Subject: The Alpha/Provider Drama Chart
Author: Blackdragon

This is the best way I can explain it. Contrary to community dogma, being alpha or a provider is not a black and white, on or off thing. It’s a series of levels.

Here is the chart of exactly what I’m talking about. The closer to the left side of the chart, the more alpha you are. Thus, the more freedom you have and the less chick-drama you have to put up with in your life. But, the shorter your relationships will often tend to be (though not always).

The closer to the right side of the chart, the more provider you are. Thus, the less freedom you have in your life, and the more chick-drama bullshit you’re going to have to put up with on a regular basis. But, your relationships will usually tend to last longer (though not always).

This also answers the debate I see on here of “Chicks don’t like to date players” vs. “Chicks LOVE to date players!” Chicks do like to date players. Chicks do not like getting into long relationships with players. If you want longer relationships, you have to (very carefully) add some “providerness” to your frame to achieve this. But you don’t want to completely “go provider” unless you want to shoot way over to the far right-hand side of the chart. You want to start alpha, and add just enough provider to accomplish what you want and no more.

Let me explain a few quick things on this. (And as I always say, there are odd unusual exceptions to everything I’m about to say. But the vast majority of the time, what I’m about to say applies.)

If you do nothing but ONS’s, FB’s and MLTR’s, you’re pure alpha. You can do whatever the fuck you want, and chick-drama in your life is likely non-existent, unless you actually like and want drama. As soon as you get into an OLTR, we do get a little into the drama zone, since you’re somewhat entering “boyfriend” territory, but not much.

As you can see in the chart, two things will instantly shoot you to the right into drama-provider zone, and that is: 1) promising monogamy, and/or 2) moving in with her.

If you move in with a woman, even if you don’t promise her monogamy, then you must accept some drama, bullshit, and limitations of freedom in your life. You simply cannot live with a woman and not experience some regular drama, no matter how amazing she is. It’s not possible. (Try it sometime.)

Promising monogamy is even worse. That instantly shoots you to the right no matter what else you do. It’s simply the nature of women and relationships once you hand over your balls, no matter how “alpha” you think you are.

A third factor in the amount of your “providerness” is the number of rules in the relationship you will both adhere to. The more rules in your relationship, the less freedom for you, and the more drama you’ll get from her. This is why a Gene Simmons-style OLTR is far to the left of a swinger-style OLTR, and why having a monogamous girlfriend is right about at the middle. Gene Simmons has less rules in his relationship than both girlfriend-guy and swinger-guy. But he does live with the woman in his life, so he’s going to have more drama than, for example, MLTR-guy. See how this all ties together?

And also, don’t nitpick. My arrows may not be exactly where they should be, but they're very close. We could forever debate topics like “I think having a monogamous girlfriend should be two boxes to the right.” Whatever. They’re close, and I’m just demonstrating an overall point. You get the gist.

-Blackdragon

"Difficult women remain difficult." -Paul Janka

Source