Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I suppose this could be more of a rant. Take it as you will though.

While talking to my girlfriend about our current sexual activities, of which I'll spare you the details, she mentioned that her roommate had read and recommended a book called Daniel Rose's Sex God Method. Always one interested in increasing my sexual prowess (hey, this body has got to be good for something) I decided to take a breeze through a pdf of it.

One of the first things it started getting into was the issue of dominance in sex. It got into talking about how in ancestry there were the divisions of alpha males and beta males and so on, how some women went after the alpha males and some "perfered the gentle, nurturing nature of the beta males". Now the next portion I have to quote verbatim:

QuoteWhat happened though, is that alpha males eventually beat the >-bleeped-< out if the beta males and raped all their women. The children of beta males did not survive, the children of the alpha males did. Evolution slowly weeded out all theose women who were attraced to anything but the most dominant of men.

Today, there is only one type of female: those who like alpha males. The desire to be submissive to a dominant alpha male is one of the deepest and most important instincts of females of any species....

Now, my male side being what would other wise be considered a "beta male", takes offense to this. I don't have the desire to compete, be aggressive or the like, and so to females I'm now not attractive as a mate? More so my kind, the kinder and gentler male should have died out millennia ago? Along with this the female side of me feels that such sentiment undermines my strength and dignity, reducing me to some quivering piece of flesh to be lorded over by some muscle-bound hulk. At this point I had to stop reading, as it was bringing me to compulsively mutter ">-bleeped-< you" under my breath. After a little while I decide to breeze through again, giving it another chance, yet again found more ultra-cis, ultra-hetro sentiment. Humorously enough the book states also that a woman wants someone who's in touch with their animal desires and free of inhibiting social condition. Talk about irony.

My conundrum though is do I have the right to be angry? As being an androgyne that recognizes both sides of my psyche I feel that such writing, while perhaps beneficial to cisgendered people lacking in sexual confidence, re-enforces sexual stereotypes, furthering binary gender roles in society and making it harder for those like me to be accepted (not to mention doing further damage to womens rights). However, as being an androgyne and being neither truly male nor female am I really one to comment, as in a sense I am removed from those direct male/female gender politics?

I feel that in a way androgynes are almost uniquely qualified to comment on such issues as we (at least those who identify as both male and female) speak with better understanding of both sides. I also feel that simply as a human I have the right to comment on something that I think could slow down the process of development of equal rights and respect for all peoples. In spite of those sentiments though, I still feel the need to question the depth of my indignation.

As being those in between (or not at all) how should we face these statements? Should we speak less as androgynes and more from the humanistic side, should we polarize on the fact of detriment to our cause, or simply be above these matters and leave it to the cis to fight it out? Or some other combination?

Maybe should I just get rid of the pdf, lol.

Bise,
-6th

I'm also what would be called a beta-male, and androgyne.

But that line about only 1 type of woman made me laugh. The author, it seems to me, is most seriously out of touch. I'm met my share of dommes who will subjugate beta and alpha males alike. I've also met a number of women who prefer the beta-male to the alpha.

If one's idea of a sex god is based on, say, Zeus, who just "couldn't keep it in his toga" as my daughter puts it, then maybe Mr. Rose is correct. But power is not the same as prowess. Subtlety can often coax a more powerful orgasm from a person than blantancy, in my experience.

Be angry, if you like. Me, I'll just shake my head. I thought that cave-men died out millenia ago. I guess I was wrong.

I'm not sure androgynes fall into binary alpha/beta male notions. You are not a male, therefore you cannot be a beta male but something else. Maybe a beta androgyne?  :)

The idea of an alpha androgyne is kinda interesting XD

Before we even get into "do androgynes fall into alpha/beta etc categories" there's also the fact that the theory offered up by Mr Rose is a LOAD OF COBBLERS FROM SOUP TO NUTS. 

I mean, where is the evidence for this theory?  Surely if

Quote"there is only one type of [bio]female: those who like alpha males"

there would be no lesbians (no woman would ever be attracted to another woman), there would be no feminists (no woman would ever feel the need to challenge male dominance), there would be no butch women, there would be no Dommes (male subs wouldn't exist and no-one would fancy them), there would be no trans men (no-one born in a female body would feel the need to transition), there would be none of the richness and variety that exists among people born in female bodies.  There would be nothing but wave upon wave of swooning ninnies all trying to out-sub each other. 

Quote"The desire to be submissive to a dominant alpha male is one of the deepest and most important instincts of females of any species"

--what, even those species characterised by having dominant females in charge of the group, like elephants? 

And how does Rose sustantiate the claim that

Quote"alpha males eventually beat the >-bleeped-< out if the beta males and raped all their women. The children of beta males did not survive, the children of the alpha males did. Evolution slowly weeded out all theose women who were attraced to anything but the most dominant of men"

?  Did he go back in his time machine and record evidence of these early beta-male centric societies and their destruction by the dominant and rapacious alpha-male? 

This is typical of the bastard children of evolutionary psychology:  irrational, counterfactual, unscientific, sexist, and pro-rape.  Makes yer sick.

QuoteToday, there is only one type of female: those who like alpha males. The desire to be submissive to a dominant alpha male is one of the deepest and most important instincts of females of any species....

I agree, this is absolutely ridiculous. During the years in which I lived as "male", my female partners always expressed appreciation of my "not being like other men", or, as this author puts it, "beta male" qualities. In addition, they had no desire to be partnered with such "alpha male" types.

Anyway, as an androgyne, I'm not sure the concept of alpha and beta androgynes even exists... If it does, I'd like to start a rebellion against it  >:-)

Z

a zephyr androgyne  ;D

I think we have a right to voice when it is plainly damaging for people. Do you have the right to be angry at the treatment of women, men, other queer people, blacks, gingers, disabled etc.. of course you do. This is no different.

This sort of thinking given in the book is bad for everyone. It is bad for men and women. It is bad for us too. The inflexibility of role is the real sticker.

I'm with Nero in his thinking - I'm no male. But at the heart of it I think there is the idea that somone(s) is usualy on top. Nothing wrong with that. I like both. That make me and Alphbeta, I never get any gifts from santa  :embarrassed:.

Maybe I'm making too big a leap here, but to me, it sounds like the same crap you might hear from a gay basher.  To me, Rose sounds like a guy who's afraid of being seen as anything other than the uber macho, alpha male, so he wrote a book to show everyone he knows what a big man he is.  :-\

I hate alpha everything.

You should ask your girlfriend if she is advocating that you slap her around before using her.
I'm sure she'll say no.

Then have her ask her roommate the same thing.

Maybe the roommate found a way to romanticize the book, or maybe she doesn't fully understand the implication.


I just realized that my response may be offensive.  I don't mean any offense.

Quote from: Rebis on November 10, 2008, 08:41:55 PM
Maybe the roommate found a way to romanticize the book, or maybe she doesn't fully understand the implication.

...or more likely she liked that kind of stuff, being submissive, so it made sense to her.

I wonder if you could look at that book as also saying there are no beta males? Since none of them could breed, would there be any left?

I have seen some research that suggests hetero women tend to look for "the gentle, nurturing nature of the beta males" with more fem looks as long term partners and providers. Research suggests these types of men are also less likely to cheat.

Quote from: Rebis on November 10, 2008, 08:41:55 PM
I hate alpha everything.

You should ask your girlfriend if she is advocating that you slap her around before using her.
I'm sure she'll say no.

Then have her ask her roommate the same thing.

Maybe the roommate found a way to romanticize the book, or maybe she doesn't fully understand the implication.


I just realized that my response may be offensive.  I don't mean any offense.

She didn't read any of it beforehand, and was just as horrified when I told her.

As for her roomie, she was suprised that he recommended it afterward, and I agree, he's one of the least alpha males I know.

It occurred to me that there is another reason that the book is nonsense.

Over the centuries, especially before technology made a 90 pound person as powerful as a 300 pound one, wars were fought by the fittest and healthiest of men.  Those men were cut down again and again for millenia.

The weaker and slave types stayed home.  Plus, in some cases, I'm sure men not fit for war took the time to make prego the wives and girlfriends of the fittest who were gone for years at a time in some cases.

There's no way there was a slaughter of Betas.  Betas would probably be dragged off with the armies to fight despite their kinder natures.

Right, Rebis. There is no scholarship of any worth in this book.

I'm not saying this for any particular reason, but I love all of you.

true and it's a ridiculous notion that a 'personality type' can 'die out' anyhow. that's ludicrous. and clearly if betas in the 'physical prowess' sense died out, why are we not now a species of giants?  ::)

A species of dimwitted giants

It must be difficult to write a book with one hand, because it's obvious what his other hand was up to.

up and down to.

well, technically we are taller as a species than we were.

Only because we eat better and we eat more. Usually what we're eating is food.

Quote from: Pica Pica on November 11, 2008, 05:20:19 PM
well, technically we are taller as a species than we were.

not true. men in the mid ages were on average a lot taller than the average for men now. we're only now recovering from the revolutionary period lows.

Quote from: Nero on November 11, 2008, 05:25:09 PM
not true. men in the mid ages were on average a lot taller than the average for men now. we're only now recovering from the revolutionary period lows.

Now by average are we talking about the mean, median or mode?

i remember those words from maths, however I was in special needs maths so I don't actually remember what is all means.

Quote from: Pica Pica on November 12, 2008, 03:22:40 AM
i remember those words from maths, however I was in special needs maths so I don't actually remember what is all means.

special needs? you serious ginger?

yeah, i was top of the smart class with the brainy people for everything, except maths where I was with the dribblers, and art, woodwork and PE where I was told not to bother coming. I went to the library instead.

well now i don't feel so embarrassed to admit i didn't remember what Nicky meant either!

Posted on: November 12, 2008, 05:34:05 am

---

PS bet the bullies had fun with you!

nope. i was never bullied. except when i first moved to coventry...but their bullying methods were so cliche, so out of a social education play that i laughed at them and invited me to bully me the next day, they never did.

bet that was a scene worthy of your hero.

not quite, he always had his nifty sword play to back it up. i just had a mouth.
of course in those days my nickname was matchstick and I wore trousers for children much younger than me, i was also just drifting away from being a truely rabid christian. all fun.

of course what i really fear is numbers  :) i count the till in the morning, and i never get the same amount twice.

you were a rabid christian?  :o

yeah, tried to convert people, didn't we all?

no.  :laugh: i was a much more passive christian. oh god, you running around trying to convert people! did you have a trusty bible in hand on the playground?  >:-)

Quote from: Pica Pica on November 12, 2008, 03:32:06 AM
yeah, i was top of the smart class with the brainy people for everything, except maths where I was with the dribblers, and art, woodwork and PE where I was told not to bother coming. I went to the library instead.

I wish they would've let me not show up to PE. I cut that class as often as I could, finally one semester I was told that I'd flunk if I didn't show up, which would've screwed up graduating. They proposed that I wouldn't have to play any sports, just show up and sit on the bench and they would give me a passing grade. So I sat on the bench reading books. Frankly, I think libraries are much nicer places to read  :P They still tried to make me change into the uniform for class, and I argued that, saying what's the point if I'm not playing.

Z

Mean:  You add up all of the guy's heights, then you divide that number by the number of guys. 

Median:  You arrange all the heights in order (lowest at one end, highest at the other), then pick the number in the middle.

Mode:  You look at all the numbers, and count how often each one appears.  The one that appears most often is the mode.

when most people talk of averages they are refering to the mean.

I have to admit to being a bit of a maths geek. I seem to have an intuitive nack for it. I don't tend to know the 'rules' but the principals behind it just seem to come naturally. If you know the principals you can derive most of the rules anyway. At university I did a lot of Statistics and some stuff on applied logic. I'm pretty rusty now though  :embarrassed:

I went to a catholic boys college ('high school' for the Americans). Not entirely sure when I lost my faith. I think I was 14 when I decided to actually think about what people were telling me. Then I felt guilty for a couple years then got over it.

Quote from: Pica Pica on November 12, 2008, 03:57:02 AM
yeah, tried to convert people, didn't we all?

Nope, lol. I was never a good catholic. Complained from day 1 that I didn't want to be there. Then I started to learn the in's and out's of the religion and started asking questions people couldn't answer. That was fantastic ^_^