Manosphere misogynists like to tell themselves fairy tales about women. Their favorite such tale, repeated endlessly, is one called “The Cock Carousel” – sometimes referred to in expanded form as the “Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel” or the “Bad Boy Cock Carousel.” (Hence that Rooster-riding gal you see in this blog’s header about half the time.)
Despite the different names, the story is always, monotonously, the same: In their late teens and twenties, when they’re at the height of their sexual appeal, women (or at least the overwhelming majority of them) have sex in rapid succession with an assortment of charismatic but unreliable alpha males and “bad boys” who make their vaginas (or just ‘ginas) tingle. Then, sometime in their mid-to-late twenties, these women “hit the wall,” with their so-called sexual market value (or SMV) dropping faster than Facebook’s stock price. As Roissy/Heartiste puts it, in his typically overheated prose:
So sad, so tragic, the inevitable slide into sexual worthlessness that accompanies women, the withering tick tock of the cosmic clock stripping their beauty in flayed bits of soulletting mignons like psychological ling chi. A sadistic thief in the night etching, billowing, draping and sagging a new affront to her most preciously guarded asset.
While many women try to pretend they’ve still “got it,” even at the ripe old age of thirty, they inevitably have to either get off or get thrown off the “cock carousel.” At this point the more savvy women glom onto some convenient “beta male” who, while somewhat lacking in sexual appeal, will at least be a good husband and provider for them – and in many cases the children they’ve had with alpha male seed. Those women who don’t accept the new reality are destined to end up alone and childless, surrounded by cats.
To borrow the phrase South Park used in its episodes about Scientology and Mormonism, this is what manosphere men actually believe. Not only that, but they claim that this fairy tale is based on real science.
So who are these mysterious alpha males that get the women so excited? As one guide to pickup artist (PUA) lingo puts it:
In animal hierarchies, the Alpha Male is the most dominant, and typically the physically strongest member of the group. For example, in wolf packs, the “alpha wolf” is the strongest member of the pack, and is the leader of the group. This position of leadership is often achieved by killing or defeating the previous Alpha Male in combat. Alpha wolves have first access to food as well as mating privileges with the females of the pack.
Social status among human social groups is less rigidly defined than in the animal kingdom, but there are some recognizable parallels. Although people don’t often engage in physical violence to achieve dominance, there are still recognizable leaders in different fields who have wide access to material resources and women.
Because the qualities of the Alpha Male (such as social dominance and leadership) are attractive to women, many PUAs have adopted these ideals as models of emulation. In fact, the term “alpha” has come be shorthand for the qualities of an attractive man, and it is a common refrain among PUAs to be “more alpha” or to “out alpha” competitors.
There’s a certain logic to all this. But unfortunately for the PUAs and other manospherians the notion of the Alpha male is based on bad science. The notion of Alpha dominance, as the definition above notes, came originally from studies of wolf packs. Even if we assume that wolf behavior is somehow a good model upon which to base our understanding of human romance – as manosphere men and evolutionary psychologists tend to do – the science behind the Alpha male wolf has now come completely undone, with many of those who promulgated the theory in the first place decades ago now explicitly repudiating it.
The problem, you see, is that the studies underlying the notion of the alpha male wolf, who aggressively asserts his dominance over beta males in order to rule the pack, were all based on observations of wolves in captivity. In the real world, wolf packs don’t work that way at all. Most wolf packs are basically wolf families, with a breeding pair and their pups. When male pups reach adulthood, they don’t fight their fathers for dominance — they go out and start their own families.
As noted wolf behavior expert L. David Mech, one of those who helped to establish and popularize the notion of the alpha wolf in the first place, explains on his website:
The concept of the alpha wolf is well ingrained in the popular wolf literature at least partly because of my book “The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species,” written in 1968, published in 1970, republished in paperback in 1981, and currently still in print, despite my numerous pleas to the publisher to stop publishing it. Although most of the book’s info is still accurate, much is outdated. We have learned more about wolves in the last 40 years then in all of previous history.
One of the outdated pieces of information is the concept of the alpha wolf. “Alpha” implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle. However, most wolves who lead packs achieved their position simply by mating and producing pups, which then became their pack. In other words they are merely breeders, or parents, and that’s all we call them today, the “breeding male,” “breeding female,” or “male parent,” “female parent,” or the “adult male” or “adult female.” In the rare packs that include more than one breeding animal, the “dominant breeder” can be called that, and any breeding daughter can be called a “subordinate breeder.”
So the dominant male wolves – those whom manosphere dudes would still call the alphas – achieve this position not by being sexy badasses but simply by siring and taking responsibility for pups. To use the terminology in the manner of manosphere dudes, alphas become alphas by acting like betas. That’s right: alphas are betas. (For more of the details, see this paper by Mech; it’s in pdf form.)
Also, they’re wolves and not humans, but that’s a whole other kettle of anthropomorphized fish.
This isn’t actually nice or fair, but on the “sterile alpha” front I have a few issues:
1)The responsible thing to do is not saddle someone with an unplanned pregnancy.
2)PUAs want maximum matings, which the reproductive drive pushes. The argument is that the body can’t tell the difference, the male (who are the most variable in reproductive success/failure) still mated.
Oh yeah, I’m constantly sitting in the back of my community orchestra, thinking, SOON.
Because teh wimminz simply cannot resist a good baton-waver who can keep the beat and knows how to work the orchestra.
WTF the orchestra conductor is performative masculinity? Seriously?
Do you even know what performative masculinity is?
Eurosabra’s comment, refiltered.
Because culture and masculinity-as-performance makes human “dad’s with kids” context-dependent. In MMA, it’s beating the other guys, literally. In the Philharmonic, it’s being the conductor. In the bar, being the bouncer/manager/DJ. That’s why office-job guys-still-living-with-their-parents are so upset about swaggering job-free “cool-breeze dad’s with kids” (and we all know what that’s code for.) It’s also a *performance*, meaning one must get the execution at least somewhat right even if one has the position on paper.
Hmm. Doesn’t seem to make much sense.
Dangit. ‘Dads with kids’–apostrophe is totally wrong there. *sigh*
So false it hurts. If this was true, all animals in their natural state would be having sex constantly.
Evolutionary pressures actuallly push for animals to raise as many children as possible to adulthood. This involves mating, but also pair bonding, social bonding, childrearing, food-gathering, etc. If humans were actually hardwired to just have as much sex as possible, we’d be extinct from starvation.
Next comment, refiltered.
Again, you seem a little confused here.
The body also can’t tell that the man is mating with one woman or a variety of woman. Or if the man is masturbating. The chemicals are released either way. So why does evopsych say that men are wired for multiple partners?
There is mostly a pecking order, outside communes and other specifically-cooperative forms of social organization (the ones I can think of being Hutterite communes, the Quakers, and the Unitarians.) Where there is a power imbalance, hetero males tend to use it to get laid, either harassingly or from the prestige/resource boost to the women involved, or by being seen as more charismatic through the exercise of the position. It’s not the only dynamic, but it’s the one most men see and experience most viscerally as the subordinate.
Pecking order according to whom? Can you define a consistent way to tell Alpha from Beta?
I don’t know where you live, but the Hutterites near my hometown are patriarchal and rape culture-y as all hell.
Using a power imbalance with a woman to have sex with her = sexual assault. Fortunately, most hetero males actually don’t do that.
Statistically speaking, most men are happily partnered with people they love.
This, a million times, this. The reproductive drive must result in offspring who survive to adulthood and who then reproduce their own offspring. Simply fucking a female and leaving to find the next female to fuck does not achieve this goal. It may give you a higher chance of conceiving children but it certainly would not give those children a higher chance of survival, especially if you abandon the lot of them.
The other aspect that these evopsych guys ignore is that if we take their theories to the logical conclusion, then women have just as much drive to have multiple partners as men do. They would not want the same man to father every child, because if he had some sort of genetic flaw or defect, all of her offspring would have the same reduced chance of survival. It would make far more evolutionary sense for her to have a different father for every child to provide the widest genetic pool possible. It’s funny, but the evopsych guys never seem to consider that.
Also, since every study ever done on the subject shows longterm partners have more sex, on average, than people dating around, then if PUA was actually about satisfying the reproductive drive it would be “find someone you’re sexually compatible with and marry her.”
Since it’s not, and is actually about shoring up insecure masculinity by playing manipulation games, the advice is “spend time that you could be having sex or pursuing your interests playing manipulation games with hundreds of people.”
When it comes to Eurosabra’s “pecking order”… Okay, this much I agree with: Some people are more popular than others. Some people have higher social status than others. These people will have an easier time both getting new acquantances and getting laid. Not in every particular context (a person who’s normally looked up to may be looked down upon within a particular group of people), but in most situations.
I’ll think we can all agree on that, it’s not particularly controversial.
It’s just that the whole PUA philosophy doesn’t follow.
Death by Snoo-snoo. Avoided by pure luck for a million years.
I like my men like I like my coffee; delicious and easy-access.
Eurosabra likes his women like he likes his coffee; ground up in the fridge.
I like my coffee bitter and ice-cold… 🙁
I think the “problem” is that the overwhelming majority of PUA’s – despite their “I iz an Alpha nao!” chest-beating – identify with the “hapless beta”.
The whole alpha/beta/omega system exists so that everyone can identify as a beta. That way, you can blame all your failings on not being an alpha, while still being able to hold other people in contempt as omegas.
I like my women like I like my coffee: strong and robust with a hint of sweetness, with plenty of milk and capable of making me so wired that I can’t sleep for days.
Wait, what?
I like my coffee Cuban or Turkish, but anyhow, strong, dark, sweet, and hot.
I like my coffee so strong it basically kicks me out of bed in the morning.
Um.
@hot beverage discussion- I actually do not like coffee at all. I prefer a wuyi loose leaf oolong or a decadent dark hot chocolate with whipped cream.
Num.
I just like coffee. Black, with some sugar, with cream. Esspresso, drip, “turkish”.
I don’t care for it with honey, and I don’t care for it with cream and sugar (one or the other, thank you). I like it so much I think I shall head to my local coffee house and get some.
Eurosabra: There is mostly a pecking order, outside communes and other specifically-cooperative forms of social organization (the ones I can think of being Hutterite communes, the Quakers, and the Unitarians.)
Care to explain how this pecking order is arranged? The mechanisms for establishing and maintaining it?
And I can’t speak to Unitarians, or Hutterites, but I can say that in the egalitarian Quaker Meetings I have attended, some Friends have more “weight” than others (the term I’ve heard is, “heavy Quakers” because they are more listened to/agreed with than others.
Yes, it takes consensus (i.e. unanimity) to make a decision, so they can’t take over, but there is a sort of social rank.
But it’s far from the nonsense of Alpha/Beta of the PUA world.
Dammit, I missed the trollsplosion.
aworldanonymous: Don’t worry, there will be another one along shortly.