careful there, you said she is more sane than women who let these guys abuse them, but i doubt that is the truth. sanity does not include living vicariously through someone else's mistreatment of others. people who functional normally on a mental level don't get turned on by that type of thing, and people who are truly respectful of their mates don't put them in that position of violence in the first place.
I don't consider it to be "the truth" either, but I do think it has certain advantages in comparison, if we agree that "sanity" is a state of mental health and that it's opposite, in-sanity, signifying bad (compromised) mental health, can not be advantageous. Speaking strictly from an evolutionary perspective, destruction beats self-destruction every time. The example here is a textbook example of the difference between in-group and out-group hostility (violence) if we overlook the fact that we are dealing here with a group of only two (as opposed to dozens of thousands or millions of individuals). A group with a lot of internal conflict eventually dies out, while the one who manages to direct its hostility outwards is more likely to survive, even more so if it can maintain that direction, and even more so if it's directed at objects whose reaction is not a threat to the group (e.g. attacking those who are comparatively weaker insted of attacking those more powerful, and thus creating dangeorus enemies). I won't claim that such behavioral dynamic is not a signifier of instability and much deeper problems wihin the individuals comprising the group in question, but, if the choice is between those two, I will rank the destructive group higher (be it as "more sane" or "less in-sane") simply on the ground of long-term sustainability.
in most cases (where women who were turned on by the fact that their mates were so cruel to others) they ended up on the receiving end of the cruelty they admired further down the road. it made them feel special BY association with a being so "powerful" and "aggressive", but this is actually a manipulation tactic used by mentally unstable people. they are showing you that they are not to be fucked with. it is an example of what they are capable of, and the person watching this go down will always have this in the back of their heads; the "alpha" is conditioning their "victim" to behave. that is abuse.
I understand your rationale, but consider the other side of the proverbial coin, the less obvious one. What if that's just the facade, what if the "victim" is the real instigator? It's not like we haven't seen that happening before, especially in domestic violence cases. In such a case, prematurely labeling either one of them as "the victim" is potentially misleading. It is a real possiblity that in this case, and those similar, the man, "the Alpha" - is actually feeding of of her and her approval just as much as she feeds of of him. Assuming that the man is, in fact, a sadist - as such, he excercises violence as a means of compensation for his internal feeling of insecurity and inadequacy, and once we factor those feelings into account it's easy to see how he could perceive a female's approval as an ego-boost. In that case, he receives twice as much boost than through simple sadism, which I think makes it highly unlikely that he will spontaneously direct his sadism toward her, as he would be attacking one of the sources of his psychological pleasure. Of course, it all depends on his detailed mindframe, weather or not he includs her as part of his Self, weather or not he has dormant self-destructive tendencies, self-contempt, etc. I'm stating this simply as a possibility worth being taken into account, not necessarily as something more.
I would also like to know what did you base this on: "in MOST cases they ended up on the receiving end..." I couldn't find any souces. You have any researches to back it up?
i think a lot of people fail to understand the term of alpha. its definition gets warped and repeated, then misconstrued, and you wind up with a totally unrealistic expectation of this character. alpha had more to do with providing for a family, and surviving in a pact, not unnecessary cruelness towards something that was never a threat to a family that never existed. little girls, especially ones without a functional male figure, romanticize what being alpha is, and take violence and a weak ego as strength. i think the OP has a distorted idea of what strength is. if s/he is only 20, it explains a lot.
Yes, I agree with this completely. It is the result of the change in the size of groups dating back (at least) to the first exclusively non-nomadic, agricultural settlements. The more of something you have, the less valuable it becomes, and human beings are no exception. And if you want (or need) to increase the value of a particular element you end up exaggerating it to the point of absurdity, which changes the nature of the element. That's why I think the concept of "Alpha" is so distorted and turned into a caricature of it's former self...