confidently assumed to apply across the board.
Scientific analysis of this question has shown that women do indeed have a high incidence of spreading their bets, biological on more than one father.
Evolutionary theory predicts this, and also predicts that the less tenable a husband is, either socially, financially, or physically, the higher the likelihood that his wife will seek another father for one or more of her children.
And all of her rationalizations as to why she does so will be just that... she really does it to improve the odds for her genetic legacy.
