Stop Putting Out for Alpha Asshats

Posted by Susan Walsh on Oct 2, 2009 in Hooking Up Realities, Relationship Strategies, What Guys Want |

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

Tucker Max. Ew, who would hit that?

Ugh. I caught my own flesh and blood defending Tucker Max on Twitter. I feel like the cobbler whose kids have no shoes. Mr. Max is a self-described narcissist who embraces debauchery. What’s troubling is how many female fans he seems to have, including overweight ones (see the story Tucker Fucks a Fattie, Hilarity Ensues).

Women’s rights groups have accused Max of promoting rape culture in his writing. One controversial ad for Max’s movie read “Deaf girls can’t hear you coming.” Max vehemently disagrees, saying there is a long list of women he respects, including the girlfriend he broke up with four months ago. “We dated for eight months and I loved her very much,” said Max, who insisted he was loyal during the entire relationship. “It came time to talk about engagement and eventual marriage and kids. I wasn’t ready. ”I cared about her…I still care about her.”

Who would date this man whore of all man whores, this Prince of Douchebaggery?

“It’s bittersweet,” said Max of girls who pursue him simply because of his name. ”On one hand, it means I have my pick of girls every night. On the other hand, sex becomes purely physical. It’s like a performance.” A woman named Courtney A. slept with him recently during his promotion tour and wrote about it in I Slept With Tucker Max, The Internet’s Biggest Asshat.

Surprise, surprise, he sucks in bed! (He’s guilty of the jackhammer.)

If the film succeeds, Max said there could be three sequels that would depict the growth he has experienced over the last few years.

Yeah, no. That’s not happening. In it’s opening weekend, it ranked 8th out of 9 new films. And the only growth this dude has experienced in the last few years has been bacterial.

Yeah, he's cute, but interestingly, VERY low testosterone features

Tucker Max is the poster boy for treating women like crap before and after sex to keep them in their place. He may be just a narcissist pig, but he’s practicing the Game as proselytized by Roissy. If Tucker is the Prince of Douchebaggery, then Roissy is the undisputed King. He weighs in on the Courtney A./Tucker hookup in today’s post Girl Screws Tucker Max, Broadcasts Her Sluttiness:

“I am a huge proponent of asshole game for the reason that, in my observation and in the observation of men who aren’t satisfied with banging beta-settling fatties and fuglies, most women of fuckable quality (i.e. higher than 6, lower than BMI 23, and under 30) respond Pavlovian-like to assholes. And I kinda enjoy being an asshole sometimes. Some of the best sex I’ve ever had was with girls I utterly degraded.”

Roissy’s blog is very successful, as beta males worldwide worship at his altar in hopes of picking up tips for picking up girls. One of his disciples is a guy who calls himself Ferdinand Bardamu and writes the blog In Mala Fide (In Bad Faith). Here’s a sample of his writings:

Women ascertain a man’s sexual desirability through his social dominance, and all of the various trials they put men through, such as shit tests, spring from this reality. Game is made possible through this quirk of women’s psyche; a guy who is not naturally dominant can mold himself into a man that the ladies want by altering his behaviors. Men ascertain a woman’s sexual desirability through her looks. If she makes your penis hard, she’s a worthy conquest.
Furthermore, a man’s willingness to put up with shit from a woman is inversely correlated with how good he is with them. Only gameless schmucks will bother with chicks who won’t pay for dates or refuse to do more “than casual kissing on the first date.”
The dick is the ultimate barometer of whether he’s into you. If it’s hard, he wants you; if it isn’t, he doesn’t. Everything else is ballast.
When we wander off to bang other broads, we do so because we are:

a) Looking for sexual variety.

b) You don’t want to fuck anymore.

c) Your weight gain has transformed you into a walrus with tits.

d) b and c.

e) All of the above.

You can avoid B and C by laying off the ho-hos and keeping your legs open. As for A, it’s unavoidable if you’re dating an alpha or a greater beta. Take pride in knowing you’re his number one girl.

Charming, no? Here’s the real problem: Tucker Max, Roissy and Ferdinand Bardamu are right.

These tactics work. The doctrine relies heavily on evolutionary psychology, which states that women prefer alpha males to betas. I disagree with their definition of what constitutes an alpha male, but I frequently hear first-hand accounts of guys finding great success by demeaning and objectifying women. Women are being called whores and delightedly climbing into bed. Men approach women with the pickup line “34C?” and far too many giggle and reply, “32C!”

Roissy sums it up best:

“You get what you give, ladies. Give your pussies to assholes, you’ll get nothing but assholes in return.”

It couldn’t be any more clear. If you want a good man who respects you, you’re going to have to keep your knickers on until you find one. You owe it to yourself, and to all the other women who deserve more than utter degradation.

If you liked this post, please share it:

... other posts by Susan Walsh

Tags: attachment, beta male, charming, dating, douche, douchebag, fatties, first date, good man, guys, hookup, kissing, man whore, man whores, penis, pursue, relationship, respect, sex, sexual variety, success, The Game, twitter, women

Herman

Susan Walsh wrote: “The level of rage evident in the PUA community re feminism is puzzling. About 99% of American men are dealing with it just fine. … Sex is so readily available, few guys are willing to commit to get some.”

Sex is only readily available to a small number of alphas while large numbers of betas remain sexually frustrated. This conclusion is supported by the fact that 40.5% of never married US men (the betas) have not had sex in the last year. In contrast, 22.7% of US men age 20-29 (the alphas) already have 15 or more lifetime sexual partners.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad384.pdf

Betas would be glad to commit to get sex, but women are not attracted to them. Betas hate feminism because feminism killed monogamy, which was the way that betas previously got sex. The PUA community is mostly betas who turned to game as a way to get sex after the death of monogamy, so the PUA community largely hates feminism. Roissy and Tucker Max are the evil spawn of feminism.

If the epidemic of involuntary celibacy among young men weren’t bad enough, the inflation-adjusted median income of US men age 25-34 has dropped 24% since 1973.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p...

History teaches that when young men are sexually frustrated and poor, they become disenfranchised from society. They commit crimes, take drugs, join cults, and become suicide bombers.

If that weren’t bad enough, it isn’t just the impoverished men who are sexless betas, it’s engineers, electricians, and business owners who have no wife, no girlfriend, and no sex. Once your civilization loses the support of the men who build things, create things, and fix things, it’s over.

According to Maria Shriver, “the Battle Between the Sexes is over,” and America is now “a Woman’s Nation!”

Enjoy your victory while it lasts.

susanawalsh

Herman, thanks, this is an excellent answer to the question I posed. After I wrote this post, I heard from many men like you, and began to research these trends. In addition to everything you've mentioned, the ratio of women to men in college is 60/40. This is a hollow victory, to say the least.

The implications for relationships in the future are very troubling. Since women seek attachment, they will be disappointed, and I can assure you they will be saying, "What happened to the nice guys? Every guy is a douche!" They're already saying that!

Anyway, I've written some posts more recently that reflect what you're describing. One is "Douchebag Math 101," which explains the 80/20 rule. And yesterday I put up "Are Alpha Males Struggling to Remain Relevant?" So yeah, these are serious issues, and women need to understand them. I'm trying to do my bit in my little corner of the internet.

susanawalsh

You are certainly right about the birth rates in the third world. If my choices are Sharia or Western Male domination, I'll choose the latter. But feminism won't die, at least not the feminism that means basic equal rights. Women will continue to be highly educated and compete successfully with men in most professions. The vast majority of Western men are comfortable working above, with and under women. Ideally, what we'll have is a meritocracy.

I do think that the pendulum will swing back the other way in terms of casual sex. The effects of the Sexual Revolution have been disastrous for women in many ways. In time, there will be a correction for that, as promiscuity becomes socially unacceptable again.

Either way, we're talking about something that will be happening over many, many years. Men and women need to live their lives NOW. There's no point in waiting for a revolution to get your act together. By the time this debate is settled, we'll all be dead (as GW Bush liked to say).

R7

Regardless of how you feel about feminism, that genie is not going back into the bottle. You can spend your life filled with bitterness and loathing, or you can develop yourself to the point where you can get out there and mix it up with the big boys (and girls).

My guess is that feminist genie is probably going back into the bottle due to changing world demographics. For example, the male dominant Islamic World is easily outbreeding the feminized West. So two options are likely, the Western Male's dominance is restored and feminism dies. Or the Islamic immigrant takes over, imposes Sharia Law and feminism dies.

susanawalsh

Hey, darktruth, thanks for leaving a comment. I'm going to try and respond in a coherent and civil manner here - I'm happy to engage on the merit of my arguments, but I confess that starting my weekend being called an ugly old feminist is not my favorite way to wake up.

1. I find it rather alarming that you have rejected being a "non-violent and non-sexist respectful guy." Those would be primary requirements for any quality woman selecting a long-term partner. Of course, if you're just looking to pump and dump it doesn't matter. I continue to be amazed that so many practitioners of Game are prepared to forfeit any possibility of a real relationship. Game is a young man's strategy. What next?

2. The level of rage evident in the PUA community re feminism is puzzling. About 99% of American men are dealing with it just fine. I agree that the Women's Movement has changed the dynamics in American society, not always for the better. The Sexual Revolution brought about a hookup culture where women put out sexually without getting anything in return. Sex is so readily available, few guys are willing to commit to get some. Women are responsible for those choices, and they must suffer the consequences. Articles like this one encourage women to stop making poor choices, and to return to being gatekeepers. Of course, if that were to happen, Game would be much less effective, so I get it that the idea of women getting smarter about who they have sex with would suck for guys like yourself.

3. If you believe that women are manipulators and parasites, then any sex you have is hate sex by definition. You loathe the person you are being intimate with. That kind of sex is deeply pathological, and reflects your admission that you are violent and sexist. I urge you to get help from someone more qualified than Roissy.

4. Game does work because of the psychology of women, I agree. There are aspects to it that are healthy and appropriate, such as learning techniques to feel comfortable approaching and interacting with the opposite sex. What I object to is that Game is also largely predicated on making the other person feel badly about themselves. You can only succeed if you can make a woman doubt her worth. By definition, that is a weak woman. Then again, a weak woman seems to be what you want.

5. Some men do not value women for status, brains and accomplishments. Most do. These qualities are not important for sex, but are valued when seeking a life partner. The overwhelming majority of men marry women of similar education to themselves. A guy in graduate school may bang a chick who hangs out at the local bar, but he'll marry a woman with a Master's degree most of the time.

Regardless of how you feel about feminism, that genie is not going back into the bottle. You can spend your life filled with bitterness and loathing, or you can develop yourself to the point where you can get out there and mix it up with the big boys (and girls).

susanawalsh

If you guys ever left the house and looked around you, you would see that your world view just isn't represented by reality. The truth is, PUAs, mostly guys with serious physical and emotional disadvantages, including shitty self-esteem, are feeding on bottom dwellers. You could never hope to bed a real "10" in this life. You find your validation in the homosocial world of Game, using the bluster of other males to make you feel like you've got a pair. To be honest, many of you guys are smart, which can make conversation interesting to a point, but after watching Roosh's Crib video I realize how hopeless and pathetic the lot of you are. Loser, loser, loser.

Assanova

I do agree with this comment. the vast majority of PUA's I encounter are seriously lacking in the self-esteem department, and a lot of physical disadvantages. they seem to believe that there is a magic pill that will all of a sudden start giving them access to "10's".

darktruth707

Susan,

Feminism created a generation of losers by telling us we could just be nice non-violent non-sexist respectful guys who viewed women as equal and women would respect and like us. Bullsh-t. Even feminists resent their liberal/feminist male allies and think of them as less than men, "male lesbians", "kitchen bitches", etc and secretly wish for a dominant male to put them in their place.

Game is men reversing that feminist programming and thus reversing loserdom.

The truth is our reality disturbs you because it is the truth your feminist lies work to suppress - the lies you and your daughter benefit from.

Women are the ones who are getting way better men than they could otherwise get because of feminism and it's theft of male power and resources women don't really deserve - it has artifically raised women's market value. Women don't deserve the same rights as men because they are incapable of male accomplishments or responsibilities. Men are the ones who create, maintain and defend civilization - not women - who are mostly just manipulators and parasites who would be useless if it weren't for sex and babies.

Game came about as a consciousness raising by ALL types of (mostly younger) men - below and above average men alike - who together were raised under the lies of feminism and are not willing to play by your PC feminist rules anymore. Game operates according to the reality (as opposed to the feminist fiction) of female psychology and THAT is why it works. If it didn't then it would not be the phenomenon it is as there would be no results to keep it going. Game allows men to simply get what they should be getting if it weren't for feminism artificially tipping the scales in women's favor.

Lot's of PUA's bed 10's all the time. Men value women by their beauty/youth and not by status, brains and "accomplishments" as ugly old feminists like you wish we would. Women objectify men for those qualities so they wrongly assume men want those qualities in women. We don't and never did - feminism forced us to pretend we did. We want pretty women and the happiness we deserve and Game helps us to get that.

rick

I don't want one that has been "knocked around" by alphas. They made their bed, let then lie in it.

You make it sound as though men like me should be *excited* about getting some alpha's castoffs. I feel like you've let slip your real view of "good guys" like myself.

"Look, you're low-value: Once she realizes that she can't get a nice hot guy, she'll probably come to her senses and settle for a nice not-hot guy. But, of course, only after repeatedly putting out for not-nice hot guys for a while. But hey! You're still WAY AHEAD of the not-hot-not nice guys.

Umm, no.

There are going to be a lot of very, very lonely older women, who have two ways of getting male attention:

1) Keep putting out for assholes
2) Settle for a VERY low-range beta who doesn't have enough self-respect to reject them.

The good guys will never take them.

Reinholt

Given the configuration of current society, you might as well get angry with the sky for being blue.

I have no incentive to treat women with respect (it doesn't get you laid), and I have no incentive to commit (I get laid all the time).

Given that I can count on one hand the number of women I have met who genuinely like, respect, and want to build a life with a man (and all of them were both foreign and already married), I don't even see a reason to commit.

So, my condolences, but the truth really is that until women begin to value men and treat them with respect, you really do get your choice of betas or assholes who won't commit.

Enjoy the fruits of your labors.

susanawalsh

Reinholt, we are in agreement. You give your pussy to assholes, you get assholes who won't commit. I'm a fan of the beta, though I imagine we would define beta somewhat differently. I think betas make the best long-term mates and fathers in this era, and that's what women are programmed to seek. I assume you came over here from Ferdinand's blog - if so, head over there and check out my comment for my thoughtful response.

Name

On the other hand, women do not need long term mates. No-fault divorce and female friendly family courts make husbands completely disposable. Despite doing his fair share of housework and child-rearing, Sandra Tsing Loh had no use for her "kitchen bitch" husband. Terms like "starter husband" are making their way in the vocabulary. Betas lose out not only in the casual sex game, but they also lose out in the marriage game at the whim (or false abuse claim) of their soon-to-be ex-wife.

susanawalsh

First, let me say that I just watched a video of Sandra Tsing Lo defending herself. She briefly mentions there was a "third party" involved, and that her husband put all of her belongings out on the driveway. In other words, she's a selfish, cheating bitch. She's not alone among women, but I'd like to think she's not a typical representative either.

Second, evolution has not kept pace with modern culture. Women's brains have not changed in 100,000 years. So whether we need them or not, we do continue to seek long-term mates. In fact, we do need them. Not for financial support, perhaps, but for the emotional bond that women are programmed to seek and maintain.

Marriage isn't going away, despite the swearing off of adherents to Game. Nearly ALL of American men and women state that they would like to marry. Women want to be married by their late 20s, men by their early 30s. That doesn't mean we won't screw up half of those marriages, but our optimism, our need, is undaunted. And by the way, do you know what percentage of marriages are ended by women disposing of their beta husbands, vs. those ended by men who crave sexual variety? I don't, but the latter group is so common as to be a cliche.

Third, as for terms like "starter husband" entering the lexicon, I believe that reflects the enormous insecurity women feel as they enter marriage. They know the odds are 50/50, and they're downplaying the significance of the failure they are afraid they'll experience.

I'll share with you another phrase entering the conversation of young women: "Boyfriends are ugly." That means that their friends who are in relationships with decent guys have settled, or settled down with, a guy in the 4-6 range, as you would say. It's simple supply and demand math. Those are the guys who are willing to date. Their reward is a girlfriend considerably hotter than they would otherwise be able to catch.

Make no mistake about it. Women want committed relationships. And they want them to work. The highest quality women who are the whole package are not going to select PUAs. After being emotionally knocked around by a few Alphas, the smart ones will embrace the Beta.

Embrace the Beta. I like that. My next post, perhaps. Thanks for commenting.

Assanova

Women will never stop putting out for assholes. Thanks to feminism, all you're left with are beta sissy boys and assholes. Your choice.

stephanie

the thing is even the betas are assholes. i give up.

Assanova

if you say so. the only beta wannabe assholes that I know are the betas in the PUA community who try to fake being "alpha" males.

susanawalsh

I'll happily take the beta every single time.

Assanova

yeah right. no one woman wants a crybaby guy that is more feminine than she is. if that's what you want, then perhaps you should start dating women?

susanawalsh

I don't see the beta male as a crybaby. There was a time when women needed an alpha male to hunt food and bring it back for his/her offspring. Women don't need that brute testosterone strength anymore. Is Ben Bernanke an Alpha male by caveman standards? I don't think so. But he's brainy and high-status in our culture. His wife has a nice life, and a reliable partner who helped her raise her young.

Beta = Type B = personality traits that are desirable in modern society. Yes, there are women (a small percentage overall) who are willing to be submissive, and want to be "taken in hand." However, with college enrollment heading fast for 60% female, women find themselves on an equal professional playing field with men much of the time. Yes, we want to be pursued, even dominated from time to time, but we can only make our lives work if our man is willing to be a partner. That's beta, most of the time.

darktruth707

You have a serious misconception about what constitutes an alpha/beta/omega male. You are conflating high testosterone traits with "alpha". This is not neccessarily so. Alpha simply refers to those males at the top of a particular social context (whatever their personality or physicality) who can attract the most and prettiest females for sex. A gang leader and a CEO are both alphas within their respective niches. The alpha is a male with pussy (casual sex) wealth - for whatever reason. IOW, women confirm/validate/vote for the alpha male with their vaginas. It is the nature of women to give 80% of the pussy to 20% of the men, which causes deep resentment amongst all of the men (even many of the alphas who empathize with the betas, because after all, most alphas were at one time betas and have friends/family who are betas).

Ben Bernanke is one of the most powerful men in the world and can sleep with as many young/beautiful (ie high value) women as he chose to, and is not just an alpha but an apex alpha, as was Greenspan (as ugly as he is) before him. Women actively chase famous/popular/powerful men. Even ugly old politicians for example have young pretty groupies chasing them.

susanawalsh

Darktruth, welcome back! I have written about this issue a lot lately, so take a look at my more recent posts. Specifically, check out Are Alpha Males Struggling to Remain Relevant?

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/12/14/relati...

However, let me just say this about the Alpha/Beta divide. Game provides the definition that you give - Alpha = pussy, period. However, scientists study male traits especially as they relate to DNA. In the scientific community, there is no standard definition of Alpha. It's actually a term that was coined in the 1970s by a wolf researcher, and he has since stated that it is a deeply inaccurate and biased term.

However, one does see the terms crop up in studies, almost always with regard to testosterone levels, which determine dominant and aggressive behavior. A typical interpretation is Alpha = Cad, Beta = Dad.

That's the context in which I discuss male traits.

Ben Bernanke, Bill Gates, Peter Orszag,etc. are all brainy, lower testosterone males who made good. They started out with typical Beta traits, and our economy provides great incentives for those guys over men with more traditional traits of dominance and aggression. The question of what we call them now is really just a matter of semantics.

darktruth707

The way the terms are used in other contexts are not as precise and relevant because humans are not wolves or apes - there are numerous ways - not simply through violence - to achieve alpha status, both in the primitive and current eras. Bill Gates and the others you mention ARE socially dominant, extroverted, highly narcissistic men - they do actively strive to achieve social, economic and academic dominance over others where they are the center of attention, in-control and wield enormous power. IOW, within human hierarchies these men are clearly alphas and strive to be alphas and always had these traits (most psychological traits are hardwired from birth).

The way I've just used the terms (the way they are used in the MRA and PUA communities) are far more precise. They describe a sexual wealth/class system imposed upon men by women and their sexual choices. The alpha males overtly and/or covertly occupy the top of the sociosexual hierarchy - they are the men WOMEN view as having the most status and thus they receive the most sex. Men's opinions of other men's status is not as important in defining who is the SEXUAL alpha male. There are many men who other men think nothing of who score tons of sex, and through this mechanism alone (women's sexual validation of them) are uplifted to sexual alpha status.

So in this sense the man's actual qualities are not relevant re alpha-beta-omega - only women's interpretation of these qualities as validated via sex as manifested via the sexual hierarchy that men see/feel/experience.

susanawalsh

Right, the key here is that men are primarily concerned with the sexual hierarchy created by women, and that makes sense. Women, on the other hand, select mates for a variety of traits, including social status, honesty, ambition, willingness to share resources, physical strength, ability to sustain a collaborative alliance, willingness to openly demonstrate love. Game, which I acknowledge is effective, is primarily focused on dominance and social status, which works for short-term mating. However, women want the whole package for long-term mating, and many will reject men who lack more nurturing qualities. In fact, in nature, there is a great deal of mating with Beta when Alpha isn't looking.

Kate

God those two male bloggers depressed me. They seem so sad and pathetic and now I feel really bitter and suspicious towards men. Are all men really like this?

susanawalsh

Hi Kate, thanks for commenting. No, of course all men aren't like that. Tucker Max is, fortunately, a rare bird. Roissy is a bit more difficult because he has amassed a huge following of men. They are generally men who perceive that they have been walked all over by women and that by turning up the heat and using Roissy's techniques, they will have more luck getting laid. I think of it as good guys going over to the Dark Side. All together, that's still a tiny percentage of the male population. The trouble is, that attitude is definitely making its way into the culture, and the hookup scene pairs with it perfectly. That makes things harder for women. Women need to be choosy, and not reward these idiots! If the techniques don't work, maybe we can get the nice guys back.

susanawalsh

Hi Screwtape! First, yes, I agree, Tucker Max can be very self-effacing, a key component of charm. He can also be rather cruel, so it's an interesting combo.

That is a really good article you linked to. I was not aware that romance at work had become so commonplace, but it makes sense due to the long hours many young Americans work, the concentration of single people to be found in many professions, and the fact that social media has made our private lives very public.

I recently read an article by an associate for a big law firm, and she had hooked up, at work, with a fellow associate when they were working late on a deal. It was a one-time thing, but apparently they have a name for it: Big Deal Sex. I guess it's basically a booty call in the Conference Room after hours.

Screwtape

One thing to say in defense of Tucker; even he is surprised he is able to get laid. I think most of his writing includes a comment somewhere to the effect of "Why do women want to sleep with me, especially after they have read my blog?"

Interestingly, I was having a chat with a woman on OkCupid about a related subject: why is it so hard for good guys and good girls to meet up? We came to the conclusion it is just actually hard for them to even encounter each other. Most of the nice girls and guys stick with their friends, only go out to social activities with these friends, and stick with the same locations. So how do they meet new potential mates? The 'standard' social venues are dominated by the worst of our culture, and only serve to reinforce bitter, negative stereotypes. I believe this is why there has been a steady rise in office romances; after college, work is where you get to know the best people and have the best opportunities to meet new people.

This is a good article on the phenomena:
http://www.yourtango.com/20072504/love-in-an-el...

angharad

I think that in a lot of heterosexual interactions, many men and women are guilty of surrounding themselves with bad specimens of the opposite sex and then generalizing from those situations to "all men" and "all women." If Tucker Max surrounds himself with women who don't respect themselves and use sex as a power play, it's no surprise that he'll come to think of women that way -- but he'd probably be happier and have a higher opinion of women if he weren't out just to bag "sluts". Similarly, if women took it upon themselves to clean up the market a little bit and stop putting power in the hands of assholes like Tucker, there'd be a lot fewer assholes like Tucker.

A little benefit of the doubt goes a long way in these situations. If guys playing the Game gave a little more benefit of the doubt to women as a whole rather than generalizing about gold-diggers and manipulative bitches, they'd have a much more accurate picture of the gender. And if women took a chance on more "nice guys" instead of settling for the devil-you-know Game-players, they'd be a lot less likely to lump all men into the asshole category. I'm inclined to think that men and women have a lot more similarities than differences, but that's impossible to see if you're determined to view the other as an adversary.

On another note, I just learned who Tucker Max was this morning while crawling the blogs, and I have to say I think my life was a little better before I knew who he was.

susanawalsh

Hey, angharad, I totally agree that generalizations are not helpful or effective. It doesn't matter in some ways how we got here. I wish I could broadcast your comment all across the interwebs! I agree that we should all take a deep breath, stop treating each other as adversaries, and focus on the things we all want. I do believe that would lead to more, better sex.

renu

Susan,

I want to thank you for all the hours that you put into this blog. I am in my late twenties and still face much of the hook up culture. I was in sub par relationship with someone I am still crazy about and it was not until I started reading your blog I realized that I deserved better. It has been hard and lonely at times since I now started turning down asshats and hookups but thanks to you I am okay with holding out for quality.

susanawalsh

renu, thank you so much. I should complain more often to get such nice compliments! Truly, writing this blog is the most rewarding thing imaginable for me. I absolutely love it. I've done a bunch of different things, during my lifetime, but the irony is that sitting at my kitchen table all day and writing makes me feel more connected to my fellow man (or woman) than ever before.

I am so glad that you are holding out for quality. You know that it is not a quick fix, necessarily, but at least you won't be letting unworthy men make you miserable in the meantime.

darktruth707

Feminism has created an equalist fiction which works to obscure the unequal realities between men and women - to humiliate/destroy good men while entitling/empowering women and bad men.

Due to evolutionary biology, even below average women can get far more sex partners than the average male, because women are mainly having sex with a small pool of above average (alpha) males (upper 20% of all males) - the only men who can equal the numbers women are able to rack up.

Most men (80% of the male population) are "nice guy" beta and omega males who simply can't attract that many women to have sex with, and who feel socially and sexually humilated and envious due to "losing" the sex count game to women and "bad boy" alpha males. The man who can't get sex to equal his peers is socially inferior, and the man who gets little-to-no sex is a social pariah - the male equivalent of the female spinster. This is why men in general are disgusted/vengeful/resentful towards women and society and are swearing off marriage and relationships, i.e. "if women didn't want me in the casual sex market when I was young, I don't want them in the marriage market when they're old."

This anger among the male losers of the sexual revolution is also driving much of the "mass shooter" trend (Klebold/Harris, Cho, Sodini, etc), as well as male sympathy towards such shooters.

susanawalsh

Hi darktruth, thanks for weighing in, I appreciate your leaving a comment. I understand the argument you're making, but I think the approach of trying to turn all males into alphas doesn't work long-term.

1. It's true that not everyone is going to be successful at being found desirable when they're young. For men, that means a large percentage of men aren't getting laid. Stats show that although male college students believe that 75% of the guys on campus had sex the previous weekend, in reality it's only 5-10%. But it's the same for women! They're not trying to have sex, they're hoping to attract a guy who will fall in love with them. And I'd bet that at any given time, only 5-10% of female college students have that. Yes, there are alpha females who treat everyone like shit. And there have always been alpha males who dominated the social scene. In high school and college, those Alphas pretty much stuck together and ignored the rest of us.

2. I agree that Feminism has had far-reaching effects on men and their role in society. In the book Guyland by Michael Kimmel, he discusses how the Women's Movement has left men feeling emasculated, which he believes has delayed their maturing while they prioritize bonding with other men over having relationships with women. I understand that men want to "correct" for the inequalities they perceive, but promoting the "utter degradation" of women isn't going to accomplish much for society, and it's not going to return men to an era when women embraced submissiveness.

3. Here's what I perceive is the fundamental flaw in Game culture: When you are successful, you get laid. You spend the evening or a whole night with a woman who is weak, stupid, and vain. A woman who has no self-respect. A woman who delights in being called a whore. A woman who needs you to validate her worth by having sex with her. Of course you don't want a relationship with her. No man in his right mind would select such a woman as a life partner.

But I don't believe that men want to practice the Game their whole lives, forfeit marriage and children, go out to clubs every night to pick up women who may look like an 8, but having nothing interesting happening between their ears. Yes, evo psych demonstrates that men want to sow their seed as much as possible - they want sexual variety. But evolution also provides for bonding, courtship and the ability to fall in love.

If you poke around my blog, you'll see that I'm a big champion of those men who didn't get all the poon in high school. I married a geek. Most of the highly successful men over age 30 didn't have it easy with women growing up. Just look at who the Alphas are in the American economy. Bill Gates was probably a virgin at 21.

I didn't want an asshole to be the father of my children. I don't know a single woman who wants that. Most women, the 90% that get passed over when they're young just like guys do, want a loving partnership based on shared interests. And they certainly don't want a man who spent his youth as a man whore.

I understand that men are angry. I just don't think Game addresses that problem in the long run.

Esau

Susan -- I would just like to point out that darktruth's dope is wound tight here, and you haven't really engaged his point at all directly. For the large run of boys/young men who are decent and have something to offer, but aren't getting what they deserve [imho] sexually, the very best you can offer is to say: "hang on until you're in your 30's and by then the women around you will have wised up". I'm sorry, this is a total non-starter. Despite all your work on this blog, trying to help the world, your cup is totally empty here.

Also, you might want to reconsider making such categorical statements as "I didn't want an asshole to be the father of my children. I don't know a single woman who wants that." How many young, single mothers are there in this country, women whose husbands left them (or whom they kicked out) shortly after they married and had children? I think it's safe to say that a very large fraction of these women did exactly what you said no one wold do, ie pick an asshole to be the father of their children. Willful blindness ("he'll change, he really will") is not an excuse.

susanawalsh

Wow, I thought I engaged darktruth's point very directly. Especially in light of his snarky tone. One thing I demand on my blog is civility.

OK, here are my thoughts:

The large run of young men who are decent and have something to offer who are not getting laid can not afford to wait around until women "wise up." If you are in that situation, it is incumbent upon you to develop yourself to the point that you are comfortable engaging with women more forcefully. Game is a good tool for that. The problem is that Game is often used in a way that makes women feel like crap. They may spread their legs but they won't fall in love. A healthy relationship can't come out of that. On the other hand, women select for the following characteristics when mating, according to Buss (evolutionary psychologist):

Economic resources = ability to provide for future young
Ability to openly demonstrate love and commitment = most important
Stability and dependability = ranked 2nd and 3rd after love
Ambition and industriousness = working to get ahead and develop yourself
Intelligence = correlated with earning power
Size and strength = physical and athletic prowess

Alphas take size and strength, betas take everything else. In the world we live in today, which is an information and service economy, we really don't need or want men who act like lunkheads. Is there a residual vagina tingle for these guys dating back 100,000 years? Yes, but as women mature they learn better.

Finally, I believe that all the talk of women marrying Alphas, having children, ending their marriages and seeking Betas to pay their way is grossly exaggerated. How many are there? I've seen a few on the Jerry Springer show, but any woman with intelligence and self-respect doesn't go down that road. Willful blindness means you get exactly what you deserve. Does that happen in high school and college? Yes, with abandon. Once we start searching for real partners, though, we want the real deal with a giving and loyal man. In this post, I'm appealing to the reason of young women who have fallen into this trap. I don't know how many readers will change their behavior and stop screwing Tuckers. I know some will (I get emails all the time saying this), but I believe that the conversation is a useful one, regardless.

Scroll down a bit and see what angharad has to say. I think what she says about men and women being adversaries is important. We have different mating strategies. Men are programmed for short-term sexual gratification, and women are programmed for long-term partnership. We are often at cross-purposes. I think talking about it helps my readers. And hearing from men who feel the way you do is important and useful. Thanks.

darktruth707

Susan,

It's not true that women are only after love or that this concept is somehow detached from status. Women compete with each other for alpha males, for relationships as well as casual sex. The fact that alphas receive far more sex offers (and some even have groupies) reflects this reality of female sexual psychology.

Males of the post-boomer generations were raised under feminism and feel used, deceived and betrayed more than anything. We were raised to believe that women wanted an equal partner - someone non-violent, non-dominating, respectful, non-gendered - a nice guy - only to discover that women only use those guys for money and emotional support - and really only respect and desire the dominant high-status guy who never gave a crap about even trying to be equal to women. Iow, nice guys have been punished for doing exactly what women said they wanted.

Game is a result of men waking up to the harsh realities of the sexual revolution, where women and alpha males are the winners, and where the majority of men are losers.

You may be a champion of geeks, but that is cold comfort to such guys, who are forced to endure their teens and twenties (when hormones are raging) in sexual poverty while they see the alphas and women living the sexual high life. Resentment and feelings of humiliation build until revenge and destruction become reasonable goals.

After women are older and used up and alphas no longer want them - that is when women will turn to the beta nice guy for emotional, financial and other support - usually expecting him to support the kids she had with the alphas - and will usually cheat on the beta and take him for everything the moment an alpha pays her any attention. As a result men are wising up and are avoiding serious relationships and marriage.

Men do not want to return women to submissiveness (if they actually ever were submissive - being protected and financially supported is not exactly slavery - maybe for the men it was) but we will not accept being made into submissives ourselves.

Game is but one aspect of the coming male rights revolution which will give women and feminists the comeuppance they've long deserved.

smartduck

I wonder what's the role of narcissism and feminism in this role mess. Narcissism for obvious reasons, since society as a whole went that way. Feminism in the sense that women must (not only can) try and do everything. There is also the sense of entitlement, that no life and no man is good enough for them. The culture tells women that they are the most amazing creation of the universe, the movies say the same, and if they are beautiful, men will just reinforce this perception.
I also wonder if the college dorms aren't to blame. This all-American institution is rare in other countries, and is a sluttiness school in itself, because of the ease to sleep with others, the competition environment, etc.
Men are basically the same as they have always been. Softer, I'd say. The exception are the players, tattooed and with a soul patch. But 95% of the guys are nice, especially in the US. I have never seen, apart from very religious couples, an American couple where the male leads. Most women are Nancy Reagan-ish, while the guy is nice, tells jokes and tries to cool down things. I guess they are always trying to void their wives' outbursts of rage.
If we think about it, it makes sense. Women who are never satisfied, who have unrealistic expectations and think they are entitled the world, will try to "fix" and control the poor husband.
Ouch.

susanawalsh

Smartduck, I don't think you can paint the whole female gender with such a broad brush. I think our culture tells women that they are not thin enough, not pretty enough, not smart enough to study the sciences. Hookup culture tells them that men want to spend only enough time with them to achieve orgasm, and that relationships are much more trouble than they're worth. Are there entitled women who act selfishly and treat men badly? Of course. And there are narcissistic men behaving badly as well.

I do think college dorms have played a large role in fostering the hookup. Colleges have stopped supervising the behavior of students for the most part. An interesting exception is Tufts University, which said this week that it is against the rules to have sex in a dorm room if your roommate is present. The mere fact that such a rule is necessary demonstrates how much dorm living has changed in 40 years. As you say, going to university in other countries usually entails living at home or independently somewhere - dorms don't exist. Logistically, that means that students are having less sex, because of a lack of opportunity.

I don't know if men are softer. I know that young men work hard to be in control in their dealing with women. They are very determined to lead. I would say that most of the couples I know share a partnership, with neither party claiming an advantage. That is how I would describe my own marriage. Perhaps that makes my husband soft, but I don't think it makes him less manly, and it certainly makes him easy to live with.

There's plenty of undesirable behavior and poor communication on both sides. I'd like to see us all call a truce. In the absence of that, all we can do is individually follow the golden rule, no?

smartduck

Absolutely. I guess the fact that I have two boys makes me freak out sometimes with the whole situation !

susanawalsh

Ah yes, there's nothing like being a parent to freak you out on the subject of sex. I have a 22 year-old son, and a 20 year-old daughter. We have some pretty interesting conversations...

In any case, I appreciate your thoughts, and the time you've put into the discussion :-)

Decoybetty

Ok - so I actually just read the girl's account and Tucker's account (ahh, procrastination - ahem I mean a reward for writing!). And I am kind of speechless. At least Barney Stintson PRETENDS to care about the people he sleeps with while he is with them - I mean that takes real skill acting. Being a douchebag is easy. Anyone can be a jerk.

As far as a cultural thing: in Australia, sex is a lot less taboo to be begin with and I always have Australians saying "you reserved americans" to me. On the other hand, a lot of times at clubs I've seen guys eyes light up when they hear my accent "are you American" they slur and I've taken to responding "yes, and I won't sleep with you, don't you get any ideas, now."

And Hamby, Good Girls aren't getting laid either - but no one really sees that as a problem do they?

susanawalsh

I agree! I think Tucker M. and Courtney A. are equally guilty of this. They're essentially 100% uninvested, prostituting themselves for, well, for who knows what. I cannot for the life of me understand her motives. It's powerful to have sex with Tucker Max? If that's true, then she needs some new friends. He is the least choosy man alive - he puts his number between 300 and 600 (he thinks it's creepy to keep an exact count).

And that article with photo for the whole world to read - yikes, her poor parents.

Haha, only Australians could find Americans reserved! Good for you for laying it on the line right off the bat.

Lastly, touche re Good Girls. If Good Girls want to meet and have sex with Good Guys, but Good Guys are chasing all the Bad Girl tail, that means that there are many frustrated and horny Good Girls. Not fair at all.

hambydammit

Ok... don't hate me for this, but I've been reading TuckerMax's website stories, and I have to admit, I laughed an awful lot at the story of the girl who let out a man-burp after giving him head and swallowing. Assholes have their funny moments, too...

susanawalsh

Oh, I couldn't agree more! Tucker Max is funny, smart, and a decent writer. Roissy is extremely smart, and an excellent writer. In fact, it's probably safe to say that comedians boast a higher than average percentage of assholes among them. Being really funny is a form of genius, IMO, and research has shown that genius and the personality trait of agreeableness are inversely correlated.

I've only read a couple of Tucker Max stories, one of which was: Tucker Max Tries Anal Sex, Hilarity Does Not Ensue. It was so graphic, so disgusting, so foul, that it had me gagging. He's a colorful writer, for sure, and a brilliant marketer for his personal brand.

hambydammit

Sex has always been about power, but we're just starting to notice the power struggle because in theory, the playing field is equal. Until the 60s, social constraints limited the ways in which women could exercise their power, and men could give every outward appearance of controlling the whole game, which weakened the power of women still further. Since women have become financially independent of men, they have gained the ability to select men with relative impunity.

I'm just speculating a little here, but I think part of this is purely an American issue. America was one of the last countries in the civilized world to grant suffrage, and much like we did with the slaves, we didn't really grant equality until much, much later than the legal precedent. (Women were still effectively prisoners in their housewife rolls through the 50s.)

Perhaps American women are still on the other side of the pendulum. Maybe they're still a little drunk with their newfound power and freedom, and are running through men like so many American Idol contestants with Platinum Cards literally charging through upper Manhattan. Impulse buys are fun, and if we haven't thought very long about them, we don't worry too much about the consequences. Hell, if we don't like what we buy, we've still got our credit card!

Make no mistake, there are always two sides of any street, but if good guys are not getting laid, what motivation do other good guys have for... well... staying good? Women are the market movers. If a "good guy" constantly goes home to Rosey Palm because the asshole is going home with the girl, then guess what? He's not going to be a good guy anymore. And frankly, as long as every girl in the bar thinks it's someone else's responsibility to change the market, the market will stay the same.

(Damn, am I talking about sex or the recession? I got kind of lost there...)

susanawalsh

A couple of important things happened in the 1960s that gave women the opportunity to have sex with impunity (for the most part). First, the introduction of the Pill tackled one major worry. Second, as you say, women substantially increased their earning power. They didn't need to get married in order to support themselves. Prior to that, women granted sexual access to men in exchange for long-term commitment. And they knew that they needed to remain sexually chaste in order to entice a man to marry them. Suddenly, men were amazed and delighted to discover that women were now willing to have sex without expecting anything in return. I don't know if you watch Mad Men, but Betty Draper and Peggy Olsen are perfect examples of the old vs. the new woman during that time.

I agree that this is largely an American phenom. In fact, hookup culture is American, though like all aspects of American culture, it is spreading rapidly to other parts of the world. I have family in Italy who are horrified that a website like mine should need to exist, or indeed make any sense. There, unmarried women live at home and there are no college dorms. My daughter is studying abroad there now. Although Italian men have always had a rep for being rather forward with flirting, catcalls, etc., she finds that strange men feel free to touch her as she walks by. In clubs, all the women are American (the Italian women are at home with Mama), and men frequently walk up to her and ask her if she would like to have sex. When she declines, some protest, "But you are American!" This is all courtesy of American TV and film, I'm sure.

I think women do find it intoxicating to wield sexual power over men. What Girls Gone Wild get in exchange for their antics is the validation that they are sexually appealing. Women abuse that power, leaving many, even most men feeling frustrated when that visual tease is not delivered on.

So it's not surprising to me that men want revenge. Many of these "Game" sites are explicitly anti-feminism, blaming it for making the American male feel inadequate. Tucker Max doesn't take that stand (he's not political), but certainly Roissy and his disciples do.

Finally, I agree that the system will not change anytime soon. Though I end my post with a plea to consider the needs of other women, I know that people will act out of selfish interest. They almost always do. Still, I think it's helpful for women to understand that some men are schooling themselves in techniques meant to lead to sex where the male is always in a superior position.

Decoybetty

Well that is totally depressing.

susanawalsh

Tell me about it. It's why I work on this blog 40 hours a week for pennies. The way I see it, the pendulum always swings back. Roissy and Co. think the pendulum is finally swinging their way - like Smartduck said above, it's revenge time. I hope the pendulum will swing back in the sense that women will own up to not enjoying a steady diet of casual sex, and hold out for something more emotionally satisfying. Because I'm convinced that's the way we're made.

Sorry to be such a downer. :-(

morning_glory

Well, I think that to acknowledge that most of us gals want more than casual sex isn't a downer. The downer part is pretending that you don't care that you're having great sex with a great guy, but you can't have a simple conversation with him the next morning during breakfast. Not even the evening before during dinner. So today I finally had the guts to say to him: "I think that good sex either needs intimacy or variety. And we have neither. How come that doesn't bother you?" He replied: "Because we want different things". And he was absolutely right. I'm done with settling. In all my relationships I have settled until I got fed up and leaved. And the poor dudes were always kinda shocked because they didn't had the slightest idea that I was unhappy. And actually it was my own fault, because I would always go with the flow without demanding anything. I know I'm drifting away awfully from the main topic here, but my point is that I truly want to thank you for those 40 hours a week. You helped realized that I was killing my own chance at being happy. Well, I enjoyed the sex and the drama and the hopeless falling in love while it lasted, haha. But now I want the real thing. You are not a downer to me. To are helping me to fly :-)
Sincerely, the white-at-last little black sheep.

susanawalsh

morning glory, you just made my whole weekend. Thank you so much, I am very moved by your generous and kind words. You know, I can't change the world, I can't change hookup culture. All I can do is support individual women and men who are searching for satisfying relationships. I am so proud of you for taking a stand and thinking about what you deserve, and what you need to be happy! That is what I find really rewarding about blogging.

susanawalsh

Smartduck, I totally agree that sex has become all about power; it really is a war between the sexes. In this post, I take women to task as well as men. I try to be evenhanded without focusing on blame. I think we've gotten ourselves into a real mess, with women and men both resorting to a strategy of striking preemptively. It's all about gaining the upper hand. There's no real communication.

Certainly, the women who are reveling in a Girls Gone Wild role are the equivalent of these guys. Courtney A. gets no sympathy from me; I find her disgusting. The Sexual Revolution gave women the freedom to have sex whenever and with whomever they want to, more or less. Women who go for it always, with anyone, are feeding into the Game philosophy. That is NOT what our mothers and grandmothers fought for.

I hear from genuinely nice guys, who don't want to resort to PUA tactics, but are at their wits' end getting dissed by females. I always tell them, "Don't go over to the dark side!" But it's not going to make a difference if acting like an asshole gets them laid every time.

Women need to wake up. If a guy is most of what you want, if you like and respect him, by all means have an honest and open sexual relationship. But stop giving it out to assholes, or this will never end! Women are the gatekeepers, women need to lock it up.

smartduck

When the girl says that she "would be a God" to her friends if she sleeps with Max, it becomes clear that this is a power play. Relationships now are most of the time power games.

I just read a horrible book called "indecent". The woman who wrote it is a sex worker who hates men. She delights herself in the fact that men are attracted to her. There are several websites where you can find female Tuckerettes. They are proud of their sluttiness and consider themselves feminists. They call men pathetic and disgusting but love their admiration for them. At least Max's book is funny and not full of bitterness.

In a sense, Max is just a reaction to the attitude of most beautiful women today. Thay are not looking for a soulmate,, for a friend, they want to show themselves and their girlfriends that they are hot and that they can get the most "valuable" man around. They shop for men like men shop for cars. They measure men against such impossible standards that any regular guy just falls short. And they are able to do it because they are sexy. Not because they are smart, or talented, or hard working. Just because of looks. Fair? No. That's why Max is a hero to many beta, gamma, omega men. It is revenge time.

If a girl starts a power game, that's what she will have. A game where whoever dumps the other first is the winner, where the ones who gets the least attached wins.
This situation just makes it harder for kinder, sweeter men and women to get along.

Alex

smartduck, I think the term you're looking for is "lipstick feminism".

I used to be the nice guy who was rejected all the time as I watched women keep continually try their hardest to get the "Tuckers" and "Roissys" to become their fantasy boyfriend/husband...the bad boy who commits and is loyal, but gives her a life of excitement and wild sex (despite how many later claim these guys are terrible in bed).

What I came to realize is that I also needed to change up who I pursued. I once dated a very nice "family oriented" girl, who had a strict family. After a few years things went sour because she fell out of love. From there, I wanted to find a more fun girl who could go out and date normally and such, but in my meeting of many women in bars and clubs, I realized none of them would ever give me what I wanted in a relationship. They were all seeking the impossible fantasy, and thus I'd become more the "stop along the way". The guy they would date temporarily when they feel down and undesired...and thus wanted the self-esteem boost before asking to "just be friends" and thus continue chasing more "asshats".

There was my mistake...and the mistake many make. The mistake of men who do chase the lipstick feminists, and the women who do not want a "normal good guy", but hope for the "above average exciting guy". It's the same mistake women make when they keep hoping for the combo of "wants commitment/marriage/monogamy" with "above average exciting"...which does exist, but seemingly is very rare.

If women want to bang guys like Max, or men want to try endlessly to tame a "lipstick feminist", then they have to accept the reality that there is a limit of where they'll go with those people. Too many seem to hope and wonder if they could "beat the odds" and tame one into husband/wife. As for the rest of us, we need to stop seeing these people who chase the wrong people as "possibilities".

Lord knows I learned my lesson. When I realized how many women I met who were the "wrong women", and saw who the "right women" were, things got much better. It also helps when one realizes they need to love themselves before they can expect someone to love them.

susanawalsh

Alex, thanks for leaving a comment, and for sharing the wisdom of your own experience. One thing that happens a lot is that most of one sex chases or desires only the most highly sought after members of the opposite sex. Women often do go for the bad boy, it's true, but you've also described wanting the women with the most options, and therefore, the least likelihood to commit. The end result is that the vast majority of people wind up dissatisfied and/or rejected. Of course, there's also the idea of "be careful what you wish for." Reformed cads or Girls Gone Wild are very, very rare, and probably not the best bet for a relationship in any case.

Men have an indefinite period of time to look around, theoretically, while women need to make good choices while their fertility is at or near its peak.

In any case, I'm glad you changed your strategy and got success!

Hooking Up Smart

Stop Putting Out for Alpha Asshats

Charming, no? Here’s the real problem: Tucker Max, Roissy and Ferdinand Bardamu are right.

It couldn’t be any more clear. If you want a good man who respects you, you’re going to have to keep your knickers on until you find one. You owe it to yourself, and to all the other women who deserve more than utter degradation.

Follow Me:

Recent Comments

Most Recent Posts

Blogroll

Meta