The first belief is the modern narrative of sexual behavior in men and women.
The current standard narrative simplified is that sperm is metaphorically cheap while eggs are metaphorically expensive.
According to this theory, it is therefore the natural order of things for men to spread their seed far and wide in hopes of impregnating as many women as possible.
The alpha rules the pack by dint of his strength and furious violence; he gets the greatest amount of food and unlimited sexual access to the females.
The betas subsist on the scraps that are left over once the alpha has moved on and are excluded from sex with any of the females on threat of death.
According to the standard script, women are attracted to “alphas” because they are looking for prime genetic material who can also protect and provide for them, thus ensuring the continuation of their genetic line.
The idea of the “high-value, alpha male” is a popular one – in fact, it’s one of the regular arguments in the comments sections, especially whenever I post about masculinity or what makes men attractive to women.
If neither side is attempting to reproduce, how does one fit them into the model?
Is the more dominant partner presumed to be the masculine role and the submissive one the feminine?
Such is the case of the worship of the alpha male: an attempt by people to justify what they to be true via an appeal to nature through misunderstandings of evolution, psychology and sociological development.
The problem with the worship of the alpha male starts with the current fad of explaining male and female sexual behaviors via evolutionary psychology and involves two disparite beliefs.
Meanwhile the poor cuckolded beta is stuck having his genetic line cut off while expending resources raising another man’s child.
It’s an appealing idea in many ways; it provides the gloss of an appeal to nature- it nicely coincides with the macro perception of human sexual interaction and provides justification for promiscuous male behavior and an explanation for hypergamous females. The narrative that men are naturally promiscuous (the better to ensure the survival of their genetic line) while women are naturally monogamous is the result of a cultural fallacy dating back as far as Charles Darwin; scientists and anthropologists of the time tended to use Western cultural morality as the prism through which they viewed natural discoveries – a problem that occasionally crops up today, as a matter of fact.
Yes, there will be the inevitable quipster who says something about the stereotypical promiscuity of gay males, but gay men aren’t instinctively trying to spread their genes to as many females as possible.