Beta Providers

[zekko]

One of the stereotypes that has repeatedly annoyed me about this forum has been the idea that if you are financially successful, the girl will see you as a beta provider. The PUA community and the manosphere have always been tightly interwoven, and this is a bit of PUA lore that has spread widely. The problem I have with it is I see no indication whatsoever that it is true.

First off, there is no question that I acted far more AFC before I became financially successful. There's something about being able to support yourself well and being able to stand on your own two feet that gives you a sense of independence. And having improved status makes you realize that you are more in demand, and you will act accordingly. This is a far cry from being more beta.

Second, I tend to be seen as good "boyfriend material" - this is supposedly a death knell for women if you listen to PUAs. However, I can't remember a single woman who viewed me as such who was not wildly enthusiastic about having sex with me. PUAs tell you that if girls see you as a boyfriend type, they will make you wait for sex, or may eventually agree to sex with you but they won't really be into it. This is nothing but nonsense in my experience.

 

[LiveYourDream]

Interesting questions.

I agree, I don't think wealth determines alpha or beta at all. I think you can have both wealthy and broke alphas and betas.

The question of which gets sex fastest is interesting too.

A rich alpha or broke alpha can inspire immediate sex in a woman. The man's embodiment of alpha drives the highest attraction not his finances. Other attractions are thrown full throttle based on his level of alpha.

If you have a rich beta or broke beta, the timing of sex is driven by multiple variables like, general attraction (perhaps finances here), sexual attraction, the woman's level of horniness and slutiness and how easy the man is making it for her to have sex with him.

An incredibly horny woman in the right combination will not hesitate to have sex with an attractive available Beta either (wealthy or not). It won't be as quick as the highest alpha but it still could be quite fast.

In my estimation, speed to have sex is not a fair indicator alone of alpha vs beta. Clearly a quick beta hook up could be mistaken for alpha when it was more just a combination of factors that made the opportunity for sex ripe and ready.

I am not sure if that's what you were asking. That's where my mind went.

 

[BeTheChange]

You're relying too much on your personal experience and not on observation

Zekko does this a lot I've noticed. Builds a strawman argument that no one on the forum is actually making then complains about it....

Very odd.

 

[fastlife]

One of the stereotypes that has repeatedly annoyed me about this forum has been the idea that if you are financially successful, the girl will see you as a beta provider.

Not necessarily--for example, a girl wouldn't sleep with Leonardo DiCaprio with the expectation that he'd provide for her. But the degree to which your financial status influences her decision to sleep with you, is the degree to which your intimacy with her is dependent on her perception of her abilities to possibly access your resources (Beta Bux). Ideally, her rational mind should never engage (Alpha Attraction).

If a girl has genuine desire--what you do for a living won't matter. Whether you can pay for dinner won't matter. Whether she feels like she can pressure you into a relationship eventually won't matter. I tell girls I'm a shift lead at Taco Bell--but that I'm ambitious and I'll be a manager some day.

Be honest with yourself. If you lost all your money overnight, would your plates/gf/wife, etc. still view you as her peak sexual option? If everyone knew the world was ending tomorrow, would you be the guy they hit up for sex tonight?

First off, there is no question that I acted far more AFC before I became financially successful. There's something about being able to support yourself well and being able to stand on your own two feet that gives you a sense of independence. And having improved status makes you realize that you are more in demand, and you will act accordingly. This is a far cry from being more beta.

But your ability to feel Alpha and to provide those cues is propped up on external factors (money)--it's not something that's intrinsic to you. Again, it comes down to the scenario that if the market collapsed would you still be her sexual priority? Would the same factors that make you attractive to women about to hit the wall attract women in their peak residual fertility (highest biological value)--say between the ages of 18-22--whose financial comfort & well-being & future considerations are being provided for by their families?

A bit ironic that the pre-frontal cortex--the part of the brain responsible for future planning, rational decisions, and weighing values (like wealth)--doesn't fully develop until after women are past their biological peak, no?

Second, I tend to be seen as good "boyfriend material" - this is supposedly a death knell for women if you listen to PUAs. However, I can't remember a single woman who viewed me as such who was not wildly enthusiastic about having sex with me. PUAs tell you that if girls see you as a boyfriend type, they will make you wait for sex, or may eventually agree to sex with you but they won't really be into it. This is nothing but nonsense in my experience.

They may or they may not; but they have 'more to lose' if they have plans to wile you into monogamy in the hopes of accessing your resources. They will never be as open or as genuine with a man they perceive as 'relationship material'--they know their relationship value is more dependent on their presentation (nice, respectful girl who only has sex in committed relationships or "has only ever been with 3 guys"). I've had points in my life where I projected 'boyfriend material'--I've found that by intentionally downplaying those aspects of my personality and by coming off as more of a manwh0re than I am, girls will tell me everything I need to know the first night I meet with her (they figure I've heard a lot worse and probably won't stick around anyway--world's ending tomorrow, right?).

By all means, acquire wealth (if that's your thing). But it should be irrelevant to your game.

 

[zekko]

An incredibly horny woman in the right combination will not hesitate to have sex with an attractive available Beta either (wealthy or not). It won't be as quick as the highest alpha but it still could be quite fast.

True. Upper level betas can be just as appealing as alpha types. I also agree there are both poor and wealthy alphas. I don't really put that much stock into the whole alpha/beta thing, though. Women are attracted to strength and status, and are repelled by weakness. Generally speaking.

Builds a strawman argument that no one on the forum is actually making then complains about it.

You're mistaken, I read this argument on this forum all the time, and I've also seen many PUA gurus claim it as well. There's a similar discussion going on in the "what you drive" thread in Anything Else right now.

 

[zekko]

But your ability to feel Alpha and to provide those cues is propped up on external factors (money)--it's not something that's intrinsic to you.

I don't see it this way at all. I achieved what I have because I set goal, had self discipline, and put in the necessary work to accomplish them. Meanwhile, other guys were sitting on a bar stool. It was not always the case, I was dirt poor when I was younger, and there was a time when all my friends made more money than I did. But I picked myself up and did what was needed to change that.

It's just like building your body. I don't see anyone saying "the muscles aren't intrinsic to you". They're a result of who you are and the work you've put into yourself.

I once had a girl tell me that the appeal of successful men wasn't their wealth, it was the fact that they had the attributes required to become successful. A lot of guys would say "never listen to anything a woman says", but I believe she was correct. If having the attributes to becoming successful is not alpha, what is?

 

[fastlife]

If having the attributes to becoming successful is not alpha, what is?

Being able to define your own context. 'Success' can be externally defined or internally defined, and the two outcomes and even paths aren't necessarily mutually exclusive--but the mindset and motivations are. For instance, you might be 'successful' because you finally make x-amount of money a year and drive two cars because you did things exactly the way society, your parents, television, etc. told you you should do them to achieve 'success.' Or you might make x-amount of money a year and drive two cars because you were successful in a personally-defined context.

It's why you get guy who do everything right--go to college, work 10 years on a socially acceptable, pre-defined career path, who go to the gym every day, take care of their personal grooming, etc. who come on here (and other places) complaining, Wait, I did everything right. Why is the girl sleeping with a deadbeat musician that works overnight at Taco Bell? Or that 'successful' guy might finally 'get the girl,' get the marriage, get the sex (for a while), and then find out that the same intimacy he worked so hard to qualify for, she gave away freely to the abusive drug dealer when she was in her prime. But, oh, she's learned so much about herself; of course, she appreciates all that hard work you put in and would never go back to the type of 'losers' she used to date, until he (or some proxy) hits up her Instagram DMs and you've been married 5 years and you're 'such a good provider' but kinda boring and, Well, she only lives once.

Anything you feel like you have to do to qualify for a girl's (any girls') intimacy is a slippery slope. And, of course, I'm not projecting that you necessarily did any of those things for any of those reasons--I don't know you and I don't know where your ego investments lie. It's not my job to make those distinctions; but women are excellent at picking up on that type of thing.

 

[zekko]

For instance, you might be 'successful' because you finally make x-amount of money a year and drive two cars because you did things exactly the way society, your parents, television, etc. told you you should do them to achieve 'success.'

To me, it isn't so much about the money. Money is only a means to an end. What I value is independence. Financial security buys me independence. Independence allows me to live my life on my own terms.

Basically, you are underrating the superficiality of the average women, and living or dying on the exceptions.

You may have hit on something here. Perhaps I simply don't care about the "average" woman. Not all women are going to appreciate my accomplishments, nor do I expect them to. Yeah, there are certain girls who are going to want to bang a deadbeat (and maybe that deadbeat has some good qualities). I really don't care, those aren't the women I'm looking to appeal to. I know that there are a certain number of women who are going to find me appealing, and those are my target audience. Unlike some guys here, I don't expect every woman to be hanging on my jock.

I've said repeatedly I tend to attract "nice" girls. Women who also want to accomplish more in life than simply get trashed on a weekend, dance on a club floor, and show her boobs to the crowd to get some cheap attention. These girls exist, but they're not the ones I'm looking for. If they go bang some "jerk", I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. They're not worth it. If that means I am looking for "exceptional" women, so be it.

Some guys here cry their eyes out because they were rejected by a club wh0re, then they are bitter because she went off and banged some filthy dirtbag. Who the hell cares? She is trash, she's not worth it.

When the term 'beta provider' gets tossed around, it refers more to the pu$$ies out there who let themselves be taken advantage of by unworthy women. Obviously, history (and the manosphere) is riddled with these tales.

True. What I am objecting to is the idea that women see a man with resources and immediately label him as a "beta" and nonsexual, and deny him sex. Like LiveYourDream pointed out, there are both poor and wealthy alpha types.

I don't believe that a woman will automatically see a guy as a pushover just because he is successful. If anything, the opposite is more likely. At worst, there is little to no correlation. There is nothing about having the will and ability to achieve your own goals that automatically makes you a gullible pvssy. Nor is there anything inherent in having nothing, or in being unable to achieve your goals, that makes you a masculine master of women.

In 50 Shades of Grey, when Ana meets Christian Grey, does she think he is a beta and a pushover because he is a successful, wealthy man? No, she sees a strong and powerful man who accomplishes his goals and commands respect, including from his women. That is the type of guy we should be looking to emulate - not a tattooed "bad boy" who will appeal to a woman because he can't afford to buy his own car.

 

[BeExcellent]

To me, it isn't so much about the money. Money is only a means to an end. What I value is independence. Financial security buys me independence. Independence allows me to live my life on my own terms.

^^This. I agree with you on this thread Zekko. I myself am reaching that place where financial independence is inevitable. It gives me a confidence and an outcome independence that is priceless. I am very excited about the future because of the live on my terms thing. I find it makes me very attractive to other successful people (over and above being in shape and physically attractive.) Successful people think different than non successful people and have a certain camaraderie of accomplishment. My ex said something to me the other day about "Most men" do this or do that. We were talking about dating prospects as we remain friends...I said, well that's fine, but I don't date "Most men".

I don't believe that a woman will automatically see a guy as a pushover just because he is successful. If anything, the opposite is more likely.

Agree again. Successful men are desirable to different women for different reasons. For some women it is because of their wealth, power, influence, etc. and that is the primary draw, even irrespective of physical appearance or personality. Those are your true gold digger types.

For me, I want someone who is as accomplished in life as I am or more so, and I want someone I also find has an engaging personality, can lead me personally and whom I find very sexy/attractive. I will exclude a man who doesn't meet ALL the above criteria because I know exactly what I am looking for and I know that it exists. So I don't waste my time. Neither do you.

Those are very different ends of the spectrum. There is a whole range in between. Same as there is a whole range for guys regarding looks (HB rating) versus crazy quotient + personality etc.

Success gives you more and better choices. In opportunity, in dating, in life. I find that the key is really being very specific about what one wants, because there is so MUCH choice that you must wheedle it down to get it manageable.

I don't see men as alpha or beta in the strict sense like it gets bandied about here. But dam straight I see them as "winners" or "losers" in my book. And I don't care if the loser looks like George Clooney or Leonardo, I'm not dating him. I also don't care if a guy I'm not attracted to is a millionaire or billionaire. I've said no to very wealthy men because I had zero desire to ever kiss them or have sex with them. I have my affairs handled so I am free to choose for the RIGHT reasons and find something authentic and genuine. This is what success affords me. That is what success affords you too.

People who aren't there yet have a hard time grasping that concept. And most people are not there. Many never will be.

 

[G_Govan]

What I am objecting to is the idea that women see a man with resources and immediately label him as a "beta" and nonsexual, and deny him sex.....

Where on earth are you reading this though? I'd agree with you if this was a common claim among the "sphere" but it isn't.

It's generally agreed upon that money/status/looks in some combination tends to get you women more on your terms.

Can you provide a single quote where someone claims simply having money makes women believe you're a beta male?

 

[Trump]

One of the stereotypes that has repeatedly annoyed me about this forum has been the idea that if you are financially successful, the girl will see you as a beta provider. The PUA community and the manosphere have always been tightly interwoven, and this is a bit of PUA lore that has spread widely. The problem I have with it is I see no indication whatsoever that it is true.

Bro where do you come up with this? No one who knows what they are saying on this forum has linked financial independence with being a beta provider for a girl. A beta provider is doing anything for the girl so she will have sex with you and won't leave you. Being financially independent is for your own well being and self satisfaction. To say they are linked is short sighted.

First off, there is no question that I acted far more AFC before I became financially successful. There's something about being able to support yourself well and being able to stand on your own two feet that gives you a sense of independence. And having improved status makes you realize that you are more in demand, and you will act accordingly. This is a far cry from being more beta.

No one has argued with you but OK. Status and being financially independent have NOTHING TO DO with being AFC and beta. You can be the richest guy in the world and still be beta. You can not be rich and be alpha and get all the girls. They have nothing to do with each other.

Second, I tend to be seen as good "boyfriend material" - this is supposedly a death knell for women if you listen to PUAs. However, I can't remember a single woman who viewed me as such who was not wildly enthusiastic about having sex with me. PUAs tell you that if girls see you as a boyfriend type, they will make you wait for sex, or may eventually agree to sex with you but they won't really be into it. This is nothing but nonsense in my experience.

Come on bro, you are talking nonsense here. You are getting angry at people who haven't done anything to you and are just spitting out words. If you makes you feel better to rationalize everything ok but it won't accomplish anything.

 

[Huffman]

Hey zekko, interesting topic. I used to feel the same way as you too - horribly afraid of being seen as a beta provider. Granted, I'm not rich but I have a comfortable salary.

Now - maybe it's just because I don't care about money at all. Having more money didn't give me any confidence or status either. I've always had this path set out for me, when I was 10 it was already clear I'm going to be a talented engineer. Breezing through university, getting promoted at work, all nothing special for me. So I don't draw any confidence from these things.

And that's why I next girls if they want to go to expensive restaurants and love shiny cars (or worse even - diamonds). Maybe it's a bit stupid. I'm not a cheap guy but I want the woman to share my values.

 

[Huffman]

To be more concise, you seem to mix "having resources" with "being successful".

Success can lead to resources, but resources alone don't define you.

 

[Glumix]

And that's why I next girls if they want to go to expensive restaurants and love shiny cars (or worse even - diamonds). Maybe it's a bit stupid. I'm not a cheap guy but I want the woman to share my values.

If she pays for everything, why nexting her? That's the difference between beta and alpha. You are a man because you stay with her on your terms so you tell her : "OK, we can go to that restaurant but it's not really my kind of stuff, I have better things to do with my money, so you pay for it.". An AFC would say : "OK, as long as you stay with me forever, I will pay for every single caprice you have.".

Now, if you next her because she does not share your values and that's important for you, then your are more alpha than beta. But you didn't sexed her so if that's important for you, inject some game.

Being alpha or beta is a matter of perception. Steve Jobs, Tom Cruise and Tyler Durden are all Alpha, but they are very different people. If you take a rich woman, she will perhaps go for Tom or Tyler because of the sex appeal. If she is poor, she will go for Steve or Tom because of the money. Or perhaps she won't care about being rich and will go for Tyler because she is fvcked up.

So yeah, as mentioned above, just know what YOU are looking for and don't fall for a gold digger because they really exist.

 

[Lexington]

The Beta Provider is the man who is only with a woman because he can provide for her. To take the textbook example, a girl grows up ****ing high school jocks, frat boys and then random club guys. Then she gets to be 28-32 and sees that her friends have started to get hitched.

Now she finds herself a "stable partner"....someone with a nice job and is prepared to commit (unlike all those Alphas who pumped and dumped her before). She can move into her home in the suburbs with a white picket fence and an SUV in the garage all generously financed by Billy Beta. While giving Billy monthly starfish sex, she fantasizes about the way Brad from Alpha Kappa Pi used to drill her brains out.

The opposite of this would be "Chad Thundercock." This guy might be a broke musician or third-rate MMA fighter for example. But he is good looking, confident, has game and knows how to lay that pipe. He might not be successful, but he just knows how to get women's panties wet. Many women will have their heart broken by this guy and may even have his babies. Very often, it's only after they've popped out a couple of Chad's spawn that they realize he's not really relationship material.

I'm not sure where you're reading that men shouldn't be successful. But if your ability to provide is the main thing keeping your woman with you, you are a Beta Provider.

Now in an extreme example, a billionaire may get a super model/actress (take Elon Musk for example) but such a man isn't a Beta Provider. He has power, status, intelligence, drive and is probably supremely confident. You need all of those qualities to build an empire. These kinds of men are the kings of our time....they have accomplished things that have affected thousands of even millions of people.

 

[zekko]

Hey zekko, interesting topic. I used to feel the same way as you too - horribly afraid of being seen as a beta provider.

I'm not afraid of it at all, I'm not that hung up on labels. No man wants to be called a beta of course, but PUA gurus have always claimed that being seen as a Provider is a bad thing, and I don't agree with that at all. To me, Provider is one of the primal masculine roles, just as Protector is. If a woman sees you as a potential provider, IMO that is an attractive feature. Mind you (and this is important), you are under no obligation to actually provide for her. I'm just saying that the ability to provide is an attractive quality.

Have you noticed that the manosphere nearly always puts the words "Beta" and "Provider" together? Why don't they talk about Alpha Providers instead? It seems like that would be a much better role model. Rollo used to say that it was because alpha providers were so rare. Well, that may be so, but aren't alphas kind of rare to begin with?

Here's an interesting video from RSD. Tyler likes to characterize the Provider male as a "weak beta", and he does so here. I only watched about half of this video, but I have a few problems with it. For example, we don't really see much of what the dentist guy is doing, game-wise, but what we do see is not very impressive. In fact, I would say the problem with the dental guy is not that he is seen as a provider, but that he comes off as very dull and passive. Tyler, in contrast, is very high energy and fun, and is of course a master flirter.

 

[Lozboss]

I get you OP.

I turned 28 in January and I'm financially independent and well off (my Day job is investment banking).

I've stopped telling people what I really do for a job. It helps me screen out the gold diggers and those in their 28-32 range that want a husband.

The thing that scares me is that once you settled down do you become a BETA provider even if you were an alpha? Is alpha determined by your lack of commitment?

 

[zekko]

IThe thing that scares me is that once you settled down do you become a BETA provider even if you were an alpha? Is alpha determined by your lack of commitment?

If you go by the way PUAs define it, alpha probably is defined by lack of commitment. Because they are wanting to push the PUA lifestyle as being the only choice of a "real" man. I have no interest in being a PUA, however.

I really think most of the whole alpha/beta stuff is just bullsh!t. It's just become a big p!ssing contest by posters who want to talk about how alpha they are. The truth is most men are a mix. Tyler talks about "weak beta providers, weak males, weak betas". Someone might call me a beta, but they shouldn't mistake me for being weak.

 

[Tictac]

I really think most of the whole alpha/beta stuff is just bullsh!t. It's just become a big p!ssing contest by posters who want to talk about how alpha they are.

This is why I laughed @ Poon King's posts. He threw 'alpha-beta' around like he knew something.

He jizzed himself calling other posters 'beta', never getting that he was the joke.

 

[zekko]

Sam, if you watch that video I linked to, Tyler is talking about providers and how women will equate them with being weak beta males. The first girl in the video didn't seem to care whether the dentist guy existed or not. But as I said, I think that guy had other problems, aside from being seen as a "provider". Tyler wants to push the PUA lifestyle, he didn't even give it up when he was having children with his live in girlfriend.

Regarding a lack of commitment, no strawman there. I've certainly seen it questioned why any alpha would ever consider commitment, considering he has a endless supply and choice of females avilable to him.

Check out the post by old married dude in the current thread on wedding cake toppers. He says marriage is strictly for betas. I'm no fan of marriage, mind you, but that has a lot to do with the current legal system being favorable to females.

I know some advice is directed specifically toward newbies, but I've never been a fan of dumbed down advice. I wouldn't tell a guy something while thinking "well, this isn't really entirely true, but you're not capable of understanding it like I am".