Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Natural States.

"Five minutes of alpha is better than five years of Beta"
(Commentator Whiskey)



A common theme running through the "manosphere" at the moment is with regard to the deplorable state of modern woman. The average Western Woman, after marriage, is percieved a frumpy, fat, fickle and frigid. The accumulating sexual undesirability of the married western woman is reason enough for many to eschew marriage and pursue a life of "pumping and dumping". And to be fair, there does seem to be some justification for this view.

Then of course, there is the female view. Once again, a common theme running through "girly-world" is that there is a shortage of "good men", that is marriageable men. It needs to be understood that these complaints are voiced by both promiscuous and chaste women. The conventional manosphere analysis is that this turn of events is solely the result of feminism and hypergamous female sexuality.   These social phenomena have eliminated the incentives to get married and hence men are "opting out".  Now its worthwhile considering who exactly are these men opting out.

By opting out, we mean men who don't want to get married to other women. (We'll exclude the homos)
From a sexual point of view, these men can be divided into the following groups.

1) Asexual men (rare)
2) Sexual men with the ability to get regular sex. (Alpha)
3) Sexual men with the inability to get regular sex( Beta-Omega)

Next we consider what a woman means by a good man. In girlspeak a "good man" is a man that ignites all of her desires. Considered as a group of attributes, the ideal man has none that are unattractive. The "goodness" of a man declines as do his attributes. Now it also needs to be understood that a good man is not a convenient man, a man who despite his obvious flaws, serves some purpose in marriage. For example, an unattractive beta schlub who is a good provider may be a convenient suboptimal mate but he is no way ideal or good.  Given today's liberal divorce laws she may choose to "trade up" if the opportunity so presents.

Hence when women refer to the shortage of "good men" they are really referring to the group (2) individual, the men who are sexually attractive and who don't want to commit. The group (3) individual is not really a "good man" from a woman's point of view, he is sub-optimal. So when group (3) men talk about "opting out of marriage" they're deluding themselves, since they really weren't first choice in the marriage market to begin with.

The reason I bring this up is because over at Mark Richardson's there has been an interesting discussion going on with regard to opting out of marriage. There is the usual analysis with regard to the matter but its my contention that maybe in some instances the female critics may have a point.

I urge you to have a look.

With the modern redefinition of marriage(a relationship based on an emotional state) and the sexual revolution it is to be expected that women would gravitate towards the alpha males in a form of soft polygamy. The main losers of course in this arrangement were the non-alphas. Whilst I can appreciate a lot of the Beta-Omega pain and angst, a lot of them seem to bear anger towards women for the result, especially the more traditional types. In their view women are bad for wanting alpha males and a society works best when it restricts female choice and channels women through rigid laws and mores, towards beta males. (A doomed concept since our knowledge of hypergamy leads to the conclusion that this state of affairs will lead to tepid sex)

Seeing, that when women are given a free choice, they want to "alpha up", the losers of the arrangement yearn for a time when women were forced to "beta down". This of course is not what happened in the past. Their view of traditional society is wrong.

Social mores and customs did limit the alpha access to women, but it did have a flipside, society also expected men to become alpha. The naturally beta/omega male was not left to his own devices, he did not live as he saw fit, rather society expected him to behave as a man. The beta male, was through shame and social pressure "alpha'd up".  The metro-sexual and gay cultures would have been fringe movements in the 40's as the average man displaying those features would have been beaten up. As I said before, there was strong social pressure to alpha.

With the dismantling of communal culture, what we are seeing in the first world is default to a more primitive state. Perhaps humanity's default setting. Man devoid of social norms assumes his natural state, a small pool of alphas, a mean of betas and a tail of omegas.  For most men, being "themselves", will mean being unattractive to women.

26 comments:

namae nanka said...

"As I said before, there was strong social pressure to alpha."

As much I'd like to believe that:

http://www.angryharry.com/reTheAmericanWoman.htm

during WWII times, men who displayed fear in their letters were promptly shorn off the female empathy that is so in vogue these days.
Lion outside home, mouse in home sounds truer.

And before that the book "fraud of feminism" further illustrates the inherent inequality of the sexes in social life.

In my "male view", betas have been most of the men, and have carried the brunt of oppression.
Taking a trick from the feminist playbook, that'd be my default view for the entire history of mankind until there is ample proof to the contrary.

Novaseeker said...

Mostly true, I think, but I don't expect that men will change much in the years ahead, because they don't have to. If I were in my 20s, I probably wouldn't bother, either, because moving from a beta to an alpha is just one hell of a PITA for minimal ROI (yes there are "good women", but not very many, at least among attractive women).

One point -- if most men are alpha, do you think women are not hypergamous? I would suspect that women would still find a way to sort all of the alpha (even alpha'd up) men into a desirability hierarchy based on some factor or other. I doubt women would then view men as men view women (i.e., mostly attractive, with some exceptions), really. This is a point that has been raised in the Game-o-sphere as well (i.e., if all men adopt Game, then what?), but has always been dismissed because it's clear that all men won't adopt Game.

Dan in Philly said...

FWIW, I used to be a beta, and have changed into alpha. Why? To oversimplify, my second wife made it pretty clear that life would be easier if I was an alpha than a beta, not by telling me I should act this way or that, but simply by being honest with me and showing her contempt for me when I was all beta.

Reflecting on this, I have come to the conclusion that women all have contempt for beta men, but are trained to hide it. I have come to believe they think there is something wrong with them if they accept alpha behavior in men or despise beta behavior.

Of course, the plural of anecdote is not data, but the happiest woman I know are pretty much all married to alphas and the most unhappy to betas. Take that for what it's worth.

Luke Lea said...

For every beta male there's a beta female and vice versa. True or False? Please explain.

Walenty Lisek said...

I suspect part of the beta problem is lack of motivation to change. As Novaseeker pointed out, the ROI isn't that hight. That link to angry harry referenced one of the best quotes about American women, by Helena Kuo, who said "women have succeeded in everything except in the art of being truly feminine"

I suspect that if feminine women showed up, or were available at all, we would see men wanting to change in order to be with them. But with modern women being masculinized, there is little motivation.

But maybe I'm wrong, maybe when the bachelor is ready the wife will appear. I've known a few feminine women in my life and I can tell you that I can 1.) count them on one hand, and 2.) would go the extra mile for that low ROI for changing into an alpha if it meant getting one of them.

Part of the problem is a loop that feeds on itself of masculine women and drop-out men.

occultrick said...

Pressure to act aggressive and hyper-manly is not the same as pressure to be alpha.

I've known real alphas - natural leaders, automatically accepted as leaders. They got insane numbers of women who wanted to bear their babies.

Then there are guys like me - good at getting into fistfights, lousy at getting intimacy.

Maybe I'm a successful instance of society putting pressure on men to be stoic, or achievement-oriented - but nobody could call me "alpha."

The Social Pathologist said...

@namae nanka

In my "male view", betas have been most of the men, and have carried the brunt of oppression.

Imagine being an intelligent woman in Victorian times, what options did you have. Society actively conspired to stop you from being educated. I'm no feminist but the fact is that women got the bum deal for most of history.
Shit, for many years they were considered chattel.

The Social Pathologist said...

Novaseeker.

I probably wouldn't bother, either, because moving from a beta to an alpha is just one hell of a PITA for minimal ROI (yes there are "good women", but not very many, at least among attractive women).

I think its the wrong way to approach the topic. Alpha male status is better than beta male status. Minimal ROI is better than NO return. Personally I think that the ROI is not that small.

There's a big chunk of the manosphere that can broadly be called the "beta acceptance movement" its a lot like the fat acceptance movement. The fatties want to change the world rather than themselves. Much like the betas.

Then there is the practical problem. Suppose a beta does get married. Even in a rigid no divorce environment, the marriage is doomed to a life of sexlessness and "marital duty". Who wants a woman who lies on her back and thinks of England?

A man has to man up for the sake of his own happiness regardless of the opinion of the women. Keoni Galt's own story is the prime exemplar.

What really blows me away is just how many of the manosphere would rather wallow in their misery than make even a modicum of change. It so easy to blame women for everything, it takes away all moral responsibility to change. The excuses that fatties give are pretty similar.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Dan in Philly

I have come to the conclusion that women all have contempt for beta men, but are trained to hide it. I have come to believe they think there is something wrong with them if they accept alpha behavior in men or despise beta behavior.

Testify!!

Loss of libido is a common complaint for many women. It's only a problem for them because they want to feel desire for their partners but cannot. Some women respond to hormonal therapy but most don't. I'm beginning to think that their man is failing to push the buttons.

(I've got this fascinating case going on at the moment which is a perfect example of alpha behaviour igniting absent desire. Unfortunately I can't go any further since the details are so peculiar that the person would be able to identify themselves.)

Women are totally clueless as to how their emotions operate.

The Social Pathologist said...

Walenty Lisek

I suspect that if feminine women showed up, or were available at all, we would see men wanting to change in order to be with them.

Yes it is true that the world operates on rewards and punishments, but how fulfilling is a life of basement video games and smacking the monkey? Perhaps these men are designed to be life's drones, destined to be governed but a superior class of self actuating me. The thing about the cultivated life is that the pleasures are superior.

The Social Pathologist said...

occultrick

Pressure to act aggressive and hyper-manly is not the same as pressure to be alpha.

Agreed.

Anonymous said...

The losers of the arrangement yearn for a time when women were forced to "beta down".

Take away forced wealth transfer and government largess and overnight those beta schlubs would become alpha.

Anonymous said...

"Loss of libido is a common complaint for many women. It's only a problem for them because they want to feel desire for their partners but cannot. Some women respond to hormonal therapy but most don't. I'm beginning to think that their man is failing to push the buttons."

That's very interesting S.P.
I have been married for 14 years to a man whom I love very much. We have our ups and downs..who doesn't.

Our youngest a boy 10 is high functioning autistic. We love him to bits. He is a great little bloke but hard work. (There is a reason I am telling you this and I'll get to it soon..) His behaviours are challenging.. He's a great climber. Been on our roof..and a few others too. Loves scaling fences. Just this week he climbed a high fence at his new school(had barbed wire on top) and got into the playground of a neighbouring school.. He is an intelligent boy, mischievous, with a disarming smile. His teachers and aides all love him... but he IS hard work..


The house is a wreck.. Scribble all over the walls,(we're hoping for another Picasso.. Lol) locks on all doors, as he will often rip chew and break things. No pictures on the wall. He will take 'em off and thow 'em on the floor for the fun of it....

He also has adhd, anxiety issues and ocd.. (and does take some meds-carefully regulated)

A I said my husband and I love him to bits, but of course it has curtailed our freedom considerably.

We hardly ever go out.. (Though this has improved lately as he has been having one weekend a month staying at respite facility run by Red Cross.he loves it)

Part two coming up..

Kathy Farrelly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

So.. (and yes I am finally getting to the point here) over the years our only outlet has been.. you guessed it.. SEX!

Now, I have always had a high libido, but after the birth of our son things in that department were not so good.. Stress, pressure, still some weight to lose... It wasn't so much a lack of desire as less satisfying orgasms...

In the end, I just thought, hey I have two kids, the party's over, just enjoy what you still have..

So I stopped worrying about it. Not that long afterwards I lost the weight and.. it all came back... Better than ever, too.

Because we can't go fishing or camping.. etc.. our main form of recreation, tension relief, fun and expression of love for each other has been sex..

The more sex that we have the less arguments that we have. The more mellow we both are..

It was tough there for awhile (we also have a 14 year old daughter) and I really believe that had we not been reinforcing our bond through frequent sex, our marriage most probably would have foundered, under the pressure.

We are both practicing Catholics, but we are also fallible human beings...Sex is for UNITIVE and procreative purposes..after all :)

So the big upside for us has been better sex over the years.... I send my husband risque text messages.. He will often stop by for a while a few days a week especially at lunch times or when he is working close by..

Sometimes when my daughter is watchimg a movie in the games room at the other end of the house, I will put my son in the shower for 10 minutes (he loves the shower)and dash off for a quickie with hubby.

It's actually an exhilarating feeling.. sorta like you are doing something sneaky and naughty..Sex should be fun.

Too many women neglect this side of their marriage. Boy, I only wish that I could tell them what they are missing out on..If only they would make an effort..

Because sex has really been our only outlet over the years,one of the benefits has been for me, developing the ability to completely block out everything else, kids, the phone ringing, noises..No distractions..

Focusing completely on our lovemaking.

With the end result that I now experience intense multiple orgasms..

I really believe that what goes on up top (in a woman's mind) determines the outcome of what goes on down below..
In other words it is less to do with technique and more to do with what a woman is thinking..

You can try every position in the Karma Sutra.. but if a woman is thinking about what she has to cook for dinner that night, ya got buckley's of making her come..

Anyway, I think that a woman should take responsibility for her own orgasms.. Too much pressure on hubby otherwise..

I certainly took responsibility for mine, doc. :D


Kathy.

Novaseeker said...

A man has to man up for the sake of his own happiness regardless of the opinion of the women. Keoni Galt's own story is the prime exemplar.

What really blows me away is just how many of the manosphere would rather wallow in their misery than make even a modicum of change. It so easy to blame women for everything, it takes away all moral responsibility to change. The excuses that fatties give are pretty similar.


My own perspective -- which I've expressed for some time now on the internet -- is that men need to decide what they want out of life and act accordingly.

If men want long-term relationships with women that are successful, then, yes, they need to "alpha up" or learn Game or what have you. There is no sense complaining about that -- I agree with you there. Female attractional vectors aren't going to change, nor are male attractional vectors. If men wish to be attractive to women, then they need to make themselves attractive to women in ways that count for attractive women. I agree.

However, I don't agree that this is beneficial for *all* men. I'm very, very unconvinced that all men are made happier by being in a relationship with a woman. And I also am not convinced that alphaing up is very beneficial to men who are not interested in long-term relationships with women.

What matters is that men approach how they wish to live their lives intentionally and without bitterness. If you take a bitter guy and alpha him up, he probably becomes a PUA rather than an LTR guy. Similarly, a bitter guy who avoids alphaing up and avoids relationships with women but is bitter about this will also not have a fulfilling life because he is filled with bitterness that takes away from his enjoyment of everything else. The bitterness needs to be done away with, and the way that happens is simply realizing that women have these irrational attractional vectors just as men do, and that getting bitter about that because you do not fit into them very well is pointless. Either adapt, or don't adapt, depending on what you want to do, but either way don't be bitter about it. Take the best from whatever approach you take, and accept the world as it is, I think.

I say this being a guy who is basically out of these markets at this point in my life anyway. But if I were younger and doing the 20s thing again, one thing I would avoid doing is jumping to the conclusion, as I did then, that a long-term relationship with a woman is a necessary key to long-term happiness for all men. I'm very skeptical of that, at this point in my life.

stillcode said...

Another great article SP!

One thing that I would like to mention is that western society's view of what makes a man 'alpha' has also changed over the decades.

I can imagine that a couple of decades ago, a suit-wearing man who was ambitious to climb the corporate ladder, become the boss, a stern yet responsible person, a real go-getter, would have been considered alpha for that era. The kind of man whom others would seek for advice. These men would have been considered alpha because of their wealth as well as their high status in the community and in the workplace/boardroom. Women of the past would have been fighting over each other to be in a relationship with him.

Nowadays, it's the PUAs, felons, musicians, artsy types and aloof non-commitment men who get the most attention from women. These kinds of men are the new 'alpha'.

For many hard-working, responsible, marriage minded and serious betas, becoming the old-style alpha is actually more easily accomplished than trying to become this new-style of alpha. Unfortunately, our modern society doesn't reward men who display traits of the old-style of alpha with the attention and love of women any longer. From my observations in graduate school, I can see plenty of my male classmates who, despite being as ambitious and as driven as they are to achieve great things in life, are not being chased after by any women. Women my age are more likely to reward men who act like the actors in "Jackass 3D" with relationships and sex over the men in my classroom.

I should also mention that there are many other countries around the world where their view of what an 'alpha' man is more closely resembles the ambitious, hardworking, leader alpha American archetype of decades past. My experiences around East Asia, including Korea, Japan and Taiwan showed me that while I may be just a greater-beta in the western world, there are cultures overseas that still adhere to the responsible, wealthy, hard-working, ambitious male archetype as alpha. Not only was I much more popular in those countries, I came to know through experience that the women in those countries would not even consider getting with a native who acted like a PUA, had a criminal record, had no ambition in life, just wanted to play in their band all day, etc...

The upshot of what I'm saying is that, beta men in western countries become alpha in non-western countries. This is not solely because western men are known for their wealth, but because they fit the alpha characteristics that many foreign societies hold.

daflory said...

I think you are using "alpha" and "beta" in a different sense than they are normally used in the manosphere. The terms simply reflect what women are most attracted to in an open sexual marketplace.

The stereotypical beta is a man who is industrious, unexciting, of middling social status, and "good husband material." He simply isn't competitive with more sexually attractive alphas. Personal improvement can shift one's place in the hierarchy, but there are only so many places at the top.

From the perspective of a woman, a beta can only "alpha up" if he becomes among the best available. If sex is restricted to marriage, then "alphas" are quickly taken off the market by their female counterparts, and the "betas" suddenly look pretty good to the women of corresponding status.

rachelnico said...

Wow, great post. I'd definitely have to agree.

A lot of men who I have met who have chosen to opt out aren't doing it out of choice, but due to it being their only resort.

But the thing is that guys just get better with age. So if the opt out at 32, they still have a chance of marriage up into their later-days.

But for females, their options pretty much run out in their late 30s.

The Social Pathologist said...

@ Daflory

The terms simply reflect what women are most attracted to in an open sexual marketplace.

I don't think so. Men who sit in moms basement or who continually crack fart jokes are not sexually attractive. Earning big buck whilst having no social graces does not make one an alpha.

As Keoni Galt demonstrated, you can be a good earner, industrious and conscientious and be an alpha. Hymenowitz's article really should have been titled "Where are all the marriable alpha's?" X box playing software engineer on 100K is not what she had in mind.

@Rachelino

A lot of men who I have met who have chosen to opt out aren't doing it out of choice, but due to it being their only resort.

A lot of men live in the world of delusion. Hymenowitz did not have those men in mind.

Dan in Philly said...

Thought to ponder for the weekend: Why are so many, MANY movies out today celebrating the beta man? "She's out of my league" is only the latest in the long line of wish-fulfillment movies about betas who, deep down, seem to know how to truly love the hottie girl the best, and they get the girl of course.

Is this true of all RomComs, I wonder? Off the top of my head, I'm pretty hard pressed to remember a single one which does not stay on the basic theme of betaman = eventual winner. Given that I was not taught by my father or older brother how to be an Alpha, this is the default world view I bought into for many years.

Thoughts?

Anonymous said...

I am the mother of two boys under 18. I don't see to many good women out there. I want them to have wives that are smart, good looking and loving. However, parents keep teaching girls to be concerned about everything from the environment to a career to world affairs. Talk about a waste of time. What about the home and their own families? I can understand some people with stupid ideas, but so many? It ain't natural. There is no encouragement of marriage even in church, only discouragement of sex. How is that healthy? More like cruel.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Dan in Philly.

Given that I was not taught by my father or older brother how to be an Alpha, this is the default world view I bought into for many years.

This is an interesting point.

Firstly I think a lot of the RomComs in which the beta wins the girl is designed for a male audience. In my experience men are more "romantic" than women and this dramatic theme appeals to them.

I remember my father trying to get several gamish ideas into my head, but the contemporary culture had so poisoned my mind that I was resistant to his ideas. I had drunk the cultural Kool Aid. Prior to the internet, there really was no other avenue with regard to dating advice other than the MSM. But that enforced the cultural meme.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Anon

I am the mother of two boys under 18. I don't see to many good women out there. I want them to have wives that are smart, good looking and loving.

I'm pretty much in the same boat and I worry about this quite a bit. When they get to a certain age, Roissy is going to be required reading. Getting them to act Alpha is not the problem, finding a good woman is. With the pornification of our culture and with social pressure for girls to sluttify this is going to be hard.

One of the solutions that I see is for concerned parents to take a more active role in engineering the social circumstances in which out children meet the opposite sex. Upper class French society have a habit of organising little "get togethers" of children/adolescents from the "right" families. I think there is a lot of promise in that approach.

Kathy Farrelly said...

"In my experience men are more "romantic" than women "

Yes.. I think that you are right SP.

The Romantic poets.. all men. Blake, Wordsworth, Byron, Keats. etc... And a favourite of mine Rupert Brooke..

And, why do you think that men are more romantic than women SP? ;)

modernguy said...

What kind of man would want to "alpha up" into the likes of Charlie Sheen? There is no respectable alpha target to become anymore because this culture has flushed everything morally good and respectable down the toilet. Women, being much more quickly and easily influenced by the common prevailing enthusiasms have been affected more quickly. It's not heartening to any man eager to "alpha up" to see that the kinds of "alphas" getting all the female desire are the stupid thugs and their chain-laden white imitators, or some half-witted jocks whose conscious existence is bounded by a football play book. The alphas of the past - astronauts, soldiers, athletes with at least superficially respectable morals, are not fashionable anymore. Instead we have Charlie Sheens, 50 Cents and Jersey Shore degenerates. Expect men to want to alpha up when there's something respectable to alpha-up into, and "PUA" don't count.