Apparently, a number of women take offense to being labeled and stereotyped as "manipulative."
BlogTalkRadio's Upfront & Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie recently attracted a lot of listeners, and a lot of feedback directed at the host and his guest. Steve "The Dean" Williams, a fellow BlogTalkRadio Host and professional dating coach earned some praise from many male listeners, but attracted a lot of harsh criticisms from a number of women who either listened to the episode live or as an archived podcast.
Even though most of those who submitted feedback already received replies directly and privately, this column will highlight many of the questions, criticisms, and general comments that were received in response to the recent episode entitled, "Beta Males and the Manipulative Women who love to Control and Dominate Them."
[Note: Many of the first names have been modified for the sake of requested anonymity, and some comments have been slightly paraphrased to correct spelling and/or grammatical errors]
From Diana J:
"Alan, I have listened to a number of episodes from your internet talk radio show over the last two years or more, and I find your show to generally be entertaining and informative. Both conversations you had with the Hollywood actor and author Hill Harper were excellent interviews, and I also loved your interviews with Tasha Smith from the Tyler Perry movies and Buddy Lewis and Chrystee Pharris.
This last show you did? Complete garbage. I turned it off before it was even finished. Once your guest, who calls himself 'The Dean,' uttered the words 'all of these ain't sh** bitches out here,' I was done. And this guest is a friend of yours? Alan, you are better than that. You allowed this guest to bring out your more highly profane and misogynistic side. That guest talked about women as if they had no redeeming qualities to offer whatsoever. Sure, we have our flaws and imperfections just like men do, but to say that none of us are nothing more than sex objects put on earth to please men? And I hated how he kept referring to all women as "bitches." I thought that was highly disrespectful to your female listeners.
Please do not have guests like this on your show again. If you do, I will not be tuning into your show any longer."
Alan's response: Diana, thank you for your feedback. Whether you express opinions that I agree with, or disagree with, I always welcome honest responses from my readers and radio show listeners.
I love having guests on my talk radio podcast program who are blunt, raw, and straightforward with their thoughts, advice, words of wisdom, and strong opinions. Steve "The Dean" Williams falls into this category. I do not want guests on my show who offer nothing to my listeners other than "fluff talk" and advice that 'sounds good on paper,' but would not really help them in the real world. I also do not like guests who are "too polite" or "too cautious" with their words and opinions.
With all due respect to you and my other female listeners, the episode that aired last Thursday was primarily for my male listeners. Even more specifically, single heterosexual men. So, bottom line . . . there are going to be some episodes I already have done, or plan on doing in the future, that you are not going to care for. If you choose not to listen any longer, that is your choice.
From Sharisse G:
"Good afternoon Alan. You and I have exchanged a handful of Facebook messages before, but it has been a long while since our last exchange. I listen to many episodes of your show on BlogTalkRadio, and find many of your guest experts to offer a lot of helpful dating advice for men and women.
When you or your guests criticize women, I try to listen with an objective ear and not get too sensitive or reactive when I hear things that I do not like or do not agree with. This last show you did challenged me in this respect greatly Alan!! Maybe I hang around a different breed of women, but I do not view myself or any of my girlfriends as 'manipulative.' What is your definition of a manipulative woman? And what makes a man 'Alpha' versus 'Beta'? I tend to look at men as good guys and jerks. Is an Alpha male a guy who acts like a jerk toward women, and a Beta male a guy who is nice, sweet, and considerate? If so, I will take the Beta male any day of the week!! If I have this perception wrong, please enlighten me. Thank you so much and keep being you!"
Alan's response: I appreciate you taking the time to listen to various episodes of my talk radio show, and more specifically, I really appreciate you listening to my most recent episode. It is my loyal and consistent listeners that keep me motivated to continue to do my show. Over the last six years, I have had more episodes that were ranked as the number one "episode-of-the-week" in the categories of "Books," "Romance," and "Self-Help" than any other talk radio show on the BlogTalkRadio Internet Radio Network, and that is because of listeners like yourself.
First off, what makes a woman deserve the label of being "manipulative?" If you have read many of my previous Examiner.com articles, you will know that I have always maintained that there are only roughly three types of men that women seek to share the company of:
- To share the company of a man who is an enjoyable and satisfying lover in bed
- To share the company of a man who is going to flatter them, entertain them, and/or listen to them 'vent' about their problems, disappointments, and frustrations (usually caused by their interactions with other men)
- To share the company of a man who is going to 'wine and dine' them, spoil them with materialistic gifts, and generally spend money on them and help them with their month-to-month expenses and bills
Now, if a woman is upfront and straightforwardly honest with a man about which category she wants him to fulfill for her, then that is when I would brand that woman as "non-manipulative." For example, if a woman lets a guy know from the get-go that she wants his companionship to exclusively fall into category #2 or category #3, then I have no criticisms of this type of woman at all.
On the other hand, if a woman meets a man ... and she gives him the misleading impression that she enthusiastically wants him to fall into category #1 ... but deep-down, she really wants him to fulfill the needs of category #2 and/or category #3, then this is when I would categorize a woman's behavior as "misleading and manipulative." I refer to these women as "Timewasters." My last book, The Possibility of Sex: How Naive and Lustful Men are Manipulated by Women Regularly is all about these types of women.
As far as the 'Alpha' versus 'Beta' distinction, I would direct you to a previous article of mine: How women respond to you often depends on your 'Alpha' vs. 'Beta' traits. I wrote that article a little over three years ago.
Simple version? Let's say you could evaluate all (heterosexual) men on a scale from "1" to "10."
A man who is a "10" would be the type of guy who could walk into a party, nightclub, or social event, and have women quickly throwing themselves at him, and offering him the opportunity to have sex with them before he barely opened his mouth. This man generally has sex with multiple women without much conversation, without offering any guarantees of monogamy or an exclusive commitment, or without 'wining and dining' a woman and/or spending hundreds or thousands worth of money on that woman.
A man who is a "1" would be the type of guy who spends hours and hours engaged in conversation with women on a daily and/or weekly basis ... spends money on women freely and frequently .... flatters women's egos to the highest degree ... and constantly expresses an interest in becoming the next boyfriend or future husband to one or more of these women that he is drooling over. And guess what? None of these women are willing to have sex with him.
The guy who is the "10" would represent the "most of Alpha of Alpha males," and the guy who is the "1" would represent the "most Beta of Beta males." Very few men are on either extreme. Most men are anywhere from a "2" to a "9", with your normal, conventional "boyfriend" type or "husband" type usually being a "4," "5," "6," or "7."
General rule: The less conversation a man has to engage in with a woman in order to get her in bed and the less money he has to spend on her in order to get in her bed, the more 'Alpha' he is. If a man is flattering women excessively, spending money on women constantly, and engaging in many episodes of trivial conversation with women for hours on end, and that man is still having a hard time getting a woman in bed, that would more so represent the behavior of a 'Beta male.'
In the world of urban "pimpology," all men generally fell into one of five categories: Pimps, Players, Squares, Tricks, and Chumps. These labels were simply street jargon variations of the different degrees of Alpha male tendencies vs. Beta male tendencies.
Pimp: You have so much sexual influence on women, that you can persuade them to have sex with your male friends and acquaintances as a favor to you, and you can get women to spend money on you and perform financial favors for you on a regular or semi-regular basis.
Player: You are so popular with women sexually that most of the women you are having sex with do not mind the fact that you are perpetually non-monogamous and are currently enjoying sexual relations with other women.
Square: Your typical "considerate boyfriend" and/or "loyal, loving husband" type.
Trick: You have a less-than-average degree of seductive influence with women, and consequently, you have to offer to 'wine and dine' women and generally spend money on women in order to motivate them to even entertain the idea of having sex with you.
Chump: The worst of the worst. You spend money on women regularly, and spend time conversing with them and socializing with them regularly, but yet none of these women you are spending time with have any intention toward actually having sex with you.
In the streets, Pimps and Players were considered Alpha males. Squares were considered sort of "half-Alpha, half-Beta." Tricks and Chumps were considered totally Beta. Next to a man's ability to get a woman in bed, the second most characteristic that affects his 'Alpha' or 'Beta' status in the eyes of other men is how much undesirable and/or disrespectful behavior he is willing to tolerate from a woman. Alpha males rarely if ever tolerate crap from women with spoiled egos and manipulative tendencies. Beta males, on the other hand, tolerate disrespectful and manipulative behavior from controlling, domineering women all of the time.
Hope this helps you understand a lot of male psychology as it relates to a man's ability to attract and seduce women, and what makes a woman earn the label of "manipulative" or "non-manipulative."
From Laura Ann S:
"I listened to your last talk radio episode Alan, and Oh - My - God! Talk about a hypocrite!! Your guest criticized the idea of dating single mothers, but then confessed that he is married to a woman who was a single mother at the time he met her? Is that, or is that not, hypocritical? Your guest also criticized the idea of man dating older women (cougars) and thick women.
I am a single mother in my late thirties (would he consider that old?), and I am heavier than I was when I was in college, and I have to tell you Alan - I have no problem attracting a number of quality gentlemen. May I remind you that Halle Berry was a single mother when she met her current husband, and she is very happy now thank you!!
That guest of yours was sexist, chauvinistic, and misogynistic. I cannot believe he is married. I do not always agree with some of the things you say Alan, but at least I have never heard you attack older women, single mothers, or women who are 'pleasantly plump'!! I am sorry Alan, but I did not care for your guest at all.
By the way, I love your other show called The Erotic Conversationalist! I think I heard your story about the 'scandalous' thing you did with your ex-girlfriend at that party on an episode of your other show!"
Alan's response: Laura Ann, I appreciate the kudos on my other more adult-themed podcast program entitled The Erotic Conversationalist. Probably 90-95% of my listeners for that show are women (unlike Upfront & Straightforward, which has slightly more male listeners than female). Women actually write me notes confessing that they have engaged in "self-pleasure mode" while listening to episodes
All I have to say Laura Ann, is if you think The Dean is bad, then you never want to listen to a radio show host by the name of Tom Leykis! Leykis is known for his harsh criticisms of women who are forty years of age or older, women who are significantly overweight, and women with children out of wedlock. Matter of fact, some of The Dean's listeners have often referred to him as "The Black Tom Leykis." In fairness to them, I would not categorize either one of them as a true misogynist. Please read this article I wrote a while back: Many women still have no idea what a true 'misogynist' is
Speaking only for myself, I do not have a particular problem with older women, heavy women, or women with children. Now, that being said though, I understand where some of the criticisms from men towards these three groups come from.
Briefly . . .
Older women: Some women tend to become 'delusional' as they grow older. And what I mean by that is, many women who are forty-five tend to think they can attract single men just as easily as they did when they were twenty-five, and the reality is, that is usually not going to happen. For example, I have observed some older women on online matchmaking sites with profiles highlighting a very nitpicky laundry list of "desirable attributes" that a man "must have" in order to date them, and as a man, you find yourself shaking your head. I am not saying that older women should "just date anyone who expresses interest," but what I am saying is that you have to be realistic about just how 'choosy' you can afford to be.
Women with children: Since I turned forty, I have had at least one long-term relationship with a woman who was over forty and was a single mother to one daughter. I believe if a man is genuinely interested in a single mother, and she is genuinely interested in him, there is no problem. The potential problem comes when you have a woman who had two or three children by some "bad boy" type(s) in her twenties or early thirties, but then as she get older, she begins to look for a Beta Male 'Trick' or 'Chump' type to help share the expenses associated with raising her children. The latter scenario is foul.
Overweight women: If a woman is overweight, and she is happy, more power to her. Who am I to criticize her? The only criticism I have is toward women who are ... dare I say it again ... a wee bit "delusional" about their weight. In other words, there are some women who are forty pounds above their ideal weight who treat themselves like they are only ten or fifteen pounds above their ideal weight. Or a woman who is 75-100 pounds overweight, who behaves as if she is only 35-40 pounds overweight. As you get older, added weight is not simply an issue of vanity and beauty ... it is a health issue. There is a huge difference between being "thick," "curvy," and/or "voluptuous," and being obese.
Readers and listeners . . . keep the feedback coming! Good, bad, flattering, or critical ... keep it coming!
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 Amazon.com in their Kindle format. You can also download a copy of Currie's eBook on your iPhone, Android Smartphone, or other Smartphone.
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 http://www.blogtalkradio.com/modeone and http://modeone.net for more details