I had a conversation with a girl I know this week that shed some more light on women’s perspectives in dating. I’m always open to getting female opinions, but I usually just laugh to myself about how incomplete or biased their understanding is.
Men, Monks & Peter Pans
She began to tell me about how she believes there are three kinds of men: “Monks,” “Peter Pans,” and “Real Men.”
I figured this was pretty straightforward.
Monks would be guys who keep to themselves, having no options and withdrawing from the sexual marketplace (what I would call Omegas).
Peter Pans would be guys who just haven’t “grown up” yet– the nice guys, the white knights saving Wendy from Captain Hook (a.k.a. Betas).
And the “Real Men” are Alphas. Makes sense, right?
Not Even Close
Obviously I overestimated her, because it turned out she was doing what most girls do, which is ignoring guys they are not attracted to in the first place. If you’re not alpha, you don’t exist. Basically, she just described three different dudes she had been in love with in the past:
“Peter Pans are those smooth-talking player types. They just seduce you and use you for sex, but they aren’t mature enough to want a relationship yet.”
“Monks are really spiritual guys who are more into energy and nature than women… They’ll let you hang around with them, but you’ll never be important enough for them to go out of their way for.”
“Real Men are guys who have their shit figured out. They have good careers, they know their place in the world and have achieved success, or are on the right path. They’re marriage material and they want to take care of women.”
So I guess in her world, every man is either a player, a pothead hipster, or a successful investment banker.
Does that sound about right?