The thread about the 55 laws to being an alpha male ( http://www.puaforum.co.uk/seduction-...html#post31465 ) got my attention. I find the myth tiresome and I'd like to debunk some misconceptions about virility.

Ethologists findings can teach us a thing or two about our own expressions of masculinity in our quest for punany.

In the animal world, one can differentiate between two types of strategies:


- The Macho
- The Courtesan

The former is the strategy used by many animals: insects, reptiles and many mammals (deers, giraffes, gorillas etc.). The macho strategy is to intimidate and/or physically dominate other males to claim the female. Females are not seduced but rather conquered.

The Courtesan strategy is used by birds for instance. The emphasis is on parade, embellishments and panache. They sing, build nets, bring presents or perform ritual dances to woo the females. Darwin noted that herons parade with great dignity in front of females to attract their attention.

The handicap strategy although counter-intuitive at first glance is also a weapon in their mating rituals. We all heard of the peacock tail for instance: the bigger it is, the bigger the handicap as it makes them more noticeable for predators. Yet, females are impressed by it. One evolutionary reason being that if he can pull it off and not get eaten then he’s got to be on hell of tough peacock. It is what biologists refer to as a costly signal.

What can we learn from animals mating process?

Mere observation will teach you that the macho strategy is overrated in popular culture. Sure, showing manliness is attractive. Yet, there’s way too much emphasis on violence and aggression as cornerstones of our collective definition of virility. Whether it is in sports or films, “real” men show little emotion except for rage, anger and aggression.

This produces the false impression that buff, loud and obnoxious characters with violent tendencies are more likely to seduce women. As a matter of fact, our mating process is more similar to that used by birds rather the macho strategy of our ape cousins.

We use our talents to seduce women. We display a confident attitude that will spark their curiosity and interest. Some impress them by showing off their material possessions… much like birds do.

On the other hand, the macho model promoted heavily, quite notably in the American pop culture, generates a great disconnect between men and women.

An example?
Men go to the gym to gain muscle. Not because of some survival advantage but because they think women will like them more for it. I’ll grant you that most women will choose a nice v-shape and 6-pack over a beer belly. Yet, studies reveal that men on average would ideally have 14 kilos more muscle than what women consider the ideal male body shape.

Not only that but such advice such as : “Don’t smile too often if you want to be seen as an alpha male” is rubbish. Women who were shown pictures of smiling men found them more handsome (Burke, 2001) and more intelligent (Lau, 1982).

So much for the typical macho strategy...

In reality, women are more likely to be attracted by conversational skills, an optimistic and passionnate outlook on life, status and humour.

In conclusion, I think it’s high time we all find a more complex and accurate definition of virility. Not only it will help us get the girls but it paves to way to a better, more empathic , social model.


BURKE N. (2001) "The effect of gender on the personality characteristics assigned to various facial expressions."

LAU S. (1982) "The effect of smiling on person perception" The Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 63-67

POPE HG Jr, GRUBER AJ, MANGWETH B, BUREAU B, HUDSON JI (2000) "Body image perception among men in three countries", American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1297-1301

good stuff. Tell me more!!

yeah, I went out last night and tried to practice the 55 laws. I noticed that the one I kept fucking up on was, "Never laugh at your own jokes." I can't help but laugh at my own jokes, they are just too damn funny!!!

As long as you're not the only one laughing, don't sweat it.

Is this REALLY a matter of fact? I'd say it depends.

Fair enough, it can be argued indeed.