I was skimming some posts from a few days ago that I hadn't gotten to yet and came across this line of comments and it seemed very off to me - especially given that two of our mods were on board with the idea. I'm not shaming them; I could very well be the one who's wrong. So, let me toss this out for a broader conversation. Think of it like one of those many Steven Crowder: "Change My Mind" videos, but in text form. Or maybe you agree and don't want to change my mind. Let's hear it either way.


Here's the gist of it: some books like MMSLP will say that a healthy marriage requires a mixture of alpha and beta. The theory is that alpha traits build attraction, whereas beta traits build longevity. In hypergamy terminology, alpha caters to a woman's ovulatory cycle (AF/alpha seed) and the beta traits cater to her luteal cycle (BB/beta need). I think u/cholomite on MRP once said, "Tingles without fuzzies won't last; fuzzies without tingles are worthless." It sounds like some people think alpha is what produces tingles and beta is what produces fuzzies. I'm not convinced. This view seems to (in my mind, mistakenly) define a person's alpha/beta characteristics from the woman's point of view. If it's attractive to her, it's alpha; if it's meeting her provisional needs, it's beta.

In my view, alpha and beta are descriptors of a man's internal framework, not defined by the woman's perception - and also not merely behavioral classifications. Consider the following examples:

  • Having a good job

    • Beta: MMSLP says having a good job is a beta quality in a man because it meets a woman's desire for provision from her man. Does that mean a "true alpha" is impossible for a guy with a good job? If so, then we've taken the meaning of the word "beta" so far that it's no longer useful. Every guy who strives to improve his finances is suddenly part-beta. And when the word applies on such a broad scale, it ceases to have value as a classification metric.
    • Alpha: Many men with "good, stable jobs" are working not out of a source of provision for their spouse (her framework), but because of his own internal drive and imperative (his framework) that he would maintain with or without her. Something in him compels him toward excellence. The fact that he uses his position of financial strength to benefit his wife is not a sublimation to her framework; it's an expression of his strength as a financially dominant alpha who derives enjoyment from utilizing his strength for someone he cares about.
  • Buying your wife flowers

    • Beta: Many people would say this is a beta quality. It comes off as pandering to your wife, doing something to make her feel good at the expense of the time and money it took you to buy those flowers. Usually it's associated with a guy trying to get on her emotional good side - whether because she's angry at him or because he wants sex from her later. The beta theory is that a guy is right for doing this because catering to his wife's emotional needs periodically is necessary for a happy, long-lasting relationship, and therefore it's valuable for a guy to buy his wife flowers every now and then.
    • Alpha: Sometimes a guy just wants to buy a girl flowers because it's what he wants to do. There is no internal drive in him that he must keep her happy or cater to her emotions. He loves her. She's been good to him. He rewards good behavior. This is coming out of his operational framework rather than catering to her operational framework.

Frame Mending and Going Rambo

Another way I've phrased this in the past (though I haven't used these terms in a while) is "frame mending." A guy will get in his own frame and get his frame to be stronger than his wife's frame. Their frames will collide and one will break. If he's "alpha enough," he maintains his frame against hers, so hers starts to falter. After enough times, her frame begins to crumble. She lashes out, frustrated that she has lost her position of power in the relationship, going to more aggressive tactics to tear his frame down and get him back in hers.

If it doesn't work, she finally gives up. There are two directions that the relationship can take from here.

  • Add Some Beta: Some guys will advise, "You've been going alpha too hard. Tone it down. She needs some beta too." Notice the subtle cue? "She needs" - that's what's defining the advice at this point. It's true, no doubt, and it's important to recognize the needs of those you lead. But the subtlety goes deeper than that: there's an implicit tag at the end of that phrase: "And you need to give it to her." Says who? Now you're letting some ideology define what you "need" to do. Anyway, the result is that when the guy adds back some beta, he starts mending her frame. He looks at all the ways it got broken from colliding into his frame and starts encouraging her and rebuilding her frame so that she's ready for another toe-to-toe a few days later. In the process of bolstering her frame, there are some tricky angles, so he usually ends up having to get inside that frame for a while to hammer the nails where they need to go. Sometimes he forgets to get out before nailing himself in.

    • Interestingly, the "alpha seed, beta need" terminology is usually talked about in the woman's framework: she wants seed from the alpha, but her needs to be provided for by the beta. Unintentionally, the phrase could also work from the man's own framework: that the imperative of the alpha is spreading his seed, but the imperative of the beta is what he "needs" to do or that he is "needy" in general.
    • Let's take that last bullet one point further. Unsurprisingly, this male-framework interpretation of ASBN is also implicit in the spiritual imperative of every Christian. The mature ones who adopt the great commission have a desire-driven compulsion to spread their seed, which is the Word of God (Matthew 13). They do this out of a transformed internal state that naturally desires to do what God created them to do. On the other side, weak Christians are compelled more by their spiritual needs: I need to read my Bible more, I need to sin less, I need to be a good husband and father, I need to share the Gospel more, etc.
    • Another thing to note is that some guys would say, "You went Rambo. Don't do that." Rambo doesn't mean "too alpha," though. It means you made too much change too fast and your active behaviors are causing the explosions. It's like you're taking that 1,000 foot rope and yanking on it to make her turn around faster and she's just not ready. That's Rambo. Don't confuse going Rambo with going "too alpha."
  • Invite Her In: Rather than mending her frame or sprinkling some beta because that's what you "need to" do to "have a healthy relationship," the better option is simply to invite her inside your frame. Jack10 used to talk about a prototypical guy whose frame was littered with barbed wire and broken glass inside. No girl wants to enter that. But if you fill it with fun and comfortable things, she can rest within your alpha-ness in a way that uplifts her - not to take up arms in her own frame again, but in a way that truly enjoys the gift of submissiveness that God has granted to women. What does this look like? It's like the time when my wife got heated at me for not wanting to enroll the kids in a particular activity. I wrapped my arms around her, kissed her forehead and said, "I understand that you're upset, and it makes sense to me why you're feeling that way. But disagreeing with you doesn't mean I don't care about you. I'll be downstairs if you'd like to join me soon." I wasn't conceding anything. In more tactful terms, I simply communicated: This is my decision. You can embrace it or you can fight me on it. When you're ready to embrace it, we can be at peace again. More importantly: I'm not reinforcing her ideas or way of thinking that I disagreed with. I acknowledged her feelings, but didn't pretend that her point of view was wiser than it was with some phrase like, "Your idea was really good and I want you to keep coming up with good ideas, even though I may not agree with all of them." That's inviting more frame battles in the future. In reality, I know that she's going to keep coming up with her own way of doing things no matter what. My goal isn't to reinforce her individuality; it's to reinforce my identity in her, just as Christ doesn't reinforce the church's independence, focusing instead on our dependence on Him at all times, and our imperative to adopt his way of thinking. And if I'm a good leader, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong and learn from the input she gives - but do so in a way that doesn't mend her separate frame; rather, it gives her a role and function to fulfill within my frame.


Conclusion: Change My Mind

The way I see it, the notion that "you have to do certain beta things if you want your marriage to last" is total garbage to me. Even if you're not technically adopting your wife's frame to maintain this, you're certainly not staying in your own. You're in the frame of "the marriage" - or more accurately: philosophical and/or societal expectations of what a healthy marriage requires.

If a man wants to buy his wife flowers, he does it. If he doesn't, he doesn't. Any provisional, comforting, or protective needs the wife may have are her own business to worry about. When a man meets those needs, it should come from an alpha place: that he wants to - and people will never follow a man who doesn't want to. Alpha men, as leaders of their pack (or family, if you prefer), do all of these things because it suits their own internal agenda, not because they experience a compulsory need to set aside their own agenda and purposes to maintain external standards over their relational structure. If he's cold and heartless to her needs, that's his prerogative (sin issues notwithstanding, per 1 Timothy 5:8), but it also opens the door for her prerogative to walk away. Nobody wants to follow someone like that. Sure, divorcing him would be sin to her, but so is him neglecting her needs. It's all just a bunch of "if, then" circumstances. IF you want a wife who follows your lead, THEN you must do x, y, and z to achieve that result. But when the "IF/THEN" clause turns into "I NEED my wife to follow my lead, so I NEED to do x, y, and z," that's when we shift into the beta mentality and are no longer operating toward our goals, but out of an internal emptiness that we're trying to fill with her validation.

To that end, a man must always be alpha all the time. The internal "beta" framework is never a good idea. Even external behaviors that are associated with beta men should be performed from an alpha mindset. Change my mind if you think otherwise.