What modern women want: a beta male: Men are surrendering in the sex war

**novaseeker** · 15th-January-2009

Something I came across -- a Times Online article from a couple of years ago.

Some pertinent excerpts:

This creates a shift in the way women view marriage. With their increased earning power, women are less hung up on the Jane Austen model of finding a providing husband. “Women can choose a man who has charm and looks, instead of going for the grumpy, ugly alpha just because he is solvent,” says Penelope. So is this a liberating thing?

For young women this shift in economic power has given them new choices. But what about the men? While it is true that many older men seem stuck with the “man as success object, woman as sex object” idea and would never contemplate marrying a ball-breaking alpha earner, men in their twenties and thirties seem to be redefining masculinity.

Having grown up with successful women such as Margaret Thatcher and Madonna as role models, and with popular culture awash with fantasies of all-powerful women, from Lara Croft to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, men are not so uncomfortable with the woman in control. This value system recognises the trend of female supremacy, which while not as yet the norm seems to be pointing the way for future relationships.

Also the comments are revealing, such as this one from a young woman in Seattle:

I practice the beta male relationship and love it. My current boy friend is really my maid. He does all the house work and when I come home from work he is ready to fix me a drink, rub my feet and pamper me. I really believe more and more males are accepting woman as superior and it is about time.

===================

1. Do you think it's really the case that men in their 20s and 30s are redefining masculinity to a large degree to accept female supremacy? That strikes me as being wide of the mark -- what I see are a lot of men dropping out of the game, having as much casual sex as possible, and turning away from marriage in increasing numbers. What do you all think?

2. The rhetoric of this article is very revealing. The desire for female supremacy -- not equality -- is unmasked and openly advocated, both in the article and in the comment I cited.

Do you really think that this is a trend? What I expect is that there will be some female-led relationships, some male-led relationships, and less marriages overall -->> but I would be rather surprised if women en masse suddenly decided to become attracted to beta males in preference to alpha males --> that seems contrary to my own personal observations. Of course, it's nothing new for women to *marry* beta males because they cannot get an acceptable alpha male to marry them or they prefer the security of a beta male to an alpha male, and if these marriages turn out to be alphaf/betam relationships, they would very likely be female-led ... but I don't expect that, aspirationally, large numbers of women would seek these relationships out as their ideal. I would also expect that women in these relationships would, at some point, find themselves attracted to alpha males to whom they are not married. In fact, I think this happens in quite a few marriages today, even though these marriages are not explicitly female-led. In fact, the idea of women preferring the nurturing beta male doesn't square with either biological imperative, or female eroticism (as portrayed in romance novels, for example), although the nurturing male may make for a better companion. The sexual spark will have to come from somewhere else, and probably from a man outside the marriage.

**Otis the Sweaty** · 15th-January-2009

1. The chick (if it really was even a girl) who wrote that comment is making that shit up. People write bizarre shit on the internet all the time. I don't put any stock in it.

2. The article is bullshit but I see articles like it all the time. The fact is though, it really is just a pop culture phenomenon. All the TV shows show women being large and in charge but only women and girls are stupid enough to believe it reflects reality. Most guys think so little of women that they don't mind it when women have delusions of superiorty.

3. I believe that Feminists do want equality, but equality is just as offensive to me as female superiority. Women are inferior to us in every possible way and for someone to claim that men and women are equal is disrespectful to men.

4. Manginaism has spread very far amongst upper middle class white professionals in the West, but it is non existant amongst blacks, hispanics and other parts of the world which are not feminized. Even a wealthy country like Japan is super patriarchal.

5. Although it is hard for me to explain, a lot of guys, even otherwise dominant alpha male types, like to fantasize about women being in control of them. As a result, they tolerate or enjoy TV and movies featuring "strong womyn" but don't take is seriously.

**brian44** · 15th-January-2009

Could it be that the two main roles of the alpha male have now been replaced? The state provides protection and the career provides for the material needs. Men have been reduced to a combination of live in maid and six foot sex toy.

**brian44** · 15th-January-2009

Quote from novaseeker

2. The rhetoric of this article is very revealing. The desire for female supremacy -- not equality -- is unmasked and openly advocated, both in the article and in the comment I cited.

It's one of the two endgames I expected. The other is even more extreme: the partial or complete phasing out of men.

**novaseeker** · 15th-January-2009

Quote from brian44

Could it be that the two main roles of the alpha male have now been replaced? The state provides protection and the career provides for the material needs. Men have been reduced to a combination of live in maid and six foot sex toy.

It could be. But of course the main role of the alpha, on the base level, was to provide alpha genes for offspring. I honestly do think that this is the basic, unconscious, reason why many women seem to be attracted, sexually, to alphas. That's why I think that in at least some of these relationships where alpha women settle for nurturing, more submissive type males, there will be female sexual needs going unfulfilled, and a greater risk for adultery. Then again, I suppose a true female supremacy model would give the woman license for extramarital relationships to satisfy her sexual needs, which would be viewed as more legitimate than her beta husband's needs. That's "kind of" what Michelle Langley argues in her book on female infidelity -- her take is not explicitly female supremacist, but she *does* think that women should have this license.

5. Although it is hard for me to explain, a lot of guys, even otherwise dominant alpha male types, like to fantasize about women being in control of them.

In my experience these fantasies, often sexual in nature, are not really about female control, but about the male fantasy of female control. In other words, the fantasies are about a type of female control that emphasizes male fetishes and sexual needs, rather than a type of female control that emphasizes female needs (like, for example, a female need for the husband to do all the housework, to permit her to have other sexual outlets while restricting his own, etc.). There's a pretty big gap between what would be female control in reality, on the one hand, and what passes for female control in male sexual fantasy, on the other.

It's one of the two endgames I expected. The other is even more extreme: the partial or complete phasing out of men.

I have also had similar thoughts.

To be honest, although it is chilling, I think that the latter is more realistic because it will be quite hard, I think, to transition fully to a female supremacist model. Not enough men will play along. It will be hard to *force*, given the oddity of human beings compared to other species in having only a very slight numerical advantage of females over males --> that is, there are too many males, in effect, relative to other species. So ultimately the limiting factor in the supremacy endgame will be the fact that there are too many males relative to females compared with other species --> which leads to endgame two. Endgame two is quite feasible due to selective abortion, currently, and, eventually, gender selection on the sperm level (in theory). If the status of males continues to decline relative to females, it's not inconceivable that male children would become increasingly disfavoured, leading to a reduction in the percentage of men in the overall population.

Of course, it goes without saying that trends towards reduction in the male population would have to be accompanied by further social changes that more fully endorsed polyamory as a norm, because this would be made more pressing to ensure continued reproduction.

**brian44** · 15th-January-2009

Quote from novaseeker

It could be. But of course the main role of the alpha, on the base level, was to provide alpha genes for offspring.

That was the driving force for evolution in the past. But women weren't attracted to alphas because of their good genes, but more likely the women who were attracted to those kind of men were more likely to have successful offspring that could, in turn, pass on that trait. Since civilisation began, different qualities may have become attractive to some women which were more important for survival in the modern era than in pre-civilisation times. And evolution is supposed to be extremely adaptive and change in a surprisingly short time when different environment challenges are thrown up. Maybe we are entering one of those step changes that take place in dozens of generations rather than hundreds?

Quote from novaseeker

I have also had similar thoughts.

To be honest, although it is chilling, I think that the latter is more realistic because it will be quite hard, I think, to transition fully to a female supremacist model. Not enough men will play along. It will be hard to *force*, given the oddity of human beings compared to other species in having only a very slight numerical advantage of females over males --> that is, there are too many males, in effect, relative to other species. So ultimately the limiting factor in the supremacy endgame will be the fact that there are too many males relative to females compared with other species --> which leads to endgame two. Endgame two is quite feasible due to selective abortion, currently, and, eventually, gender selection on the sperm level (in theory). If the status of males continues to decline relative to females, it's not inconceivable that male children would become increasingly disfavoured, leading to a reduction in the percentage of men in the overall population.

Of course, it goes without saying that trends towards reduction in the male population would have to be accompanied by further social changes that more fully endorsed polyamory as a norm, because this would be made more pressing to ensure continued reproduction.

What really disturbed me back in the '70s when I heard hysterical lesbians calling for an all female utopia, was that they said it would one day be possible to make women pregnant with an X Chromosome from another woman. So women would be able to breed with each other without sperm. The Y chromosome would become redundant and one day cease to exist. That would really be the feminazi's final solution wouldn't it?

**novaseeker** · 15th-January-2009

Quote from brian44

That was the driving force for evolution in the past. But women weren't attracted to alphas because of their good genes, but more likely the women who were attracted to those kind of men were more likely to have successful offspring that could, in turn, pass on that trait. Since civilisation began, different qualities may have become attractive to some women which were more important for survival in the modern era than in pre-civilisation times. And evolution is supposed to be extremely adaptive and change in a surprisingly short time when different environment challenges are thrown up. Maybe we are entering one of those step changes that take place in dozens of generations rather than hundreds?

These are good points.

It very well could be that we are in the midst of a "step change" that will take a few hundred years to play out, rather than the longer time frame for other evolutionary adaptations. My own sense is that our civilization is changing at a pace that is faster than our evolutionary model can adapt -- 24 generations is approximately 500 years, and it's easy to imagine in 500 years a complete dystopia in terms of sex relations, but it's even easier to examine it happening sooner than that -- that is, sooner than even a relatively quick step change could occur.

But it's an interesting thought -- it could be the case that the ascendancy of women is part of a broader evolutionary trend that will culminate in females being attracted sexually more to what is known as a "beta" phenotype, which would, in effect, reverse attractional patterns we've seen so far, to date. Of course male attractive patterns would also have to adapt, to focus more on female status and less on female beauty. All of that is possible, but again my own sense is that the pace of cultural change is outpacing the ability of the species to adapt, biologically, to the new environment in time for the adaptations to be relevant -- but it's an interesting thought, as I say.

What really disturbed me back in the '70s when I heard hysterical lesbians calling for an all female utopia, was that they said it would one day be possible to make women pregnant with an X Chromosome from another woman. So women would be able to breed with each other without sperm. The Y chromosome would become redundant and one day cease to exist. That would really be the feminazi's final solution wouldn't it?

Oh yes. And you don't even need to go back to the revolutionary heyday of the 70s to find it. Mary Daly's book "Quintessence" (1999) foresaw a future lesbian utopia where virtually all men and heterosexual women had been eliminated due to their failure to evolve beyond heteronormativity, and where humanity had evolved to reproduce by parthenogenesis -- thereby achieving the radical lesbian feminist dream of complete biological liberation from men, even in connection with the reproduction of the species.

Now of course that's based on bad biology, and was intended as a utopia -- but precisely because it was a utopian feminist vision, it's rather revealing of what at least some of the radicals would *like*, if they could have everything their way. There would be almost none of us left.

A more likely scenario is that once artificial human sperm is perfected -- and that may happen this century -- men will truly become obsolete. At that point, all bets are off, really, for our sex.

**Incognito** · 15th-January-2009

Men will never be "obsolete." Women will always be attracted to men, women will always prefer sex with men over sex with women or sex with inanimate objects...sure there are exceptions to the rule, but the "rule" has been around since the dawn of human existence.

**novaseeker** · 15th-January-2009

Quote from TERA

Men will never be "obsolete." Women will always be attracted to men, women will always prefer sex with men over sex with women or sex with inanimate objects...sure there are exceptions to the rule, but the "rule" has been around since the dawn of human existence.

It's true, but what Brian is pointing out is that evolution is not static. Attractional patterns are an evolutionary adaptation. It's at least theoretically possible that if men are no longer biologically needed, that over the course of time -- perhaps as quickly as 500 years, perhaps quite a bit longer -- that female attractional vectors will similarly adapt to the new circumstances.

**Zuberi** · 15th-January-2009

I don't think so.

**brian44** · 15th-January-2009

Quote from novaseeker

A more likely scenario is that once artificial human sperm is perfected -- and that may happen this century -- men will truly become obsolete. At that point, all bets are off, really, for our sex.

Unless men get there first and develop artificial eggs and wombs!

Imagine a world with beautiful android women to mate with and real human boys grown in artificial wombs. Women would then be redundant.

I like to raise this possibility with women to give them an idea of how redundancy feels!

**novaseeker** · 15th-January-2009

Quote from brian44

Unless men get there first and develop artificial eggs and wombs!

Yes, it's a bit of an arms race, I agree. Which sex will develop the ultimate biological weapon of mass redundancy for the opposite sex?

Imagine a world with beautiful android women to mate with and real human boys grown in artificial wombs. Women would then be redundant

The Stepford Wives scenario.

It's not so far fetched, really, there is work being done (mostly still theoretical work) and books are being written about android intimacy and robot sex.

**Feckless** · 15th-January-2009

Quote from novaseeker

It's not so far fetched, really, there is work being done (mostly still theoretical work) and books are being written about android intimacy and robot sex.

Tyrael knows about that if my memory serves me right....a Japanese guy is inventing sth. Tyrael help me out here....

**MadShangi** · 15th-January-2009

Quote from TERA

Men will never be "obsolete." Women will always be attracted to men, women will always prefer sex with men over sex with women or sex with inanimate objects...sure there are exceptions to the rule, but the "rule" has been around since the dawn of human existence.

True. As much as radical lesbians think they can convert all heterosexual women through propoganda, same with radical gay men thinking they can convert all men into homosexuality with their propoganda. It's just not going to work.

Nature will always prevail, much to their chagrin.