The post's title really isn't supposed to be ironic or snarky, it's genuine. The GSS previously presented a question that quintessentially distinguishes alphas from betas in the Game paradigm. Heartiste hasn't commented on it previously so far as I am aware, but I doubt he'd disagree. It asks respondents whether or not they'd rather suffer so that their loved one wouldn't have to. The GSS item breaks down 70% beta/30% alpha in terms of responses, roughly in line with real-world Game estimates among the male population. It was the impetus for a post a couple of years ago entitled "profile of an alpha".
Anyway, when it comes to my son, I'm beta all the way. After having a baby, everyone inevitably asks about it the first time they see you after the birth. After several polite but empty iterations about it being "great" or "awesome", I made a conscious effort to try to actually start providing a thoughtful response to the inquiries of friends and acquaintances who asked about it.
The most genuine one I'm able to offer is that as soon as I laid eyes on him I was overwhelmed with a sense of devotion stronger than anything I've ever felt for anyone or anything else in my life. If I met the devil in the wilderness, his efforts at tempting me with any combination of wine, women, and power in exchange for my little man would fall on deaf ears. There's no conceivable personal gain I'd exchange if it meant harm would come to him. Not all men have nurturing instincts, but most do--something that can easily be forgotten amidst talk of maternal instinct, mother-child bonding, etc. Humans are zoologically rather unusual in terms of the high amount of paternal investment in offspring we exhibit. Some men (and some races?) more than others.
Fortunately, so far it hasn't required anything near that level of foregone pleasure and enjoyment: