Can Beta Males Succeed?

[Deepcurrentz]

Firstly I want to thank this community for sharing knowledge and wisdom so generously. I've lurked for a while but feel I finally need to ask a question that I haven't been able to figure out myself.

I've read Chase's "How to Text a Girl", Owen Cook's "Blueprint Decoded", Mark Manson's "Models" and Will Storr's "The Status Game". These books were all phenomenal and dovetail on some common themes that also gel with my own observations about social dynamics. Mainly, that status is a reality of our primordial evolutionary programming and is the most reliable quality for igniting attraction in women (if not through direct social proof, preselection, and frame control, through its physical/energetic manifestation in confidence). All the great teachers show the need for high status behaviors and inner beliefs, to eradicate neediness, and to make the girl invest more in you than you in her.

I don't dispute that this is the truth. I know this path will get you the most sexual success with women by far, and is the strategy that most women will respond to, as the vast majority of women are sexually submissive and want a dominant, smooth alpha male to take the lead.

But as far as LTRs, I have seen exceptions in my own social groups of my attractive female friends happily dating more "beta" mid-status guys, who aren't weak but do not possess great confidence or frame control. The guys are attractive, pleasant, and fun to be around, but not at all dominant. In fact the girls seem to lead more in their relationships.

I've also asked two female friends what they think about alpha and beta males (I know the binary is scientifically inaccurate and limited in theoretical utility, but the girls understood what I meant) and they both told me they "love betas" without irony. One girl told me betas make better partners, because they're care-takers while alphas are less agreeable and want to fuck other girls. Common game theory would suggest this to be an example of concealed preferences, but it's backed up by her actions because she's a hot girl who actually is in a happy ltr with a gentle, kind, softer guy.

That said, after I asked her if it was different for casual sex, she quite candidly told me that girls prefer alphas for hook ups because sometimes they just want to "feel like a piece of meat". She also said she knows it can be confusing but its all about context.

I've witnessed this phenomena of women actually loving and caring for more "beta" mid-status guys enough times that "Fresh & Fit" or Roll Tomassi interpretation of ice-cold "hypergamy" just doesn't seem universally accurate. I wanted to ask the more experienced guys if this is just a rare archetype of woman that defies general programming, if this is a result of shifting cultural norms (greater status for girls, lower status for young men, cultural encouragement to be kind beta that doesn't rock the boat), or if there is another explanation. Thank you.

 

[topcat]

No idea. But if you get the chance, pull the boyfriends aside and ask if they fuck their girlfriends as much as they’d like and if she does everything in bed they wish they could…

Ask them how much of the things they love, they’ve had to temper in order to keep gf happy, or even how many things and what they do to keep gf happy.

That might be rather telling.

 

[Kent]

I'd also be curious to hear the results of that suggestion from @topcat

I've seen similar couples from several of my slutty college friends whom are engaged or married to guys who are the "one-down" in their relationships. It may be a combination of cultural programming and a defense mechanism from being burned by previous experiences as the one-down. I'd hate to be in this type of relationship, as these girls openly flirt with me in front of their husband/boyfriends to the point it makes me feel uncomfortable. While they may be affectionate and love their partners, there is an element of deep respect missing, and I have doubts as to how long these relationships will last.

 

[Conquistador]

Being a “beta” won’t get you high levels of success with women. But if you just want a stable women to bear your kids, it tworks IF your culture/religion are providing a supportive framework.

Historically, most European and Asian, and many Native American, societies have been built mainly by monogamous average dudes.

The reason we’re even having this whole discourse (the Internet is frankly obsessed) is because the system is under a lot of pressure. I don’t believe it’ll break completely because it’s self-correcting and almost every statistical measure suggests that we’re actually past the high water mark.

 

[Will_V]

Firstly I want to thank this community for sharing knowledge and wisdom so generously. I've lurked for a while but feel I finally need to ask a question that I haven't been able to figure out myself.

I've read Chase's "How to Text a Girl", Owen Cook's "Blueprint Decoded", Mark Manson's "Models" and Will Storr's "The Status Game". These books were all phenomenal and dovetail on some common themes that also gel with my own observations about social dynamics. Mainly, that status is a reality of our primordial evolutionary programming and is the most reliable quality for igniting attraction in women (if not through direct social proof, preselection, and frame control, through its physical/energetic manifestation in confidence). All the great teachers show the need for high status behaviors and inner beliefs, to eradicate neediness, and to make the girl invest more in you than you in her.

I don't dispute that this is the truth. I know this path will get you the most sexual success with women by far, and is the strategy that most women will respond to, as the vast majority of women are sexually submissive and want a dominant, smooth alpha male to take the lead.

But as far as LTRs, I have seen exceptions in my own social groups of my attractive female friends happily dating more "beta" mid-status guys, who aren't weak but do not possess great confidence or frame control. The guys are attractive, pleasant, and fun to be around, but not at all dominant. In fact the girls seem to lead more in their relationships.

I've also asked two female friends what they think about alpha and beta males (I know the binary is scientifically inaccurate and limited in theoretical utility, but the girls understood what I meant) and they both told me they "love betas" without irony. One girl told me betas make better partners, because they're care-takers while alphas are less agreeable and want to fuck other girls. Common game theory would suggest this to be an example of concealed preferences, but it's backed up by her actions because she's a hot girl who actually is in a happy ltr with a gentle, kind, softer guy.

That said, after I asked her if it was different for casual sex, she quite candidly told me that girls prefer alphas for hook ups because sometimes they just want to "feel like a piece of meat". She also said she knows it can be confusing but its all about context.

I've witnessed this phenomena of women actually loving and caring for more "beta" mid-status guys enough times that "Fresh & Fit" or Roll Tomassi interpretation of ice-cold "hypergamy" just doesn't seem universally accurate. I wanted to ask the more experienced guys if this is just a rare archetype of woman that defies general programming, if this is a result of shifting cultural norms (greater status for girls, lower status for young men, cultural encouragement to be kind beta that doesn't rock the boat), or if there is another explanation. Thank you.

I've noticed a trend of something along these lines that is characterized by how couples hold hands. Typically to feel dominant you have your hand in front, because you are leading the other person and they are following. If you try holding hands with a girl where you're at the back, you'll know how different and weird it feels - I've had a girlfriend who was pretty strong personality try to do it with me and I simply refused and told her that I'm the man and I lead.

But lately I see a substantial number of hot girls leading guys around. Typically the girl is relatively tall, with a strong personality, is far more aware and alert than he is to what is going on around her, and like any 'alpha' will immediately avoid locking attention with you to maintain sense of control, even when she's curious. She is essentially the frame-maintainer of the relationship who is responsible for keeping things as they are.

I have no idea what the relationships are actually like, but think about it for a little while. We live in a time where a girl can do pretty much whatever she wants, openly, without repercussions, while guys are struggling to try and bend their frames fast enough to still have a chance. It seems likely that this would be a situation where:

1. The girl has grown up sans strong male figures, and her point of reference of her femininity is skewed far toward masculinity.
2. Since she is the dominant authority in the relationship and knows that she's a lot higher smv (which means the guy is likely to bend hard to her frame), she can probably bang other guys for fun as much as she wants.
3. She keeps him around because he's someone she can come back to when she needs comfort - just like a pet.
4. He's a man but pretty much entirely under her control - which typically makes a woman unhappy but remember she's free to satisfy all her urges on the side as much as she wants.

This is speculation, but it's obvious to me that the psychology of the relationship is very different and because of the reversed dynamics, many predictors of what a man will do or be tempted to do apply to the woman here instead.

I have no idea what kind of sex life they have or how long the relationship would last, but frankly I think we can all make a pretty good guess.

As far as how this fits in with the typical 'hypergamy' theories - hypergamy describes the raw nature of women in pure competition, it's like some kind of simple mathematical predator/prey model. It is useful as a beginning but doesn't take into account the society someone lives in and all the powerful influences they come under that offer them validation, recognition, and social rewards. The same way that every person has things that their nature urges them to do that may be completely incompatible with the norms of the society they live in.

People are extremely adaptable and conformist as a rule, despite the fact that as you pull them away from their nature, they become proportionally unhappier and less stable. In this day and age it's very clear that a person can live an entire lifetime of unhappiness and 'quiet desperation' because of how easy society makes it to continue along the same path, and how difficult to diverge.

 

[ulrich]

Well, one important element of a how mating works that is rarely discussed, even here, is people’s need of companionship.

Mating is multidimensional… people are not only gaming because they have a physiological need for sex… there are needs for companionship and considerations of how sex interact with status.

If we could separate those elements and isolate the physiological need for sex, then yes, stereotypical alphas would be plowing all the girls then leaving them once and again.

But because we use sex as a tool to confirm and manipulate social status (this person is fucking this person, meaning they have XYZ attraction status) and as a tool to start/maintain companionship relationships… things get messy and you can get very different results for people with different priorities.

Can a “beta” win the game of attraction and capitalize on making women horny to fuck hundreds of them? I doubt it.

Can a “beta” win the game of companionship by displaying long term value that is more desirable for a husband relationship? Yes, he can.

But be aware, though, that sexual desires are a physiological need regulated by hormones and when it comes (to you or your girl), it will come in strong and take precedence over other considerations.

 

[Gram]

You've hit on an issue close to home.

I think a lot depends on culture. Having watched my mother, my sister, my wife, and my daughter I can say that in my experience America is a pretty hostile place for a woman compared to say Denmark. Primarily because of the lack of affordable child care, a woman in the United States who wants to have kids is going to be at a disadvantage in the workplace and most likely (but not always) will lose some portion of her career to childcare. When something happens at school, they call the mom. I take my two kids to the dentist and they ask "Why are you doing everything?" It's crazy.

Tack on to this the fact that most healthcare comes through a job. If a mother takes a year off to raise her baby she needs a mate for both income and healthcare. There are exceptions and I know women doing both but for the most part the woman who wants a career and a family will need a mate with strong economic prospects. She can select on appearance and personality but in the US, for her success, she needs a strong economic prospect. So she MUST include betas in her search. And she needs a mate that won't cheat on her and betas are probably a safer choice in that respect.

In Denmark, alternatively, where there is government funded childcare and generous maternity leave, I suspect women can select their mate based on personality, looks. The mate can be a complete deadbeat but fuck like a beast and she still gets the economic security she needs to be both a mother and a worker.

I won't go into the merits of either economic system or tax issues but this has been my experience. With that, I believe that in the United States a beta can advance fairly far. We've all seen the Hot-Crazy Matrix for women but for men I'd venture its Alpha Fuck God vs Abilty to Earn Income. And in America income-earning is heavily weighted.

All this may be my perspective only, but that's because until I got into these forums I was a super likable high earning potential beta. I still am super likable and high earning but... I grew up with this scarcity mindset with women. I wanted them to like me. I was needy. Do not get me wrong, I have dated and fucked some super hot girls, and.... I lost them because I no clue how to be an alpha. They were younger (and I was younger) and at that age they weren't thinking "stability" but "hair pulling orgasm".

My wife is good looking, smart, and funny, and... her Approval Engine is a fine-tuned machine that continually tries to break my frame. For years she has been the dominant force, setting frames... and while I can't say it isn't completely one-sided, there has been a lack of male-female polarity.

To answer this question from topcat:

But if you get the chance, pull the boyfriends aside and ask if they fuck their girlfriends as much as they’d like and if she does everything in bed they wish they could…

The answer is 'No'.

To give you hope, I will say that I am turning things around but the process is slow, difficult and challenging norms in our household. I am becoming seductive in all areas of my life, having a great time with it flirting and chatting up women, but on the homefront it is a slow process of moving from a beta provider to a sexual provider. (I think Skills did an excellent job with this write-up on Alphas and Providers., fwiw).

So betas can win the girl but be prepared for a boring monotous sexlife.

If you want an LTR with a high-sex drive woman, particularly if you are in the United States, I'll give some advice:

1. Until you do #2 and #3, take your time being exclusive. Get with a lot of girls. Understand their dynamic, their games, what makes them tick.

2. Determine who you are economically. Get your financial life in order even if you don't have money. Per my first bullet - relationships in counties are either sex-based or economic-based. If you are in a country like the United State, get your financial shit in order (or your philosophy, even if you don't have money) and establish who you are economically. I recommend Mr Money Moustache's priority list.

3. Do everything on the blog and forum to become a skilled seducer, an alpha.

4. Move into the Unicorn corner of the Hot-Crazy Matrix because you have your economic house in order and you fuck like a god.

5. Live a life where you are in control because you set the frames, particularly the economic frame and the sex frame. The two largest cause of conflict in any LTR are economics and sex. And you've mastered both.

Betas may get the girl but not the life.
TJR

 

[orkie123]

I find it interesting how often it's compared that beta = financial/comfort provider, and alpha = sex provider. And I've heard that it's quite hard to be both.

But I cannot understand why that is the case? Is it because an alpha does not need to be a provider, hence they don't do it, or is it something else? Is someone who is alpha necessarily someone who takes more action than a beta or is it just in how they present themselves to the world?

Is an alpha guy more likely to ask for a promotion at work or start their own business? And if so, wouldn't that also mean that they are more likely to be a better provider as well?

Is there any distinction between how an alpha guy spends his money versus a beta? i.e. are there any trends that betas are better at saving/investing long term or something?

Surely there are guys who are both sexual masters and good with money, who are okey with monogamous relationships and thus get the highest quality girls too? Or does being okey with monogamy automatically mean that you are forsaking your dominance and thus losing the alpha qualities?

 

[ulrich]

I find it interesting how often it's compared that beta = financial/comfort provider, and alpha = sex provider. And I've heard that it's quite hard to be both.

But I cannot understand why that is the case? Is it because an alpha does not need to be a provider, hence they don't do it, or is it something else? Is someone who is alpha necessarily someone who takes more action than a beta or is it just in how they present themselves to the world?

Specialization.

A big reason for why many guys are not skilled seducers is because they chose to focus on money-making skills earlier in life (this is sometimes genuine and sometimes used as a cope… in any case, many guys believe it to be true for them).

Now, these “money-making” skills usually refer to getting a good and stable job which, while financially saavy it is far from being sexy and non-conducive for seduction.

We constantly get guys asking questions on the line of “why women aren’t impressed if I have such a great job?”

Here is the thing… growing in a job and seducing women are not exclusive goals… but time is scarce and guys will normally sacrifice one for the other.

So, TLDR… it’s a subtle mix of reality, choosing priorities and coping.

 

[TestY]

"Can Beta Males Succeed?"

In my opinion, the question is framed in the wrong way. Can a submissive man who lets his woman wear the pants "succeed" in the relationship? This is almost per definition "losing".

A better question would perhaps be: "Can men and women work as companions in a team, without the man needing to be "one-up" to his woman? In my opinion, the answer is yes, and I do believe that Tony Robbins' "Ultimate Relationship Program" is a good example of this.

Karea and others have recently discussed such a question related to attachment styles.

 

[Will_V]

I find it interesting how often it's compared that beta = financial/comfort provider, and alpha = sex provider. And I've heard that it's quite hard to be both.

But I cannot understand why that is the case? Is it because an alpha does not need to be a provider, hence they don't do it, or is it something else? Is someone who is alpha necessarily someone who takes more action than a beta or is it just in how they present themselves to the world?

Is an alpha guy more likely to ask for a promotion at work or start their own business? And if so, wouldn't that also mean that they are more likely to be a better provider as well?

Is there any distinction between how an alpha guy spends his money versus a beta? i.e. are there any trends that betas are better at saving/investing long term or something?

Surely there are guys who are both sexual masters and good with money, who are okey with monogamous relationships and thus get the highest quality girls too? Or does being okey with monogamy automatically mean that you are forsaking your dominance and thus losing the alpha qualities?

I think it's less of a question of what's possible and more about where things naturally end up.

The stereotypical 'alpha' animal is one who can get pretty much anything they want by whatever means they choose, because they are the strongest and most capable. They do not need to do what they don't want to do, they have access to the best females by virtue of their dominance, and they are free to pretty much do as they please.

The stereotypical 'beta' animal is one that needs to find another way to secure the things they want. They have to provide a strong benefit both to the group as a whole and to females to secure any kind of lasting sexual access or security for themselves and their position.

You can see already that provision is something alphas lean away from (since they don't need to, so why do it?) and it's something that betas lean into (as a way to prove themselves useful enough). And that's where you get the whole idea of alphas being the ones who impregnate the females while the betas provide and care for the female and the offspring while the alpha is out making other conquests and expanding his kingdom, creating a (somewhat) stable balance.

Does that mean that you can't have an alpha that provides and cares for a female and his offspring the way that a beta does? No, but things don't happen just because they are possible, they happen because the sum of the forces involved in the situation push in that direction.

Modern civilization is a thin veneer on top of the natural forces that operate in the wild. It's a powerful veneer in its own way, but it must withstand the tension of where things would go if left to their own devices, and the natural forces always threaten to make a sudden and violent correction to what society has tried to manufacture. Besides which, things that are artificially diverged from their natural course tend to produce strange, convoluted expressions in individuals as they struggle to deal with the resulting confusion of a reality that would otherwise be intuitive.

 

[orkie123]

Here is the thing… growing in a job and seducing women are not exclusive goals… but time is scarce and guys will normally sacrifice one for the other.

So, TLDR… it’s a subtle mix of reality, choosing priorities and coping.

I agree that prioritisation (and action) of which skills you develop is crucial in life. I also think that a lot of the skills which help you become financially successful are very transferable to seduction. Think there were a few articles on similarities between sales and seduction in GC.

In my view, "betas" are more likely to spend time developing technical skills which give them a baseline salary that might be higher than the average "alpha" but who makes more money? The engineer who works his ass off to develop the product, or the sales guy who knows how to build and maintain relationships with the top clients?

If someone is very good at seduction, they'll have an easier time transferring those skills to money making if they wished. The reverse is not necessarily true for technical skills.

I think it's less of a question of what's possible and more about where things naturally end up.

The stereotypical 'alpha' animal is one who can get pretty much anything they want by whatever means they choose, because they are the strongest and most capable. They do not need to do what they don't want to do, they have access to the best females by virtue of their dominance, and they are free to pretty much do as they please.

The stereotypical 'beta' animal is one that needs to find another way to secure the things they want. They have to provide a strong benefit both to the group as a whole and to females to secure any kind of lasting sexual access or security for themselves and their position.

You can see already that provision is something alphas lean away from (since they don't need to, so why do it?) and it's something that betas lean into (as a way to prove themselves useful enough). And that's where you get the whole idea of alphas being the ones who impregnate the females while the betas provide and care for the female and the offspring while the alpha is out making other conquests and expanding his kingdom, creating a (somewhat) stable balance.

Does that mean that you can't have an alpha that provides and cares for a female and his offspring the way that a beta does? No, but things don't happen just because they are possible, they happen because the sum of the forces involved in the situation push in that direction.

Modern civilization is a thin veneer on top of the natural forces that operate in the wild. It's a powerful veneer in its own way, but it must withstand the tension of where things would go if left to their own devices, and the natural forces always threaten to make a sudden and violent correction to what society has tried to manufacture. Besides which, things that are artificially diverged from their natural course tend to produce strange, convoluted expressions in individuals as they struggle to deal with the resulting confusion of a reality that would otherwise be intuitive.

That makes sense but leads me to 2 more questions:

If you take a natural animal alpha, say in a chimpanzee community, do they actually not provide more for the tribe than the betas? They are the ones who fight challengers to provide safety and stability, they are the ones leading the community into territories for food etc. The betas provide only what pretty much any chimp could do. There is less skill and risk involved in what the betas provide.


And when it comes to seduction, surely an "alpha", who has the means to get what he wants, choosing to provide for a woman make him even more attractive? The guy might have no reason to do it, because he doesn't need to, but society, spiritual, religious reasons are massive influences as well like you said.

The reason for these questions is that I feel like the "beta provides" "alphas mate" doesn't make sense to me. In my view, alphas provide more and therefore they get more women. What alphas provide is considered higher quality than what betas do - i.e. an Alpha might provide extreme attraction emotions and pure passion, security due to strength and confidence, ability to rise through society due to being able to get what they want and so on.

Betas provide being nice, comforting, ability to earn money to pay for the basics - i.e. something that pretty much anyone can do and more so now that women can do it themselves with the low risk of violence in the developed world.

I guess that still translates to "the alphas mate" and then the betas pick up the slack when the female cannot lock down the alpha to help with the more basic requirements, but that feels more like a choice rather than a rule.

And to link it back to OP's question - Asking if Beta males can succeed is the equivalent of asking "Can I provide less and still get what I want out of life" and then the answer becomes " it depends on what you want". If you want the top girls and top men to respect you, then no. If you are willing to settle for lower quality girls, interactions and respect from men, then yes.

 

[Bill]

Pretty sure this is a common belief, “alpha fux, beta bucks”. Women sleep casually with a “alpha” guy but then settle for a beta guy for stability.

 

[orkie123]

Pretty sure this is a common belief, “alpha fux, beta bucks”. Women sleep casually with a “alpha” guy but then settle for a beta guy for stability.

I guess I don't like this belief because it makes it seem like a binary choice between "alpha" and "beta". For me, it is a continuous scale based on value that one provides. The value is some subconscious sum of sexual, societal, personal values and morals, character etc with a strong initial emphasis on biological/sexual attraction.

Just because someone is doing less, does not mean that they do not provide more value. It's just harder for a woman to keep a guy around if he is too high value, so she doesn't settle for a beta guy, she just settles for someone who is at a level of value which can be maintained long-term. Girls sleeping with guys beyond their value is probably a simple value calibration tool (i.e. how do you know you can't keep him if you don't try?) or pure pleasure seeking in which case they just want someone good enough to make them feel good who is more likely to be an experienced higher value guy.

Seems to be the reason why more masculine women find it harder to keep long-term partners. Their expectation of value from a man is based on what they provide as a masculine woman, which men don't value in the same way so it creates a disbalance where neither gender feels they are getting a good deal.

 

[Will_V]

If you take a natural animal alpha, say in a chimpanzee community, do they actually not provide more for the tribe than the betas? They are the ones who fight challengers to provide safety and stability, they are the ones leading the community into territories for food etc. The betas provide only what pretty much any chimp could do. There is less skill and risk involved in what the betas provide.

That's an interesting way of putting it .. 'provide safety and security' for a beta is known as 'securing my interests' to the alpha. 'Leading the community' for a beta is 'conquering and expanding my empire' for the alpha. Those interests just happen to overlap.

I believe chimps also operate in basically what amounts to a gang, so I don't think beta chimps avoid fighting at all. There will always be multiple opponents and as good a chance as any to be killed.

With lions, the males will basically duel for the top spot, but in return they pretty much don't have to do anything else, the females hunt food and all they do is patrol and keep other lions at bay.

The flip side is that while an older female lioness always has a place in the group and others will provide food for her even when she can't get it herself, a male lion is pretty much destined to die by starvation or mauling. That is the price he pays for passing his seed along and having a brief but very dominant position at the top.

In the end, there is a sort of balance of investment. An alpha always will end up having to fight any kind of competition, since his ability to do so and win is what puts him in the top spot to begin with. Whether it's better to be the strongest and most dominant and have all the females and best food, for a while, or be lower down in the ranks and have very restricted access to females and food, and perhaps live a bit longer, is a question every animal has to weigh. The opportunity to try his hand is always there but failure is the end of it all.

And when it comes to seduction, surely an "alpha", who has the means to get what he wants, choosing to provide for a woman make him even more attractive? The guy might have no reason to do it, because he doesn't need to, but society, spiritual, religious reasons are massive influences as well like you said.

He doesn't need to be any more attractive, because typically female animals do not choose their partners, they simply submit to the victor. Even women, as politically incorrect as it sounds, are only partially in control of their own sexual attraction.

Society changes a lot of things, but the thing to realize is that the balance tips toward the natural state without effort, and always leans in that direction, especially at the subconscious level. And going against it is swimming against the current.

The reason for these questions is that I feel like the "beta provides" "alphas mate" doesn't make sense to me. In my view, alphas provide more and therefore they get more women. What alphas provide is considered higher quality than what betas do - i.e. an Alpha might provide extreme attraction emotions and pure passion, security due to strength and confidence, ability to rise through society due to being able to get what they want and so on.

No they don't necessarily provide more. Alphas are an opportunity for a beta to get more than he otherwise would, but the beta by no means has the better share.

Think of it like the hot girl who has the fat friend, the friend gets the opportunity to be around all the quality guys chasing the hot girl, and might have a chance here and there, but who actually has the choice and the power? And the fat friend has to provide a lot of value, submit to the hot girls authority, and so on just to keep her place.

Betas provide being nice, comforting, ability to earn money to pay for the basics - i.e. something that pretty much anyone can do and more so now that women can do it themselves with the low risk of violence in the developed world.

I guess that still translates to "the alphas mate" and then the betas pick up the slack when the female cannot lock down the alpha to help with the more basic requirements, but that feels more like a choice rather than a rule.

The betas don't have any choice at all. Think about the huge percentage of guys not getting laid, and when they do it's an ltr with some girl they aren't really attracted to, where she wears him out, stops giving sex after a while, and ends up divorcing or cheating on him.

And this is in a culture where guys are already overinvesting in women as a standard. If all these beta guys started demanding the kind of relationship that an alpha gets effortlessly, without changing anything else about who they are, they wouldn't get the time of day.

And to link it back to OP's question - Asking if Beta males can succeed is the equivalent of asking "Can I provide less and still get what I want out of life" and then the answer becomes " it depends on what you want". If you want the top girls and top men to respect you, then no. If you are willing to settle for lower quality girls, interactions and respect from men, then yes.

Your conclusion that betas provide less is erroneous, because although what alphas give might feel like a lot to betas and females who have relatively very little, to the alpha it is nothing compared to what they keep for themselves. And the things they cannot expand infinitely through conquest, such as their own time and commitment, are hardly given out at all.

Whereas betas will work all day, do the shopping, fix the house, change diapers, cuddle his wife all night while she's on her period, etc. He provides less in terms of dollars but far more relative to what he keeps for himself.

That's not to say that a man shouldn't (or wouldn't) want to do some of these things anyway .. but the mind is shaped by circumstance far more often than the other way around. But since he will live with the consequences, it's up to every man to consider what he believes is right and just for him.

 

[orkie123]

That's an interesting way of putting it .. 'provide safety and security' for a beta is known as 'securing my interests' to the alpha. 'Leading the community' for a beta is 'conquering and expanding my empire' for the alpha. Those interests just happen to overlap.

I believe chimps also operate in basically what amounts to a gang, so I don't think beta chimps avoid fighting at all. There will always be multiple opponents and as good a chance as any to be killed.

With lions, the males will basically duel for the top spot, but in return they pretty much don't have to do anything else, the females hunt food and all they do is patrol and keep other lions at bay.

The flip side is that while an older female lioness always has a place in the group and others will provide food for her even when she can't get it herself, a male lion is pretty much destined to die by starvation or mauling. That is the price he pays for passing his seed along and having a brief but very dominant position at the top.

In the end, there is a sort of balance of investment. An alpha always will end up having to fight any kind of competition, since his ability to do so and win is what puts him in the top spot to begin with. Whether it's better to be the strongest and most dominant and have all the females and best food, for a while, or be lower down in the ranks and have very restricted access to females and food, and perhaps live a bit longer, is a question every animal has to weigh. The opportunity to try his hand is always there but failure is the end of it all.

I agree that the reason why people or animals do things matters and that distinction can be felt and valued by others. For me though, the responsibility is there all the same. If the alpha stops expanding or improving territory to provide food for the rest of the tribe, it's likely his days as being the alpha are numbered.

He doesn't need to be any more attractive, because typically female animals do not choose their partners, they simply submit to the victor. Even women, as politically incorrect as it sounds, are only partially in control of their own sexual attraction.

Society changes a lot of things, but the thing to realize is that the balance tips toward the natural state without effort, and always leans in that direction, especially at the subconscious level. And going against it is swimming against the current.

In a small community or tribe, that seems logical. But when it comes to a community where most people have access to millions of potential mates, is there ever just 1 victor? There is always someone who is "more attractive" then you. I.e. If a girl had to choose between two similarly alpha guys, but one puts a bigger chunk of his free time to do chores or spend time with the kids, surely she would pick him?

P.s. this is part of why I don't like the beta/alpha idea at all. For me, it only holds true when there is "The alpha" in the group or community. There are very few, if any true alphas in the developed world. Just lowest value, low value, middle value, high value, super high value and extreme high value and everything in between.

No they don't necessarily provide more. Alphas are an opportunity for a beta to get more than he otherwise would, but the beta by no means has the better share.

Think of it like the hot girl who has the fat friend, the friend gets the opportunity to be around all the quality guys chasing the hot girl, and might have a chance here and there, but who actually has the choice and the power? And the fat friend has to provide a lot of value, submit to the hot girls authority, and so on just to keep her place.

I think I may not have expressed myself well, because I agree with you here. I just think that providing value does not equate to effort. The hot friend provides more value just for being hot, whether she worked for it or was dna given. The fat friend is prioritising her effort badly and therefore even though she is doing a lot more, isn't getting the same returns for it.

Some business owners do very little in a company, apart from providing strategy and ensuring it is executed. The employees do all the effort, but often, if it wasn't for the business owner's knowledge/risk taking/capital etc, that company would not be successful and those people wouldn't have a job. Who provides more here? I personally think it's the owner even if he spends 90% of his days sleeping with new girls and chasing new experiences with all the money his employees make him.

The betas don't have any choice at all. Think about the huge percentage of guys not getting laid, and when they do it's an ltr with some girl they aren't really attracted to, where she wears him out, stops giving sex after a while, and ends up divorcing or cheating on him.

And this is in a culture where guys are already overinvesting in women as a standard. If all these beta guys started demanding the kind of relationship that an alpha gets effortlessly, without changing anything else about who they are, they wouldn't get the time of day.

This is another reason why I don't like the beta/alpha idea which is for similar reasons to I don't like psychological or personality tests:
It doesn't help people, it just makes them feel good by justifying their position.

For example, "Oh I don't like the traits of an alpha" or " I was born a beta" or "Oh I was born to be shy and creative, that's why I'm not a good leader". It just puts people into boxes that discourage them from taking the actions and risks needed to become better. People need the tough love that they are only beta or a bad leader because they haven't taken the time to develop the skills to be good. Are some people more naturally inclined to be better at certain things? Sure, but I bet it's not as much as people think it is.

I believe that if every low value guy started to sort his shit out, the world will become both more fair and better. There appears to be diminishing returns to how much value you can bring, so if people put in the effort, I think it would reduce the gap of inequality for both finances/sex and free time to do what you want.

Your conclusion that betas provide less is erroneous, because although what alphas give might feel like a lot to betas and females who have relatively very little, to the alpha it is nothing compared to what they keep for themselves. And the things they cannot expand infinitely through conquest, such as their own time and commitment, are hardly given out at all.

Whereas betas will work all day, do the shopping, fix the house, change diapers, cuddle his wife all night while she's on her period, etc. He provides less in terms of dollars but far more relative to what he keeps for himself.

That's not to say that a man shouldn't (or wouldn't) want to do some of these things anyway .. but the mind is shaped by circumstance far more often than the other way around. But since he will live with the consequences, it's up to every man to consider what he believes is right and just for him.

Personally I think this is a fault in the belief system of low value guys. It's why when I read "No more Mr nice guy" I understood how many of my own beliefs were wrong or limiting. Equating effort to value is a belief that is clearly not true in today's world. Value is linked to results, and to get results, you need to develop the right set of skills based on the situation and continuously adapt to ensure that is still the case.

If I can do a job in 30 minutes that earns $10k, which normally would take an employee 6 months of hard work to do at a salary of £3k a month ( exaggerating here), then who is providing better value?

From my limited experience, when girls complain that guys don't do enough around the house, they are not complaining on the lack of help around the house, but on the value that the guy brings compared to how little they do around the house. So if a guy steps up his game and starts earning more, starts being more exciting, mysterious, strong, then she is less likely to push him to do chores.

 

[Will_V]

I agree that the reason why people or animals do things matters and that distinction can be felt and valued by others. For me though, the responsibility is there all the same. If the alpha stops expanding or improving territory to provide food for the rest of the tribe, it's likely his days as being the alpha are numbered.

Sure, it's a responsibility, but mainly to himself.

In a small community or tribe, that seems logical. But when it comes to a community where most people have access to millions of potential mates, is there ever just 1 victor? There is always someone who is "more attractive" then you. I.e. If a girl had to choose between two similarly alpha guys, but one puts a bigger chunk of his free time to do chores or spend time with the kids, surely she would pick him?

Depends, but yes there is variability in individual preferences that is shaped by upbringing, life experiences etc.

The way I understand it, what a woman likes generally is a guy who is high status among his immediate peers. It's not so much a question of whether he's the best in the world but whether his day to day experience is one of leading or being led, dominating or being dominated, taking opportunities or being taken advantage of. That can occur at all kinds of different levels of society.

And yes, she may have certain preferences about him - no doubt shaped partly through the kind of father she had - that may or may not be stereotypically alpha.

P.s. this is part of why I don't like the beta/alpha idea at all. For me, it only holds true when there is "The alpha" in the group or community. There are very few, if any true alphas in the developed world. Just lowest value, low value, middle value, high value, super high value and extreme high value and everything in between.

Everything humans perceive is judged through the lens of relativity. The kind of guy who can make an impact at the local bingo club is not the same as the kind of guy who will make an impact at the oscars. Because the world cannot be categorized easily into distinct hierarchies and hierarchies of hierarchies, so it is more about how he differentiates positively from his immediate surroundings.

I think I may not have expressed myself well, because I agree with you here. I just think that providing value does not equate to effort. The hot friend provides more value just for being hot, whether she worked for it or was dna given. The fat friend is prioritising her effort badly and therefore even though she is doing a lot more, isn't getting the same returns for it.

The friend might not be prioritizing badly, it may be her best opportunity. But it is far less than the hot girl.

Some business owners do very little in a company, apart from providing strategy and ensuring it is executed. The employees do all the effort, but often, if it wasn't for the business owner's knowledge/risk taking/capital etc, that company would not be successful and those people wouldn't have a job. Who provides more here? I personally think it's the owner even if he spends 90% of his days sleeping with new girls and chasing new experiences with all the money his employees make him.

So yeah, he's 'providing' (since in modern times actual provision is usually required rather than simply retracting a threat). But the sacrifice he's making is relatively small.

This is another reason why I don't like the beta/alpha idea which is for similar reasons to I don't like psychological or personality tests:
It doesn't help people, it just makes them feel good by justifying their position.

For example, "Oh I don't like the traits of an alpha" or " I was born a beta" or "Oh I was born to be shy and creative, that's why I'm not a good leader". It just puts people into boxes that discourage them from taking the actions and risks needed to become better. People need the tough love that they are only beta or a bad leader because they haven't taken the time to develop the skills to be good. Are some people more naturally inclined to be better at certain things? Sure, but I bet it's not as much as people think it is.

First of all it's a very simplified theory of social dynamics, not an exact representation of the world.

As for everyone being able to be alpha, I don't know. Like most things that people wish they could be or do, I don't think it's impossible literally, but the level of self denial required for most people is simply beyond practical acceptability. When you are something, how do you change to another thing without already being it in some way? Nobody can exist in an undefined state.

I believe that if every low value guy started to sort his shit out, the world will become both more fair and better. There appears to be diminishing returns to how much value you can bring, so if people put in the effort, I think it would reduce the gap of inequality for both finances/sex and free time to do what you want.

I think it would make things more competitive, but beyond that it's not clear to me that everyone suddenly becoming alpha would make things any better. Nature created all things for a purpose, and created forces to support the differences between things, so that they could all work together in harmony.

The only person who really needs to change, in my opinion, is the one who suffers the existential pain of living contrary to his nature, and in this case his nature is already of another sort. For those who don't suffer like that, trying to change might simply result in the failure to find any stable identity at all.

Personally I think this is a fault in the belief system of low value guys. It's why when I read "No more Mr nice guy" I understood how many of my own beliefs were wrong or limiting. Equating effort to value is a belief that is clearly not true in today's world. Value is linked to results, and to get results, you need to develop the right set of skills based on the situation and continuously adapt to ensure that is still the case.

If I can do a job in 30 minutes that earns $10k, which normally would take an employee 6 months of hard work to do at a salary of £3k a month ( exaggerating here), then who is providing better value?

Absolutely, and there could be many reasons for why you had that belief to begin with. That's why freely available information is a good thing, so that the person who needs it can find the next piece in the jigsaw puzzle of their own reality.

From my limited experience, when girls complain that guys don't do enough around the house, they are not complaining on the lack of help around the house, but on the value that the guy brings compared to how little they do around the house. So if a guy steps up his game and starts earning more, starts being more exciting, mysterious, strong, then she is less likely to push him to do chores.

Agreed, that's how women communicate, not clearly and logically but with emotional reactions to specific things that are only partially related to the underlying problem.

I think it's not hard for all guys to reach a level of respectability that can secure them a good and lasting relationship with a reasonably good woman that they choose carefully, even if they are not particularly 'alpha'. The problem is that most people are simply not in the driving seat of their own lives, and do not have the humility to take on the task of developing and consolidating their limited capacities as if it were the best opportunity they ever had.

 

[orkie123]

Agreed, that's how women communicate, not clearly and logically but with emotional reactions to specific things that are only partially related to the underlying problem.

I think it's not hard for all guys to reach a level of respectability that can secure them a good and lasting relationship with a reasonably good woman that they choose carefully, even if they are not particularly 'alpha'. The problem is that most people are simply not in the driving seat of their own lives, and do not have the humility to take on the task of developing and consolidating their limited capacities as if it were the best opportunity they ever had.

Appreciate this discussion, learned a lot and opened my eyes to quite a few ideas I had not thought of before.

The frustration in me comes from friends who use ideas such as this as an excuse to not improve themselves. I'm not perfect, but at least I know that the reason I'm not where I want to be is completely in my hands and is my responsibility.

I don't like it but you are right, everyone has a role and it probably isn't helping to push certain ideas to everyone, as if they are not going to act on it anyway, it's only going to confuse or hurt them.

 

[Deepcurrentz]

I appreciate the feedback and interesting discussion.

I'll ask the boyfriends about their sex lives the next time I see them at a social gathering, otherwise I think it would be a bit awkward lol. But as far as I can tell, they seem very happy with their relationships. Worth noting again that both the guys I'm using as examples are above average-looking and well-accepted in our friend group, so they don't match the geeky mental image that the word "beta" may bring to mind. They're both very nice and enjoyable to be around, so they provide social value in this sense.

I agree with Ulrich and Will_V's views of specialization. These guys are specialized to optimize for "beta" qualities. Their agreeableness, supportiveness, and kindness could not be expressed at the same level if they also sought to shape behaviors to express dominance, leadership, competitiveness and other alpha qualities. With only 24 hours a day and a limited amount of expressed behaviors per social interaction, I suppose a man can be balanced or lean towards either "beta" or "alpha" archetypes.

I also agree with Ulrich's point about companionship. Some aspects of a woman's personality may prefer the more supportive, agreeable boyfriend, even if their sexual arousal system prefers other behaviors. Notably, I know that one of the girls I mentioned has a "beta", coddling father, which may have influenced her imprint of male behavior.

In Will Storr's "Status Game", he mentions how just as everyone has different thumb prints, everyone has different amygdala, serotonin systems, and other core hormonal and neurological structures that influence personality. I believe some people are genetically predisposed towards more pro-social, supportive behaviors, while others are more naturally inclined to strive for dominance and individual glory (of course non-genetic influences like cultural conditioning, trauma coping mechanisms, self-improvement and inner work etc also play a huge role). This is why I raised the question, because I think the core "alpha" seduction qualities could be a forced, unnatural fit on a decent percentage of men, who may be better off optimizing for their natural strengths. So perhaps it is best for the natural betas to just be the best person they can be within their nature - kind and supportive, without being a weak doormat - and there are some women who will love them for it.