Saturday, August 3, 2013

The Alpha walk

A reader at the Chateau asks how to handle an attempted AMOG:
I would like your take on this situation that arose with my GF. Been together about a month. Went to a pub, I brought a friend, its kind of her turf so she runs into coworkers and friends there a lot. Two dudes she used to work with come in, she hugs them. She is pretty bad for introducing me to people…often she says hello to a group, I wait a minute then introduce myself. She follows up by saying I’m her BF, etc, but she leaves it to me to break the ice.

Once again no intro, this time I didn’t care much to say hi, so me and my friend went for a drink. At last call, her and I are chatting, I see another friend and go say hi, she sees these two coworkers again. I come up to do the introduction, and one of the dudes grabs her tit when she moves in for a hug. She shoves his hand away but laughs and hugs him. I’m literally over this dudes shoulder, she knows I saw it.

What’s the alpha play here? (I walked away, she chased after me asking why i was running away…fully aware of the reason)
First, one's response to another man hitting on your wife or girlfriend completely depends upon her response to it.  If she reacts coldly or angrily to his attention, the correct move is to support her rejection of the other man.  Keep in mind that sexual poachers seldom attempt anything, no matter how hot the woman, if she appears to be sufficiently into you. 

Spacebunny is not infrequently the prettiest woman at the party, and while we tend to split up and circulate, I occasionally see her catching my attention and pointing me out to a man who is talking to her.  I just nod or raise an eyebrow; if she feels she needs more in the way of backup, she'll wave me over.  If it's late and everyone has a few drinks in them, I'll stick closer if a man appears to be visually locked in on her; almost always my presence in the vicinity is enough to prevent any awkwardness.

The one time a guy did try to AMOG me with her was, ironically enough, the evening of the day we got engaged.  The bass player from a popular local band she and her friends had followed for years - the lead singer was in love with her, but had been involved with one of her friends - positioned himself in a manner to try to physically edge me out of the conversation when I walked up to the group.  I simply cleared my throat, and when he glanced over at me, I made a flicking "move over" gesture with my fingers.  He did so, albeit a little reluctantly, at which point the lead singer, who had noticed the budding confrontation, stepped in and introduced me to the rest of the band as a) Spacebunny's fiance, and, b) a member of Psykosonik, ergo a man with an amount of status in their little world.  Problem solved.

So, there is seldom any problem when a woman doesn't welcome the would-be rival's attention, so long as a man stands his ground and doesn't exacerbate the situation.  It can be done in a threatening manner: "dude, watch that hand if you don't want to lose it".  It can be done in a polite and non-confrontational manner: "excuse me, but I can only assume you did not notice the pretty lady is wearing her wedding ring". It can be done in a humorous manner: "My wife?  Lady, I've never seen you before in my life!"  But it has to be done, one way or another.

That's not true if a woman clearly welcomes the attention. In such cases, the worst thing a man can do is get angry, petulant, and confrontational.  That is BETA behavior. Unless she is seriously drunk, the woman knows what she is doing and she simply doesn't care that you don't like it. I think the reader's response in this particular case was absolutely flawless; she was only a girlfriend of short standing, she probably had a sexual history with the man concerned, and the fact that she went chasing after him illustrates that she was testing him and that his response was effective, especially if he didn't permit her to play dumb about attempting to provoke him.  Her behavior doesn't necessarily mean that she's an out-of-control slut, it just means that she seeks a high level of dominance and rejecting her behavior by walking away is sufficient to demonstrate that.

It's a bigger problem if a wife or longtime girlfriend behaves in such a manner.  In that case, a higher level of dominance, bordering on the violent, is necessary, because the test is a more serious one.  If you carry and she knows it, or if you are observably physically superior to the other man, you can probably step forward and simply demand an apology from him.  He'll likely back down and apologize, however insincerely, if she reacts in a wide-eyed manner indicating a visible concerned about the prospect for immediate violence.

If he not only doesn't back down, but she takes his side and starts trying to defend his actions, this is an indication that the relationship is in dire straits.  In which case, the best thing to do is to look at her, say: "I see", and leave.  I'm not saying it is necessary to leave the relationship altogether, especially if it is a marital relationship, but it is necessary to leave her to her own resources in those circumstances as a warning that the relationship is in a critical condition.  No self-respecting man will tolerate a woman who takes sides against her own husband on behalf of a man who is pursuing her sexually, especially if she does so in public.

It should be kept in mind that "forsaking all others" is a vow that does not merely refer to sex.  It means "my wife, right or wrong".  It means "my man, right or wrong".

Anyhow, ALPHAs walk all the time.  They walk every single time a woman sufficiently displeases them.  This is why women are so often chasing after them, and why women tend to feel so stimulatingly insecure in their relationships with them.  Because the Alpha, (and particularly the Sigma, who unlike the Alpha, is unconcerned about the social implications), is never, ever, afraid to walk.  He may not want to walk, he may have no intention of walking, but he is always willing to do so if sufficiently provoked. Why?  Because there are plenty of girls on the girl tree.


Spacetraveller said...


Spacebunny, meet your new friend Spacetraveller :-)

I agree with you on this one, Vox.

I am also about to comment on your post about this Cowell/Silverman saga.

That is a much more serious version of what you describe here, of course.

How sordid...

I hope none of you guys here meets a woman like Lauren Silverman.

Anonymous said...

That was well said and flawlessly put, Vox, as I've come to expect from you. I read that thread yesterday and was impressed. The Chateau is growing on me, at least I'm now willing to admit there may be some nuggets of wisdom over there.

Hubby and I met in high school. I probably was that girl in the story, but please forgive me, I was only 16 and a mess. I did it all, the attempts at public humiliation, the toying with affection, the testing. There were lots of fights, I got in fights with girls over him, he got in fights with men. Hubby finally did walk away and didn't even look back. Four years later he showed up out of nowhere, armed with lots of game, and it was a bit like being body slammed by a freight train. The rest is history.

Anonymous said...

"I could not love thee, dear, so much, loved I not honor more."

Adam Lawson said...

Game or not, correct move or not, my inner caveman would damn near override me in that situation and I would probably lay the guy out or get my ass whipped trying.

But, I don't think I'd find myself in that situation. Which is for the best.

Depending on the age of the GF concerned, I would not be surprised if she positioned herself in a way to cause jealousy to rile her man up. Even grown, adult women sometimes seek that fire in the eyes, the possessiveness. The caveman reaction. In my experience, anyway. They'll never admit it, though.

CostelloM said...

I'm no alpha - but apparently years ago - I did something right. I had always thought it a failure and a bit of a kobayashi maru situation - no winning move.

I took a girl who was an attractive grade A slut to the movies when i was 19. When the movie was out we both went to the bathroom but she got out first. When I emerged from the theater I saw her talking to some guy and she was standing WAY too close. As I approached she said "Oh ... here is my date" and proceeded to give a quick kiss ON THE LIPS. For once, just once in my life something appropriate rushed into my head and I said it. "Dude - before she does that again you really want her to brush her teeth. I showered earlier but its been a LONG day and you don't want to know me that well..." I had no idea who he was at the time.

Both of them turned pale and I turned to leave. I thought about turning back around and starting something with the guy - I was bigger and unless he was a closet Bruce lee (unlikely) the fight would have been over very quick. I didn't though I just kept walking, got in my car, and ignored her as I peeled rubber sending a shower of gravel and dust into her face as she chased after me. She called me a bunch of times but I never picked up - this was before cell phones.

An Alpha would never have been put in that situation. Maybe I got a mercy blow in the theater? Who knows. Still I have never forgotten that but always thought that the joke was good but my leaving was bad. Glad to get some confirmation that it wasn't - yes second guessing yourself is beta.

mmaier2112 said...

Remo: I ain't Aussie but I must say: Good on ya, mate!

The failure to introduce is a pet peeve of mine but it's a common thing with men and women I know. And it's damned rude.

What's a socially-strong if not dominant way to override that? I usually just say "He / She's very rude, I'm Mike, his brother / her boyfriend. Nice to meet you."

Ospurt said...

One thing that comes to mind is to shake the groper's hand extra firm, look square in his eyes and say "I'm not sure you have enough grip, she likes it rough" then say to the girl "we're going" and walk out leave .. It's a compliance test on her at the end. No need to grab her, either she follows or doesn't. Either you put a low quality girl in your wake, or you've ramped her tingles so high shed blow you in the car.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

For the wrong approach, read Matthew King's advice in the comment thread.

Unknown said...

I've been the guy who got the hug from a female while she was on a date, kiss on the cheek, the whole bit. We were lovers and it bothered her that I'd dumped her for whatever reason.

Basically, she was just messing with the guy who had taken her out on the date, more or less saying "I have other options" via her actions.

If the Beta male on the date had tried to beef with me I'd just look at him like a delusional, white knighted fool who had no idea the sort of women she is.

Mr Beta just shuffled his feet, looked down and chuckled and said something like "that is just how she is" and she led him away like the good little compliant boy he, in fact, is.

Sigma would never mess around with a woman such as either one of them for very long, simply have better things to do then deal with her inevitable drama. We have a sort of radar for those moves.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes when I read Chateau or even Vox, I begin to doubt if men really understand what a gift they have been given and how valuable acquiring a womans submission really is.

Let me tell you from a submissive's point of view. What you find so easy to dismiss as Game, as a way to score with numerous women, I call the Voice of God. Men have great power in this world and often I don't think they are even aware of it. The Hand of God is at the end of those tallywagers, gentlemen.

xandohsa said...

If some male from my wife's circle slyly grabbed her tit before my eyes, and she laughed it off, our marriage would be over as we know it.

I'm a devout Catholic, so I don't have all these divorce-happy walk-away options. We've got kids, too, which complicates things. Can't let my wife's shit games spill over to undermine my relationships with my children or with God. But our marriage would retreat to some very cold damn place.

Of course, my wife knows these things because she's a preceptive woman who knew what she was getting into. And she's no wilting violet. If some guy squeezed her tit at a party he's going to instantly meet her wicked backhand. Do I go around squeezing her tits at parties? Hell, no. Why would I? Marking my territory like dog? Or because she likes it? Yeah right.


yttik, if one had a dismissive view of game, he'd hardly be following this site. Game is remarkable for how much it explains about human behavior and for how much it clarifies the murk of socio-sexual hierarchies.

But, alas, it is a little girl game. Indeed it is all about who gets laid. Guys do invent locomotives, nuclear submarines, etc., because of the effects of game. Which is amazing. Because game is about who gets laid and that's all. Depressing.

tz said...

@Remo - these days even women can't always tell who is the Alpha. That is how the Viceroy butterfly PUAs can imitate Monarchs.

I think I would have duplicated your behavior or worse.

In the post case, I think I would have left sufficient for my half of any tab, and went to see a movie, out of courtesy turning the phone off, and when turning things back on if there were messages suggested HE take her or call a cab. I'm not so experienced in that but tracing back my history, other than I'm an obedient Catholic, I have the alpha-sigma traits, as many have been surprised when they have tested me. I'm amazed at how women fold or get crushed at something as simple as interrupting them with "Shut Up!". Ah, self control. Watching some bureaucratic bitch crash and burn while I outwardly stare at her while inwardly I'm screaming in laughter and would be rolling on the floor, except I sincerely wish to escalate.

Women might be forgivable as they are hardwired to shit-test. It is something they have trouble avoiding as men have trouble avoiding turning their head at a "10" within the field of view. For the man, "custody of the eyes" is required. For women, unfortunately, the easiest way for them to learn to control themselves is negative feedback. Not physical abuse, but something sufficient that when the hamster starts getting revved up, something akin to a cattle prod comes along to discourage speeding.

There is finesse in that allowing wise and proper advice from your helpmeet is welcome and such wisdom is welcome - Solomon learned from Bathsheba. Direct challenges, or worse actual (or severe) shit tests need to be met by a virtual bitch-slap (I would consider a physical variant a failure to communicate). This is unfortunate, but even as a man or a child, the worst people would not discipline me when I was being stupid. Here, at least, I believe in strict equality.

Weouro said...

But, alas, it is a little girl game. Indeed it is all about who gets laid. Guys do invent locomotives, nuclear submarines, etc., because of the effects of game. Which is amazing. Because game is about who gets laid and that's all. Depressing."

But as a Catholic you know getting laid isn't just about getting laid. It's about populating Heaven. That gives game a noble purpose.

rycamor said...

xandohsa said...

But, alas, it is a little girl game. Indeed it is all about who gets laid. Guys do invent locomotives, nuclear submarines, etc., because of the effects of game. Which is amazing. Because game is about who gets laid and that's all. Depressing.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there, Hoss. There are plenty of men who know that they could score much more easily as, say, a tennis coach than an inventor or engineer, but they choose the latter for the fascination of solving and creating things. Men do have higher callings than just serving their physical needs.

Now, I grant you it's the rare man who would choose a calling that absolutely requires celibacy, but there's a whole range between that and playboy.

Anonymous said...

"That gives game a noble purpose.."

Game is about so much more than getting laid. Getting laid is only a side effect, although a powerful one. The beauty of it is that we're all driven by it, it over rides reason, sometimes all common sense. It cuts through all the lies. It's instinctual. I am in awe of this part of Creation. It is magical on my end.

All our friends, all our family, everybody in our social circle, is now divorced. There are only 3 of us left standing. Why? Because the 3 men left understand and apparently play a very good game. I'm submissive, I can spot them in a crowded room full of strangers. I know who they are. I also talk to their wives.

The honor of the men at this site and Vox's other one comes across loud and clear. I can feel it. In order to submit I have to feel not only the edges of the room, but also a man's honor. I am not going to fall back wards down yet another rabbit hole unless I know somebody is going to be there to catch me. I'm submissive, not stupid.

Sometimes I think many of the men at the Chateau completely forget about how important it is to make sure a girl can feel the honor part. If you play a good game you might get laid, but you are never going to possess a genuine submissive. She might submit physically, temporarily, but she's playing a temporary game too. You enter a woman's body and you enter her soul, and than you can really reach your God given potential as men and lead. Those guys have no idea what they're missing or how they are cutting themselves short.

xandohsa said...

yttik you need to step back and chill out a bit, because you are making no sense.

Anonymous said...

xanadohsa, game really is a meaningless thing IF somebody can't understand and empathize with the one they are asking to have submit. If a husband doesn't understand what a huge thing he's asking, what he stands to gain, and why he's doing it all in the first place, she won't really follow. Why follow? There's nothing there to follow.

My husband used to like to quote the first three words of Ephesians 5:22-23. Oh, he's got those memorized, that and something about obey, but he'd probably have to look up the rest, the parts about becoming one flesh and how you treat your own flesh, and the part about the profound mystery of it all.

Bob said...

I think you're asking men to feel.

You're coming at this with a splattering of emotion, mental fantasies etc.

Outline a simple input, process, output or cause / effect, and you may achieve male understanding easier.

xandohsa said...

chill out and step back. our problems do not have to be solved tonight.

CostelloM said...

yttik - entering a woman's body and thus her soul does not in anyway make her yours. if that was true there would not be cheating. Fact is anyone with more game can take any woman away from any man and the only thing stopping it is social barriers and/or potential for violence. I won't entertain a NAWALT retort to this because it is simply not true. ALL women are hard wired this way. Whatever power we have we are well aware that someone has more and the idea or concept that this creates some impregnable fortress around her heart is simply not true. The hamster is stronger than any game, any morals, or any commitment. Earning and keeping a woman's "love" is just like paying on a mortgage that never ends - the currency is game in this case and if you miss a payment or two it's over unless the 'bank' can't get a better paying customer to move in. This is the reason older societies found it necessary and beneficial to control a woman's sexuality. Too bad that lesson is lost and needs to be re-leaned through another dark age.

Anonymous said...

Sheesh, I'm starting to think the solipsism of women may be a major male projection of their own condition.

Listen, The World understands what I am saying. It understands exactly what I need. Almost as if it were an intelligent evil purposefully designed to seduce me away from the natural order of things. It understands me so much better than many men do. Even if a man does finally get it, he can't signal that to a woman, not like the world does. He has nothing concrete to offer her. He has game, sex, but he still shows up asking her to take a giant leap of faith and to believe in some invisible things she can't see, his code of honor, his moral authority, his alleged better nature. He has to do this after The World has already conspired against him and convinced her that these things don't exist. In order for her to believe in him rather than in The World, she has to make a completely illogical decision to believe in things she can't see, rather than in all the evidence in front of her. She has to feel him, intuitively accept him, because logic, reason, will pull her in the opposite direction.

Now back to the solipsism of women. I'm not trying to solve "our problems" or "your problems," I'm trying to solve my own!

Anonymous said...

"You're coming at this with a splattering of emotion, mental fantasies etc."

I know. I was designed this way with deliberate and intelligent purpose. If I didn't have this crazy ability to communicate irrationally on so many different levels, I would never be able to to put my faith in things unseen.

CostelloM said...

yttik - are you drinking? Seriously? Your comments even if taken metaphorically make zero sense. You seem to conflating the leap of faith for belief in a just, all knowing, and loving GOD to ... your current husband and his path to win your heart and because of this it required your faith now we there is this nebulous entity called "The World" which if you believe in it (and you are standing on it presumably) argues against this and all of this proves that female solipsism is male projection? Did I leave anything out? Maybe the world can explain it a little more clearly?

Seriously - wha???

Bobby Dupea said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CostelloM said...

Lets put this into perspective... if you want to win a woman's love and keep it be perceived as better than she can get from anywhere else. It really isn't that complex. Now the pathway to convince her that you are this man is fraught with peril, false signals, and all kinds of others complications but in the end that is the equation. Morals or signalling and faith and goodness exist in LOTS OF MEN and are considered weaknesses by the female sex which is why game and its concepts exist. If you want to sport those you need to have a sufficient amount of game to compensate for them. There is no magic here and irrational communication, nay COMMUNICATION PERIOD requires that the other side have some clue as to what you're trying to say otherwise it isn't communication it is just noise.

Anonymous said...

Remo, I get it. There are very few people who can handle me. Keep in mind that I am seeking intellectual dominance and I honor you all and this site by trusting you are worthy to provide it. Very few people are.

For obvious reasons, my husband in his infinite wisdom has a no arguing, no debating, no discussion rule. That is because I can so effortlessly outmaneuver him, err, distract him with shiny objects on the ground, that he will be left sputtering, trying to reason out how he got from simply wanting a cup of coffee to being the king of all misogynists. The male brain is vulnerable to woman logic and I am exceedingly good at it. So is this "World" I speak of. Woman logic is what now dominates our politics.

The dilemma for us was that he can't maintain a good game at home if I am constantly out reasoning him with woman logic, and I can't truly submit if I haven't got a means to grasp these concepts in a way that actually resonates.

Bob said... win because you say you do, no matter whether it actually makes sense or not, (the latter).

In your own little head world, ANYTHING can happen. That doesn't make it real. I guess the correct response for a bloke would be to just ignore it completely.

Weouro said...

Remo, I get it. There are very few people who can handle me. Keep in mind that I am seeking intellectual dominance and I honor you all and this site by trusting you are worthy to provide it. Very few people are.

I think this is what all the women who come here are looking for. It's interesting. A lot of them seem to be from a similar age range and most of them say they have alpha husbands or at least husbands who have managed to dominate them somehow. I remember Jill saying her husband is a "sneaky alpha." Unless you're quite a bit more intelligent than a bright woman you gotta flank her because a frontal assault won't obtain, or you have to woman whisper her so she loses her intellectual center of gravity and does what you want because it just so happens it's somehow what she wants too. There used to be more ways to dominate, from corporal punishment to unbearable social pressures. Which still exist in some places but not in the wider society. But smart women still at bottom like to be overpowered and overwhelmed by direct intellectual engagement.

Unknown said...

The alpha always walks, "abundance mentality", etc., sure. But how the heck does that square with Christian "one flesh" monogamy. I can understand walking away as a rebuke to the woman, but as an insinuation of the man's promiscuous possibilities, isn't that, what's the word, adulterous?

I mean, the "game isn't Christian" thing is a common objection, and "game is actually Christian if you look hard into it" a common reply, but ... doesn't the Christian monogamous injunction imply a kind of "oneitis"? (No matter how deep the fearful feral woman's ineradicable soft spot for talented womanisers and all that.)

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Weuro. Yes, I think you're quite right. I think you understand.

" win because you say you do, no matter whether it actually makes sense or not, (the latter)."

If Bob was talking to me, no, no, I didn't just win this intellectual struggle at all. I just lost. And it's absolutely delicious. It's irrational and illogical to feel that way, but it's true. That is what men often ask of women, for them to forgo all logic and reason and just trust them. That's not an easy task especially if you don't handle illogical things very well.

Markku said...

Yttik: When the manosphere talks about solipsism, it doesn't mean it literally. It is a metaphor. If you have ever played a single player role-playing computer game, that's the sort of thing it means. You are the only person there that is fully real, and everything else, including non-player characters (NPC's) exist only for your sake. If anything, anything, happens in the game world, it really happened for your sake. Even if it isn't immediately apparent. But about any event, anything an NPC says, anything at all, your first question in a role-playing game is "how does this relate to me?"

"Solipsism" in the manosphere refers to treating real life that way. Whatever is being talked about, the solipsistic woman manages to make it about herself.

Markku said...

There are even traces of manosphere-solipsism in the idea that there's you, and then there's a separate thing called "the world" that is out to get you. But there is only the world. Things happen in it, and a tiny fraction of them are things that somehow touch the tiny speck of the world that is you.

The rational approach with statistical probability on its side is to treat something that someone says, for example, as not being about you unless there is specific reason to think it is.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Markko. However it originated, the concept of solipsism was brilliant, because it allowed me to make an intellectual connection I really needed to make.

See how I just did that? Solipsism.

When it comes to Game, trying to explain Game really does require me to take on a single player role and engage in some major solipsism, because it doesn't feel rational to me, it feels magical. It really does feel like the hand of God. Perhaps I'll do a better job of explaining that in a more rational way next time.

Laughingdog said...

Now, I grant you it's the rare man who would choose a calling that absolutely requires celibacy, but there's a whole range between that and playboy.

Rarer still is the man whose calling doesn't require celibacy, but he chooses that path anyway because he feels that sex would be too much of a distraction from his work.
"Tesla never married, claiming that his chastity was very helpful to his scientific abilities"

Stickwick Stapers said...

"Tesla never married, claiming that his chastity was very helpful to his scientific abilities"

Newton never married, either, so presumably he was chaste, as well. Two of the most prolific minds in the history of mankind were devoted entirely to their work. As Dr. Sheldon Cooper would say, we should all reflect on that.

Sheldon: I must say, Leonard, ever since you've been having regular intercourse, your mind has lost its keen edge. You should reflect on that.

Leonard: Excuse me, but Einstein had a very busy sex life.

Sheldon: Yes, and he never unified gravity with the other forces. If he hadn't been such a hound dog, we'd all have time machines.

Post a Comment