Alpha Gamma Men

Lounge
1

We talk a lot about Alpha men on this forum. I found this article very interesting and I’d like to know what you guys think.

Friday, July 07, 2006 by Chris Taylor

ALPHA GAMMA

“I think where feminism went wrong was placing men and women into some sort of unisex category.”

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3133/2638/320/AG.jpg No, this isn’t about a sorority house. It’s about successful, driven, aggressive women who find a more passive, laid back and less ambitious guy, and whether this works out or not. The designation Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc are from studies of wolves, where different types of wolves in their wolfy society were given Greek letters to designate them. The alphas are the top dog, the most dominant and successful. Betas are the followers and sycophants, and Gammas are the wolves that are more laid back, affectionate, but independent and capable on their own. Gamma Males aren’t interested in leadership, but neither are they in being a follower.

At the Elon Pendulum, a college newsletter, the dynamic is applied to human men and women in this way:
Alpha males are not necessarily the big, strong, football players that most people stereotype them as (although bulging biceps are never a bad thing). Rather a true Alpha male is of a strong and overpowering personality. They are the leaders of the pack, the rebels, the bad boys.

They stand apart from the rest of the Beta males like a wolf in a pack of sheep. I’m not saying that Beta males are baaaaaaaaad, just different. They are the reliable, sweet, sensitive guys. Some are even cute and cuddly. But, as I have said before, most women are attracted to the dangerous Alpha males. Their cocky grins can often set a girl’s heart aflutter from 10 yards away.

Unfortunately, Alpha males don’t often stick around for very long. After all, they aren’t known for breaking hearts—and straw houses—for nothing. The big, bad wolves of the world are fun. But it’s the sheep who are safe and secure. A Beta male may not whisk you off to Rome, but he probably would make you a mean spaghetti dinner at home. Beta males are often more reserved. They respect women and are sensitive to their feelings. Unfortunately they can get too sweet. Sure sheep are cute, but they aren’t really dream material—unless you are counting them.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3133/2638/200/Wolf_Howl.jpgAmazingly there is a third category. A rare crossbreed recently discovered and categorized … the Gamma male. The Gamma male is a wolfy-sheep, or a sheepy-wolf; however you want to think about it. To all appearances the Gamma male may seem like the average Alpha or Beta, but if you look closely he just may surprise you. A startling mixture of raw, sensual cockiness and sweet, respectful adoration, the Gamma male combines both good and bad from the separate species. A definite catch.
Anna Pasternak wrote an article in the UK Daily Male about Alpha Females who find a Gamma Male and try to make a relationship out of it:
At first, it is easy to see the attraction between these disparate types.
The taut, controlled, go-getting female finds a charming, flexible chap who seems to be everything she is not: relaxed, nurturing and fun. So far, so promising. He can help her uncoil and bring romance and much-needed tenderness into her brittle life, while she can provide a lifestyle which is initially thrilling for its full-throttle dynamism.
This was certainly the case between me and my ex, who, at seven years younger than me, was, when I met him, settled in a corporate job in Somerset, coasting along but never going to reach for the fiscal stars. He seemed such a world apart from me and my competitive, high-octane friends that at first being with him felt like taking a holiday from myself. It was a blessed relief.
But she goes on to point out a problem with this seemingly ideal situation:
The rot sets in when the haze of love burns off and lurking resentment on both sides surges to the surface. My ex became irate that the full beam of my focus was on my career, while I was frustrated that he expected me to change when I had never claimed to be the stay-at-home, earth-mother type. We both wanted support and emotional attention that the other seemed unable to give.
In a situation like this, the woman wants her man to pull his weight — mainly financially — and, in a typically direct fashion, lets him know it. He, however, feels emasculated by her capricious demands and seeks to undermine her in an effort to flex his masculine muscle.
Psychologist Dr Pam Spurr put describes the conflict this way:
‘Hard-hitting, driven women are attracted to slightly gentler, more laid-back men because in their subconscious they know they need more of that to get balance in their lives.’
But if opposites initially attract, over time they cause friction because what was first appealing becomes irritating to women and we end up thinking: ‘I want a real man around, not a laid-back wimp.’
She follows up with several examples of women who tried this and saw it all fall apart. The psychologists that she quotes analyze the relationships in terms of the woman’s emotional fragility and need and the man’s feeling threatened by her confidence and ambition, and in the process, seeks a way to tear her down.

While this is plausible, I suggest there are other aspects at work here. Something one of the women she interviewed mentioned might be a helpful thought:

*'My ex waited until I got ill with a kidney infection and then went for me verbally. Instead of bolstering me up, he helped pull me down. *
'He said I was ill because I had worked myself to the ground and insinuated that that made me a worthless sort of person when it came to relationships.

Now, while this was the wrong time to bring this up, the idea that he might have had a point seems to elude this woman entirely. Women used to complain constantly that hard-working men were no good for relationships, that they were working so hard for nothing because they’d be dead by 50 of a heart attack. Death of a Salesman come to mind? Yet when it’s the woman working and driving for success, somehow this is not a factor, it’s simply a way to insult and grind her down.

He may have been using it to attack her when she was weak, or he may have simply been upset at her sickness and said something that had been bothering him for a long time at an inopportune moment. But it’s no less true that a love of ambition and success is going to make one less successful in relationships and damage their health if taken too far. Men or women.

Readers sent in these letters to the editor:
So are women in the UK becoming more like men and the men more like women? Seems to be the case here in the USA also. The West is finished.
-by Denis

A relationship between an alpha woman and a less driven man can work, if he is secure enough in his masculinity not to feel threatened by her career success. Such men exist - I am one.

But the other side of the coin is that the woman has to realize that the man is still a man and needs to be treated with respect, kindness and some reciprocal admiration.

Such a relationship can be wonderful, with each partner contributing something different. It just takes a genuinely secure man and an understanding woman.
-by Chris

What an interesting read. I am one of these rare creatures who believe that your family (kids and husband) come first. These days some women will say they do, but they don’t. Some women put themselves, their careers, their promotions, their friends, their lifestyle, their figures, their possessions first. I look after myself and understand that if I am not healthy and happy then my family will suffer as a direct consequence of this. So, I eat well, relax when I can and have learnt to step back and look at the big picture. My family, not the house we live in or the car we drive are important. If you marry then remember your vows. If you are lucky enough to have children then always put them first, always. If you cannot do these things then you should not have children and should enter only partnerships, never a marriage. You cannot be a part-time Mother or a part-time Wife. The best things in life are free. What is really important to you?
-by Hilary

The points raised are interesting and appear to be valid. However, I strongly object to the term “relationship terrorism”. Terrorism seems to be the “term de jour” these days and is used by people who cannot express themselves adequately with appropriate vocabulary.
-by Sandi
*
Ouch! I know plenty of women fitting this scenario. I have been in the situation in the past and it doesn’t really work. Yes, women want the career and kids but we must take some blame. What women want but won’t admit, is that we want these things when it suits us. The minute we get stressed or decide we want out of the rat race sometimes to rear the kids sometimes not. Then women decide that they need to take a step back, only to find that the man in their life cannot step up to the plate - financially or emotionally. Why? Because he was never that type of man in the first place and what we ultimately wanted was to control everything, including him, which never works.

Support is a strange thing, some women equate it with emotional needs and are happy to earn more than the man in their life if they are getting what they need. Other women want careers but also want the security of knowing that if they want to give it up they can and still be supported. No wonder relationships fail.
-by S.

I think where feminism went wrong was placing men and women into some sort of unisex category. Whether by religion or by Darwin, men are men and women are women. We each have instincts that will always, ultimately, override our theories and emotions. For the most part, dominant or not, women instinctively wish to bear children. Instinctively women wish to nurture those children more than they want to conquer the world. Men, whether they are content on the farm or aim to conquer the world, are protective by nature, of all that they instinctively consider theirs. We can deny reality from here to eternity. The fact is that men, regardless of their softness, are still men and women are still women. A strong man will encourage his wife, regardless whether he or she is the bread winner. But no man is not going to give up being king of his castle and it doesn’t matter how hard he tries to be vogue, nor how much of it she pays for.
-by Frank

Feminism was a wonderful ploy for weakening the nuclear family and getting a majority of women into the work force full time, leaving the nurturing of the children in the hands of the state. Indeed, 40% of marriages now end in divorce. Would you believe that 30 or 40 years ago an American family of four or five could live quite comfortably on a single income?

We humans can be vain sometimes. We think that through force of intellect we can overcome human nature and biology and eliminate the traditional sex roles, which for all their problems have answered many of the psychological needs of men and women from time immemorial.
-by Jay G.

Several similarities appear. The (ex-)wives all refer to ‘my’ money. Hang on - aren’t husbands supposed to call it ‘our’ money or is it a different set of rules for chaps? The (ex-) wives seem obsessed with execising power over their spouse. It is apparently wrong if husbands try that! The women seem to consider themselves ‘alpha’ creatures. So they may be in the world of women. In the world of humans, however, they’re a chromosome short of a full set - and it shows! You really can’t have it both ways. Knuckle down or ship out.
-by Mike

This article makes some good points, namely that Alpha Women will have trouble in a marriage. I think in America, the old stereotype that men resent a woman who makes more than them, is losing ground to the fact that women think any man who earns less than them is a loser. The comment by “S, London” above is right on.
This was the problem in my marriage. Even though I make a (decent, if modest) living, my (ex)wife eventually couldn’t handle the thought of her husband making less money then her and began to verbally humiliate me, eventually causing our divorce.
I think Alpha women may be able to have great relationships, just not sucessfull marriages. Why? It’s like saying I’ll never join a club that would have me as a member. Alpha women want a man to make enough money so that they can work, or not work, depending on their whim, but they still want to be able to control this man. An alpha male wants his women with no career, focused all on him.
-by Dan
Ultimately, the big problems I see aren’t that a driven, successful woman can’t make it work with a laid back less ambitious man. It’s that such a woman is likely to be very selfish, self-focused and work-centered like men who are that sort, and thus are very damaging to relationships they are in. Certainly the man has to take some of the blame, as neither one seem in the examples given to consider marriage a binding covenant that one works through problems rather than abandoning the deal when things get too tough. And certainly the men need to be more supportive and forgiving than they are portrayed (exclusively by the women) in this article.

But men by design are masculine and need respect to continue in a relationship. That’s the key that so many men and women seem to miss - love will come on it’s own, but respect, that’s what you have to give or you’ll create resentment, anger, frustration, and even loathing over time. Stand by your man? Certainly - but respect him even more.*

2

Thanks, so much, to whoever anonymously repped me! :slight_smile:

Glad you liked the article…I still would like to know who you are. :cool:

Bella

3

Okay, so I was a bit confused at first. It seemed like one article..

I don’t really know what to say, my initial impression was that the guys they are talking about in the women’s magazine article seemed like betas, despite the fact that they are very financially secure.

Then my second thought was, alpha, beta, or gamma, it kinda sounds like these ‘alpha’ women weren’t the nicest women, and that these guys wouldn’t put up with it. I guess the fact that they don’t put up with it eliminates the ‘beta’ designation..

I’m surprised to find out that there was already a Gamma designation, I asked about it a while ago with no response. So I figured alpha and beta were the only ones people used..

I’m a little unsure about the apparently strong connection they see between financial success and being ‘alpha’. I’m going to say that there are ‘betas’ out there that are financially successful.

4

your welcome Bella! I had read this article Anna Pasternak wrote a month ago, and found it.. Interesting.

Here is another article pertaining to the one that you posted that shows gamma males in a more favorable light.

(http://www.fmwf.com/newsarticle.php?cat=6&id=918)

5

Sapolsky

Edge: A BOZO OF A BABOON

For the humans who would like to know what it takes to be an alpha man—if I were 25 and asked that question I would certainly say competitive prowess is important—balls, translated into the more abstractly demanding social realm of humans. What’s clear to me now at 45 is, screw the alpha male stuff. Go for an alternative strategy. Go for the social affiliation, build relationships with females, don’t waste your time trying to figure out how to be the most adept socially cagy male-male competitor. Amazingly enough that’s not what pays off in that system. Go for the affiliative stuff and bypass the male crap. I could not have said that when I was 25.
…
The typical male baboon career trajectory is to fight your way to the top while building some good coalitional skills. When you’re relatively high-ranking and if you’re going to stay up there, you switch from physical prowess to psychological intimidation and social skills. But eventually it catches up with you and you finally get into a key fight and get killed or crippled or are utterly defeated and you crash way down. However, every decade you’ll get some guy who’s fought his way up, and six months into his ascendancy suddenly decides, “Who needs this?” and voluntarily walks away from it. They seem to have some sort of epiphanal mid-life crisis and go on to spend the rest of their lives hanging out with infants and forming social attachments with females.

…
On the one hand there’s the view of someone like Robert Ardrey that primate social competition is all about, who’s got the biggest canines, the most muscle, and the biggest balls. This view is straight-ahead and deterministic. Later, a much more p.c. version came along that held that competition is all about social intelligence, forming coalitions, and being nice in your game theory. But what really happens is that you’ll get some baboon that’s absolutely physically adept and by Ardrey’s logic should be doing just fine. He also knows how to use social intelligence to form coalitions, and so by Howard Gardner’s reckoning he should also be doing fine. However, at a critical moment he just can’t stop himself from doing something stupid, impulsive, and disinhibited. Amid the physical prowess and the social intelligence, you look at the baboons that are most successful, and not coincidentally pass on more copies of their genes, and they simply have more impulsivity control.

Here’s an example: When baboons hunt together they’d love to get as much meat as possible, but they’re not very good at it. The baboon is a much more successful hunter when he hunts by himself than when he hunts in a group because they screw up every time they’re in a group. Say three of them are running as fast as possible after a gazelle, and they’re gaining on it, and they’re deadly. But something goes on in one of their minds—I’m anthropomorphizing here—and he says to himself, “What am I doing here? I have no idea whatsoever, but I’m running as fast as possible, and this guy is running as fast as possible right behind me, and we had one hell of a fight about three months ago. I don’t quite know why we’re running so fast right now, but I’d better just stop and slash him in the face before he gets me.” The baboon suddenly stops and turns around, and they go rolling over each other like Keystone cops and the gazelle is long gone because the baboons just became disinhibited. They get crazed around each other at every juncture.

A typical male baboon is too impulsive and can’t possibly do the disciplined thing. Baboons are far less disciplined than chimps and when you map their brain anatomy you notice that they don’t have a whole lot of frontal cortical function. Even though there are tremendous individual differences among the baboons, they’re still at this neurological disadvantage, compared to the apes, and thus they typically blow it at just the right time. They could be scheming these incredible coalitions, but at the last moment, one decides to slash his partner in the ass instead of the guy they’re going after, just because he can get away with it for three seconds. The whole world is three seconds long—they’re very pointillist in their emotions.

Baboons know what they’re doing; they can play chess in their social landscape almost as well as chimps in terms of moving the right pieces around, but at the critical moment they simply can’t stop themselves from doing the impulsive thing. I once watched a Frans de Waal film, Chimpanzee Politics, at a primate conference, and I was sitting next to another baboonologist. There is a scene where some chimp had just pulled off a brilliant Machiavellian maneuver, and the guy next to me turned and said, “Christ, that is what a baboon would be like if it had a shred of discipline or gratification-postponement.” You’re watching a species where most of their social complexity and social misery is built around the fact that at every logical juncture there’s a pretty good chance that they’re not going to have enough frontal neurons to do the prudent thing, and instead they blow it. It’s amazing to study.

…
Ten years ago the evolutionary community would have had a derisive response to this, saying that while this may be terrific, it’s not a very successful adaptive strategy because this guy is walking away from the competitive world of maximizing his reproductive success. Now, however, genetic studies are beginning to show that these guys out-reproduce the slash-and-burn competitive guys, because they last for years afterward without getting seriously injured and form this female affiliate. This is what happened to Benjamin, my bozo of a baboon, who during his brief ascendancy became a jerk. A terribly unlikely civil war had broken out in the troop and it was in the aftermath of every plausible candidate having been done in that he actually managed to stumble into the alpha position for about and was as incompetent as he could be.

He had no idea what he was doing, he was anxious, and displacing aggression onto every possible innocent bystander. Then he had an experience that demonstrated exactly the cognitive limits in a baboon. They’re smart, but they’re not chimps. Benjamin was leading a procession as they were coming back at the end of the day along a path and through some bushes. He’s leading the way, proud as hell of himself. But the fact is alpha male baboons do not lead processions because they just joined the troop a couple of years ago and they have no idea where anybody’s processing – the 20-year old matriarchs do.

But Benjamin just happened to be in front of the troop, heading toward the forest, marching along, never looking back. Unbeknownst to him, the matriarch, who’s two steps behind him, veers off into the bushes to the right, and 80 baboons follow her while he continues walking going straight forward. Eventually Benjamin stops, looks back and freaks out. His hair stands up, and he starts his wahoo calling, which is how he spent a large part of his adult life: “Where is everybody?!” And he then has a moment where you know exactly what he’s thinking. He walks over to my Jeep and looks underneath, like—are 60 baboons hiding under there waiting to surprise him? But no baboons. He sits down by the Jeep, looking really demoralized and vaguely humiliated. This is what he’s alpha for? Eventually he hears baboons burping nearby in the bushes and starts looking for them again—they’re underneath the car! once again he goes over to the jeep and bends over—in this ridiculous position his head between his legs, looking for his fellow baboons. It was a fabulous moment.

For the humans who would like to know what it takes to be an alpha man—if I were 25 and asked that question I would certainly say competitive prowess is important—balls, translated into the more abstractly demanding social realm of humans. What’s clear to me now at 45 is, screw the alpha male stuff. Go for an alternative strategy. Go for the social affiliation, build relationships with females, don’t waste your time trying to figure out how to be the most adept socially cagy male-male competitor. Amazingly enough that’s not what pays off in that system. Go for the affiliative stuff and bypass the male crap. I could not have said that when I was 25.

According to an unexpected finding called female choice it turns out that females have a hell of a lot of control over who they’re mating with, and, irrationally enough, they like to mate with guys that are nice to them! You see this dynamic when some guy from the male-male competitive world pops out and is supposed to be her mate. She wants to run off to the bushes with Alan Alda, and manipulates the social situation to pull this off.

A handful of these guys simply walked away from it over the years. Nathaniel was one, and Joshua was another. They had the lowest stress hormone levels you’ve ever seen in male baboons, and outlived their cohorts. The fact that this alternative strategy is actually the more adaptive one is one of the good bits of news to come out of primatology in quite some time. If that’s the future of primates, this planet is going to be in great shape in a couple of million years.

6

I think it is a very interesting idea and I agree.

I think the stereotypical view of an Alpha male is the alpha male who never grows up. And basically the same for the stereotypical Beta - who never learns to be the man.

I think the Gamma designation is great for the alpha who does mature and becomes the good husband/father, more in tune so to speak. Likewise it also applies to betas who learn to be the man, albeit perhaps a very toned down one compared to the stereotypical alpha.

And I think the writer also erred with the leadership part and we have had this discussion before. While certain alphas may be natural leaders there are a lot who are poor leaders. Likewise you can teach a beta to be a good leader. The military does this all the time and so does the business world to a certain extent. The trained betas may not be the most dynamic leaders, but they may well be better than untrained or undisciplined alphas.

7

I agree with Bosshank, there are many nuances of the kinds of men and the best men are able to work on themselves.

Actually, I think there aren’t just two or three types of men, but you could see the male population as dots a two dimensional graph with alpha skills on one axis and beta skills on the other. Maybe I’ll draw it sometime.

8

I think there is a risk of some confusion here. When one tries to reinvent knowledge that was known to our forefathers there is a risk of doing a sloppy job of it.

Julia Stephenson piece is in fact a declaration that she found a man representing more traditional masculine values (ie an alpha) to be more suited to her then the men with higher social status but lower masculinity.

I don’t know that the alpha label is a helpful one to describe women. To state what is obvious, women acquire social status and exercise power based on different (though sometimes overlapping) mechanisms to men. Social power and status is not the same thing as status and power in the dating market. In particular, in this world being ‘successful, aggressive and driven’ does not necessarily raise a woman’s market value - and there is a chance that if she has lost touch with her feminine core, it might even lower it.

A challenge for women with high social status and power is that it is natural to want a man with even higher standing. The problem is that these men on the whole and as a rule tend not to value the same thing in their own choice of partner, often valuing appearance, youth and various feminine virtues over status and social power. (Apart from anything else, a wife will tend to be elevated to a similar social standing as her husband, even if her origins and standing prior to the marriage were quite humble). This is not a terribly pleasant truth, but it is a truth and one is better off operating on an understanding of the world as it is rather than as one wishes it would be. So given all that, it is not surprising many high status women are willing to trade down on status in order to have a romantically attractive man.

The alpha dimension for a man is not something that he is endowed with at birth. It is a set of universal archetypes that almost anybody could start to express as a result of developing certain experiences and patterns of behaviour. I would speculate that today our social environment means that many fewer men express this archetype compared to recent earlier times; however I would also be open to the idea that there is a very long tem cyclical fluctuation to this expression - a nation of serfs might not necessarily be a nation of alphas.

I use the word expression deliberately. Our thoughts, feelings and experiences modulate the expression in proteins of our genetic inheritance. So our choices and experiences mean we have some influence of which of our possible destinies is made manifest in this world.

The Elon Pendulum article mixes up a few different things. An alpha is not congruent with a bad boy archetype, and neither would a beta necessarily have great respect for women and their feelings (in our world, very often, quite the opposite). Sensitive men might not be natural fraternity assholes (although they might well be tortured-artist bad boys). But if they are not to be found so much as leaders in our age, that might well simply be an artefact of our particular time and place and is unlikely to be an eternal truth. And if one studies some of the lives of men in the terrible regimes of the 30s and early 40s it becomes clear that sensitivity doesn’t prevent somebody from becoming a monster.

9

Good point to mention that for women, what makes one succesful careerwise is not always part of what helps with men. I think it is kind of missing the point to call risktaking ambitious women Alphawomen.

I do think just like men have a ‘good sperm/lover/none’ and a ‘good provider/parent/rone’ type, women have a sexy/glam/vibrant lover type and a gentle/stable/modest wife/mother type.

I guess the wife/mother qualities can help careerwise and some of the most succesful women are patient, supportive managers with a great social network. The ‘lover’ qualities can actually harm both career and status among other women

I think the fraternity asshole guy is a good example of what brings status among men, but not with women. I once had a guy like that chasing me and I got really grossed out when he mentioned he urinated on his roommate. A lot of women really like the tortured artist bad boy but I guess they assume that a man who is sensitive to his own feelings is also more sensitive to a woman’s feelings. I doubt this type of guy would have any status at all aong men though.

So maybe the men’s stuff is also more complex. I guess the artist would be an alternative ‘lover’ type, one who lack the high testosterone of the none boy. Skill at the arts is evidence of good genes and a painting or poem can be used in seduction. Perhaps the ‘father’ type could be divided in a high achieving stable provider and protector type that is very masculine and a more feminine husband who is nurtuing, relaxed and good with children.

10

I think that the cultural and economic climate of our era that culminated in the climax of the credit bubble has been associated with a massive overvaluation of the good lover type over the provider/spouse type, both in men and in women. Who needs a provider when you have the fantasy career/expectations of the girls on Sex and the City? I am inclined to think that the rise of pickup has been an adaptive cultural response to the evolution of womens’ behaviour.

As we enter a more demanding economic environment over the next decade or two, I speculate that we will see a swing back in the typical social valuation of both the good wife and good provider types. A society where the porn star look is the epitome of attractiveness for young (and not so young) women might not be deep down so healthy or sustainable.

That said, I do think the rise of pickup is part of a deeper recognition of how neglected masculinity and masculine values have been in our society. Culture has gone deeply astray. Here is our good piece by Friedrich von Blowhard on the wisdom of the Victorians and young people today.
2blowhards.com: Rudyard Kipling on Careers

By the way it is interesting to speculate about the cause of reduced sperm counts and how that cause might be manifested in our society in more ways. Xenoestrogens might have profound effects on behaviour at a social level. I really don’t know, but would like to see more research on this.

Not past the age of twenty five…

For younger women, better a jerk than a wimp. Best of all a man, but there aren’t so many of them around these days.

Intelligence and creativity are attractive in themselves. (Much more than superficial displays like cars and clothes). I think the devaluing of art amongst straight men in the US is a response to/associated with the increase in incidence of gay men in that area - I don’t know what the root cause of that is, but it is striking how macho US society has become. This is much less pronounced in more civilized parts of Europe. I would hazard that a well-known artist, composer, conductor or singer might have considerable status amongst men in some circles.

Artists might be lower ‘none’ types; I am not sure. But I don’t know if they are lower testosterone types. I rather suspect that straight actors for example are particularly high in testosterone.

Rone man versus low-mone man?

One also has to realize that people start to express different archetypes as their life circumstances, thinking and feeling change. Types are not purely something one is born with. (Do you remember the evolution of Michael Corleone in The Godfather?) Married men (and men in extended long term relationships) have lower testosterone, and they become different people as a result. Interestingly I believe that men in stable long-term polygamous relationships do not experience that testosterone drop.

11

Maybe that is right. But wifely/motherly qualities might not be quite compatible with the killer instinct required to thrive at the top level in a very competitive field. I know entirely what Roissy means when he complains about female lawyers.

Nice instance of the nascent Sex and the City backlash.

Backlash against sexual license.
“When, precisely, did feminism make this kind of nonsense OK? When did it become alright for those ‘porn star in training’ t-shirts, the ‘hot stuff’ printed on little girl’s knickers; beautiful teen heroine Billie Piper playing the rich gorgeous prostitute Belle de Jour? Dita Von Teese is beautiful, and a fashion icon, but she’s a stripper. Her job is to encourage male engorgement. The end.”

12

That is a good point. I guess it depends on what sort of activity it is. If it is a strictly win-lose situation, then high testosterone, even slightly sociopathic people tend to get the win. I guess in a courtroom you would find such a situation, a guy is either declared guilty or innocent. The cake is only so big, and it cannot be made larger.

Other fields may be a bit less black and white. For example buying and selling things goes a lot better when you are charming and have the patience to listen to the needs of the quarry.
A lot of people see me as the earth motherly archetype in real life and I am also a great negotiator, I can get things done from others that a high testosterone man or women would not. Because I don’t have a big ego that needs to be manifested, their is room for the opponent to be a star so that he can have his ego needs met while I get what I want.

Say if I want a dress that costs 100$, and I am willing to pay 50$ for it, 100$ would be the whole cake and I want to have half. If I ask the shop owner which colour looks best on me, and let her take pride in her expertise in fashion when she is advising me to wear the pink one, with what shoes and hairstyle, and I admire greatly her knowledge, I basically get a second cake out of the oven. If I then tell her I only have 50$ and really want to look good on my sister’s wedding and she agrees and I tell her how grateful I am and what a good heart she has, that is cake #3.
We both come out of the transaction with a big smile and are happy, it is really a win-win situation.

I was 21 at the time.

You are right about that. I feel when a man is skilful in what he does, he will have status for it among men. The less refined a man is, the more areas he will generally consider to be gay. I guess this is also a blue collar vs. white collar thing. The higher the class level, the more sublimated the displays of masculinity. Getting back to the lawyer, he can show off his aggression by beating his opponent. A mine worker would have to beat a guy in a fistfight to get the same status among women and especially men. His brothers and sisters tend not to have the sensitivity to see the more subtle expressions of masculinity. On top of that, blue collar men don’t want to feel inferior to the higher classes, so they take pride in doing work that a woman could not do. (Another extra cake, LOL)
A lot of the chivalry rituals are actually socially acceptable ways for a man to show his leadership over his woman. Say, in couples dancing a man can lead a woman. The trouble is that in this day and age, most of the middle class today would too feel embarrassed to show masculinity in a working class way, but do not know that the behaviours of the higher classes are symbols for masculine sexuality. Guess what that single red rose really means…

Competition raises testosterone, and polygamous men must always compete to keep their wives, unless they have them locked up. In most polygamous societies, it is not the sexy caddies who have multiple wives, but rather the sugar daddies. Probably the same men who would be called beta on the forums. The result is that the wives often want to cheat, even if decorum or fear of punishment dictates that they do not show it. Naturally, there are also a lot of unmarried men who are challenging the polygamist. These are mostly the young, high none warriors that awaken a very sharp increase of testosterone in the polygamist.

Of course, getting into a fist fight, the husband would certainly lose from the challengers. Thus, polygamous cultures often take extreme measures to protect the rich old man from being cuckolded. Guarding the women with eunuchs comes to mind, a large number of eunuchs can fight the virile men pounding on the doors, but lack the penis to sleep with the wives. Or very cruel punishment is given to women who are caught cheating. Still, the husband feels the threat, the challenge and this keeps his testosterone constantly high even if he does not need to fight.

You have a point about the ‘sexy caddy’ being too succesful in the US, I guess in polygamous cultures the ‘sugar daddy’ has more succes than is ideal. I’ll soon draw up a picture of the different categories of men and write a bit about it.

With regards to the influence of porn on society; I see a lot of women protesting against it, but it is interesting to see that men are also tired of it.

I don’t watch Sex in the City or personally meet women who feel the need to look like a pornstar to attract a man, so I’m not the expert on any of this, but I guess it is a specific kind of woman who does this. It does not have to be a bad person, but often the girls who do this sort of thing lack self esteem and self control.

I do notice some portion of feminists think that if only women will act like men in all aspects, including taking the approach of a 17 yo boy on sex, the world will become a brighter place. I also notice some men will only pay attention to women who are scantily clad, crassly provocative and very willing. A lot of movies, shows etc. also have the heroine sleeping around without feeling very bad if she finds out the man is not in love with her, or the man magically proposing to her after a few nights of passionate sex. Of course, feminists are free to voice their ideals, men are free to have ther preferences and artists are free to express what they want. I realise that these things do have their influence on society.

If a girl is insecure, does not feel her needs are worth being met and has low self control, especially a young girl, she is going to feel very pressured by the above. If she sees the boys in her class ignore her, but oggle women with a ton of makeup, fake hair, boobs and nails and skimpy clothes, she will dress like that to get attention. Then she gets attention, and sexual offers. If boys say they like women who sleep with them within a few weeks and magazines say a guy can still fall in love with you if you sleep with them quickly and girls in movies, videos, TVshows do it too and feminists say only bad men would be turned off by early sex, those are a lot of forces helping a girl say yes to those offers.

Fortunately, while those pressures do affect most girls, most are not that insecure and have the backbone to withstand that pressure after she finds out that things don’t work that way in real life. In the real world, having a solid love relationship before having sex is the best predictor that a guy will stick around after sex and most normal women will not keep on believing that a sexy thong or brand X croissants or hairspray Y will convince a man to come back for more after a roll in the hay.