I thought I would share my response in a discussion on the topic. We all seem to know that "alpha males" are a thing in humans, but there is an entire social narrative that says this isn't true. And the unfortunate thing is that researchers aren't touching the topic in an unbiased or meaningful way. This is part of the social programming that you face, that subtly breaks you down as a man. There is no such thing as anything that is good that is male. Male leadership is just "leadership." Anything implying male dominance or competency is bad and can't be trusted. Genders are equal and don't exist, unless something really bad is going on, and then it's "men" who are the problem. And anything female is great and all powerful. This parasitic thinking infects even the research community. And so then you end up with memes and dumb programs saying things like "we aren't wolves, alpha males don't exist...". Here is my comment from that discussion. It's useful to know these issues and these things because it help you navigate the negative social programing that trying to sublty sneak into your mindset and tear you down. I wrote: Identity politics infecting academia has curtailed reasonable discussions on this in most places. The idea of dominance hierarchies (“alpha” and beta) being applied to primates happened from the research of primatologist Francis De Waal after a 6 year study of chimpanzees. He wrote about it in his book “chimpanzee politics” in 82. It is widely excepted that dominance hierarchies exist among primates, and it isn’t controversial to talk about “alpha males” in the context of chimpanzees. But when we get to humans, all of a sudden it becomes that, and that’s where credible research stops. First point of controversy is to imply that anything could be uniquely “male” or “female,” unless it’s really bad, and then it’s male. And then to imply that people aren’t actually equal with the idea of dominance hierarchies can get you accused of all kinds of bad things. Researchers are reluctant to lose funding and jobs so they aren’t doing too much research on how dominance hierarchies shows up in humans.

This is my first post here, and is a repost from Paul's latest video on "When sex goes down in a relationship..." I'm reposting at Paul's request, as he wants further discussion on the topic. Here goes: Paul, I have to say this video is probably hard to hear for many men, but very necessary and true. I hope men will set aside their ego & really look logically at this content & accept that their woman probably won't ever tell him what she's thinking, but I guarantee she is. That being said, I'd like to bring up a point that I've done many years of anecdotal research, if you will, as I have asked many women the following question. "Do you still remember your 'first kiss'? Which in womanese is a euphemism for their first sexual experience. I got the idea of even asking this question from my mother, of all people, from what she told me many years ago. She opined when I was a teenager (some 40 years ago) that a woman NEVER forgets her 'first kiss'. So, over the years, I have a tendency to ask lots of women about their 'first kiss' just as a opinion poll about whether or not my mother was correct, or if it was just in her head. I have gotten a few responses like: "yes, and it was a terrible experience". But most women say, "Yes, I'll never forget him". Or something to that effect. What I find really interesting is that when I ask the question, I can visibly see that they are mentally taking themselves back in time, and their micro expressions are that of fondness or overall a positive experience. Now that I've set up the situation, I'll get to the point of this comment. Almost every 'modern' relationship a man attempts to have with a woman, who is most likely not a virgin when they meet, is going to have to overcome this hurdle, which is daunting, and he'll likely have to become a sexual tyrannosaurus to genuinely overcome her 'first kiss'. And you are correct, the majority of becoming that impressive lover, mostly comes out of the bedroom. Actually, IMHO, the bedroom & her enthusiasm would be the gauge from which to judge if you are doing the job of creating sexual tension in her mind. And are being her 'sexual best'.

This post stemmed from a conversation that @Chandler Joyner started, wanting some insights into small business and getting started. He is looking at getting into physical therapy, and he works in sales at Daniel Defense right now. A good book to look at for anyone moving from working corporate to starting a business is The E-myth revisited by Michael Gerber. I'll sum up some ideas and points right here for you. The E myth is the idea that small businesses are started by true-blue entrepreneurs. The truth is, most business are started by people who were initially working for others (e.g. carpenters, designers). They are good at what they do, decide to go into business, and make the fatal assumption that their credentials or specialized skills will allow them to be successful. Business isn't just your technical skills or your product. It's branding and marketing, and administrative management as well. Someone usually starts a business with a strong product or service and abilities there, but they fail in the branding and marketing side or admin side. There is another angle I see a lot in the digital world, and especially people in the space that I am (men's help and dating/relationships). They have a weak product, and they think that their digital marketing and branding skills will allow them to bank money. That bubble has already burst with a market of crappy products for "mens help" now circulating online. Reality is you have to develop (and later hire) skills in all 3 areas: Entrepreneurship Management Technician Entrepreneurship "drives" the business. It focuses on how to market and brand, and how to look towards the future. It focuses on how to scale, which is the survival of any business growth. Management is the administrative side, and is essential to scaling. This is systems focused. This focuses on the structure, fulfillment, and all the inner workings of the business. This is an area that many people with strong technical or entrepreneurial skills often fail, but if you fail here you can't scale or grow the business, and clients won't be happy.

My girlfriend K asked me something this weekend that repulsed me a little and I'm wondering if this is a thing, or if I need to do some inner work around it. She asked me, "How would you feel if I told you I needed you more?" I told her, "It depends on >how< you'd need me." We live apart. I don't want to live with anyone, especially not a romantic partner. So we don't see each other every day. I'm busy and I'm good with once a week date night and other times throughout the week that are unplanned. It's been like this for 2 1/2 years. Earlier in the day, she told me she realized that I'm a source of strength for her. A few weeks ago, she told me she wanted to spend more time with me, so I made it a point to invite her to hang out during the weekend when I was doing stuff around the house, like motorcycle maintenance, or such. So clearly, she wants more of me. A year or so ago, we talked about attention being the coin of the realm in girl world (my words, not hers), and she looked at me said, "Of course I want 100% of your attention." She also told me once, "I want you resources." I appreciate her honesty and self awareness and also I have set boundaries around these things as a result of these discussions. So, I'm feeling a little crowded here. I know I'm a source of strength for her; it's one of my masculine gifts. However, I feel like I might be coming up against a boundary around time. My question is this: how do I know if this is a normal request about getting closer, or if it's sign of some inner work that she needs to do? Bells are ringing that tell me that I don't need to become her "supply" of sorts.