Why Women Prefer Betas

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Recursoinominado said:

I had many long-term relationships lol

And when you were in these longterm relationships, were you just settling and sticking around until someone better comes along?

[Emerald]

Just now, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

Ok, but I don't care about that point. My point is that, in this day and age and as a man, everything can go wrong in your life regardless of how hard you try or invest into relationships

This is just another one of those anti-social internet victim narratives that men are propagandized with... which will lead to lots of unhappiness and loneliness.

Best to avoid the victim's mentality and open yourself up to connection so that you don't end up missing out on the formative experiences of youth and with lots of regrets as you get older.

[Deziree]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

And when you were in these longterm relationships, were you just settling and sticking around until someone better comes along?

To be honest, women are always looking for a better option. It's their survival at the end of the day. They imagine an alpha to be a good provider but settle for the beta long term because betas tend to provide better and stay loyal. Alphas usually stay in a relationship until a better comes along. These patterns repeat in dating circles and women just have to learn in time. That's why we call them mature women, hardened by experience, or should I say softened. 

[integral]

13 minutes ago, Emerald said:

That's talking past the point that I'm actually making.

The point that I'm making is that men are being indoctrinated into paradigms about women that are setting them up for guaranteed disconnection and loneliness in the future, as men with these paradigms won't be capable of being in an intimate relationship with a woman.

And they're so locked into these anti-intimacy perspectives that they use for protection, that the reality of human-to-human can't seep in enough to allow for real connection and intimacy to come through.

Hey I agree with what you're saying this is basically the red and black pill community.

But for normal guys when they date regular people a lot of things can go wrong when you don't understand aspects of female attraction and you focus on Disney love.

If you lack aspects of masculinity the girl will stop having sex with you, most of these guys aren't mature enough or developing enough to be masculine enough to keep women sexually attracted to them.

It is a lot harder than what you're saying.

If a guy is super needy, what does he do? He will inevitably put stress onto her and she will pull away and start losing attraction because he's representing either unhealthy masculine traits or it's a kind of femininity.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, integral said:

Hey I agree with what you're saying this is basically the red and black pill community.

But for normal guys when they date regular people a lot of things can go wrong when you don't understand aspects of female attraction and you focus on Disney love.

If you lack aspects of masculinity the girl will stop having sex with you, most of these guys aren't mature enough or developing enough to be masculine enough to keep women sexually attracted to them.

It is a lot harder than what you're saying.

If a guy is super needy, what does he do? He will inevitably put stress onto her and she will pull away and start losing attraction because he's representing either unhealthy masculine traits or it's a kind of femininity.

Most of these guys issues that you're referring to as "not being Masculine enough" is just men responding to these limiting beliefs and propaganda narratives about women.

It's normal for a man to be a bit nervous around a woman he's attracted to.

But now-a-days, with all the internet propaganda that normal insecurity gets blended together with all these "you're a little bitch boy that women will never love" narratives.

And what was before a surmountable insecurity becomes fuel to maintain these victim narratives and anti-social narratives that are being pedaled on the internet.

[Recursoinominado]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

And when you were in these longterm relationships, were you just settling and sticking around until someone better comes along?

Yes.

[Emerald]

30 minutes ago, Recursoinominado said:

Yes.

Because that was the case for you, it makes sense that you'd project that other people are doing the same thing as well.

But I don't even see what a person could possibly get out of a relationship beyond just sex if they were just settling.

And that seems like a lot of trouble to go through just to get sex.

[Deziree]

9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But I don't even see what a person could possibly get out of a relationship beyond just sex if they were just settling.

And that seems like a lot of trouble to go through just to get sex.

When someone settles for a relationship, they are looking for more than just sex, it's that the bargain is at a lower tier. To think that people settle for relationships just for sex if they are waiting for someone better is a biased needless assumption on your part. 

Edited June 11 by Deziree

[LordFall]

12 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

This is exactly the issue Emerald and many others have been pointing out.

The problem with the “high-value man” narrative is that once you finally do reach that dream life full of adventure and freedom, these spaces don’t teach you how to commit to and care for a woman. Instead, they encourage you to leverage your success, charm, and influence to take advantage of her, because now you “deserve it,” right? You’ve made it, so why not indulge?

That mindset destroys any chance of a real connection or mutual trust. It creates a cycle where women become distrustful, guarded, or disconnected from intimacy. So they either:

• Opt out of dating altogether,
• Become transactional, gold-digger, sugar babies (“what lifestyle can he offer me? I only care about his money and looks”),
• Or stay in relationships where they’re devalued or cheated on, and eventually become bitter, nagging, less feminine, receptive, vulnerable, sweet, more avoidant, ruining the marriage/relationship for both him and her.

That bitterness feeds right back into male resentment, and the cycle continues. Nobody wins.

People like Aubrey Marcus represent this exact contradiction. They're like the ultra-rich who, instead of sharing knowledge or investing well-earned money to create better systems that would help future generations escape poverty more easily, choose to exploit others through grifting (creating cheap, low-quality courses, cryptocurrency, and NFT scams) and continue extracting resources from the most desperate and vulnerable people. In the same way, "high-value" men exploit their status, fame, charisma, and money to lure women into infatuation and love, only to cheat on them, use them for sex, status boosts, or free domestic labor.

This is the fundamental issue that gets missed. As long as power is seen as a tool to exploit the weaker or less desirable, nothing will change. You can’t criticize women for being “shallow” or “ran through” when the male ideal being sold is to abuse status once you have it. If you idealize power without responsibility, you perpetuate the same system you claim to hate. The only way to build something real is to break that cycle, not become a more effective predator inside of it.

That's why even "nice guys" aren't that desirable in practice, you never know if the guy actually cares about you or if he's just someone who would act the exact same way once he gets a taste of attention, money, and status, then ditch you for 9s and 10s.

The beta and alpha dynamics are really the same for both guys and girls. Guys will get with a less attractive woman while they "upgrade" their life, then ditch her for models, or get a midlife crisis in their 40s and delude themselves that some 20-year-old is into them for "who they are and their life wisdom" rather than their cash, then abandon their wives and children. Some guys will even get with a woman they find unattractive and never tell her or show her they don't care about her at all. But since they're lazy and can't upgrade to something better, they settle and become forever bitter, growing avoidant and critical of the women they've chosen. They hate the reflection of their own inadequacy that she directly mirrors back to them. Instead of taking self-responsibility, they despise her and women overall. In this dynamic, the "ugly" girlfriend or wife is the beta, and the lusted-after Instagram model is the alpha.

Again, I've yet to see these male spaces actually discuss genuine love or how to build deep relationships. There's no guidance on how to resist lusting after other women or how to truly nourish the relationship you have. Most of the advice I've encountered boils down to: "Become an alpha, and once you do, you can do whatever you want. You're at the top now, you deserve multiple women who will work for you, submit to you, and handle all the house labor and emotional heavy lifting. What is she going to do? You're so high-value, of course, she won't leave. You're the king, G."

This mindset perpetuates a toxic cycle. Men who haven't "made it" yet keep chasing this ideal. Those who achieve it end up traumatizing and controlling women. Those who don't become increasingly bitter and resentful, spreading incel ideology while settling for partners they constantly compare to TikTok models and OnlyFans creators, destroying any chance at genuine love.

Meanwhile, women keep getting hurt by this pattern. They either withdraw from dating entirely, become more materialistic and guarded (which frustrates men further), or embrace the "independent boss babe" persona. Men then resent this defensive response, which makes them even more hostile toward women, causing women to become even more guarded. The cycle feeds itself endlessly.

I see your points and that does happen but that's a straw-man of the male self-improvement journey. Lots of ways to develop deep love and build deep relationships. 

I think it's hard for women to understand the male journey and for men who haven't undertaken it. I have made plenty of connections with my female peers along my life and I'm grateful appreciative of those connections. That had very little to do with my growing power and influence over reality as a man. I dated a girl when I was a clueless 24 year old and that was great but it doesn't compare to being a man with his purpose together having access and influence. It's like saying that being a bunny is great and why worry about the animal kingdom which works great until you get eaten and that's what happens to most men in life, running around in a jungle in which they're scared shitless and can be eaten up at any time. 

@RendHeaven I think the introspection you've put into your childrearing is cool but you're blowing this up way out of proportion. People have been worrying about civilization collapsing and life being too hard to bear since the start of time. You think people were thrilled to have children during the black plague which lasted 7 years and where people were dying and rotting in the streets? Yet here we are. You think people were thrilled to have children during the hundred year wars where entire villages would get raided randomly and people were subjected to fate worse than game of thrones? Humans are tough and we persevere and we'll be here 500 and 5000 years from now and if you choose to end your bloodline due to AI I don't know what to tell you, perhaps have a deep trip pondering that one. 

[Raze]

 

12 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

This is exactly the issue Emerald and many others have been pointing out.

The problem with the “high-value man” narrative is that once you finally do reach that dream life full of adventure and freedom, these spaces don’t teach you how to commit to and care for a woman. Instead, they encourage you to leverage your success, charm, and influence to take advantage of her, because now you “deserve it,” right? You’ve made it, so why not indulge?

That mindset destroys any chance of a real connection or mutual trust. It creates a cycle where women become distrustful, guarded, or disconnected from intimacy. So they either:

• Opt out of dating altogether,
• Become transactional, gold-digger, sugar babies (“what lifestyle can he offer me? I only care about his money and looks”),
• Or stay in relationships where they’re devalued or cheated on, and eventually become bitter, nagging, less feminine, receptive, vulnerable, sweet, more avoidant, ruining the marriage/relationship for both him and her.

That bitterness feeds right back into male resentment, and the cycle continues. Nobody wins.

People like Aubrey Marcus represent this exact contradiction. They're like the ultra-rich who, instead of sharing knowledge or investing well-earned money to create better systems that would help future generations escape poverty more easily, choose to exploit others through grifting (creating cheap, low-quality courses, cryptocurrency, and NFT scams) and continue extracting resources from the most desperate and vulnerable people. In the same way, "high-value" men exploit their status, fame, charisma, and money to lure women into infatuation and love, only to cheat on them, use them for sex, status boosts, or free domestic labor.

This is the fundamental issue that gets missed. As long as power is seen as a tool to exploit the weaker or less desirable, nothing will change. You can’t criticize women for being “shallow” or “ran through” when the male ideal being sold is to abuse status once you have it. If you idealize power without responsibility, you perpetuate the same system you claim to hate. The only way to build something real is to break that cycle, not become a more effective predator inside of it.

That's why even "nice guys" aren't that desirable in practice, you never know if the guy actually cares about you or if he's just someone who would act the exact same way once he gets a taste of attention, money, and status, then ditch you for 9s and 10s.

The beta and alpha dynamics are really the same for both guys and girls. Guys will get with a less attractive woman while they "upgrade" their life, then ditch her for models, or get a midlife crisis in their 40s and delude themselves that some 20-year-old is into them for "who they are and their life wisdom" rather than their cash, then abandon their wives and children. Some guys will even get with a woman they find unattractive and never tell her or show her they don't care about her at all. But since they're lazy and can't upgrade to something better, they settle and become forever bitter, growing avoidant and critical of the women they've chosen. They hate the reflection of their own inadequacy that she directly mirrors back to them. Instead of taking self-responsibility, they despise her and women overall. In this dynamic, the "ugly" girlfriend or wife is the beta, and the lusted-after Instagram model is the alpha.

Again, I've yet to see these male spaces actually discuss genuine love or how to build deep relationships. There's no guidance on how to resist lusting after other women or how to truly nourish the relationship you have. Most of the advice I've encountered boils down to: "Become an alpha, and once you do, you can do whatever you want. You're at the top now, you deserve multiple women who will work for you, submit to you, and handle all the house labor and emotional heavy lifting. What is she going to do? You're so high-value, of course, she won't leave. You're the king, G."

This mindset perpetuates a toxic cycle. Men who haven't "made it" yet keep chasing this ideal. Those who achieve it end up traumatizing and controlling women. Those who don't become increasingly bitter and resentful, spreading incel ideology while settling for partners they constantly compare to TikTok models and OnlyFans creators, destroying any chance at genuine love.

Meanwhile, women keep getting hurt by this pattern. They either withdraw from dating entirely, become more materialistic and guarded (which frustrates men further), or embrace the "independent boss babe" persona. Men then resent this defensive response, which makes them even more hostile toward women, causing women to become even more guarded. The cycle feeds itself endlessly.

This conflicts with what she’s saying actually. According to her this doesn’t really happen, women don’t go to the high value,en and get used, they prefer beta regular men who chase them.

 

[Emerald]

33 minutes ago, Raze said:

This conflicts with what she’s saying actually. According to her this doesn’t really happen, women don’t go to the high value,en and get used, they prefer beta regular men who chase them.

It doesn't contradict with what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that most women prefer men who aren't hyper-Masculine and who have a more average level of Masculinity. And most women are attracted to regular everyday guys that they happen to meet and have some chemistry with.

And I'm also saying that most women aren't geared towards short-term hook-ups.

So, while the minority of women who value short-term hook-ups might statistically go for these hyper-Masculine guys, that is abstract to me and most other women like me who don't even value or get much out of short term hook-ups.

Also, it's not that women are interested in men who "chase" them. Chasing is desperate and needy, which is the opposite of the type of energy that women are looking for. So, that is a strawman of what I was communicating before.

It's that I've observed that the most stable and fulfilling male/female relationship dynamic is one where both partners are highly invested in one another, but the man invests slightly more.

Honestly, just look at this thread and you'll see TONS of low-investment men telling on themselves that they only settle in relationships until someone better comes along.

So, women are wise to to avoid low investment guys who are settling out of convenience until someone better comes along... and to raise the bar a bit so that a man who's really interested has space to show her his level of investment.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Deziree said:

When someone settles for a relationship, they are looking for more than just sex, it's that the bargain is at a lower tier. To think that people settle for relationships just for sex if they are waiting for someone better is a biased needless assumption on your part. 

The guy I responded to already said that, in his relationships, he was just settling for them and waiting until someone better comes along.

And I was trying to figure out what he was getting out of them. 

Maybe sex. Maybe a salve for loneliness. Maybe a roommate to pay bills with. Maybe to show his parents that he's not single.

Whatever was the boon for him, it just seems like it would be less of a hassle to just stay single until you find someone that you genuinely care about.

[Raze]

 

41 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It doesn't contradict with what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that most women prefer men who aren't hyper-Masculine and who have a more average level of Masculinity. And most women are attracted to regular everyday guys that they happen to meet and have some chemistry with.

And I'm also saying that most women aren't geared towards short-term hook-ups.

So, while the minority of women who value short-term hook-ups might statistically go for these hyper-Masculine guys, that is abstract to me and most other women like me who don't even value or get much out of short term hook-ups.

Also, it's not that women are interested in men who "chase" them. Chasing is desperate and needy, which is the opposite of the type of energy that women are looking for. So, that is a strawman of what I was communicating before.

It's that I've observed that the most stable and fulfilling male/female relationship dynamic is one where both partners are highly invested in one another, but the man invests slightly more.

Honestly, just look at this thread and you'll see TONS of low-investment men telling on themselves that they only settle in relationships until someone better comes along.

So, women are wise to to avoid low investment guys who are settling out of convenience until someone better comes along... and to raise the bar a bit so that a man who's really interested has space to show her his level of investment.

Right, but that post was saying the spaces make men high-value but don’t teach them to commit to women so the women become bitter. If women don’t like the type of high value men those spaces cultivate and prefer regular men, they would not be getting women when they stop being regular and become high-value according to what those spaces advise, and if so few women engage in short term relationships the high value men not committing should be rarely an issue since it’s only with the few women who do engage in it. As most women would be going for the regular guys they prefer for long term relationships, at least that’s what I gather from what you say.

Edited June 11 by Raze

[Emerald]

9 minutes ago, Raze said:

Right, but that post was saying the spaces make men high-value but don’t teach them to commit to women so the women become bitter. If women don’t like the type of high value men those spaces cultivate and prefer regular men, they would not be getting women when they stop being regular and become high-value according to what those spaces advise, and if so few women engage in short term relationships the high value men not committing should be rarely an issue since it’s only with the few women who do engage in it. As most women would be going for the regular guys they prefer for long term relationships, at least that’s what I gather from what you say.

He's saying that the thing that makes women bitter are not just the types of guys that abuse their power... but also the types of insecure guys that aspire to be the types of guys who abuse their power.

And there's A LOT of men now-a-days who repel women because of all the internet propaganda that men are subjected to regarding male/female relationships and notions of what an attractive man is... as it's all about training a guy to be a low quality guy who appeals to the least discerning women.

So, lots of women are choosing to be single to avoid dealing with brainwashed guys. Or they're getting bitter, because everything about all of this man-cult stuff is just annoying and desperate and causes harm to them.

It's like the opposite of appealing and sexy. Just a bunch of guys in victims narrative because it's not fair that they aren't able to be Andrew Tate... and pissed off that women want Andrew Tate and not them.

And then when women go "Ew! That guy looks like a rat." men are like... "Stop lying!"

You can even observe, that most of the men on this forum are regular guys who aspire to be the type of anti-nutrient men who abuse and extract power. And that makes them even more repellent to most women than the guys who actually have power and abuse it... because it's the worst of both worlds.

At least status-seeking or gold-digging women will tolerate the misogyny the powerful guy, as that's what's necessary to get the money and the status.

But no average self-respecting woman will tolerate an average guy who's operating through these narratives because these men become impossible to experience intimacy with. Average men get brainwashed to not listen to women, so there is no intimacy where you can't be heard or seen.

And men who operate through these propaganda narratives lose the ability to hear, see, and understand women. Hence, why I get so much pushback in this context, as I am pushing back on the brainwashing as the exact type of person that the brainwashers told you all not to listen to (a woman).

Also, it's false to call these guys in these positions of power "high value" because they actually extract a lot more value than they provide. So, they have more power... but they have a net negative value-wise. That's why I think of them as anti-nutrient men.

[RendHeaven]

2 hours ago, LordFall said:

@RendHeaven I think the introspection you've put into your childrearing is cool but you're blowing this up way out of proportion. People have been worrying about civilization collapsing and life being too hard to bear since the start of time. You think people were thrilled to have children during the black plague which lasted 7 years and where people were dying and rotting in the streets? Yet here we are. You think people were thrilled to have children during the hundred year wars where entire villages would get raided randomly and people were subjected to fate worse than game of thrones? Humans are tough and we persevere and we'll be here 500 and 5000 years from now and if you choose to end your bloodline due to AI I don't know what to tell you, perhaps have a deep trip pondering that one. 

@LordFall I've clarified this issue to Schizophonia already. The problem is not about suffering. The problem is about the full-time commitment you're signing up for if you care about raising healthy and sovereign kids. Sovereignty will be a luxury. As already mentioned, most people will continue to pop kids and the human race will go on. I just have high standards for myself. IDGAF about "bloodline," that is completely arbitrary and narcissistic.

[Jacob Morres]

On 6/10/2025 at 0:43 AM, Emerald said:

In real life, there can be actual chemistry and human-to-human connection

There is a lot of truth to that. Human connection can transcend a lot of those preconceived notions that we have 

[LordFall]

It’s also important to consider things from the female and male imperative. Women are more sneaky with their incentives and are usually not upfront about them(not that most men are either.) There’s a good book about this written by an Esther Vilar called the manipulated man.

Also worth considering the foundation of why would women be attracted to more dominant man and how that relates to the state of society and survival. In good times you don’t really get punished for shacking up with a man lower in the dominance hierarchy. In more chaotic times as perhaps the ones we are heading towards now then that directly leads to a lower standard of living and in extreme situations a lack of ability to survive.

@RendHeaven It has a little to do with narcissism and wanting to keep your line going sure but that’s not the issue I’m pointing out to you. It’s about fear vs love and you trying to rationalize away your fear. 
 

 

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, Jacob Morres said:

There is a lot of truth to that. Human connection can transcend a lot of those preconceived notions that we have 

That's the entire point I've been making.

Women respond the most to who they have chemistry with... which is usually with regular average guys that they encounter in their daily lives.

Honestly, if there isn't a significant amount of human-to-human chemistry, I wouldn't feel compelled towards anything sexual. And I think most women are the exact same way.

It's honestly an uncommon kind of woman who goes out there seeking some short term hook-ups with hyper-Masculine "alpha" guys. I guess they exist. But that's a pretty abstract notion to me in terms of understanding the sexual appeal of it, as sexual appeal is so fundamentally intertwined with deeper feelings of intimacy, for me.

And I find that men who have no softness to them are just about impossible to have chemistry with because a man needs to be a bit vulnerable for it to be possible to feel intimate with him. 

Edited June 11 by Emerald

[aurum]

On 6/10/2025 at 8:34 AM, Emerald said:

Just say what you're going to say.

You don't have to get dramatic about it.

It's a legitimate question though. I don't sense you are open on this topic.

Everything you outlined is your survival strategy.

[Schizophonia]

6 hours ago, LordFall said:

 

He is turbo delusional.