Why "Alpha Male" Dating Advice Is Mostly Wrong & The Toxic Reality of "High-Value Man" Culture

Tuesday, February 18, 2025.

Dating advice is a thriving industry, and in the testosterone-fueled corner of the internet, self-proclaimed "alpha males" and "high-value men" reign supreme.

They promise to teach men how to dominate relationships, attract submissive partners, and cultivate an aura of untouchable masculinity.

The premise?

That women are irresistibly drawn to power, status, and a rigid, hierarchical view of attraction.

But here’s the problem: Much of this advice is based on exaggerations of Evolutionary Psychology, pop-science distortions, and a deep misunderstanding of what actually sustains healthy relationships.

In reality, the "alpha male" dating framework is not only misleading but often counterproductive.

Worse, the so-called "high-value man" culture warps relationships into transactional power plays rather than mutual, fulfilling connections.

The Myth of the "Alpha Male" in Dating

The term "alpha male" was borrowed from research on wolf packs conducted by David Mech in the 1970s.

The only problem? Mech himself debunked his own findings, later explaining that wolf packs don’t operate under a rigid alpha hierarchy—wolves in a pack are typically family units, not aggressive dominance-based societies (Mech, 1999).

I’ll say that again for clarity. Wolves function as fu*king families.

That hasn’t stopped limbic capitalist dating gurus from selling this bullshit like it’s gospel.

In human relationships, dominance is not the primary driver of attraction.

Studies in relationship science suggest that emotional intelligence, kindness, and adaptability predict long-term relationship success far more than raw confidence or status (Gottman & Silver, 1999).

The problem with alpha male dating advice is that it encourages rigid, unemotional behavior and a disdain for vulnerability—qualities that research shows make relationships less likely to succeed (Gross & John, 2003).

Why "High-Value Man" Culture is a Trap

The "high-value man" concept takes the alpha male myth a step further, adding material wealth and social dominance into the mix.

The idea is simple: If you make enough money, go to the gym, and exude confidence, you’ll be able to "choose" the most attractive, desirable partners. This belief system turns relationships into status-driven exchanges rather than deep emotional connections.

The reality? Studies show that while financial security is a factor in mate selection, it does not determine relationship longevity or satisfaction (Karney & Bradbury, 2005).

Moreover, the "high-value man" ideology often frames relationships as contests of control rather than cooperative partnerships, leading to power imbalances, emotional detachment, and ultimately, relational dissatisfaction (Pietromonaco et al., 2006).

Contrary Research: Are Women Actually Drawn to "Alpha" Traits?

To be fair, some Evolutionary Psychology research does suggest that traits like confidence, social status, and assertiveness can be attractive, particularly in short-term mating contexts (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).

However, long-term partner selection is driven by entirely different factors—empathy, dependability, and the ability to provide emotional support (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008).

The irony? The very traits that "alpha male" dating advice dismisses are the ones most associated with successful long-term relationships.

Even more telling, research on attraction finds that women are far more drawn to men who exhibit both assertiveness and emotional warmth—something alpha male proponents conveniently leave out (Fletcher et al., 2014). Confidence alone doesn’t create connection; it’s emotional intelligence that sustains it.

How This Sub-Culture Harms Both Men and Women

The toxic reality of "high-value man" culture isn’t just about bad dating advice—it fosters insecurity, unhealthy relationship expectations, and emotional repression in men. It tells men that their worth is conditional, based on external achievements rather than their capacity for love, care, and connection.

For women, this ideology often translates into unrealistic beauty and submissiveness standards, reinforcing the idea that their value is tied to youth and desirability rather than personal depth and character.

The end result? An endless cycle of dissatisfaction where neither party feels truly seen, valued, or connected.

What Actually Works in Modern Relationships

Instead of chasing the mirage of alpha dominance, men (and women) who want fulfilling relationships should focus on:

• Emotional Intelligence – Research by John Gottman (1999) shows that the strongest predictor of relationship success is the ability to understand and regulate emotions.

• Authenticity – Studies suggest that people who present their genuine selves in dating are more likely to build sustainable, healthy partnerships (Swann et al., 2012).

• Mutual Respect – Relationships thrive on equality and shared power, and especially shared contributions, not rigid hierarchies (Karney et al., 2010).

• Secure Attachment – People who cultivate secure attachment styles experience higher relationship satisfaction (Simpson & Rholes, 2017).

The truth is, relationships are not a dominance game. The most successful partners aren’t "alphas" or "high-value men"—they’re emotionally present, self-aware souls who cultivate deep, meaningful connections.

If dating advice is making you feel like you need to control the frame of relationships rather than build them, it might be time to ditch the rulebook.

Real love isn’t about proving your worth—it’s about sharing it.

Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.

REFERENCES:

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204-232.

Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245-264.

Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (2014). The ideal standards model of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 112-131.

Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. Three Rivers Press.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362.

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2005). Contextual influences on relationship outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 197-201.

Mech, L. D. (1999). Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77(8), 1196-1203.

Pietromonaco, P. R., Uchino, B., & Dunkel Schetter, C. (2006). Close relationship processes and health. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 99-129.

Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2017). Adult attachment, stress, and romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 19-24.

Swann, W. B., Jr., De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. (2012). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1012-1024.