We know that humans are descended from only a minority of prehistoric men, half the number of women who reproduced. The men who were successful in passing along their genes were the ones who embraced risk and succeeded in their quests. Men who failed the challenge, or who were too risk averse to attempt it, ended their lines with their own deaths. Therefore, in a very real way, we are all descended from dominant, successful males. (For the record, those challenges were not all heroic. At least one biologist has argued that the most violent early men successfully reproduced via rape, which is why the rape gene is still in our DNA today.)
The alpha/beta nomenclature as applied to humans only goes back to 1970, when David Mech coined the term to describe wolf behavior. It was later adopted by Game encoder Mystery to describe the pecking order among males. Biologists also sometimes refer to “dads” and “cads” in their work, generally to describe specific personality traits that correlate to short vs. long-term mating strategies. Over time, we’ve conflated the two concepts. (A Google search for the term alpha male produces many pages of links to Pickup Artist and Seduction sites with products to sell.)
Women select long-term mates according to a long list of traits. Those include alpha traits like social dominance, physical prowess, and symmetry. They also include what might be called beta traits, including ability to provide, kindness, honesty, demonstration of love and affection, intelligence, compatibility, dependability and industriousness.
WARNING: Alpha traits alone are suitable for short-term mating only!
In the current era, the men at the very top of the dominance hierarchy – the most alpha of all alpha descendants, are highly problematic as husbands and fathers, as reflected in rates of marriage, infidelity, fatherhood and divorce. Proceed with extreme caution.
If you harbor dreams of marriage and family, I encourage you to give the beta male traits the utmost consideration. Since betas represent more than 75% of the population, there’s a large pool of men with a potentially optimal mix of alpha and beta traits. It is also possible for men to learn alpha behaviors, raising their own testosterone levels in the process. I believe it is far more difficult to teach natural alphas, or cads, how to empathize, cooperate and share. They are not designed for marriage or fatherhood.
Why should you look for a beta male?
1. He’s more highly evolved.
From Andrew at the blog Evolvify:
Anthropology argument against tribal alpha-male narrative
There is no good reason to believe that humans evolved in hierarchical tribes between tens of thousands to two million years ago. To the contrary, there is a mountain of evidence showing that humans evolved in largely egalitarian bands that punished attempts of dominance with social sanctioning, banishment, and death (Boehm 1999). Yes, that’s basically saying that alpha males got offed by their social group — not exactly a benefit to reproduction.
Evolutionary argument against tribal alpha-male narrative
Without going into tedious detail, it’s unlikely that the alpha-male behavioral type (however imprecise that classification may be) is particularly adaptive. Traits that confer significant reproductive advantage tend to spread through a population rapidly. That basically means that traits that consistently vary widely among a species are probably not under significant selection pressures. If being alpha was the ne plus ultra of mate wooing strategies, there would be a whooooooollle lot fewer “betas.”
It is very possible that there are few genetic betas, but that the culture, i.e. feminism, has “betatized” a significant portion of males. In which case, rectifying the culture should restore equilibrium. It’s also possible that the alpha beta divide will remain a constant 80/20 regardless of characteristics. There must always be a most dominant male. The question is, can one have too much of a good thing?
John Durant at Hunter Gatherer makes the interesting observation that dominance strategies among hunter gatherers would likely have included many of the traits we’ve come to call beta:
Whatever strategies those alpha males did to successfully reproduce, are, by definition, dominance strategies.
The following are all dominance strategies: height, intelligence, humor, athletic prowess, health, kindness, creativity, wealth, status, violence, deception, honesty, and more.
2. He plays well with others.
The Worth Ethic Corporation is a consulting firm founded by Kate Ludeman, PhD and Eddie Erlandson, MD, both Harvard Business School professors. They specialize in helping companies treat Alpha Male Syndrome (no, this is not a joke).
Dysfunctional alphas create resistance, resentment, and revenge. People admire their competence, but they hate reporting to them or teaming with them. When we’re invited into a company as consultants, most of the complaints we hear are about alpha males who are driving people crazy. We’re told about alpha managers who demoralize their staff with autocratic, abusive, or micromanaging tactics; about alpha coworkers who are demanding, impatient, and unwilling to listen; about alpha peers who fight to get their way even when they’re demonstrably wrong; about alpha subordinates who solo rather than collaborate. The gripes we hear have usually been part of the corporate milieu for some time, consuming far too much employee time and energy. The cost in absenteeism, turnover, stress-related health problems, and the loss of loyalty and motivation is enormous.
… a great deal of wreckage is caused by boys behaving badly. While alphas of both sexes are aggressive, competitive, and prone to anger, the male of the species is far likely to become ruthless, intimidating, and belligerent. These common observations were borne out in our research: men scored much higher than women on virtually all measures of alpha risk factors.
Ludeman and Erlandson’s research has identified the following risks that are present along with positive alpha attributes. As you can see, the context is the workplace, but parallels to relationship behaviors should be obvious.
Alpha Attribute Alpha Risk Dominant, confident, takes charge Doesn’t develop strong leaders; intimidating; creates fear; stifles disagreement Charismatic, magnetic leader who leads the way Manipulates to get his way, uses charm to lure people down his path Aggressive, competitive Competes with peers; alienates colleagues; reluctant to give others credit High achiever with a strong sense of mission Takes high levels of performance for granted;expects the impossible and fails to acknowledge what’s required to achieve it Bold, creative, innovative thinker Arrogant, stubborn, overly opinionated; imposes own views; closed to others’ thinking Persistent, tenacious, determined, steadfast Drives self and others to exhaustion; urgent; impatient; thinks rules don’t apply to him Strong appetite for newness and change Overzealous; undervalues organizational alignment; launches into action before gathering support from others Farsighted; sees what’s possible So focused on future that present and near term are neglected; loses sight of business viability Sees what’s missing Can be critical, demeaning; fails to appreciate others’ contributions; people feel demoralized
There’s not much you can do if you work for an alpha boss. But do you really want to come home to this guy for the next 50 years?
3. He’s more likely to be creative, artsy and funny.
4. He’s capable of emotional connection (assuming he isn’t caught up pretending to be an alpha who is incapable of emotional connection).
Mark Manson of the blog Postmasculine:
The Alpha worldview pigeonholes women into two simple, robotic drives: pursue the Alpha, use the Beta. This is fantasy. A role that’s purely an extension of the guy’s Alpha/Beta fixation in himself, a broken record playing inside his own mind. And not to mention it gives women little to no credit to both their nuanced preferences, as well as their ability to act on their own free will. When I see a man judging female behavior in these terms, my first reaction is always to think: this guy has spent way too much time chasing the wrong kinds of women.
And finally, perceiving the world in these terms sabotages real relationships and strong emotional connections . If the definition of Being Alpha is somewhere in the vicinity of holding your personal drives above others, and the definition of an emotional connection with a woman is to empathize with her and literally see and feel the world through her eyes, then we have a major conflict of interest. The two are mutually exclusive. Genuine emotional connection, by definition, requires one to experience and relate to the drives, motivations and will of a woman. This is simply impossible if you’re enmeshed in a self-serving and social-bulldozing mindset.
5. He’s nurturing and caring.
He’ll take care of you when you’re sick. Over the course of having and raising children, confronting illness and plain old aging, this is not to be dismissed lightly.
6. He’s much less likely to cheat.
Key predictors of whether a man will cheat are the personality traits of conscientiousness and agreeableness. Promiscuous men are low in both, hardwired for short-term mating only.
Agreeableness: A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.
Conscientiousness: A tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behavior.
The strongest personality predictor of short-term mating is impulsive sensation-seeking. Studies have consistently linked sensation-seeking to short-term mating, including men’s patronage of prostitutes. Impulsive sensation seeking is closely associated with the Big Five dimensions of low agreeableness and low conscientiousness.
7. He’s far more likely to marry and stay married.
Could be his divorced counterpart has higher T levels:
In an American study men with just slightly more testosterone than average were 43% more likely to get divorced than men with normal levels, 31% more likely to leave home after marital problems and 38% more likely to cheat on their wives.
8. He wants to be a dad, and he’ll be good at it.
He’s three times more likely to have kids.
“Some alphas compete with their own children,” says Eddie Erlandson, MD.
9. He’s healthier.
Alpha males are stressed out and more likely to have cardiac disease.
While they may appear cool and calm, many human alphas thrive on adrenaline, the hormone that primes the body to fight or flee in times of danger. Those short bursts of power helped our ancestors outrun predators. But if the perceived threat never lets up, the chronic state of alarm increases cortisol, too, and can eventually weaken the immune system, raise blood-pressure, cholesterol and insulin levels, block arteries and spread inflammation.
Some alphas have so-called Type-A personalities, a combination of aggression, impatience and anger first linked to a higher risk of heart disease in the 1960s. Hostility is the main culprit, according to more recent research. A study of 1,750 Canadians in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology last week found that people who displayed signs of hostility—whether they admitted feeling hostile or not—had twice the risk of cardiovascular problems as those who did not. “Not all alpha males are Type A, but the combination can be deadly from a health standpoint,” Dr. Karasu says.
…Beta males, by contrast, are nice guys, peacemakers and team players. They make good husbands, fathers and friends. Some experts say they tend to be happier than alphas, since they aren’t driven by the need to be on top.
10. He’s not a sociopathic narcissist.
He’s nice to be around and interested in others. From Brett McKay at The Art of Manliness:
We’ve probably all seen those men who can enter any room and instantly command it. I’m not talking about the loud and boisterous dolt who makes a scene with obnoxious alpha-male jackassery. I’m talking about the man who exudes a silent magnetic charisma that electrifies the entire room just by his presence. People feel better when this type of man is around and they want to be near him.
…If you really want to be the man in the room that people are drawn to, focus your interest on them. Many men have the false idea that if you want to command the room, you have to make everything about you. These misguided souls wear flashy jewelry or skin tight clothing that shows off their well-chiseled body. Their conversation focuses on them- their cars, their bench press, their sexual exploits, etc. While a few pinheads will be impressed with this sort of thing, the vast majority of the population will think it’s a bunch crap.
The reality is that the magnetic gentleman-the man who can walk into any room and own it- is others focused. People want to feel loved, appreciated, and important. Sadly, many people these days aren’t feeling much of that. Perhaps their boss never compliments them or their wife never voices any appreciation for all that they do. If you can fill that void in people’s lives by focusing on them and acknowledging their importance, you’ll instantly bring them under your magnetic influence.
{ 867 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 … 6 »
Oh boy!
This one should be as entertaining as The Avengers movie and probably with as much fights in it. *grabs popcorn*
Grr my comment disappeared
Susan – what’s your take on a man with many beta traits, but who’s young and would have had the possibility of sleeping around, if he wants to?
I’ve been seeing a guy who’s attractive, well off and fairly confident. He’s not one to dominate the room but I know other girls find him attractive as well. He’s 26.
He’s the cuddliest man I’ve been with, very family oriented, his brothers and best mates are married. He’s talked about how he feels much older than his age. He has two LTRs behind him, one very serious. I know he doesn’t like promiscuous women, he seems very aware of women’s nurturing skills and often compliments me on femininity. The ‘going out’ phase has been straightforward, he always initiates, makes good conversation and is vocal about me being “perfect for him” and that he “feels lucky”. Now that we’ve had sex a few times, he seems more interested than before.
But many of these things are gestures/words. I’m confident of my attractiveness, I’m a 8.5, 9 on a good day but I know young men often seek variety.
He’s got a couple of alpha skills, like creativity and a slight seeking towards adventure. I don’t know where to place him, as I don’t know a physical example of a ‘definite’ beta or alpha.
“Susan – what’s your take on a man with many beta traits, but who’s young and would have had the possibility of sleeping around, if he wants to?”
If he WANTS to? I’m not Susan, but I would advise you to steer clear of him if you’re looking for an LTR. Let him have his fun with the sluts and get it out of his system. If he’s not fucking around because he has no game even though he wants to, then he is a chump and you should laugh at him.
Underdog-
Maybe I should have phrased it, “if he wanted to”. He shows no signs of wanting to sleep around, if he did, I wouldn’t have dated him. I just have the assumption that most men under 30 carry some desire to sleep around, whether women are able to see it or not.
“Underdog-
Maybe I should have phrased it, “if he wanted to”. He shows no signs of wanting to sleep around, if he did, I wouldn’t have dated him. I just have the assumption that most men under 30 carry some desire to sleep around, whether women are able to see it or not.”
Oh, he’s fine then. Carry on.
My opinion on that subject is that starting a long-distance relationship is a bad idea. Any concerns and paranoia you have is x 10′d. Since you are still uncertain of the connection (why ELSE would you be asking the internet for help, right?) my bet is that you are going to have a lot of sleepless nights over little things.
That is JUST my opinion. Not about the alpha-beta divide at all.
On the actual topic:
Agreed 110%. But…trying to teach a beta guy to learn alpha traits is like telling a guy to hit up a fat girl in the hopes that she is going to slim down. You cannot create attraction where it otherwise does not exist. You need to have that initial attraction to begin with, I’d think.
Not that it’s impossible, but if the similarities are the same…I’ve only ever been attracted to one overweight girl in my whole life. It’s goddam hard to overcome that.
Susan:
Why is intelligence considered a beta trait? I would have thought that it was unrelated to the alpha/beta distinction, since there are smart alphas as well as smart betas.
The same may be said about the ability to provide, which may be one way of distinguishing between cads and dads, but not necessarily between alphas and betas, which, as you correctly note, is not the same thing. An alpha’s social dominance/ high status often translates into increased command of material and other resources.
@Marie
He sounds wonderful. The fact that he’s family-oriented, doesn’t show interest in sleeping around and has had LTRs shows that he may be steady and looking for an LTR. He’s an adult and sounds like a keeper.
“Underdog-
Maybe I should have phrased it, “if he wanted to”. He shows no signs of wanting to sleep around, if he did, I wouldn’t have dated him. I just have the assumption that most men under 30 carry some desire to sleep around, whether women are able to see it or not.”
I’m thinking whether I had a “desire to sleep around” when I was 26. I got married when I was 26.
Let me think for a minute.
No, I didn’t.
I would probably have been quite willing to form emotional bonds with other women, but no sleeping around.
Personally, I believe the Alpha-Beta concept is a false dichotomy that is based on the sort of voodoo “science” that the most extreme militant feminists use …
Years back I went to Australia with several friends of mine and, like most college age men, we checked out the club scene. We acted in ways that many would describe as acting like “beta males” and got laid like rock-stars. The reason for this, as best as we can tell, is that Australia has more of a macho male culture than Canada has and the simple act of buying women drinks (something Australian guys were not doing) and having “cute” Canadian accents made us stand out and get noticed.
The nice-guy “Beta” routine is failing for most guys for two reasons; there are far too many guys acting, behaving and dressing in the same way making you far too generic, and few people can respect or feel attraction to someone who worships the ground they walk on. From what I have seen, the average attractive woman started dating at a very young age (between 14 and 16) and became attracted to and dated several nice guys using this strategy long before she met you; and they all fell apart, often in very messy ways. Even by simply befriending these guys she ended up in multiple awkward situations which she did nothing to encourage that ended poorly, so if you remind her of these guys she wants absolutely nothing to do with you.
If all women wanted was “Alpha” males evolution would ensure that the genes necessary for men to be “Beta” males would not be part of our make-up. On the other hand, if I’m right, the flooding of the sexual market place with “Alpha” males who took the red-pill will only ensure that the countless negative experience women have with these kinds of men makes “Alpha” males completely unattractive.
“The same may be said about the ability to provide, which may be one way of distinguishing between cads and dads, but not necessarily between alphas and betas, which, as you correctly note, is not the same thing. An alpha’s social dominance/ high status often translates into increased command of material and other resources.”
Sure, He’s Iron Man. Meaning he’s filthy rich…and won’t invest it into you, because he doesn’t care about you. But hey, he’s alpha! And earns good money…just not a provider.
Without going into tedious detail, it’s unlikely that the alpha-male behavioral type (however imprecise that classification may be) is particularly adaptive.
It’s not that difficult to explain. Certain mating strategies become less effective the more people use them. It’s like rock-paper-scissors: if everyone’s using rock strategy, you can win with a paper strategy. But once the paper strategy becomes more common, scissors becomes a better strategy.
Likewise with cad/dad strategies. The cad strategy is very effective in a tribe full of dads. But in a tribe full of cads, dads have the upper hand.
To all Women who see these Presents, Greetings.
Please, please, please do not “force it” with a guy you’re not attracted to. That’s a one-way ticket to Resentmentville. You get with a guy who’s sort-of okay, and 9 times out of 10 you’ll end up hating his guts. That hate is a precursor to doing some really ugly shit to a fellow human being.
Matter of fact, I wish people would just drop this Alpha/Beta/Charlie/Delta crap in the first place. The terminology is so subjective as to be nearly meaningless. You need a 500 word essay and an hour of clarifying to make sure you’re even on the same page with somebody every time these terms get dragged out. Watch – arguing about what constitutes Alpha behavior vs Beta vs Other is what half this thread will be about.
If you like a dude and he seems like a good long-term prospect (use your brain AND your ‘gina) go after his ass. If he’s not, don’t. Him being Alpha Six or Zulu One shouldn’t matter unless you’re using call signs on a tactical radio.
Here’s what I know, as a man -
I used to be kind, very respectful, polite and very “beta” around attractive women. I would occasionally have an LTR for a year or two, but would invariably be dumped.
After a divorce at 27, I went to the gym, learned game, got a higher paying job, but most effectively “learned game.”
I admit now to being a bit of a jerk. I tease, flirt, gently mock, and walk around with my chin high and my gym pumped arms and chest confidently displayed.
I don’t think too much about hitting on (or sleeping with) whichever woman is attractive to me, and says “yes.”
Alpha works. Betas, in general, are losers who get hurt. I’ve been both, and alpha is far far far better.
Susan,
First off, I find this an interesting and not inaccurate assessment of betas. That said…
“It is very possible that there are few genetic betas, but that the culture, i.e. feminism, has ‘betatized’ a significant portion of males. In which case, rectifying the culture should restore equilibrium.”
While I do agree, I must question your use of ‘culture’ here. Do you mean social behaviors only – the denigration of boys, the portrayal of men as only slackers or brutes, etc. – or do you include the legal snares which destroy families and ruin the professional lives of men?
If it’s the latter, great! But I think it’s the former. Fixing social behaviors may indeed compel more young women to choose more wisely. But we men are realizing that the legal deck is stacked.
Let me go through a few of these points. I don’t disagree with all of them (or even most). Just want to add a little MGTOW flavoring.
“4. He’s capable of emotional connection (assuming he isn’t caught up pretending to be an alpha who is incapable of emotional connection).”
And we men aim for alpha presentation because we see that it works. Isn’t that part of game? Something you encourage?
“5. He’s nurturing and caring.”
Here’s where your social side does have an effect. Men will be nurturing – when we get some respect for doing it!
“6. He’s much less likely to cheat.”
Yes. He’s more likely to be cheated on. (I had a stat for this someplace; will try to find it.)
“7. He’s far more likely to marry and stay married.”
He’s also more likely to be divorced, once his wife decided she wants more alpha.
“8. He wants to be a dad, and he’ll be good at it.”
Only until his wife decides their kids will make great pawns in divorce settlements.
I presume you have some idea of how demoralizing it is when a man cannot see his own children. Do you know how demoralizing it is for the friends of that man? Who see his pain and swear never to endure it themselves?
Lurking Ladies of HUS, that’s the sort of thing you’re facing now. Socially, the culture has pummeled masculinity so hard that men are outright afraid to show any. Legally, men are a couple rungs down in comparison to women. No surprise that more of us are saying “no thanks” to the whole deal.
Or men who didn’t embrace risk, and didn’t get murdered. There is a theory that the reason why so many men from Scandinavia seem (or are) much more docile than their Viking predecessors is because the more violent Vikings basically killed each other off and left the mild villagers and farmers to populate those northern lands.
I have no idea how valid that theory is.
Susan, as I often like to point out: there is dominance and then there is dominance. Some men can have social dominance over other men, but that often does not help much with girls who are generally unimpressed with his thuggery (e.g. Li’l Zé from City of God [from Brasil], Combo from This is England, Deebo from Friday [he only gets with the crackhead]).
Other guys can have intellectual dominance (and be really cool to boot) but get absolutely nowhere with girls.
For further clarification, you might want to refer to it as Seductive Dominance, or something like that.
“the countless negative experience women have with these kinds of men makes “Alpha” males completely unattractive.”
So long as the woman was consistently not attracted to such men to the point of sexual intimacy, then she is good to go
Dog-downlow: “Matter of fact, I wish people would just drop this Alpha/Beta/Charlie/Delta crap in the first place. The terminology is so subjective as to be nearly meaningless.”
Don’t give up so fast. After years of careful, government-funded study I can present to you this supremely useful wallet card/decoder ring:
“Alpha = self-centered, self-directed, reflexively puts self above others”
“Beta = other-directed, reflexively puts others’ needs first”
There it is, descriptive, predictive and non-circular, highly intuitive and basically compatible with the ‘spheric literature. If you just substitute “self-centered” for “Alpha” and “other-directed” for “Beta”, then the large majority of posts and comments that use the terms will make sense and fall into place. Try it and see.
OP: “…but that the culture, i.e. feminism, has “betatized” a significant portion of males. In which case, rectifying the culture should restore equilibrium. “
Or, “Surviving and Reversing the Betapocalypse” — an excellent title for a book if anyone’s in the mood.
This is perhaps a noble and generous thought, Susan; but as I’ve said before I don’t think you and others have really worked through, and faced up to, the implications of what you’re recommending. Let me put it up again, baldly and direct: having men, especially young men, assume a default posture of dominance toward women is incompatible with having basic sexual equality in society. Any plan for a culture will have to choose between them. (Yes, some particular, individual men may be able to pull it off, so please hold the “My husband can do both!’ anecdotes; but for the general population you have to sacrifice one of these.) So, before you grab the wheel back from feminism, you need to have a clear and honest idea of what you’re going to steer toward.
Esau, that is a handy-dandy, nifty-neato definition. I’m on board 100%. Now we’ve just got to get every other swingin’ dick in The Universe to use it, too.
I usually just think of an Alpha as one who’s aware of and is able to fully control his masculinity, a Beta as one who doesn’t know how to be masculine, and a Jerk as one whose masculinity runs rampant and unchecked. So when a PUA goes “Stop being a beta”, it means stop being un-masculine.
*shrug*
D: My point is, I think my definition basically _is_ what all the dicks are _effectively_ using, even if they wouldn’t describe it explicitly that way; to the extent that the terms have any universal meaning, AFAICT this is it. So everyone hold onto your decoder ring and rest easy.
PS I lost the pool on your blog: my bet for the title was “Steel On Target”, which I guess is now up for grabs.
Underdog: I think you’re just pushing the content of the idea onto the word “masculine” without adding any information as to what that means, so I don’t see that re-focus as a win. Most definitions of “masculine” that I’ve read in these places tend to be very circular, ie “Masculine means acting like a man, and real men are masculine”, which doesn’t really contain any information.
“At least one biologist has argued that the most violent early men successfully reproduced via rape, which is why the rape gene is still in our DNA today.”
Even worse, one study found that rapists tend to choose ovulating women as victims. Rape (like murder, infidelity, lying, ect) is a natural instinct.
Esau: Fine. How about I replace the word ‘masculine’ with ‘assertive’.
Alpha — one who’s aware of and is able to fully control his [assertiveness]
Beta — one who doesn’t know how to be [assertive]
Jerk — one whose [assertiveness] runs rampant and unchecked
one of my new years resolutions was actually to stop visiting this site and others like it. but……i cant quit you Susan Walsh!!!!
“It is very possible that there are few genetic betas, but that the culture, i.e. feminism, has “betatized” a significant portion of males. In which case, rectifying the culture should restore equilibrium.”
only fear of consequences will restore equilibrium. there is no easy, nice way to do this Susan. the longer you wait, the uglier the restoration will be.
it’s great to be back!!!
Hmmmm.
I need to chew on this post a bit more before offering my 2 cents.
Underdog: “Fine. How about I replace the word ‘masculine’ with ‘assertive’.”
Welcome to the fold, as I think there’s a great overlap between this definition and what I wrote above: assertive == putting manifest priority on one’s own needs and viewpoint == putting oneself first == self-directed; while other-directed == putting others’ needs first == opposite of assertive. So, while they’re not identical I think your updated definition and my original are close enough to be functionally interchangeable. This was my point, really: my definition of “alpha” and “beta” result in sensible, informative statements when you substitute them into typical ‘spheric writing; it’s not a 100% perfect algorithm, but it goes a long way for a small investment.
@Marie
He sounds like a catch. Definitely greater beta, at least. I don’t think that alpha and beta are two different tents, and guys get sent to one or the other. It’s a spectrum, and most guys are a mix of traits. There are plenty of handsome betas who are not particularly dominant, and plenty of ugly alphas who do well with women because they are “sexy ugly.”
It sounds like the two of you are exclusive at this point? I say enjoy the dating, the great sex, and keep your eyes wide open. Make sure he displays all the positive beta traits that you want in a partner. If any red flags come up, deal with them head on right away.
The video is not a parody, that is what makes it so great.
Hi tito long time no see
Even worse, one study found that rapists tend to choose ovulating women as victims. Rape (like murder, infidelity, lying, ect) is a natural instinct.
There are several species that still do the rape as part of their “mating” dance so this shouldn’t be a surprise is just to show that following natural instincts is not a good plan more often than not, nature doesn’t care about the individuals but survival of the fittest, YMMV.
I actually liked to think that the terms Alpha and Beta came from a Brave New World mostly because is misleading in the novel as well we think the Alpha that is thinking about how “perfect” the society really is,is the leader while in reality the leading man is the Savage (which works nicely with the idea that women are falling for thugs and not real Alpha’s for the ones that resent the negatives connotations of the term) and the society reflects the idea of sexual equality everyone can have all the sex they want without fear of pregnancy (although I always considered strange that the females weren’t sterilized in puberty birth control seemed unnecessary with the baby making machines, I guess they needed the “motherhood” to make it part of the story) and in the end destroying the values of the majority of our civilization didn’t helped to make anyone truly happy or make the instincts disappear…just rambling about literary works.
@Thrasymachus
That’s true, but women generally select alpha traits for short-term mating and a mix for long-term mating. Women seeking casual sex do not discriminate based on intelligence, therefore it is considered a quality sought for long-term mating. The alpha beta dichotomy is not a switch – one or the other – but rather a mix of traits on a spectrum. So there will of course be highly intelligent alpha males – 70% of CEOs are estimated to be alphas.
In terms of sheer numbers, I imagine that the number of beta males in STEM fields tilts IQ in their favor, but I don’t have hard data on this.
“The men who were successful in passing along their genes were the ones who embraced risk and succeeded in their quests”…but a person who habitually embraces risk is NOT going to succeed in their quests a good portion of the time. The first person who tried to ride a horse probably got thrown and broke his neck. David might have succeeded in killing Goliath, but there were probably others who tried to fought the giant, missed their shot, and that was the end of their genetic line. Meanwhile, other and more cautious shepherd boys stayed out of the giant-fighting business and by now they have millions of descendents.
I think the actual situation is that “the **tribe or community** that has a reasonable number of risk-takers will succeed in passing along their genes. SOMEBODY had to ride the first horse; somebody had to kill Goliath if the Jews were to survive, but the doer of the deed might well not himself be among the winners. Based on this logic, I think evolution (or The Designer, for those who prefer) probably ensures a reasonable scattering of extreme risk-takers among men, but far from a majority.
@drunicusveritas
But not for women, and that’s who I’m addressing with this post. You are enjoying being a jerk, you find that it gets you laid. That’s all good. You are precisely the kind of man that women who want to marry should avoid.
This is an article that I think is relevant, is about how sociopathy can manifest really early. Is both scary and fix with the idea that some people are just born this way.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-year-old-a-psychopath.html?_r=1&smid=FB-nytimes&WT.mc_id=TM-E-FB-SM-LIN-CYC-051412-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click
As much as I would ideally like to disagree with this comment, I can’t.
When I first read the list of traits as to why women should give beta males a chance, I thought to myself, “It sounds nice”.
That’s it. Nice.
I can’t fathom mustering a single iota of tingle to that list. I wish it weren’t so, but it is.
This is where I feel like men have definitely been lead astray. They’ve been told that those traits are attractive, or should be attractive, to women. The problem is that those qualities are attractive in the sense that they convey the ability to form a stable foundation to a relationship, like a house. They aren’t, however, attractive like the exciting features/accessories within or about the house.
Another way of looking at it would be this.
People eat food because we need it to survive. There is a certain amount of calories, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals, that a person needs in order to live a healthy life. They are akin to beta traits. The basic vital building blocks of food, if you will.
Humans eat food because they have to. Humans enjoy eating food, however, because it tastes great. Things that have great flavor, spice, texture, appearance, etc make us want to eat food out of desires that aren’t rooted in merely the need to survive.
A person eating food of great nutritional value, but lacking in taste, will most likely not enjoy eating it. A person eating food of little nutritional value, but high in taste, will most likely die or become ill from the lack of healthy vital nutrients. There needs to be a balance between the two components to satisfy both desires.
I have no problem with a man having beta traits. Every healthy and successful relationship needs them. If he is only able to offer beta traits, however, I won’t be enthused about him. It’s about as appetizing as eating salad for every meal, every day. The beta traits are good for a relationship, but are boring when offered up alone. A mix of alpha and beta traits is ideal. The beta offers the vital nutrients while the alpha adds the flavor to make the meal palatable.
@Chris in CA
I meant social behaviors. Legal snares are obviously real, but I don’t think they make men more beta. In fact, they probably make men either more alpha or GTOW, as they depress the marriage rate.
The great thing about Game is that a guy who is basically emotionally connected or even dependent can learn to pace himself so that the woman is not overwhelmed with his need. So I do encourage that. But every time I will choose the beta guy who feels emotions and learns to reveal them strategically over the alpha guy who doesn’t have many feelings at all.
Re your other points, I support men being incredibly picky in their choices. In fact, I welcome that. When men stop dating and even marrying unstable psycho bitches, the institution of marriage will be more meaningful for everyone. I encourage men to adopt very high standards for commitment. Women should have to work hard to prove themselves worthy, and what’s more, they should want to.
@Esau
I’ve already come down clearly on the side of sexual inequality. Society benefits when female sexuality is restrained. We have witnessed the great experiment, and the conclusion is clear.
Women want men to take the leadership role in a relationship. This is true even for highly accomplished, intelligent women. I encourage men young men to embrace the challenge of dominating women. They will be rewarded with sex and devotion.
“Welcome to the fold, as I think there’s a great overlap between this definition and what I wrote above: assertive == putting manifest priority on one’s own needs and viewpoint == putting oneself first == self-directed; while other-directed == putting others’ needs first == opposite of assertive. So, while they’re not identical I think your updated definition and my original are close enough to be functionally interchangeable. This was my point, really: my definition of “alpha” and “beta” result in sensible, informative statements when you substitute them into typical ‘spheric writing; it’s not a 100% perfect algorithm, but it goes a long way for a small investment.”
Yay so let’s define masculinity as being as selfish and anti-humanist as possible, so we give Erbert more ammo to say women are better than men. Sure, if you say men can be either losers-who-never-get-laid or winners-who-are-misogynist, the society of equality you want is FAR away. But you can always blame men for being stupid enough to be raised by their own mothers. Why not heh?
At first I was baffled, but then I really got this article.
It’s basically about “lower your expectations, girls. Prince Charming may exist, but he will most like be marrying a princess, even if he beds a few maids on his way. So if you are a maid – look for a butler or a footman in the Prince’s army.”
The logic of this message is irrefutable and can be fully supported.
That would have been a great name, but I love Dogsquat’s post on what Condition Yellow really means. The military metaphor works brilliantly, IMO.
Shoot, that reminds me. Homeland Season 2! I can’t wait.
Interesting discussion.
I’m personally more sexually attracted to men with the sort of “beta” characteristics Susan describes. I actually have more super-macho meatheads come onto me than the sort of artistic, sensitive, intelligent men I would enjoy more both in the bedroom and as a life partner. I’ve never been ‘turned on’ by the jock type. I couldn’t change this about myself if I wanted to. (There’s actually a term called “sapiosexual”–google it–about people who are turned on by intellect. Not sure how scientifically that’s been studied, but I found it fascinating and certainly descriptive of myself).
I think the Alpha/Beta dichotomy is only helpful to a certain degree. They’re more like guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Yes, certain guys seem to fall pretty well into one or the other categories, but many seem to be a conglomeration of different traits in different ways. Humans have a need to categorize their world so they can deal with it adequately, and we tend to underestimate the level of variety that exists within humanity and how that can express itself. Classifying can be helpful, over-labeling and depending too much on those classifications can obscure reality and I think this happens often in the Manosphere.
Having said all that, look, I will agree with people who say that trying to change someone’s hard-wired fundamental sexual triggers seems sort of futile. Women who cannot be turned on by “beta” characteristics are going to have to deal with that in their own way–advising them to enter into a relationship with someone purely out of strategic good sense seems like a very dangerous suggestion to me, just as it would be ill-advised to tell dudes not into larger ladies to marry an overweight woman anyway if she had good wife/mother qualities.
@Susan
“I support men being incredibly picky in their choices. In fact, I welcome that. When men stop dating and even marrying unstable psycho bitches, the institution of marriage will be more meaningful for everyone. I encourage men to adopt very high standards for commitment. Women should have to work hard to prove themselves worthy, and what’s more, they should want to.”
We do not disagree here.
Thing is, thanks to the way the laws are now, any woman – ANY – can change her mind, and then a man’s in deep trouble. The institution of marriage isn’t just damaged from masculinity being under attack, it’s legally dangerous!
You want women to date beta men more. Sassy has given us an example of why they don’t like to. Solution – beta men should mix in more alpha/assertiveness/dominance. They can either do that and risk attracting a woman who’ll call the police on him, choose to stay beta and get dumped on (and still the potential for legal trouble exists)…or take a step back, realize the whole game’s rotten and opt to save themselves.
@Matthew King
Precisely. And what I and many others observe is that alpha males are not suitable for long-term commitment. Women who feel strong attraction for such dead-end prospects need to activate the cerebral frontal cortex. Rational behavior includes kicking alphas to the curb. Once you get rid of the most dominant assholes, you’re still looking at 75% of men. They’re not all “subordinate, submissive, and dependent…incomplete men, parboiled, and unfinished.”
Beta males created the laptop you’re reading this on, and the software that gives my blog structure. They’re driving the Tech Revolution of the 21st c. Alpha males are relegated to the trading floor, some Sales roles, and a few other “dealmaker” jobs. They’re becoming obsolete.
@tito
Welcome back, my friend.
Heh. I have that effect on men.
@david foster
That’s my own sense as well. Purely amateur, FWIW.
@Anacaona
That article about psychopathy in childhood was so disturbing. I think that is definitely the direction we are headed – we’re going to know the exact genetic profile of serial killers, and when we find that in someone, it’s going to be very complicated to decide how or whether they will be monitored.
@Deli
No. It is not about lowering expectations. It is about understanding who can meet expectations. Alpha males cannot meet the expectations of women who want marriage and family. That is painfully obvious.
If a woman wants a meaningful, emotionally healthy relationship, she must get with a beta.
Let’s end the misery of getting with assholes!
That article about psychopathy in childhood was so disturbing. I think that is definitely the direction we are headed – we’re going to know the exact genetic profile of serial killers, and when we find that in someone, it’s going to be very complicated to decide how or whether they will be monitored.
Is funny this was my husband’s conclusion I found it hopeful. I can finally tell my mother that is not her fault that my sociopath brother turned out the way he did, I also felt somehow responsible even if I’m only two years older than him I knew he was weird since he was a kid I often think I should had used my smarts to figuring him out earlier I know is stupid but you can’t help but think “In what moment we lost him” we never had him on the first place. I also found hope in the fact that Michael (the father) thinks he had a similar start in life and managed to grow up to a be functional adult, there is hope that a strong upbringing can at least channelize this behaviour for the less worse, YMMV.
Esau said:
“PS I lost the pool on your blog: my bet for the title was “Steel On Target”, which I guess is now up for grabs.”
______________________________
I didn’t want to get in an ePissing contest with some Field Artillery douchebag, or some low T knuckledragger from 10th Marines.
But I thought about it, my friend…I did indeed.
Matt, you ought to take some of your own excellent advice and do a little more observing.
@David Foster:
Dude, have you read Sperm Wars by Robin Baker?
There is a fairly long passage in that book discussing precisely what you brought up.
Profundit said:
“How the bleep does society benefit from unrestrained male sexuality?”
_______________________________
Speaking for myself, not Susan here:
Direct answer – it doesn’t.
However:
If you restrict female sexuality, the only males who won’t be restricted as well are the gay dudes. It’s an inevitable sequelae. Might get a revival of disco music out of the deal, as well. Certainly will breath new life into Broadway.
One easy to think of example is a “shotgun wedding”. Not the caricature of rednecks doing it, but a real, live,”You knocked my daughter up, and if you don’t support her I’m going to kill you and sell your kidneys for my grandbaby’s college fund,” type of shotgun wedding.
With the right types of scarcity, men generally police themselves. Sometimes rather brutally.
One easy to think of example is a “shotgun wedding”. Not the caricature of rednecks doing it, but a real, live,”You knocked my daughter up, and if you don’t support her I’m going to kill you and sell your kidneys for my grandbaby’s college fund,” type of shotgun wedding.
Yeah I remember from the tales of my Muslim friends, when I guy goes to a party and sees a pretty woman in restrictive culture he needs to pay a big price for access to her, heck in some countries he cannot even speak to her till he gets approval from the head of the family and then if he really finds her attractive he needs to also be liked by her family, pay the bride price and wedding and not able to ever pick another woman if she as first wife demands that her marriage contract only has her as the wife. Not a lot a PUA can do there with this conditions. The anonymity of the sex acts is big part of why women can just lie to themselves Dad and mom are not there full of tingle to tell her she is being stupid and keep her in line. Of course not so pretty women are in disadvantage because if your beauty doesn’t move him to do all that you are going to adjust your expectations but even they have help from the culture with cultivating other skills like loyalty, is indeed easier to control the sexuality of both genders by controlling the females than the other way around. Women are never going to risk themselves as much as a man would just look at the inability of women to actually take the initiative even if they have less to lose, most are not wired that way and the ones that do half of them will lose respect for the guy for being the one that did the first step, YMMV.
Owen From Windsor said:
“Wouldn’t you say women do the same? I spent some time in a community with a high percentage of males who took celibacy vows and the women conformed and policed each other to protect the men from temptation.”
____________________
Dude, I don’t honestly know. I don’t believe I’ve spent enough time in a community of predominantly women who’ve experienced any kind of shortage of….well, anything.
I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, just that I’m not qualified to comment.
On the other hand, I’ve spent years in the community of men, sometimes in rather primitive circumstances. I know for a fact men will police themselves in many circumstances.
11.) And women find him boring, boring, boring…
@ Dogsquat
“Dude, I don’t honestly know. I don’t believe I’ve spent enough time in a community of predominantly women who’ve experienced any kind of shortage of….well, anything.”
That’s been your first mistake, then. Spoiled people will give off poor impressions regardless of gender. Find better people. I’m not religious, but I have been, and religious communities can be a great place to find alternative communities of people who hold to more traditional, less me-centric values.
@ Profundit
“’Women want men to take the leadership role in a relationship. This is true even for highly accomplished, intelligent women. I encourage men young men to embrace the challenge of dominating women. They will be rewarded with sex and devotion.’ (Susan)
Only from women who want their mates to dominate them. One size does not fit all.”
Yeah. I despise controlling, domineering behavior in anyone of any gender, especially men I’m dating. I can’t deny that some women find this attractive but often–since it seems okay to generalize here–it seems to be a certain type of very high-energy woman who enjoys “delegating” and perhaps is even being a bit controlling herself. This isn’t everyone, though. People who rely too heavily on evo-psych seem to not understand that humanity evolved and developed under some very different circumstances all across the world. Dominance might be a sexual trigger in some women’s genes, but it’s simply not in others.
“Leadership” can have a lot of meanings that aren’t necessarily domineering, but as long as they’re continued to largely be connected to dominance on this blog I’m going to find it a bit suspect. I cut guys out immediately if I sense controlling behavior–and I also take care not to be controlling towards THEM. I’m not really a bossy person anyway, because again, one adult ‘dominating’ another just flies in the face of my core values and beliefs.
As I’ve written in the past, I get that this blog connects with a lot of people’s experiences. I can see that. It does describe reality for some, maybe even a lot. But I still get the impression–perhaps you do as well–that a lot of this advice is mostly applicable to very particular demographics of people and doesn’t describe the experiences of many. I can’t expect Susan or anyone to give advice that would speak to EVERYone equally but I wish more Manosphere-devoted commentators could be more aware of their own subjectivity and the sheer variety of people out there.
@Courtley :
I don’t understand why you addressed that to me. It may be that you took an unintended meaning from my comment.
//No. It is not about lowering expectations. It is about understanding who can meet expectations. Alpha males cannot meet the expectations of women who want marriage and family. That is painfully obvious.
Ok, but I am just taking two statements that you made and I am putting them in one. You say
” Alpha males cannot meet the expectations of women who want marriage and family. ”
and you say
“So there will of course be highly intelligent alpha males – 70% of CEOs are estimated to be alphas.”
And when I combine them I get – “Don’t marry a man, who could become a CEO one day” Don’t marry future Steve Jobs (who was an HUGE jerk
btw.), don’t marry future Bill Gates (sorry, Melinda, we couldn’t get to you in time), don’t marry politicians, don’t marry star athletes – stay AWAY from them!
Ok – a necessary clarification: it’s not about being Alpha or being Beta (unless we want to generalize Cosmo style). It’s a degree of how these traits are manifested. And my point is – all male top percentile performers have these traits manifested strongly rather than weakly. Since getting to the top of pretty much every social ladder is achieved through competition – naturally dominant, overly competitive, non-empathetic and self-oriented people will usually come out on top more often.
So if your advice advice for women is to stay away from men that have these traits manifested strongly – you are telling them to stay away from top performers in life. Because top performance in life does not guarantee top performance in marriage.
Which is a message – with no irony or sarcasm or other twists – I think can be fully endorsed.
Especially if applied to women that do not want to build a family with a man on the basis of an utter admiration of this man’s world-shaping strength.
Who don’t want to bear children of the champion, feeling with every second of her life that these children will be champions as well because they will get both a genetic and a social head-start.
Who think nothing of a man’s power and gain no pleasure from being able to both nurture and (to an extent) direct his power.
Who don’t want to be handed over a crown of a princess in marriage – but rather would earn it with their own, bloody (yet feminine) swords.
I agree with you – a man with highly manifested alpha traits has nothing to offer these women. They should stay away. Far-far away.
P.S.
*I really liked the Consulting firm combating “Alpha male syndrom” story: in the “risk” category they’ve listed at least half of the things I was given as personal development objectives by my company. Just shows that people are ready to pay money for pretty much ANYTHING these days.
All men should be Alphas.
But women should not put out until those Alphas display Beta behaviors toward them.
Am I right, guys?
@Dogsquat
If so, I’m sorry. But when what did you mean by “I’ve been around women who have experience a shortage of . . . anything before”?
@Underdog:
Defined in this thread, being alpha is being internally focused as opposed to other focused.
Like in a theoretical perfect capitalist society, totally cool as long as there rules in place that make sure competition is not destructive.
One of those rules would indeed be not putting out for alphas that do not have beta traits.
Now tell Jezzies they might have to follow a rule in their sex lives, because their actions have social implications.
@Deli
Apex fallacy. Most men with a huge endowment of alpha traits are probably not CEOs.
By all means women can run for that if they like, and they will fail, and then “lesser” men are very likely going to instantly DQ them.
Deli..”in the “risk” category they’ve listed at least half of the things I was given as personal development objectives by my company”…but if you demonstrate these characteristics to unbalanced extremes…and if higher management at the company is clueful…then next year’s development objectives will include items from the right side of the chart. Too much “dominant, confident, takes charge” is likely to show up on a performance appraisal as “Fred has not demonstrated strength as a delegator and a developer of employees, and his promotion is questionable unless this issue is addressed.”
I completely agree with this.
I can’t speak for Esau, but I am pretty sure he is saying a lot more than this.
As Male (Sexual) Dominance becomes embraced, which I believe it will, so many of the social and political structures that exist to give give those oppressed girls a leg up will go away.
Heck, think about how NPR has been reporting the possible passing (or not) of VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act (I am assuming that you listen to NPR).
Do you think that the mainstream reporting of the VAWA bill is in any way consistent with your idea of men being sexually dominant?
Courtley said:
“But when what did you mean by “I’ve been around women who have experience a shortage of . . . anything before”?”
______________________
I explained that I have enough information to answer a particular question about men, but not about women. I stated that I don’t consider myself qualified to answer, and admitted my ignorance.
You must have skipped a couple parts. Spankins!
@Doc
Alpha chasers find him boring. Personally, I find the “natural alpha” in the video boring beyond tears. The whole beta = boring trope is grossly exaggerated. I think anyone can be boring, and people need to work hard to be interesting. Dominance in and of itself is not interesting.
@Deli
Actually, Bill Gates is a beta, so is Mark Zuckerburg. If a full 30% of CEOs are beta, then there are still plenty of high powered men who might make good marriage material. Barack Obama.
I could begin listing now the alpha politicians, athletes, and business leaders who have publicly demonstrated their egomaniacal drive and narcissism, but I’d still be here in 12 hours.
Woe unto the women who married them! Woe unto their own children! John Edwards daughter fled the courtroom crying last week.
The unhappiest women I know are the women who married real, natural born alphas. More often than not, their kids aren’t winners, they’re just sad. Maybe they have good nature, i.e. genes, but they got terrible nurture.
Susan – “Alpha chasers find him boring. Personally, I find the “natural alpha” in the video boring beyond tears. The whole beta = boring trope is grossly exaggerated. I think anyone can be boring, and people need to work hard to be interesting. Dominance in and of itself is not interesting.”
I have a little pet theory on this. I believe that alpha chasers are “lazy” thrill seekers.
Everyone wants to be entertained, interested, and excited. It is a basic human desire we mostly all share to some extent. There are plenty of ways to get these, but many/most require some work and investment. If you want to learn to play an instrument, you have to practice. If you want to write a book, you need the discipline to sit still and write for hours at a time.
Women that flock to alphas are simply too lazy to entertain themselves. They want a man that constantly keeps them on edge because they lack the ability to stimulate themselves, and even if the alpha’s “entertainment” is negative, it is still entertainment.
I said in another thread that I feel I could love any women I found attractive. Another side of that is I feel that I could find just about any human being interesting, IF I put in the effort to find their unique qualities and engage them. So, to me, many women that claim beta’s are boring are simply too lazy to find the interesting qualities. I may not skydive or bungee jump, but I can carry on a deeply philosophical conversation for hours and hours, while drinking and having a good time, without breaking a sweat. Sure, conversation probably won’t give you an adrenaline rush, but I hardly find it boring either.
And is this even a surprise? Our children are literally surrounded by things fighting for their attention. Many studies show that children are finding it harder to concentrate and ADD seems to be on the rise. (or perhaps we are just starting to diagnose it correctly?) So, it stands to reason that these same children will grow up needing/wanting the “easy fix” of stimulation instead of finding ways to generate it themselves. They will be lazy thrill seekers looking for external stimulation instead of learning how to create it for themselves.
@ Susan
Obama’s a beta and Edwards is an alpha? Reallllly? I have to ask about that ones. John Edwards seems like a classic case of closet misogynist who couldn’t handle having a successful, intelligent wife and sought out the ego boost he believed he deserved from a younger subordinate. He does NOT strike me as more socially dominant than Obama. He seems like a beta male with a twisted sense of ethics and morality. That’s part of the danger, I think, in telling women that betas are THE right option for them.
Do you really not know any men who were like the confident, outgoing, successful jock-type alphas who also ended up making great husbands and fathers after they settled down? I feel like I’ve met many men like this who take a huge masculine ego boost from being the head of a healthy, happy family and marriage. They’re also pretty damn ‘alpha’ in demeanor, competitiveness, success, etc.
You may be defining ‘alpha’ as like, Chris Brown–someone who would have gone to jail if didn’t happen to be rich and famous–but then the John Edwards example would again not really match up there. A lot of undesirable traits in male partners really have nothing to do with dominance or lack thereof. Character, and one’s beliefs about how to ethically treat people, are at least somewhat independent from the level of natural social dominance someone is born with.
“John Edwards seems like a classic case of closet misogynist who couldn’t handle having a successful, intelligent wife and sought out the ego boost he believed he deserved from a younger subordinate.”
I stopped reading right there and fell on the floor laughing. Good joke.
It seems to me that, for Susan’s project to go anywhere, we all need to find some way to accept “settling.” Dogsquat and others have made the point that women do no favors to the men for whom they settle and I see their point but we have to find some way to square this circle.
Susan’s point in this post, and in much of what she writes, I take to be: young women have got to improve their taste in men. They are naturally more attracted to alphas than betas—indeed they are often repulsed by betas—but for their long term happiness and stability, they are far better off with betas. IF, that is, they can manage to make themselves feel attracted to a beta. Which is Susan’s project, or part of it, to talk them into reordering their romantic taste.
Now, nature is probably not that changeable. So to a certain extent the natural female attraction to alphas is just never going to go away. To the extent that this is true, then women who choose betas have to some degree “settled.” In the same way that we men “settle” when we don’t marry the hottest women.
But somehow it works out for lots of us: we can’t all marry the hottest women yet zillions of us get married and are happy and love our wives. On one level we “settled”. But I don’t think we dwell on that or feel robbed in some way.
This is the same thing women need to do re: betatude if Susan’s’ advice is to go anywhere. They have to settle without feeling like they settled.
But the men also have to stop hectoring them over it. On the one hand, we complain a lot about women with ridiculous standards and endless checklists. Then in the next breath we say to a woman who is sensible enough to forgo the list “You had better think I am the greatest and most handsome man in the world, otherwise you are settling for me and I don’t want you.” I don’t see how this formula is good for anybody.
Both sexes need to grow up a little, I think. If the women follow Susan’s advice and start acting more sensibly and seeing the virtues of betas , then the men should probably not chastise them for “settling.”
@Ted D
+1. I agree.
To relate this to the show Girls’, Charlie said he “decided” on Marnie.
I think what he meant (or LD was) was he could love anyone, if he tried. (Some people simply can see the redeemimg qaulitiesin others easier, some people have more difficulty overlooking a flaw)
I think loving someone is just as much about choosing to like certain qaulities, as much as not looking hard enough to have yourself appreciate other qaulities. Everyone can be loved, we “chosimg” the person wr love is much a decision. (a lot of women chose based on social presence)
Alphas have that entertainment on the surface, so it’s much ‘easier’ to like them, whether the behavior is good or bad, than look for the good-qaulitiesin in a beta.
@Susan
Why the sudden change in advice? I thought female hypergamy was the biological imperative that can’t be denied. And hypergamy, or evidence of it, dictates Alpha traits are more attractive, in the eye of a women. Look at Game as an example, last post I listed DHVs, and DLVs – I’m not sure if you noticed that all the DLVs are beta. Game is teaching us to stop being beta, if we want to have sex.
Obama as Beta…really? Aren’t Alphas supposed to embody the Dark Triad? And isn’t one of the elements of the triad Narcissism?
“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”
–Barack Obama, 2008
Cont.
And Game is based on what women are responding to – on what works.
An adapted quote:
“Alphas are for having fun. Betas are for making babies.”
I married the most handsome and awesome man in the world (to me). He has all of 1-10 on Susan’s “beta” traits list, but he’s also quite dominant, assertive, confident and sexy.
He’s probably about 80% beta and 20% alpha. In Sassy’s food analogy, he would be mostly healthy, full of nutrients, with a nice chunk of salt, spice and delicious fat.
Susan, glad you’re quoting from PostMasculine! It’s a great blog.
Escoffier, I think that you are close to, but off, the mark.
That line of thought might go better like this:
If after seeing Girls (on HBO), reading HUS, witnessed many adult marriages from your parents, friends parents and aunts and uncles, and seeing the world for what it really is AND THEN made your checklist, hopefully I meet most of your bullet-ed items.
And, if I don’t meet your standards, so be it. Hopefully you will meet someone who does.
But don’t choose me if I am not what you want. Don’t choose me if I don’t make you hot.
Re your other points, I support men being incredibly picky in their choices. In fact, I welcome that. When men stop dating and even marrying unstable psycho bitches, the institution of marriage will be more meaningful for everyone. I encourage men to adopt very high standards for commitment. Women should have to work hard to prove themselves worthy, and what’s more, they should want to.
—-
Susan,
I was thinking about this yesterday as I was reading the post. I concluded that this is the big problem that many beta males are facing, currently. They need to be more selective when it comes to who get into a romantic relationship with and marry. It is a challenge because more women these days are entitled, self-centered, egotistical narcissists. Many do not have the emotional capacity to appreciate what these guys are bringing to the table. I know decent women (myself included) who would be more than happy to meet a beta guy and settle down and those unions would be very successful ones. I know it is hard sitting around waiting for a really decent woman to come along–they are a rarity today. However, betas will have to put in the work and do their due diligence to avoid the psycho-bitches. I don’t think that “game” is the answer, though. It just seems to serve as a tool to deal with the psycho-bitches not how to avoid them. I also think the “game” actually attracts them. (I know I am going to hear about making this statement but whatever).
My boss’ wife (nut job) recently filed for divorce. He is a beta male and but also possesses some alpha traits that come in handy for his position as a supervisor. This man loves his three children and provides well for them and his soon-to-be ex-wife. They have a beautiful home and a good lifestyle but that was not enough for the nut job. Therefore, once she got back into the workforce she starts an affair with some guy–who is also married. She then files for divorce; my boss has to move out of his home, so that she can move in her lover to live with her and amongst her three young children. Her lover is now living in a house my boss is currently paying the mortgage on.
The thing is, it was always clear to everyone except for him that this woman was not right for him. She is excessively neurotic and self-centered to be good wife and mother material, in my opinion. In addition, she is not particularly attractive. Well, he isn’t anything to look at either but he could have at least found a woman that would appreciate him and the good things he offered.
These guys and their choices in women often bewilder me. I think desperation may play apart and the low availability of decent women in today’s society.
“Alphas are for having fun. Betas are for making babies.”
No, Alphas are for making babies, Betas are for raising them.
Time and time again, the studies show that girls are most attracted to those men with the most testosterone (T) during the height of ovulation, and they are more attracted to those men with less T at the nadir.
When girls are looking for a good tingle, they want a capital T in that tingle.
Ramble, fair enough, that makes sense.
Liza, we have gone through this before, but, maybe it deserves repeating.
“Game” is simply that set of actions, behaviours, knowledge and skills that make men more attractive to girls (psychotic and otherwise).
It is not a magic potion, nor is it some sort of guarantee (“by my book and I guarantee you that you can bang any girl in the world, any day of the week…).
Girls who are not psychotic bitches also want guys who are confident, relaxed and (at least slightly) sexually dominant. Some girls want a guy who can out-peacock anyone, others simply want a guy that can play a little guitar and knows how to look into their eyes. Either way, a certain amount of “Game” will be needed, or at least, desired.
“My boss’ wife (nut job) recently filed for divorce. He is a beta male and but also possesses some alpha traits that come in handy for his position as a supervisor. This man loves his three children and provides well for them and his soon-to-be ex-wife. They have a beautiful home and a good lifestyle but that was not enough for the nut job. Therefore, once she got back into the workforce she starts an affair with some guy–who is also married. She then files for divorce; my boss has to move out of his home, so that she can move in her lover to live with her and amongst her three young children. Her lover is now living in a house my boss is currently paying the mortgage on.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm_DDttubQs
Girls who are not psychotic bitches also want guys who are confident, relaxed and (at least slightly) sexually dominant.
—–
Ramble,
Then just find the confidence within yourself to be dominant without (mind) “game”. This should be my last comment on the subject of “game”, really.
“Then just find the confidence within yourself to be dominant without (mind) “game”. ”
/facepalm
This is like telling a toddler to find the balance within himself to ride a bike without using training wheels.
For the last time, Game is not solely comprised of deception or mind games. Which is why Private Man calls it “Charisma”.
It is conscious knowledge of female sexual psychology, and using it to your own ends. Those means might be deceptive mind-games. Or, it might be dropping your doormat tendencies, because you know women find it off-putting. Both are game. If both these behaviors are the flip side of a coin, then game is coin itself.
I could write down 10 things I use daily that are straight-up applied game, and zero of them involve deception, dread, or mind-games.
You can try to redefine the terms all you want, but it isn’t what *we* mean.
I think the argument over who is an “Alpha Male” and who is a “Beta Male” demonstrates my point that this is a false dichotomy, or (at least) is an unnatural state of the world. It has been my experience that women are attracted to men who have a strong character and know who they are; men of principle who have boundaries and are willing to defend them to anyone. Women (for the most part) are not looking for the “Tribal leader” they’re looking for a respected member of society.
After generations of social engineering a large portion of men have grown into the kind of self hating individual that militant feminists wanted; and the training has been remarkably effective at ensuring that they’re entirely subservient to women. This is not the kind of man who gets respect …
To use HBO’s Girls as an example, Charlie’s mistake with Marnie was that he was completely unwilling to command respect from her. When he started to demonstrate that he was willing to set boundaries and demand her respect her attraction to him started to skyrocket; and when he started to demonstrate complete subservience to her, the attraction she felt disappeared like a deflating balloon.
Charlie didn’t need to be an “Alpha Male” or a “Tribal Leader” to make Marnie happy, all he needed to be was a man of character.
Then just find the confidence within yourself to be dominant without (mind) “game”. This should be my last comment on the subject of “game”, really.
Liza, it’s like you are saying “find the confidence without finding the confidence”. Or, “Be dominant without being dominant”.
“Game” is just a word.
What is the difference between Pot Roast and Braised Shoulder of Beef? Nothing.
When some guy goes online, or gets some book, or goes to some seminar, to learn about “Game”, he is simply having some other guy tell him, “Idiot, girls prefer when you ignore their “shit tests”. The prefer when you are dominant.
“Game” is just a word. It is just a title. That is all.
“We know that humans are descended from only a minority of prehistoric men, half the number of women who reproduced. The men who were successful in passing along their genes were the ones who embraced risk and succeeded in their quests. Men who failed the challenge, or who were too risk averse to attempt it, ended their lines with their own deaths. Therefore, in a very real way, we are all descended from dominant, successful males.”
This is a logical argument, not based on evidence. If we don’t this logic, there is no evidence.
Death will occur regardless of having one’s heirs. This doesn’t mean that their genes won’t survive via a brother, father, uncle, cousin. A brother has the same genes. A father might have multiple children. A cousin has 1/4th the genes of another first cousin.
Replacement of the population is over 2 children per parental unit. To increase the population, we need to have much more children. Today, we are having less children, barely 1 child per family.
Today’s behavior of Alphas suggest sexual activity has nothing to do with children. I suppose you’re only focused on traits.
@Escoffier
That’s incorrect. I don’t think anyone can talk themselves into attraction. I think attraction triggers are somewhat malleable. We know that people fall for one another more when they are familiar and in close proximity. A small town will have as high a marriage rate (or higher) than a big city.
I also think that many women already find betas attractive. Contrary to popular talk in these parts, the woman who has fun in her 20s is probably doing it with a mix of alphas and betas. She will most likely wind up marrying a beta because betas marry. She won’t see this as settling. She will think he’s cute, and smart, and great husband material, and she won’t compare him to the dumb jock she hooked up with 8 years earlier at a college party.
What I’m really trying to do is get women to think carefully about what separates marriageable men from dead-end prospects.
And of course, all women are different. The woman who wants to gnaw on the calves of the beach soccer player in the video is not going to marry an engineer (or perhaps anyone). And the woman who is going to marry an engineer finds the beach soccer player a buffoon.
Underdog, well put.
Or, to make the analogy for an adult, throwing some woman in the deep end of the pool that does not know how to swim. If no one taught her, she is not going to know.
*Throwing up my hands in resignation*
Guys, if it is yielding the results you want and you are happy with those results, then continue to use it to your advantage.
@Liza207
So, a man who is reluctant to approach you in a know approach is a no-no zone is so undominant he’s feminized in your eyes.
Yet, you’d be more than happy to meet a beta guy and settle down.
Liza, you may not get game but I swear, some days you’re a walking advertisement for why men need to learn game to survive in this day and age. That mass of contradictory expectations is a prime example of “how to disqualify yourself”.
And I say this as someone who likes you and would like to see you meet someone.
@Courtley
Nearly every divorce I’ve witnessed in the last 20 years occurred when an alpha was unfaithful. (I’ve seen just one initiated by a woman, and two initiated by men who came out as gay.) Furthermore, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had the “confident, outgoing, successful jock-type alphas” getting waaayyy too close in a social situation, hand on my lower back, sexual energy lobbed across the dinner table. These men need female attention like it’s a drug, and they’re definitely on the high end of the spectrum for wanting sexual variety. YMMV of course.
I also live in a city chock full of beta males. John Durant of Hunter Gatherer talks about how women love doctors, because they are an almost perfect alpha-beta hybrid. I live among many of them, and they generally present as beta. I know a couple of real alpha orthopedic surgeons – but they’re unusual.
Anyway, I don’t know if you clicked the links in the post – there’s been a lot of research done about alpha males, and their traits are largely maladaptive in contemporary society.
Off-topic on a different type of game, Diablo 3 came out this week, and there are tons of people (mostly guys) playing it. It broke records for game presales/preorders on Amazon, and will probably go on to be one of the highest selling games.
It’s online and can be played multiplayer. If you’re a single female, this is a great way to meet new people and guys. Look up guys in your local area who are into it and can maybe help you. Lots of them will be the marrying type. I know quite a few who are already married, but there are tons who are single.
Plus, it’s a lot of fun. I got my start playing video games with the RPG genre. It’s quite female-friendly.
Liza, look at this way.
“Game” is on one level just a set of behaviors for dealing with social situations. You seem to think it automatically includes “mind games” or trickery. But it doesn’t. It’s about behaving in a way that’s attractive to other people rather than off-putting.
Since I haven’t made a pedantic post in a while, this seems like a good time. Aristotle distinguishes between three types of virtue: moral, intellectual and social. Moral virtue is about being a good person and doing the right thing. Intellectual virtues are what are necessary to seek and find the truth (which, pace Keats, can be good or bad, fair or ugly). Social virtues are the behaviors that make living among other people pleasant or at least not grating.
These three things are not always in concert. For instance, intellectual virtue would have us fully understand nuclear fusion, regardless of the moral wisdom of building thermonuclear weapons that can kill us all. More to our point here, though, probity or honesty is an intellectual virtue, the wise man should hate above all “the lie in the soul” (self-deception). Lying is typically a moral vice. However stating the truth can sometimes violate the social virtues (“Does my ass look fat?” “Ummmm …”).
Think of “game” as the social virtues. We’ve all known someone who is a good person (all the moral virtues) and perhaps brilliant intellectually but who is inept in social situations and so has few friends and is perpetually single. If such a person could learn “game”—learn to effectively interact with people on a social level—he would presumably be less lonely and more happy.
Sure, there is an element of gentle deception involved. But is that so bad? Suppose you met a guy you really really liked. Just clicked instantly. You really want him for a boyfriend. But the thing is, you met him only five days ago and have gone on all of two dates. Now, would you unburden yourself to him, profess your love, gush in his presence, and call him 24/7? Of course not because by doing that you would scare him off. Even if you are a really great person and would be perfect for him, he’s not going to see that, all he’ll see is “Stage 5 Clinger” and run like hell.
So you “deceive” him by playing a little coy and low key. You’re gaming him. No one is hurt. On the contrary, you might both end up very happy.
He may in fact be doing the same to you. It’s not a mind game. It’s common sense.
Escoffier says:
“Think of “game” as the social virtues. We’ve all known someone who is a good person (all the moral virtues) and perhaps brilliant intellectually but who is inept in social situations and so has few friends and is perpetually single. If such a person could learn “game”—learn to effectively interact with people on a social level—he would presumably be less lonely and more happy.”
This is an excellent and succinct description of one of the reasons that my life, thus far, has felt like a catastrophic failure.
@Cooper
No change here, I’ve been saying exactly this for more than three years.
First, let me say that Dogsquat has a good point. The vocabulary for this is all over the place and probably of very limited value. I do not define alpha as “gets laid a lot” and beta as “pathetic guy with oneitis.” I pointed out in the article via several bloggers, including Game bloggers, how the Game narrative and mindset can be very limiting. Attraction and relationships are a lot more complicated than that.
Second, I’ve debated the hypergamy concept here at great length. I won’t do that again here, but suffice to say that I believe female hypergamy represents a threshold for status. A woman has a strong biologically derived preference to mate with a man of higher status than herself. I don’t believe that hypergamy is an active threat in established relationships unless the relative status of one of the partner’s changes. There’s a new study that looks closely at the concept of female attraction to social dominance. They split it into two distinct elements: dominant behavior and social prestige. They found that women found social prestige far more important than dominance.
As for DHVs and DLVs, that’s another area where I depart from some Game bloggers. For example, in my view, a married man flirting with other women is a massive DLV. Like Brett McKay said in his piece at Art of Manliness, the DHV is the man who quietly understands his appeal, and is generously focused on others. His wife observes this behavior and it’s a massive DHV. If he was acting flirtatious with the other women present, he’d actually shame his wife by stooping low for female attention.
@Hope:
“It’s online and can be played multiplayer. If you’re a single female, this is a great way to meet new people and guys. Look up guys in your local area who are into it and can maybe help you. Lots of them will be the marrying type. I know quite a few who are already married, but there are tons who are single.”
Unless computer games are addictive to you. The avoid them. My general approach to life is to try to avoid tech whenever possible because of this problem.
Susan, maybe you can’t talk anyone in or out of attraction (though I am not so fatalistic on this point). But you CAN say, and I think you are saying, that since sexy alphas are dangerous, young women need to have the presense of mind and character to look elsewhere. In other words, they have take that natural attraction and put it in the cupboard. Meanwhile, if they feel any attraction for a good beta, even if that physical attraction is less intense, the wise thing for them to do would be to concentrate on that.
The analogy for men would be: HB10 but flakey and has bad mother written all over her, or sorta cute 6 but sweet, loyal and stable. Little head says “I want the ten.” Big head needs to say “No, go with the 6.”
Women need to do the same thing. It’s probably true that we can’t talk ourselves into being attracted to someone for whom we viscerally feel absolutely nothing. However, I think it’s possible to tamp down an imprudent attraction and stoke a tamer but more sensible one. E.g., if alpha cad registers 8.0 on the tingle scale and beta reliable registers only 5.0, probably by concentrating on the latter and not thinking about the former a woman can lower that 8 and raise that 5.
@david foster
I wouldn’t go so far as to call Obama beta. But he is definitely a mix of alpha and beta traits. Narcissism isn’t restricted to alphas, though it’s certainly more common among them. And then there’s the Machiavellian piece – manipulating others against their best interest to get what you want. And sociopathy. The Dark Triad was dysfunctional one million years ago, they were not even alphas, but total rogues. Today they probably represent a significant percentage of alphas.
@Cooper
By all means, do what works! I am telling women that dating alpha males doesn’t work, and marrying them is often disastrous. They are a very risky bet. That doesn’t mean they won’t have lots of takers – of course they will.
Think of heroin. It works to make people feel incredible. Once they get a taste, sometimes only one, they’re hooked for life. As a mother, I would do anything in my power to keep my kids from ever trying heroin. There are some things that are bad for us. Alpha males cheat and divorce. They compete with their own sons, for chrissakes.
@Ramble
Actually, Evolvify cited a study that shows that during ovulation, women crave humor and intelligence in men even more than high T characteristics. I haven’t had time to review it, but plan to.
@Susan
“Brett McKay said in his piece at Art of Manliness, the DHV is the man who quietly understands his appeal, and is generously focused on others. His wife observes this behavior and it’s a massive DHV.”
But being realistic, how many guys are going to be able to pull this off?
I’ll agree quiet, stoic sexy husband is better than flirting husband. What about flirting husband vs. husband nobody else wants? (Hint, hint: everyone but the sexy guy).
Your statement is cripplied by the apex fallacy and ignores the majority.
I still maintain that there is a difference in the Bull Alpha (the womanizing egotistical walking phallus you describe as “alpha”) and the Wolf Alpha (the far more monogamous, but no less driven socially adept family man who uses the power of his position and masculinity to build and protect his pack — your “perfect beta”).
Examples of both abound. The Wolf Alpha and the Bull Alpha both display undeniably Alpha traits, but how they are expressed is far different:
Bull Alpha: plate spinning, harem-building Casanova
Wolf Alpha: dedicated, devoted monogamist who has A LOT OF SEX with his devoted, monogamist wife.
Bull Alpha: expresses his dominance by avoiding personal responsibility and pursuing lucrative career responsibility
Wolf Alpha: expresses his dominance by pursuing and even embracing personal responsibility even to the detriment to a career he’s devoted himself to, if it furthers the interests of his family
You get the picture. You can be perfectly Alpha, but decide to use those powers for “good” — that is, family building and protection.
@Jonny
It doesn’t matter. We are reproduction machines. That’s it. A man who has sex his whole life using birth control is the same as a prehistoric male who was shooting blanks. No bueno, from a bio standpoint. Of course, you can thumb your nose and say, “I don’t care what I am supposed to do, I don’t care if my genes die out.” That’s fine, ain’t nobody stopping you. But from a Darwinian perspective, that’s a FAIL.
@Escoffier
I think your strategy is definitely useful for women who find themselves drawn to men who want multiple sexual partners and show little inclination to settle down. They definitely need to find a way to hit the reset button.
But I don’t feel that way. My beta husband is a 10 to me, and the slightly smarmy ortho surgeon is repellent. Women of average looks fall in love with men of average looks every day, and they don’t long for a chiseled jaw. They fall for guys with a healthy self-confidence, and they don’t long for Machiavelli. That just hasn’t been my experience. I’m not sure if this is male projection, but I get the sense that Game notwithstanding, there are persistent (and pernicious) misunderstandings about female sexuality in the manosphere.
I’m not fighting that battle anymore. Guys should find and master whatever tools get them what they want. I’m talking to women who get it, for the most part. I’m supporting ideas they’ve probably already intuited, and explaining just why that guy with the red flags is definitely not worth dating.
@Lokland
Very few, but IMO going into “alpha male jackassery,” as McKay put it, doesn’t get you any closer. My husband is not the guy who owns the room like that – women do not throw themselves at him. But he conducts himself in a way that I find attractive, and I’m happy to be on his arm. If he got drunk, or loud, or flirtatious, that would be such a turnoff. If you don’t have the natural charisma that means all eyes are on you, much better to be dignified than act like an attention whore.
Well, Susan, obviously some high % of girls your daughter’s age or thereabouts are quite attracted to alphas and not so attracted to betas. Otherwise we wouldn’t have this problem, right?
Beyond that, unless my memory is very bad, haven’t you written a number of posts in the past which start from the premise that younger women are attracted to alphas? I mean, you wouldn’t have to warn them to stay away if they weren’t drawn to the bad boys in the first place.
So, a man who is reluctant to approach you in a know approach is a no-no zone is so undominant he’s feminized in your eyes.
—
This is my frustration and possibly me rationalizing.
Anyway, ever since the “The Best Way to Let a Guy Know You Like Him” post and receiving all the feedback from everyone that responded and advised me on putting myself out there more and giving guys I am interested in clearer signs of interest. I have been attempting to get out of my comfort zone a bit more this week. I have been walking around with my player/cad shield up for over a year now. They are always circling just waiting for the opportunity to pounce but I have been able to keep them at bay for a while with the “shield”. The bad thing that it keeps the decent guys away as well.
My issue has always been that I have been waiting for the cute beta to make the move but that has not happened. I guess what I have been waiting for is one that was bold enough to do so, since I have a hard time really putting myself out there. It has always seemed easier to let men come to me.
Yesterday, I was out and about attempting to be more flirty (making eye contact with guys I felt were safe and smiling and saying “hi” to them) just feeling it out. So, that when I do meet a decent guy or “gym guy” I would be ready, which meant I had to take down the player/cad shield and as I expected, one saw that it was down. He was very aggressive and pushy offering to wine and dine me, although, he was tall and good-looking and in his twenties. I knew I had to resist the temptation. These have been the kind of guys I have been attempting to have meaningful relationships with (and then again they are the only ones that approach me for dates and relationships) and it has never worked. I get a little lonely and vulnerable; I give them a shot and start projecting onto them and attempting to tame them—a fool’s errand indeed.
It finally hit me like a tons of bricks when that guy was hitting on me, that I had to really start doing things differently and that meant stepping up to make myself more available to more datable men who were better relationship prospects.
It’s not bewildering at all. If your typical beta male has been hapless with women for years, and he finally snags a female, it doesn’t matter how crazy or bitchy she is, as he is thinking ‘who knows if I’ll ever get this chance again’. Desperation is the whole part.
Ian Ironwood, I prefer the analogy of the Wolf, the Sheep, and the Sheepdog, which I wrote about here.
I don’t personally like to call my husband “beta.” Susan has no problems calling her husband that, but I see my husband as MY alpha. The terminology is probably tripping people up, too.
@Ian Ironwood
Your description of the wolf alpha is very much what I would call the perfect mix of alpha and beta traits. I think that in this SMP, they are becoming endangered, because the culture rewards hedonism and impulsivity. The very same young men who would have been wolf alphas a generation ago are now in danger of becoming that walking phallus – if only because they get hit on by sexually aggressive women and go for it – why wouldn’t they? There are very good reasons why they would be better off taking a pass, but your average 20 year old guy isn’t going to feel that way.
Whether those guys can or even want to morph from bull to wolf at a later date remains to be seen.
Interesting, I definitely want to know more about that.
@Escoffier
It’s my belief that they only observe alphas. Alphas are the guys who approach them, strike up a conversation, ask them to the formal, etc. Lots of girls don’t get that attention, and they don’t see any guys around whom they might date.
We could argue about why betas are invisible – I think that the 80% of both men and women is pretty much only aware of the 20% of the opposite sex. Pluralistic Ignorance at work.
What I’m saying basically amounts to: Avoid every single guy who approaches you in a bar. They’re all bad boys, or trying to be. Impostor Assholes are no better than the real deal. I’m saying women need to go find other guys, guys not on their radar screens. Online dating is one way. The alpha asshats are easily identifiable there, for the most part. Networking with friends and family is another way. Pursuing one’s own interests can work.
So it’s not picking the right guys from the population. It’s finding a whole new population.
I’m new here, but I’m just wondering if anyone has addressed why women seem to see the “bad boy” types as fixer uppers, but beta types as lost causes.
If, as Susan has said before, the ideal for a woman is a mixture of alpha and beta traits, I would think that it would be much easier to get a beta to adopt some alpha traits than it would be to get the opposite. I don’t know about anyone else, but in my experience there’s nothing that gives me more confidence and strength than having a woman I’m attracted to let me know that she adores me, and trusts me to lead and provide for her. I don’t think women really understand how much a man’s self image can be influenced by his SO. If you treat him like he’s a strong, dominant, manly man, nine times out of ten he’s gonna’ try to live up to those expectations. Conversely, if you give the impression that you think he’s a wimp, emasculate him, etc, he’s probably going to live up to those expectations also.
It’s just a theory, but I think most guys have a lot of alpha in them, they just need a woman with the patience and ability to bring it out of them. They need their ego’s stroked a bit. And, no offense to the ladies, but that’s a skill that the modern, American woman seems to be severely lacking in.
Basically, it’s the equivalent of a female needing her SO to show her that she turns him on and he finds her sexually attractive. The more a man makes a woman FEEL sexy, the more sexually open and adventurous she’s going to be.
And the more a woman makes a man FEEL alpha, the stronger and more dominant he’s gonna’ behave.
To me, this is exactly what the “Behind every great man, is a great woman.” saying is about. Oftentimes, I think the love and support of a woman can bring out a lot of strength in men that they don’t even know they have. Unfortunately, it seems to me that women seem to have been conditioned by feminism to think that stroking a man’s ego makes her weak. And as a result, we’re seeing a lot more weak men.
Could be wrong. Just my two cents…
@Liza
I would keep the bitch shield down, but ready. Blow off any guy who gives off a player vibe. Leave it down for a man who seems less opportunistic or aggressive. In other words, you’re going to have to actively calibrate.
Do you remember the bar scene in Good Will Hunting?
Hope, I think the terminology gets confusing because it can be meant two ways, intrinsically and relativistically.
There just aren’t very many intrinsic alphas. However, a relationship can still work very well so long as a man is relativistically alpha (to his wife and/or to her visible options). All he needs to be is “alpha enough” for her tastes even if intrinsically he is a beta and the rest of the world would view him as such.
I don’t think there can be the slightest doubt that intrinsically I am beta through and through but I also think that I am “alpha enough” for my wife. It helps that I did not marry a woman who requires a lot of alpha. It’s like a 5’4″ guy marrying a 4’11″ girl. To her, he’s tall. To everyone else, he’s short.
“I also live in a city chock full of beta males. John Durant of Hunter Gatherer talks about how women love doctors, because they are an almost perfect alpha-beta hybrid. I live among many of them, and they generally present as beta. I know a couple of real alpha orthopedic surgeons – but they’re unusual.”
Alpha surgeons are going to start dying out as the system moves to a more checklist approach.
No more lone cowboys in the operating room.
“We could argue about why betas are invisible”
One reason is because they are shy and afraid of girls so they don’t make themselves visible.
@Travis
Welcome, that’s a great comment. You’re amplifying things I’ve been saying for a while. Both about the alpha/beta conundrum and also about women needing to reclaim their femininity and be willing to express adoration to the man they love.
“What I’m saying basically amounts to: Avoid every single guy who approaches you in a bar.”
Really? All of those who go out are assholes? Alphas usually have some betas with them. Maybe some college bars with too many douchebags result in betas feeling they need to behave like alphas. But as long as you hang out in places for people out of college, I think there’s a good mix. Almost all social people go to bars. Even nerds. If a person doesn’t even do that, I’m skeptical.
Clubs known for hookups and drugs are a different deal.
Travis – I am on the same page as you, but I’ve asked this question and the answer from women generally goes something like this:
“If we have to explain to men that we want them to be dominant, it doesn’t work because they are doing it FOR us. We want them to simply be what we want without asking them.” which to me sounds an awful lot like “read my mind.” I’ve heard this in person from several women, and each and every time I can only shake my head in disbelief. They WANT a man with XYZ, but only if they have it on their own. If they have to teach a man XYZ, it loses it’s value.
It is one of the most illogical things I’ve ever tried to wrap my head around, but there it is.
JP, video game addiction is not that bad if managed under tight self-control. When my husband and I really get into a game we can play upwards of 40+ hours a week, but we still go to work, go to sleep at a normal time, take care of the house/yard/cooking/chores, and have plenty of sexytime. Of course that will change with a kid, but we still have four months of waiting. We can’t re-decorate the nursery every day, and we’re not TV people.
Travis, that is a good point. I love stroking my husband’s ego and making him feel good. I think it does build confidence and dominance in him, and make him feel like he’s strong and capable. He was getting a bit upset and stressed by work and some problems with home repairs (we had some water damage in the house), but I continued to tell him he’s awesome and that I don’t see him in any less light. Later he became much happier, and acted more “alpha” and playful.
Liza at 112 – bravo for your realization.
When the shield is unilaterally up, only the guys who don’t give a crap will bust through, and so you pre-reject men who might actually care about your feelings. If you can find venues where you can actually lower the shield without undue harassment, you can then *selectively* reject the men who are pushy, creepy, or douchey. But do you find doing that difficult, since they are usually attractive?
Betas sometimes won’t approach cold. I think it’s sufficient to get into their personal space and stay there. You don’t have save a wimpy beta’s soul by being direct, but it helps to strongly signal that you won’t reject him.
@Travis
It’s just a theory, but I think most guys have a lot of alpha in them, they just need a woman with the patience and ability to bring it out of them. They need their ego’s stroked a bit. And, no offense to the ladies, but that’s a skill that the modern, American woman seems to be severely lacking in.
This is related to something another man brought up earlier in the thread. (For some reason, I can’t find his comment. But it’s late and my eyes are tired, so . . .)
His point was that while the Manosphere is teaching men valuable relationships skills, nobody is teaching anything to women, and that posts like this (however sensible) only sidestep the issue that a woman should be working on what she can bring to the table as well. (I believe his exact insinuation was that telling women to find “betas” is like telling men to find overweight feminists . . . That is, it’s telling them they can reach no higher and might as well give up.)
Now, I happen to agree with what Susan is saying about avoiding the “alpha” red flags and filtering for more “beta” traits . . . but her point and the aforementioned commenter’s point don’t seem mutually exclusive. You’re right that a lot of modern women don’t seem to know how to build up a (desirable “beta”) man’s ego and that nobody is breaking the steps down for them.
Correction: betas will almost never approach cold.
@Courtley
I see your point about fat women/mother qualities to an extent, and agree that convincing people to feel sexual attraction may not be productive. Still, mother qualities are not at all at odds with physical sexiness. You don’t have to figure out the “balance” of motherly qualities with sexiness as one has to figure out the balance between beta/alpha traits.
@Susan
Yeah the terminology is nearing uselessness. Everyone seems to have different definitions of beta; ranging from unable to be assertive to choosing not to being overtly dominant.
I’m not sure why the only dating advice for guys to follow is something that, if implemented fully and correctly, would to be a sociopathic cad. (maybe Dogsqaut is creating the middle ground) I think it has benifits in inner-game, but the mentality of it is still rather “cad”ish, IMO.
It’s all about not valuing a single particular women, and ever seeking variety (self-serving) mentality – no?
@Hope
Aw, I fought with myself to not buy Diablo 3 – so far. I’m more a console-guy, so I’m on Max Payne 3 and Dragons Dogma next week.
I know I’ll probably get sucked into Diablo eventually, but honesty seeing Star Wars: Old republic (which didn’t captivate me) selling for half price already is discouraging.
@Susan,
Thanks. By the way, I just wanted to mention how much I appreciate what you’re trying to do with this blog. I think if our society is going to survive and be healthy, men and women are going to have to get a lot better at communicating, and stop buying into this “us against them” mindset. So far, yours is the only blog I’ve found that doesn’t seem completely adversarial towards the opposite sex. (and that goes for men’s blogs on relationships, as well as women’s)
@Ted,
Hey, dude! Glad to see you still around. I was browsing the archives, and your posts specifically stood out to me as being closest to how I feel about all this. I specifically found myself nodding and agreeing every time I saw one of your posts.
And I kind of expected to get that kind of response from women. But my point is that they shouldn’t TELL a guy he needs to act more dominant. That’s just going to cement in his mind that she DOESN’T find him strong or dominant. What I propose women do is to TREAT him as if she DOES find him strong and dominant, even if he’s not at first. I think most guys will respond to that by thinking “Gee, she actually thinks I’m this strong, confident guy, and she likes that. I’m not gonna’ disappoint her.” And as a result he starts to ACT in a stronger, more confident manner because he believes that’s what she expects from him.
It’s kind of like when I was a kid. My parents didn’t tell me “Don’t steal, it’s wrong.” Instead they told me “You’re such a good kid. I KNOW you won’t steal. You have more character than that.” As a result, I felt like my parents were proud of me and thought I was this moral, upstanding person. And I didn’t steal. Not because I thought it was wrong. But because I didn’t want to let them down or disappoint them.
Hopefully that makes sense…
Liza – as a fellow INTJ I completely understand the “shield” concept. In fact, what you described in regards to shielding yourself from men is how I treat just about everyone in the world. And, I can assuredly tell you that IME you cannot find a person to connect with while you are actively blocking. This is exactly why every single women I’ve been in a LTR with has been introduced to me through my social circle. For me, it is only in the company of my friends and the comfort of a familiar environment that I feel safe enough to let all those layers of protection down, and only then am I receptive enough to even acknowledge IOI’s from a woman.
I will be the first to admit that allowing yourself to be that “exposed” is some scary shit. I actively refuse to let my guard down in public, regardless of who I’m with. The thing is, once I allow someone into my ‘inner world’ they are not subject to my active blocking attempts. I can and do walk around fully “guarded” with my SO and she is none the wiser because how I treat her never changes. However, now that we’ve been together awhile, she can easily tell if I’m at ease, or if I’m in guard mode by looking at how I am acting. By that I mean, I project what I want the people around me to see, and it changes depending on where we are. It is usually whatever is expected for the environment I am in.
Cooper, I played the original Max Payne, but I didn’t pick up the sequels. I’m not very into shooters, and Diablo is more about theorycrafting “builds” and random loot/stats like other RPGs. My husband tried out SWTOR but didn’t like it much at all, so I think that game doesn’t have the same appeal. Plus SWTOR has a monthly fee, whereas D3 is free after the box purchase (like Guild Wars). You’re probably too young to have played D1 and D2 (although I didn’t play them either). A lot of guys in their late 20s and older are big fans of the series and have been waiting for over 10 years for this. It’s much, much bigger, like the Avengers of video games this year.
Travis,
You’re still not getting it. As always, men and women are very different. Yes, it would be logical for women to try to cultivate these characteristics in a man, but as Ted said, it then loses its value to most women. In a woman’s eyes, the guy only changed because she had to make him change in some form or capacity, and that breeds resentment in women. Women just want men ‘to know’ and ‘to be’ without any work on their part.
Now you might say “well, women actively look to change the ‘bad boy’ and they don’t resent him if he truly changes some’. Well here is where the female hamster will come out full force. First, it is rare that this happens, but if it does, she will justify the change by not thinking she made him change, but by concluding that ‘he always had it in him’ and ‘deep down he really was a good guy’. Funny how that works.
Travis…”I’m just wondering if anyone has addressed why women seem to see the “bad boy” types as fixer uppers, but beta types as lost causes.”
To the extent this is true, I’d guess it’s because it’s easier to imagine someone else changing his/her behavior than it is to imagine oneself feeling attracted to someone who is currently unattractive.
Male version: If a girl is has some nice personality attributes but is extremely unattractive, you are most unlikely to think, “Well, if she’d just lose 20 pounds and wear different clothes and let her hair grow out and not walk slouched over like that, then she’d be pretty hot and I could go for her.” The electrochemical analog computer that does the attraction analysis doesn’t seem to have a what-if feature.
As a kid supposedly once said, “I sure am glad I don’t like broccoli, because if I liked it I’d eat it, and I hate it”
Susan, your hamster is showing.
Come on. Pretty girls start dating in High School (or, at the very least, talk constantly to their friends about the boys in school). And they spend just as much time in class with the Betas as they do with the Alphas. And they absolutely notice those clumsy guys who stare at their tits.
(And, at worst, they start dating in college where everything I just said is still true.)
I am not saying that she has to date that clumsy guy, but she definitely notices him.
You know, there is a reason why they go to the bar in the first place. It’s not like there is some law that says they must go to some place where a glass of beer costs $5 and it is hard to hear one another.
@Hope,
That’s EXACTLY what I’m talking about. A little bit of that can go a LONG way towards building a guy up. I’ve seen quite a few beta guys undergo a major transformation as far as confidence and strength are concerned once they started dating the right kind of woman. It’s like night and day. On the flip side, I’ve also seen how dating the WRONG woman can completely emasculate and “beta-fy” guys, as well.
@Bellita,
“His point was that while the Manosphere is teaching men valuable relationships skills, nobody is teaching anything to women, and that posts like this (however sensible) only sidestep the issue that a woman should be working on what she can bring to the table as well.”
I completely agree. But I think a lot of guys would just assume that this is common sense. (Obviously, it’s not.) And therefore wouldn’t think to mention it.
One thing that’s really stood out to me reading relationship blogs like this (both from the male and female perspective) is how INCREDIBLY ignorant most of us are as to how the opposite sex thinks. There are things I’ve discovered that most women just automatically assume guys know about how they should behave, that I can honestly say that, in my experience most guys have absolutely no clue about. We just automatically assume that the opposite sex KNOWS what we want, because it’s so obvious to us, and all the males/females (whichever the case may be) that we’re friends with. But the more I read, the more painfully obvious it becomes that this isn’t the case…
Good Will Hunting
Now, there was a realistic movie.
@Hope:
“JP, video game addiction is not that bad if managed under tight self-control. When my husband and I really get into a game we can play upwards of 40+ hours a week, but we still go to work, go to sleep at a normal time, take care of the house/yard/cooking/chores, and have plenty of sexytime. Of course that will change with a kid, but we still have four months of waiting. We can’t re-decorate the nursery every day, and we’re not TV people.”
I just wish I could get the ten years of my life from 14-24 back.
I eventually shifted my video game addiction into financial analysis/speculation, international politics, metahistory, and metaphysical speculation and the like.
In fact, that’s how I ended up at this exciting blog in the first place.
@Hope
I’m always on Xbox Live cause the party-chat system is fabulous.
I did actually play D1/D2; in fact, I was once banned by Blizzard for 2-year for hacking too much (duping items, using spells in towns) lmao, good times.
Ugh, your making me want to go download it now. But then I won’t see a living-soul for far too long. Not buying it is such a losing battle..
@Escoffer:
“One reason is because they are shy and afraid of girls so they don’t make themselves visible.”
I was only shy around women I had crushes on. I couldn’t really approach them even if they were sending me signals.
On the other hand, I could spend all the time I wanted to around women in whom I had no interest. Which is why I always dated women in whom I had no initial interest.
I think a lot of guys have been there. I also think quite a few of them married those girls.
@Susan,
Yes, ditching the “bitch shield”when it is appropriate.
@Ted
Yes, the “shield” is very easy to hide behind as an INTJ. Ted, you’re probably an Empath like I am, at least that is what I get from your comment. As an Empath, the “shield” can come in handy because it can be very draining feeling everyone around you emotions including your own at times.
JP, yeah, I can certainly understand that, if it became an issue for you. My husband and I have had tons of readings/conversations about metaphysics, science, politics, interpersonal dynamics and evo psych stuff. But sometimes it’s fun to just have our couple bonding activity be a mindlessly entertaining loot-fest.
Cooper, that’s funny. My husband joined a totally legit group in Diablo and didn’t do any online hacking or cheating. He was generally the goodie goodie. I’d use cheats in single player games, but not in online games. I also had this thing about not insulting or ganking/killing other players in games. Needless to say I wasn’t able to do multiplayer shooter games.
@Susan
“Whether those guys can or even want to morph from bull to wolf at a later date remains to be seen.”
A lot of that depends, I think, on exactly what kind of woman the dude encounters. If he keeps running into easy, low-self-esteem-but-high-entitlement Sexually Liberated Unencumbered Tarts (S*L*U*Ts) every time he turns around, yeah, kid in a candy store. Why settle? Especially once he learns Game?
But then that one happens by who triggers responses in you that you didn’t realize you had — you recognize a woman who has the true potential to be a high-quality mate for reasons that have nothing to do with her job description or her educational level or her bust size. You find out that she wants kids, and you’ve always known you want kids. You see several extremely admirable qualities in her that set her apart from the run-of-the-mill girls you’ve been boinking. This one really has potential.
Indeed, you realize that, with the right kind of woman, just what kind of man you could become: father, husband, Daddy Bear, Lord of your domain, surrounded by generations of your tearful descendants on your deathbed. And you realize at some point that, yeah, trading your short term relationships for easy pussy for a long-term lease on extremely responsive pussy (if you do it right) is not a bad kind of deal at all.
From there you start your DD, but the real Wold Alpha, once he has made up his mind and has “gone his own way” toward an outstanding mate and a future of family life . . . well, like the Bull Alpha, there’s not much that’s going to stand in his way.
JP, yeah I was like that too.
Liza, I hope you don’t mean empath like Deanna Troi.
@ Susan Walsh
You enjoy being a jerk
To the contrary, I find it lonely and artificial. I will say, having once been married to someone who “loved but was not in-love” with me, that it’s a hideous mistake to marry someone you’re not sexually attracted to, for their “ability to provide,” which makes one feel like little more than a john.
And yes, of course I know that the Ivy Leagues and many of my bosses are very high-earning females. But those women still prefer strong, masculine, confident, assertive men, anyway.
Im not saying one must always be a cad – I admit somewhat ashamedly I’ve been.pretty promiscuous – but even (perhaps especially) alphas have self-control, and we ‘jerks” will tend not to cheat if we’re in love.
I realize this post is for women – particularly young women, as is this blog.
But attraction IS fairly hard-wired – ask anyone who’s gay or hi or whichever.
Men don’t care much for being used, either – whether it’s as an ATM or a big sister with testes.
@Marie
Yeah, I’m thinking mostly of guys under 25 in bars. I have definitely found that the beta pals want nothing more than to graduate to alpha status, and once they get a taste of asshole game, they often go with it. This is the Impostor Asshole I referred to earlier.
I think bars are fun, and you never know. But the odds of your future husband approaching you cold in a bar are very, very slim. If a cute guy does strike up a convo and ask for your number, that’s great. Just keep your eyes wide open as you get to know him. I know two women getting married this summer who met their fiances in bars. Of course it happens. The problem is that way too many young women rely on this as a primary strategy for meeting people, even when they know it’s not effective.
I can also say that the “PUA” lifestyle – work, gym, nightclub, repeat – seems pretty damn lonely, to me at least, a beta with a brittle and gstrangling layer of “alpha.”
And the thought of washing down Cipromax with Red Bull and vodka is not, at my age anyway, particularly appealling.
I remember being a “good” husband and prior to that, being a “good ” boyfriend. I felt rather like a dupe towards the end, as if any kindness, generosity, deference, or caution was met with contempt.
But needs, even those dirty and despicable male needs, have a way of being met, one way or another.
I would love to be head over heels again, but I rather doubt the state of the world today is producing a surplus of dream girls, or even marriageable women.
@Cooper
I think Game in and of itself is very useful. It’s a form of self-development that will definitely improve the way men interact with women. It’s the application of the concepts that gets tricky. As you say, Game practitioners and teachers run the gamut from benevolent LTR-oriented approaches to saying and doing anything to get laid by someone for one night only. I think every man has to decide for himself what he wants, what he is comfortable doing, and which tools he feels are most useful for his personality. Some guys will be more oriented to teasing or “cocky funny” than others. No one is drawing on a blank canvas, we all have personalities already.
I especially like the quote in the post by Mark Manson, who writes Postmasculine. He was a successful PUA for years, and he writes very honestly about his experiences and his thoughts on Game. His blog is well worth a read.
1 2 3 … 6 »
{ 6 trackbacks }