The Omega Male, and why women should go for them

[mo mo]

Here is a definition I read on the Omega Male:

 

 

The polar opposite of the Alpha Male. Omega Males can have friends and close acquaintances but prefer to accomplish things on their own without the help of a group. Omega Males generally don't belong to any cliques and have no desire to be the leader or most outstanding of said clique. Omega Males have relations with people from all groups and carry a resourcefulness and cunning (sometimes strength) to get a job done with their own skill. This being said, an omega male can have great pride without it manifesting as "ego." (There are always exceptions.

 

An Alpha Male MUST absolutely be perceived by his peers as the toughest, most popular, and smartest. An Omega Male cares little for this recognition...but knows that he is all those things and more.

 

Alpha males must have the support of his "boys." This can be the foundation for many shallow and superficial relationships. An Omega Male needs support from time to time, but has few true friends who know him intimately and generally shuns shallow acquaintences.

 

This is from another definition

 

Omega is a logical choice, when faced with the problem of describing people who are clearly not subservient to an alpha yet cannot be described as an alpha themselves, There is no set criteria for an Omega, the sole common trait is one of being a rogue social wander who avoids binding attachments generally rejects social hierarchy treating everyone equally based on personal judgment, and refuses to be drawn into tribalistic feuds between groups of people

 

Not many people know about the Omega. Basically it's in between Alpha and Beta. The Alpha comes across and cocky, which is often confused for confidence. He is cocky and reckless and cares little for the consequences of his actions. The Beta comes across as weak and afraid to take charge, or act on things he wishes he could pursue.

 

The Omega is a guy who doesn't need to be recognized as strong, or powerful or whatever, he just is what he is and enjoys life the way HE wants to. He doesn't need to prove anything to anybody, but if he has a passion for something or someone, he will make it a point to pursue it the best he can.

 

As an Omega, and knowing other Omegas, I know that women don't need to worry much about an Omega boyfriend going out to cheat with a whole bunch of women. While he may have a bunch of admirable qualities, the truth is, most women freak the **** out once they experience his level of confidence and security. An Omega like me doesn't cheat often simply because there is no one to cheat with.

[rafallus]

Everyone is a blend of alpha, beta and omega, depending on the situation, one resurfaces. Just like Madonna/Whore thing in women, which are not mutually exclusive either.

[mo mo]

Everyone is a blend of alpha, beta and omega, depending on the situation, one resurfaces. Just like Madonna/Whore thing in women, which are not mutually exclusive either.

 

I'm not sure about that. I mean, I'll agree that people can go through phases, but people are inherently a certain way.

 

I know plenty of alphas that are cocky and reckless and attract certain kinds of women. I don't act that way and I don't attract those women (nor would I want to).

 

Betas often try to downplay alphas and omegas strengths so that they look better in front of others. Again, I don't do that because I think it's immature and ridiculous.

 

Omegas can be hard to get along with because they have a certain way of thinking and living, and in certain situations this can be determined to be NPD or snobbiness. I know about that a little too well.

[rafallus]

What I mean, is in most social settings I've been, you can be alpha in one situation, and beta in other.

 

Like, say, you deal with group of other strong males, you don't establish dominance, therefore aren't alpha. But then you go to your other buddies, but those happen to be more indecisive and weak. You easily establish dominance and take responsibility -you become alpha.

 

It gets better, because I had both settings happened within the same group. For example, we are in a part of the city one person knows well, with people he knows well, but I not so much. I take back seat by nature. And of course situation can be reversed.

 

Therefore I'm not concerned too much with alpha/beta/omega status.

[cerridwen]

Mo labels, mo labels, mo labels!

 

I still like it. And I think it best describes the type of guy I'm drawn to now.

 

Not sure I agree that his confidence scares women off. I think they're more scared off by the limited influence their opinions have over how he lives his life.

 

Omega...I dig it.

[carhill]

Rugged individualist.

 

OP, have you noted that you can form deep friendships with other males who meet the omega description of the OP? I ask because my core group of male friends could be similarly defined. There are no shallow relations at our table, rather loving and caring men of many years.

 

I don't know much about labels but the description in the OP was enlightening. Thanks.

[grkBoy]

I toss out the "alpha" and "omega" things and only use the term "alpha" when I mainly see it as men who are bonna-fide douchebags who have the good looks, money, and charm that women drool over. They just don't commit, they cheat, and they tend to treat women as disposable.

 

Now...I know that's NOT the definition of a true "alpha male", but I don't generally see that "true definition" running around out there. I agree more that everyone has a bit of all the "categories" in them and no one ever hits a 100% mark on any of them.

 

With that said, I won't tell women to chase "alpha" or "omega", but more simply tell them they have to pick from the available dating pool they create for themselves. Plain and simple.

 

For instance, if they want guys who are very athletic, then go for it. However, if their area/region only has athletic guys who won't commit ever in life, then it limits her. She can't claim she's got hundreds of options if she really wants to get married, but all those guys do not. PLUS...they have to want her as well, so if she's the kind of woman they don't want...then it limits her choices even more.

 

This could go for any traits of characteristics. If a woman wanted an exciting good looking guy who wants a wife and kids, then she by all means should go seek that. However, if she finds that her entire available dating pool has no such man, then she has to rethink it all...or wides the region and perhaps go long distance.

 

The problem today is men and women are told they can "have it all", so they keep holding out for that perfect person that never comes. Thus the men who perhaps aren't getting dates consider themselves "omega" and the guys getting women easily are seen as "alpha".

 

Standards are only good if you can attain someone who has them. Forget alpha or omega, just be a guy women would want. If you dress like a slob, pack on 100 extra pounds, have a comb-over, work for minimum wage, live with your parents, and collect sci-fi toys...then you might want to look into yourself and ask what you do that turns women off.

 

Maybe you'll diet and hit the gym to get athletic, and dress better. Maybe you'll shave your head and groom yourself well. Maybe you'll keep your sci-fi hobby, but also learn to cook or paint or play softball for fun and socializing.

 

Everyone wants the other gender to take them as they are, which is right to an extent...but if you're not what the other gender wants, then you need to see what you can do to improve your chances. No one wants someone who's boring.

[mo mo]

Mo labels, mo labels, mo labels!

 

I still like it. And I think it best describes the type of guy I'm drawn to now.

 

Not sure I agree that his confidence scares women off. I think they're more scared off by the limited influence their opinions have over how he lives his life.

 

Omega...I dig it.

 

In response to the bolded..

 

I could understand that.. except that in some of my experiences, I never get to the debate. There have been women that I never had conversations where opinions were brought up and I put my foot down. I dunno, maybe some are scared about even bringing their opinions into conversation?

[mo mo]

Rugged individualist.

 

OP, have you noted that you can form deep friendships with other males who meet the omega description of the OP? I ask because my core group of male friends could be similarly defined. There are no shallow relations at our table, rather loving and caring men of many years.

 

I don't know much about labels but the description in the OP was enlightening. Thanks.

 

Oh absolutely. I don't have many friends but the ones I do call friends look out for out for me as much as I look out for them. I'm selective and so are they and we cherish each other's company.

[mo mo]

I toss out the "alpha" and "omega" things and only use the term "alpha" when I mainly see it as men who are bonna-fide douchebags who have the good looks, money, and charm that women drool over. They just don't commit, they cheat, and they tend to treat women as disposable.

 

Now...I know that's NOT the definition of a true "alpha male", but I don't generally see that "true definition" running around out there. I agree more that everyone has a bit of all the "categories" in them and no one ever hits a 100% mark on any of them.

 

With that said, I won't tell women to chase "alpha" or "omega", but more simply tell them they have to pick from the available dating pool they create for themselves. Plain and simple.

 

For instance, if they want guys who are very athletic, then go for it. However, if their area/region only has athletic guys who won't commit ever in life, then it limits her. She can't claim she's got hundreds of options if she really wants to get married, but all those guys do not. PLUS...they have to want her as well, so if she's the kind of woman they don't want...then it limits her choices even more.

 

This could go for any traits of characteristics. If a woman wanted an exciting good looking guy who wants a wife and kids, then she by all means should go seek that. However, if she finds that her entire available dating pool has no such man, then she has to rethink it all...or wides the region and perhaps go long distance.

 

The problem today is men and women are told they can "have it all", so they keep holding out for that perfect person that never comes. Thus the men who perhaps aren't getting dates consider themselves "omega" and the guys getting women easily are seen as "alpha".

 

Standards are only good if you can attain someone who has them. Forget alpha or omega, just be a guy women would want. If you dress like a slob, pack on 100 extra pounds, have a comb-over, work for minimum wage, live with your parents, and collect sci-fi toys...then you might want to look into yourself and ask what you do that turns women off.

 

Maybe you'll diet and hit the gym to get athletic, and dress better. Maybe you'll shave your head and groom yourself well. Maybe you'll keep your sci-fi hobby, but also learn to cook or paint or play softball for fun and socializing.

 

Everyone wants the other gender to take them as they are, which is right to an extent...but if you're not what the other gender wants, then you need to see what you can do to improve your chances. No one wants someone who's boring.

 

I kinda agree with what you are saying here but I'm not sure it really debates to the topic at hand.

 

What I'm basically saying is that by the definitions I have posted, I am damn near 100% Omega. I have no issues attracting women, I'm in great shape, I am financially stable, have a sense of humor, and I'm rather intelligent.

 

90% of my dating experiences have gone like this: I choose to pursue a woman, and once she gets to know the real me, she freaks out. she starts assuming I am a player, that I am going to manipulate her, that I will get tired of her and leave, that she isn't ready for the kind of commitment (it's especially funny when I hear **** like that within a week of knowing her and relationship discussions haven't even hit the table yet).

 

I am not manipulative and I am not unfaithful. Just because it may seem like I have a lot of options does not mean I'm gonna pursue every single one, or even half of them. There's no need to worry about me being unfaithful because I go through this BS with the large majority of women I meet. And I know I am not the only one because many of the guys I know that are like me go through the same issues.

 

That's really the point of this thread. It isn't really an alpha/beta/omega pride discussion. What I am basically saying is that these kinds of fears women have are basically unfounded.

[cerridwen]

In response to the bolded..

I could understand that.. except that in some of my experiences, I never get to the debate. There have been women that I never had conversations where opinions were brought up and I put my foot down. I dunno, maybe some are scared about even bringing their opinions into conversation?

 

Yeah, I think we're saying the same thing actually.

 

Not many women will like that they can't "control" you or have more of an influence on your decisions, whether you assert yourself at the get go, or during a debate. Often, I bet they just observe you and come to this conclusion on their own.

 

You see this as they're intimidated by your confidence. I see it as a reflection of their own need to control and it not jiving with your style. It's pretty much 2 sides of the same coin.

 

Not sure if that makes sense. I haven't had my morning coffee.

 

The dude I'm into now sounds a lot like an Omega type. It's pretty attractive since I don't have control issues.

Edited June 26, 2011 by cerridwen

[mo mo]

Yeah, I think we're saying the same thing actually.

 

Not many women will like that they can't "control" you or have more of an influence on your decisions, whether you assert yourself at the get go, or during a debate.

 

You see this as they're intimidated by your confidence. I see it as a reflection of their own need to control and it not jiving with your style. It's pretty much 2 sides of the same coin.

 

Not sure if that makes sense. I haven't had my morning coffee.

 

No I think it makes sense, but I don't really see how some women can jump to this conclusion so quickly.

 

Let me give you an example. There was one co worker a while back, let's call her May. I noticed for a long time that she would check me out and stuff, but she never initiated a conversation. One day I joked around with her, about something.. I don't even remember. Then after that, another day she talked to me for about a minute about something, then another time she saw me in the cafeteria and she joined me for lunch and she basically acted like she knew me for her entire life.

 

I thought that was a little strange, but I was still very respectful to her and gracious of her company. We started talking on facebook and AIM and out of the blue one day she told me that I seem like I am arrogant, or rude. She said she realized I am super confident but that at times it seems like I look down on people.

 

I really dunno how she jumped to that conclusion. I think many people are just really insecure and people with confidence make them feel really bad, even if they aren't really trying.

[mo mo]

btw I am in love

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t284501/

[cerridwen]

No I think it makes sense, but I don't really see how some women can jump to this conclusion so quickly.

 

Let me give you an example. There was one co worker a while back, let's call her May. I noticed for a long time that she would check me out and stuff, but she never initiated a conversation. One day I joked around with her, about something.. I don't even remember. Then after that, another day she talked to me for about a minute about something, then another time she saw me in the cafeteria and she joined me for lunch and she basically acted like she knew me for her entire life.

 

I thought that was a little strange, but I was still very respectful to her and gracious of her company. We started talking on facebook and AIM and out of the blue one day she told me that I seem like I am arrogant, or rude. She said she realized I am super confident but that at times it seems like I look down on people.

 

I really dunno how she jumped to that conclusion. I think many people are just really insecure and people with confidence make them feel really bad, even if they aren't really trying.

 

Hmm...it took me a minute to weigh this.

Then I realized I know exactly what you mean.

 

There's a guy at my school who is very tall, very built, and very confident.

He is getting his Ph.D., is gregarious, attractive, and personable.

I hated him.

 

Then, I got to know him.

I realized he (to put this in terms of the post) was not an Alpha but very much the Omega type you describe.

He and I get on great, making each other laugh and I appreciate him as a person.

 

So, perhaps the two are often mistaken for one another?

Add a woman's insecurity and yes, I can see why they might be intimated.

[runner]

sounds like 'omega' is just a repackaged alpha, with alpha redefined as beta--and beta being anything but alpha or omega

 

i think a true 'omega' would transcend existing labels and could not be compared at all to the alpha/beta notions being thrown around. and an omega certainly would not wear the label either in their own mind or in public. just my two pence.

[mo mo]

Hmm...it took me a minute to weigh this.

Then I realized I know exactly what you mean.

 

There's a guy at my school who is very tall, very built, and very confident.

He is getting his Ph.D., is gregarious, attractive, and personable.

I hated him.

 

Then, I got to know him.

I realized he (to put this in terms of the post) was not an Alpha but very much the Omega type you describe.

He and I get on great, making each other laugh and I appreciate him as a person.

 

So, perhaps the two are often mistaken for one another?

Add a woman's insecurity and yes, I can see why they might be intimated.

 

ah HA

 

I've suspected it all along. good to hear it from someone else. Thanks for sharing. Off to the beach now!!!

[carhill]

One path is communicating one's perspective with the expressed intention to get it out there. Own it.

 

Another path is communicating one's perspective to control and dominate the perspectives of others.

 

Language, both verbal and physical, can be used to respect and uplift, even while challenging, versus belittle and denigrate and subjugate and control.

 

Different psychologies and emotional 'styles' respond in unique ways to such languages, some being compatible and some not. What I've learned, through both life experience and therapy, is to accept those responses as authentic and, if they don't match up with I find to be healthy for myself, move on.

 

Based on the 'label', it follows that an omega male doesn't 'need' people but rather seeks out mutually beneficial relationships with both males and females. He doesn't 'need' the validation of a female to feel secure in himself.

 

It's an interesting data point that the core group of male friends I identify with the omega label are all on their second marriages and have been married between 25 and 30 years. My father similar, married 32 years at his death. Most married strong (emotionally and spiritually) women, and those women have been great allies for myself during my recent challenges. Great examples of compatibility.

 

You see this as they're intimidated by your confidence. I see it as a reflection of their own need to control and it not jiving with your style. It's pretty much 2 sides of the same coin.

 

Great example of style incompatibility. Both styles are valid and both people can find compatible partners. I do know some men (friends, but not part of the core group) who have domineering wives and the dynamic works for them. One couple has been married 47 years, very happily by their account, and do everything together. Their styles mesh, and well. The man is no wimp, a real man's man, and he accepts his wife's 'control' with a self-confident smile on his face. They 'get' each other.

 

For myself, I prefer a lady who has 'want' at the top of her list, rather than 'need'. As an example, a lady whose style is to prefer to be wanted, rather than needed, and who has a style of challenge (confidence and intelligence) and support (love and empathy). I want to hear what she thinks and want to feel that those strong opinions are couched in love and care.

 

Oh, another perhaps odd data point is that a significant portion of my core group of male friends love and own cats (and animals in general), as do I. Hmm...

[Feelin Frisky]

Wow, I just found out what I am. I'm an Endomorphic Omega Man.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Feelin Frisky

[vsmini]

I think I've only ever dated Omega's by this description. The last one had a MAJOR ego. He kind of relished in being the loner and judging everyone off to the side lines and was SO resentful of anyone who was an alpha male.

Short little guy, great brain, major Napoleon complex.

 

But yea - before him, all Omega's and the guy I'm with now and will probably marry - Omega.

I prefer them!

 

interesting as I'm a bit of an Alpha girl. But I don't stomp and boss people around and think I'm some damn Queen Bee. Alpha Omega maybe? who knows.

[Feelin Frisky]

I think I've only ever dated Omega's by this description. The last one had a MAJOR ego. He kind of relished in being the loner and judging everyone off to the side lines and was SO resentful of anyone who was an alpha male.

Short little guy, great brain, major Napoleon complex.

 

But yea - before him, all Omega's and the guy I'm with now and will probably marry - Omega.

I prefer them!

 

interesting as I'm a bit of an Alpha girl. But I don't stomp and boss people around and think I'm some damn Queen Bee. Alpha Omega maybe? who knows.

 

I like the idea of alpha women (just as long as it's understood I'm not in her power sphere). I once dated someone like that who took charge and bossed people around like she was born for it. But she never turned that on me. Too bad she had shi++y breath.

[thatone]

snobbishness, i think, is as much a product of age as personality. people in their 20s are ignorantly snobbish in many cases. i say ignorantly because they perceive any success above any of their peers as a sign of superiority. they get over that as they get older (or they become permanently deluded as*holes). this pertains to both men and women in that age range.

 

sounds like 'omega' is just a repackaged alpha, with alpha redefined as beta--and beta being anything but alpha or omega

 

i think a true 'omega' would transcend existing labels and could not be compared at all to the alpha/beta notions being thrown around. and an omega certainly would not wear the label either in their own mind or in public. just my two pence.

 

well, as someone who identifies with this description more than the alpha description, i do wear the label in my own mind, although i can choose to be the leader of conversation in small groups if i so choose. it's a skill i decided to learn, but it's not really a natural tendency, it's calculated and deliberate.

 

the difference, as a couple of others hit on, is that the alpha type needs to be the center of attention, and needs to be looked upon in a certain way by others he is around. the other type does not, and can simply choose to not care what people think if he doesn't care to associate with those people.

 

Not sure I agree that his confidence scares women off. I think they're more scared off by the limited influence their opinions have over how he lives his life.

 

 

that's it precisely. i've given quite a few women their first "no" over the span of my 30 some odd years. not to say i'm better than they are and certainly not to say that they were better than i was at the time. but as someone else mentioned women have princess complexes and men have 'american dream' fixations and they're not used to being told "no". for the sake of politeness i tend to withhold those opinions (mentality of "no point in burning bridges") except in the cases where they are warranted, but the decisions and opinions don't go away, they're still there even if they aren't verbalized.

 

and that's the most noteworthy point in looking at such people. whether they verbalize their opinions or not, their minds are not easily changed. when you learn something about such a person, you can rest assured that it is an absolute truth and will probably never change. it's very easy for such people to be manipulative, though. when you're not preoccupied with being the center of attention, you have lots of time to consider the buttons of others and how to press them. now, combine that with the arrogance of the average 20 something year old and you have, potentially, a very destructive person.

 

for every positive there's a negative, that's the negative from my experience. as with anything else, personality type can tell you how a person will generally think, but it won't tell you how they will behave. other emotions and tendencies come into play at that point.

[Lady vs Panda]

Wow, I just found out what I am. I'm an Endomorphic Omega Man.

 

 

This sounds like an action figure I would buy my nephew.

[Feelin Frisky]

This sounds like an action figure I would buy my nephew.

I don't think so. It sits at a desk and thinks a lot.

[Lady vs Panda]

I don't think so. It sits at a desk and thinks a lot.

 

He's a quiet child.

[TheLawmaker]

Beta males are betta males! Just had to point that out.