Ahhh the old 'biological programming' argument.
I've heard these narratives over and over in threads like these on this site and on other sites as well... they're almost always coupled with the insistence that some people simply don't understand biology or science or human history or whatever, and that if they actually understood this perfectly logical and rational theory, then they would logically, rationally accept that we're all f--ked.
This in turn leads to the condemnation of modern society as perverse or unnatural because thanks to all of this technology and feminism and social equality, guys aren't getting laid as much as they should.
Therefore, we need to go back to men being the providers and women being the submissive housewives so that the human race can continue to reproduce and won't go extinct because of no one being interested in having families anymore. This is usually not said outright (as doing so would undermine their 'rational' view due to the negative connotations of female repression), so the argument tends to stop at 'we're all f--ked' and people are free to come to the conclusion that we must regress on their own.
The argument always has this unnervingly regressive right-wing conservative flavor to it as well, which is why it tends to be socially awkward libertarians and 'red pilled' conspiracy theorists who espouse it.
But despite how it might make people feel to have a general 'answer' to why they're not getting laid, the human condition isn't permanently grounded in some ancient past and people are constantly evolving to adapt to any environment that the world can throw at them.
Anyone who really understands evolution knows that it is an ongoing process, not something that happened a long time ago and stopped, and as such attraction is a lot more complicated than 'all women want riches and confidence'. There is no valid reason to conclude that attraction is permanently tied to some specific set of qualities and that modern society is destroying us all by refusing to accommodate that.
It DOES make sense for people to ask themselves if what they think they want is really what's best for them-- because I do think that people are conditioned by the media/their friends/their parents to want things that might not be in their best interests, and some of those things are rooted in outdated stereotypes... but that's really not the same thing as attraction being hard-wired to our DNA.
And it really doesn't help to look at some rich guy, see that he has a wife or girlfriend, and then suddenly conclude that all women MUST want money. Or to look at some confident guy with a girlfriend and conclude that all women MUST want confidence. You need to consider that these people might just have other qualities that make them attractive. You also need to consider that just because it happens sometimes, not everyone would be perfectly content to be an accessory or trophy wife (or husband)... and that a lot of women out there are repulsed by the idea.
Usually people who use these types of examples are only looking to confirm their own narratives about these things-- which is why multiple comments on this thread where women declare that they are dating/have married/would love to meet an SA guy are being ignored by the people who 'know how the world works'. These people are so dedicated to their negative mindsets that they would even imply that women who say they would date someone with SA are just kidding themselves, because everyone knows they're slaves to their programming and when it comes down to it would easily reject the SA guy (which in their minds represents themselves) for some alpha male bully who won't respect them, but will shower them with meaningless baubles and tell them what they want to hear while cheating on them 24/7.
Sometimes the problem isn't SA, it's the narrative that SA (low self-esteem) produces in your mind-- ie: I'm not good enough, the world is a terrible place, people are cold unfeeling machines enslaved by their programming, there's nothing I or anyone else can do about it, it's hopeless, I'm unattractive, I'm doomed, etc. And it's even worse when you're so invested in this narrative that you shut out anything and everything that might challenge it, simply because you're afraid to feel good about yourself.
Anxiety is just anxiety and believe it or not people aren't as repulsed by it if you just admit it as opposed to trying to hide it or cover it up. Sometimes people don't understand/reject you because they don't know what's wrong with you, because you won't tell them... but if they knew, they might look at things differently, because at least then you're not pretending to be someone you're not or trying to hide things about yourself that you're ashamed of. If you trust that people will get it, sometimes (not always) they'll respect that a lot more than if you try to deceive them by pretending it isn't there.
So yes-- it's okay to be beta. There is a lot of love in this world for betas, because not everyone is interested in being this amazing person who does everything right, gets everything he/she wants and is always doing something interesting or exciting. Some people just want to relax and enjoy the scenery, win some and lose some, and carve out a niche that they can call their own. That sort of thing has its own appeal... and it's what I and a lot of other people have grown up with/would love to have for the rest of our lives.
What doesn't work is when you're a beta
pretending to be an alpha because you think that's what other people want from you. That's when you end up looking ridiculous/putting people off... because you won't be able to sustain it. But just because you're not convincingly acting the part of the alpha, it doesn't mean you should give up on yourself simply because you're not someone else. Of course, that doesn't mean you can just 'be yourself' and expect to do well socially/romantically... there are plenty of other qualities that people won't warm up to-- but at least it's a good start.
Feel free to disagree, but I'm pretty certain that this is 'the way the world works'... or at least for me.
Once you understand that what women find attractive in men is not just some arbitrary desires that they all came to agree upon but rather "firmware" that is left over from millennia of adapting to a harsh world things start to make more sense.
What has ****ed us all up is the idealism of the last 40 years in the developed world with very "educated" people telling us over and over that men and women *should* be the same when down inside WE ARE NOT!!!
Do women generally like confidence in a man? Of course! Why? Because for thousands of years it meant her survival and the survival of her offspring to tie herself to a man(or a group of men) and she had better choose the strongest/most fit man to ensure she and her children are on the winning side!
In the modern world a woman doesn't really need a man/men like this much anymore but when some a-hole displays confidence over other males(other tribes) it still gets her juices flowing! Because the "firmware" is registering that this man is a good protector against the outside world.
Same goes for money. Most women can provide for themselves in the modern world, however their "firmware" still looks for a man with means(greater than hers) as this signals that he is a "provider" and this attracts them in a different way.
But it's all basic biology that goes back to ye olde "protector/provider".
None of this is inherently evil, just the way women adapted to survive.
What is a problem is that now with technology and resources being prevalent, men and women don't really need each other anymore for survival.
So this makes people follow their "tingles". Relationships and sex are more for entertainment now. Or to be more precise they are things that people do for SELF FULFILLMENT rather than for self preservation.
That makes a big difference as human biology simply has not caught up to the boom of technology especially from the last 100 years.
erfect:
