DISCUSSIONAlpha / Beta ----> Madonna / Whore? (Discussion) (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by Pixie03103 Stars

Okay, well, the title is a bit misleading but I wasn't sure how to put it. I have seen a few times, in here, when people discuss the concept of 'alpha' & 'beta' traits, it comes up whether there is any kind of female equivalent. I guess I should say, less of an equivalent, more of a wavy parallel (if you look at it sideways and drunk).

Today I was browsing on the Bad Girl's Bible. Basically, this man who was pretty happily married, but still ended up attracted to another woman. She was less physically attractive, but he found himself into her, etc. He loved his wife, but they had settled into family life / comfort. Obviously there are so many reasons this could happen - even just a man's biological drive to like variety, etc. But it triggered off thoughts about the common Madonna / Whore issue a lot of men face. I think I even saw something in here about it recently.

So then it occurred to me - is this some kind of skewed version of alpha and beta? I mean, of course, for lots of different reasons and mechanisms. But hear me out. Madonna / Whore are two separate sets of traits that a woman or women can have. They can co-exist, but sometimes they don't. Some women lean toward "hot and crazy," some women lean toward "nurturing and boring." And there are all kinds of variations and blends in the middle. Men tend to go crazy wanting sex with the "Whore," but she isn't always the type he wants to take home to mom (very similar to our attractions to alpha / beta traits).

Ideally, a woman would balance both sides, and find the sweet spot of being good LTR material and still inspiring a man's sex drive. Kind of like how a good Captain is often that "just-right" blend of alpha / beta traits that works for us; provides us both security and makes us crazy over him.

Obviously they don't compare exactly, but they wouldn't, as men & women and the things that attract them to each other are very different. I just wanted to open up the conversation and see if it makes sense to anyone! I just thought it was kind of an interesting thing.

[–]Kara__El1 Star 48 points49 points  (20 children)

I like your comparison. I think it has merit. If a man doesn't balance his beta traits with his alpha traits, both caring for his wife when she's sick and taking no crap when when she's out of line, he'll go too far in either direction and be the asshat or the doormat. I do think the woman's situation can be a bit more precarious, though, because there's really only one thing your husband absolutely can't get somewhere else, if you want a faithful spouse.

As Jackie Burkhart once said: "The woman needs to be the cook in the kitchen, a maid in the living room and an acrobat in the bedroom... and I can hire a cook and a maid."

[–]Rbot_ov3rl04d 16 points17 points  (8 children)

Well said. I think a lot of married couples fail to achieve these critical balances once they've settled down, which is why the divorce rate is so high.

Married men don't cheat/have affairs because everything is happy and wonderful at home. If cheating occurs, its a symptom of a bigger problem.

[–]MarquisDePaid 9 points10 points  (7 children)

There are some (small number) men literally inapable of pair bonding properly just like some (small amount) of women can't unfortunately

See genetic variation in vasopressin

Genetic variation in the vasopressin receptor 1a gene (AVPR1A) associates with pair-bonding behavior in humans

Now as a man I'm not quite sure how a woman would use this information to be able to "vet" a potential suitor without genetic tests, but it's worth noting

This is a "dark" area of science and neomarxist comissars actively disrupt most studies of it via NGOs

They removed the mention of it in wikipedia because it conflicts with their "sexology" pseudoscience

One study has suggested that genetic variation in male humans affects pair-bonding behavior. The brain of males uses vasopressin as a reward for forming lasting bonds with a mate, and men with one or two of the genetic alleles are more likely to experience marital discord. The partners of the men with two of the alleles affecting vasopressin reception state disappointing levels of satisfaction, affection, and cohesion.

Perhaps in a world where neomarxists are all gone people can look for a cure for the genetic disruption that causes these issues for some men in the same way we find cures for dietary diseases but I digress

[–]TFWyourWaifuDies 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Now as a man I'm not quite sure how a woman would use this information to be able to "vet" a potential suitor without genetic tests, but it's worth noting

T-levels are also heritable. Yet, we know how to judge a males T-levels without testing him. It's in the behavior.

Same applies here. If a man sleeps around extensively, chances are his vasopressin levels are low.

Like you said, there is an area of science that is heavily suppressed, because they don't want the "we are all ewual" agenda to be exposed. Areas like behavioral genetics and the heritability of IQ.

[–]MarquisDePaid 2 points3 points  (2 children)

T levels, much like dopamine receptivity in the brain (increased is correlated with leadership) is interlooped with behavioral changes and vice versa

It's not pre determined, a non-alpha-male can arise to alpha male status in several species and this is neurologically observable

Many men today with undeveloped social skills and what not become "late bloomers" as they develop healthy social skills and confidence later in life which will in turn influence their T levels and what not

But is vasopressin a complex loop like those, or is it an on/off disorder in the sense some people genetically have disorders like PKU protein indigestion?

[–]TFWyourWaifuDies 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Oh yes, I'm aware of how T-levels can change. But they do have a genetic predispositions and upper limits.

But is vasopressin a complex loop like those, or is it an on/off disorder in the sense some people genetically have disorders like PKU protein indigestion?

This would be interesting to know, but for now I don't think we could have the answer.

I think women should assume it operates as a complex loop with behaviour, because it's better to be safe than sorry in today's relationship market.

[–]MarquisDePaid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea I mean the point I was making was that women should strive to be a faithful mate in a relationship while also demanding respect for themselves and not putting up with abusive behavior

[–]Rbot_ov3rl04d 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Since its such a small number of men and women, is it beneficial to research a possible treatment? Wont it naturally die out if the defect isnt transferred to offspring?

[–]MarquisDePaid 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I have no idea on the hereditary risk, if it stems from pure genetics or if there's a social/environmental role in its manifestation (like with many complex disorders like schizophrenia)

I'd love to study it in depth but alas there are too many comissar oppressor NGOs blocking off science right now

Read an argument between "Redriotgirl" and I and you will see how neomarxists operate, they don't argue for actual science or ideas but instead try to suppress whatever they don't like

[–]Rbot_ov3rl04d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I read it, along with all the articles posted. I didnt see any cover up, but i may not be reading enough into it.

[–]Pixie03103 Stars[S] 10 points11 points  (9 children)

Such a good quote, haha.

Yeah, that's basically exactly what I'm getting at. The delicate balance of the two extreme ends of the spectrum. With men, we call it alpha / beta. And there are entire systems built on that concept.

I'm just wondering if there isn't something going on, albeit less discussed, on a comparable but entirely different female spectrum. Traits ranging from the highly sexual, passionate but (red flag) crazy end, to the tender, caring and nurturing but (red flag) boring end.

[–]Kara__El1 Star 10 points11 points  (4 children)

I almost feel like it's easier for a woman, because both extremes are perceived as good. You rub his shoulders after work, be a good mom, decorate your home nicely, bake brownies for the family picnic, and then you... well, I'll leave it to your imagination, so as not to get vulgar, but you get the idea. Men have to balance their alpha traits really carefully, because if they're too dominant, it can come off as mean or cruel. My husband sometimes has trouble not steamrolling me, because he's just naturally very alpha. I have a big personality too, though, so he doesn't want to be weak. While the stakes might be a little higher for me, it's not like I ever have to worry about cleaning too much or giving too many blowjobs. It's easy enough to do both extremes, whereas he has to find a happy medium.

[–]Pixie03103 Stars[S] 9 points10 points  (2 children)

True, in your relationship it sounds like a good balance! Like you've found the sweet spot.

But the equivalent might be a woman who leans more toward the sexual / passionate end of the spectrum - at the expense of being less "wifey." She's hot, but prickly; sexy and exciting, but not cuddly. And she doesn't like cooking and cleaning. (Tbh, that sounds like me when I was younger, lol. And that was a bad thing.)

Or, on the other end, she bakes cookies all the time and loves 17th century romance novels, adores kitties and puppies, wants 5 kids, but maybe is bland / boring in the bedroom, and is too shy to dirty talk and uncomfortable with sex or her body, or she's a bit chubby from all the baking.

I mean, these are concepts I think we talk about in RPW anyway - balancing being wife material & still smokin hot. I'm just starting to see it on a... spectrum. And that maybe if we're struggling with rough spots in our relationship or the types of people we're attracting, we can look at where we stand on the spectrum - the same way a guy might examine his own balance of alpha / beta traits, and adjust accordingly, to fine-tune the vibration we want to put out there and get the responses we're looking for.

[–]Kara__El1 Star 10 points11 points  (0 children)

That makes sense. I've definitely met the "Proud Bitch" who posts sexy photos on Facebook all the time, despite being married and the chubby mom who has no other identity. I just think learning to... well, not post slutty Facebook photos is pretty easy, as is getting naked more often. I agree, though. It's a spectrum. I just think it's an easier one than the one men balance, in part because our society is so hateful toward any manly man.

[–]erthian 4 points5 points  (0 children)

is too shy to dirty talk and uncomfortable with sex or her body, or she's a bit chubby from all the baking

I started to type out a reply to your original post, but thought I should read through the comments. This is basically what I was going to point out. Alpha/Beta for women is actually same as it is for men. Women generally get more sexual as they have more confidence. Guys have to learn to be comfortable with their sexuality, and still learn sexual technique as well.

My other point was going to be, if you want to keep a partner, have something to offer other than sex, but you seem to have that as well. Having a partner who provides value to your life, whether it be domestic, a partner in growth, a friend, or similar interest, goes a lot further than most women seem to think. We can get sex anywhere, but a person who has real merit is rare. Again, working on your self, being in shape, feeling better about your self, not for them, but for you, makes you a more attractive person.

PS I'm pretty new to trpwomen. Been involved on the otherside for many years tho, so please tell me what I'm missing. I'm here to learn.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 3 points4 points  (0 children)


Also because men are more simplistic in their needs and are therefore much easier to pleas and satiate. Women are more complicated in their needs and their desires and more difficult to pleas. And satiate.

[–]TFWyourWaifuDies 4 points5 points  (1 child)

The variation in men is greater than the variation in women. A great example would be IQ. By the way, IQ is highly heritable.

Nature has made it this way. Nature experiments much more with men. This means creating great men, but also incels. Some men are able to reach greater highs, but some men reach lower lows.

If nature experimented with women and created female incels, humans wouldn't evolve. Women are needed to be the constant.

In addition, women are also a lot more agreeable. In other words, they are trend followers, rather than trend setters. Which reinforces the idea that the variation in women is lower.

[–]Pixie03103 Stars[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get this & I agree. It makes a lot of sense.

Rather that so much looking to make it equal to or a match to the variation / spectrum of men, I was just thinking it could be a useful way for women to examine their own tendencies and behaviours, and find balance where they need it. It might be a smaller spectrum, or an easier balance to find, but still useful.

[–]Rbot_ov3rl04d 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I would think caring and nurturing would include caring and nurturing towards your husband, which in my mind would include sex and intimacy.

[–]Pixie03103 Stars[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could be true, but in the context I mean here, I'm basically separating out motherly qualities from - say - girlfriend qualities. Looking at them as two ends of a spectrum, for the sake of discussion.

[–]cocksuckaddict 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well said.

[–]Taliahood 11 points12 points  (2 children)

So I've just returned to this lifestyle after going in the opposite direction for several years. About 4 or 5 years ago I came across red pill theory after Rooshes parody of "a modest proposal" blew up on my social media feed and my feminist friends were signing petitions to skewer his balls. I read everything I could on the theory and I was absolutely hooked. But when searching for a forum for women there wasnt much out there. And what I was able to find seemed heavily heavily weighted towards moral purity and a moral obligation to be submissive. It was nothing like this incredible platform we have here today and women were being shamed for being anything less than the "madonna" so here I found myself trying to become not a better version of myself but an entirely different woman all together. At one point my husband who had no idea what I was even doing said "Taliahood, wtf are you doing? Stop being so submissive it's boring the hell out of me" I was so frustrated. I was doing everything right (in my opinion) and he called me boring? That and a number of other things completely derailed my efforts and I went back to my bitchy sarcastic critical self because at the very least that's not boring. But that wasnt working either. Here years later I'm returning to red pill because I know it's what is going to save my marriage and restore my husbands pride which ive stolen from him, and I am thrilled to see how much this community has developed. The other day I saw a post where a woman said "I'm just too opinionated" and another user told her that the goal wasnt to not have opinions and that having opinions was a good thing but in the end everything should be up to your man. This is what I didnt get before and I needed to read that. This time I'm finding much more balance in my relationship in recognizing that I need to stay genuine and not hold myself to an unrealistic standard. And I could even speculate that at times my husband likes to be faced with my inner bitch because it gives him reason to have to assert his dominance over me. But also I find a whole lot of balance in bring out my bad girl/whore in the bedroom. And escaping mommy and daddy roles of our day to day life by spending date nights at strip clubs is also massively helpful to to our marriage for a number of reasons.

But long story short, I totally see the parallel you're drawing even if it's kind of different.

[–]Pixie03103 Stars[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

YES. Exactly all this.

It doesn't always line up exactly with some RP theory, but I get where you are coming from. I can't analyse it out because I don't exactly understand it. But for example - my fiance wants me to be only his and cheating is so off-limits, but is simultaneously repulsed / turned-on by imagining me with other men or imagining my sexual past. It does something for him sexually and turns our bedroom into a madhouse. In a good way.

I think it's all in the balance, just like you are saying / seeing. And the balance will also be different, depending on your SO. Some men might want someone more on one end of the spectrum, or the other. But I think there's a lot of variation. And the best way is blending your own personal mix of June Cleaver and Jenna Jameson. Idk, that's just how I'm seeing it at the moment.

[–]Taliahood 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh yessss! We do that same thing and its SO hot.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 21 points22 points  (2 children)

Men will always lust after other women. Always. The reason for this is the male need for sexual variety. To seek out many sexual mates, not necessarily the highest quality mate.

When a man gets married, he gives up on actualization of this lust for variety but the lust itself is biological and will always remain. (Women in turn are supposed to give up their drive for hypergamy, but that's for another post).

Then there's love goggles, which is what happens when a man's provider/protector instincts are fully activated. He'll focus more and more of his sexual, emotional and other forms of energy at her and only her. He will be completely satisfied by her and her alone.

Not all women are capable of inspiring such utter devotion, but if you did manage to pull it off - please don't ruin it. Sexual rejection, nagging, criticizing, lack of respect, no more admiration etc etc etc will chip away at this utter devotion, causing death by a thousand wounds.

Even the most faithful, devoted husband will respond with lustful desire when presented with a desirable woman displaying desire to him. He may not act on it, but it'll certainly stir him because it's a biological response. Because men are hardwired to desire multiple women simultaneously, this desire does not diminish his desire for his wife.

Not so with the provider/protector instincts. These are highly focused. If these get directed elsewhere, your share will be diminished or eliminated. Unfortunately, sexual desire and the provider/protector instincts are often conflated in a similar way to how male and sexual imperatives are often conflated.

The Maddona/whore complex is the complete separation between the sexual desire and the provider/protector instincts. It occurs when it becomes one or the other instead of one and the other.

[–]lostdog1 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Dude here, and this comment deserves some positive attention and I’ll add on to it as an RP male who doesn’t spin plates.

If a woman lusts after him (not fake lust, that is something we’ll internally realize, have our way with you for one night, but ultimately feel manipulated and can cause us to seek that actual list elsewhere), it evokes that provided/protector mode in us. If a woman loses the list for her man and it becomes duty sex, big problems are on the horizon. Experienced it and left that situation myself (too long a story), and will do so again if that happens in my current LTR.

The thousand little cuts is real and cruel. Neither party should have any covert contracts.... those killllllll desire and the relationship

The earlier quote about hiring a maid/cook is spot on.... we want all those qualities, but the pecking order is acrobat, acrobat, acrobat, cook/maid. The more real the want is for each other, the stronger the relationship is and brings out the best “alpha/whore” pieces in each, as well as those balanced “beta/madonna” roles.

[–]Pixie03103 Stars[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The more real the want is for each other, the stronger the relationship is and brings out the best “alpha/whore” pieces in each, as well as those balanced “beta/madonna” roles.

I totally get this & agree 100%. Ideally, all these traits are blended, balanced, and show in a good relationship. And I agree that the fire needs to be there and be strong for the rest of it to keep working. A lot of focus is given in RP in general on men keeping up their alpha traits to keep things going. I was thinking it might be good for the RPW to remember the importance of keeping up their "whore" traits, too. A lot of focus is given on housekeeping, cooking, being submissive - all of which is great, and in this feminist culture, really needs re-learning. But also important not to forget to be sexy and wild in ways, because without that passion, it becomes stale.

[–]immaculacy 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I thought you meant the singer Madonna so I was confused for a bit why you were separating her from the whore category haha.

[–]Pixie03103 Stars[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Hahaha!!!!! Also called virgin / whore I think? Maybe I should've used that, lol.

[–]BrownGummyBear 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for clarifying :]

[–]chomponthebit 3 points4 points  (3 children)

You’re making the mistake of thinking you’re responsible for what men think and feel. Madonna/whore is about a man’s conflicting need to 1. respect and admire the mother of his children and 2. dominate his lover in the bedroom.

Some men cannot rectify the two which is where the syndrome comes in. She wants him to dominate her, but he can’t bear to see her this way. So he finds another whore to keep his wife on her pedestal - which obviously spirals into disaster.

[–]Pixie03103 Stars[S] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I'm not talking specifically about the textbook psychological syndrome as it is diagnosed, as much as using the expression to think about two ends of a spectrum in feminine personality traits (sexuality vs. nurturing).

[–]chomponthebit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If anything, it has more to do with the man’s beta traits than anything. Betas know they want to dominate, but they don’t understand women WANT to be dominated. Again, beta men are taught that women are porcelain creatures who deserve to be on pedestals and don’t get that women can’t respect any man who puts her above himself

[–]skeleflor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This. I do think M/W is comparable in a sense to the A/B dichotomy in that both polarities are desirable in a partner and one should strive to integrate them. As I'm the one who mentioned it the other day, I should clarify that I was speaking of something that men largely have no conscious control over, which you've described perfectly here.

Practically speaking, I'm just not sure how much of a husband's perception of a woman is within her control in this case. She can work to maintain the balance between lover and mother, but if the issue is psychological (as when talking about the Madonna/whore complex) it has to be addressed by the man. There may be a few ways a man could mitigate the problem. For instance, minimizing or abstaining from porn usage (particularly anything humiliating/degrading) that may bleed into his fantasies or expectations in the bedroom. If you need something aberrant or extreme to get off it may be more difficult to approach the mother of your children with those desires. Likewise, in order to create greater mental separation between "mother" and "lover" often the husband will find himself drawn to increasingly more extreme and fetishized forms of pornography which allow him to make a hard distinction between his private, visceral desires (i.e. "animal" desires) and what he engages in with the mother of his children (i.e. "civilized" desires).

I've often joked with my friends that the divorce rate shot up when men started to go into the delivery room with their wives. A guy friend told me that it was hard for him to get over seeing a human infant emerge from between his wife's legs. His first thought was, "Can I still fuck that?" My father also noted that observing both his children's C-sections was no less traumatic. Perhaps as a measure of extreme prophylactic defense against M/W, men with weaker mental constitutions could skip out on the miracle of life and resume passing out cigars in the waiting room. :)

[–]immaculacy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it's very important for there to be a mix. There's no excuse for wanting other women while he's married. But men do want the lady in the streets slut in the sheets (only with him) so if you get a good husband you'll want to learn to make him crazy. All decent men would rather his wife be "the whore" with him instead of searching for other women.

[–][deleted]  (5 children)


[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

You aren't funny.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)


    [–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

    Well then you are commenting on concepts that you do not understand and that means you don't have anything helpful to contribute to the women here. Men are supposed to spend time on TRP before coming to RPW.

    Hint: This refers to The Madonna of Christianity not the singer.

    [–]TheObelisk -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    Oh i see, sorry i'm not a Christian and don't know all the different characters. My bad. I would say in this instance i don't have anything helpful to contribute, but i wouldn't say in general or as a whole i don't have anything helpful to contribute. But yeah, here i've misunderstood. Sorry, again.

    [–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    It's more of an archetype of the Western Canon.

    Regardless of what you feel you have to contribute, you need to spend time on TRP before you contribute here. That is the rule and you have no post history on TRP so you can't participate on RPW. The men's sub may have been quarantined but it is still accessible and active.

    [–]organicsunshine 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    The saying "Lady in the sheets, Freak between the sheets" exists for a reason. Be both.

    [–]KrustyKrabReject -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Lady in the streets, whore in the sheets.