Beta Provider

[zekko]

I've noticed that the term "provider" here is always preceded by the adjective "beta": Beta Provider. I have a simple question:
Do you think there is such a thing as an Alpha Provider?

It's often said that women want men to act as Protectors and Providers.
I've never heard anyone here say the term "Beta Protector", but obviously the Provider part gets looked down upon a lot.
Or perhaps "Beta Protector" is equivalent to "White Knight"?

 

[5string]

Yes.

I would like to believe that I am an Alpha provider. I "provide" the environment in which my wife and I live. She in turn assumes a more traditional role as a wife. Cooks, cleans, runs errands and otherwise watches my back. Basically takes care of those things which I otherwise have no time to do.

It's something she really appreciates about me.

For those who don't think it's a turn on for a woman to have an Alpha provider, I have news for ya....it is.

A Beta provider is one who "provides", but does not hold the frame in the relationship.

 

[vatoloco]

I have a simple question:
Do you think there is such a thing as an Alpha Provider?

Here and here.

 

[georgie24]

Yes.

I would like to believe that I am an Alpha provider. I "provide" the environment in which my wife and I live. She in turn assumes a more traditional role as a wife. Cooks, cleans, runs errands and otherwise watches my back. Basically takes care of those things which I otherwise have no time to do.

It's something she really appreciates about me.

For those who don't think it's a turn on for a woman to have an Alpha provider, I have news for ya....it is.

A Beta provider is one who "provides", but does not hold the frame in the relationship.

agreed, and thats why teh " right " woman is needed for this kind of relationship, imagine being alpha provider whilst dealing with a BPD's games:crazy: at the same time? 5 years or less and you will hang yourself in the closet or use a 9mm to end the ****t

 

[5string]

For debate:

Say for example you are an Alpha provider as I have described above. Would not the ultimate DJ be one who provides, protects, holds the frame and is able to maintain a high IL with his woman all at the same time?

 

[zekko]

If there is such a thing as an Alpha Provider, why is he never spoken of? Why is it always Beta Provider? A casual reader of this forum would quickly learn to associate the term "provider" with "beta", and thus conclude that being a provider is a very, very bad thing to be.

Here, it is always: The woman fvcks the bad boy, and marries the beta provider.

 

[5string]

If there is such a thing as an Alpha Provider, why is he never spoken of? Why is it always Beta Provider? A casual reader of this forum would quickly learn to associate the term "provider" with "beta", and thus conclude that being a provider is a very, very bad thing to be.

Here, it is always: The woman fvcks the bad boy, and marries the beta provider.

Possibly because so many guys on SS are jaded?

Maybe they do fvck the bad boys and marry the beta providers. But to marry or LTR an Alpha provider would be the ultimate score for a woman.

Could be we hear little about Alpha providers because there are so few who can pull it off?

 

[zekko]

Could be we hear little about Alpha providers because there are so few who can pull it off?

Possibly. I've always thought jealousy played at least a little part in this. A lot of the younger guys especially, may not be able to provide even if they wanted to, so they mock what they can't have, and ascribe it to being "beta".

It's unusual when you think about it. The PUA gurus talk about all of these evolutionary and historical reasons why women respond to certain attributes. Yet, when it comes to the Provider, they want to cut the balls off of him. Why is that?

 

[squirrels]

A "beta provider" is just a paycheck for a woman and her kid.

An "alpha provider" is an active father who takes or at least shares a command-lead in a household.

The reason "provider" so often refers to a "beta provider' is because when you want to talk about an "alpha provider", they do so much more than provide that the term does not encompass it all, so it isn't used.

 

[5string]

Possibly. I've always thought jealousy played at least a little part in this. A lot of the younger guys especially, may not be able to provide even if they wanted to, so they mock what they can't have, and ascribe it to being "beta".

It's unusual when you think about it. The PUA gurus talk about all of these evolutionary and historical reasons why women respond to certain attributes. Yet, when it comes to the Provider, they want to cut the balls off of him. Why is that?

I think you are right. Some guys are jealous, and want to cut the balls of the guys who actually do have a pair.

Rollo comes to mind here. I don't know him, but from his posts, he seems to have a great job and controls the frame in his marriage. Thus he's been happily married for quite some time. I'd bet his wife is happy in the marriage as well. Seems like an Alpha provider to me.

It would be interesting to hear his thoughts on this subject.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Why is it always Beta Provider?

You might also ask why a "Beta Bad Boy" is never spoken of either. Why? There must be some, right?

The reason 'provider' and 'beta' seem synonymous is because this is the most common association. Women ƒuck the bad boy and marry the provider is the most common scenario, not because they wouldn't love to have an Alpha Provider, but because the two are so rarely found in the same individual.

You can call that stereotyping, but understand, those associations aren't established because some guru in the community said so. It's because women have made it the most easily identifiable association.

 

[zekko]

You can call that stereotyping, but understand, those associations aren't established because some guru in the community said so. It's because women have made it the most easily identifiable association.

I'm not so sure I agree. I'm guessing PUA gurus sell most of their products to guys in their 20s, who tend to not have a lot of money. They downplay the whole money/provider bit in any way they can (only gold diggers are attracted to guys with money, girls may marry guys with money but they really want to fvck the poor guys). Just in the same way that they downplay looks. You don't need looks, money, or anything at all going for you, you just need my secret tips - that sort of thing. It's in the interest of the PUA guru to feed the stereotype.

Of course, there will always be more beta providers than alpha providers, just because by definition there has to be more betas than alphas.

As for "bad boys", I think the main appeal of bad boys is not all these supposed alpha characteristics associated with them. It's that the bad boys make it easy for the girls. They will generally say or do anything that will get them into the pants of the girl. This "boldness" makes it easy for the girl because they are the ones being seduced - they don't have to do any of the heavy lifting - which plays into their naturally submissive role.

 

[backbreaker]

I hate the use of these sterotypical terms we throw around here.. alpha male, beta provider, jerk, bad boy, chump.

things are hardly ever that black and white. I provide for my family i'll be damned if i am a beta anything. you think of bad boy you think of some dude with slick back hair coming to pick his date up on a Suzuki booster or some ****. You think alpha male you think of some guy who just walks around with underwear and his **** in his hand just popping people upside the head with it for no reason, just because he's that freaking alpha.

It's not realistic.

people have a little alpha in them, people have a litlte beta than them. I'd admit, I probably spend more money than I should, like on dates and **** like that. it doesn't matter to me but still, no one is perfect. HOwever the trick is, to have more alpha in you then beta., that's a LONG way from when I came here and I was BETA about every possible aspect when it came to women.

something else i want to rant on while I am here.

It's like... just beucase the guy didn't get laid when he was younger, didn't mean he settled down for the first girl that threw ***** his way and he's a "chump". I think that's lazyman's handicapping. A guy spends his life getting his **** together that automaticlaly makes him a chump? I'm not saying there aren't any chumps out there, i know a few. But not every guy who settles with a woman is a chump.

perfect example, my oneitis. I had always assumed that her husband was a chump. And make no mistake, he is.she's going to send him to the poor house, quickly. But when we went down to little rock and her, her husband, me d my fiancee went out to dinner... which i have n problem doing to day, there just isn't anything there anymore... you can tell she defiantly wasn't running ****. I actually had some respect for the guy after that. While he is overprotective of her, very much so, he runs the house. she cooks, he pays the bills, etc.

 

[zekko]

I hate the use of these sterotypical terms we throw around here.. alpha male, beta provider, jerk, bad boy, chump.

things are hardly ever that black and white.

I think that's the main point of what I'm really trying to say.
It's all the black and white absolutes and stereotypes that really bug me about the PUA community.

Regarding alphas, generally around here they are portrayed as guys who dominate their women. But historically, real alphas are guys who dominate the men around them. That's not as easy as the former, is it?

 

[5string]

zekko

In thinking about this on a deeper level, let me offer you this.

It takes most guys many years to become an Alpha provider, if ever. They have to get careers on track, learn about women, play the field and basically grow into much more of a man when they were when younger to reach this point in life. This I think is the main reason that men do not have expiration dates as women do. The female on the other hand loses her value over the course of time.

While men are acquiring wealth, status and knowledge of life, women acquire baggage and wrinkles.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

What I'm about to post here isn't going to make me any new friends, but try to understand that when I go into intergender dynamics on this forum, or any other in the 'community', I never post with the intent to exclude myself or my marriage from the equation. If I have a pet peeve when it comes to respondents to thread topics, it's got to be the "not-in-my-case" personalization anecdotes that attempt to prove a global, general point. As much as I'd like to hold up my personal conditions as a good example for establishing a perspective, I know all too well that things change, often traumatically, and what we think is some solid truth about our life or relationships can turn to resentment in a moment.

Having said that, one thing I consistently observe in people in long term relationships is a constant need for justifying their conditions. In my lifetime I have been a beta, a white knight, had the scarcity and saviour schemas, been the cheater and the cheated on, had ONEitis several times, believed in the soulmate myth, and have been to the edge and turn back from it. I've also enjoyed being an Alpha (albeit unaware at that time), being a minor league rock star, tapping HB9s, and enjoyed sex with over 40 different women. I'm a father and a husband, I've gone from working crap jobs to being consulted with by millionaires, I've gone from ƒucking substandard entitled princesses to swimsuit models to one woman who deserved the ring, yet through all of this I know damn well who I'm dealing with, what I'm dealing with and the mechanics behind all of it. I'm not so arrogant to think I've got it all figured out, but I know from experience what people are potentially capable of. This applies to my career, friends, family and women.

I am a provider. I am an Alpha. I know why both are attractive, and I know that while they are not incompatible they are attractive for different reasons. The guy who's been a beta for his entire life wants to redefine Alpha to fit his conditions. In fact he has to redefine his providership as Alpha to maintain congruency in his life. In light of all the personal sacrifice and selfless devotion that's required of him to be the "good provider" there has to be some rationalized trade off. And this becomes particularly necessary for a beta who's aware of the brutal truth that his personal condition can potentially change on a moment's notice.

If others consider me an Alpha then most of that is the due result of coming to terms with the fact that everything is conditional. Pride comes very easy to guys who consistently provide, but self-pride is necessary in the face of a lack of appreciation. Your wife, your children, any family members you may support, even your ƒucking dog, can NEVER appreciate the sacrifice, determination and doubt you endure and overcome in order to accommodate them - all in the shadow of knowing that if you cannot provide for them your relationship with them will fundamentally change. You want to be an Alpha provider? Accept that truth.

 

[speed dawg]

you think of bad boy you think of some dude with slick back hair coming to pick his date up on a Suzuki booster or some ****. You think alpha male you think of some guy who just walks around with underwear and his **** in his hand just popping people upside the head with it for no reason, just because he's that freaking alpha.

LOLOL That's some funny sh1t right there. True too.

I think society/advertising/bigbadwhateveritis has also programmed us. Nitpicks at mens' self esteem buuut that is a different topic for a different day.

 

[zekko]

Having said that, one thing I consistently observe in people in long term relationships is a constant need for justifying their conditions.

I'm not sure what you mean by "their conditions". But on the chance that you are talking about me here, I do feel a need to justify the position of being in a LTR on this forum. I have NEVER felt a need to justify my position of being in a LTR at any time out in "real life".

But here on the forum, I do think that the choice of being in a LTR is usually under attack, and is depicted as being a weakness, or as somehow "not manly". I realize that this attitude is directed mostly toward people in their 20s who haven't experienced enough of life or women to make the right choice. But this IS the mature man forum, I'm 50 years old, and I see things from my perspective. I am not going to agree with those who belittle the LTR option, provided you have the experience to make a wise choice.

If others consider me an Alpha then most of that is the due result of coming to terms with the fact that everything is conditional.

I completely agree with the idea that everything is conditional, everything can change on a moment's notice. I have always said that I wake up everyday knowing my girlfriend could leave me at anytime. She might meet some other dude that tickles her fancy, decide she wants a different life with children, anything. It is accepting this fact that helps me keep the frame, and oddly, gives me peace of mind as well.

As for being a provider, I could definitely support her if I so chose. However, I prefer that she work and contribute to the household, and so does she. I've never been one of these "my wife will never work" type of guys. Maybe if we had children, it would be different.
But I am a provider in the sense that it is my income which allows us to live the lifestyle that we do. It is my house and I pay the bills although we have a system that allows her to pay her share.

 

[Zunder]

You might also ask why a "Beta Bad Boy" is never spoken of either. Why? There must be some, right?

The reason 'provider' and 'beta' seem synonymous is because this is the most common association. Women ƒuck the bad boy and marry the provider is the most common scenario, not because they wouldn't love to have an Alpha Provider, but because the two are so rarely found in the same individual.

You can call that stereotyping, but understand, those associations aren't established because some guru in the community said so. It's because women have made it the most easily identifiable association.

Most of my friends, and one brother - marrried the first or second woman that took an interest in them. To me thats beta because they just "settled" for the first chick that didn't blolw them off.

 

[guru1000]

Here, the misconception is in believing that actions define the label, Alpha or Beta. The action(s) itself do/does not define the label, but rather the motivations which prompt the action(s).

For example, if you buy your wife a $50,000 updated rock, are you Beta by default? What if you buy no updated rock, are you an Alpha? Can you think of men on both ends of the spectrum, who are both Alpha, or both Beta?

Next time you buy your gf/wife flowers, ask yourself which motivation you are acting upon, before you characterize yourself with a label -- if labels are important to you.