David Wygant and the Worst Advice I’ve Ever Heard
It’s well known among sociologists and psychologists that young men are delaying maturation. I’ve written about it before here and here. There’s a whole host of reasons this seems to be happening, the most commonly cited ones being:
- The Women’s Movement, and the resulting confusion over male roles
- Hypermasculine but immature ideal in popular culture requires constant proving of oneself to peers
- The declining value of a college degree
None of this is very good news for young women today, who are looking for a few good men and finding a lot of teenage knuckleheads boys. Many women are fed up with all the bro shenanigans, and are rather impatiently waiting for guys to grow up.
Imagine my alarm when I came across an article written by David Wygant encouraging guys to waste their 20s on Good Times. He urges them to enjoy their adult adolescence, which basically means expecting very little of yourself while enjoying life to the fullest.
Adult adolescence? WHAT? Is that not an oxymoron?
First he sets up plenty of sympathy about how hard guys have it nowadays:
“No matter who you were in college — whether you were great with women, a great athlete, or the smartest person in your class — you go into the real world you realize that you are at the bottom of the totem pole all over again. It’s like starting from scratch. You quickly figure out that you have a lot to learn in your 20s. You get your ass kicked throughout your 20s. You really do.”
Next he promises great rewards with zero effort:
“This time in your 20s is really a time to learn. It is a time to get introspective. Don’t beat yourself up. Don’t be hard on yourself. Understand that you’re going to be fine. You’re going to have an amazing, kick ass, unbelievable life.”
While setting the bar rather low:
“Your adult adolescence in your 20s is far greater than your teenage adolescence because you are not living with your parents anymore and you’ve got a little money in your pocket. I remember how good that $2.00 beer tasted with those eight quarters I brought with me. I remember truly appreciating happy hours — and seeking out all the best food options (wings one happy hour and Mexican food the next).”
And finally, he pushes reponsibility onto others:
“Here is something I want everyone to do: Help the people who are in their 20s right now. I know when I look back on my 20s, that was an amazing and fun time of my life. It was carefree. So, really, enjoy your adult adolescence because that time is magical. I have videos of myself when I was in my 20s, and I remember how much fun I was having.”
AAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH. You may be wondering–is this a joke? Did I find this at The Onion?
Who is this slacker and why is he trying to breed new slackers? He is directly contributing to the infantilization of men!
David Wygant is a self-proclaimed dating and relationship expert. He’s mostly known on seduction and pickup artist sites, but he’s had lots of media exposure as well. He purports to offer excellent advice to both men and women.
DOUBT IT.
Here’s what some of his commenters had to say:
- Matrix: This is a great post David. Your 20’s are just like starting all over again.
- Andrew: Great post David, as a college senior this is very useful.
- Greg: In business, relationships, etc, I have much to learn. I tasted independence when I lived on my own for a few years in Toronto. While I learned alot, I had illusions of grandeur and did not have a realistic plan. Because I failed to manage my finances well, I’ve been humbled to living with my parents. That said, I realize this is just a phase.
- Collin: Well I’m about to turn 21, so trust me David. I’m gonna enjoy this adult adolescence quite a bit.
Enabling, enabling, enabling. Undoubtedly, he’s winning over young men at a rapid clip, seeing as how he’s letting them completely off the hook.
Dr. Gary Cross, a professor of Modern History at Penn State, has written a book called Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity. He believes that American males are suffering from a bad case of arrested development. He was interviewed recently by Brett McKay at The Art of Manliness, and he described how he became interested in the issue when he noticed something about the students in his classes:
- Very attractive women weren’t dating.
- The guys talked a lot about video games, and seemed to spend a great deal of time playing them together.
“Today’s men are not the first to question how much fun can be found in adulthood. Maturing means giving up pleasures, taking on responsibilities, and actively thinking about others. Peter Pan was actually written for an adult audience.”
Cross believes the shift has occurred over the last three generations:
The Greatest Generation
- Many of these young men went to WWII and Korea.
- They married at an average age of 21.
- By their early 20s, most men were prepared to hold down regular employment, own a car, and even make a down payment on a house.
The Baby Boomers
- These young men rejected early responsibility, perhaps best demonstrated by Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin in The Graduate.
- They displayed an unwillingness to settle down quickly.
- Many demonstrated against the establishment.
The Sons of Generation X
- The trend of delaying responsibility has accelerated.
- Men now marry at an average age of 28.
- Popular culture emphasizes play and the indulging of personal pleasure. The focus in on remaining “cool teenage boys.”
- There is a specific rejection of skill development, or even personal development.
Cross goes on to identify three factors driving immaturity today:
1. Marriage, family and establishing careers are all occurring much later than they used to.
It takes a lot longer for a man to establish himself. Many young men will turn 30 before they secure a job as good as the one their father had in his early 20s.
2. There has been a huge cultural shift in the last 30 years.
Male character used to rely heavily on demonstrations of honor, courage, and heroism. This theme has all but disappeared from popular culture.
3. The economy provides fewer early opportunities to young men.
Buying a house is out of the question for most men in their 20s, but there is more than enough disposable income to purchase a wide variety of entertainments. This serves to extend teenage values. We honor and celebrate the fashionable, the stylish, those with a strong sense of self, rather than a strong sense of society as a whole.
Cross has three primary suggestions for solving the problem:
1. There is no getting around personal responsibility.
Every man needs to make the personal decision to become an adult.
2. Find new symbols of maturity.
Rather than going back to the old-fashioned ways of being a man, today’s men need to create new ways of demonstrating manliness. He suggests that young men begin by serving as role models to a younger generation. This may range from spending time with a nephew to getting formally involved with a youth group.
3. Young men should embark on a program of personal development.
Developing oneself includes pursuing interests and hobbies that will bring them new skills and make them interesting to be around. Cross notes that in the 1950s Playboy magazine featured many articles geared toward personal development. They wrote about fine wines, stereo equipment, and interviewed respected intellectuals like Hemingway. Today, Maxim offers none of those things, but appeals only to the baser human appetites.
This is an intractable problem, and there are no easy fixes. Women will have to manage the fallout as best they can, keeping an eye out for those men who have their act together.
I’d like to hear your thoughts, both XXs and XYs. Does this resonate? How do you want to spend your 20s?
Related posts:
Obsidian has already covered how feminism has contributed to the destruction of male ideals.
If you do, then stop calling these guys immature. It is very mature to make sound financial decisions like these men are doing.
Again you use the word immature to describe responsible decision making.
If they're in the 80% that isn't getting any (or hardly any) from women, then it doesn't really matter. They might as well act exactly how they want.
Since you obviously believe what you wrote here, why are you calling guys who don't want anything to do with being a woman's “last resort” immature? These men have a right to live their lives as free men and not as mules for women.
I cite the economy as one reason men are prolonging adolescence. I acknowledge that it's more challenging for men to achieve financial independence than in previous generations. However, a man's still has some choice in the way he chooses to respond. He can develop himself and work hard in order to well, and perhaps buy that house in his 30s, or he can check out. It's his choice. The only one I'm blaming here is David Wygant, for encouraging young men to check out. Because a guy who fritters away his 20s in front of his parents' TV is making no progress toward eventual financial independence, with or without a partner.
With regard to the use of the word immaturity – that's not me editorializing. This is a problem written about extensively, using this terminology, by male academics. It addresses the trend of young men shunning responsibility.
This post is not about blaming young men. I acknowledge they're up against it in numerous ways. In the end, though, we've all got to chart our own course, and I believe DW is absolving them of living productive lives. The big losers will be the men who take his advice.
I did not say it was immature for men to reject women who have spent their 20s with cads. That particular point is OT for the post, in fact, but was raised by Obsidian.
My post responds to considerable evidence that by all traditional means of measuring maturity, men are prolonging adolescence into their late 20s. This has enormous implications for marriage, the birth rate, the economy and other things. It's a problem we face in society. It's not about blaming men, it's about addressing what is going on for the benefit of men individually and in aggregate.
Nowhere in this post do I even talk about what men should be doing for women, much less being their mules. Embracing adulthood is something men should do for themselves, period.
Susan, the problem is that the word “immature” is being used as an attack. Okay, not by you, but there is a reason why calling men “immature” is code green on the list of anti-male shaming tactics. Calling guys who aren't following the standard life script, “immature” is just hiding the real economic and social issues of what is going on.
Let's look at buying a house. I could have bought a house several years ago, but I didn't because I recognized there was a bubble in housing and wanted to do the responsible thing which was not do the equivalent of setting thousands of dollars on fire. I got called “immature” and had other shaming language thrown at me. The fact is I did the financially responsible thing.
What this means is that we know have a case where these traditional means of measuring “maturity” all come into conflict with making reasonable decisions for men. Thus when someone starts talking about how (adult) men are immature, it almost always means they have an agenda. Typically, it's about making men mules of women, the church, and/or the state. This is especially true since responsible decision making is missing from the list of traditional measures of maturity.
Men have no reason to meet the traditional markers of maturity. Buying a house is pointless in a housing bubble even if you make 6 figures like I do and the economy is good. Getting married for men is bad idea given the high probability of women wanting divorce soon afterwards. Relationships suck for men in their 20s so they provide nothing of value outside of getting laid. All of this is based on responsible decision making (and self respect). Any definition of maturity that doesn't recognize that men are making responsible decisions given the circumstances is by definition suspect.
This weekend I watched that “Pregnancy Pact” movie on Lifetime. The perspective that was truly missing was that from the boys. Plenty of the girls were doing the very immature thing of intentionally having babies as teenagers. Were the girls called on their immaturity? Of course not. In fact while there were pointless arguments about birth control (pointless because the girls wanted to get pregnant), there were a lot of people saying we can't judge what these girls did. (But it's okay to judge men who realize following the standard life script is just being a mule for a woman and/or the state.) Instead they were given free daycare and the like. Look at it from the boys perspective. The twenty percent getting laid aren't going to want to do anything but the bare minimum since any money they make will be sucked up by a girl that tricked them into having a baby. The 80% of guys not getting laid will look at the 20% and say at least they got laid for all their trouble. The 80% not getting laid will still pay for what the girls did through taxes and the like and don't even get any sex (or anything else) out of the deal. Why should these boys just say “forget this”, go their own way, and only work the minimum they need to support themselves?
“Nice boy, outgoing, never hooks up as far as she knows.”
“This boy's response was to exclaim that she is way out of his league.”
“honestly, how she maintains her sexual attraction for this idiot is beyond me!”
On behalf of this “idiot” and others like him, I squarely resent this remark. You should consider the possibility, the perspective, that he's just being appropriately and justifiably cautious. The story is plainly enough written just in these sentences. If he's not much of a hook-up artist so far, and doesn't have much Game going on, then he's probably aware of those facts. He's probably also aware that an attractive girl, whom he would normally think of as out of his league, is so exactly because she will expect/demand responses and behaviors from men that he doesn't have the reflexes or trained habits to provide. Odds are good that she will soon demand what he cannot supply, after which she will ruthlessly move on; so it only makes sense that he should be non-committal.
One example of this kind of demand is what is known, IIRC, in PUA circles as the “shit-test.” This is where a woman makes an apparently sincere but manifestly unreasonable request; not because it's for something she actually wants, but just as a tactical “test” to make sure that he can and will turn her down. It's a stupid but common behavior among attractive women, to select high-status men who aren't afraid to put a woman aside, and to filter out men who might be needy. The unreconstructed beta “nice guy” will typically fail the “shit test”, because he reflexively takes a woman at her word and tries to be chivalrous and generous. He's not enough of a mind-reader (or signals-reader) to know when a woman actually wants the opposite of what she's asking for. It seems entirely possible/likely to me that the young man in this example has had some experience along these lines, and senses when he's in over his head with an attractive woman and it is not likely to end well for him. (Yes, the implication here is that attractive women have choice, and most women with choice will use it to select for status through these kinds of tactics.)
You state, correctly I think, that the young man would stand a better chance of some kind of success if he got his Game on better, and the young woman would also then be happier. As has been pointed out here, though, Game habits do not come naturally to a large majority of basically honest men, and it's a long row to hoe (no pun intended). However, the main point is that this shouldn't be necessary! As your friend Obsidian has pointed out elsewhere in this thread, a basic “problem” is that women aren't honest about what they want — the “shit test” being just the most blatant example. Yes, the a lot of young men and women alike might be better off if the men were better Gamers; but you should realize and admit a different possibility: that young men (decent ones, at least) and women would also be better off if women were just more honest and forthcoming about what they want, instead of insisting that men always be expert mind(/signal)-readers.
So, slow down before you call this fellow an “idiot”. It may well be the case that he's the smartest and sanest among us all.
Dilithium, first of all, welcome back, and secondly, wow, this is really a good comment. In fact, I'm going to send it to this young woman, because she is so discouraged right now! She has seen him a few times and he is friendly, but not especially seeking her out. She learned a few days ago that he is interested in pursuing it, but needs to think about it. He is a second semester senior, and doesn't want to just dive in without considering it. His friend told her this, and didn't think it was necessarily bad news, but she took it as full rejection. And from where I stand, I'd have to agree. As she put it, “A guy is obviously not that into you if he hears that you like him and stays on the other side of the room.”
But maybe the answer is more complicated than that. My point was that she is genuinely interested – they took a class together and sometimes studied together – they have a history of friendship. Perhaps he finds the idea of trying to hang onto her intimidating – or perhaps he suspects that she will be very high maintenance. I don't know. Still, all this fretting and wringing of hands on both sides is a waste of time because THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO EACH OTHER! And I hate to see them miss an opportunity for a real connection and happiness.
The thing is, she has been honest and forthcoming about what she wants. She indicated her interest by flirting with him, paying him special attention, etc. When that failed to elicit a response from him, she asked his friend to intervene. She is obviously aware that there was a reasonable chance he'd say he finds her attractive, but she felt very nervous about laying it on the line. When he said he didn't think he had a shot, his friend said, “I know for a fact that you do.” How much more encouragement should she be expected to provide? She told me that this is the first time she's ever made a move on a guy. It does seem reasonable that he might be cautious – I told her that, I said he may be wary.
Here's the thing. This young woman specifically took my advice. She found a dad instead of a cad. She tried to flirt with him, but he didn't really respond. Short of grabbing his face and kissing him, she was at a loss. So she told his friend. She basically, said, here I am, he can come get me. And he isn't, for whatever reason. So where does that leave her? It leaves her as prey for cads, that's where. And it makes a liar out of me! There's got to be a meeting halfway. He may be smart and sane, but if he want to use that penis, he is going to have to figure out a way to step up. That's the bottom line.
PMAFT, this is the nicest thing you've ever said to me! This is also a pretty helpful comment, in terms of understanding where guys are coming from.
I do understand why certain phrases and words are red flags for men. I often see men refer to “shaming language” but I've never really had a clear idea what it encompasses, so I found the definitions useful. You need to understand, though, that most of those phrases have the distinct overtone of defensiveness.
In my own experience, I felt accused right out of the gate by you guys, and some of the accusations thrown around impugned my character, my motives and my gender. It made me feel incredibly defensive and threatened. I don't think that's surprising.
I think we will get a lot more accomplished if we work hard to remain civil. When a woman exclaims about bitterness or anger, she may in fact be responding to a level of anger that she was unprepared for and doesn't understand. You need to remember that wrt Men's Rights, the vast majority of women, especially young women, are not clued in. It has taken me weeks to begin to grasp all the things that are really eating at men.
I do not think a guy is immature if he chooses not to buy a house. In fact, many college graduates live with their parents, which just reflects economic reality, as you point out. Responsible decision-making is mature, obviously. Nor do I think a guy is immature if he enjoys video games in his spare time. Or wants to meet numerous women in his 20s and not settle down too early.
However, there is something else going on in American society. Young men are stepping off the track in large numbers. There is a general malaise, a lack of motivation. There is avoidance of responsible decision-making in some cases. I understand some, but not all of the causes for this. I do think it's an important area for research; we need to figure out how we as a society are failing young men, starting with the education system. But. In the meantime, many young men are languishing. They are not preparing themselves well for life in their 30s. And I maintain that the last thing they need is a middle-aged man telling them it is all going to be fine, a kickass life will be delivered to them on a platter. They will fail if they do not work hard. Advocating hedonism has never really been a good strategy for societies.
Wrt men marrying, it is very important for a man to have full confidence in a woman's character before marrying. However, research shows that married men describe themselves as considerably happier than unmarried men. By quite a lot, in fact. So I hate to see men give up on marriage, because I believe many of them theoretically prefer it, if they can find a good mate.
I've written about the pregnancy thing before. I haven't seen that movie, but here in MA, there was the incident in Gloucester that this may have been based on. These immature girls (yes, it cuts both ways) are ignorant and naive enough to think that having a child will be a fun adventure. Obviously, you're right, they're not going to be using birth control. So the guys have to wrap it up. Why on earth would a young man today have sex without a condom? This is insanity! Again, there is an issue of character here – whether through manipulation or ignorance, some girls will take full advantage. A man should be careful about where he spills his seed, even when it is just one night.
You have every right to go your own way. If you don't want to marry and have a family, you can do whatever you like, without having to answer to anyone. It's your choice.
That's not what this post addressed, though. The majority of men (75%) David Wygant is addressing do want those things. But his advice isn't going to help get them there.
Hi Susan — Thanks, I'm glad you found the comment useful. If I hadn't made it clear before, let me say that I don't find anything objectionable in the behavior of this particular young woman in the story, assuming she's as sincere as you describe her to be. My point is more that, she may be suffering the fallout caused by less sincere women/girls who came before her in the young man's life. Remember, it's perfectly possible that there is actually one member of the Nigerian civil service who actually does want to transfer millions to your bank account — but you'll never hear the sound of one sincere person when it has to come through the din of a thousand charlatans.
My point also concerns the farther future. Yes, let's grant that she's perfectly honest and forthcoming right now, so far, in signaling her attraction to this guy. But, what will she be like in the future? Once they got together, will she start acting like all the other beautiful, “out of my league” girls that he's ever seen, and start making impossible demands? Will she expect him to be able to read her secret codes? to discern when what she says is what she really wants, and when it's the opposite of what she wants? Will she say she wants to be respected by the gentle Ashley Wilkes when she really wants to be ravished by a forceful, not-to-be denied Rhett Butler? In short, she says she likes the guy now, but is she going to start dealing shit in the future?
I don't know this young man's actual history, of course; but I had certainly concluded when I was that age, that highly attractive were a bad bet, basically never worth the effort even to try for, even if you have a positive signal to start with.
Two lines from your reply here strike me particularly. FIrst,
“When he said he didn't think he had a shot, his friend said, “I know for a fact that you do.”"
Well, why should he believe that? Yes, the friend may be reporting what the girl said accurately. But that doesn't mean he truly does have a shot. If she, like so many, many other women in America, really wants a mind-reading ravisher, and he knows that he can't really be one (at least, at present), then he really doesn't have a shot, whatever her initial attraction may be. Sad to say, but it may be perfectly rational for a man in his position simply to put aside ALL extremely beautiful women, and concentrate instead on finding someone less likely to be demanding of what he can't provide. Does this make sense?
This is all a completely wild guess on my part, of course. But it does point the way to action for the young lady — since you asked what more she might do. If something like this wild guess is correct, then she can improve her chances by doing something — I don't know what, exactly, but something — to convincingly demonstrate that she's not like all the other high-maintenance beautiful girls who wind up making impossible demands. If this is in fact true, then it shouldn't be so hard to demonstrate, should it?
Or, maybe she thinks that that's just too much work, which leads me to your other statement that caught my ear:
“So where does that leave her? It leaves her as prey for cads, that's where.”
The logic here seems to be, that if the nice beta boy, and others like him, won't “step up” and take the risk of asking her out (remember, even if he knows she'll say Yes at at first, there's a lot more long-term risk in it for him than for her), then she'll be “forced” to settle for the cads. Now remember, cads have no trouble risking rejection, because (1) they can always get more elsewhere; and (2) they're fundamentally misogynist: a woman turning them down doesn't bother a cad because he doesn't care what any woman thinks or feels. Some company! that she's been driven back to.
What needs to be pointed out, though, is that she's suffering this fate exactly because of her complete (and unreasonable, IMHO) insistence that the man take all the emotional risk. And this, again, points the way forward: the young woman in question can probably greatly increase her chances with the young man if she can find some way — again, I'm not sure exactly how, but I can't do everything for you here
— to show that she's taking an equal share of the risk at the start of a relationship. It may be tricky, but if she can do it, then I would bet the young man will feel much more comfortable and confident starting the affair with relatively even scales. What do you think?
Hmmm, yeah, I like that. I mean we're both swinging in the dark here, but your perspective is interesting, because, and correct me if I'm wrong here, I get the sense that you identify with this nice guy Beta, you have stood in his shoes. And this is a group of guys I want to understand better, because they're the best alternative to misogynist cads.
This young woman is not going to return to being vulnerable to players, I don't think. She's been burned a couple of times. What she fears is becoming a total wallflower–she jokes that she has voluntarily climbed onto the celibacy bandwagon. I know that's no joke for a lot of young people who are not voluntarily celibate, and she's not exactly looking forward to it either.
In theory, it makes sense that if she could find a way to reassure this guy, if in fact he is thinking in the way you describe, that might level the risk. The only way I can think for her to do that is to return to being a good friend. He's not going to forget that she made her interest clear before, and perhaps he will start to feel out what getting a bit closer might look like. I have told her she's going to have to be patient with this boy – I think I said she's dealing with a tortoise, and she's used to hares.
I disagree that she is insisting he take all the emotional risk. She feels way, way out there on a limb. His friends are clued in, asking her how it's going, assuring her that she's not in the friend zone, and that he needs time to “see where his head is at.” Now maybe that's not bad, but for a woman who has laid her pride on the line and said, “Please choose me,” his apparent dithering is not exactly validating! This is why she said, “This is why Alphas get all the girls!” I think she understands that this is partially a confidence issue. I know this young woman quite well–she's a good kid, but she is def a SHB and naturally she knows it, based on the attention (often unwelcome) that she gets from guys. We shall see how it plays out, but obviously, she's not going to hang around forever mooning over him without any positive reinforcement. The irony is that the qualities she is drawn to in this boy, e.g. no random hookups, are the same qualities that explain his behavior now.
It's funny, now that we've talked about it this way, I realize it's not unlike my getting together with my beta husband in the 80s. I made my interest clear, he was taken aback and said “Um, er, I don't think so.” (OUCH) and then came around very slowly over the next couple of months. I do recall thinking that if I wanted him there was no room for pride on my part. I would have to accept his interest unconditionally even though it was slow in coming. We didn't actually become a couple for a full five months after that initial conversation.
Susan — I don't have a lot more to add here, so I'll try to be brief.
Looking back on this exchange I see that all I've given you, really, is another variation on a theme from the original post that you've already heard here several times, ranging from your ally Obsidian to your antagonist PMAFT: the reason young men opt out, of the adult world, or the sexual marketplace, is because they judge that the world doesn't have much to offer them and isn't worth the effort to try.
The specific instance I suggested was, for a large number of young men (maybe even a majority) the romantic and sexual world shaped by young women's choices is way, way stacked against them; so much so that there's basically no point in even trying. Before asking what might be done to improve this situation, you (and your readers) might first want to step back and ask how things got this way. After all, you find the story you told here quite surprising: a young man is told that an attractive young woman is interested in him, that he is practically guaranteed a good reception; and yet, he won't take the opportunity. It _is_ surprising, which should prompt you to ask: what past experience might he have had which causes him to act this way? Try to answer that exact question, and you may be surprised at what you come up with.
Thanks, Dilthium, for all the back and forth. I'm trying to learn as much as I can, and talking with men, especially when we can dial down the tension, has been quite informative and helpful. I'll continue to welcome the dialogue in hopes of understanding things better. It's all so complicated, so hard to imagine a way forward. Perhaps you're right, perhaps it needs to start with looking back.
Susan, I'd really have thought that you would have learned better by now. After all the many posts and comments that you've written and read, here and elsewhere, I'm amazed that you can still write a sentence like this:
“Women will have to manage the fallout as best they can, keeping an eye out for those men who have their act together.”
and keep a straight face. The short form is, women aren't “managing” this fallout, they _caused_ this fallout in the first place.
Here's the nub of the matter. You yourself have admitted, in other exchanges that, in granting their favor to men, young women follow a value system that we might term “tingle uber alles”: if he makes her tingle, then he's made, no matter what his other qualities or drawbacks; if he doesn't make her tingle, then he's got no chance, no matter what his other qualities or advantages. Agreed?
So, what is the relationship between a man “having his act together,” however you want to define it, and making women tingle? I think it should be undeniably clear to anyone with even one eye open, that these two are at best unrelated, and often outright opposed. Once you are willing to admit this obvious truth, then the world will start to make a great deal more sense (though it won't be any less depressing).
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by “having their act together,” but for any reasonable definition the rest is undeniable. Working hard, studying, having a good job and a good career do not induce tingle. Deferring gratification does not induce tingle. Being honest, intelligent and respectful does not induce tingle. Being emotionally mature does not induce tingle. Instead, it's frequently the _opposite_ of all of these that is more likely to induce tingle: hedonism, poor impulse control, excessive drama, thuggishness, arrogance and selfishness.
Women have spoken clearly: all the habits of maturity will _lower_ a young man's chances of getting laid. Given that, can it possibly surprise anyone that young men should put maturity aside?
If you're even tempted to argue this point further, try first to answer these simple questions:
* At the end of high school, who is more likely to make a girl tingle: the earnest valedictorian on his way to a good college? or the slacker thug who'd beat you up just for looking at him? Of the boys who are neither, which one do you expect them to try and emulate?
* Edward Cullen makes women tingle; do you think he's emotionally mature? Roissy makes women tingle; do you think he has his act together?
So, no: I'm calling you out on this one. The essence of your statement I quoted is simply wrong, inverted from reality. To the extent that women might think “delayed maturity,” or whatever you want to call it, is a bad thing, they are not “managing” the result of some natural disaster in which they had no hand. Instead, women's role is _central_ in having _caused_ the disaster. Once you can admit this truth to yourself and to your readers, and can see the world straight, then you'll be in a much better position to actually help people as you want to do.
Esau, my thoughts:
I'll say here things that I have said many, many other times, here and elsewhere.
1. Sexual attraction is indeed a prerequisite for a relationship, whether short- or long-term.
2. The traits of dominance, aggression, social status and financial resources all contribute to manufacture the tingle.
3. Dominance and aggression are generally displayed by men with high testosterone levels, aka Alpha males. Women are especially aroused by these men during the 3 or 4 days prior to ovulation, when their estrogen surges.
4. Social status and financial resources are also important to women, for both short- and long-term relationships. Men who “have their act together” wrt maturity are the ONLY ones who will meet these criteria.
4. Once the tingle is present, a man will usually be evaluated for his relationship potential. Important factors here include his drive, ambition, perseverance, determination, creativity, honesty, the ability to sustain a collaborative alliance, and the willingness to openly demonstrate love and commitment. Many of these qualities are what we think of as the traditional “Beta” characteristics. An immature man does not possess, and is therefore unable to demonstrate these traits.
Re Twilight and Edward Cullen, there is great misunderstanding among men on this point. Below is a comment from Whiskey on another post, followed by my response:
“Twilight is nothing more than a PUA how-to (no surprise it's cited often in PUA blogs), complete with the girls disdain and disgust with the boyish male peers around her and the longing for the older, more powerful, dangerous, and disdainful guy.”
Your assessment of the Twilight phenom is superficial, IMO. In some ways it strikes me as the antithesis of PUA tactics.
A. Bella is attracted to Edward Cullen from the first moment she sees him. At that point, she perceives him as exhibiting strong Alpha traits, including high testosterone features: heavy brows, strong jaw, strong wide nose. He is extraordinarily handsome.
B. Edward is also BROODING. Brooders can be emotionally unavailable, but they can also be emotionally intense and needy. Women want to nurture them, crack the code, open them up. That's what women are programmed to do, and complicated men capture our interest, whether they're alpha or beta. Moodiness is intriguing, but it's different from dominance or aggression. Though it is true that moody men often turn out to behave like assholes.
C. Bella's other male classmates are portrayed in the story as total doofuses. They are so goofy, it's surprising that any girls go for them. Their behavior is appropriate to 14 or 15 year-old boys. They're also described, and cast, with physically plain males.
D. Edward quickly surrenders to Bella, and declares himself hers unconditionally. He proves himself safe rather than dangerous, her ultimate protector. He refuses her sexual advances, so as not to endanger her with his vampire passion. He refuses to let her become vampire, instead pledging his undying love forever, with him a perpetual 17, and her growing old. There is no demonstration of value, no negging, no push-pull, no time constraint. He does not employ one single PUA tactic in 2,000 pages. He begs her to marry him when she is 18. Edward is the ultimate fairy-tale prince, and if his nature is dominant and aggressive, he keeps it solidly in check.
EDWARD CULLEN IS THE PERFECT BETA MALE, THOUGH HE HAS TO WORK HARD TO ACQUIRE BETA LACK OF GAME. HE IS THE CONSUMMATE OPPOSITE OF A PUA.
Re Roissy, here we have an example of exemplary Game, if his field reports can be believed (and I am not at all sure that they can be). Assuming for the moment that he has picked up a woman in the last 5 years, it is because he has successfully learned to mimic the traits of aggression and dominance. It's a good pickup strategy. Since he purposefully cheats on and lies to all women he has sex with, he's living proof that he does not demonstrate the qualities women want in a long-term mate.
The handsome valedictorian quarterback with unassailable confidence makes the high school girls tingle. The bad boy thug gets laid often enough, but it's pump and dump all the way. He makes a fool out of any girl who falls for him, a powerful disincentive for “good girls” watching on the sidelines.
I get it. This is a lot to ask of men. Many men are not even interested in trying to measure up anymore. That is the problem. Having your act together from an evolutionary standpoint means knowing how to produce the tingle (either naturally or with Game), and displaying the traits women seek for long-term mating, as much as possible. Those men are the fittest, and their genes will continue to be selected.
Susan — Thanks for your measured and thoughtful reply. I'll try to be constructive here, and start by saying that I think I'm foundering on some of your definitions, which don't make sense to me. At the start, I'm basically with you on points 1 — 3 (though the bit about women's preferences changing with menstruation, while an interesting tidbit, seems like an aside to me), but can't agree with 4.
We agree that the behaviors of dominance and aggression are more likely to be tingle-inducing. My point is that maturity, at least to me, is the opposite of dominance and aggression. To me, maturity means things like self-control, focus, patience, along with compassion, empathy and concern for others; and these are completely opposed to the kinds of high-T, alpha-male behavior that turns young women on.
As for your point 4, that “Men who “have their act together” wrt maturity are the ONLY ones who will meet these criteria” of ” Social status and financial resources”, I think this may be somewhat true for people in their late 20's or older. But for the college-age cohort that you write for, it doesn't make any sense to me at all. The only college-aged people who have significant financial resources are those who come from wealthy families, ie they are, truly, “gifted”. This may make them more attractive, but that has nothing to do with maturity (depending on your experience with prep schools, you might argue that coming from a wealthy family correlates with less maturity). As for “social status” I'm not quite sure what you have in mind here, beyond just the usual wealth and physical beauty (including athletic fitness). When it's not tied to actual traits, status is sort of ephemeral, like popularity: if you have some, then you're likely to get more; if you have less, then you'll get less. So to the extent that college-aged men have social status other than from looks or money, I would venture that it comes from their success at dominance and aggression; and, as I said above, to me these are the antithesis of maturity.
So, on the whole, no, I'm still not buying. What young women seem to find sexy is not maturity, it's the opposite of maturity.
Last thoughts:
* Regarding the brooding thing, this is only true if the boy is handsome (like EC). No girl gives a damn about a brooding boy who's only ordinary-looking. (Do you disagree?)
* Regarding the valedictorian versus the thug, you're dodging the question by imagining a handsome quarterback. The important question is, given the choice between the earnest, smart, hardworking but non-threatening valedictorian, and the thug, which do girls and young women prefer? The thug, clearly; and that is the source of all this trouble in the world.
* The high-school thug and the Roissy examples make my point exactly: they are both bad long-term material, just as you say, but they both are also what make girls and women tingle. For young women, tingle has very little to do with long-term fitness, and is typically excited by its opposite. In some sense, your entire blog is a response to this very fact.
This sums it up. For many young men and not so young men, the sexual marketplace and (supposed) maturity is nothing but a lose-lose proposition. No matter what you do, outside of doing nothing, you will lose. Why should a man try with women if he will be ignored throughout high school, college, most of his 20s? And after that getting interest starting at 30 because women want kids, but several years after getting married and having kids she divorces you for someone more exciting. And then you're paying for kids you never see, assuming that they are even yours since paternity fraud is a huge problem. And this is one of the better scenarios. Maybe at 30 she comes with kids already since she went after guys that gave her the gina tingle. And let's not forget the huge debt she's probably amassed that you will be paying for. That XBox is starting to look a lot better.
I liken this to buying a house in 2005-2006, the height of the housing bubble. I was moving during that time and looked at buying a house. Despite being able to afford it, I came to the conclusion that buying then would mean that I lost (money in this case) no matter what. It didn't matter how much money I made. I didn't matter how much my life was together and moving forward. Buying a house back then was a losing proposition no matter what (unless you already owned a house).
More and more for young men, the sexual marketplace is a place where they will lose in one form or another. With no upside in the future, why should young men bother? There is no reason they should because they will never derive benefit from it.
To understand women's preference shifts re Beta and Alpha during their cycle:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/10/22/hookin...
Re #4: In discussing the phenomenon of “adult adolescence,” I do not include college men. I refer to the 20s, but I don't expect any man to behave like a responsible adult prior to college graduation – I agree that's unfair.
What women want to see in a college graduate is a man who applies himself to improve his life and prepare for the future. This is well documented. The traits that women seek when mating are not really in dispute (see David Buss, Symons and Barash).
Assume we have two equally good-looking men. One is living with 3 other guys in a pretty run-down apartment, working hard at his job. He is really only available to hang out on the weekends. He is pumped about his recent promotion to Sr. Associate. He doesn't have much time to date, but he makes a point of seeing his friends on the weekend, and is part of a loose, large social circle and likes to meet as many new people as he can. Networking is important, and it would be nice to meet a great girl.
The other guy is adorable too. He's 24. He has a degree from an excellent university. The job market sucks, so he'll probably have to work as a barista, but he's going to hang in a while longer and see what happens. He lives with his parents, and they're pretty cool about it. He has good friends from college in the area, and lots of them are in the same boat. Lately they've been playing Beatles Rock Band, and it's awesome! Now and then they head out to bars, but chicks are a pain in the ass with all their shit tests.
Re brooding boys who are ordinary looking? Well, obvs, girls will prefer a handsome brooder over a plain one. But the emotional complexity implied by brooding is itself sexy. Ugly, successful brooders include Elvis Costello, Bob Dylan, uh oh I'm showing my age here! You get the picture though. An ugly guy with attitude? Sexy.
I guess I did dodge the question about the valedictorian. I was suffering from Tom Brady syndrome. Earnest smart guy vs. thug? Yeah, I agree, the thug wins every time. Earnest smart guy needs to get some Game.
Look, I acknowledge here and everywhere else that bad boys make women tingle. Indeed, I blog in part to urge women to think with their heads instead of their vaginas. Because being burned by a douche feels terrible – it's publicly humiliating and shameful to boot. But, women do look for other qualities in men. Not all women will fall for the thug. Thankfully, there are really not that many thugs to go around!
[...] Susan Walsh: Worst Advice I’ve Ever Heard [...]
One thing that the women who have been left on the shelf have noted (i.e. me and other gamma girls) is that the culture is about material success and proving worth to peers through ticking all the boxes – looks, money, job, kids and later, successful kids.
Marriage has been reduced to competition and economics – just another certificate to collect for validation.
There is a subset of people out here which is interested in emotional connection and support rather than financial economics. I want to marry someone I connect with, who understands me and provides me with both joy and comfort – I don't want to marry someone because he's a doctor with an expensive SUV – it doesn't make him a good person.
Men seem to be taking Strauss and David DeAngelo at their word and saying that all women want Alpha Males – so they collect the markers of alphamaledom as a substitute for being a good person, a fully developed person or a nice person. Then, when you go out with them, they have nothing to talk about but themselves because they have been too busy collecting these things to build themselves up – rather than looking outwards and connecting with other people.
People are so self-interested these days – that is what is sad.
I also find OmegaMan's comment that helping with the chores or cooking makes you “a kitchen bitch”. No – it makes you considerate, it makes you an equal partner.
Women have changed over the past 30 years in their expectations for marriage but men have not changed at all.
Women do it too.
Hi Nat, good to see you! I agree with you about marriage becoming another competition and economics. And I think your own goals for marriage are lovely – seeking joy and comfort in a person is certainly bound to make you happier than any SUV will.
Men who mimic Alpha traits can greatly improve their sex lives, but it's true what you say – character is a different issue entirely. A guy studying Game can get so caught up in Demonstrating Higher Value that he forgets to learn anything about you. And so the date becomes a weird exercise in narcissism. We get so worried about what we're going to get that we forget to give anything.
I also agree about the kitchen bitch thing. I think that is a reference to Sandra Tsing Oh, who made fun of her husband for helping around the kitchen and then left him. I think men are saying that when you allow a woman to control you, then you surrender your dignity and get shafted in the process. There's some truth to this – surely there is a middle ground between narcissism and total submission!