Alpha fucks beta bucks is a red pill maxim that refers to sexual marketplace dynamics.
In brief, it means that alpha males enjoy free, easy, and abundant sexual access to women, while beta males receive only scant sexual access in spite of their expensive courtship efforts.
That’s “alpha fucks, beta bucks” in a nutshell.
But… Is it true?
As for many red pill tenets, it’s partly true, and partly misleading because its black-and-white generalizations.
By the end of this post, you will understand the dynamics of “alpha fucks, beta bucks”, and what it means to you.
- Corollary 1: Alphas fuck more (true)
- Corollary 2: Alphas fuck with less investment (true)
- Corollary 3: Alphas fuck quicker (true)
- Corollary 4: Alphas get better fucks (true)
- Correction 1: Bucks = power
- Correction 2: Bucks = SMV boost for long-term dating
- Correction 3: Bucks = (almost) necessary for top 1% women
- Correction 4: Granularity, adding the shades of grey
“Alpha fucks, beta bucks” is foundational to red pill philosophy.
We can define this maxim as:
“Alpha fucks beta bucks” means that alpha males can enjoy easy access to sex with little or no investment, while beta males need to invest, either emotionally or financially, to even have a shot at gettin g sex
The corollaries of “alpha fucks beta bucks” are central to the red pill view of intersexual dynamics.
Simple Models to Understand A Complex World
Before we start, a note: reality is complex.
And alpha and beta are extreme over-simplifications.
A slight step forward would be to add more categories:
But for the sake of brevity and simplicity let’s imagine:
- The alpha male is the high-value, attractive, high power, high dominance, confident man,
- The beta male is the low power, unattractive, submissive, self-doubting man
Corollary 1: Alphas fuck more (true)
The first corollary of the maxim is that alpha males have or can have more sex.
At parity of everything else, alpha males have easier access to sex.
Exception: Variety VS frequency, when betas have more sex
General population-level rules always have individual-level exceptions, of course.
But even at population level, there is one important exception here.
I’ll give you an example:
As a kid, I remember two older brothers bragging of sexual scucess.
Each of them claimed of having more sex and… They were both right.
How was that possible?
Well, the older one was far “cooler” and “alpha”. But he was mostly single because he sought diversity of sexual partners.
The younger one had a stable girlfriend.
So while the alpha had to find a new sexual partner, the younger brother was getting laid consistently (close to 100% of the times he’d meet his girlfriend).
So the single alpha who seeks variety as a single man might end up with a far higher sexual partners count, but fewer overall sex-session count as compared to a less alpha guy who is in a relationship.
But this does not affect the general rule.
Alpha males have better odds at having sex with any new woman than a beta male.
Corollary 2: Alphas fuck with less investment (true)
“Alpha fucks beta bucks” implies that:
More attractive men can get to sex with less investment than a beta male, or with no investment at all.
This is also generally true and it deserves a bit more of an explanation.
The sexual marketplace, just like any other social exchange, has an inherent element of bartering and calculative nature.
And when a man and a woman meet, they assess what they can do for each other, as well as assessing each other’s overall sexual market value along an array of different traits.
Now what happens is that the more personal value one individual possess, the less external value he needs to bring to that negotiating table to get what he wants – in our case, sexual access to the female-.
In simpler terms, if a guy is very attractive -and that’s his personal value-, then he doesn’t need to add as many external forms of value.
A guy who is less attractive, might instead have to add some forms of external value before he can get sexual access to the female.
See here a chart:
How does he add external values?
Usually, we can recognize two main categories:
- Personal investment
- Financial investment
Literally, the red pill maxim of “bucks” refers to financial investment, but it’s more often interpreted as any form of investment besides his genes/penis.
However, as we shall see, personal and financial investment are quite different.
Personal investment is displayed for example with kindness, listening, asking questions, caring, supporting, texting often etc. etc.
These also serve as promissory notes of future investment, as they sub-communicate “I care about you, and if you mate with me I’ll keep supporting in the future as well”.
The financial investment instead says “If you mate with me, I can support you (and our possible future children)”.
Most guys display financial investment by paying for dates, picking her up with the best car they can muster, going to a good restaurant, and maybe talking up their job.
This is a simplification of course, but based on it, we can say that, in general, it’s true that alpha males need less external value to achieve the same result as compared to a beta male.
It doesn’t mean alphas necessarily invest less, it means alphas can invest less to achieve the same -or better- results as non-alphas.
As we shall see, alphas who get into relationships or who choose to be providers tend to have more resources to invest than betas do.
Beware: the “I don’t invest” dickhead trap
I used to be huge into “not investing”.
And that handicapped some of my dating.
If a girl showed up to the date and said she hadn’t eaten yet, I’d insist I had eaten just to avoid food costs.
Again, this doesn’t mean “invest a lot”, but it means: balance.
There was a period when I wasn’t very balanced, not even after sex.
I remember once a poor girl pleading after sex “if we could go get pizza” together.
“Pizza”? I thought. You don’t get free handouts from me, I’m just the sex guy.
And I annoyingly denied.
I could have said “yes”, enjoyed a pizza with a pretty girl, and make it such a better experience for both of us. Instead, no, I had to “invest zero”, and sent her packing like the worst cheapo dickhead. Not my highest point, lemme tell you.
Again, this is not an exhortation to swing in the opposite direction.
Don’t let any woman take advantage of you. Don’t invest too much before sex. And ruthlessly cut out the value-takers from your life.
But a few bucks for a date are probably fine. And if you’re a cool guy and invite her after sex, you only earn more points.
Corollary 3: Alphas fuck quicker (true)
A third corollary is that alpha males can get to sex quicker than beta males.
This is also generally true, and now we get into the realm of the lover and the provider as well.
If you need to refresh your mind please see:
Let’s clarity this first: alpha male’s aren’t always lovers, and betas aren’t always providers.
BUT alphas are more able to date as lovers, while betas must rely more on providing.
Some math here: take 1.000 top 10% guys and 1.000 bottom 10% guys, and chances are that there are more lovers in the top 10% group. And if we’re talking about successful lovers, almost all of them are top 10% men, and probably zero successful lovers are bottom 10% men.
Lovers and providers work at inherently different speeds.
The lover approach is largely based on attraction, and it’s either on or off. Either the two like each other and do move quick, or nothing.
The provider path instead is more based on proving itself over a period of time.
Because providing is based on “sticking around”, and to honestly signal future commitment, you need to do that over time in the present.
So once we’re into the provider approach to dating, the woman is almost obliged to let him wait in order to:
- Make sure that he will stick around
- Maintain the image of being worthy of that investment
To understand #2, read Madonna/whore dichotomy or watch this video:
If there is no mutual attraction, paradoxically, the longer courtship period might eventually lead to sex and a relationship while the lover approach would instead lead nowhere.
So don’t necessarily and always discount the courtship method, which can sometimes be effective for alphas as well.
However, this is not to say that one must necessarily “win her over” when attraction is not present, or that it’s effective doing so. Often, it’s just best to move on.
Anyway, for our purposes, again, it’s true that, on average, alpha males can get to sex quicker, and especially so when they date as lovers.
Corollary 4: Alphas get better fucks (true)
There are a few reasons why this might be true:
- Physical dexterity: if alphas are more fit and if sex is a physical endevor, then it follows that alphas have an advantage
- Sexual attraction: sex based on attraction rather than transaction tends to be “hotter” sex
- “Whore” sex is hotter than “Madonna” sex: as per Madonna-whore dichotomy, if the beta is clueless and expects women to be prudes, then the woman will give him a prude -and will keep her wilder sex with men who appreciate her for her sexual drives as well-
As usual, there are some exceptions and further considerations to this rule:
- Beta ≠ fat & prude: not all betas must necessarily be prudes and/or overweight.
- “All about her approach” can yield some results: Dr. Robert Glover explains that nice guys make sex all about satisfying her, rather than themselves. That can increase the odds of the woman reaching orgasms
- Intimacy can increase sexual pleasure: A relationship that grows on intimacy on top of sexual attraction can also increase the quality and pleasure of sex, especially for her.
Anyway, the general rule applied to large numbers probably stands: take 1.000 alphas, 1.000 betas, and the alpha group probably enjoys wilder and hotter sex.
So albeit we’ve seen a few exceptions already, overall so far the “alpha fucks beta bucks” holds true and things add up.
So where does this maxim falls short then?
Correction 1: Bucks = power
One failure of the maxim is in the interpretation.
Beta bucks puts together the worst stereotype of the man who fails at dating, and the bucks, such as the personal investment and the financial resources.
So some guys wrongly equate the use or display of personal investment or resources to being a loser/beta, but that is not necessarily true.
Let’s focus on resources first.
The maxim is correct in that there are indeed lower-value ways of deploying resources in your dating strategies, and it’s true that some lower quality guys are more likely to resort to those than others.
But there are also empowering ways of leveraging resources that can increase your dating success.
Resources by themselves are neither alpha nor beta: resources are an incredible source of power.
Resources offer immense leverage in life, and the sexual marketplace is no exception.
Bucks can be power: example
Lemme re-share a story from “14 power moves“.
Some time ago I was out with a girl.
After the restaurant, we took a walk and then stopped at a bar for a drink.
We were snug comfortably on a couch when the waitress came and said “I’m sorry, here you can only get drinks if you get food”.
Her expression was as if to say “I’m sorry, we can’t serve you here, you have to go”.
I open the menu, point at one of the first dishes, and say “OK, bring us this, and two vodka martinis”.
And I passed her back the menu.
Now that was a high power way of using resources.
Not as a way of saying “if you mate with me, I will feed you, and let me prove it to you over the next 3 dates” but as a way of saying “I get what I want by leveraging my resources”.
We barely touched the food, and we didn’t even finish the drinks.
Back to mine, she was one of the most sexually forward women of 2020, and since I hadn’t left the AC on, it ended up in a mess of hot sweat.
Was it because of the menu power move?
Difficult to say, that was just one element, yet I’m pretty sure it was a small, yet significant contribution to her attraction.
Similarly, I had quick sexual encounters with women who came over and asked “how much was I paying for rent”, and to which I replied that “I pay nothing because it’s mine”.
In this case, resources didn’t stand in the way of short-term sex. And made a great candidate for long-term.
Correction 2: Bucks = SMV boost for long-term dating
In general, resources are more useful for committed and longer-term dating.
Short term and long term are two different modes of dating, with important differences, and with different rules to achieve success.
“Alpha fucks beta bucks” tends to leave out long-term since, like the red pill in general, is more short-term focused.
So, for example, if you take an attractive alpha male who is broke and jobless and a non-attractive beta male who is a billionaire, the alpha might do better in the short term, while the beta billionaire might secure a more attractive partner for the long term.
Case in point, Elon Musk:
Don’t make too much of extreme examples though.
They rarely exist in the real world. As a matter of fact, alpha males tend to have more resources than betas.
However, extreme examples based and stereotypes can help us better grasp the dynamics at play.
Now back to us:
Bucks for short-term sex success: conspicuous consumption
There is an important exception to the rule of resources as a tool for long term dating.
For example, throwing money around like you couldn’t care less can also serve to attract short-term sex.
It’s a phenomenon called “conspicuous consumption”, and conspicuous consumption usually frames you as a lover (Kenrick et al., 2011).
The world presents many examples that evolution equipped most men with the drive to acquire as well as to conspicuously display resources.
For example, take that red pill guy who is so into cars:
The sportscars he loves stem from a primordial drive to display resources as a way of attracting status and women.
Noisy and bright sportscars are a flashy way of communicating “respect me and mate with me, because I’m successful, and I have so much extra bucks that I can splurge”.
And this is not a criticism, by the way. Resources are power, and displaying resources is an effective technique to showcase and increase that power.
Correction 3: Bucks = (almost) necessary for top 1% women
Some guys think that “beta bucks” means that displaying resources equals “poor dating”.
But resources can be equally empowering for alphas.
How come so?
Didn’t we say that alphas can get to sex without resources?
Yes, but hold your horses for a second, because this is important.
The limitation of the alpha dating power is that it mostly goes downward.
See this chart:
What do I mean by that?
Well, let’s simplify again:
Imagine a man who is an 8 in terms of looks.
If he pursues a woman who is a 5, then he can likely bankg her quickly and without investment. He’s got so much more personal value compared to her, that she sees him as a genetic boon not to let go of -exceptions apply: some lower SMV women might sometimes reject themselves first, but let’s keep it simple-.
Now picture the same guy who’s an 8, but this time he’s interested in a woman who is a 9.
Now suddenly if he relies on looks or even on his full personal value alone, it’s not going to be a walk in the park anymore.
One, because she’s around his same level, and two, because he’s also competing with other alphas.
Top women only consider top men, so being alpha grants no special points anymore.
That is true for the short term and, even more, for relationships.
And that’s where external value and resources can come in handy for alphas as well.
Example: Top 0.1% Dating
Let’s make another simplistic example.
Take an attractive Hollywood female star.
Angelina Jolie of the past decades, for example.
Now imagine Angelina Jolie has a hunky personal trainer and he is very willing to dick her because she’s Angelina Jolie.
The hunky personal trainer might clean it with the girls at the bar, but now he’s in a different ballgame.
There is also Brad Pitt who wants Angelina, and maybe there is DiCaprio as well, as other attractive but non-famous billionaires.
Angelina might still take that personal trainer for a spin, but it will be more on her terms, and the power is all on her side.
Angelina might even actively avoid even being seen with his personal trainer because that would tarnish her reputation as a classy, unreachable top 0.1% woman.
And whether short or long term, that personal trainer is still outgunned by Brad Pit, who will always be a higher value mate in Angelina’s eyes.
Imagine Angelina is dating Di Caprio, Gosling, and Pitt but only Pitt is willing to commit. Then she will probably drop di Caprio and Gosling for Pitt, because commitment is valuable to a big chunk of women.
Exceptions always apply, like some younger women in the partying phase (Tomassi, 2015), or inveterate female players, but the norm is that when a woman is attracted to a man, she does value commitment.
The same can be said of top 1% women in general.
This is basic dating power dynamics.
Top women want it all and demand more, including bucks, because they can obtain it.
They want the alpha physically, who is also smart, and who is also financially well-off. If they’re looking for a relationship, they’ll also want the alpha who commits.
See the point?
Resources and external sources of value are helpful whenever you’re shooting for higher quality women and/or women above your level.
And that’s true independently of whether you’re a beta, an alpha, or anything in between.
Let’s revisit the above chart:
The same goes for personal investment, including caring and bonding.
The willingness and ability to empathize, support, and bond with a woman you’re dating, are all positive traits that do increase your overall value, especially for long term dating.
They help you get the relationship, secure the relationship, as well as empowering you within that relationship.
Using resources to change a woman’s mind
Let’s see one more example of leveraging resources.
This time, to change a woman’s mind.
Generally speaking, you’re better off finding women who like you, rather than changing minds.
But hey, exceptions always apply, and there might be valid reasons why you specifically like one particular woman.
Resources in those cases can be used to change her mind, while keeping a strong “alpha frame”.
This is a good example where Michael Franzese, a former mafia boss, does that:
Him: She kept standing me up (…) so one night I tell her “listen, wanna go for some good Italian food” (…) I drive her to the airport where my Learjet 25 was (…) we’re going to NYC downtown to Little Italy, she had never been on a private jet (…) flew to NYC, we headed to the Italian restaurant, first time she saw a sight like that (…) it makes an impression
Yeah, I’m also sure that made an impression.
Franzese turned a woman who was not interested into a highly devout and loyal wife.
Again, we don’t recommend changing women’s minds here.
But having the possibility of doing it is yet another powerful tool.
Correction 4: Granularity, adding the shades of grey
The last issue with the mantra is the black and white generalizations that often go along with it.
Obviously, the world is not just alphas with no-strings-attached sex and simps who invest a lot and never get sex.
In truth, the world is far more shades of grey, than black and whites.
So let’s add a few more categories for a better understanding of intersexual dynamics
Let’s start with beta fucks.
The simp who never, ever gets any sex is actually a minority.
To forum and Reddit users it might seem like simps are everywhere.
But that’s only because of alpha male posturing and ego self-massaging. Such as, men share simp examples to social climb on those who are below them, and to feel better about themselves.
In truth, most betas who go invest through longer courtships do get some fucks and manage to get a girlfriend.
I can tell you that from personal experience from when I was a certified over-investing chump.
At a time when I had little options, offering commitment got me a relationship with a lady who was far more attractive then I was:
And since alphas are a minority, and simps who never ever fuck are also a minority, the silent majority are the various shades of betas who (eventually) fuck.
Alpha Bucks: Wealth For Harems
I know, I know.
Given the original mantra, putting “alpha” and “buck” together seems nonsense.
But hear me out for a second.
The top alpha bucks are extremely wealthy individuals who leverage financial resources as the quickest and easiest path to sex, without investing anything else.
They pay for women’s lodging, life and expenses just to keep them around “on call” -sexual call-.
Some alpha bucks have so much sexual abundance and/or busy life that they don’t even call any specific woman all that often.
As an example, take Berlusconi.
Berlusconi used to put some of his women in his various real estates around Milan.
I don’t think he even visited them much. But he liked to throw his “bunga bunga parties” at his place, and call them over.
For a normal guy, Berlusconi was financially investing hugely.
But for a billionaire, it’s pocket change, and makes for a very convenient lifestyle.
Financial VS Emotional Investment
Alpha bucks show us that:
Financial investment and personal investment are VERY different.
High-order financial investment can allow men not to provide any personal investment, including commitment, or emotional closeness.
So the guy who bucks a lot can “keep” a woman around for sex only, and then go on and do his thing as soon as he’s done.
Albeit this might sound “cool” to some guys, I don’t necessarily advise you to go down this road since getting so rich that you can become an alpha bucks is mathematically unlikely.
Alpha Providers: Family, But No Diapers
They can be equally rich and powerful as alpha bucks, but they form families.
While the alpha bucks seek sex and diversity without commitment, alpha providers do not place sexual variety at the top of their priorities.
They financially invest a lot, and they also commit, live together, and potentially marry and have children. BUT… they do not get involved with chores and child-rearing.
Donald Trump is a great example.
Listen to him speak, he makes it very clear:
Trump: I like kids, I mean, I won’t do anything to take care of them
I might even never see the kid
Note how Melania was cool with Trump saying that.
I sill advise to never say that publicly because it can harm the children who might hear it. But it’s an interesting category for driven men on a mission.
Alpha Boyfriends: High Quality Men In Relationships
Depending on their status, you might also call them:
- Alpha husbands
- Alpha boyfriends
Simply, these are alpha males who enjoy all that relationships have to offer.
These men commit, invest, do couple-things, and enjoy spending time with children if there are any. They’re the whole package, and are themselves great role models of “civic duties”.
Exceptions always apply in humans, but women who find them are often lucky women.
And women tend to be very happy with these men.
Obama is a good example of an alpha husband:
Obama: (publicly praising Michelle) for the past 25 years you have not only been my wife and the mother of my children, you have been my best friend
And friendship happens to be one of the hallmarks of happy relationships (Gottman, 2006).
Blue Pill Alphas
Unluckily, success without power awareness is precarious.
And if they meet a more Machiavellian, manipulative woman, they’re in trouble.
Exactly what happened to Mike Tyson:
Interviewer: there was no prenuptial agreement
Robin: we got married to be together for ever, not to plan for divorce
Robin: it’s been hell, Mike Tyson is a manic depressive, he just is, it’s a fact, it’s been torture
(later divorces him for millions)
It’s a stark reminder that being “alpha” or powerful is not enough.
Knowledge of power dynamics is also crucial.
More In Seduction University…
This article provided deeper insights on intersexual dynamics that is not available anywhere else.
For more -and more practical strategies- see “Seduction University”.