Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Feedback: Women defend Beta males & Men debate if they can be honest with women

"Feedback from Readers, Edition #16" highlights women who came to the defense of 'Beta' males and men who accused women of not being able to handle upfront, straightforward honesty
"Feedback from Readers, Edition #16" highlights women who came to the defense of 'Beta' males and men who accused women of not being able to handle upfront, straightforward honesty
Google Images

Did women think I held back on harshly criticizing Elliot Rodger? Did women believe that Columnist Alan Roger Currie was 'too hard' on men who are categorized as 'Beta' males? Did women agree with my distinction between a 'feminist' and a 'misandrist?' What did women think of my 'alternative storylines' for the feature-film, Fifty Shades of Grey? Do most men feel as though they have to lie and mislead women in order to get them in bed?

Those questions shall be answered as I now present you with my 16th Edition of Feedback from Readers. As most of my long-time readers know, I usually feature feedback I have received from my male and female readers after every five-to-seven articles that have been published for this column. Since my last installment of Feedback from Readers, I have had five articles and one movie trailer review. Most of the feedback I received this time was from women, but I did receive feedback from a number of men regarding my article about Maurice Kain Carter's controversial video.

[Note: Some of the first names have been changed for the sake of anonymity, and many questions and/or comments may have been edited, condensed or paraphrased to some degree in order to either save space or correct spelling and grammatical errors]

Email feedback in response to the article, Being a virgin was not the only thing that caused Elliot Rodger's killing spree

From Francesca O.:

"It appears that you did not even take the time to read the Elliot Rodger's Manifesto prior to writing your disturbing article.

The problem was NOT that Rodgers was 'too nice' to women, but rather the problem was that he never even developed the confidence or courage to even approach a woman and initiate a conversation with one. Your article made it sound like it was women's fault that Rodger committed murder and then suicide. Rodgers never had the guts to put himself in a position to be rejected by women. He just stayed to himself, and then got angry when none of the women around him made the first move and initiated a conversation with him FIRST!! This man (Rodgers) was a racist, a misogynist, and an arrogant a**hole with a sense of entitlement.

All your commentary about Rodgers being 'too nice' to women is CRAP. All of my former boyfriends were intelligent and 'nice' to me, and all of my friends and family members loved them! You are a complete JERK for writing the article that you did. None of your points were valid."

Alan Roger Currie's response: Actually Francesca, you did express at least one criticism toward me that I will now agree was a valid one. I had not read Elliot Rodgers' 'Manifesto' before The published my article about him. I expressed my commentary based on an excerpt of a video showing Rodgers making the comment, "I was always nice to women." After the article was published, I did read where Rodgers admitted that he had never even approached a woman of interest (what I refer to as a 'Mode Three Timid'). If you listen to this podcast about Rodgers, you will hear me very much harshly criticizing his behavior.

That acknowledgement aside, I still stand by my comments criticizing men being guilty of being 'too nice' to women. Read this old article of mine, and then we can discuss and debate from there. Exhibiting behavior that is too lenient, too fawning, too accommodating, and too acquiescent and deferential toward women is just as bad as avoiding approaching women and failing to initiate a conversation with them. Thank you for your honest feedback though young lady! Much appreciated.

Email feedback in response to the article, Romantically and sexually frustrated Beta males are becoming a danger to society

From Bernice H.:

"Your article attacking men who you classify as 'beta' males was totally opinionated, and even socially irresponsible.

There is nothing wrong with a man being nice, sweet, caring, and considerate with women. I have literally dozens of male friends who fall into this category. I can see myself being friends with these men for the rest of my entire life!! Yes, some of them are shy and introverted, but I have never associated their lack of social skills with being misogynistic or being a 'danger' to women.

In my opinion, it is these overly aggressive, highly sexual 'alpha' males who are the problem. These men do nothing but treat women like sex objects as opposed to fully developed human beings. I have dated a number of these types, and each time, I regretted it. Just two months ago, I broke up with an 'alpha' male type because he kept trying to persuade me to have a threesome with another woman. If that behavior is representative of an 'alpha' male, I will take a 'beta' male any day over those alpha losers."

Alan Roger Currie's response: First, the reader named 'Francesca' accused me of "taking it easy" on a lifelong Beta male like Elliot Rodger, now you are suggesting that I am being too harsh. Damned if you criticize Beta males ... damned if you take it easy on 'em.

Bernice, did you even read your own comments? In your attempt to 'defend' Beta male types, you exposed the very problem with this category of men: Not once did you mention that you have recently dated and/or had sex with one of your beloved Beta males. You implied that your primary interaction with Beta male types has been strictly 'platonic' in nature. On the other hand, even though you harshly criticized the Alpha male types, you acknowledged that you have dated quite a few of them and have exchanged orgasms with these types.

That is the very problem with Beta male types. The vast majority of women 'like' them, but they have very little if any interest in sharing their company in a romantic and/or sexual manner. The best scenario that the typical Beta male can hope for is being in a woman's dreaded 'Platonic Friend Only Zone,' which some would argue is better than receiving no attention at all from women.

Personally? I'd rather be an Alpha male who receives nothing but harsh criticisms and insults from women, but still manages to have sex with them, than to be a Beta male who shares the company of dozens of women on a weekly basis, but all of those women are strictly platonic friends only. Thank you for your feedback though Bernice!

Email feedback in response to the article, Men should start making the distinction between 'feminists' and 'femisandrists'

From Kayla T.:

"I am not sure if I read your article correctly, but did you essentially defend men who are 'sexists' and 'chauvinists?' If so, shame on you Mr. Currie!!

As far as I am concerned, a chauvinist, a misogynist, and a sexist are one in the same. All three of these types of men believe men have more to offer women than women have to offer men, and all of them are guilty of objectifying women and treating them like they are sexual 'play toys' for men.

I do not look at the three as being uniquely different at all. I look at those terms as representing three aspects of the same disrespectful personality. And as far as a woman being labeled a 'feminist' or a 'misandrist,' who really cares? A man calling a woman a 'misandrist' is like a racist Caucasian person calling a Black person who criticizes and insults White people a 'racist.' There is no such thing as Black-on-White racism. At least, not in my opinion."

Alan Roger Currie's response: To say that I 'defended' men who are 'chauvinists' and 'sexists' is a stretch. I simply clarified the difference between the three terms. Nothing more, nothing less.

For you to say that the terms 'chauvinist,' 'misogynist,' and 'sexist' are synonymous with one another would be like me suggesting that the terms 'feminist,' 'lesbian,' and 'misandrist' are all synonymous with one another. The reality is, they are not. A woman can be a feminist without ever stepping into the territory of lesbianism and/or misandry. Same with a man. A man can be a chauvinist and/or a sexist without ever exhibiting the bitterness, hate, and resentment toward women that a true misogynist would.

Also, just because a man enjoys engaging in short-term and/or non-monogamous sex with a woman ... and this same man loves and appreciates women's beauty and sex appeal ... does not mean that he deserves to be labeled a 'chauvinist,' a 'misogynist,' and/or a 'sexist.' How can a man love women's companionship and hate their companionship at the same time? If hard pressed, I might concede that just about all men who are 'chauvinists' are also 'sexists' ... just like I would probably concede that just about all women who are 'misandrists' are also 'feminists' ... but generally speaking, I think all three labels have their unique differences.

When Christmas rolls around, I will make sure and give you a dictionary and a thesaurus as a gift! (P.S. If a Black man was a multi-millionaire, and that same Black man owned a number of apartment buildings ... and this Black man regularly denied housing to Asian people, Caucasian people, and Hispanic people, then yes ... this African-American man could validly be labeled a 'racist')

Email feedback in response to the article, Maurice Kain Carter: Creating dating-related satire that many men take seriously

From DaShawn K.:

"Mr. Currie, I read your book 'Mode One,' and I have to just be blunt with you: Maurice Kain Carter's video proved that women need to be lied to in order to get them in bed (for casual sex). You know what I'm sayin'?

I know you're going to try to argue with me and further promote your books, but the reality is, you cannot just walk up to a woman you're attracted to and say, 'I approached you because I want to fu** you silly,' and have that woman give you a positive reaction. You know what I'm sayin'?

You have to approach a woman, talk about stupid, silly sh** for at least a half-hour or longer, and then you have to make her feel like you are really into her. Then, once you get the booty, you just leave that ho alone. You know what I'm sayin'?

I'm not hatin' on you at all. I'm just trying to keep it real. Peace out!"

Alan Roger Currie's response: Okay young brother ... I feel you. I do know what you're sayin'. Fo sho.

Check this out dawg, I was watching this video of this woman who was really obese. This woman said she took this "miracle pill": that caused her to lose twenty-five pounds in one month. I was like, "Yo! I gotta get me that pill, because if she said she lost that many pounds in four weeks ON VIDEO, it must be true!! You know what I'm sayin'?!?"

Let me ask you something G ... how does Maurice Kain Carter know that those women were heterosexual, and not lesbians? Hmmmm. Marinate on that one bro. How did Maurice Kain Carter know that these women were not already sexually active with a man who was their boyfriend or casual lover? Marinate on that one too young brother. How did Maurice Kain Carter know that all of the women he approached were not practicing premarital abstinence and committing themselves to being celibate before marriage? Marinate on that question as well. You know what I'm sayin'?

If I put you in a room with five lesbians, and you attempted to lie to them and 'pretended' like you were 'getting to know them,' do you think you would get one of them to have sex with you days or weeks later? If I put you in a social environment with ten women who already were married, romantically involved, or simply sexually content with at least one man who they have been having sex with for the last year or two, do you think your lies and manipulative 'head games' would cause you to get one or more of these women in bed? If you became a member of a church where all of the unmarried women were practicing premarital abstinence, and they were genuinely committed to remaining celibate until they get married, do you really think that your "seductive charms" would put one or more of these women under a 'hypnotic spell' and provoke them to break down and give in to your sexual desires, interests, and intentions?

I think not young brother. My best guess is that you would end up wasting a lot of time, effort, energy, and even money without having sex with any of these women.

As far as I know, Maurice Kain Carter approached three or four women in a shopping mall. THREE or FOUR WOMEN. And that extremely small sample size is supposed to represent ALL WOMEN? Puhleaze. Give me a break. You know what I'm sayin'?

For every woman in my adult life who has reciprocated my desire for same-day sex and/or my desire for short-term non-monogamous sex, I have probably had at six or seven women reject me. AT LEAST.

Now if Young Brother Kain Carter was to make a documentary that covered a span of three-to-five years, and it showed him approaching a bare minimum of fifty women (preferably one-hundred women or more) ... and he first took at least a minute or two to find out if these women were a) single and unattached, b) heterosexual, c) at least halfway attracted to him, and d) currently sexually active, or at minimum, these women have a positive attitude toward the idea of engaging in sex with a man in general ... and all of the women in the documentary STILL rejected him, then he would have a valid case for debating the concept of being upfront and straightforwardly honest with women.

At the risk of being a bit 'boastful,' I have engaged in short-term and/or non-monogamous 'casual' sex with a high number of women without ever 'lying' to them, misleading them, or investing a lot of time, effort and money into pursuing their sexual companionship. I have even had sex with some women in less than thirty minutes after I first made their acquaintance. I know many of my male friends, acquaintances, and even clients and students of mine who have also had (casual) sex with women within less than 48 hours after they first made that woman's acquaintance, and they accomplished this without expressing any blatant lies or engaging in any type of manipulative 'head games' with women.

The bottom line is this: Just because a woman expressed to you that she has no interest in having sex with you does not mean that this woman wants to be lied to or misled. Would you want a woman to 'pretend' like she is really attracted to you just so she can motivate you to buy her a free ticket to a Drake concert or a Jay-Z and Beyoncé concert? No ... you would not. You know what I'm sayin'? Yep. You do know what I'm sayin'.

Email feedback in response to the article, "Fifty Shades of Grey" movie trailer offers no intriguing storyline for most men

From Sylvia M.:

"Alan, you know I enjoy most of your articles. I was entertained by your 'five alternative storylines' for the upcoming film, 'Fifty Shades of Grey,' but I could not help but to feel like you left out one alternative storyline that I also believe would be quite interesting.

What if ... instead of having Christian Grey being the one who erotically enlightens and 'corrupts' the naive and sexually inexperienced Anastasia Steele, you have Anastasia be a woman in her thirties or forties, and she is the one who 'turns out' the young, naive, and sexually inexperienced Christian? She ends up being both his lover and his teacher! Every woman who has sex with him afterwards would know that a real woman taught him how to REALLY make love to a woman. I would pay money to see that storyline! Do you think the men would go for that?"

Alan Roger Currie's response: I very much agree that a woman (particularly an older woman) is capable of teaching and 'turning out' a (younger) man. Trust me ... I speak from experience (smirk and a wink).

I think a good number of men would watch the film if it had that alternative storyline. Especially if they felt they would 'learn' something of value. My 'added twist' would be that at first, Anastasia is the one who is erotically dominating Christian ... but then, toward the end, he turns the tables on her and she ends up being dominated like no (younger) man has ever dominated her before. I would pay money to see THAT film!

If you, as a reader, ever want to offer me feedback on one or more of my articles, you can do so below (comments section), on Twitter, on Facebook, or via Email.

As always, thank you for taking time to read my articles!

Alan Roger Currie is the author of a number of books, including Mode One: Let the Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking and Oooooh . . . Say it Again: Mastering the Fine Art of Verbal Seduction and Aural Sex. Currie's latest eBook, The Possibility of Sex: How Naive and Lustful Men are Manipulated by Women Regularly is also available exclusively on in their Kindle format. You can also download a copy of Currie's eBook on your iPhone, Android Smartphone, or other Smartphone. Starting with Monday, August 4, 2014, you might be eligible to download a FREE copy of the audiobook version of 'Mode One' on CLICK HERE for more details.

Upfront & Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie, the most-listened to talk radio podcast program in the category of "Romance" and "Self-Help for Relationships" on the BlogTalkRadio Internet Radio Network, can be heard LIVE every Thursday evening at 10:00pm EST / 7:00pm PST. Visit and for more details

Currie offers email, telephone, and Skype consultations to both men and women; Visit to purchase a consultation.

Report this ad