Alpha fucks beta bucks is a red pill maxim that refers to sexual marketplace dynamics whereby 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.
Well, that’s “alpa fucks, beta bucks” in a nutshell.
But… Is it true?
As for many things in the red pill, it’s partly true, and partly misleading because it over-applies black-and-white generalizations to a world that is far more complex.
This post clarifies for you what’s true, and what needs some better analysis.
- 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 for the same level of sexual action
Albeit it itself it’s only a maxim, many different corollaries stem from this maxim that are central to how the red pill describes and understands intersexual dynamics.
Let’s start with the obvious fact that reality is variegated, and that alpha and beta, obviously, are simplifications of reality that do little justice to the more complex nature of human society.
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, and the beta male is the unattractive, low power, 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.
Obviously, at parity of everything else, alpha males have easier access to sex.
Exception: Variety VS frequency, the “girlfriend effect”
General population-level rules always have individual-level exceptions, of course.
But besides the individual level, there is one important exception here that I’ve seen more than once in my life.
I’ll give you an example:
As a kind, I remember two older brothers one-upping each other as to who had more sex.
Each one of the them claimed of having more and… They were both right.
How was that possible?
Well, the older of the two brothers, the one who far “cooler” and far more “alpha”, was mostly single in his life, and sought diversity of sexual partners.
The younger one had a stable girlfriend.
So while the alpha had to go out and face the odds to get a new sexual partner, the younger brother was getting laid close to 100% of the times every time he’d meet his girlfriend.
So, in some cases and in given periods of times, 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.
This particular circumstance does not affect the general rule, though.
Alpha males still have, generally, 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” also 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 and characteristics.
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.
How does he add external values?
Usually, we can recognize two main categories:
- Personal investment
- Financial investment
Literally, the red pill maxium of “bucks” refers financial investment, but it’s more often interpreted as any form of investment beside 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, contacting her often etc. etc.
Very importantly as we shall see, these also serve as promissory notes of future investment, as they basically say “I care about you, and if you mate with me I’ll keep supporting you and staying by your side 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 normal guys show financial investment by paying for the 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.
Note: this doesn’t mean alphas necessarily invest less, it means alphas can invest less to achieve the same -or better- results as non-alphas.
As a matter of fact, and 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, and still avoid any food.
I still think there is a place in getting to sex before you invest too much, but as for everything: balance.
There was a period when I wasn’t very balanced, and often even after sex.
I remember once after I had sex with a poor girl and she pleaded “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 outright, annoyingly refused.
I could have said “yes”, enjoyed a pizza with this pretty girl, and make it such a better experience for both of us. Instead, no, I had to “invest zero”, and ended up acting like the worst cheapo dickhead and sent her packing. 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. But a few bucks for a date are probably fine. And inviting her after sex is rather safe and, if you’re a cool guy, it will only give you points.
Corollary 3: Alphas fuck quicker (true)
A third corollary is that apha 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:
Well, let’s make this clear first of all: the alpa male isn’t always a lover, and the beta isn’t always a provider.
BUT, as for what we said above, alphas are more able to date as lovers, while betas must rely more on providing.
Some math here: So if you take 1.000 top 10% guys and 1.000 bottom 10% guys, chances are very high that there are far more lovers among the top 10%, and if we’re talking about successful lovers, than you can rest assured that there are far more among those 10% men, and probably zero successful lovers in the bottom 10%.
These two different dating strategies and approaches 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 we they to it quickly, 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 one, make sure that he will stick around, and two, to maintain that aura of a woman who is worthy of that investment.
Please see the Madonna/whore dichotomy for more 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 also not to say that one must necessarily engage in courtship when attraction is not present, or that it’s effective doing so. Sometimes, 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’ sex can be
- Sexual attraction: if alphas fuck based more on attraction, sex based on attraction rather than transaction tends to be “hotter” sex
- “Whore” sex is hotter than “Madonna” sex: as per the above Madonna-whore dichotomy, if the beta is clueless and approaches women expecting to be all prudes, then the woman migt self-censor in ways that she does not 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: To begin with, not all non-top 1% men must necessarily be prudes and/or overweight.
- “All about her approach” can yield some results: Dr. Robert Glover explains in “No More Mr. Nice Guy“, many nice guys make the sex all about satisfying her, rather than themselves, which sometimes can increase the chances of the woman reaching orgasms -but not always-.
- 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 groups will probably enjoy 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 it’s how it’s interpreted.
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 hte 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 encouters with women who came over and me “how much was I paying for rent”, and to which I replied that “I pay nothing because it’s mine”.
In this case, resources were helpful for short-term sex, as well as making me a great candidate for long-term as well.
Correction 2: Bucks = SMV boost for long-term dating
In general, resources are more useful for committed and longer-term dating.
And that’s another element that the “alpha fucks beta bucks” tends to leave out, since it’s more focused on the short term than the long term.
In general, I would say, the red pill is more focused on the short term
Short term and long term are two different modes of dating, with important differences, and with different rules to achieve success.
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:
Let me add one note though: don’t make too much of examples like the one above.
They are based on exaggerated stereotypes that rarely even exist in the real world. As a matter of fact, alpha males tend to have more resources than betas.
However, sometimes, exaggerated examples based on one-dimension 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 interpte the maxim as displaying resources means you’re not dating well.
But resources can be equally empowering for alphas.
How come so?
Didn’t we say that alphaas 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.
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 it’s likely that he can get to sex with her quicker and without investment since he’s got so much more personal value compared to her, that she will see him as a genetic boom 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 and attractive guys.
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, especially when it comes to longer-term.
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 actually actively avoid even been 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.
The next twist is that if 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 means value 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 loaded. If they’re looking for a relationship, they’ll always also prefer 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.
See an example:
And 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
I want to give you on more example of leveraging resources.
And this is to change a woman’s mind.
Now you might say “why should I do that, changing a specific woman’s mind is a form of one-it is”.
And I agree, you might have a point.
But hey, exceptions always apply, and there might be valid reasons why you specifically like one particular woman, and changing her mind might be worth a shot.
Resources in those cases can be leveraged for that end, and you still do so within a strong, alpha frame so to speak.
This is a good example where Michael Franzese, a former mafia boss, does exactly that, check it out:
Yeah, I’m also sure that made an impression.
Again, you don’t necessarily have to do that, but having the possibility of doing it is yet another powerful tool and whether you use it or not, it’s still empowering to have it.
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 who enjoy quick sex without any investment 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 cateogries in between 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.
Sure, they might large in numbers, but that’s only because of alpha male posturing, with men sharing simp examples as a way of social climbing and feeling better about themselves.
In truth, of all the betas who date more traditionally and who chip in their time and resources, a good chunk of them do get some fucks, sometimes, or manage to get a girlfriend.
I can tell you that from personal experience as well, when I was a certified over-investing chap (sure as fuck I didn’t wanna go over to hers for Christmas, but guess what I did?):
And since alphas are a minority, and simps who never ever fuck are also a minority, the actual silent majority are probably the various shades of grey betas who (eventually) fuck.
I know, I know.
Given the original mantra, it sounds stupid to put “alpha” and “buck” together.
But hear me out for a second.
Alpha bucks are a few, very few, very, very loaded alpha males who buck a lot, and who have so much sexual abundance, that they actually fuck the same woman only occasionally, even while he might “maintains” her, so to speak.
As an example, take Belrusconi.
Berlusconi used to put some of his women in his various real estates around Milan. But he had so many women, that it’s not like he was visiting any specific one all that often.
And even when he’d invite women over, he was usually pretty lavish with his gift-making.
Financial wise, for Berlusconi it was peanuts and it made for a congenial arrangement, but for a normal guy, Berlusconi was bucking a lot.
Financial VS Emotional Investment
So this is a very different style of being an alpha, and it shows how financial investment is very different from personal investment.
Financial investment is a form of external value that allows a guy not to provide any personal investment, including emotional closeness.
So the guy who bucks a lot can “keep” a woman around for the sex only, and then move 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.
And not for personal preferences, albeit I’m also not personally a big fan of this style, but because getting so rich that you can play the alpha bucks is mathematically unlikely.
They can be equally rich as the loaded alpha bucks, but less of a player, seeking less diversity.
These guys invest in their women, commit, potentially marry, and also provide financially, but do not get involved with the child-rearing.
Donald Trump is a great example.
Listen to him speak, he makes it very clear:
I don’t think it was cool of trump to say “I might even never see the kid”, but it’s an interesting category to me.
Depending on their stauts, you might also call them:
- Alpha husbands
- Relationship alphas
- Alpha boyfriends
Simply, these are alpha males who prefer relationships to sleeping around.
These alphas, invest, commit, enjoy raising the children, the whole package, and are themselves great role model for their children.
Exceptions always apply, but women who find them are often lucky women.
Blue pill alphas
Finally, we have clueless alphas, whom in red pill terminology you might call blue bill alphas.
These are guys whom you’d definitely consider them alpha males, but who are nonetheless clueless of power dynamics, and manipulation dynamics.
It’s a risk, because success without power dynamics knowledge is always precarious.
And if they meet a more Machiavellian, manipulative woman, they can easily be taken for a ride, and get hooked on the wrong woman.
See for example mike Tyson:
They are not the most common type of aphas, but it’s a stark reminder that being “alpha” or powerful is not enough.
Knowledge of power dynamics is also crucial.
We could add more categories and go even deeper, but I think that for now, this has provided some deeper insights on intersexual dynamics that is not available anywhere else.