How Feminism Got Drunk and Hooked Up With a Loser

March 1, 2010

Rachel Simmons set the under-40 femosphere back on its heels last week with a column on her blog:

Is Hooking Up Good For Girls? (click here)

Ms. Simmons is an interesting hybrid – she is the advice columnist for Teen Vogue, but she is also a scholar (Rhodes) on the subject of female aggression and has strong feminist cred. In her post she expressed strong concern about the way young women are experiencing mating norms, especially in college. She relies heavily on Kathleen Bogle’s book Hooking Up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus, just as I did when I decided to begin blogging about relationships in the Hookup Era. From her post (emphasis mine):

“As a relationship advice columnist for Teen Vogue, I get a lot of mail from girls in “no strings attached” relationships. The girls describe themselves as “kind of” with a guy, “sort of” seeing him, or “hanging out” with him. The guy may be noncommittal, or worse, in another no-strings relationship. In the meantime, the girls have “fallen” for him or plead with me for advice on how to make him come around and be a real boyfriend.

…So what’s the deal here? Is a world in which guys rule the result of the so-called man shortage on campus? Fat chance. More likely, we’re enjoying some unintended spoils of the sexual revolution. As authors like Ariel Levy and Jean Kilbourne and Diane Levin have shown, the sexualization of girls and young women has been repackaged as girl power. Sexual freedom was supposed to be good for women, but somewhere along the way, the right to be responsible for your own orgasm became the privilege of being responsible for someone else’s.

…Does that make me a right-winger? Can I still be a feminist and say that I’m against this brand of sexual freedom? I fear feminism has been backed into a corner here. What, and who, are we losing to the new sexual freedom? Is this progress? Or did feminism get really drunk, go home with the wrong person, wake up in a strange bed and gasp, “Oh, God?”

…These letters worry me. They signify a growing trend in girls’ sexual lives where they are giving themselves to guys on guys’ terms. They hook up first and ask later. The girls are expected to “be cool” about not formalizing the relationship. They repress their needs and feelings in order to maintain the connection. And they’re letting guys call the shots about when it gets serious.”

I cannot overemphasize how significant a development this is. Not only because Ms. Simmons has stepped on the third rail of female empowerment, but because the feminist response to her, while mostly negative, is far more thoughtful and measured than it would have been just a year ago. I’ve tussled with sex-positive feminists before, most notably in these posts:

Why Do Feminists Find Abstinence Intolerable?

Have Women Been Screwed By the Sexual Revolution?

Can Hooking Up Empower You?

In fact, it was exactly a year ago that Jessica Valenti of Feministing.com claimed that hookup culture doesn’t even exist: Speechifying: So-called hook up culture and the anti-feminists who love it:

I actually don’t believe that hook [sic] culture exists. What I do think is cause for worry is the way that conservative and anti-women organizations, writers, and media makers are using this myth of a hook up culture to promote regressive values surrounding gender and to roll back women’s rights.

And in August, 2008, after Donna Frietas’ book Sex and the Soul was published, Tracy Clark-Flory of Salon wrote In Defense of Casual Sex:

Perhaps young women are putting feminist ideals of equality into sex by refusing shame and claiming the traditionally male side of the stud/slut double standard.

Ms. Clark-Flory, who attended a women’s college and admittedly never hooked up while there, plants herself firmly in the I can have sex like a man! school of sex-positive feminism. Aside from the fact that I don’t think women can or do have sex like men, mostly I just don’t understand why we would want to. What’s in it for us? Quite a bit of heartache, it would seem.

Now a whole year has passed, and the cry of miserable college-aged (and beyond) women is being heard by the mainstream media. Claiming that hookup culture doesn’t exist puts you in the world is flat camp. Responses to Simmons’ coming out against no-strings sex as the only viable or acceptable relationship model are more varied, and temperate this time around. Let’s have a look:

Jessica Valenti of Feministing has apparently been too busy to weigh in, but did write a quick sentence saying that Simmons has some super valid points! This served as sort of a smoke signal to other feminist bloggers that Simmons should not be dismissed out of hand.

First out of the box was Kate Harding at Salon:

From where I’m sitting, the problem that needs solving isn’t hook-up culture, but the intense pressure on girls and women to focus on getting and keeping a guy, rather than on getting and keeping whatever they want. Media aimed at the female of the species from adolescence on up hammers on a few simple messages. 1) If you’re not heterosexual — or for some other reason don’t see landing a boyfriend as your primary purpose in life — you don’t exist. 2) Landing a boyfriend is about understanding What Guys Want and doing whatever it takes to become that. 3) Keeping a boyfriend is about continuing to be What Guys Want, and if your relationship fails, it’s probably because you did something Guys Hate.

Newsflash: Most girls and women want guys. They want sex and relationships. They don’t always want both at the same time, it’s true. The problem is that there is a giant sex dispenser on every college campus, but the relationship dispenser is OUT OF ORDER. And if a relationship is what a woman wants, then she’s SOL. Furthermore, for the record, let’s just leave gay folks out of this discussion. Gay men have always had to deal with hookup culture, and they always will, due to the male preference for sexual variety. Gay women don’t have to deal with it because they prefer relationships, for the most part. There are times when issues are heteronormative. Deal with it.

If we encouraged girls and women to place real value on their own desires, then instead of hand-waving about kids these days, we could trust them to seek out what they want and need, and to end relationships, casual or serious, that are unsatisfying or damaging to them, regardless of whether they’d work for anyone else. (While acknowledging, of course, that to some extent, heartbreak and romantic regrets are an inevitable part of growing up.)

Feminists’ knee-jerk response to concerns about rampant casual sex is to claim that a bunch of old fogeys (like me) are waving our hands in the air saying, “Something is wrong with kids these days!” They believe that we want to roll back the calendar and turn all of our young women into Betty Draper. Instead, what I see going on is real concern on the part of parents and educators (like Simmons) observing and responding to the pain that young women are feeling. That was certainly what motivated me to jump into the fray.

The thing is, if only one kind of dating “culture” is acceptable at any given time — whether it’s hooking up or old-fashioned courtship — then anyone whose desires don’t fit the mold will be left out. But if we teach all kids that there’s a wide range of potentially healthy sexual and emotional relationships, and the only real trick (granted, it’s a doozy) is finding partners who are enthusiastic about the same things you want, then there’s room for a lot more people to pursue something personally satisfying at no one else’s expense.

A doozy indeed! What might that trick be? As we know, guys having sex in college want multiple sexual partners. Guys not having sex in college are disenfranchised, shut out, virtually invisible to women. Women having sex in college are all gunning for Alpha, bemoaning his unwillingness to commit. Women not having sex in college are shut out, virtually invisible to men.

As Simmons said so well, we are enjoying the unintended spoils of the Sexual Revolution.

Next Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon weighs in:

I reject the sex-obsessed interpretation of how this struggle came to be. When I see such a large scale power struggle between men and women, I tend to think the reason is rarely biology, and usually socially constructed sexism.  Experimenting with this starting point, I think I have a much better explanation for what’s going on: Boys have power over girls in the “hook-up culture” because boys have power over girls in a male-dominated society.

Patriarchy is not the problem here! Women are outpacing men in school and at work. Boys have power over girls in the hookup culture because they dangle the carrot of a relationship as they hammer away with their sticks.

Men’s social status comes from men, and women’s social status comes from men. As someone who does remember college pretty well as it drifted into this hook-up culture, I can say firmly that getting a capital-B boyfriend was a huge source of social validation and status. But for men doing the validating, there’s not actually much value in monogamy (outside of Twu Wuv). They give something—validation—and instead of getting anything for it, they end up having to pay the price of not having their options open. Who wants that?

What Marcotte says about the derivation of social status is true. What has changed is the way men define status. What she fails to see is that two generations ago, a guy derived social status by having a steady girlfriend. That meant he was a guy with a regular supply of sex, and that was really the only way he could get it. Today, a regular supply with one woman just doesn’t cut it. Today’s male mantra is “I want multiple!”

Critics of the “hook-up culture” quietly tend to accept that while these dynamics dominate the college years, even most of them accept that something shifts when people hit their 20s, and suddenly dating and commitment become the norm. As women mature, we gain jobs and homes of our own, and become more sure in our tastes and our friendships.  For women, this is an enormous power grab.  The amount of our social value derived from male attention shrinks as more of our social value comes from our jobs and the image we project in the world. And as soon as one guy abandons the immature “girls and dating are GROSS” thing, the stigma loses its grip and they start to fall like dominoes.

Fall like dominoes? Everything I’m hearing tells me that hooking up is continuing as the norm well into the mid to late 20s. As kids weaned on hookup culture graduate from college, they export it directly into the professional and dating world they enter. This trend will continue and be magnified in coming years.

The girls are lurching in the right direction, but what needs to happen now is more attention paid to the boys.  How can we discourage young men from validating each other based on displays of misogyny?  How can we get boys to appreciate girls more as human beings?  How can we dismantle a system where social status in youth cultures is controlled strictly by young men?

Blaming men is 100% ineffective. Men are responding to hard-wired cues that give them an advantage in the reproduction sweepstakes. You might as well suggest that we tame lions into house cats. It is not in their nature, and it does not mean they are misogynist. “Lurching” doesn’t sound like a recipe for success, either.

Nona Willis Aronowitz writes on GirlDrive:

“I knew how it felt to agonize over a text message. I knew how much it hurt to hear that the guy I’d been hooking up with “didn’t do relationships.” And I knew what it was like to use sexuality to coax a guy into being with me, only to have it fail miserably.

Feminist or not, that shit sucks. And it happens a lot, to women and girls everywhere. And yet, if you consider me and the vast majority of America who eventually couple up, it seems to end up okay. What to make of all this?

…We need to admit as a culture that teens are sexual beings, and that more often than not, sexual maturity has a completely different timeline than emotional maturity. This is, to be sure, skewed by sexism and restrictive gender roles to make sexual coming-of-age worse for girls. But beyond that, maybe discovering what you want sexually and emotionally is just part of growing up–and that’s okay.

…For that matter, what’s with this still-dominant narrative that all teen girls should want a monogamous, snuggly, worshipping boyfriend? I wanted relationships from fantastic fucks all through high school and college, but something tells me that I repeatedly confused lust for love and convinced myself that I wanted a boyfriend, when really I just wanted a screwfest (although I can’t be sure).

Hmmm, just a bit of backwards rationalization going on here…

We never consider the power of cultural messages amid the mysterious phenomenon of girls wanting relationships more often than boys. I don’t think it’s biological–there are societal patterns at work here. If we’re told that casual sex is unfulfilling and that we’re going to want relationships, chances are we’ll end up wanting them.

Nona, meet Helen Fisher, noted biological anthropologist. Helen can tell you, citing dozens of peer-reviewed scientific studies, and with absolutely no political agenda whatsoever, that it is indeed biological.

The stubborn insistence on the part of feminists that the sexes do not differ biologically has done much to repress women and make them miserable, as the recent Wharton study on the gender happiness gap illustrates. We wanted to have sex like men and that’s just what we got. It turns out we don’t like it much, and we probably need to make some changes.

The women’s movement ushered in today’s sexual norms. The pendulum will swing back when women fight back by making sexual choices that coincide with their long-term interests.

This is not about going back to the 1950s, or any other time when women did not enjoy equal rights.

As women, we do have a choice. And sometimes, it probably ought to involve keeping our legs together.

4 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • NonaWA

    Hi Susan, I have no problem with you quoting me–I stand by every word I wrote. But I don't appreciate you scrambling my sentences around to fit your agenda. (E.g. There are several paragraphs between me agonizing over a text message and coming to the conclusion that “Maybe discovering what you want sexually and emotionally is just part of growing up–and that’s okay.”) This is far from an honest analysis of my post. As for your incendiary (and frankly gag-inducing post headline, well…now I know what you really think of all of us drunk damaged sluts.

  • susanawalsh

    NonaWA, thanks for leaving a comment.

    I stand by my representation of your post, which contains nothing false. I did not, in fact, scramble any sentences. Everything is in order. I did excerpt your post, which is normal and fair. And I don't think anything is taken out of context. How is this dishonest? Please be specific.

    As for the post title, you can thank Rachel Simmons for that:

    Or did feminism get really drunk, go home with the wrong person, wake up in a strange bed and gasp, “Oh, God?”

    Kate Harding thought it was funny, and so did I. Sorry you didn't appreciate the humor.

    Finally, if you'd take a bit of time and look around my blog, you'd see that what's missing is judgment. I don't judge hooking up, in fact there are times in most young women's lives when it's just the thing. What I do resent is the fact that women are routinely pumped and dumped as they earnestly seek relationships. Men will not change. This is not a question of patriarchy. Women are the gatekeepers, always have been, always will be. And today they're rarely getting to have sex on their own terms.

    A new strategy is called for, and it's not prudish, it's not slut shaming, it's not THE MAN trying to bring you down. It's common sense, it's strategy. Because the way it stands now, many women are reaching the age of 25 without ever having been in a single relationship. I'm glad you're not among them, but the pain of young women is very real, and it goes way beyond analyzing text messages.

    That's the sum total of my agenda.

  • NonaWA

    Susan: Below is the correct sequence of my post–just for accuracy's sake. Thanks.

    “I knew how it felt to agonize over a text message. I knew how much it hurt to hear that the guy I’d been hooking up with “didn’t do relationships.” And I knew what it was like to use sexuality to coax a guy into being with me, only to have it fail miserably.

    Feminist or not, that shit sucks. And it happens a lot, to women and girls everywhere. And yet, if you consider me and the vast majority of America who eventually couple up, it seems to end up okay. What to make of all this?

    Rachel asks in the aforelinked post:

    Now, just to be clear, I’m all for the freedom to hook up. But let’s face it: despite our desire to give women the freedom to plunder the bar scene and flex their sexual appetites, it would appear a whole lot of them are pretty happy playing by old school rules, thank you very much. Incidentally, one of the women smart enough to figure this out just sold her 5 billionth book, or something like that.

    Does that make me a right-winger? Can I still be a feminist and say that I’m against this brand of sexual freedom? I fear feminism has been backed into a corner here. It’s become antifeminist to want a guy to buy you dinner and hold the door for you. Yet – picture me ducking behind bullet proof glass as I type this — wasn’t there something about that framework that made more space for a young woman’s feelings and needs?

    I do feel where Rachel is coming from. But those old models are based on the idea that girls are fragile, that they need to be sheltered from the ills of the world. They’re based on, as Kate says, being the girl that guys want. They’re based on, as Amanda outlines, sexism plain and simple. So if we don’t want to go the “Girls Gone Mild” route and start waiting for dudes to ask us on candlelit dates, does that mean it’s hopeless to find a happy sexual medium as teens and young, single women?

    Kate says no. “[I]f we teach all kids that there’s a wide range of potentially healthy sexual and emotional relationships,” she says, “and the only real trick (granted, it’s a doozy) is finding partners who are enthusiastic about the same things you want, then there’s room for a lot more people to pursue something personally satisfying at no one else’s expense.” That’s one of the smartest statements I’ve ever read on this topic. Amanda, meanwhile, says we need to stop making women shoulder the burden of keeping men in check, and concentration on getting “boys to appreciate girls more as human beings.” A-fucking-men. (No pun intended.)

    But there’s also this: We need to admit as a culture that teens are sexual beings, and that more often than not, sexual maturity has a completely different timeline than emotional maturity. This is, to be sure, skewed by sexism and restrictive gender roles to make sexual coming-of-age worse for girls. But beyond that, maybe discovering what you want sexually and emotionally is just part of growing up–and that’s okay.”

  • synthesis

    I don't think Susan thinks you are either damaged or a slut. Maybe the ellipsis was misplaced? Your article seems to say, yes there was pain and regret, but the past was a learning experience and things turned out alright. That message was not lost in what was cut out. Perhaps she could have includes the two paragraphs starting at: “The interesting thing about my particular sexual history…”

    While you may disagree about Susan's advice about keeping one's legs together, you have control over only your own behavior and so self-regulation is the most expedient action.

  • susanawalsh

    Fair enough, I'm happy to have you set the record straight. However, would you address what I think is probably the more important point? That it is not biological? Do you claim that women and men experience sex physiologically and emotionally in identical ways? Are women more “hard-wired” to seek relationships? Are men more “hard-wired” to prefer sexual variety? How does feminism square the cutting-edge research on brain chemical function during sex with its definition of sexual equality?

  • GudEnuf

    “The pendulum will swing back when women fight back by making sexual choices that coincide with their long-term interests.”

    With respect Susan, I don't think pendulum will ever swing back. Women's behavior is driven primarily by sexual economics, not social norms. And technology has permanately changed the sexual marketplace.

    Have you read Obsidian's article in The Spearhead today? By the time your high school readers have finished college, we will have 3-D pornography. You know how amazing Avatar's special effects were? Think of porno version. And we've already talked about sex robots.

    Now of course, not all men will accept technology as a substitute for a real woman. But it doesn't matter. Even if only 5-6% of the men are removed from the market, we'll see dramatic results:

    http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevol

    Since it's much easier for technology to simulate sex than relationships, it stands to reason that the price of a relationships relative to sex will only climb. IMHO the boyfriend industry has become a sellers market, permanately.

  • Chilli

    Susan, I love your philosophy because it is all about promoting a woman's choice. You're not telling woman to stay virgins till marriage and you're not telling them that they should have tons of sex because it is the feminist thing to do. You aren't even advocating a moderation between the two really. It's all about using what you've got to get what you want. And it makes sense because it isn't based on abstract ideals that don't.

    “Every woman has exactly the kind of love life she wants.”

    I don't remember who said that, but when I heard it, its truth really resonated with me. At first glance, the speaker may seem to be saying that when a woman gets treated like shit, she deserves it. But what is really being implied here is that women have an immense amount of power in their own relationships, and when a woman chooses not to exercise that power, she does indeed deserve whatever comes at her. Hook-up culture seems to have made women forget that they wield that power. And I bet if the girls interested in relationships (i.e. 95% of them) acted in accordance with their interests and refused to have sex outside of a relationship, restaurants around campus would be buzzing with parties of two within a week.

  • susanawalsh

    GudEnuf, there is no question that a variety of factors will bear down on the marriage market, making it increasingly difficult for women who want to marry and parent. In fact, the visual image I conjur up is one of playing musical chairs. There will be increasing numbers of women who wish to marry and do not have that opportunity. Lori Gottlieb, Mary Pols, Julie Klausner and co. are just the beginning of a long, keening wail we'll be hearing for years to come. That means it's all about intrasexual competition for the reduced number of marriageable men.

    Ultimately, I think there will be a correction, and The Fifth Horseman, blogger of The Futurist and Obisidian's source for much of this, believes that is possible as well IF women wise up to what's going on with men in this country.

    In the meantime, women need to bring their A-game, so to speak, with a clear sense of objectives, and the determination not to fritter away their 20s on men who are not relationship material. Women are having sex with the wrong guys, and that needs to change. We have the luxury of learning from others' mistakes, if only we will take our heads out of the clouds.

  • susanawalsh

    Chilli, thank you so much for your kind words. I totally agree that women do wield power, including the power to walk away. No one can humiliate you or hurt you if you don't let them. Yes, there will be times when you are deceived, and that sucks. It's not something we can really defend against if we want to pursue emotional intimacy with another person.

    I think you're right about women acting in accordance with their interests – but of course, women don't really act in aggregate. Which means it's every woman for herself. Delaying sex when you want a relationship carries its own risks, namely that you will be home alone on a Saturday night. But the price for that is boredom. There is a considerably higher price to pay if you have sex with someone you really like, and then find out you're an afterthought, someone else's “collateral damage.”

  • Bozo Sapien

    Criminy… this society is already obsessed with the well-being of women — to the point of it being a mass neurosis.

    Feminist theory guarantees that “researchers” will discover male bias and oppression in every civilization and time, so you might as well just ignore all of them entirely, lest you come away perpetually confused.

    I'll leave you with one very prescient quote to chew on:
    “…as women shake off their ancient disabilities they will also shake off some of their ancient immunities, and their doings will come to be regarded with a soberer and more exigent scrutiny than now prevails. The extension of the suffrage, I believe, will encourage this awakening; in wresting it from the reluctant male the women of the western world have planted dragons' teeth, which will presently leap up and gnaw them. Now that women have the political power to obtain their just rights, they will begin to lose their old power to obtain special privileges by sentimental appeals. Men, facing them squarely, will consider them anew, not as romantic, political and social invalids, to be coddled and caressed, but as free competitors in a harsh world. When that reconsideration gets under way there will be a general overhauling of the relations between the sexes.”
    – H.L. Mencken (1917)

    That's where we are.

    The action of women for the past 30-40 years has destroyed a huge reserve of generalized goodwill toward women and what they want which the average (generic) man used to have, so it has now become a “pay as you go” situation so far as a lot of men are concerned when it comes to women.

    F. Roger Devlin has an essay on “The feminine sexual counter-revolution
    and its limitations” which might help temper some of what I think is your misplaced enthusiasm about the sort of change you seem to want actually happening.

  • http://FT.com/ VJ

    You know, that's some largely wasted time I'll never regain. But I read ALL of the articles & most of the aforementioned links too. And I've come away with a few quick thoughts.

    1.) Who ever thought that 'dating' or 'hooking up' or simply screwing whomever has anything much to do with biology must be Tripping!

    2.) When we get finished with blaming the very useful but now perfectly nebulous 'patriarchy' for such & sundry, and fully accept Everyone's actions as responsible Human beings, that's when progress in & at anything might be achieved. But evidently we're still a long way away from that enlightened moment. That's not to negate or forget history either, or 'social constructs' etc. But I agree, the fact that 'Bunny' or Chrisy is doing 'whomever' this weekend has More to do with what she wants & desires and Less to do with what her parents, teachers, dad or granddad might have wanted for her. The 'Patriarchy'/'establishment' was pretty clear about that once.

    3.) There's nothing wrong with 'experimentation' and it does serve a useful & valuable function in maturity, including sex. That this 'experimental' phase now seemingly necessarily lasts (at least) about a decade for many is probably a bit dysfunctional for any number of decent & valuable reasons.

    4.) Still let's not all be 'heteronormative' here. Not everyone will want to or desire to marry. Even eventually in their dotage. Today that may represent upwards of 20% of the population, evidently Not including Jessica Valenti either. That's why it's called 'normative', of or pertaining to the overwhelming majority of the population in question. We do not forget the 'other' & gay communities, but if we're old enough? We'd also recall when they'd too recoiled at being automatically included in such a 'degraded, sick, tragic enterprise' such as marriage! And the times, they change quickly.

    5.) Ergo, you come to the inescapable conclusion that people 'hook up' because it's like SEX & it's Pleasurable at a deep Biological level, for many good & valid reasons, and they Like It. Period. Full stop.

    Now true, sex always has some consequences. In the past this was the greater chance of pregnancy, which is lessened today due to access to wonderful pharmaceutical technology. But the risks of disease are still always present. And about 1/3 to 1/2 of all 'sexually active young adults' (however defined) are now either exposed to or carrying at least one STD/STI. But still? despite all the risks, the horrors of 'slut shaming', parental prohibitions & patriarchial rebuke? They're screwing like proverbial rabbits. I still suspect some will continue to attribute these facts to the thought that they're trying to get back at their daddies. Or 'The Man'. Or the 'Man System' or the evil construction of same. Yeah, that's the ticket.

    Cheers, 'VJ'

  • WiseOne

    Hooking up raises a guy's relationship value, real or perceived. Think about it, girls: Whom would you rather be your exclusive boyfriend? A loser who couldn't hook up if he wanted, or a guy who enjoys sexual choice?

    In fact, the incentive to signal value to potential mates is so strong that guys need to hook up more if they want better relationships.

    How about a thought experiment. Jack really likes Jill. Jack is old-fashioned and does not hook up. Jack wants a strong, monogamous emotional connection with Jill. But Jill is a little out of Jack's league. Jack has two options.

    Option A: Approach Jill in the manner of a monogamous boyfriend-to-be. This approach gives Jill the jitters because it feels desperate and Jack is not a high-value guy to begin with. Jack's “dispositions” cannot compare to those of the sexually powerful men whom Jill is accustomed to. Thus, Jack fails. (See “habitus” in Pierre Bourdieu's social theory.)

    Option B: Upgrade your sexual status by hooking up for a few years. That's right, Jack: If you want good relationship sex with girls like Jill later in life, you're gonna have to put up with some lousy hook-up sex for a while. In the process of hooking up, you will learn what women do and do not desire in a man. Maybe no one at all will hook up with you until you make some positive changes in your life. Not only that, but if you figure things out and Jill learns that other girls desired you enough to have sex with you without even a likely relationship, she might change her mind about you! Don't count on it, but it is possible. (See “mimetic desire” in René Girard's philosophy.) Hooking up NOW is the only way you're going to gain the experience, the confidence, the verve, the vastness of spirit that can seduce a demanding girl like Jill LATER.

    Guys, if you are not hooking up, you better start. And in the process, you need to learn and change.

  • Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  • http://FT.com/ VJ

    All well & good, and perhaps even insightful. But mostly? I's all about the 'tingle', er, 'chemistry'. If they're not feeling it? Neither are you. It's as simple as that. No one needs too much French philosophy (!) for that. Women (& men) pursue sex for mostly short term goals (it feels good Now). They can then examine their hidden motives later, and regret at their leisure as it were.

    It's only when the prospect of larger & later goals come into play (possibly something along the lines of family formation & begetting children) do their motivations and desires change somewhat to try and meet these goals. By then after 10-15 years of 'experimentation' (which can & does often include a same sex attraction era/period BTW), Both sexes then face the prospect of a seriously degraded reproductive capacity. Now to some? That's clearly a serious issue. To others, it's a minor inconvenience to be spending 20-45K to try and either conceive after 36 or adopt.

    It's all about making choices, and being responsible for same. Some choices you'll make in your 20's, even while drunk or high or 'imperfectly rational', that can& will determine your life course, well for the next 20 years. Now you can blame mysterious & hidden 'others' for this sad fact of life, or you can accept your share of the responsibility, and shoulder this self with you as you continue to grow & evolve. Or you can forever imagine that they're these mysterious forces outside of yourself that are making you do such idiotic/foolish/harmful things to your self & others. One path leads to accountability & adult maturity. The other evidently leads to tenure (or used to) at some of the finest respectable Uni's in the land where you can forever spout your theories absolving whomever of their greater responsibilities for their own willful actions.

    But what the hell do I know? I've been married for a long time too. Cheers & Good Luck, 'VJ'

  • Mike

    Things are getting interesting. Particularly interesting to observe different female perspectives as these things get hashed out.

    From my vantage point, women seem to be separating into those who “get it” and those who “don't get it”. Some are following where the data, empirical evidence, and rational/logical analysis are leading while others cling steadfastly to their ideology (cultural Marxism). The next 5-10 years should be very interesting in terms of male/female dynamics and the mating marketplace because I think how this evolves depends to a very great degree on how many women start to understand and accept reality here versus the number who remain stuck in counterproductive dogma.

    Next Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon weighs in:

    I reject the sex-obsessed interpretation of how this struggle came to be. When I see such a large scale power struggle between men and women, I tend to think the reason is rarely biology, and usually socially constructed sexism. Experimenting with this starting point, I think I have a much better explanation for what’s going on: Boys have power over girls in the “hook-up culture” because boys have power over girls in a male-dominated society.

    LOL. Yup. It's all about “socially constructed sexism”. The hook-up dynamics on a typical college are all a result of the male-dominant patriarchy. Amazing, absolutely amazing the mental gyrations one can spin to believe utter nonsense.

    Susan, as I've said before, I think you are fighting the good fight here, and my guess is your blog is going to attract more negative attention from the hardcore types that believe there are no innate differences between men and women, and that having as much random, casual sex as possible is “liberating” and “empowering” and serves to “tear down the walls” of the patriarchy. Hard to type that without laughing.

    At the end of the day, in this current marketplace, just as men have to compete intensely amongst each other for sex, women will have to compete intensely amongst each other for quality, long-term relationships. No point in wasting alot of effort trying to convince the extremists and ideologues, but you can help women who want quality LTRs.

    The other day I mentioned targeting older men (late 20s, 30s). Another thing that came to mind when thinking of my LTR versus girls I just saw as hookups is the importance of being a complete person with meaningful goals, hobbies, life objectives. I think most quality men are goal setters and achievers, and they want a woman who has goals of her own that she is passionate about. Too many women seem to me to be wrapped up in pop culture and the goings on and gossip of their social circle. Any quality guy will view this type as superficial and put them in the hookup box. I also think many quality guys are waking up to the reality that you want to avoid spendthrifts like the plague for LTRs and marriage so don't be a shopaholic.

  • Reinholt

    Hey, women wanted to be able to be like men! Now they can compete in the dating market just like men, and have to actually work to get what they want. Isn't equality great?

    I mean, I don't see how this could possibly be bad or a problem… if women are identical to men.

    Warning: Post may contain sarcasm

  • http://www.collegehookupculture.com/ Denice Ann Evans

    There is a lot to say about the college hook up culture, but first lets make it clear that we are dealing with a culture that is deeply embedded with using alcohol as a social and sexual lubricant. (pun intended).

  • susanawalsh

    Hi Bozo, thanks for leaving a comment. My thoughts:

    1. To be fair, it's women who are obsessed with the well-being of women, which seems natural enough. As it is natural that men might be sympathetic to men's rights issues.

    2. There are researchers doing good work who ignore feminist theory completely, falling more in line with evolutionary psychology. Dr. Helen Fisher, who I mention in the post, is probably the best known of these.

    3. Re the Mencken quote, I believe in a meritocracy, so I have no problem with women being free competitors in a harsh world. I acknowledge that we are currently reaping the consequences of the Sexual Revolution, which obviously occurred with the cooperation of enough women to change society forever. If you are implying that women should never have had the vote, I find that ridiculous. If anything, women are winning many competitions in this harsh world. They've definitely lost romance, though.

    4. I'm not a reader of F. Roger Devlin, though I know he's quite the mentor to Game types. This quote from Charlotte Allen's article in the Weekly Standard doesn't exactly inspire confidence:

    Devlin holds no academic post, and his oeuvre, besides a published version of his doctoral thesis on Alexandre Kojève, consists of a series of essays and reviews concerning relations between the sexes for the Occidental Quarterly, a paleoconservative publication whose other contributors tend to focus obsessively on the question of which ethnic groups belong to which race.

    I detect the distinct whiff of charlatanism.

  • susanawalsh

    VJ, you are to be commended for reading all of those links, but you can't blame me for the time you lost! Re your views on patriarchy, I am in full agreement. It's a worn out and tired claim. Women need to take full responsibility for their actions, and if they're not getting what they want, they probably want to consider changing things up in some way.

    By the way, the pervasive feminist conclusion that we should train men how to be more sensitive to the needs of women is so ridiculous it makes my head spin. As readers have said on other threads, incentives drive behavior. That's reality.

  • susanawalsh

    WiseOne, welcome! You probably expect me to disagree with you, but I don't. Not a bit. Your advice is perfectly appropriate to the current sociosexual marketplace. Of course, we know that Jack will be looking for the less sexually experienced version of Jill when he's ready to settle down into monogamy.

    So–the natural advice to young women? Don't put out for alpha asshats in college, including Jack while he's in his cad phase. Graduate and immediately focus on guys 25+ who have acquired the necessary Game to win you, but whose true natures allow for commitment rather than perpetual pump and dump.

  • susanawalsh

    Amen re personal responsibility. That goes for all behavior, most notably that which includes alcohol and/or sex.

    The other evidently leads to tenure (or used to) at some of the finest respectable Uni's in the land where you can forever spout your theories absolving whomever of their greater responsibilities for their own willful actions.

    HAHAHAHAHA

  • susanawalsh

    Hi Denice, this is VERY important point. We often neglect to give alcohol its due in the sense that most hookups occur under the influence and many are regretted afterwards. Research shows that both men and women “need” to be inebriated to have random intimate contact with virtual strangers, so we might well ask whether this is even what guys really want. To what extent is hooking up about the validation they receive from other men?

    Of course, another obvious observation might be that drunk hookup sex can't possibly be as physically rewarding as sober sex with a desired partner, not to mention emotionally lacking.

  • susanawalsh

    Mike, I agree entirely that women are in two camps. Unfortunately, the dogmatic camp has the ear of the mainstream media. Still, as I try to highlight in this post, there is some subtle shifting going on. Even Jessica Valenti has backpedaled on the hooking up question a bit, though I did read that she made a virgin cry at a campus lecture a couple of days ago. Rachel Simmons' willingness to go on record is also significant, though her nostalgia for the dating era of the 50s made her an easy target for her feminist peers.

    Thanks for your words of support. You are exactly right, it is about intrasexual competition. It's really going to be like a game of musical chairs, and there are things individual women can do to increase their chances of getting what they want, especially as there will continue to be many women who make poor choices.

    I think you are also 100% correct about the personal development piece. The women's movement gave us so many opportunities, there really is no excuse for being a shallow and superficial woman. Figure out what you're interested in and pursue it. Regardless of whether men find it attractive, it's going to make life a heck of a lot more enjoyable, and you'll certainly need that if you happen to be unlucky when the music stops and you've got no chair.

  • aldonza

    Think about it, girls: Whom would you rather be your exclusive boyfriend? A loser who couldn't hook up if he wanted, or a guy who enjoys sexual choice?

    I think women are smart enough to want something in between your two extremes. Nobody wants someone that nobody else wants, but neither do most women want someone who's dick has been in every willing vagina on campus.

  • susanawalsh

    Haha, Reinholt, I actually think equality is great, or can be. More importantly, I think it's fair. That means that women have to earn their benefits just like men do. You can't demand chivalry if you're every bit as strong and successful as men are.

    Re women being identical to men, I just can't fathom how feminism got derailed on this issue. I don't see the problem with “equal but different.” Hell, the simplest example is comparing estrogen to testosterone. What happens when women are given a lot of testosterone? And men are given a lot of estrogen? The people who can answer that are those who have undergone sex change procedures.

    The jig is up. Anyone who denies the biology piece is willfully ignorant, IMO.

  • aldonza

    Don't sell guys 25+ as automatically ready to settle down. There are guys right out of college who want relationships and there are plenty of guys who don't even begin to come into their own until late 20s/30s and *start* sowing their oats then with those women who now see them as relationship material. Some guys start late because they gain confidence and economic stability. Former betas who get a taste of the alpha life are even harder to tame than natural betas.

    I don't believe this is an age thing. I think the PUAs sell it that way because it fits their agenda. The simple fact women have to realize is that if a guy isn't into a relationship with you, he'll still take all of the sex you give him and that sex is not likely change his opinion about having a relationship with you. It doesn't matter if he's 19, 29, 49+.

    Do not waste the precious commodity of time on asshats of any age. Learn to spot them earlier and earlier in the process. Hint: hookups are not the most effective way to spot asshats.

  • deniceannevans

    I had a much longer post for the topic of alcohol and sexual satisfaction in the hook up culture, but for some reason the post did not go through?

  • Mike

    Don't sell guys 25+ as automatically ready to settle down. There are guys right out of college who want relationships and there are plenty of guys who don't even begin to come into their own until late 20s/30s and *start* sowing their oats then with those women who now see them as relationship material. Some guys start late because they gain confidence and economic stability. Former betas who get a taste of the alpha life are even harder to tame than natural betas.

    I don't believe this is an age thing.

    Well…none of this is black or white, binary 0 or 1, but in general older men will be more predisposed to the idea of committing to one quality monogamous LTR over and endless parade of sexual variety. I know this from myself as I've gotten older (I turned 36 yesterday) and discussions with my friends. The older you get, you become aware of your mortality, and you begin to realize that having someone who truly loves you is much better then minutes of pure pleasure tied to variety. Many guys (at least ones I talk to) are actually somewhat conflicted between what their base drives are and the emotional emptiness (yet no doubt very pleasurable) of a variety of random sex. It really takes life experience and a maturation process to be able to get past that point of being dominated by your base drives.

    8-9 times out of 10, you show me a 20-25 year old college guy who is “ready for a committed relationship”, and I'll show you a beta who has little to no sexual options. The committed relationship isn't a result of a mature choice, but no choice at all.

    Overall, I think being biased towards older guys for committed relationships is the smart move, and if you want to play the hookup game stick with your peer group if you are a 20-25 year old woman.

  • Mike

    I think women are smart enough to want something in between your two extremes. Nobody wants someone that nobody else wants, but neither do most women want someone who's dick has been in every willing vagina on campus.

    No doubt true, but not the interesting question. Here is the more interesting question. Is it a DEALBREAKER? Look hard in that mirror, and try to answer honestly. Let's say the guy is a 8-9 in the looks department, tall, well-built, fairly intelligent, good job, responsible, fun, confident, with some Game. In other words, the kind of guy who probably could sleep with 50-100 women. And he is interested in a LTR WITH YOU, and has in fact had sex with 100+ women. Do you show him the exit door? Seriously. Please, no politically correct answers on this one. I'm interested in sincere answers.

    My guess is you flip the script and make it a high-quality woman who has slept with 100 guys, and it will be a deal breaker 10x more then the scenario I outlined, but I'm not sure. I'm really not sure how women really feel about this at the core of their beings. I know that 90 to 95% of guys will be repulsed, regardless of the political correctness of not having a double standard.

  • aldonza

    Well, if you're looking for the politically correct answer, you asked the wrong broad. I can only answer for me.

    A man who's slept with that many women is not appealing to me for a long-term *or* short-term partner. For a short-term partner I'm just a little too cautious about exposure to disease. Yeah, he could've double-bagged that puppy everytime, but I'd still be nervous.

    For long-term, it has less to do with his romantic market value (which, I agree, might be impacted for a woman in the same situation) and more to do with the fact that men seem to get pretty cynical after a certain point on the pussy parade. Further, the guys I've encountered like that had laughably high standards about what constitutes a real relationship and are too eager to jump ship to the next piece of ass that comes floating across his field of vision when things get at all contentious.

    Would I feel attracted to him and flattered at the attention? Of course. I'm a woman with the same triggers as most women. But I also have a brain and am capable of exercising it when necessary in my own best self-interests.

  • susanawalsh

    Aldonza, good advice here re spotting the DBs. There is also some truth to what you say re age, but I'll agree with Mike here. In general, older guys (several years out of college) are going to be a better bet for a LTR.

    As many guy readers have said, cads are pretty easy to spot if you delay sex at all, because they're the guys who will not stick around. Another reason why it makes sense to take time to know someone before hooking up.

    Mike, I find your assessment of how guys think as they get older very encouraging, except that, to be honest, it sucks for women when guys need to go over 30 to feel that way. A woman who really isn't looking to do “fun and casual” ostensibly needs to rule out her peer group and find ways of meeting single guys ten years older. It's just not as easy or straightforward, and I suspect that it means relying on bars/clubs more, which is a mixed bag.

  • susanawalsh

    Mike, I feel strongly about what Aldonza is saying here. That is, women are capable of making rational choices, despite what the tiny head is saying. One may not realize it to look around, but some women have been burned by experience and are most anxious not to repeat getting involved with a cad.

    Having said that, I acknowledge that it's true that a woman will be more attracted to a man with social proof – he has proven his attractiveness to many other women. This, of course, is the appeal of the bad boy.

    However, I have seen an increasing unwillingness on the part of women to get involved with “man whores.” I believe that STDs are a real factor here, and women often refer to men this promiscuous/successful as “dirty.” I'd say it's the equivalent of a man being worried about disease when he visits a prostitute. With kids learning in sex ed that every time they have sex, it's with every person their partner has ever been with, the geometric progression becomes pretty clear when a guy has been with 100 women, many of whom were also promiscuous.

    Others have pointed out that all of this may be true in college, but it's much harder to discern a guy's history in a large, urban center after that. This seems true – but that isn't the point you're making. I suspect that if a woman had a way of figuring this out, many would take a pass.

    That's part of the reality of the sexual marketplace – in general, people less inclined toward promiscuity prefer other people who feel the same way.

  • susanawalsh

    Denice, give it another try!

  • aldonza

    Susan recommended guys 25+, but you're comparing them to guys 35+. I agree that guys in their mid to late thirties are overall more relationship-oriented overall than guys a decade younger. However, we're talking about very high-value women here, age 22-25, and intelligent enough to read blogs like this. I can tell you that when I was that age, I was *not* interested in a 35yo guy. I wanted someone a few years older but not too much older. My rationale was I didn't want to be chasing toddlers while he rested his weary bones on the sofa.

  • novaseeker

    An interesting series of quotes.

    The key problem, it seems to me, apart from the ideologically-based dissonance in some of the writing about this issue, is that women, individually, seem to face a kind of Hobson's choice.

    That is, unless virtually all women up the standards for dispensing sex, the women who *do* up the standards will lose out to those who don't, at least in the short term, in terms of access of any sort to the types of attractive men that women between say 18 and 28 seem to prefer.

    In other words, let's assume that most women seem attracted to the same sorts of men. This is not a baseless assumption. The recent NYT article about the situation at UNC-Chapel Hill was quite telling in that, despite the lopsided sex ratio, a woman was quoted as saying that 50% of the remaining men are nevertheless “off the table” in terms of not even coming into consideration for either sex or relationships –> this suggests that the anecdotal experience many “beta” males have in college in fact reflects a reality that women's interests in these areas tend to be quite concentrated on 50% or less of the males. One can argue as to why that is, but for purposes of the point I'm trying to make, it's simply important that it is *is* so.

    The reason for that importance is that the concentration of female interest on more or less the same half or minority of the men guarantees a heated competition among women for the attentions of these men — such that men will provide those attentions to the women who are doing what the men deem necessary to be granted those attentions. If virtually none of the women were granting NSA sex, then the men would have to deal with that. But … if a minority of the women starts to grant NSA sex, then the attentions of the men will be focused on that minority of the women who are granting sexual access on cheap terms, and the rest of the women will be shut off from accessing these desirable men — left with resorting to the other 50% of the men who are basically out of consideration and who would therefore be socially demeaning for women to date. So it's a Hobson's choice these young women face: give in to the demands of the alpha for easy sexual access and hope for the best (that you will be the one in a million who tames him to be her own personal alpha boyfriend rather than another notch on his belt), or keep your legs shut and be shut out of access to the desirable men on campus (and in the years after campus as well, today).

    You can sit these young women down and tell them that these alpha cads are no good, and that the relationships will end up scarring them in some way, and that this is not beneficial to them and so on. But the reality is that their social world revolves around their own social status, and being completely shut off from sex and relationships with the desirable men on campus does not augment social status to say the least. Some women are of lower status anyway and they, like the 50% of the guys who are just per se unacceptable by the women who have options, will probably go without a lot of relationships or sex in college because they aren't even able to access the alpha cads by offering free sex, and probably are still not willing to date the 50% of the men who are seemingly in the “untouchable” caste. But for women who have options, and have some status, it's quite a dilemma as to how to deal with this. If you keep your legs shut, you lose status, at least in the short run, unless you are in a small, sheltered religious community. If you open your legs, you gain some access and status and certainly popularity, but perhaps you feel the pain and anguish that so many other young women go through in these hookup or FWB type arrangements. It's not an easy choice, and it's not terribly realistic to assume that most of these young women who are desirable enough to have some access to these 50% (or smaller) group of men will see it as being in their best interests to keep their legs closed at the expense of a loss of all access to the kinds of men who can provide a boost to their social status (or at the very least, a boost to self-esteem).

    The only way this particular genie goes back into the bottle, I think, is if the social standards around sexuality that used to prevail come back into vogue — because social standards tend to impact the behavior of a broader number of people, other than outlier transgressors who exist in any social system. I highly doubt this will happen, however. The technological changes that enabled the sexual revolution really changed sexual culture in our society in a more or less permanent way by detaching sex from reproduction — something which allows the pursuit of sex purely for pleasure to be much more easily achieved. That's not going to change, and so I don't expect the broader social mores around sex to change much, either.

    Individual women, of course, *can* make different decisions about their own actions. And those decisions should be informed by the costs and benefits of what particular courses of action may be, and the relative desirability of those costs and benefits. Some women may decide that the emotional cost of pursuing hookups with desirable alpha cads (the “fantastic fucks” described by one commenter above, quite reminiscent of Erica Jong's sexual fantasies) is outweighed by the opportunity costs and social status costs of keeping their legs shut, and thereby cutting off access to these men. Other women may decide that the costs are precisely the reverse, and choose to avoid hookups and FWBs. We should encourage women to make these choices with careful deliberation, however. My own sense is that this is missing, and in fact what is happening is that attractive girls are simply “falling into” these kinds of encounters or arrangements in high school simply because “this is how it is”. It's that kind of automatic, follow-the-herd type of behavior that is ultimately the most damaging to women because they may be making decisions without understanding the consequences. If we are realists, I think we must acknowledge that whatever our own moral compass, the era of free sex is not going away anytime soon. In light of that, perhaps our best counsel to young women (and men for that matter) is to think through the consequences of your actions and the costs and benefits of them –> those may and likely will look rather different depending on whether you are male or female.

  • susanawalsh

    My own sense is that a woman will happily go up 10 years without worrying too much, in general. After that, the age difference starts to feel more significant, e.g. half a generation apart, which is really quite significant.

    The childcare thing is a really issue too. My brother married late (40) and had kids at 44. They're 6 and 8 now, and he's one tired dude. However, when my kids were growing up, there were always a few dads doing the second family thing – they often had white hair and were mistaken for grandpa. Obviously, they had considerable wealth/social status to attract a second wife 20+ years younger.

  • aldonza

    I will agree that “timing is everything”, and an individual guy who is not ready for a relationship at 22 may be more ready at 28. Or he might just be 22 with 6 years experience.

    Further, if it's alpha guys we're talking about, very few of them are going to want to get off the pussy train anytime in their 20s or even early 30s. A significant portion of those guys may never get off.

    Age is just one variable, and I believe it isn't even the best one to use when searching for someone with LTR potential.

  • aldonza

    I think women today are *less* likely to date that far up in age these days. I talk to my nieces in that age range about dating a lot, as I now have that in common with them. They talk about older guys wanting to date them with a derision normally reserved for really pathetic betas and all of them date within 5 years of their own age. I think it would take a pretty high-status guy to make them change their mind about it.

    When my mother was a girl in the 1940s, her best friend married a guy 16 years older. Nobody said anything, but even then a few eyebrows raised, but that was partially because the girl was 18. That marriage lasted until the best friend was widowed in her late 50s.

    Frankly, I was and am the same way. I've dated 10+ years older and it wasn't for me. The guys were all very successful, tall, attractive alpha types and they did want a relationship with me. I backed away because I wasn't ready to talk about retirement plans, grandkids, and the relative merits of Cialis vs Viagra. I also want to grow old with someone, and I'm less likely to do that with someone significantly older than I am.

  • hambydammit

    Susan, my latest post sheds some light onto a central part of this discussion: Can we use logic to convince girls to want what's good for them?

    http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/soc

    You're going to want a pot of coffee and a little extra time. This one's almost up to academic paper standards. I'll give you the ten cent version: Intelligence has little or nothing to do with our inherent biological goals, only in our solutions to novel problems. How that applies to this question is easy: You're not going to convince young women to stop wanting relationships, and you're not going to convince them to stop competing in the dating market, even when the market is weighted towards men.

  • Decoybetty

    Eek…this has been my problem with feminism since my days at mount holyoke…Where I essentially got so fed up with most of the “feminists” that I stopped listening to them completely. Which isn't to say I don't want equality for women in the work place and blah blah blah. I always thought that the woman's movement was about giving women the choice. If a woman wants to be the CEO of some huge corporation now she can…if she wants to be a stay at home mom she can…It's about choice…And now the choices for dating are well not that satisfactory (in my eyes)…either you participate in hook up culture hoping that a hook up turns into relationship (if that what you want…) OR you go the route I choose which was, granted sometimes lonely, pretending the hook up culture didn't exist and dating only on terms that made sense for me (you). Did it work out for me? well, I am in love with a boy who didn't partake in the hook up culture either.

    I see the real problem, perhaps the one feminists should be tackling, is if women believe they are forced to participate in something they don't want to to achieve their goals. Isn't that peer pressure? I know that we all have to do that – I have participate in the job search which frankly I think jobs should be applying for me and not the other way around and it sucks and I wish I didn't, so maybe I'm a hypocrite.

    There's that How I Met Your Mother episode where Marshall starts working at Barney's corporation and he hates it because the guys in his department are jerks and Barney says “I suppose you could learn to love yourself for the unique little snow flake that you are or you could change your personality, which is so much easier”…

  • susanawalsh

    Novaseeker, I very much agree with your understanding of the sexual marketplace. There's really only an opportunity to make a difference on the margins, as things stand today. Rather than thinking about sexual behavior by society as a whole, we need to be thinking about individual decisions, weighing the pros and cons of each potential strategy. Rather than considering sex in college, or sex among 20-somethings in NYC, we need to look at the microclimates of sex where we can. There are a number of things I'm observing in the culture right now:

    1. The sexual double-standard remains virtually unchanged. Girls who do a great deal of random hooking up quickly get labeled skanks or sluts. Even a “high status” type, i.e., sorority chick, will get a bad reputation quickly if she goes all the way with quite a few guys in succession. This leads women in college to try and walk the line between slut and wallflower.

    2. Many girls will decide that they can do “fun and casual” while in college. This usually means a willingness to hook up with a guy who has no intention of being a boyfriend or otherwise making a public commitment. However, this runs into trouble when men want to “double dip.” Most women find it too humiliating, as well as threatening to their health, to hook up with a guy who is openly rotating women in harem fashion. Despite all the talk of women willing to be in soft harems with Alpha, I find that among women in college with significant expectations of a bright future, this does not occur.

    3. Some men will make a commitment in order to hop onto the gravy train of effortless sex several times a week. From what I've seen, many of these “relationships” are very unsatisfying, as they reflect no real effort at intimacy or communication. They are essentially glorified “fuckbuddy” arrangements. Still, the women use this label to achieve the desired social status, while minimizing their sexual exposure to additional guys and the girls they've been with.

    4. Many college women have essentially given up. They announce that it's obvious they are not going to have a boyfriend in college, and they resolve to work hard and have guy friends where possible. This “giving up” may not be a bad strategy, because it frees women up to have relationships based on friendship, and the pressure to be friends with Alpha types is less intense, mostly b/c Alphas don't really do girl friendships very well.

    5. The woman quoted in the UNC article was a sorority member, who, as you say, would probably rule out any guy not in a frat to begin with. Although I do think a lot of women in college are blind to some of the beta guys, most are open to meeting people in class, group activities, etc. For any of these potential friendships to occur, though, the guys have to bring some Game. Even if girls are open-minded, I really don't think they're going to become assertive about making moves. At the most, they'll meet guys halfway. This has strong implications for those betas, because many of them are understandably discouraged and not inclined to be responsive, much less initiate.

    6. It's not just women who are focusing on a few men. Those guys who aren't getting any sex will often speak longingly of the hot babes on campus. In reality, there are large groups that are pretty miserable being unsuccessful with the top 20%, but they aren't finding each other. I'm not sure how this could happen, but I do think expectations on both sides need a reality check.

    7. Re the microclimate issue, things do vary somewhat within communities. There will be the fast-track, sexually precocious kids on every campus, but one can make distinctions even within the Greek scene, for example. Tri Delts may be known as slutty, Kappas as “girls next door,” for example. Many guys will go for the Tri Delts, but if a guy is hooking up with a known “slut”, he gets less cred from his bros than if he bags a hot, more selective chick. The more selective women get less attention overall, but where you do see college guys in committed relationships, it's almost always with these girls.

    In summary, it really is a balancing act for women, which is why they are desperate for advice on how to handle a Player, how to get inside a guy's head, how to know if a good friend might like you, etc.

    The bottom line is that a woman in college who insists on being treated with respect and having sex primarily in committed relationships is going to have a lot of girlfriends but be pretty much ignored by the guys. Her best bet is to prevent emotional devastation, and bide her time until graduation, after which she will have greater access to more mature men.

  • susanawalsh

    Decoybetty, I want to jump through the internets and give you a hug! I am grateful to the women's movement for providing many different kinds of opportunities for women to compete. But I really reject sex as politics. It's the notion that being a young, empowered female requires participating in casual sexual relationships that I object to. A woman should be free to do with her body whatever feels right for her, and not come under a kind of cultural pressure from other women! I hear many women calling other women prudes – and that is not OK, in my view. I think so many women are unhappy – so few relationship-oriented guys are around, that they wind up blaming each other. Of course, there's also the very real issue of feminists not wanting to take responsibility, or even consider, whether the feminist movement may have had consequences that limit options for women.

    You stuck to your guns without compromising and were very successful, in my view. You had a very, very strong sense of self that enabled you to wait it out, and develop your life, your interests regardless of your relationship status (as your guest post made clear). Unfortunately, most women do not have the personal conviction or fortitude to do that. Most of them will be fine in time, even if they get a bit battered and bruised emotionally.

  • aldonza

    6. It's not just women who are focusing on a few men. Those guys who aren't getting any sex will often speak longingly of the hot babes on campus. In reality, there are large groups that are pretty miserable being unsuccessful with the top 20%, but they aren't finding each other. I'm not sure how this could be remedied, but I do think expectations on both sides need a reality check.

    I think this is the source of a lot of angst all the way around. A 50th percentile women (as if such a grading of humans in the dating market really existed) may try for a 90th percentile man, and in the casual sex game, she can land him. She will not land him for a LTR. The fact is, a 50th percentile woman can land 90% of the men out there for a casual romp. This leads them to inflate their own value in the dating market.

    The vision is likely a lot clearer for the men. They pine for the 90th percentile women, but it's a rare woman who will date significantly downward. Not a lot of gray area there.

  • hambydammit

    Aldonza, I think you're spot on. I think a lot of women have a real problem with the cognitive dissonance of being desired by just about every man, but only being relationship material with a small percentage. It's been shown over and over that men's standards for casual sex are quite low — even as far as beauty. (You know what a moped is, right? Fun to ride, but you don't want your friends to see you on one.) But men get pretty damn picky when it comes to LTRs.

    So yeah, I think a lot of young women are over-estimating their relationship value as a result of realizing their hookup value. I've been talking about this here and on my blog for a couple of weeks now. The hookup culture is giving women an overinflated sense of value by taking the focus away from relationship value.

    And yes, men tend to have a much clearer idea of their own value. Women's selections are much more similar for casual and long term sex. In other words, most women will generally only have hookups with guys they can imagine themselves in a relationship with. So for men, we can usually look at our sexual history and get a very clear idea of what we're worth and what part of the pond we need to be fishing.

  • Decoybetty

    Not according to American television where the rotund not-attractive guy marries the hot chick.

    My Australian boyfriend always asks me if that's how it really is in American… ;)

  • novaseeker

    Lots of great points, there, Susan.

    In many ways my advice to young men is the same — they have two options (I'm talking about the betas, not the ultra-desirables who are getting laid more than ever in history right now).

    One is to learn some Game while avoiding becoming a player. It's actually not hard to avoid becoming a player, because becoming a true player is something quite hard for a beta to pull off well. It *can* happen, but most of the time the guys you're taking about where somewhat alphaish or playerish or otherwise unique that it worked for them (Strauss comes to mind here). The harder problem is convincing them to learn Game. There's a lot of resistance there, because many of them can't be bothered to do the work involved.

    The second option is to wait things out for several years until the mid 20s when they have more life experience, maturity and credibility and can be attractive to women at that stage who are just leaving school. The risk of the second option is that these guys don't learn social skills along the way somehow, which means that while they are better off than they were when they were younger, they are not as well off as they could be.

    The thing that they have to try to avoid — and this is key — is becoming bitter and jaded about the whole thing. That's easy to do. I know on my top 5 university campus watching highly intelligent, lovely women pretty much throwing themselves at frat boys was discouraging to say the least. The discouragement was based on the idea I had that these women, because they were smarter intellectually and I respected them intellectually, were somehow immune to falling for high social status alpha males, and I was very much surprised to learn that I was wrong. But while I became somewhat jaded it didn't make me so bitter as to avoid women after I finished my education. The key is avoiding the bitterness that can come from those disillusioning experiences many of us men have as young men (when we realize that, sadly, you all are just as prone to making dumb decisions about sex as we are, regardless of how intelligent you may be) — and just realizing it's a learning experience and moving forward with a more balanced view of reality.

  • Emma

    Wow! I cant describe how much I enjoyed reading this article!! Coming from the prospective of a 23 yr old, just who's spent the last year dating out of college… I must say that these ideas of the hookup culture could not have touched home any more than they did! How women suppress their feelings of wanting commitment… because GOD FORBID we come across as “crazy” “needy”, the list goes on and on, are SO TRUE!

    I recently wrote in and got advice from Susan about my own form of “relationship lite”, and what do to about the boy I'd been hooking up with, but inevitably ending up wanting more out of the situation, when clearly he did not. Virtually every girlfriend of mine is in some way or another going through something similar.

    So I would like to pose the question, especially from any guys reading this blog…. How are we supposed to combat this issue? If I'm a single girl in her 20's that might want to actually find herself in a relationship in the coming future…. what do we do?

  • susanawalsh

    It depends on what dating downward means. A cute guy with a lot of confidence majoring in comp sci? They exist, and they do OK. Either natural or with Game, women will go for self-confidence most of the time. So a guy can take some action to increase his value considerably.

    Because looks are the be-all and end-all for a guy, a woman is very limited in what she can do to attract a male, other than the usual — clothes, cosmetics, etc.

  • susanawalsh

    Just to state the obvious, this tendency among women to deceive themselves and aim very high has made intrasexual competition for those hookups fierce. As Nova said above, a guy has very little incentive to aim for a woman who may reject him. He can get sex and nearly as much social status by pulling a woman who is “decent,” though nothing special.

    BTW, I'm sorry to talk about women and their looks this way. It's necessary b/c it's the reality of how men choose partners. As Obsidian is fond of saying, Susan Boyle doesn't have any suitors despite her newfound fame and fortune.

  • susanawalsh

    Well, yesterday I posted that link showing what women secretly desire. And it's a round, scruffy guy! So perhaps men who make decisions based on their own history are aiming too low. Then again, I hate to persuade any nice, normal looking guys to go over to the Dark Side, and just try to pull birds~

  • ExNewYorker

    Yeah, but the guy in that situation is always comic relief, portrayed a buffoon, and being kind of an idiot that requires his wife to be the one really running the show… :-)

  • Mike

    Either natural or with Game, women will go for self-confidence most of the time. So a guy can take some action to increase his value considerably.

    Because looks are the be-all and end-all for a guy, a woman is very limited in what she can do to attract a male, other than the usual — clothes, cosmetics, etc.

    Going to disagree here, and I speak from extensive experience with both changes.

    Anyone, and I mean anyone can take their looks up 2-3 points and it is a simple process but hard work whereas changing personality traits/behaviors is much more difficult.

    I graduated undergrad back in 1995 as a 22 year old virgin that was about 60 pounds overweight, but I was tall (6'3″) with an above-average face underneath the puffy blubber, but I was absolutely clueless about women and a complete Beta. This was pre-Game (1995-1996) and at the time I believed female attraction worked like attraction for guys so I figured to get laid I needed to get as good-looking as possible. By 1996, I was lean, muscular, tan, and well-dressed, and no longer a virgin. It was work, but the algorithm for improving looks was pretty straightforward. Eat right, work out 5 days a week with weights, tan twice a week to get some color, and consult my stylish friends for the right clothes. But inside I was still very beta, and looking back I realize the lack of congruency that must have been shining like a spotlight from my outward appearance versus my behavior but I did OK.

    Fast forward through a grad degree, a marriage and divorce, and having to get back in shape after gaining some weight back, I then learned about Game in 2004-2005 and began the process of learning, imitating, and integrating Alpha behaviors and “confidence” (BTW, you really do have to fake it until you make it).

    Without a doubt, transforming my physical appearance was a fraction of the difficulty of transforming my personality/behaviors. Women really have it easier here. There are very few just butt-ugly people. You give me chubby 4-5 female who really wants it, and between myself (I know working out and dieting) and my GF (who is a makeup artist and esthetician) and I'll return an 8 in 6-9 months. No doubt, just day in day out doing what you are supposed to.

    Guys learning Game? I'm convinced that for some it is a hopeless endeavor. There is so much subtlety, complexity, integrating feedback, calibration that some guys simply will never get it. They truly are shit out of luck. And it is a constant battle. To this day, there are times when I can fall back into Beta behavior, and have to constantly tell myself internally, walk right, have good posture, smile and maintain eye contact, say hi to girls walking by. At least for me, I met my LTR before much of it could become fully integrated I think so on some level it is always an “act”, although there are no devious motives.

  • susanawalsh

    I like this balanced view, and I have long thought that betas do indeed come into their own a little way down the line. When I met my husband he was 27, and tho clearly a natural beta, had acquired enough social finesse to be quite attractive in grad school. In fact, he got quite heady with his success there, and it took me quite a while to reel him in, LOL. And of course, the guys in my b-school class (about 500 of them) were probably about 80% beta, very smart. My point is that these smart guys need more time to come into their own, generally, but as you say, if they can avoid become poisoned with resentment, their outlook is very positive by the mid-20s or so.

    When I went to my husband's 25th high school reunion with him, he took particular delight in observing the out of shape, brash, football guys drinking their Heinekens in the corner, while girls who never gave him the time of day in high school tried to pull him aside for investment advice. That's right out of a movie, but there's a reason cliches form.

  • ExNewYorker

    That “training” sounds suspiciously close to the ending of “1984”. And in the end, John Doe loved the feminists.

    It's ironic that some of the feminist rejoinders seem to suggest that women have no agency, and need to be treated with kid gloves.

  • WiseOne

    Thanks for responding. I wish I could be more familiar with your terms. Cad, alpha, beta, game… Do you have a glossary?

  • synthesis

    Because looks are the be-all and end-all for a guy, a woman is very limited in what she can do to attract a male, other than the usual — clothes, cosmetics, etc.
    With looks, there's a point of no return where attraction just isn't going to happen. However, a girl can easily get bumped up the scale with things like charisma, poise, etc. These things are not easily cultivated, though.

  • susanawalsh

    Hi Emma, thanks for commenting! I'm not a guy, obviously, but just wanted to say that older is better. That guy was 26 as I recall. So….next time try 28-30. Most men surveyed say they want to marry around 30-32, so we can assume that a guy in his late 20s is potentially keeping his eyes open for a special connection. You really need to identify which guys are stuck in Guyland, and which are ready to move forward. I would think that would be pretty easy to figure out — if he looks and acts like a kid rather than a man, regardless of his age, he's not ready for something serious.

    I'd recommend going back up this thread and reading all the comments, b/c many of them are from guys and there's lots of good insights there.

  • Lisette

    Susan, why do you think it's unreasonable to ask that men recognize that women are people too? I know men want sex, and I know men are primarily visual. But it's still uncomfortable for me to sit there while the guys at the table debate whether the waitress is a 5 or a 7, or express that they think they're basically entitled to sex with whomever they want. Maybe that doesn't make them misogynists, but it doesn't make me feel like they have a lot of respect for me (or any other woman) either.

  • susanawalsh

    Wow, Mike, I love your personal story! A couple of things intrigue me. First, you met your current GF, who I know you are really into, before you felt really comfortable with Alpha behaviors. I suspect that she saw and appreciated your sensitive side as well. (As you've probably figured out by now, beta is not a pejorative on my blog, as it is in Game circles.) Secondly, I'm so impressed with your total quest for personal development, and I wonder how you got so motivated to do it so thoroughly!

    From what I gather, Game is indeed very difficult to learn and internalize. Guys who have “inner Game” say that about 80% of men will never learn it. However, I think there's got to be some few things that guys can do, say with only 20% of the effort, that will pay off, say with 40-50% of the results. Basic concepts that are “duh” to a woman but elude the beta guy. Most guys really don't need to go sargeing in clubs and gathering dozens of phone numbers — they really just want a fulfilling relationship. As long as they believe they deserve it, I think they can have it. A new approach to Game is needed – one that is more accessible to a greater number of men. Because I think the concepts are extremely helpful. It's just that as you say, few men will have the time, resources or motivation to learn it in the way that you did.

  • susanawalsh

    I recall your saying that once before, synthesis, and I really liked that. I think you said that a girl in class had gotten more attractive as you knew her better. Of course, we women like to think we can win a guy with smarts, wit and attitude. And I have to say, it worked for me!

  • AT

    OK, trying to post my comment again–

    I've said it before in some of your previous posts, Susan, how I feel that some feminists got it wrong in putting forth that in order to be equal to men, we should be exactly like men. We now see how it's working out in the sexual marketplace. The backlash against this sort of behavior has begun.

    More than this, I've had the particularly pleasant (sarcasm here) experience of being considered a traitor to the cause simply because I chose to be a stay at home mom and wife, and for years I've had to deal with women telling me I “wasted” my law degree. But then I made the decision to do what would be good for my family all-around–that is, my boys needed a full-time parent during the crucial developmental years, and since my husband had familial obligations (he runs his family's substantial retail business) he could not turn his back on, it fell on me to suspend my career for the time being just to be there for my sons. I never considered my law degree “wasted” because the way I saw it, I can always go back to my career, but how do I turn the clock back on my sons' childhood, when they needed me most? And yet I was constantly questioned about this decision, as if my becoming a full time wife and mother was a betrayal of feminist ideals.

    I've never believed in that, because I've always believed that feminism gave us women options and the right to pursue these options. However, for some feminists, pursuing these options invariably became a question of “what's in it for us women?” instead of considering that how we exercise our choices can have an impact on everyone else.

  • susanawalsh

    I agree! This drives me crazy! I really get upset when it's suggested that women have no agency, and it's something I hear from feminists and of course, Game guys, who believe that the “gina tingle” is the only master we obey.

    I can't emphasize enough how strongly I feel that sex-positive feminism is a curse to women. Being a virgin is a downright crime, and not going to swinger parties, or engaging in BDSM is just plain uncool. I've read reports of these women enjoying being partially asphyxiated, all in the name of feminism!

    Feminism split when some women didn't care for anti-porn crusaders like Andrea Dworkin. I really don't know what feminism is any more. I don't know that it offers real value to women.

  • susanawalsh

    LIsette, I'm so glad you asked that question. I don't think that men should get a free pass re respecting women. And frankly, I'm pretty disgusted with some of the things guys feel free to tell girls. One woman told me of a conversation where a group of guys told a group of girls what would be required for them to perform oral sex, complete with specific preferences re pubic hair grooming!!!!

    I don't think any woman should put up with disrespect, period. If a guy is treating you poorly, you need to make it clear that is unacceptable. If it continues, you're done. That's not really what I was referring to here.

    My difficulty with the feminist solution to hookup culture is that they talk to each other on many of these blogs, and all agree that the solution is training men from boyhood to be sensitive to women's needs, so that they won't take advantage of women by having sex with them and then disappearing. This is a very bad strategy because it doesn't reflect the way that men think. Men want sex, and they prefer sexual variety. We can't “train” them to deny sex with a willing woman, because they suspect it is not really in her best interest. This is the worst sort of abdicating responsibility. Women do have agency, they are capable of making intelligent choices, and they need to think carefully before deciding to have sex with someone. No woman can or should EVER rely on a man to determine what is best for her. But it's really moot, because it's not even possible to train a man to be sensitive to a woman's needs when it is against his own best interests. A few men of good character will take the high road when they see that a woman is weak, but when a woman is unwilling to stand up for herself, how can she expect more of someone else?

  • susanawalsh

    Sorry, I guess I've gotten used to throwing around these terms! I figured you for a guy schooled in Game based on your comment, but if not then you are surely a natural.

    Cad: This is a Player, a douchebag, a guy who will seduce women, pump and dump them. Think Tucker Max.

    Alpha: The top dog, is good with the ladies, gets a lot of sex. Alpha is aggressive and dominant, a born leader. He is not necessarily good-looking, but he has a lot of confidence.

    Beta: My personal favorite. Beta males are less aggressive and dominant. They tend to be more collaborative in their style, have higher emotional intelligence, and are more creative. These guys are a bit lower in testosterone, and they tend to be smart. Most of the high IQ guys are here. They make the best husbands, IMO.

    Game: A way for guys to move from beta to alpha, essentially. Beta guys who are frustrated by lack of sex in their lives learn the behaviors that alphas display naturally. If you're interested in how this is done, I recommend reading The Game by Neil Strauss. It's a fascinating read, the journey of a super nerdy and unattractive NYX's reporter getting really good at meeting and dating and bedding women, although never relying on deceit or subterfuge. He just polished his social skills and upped his confidence so dramatically, that he was very successful.

    Hope this helps!

  • Lisette

    Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification :)

  • Mike

    Further, if it's alpha guys we're talking about, ***very few*** of them are going to want to get off the casual sex train anytime in their 20s or even early 30s. A significant portion of those guys may never get off.

    Gonna disagree here, but again it is highly age dependent. I'm speaking from experience here. I've had the opportunity to be friends with and go out clubbing with more then a few natural alphas with just staggering numbers. For every single one of them I knew, it eventually gets old. At some point, they all wanted to get off the casual sex train and meet that “special” girl. I suspect (I wouldn't know) that once you get to 100+, even 200, then it all really becomes a blur and getting to 300 or 400 simply doesn't hold the same appeal for maybe a guy trying to go from 5 to 20. In economic terms, each additional girl has decreasing marginal utility.

    Now the problem for these guys is just like their female counterparts they are damaged goods. They are so jaded, and every woman is a “slut”. They want that special girl, but will always be suspicious and distrustful. Beyond that, the longer they are removed from the promiscuous lifestyle the more the old craving for variety will resurface.

    We probably agree that these guys should be avoided for LTRs unless you happen to meet one who truly is reformed and mature.

  • Mike

    Question for you Susan and Aldonza and any other female who wants to chime in. I'm genuinely curious, what is the rough numerical range that is the transition region between a “Loser” and a “Dirty Man-Whore”. It would be interesting to compare this number to what most men would think would constitute a “Slut”. Take a 30 year old guy. I'm pretty sure 0-1 would be the former while 100 would be the latter. What about 20? 45? I know you can pin it down precisely but from an academic perspective it would be interesting if there is a gender difference on this question.

  • Mike

    Further, if it's alpha guys we're talking about, very few of them are going to want to get off the casual sex train anytime in their 20s or even early 30s. A significant portion of those guys may never get off.

    Is your husband in the investment business? I've actually got my own RIA business. Tell him to take a look at ATPG.

  • Mike

    sorry, in a hurry and cut and paste the wrong excerpt,

  • susanawalsh

    Whew, AT, glad you were able to post. My apologies, I'm still trying to decipher the problem – you weren't the only one who had this experience today.

    I made a similar choice, and spent several years at home full-time with my children. Both of us were fortunate to have that choice. Which brings me to my response to your point. I know so many women who run themselves ragged. They are professionals, but they're also mothers and trying to hold the home together, including all of the maintenance and upkeep that requires. A lot of the women who openly resented me over the years were women who desperately needed a break from having it all. Women in the U.S. are measurably unhappier than they were 40 years ago:

    http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Press/Wom

    We're all women, and yet we judge each other so harshly! I believe that women must follow their own hearts and minds. I reject the notion that a virgin is wasting the opportunities that feminism bestowed, or that a woman who stays home with her children is letting our sex down in some way.

    As you say, we have a lot more choices than we used to have. Perhaps feminism has met its goals. I don't really understand what fighting patriarchy even means, at this point.

  • susanawalsh

    Just my personal opinion here…

    When I think man whore the number that pops into my head is 100. But that's pretty random, as age plays a big role. My sense is that college guys who get this label probably hook up with a couple of different girls a month, at least. They may have a few repeat hookups, but the desire for variety prevails. That would put them at a total of 70 or so for college. That's probably high, even the best players probably have slumps. So yeah, if a guy told me he'd been with a hundred women, I would definitely be grossed out.

    It's interesting, the old sexual double standard has been diminished somewhat, but not in the way feminists want. Promiscuous women are still regarded as sluts, as that post re the woman with a number of 35 showed. Rather than men increasing their tolerance for promiscuity, women have decreased theirs. Aldonza referred to a penis that's been in every willing vagina as gross. And I hear that quite a bit. How special can we feel, how good could the sex be, and what could it mean, if I am your 101st partner?

    I know one lovely young woman, aged 20, and her number is two. She's ashamed of that. A guy asked her and when she was honest, he said, “Aw, that's so cute!” I doubt she'll tell the truth again. She'll choose a number like 7 to seem normal.

    I've also heard from women with some experience that they suspect they took a guy's virginity. And in those cases, they liked the guy and didn't think he was a loser. They were more worried how he would feel about them being more experienced.

    I don't even know my own number, I never kept track. My daughter asked me once, and I guessed around 20. I was off the market at 25, so I was a bit wild there for about 5 years. That seems like a pretty standard number for me, and I suspect my husband's is around the same, though I've never asked, and really don't care.

    45? Hmmm, that sounds a bit high. The biggest problem with a high number for a guy is the doubt that you'll ever be enough. It's what you said – those guys are going to be used to sexual variety, and that is very intimidating to women.

  • Mike

    A couple of things intrigue me. First, you met your current GF, who I know you are really into, before you felt really comfortable with Alpha behaviors.

    I wouldn't so much say comfortable or uncomfortable as I still felt like I was playing a part, an actor on a stage, so it was very rehearsed and planned.

    I suspect that she saw and appreciated your sensitive side as well.

    Maybe partially, but later she told me the thing that jumped out at her the most was my mind. I'm 6'3″ and a hard-core weight trainer so people tend to make assumptions. Really funny to me, because I was the brainy nerd eons before I ever touched a weight (1260 SAT and 680 GMAT). I met this girl in grad school (she was an undergrad) out at the bars one night, and she joked that she used to see me in the gym all the time and thought I was a big “meathead”.

    Secondly, I'm so impressed with your total quest for personal development, and I wonder how you got so motivated to do it so thoroughly!

    Well….22 years of virginity is one heck of a motivator. I don't know. Seems to me there are two kinds of people in this world, people who set goals and figure out the strategy and tactics to achieve them, and people who just bitch and complain about what they don't have, the job they don't have, that they are overweight, that they can't get girls or can't find a boyfriend. Seems to me whining won't accomplish anything so one has to find out how to get from A to B. That is why I think what you are doing here is great. You are essentially educating women on “Girl game” and for those who want relationships helping them get from A to B.

    I lost my job and my wife left me inside the same week in fall 2004 and to compound things she left me in financial distress (credit card debt) so I was forced to move back with my parents at the time at the age of 30. I needed a mental break so a buddy at the gym got me a job bouncing at a bar. LOL, I've got a MBA and I was working as a bouncer, but it was very educational watching/studying male-female interaction one “case study” after another. It was my first glimpse into the Matrix, and how things really worked. I found Game theory on the Internet in the middle of 2005 and its principles was able to make sense of what I was observing on a daily basis. That is when I decided to learn Game. I finally started getting pretty good towards the end of 2005, and started to have success like I never had before (had a rotation going). I met my LTR at the gym in Jan 2006, and ironically would probably not have met her when I did had I not been bouncing. Having seen what I saw bouncing, and knowing what was out there (at least in the bar environment) I knew I would be a fool to let her get away.

    Guys who have “inner Game” say that about 80% of men will never learn it.

    I'm conflicted on this one. I'm not sure it is possible to “learn” Inner Game. Maybe it can be developed and internalized over many years, I don't know, but I do believe the behaviors can be imitated enough for some success although those without strong inner game should avoid 9-10s. Not sure whether it is learned or innate, but super attractive women will test to see if you are the “real deal” or a counterfeit Alpha.

    However, I think there's got to be some few things that guys can do, say with only 20% of the effort, that will pay off, say with 40-50% of the results.

    No doubt, but they gotta want it. There was a guy posting here that I tried to help who seemed to just be wallowing in negativity. You can't help someone who won't at least make an effort. Any guy can improve his “Game” or social interaction with women enough to get a decent looking GF.

  • susanawalsh

    Haha, uh oh is that insider trading? He's a municipal bond portfolio manager, but I'll have him check it out!

  • susanawalsh

    That's a great story. And you beat me on the GMAT by 10 points! I am so glad you saw the value in your GF, that you did it right b/c you knew she would be great for you. So many guys pass up women who would really make their lives better. As for your ex, I'll be catty and say I just hate her. WTF? She takes off AND leaves a credit card balance? I'm glad you were even willing to give another woman a chance.

    As for the guy you tried to help, yeah, he was so negative. It was generous of you to try and help him, and other guys did too from time to time. Even a couple of women chimed in! He is very bitter about being a virgin at 30, and I get that, but I say, don't let it be 31. You're so right – we all need to take responsibility and get the job done. That's where the men and the boys, (or the women and girls) get separated.

  • http://FT.com/ VJ

    Yep. Once again, if you're here pissing & moaning about 'the culture' or aspects of it (hook-ups) you detest, we really need to be first searching for those like minded individuals who share in the same analysis, feelings & ultimately rejection of certain destructive & detrimental behaviors. This does not have to mean 'hanging with the fundies' or the religiously inspired ideologically committed virgins either. Just the folks who have consciously rejected the lies, cant & idiocy seen & spread in the mass media and fed to the masses to motivate them to become more accepting of same & always to consume more.

    These 'strange' people will tend to be a bit more culturally conservative (and yet still can be plenty politically liberal, BTW), but they're readily identifiable. Now according to various taxonomies they might all be classed as some grades of 'Beta', but these by in large are the smart people who have yes deliberately set themselves apart from their immediate environs to either become more or be better or to serve greater future goals. And for the right people? They'll be as noticeable as diamonds lying there on the ground. One possible example (besides DecoyBetty above) was here in the Times recently:

    “I was a Teenage Illiterate”

    By CATHLEEN SCHINE
    Published: February 26, 2010

    “At the age of 26, when I returned to New York after an inglorious stab at graduate work in medieval history on the frozen steppes of Chicago, I had a horrifying realization: I was illiterate. At least, I was as close to illiterate as a person with over 20 years of education could possibly be. In my stunted career as a scholar, I’d read promissory notes, papal bulls and guidelines for Inquisitorial interrogation. Dante, too. Boccaccio. . . . But after 1400? Nihil. I felt very, very stupid among my new sophisticated New York friends.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/books/review/

    Now how many guys do you know might this describe? Decent, respectable, smart, kind & hard working, but absolutely clueless about so many aspects of 'current culture'. Know more about Jazz from the 1920'-40's than Hip-hop & rap from the last 5? Join the club. Know more about madrigals & Gregorian chants than most of the current maniacs? Share in the joy. Think of 'fashion' as matching socks, a clean shirt and everything 'tucked in'? There's women who understand & appreciate this language.

    I know. I married one. And despite what some might characterize the average Beta male as wanting or lusting after all the 'unobtainable' 'high status' women? They're almost always too 'complicated', very 'high maintenance' and tend to break down & wear out fairly early, for any number of reasons. No, always go for the 'easy keepers', the good natured loving, mature sorts. I've always told friends this when it came to the most important decision of their lives, marriage. Chose the dray horse over the race horse. Always. The race horse will always look better, but only be expected to perform well typically for short spurts of time. The rest of the time they require massive amounts of expense for upkeep; housing, transport & grooming. The far simpler working breeds? Will be your life long faithful companions through thick & thin. And if you're asking? Yes, the wife already knows this & has heard it many times too! Cheers & Good Luck, 'VJ'

  • grerp

    Completely agree with this analysis, Novaseeker. I went for option #4 below in college – I kept my legs closed, opted out and focused on my studies. I kept on this path until I met my husband when I was 25 and he was 31. By that time, he was looking for something more longer term, and my lack of experience was some sort of proof to him of trustworthiness. At least, that's how he puts it.

    14 years later I still feel that, had I not met him when I did, I would not have married. I suppose I am naturally pessimistic, but the tides and undercurrents of the old/new dating market made failure seem inevitable. Feminism is supposed to be all about “choice,” but the universal availability of sex in the dating market gives little choice to women who are uncomfortable with casual sex or want marriage and stability rather than short-term sexual gratification. It's “Put out or get out.”

    I went back to college and got my master's degree because I figured if I couldn't find Mr. Right, I could at least have a career where I could meet other goals I had for myself. The sad thing is that over a decade later I have no finer wisdom to offer my younger self or girls in Gen Y. I cannot with confidence say, “Follow my example,” and I don't know where other roads lead either – then or now.

  • susanawalsh

    VJ, I love that essay! I've got Schine's new novel on request at the library, it's gotten excellent reviews. Smart lady there.

    Haha, your wife is very, very good natured to be OK with being called the dray horse, but I know from what you've written that she is brilliant, quite a smart filly! An easy keeper with a big brain, I believe that truly is the recipe for happiness, or at least one of them.

  • susanawalsh

    grerp, I just want to say hello and welcome! I believe I've seen you at Obsidian's blog.

    A couple of things I find really interesting:

    Your lack of experience gave your husband reassurance when he met you. I have heard that from other male readers. It is abundantly clear that men prefer women who have not wholeheartedly signed up for the easy hookup scene. I don't know that it's a double standard – I suspect the men who value this most are men who were not exactly screwing their way through college either.

    You state it well when you describe the current scene as Put Out or Get Out. Part of me is reluctant to tell young women to “give up” in college and study, which is why they are really there anyway. It's depressing for a woman of 18 to be told she won't be having a real relationship for 7 years or so. And yet I do believe that the women who come to that realization are perhaps in the best shape when they do reach their mid-20s. They're ready, and they're not jaded and cynical in the same way.

    I too started a Master's figuring I would probably not marry, and I really didn't intend to have children. I wasn't looking for someone special, he was just there, and I went for it. Perhaps the best wisdom is to encourage women to set those goals for themselves, and continue to pursue them. Whether they meet Mr. Right along the way or not, they're much better off.

  • ExNewYorker

    In the Game case, I imagine it helps with a large majority of women. But, like physical beauty in woman, there are always going to be other considerations, so some minority will have other things on their mind besides the tingles.

    I mean, I think most of straight guys might lust after a Jessica Alba/Megan Fox look-alike, but for those of us guys who have other things in our lives, we wouldn't throw it away for a one night hookup. Of course, there are men who would (i.e. Tiger Woods), but no gender is immune from stupidity.

    Modern day feminism seems to have a become a odd mishmash of all sort of ideas, many of which have little application to the day to day living of people. I mean, it the midst of the worst recession in ages, the average woman (or man) is not going to really care about sex-positive or non-hetero-normative feminism, or how language is ableist or cis-normative.

    If we can get feminists to target the kleptocrat banksters, then a lot of us would tag along… :-)

  • Nisie

    Truth be told- I have a friend who is very much a cad. In fact, one of the women I know used to be his mistress when he was married. I know of three other women in my social circle who have slept with him. Sunday, he confessed that he's interested in me romantically. We have a lot of interest in common. He's a MD, a rugby player, very attractive, poly-lingual who has slept with over 120 women in his 43 years.

    In the other corner IT geek who is slightly overweight, balding, has slept with four women in his 36 years. We've known each other for 7 weeks, been dating for three. He makes me smile, he's honest, and he respects me for me. I'm taking it slow and have fallen in like with him… I hope it turns out to be more. We don't have that many interest in common, but he makes me smile.

    My heart is so monogamist that I didn't consider the cad at all. He's too used goods, he has a pattern of going after the easy lays and not being satisfied with what he has. The IT guy feels he's damn lucky to have me- and we haven't slept together yet.

  • novaseeker

    “14 years later I still feel that, had I not met him when I did, I would not have married. I suppose I am naturally pessimistic, but the tides and undercurrents of the old/new dating market made failure seem inevitable. Feminism is supposed to be all about “choice,” but the universal availability of sex in the dating market gives little choice to women who are uncomfortable with casual sex or want marriage and stability rather than short-term sexual gratification. It's “Put out or get out.” “

    More men need to hear this kind of thing, to be honest.

    I think a part of the problem from the male perspective, thinking back on how it was when I was in college (we're pretty close in age actually) is that we notice the women who are visible but the rest of the women we don't notice as much, or if we do we don't pay that much attention to what they are doing. I think for women it seems to be similar in many cases — the attention is on what the alphas, the most successful and so on are doing, rather than the guy in the next cube. It kind of makes both men and women pessimistic and resentful, because many of us of both sexes feel put out by the whole thing.

    It's very important for men to understand that there are women who also opt out because they just don't like the idea of trading casual sex for the chance of intimacy and a bit of social status.

    Your approach may not amount to a “plan” for other women, but nevertheless it's clearly useful for other women (and men) to hear as well. In fact I think that kind of matching is very close to being the ideal for having things work out, but it's very un-PC to suggest that, I realize.

  • grerp

    Your lack of experience gave your husband reassurance when he met you.

    It seemed very counter-intuitive at the time. I mean, when I was in college opting out, people, often women, treated me as if I were Amish just because I didn't party and I didn't have casual sex. I stopped talking about it so as not to seem so freakish. I genuinely think that with my husband, it was a selling point.

    I did also tell him, I think on our second date when he asked me where I wanted to go, that since we were both students and I didn't have any money and presumably he didn't have much more than me, we should just go cheap, Dutch, picnic somewhere, or I could cook dinner at my apartment. I wasn't trying to be manipulative, I was trying to be fair. And I did cook for him lots of times while we were dating. And, in return, he drove me to the grocery store because I didn't have a car.

    He actually started talking marriage well before I was ready to think about it myself. I think a big part of it was that I was honest and straightforward in my expectations, and that didn't change even when we became more serious about each other.

  • grerp

    So I guess this boils down to: I wasn't going to have sex with him, but I would cook him dinner. LOL.

  • grerp

    we notice the women who are visible but the rest of the women we don't notice as much

    It felt that way to me. I got the most attention from my girlfriends' boyfriends who would say, “If I wasn't dating Michelle…” But, again, Michelle was sleeping with him. And I don't man poach.

    I'll put some of the blame on myself. I'm not a wallflower, but I am fairly introverted, and I wanted someone I could converse with, actually talk to. I still have no idea where to meet people with like interests who aren't completely on the make.

  • novaseeker

    It's not so much about blame as much as it is about men and women in their early 20s really setting sights HIGH. Like HIGH HIGH. And I can't really blame them for that — they are in their early 20s, the world is their oyster, and suggesting compromising at that age seems downright miserly, regardless of sex, for men and women who have a lot of options.

    For the rest of us, well, we need to get through that rough period. But I wouldn't say it's appropriate to blame people who were overlooked. It's quite common, I think, that very great people are overlooked by the mating market in college because of the way the system works.

    The irony is that people do not, or refuse to, realize that the level best chance they have of meeting a fantastic, equally-yoked mate is in college. Instead most people dismiss college relations as fun and games and eschew commitment as being limiting vis-a-vis post college options in terms of geography and career.

    So the system and the expectations it breeds are mostly to blame.

  • Reinholt

    Exactly. The problem is not equality of opportunity (which I am a strong believer in), but rather, forcing parity.

    Men and women are not identical; they should both have the freedom to pursue fair and equal choices, but we should likewise expect that, on average, they will not choose the same things.

    I think most of the problems that we see in the current dating market can be traced to one of two problems:

    1 – Perverse incentives
    2 – “Authority” figures flat out lying and misinforming large groups of people

    Most people who have thrown off the blinders are actually pretty reasonable to deal with. It is the ones who either buy into the blind dogma or are profiting from it that are the problem.

  • steveo

    A cute guy with a lot of confidence majoring in comp sci?

    And if we're not cute? Then what? Are we supposed to shrivel up and die?

  • steveo

    it the midst of the worst recession in ages

    Worst recession in ages FOR MEN (aka the 'mancession'). Women are still doing great.

  • steveo

    What if we don't have the option of putting up with lousy hook up sex? What if we're male virgins at 30 through no choice of our own? What if the problem is that no woman wants us and we can't upgrade our 'sexual status'?

    Am I just supposed to accept being part of a an 'untouchable caste' when it comes to sex and relationships?

    Maybe no one at all will hook up with you until you make some positive changes in your life.

    What the hell are 'positive changes'? I hear this type of crap all the time yet no one can tell me what the hell they're talking about when they say these things. It's crap.

  • Reinholt

    Perhaps I will reveal myself for the ruthless son of a bitch that I am here, but I would add a further:

    If you want a commitment, and you are dating a guy who does not want that, give him a few months to figure it out. If he still holds the same viewpoint, dump him immediately and move on.

    There are a few reasons for this:

    1 – You are a depreciating asset, in business terms. For women, you basically peak in terms of market value for dating in your early 20s, and it is downhill from there (or, at least, you trade sideways for a while). Don't waste time; you can't really afford that.

    2 – There are a decent number of guys for whom you will not be on the radar if you are dating someone else, in relationship terms. Though invisible, there can be a pretty high opportunity cost for what you are potentially missing that you will never know about and never be able to get back. Only stay with someone if you actually rather like them and you are both getting what you want. Again, don't waste time.

    3 – You signal to others, down the road, that you have confidence and think you have at least a decently high value if you are willing to break up with people who are giving you a raw deal.

    4 – You signal to men, in particular, that you are disciplined and actually say what you want, and will try for it. Given how deceitful women are in general, having someone who actually means what they say is nice, doubly so if they back it up with their actions.

    5 – Don't delude yourself into thinking you can stay in a semi-relationship and find a better guy to have a relationship with. I'll be blunt – I've slept with women in that situation before, but there is no way I would ever date any of them; if you'd cheat on him, why not me? This ties in with point 2. You'll go on the hook up list and be off the relationship list, which is exactly the reverse of what you want, at least for any guy who can do well.

    All of this, of course, is contingent on being someone worth having a relationship with in the first place, which is an entirely different story…

  • steveo

    The risk of the second option is that these guys don't learn social skills along the way somehow, which means that while they are better off than they were when they were younger, they are not as well off as they could be.

    At what is a guy like me (male virgin at 30) supposed to due about not learning 'social skills'? Assuming 'social skills' even exist. I have always been denied opportunities by women. I have no way of learning these possibly mythical 'social skills'.

    The thing that they have to try to avoid — and this is key — is becoming bitter and jaded about the whole thing.

    Why avoid becoming bitter and jaded? Yes, I'm bitter and jaded. When I wasn't bitter and jaded, what did I get for it? Zilch. I'm bitter and jaded now, but I know where I stand with women.

  • ExNewYorker

    Yes, we prefer someone with a relative lack of experience. And yes, it is a double standard, but it is what it is. That was one of the things that drew me to my wife…she avoided the hookup culture, which showed me she felt respect for herself.

    In any case, as Susan mentions, those of us who have that preference tend to be reasonably fair in following those requirements ourselves (our mates don't want man whores). And once we've found that long term partner, it's really not that hard to make up for lost experience…

  • steveo

    8-9 times out of 10, you show me a 20-25 year old college guy who is “ready for a committed relationship”, and I'll show you a beta who has little to no sexual options. The committed relationship isn't a result of a mature choice, but no choice at all.

    Too true. I will take a committed relationship. I will take a hook up. Anything is better than being a male 30 year old virgin.

  • Mike

    Assuming 'social skills' even exist.

    This is silly. Do you really doubt this? Are you just being argumentative for its own sake?

    At what is a guy like me (male virgin at 30) supposed to due about not learning 'social skills'?

    Get off your ass and learn them and practice. Realize it will be difficult. Or just give up, and stop complaining.

    Yes, I'm bitter and jaded.

    Honestly, you might need some therapy or something. Women are very intuitive, especially to your vibe. You may literally be emitting some type of creepy negativity. It almost comes across in your writing.

    I tried to post some helpful comments to you awhile back because I empathized with your situation as I was a 22 year old virgin. I wonder if you took the ball and even took one step let alone run with it.

    You've got two choices:

    1. Make a sincere effort to improve this aspect of your life. Realize you are not entitled to ***ANYTHING***. No woman owes you a relationship or sex. Not sure what you look like but realize that 7+ might be off the table and you'll be lucky to get a 5 with a sweet personality.

    2. Accept you will die a virgin and most likely never have a relationship. Stop bitching about it. If you don't care enough to make an effort nobody else should.

  • Reinholt

    To give a few more practical suggestions, then:

    1 – Make sure you are in good shape. Dress well. This is not to say be trendy, but rather, that if you groom yourself, keep in shape, and present well as a result, it's hard for a man to be genuinely ugly (and, actually, if you are seriously ugly for some reason but are in great shape and very well dressed, the dichotomy itself makes you unique, which is a positive).

    2 – Be confident when speaking to others (yes, you can practice this).

    3 – Find your goals in life beyond relationships and women, and pursue them ambitiously; women strongly prefer men with a purpose, whatever that purpose may be. When starting out, that purpose should not be them – you need to be competent, capable, and driven for yourself.

    4 – Take care of your finances, as this reduces stress and increases confidence.

    5 – Pick up at least one or two hobbies that would be considered interesting / dangerous by others, and use them to better yourself. Avoid the genuinely socially unpopular ones (which is not to say avoid them).

    6 – Learn to listen to the right people (in this case, men who are successful with other women… if you want a long series of light flings, listen to someone like Roissy… if you want a solid, long-term relationship, the game sphere is useful, but you need to consider the longer timeframe involved and the implications of short-term asshole behavior in that context as well), and never, ever listen to most women.

    Hope that helps.

  • ExNewYorker

    That's one of the biggest ironies. In college, there is a captive audience, where it's easier than ever to see them in their natural setting and to figure out who they really are.

    After college, it becomes harder to do that culling…work sets time limitations (a missed deadline is much worse), and the Sherlock Holmes' work required to sort the wheat from the chaff is more difficult.

    For women, their upper hand is at that college time…after that it slowly transfers to the men…

  • steveo

    This is silly. Do you really doubt this? Are you just being argumentative for its own sake?

    In a way, yes. The problem is that 'social skills' get defined as being attractive to women. If social skills are an independent concept that aren't dependent on the whims of women then objectively I must have them since I lead an otherwise normal life, hold down a job, etc. If 'social skills' are dependent on the whims of women then there is nothing I can do about it except hope that someday some woman will pick me since 'social skills' are completely woman dependent.

    It's one option or the other. You can't have it both ways. I would pick the first one, but anytime when someone starts talking about 'social skills' they seem to be saying the second.

    Honestly, you might need some therapy or something. Women are very intuitive, especially to your vibe. You may literally be emitting some type of creepy negativity. It almost comes across in your writing.

    I wasn't born with the attitude. I spent most of my life NOT having this attitude. I have zilch to show for it. It makes no difference.

    If women are so damn intuitive this blog wouldn't exist.

    Of course, there is plenty of negativity in my writing. Positivity never got me anywhere.

    I wonder if you took the ball and even took one step let alone run with it.

    Yes, I did and I have zilch to show for it. I have been trying everything for the last decade and a half. Of course, you will just accuse me of “not trying”.

    Realize you are not entitled to ***ANYTHING***.

    I never said I was. Stop it with this bull.

    I have the right to be angry at being rejected by half the human race.

    Not sure what you look like but realize that 7+ might be off the table and you'll be lucky to get a 5 with a sweet personality.

    I will take a 1 to 4 at this point.

  • AT

    That's when you work on being interesting. It goes both ways for both genders too, btw.

  • steveo

    Make sure you are in good shape. Dress well.

    Doing that. I think. I'm not sure what exactly “dressing well” means, but I suspect I'm doing it.

    Be confident when speaking to others

    Already doing that.

    Find your goals in life beyond relationships and women, and pursue them ambitiously;

    Already doing that.

    women strongly prefer men with a purpose, whatever that purpose may be.

    Really because it clearly hasn't worked for me.

    Take care of your finances, as this reduces stress and increases confidence.

    Already doing that.

    Pick up at least one or two hobbies that would be considered interesting / dangerous by others, and use them to better yourself.

    What are 'dangerous' hobbies?

    Avoid the genuinely socially unpopular ones (which is not to say avoid them).

    I can't figure out what you're saying here.

    Learn to listen to the right people (in this case, men who are successful with other women…

    Doing that, but it hasn't helped.

    never, ever listen to most women.

    Definitely doing that.

  • http://FT.com/ VJ

    Thanks Susan, But Holy Moley! 97 comments so far?! Geez who knew there were that many frustrated… er, writers out there?! Cheers, 'VJ'

  • ExNewYorker

    And a couple of things that are relevant if you are interested in a man for the long haul…

    1) Does he honor his parents? He may not agree with them, but does he honor the fact that they raised him? And if they were bad parents, does he avoid bad-mouthing them? A good man understands that life is sometimes hard, and doesn't feel the need to blame the world for it.

    2) How does he treat the women in his life? If he treats his mother/sisters/cousins like crap, he's not likely going to change for you.

    3) How does he treat people who don't affect his livelihood? Any guy can be decent to the people who directly affect his well being.

    These are things that are not difficult to suss out…it just takes the time and honesty with oneself if you see the wrong behavior.

  • ExNewYorker

    I wouldn't say we're all frustrated…some of us had a nice home cooked dinner and a bottle of wine, so we want other people to share in the joy of having that special someone… :-)

  • AT

    “Given how deceitful women are in general…”

    How is this so? I'm not trying to start an argument, but I'd like to see where this generalization is coming from, and wonder what your experiences have been that gave you this perspective, so that we women here can understand why some men think this way.

    In my culture, it's the men who are known to cheat and keep mistresses as a way of proving their machismo, and the practice is so prevalent it hardly raises an eyebrow, even when previous Presidents did it, so most women here have a built-in wariness with regard to being cheated on. Older women have been known to counsel younger women, “For as long as he comes home to you, let him have his bit of fun.”

    I grew up with three brothers, and they always emphasized to me when I was single and starting to attract attention that men WILL say what they think you want to hear if it'll get them in your pants. So from MY perspective, if a guy was too smooth and was profuse with flattery, it set my antenna twanging. Nowadays though, what I'm reading is that the opposite is happening–men NEG women to get their attention.

  • susanawalsh

    Aldonza, haha, you are funny. It's very true what you say about marrying someone who's qualifying for the senior discount at the cinema. With women less financially dependent on men than ever before, perhaps fewer are inclined to date older in exchange for financial security, or even luxury.

  • susanawalsh

    Touche, ENY! There is no question in my mind that a man who has been in one long and loving relationship is a FAR better lover than a player with a number over 100. No question whatsoever.

  • susanawalsh

    It's very unlikely for a woman to meet her future spouse in college, and that has a profound impact on relationships. Both women and men are unsure about going down the road of a LTR when graduation looms, followed by probably relocation, then possibly graduate school, another geographic move, etc. If you meet the love of your life at 21, you're going to have a frustrating number of years long-distance before you're likely to contemplate marriage. There are really no strong incentives for men or women to commit at a young age. Women still try, because it is in their nature to do so, but even those who have a bf throughout college will face the “fizzling” of that passion due to external factors.

  • susanawalsh

    Ah, great advice Reinholt. I especially would emphasize #2. Women consistently fail to consider opportunity cost, which is HUGE. It also relates to your #3. When you are halfwaying it with someone, you are subtly communicating in all sorts of ways that you are off the market. Bad, bad idea.

  • susanawalsh

    Again, awesome guidelines here. As you say, this means spending time to observe a man in his surroundings and existing relationships. Even seeing how a guy relates to his buddies can tell a woman a lot.

  • Esau

    Lisette, a quick but subtle question:

    “But it's still uncomfortable for me to sit there while the guys at the table debate whether the waitress is a 5 or a 7, or express that they think they're basically entitled to sex with whomever they want.”

    Well, why are you sitting at this table? Why aren't you at the next table, sitting with the nice, smart beta nerds who would never show this kind of disrespect for women? You could choose to hang around with men who are not pigs — there are plenty in the world — but you don't; why not?

    Women might not like to see piggish and entitled behavior up close and unhidden. But there's no denying the observation that piggish and entitled behavior is consonant with an overall personality package that, all other things (looks, money) being equal, women find more attractive than the kosher alternative.

    Two general themes you will see mentioned in this blog discussion are incentives (for men) and agency (of women). The next time you find yourself looking around a table at men who have become pigs, ask yourself: what incentive were they ever given to behave this way? and, what woman used her agency to give them that incentive?

  • synthesis

    I don't know about dangerous hobbies, maybe start riding a motorcycle?

  • synthesis

    When people say females are intuitive, it means they pick up on subtle things that reveal anxiousness, lack of confidence, awkwardness, and if you are socially autistic in general. It might help if you have some female friends that you develop a good rapport with and then emulate that with women you're interested in romantically.

  • synthesis

    I don't know what Reinholt meant, but sometimes women are dishonest because they're just being nice. They say they want a guy to do x, y, and z beta behaviors, but those things don't really pan out in practice. They want the alpha not the beta. And then there's the passive-aggressive games. They give you their number but they screen your calls. They don't return your voicemails. They show up late for a date. They don't show up at all.

  • aldonza

    ^ These are good barometers. I've dumped guys who under-tipped and disrespected people who didn't have anything to give them. I take a long hard look at any guy who has a bad relationship with his parents, particularly his mother. If he can't respect the woman who gave him life…how's he going to treat you? One guy talked endlessly about how “giving” he was, and then stiffed the waitress by more than half what she was owed. Um…no thanks.

  • aldonza

    Ah, the ages old question of “how many is too many”. I think that it's very dependent on age and circumstances. I'm in my 40s and date guys around my age. 50 seems like a lot to me. That's assuming a couple a year starting in his teens. I'd assume there were also some LTRs in there to lower the “per year” average too. I'm more comfortable with a number in the teens – twenties. And yes, this is still for a guy in his 30s-40s.

    My ex-husband was a virgin when I married him at age 25 (he was 26) and I'd been with one other guy before him. We were married for 16 years. Both of our “numbers” are skewed lower than people who've been out and dating for most or all of those years.

  • aldonza

    You forgot Omegas: guys (and girls) who are completely out of the game entirely, either by choice or circumstance. They aren't getting any at all and aren't even calculated as part of the equation for most people.

    The other part is that people are not destined to stay in their category and even these designations are relative. A guy who might be a rank beta (or even omega) with the DJ/club scene, might be a complete alpha on the debate team. If you saw him in both environments, even his body language, tone of voice and entire demeanor would reflect his status.

  • aldonza

    I'm with the others…why are you at that table? For a long time I prided myself on being “one of the guys”. I could drink beer, talk sports, and tell off-color jokes with the best of them. But while most guys say they want a woman like that, the truth is, I got “friend-zoned” a lot. I used to think that men talking this way in front of me was a good thing, it showed they “accepted me as one of them”…sort of like the gorillas grooming Jane Goodall.

    If any of these guys were in a romantic relationship with me, I'd likely make a joking “neg” on them about what the waitresses would likely be grading all of them on the 1-10 scale. Usually the gentle rebuff gets things back on track. If they persisted, I'd say that the discussion made me feel uncomfortable and either leave the table, or make some attempt at not participating anymore.

    You don't feel like they have respect for you because they don't. But that's on you, not them. You teach people how to treat you.

  • aldonza

    I'm going to have to agree with the others. I don't know anything about you except your age and sexual status, but your posts here reek negativity. If you had a dating profile that sounded anything like this, I'd skip over it even if you looked like George Clooney and spoke like Sean Connery.

    I'm not guaranteeing a parade of women if you started spouting sunshing and rainbows, but I *can* guarantee 30 more years of celibacy if you're like this with women.

    But don't listen to me, I'm just a woman.

  • aldonza

    I could take most guys with 4 in looks and make them an 8 in 6 months. Yes, I said an 8. Men just need to be in shape, with a good haircut/haircare products and some decent clothes. Put him in a well-tailored suit, and his stock just jumped a little higher.

  • WiseOne

    Thanks!

  • WiseOne

    I don't get it, aldonza. Are you saying that when you see the guy in the club you might suspect that he is an alpha debater? (I think this describes me perfectly, although in the club, I have no inhibitions. I just go wild, especially with Canadian girls who seem to dig it.)

  • Esau

    Aldonza, what you say here makes a lot of sense. But it does leave open a similar question for you, namely: when you wanted to get along as “one of the guys,” how did you pick which circle of guys that was to be?

    Why did you pride yourself on getting along with the earthy sportsfans, who mostly friend-zoned you, instead of, say, getting down with nerdy Dungeons and Dragons crowd, who would certainly have adored you? You had the choice, and you chose the former over the latter; but why? Yes, you can say that the sportsfans were more attractive than the D&D'ers, but that only pushes the question back one step without answering it: what is it about the two of them, to you, that made one group worth your time and the other not? If you push all the way to the foundation then maybe you will find that you, like Lisette, somehow found piggish/gorilla behavior more attractive than the obvious alternative.

  • Esau

    So, Mike, your directive here boils down to the choice of (1) Capitulate to the demands of an unjust system (which is certainly what Steveo is facing), or (2) Shut up and stop complaining. Presumably you also think that, say, Nelson Mandela should also have either cut a deal with the apartheid regime to get out of prison, or stopped protesting against his unjust imprisonment?

    No, screw that. There are some times and places in history where complaining about a rotten system _is_ the morally correct thing to do. And the comparison to the old South Africa is not specious. We don't know his situation in detail, but it's entirely believable to me that what Steveo is facing, namely being denied anything like a reasonable life for no sane or defensible reason, is the functional equivalent of suffering under a racist dictatorship.

    And, as for this canard: ” Realize you are not entitled to ***ANYTHING***,” answer for us one simple question: are _you_ entitled to clean air?

    The use of a word like “entitled” is a distraction, a shaming tactic — greatly favored by militant feminists, BTW — to prevent victims from complaining. The better, fuller, more informative question is simply to ask: in whatever system you're considering, does a reasonable, moral person behaving reasonably and morally wind up living a reasonable and decent life? For Steveo the answer appears to be “no,” and then the next important question is, how many others like him are there? Random chance will always result in non-zero injustice; but if the number of decent-behaving men who don't get decent lives grows to being a majority, or even a substantial minority, then that system is in for big trouble! and deservedly so. Complaining, rather than shutting up, is entirely called for IMO.

  • WiseOne

    Haha, I love this! Being illiterate is the best! Harold Bloom was right when he said the more difficult pleasures are better.

  • susanawalsh

    Esau, that's ridiculous!

    The “system” has been created by at least 10,000 years of evolutionary programming. Justice has nothing to do with it. It's survival of the fittest, so if you want to reproduce, you've got to compete intrasexually. That's the harsh reality.

    You're saying steveo is being denied a reasonable life. Denied by whom? Every woman he's ever met? Women in aggregate?

    You assume that steveo is behaving reasonably and morally. On what do you base this assumption? I'll assume that steveo is indeed a man of good character. That leaves reasonableness, and like others in this thread, I would say that is open to doubt. Any woman who caught a whiff of this negativity in the air would run in the opposite direction at 60mph.

    steveo's been a commenter for a while, and I have made specific suggestions that were constructive. VJ made a real attempt to give him guidance, and now Reinholt and Mike have done the same. I appreciate the time and effort they took to offer advice. It strikes me as sound, and steveo would do well to heed it, IMO. However, he has rejected all suggestions out of hand.

    Note to steveo: I apologize for talking about you in the third person – it's awkward on a blog. But you CAN change your life, if you will stop blaming others. The toxicity of blame is wholly incompatible with interest or desire, as is bitterness and resentment. I would love for you to get laid. I can see that you feel really badly about your situation. The bottom line as I see it is Therapy + Practice interacting with women in general + Attention to grooming and personal appearance. That's a lot of work, but no one can do it for you, and you obviously need to change things up.

  • novaseeker

    When you say that you have the right to be angry about being rejected by women, that's where you're demonstrating what the issue is pretty precisely.

    The first problem is that your anger and negativity is going to be very transparent to women — women pick up on that very easily based on cues that most men simply do not notice. Women are much more socially attuned, in general, than we are — just a reality to be acknowledged. So if you have that anger and bitterness inside you it will be picked up on by many women, even if you don't think you're doing anything in particular to express it.

    The second point is that, no, you don't really have a right to be angry about being rejected. When we are rejected by women there is always a reason. That reason might be that we are shooting too high. That reason might be that we aren't presenting in an attractive way what women in the early 21st century are finding attractive in terms of selecting mates. And so on. Most of this is fixable, but it requires effort and is not easy. It is not intuitive for that many men. Mike here has talked quite a bit about the efforts he made to make himself more attractive to women both physically and in terms of social interaction abilities. That's a roadmap for every guy, really, if they are willing to do the work.

    As for my initial point about social skills, they aren't actually *exclusive* to dealing with women. The best maneuverers in the workplace, men or women, tend to have above average social skills. Social skills simply means understanding how other people think, what they think is important, and cultivating a way of expressing yourself and your interests and desires in a way that is effective vis-a-vis the other person. That person may be a boss, or someone you are trying to sell something to, or a jury, or a patient — depending on what you do for a living. It isn't limited to dealing with women. The problem is that a lot of men coast through their jobs with limited social skills, either because they have jobs that do not demand a lot of social skill, or they are satisfied floating along while other guys angle around them using their social skills. And men are generally not taught social skills from a young age — at least not in a masculine way that they can apply to their own lives and expression. So it can be hard, but it is worth the effort to learn a bit of them because it makes so many things in life so much easier and makes you more effective as a person overall.

  • Mike

    So, Mike, your directive here boils down to the choice of (1) Capitulate to the demands of an unjust system (which is certainly what Steveo is facing),

    Unjust? LOL. One of my favorite lines is Reality is reality. The world exists as it is exists, and 99% of the time it is ultimately futile and counterproductive to spend your time railing against the “injustice” or actually holding to the delusion that either you personally or someone else with change the “system” to something you believe is just.

    Look, you, me, Steve, are ***NOT*** going to change the result of thousands and thousands of years of human evoluation nor are we going to turn back the clock or put the genie back in the bottle of the feminist movement since the 1960s. Accept it, deal with it, and figure out you personally need to adapt to gain success and/or happiness (however you define it) under the current “unjust” system.

    Furthermore, to compare the sociosexual marketplace to apartheid in South America is a ludicrous analogy. There are pros and cons to the current system for *BOTH* men and women. No doubt, male betas/have gotten the worst deal under the new system. Those are the breaks.

    Look, I'm a men's right guy. I read Spearhead. Overall, I think alot of guys are getting f***ed in the current family legal system. But some guys are getting just plain wacky here. Are you really going to tell me that you are entitled to a relationship with a female and access to sex similar to access to clean air? I don't care whether it is the Beta male or the welfare queen I really am just sick and tired of people who wallow in their victimhood blaming everyone else but the guy/girl in the mirror for the condition of their life whether financial, vocational, or relationship.

    As far as Steveo, his responses convince me he is in a state of mind that his relationship condition or lack thereof will persist, especially if he cannot let go of the bitterness and make a sincere attempt to improve.

    Word of advice to women IMO. Be careful out there, and observe your surroundings. My guess is there are more Sodini's out there.

  • hambydammit

    Susan, I think it's worth adding: In all the PUA handbooks (at least all I've read, which is admittedly only 3 or 4) the aspiring pickup artist is *encouraged* to go after girls who are just “hanging out” with somebody. The idea is if she doesn't have a ring on her finger, it means that guy isn't good enough for her. (I know… that's not really what's happening in a lot of the cases, but it's what the books say. It's probably more likely that the guy won't commit.) Anyway, the PUA school says any girl without a ring is on the market. BUT, there's usually some kind of disclaimer that there's a huge difference between a girl you'll steal from some beta loser, then pump and dump, and a girl who has enough self respect to be with you as a LTR.

    In other words, there may be a false sense of “being on the market” while you're hooking up with someone, but it not real.

  • novaseeker

    Unjust in what way? Men are supposed to be able to find nice women to marry and have families with by just showing up? It never really worked that way, anyway. There was always a hierarchy of attractiveness, based on whatever factors, that effectively foreclosed many mate opportunities to most men and women alike.

    Yes, the rules changed in the last several decades that make things harder for men. Harder in the sense that women are now independent and are looking for men to bring more to the table than being stable, financially secure and “decent” (as my mother used to say). Now you need to be *attractive* as well, in some way that meshes with the particular woman in question. That's new, and it's here to stay because women are going to remain independent — at least for any period of time that is relevant for anyone reading this blog.

    So men are faced with a choice. They can adapt, and make themselves attractive to the women they are interested in pursuing in a realistic sense. Or they can sit out the dance and focus on other things in life. Either choice is fine, provided it's made honestly and with the intention of living a satisfying life, rather than grudgingly.

    The world has changed. Just like a guy can't reasonably expect to raise a family and have a single family home and a car and nice vacations and so on from working in a factory with only a high school diploma any longer, a guy can also no longer expect to find a suitable mate, or any at all, just because he is a stable, financially secure, decent guy. If he isn't attractive, he isn't going to have an easy time finding a mate, period. So, yes, it's *harder* today. Harder than it used to be economically, and harder than it used to be in terms of the mating game. Antes have been upped. Everything is more difficult and competitive and cut-throat in all aspects of life. Men can either adapt to this and try to thrive under the new rules or sit them out — either way, though, the new rules aren't going to be changing anytime soon.

    Comparing it to Nelson Mandela is a bit much, as well. There *are* injustices in terms of some of the laws and especially family law and so on. But the stuff that impacts the mating market is more basic and related to financial factors that are now firmly entrenched and won't be going away anytime soon. They aren't really “unjust”, but they have made things harder, no doubt. How men deal with that upped level of difficulty is their own call, I think.

  • hambydammit

    There's probably a commentary on consumerism in here somewhere. In the lower economic ranks, sure, just about every family needs two incomes. But when you get up above $50 or $60k a year — if you don't live in New York or LA — you're well within single income range. You won't be able to afford a new car every three years, and might have to go Coach instead of Prada, but you can feed a family of four and have a stay at home parent.

    Which… interestingly… gets back to what you and I have been talking about. What makes a woman valuable to a man? If a guy wants to be a dad, what's more valuable? A woman who runs herself so ragged between motherhood and career that she has no time for him, or a woman who judiciously and meticulously works to parent and keep house, and who makes sure that he wants for nothing after a hard day's work?

    I know it's very, very un-PC, and very un-feminist to suggest it, but is it really so demeaning to be a loving wife and create an environment that makes a providing husband feel like a king? (I'll be honest, I'd trade my work for it right now if some sugar-momma wanted to bring home enough bacon!)

    I fear that the post-feminist fallout is that women just aren't valuable to men beyond the vag. Men have guy friends to go bowling with, and plenty of self-actualization at their job. I know a LOT of men who say their girlfriends are more trouble than they're worth, but they don't want to give up regular sex, so they keep them hanging on. I can personally say that out of the last five or six girls I've gone on dates with, the reason I am no longer going on dates with them is that the give/take meter was in the red. If I don't get some indication after three or four weeks that a girl has a giving heart… the gig's up. Again, I think there's too much of a sense of entitlement in a lot of high value women. They mistake men desiring them sexually with men being willing to put up with the high cost for the long term.

    Susan, it sounds like your husband values you very highly. Do you feel like you're less of a woman because you have gone out of your way to be a loving wife and mother as opposed to climbing the corporate ladder?

  • susanawalsh

    Hamby, you make some interesting points here. Re household income, it really is about deciding what your needs are, as opposed to your wants. In my case, I had a toddler who made it clear day in and day out that he found it very upsetting that I was gone so much (I was a mgmt. consultant, flying the shuttle to NY at least three days a week). My husband and I agreed that I should take a break, and after that I worked freelance over the years, sometimes quite a bit, but never went back to the 80 hour workweek.

    However, I was always cognizant of the need to be grateful and to add value. My husband was very generous indeed, considering he might have expected a fellow b-school grad to share the financial burden when we married. I felt it was the least I could do to absolve him from virtually all household responsibilities. His time at home was really about the kids. I made sure his shirts were done, made delicious meals, and kept the house and cars in good shape. I handled most of the cat and dog stuff, gardening, etc. and hired pros to do the things I couldn't, like the lawn, repairs, etc. It sounds tedious, I know, but I really did feel it was the least I could do to pull my weight.

    And, as we've discussed before, I always advise married women to say yes to sex whenever possible. It freaks out my younger readers when I say this, haha, because they don't like the idea that they might ever not want sex. But the early childhood years make that likely for most people.

    Now that I've been married 25 years, I have no regrets. Our family is very close. My husband made sacrifices too, in that he refused to work the crazy hours common in his own industry. Basically, we both put family first. We never bought the house in Martha's Vineyard, we never bought a Range Rover, we never did lots of things other people in our community did. But honestly, we never really wanted those things anyway. They're not important.

    I write all this because I agree with you that women who are entitled, who are focused on taking will generally not be successful in maintaining, or even beginning relationships. As Nova said above, life is harder than it used to be, everything feels competitive, and balance/equity is required. A good relationship is one where both parties are giving what they can, and receiving something they value equally in return.

    BTW, Hamby, I'm hoping to brew that pot of coffee and get over to Life Without a Net this afternoon.

  • susanawalsh

    Do you mean b/c a woman in a casual hookup scene will telegraph her lack of self-respect? So she think's she's on the market, but she's coming across as the girl to be pumped and dumped?

  • dan_brodribb

    i don't know, steve. People have offered suggestions and you keep saying they won't work for you or that you've already tried it.

    All I can offer is this: I was older than you when I lost my virginity (and I was quite surprised when getting laid and getting a girlfriend did not immediately solve all my problems, but that's another story). And I've been doing okay for myself ever since. So it's possible.

    I can't point to any one specific thing that did it for me, but I think the turning point was taking responsibility for myself instead of wanting other people to help me or seeing myself as hopelessly broken in some way.

    Hope that helps. Best of luck

  • Lisette

    That's a good, and fair, question. To clarify, I'm not romantically involved with these guys, and it's usually a mixed group at the table. I would describe these people as “situational friends” – we had all of our classes together at the beginning of law school, began socializing, and now when I do hang out with them, it's mostly out of habit. The social deck reshuffled a bit after the first year, so it's gotten a little easier for me to meet other people, and I have managed to make a few friends with whom I have more in common.

    And I agree with both of you – incentives do shape behavior, and you do teach people how to treat you. I'm still working on that part, I think.

    Thanks for your input.

  • aldonza

    Nope. I'm saying, if I saw the alpha debater in a club, I'd likely react to his body language and demeanor and not be likely to feel attraction. If I met the *same* man in his element, I'd feel attraction.

    “Alpha” is a term gamers have co-opted to mean “gets the most pussy”. However, in the rest of the world, alpha is a relative term based on status within a given group at a given time. Gamers have mostly just learned to mimic the way men act when they are the alpha of a group. But smart Betas should know to make sure that women see them in their element, whatever that may be.

  • aldonza

    when you wanted to get along as “one of the guys,” how did you pick which circle of guys that was to be?

    I'm a “social chameleon”. It's a talent where I can blend in just about any crowd. Drop me in a bar in Boston filled with football fans, I'm talking about the offensive line picking up blitzes and dropping f-bombs discussing whether or not Belichick was out of his freakin' mind when he called “4th and 13″. Put me in a cocktail dress and heels and I'll be discussing the relative merits of the current healthcare legislation with politicos, using big words while sipping a Bombay Sapphire and Tonic. Or, throw me in my real element, with the geeks, and we're equally likely to be battling for the whiteboard eraser while architecting a new module or comparing notes on PvP with Hunters vs. Warlocks.

    Sports fans were not more attractive, in fact, a good many of them were more beta and geeky than the World of Warcraft crowd. Especially baseball fans…what is it with those guys and stats?

  • susanawalsh

    Well, you sound like a whole lot of fun! My kind of woman!

    Secondly, you're right about baseball fans; my brother the physicist does statistical analysis for the baseball blog The Hardball Times:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/philo

    Yeah, the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract was the Walsh family Bible.

  • hambydammit

    That's not exactly what I meant, although I can see how it could be taken that way. What I meant is that most young guys will only LTR with a girl they think will remain faithful. If a girl is “seeing someone,” even if it's not a LTR, and has sex with someone else, a lot of guys will interpret it as a sign that she'll cheat on him in a LTR. So… they'll take advantage of the sex if she wants to put out, but they didn't consider her to be a LTR candidate from the very beginning.

    Coming from a different age group, I see things differently. A lot of women I know “date” without a LTR, and frankly, I don't ask them about their sexual exploits on dates. To me, dating is dating and LTR is LTR, and if a woman is up front with me about which she's doing, then I run with that. But, like I said, I'm older than the college boys, and have been around this ferris wheel a few times.

    It's a double standard, and it sucks, but there it is. Men can typically have sex with whomever they want, including FWB, until they get into a LTR. Women can't openly flaunt that they have multiple partners. I honestly wish that could change, and I wish more women had the self respect to say, “You know what, I haven't found anyone to be in a LTR with, and fuck you for telling me I can't have sex while I'm looking.”

  • susanawalsh

    OK, gotcha, and well said.

  • AT

    I can understand that–in our efforts not to offend, we women have taken to fudging it. But then both genders do the same thing. I've read of so many women complaining about men who said, “I'll call you” but never do. Or men who keep dangling promises of a relationship just to keep the sex going. The point is, both sides of the camp engage in this. I just don't like it when there's wholesale condemnation of either gender just because some of its members have been less than stellar in their dealings with the opposite sex. There are still good men and women around, and looking at each other in an adversarial light won't do either of us any good.

  • AT

    I'm going with you over there, Susan, so bring an extra mug along.

    The thing that gets to me is this–when did making your man happy become so unPC?? Because for some reason that's the vibe I get from some feminists. Not all, mind, but it's there.

  • susanawalsh

    It is there, and I think it's often misunderstood at subjugation. What they're failing to realize is that one can derive great satisfaction and pleasure from making a loved one happy. And that the favor is often returned in kind, perhaps even moreso. If we're going to keep score, then we're going to start worrying a lot more about getting than giving, which doesn't really work well in relationships.

  • steveo

    People have offered suggestions and you keep saying they won't work for you or that you've already tried it.

    The problem is that most of these 'suggestions' fall into one of these categories:

    1. Suggestions that assume I weigh 300 pounds, am unemployed, and living in my parents' basement. This category includes all of the 'suggestions' about clothes, haircuts, showers, etc. Obviously, I'm capable of dressing myself, practicing hygiene etc. These aren't real suggestions in the sense that they're based on propaganda of post college age male virgins.
    2. Suggestions where I need more information. I have encountered several cases where the 'suggestion' is so general that I need more information for a practical application of it. I don't get an answer except that in many cases I get blamed later for “not doing anything”.
    3. Suggestions that involve nebulous concepts that are moving targets that always move conveniently away from me. (This is sort of a subset of category 2.) The whole 'social skills' thing falls into this category. 'Social skills' has a definition that is objective and goes beyond sex and relationships with women. Yet, the way it is defined in this context it only has to do with women. Novaseeker several comments down said in effect that social skills don't really apply in jobs and any other place outside of dealing with women. This means that 'social skills' are really defined as 'being liked by women'. IOW, it's all based on female whims.
    4. Suggestions that involve 'improvement'. I suppose this should be a nebulous concept too, but it deserves it own category. It's never clear what I should be 'improving'. It does provide a platform to attack me and other male virgins since I can't do anything with such a nebulous concept.
    5. Suggestions that end up with effectively by saying 'grow taller' or 'get a bigger penis'. Susan Walsh suggested Omegaman's blog. I'm sure Susan meant well, but one of the ways that Omegaman was able to solve his problem was because he was well endowed. I am not well endowed. Some advanced age male virgins can trade on things like being tall or well endowed. Since I'm neither tall nor well endowed I can't trade on that. Of course, I will be accused of “not doing anything” again which I take to mean since I am not willing to undergo dangerous penis enlargement surgery or dangerous height increase surgery that medical professionals strongly recommend against.
    6. Suggestions that I am 'negative'. This might have a point except that I wasn't always negative. I don't know why it's so hard to understand the concept that I wasn't born with my current attitude on this subject. What anyone who talks about my negativity/attitude is really saying is, 'the beatings will continue until your morale improves'.

    getting a girlfriend did not immediately solve all my problems

    Who has ever made the claim that having a girlfriend will solve all their problems? I haven't, and I have have never seen an advanced age male virgin make this claim. There are several canards (in this case polite way of saying outright lies) used against advanced age male virgins:

    1. We believe that having a girlfriend will 'solve all of our problems'. I don't and I would bet a trillion dollars that there is no post college age male virgin who thinks so.
    2. We believe that we are 'entitled to a girlfriend'. I don't and have never said this. Neither has any other post college age male virgin. I know this for a fact since this is feminist shaming language used against men.
    3. We aren't 'doing anything'. Despite saying over and over again that we have done a lot of things and they haven't worked, this keeps coming up. Yes, I have tried lots of things already that people here have suggested. That's because I'M NOT HIDING IN A CLOSET ALL DAY. I know anti-male virgin propaganda says that we're all hiding from the world, but that isn't true.

    I have been through all of this nonsense before, and so have many other post college age male virgins. We have had all of these canards used against us WORD FOR WORD. There is no way it can apply the same way to all of us. We aren't clones of each other so these all anti-male virgin canards.

  • AT

    The bottom line is this–we cannot dictate on what others find attractive. Just as we women, no matter how much we insist that men look at “inner beauty” won't find them changing their propensity to judge a female's attractiveness by what they SEE because it's hardwired, so men cannot insist that we women not reject some of them based on whatever standards we have for ourselves. Complaining about it won't change that, because then it's insisting that the men and women change THEIR standards to tailor fit it to how YOU are at present. That's just not how it works. Everyone has a right to choose, yes, but not everyone has a right to be chosen. To liken it to the struggle Mandela faced is just ludicrous. He was fighting for his life and for the freedom of an entire nation, not trying to get a date.

  • AT

    Love this!

    Well, he's not listening to the men, either, sigh.

  • steveo

    Look, I'm a men's right guy.

    No you aren't. You repeat feminist anti-male shaming language.

    Are you really going to tell me that you are entitled to a relationship with a female and access to sex similar to access to clean air?

    No, of course not. Stop repeating feminist anti-male shaming language.

    I don't care whether it is the Beta male or the welfare queen I really am just sick and tired of people who wallow in their victimhood blaming everyone else but the guy/girl in the mirror for the condition of their life whether financial, vocational, or relationship.

    This is triangulation.

    Be careful out there, and observe your surroundings. My guess is there are more Sodini's out there.

    Here is the proof that you're a feminist and hate advanced age male virgins. There is absolutely no reason to bring up George Soldini in a conversation about myself, Esau, or any other man here. You are promoting the idea that men who aren't getting laid will shoot up a bunch of women. You are a feminist hate monger.

  • steveo

    The “system” has been created by at least 10,000 years of evolutionary programming.

    No, it was created by feminist controlled government.

    Any woman who caught a whiff of this negativity in the air would run in the opposite direction at 60mph.

    Women were running in the opposite direction at 120mph when I wasn't negative, so what's the difference?

    However, he has rejected all suggestions out of hand.

    I have done no such thing.

    I apologize for talking about you in the third person

    I have no problem with you talking about me in the third person. I have a problem when you say things that aren't true about me like that I have dismissed all suggestions out of hand.

    The bottom line as I see it is Therapy + Practice interacting with women in general + Attention to grooming and personal appearance.

    I can't get practice interacting with women in general since if I was practicing being with women I wouldn't have this problem in the first place. As for grooming and personal appearance do you actually believe I never get haircuts and never take showers? As for therapy tell you what. I will go and report back.

  • steveo

    The first problem is that your anger and negativity is going to be very transparent to women

    So what? Women weren't interested in me during the many years of me not being negative and not being angry. My “anger and negativity” is a very recent development.

    The second point is that, no, you don't really have a right to be angry about being rejected.

    I get it. The beatings will continue until my morale improves.

    The problem is that a lot of men coast through their jobs with limited social skills, either because they have jobs that do not demand a lot of social skill, or they are satisfied floating along while other guys angle around them using their social skills.

    You can't have it both ways. Either social skills are independent of female whims in which case there is no “floating in a job” because there are very few hermit style jobs or 'social skills' are a canard used against men women don't find attractive. You have to pick one.

  • steveo

    Esau, I'm becoming more and more convinced that you and other men who think the same way are completely right.

  • steveo

    When people say females are intuitive, it means they pick up on subtle things that reveal anxiousness, lack of confidence, awkwardness, and if you are socially autistic in general.

    This sounds like can't get a girlfriend without experience, can't get experience without a girlfriend. It just like the can't get a job without experience, can't get experience without a job problem.

  • steveo

    Unjust in what way?

    You write for The Spearhead. You shouldn't need this explained to you.

    Harder in the sense that women are now independent

    Women aren't independent. They are propped up by the feminist controlled government.

    Comparing it to Nelson Mandela is a bit much

    Not really. We are living under a feminist controlled government which means that the government benefits women at the expense of men. We have the mancession because the government is forcing men out of work to benefit women. We have sexual harrasment law which is nothing but a way to force unattractive men out of their jobs that women don't want to look at. We have false rape charges and men setting in prison because women decided they didn't like them after the fact. We have fathers who are kept away from their kids because women just want these men's money. We have men paying for kids that they didn't father because women have no problem with paternity fraud.

    There are tens of thousands of Nelson Mandelas sitting in prison right now. There are millions of Nelson Mandelas outside of prison.

  • susanawalsh

    YES! OK, steveo, I consider this a breakthrough. I am a big fan of therapy, I've gone, all members of my family have gone. FWIW, might I suggest that you seek a male therapist who specializes in male sexuality. I don't know where you live, but google it and see what you come up with. I truly believe this could be extremely helpful in gaining some traction and moving forward.

  • Mani

    As a girl who is currently in college, this article and these comments really speak to me. Unlike a lot of my peers, I actually do NOT hook up (with sex, or anything past kissing), although quite a few times I have been in situations where I could have or was very close to. I always backed out though, because there would be a voice inside my head telling me I would regret it if I did. I have also never had a boyfriend and I hoped that when I came to college, maybe I would find one, but it's been 2 years and still nothing.

    Perhaps this is just from my experience, but for some reason I have actually discovered that many girls who have partied a lot in the past AND hooked up have had more luck when it comes to finding boyfriends in college. It just seems like they are the ones who get to meet that magical, compatible person, after continually putting themselves out there and putting themselves out there, weekend after weekend, party after party. They manage to create a network for themselves wide enough to allow them to find someone. It takes a lot to weed through the masses, but at least they found ONE good guy, simply from constant exposure. And yes, they are all in college. And yes, they have all been in long-term relationships with these guys (a year or more.)

    Since I have been going on old-fashion dates only to get disappointed time after time, it's tempting to want to throw my hands up and just say “so if they found boyfriends through sleeping around and constant partying, maybe I should too so I'll get lucky EVENTUALLY! After all, getting yourself out there increases your chances of meeting someone, right?” But since I definitely am a more reserved girl, I just feel like that's setting myself up for disaster and disappointment. It might be one way of finding your true love, but it doesn't mean it's the healthiest way.

    I really am beginning to believe that maybe I shouldn't keep holding out for a boyfriend in college if that is the case. You, Aunt Sue, have told me time and time again anyway that college really is a place where guys aren't looking for long term relationships. I don't want to succumb to hookup culture because I know myself and I know I wouldn't be happy submersing myself in it.

    One thing I wonder, though, is about beta males. I have talked to quite a few and befriended some too, but it seems like whenever I show interest they either get scared off or they don't take any sort of initiative. So what, I just end up feeling kind of like a fool. Now, I don't necessarily want to beat “I LIKE YOU, DON'T JUST STAND THERE, DO SOMETHING” over their heads over and over again because I'm not used to being the aggressor. But then again, them not showing interest is also discouraging too. I really don't know men too well, but I have always heard “if a guy likes you, he will find a way to have you.” but when nothing happens – I feel nothing, I get nothing, and I'm doing all the initiating, well…it makes me wonder, IS there something wrong with me? Alpha males don't go for me (for reasons I am unaware of, I am not “attractive” enough to them, I don't interest them enough, I don't give in to sex easily, or whatnot), beta males don't go for me (for whatever reasons…although the only reason I can think of is not being “attractive” enough)…so, that leaves me back to square one. With nobody.

    Maybe I should just hold out until after college :/

    I covered a lot and rambled way too much…but I had to get this off my chest. Thanks for the great article!!

  • synthesis

    You know what I was thinking the other day? I spend a large chunk of time every month with the girl who cuts my hair. I ended up moving, but there was one girl that I flirted with like crazy. She had a boyfriend, though. They all do, it seems.

  • steveo

    but your posts here reek negativity. If you had a dating profile that sounded anything like this, I'd skip over it even if you looked like George Clooney and spoke like Sean Connery.

    I wouldn't have a dating profile that sounded like this.

    Really, here is the problem. No one can answer the question of why does my negativity matter? I have only recently become angry and negative about this aspect of my life. Women didn't want me before I was angry and negative and they don't want me now. Whether I'm angry and negative or not, it doesn't matter.

    but I *can* guarantee 30 more years of celibacy if you're like this with women.

    That would be an improvement over the total lifetime of celibacy I would get by not being angry and negative.

    But don't listen to me, I'm just a woman.

    Don't complain that it's a well known fact that women are incapable of giving advice to men about women.

  • steveo

    Novaseeker, I got to ask you this after reading all of your comments here. What has happened to you? You are one of the founders of The Spearhead and it sounds like you are giving up the fight for justice for men. Has something happened to you? Have you considered talking to some of your fellow Spearheadians about what is happening to you? Guys like Welmer or Zed or Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech are heroes of truth and masculinity. I know this can seem like an insurmountable battle, but you can't give in.

  • Lisette

    Mani, I'm a few years older than you, but I can relate to a lot of what you've said here. I didn't chase frat boys when I was in college, but my nice, dorky guy friends didn't seem that interested in dating (or they seemed to pine after the same few girls, who were not me). Obviously, I haven't figured out the answer yet, and I've certainly encountered some jerks out there. So I don't have great advice for you, but I hope it makes you feel better to know you're not the only one to feel this way.

  • Il Capo

    Emma, I think your question is part of what Susan is trying to solve through this blog. I will make an attempt to answer your questions based on my and my friends' experiences:

    - Screen guys: if everything about a guy says he's not willing to commit, don't waste time with him. Don't go into a relationship thinking you can change a guy. Most girls think they can do so, when in reality they can only change superficial behavior but not beliefs. Hooking up with a guy and then delivering an ultimatum down the road might result in marriage, but even if it does it will probably be an unhappy one.

    - Be feminine, virtuous and positive: if you make guys feel good about themselves, they'll consider sticking around, if they are the commitment type. If every other interaction is a confrontation, a mood swing or a jealousy plot, they won't.

    - About eliciting responses from beta guys (advice for Mani, as well): These guys are not entirely confident about approaching girls, so they may need a nudge. That doesn't mean you need to ask them out, but a little flirting can go a long way. Don't expect immediate results. Give the guy 1 or 2 weeks to figure it out. If there's no reaction after that, move on.

    How to make a beta guy think about you in a romantic way: compliment him. Tell him a few things you love about him. Whether it's his ideas on some topic, his smarts or a specific expression he does at times, beta guys are extremely flattered when girls show that they have noticed something unique about them. Ask him for help with something he's good at. Show interest in his work or hobbies. Another option: make sure he knows the activities you like. It needn't be going to a specific club on a Saturday night or something high-pressure like that. If you like riding your bicycle on Saturday mornings or playing pool, mention it to him casually. If you find that he mentions how he likes riding a bicycle or playing pool and that you two could do so together, that's him expressing interest in a low risk way! Accept his hanging out proposals and give him some time to try and make a move. Also important: if he offers you a ride home even if you are out of his way, that's also him expressing interest.

    If all this fails and you are still attracted to the guy, the nuclear option is to tell someone that you think he's cute (don't say you LOVE him, just that he's cute). This needs to be implemented carefully, though. You don't want his entire entourage knowing about this, as he'll hate being on the spotlight and will have incentives to reject you even if he likes you. Try telling his buddy's GF, in passing, that you think he's cute and that's it. She'll make sure the message gets through and you can both save face if nothing comes out of it. Again, give it a week or two before moving on.

    Don't try to make a beta guy jealous. If the subject about whether you are on a relationship comes up, say you are alone. Beta guys don't handle competition very well and will definitely not want to be in a relationship if there's an alpha FWB looming in the background.

    In the end, the success of this strategy will primarily depend on how much “betatude” you can tolerate. If the above makes you think: who could date such a guy? then i don't have much advice other than good luck at snagging the ever-elusive commitment prone alpha while he's young. Another option is to date older guys. Most single beta guys make a lot of progress in terms of confidence during the first 10 years after college. Simple life experiences and career progress will make them much more confident. The caveat: they also learn about how stiff a deal marriage can be for them, so they may become more reluctant to commit.

  • Il Capo

    “if he looks and acts like a kid rather than a man, regardless of his age, he's not ready for something serious.”

    I understand your point, but I think it could be a little simplistic. I have plenty of friends who have their regular kid time who have gotten engaged or married recently. What I'm saying is: if he plays Playstation with his buddies a few times a week or plans Spring-break trips to Vegas with his buddies, that does not mean he's not the marrying type. It only means he may not be the marrying type.

    A much better test would be: does he have goals or plans? If he's working on his career (or a graduate degree) or saving to buy an apartment he may be inclined to put the possibility of commitment on hold until he achieves these goals. Guys are great at having goals, but are bad at having multiple big goals at the same time. In his mind, he could probably be thinking: all right, a couple more years of this (busting his @ss at work, getting his grad degree or saving money) and then I can move on to the next objective. The key is: how to know which will be his next objective? and the answer to that cannot be determined by whether he is somehow childish right now.

  • Il Capo

    steveo: that's where Game comes in. By running scripts, you act as if you have the experience. With time, you will get the experience.

    Sticking point: don't give up too soon. It will take time before you see results. Also, pracitce your first few weeks or months in a low risk setting. Go alone if you care about what your friends will think. Approach random girls outside your social circle that you will never see again. Don't try to run game on the cute girl at work until you have had significant experiences.

  • Mani

    Lisette, thanks for your response! You really did make me feel better. I primarily feel the peer pressure to enter a relationship because I have never had a boyfriend. All – I repeat all – of my girlfriends have had at least ONE in their life so far, so I in turn just feel way behind…AND like something's wrong with me. What's worse is I have been told over and over again “You should have no problem getting one!” But the cold truth is I DO have problems getting one, so perhaps I have just been unlucky or I need to look deep inside of myself to see if there is a problem (am I being to negative? too clingy after a first date? too desperate?)

    I sure do know how frustrating it can be when the Alphas don't go for you (I honestly don't think I would be able to stand an Alpha for long anyway, I fell for one a long time ago and he treated me so poorly I learned my lesson right then and there.) AND the betas seem very passive as well. Il Cabo seemed to give some really good advice about pursuing betas, though. I think I am going to try that because I have a few beta guys I would be possibly interested in, I just have to test the waters and experiment a little (if it works out in my favor, great, if not then oh well, at least I can TRY to gain a friend or just learn from the experience.) Maybe we can try these tips out and report back?

    I wish you all the luck in the future with finding someone :)

  • Mani

    Thanks for the advice, Il Capo! It all was quite useful. After trying to rabidly hunt down and capture Alpha boys for the past few years of my life (and I have failed many a time…too many) I think it's probably better to explore the other side and see what beta guys can have to offer. I just know in college girls primarily tend to be attracted to Alphas, and with them swarming everywhere betas often unfortunately get overlooked. I do have a few betas in mind I plan to use these tips on, though :)

    Il Cabo, you did mention that beta boys who are 10 years out of college have gained more confidence (which is great!) but do you believe beta boys who are IN college now are just more shy and passive in general? I have been actually playing around with pursuing a beta boy and I am unsure of whether or not it's working. We've known each other for about 5 weeks now and I try to act as friendly as possible when I am around him. I make myself comfortable (really, no pressure), laugh and smile a lot, and always initiate studying with him (we have a class together.) Plus sometimes I send him silly and flirty text messages (he responds to them too by flirting back sometimes, but he never initiates texting me) Plus what's REALLY odd is he never seems to sit next to me in class, even if he sees me. I don't know whether this translates to him just being polite (to text me back and study with me, but nothing more) or being downright scared of me no matter how much I try to flirt. Whenever we study we have great chemistry and talk a lot, but like I said, it seems like he never likes to initiate…anything. He's very quiet naturally, too. Now, this is the part where I guess it's best to gauge how patient you can be with someone before you just give up. I have complimented and teased him before in person as a way of flirting (plus touching his arm when I talk), but it's almost like he just ignores these gestures…awkwardly. Plus, I am getting tired of initiating everything and the whole not sitting near me is making me wonder. Like you said, if they don't do anything in one to two weeks, it's probably best to move on. Yet I still feel like I want to hold onto this one, as he IS warming up to me but very slowly. I guess I'm just getting weary because I am usually an old fashioned girl who likes to be pursued, so doing the pursuing is strange to me. Do you think it's worth exploring the potential?

    if anything, he can just be put down as a friend if he's not interested, but there's no real way to tell with him it seems…

  • Mani

    But even if I DO just decide to keep him as a friend, I still think his behaviors are kind of odd. He never directly tries to avoid me, but he definitely still seems like he's not reassured that I am at least trying to be friends. And friendship is a two-way street. If i have to always ask someone to hang out or study with me, or text them all the time, my patience will run thin eventually EVEN if they always do respond to me. Yet if things aren't reciprocated after a while, I just stop talking to people completely because I don't want to feel like I'm being reduced to being a pest or a nag. And if they don't come after me, it's usually a sign they were never that into it in the first place.

    Just a thought :/

  • Il Capo

    Mani, I feel like you are pursuing the guy I was ~ 10 years ago! On behalf of my prior self: apologies for being oblivious to your flirting.

    Personal anecdotes: I once had an attractive girl in high school write me a personal letter and I only realized it meant she was into me a few years later… I also once had a girl I liked dare me to kiss her (in a half-joking manner) and I didn't…

    “Il Cabo, you did mention that beta boys who are 10 years out of college have gained more confidence (which is great!) but do you believe beta boys who are IN college now are just more shy and passive in general?”

    Usually, yes. Beta guys are late bloomers. They haven't had positive experiences with women, so they aren't confident at all. With time, they will become naturally confident as they mature (albeit slowly), or they will make a significant leap (via game or some other mechanism) at some point.

    But for now, consider this: these guys may have had a girlfriend or two, but in general, most their experiences have been negative. I.e.: the few times they mustered the courage to ask a girl out, they were told “I see you as a friend only” or, depending on how far away from their league they went, they may have been laughed at.

    If you are more attractive than what they think they are, they won't consider the possibility of you being interested in them, even if it's quite obvious. This is what experience solves quite easily: after a while even the least confident guy will learn to recognize obvious attraction signals. Another thing: guys his age will usually wrongly evaluate the risk of losing your friendship as worse than trying to get with you. With experience, they will learn to differentiate friendships (99% of the time with guys only) from the courting you guys have going on. Furthermore, some beta guys are extremely idealistic at young ages: they think that a relationship with anyone outside the absolute hottie they are infatuated with is not worth the risk of rejection. Again, experience solves this as guys become more realistic on their expectations and learn to discount rejection as something that will happen regularly.

    “laugh and smile a lot, and always initiate studying with him (we have a class together.) Plus sometimes I send him silly and flirty text messages (he responds to them too by flirting back sometimes, but he never initiates texting me)”

    Good stuff. Have you isolated him in a non-school environment? What I mean is, have you both been together outside of study sessions, like at a house party or a social outing with other friends?

    “Plus what's REALLY odd is he never seems to sit next to me in class, even if he sees me. I don't know whether this translates to him just being polite (to text me back and study with me, but nothing more) or being downright scared of me no matter how much I try to flirt.”

    There's no right answer. Could be either. It is possible, though, that he's concerned about sitting with you for any of the following reasons:

    a) Others may notice and he's shy about being exposed. He wants to keep the “we are just friends” front so he won't be ridiculed.
    b) He's serious about his classes and wants to concentrate.
    c) He feels he can interact comfortably with you when you study as you are alone, but not in a broader setting with other people around.

    “I have complimented and teased him before in person as a way of flirting (plus touching his arm when I talk), but it's almost like he just ignores these gestures…awkwardly”

    In private or in public? Remember he may be reluctant to be seen flirting, because he may fear his feelings being known by others. That's another thing that age solves:after a while, you don't give a f!ck about what others think of you.

    Diagnosis: While it is possible that he's into you, I can't be sure.
    Prescription a): if you want to be sure, try the nuclear option I proposed before and see how he reacts.
    Prescription b): cool off things a bit. See if he re-initiates. Don't make him feel unwelcome, just find some good excuse for why you are busy or why your schedules don't match. If he re initiates, then that's good. If he doesn't, your next move is to call him on it after a week or so, for eg:
    - “dude, where have you been, we never hang out together any more”
    - “well, you said you couldn't study with me so…”
    - “that doesn't mean we can't hang out, though.”
    See how he reacts.

    Prescription c) Find a guy who knows women and make him talk to him (without him knowing you are behind it). Eg: your friend's BF, an older brother, one of his friends who is more experienced. All it takes if for one of these guys to tell him: “dude, Mani likes you, in case you didn't notice”. If he likes you, that will both provide a face – saving mechanism in case of rejection (“Johnny told me she was into me”) and someone to guide him into how to make the move.

    Good luck!

  • susanawalsh

    Mani, my heart breaks a little reading this, and I really appreciate your sharing it publicly, that's a brave thing to do. In particular, it's a great example of how a kind and earnest woman can be on the sidelines in college. It's not just beta males who are frustrated. By the way, I'll just state here for the record and anyone reading that Mani is a very attractive young woman. Her photos show a woman who one would expect to receive considerable attention from men!

    The way you feel, which bottom line is that you are lacking in some way, is something I hear every single day. There is an epidemic of women feeling this way. It's important that this is understood by men, and that Jayne Dallas of UNC does not speak for all women when she says she wouldn't even consider half the men on campus.

    OK, let me respond to the piece about promiscuous party girls having boyfriends. This does happen, but I think you have to look carefully at the nature of those relationships. I have observed some of them rather closely, and what I have seen is what I described to Nova above – a relationship in name only, for the most part. Yes, the guy has agreed to date someone exclusively – that gives him a built-in date for functions, and a steady supply of sex. However, cheating is extremely common in these relationships, and the girls are often pretty dissatisfied. The bf is not attentive, intimate or emotionally engaged. So yes, that girl gets to say she has a bf, but is that what you want? You've said yourself, you know you couldn't stand one of those alphas for long, so you clearly understand that what I'm saying is true. This comes under the heading of “Be careful what you wish for.”

    Women tend to fall into what I call the holy grail trap. They worry a lot if they haven't had a boyfriend. They worry if they haven't lost their virginity. It's easy to feel like a “have not” in the modern mating scene. However, as a regular reader I'm sure you've seen how the guys talk about what they want in a woman. The women who maintain self-respect and don't sell themselves cheaply in college will have much higher mating value post-college. It's hard to feel like you're in the desert right now, but you are not wasting your youth and beauty on assbags, and that takes strength of character. You must keep reminding yourself of that.

    For the record, incidentally, alphas will have sex with just about anyone, being selected by one is not a compliment, and being ignored by them is not an insult. However, if you've only gone as far as kissing, you can be sure the word is out that you're not an easy target, and therefore not worth the effort for a guy who only wants to hook up.

    As for the beta conundrum, I think the guys are perhaps able to speak to that better – I'm still learning how to reach those guys myself, in large part from listening to what men have to say. However, I will say that the typical advice about guys finding a way to get you, or being willing to go out on a limb if they're interested, does not apply to many beta guys. It presupposes a certain level of aggression and dominance, and there will be many guys, especially in this sexual climate, who will avoid the risk of rejection. I'd be careful about the self-help books – most of them are targeted to women who are in traditional dating scenes and are 25+.

  • susanawalsh

    I agree, a guy liking his toys or his friends is not a bad thing. It's really about the way he goes about fitting a woman into his life. And as you say, it depends on whether he has goals or not. Women are programmed to look for determination and ambition, two excellent predictors of a man's being willing to stick around and help raise offspring. It's not difficult to discern where a guy's head is at on this issue. In fact, I would think that after hanging out with a guy once, or going on a couple of dates, a woman would have a pretty clear sense of whether a man has given some thought to where he is headed.

    A woman also needs to have a sense of whether she is just fun for now, or whether a man is thinking longer-term about her specifically. That takes a while for both parties to know, based on the progression of the relationship. However, the Lori Gottliebs of the world clearly spent way too much time with men who just wanted to have fun for now. There's a point at which a woman needs to walk away if the goals are lacking, both with respect to his future in general, and his future with her.

  • susanawalsh

    THIS IS FANTASTIC! So much good and helpful information here for the woman willing to stick with it. All I can say is that it's like any other investment of time and resources. You get out of it what you put in. Patience is required, this is a long-term strategy, and there will be failures along the way. However, the odds of having something real and meaningful are 1000 times better pursuing this strategy than lurking on the edge of a crowded frat house living room in a puddle of beer, with music thundering so loudly the walls are shaking.

  • Dilithium

    Mani — I think Il Capo has a lot of good stuff for you here, which also overlaps with my long comment a while back that Susan promoted to a guest post (thanks! Susan, I was touched by the promotion). If I could just re-summarize the most useful point here for you quickly:

    If you want to understand an inexperienced/nice/beta-ish guy's behavior, then the key is to appreciate/imagine how the risk-reward looks from his point of view, including his past experience. Do you look like a good bet to him? What does he think is likely to happen if he approaches you, and what have you done/can you do to give, or change, that impression?

    You may be all smiles and approachability at first, but he's probably also thinking in the longer term. Sure, you're up for a first date; but once his lack of experience starts to show — he's not a practiced talker, he doesn't know the “right” places to go, he doesn't get pop culture references, etc — will you head for the hills? or even laugh at him, like the last “out of his league” pretty girl he had a first date with did? If that was a terrible experience for an inexperienced guy, then he may have just given up on dating pretty girls just to avoid that possibility again.

    This is the key, which is really just general human nature when you get down to it: what kind of experience does he think he's likely to have with you? If, based on his past experience, he thinks you're going to laugh at him — sooner or later — then don't be surprised if he plays it utterly safe and never takes a risk, even at his own expense. This is unfair to you, since you aren't like those mean girls who hurt him (are you?); but the fact is that you may have to do extra work to _demonstrate_ that you're not like them, if you want to get the goods. This may be more work than you want to do; but the up side is that there _is_ something you can take action on to get a better outcome for yourself.

  • susanawalsh

    Yay, Dilithium I am so happy to see you! I know Mani (and all the other women reading this) appreciate the advice, but I'm not sure they realize how extremely valuable and hard to come by this kind of information is. It's tantamount to getting a peek inside the young male brain, and that's a rare thing. There really is also remarkable consensus among the men here about how to approach, which is compelling in and of itself. This stuff is extremely valuable, IMO. Maybe I should put together an ebook and we can all share the revenues. ;-)

  • Obsidian

    I know I'm a bit late to the party here, but I just wanted to try and address Steveo's points.

    The simple truth of it is, that in the deregulated sexual marketplace, there will be winners and losers. The media and culture WILL focus on the Female losers MORE, for a very simple reason: they are more valuable than are Males, especially the ones like Steveo. This is because he is signalling, that as a result of his failure to secure sexual favors from Women, he is a low-status Male, and historically speaking they were always the least regarded in any society.

    I firmly believe that Game isn't a cure-all for all Men, and anyone who says so isn't being honest. The simple truth of the matter is, that when one has Choice they will rarely opt for second or third rate. And so there will be losers of the sexual sweepstakes. Steveo is one of them.

    The question for Steveo is, given that there is no “cure” for his “condition”, how will he handle it? I agree with him that all Men in his predicament won't go on to be George Sodinis, but we have to admit that IS an option. But there are others. Has Steveo considered any of these?

    As the “New Paleolithic” continues to unfold, I do believe that we need to have an open and honest, to say nothing of caring and sensitive dialogue about the “what next?” chapters of guys like Steveo's lives. We need to have an open and honest discussion about what the role and place of such Men will be in our society, because let's just face it, all of us can't win in this game, pardon the pun.

    Just my two cents.

  • novaseeker

    So what? Women weren't interested in me during the many years of me not being negative and not being angry. My “anger and negativity” is a very recent development.

    Maybe so, but they add to the problem and currently, even if you tried to run good Game, you'd likely fail due to that vibe. It's like the guy who is depressed about various things in his life and develops a drinking problem as a result of it. Sure he had problems before he was drinking, but the drinking adds to his problems all the same and makes fixing the underlying problems that much harder.

    You can't have it both ways. Either social skills are independent of female whims in which case there is no “floating in a job” because there are very few hermit style jobs or 'social skills' are a canard used against men women don't find attractive. You have to pick one.

    It's not having it both ways, it's just that the skills have a broader use. Women like men who are socially dominant, relatively speaking. That kind of persona isn't limited to interacting with women. That's the point. It's a way of interacting with people that can be learned and then applied in a variety of contexts — not just women.

  • novaseeker

    Steve –

    I do think there are injustices men are subjected to, without question. The educational system tilts towards girls, the legal system tilts towards women in family law and domestic violence law and criminal law and so on. Those are things to be concerned about and to even be angry about. There are injustices being done on a daily basis towards males in all of these areas.

    But that isn't quite the same as the field of relating to women on an individual basis. One can be angry at the various injustices but still capable of relating to individual women if you choose to do so. Remember what I wrote above — men have two options: adapt if they want a relationship with a woman or opt-out. Either one is a respectable decision in my view, but being bitter and angry about either decision will only bring you down personally in all areas of your life — whether relating to women or not.

    If you look around the United States there are, what, ~160 million women? Not all of them are feminists and not all of them are sluts and so on. There are decent women out there for men who are willing and able to play the mating game under the current rules — that's the point of these posts. Of course whether you wish to *marry* must depend on a hard-headed understanding of family law and an understanding of the risks — a cold eyed risk assessment based on the individual you are thinking of marrying, in other words.

    The key question for someone like you is this — when do you get past the anger and move on with your life, regardless of whether that involves relationships with women or not? Even if your anger is justified (and to some degree it is .. the dating/mating system currently systematically disadvantages most younger men in a rather infuriating way), after you have let it burn for a while, you need to let it go. Because otherwise it just poisons everything you do, and the feminists win.

  • ExNewYorker

    I agree with you here, for the most part. There are generally no incentives for that these days.

    However, I say for the “most” part because in my engineer cohort, there was a minor, but not insignificant, group that did meet their eventual spouse in college. Now, they didn't immediately get married, but they had to deal with the exact issues you describe (relocation/graduate school/long distance,etc), and they made the compromises that suited them and ones that worked. This was the first group of marriages (ages 24-26) that I remember attending the weddings for. Heck, one of those weddings was the first time I spent more than a couple of minutes with my future wife (I'd met her briefly a couple of years before, while I was in grad school and she was an undergrad, so technically, I fall in that category too).

    So, for some small percentage of your readers, it may be the path to take…

  • susanawalsh

    That's heartening. I would not ever urge someone to forego a relationship experience b/c it might prove difficult or inconvenient. Young people do, though. Even the women, who are generally more willing to jump in with both feet, start worrying about starting anything when the zip codes don't match. Or at around this time of year, when spring break is here, and anything they start will be interrupted in May.

    I think it takes certain kinds of people to do long-distance, and I admire those who make it work. I wish more people were willing to try it. I kinda think it could work well for students, as long as occasional visits could be planned.

  • ExNewYorker

    The group I was familiar with in college had a lot of future-time oriented guys. Of course, there were some cads and omegas, too, but the clever future-time oriented women picked off some of the “better” betas, so to speak…

    Of course, this won't apply to everyone, probably a small percentage of people. It's juat that for a future-time oriented woman, that's the best time to do so. You have a captive audience, you have access to learning about them easily (harder to hide cad-dom), and the age groups are closer to your own (a decade later, it'll skew toward older guys), which tend to make the relationships more egalitarian. I guess I just find it fascinating that a lot of women don't take advantage of that more, but it does require that the women prefer betas at that point in their life. Which explains the rarity of it right there, I suppose.

    As for the long distance thing, it's easier to do these days. Phone plans have unlimited long distance plans, there's the internet and facebook. But it does require a certain type of person, since it is difficult, which I know from my own experience.

  • WiseOne

    I want to ask the girls a question about marriage. Susan is pretty good about making clear her assumption that girls want to get married quick, and that they should do so because good guys are rare. But doesn't a girl lose too much when she gets married in her twenties? For one thing, I doubt that any girl really knows who she is in her twenties if she is honest. If she does know who she is, then she is probably missing out on crucial invention and experimentation of identity. All of this leads me to believe that marrying the wrong guy is far too likely in her twenties. Maybe this helps to explain high divorce rates. And don't you really want some liberty and variety for a while? I am probably thinking too much like a male or an idealist, but something about the idea of getting married before thirty just strikes me as kind of sad, even though as a recent college grad I have seen lots of young 20-something couples get married lately.

  • susanawalsh

    WiseOne, I'm interested to hear what the girls have to say, but I do want to clarify my assumption, since you mentioned it. I married at 28, which is a bit later than today's average, and I found that an excellent time. I followed up with children at 30 and 33. I probably would have had a third if I wasn't starting to feel a bit worn down by childcare in my mid-30s. That's the issue – if you wait too long, you're performing a task that you were biologically designed to do at 15. And fertility becomes a real problem too. So I stress that women shouldn't waste their 20s with cads, because once they are in their 30s, it's tick tock, tick tock.

    However, I do encourage women and men to have a lot of varied experiences before they marry including relationships, studies and jobs. The divorce rate is much lower for those who marry after 25 than those who marry before. Everything you say does make sense, it's just that women don't have the luxury of waiting indefinitely if they want to have children. Men do.

  • Mani

    Il Capo, thank you for all of the lovely advice. Apology accepted! :) haha, I can kind of understand how beta guys must feel when it comes to putting themselves out there – it can be a scary place to be with rejection looming everywhere. So, that is why I am trying to be a bit more patient with this boy, although if I still don't see results in a few more weeks I'm just going to let it go.

    I actually have talked to him quite a few times at parties because we are in an organization together. He is definitely still a shy, reserved guy, even when he's drinking. Actually, I do remember now when I first met him (I think this was a few months ago, I kind of knew of him before but never really noticed him until now), he introduced himself to me. I had been asking him questions about something, and then he asked me what my name was. So, it was a good start! We took things from there. Just now I feel a bit stuck in a rut, but your analysis helped clarify some things. And I will try out these suggestions…though the nuclear one is a little scary! (everyone dislikes rejection :P)

    And the class thing really is a mystery, I know he's not serious about concentrating because he skips a lot :)

    I guess I will have to just see what happens in the future and I will try to keep you guys posted as to what happens :)

    I kept rereading this post, it was chock full of good insight. Thank you for taking the time out to write that! It was greatly appreciated.

  • PJay

    I think you totally miss the legal dimension here. Men of any age have no reproductive rights, and we have seen time and again in the press how a woman who makes false accusations of rape is not at all penalized, and in many cases, receives favorable attention from society while the legal community turns a blind eye to her perjury.

    Family law and domestic violence statutes also turn a blind eye towards female false accusers and ignore male victims of perjury and domestic violence.

    Throw in a constant cultural drumbeat that male = bad, and the possibility of interesting sex with lots of willing participants, and you have the situation you see today.

    When a fish doesn't need a bicycle, it's liberating.

    When the bicycle doesn't need a fish, er, it's a social crisis.

    Maybe men are just tired of being financial and legal slaves of women.

  • Mani

    Thanks for the insight, D! I do think it's important to look at myself and see how I'm coming off. And no, I am not a mean girl! haha. I know what it's like to be on the beta side in some ways because I have been rejected by guys before too. So I try not to do that with any of the guys I go on dates with.

    I guess I should ask, to avoid coming off like that, what would you advise me to do? Other than just obviously not laughing at him or being mean like that. Now I am trying to do all I can to just lightly flirt, but I just don't know if he's getting the hint…

  • Mani

    Aunt Sue, thanks for your wonderful advice and shout out. I am truly flattered :)

    And I don't mind sharing my experiences, as long as they can help me and others grow. I think it's better to explain how I feel than keeping it to myself anyway, because I know most people here are either going through what I'm going through or can offer me some good insight.

    This was very inspirational – I WILL keep reminding myself of that. Although it's tempting to be influenced by the hook-up world around me, I feel like it's probably better to just save myself for someone who really will appreciate me in the long run rather than just losing it to “get it over with.” I always see gorgeous guys and girls walking around together, appearing to be so in love with each other or such great friends with each other, and it just frankly is discouraging sometimes when I'm feeling especially low that day…but truthfully there's no way for me to know what goes on behind closed doors and I can't keep comparing myself to other people. It's not healthy!

    I was kind of thinking that about beta guys too, but it was comforting to hear that too.

    Thank you again, that really helped!

  • Bill Gates

    Apropos…

    From the Best of Craigslist:

    I see this question posted with some regularity in the personals section, so I thought I'd take a minute to explain things to the ladies out there that haven't figured it out.

    What happened to all the nice guys?

    The answer is simple: you did.

    See, if you think back, really hard, you might vaguely remember a Platonic guy pal who always seemed to want to spend time with you. He'd tag along with you when you went shopping, stop by your place for a movie when you were lonely but didn't feel like going out, or even sit there and hold you while you sobbed and told him about how horribly the (other) guy that you were fucking treated you.

    At the time, you probably joked with your girlfriends about how he was a little puppy dog, always following you around, trying to do things to get you to pay attention to him. They probably teased you because they thought he had a crush on you. Given that his behavior was, admittedly, a little pathetic, you vehemently denied having any romantic feelings for him, and buttressed your position by claiming that you were “just friends.” Besides, he totally wasn't your type. I mean, he was a little too short, or too bald, or too fat, or too poor, or didn't know how to dress himself, or basically be or do any of the things that your tall, good-looking, fit, rich, stylish boyfriend at the time pulled off with such ease.

    Eventually, your Platonic buddy drifted away, as your relationship with the boyfriend got more serious and spending time with this other guy was, admittedly, a little weird, if you werent dating him. More time passed, and the boyfriend eventually cheated on you, or became boring, or you realized that the things that attracted you to him weren't the kinds of things that make for a good, long-term relationship. So, now, you're single again, and after having tried the bar scene for several months having only encountered players and douche bags, you wonder, “What happened to all the nice guys?”

    Well, once again, you did.

    You ignored the nice guy. You used him for emotional intimacy without reciprocating, in kind, with physical intimacy. You laughed at his consideration and resented his devotion. You valued the aloof boyfriend more than the attentive “just-a-” friend. Eventually, he took the hint and moved on with his life. He probably came to realize, one day, that women aren't really attracted to guys who hold doors open; or make dinners just because; or buy you a Christmas gift that you mentioned, in passing, that you really wanted five months ago; or listen when you're upset; or hold you when you cry. He came to realize that, if he wanted a woman like you, he'd have to act more like the boyfriend that you had. He probably cleaned up his look, started making some money, and generally acted like more of an asshole than he ever wanted to be.

    Fact is, now, he's probably getting laid, and in a way, your ultimate rejection of him is to thank for that. And I'm sorry that it took the complete absence of “nice guys” in your life for you to realize that you missed them and wanted them. Most women will only have a handful of nice guys stumble into their lives, if that.

    So, if you're looking for a nice guy, here's what you do:

    1.) Build a time machine.
    2.) Go back a few years and pull your head out of your ass.
    3.) Take a look at what's right in front of you and grab ahold of it.

    I suppose the other possibility is that you STILL don't really want a nice guy, but you feel the social pressure to at least appear to have matured beyond your infantile taste in men. In which case, you might be in luck, because the nice guy you claim to want has, in reality, shed his nice guy mantle and is out there looking to unleash his cynicism and resentment onto someone just like you.

    If you were five years younger.

    So, please: either stop misrepresenting what you want, or own up to the fact that you've fucked yourself over. You're getting older, after all. It's time to excise the bullshit and deal with reality. You didn't want a nice guy then, and he certainly doesn't fucking want you, now.

    Sincerely,

    A Recovering Nice Guy

  • susanawalsh

    Welcome, PJay, thanks for commenting. I understand your point of view, and I am on record as being sympathetic to it. I know for a fact that readers here have learned right along with me about some of the challenges men face in the legal system.

    I'm not sure what you mean about the cultural view that man = bad, but I feel strongly that the education system in this country penalizes boys in a very unfair way by holding them to behavioral and learning standards that are typical for girls. Boys furthest from the female mold are often disciplined harshly and diagnosed with disorders when, in fact, they are healthy boys who could probably use more flexibility and more recess.

    However.

    A fish not needing a bicycle? Come on, that's 1968. I was only a kid then. You can despise feminists if you like, but the women who are 20 today are the granddaughters of those women. They didn't wreak this havoc. They don't have any idea what dating was like in the 50s.

    The Sexual Revolution ushered in many changes, some of them unintended. We now reap what those revolutionaries sowed, and all we can do is manage the fallout, both men and women.

  • Mike

    I know I'm a bit late to the party here,

    Good to have you join…not trying to blow smoke up your ass but you are one of the most profound thinkers in this area.

    The simple truth of it is, that in the deregulated sexual marketplace, there will be winners and losers. The media and culture WILL focus on the Female losers MORE, for a very simple reason: they are more valuable than are Males, especially the ones like Steveo. This is because he is signalling, that as a result of his failure to secure sexual favors from Women, he is a low-status Male, and historically speaking they were always the least regarded in any society.

    I know you know this but in some way we are just reverting back to what dominated for most of human history. One woman for *EVERY* man is a fairly recent development over the entirety of human existance. I recall reading something like only 10 to 20% of men who have walked this planet actually reproduced and I think it was Genghis Khan who has like millions of descendants carrying his Y chromosome, so there will be losers. It really is a competition, and you can either play to the best of your ability or opt-out and get on with life as Novaseeker points out, but it is a complete waste of time to stew in a pot of bitterness and resentment.

    I firmly believe that Game isn't a cure-all for all Men, and anyone who says so isn't being honest.

    Depends on what you mean by cure-all. One has to be realistic. I've spent countless hours studying the stock market, chart patterns, read hundreds of books, and I'm a pretty good investor but I probably won't replicate the results of Buffett, Soros, or Steve Cohen (Susan you or your husband probably know who he is).

    Game isn't going to take a physically unattractive total beta who is an old virgin and have him getting sex from 8-10s inside 6 months unless he is starting with the raw ability of say a Neil Strauss and willing to totally dedicate his life to the endeavor. But I think learning Game can at the very least take just about any 30-year old virgin and get him a 4-5 girlfriend inside a year.

    In steveo's case, I really don't think he wants to change. His virginity has become like a very uncomfortable shoes he has worn for so long that he just doesn't want to get new shoes even though he doesn't like the ones. Every single comment of his is some sort of attempt at logical/analytical refutation of the advice many including myself have tried to give. The very first comment I read of his on another thread impacted me having been a 22-year old virgin myself (and actually never had even romantically kissed a girl) and I tried to give him some helpful advice. Now in this thread, he has accused me of being a feminist hate-monger. I got a kick out that given I've been accused of being a misogynist by wacko extremist feminists. The wackos on both extremes are just two sides of the same coin.

    As the “New Paleolithic” continues to unfold, I do believe that we need to have an open and honest, to say nothing of caring and sensitive dialogue about the “what next?” chapters of guys like Steveo's lives. We need to have an open and honest discussion about what the role and place of such Men will be in our society, because let's just face it, all of us can't win in this game, pardon the pun.

    Well…time will tell but I think things will improve. Bottom line, it is still roughly 50/50 men/women and I'd say roughly the same percentages of male and female 5s, 8s, 9s. Guy game has been around now about 15 years dating back to the late 90s and the Internet. I think Girl game is in its infancy here with blogs like this, and I think Girl game is less about how to teach the 5-7 how to get a 8-9 alpha which won't happen, but more about educating women realistically about the marketplace and the dangers of following their instinct towards hypergamy. I think in the next 5-10 years you will see more young women in that 5-7 tier not allowing themselves to be part of harems and pumped and dumped by a train of alphas, but realizing they should give the steveos (minus the bitterness and anger) of the world a chance to form a happy LTR. I am optimistic and think it will happen. Not sure how representative some of the commenters like Mani are, but I think it shows what direction maybe things are headed in.

  • susanawalsh

    First of all Bill Gates, you are PJay, so why the name change? I hate that!

    Second, I endorse this comment 100%, and my readers won't be surprised to hear it. We are totally on the same page.

    Third, I'm with you here, as I said, but be careful about the cynicism and resentment. In the end, it will make you more miserable than you can hope to make anyone else. That nice guy is still in there somewhere and he still wants to love and be loved. Don't throw that away, just use Game to manage your relationship so that you can have what you want with the woman of your choice.

  • susanawalsh

    Mani is unusually open for a young woman reader. As I'm sure you've noticed, many of the regular commenters are 30+. There are some women in their 20s who weigh in, which is great. I get quite a few emails from college women and men every day, who would rather communicate offline than in an open forum, which is understandable given the nature of the topic. I personally know at least 50 college aged women in my own circle who read HUS religiously, and only one of them has ever left a comment.

    What I mean to say is that Mani is unusual in her willingness to share, but I believe she is quite representative of how many young women are feeling. Though it's hard to know – commenters really represent a tiny fraction of my traffic. It's one of the rather odd things about blogging, actually, feeling like I know my readers, but it's really just a tiny subset.

  • AT

    Like Susan, I got married at 28, after dating my husband for almost three years, having 2 boys at 30 and 33 as well. (Gee, the parallelism, Susan!) I never thought I missed out on experimentation, given that I had a lot of fun in college being the vocalist in a rock band, doing fashion design after college, and then finally deciding to get a law degree. Before I met my husband I had a series of long term relationships–older men, younger men, wealthy men, starving artists–and being in those relationships taught me what I would and would not stand for. I think I pretty much had the right balance of experimentation and liberty in my single years, and I think late twenties is a good time to get married for women, in that we've explored enough about ourselves and yet we're still young enough biologically to have children. Moreover, women mature earlier than men emotionally, so most of us are ready for marriage after 25.

    But then it's a case to case basis, and you can't make a sweeping generalization. Some people mature earlier due to their life experiences, and some people never do, even at 40. I've met young twentysomethings who seem like old souls, and fortysomethings with the maturity of a twelve year old.

  • http://www.collegehookupculture.com/ hookupdoc

    Okay everyone, time to change it up a little. There are enough well informed comments on this post for Susan to write a dissertation! I don't want to talk about Alphas vs Betas. Enough is enough. I want to talk about how the very shaky foundation of the college hook up culture not only relies on alcohol as its drug of choice, but completely mitigates the idea of drunk “hooks ups” as a form of sexual pleasure and liberation. It also “screws up” any type of real communication, unless you can interpret buzzed ramblings and slurred words.

    But, before I go into my rant, let me introduce myself.

    I am a documentary filmmaker with a film called Spitting Game: The College Hook Up Culture. It covers the risks, reasons, and realities students face within the hook up culture. I spent three years talking to diverse groups of college students, school psychologists, health clinic workers, and experts in the field. My job as a documentarian was to report, as accurately and unbiased as I could, what I heard, saw, and came to understand through in-depth research and interviews.

    From the information I have gathered, hooking up i.e. no-strings attached drunken sex, “drunken” being the operative word here, is not really working out for a vast majority of women. (Guys, I need to get more interviews from you telling the truth about your thoughts/feelings on hook ups. For now my documentary is weighted towards issues that concern mostly women, but I want to give you a voice in my next documentary!)

    I agree with what author & Feminist, Naomi Wolf, writes about the hook up culture following a man-centric “straight to intercourse model” that skips the “getting to know you and know your body” (my words) part. Here is what she had to say about being a feminist and the hook up culture as sexually liberating.

    “It all depends on context. I’m not going to say there’s never been a one-night stand that hasn’t been empowering to a young woman or a young man on their journey. I do think that the culture that pressures both genders to hook up and glamorizes it and totally debases courtship, is not empowering. It’s especially disempowering for young women sexually, because you aren’t going to find out about your sexual response in a context like that.”

    To back this up, here is an interesting stat that I got from Hooking Up Smart:

    “44% of the time guys have an orgasm during a hookup, while girls have orgasms only 19% of the time.”

    Actually, I have heard through the “hook up culture researchers grapevine” that the 19% is estimated too high and the more accurate stat is probably closer to 10%…I'M JUST SAYIN……:^{

    So, all that being said, quoted, and stated, the one main “ingredient” that has been left out of most all of the blogs on this topic, is the fact that most hook ups in “college” are intiated while the two particpants are drunk. Alcohol is the social lubricant du jour within the campus environment and as we all know it is used and abused to facilitate everything from “easing anxiety in social situations” to “acquaintance rape.” So, when we talk about the lack of communication between the sexes in regards to expressing their needs and wants in any given sexual
    relationship, we must be aware of how often college students, at least, are under the influence of a powerful drug like alcohol during their hook ups.

    It doesn't take three years of research for me to know and understand that “Drunken Communication” and “Drunken Sex” don't add up to sexually or emotionally fulfilling relationships. In fact, the risks involved (in my opinion) far outweigh the benefits that are perceived. At the end of the day it is all about the choices we make in any given moment, drunk or sober, and how those choices effect the quality of our life. There are an awful lot of “strings attached” to drunken irresponsible behavior at any age and we all know what they are.

    So, here is my advice & my challenge to college students actively participating in the hook up culture:

    Never underestimate the power of a good “nooner.” Try having sex, sober, in the middle of the day and see just how hot it can be!

    And check out my site!
    http://www.collegehookupculture.com

    Denice Ann Evans
    Filmmaker-National Speaker
    J'Hue Film Productions
    http://www.collegehookupculture.com
    @mshookupdoc

  • PJay

    SusanaWalsh:

    I applaud your candor and openmindedness. Not being bitter, just pointing out the obvious asymmetry in legal privilege between men and women.

    In many places, if a drunk man and a drunk woman get together and have sex, he's guilty of rape. She is not. That risk never gets played out in these kinds of discussions.

    Among my friends with teenage (jr high & high school) boys, the anecdotal story is that those boys are very uninterested in the girls, who are very sexually aggressive, to the point where they are propositioning the boys explicitly and “sexting” them. Technically these boys are in violation of child pornography laws. The girls involved often are not prosecuted for the same crime.

    These boys have also been warned again and again about “date rape”, “domestic violence”, etc., in scenarios where boys are always portrayed as perpetrators and girls as victims.

    It's even uglier when they get to college. Eve Ensler wants them to have vaginas!

    One

  • Mani

    Haha, I do admit I am one of those girls who tends to wear my heart on my sleeve a lot (even when posting to on a public blog when I don't know anyone!), but I do believe that most people on here really do have good intentions to help :) A lot of the advice I get here is very insightful and allows me to think outside of the box instead of focusing too much on myself.

    Just from my personal observation, I still don't think that my specific way of thinking is too widespread yet (though I really cannot say) I do know that with my circle of really close girl friends though, they have chosen to “go beta” and are actually in very healthy and loving long term relationships. Yet, some of my girl acquaintances (or friends I am not as close with) like to still club/party hop, hoping for alpha recognition. And a lot of the times, they get it. But it doesn't last long and they are reduced back to square one again…only to go hop over to the next party to get more of their thirst for validation quenched. And possibly hit the jack pot.

    I cannot speak for all girls my age, but I think it could swing either way in the future. Not to be a debbie downer, but from patterns I tend to see at my college (which is a huge party college) I feel like things are getting a little worse. That is why it is so hard for me to keep my head above water sometimes it seems, because so many girls around me are just itching for an alpha (and with an alpha comes status, recognition, popularity), it's hard to not feel like I should be too. It takes a LOT to bring myself back down to earth. The desire for alphas is seemingly insatiable for girls my age…which can maybe explain why hookup culture in college is so common and seems to have no intent of slowing down.

    Just my two cents!

  • Reinholt

    The counter-argument is that men today had nothing to do with this situation either, but still have to deal with the fallout as well.

    Part of the problem women in college face is simple: there are a significant number of men who won't date them, or who won't commit to anything beyond a friends with benefits arrangement. I don't think people talk about this often enough, as it is more prevalent than one might expect.

    My personal rule was that I wouldn't date anyone from my school; I neither trusted our administration to handle any issues that would come up with even a degree of fairness that would be acceptable in Zimbabwe (much less the US), nor did I believe that the social time commitment and potential list of issues was worth it. I dated women from other schools.

    I shot down double-digit numbers of women in college where the only real problem was that they went to my school. In the same way, now I refuse to date co-workers under any circumstances, though that's not quite the same kind of issue in the end.

    Given things like the Duke and Hofstra cases showing men the potential blow-up that can occur for you when you have a situation on your hands when your main crime was merely poor judgment or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I think this trend is likely to accelerate; the irony is that the men who would be the best for LTRs are the ones who are most likely to deliberately avoid them with certain social groups because they understand things like planning for the future and avoiding downside risks they cannot control.

    To wit, I echo Susan's advice that your best bet for finding a boyfriend in college is to find a boyfriend who doesn't go to your college. That limits the potential collateral damage to a man's life immensely, and makes you a better option.

  • PJay

    Also, the “Nice Guy” Craigslist segment wasn't me – it's been circulating around the internet for the past three years!

  • PJay

    Also from the Best of Craigslist (Los Angeles)….

    From an Old Woman to a Young Woman
    Date: 2009-09-01, 1:22PM PDT

    1. You are not a victim. No matter what happens to you, don't take the pussy route and blame the world for your misfortune. If you were sexually assaulted, verbally abused, etc and lived to tell about it; take your pain and help those who need it. Writing emo poetry isn't going to solve anything.

    2. Invest in your education first, your looks second. Anyone can pay a plastic surgeon to look hot, but not everyone can read a book and do simple math.

    3. No matter what you call it, having a 'man to take you shopping' is glorified prostitution. He wants you for your body, you want him for his wallet. Cut the crap and call it what it is.

    4. Do not seek confidence in other people. Magazines, celebrities and most pop influences are there to make you feel like you're nothing. Don't buy into it. Those celebrities need your money to look fabulous. Invest in yourself, not hype.

    5. Stop fueling gossip mongers [Perez Hilton, TMZ.]. They have nothing to talk about and if you follow them for long, neither will you.

    6. Be modest; why have all your goods unwrapped and leave nothing for the imagination?

    7. Know the difference between fucking and love. There is a major difference and if you don't know it, pick up a book or ask someone who does.

    8. Do not have children just because you're lonely or insecure. Your child will end up hating you for it and you won't get the emotional blanket you hoped you'd get.

    9. Get a job. Seriously. Just because you're a woman doesn't mean that you are excused from work. Find a trade, get a job. If you are a house wife, be a good one. If you are a career woman, put your heart into what you do.

    10. A respectable companion is rarely at a 'bar' or da club'. These places are meat markets and will only set you up for a douchebag or a wimp. If you go, refer to rule 7.

    11. Learn to cook. Cooking is a dying skill that needs not be. You'd be surprise how much weight you lose and how you can get a decent companion if you know more than picking up a phone and calling for dinner.

    12. Get off your phone. If it's not your best friend, your job or your family, your cackling is not important and the rest of the world does not want to hear it. Listen more. Talk less.

    13. Stop putting so much of your money into things [purses, shoes, make up] and start putting it into a savings account, a 401k or an IRA. Those shoes are not going to vest when you turn 65.

    14. Stop using men to get you stuff. Have some self respect and buy your own drinks, meals and entertainment. A date will respect you more if you show them you are not helpless.

    15. Perfume and baby powder does not make up for good hygiene. Shower, do your laundry, clean your place. Body odor is not excusable for either genders.

    16. If you are a Lesbian, respect yourself and stop trying to find acceptance in the world. 9/10 they will not accept you. Tell them 'fuck you' and be your own woman.

    17. If you are a Lesbian, you are not anymore special or important than anyone else. You love other women and you have that right, but do not flex your preference thinking it makes you unique. Your mind and experiences make you unique, either gay or straight.

    18. Buy clothes that fit. Be tasteful with your clothing be you big or small.

    19. Don't eat for comfort, vomit to make yourself beautiful, and starve yourself to feel loved. Exercise, be sensible with your food choices, don't deprive yourself but never eat too much. The quickest way to a size 30, and to the grave, is past your teeth.

    20. If they say the love you, ask them to earn your heart through good deeds, genuine kindness and respect.

    21. Romance is not dead; but if you're not willing to give it, don't expect it in return.

    22. Stop being a bitch to other women and other people. If you are not happy, go get therapy. No one deserves to be berated because you don't have the guts to berate yourself.

    23. Do something new every day. Pole dance to learn about your sensuality, paint to express your creativity, write a blog to express your soul. Evolve and never stop learning.

    24. Look in the mirror everyday and smile at what you see.

    25. Stay safe. Learn to defend yourself against one or multiple attackers. Jackals do not attack if they see a big stick. If all else fails, run. There is no shame in running if it keeps you safe.

    26. Love yourself. Always. When you love yourself to the fullest, the world will open with opportunities

  • synthesis

    Is it post relevant best of craigslist time?
    Why nice guys SUCK
    http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/wdc/205576

  • PJay

    Hahahaha – that was excellent. It also explains why here in the US of A for men, it's such a hookup heaven and a marriage hell at the same time!

  • AT

    I read this, and dare I say it–THAT WAS NICE!!! Bwahahahaha! Thanks so much for sharing, cracked me up big time.

    It goes for both genders–nobody, but nobody respects a doormat. (But a side note to women: That doesn't give you the license to hijack the testosterone in the relationship, so stay feminine)

  • AT

    This is SO right on it ought to be sent to college women everywhere as required reading.

  • Dilithium

    Hi Mani — I'm glad you found something useful here, and wish you the best of luck. I'm afraid I can't suggest too many specific things to try, but can recommend some general approaches. The question may be, not whether he's gotten the hint that you'd be interested but whether he thinks you're worth the risk to try.

    First, keep in mind that how anyone sees you, especially before they know you well, can depend not so much on what you do but on what the others who came before you did. As an example, Susan reports elsewhere on this page that you are an attractive person; assuming that's true, it may paradoxically be working against you when you meet an inexperienced guy. He may well have a history (for reasons you can well imagine) which taught him that beautiful girls tend to be bad bets, flaky/mean/vain/etc.; and when he sees you he may assume that the same is probably true about you, before you even speak a word. Yes, it's unfair to you to be stereotyped, but it's just human nature (and everyone does it). Operatively, In this case, you have to actively work to counter this stereotype in order to look like a good bet (if you want to blame someone, perhaps the natural choice is not the guy so much as the other women who spoiled the ground before you got there).

    So, how do you accomplish this? In this case, your guiding principle would be: imagine what a mean/flaky/vain beautiful girl would do — you know some, we all do — and then do the opposite, something that girl would never do. Distinguish yourself from her. Exactly what that might involve, you will have to say from knowing your own local social situation. But here are some generic guesses: Maybe dress down a little, flatter yourself but don't look like you want every man's attention (ie you're not vain and you don't rule by beauty). Maybe tell an embarrassing story or a joke at your own expense (ie you're not bitchy because you can laugh at yourself). Show up on time to any agreed meetings and don't bag out with lame excuses (you aren't flaky or passive-aggressive). And so on, I'm sure you get the idea.

    Anyway, I hope this helps, or at least makes sense. And, if it doesn't work then I promise to give you back all the money you've paid so far….

    – D

  • susanawalsh

    Just want to add my two cents here. Denice and I met at Tufts about a year and a half ago, presenting to the students about hookup culture. Spitting Game is a great documentary, and the only one I'm aware of about hookup culture. One of the things that struck me in Denice's film was the discussion of consent. There are states that rule that sexual consent CANNOT be granted when one party is intoxicated. These means that many encounters are de facto rape, and there are enormous implications for men here. This is a topic I need to research further, but I urge men to understand the legal guidelines in their own states. The issue of consent while intoxicated is complex and politically charged.

    I'll be writing a post soon about Denice's award-winning film, soon available on DVD, so stay tuned.

  • susanawalsh

    PJay, oh please, don't even get me started on The Vagina Monologues. Re accusations of rape, see my comment just above. Interestingly, I know of two female college students who have been suspended following accusations of date rape – I can't imagine how an administration can get to the truth on something like this. It's ugly, and there are no winners. Alcohol plays a very crucial role here.

  • susanawalsh

    Sorry, I thought that was all you! So, you never meant to be Bill Gates?

  • susanawalsh

    Reinholt, you make a very important point here. The legal climate is such that a single misstep by a young man could ruin his life forever. The Duke case is the best example, though, to be honest, those three guys all went to Wall St., I believe (not that that's the best career path these days, necessarily).

    Dating in the workplace is a real issue, and studies show that 74% of professionals have done this. That is a very large number, and it reflects the reality that young professionals are spending a great deal of time at work, and sexual tension is an inevitable by-product.

  • Mike

    One of the things that struck me in Denice's film was the discussion of consent. There are states that rule that sexual consent CANNOT be granted when one party is intoxicated. These means that many encounters are de facto rape, and there are enormous implications for men here.

    I wonder if it is only one party? I would think this is fairly rare, as I would assume the in the case of “drunken hookups” about 90%+ of the time, both parties are under the influence of alcohol. I wonder if a guy could press charges against the girl for raping him under the influence?

    At what blood alcohol level can one no longer give consent? .05? .08? .10? Do we use the driving standard? How do we test what the person's alcohol level was at the time of intercourse?

    This can get pretty ridiculous pretty quick. My position would be you are responsible for whatever decisions you make under the influence of alcohol, guy or girl, once you make the decision to drink too much.

  • susanawalsh

    I agree. Very, very good stuff here.

  • susanawalsh

    That is really good. OK, I also have a piece written by a Wharton undergrad about nice guys. I think I need to do a post that juxtaposes the two. Thank you, synthesis!

  • Beta guy

    As a 30 something “beta” guy, this is my first visit here, and have to say great stuff Susan!

    To Mani and others those watching the hookup culture from the sidelines:

    I understand how tempting it can be to believe that your peers are all “hooking up” and happy with the Alpha males. I spent college torturing myself watching MTV reality shows and going to bars. It colored my perceptions that everyone is doing it and they are happy. If you focus on the hook up culture, you will feel inadequate being compared to the “winners”. Instead, there are other environments – church, activity clubs, intramural sports, where genuine people are going to meet each other. It's easier for a good “beta” to ask a girl out in such a social setting where he can get to know her.

    Also, as a marriage minded beta looking back – I was naieve of, or afraid to act on, the flirtations of the women I really could have been happy with in college. Sometimes beta males just aren't ready, they need a few years. However, as I started dating after college, I found I am not attracted to women who took part in hook up culture.

    For one, they have a jaded view of men that drags down any relationship. They aren't happy inside and eventually that comes out if you give it time. Two – you can tell that they haven't developed themselves – no fulfilling pursuits, no deep friendships, no empathy. Develop those qualities in yourself and these positive characteristics will attract the guys who will be good for you.

  • susanawalsh

    Dilithium, I have no idea what you do for a living, but you are a very, very perceptive man. You have great insight into human nature; when you write I really feel awed by your insight. We are the beneficiaries here, but I hope that you have the opportunity to use/share this perception about human nature with others in your own life.

  • http://FT.com/ VJ

    Denice Ann Evans, If you think 'seduction' and 'hooking up' using wine & 'strong spirits' is something of a 'newish' phenomenon? You've not read much of history. Even yes, famously loutish drunken sex? The Greeks praised it in poem. Casanova reveled in it. It's been known & commented about since earliest recorded time. Some of the oldest songs in the English language are old college drinking songs, which speak to the same universal dynamic. So nothing new under the sun. Cheers, 'VJ'

  • susanawalsh

    These are good questions, and I don't know the specifics. I believe it varies by state, but I will warn men. The laws are likely to side with the victim, who is almost always the woman. As I recall in Spitting Game, some states require consent at each stage of intimacy. You need a YES for a kiss, a YES for second base, and so on. And if any YES is given while intoxicated it is null and void. Granted, few of these cases are prosecuted, but it's quite frightening. It could be you, or your son.

  • autumnpari

    dear susan,

    i love, love, love this post!!! it is SO true.
    i am a junior in college right now and experiencing the backlash of feminism firsthand. i attend an elite liberal arts school in new england, and many of the women here have completely subscribed to the idea of “having sex like men” which is not only harmful to them (and their reputations) but also to other women who won't jump into bed with a guy as quickly. those women quickly get sidelined and labeled as “not fun” and “uninteresting”, as you and others have pointed out before. the guys are more than happy to reap the benefits of this situation (and with two women's colleges nearby, they have even more choices.) many of the students here have consciously decided to place their priority on their careers, understandably so because of how motivated everyone is (and how expensive the school is), but their relationships are suffering as a result. it's sad to think that so many of my peers may be very successful working adults with no idea how to hold a steady relationship.

    it's surprising to me that so many women are only now picking up on this; perhaps what seems like traditional wisdom to a lot of people is more normal for me because i come from a fairly traditional minority group in the US and i've grown up hearing the same advice that you and many other posters give. (i also love how you incorporate evo psych into your posts; more people need to hear how science can actually give us answers about our behavior and how there actually ARE differences between the sexes.)

    anyway, i relate a lot with mani's post. in my case, i wasn't allowed to date in high school and was hoping to have my first relationship in college. but because of the stranglehold that the hookup culture has on campuses, even that doesn't seem possible. i haven't gone out on any dates or even known a guy who liked me on campus (it's a small campus) and i'm not sure if that's my fault or just the environment here. i've steered clear of the hookup scene and i don't regret that.

    my question is: what do girls like me do? i'm scared i'm missing out on so many life experiences: a first kiss, first boyfriend, etc. i don't want to leave college at 22 and have no idea how to behave around a guy! some of it is intuitive, sure, but so much of it also just depends on experience. i understand the importance of sticking to your principles, which is what i've been doing, but the loneliness is just crushing. it's really hard to know that i might have to wait another four to five years to have my first boyfriend and in the mean time, i often end up feeling like the problem is with me, that I'm unattractive, boring, etc. i would hope that this is not the case because i do have a normal social life: i lead a club on campus, volunteer, tutor other students and have a great circle of friends which includes guys and girls.
    any advice/wisdom is much appreciated. thanks so much for your blog. it's a life saver!

  • susanawalsh

    Beta Guy, welcome! Thank you for your kind words, I hope you will come back often. I really appreciate your comment, it's straight from the heart, which is what betas do so well :-)

    As someone who married a beta male (who, by the way, proudly proclaims himself beta), but dated a classic alpha through college, I've seen both sides. And I can say with 100% confidence that you want to marry a man with emotional sensitivity. A good marriage bet has a soft side. Don't settle down without this!

  • Mike

    I believe it varies by state, but I will warn men. The laws are likely to side with the victim, who is almost always the woman.

    You are probably right on this, and men do need to be very careful. Rape is a horrific crime, and it is evil to force a woman to do something against her will. That said, I think some of this type of stuff is where the pendulum has swung ridiculously in an anti-male direction when we start redefining rape and what a “victim” is. IMO, a woman who gets drunk and then has sex she regrets in the morning and then claims she was a “victim” of “rape” really does a disservice to true rape victims.

    You need a YES for a kiss, a YES for second base, and so on.

    LOL, the problem here though is it also is totally against the dynamic of male-female sexuality. Again, NO means NO but few woman want to be asked permission to escalate the physical encounter although the dynamic may be different in a drunken hookup then a normal sober sexual encounter especially between people who have been dating awhile.

    Not sure if a woman actually wrote this, but my own experience with woman confirms the veracity of this attitude:

    http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/561877

    I've put this to the test with my GF with varying levels of aggression/assertiveness just to see various reactions. Female sexuality is interesting. Also very interesting to read some of the excerpts from romance novels aka female porn to see what fantasies turn them on.

    Anyways, asking permission to proceed to the next level would be a total mood killer.

  • steveo

    but the women who are 20 today are the granddaughters of those women. They didn't wreak this havoc.

    No, but they benefit from the havoc.

  • steveo

    that in the deregulated sexual marketplace

    There is no deregulated sexual marketplace. The feminist controlled government has artificially propped up the value of women. This is now more true than ever because the mancession is the direct result of the policies of the feminist controlled government to unemploy men to benefit women.

    This is because he is signalling, that as a result of his failure to secure sexual favors from Women, he is a low-status Male, and historically speaking they were always the least regarded in any society.

    I will use this as proof that I am being attacked for being a 30 year old virgin (not by you but in general).

    but we have to admit that IS an option

    No we don't. We don't even know what really happened to George Soldini.

    But there are others. Has Steveo considered any of these?

    The only option I am being presented with is give up but be a beast of burden for women at gunpoint of the feminist controlled government. I refuse to accept that option.

    We need to have an open and honest discussion about what the role and place of such Men will be in our society, because let's just face it, all of us can't win in this game, pardon the pun.

    I choose standing up for myself and fighting back because I am a human being.

  • steveo

    In steveo's case, I really don't think he wants to change.

    What the hell does 'change' mean? You're full of crap like Obama when he talks about 'change'.

    I have tried for years to change my situation. I have talked about that plenty. Hell, I'm going to see a therapist soon. All anyone has to do is read my comments to know you're lying.

    Every single comment of his is some sort of attempt at logical/analytical

    I need something more concrete than vague cries of 'change' and 'improvement'. It doesn't help me when people like you clearly start with the assumption than I'm 300 pounds, unemployed, and living in my parents' basement. I'm sorry logic and reasoned analysis bother you so much.

    Now in this thread, he has accused me of being a feminist hate-monger.

    I have read your crap about entitlement WORD FOR WORD in feminist writings. If you talk like a feminist hate monger, you are a feminist hate monger.

  • steveo

    But that isn't quite the same as the field of relating to women on an individual basis.

    Yes it is because the feminist controlled government interferes with one on one male female relations. The feminist controlled government artificially props up women. There is no sexual free market. We have the least free sexual market in history.

    but being bitter and angry about either decision will only bring you down personally in all areas of your life

    This is wrong. Being bitter and angry about this has not brought me down. If anything it has improved my life since I know I will always stand up for myself which means it is a source of strength.

  • steveo

    It's not having it both ways, it's just that the skills have a broader use. Women like men who are socially dominant, relatively speaking. That kind of persona isn't limited to interacting with women. That's the point. It's a way of interacting with people that can be learned and then applied in a variety of contexts — not just women.

    I don't let people walk over me now so what's the difference? Again, you're trying to have it both ways.

  • PJay

    No, I thought Bill Gates would make the “Nice Guy” – hahaha.

  • http://www.collegehookupculture.com/ hookupdoc

    Wow. If only it were true that “hooking up” was an act of “seduction.” Now that would be a game changer for sure! Time to take off the Vino Tinted glasses VJ

  • synthesis

    I have a couple more that mention nice guys, but they're rather dirty to say the least.

  • susanawalsh

    Welcome, autumnpari! I am really glad you left a comment. You have summed up the current state of sexual dynamics very well, I'm sorry to say. It is indeed very unfortunate that these reports of “conditions on the ground” at colleges everywhere are the same, though perhaps not surprising. One of my greatest concerns is that no one is really getting much practice at relationships, as you point out. This implies that increasingly, marriage will happen between parties who may have had a lot of sexual experiences but very few relationships. This certainly will have an effect on the divorce rate.

    It's interesting that you say you grew up hearing a lot of this information in your own home. I've had others from various minority groups compare me to the “big mamas” of days past, or a grandmother who passed along the “old knowledge.”

    I hope that you won't graduate without having had those experiences you long for. The truth is, most women will go through college without having the opportunity to be in love. It sounds like you are doing everything right – you're active on campus and have good friends. This is important.

    In terms of how to proceed, I would mention two things. First, there are many guys on your campus (and every campus) who feel exactly the same way you do. Generally, only about a quarter of the guys on campus are hooking up, the rest are on the sidelines, and feeling pretty bummed about it. This is where the best potential for relationships is. You can see above the advice that Mani received for nurturing friendships with guys who are not front and center on campus. These are the smart guys by and large, so think science major instead of jock or party animal.

    Second, the best way to find a good guy and avoid getting burned by a Player is to build a foundation of friendship. You say that you have guy friends, so that's a good start. You may have a great guy right under your nose already. I would seek opportunities to make new friends as well. Get out and interact with as many people as you can. Keep your eyes open and be ready to offer a smile in the dining hall, library, class, etc. Random encounters are one of the four primary ways that married people met, so every woman who is interested in a relationship should be open to them, and ready to be friendly.

    I hope this helps, at least as a start!

  • susanawalsh

    WOW! I encourage everyone to check out that Craigslist link! What is going on with Craigslist? In the last couple of weeks I've come across some amazing stuff there, thanks to readers. It's become a place for social commentary and frank talk. Very, very interesting.

    Re asking permission at each stage, that does sound like a total drag, and if a guy ever did that to me I would think he was psycho and a wuss.

    I wrote a post when the new Twilight movie came out about whether women fantasize being taken by force. The answer is yes. At least, about three quarters of women said so on my poll.

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/11/20/hookin

  • susanawalsh

    That's OK, bring it!

  • synthesis

    Some advice for guys that are respectful towards women: http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/561877

    A woman who can't find a nice guy and has given up: http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/nyc/589072

  • Obsidian

    Hey everyone,
    Several points.

    One, I really do think we need to give a heck of a lot more thought to the *Male losers* of the dating and mating game/dance. The simple truth is, that there WILL be winners and losers, and as I've noted before, Women can, do and will continue to have their travails in this regard discussed in the national media, and that includes tv specials, moves, books and the like. Meanwhile, the only time we discuss the Steveo's of the world, is when someone like Sodini explodes. We need to honestly discuss what do we do with the Males – like Steveo. Because the simple truth is, that we will have losers in the current game. There's no getting around that fact.

    The second thing is the Spitting Game documentary, which I would very much like to see, and the issue it raises surrounding consent laws on campus and so on. From where I sit, it really remainds me of the gun control debate. The only people who will be impacted are the law abiding citizens; criminals don't buy guns by legal means anyway.

    So, what I think will happen, and Ms. Walsh and others have already noted this, is that guys will simply do the math, run a simple cost/benefit tally sheet, and decide that it's simply not worth the risk of trying to chat gals up. Hence, Going Ghost.

    Of course, and some have already speculated on this anyway, that this is really what a lot of Women, and that includes even the most staunch of feminists, really want – that they use these laws and measures, as a kind of macro-screening process that gets rid of the Betas without getting their hands dirty, leaving only the Alphas they really ever wanted in the first place. I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but I gotta admit, this makes a lot of sense, and holds much more water than we want to admit. Think about it – Bill Clinton got a pass by the Feminist Lobby for his many pecadilloes, including the Monicagate affair, while Bob Packwood was sent packing for pretty much the same thing. On the job, you can be slapped with a sexual harrassment suit if you're the wrong guy; be the right guy however, and it's just a hot tryst on the job. Same deal with “rape” on college campuses. In fact there's so much double standards and the like going on here, that there's little wonder that the guys who would most likely make the best mates are just saying the heck with it, it's too expensive.

    By the way, speaking of double standards and how Women engage in them ALL THE TIME then turn around and justify them, all the while bemoaning Men for the very same thing, check this out:

    http://theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com/2010/03/0

    And holla back!:)

    The Obsidian

  • susanawalsh

    Obsidian, there have always been losers in the reproduction competition, of both sexes. Today's sociosexual climate is greatly increasing the number of both. A much larger percentage of men are being left out entirely, and a growing number of women are hitting 40 with no baby daddy in sight.

    While I understand that this is inevitable in the abstract, I would still urge individuals to take action to improve their own lives. Mike, Novaseeker, and others above have offered concrete suggestions. Is it difficult? Yes. Very. But it's got to beat feeling so miserable that you open fire on innocent people. Omega Man writes about this very process. He is very open, and I find his posts painful to read at times, but he keeps working on it, and I think that's very important.

    Other than that, when you say think about men in this position, I wonder how we can begin to solve this intractable problem. As you often say, there is bound to be a major shakeout at some point, and we'll have to manage it as best we can.

    Denice's DVD will be released this month. I'm looking forward to seeing it myself. I plan to write a post on it, so stay tuned. This issue of consent is a very, very tricky one. There was recently a huge debate at Princeton after a female student wrote that a woman who gets blackout drunk has essentially given consent to anything that might happen to her. I plan to research this topic soon.

    Boy, you really struck a nerve with me bringing up Bill Clinton. I can recall clearly getting thoroughly disgusted as the president of NOW (Patricia Ireland, I think?) defended him. That was my aha moment wrt the real feminist agenda. That was complete and total hypocrisy. However, I don't think that was about rewarding Alpha. That was about keeping a liberal out of trouble, lest the Republicans gain more control and rebel against the feminist agenda.

    It's true that there are many double-standards, and that women will pick and choose who they accuse of what. I'm sure you're right that a sexually suggestive remark from a handsome coworker will be treated in many cases very differently than if that coworker does not appeal to the woman. However, I don't believe that this is a conspiracy in any way. It's just hypergamy in action.

  • Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh,
    Replies below:

    SW: Obsidian, there have always been losers in the reproduction competition, of both sexes. Today's sociosexual climate is greatly increasing the number of both. A much larger percentage of men are being left out entirely, and a growing number of women are hitting 40 with no baby daddy in sight.

    O: Yes, but the difference between now and then was, that not only did people live shorter lives, but that Men tended to get killed off even earlier than that, so that the “loser” population among them was smaller. Today though, with fewer wars and jobs requiring less brawn, guys are living longer. And as Sodini showed us, a quarter century or longer of Blue Balls, doesn't a happy camper make.

    Moreover, yea, single mommyhood is on the rise and may not be a picnic – but as someone we both know fairly well said so well, that many Women – far more than we're willing to publicly admit in polite company – will gladly trade five minutes of Alpha, than five years with Beta. Single mommyhood rates themselves, are proof of that.

    The challege for ANY society is, “what do we do with the Males?”. I argue that it is thee singular challege for our country in light of the Mancession and the Misandry Bubble that is sure to burst, soon. This will prove to be a very difficult discussion for our society to have, not least because it directly challenges some of our bedrock founding principles, our civil religion, if you will. Simply put, in the New Paleolithic, all Men are NOT created equal, and as a result, the American Experiment can and does work for SOME, but not all. There really isn't “someone for everyone”. And we will have to figure out a way to deal with the many guys who will be left out in the cold. This isn't as intense an issue for Women, for a whole host of reasons, some of whom I've already outlined in this thread. It's the guys that we need to address. And soon.

    SW: While I understand that this is inevitable in the abstract, I would still urge individuals to take action to improve their own lives. Mike, Novaseeker, and others above have offered concrete suggestions. Is it difficult? Yes. Very. But it's got to beat feeling so miserable that you open fire on innocent people. Omega Man writes about this very process. He is very open, and I find his posts painful to read at times, but he keeps working on it, and I think that's very important.

    O: Ms. Walsh, we have to accept that Game will NOT help every Man, even most of them. Moreover, even if it did, you are forgetting something: Female CHOICE. Which has been completely unleashed in our time. The simple fact of the matter is, that most “7s”, if they could choose it, can and will get with Mr. Alpha Asshat BECAUSE THEY CAN. And will completely turn their noses up at Mr. Beta. Only when they have to – ie, get older – do they then “settle”. Whether the Betas of the world will accept, and continue to accept that deal, remains to be seen.

    SW: Other than that, when you say think about men in this position, I wonder how we can begin to solve this intractable problem. As you often say, there is bound to be a major shakeout at some point, and we'll have to manage it as best we can.

    O: Yes, and one's thing's for certain – this problem will not go away because we wanna act like it doesn't exist.

    SW: Denice's DVD will be released this month. I'm looking forward to seeing it myself. I plan to write a post on it, so stay tuned. This issue of consent is a very, very tricky one. There was recently a huge debate at Princeton after a female student wrote that a woman who gets blackout drunk has essentially given consent to anything that might happen to her. I plan to research this topic soon.

    O: Again, it's a sh*t test writ large. The only guys who stand to be impacted by it are the guys the gals never really wanted in the first place. Trust me.

    SW: Boy, you really struck a nerve with me bringing up Bill Clinton. I can recall clearly getting thoroughly disgusted as the president of NOW (Patricia Ireland, I think?) defended him. That was my aha moment wrt the real feminist agenda. That was complete and total hypocrisy. However, I don't think that was about rewarding Alpha. That was about keeping a liberal out of trouble, lest the Republicans gain more control and rebel against the feminist agenda.

    O: You're learning.;)

    SW: It's true that there are many double-standards, and that women will pick and choose who they accuse of what. I'm sure you're right that a sexually suggestive remark from a handsome coworker will be treated in many cases very differently than if that coworker does not appeal to the woman. However, I don't believe that this is a conspiracy in any way. It's just hypergamy in action.

    O: Maybe not, but it's a distinction without much of a difference at this point-the practical result, of all of this, taken together, is to act as one big sh*t test measure to weed out the guys Women don't want. I don't even have a dog in the fight and I can see that. It's more than merely hypergamy in action – its hypergamy as public policy. Don't think so? Read Lionel Tiger's The Decline of Males, and his chapter on what he calls bureauogamy.

    Holla back

    O.

  • Pingback: Socialism Causes (Figurative) Vajazzling « Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology

  • autumnpari

    Thanks so much for your response and advice! I will try to follow through on as much of it as I can. Although it's disappointing that so many girls in college may graduate without knowing what that “first love” is like, it's still reassuring to hear it in a straightforward manner from you. It's always helpful to know what the reality is even if it's unpleasant.

  • susanawalsh

    Obsidian, yes I agree with have a problem with men in society. At this point, it's widely acknowledged, even in the mainstream media, so the conversation has already begun in one sense. Of course, finding our way through this morass of legal and social inequity will take many years, and it's not clear to me that the problem can even be solved. It makes health care reform look like a day at the beach. The problem of men going ghost will get worse and worse until the dam breaks. In my view, that's unlikely to occur anytime before the economy is affected. Society has a high tolerance for disenfranchised individuals, and it's not until GDP goes down that we tend to notice. In this case, perhaps a dropping birth rate will finally clue us in, and by then, of course, the problem will be far worse.

    These are all considerations at the macro level. In the meantime, there are steps that individuals can take – that's the micro level. That tends to be my approach, because I want to see results fast, I don't want to sit by and watch things get worse throughout my lifetime without at least fighting back.

    I understand that Game is not the answer for every man. It's not the answer for steveo, I don't think. But I don't want steveo to throw in the towel on his life, and I don't want him to get any angrier either. steveo has been a regular reader and commenter for quite some time. He hasn't given up, he's connected, at least here. Obviously, I'm no professional therapist, but I've urged him to seek a male therapist who specializes in male sexuality. Perhaps sexual surrogacy is an option. He has said he will do that and report back. I want to see him do that. He hasn't gone ghost yet, and I'm hoping he won't. Does it change the picture overall? No. But perhaps it will change the picture for steveo, and that's real.

    We've argued before about how irresistible women find Alpha Asshats. You are right in that Tucker Max does not lack for sexual partners. But the notion that most women would hit that is preposterous in my view. As I've pointed out, he openly invites women to come out to bars if they want to “sport fuck.” Women show up. Many more stay home or go elsewhere. I seriously think you overestimate the allure of the cad. I do openly admit that women are drawn to bad boys, and I acknowledge the value of social proof. But there are many other factors that drive attraction, and once a woman has been pumped and dumped EVEN ONCE by a cad, she is far less likely to wander back. At least, that's what I believe based on what I see and hear from readers.

    Re the prosecution of sexual assault cases, I'm not so sure you're right about that being applied only to betas, who, let's face it, rarely even have the opportunity to contemplate sexual aggression. A woman scorned by Alpha after drunk sex has a powerful weapon at her disposal if she decides to use it, fairly or unfairly. The way laws are written in many states make it difficult for men to defend themselves, as you well know, e.g. Duke. Of course, we can't assume that men are innocent, either. Every amateur porn site on the web has lots of videos of women having sex, obviously too drunk to even be aware of what's going on. Sometimes they're clearly unconscious. As I said, this is tricky, and Denice's documentary explores this issue as a real issue in hookup culture.

  • susanawalsh

    And know that you have a whole lot of company. The vast majority of students in college are frustrated, both male and female.

  • novaseeker

    I also think that for some beta and omega men the best choice is sitting things out. Not all guys can pull off Game or making major personality/presentational changes like that. That's fine — we all have our limitations. It's better for a guy like that to learn that he is not really “meant” to mate and move on with his life, focusing his energies on other things. It shouldn't be a cause of shame or anger — like anything else, accepting our natural limitations is a part of maturity, and there are quite a few men who, in a system like the current one, are simply not really meant to mate.

    On the consent laws — it's madness if some states require a verbal “yes” at each stage of escalation. This effectively means that women get to choose what is a rape and what isn't. Because every adult human being knows that in “normal” sexual encounters, such a question and answer routine at each level of escalation is simply not taking place, nor is it desired by women, for the most part, to take place. So, regardless of what the law might be, we can rest assured that most people aren't “doing it” that way. So, what you get as a result is a law that can be enforced at the woman's whim — if she liked the sex, or had no reason to be ashamed and so on, she can “waive” the man's failure to seek consent at each stage of escalation. If, however, she wakes up the next day and wonders how she ever had sex with such a loser, she can call it rape because he failed to obtain affirmative consent. That is complete madness and extremely, I have to repeat again, *extremely* prejudicial to men. I have to agree that men should know the laws of the state where they live. I would go further and advise men — single and married of whatever age — if they live in a state with that kind of consent law to either move, or avoid sex with women. That law just opens you up to be a rapist at the whim of the woman — way too big a risk.

  • susanawalsh

    Novaseeker, I agree 100% re the consent laws. This is extremely prejudicial to men. Every single weekend on every college campus in this country, extremely inebriated women and men have sex. While I don't agree with the Princeton student that being blackout drunk = consent, I don't believe that it is incumbent on the male to discern true intent. On the other hand, if a woman is unconscious, that's a clear indication that consent could not possibly have been given. As I recall, in Denice's documentary, a lawyer explains that a woman can give consent, say, at the bar at midnight. Then she keeps drinking, and gets drunker, obviously. In some states, it is the man's responsibility to ascertain whether her earlier consent is null and void due to her subsequent loss of reason.

    This is outrageous! I would NEVER support such a law, and cannot imagine how it came to pass. It's been a year and a half since I saw the film, and I'm anxious to revisit this question when the DVD is released on March 15.

  • novaseeker

    It will be interesting to see your take on it after reviewing it.

    On the alcohol and consent issue, to me it's a bit murkier. I do think that people have a responsibility to not try to obtain consent from a woman who is drunk. However, if the standard is 0.08 BAC, then that's also insane because I would wager that north of 50% of all sexual activity takes place where someone's BAC is north of 0.08. I would say that a standard of where a person is “obviously intoxicated” is a fair one.

    On the affirmative-consent-at-each-escalation rule, I wonder how this would apply to married couples? I mean I'm pretty sure that most married couples are not following the affirmative consent at each escalation rule in the marital bed. I suppose that in states that have these statutes, then, that most marital sex is de facto rape. In that perspective, it seems to me that the point of a law like that is not to protect women from rape, but rather to change the mating dance away from the “normal” heterosexual way of doing sex — basically redefining that normal way of doing sex as de facto rape unless you revise what you're doing away from the typical to comply with the statute. It's legal engineering of the worst sort — trying to change how people actually have sex by virtue of statutes. And we thought the sodomy laws were intrusive. I guess we never knew that a husband who, in the course of making out with his wife, kisses her breast without first getting her affirmative consent is at the very least sexually assaulting her, and if they proceed to intercourse without any further affirmative consents, he's raped her. Heck. He's probably a serial wife rapist under those rules.

  • http://www.antifeministtech.info/ Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech

    I have been silently reading these comments, and I have to say you guys are not getting what steveo is saying BIG TIME. That's not surprising because his situation challenges a lot of your beliefs. The deregulated sexual market is one idea like that. I just wrote on my blog how there is no sexual free market since women are receiving socialist transfer payments that men such as steveo are forced to pay for as if he was their husband but without the benefits (i.e. sex).

    I doubt steveo will see an improvement in his situation since the problem for him isn't personal. Most men's situations are going to get worse in the near future. This will lead to steveo and many other men getting angrier and angrier, rightfully so.

  • http://www.antifeministtech.info/ Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech

    It shouldn't be a cause of shame or anger

    It shouldn't be, but it is used to shame men. Guys like steveo will naturally be angry. It's a response that makes sense, and I don't see a problem with it.

  • http://www.antifeministtech.info/ Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech

    We need to honestly discuss what do we do with the Males – like Steveo.

    The problem is that such a discussion comes from the perspective of what do we do with the useless eaters like steveo? (Such as feminists who claim that men should be reduced to 10% of the population.) In reality men like steveo are the Atlases holding up the world. When enough of them say screw this, civilization falls apart.

    Of course, and some have already speculated on this anyway, that this is really what a lot of Women, and that includes even the most staunch of feminists, really want – that they use these laws and measures, as a kind of macro-screening process that gets rid of the Betas without getting their hands dirty, leaving only the Alphas they really ever wanted in the first place. I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but I gotta admit, this makes a lot of sense, and holds much more water than we want to admit.

    Yes, it really does hold more water than the Globalman style and depopulation agenda conspiracy theories.

    The problem with this is while women don't the betas around, they still want their money around. Hence the socialist transfer payment problem I talked about on my blog. Understanding this is critical. Women don't the betas around, but they want their money coming in and the betas developing some technology (not a lot of technology since that would destroy the position of women).

    This is why going ghost is so powerful. It hits women right where it hurts them the most. And lets not forget the men who are de facto going ghost either. There are plenty of guys who may want to support the feminist machine for whatever crazy reason, but they can't because they can't get jobs due to those same feminists.

  • susanawalsh

    Your comment made me laugh, though I don't think you were necessarily attempting humor. Well, maybe a bit. It's just sooooo ridiculous! Mating involves many non-verbal cues and signals. Human beings are capable of reading extremely subtle changes in facial expression, body language etc. NO! is a good way to signal refusal if words are necessary. The notion of all of us complying with these statutes in the throes of passion is just too absurd.

    Any woman will say that a guy who asks “Is this OK?” repeatedly during sex will come across as a total loser. Women want men who take charge. These kinds of laws serve to make men less attractive in theory, though of course they cannot be enforced, and I can't imagine any man willingly submitting to them.

  • Esau

    AT, et.al, replying to several above,

    You (and others) have missed my point here, so let me see if I can re-state it more exactly (and calmly). The subject is complaint: when is it legitimate? when is it justified? when is it called for? My main claim is that there _are_ situations when complaining is justified, and in fact is morally superior (even if practically unhelpful for an individual) to remaining silent. Two refinements, contra what you and the others have said, are: (1) The statement that it is legitimate to complain about a group's behavior is NOT equivalent to a demand that any individual in said group change their individual behavior; and so an argument against the latter is NOT a refutation of the former (clear?); and (2) It can be legitimate to complain about a behavior or a situation WITHOUT necessarily having a “solution” to hand to suggest.

    I can illustrate all these points easily with a quick analogy; the setting is commerce, which might appeal to Susan's instincts.

    Suppose that your Mom and Pop open a store on Main Street in your mid-sized town, selling something generally useful like, say, appliances. But, they get no business, no customers show up. Do Mom and Pop, or their family, have a legitimate right to complain about this outcome? In my view, the fulcrum is whether or not the reasons the customers have for avoiding the store are legitimate. Yes, this requires judging people's motivations, but I'm prepared to do that. Consider these two extreme possibilities for Mom and Pop's lack of customers:

    A) Their products are shoddy and overpriced and the selection is poor. In this case the customers' decision to avoid the store is completely legitimate, and Mom and Pop have no real right to complain about it.

    B) The store and its products are fine, but (i) it's 1961, (ii) the town is in lowland South Carolina, and (iii) Mom and Pop happen to be black, and the town is mostly populated by white racist bigots who would never set foot in a black-owned store on “principle”. In this case, I think it's _entirely_ fair to say that the customer's reasons for avoiding the store are NOT legitimate; and HELL YES do Mom and Pop have a right to complain! And, every decent person who learns about the situation has an _obligation_ to criticize it and not remain silent. Does anyone here disagree?

    In discussing case B, however, I would never use a word like “entitled,” as in “black Mom and Pop are entitled to white folks' business.” And I would never say that any particular white person, bigoted though they may be, should be “forced” to change their preferences and shop at the store. But the situation is still bad, still worthy of criticism and condemnation. Complaining about a group's bad behavior is NOT the same thing as a claim of being “entitled” to having the group act differently. Get it? So, no, the reverse argument that you and others are basically making here — that since Mom and Pop are not _entitled_ to customers they can't legitimately _complain_ about those customers' badly-motivated behavior — is bogus, and I don't buy it.

    OK, I hope this is all clear now. Shouts of “you're not entitled to X!” do NOT automatically mean that complaints about the lack of X are illegitimate and should not be voiced. That's why I call objections of this type a canard and a distraction (though I apologize for being so brusque about it).

  • Reinholt

    This strikes me as not entirely correct.

    On one hand, I agree that what Steveo is on the receiving end of is neither fair nor reasonable; it should not be the case that any government is, in essence, extorting money from various significant groups to redistribute it to others because it feels like it.

    That's third world tyranny, not freedom, and I have no issue objecting to that.

    On the other hand, however, steveo is also refusing to take agency for his own situation. Each person's life is a mix of things they can change and things they cannot change, and his angry, belligerent responses above reveal the fact that he's not being objective about his own situation or attempting to better it in any meaningful way. In essence, he is saying “things are unfair and I deserve handouts”, which is the precise attitude being decried in feminist thought.

    I suggest a more reasonable viewpoint is “Things are unfair and should change, however I will still do everything I can myself.”

    It is that last part, not the first part, that I fault the steveo viewpoint for. The anger is justified. The lack of willingness to change, adapt, and excel is not.

  • http://FT.com/ VJ

    Yeah, I was going to put in the obligatory, 'of course this does not mean or give countenance to rape or any other violent or unwanted coercion, which is & always will be reprehensible & deeply wrong & criminally actionable'. But most typical scenarios for drunken coercion? Yes, as old as distilled spirits. Again, see Ovid on Ars Amatoria. For a start. And well known the world over & throughout history.

    And it's still obviously confusing even for the Ivy League set:

    http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/02/22/25251/

    So yes, lots of ambivalence here in the culture & something that's sadly not easily resolved with the ready pat answers of the serial consent forms that some colleges would wish their students fill out. In triplicate, 2 weeks in advance, Please?

    I fully appreciate the effects of the 'hook-up culture', but everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that much of sex, especially for the younger set has yes, some degrees of coercion 'baked into' the prospect. And that's been true for probably truly a very long time. It's actually less so today here & now than ever before though. This is why we had cultural 'intermediaries' to try and mitigate & prevent some of these 'nasty outcomes & effects' for & on women especially for a long time indeed. These were done away with, and we all need to be better behaved adults. And sometimes that works too. Often not though. Still a search of the useful & definitive Guttmacher.org site for: Query: found 1261 document(s) that matched query 'content:coercion content:sex':

    Yields this right on top:
    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/JAH_Lindberg.pdf

    So yes, I've got some vino tinted glasses. 'Have Some Madeira, M'Dear!' You could Look it up. It's been going on again, for a very long time. Everyone needs to be aware of the dynamics here, and the fact that they are indeed ancient. Which is what momma or grandma would have told you anyways too, right? Cheers & Good Luck! 'VJ'

  • http://www.antifeministtech.info/ Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech

    In essence, he is saying “things are unfair and I deserve handouts”

    I doubt I have read all of Steveo's comments, but unless he's claimed that the government should give him free hookers, this is bunk. I suspect that he is willing to pay for his own hookers. That aside, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to say that if everyone else is getting a handout than he should be too. However, I doubt Steveo is saying that. I believe he agrees there should be no handouts which means no socialist subsidies from the government.

    I know you will claim Steveo will still have problems after socialist subsidies for women are gone because he is “angry”. This is incorrect since the removal of socialist subsidies for women will enfranchise most betas immediately.

    This whole idea is getting too close to the idea that taking away socialist subsidies for women is giving a subsidy to men even though the government wouldn't be giving any subsidies to men at that point.

    I suggest a more reasonable viewpoint is “Things are unfair and should change, however I will still do everything I can myself.”

    You obviously aren't getting what Steveo is saying and I'm not the only one noticing this. There are things Steveo can change. He can go ghost and/or work to overthrow (most of) the government. I'm sure he wants to try a more mundane solution before going there and that is understandable.

    The lack of willingness to change, adapt, and excel is not.

    The problem is that's very vague. The fact that Steveo recognizes that most of what he is being told is BS is not a lack of willingness to change, adapt, and/or excel. It's the mark of a man with a well developed BS detector.

  • http://www.antifeministtech.info/ Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech

    He hasn't gone ghost yet, and I'm hoping he won't.

    What's the problem with Steveo going ghost? If you want him to be less angry, he will be less angry as a ghost. Otherwise, this is getting close to, “we [women] want guys like Steveo to go away, but not their income stream”.

  • susanawalsh

    That is not true! It has nothing to do with Steve's financial contributions. Frankly, I don't even understand this line of reasoning. I assume you're referring to Steve's taxes going to social programs that benefit women.

    I don't want steveo to go ghost because he has expressed a desire to be with a woman. I empathize and want him to realize that objective.

  • http://FT.com/ VJ

    Reading though some of the interstitial comments here I wanted to remark that even to this day a significant portion of future spouses are drawn from your college & Uni days. The marriages that result might indeed be a few years down the road, after grad school & the like, but for many folks, that's where they do indeed first meet. I think it's 2nd only to meeting a future spouse at work (or in the work environment) for popularity. And it was once of course vastly more popular too. Many folks do 'couple' up or even 'circle back' to pick up that 'one special someone' they recall from their college days. There's got to be some current stats on this somewhere too. Start here:
    http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/

    or here:
    StephanieCoontz.com

    Cheers, 'VJ'

  • Dennis1969may@yahoo.com

    This is the most quirky but refreshingly bold blog I have seen in a while. For a woman to call a large chunk of the new feminism BS is brave and progressive.

    As a decidely beta guy I have observed this for 30 years, since the age of 10 really. I beleive girls fall into 2 camps generally: those that want sex and those that want relationships. Sometimes they swap between the 2 but on the whole its one or the other.

    Both camps are drawn to the bad boy character. Its not all about attitude either, more about intrinsic qualites: a bold jawline, tall, a bit rugged, well endowed (boo hoo), muscular or at least lean.

    There does tend to be other non physical traits; unreliability, unfaithfullness, aggression, mood swings, spontaneity.

    I and others like me, have watched with jealousy and disbeleif over the years as intelligent or attractive women have thrown themselves at the alphas. My housemate of 2 years bedded a different girl nearly every night over that period excluding holidays. Every single one I would have married in an instant. By stark contrast if I tried to pull a moderatley attractive girl, not only would she reject me but she was openly offended that I considered myself of equivalent status to think I stood a chance. Depressing stuff.

  • Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Premature Congratulations Edition | In Mala Fide

  • susanawalsh

    Hi, Dennis, thanks for the compliment!

    Re your comment, I'm afraid this is all too common, hence Game. I assume you found me thru a Game site? One thing that Game proves, and I've often seen this as well, is that good looks are not a requirement for getting girls. Attitude and demeanor are much more important. Yes, the Tom Bradys and George Clooneys have it all, and they can have anyone. But there are plenty of guys who display dominance and aggression, athletes, frat guys, etc. who do well regardless of facial features. They do tend to be higher in testosterone, so you're right about ruggedness, physical strength and size.

  • steveo

    Sir, thank you for your comments. So often feminism does the “you're the only man who thinks this way” garbage which has been done against me here. I appreciate how you brought out men to point out how many people on this blog are not getting what I'm saying because they just want to say I'm “angry” or really “crazy” over and over again. You are a personal hero of mine.

  • synthesis

    What kind of women are guys trying to get with who are rejecting them? Are they divorced? Do they have kids? If not, they do not receive child support or alimony. Are they white and middle class? If yes, then they do not receive handouts because they are a NAM or poor. I realize that stimulus money was originally going to go where it was needed, male-dominated jobs, but that feminists hijacked it, but what about before the recession?

    First came women working outside the home. Then came the sexual revolution, then came the deregulated sexual market. If there really was such a socialist transfer, rates of single, white motherhood would be the same as poor blacks and latinos.

  • susanawalsh

    I have no problem discussing the sociosexual marketplace in political terms, I've done it here, obviously. As synthesis says, the sexual revolution ushered in a new environment. This environment has penalized everyone but alpha men. Alpha men get sex, which is what they want. About 2/3 of women get sex, but only a small percentage of those want no-strings sex; the rest want a relationship, which is unlikely. Beta men are forced to watch the intense intrasexual competition as women all try to attract the sexual validation of Alpha.

    It is right and fitting that feminists wake up at last and acknowledge that they're holding a very weak hand on this issue. They don't care about men like steveo, but they do ostensibly care about women, and women are unhappy at present, that much is clear. It will continue to generate stories in the MSM, studies will continue to demonstrate this, and the pendulum will begin to swing back, albeit slowly.

    All of that is true in aggregate, an overview of present conditions. However, within this very flawed system live individuals who can act or not, to make their lives better. Steveo can go ghost or work to overthrow the government, but that's not what steveo comes here to talk about. Steveo wants to get laid, and the men and women on this thread, and on several past ones, have tried to give steveo honest input about how to do that. No one is saying steveo doesn't shower, doesn't dress well, etc. How would we know? Rather, people have tried to be genuinely helpful, and have started by pointing out the basics, because that's an obvious starting point. By the way, some of the guys offering help here have undergone dramatic transformations themselves, they are sharing personal testimony, not feminist dogma.

    As I see it, steveo's primary complaint is his lack of a sexual relationship with a woman. The politics tie in, but that's not what drives him. Rather, his anger and frustration about his virginity drive him to the politics. He wouldn't have been coming to HUS for several months if that was not the case. What he gets here is information about women, how they think, what they want. That suggests that his time will be best spent working toward his goal of losing his virginity, which can be accomplished in a number of ways. That's the first step, IMO.

  • http://www.antifeministtech.info/ Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech

    Here is a short list of government handouts to women. (A full list would take me weeks to research and write out):

    Social programs to women (WIC, etc.)
    VAWA
    IMBRA
    Title IX
    Affirmative Action (even at private companies since its always the result of government involvement)
    Woman only college scholarships (if they come from colleges since most colleges act as a partial arm of the government)
    Current stimulus policies that unemploy men and keep women employed (and as an aside put critical infrastructure in danger)
    Sexual harassment BS
    The anti-male family court/divorce court system
    The false rape industry
    A super-majority of government employees being female doing government jobs that are completely unnecessary particularly with modern technology (Most non-military and non-law enforcement government jobs are unnecessary are most of those jobs are held by women.)
    Government subsidization of abortion
    Government supported paternity fraud
    The current healthcare reform bill if it passes (This increases the quota for women doctors and puts women in the front of the line for healthcare services and thus men at the back of the line)
    Quotas for the minimum percentage of women on boards of directors of companies and legislators in political parties (This is only in Europe right now, but I'm sure we will see in here in the US sooner or later.)

    This is only a short list. You might say that a lot of these aren't “subsidies”, but they are since even though women aren't receiving a check from the government for them, they are free services for women that the government pays with male tax dollars. Plus, some of these things act as an unfunded mandate for private organizations which means its a tax.

    If there really was such a socialist transfer, rates of single, white motherhood would be the same as poor blacks and latinos.

    White single motherhood is getting to those levels. Just give it time.

  • http://www.antifeministtech.info/ Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech

    I assume you're referring to Steve's taxes going to social programs that benefit women.

    Here is a short list of government handouts to women. (A full list would take me weeks to research and write out):

    Social programs to women (WIC, etc.)
    VAWA
    IMBRA
    Title IX
    Affirmative Action (even at private companies since its always the result of government involvement)
    Woman only college scholarships (if they come from colleges since most colleges act as a partial arm of the government)
    Current stimulus policies that unemploy men and keep women employed (and as an aside put critical infrastructure in danger)
    Sexual harassment BS
    The anti-male family court/divorce court system
    The false rape industry
    A super-majority of government employees being female doing government jobs that are completely unnecessary particularly with modern technology (Most non-military and non-law enforcement government jobs are unnecessary are most of those jobs are held by women.)
    Government subsidization of abortion
    Government supported paternity fraud
    The current healthcare reform bill if it passes (This increases the quota for women doctors and puts women in the front of the line for healthcare services and thus men at the back of the line)
    Quotas for the minimum percentage of women on boards of directors of companies and legislators in political parties (This is only in Europe right now, but I'm sure we will see in here in the US sooner or later.)

    This is only a short list. You might say that a lot of these aren't “subsidies”, but they are since even though women aren't receiving a check from the government for them, they are free services for women that the government pays with male tax dollars. Plus, some of these things act as an unfunded mandate for private organizations which means its a tax.

    All of this is stuff that guys like Steveo are paying for. They aren't getting government services anywhere near for what they pay in taxes so they are subsidizing all of these services for women and women only.

  • Mike

    As I see it, steveo's primary complaint is his lack of a sexual relationship with a woman. The politics tie in, but that's not what drives him. Rather, his anger and frustration about his virginity drives him to the politics. He wouldn't have been coming to HUS for several months if that was not the case.

    Bingo!!!! You absolutely nailed it with this observation.

    There are a few guys who should check out this link which describes a concept form Nietzsche:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment

    Bottom line, it really does come down to this issue of “macro” versus “micro”. No doubt, the current system has injustices against men, especially Beta men but at some point it is time to move beyond the incessant complaining about the “system”.

    Reading through all the comments on this thread has actually been interesting to me because it has helped me to understand where I “stand” on all this as I realize that as I care about men's issues especially regarding the sociosexual marketplace I really don't have much in common with some of the extremist views that a few commenters have.

    Men who want actual progress in this area over say the next 5-20 years have to realize that women like Susan are allies, not the enemy, and that change/improvement will come from reasonable men and women joining hands and ignoring the extremists on both side.

    As a former Libertarian who still believes overall in smaller government, the “Men's rights groups” are falling into the same trap of being dominated by the fringe elements and seeing anyone who departs from the intellectual orthodoxy as the enemy. That strategy will lead to the same result the Libertarian party has had for the past 30 years which is ZERO success in getting candidates elected and actually making government smaller.

    I spent a little time skimming that Omega man blog which you referenced Susan. He is a model for working on yourself. My guess is some guys will go down the individual improvement route, while others will simply refuse. They cannot be helped.

  • synthesis

    First, you did not address the points I raised. Second, you just gave me a kitchen sink list without explaining relevance.

    - WIC is for low-income mothers. Is steveo trying to bed these types?
    - What does VAWA have to do with girls getting with alphas and leaving betas out of the game?
    - IMBRA of 2005? What about before 2005? Was steveo getting laid before then because he was auctioning foreign brides, but now he can't because he has a violent criminal record?
    - Title IX? What do college sports have to do with advance aged male virgins?
    - Re: affirmative action, that was not what allowed women into the workplace. AA in this case is more likely going to help women get into managerial positions, not get their foot in the door.
    - Re: scholarships, do girls need college in order to sleep with alphas?
    - I already mentioned the misappropriation of the stimulus money. You clearly weren't paying attention.
    - I can see how sexual harassment laws can be used to screen out undesirables while letting the desirables hit on women, but who's doing the most aggressive hitting on, the alphas or the betas?
    - The family/divorce court situation could discourage marriage, but what about premarital sex?
    - Re: false rape society, seems to be more about an excuse why a girl “looks like she just had wild sex” or was late in meeting up with her girlfriends, etc. It does not seem to be the case of sicking the cops on betas and not alphas.
    - By super-majority of women in the public sector, do you mean 60%, like in the senate? How many of those aren't white?
    - When does the government subsidize abortions, and are they for white, middle class women?
    - Government supported paternity fraud would count, but I don't think that it involves enough money and incidents to have that large of an effect.
    - The last two items haven't even happened yet, so why even bring them up? They add nothing to a causal argument.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar

    About 1.7 million babies were born to unmarried women in 2007, a 26 percent rise from 1.4 million in 2002 and more than double the number in 1980, according to the new report. Unmarried women accounted for 39.7 percent of all U.S. births in 2007 — up from 34 percent in 2002 and more than double the percentage in 1980.

    The rates increased for all races, but they remained highest and rose fastest for Hispanics and blacks. There were 106 births to every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women in 2006, 72 per 1,000 blacks, 32 per 1,000 whites and 26 per 1,000 Asians, the report showed.

    The percentage of babies born to unmarried women in the United States is starting to look more like that in many European countries, the data shows. For example, the proportion of babies born to unmarried women is about 66 percent in Iceland, 55 percent in Sweden, 50 percent in France and 44 percent in the United Kingdom.

    The NAMs in the US lead because welfare supports them. In Europe, Scandinavian countries lead. Take Denmark, for example. From their high taxes they get: health care, bachelors degrees, and day care. They also get generous maternity leave. We are far from that point. While you may believe we are heading in that direction, you can only say we have just recently started to enter into a phase that affects the sexual market. First, the sexual market became deregulated to allow females unrestricted access to alphas. Then, the sexual market is propped up with a socialist redistribution. I don't see the US having Denmark-like policies anytime soon, though.

  • Esau

    Hmm. Susan, reading this statement

    “that's not what steveo comes here to talk about. Steveo wants to get laid,”

    What you've written seems perfectly sensible; yet, you might want to stop and think again. Certainly Steveo wants to get laid, and can find relevant information here. However, I would be willing to bet a considerable amount that Steveo has another need that comes before that one, a more basic one, which is simply to have his experience validated — to hear from some other people that he's not crazy, that his terrible experience is not solely or essentially his own fault.

    You might think he's gotten something like that kind of sympathy here, but it's really two steps back for every step forward. All of these recommendations that “X will help you get laid” can come across with the meaning “since you haven't been doing X, which would have helped, you're causing your own problem.” It's very difficult, I think, for people who haven't had his experience to offer useful advice with the right emphasis, without also being condemning and condescending.

    Practical, useful advice, I think, is really a second priority; first priority is agreeing to the basic framework, that he's a decent guy facing a bad system, that to the extent someone is “at fault” it isn't primarily him. Too many people seeking to offer advice here, I think, don't acknowledge that first priority and skip straight to the second one instead — and so a less-than-welcome reception is perhaps not a surprise. Think about it.

  • finsalscollons

    Novaseeker nailed it. I read all these articles whining about men having lots of female partners who want to be their girlfriends but who have to settle for hookups. When I read them, I cannot believe how clueless these authors are. If the rate between women and men is approximately 1:1, it's impossible that every man has a harem. Mathematically impossible.

    What happens is that 20% of men have 80% of women. The rest of men are not touched by women with a ten foot pole.

    This is the NATURAL state of mankind. Yes, you heard me. DNA studies show that only 40% of men managed to reproduce against 80% of women. This means that a minority of men monopolized women throughout the history of humanity. In monogamous species, men and women have the same size. The human species is polygamous, because women are shorter than men on average. This means some men have several women (let's call them “alpha”) and some men are celibate (“beta” men, if you will).

    During these last millennia, things have been different. Humanity has been mostly monogamous since the dawn of agriculture. This implies that society has had to fight against natural instincts to make women marry men WHO WERE NOT ATTRACTIVE TO THEM. Since only a minority of men are attractive, monogamy means women marrying unattractive men.

    This was achieved by several means. Women's not working meant that they have to marry anyone lest they were poor or starving. This was a powerful incentive. The fact that contraception was not reliable, single moms or promiscuous women were stigmatized. Unmarried sex was punished by God. A feminist once said: “When you see all the laws, taboo and stigma created to tame female sexuality you know that they were fighting against a very powerful force”. I never thought I would agree with a feminist.

    Unleashing female sexuality is to come back to sexual Paleolithic. It is impossible to revert this trend because it would mean all women agreeing to close their legs and agreeing to marry unattractive men. It would take reverting the sexual revolution, the women's entrance to the workforce. This is impossible, because the women breaking this agreement would have a big advantage in reproductive success. There is no turning back. The genie is out of the bottle. When you break a glass full of wine, you cannot revert to the state previous to this breaking.

  • finsalscollons

    “This sounds like can't get a girlfriend without experience, can't get experience without a girlfriend. It just like the can't get a job without experience, can't get experience without a job problem.”

    I managed to solve this problem dating unattractive women (well, in my case, it was more like having a relationship with a physically unattractive woman). They are eager for a bit of attention and I was too. When you develop some confidence, you can move to more attractive women

  • finsalscollons

    Well, since your job is about relationships between the sexes, maybe you can read Devlin before dismissing it based on a comment which does not address his reasoning. You could assess their arguments and decide for yourself whether they have merit or not, instead of having a dismissive comment based on your “whiff” (which, as far as I know, it is not a valid argument).

    But you are free not to do that, too.

    By the way, Fermat held no academic post and was an amateur and one of the greatest mathematicials in the history. So intelligence is not synonym of credentials
    (Disclaimer: I had an academic post in the past and I am not impressed about the correlation of these kind of posts with intelligence)

  • finsalscollons

    Well, steveo, I gave you some advice before, but now I am going to be more specific, if you are able to read me, which I doubt.

    I can really relate to you. I lost my virginity at the age of 27. My self-esteem was so low. I felt a loser. I felt that I would die a virgin. Women smell my desperation and I was unable to make them attracted to me.

    The solution for me was to expatriate. I took a job in a NGO in Central America (I still live here). It was an amazing adventure. Women are very kind here and they love foreigners. You are like a trophy boyfriend here. Even with that, my confidence was so crappy that I started by having a relationship with a women I didn't physically liked so much. But I learnt a lot of that relationship and then I could have a woman more of my taste.

    Can you have travel for some months to a Third-World country? This could be your best move. It was mine.

  • http://FT.com/ VJ

    Like the loaded hunting rifle above the hearth in a Chekhov play, waiting in anticipation of use, I was waiting for some Nietzsche to show up here. Cheers, 'VJ'

  • finsalscollons

    Il Capo rocks! One of the best descriptions of what it means to be a beta guy. I was also one of these about 10 years ago.

  • susanawalsh

    Thanks for the kind words, Mike. And I agree with you about Omega Man. He is a role model for men, and I believe he is writing great stuff. His total honesty is incredibly powerful.

  • susanawalsh

    Haha, yes this is the third act! I was not familiar with the concept of ressentiment, and I thank Mike for sharing it. This is an intellectual group – I learn a great deal from you, my commenters!

  • susanawalsh

    Esau, I do hear what you're saying. But Dan bravely shared in this thread that he was a virgin later than Steveo is. He has had that experience, and there was nothing condescending about his comment.

    Men can and do face down the system, with all its disadvantages. I'm not saying it's easy for Steve, that he is lazy, or doing something wrong. I'm just saying that taking action generally feels a lot better than inertia.

    I do agree that the system sucks for guys like steveo. I'm not blaming him. Two generations ago he would likely have had a very different experience. But what I really care about is: what does the rest of his life look like? How can he get what he wants? Anger and resentment are obstacles, no question.

  • susanawalsh

    I'm impressed, synthesis! Whoa. Nice work.

  • susanawalsh

    finsalscollons, welcome, I recognize your name from Obsidian's blog! I agree with your assessment of human nature for the most part. However, I disagree that women have in the past married men who were unattractive to them. Rather, I feel that women's list of prerequisites for attraction has expanded dramatically. Women regularly rule out men for various technical reasons before even getting to know them. Another truth is that through most of history, marriages were arranged. Some of them were unhappy, undoubtedly, but often attraction and love did develop in those marriages over time. Today, we are not willing to consider anything but a “soulmate” match, and we want that connection to be intense and obvious at the outset. This is a recipe for disappointment, and that's why we'll be seeing a lot more “spinster panic” books from women in future.

    I agree that the genie is out of the bottle — there is no going back, whether we feel nostalgic and wistful or not. However, there will be changes. There always are, and the current sociosexual environment is tumultuous. I believe that things will look worse for a while, based on things that have already occurred, and then they will improve, based on things that are just beginning to happen now. As to what those improvements will look like, I have no idea. I just don't believe that the current sexual mores can be sustained.

  • susanawalsh

    Touche, this is a very fair and valid response. I should read Devlin, if for no other reason than his great influence on some of the male writers and thinkers that I respect. Putting it on the To Do list.

  • susanawalsh

    I agree! And does anyone doubt that if Mani can earn this beta's affection (which will give him higher value, however roundabout the route) he will probably prove the most wonderful of boyfriends? No pumping and dumping likely here. Both Mani and this guy will probably come into their own in a few years anyway, but it would be so great if their lives right now could be improved by their relating to one another.

    • Mani

      :) awww, totally agree Aunt Sue!
      My recent post

  • Esau

    Steveo –

    I'm glad to support your viewpoint as legitimate, and I admire your ability to remain rational and civil through all these exchanges. However, I'd advise you not to give me too much credit, or put too much faith in me, as I may not be quite the person you're looking for.

    Speaking just for myself, I'm not an MRA (or a PUA) and will not be posting anything at The Spearhead anytime soon. Unlike most of the folks, men and women both, that you read there I'm not of a conservative political inclination; truth be told, I'm actually something of a socialist. I don't want to get into any political arguments here! but just want to make a point that you may find interesting: even left-wing guys have trouble with feminists, and with the world they have wrought.

    You might find that difficult to process, if you think of leftists and feminists as some sort of natural allies. But keep things like this in mind: when the Communists took over in Czechoslovakia in 1948, the first people they eliminated were not the Rightists, but their “nominal” allies, the Socialists. When the push of ideology comes to the shove of grabbing power, the results can sometimes be counter-intuitive (and much the same can be said for feminism in the US).

  • http://www.antifeministtech.info/ Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech

    Is steveo trying to bed these types?

    No idea, but it doesn't matter.

    What does VAWA have to do with girls getting with alphas and leaving betas out of the game?

    Like college sexual codes which are considerably more draconian, VAWA only effects those men who are likely to fail enough and have such laws/policies used against them which means betas and not alphas.

    IMBRA of 2005? What about before 2005? Was steveo getting laid before then because he was auctioning foreign brides, but now he can't because he has a violent criminal record?

    We can't go back in time so before 2005 doesn't help. Maybe Steveo might go abroad to find a woman. There is no reason that the government should treat him as a violent criminal for doing so.

    Title IX? What do college sports have to do with advance aged male virgins?

    They're paying for it.

    AA in this case is more likely going to help women get into managerial positions, not get their foot in the door.

    Which means that women didn't deserve these managerial positions in the first place.

    Re: scholarships, do girls need college in order to sleep with alphas?

    Steveo is still paying for it so he is paying for women to be able to sleep with alphas in college.

    I can see how sexual harassment laws can be used to screen out undesirables while letting the desirables hit on women, but who's doing the most aggressive hitting on, the alphas or the betas?

    Doesn't matter.

    The family/divorce court situation could discourage marriage, but what about premarital sex?

    Steveo is still paying for it. The onerous child support system does not require you to be married.

    It does not seem to be the case of sicking the cops on betas and not alphas.

    Most victims of the false rape industry don't have the resources of the Duke Lacrosse players (and they were lucky).

    By super-majority of women in the public sector, do you mean 60%, like in the senate?

    Congratulations on trying to use the apex fallacy, a known logical fallacy. Women make up a supermajority of public employees particularly non-law enforcement and non-military employees meaning that most of their jobs are useless and unnecessary. Steveo (and others like him) has to pay for all those useless bureaucracies full of women.

    How many of those aren't white?

    It doesn't matter.

    When does the government subsidize abortions, and are they for white, middle class women?

    Money given to feminist groups like Planned Parenthood. I'm pretty sure white middle class women get abortions too. Besides I have no idea what Steveo's race is or why race is an issue with this.

    In Europe, Scandinavian countries lead. Take Denmark, for example. From their high taxes they get: health care, bachelors degrees, and day care. They also get generous maternity leave.

    I thought you said things that didn't happen here didn't matter.

    First, the sexual market became deregulated to allow females unrestricted access to alphas.

    Women have always had unrestricted access to alphas. There were consequences to their behavior which was the difference.

    I don't see the US having Denmark-like policies anytime soon, though.

    It doesn't have to be “Denmark-like” for it to be a problem.

  • http://www.antifeministtech.info/ Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech

    All of these recommendations that “X will help you get laid” can come across with the meaning “since you haven't been doing X, which would have helped, you're causing your own problem.”

    This is correct. I would add that if Steveo has already been doing X it sounds absurd if it's something pretty basic like “dress well” which Steveo has been told. I seriously doubt Steveo is smelly, obese, and dresses like a bum since most people aren't. It comes across as since you're a 30 year old virgin you must be smelly, obese, and dress like a bum. This isn't in Steveo's head either. Esau has noticed this. I have noticed this, and people commenting on my blog have noticed this.

  • AT

    I'm not saying he can't complain–what most of us are saying is that just complaining won't get him anywhere. He can rail about the injustice of it all, put a socio-economic/political slant into the whole thing, but at the end of the day, does it get him what he wants?

    The points raised here are valid–there are issues plaguing betas that most women here are concerned about, especially the married ones like Susan and me. But that is looking at it on the macro level. At the micro level, how does Steveo accomplish what he wishes? Is it by railing against the present status quo? Will this constant critique of the present dating scene make women, heck, a specific woman, reconsider and suddenly find him irresistible enough to finally help him out of his virginity? Attraction is a very specific thing–either a woman finds him attractive or she doesn't. We can all debate the overall impact of the present sociosexual conundrum facing men and women alike till our tongues fall off, cite statistics and studies left and right, but will this get what Steveo wants? What will it really accomplish, as far as his goal is concerned? Will all this, pardon my French, get him laid? The men and women here in this blog, if you look back on all the comments, are all trying to help him accomplish this goal. Despite the fact that he keeps slapping people down for trying to help, we still try.

    Look, none of us knows how he looks like. None of us knows how he comes across to women in real life, if he's just so naturally shy that women overlook him, or there's something about him that puts women off. So to Steveo, let me make a suggestion. Find a good friend, someone who'd tell it to you straight, someone who's got Game going himself preferably, and let him analyze how you present yourself. If you have a female friend or relative, that would be good too, to give you the female perspective. Not having seen you, not knowing what vibes you put across to women, all we can really do here is speculate, and really, it's beginning to feel silly debating all these things with you when we don't have the full picture and all we can offer you are generalities when what you really need are specifics. So it has to be someone who knows you personally and who cares enough about you to be honest, who can truly pinpoint what you need to do.

  • synthesis

    I did not use the apex fallacy, I made a joke about your ambiguous usage of language. The apex fallacy is not a “known” logical fallacy. Bernard Chapin claims to have coined the term. “The error in their thinking arises from a collective refusal to acknowledge that the vast majority of male workers toil in the nether regions of our economy.” Not acknowledging a supposed fact sounds like it would fall under false attribution. You can't just make them up out of thin air, unless…
    The PMAFT fallacy: the user of this fallacy subscribes to a solipsistic philosophy in which the experiencer can only know that his/her own mind exists. Reality is reduced to electrical signals in the brain that stimulate the sensory regions. Upon realizing this, the user accepts that his/her reality can be shaped at will, as if he/she is God in the gospel of John. When you speak Word the Word becomes reality. Don't like someone's arguments? Then speak, “Doesn't matter,” and they magically no longer trouble you!

    Do you realize how retarded you sound? What does “deregulated” mean?

    Women have always had unrestricted access to alphas. There were consequences to their behavior which was the difference.

    The consequences were the regulation!

    I thought you said things that didn't happen here didn't matter.

    I don't think I did per se, but that is in fact true. I was demonstrating what a socialist redistribution for a sexual market looks like. I was saying the US is not Denmark.

    Look, I realize I've made assumptions about Steveo's race and socioeconomic status, but I bring those things up because those things form divisions in the sexual market. There are clear differences in statistics between white, educated, middle class versus black/latino, uneducated, and poor. If everyone stopped buying rap music, would it shake up the music industry so much that labels couldn't risk signing up rock bands? Is the lack of confidence in the music market that contagious?

  • susanawalsh

    OK, look everybody. I am profoundly uncomfortable with all the discussion about steveo. He hasn't commented in several days, and I think it's time to stop discussing it. It feels prurient in some way, and disrespectful. I truly believe that everyone here has his best interests at heart, and I sincerely appreciate all of the good faith effort to provide support and help.

    Where we disagree, I think we all know that continued discussion is not going to bring us together. Ultimately, steveo will decide what action to take, if any. In the meantime, I don't want him serving as a lightning rod for political debate. By all means continue the conversation, but let's leave him out of it, OK?

  • autumnpari

    Hi,

    I know there are a lot of frustrated guys on this blog, so I may be totally shot down on this, but there is a reason why a lot of girls like the so-called “Alpha” type. Like Susan says, it has nothing to do with looks.
    In my case, and the case of a lot of women, we just like CONFIDENT guys. No girl is going to be attracted to a guy who is down on himself, quiet and a loner. Men don't like women who exhibit these qualities either. The big thing that Alphas have is confidence. They ooze it. Trust me, a lot of women know these guys are jerks. We're not stupid. But there is something undeniably attractive about a guy with the confidence to flirt with you, hit on you, etc. My friend got hit on by one of these types, a guy who totally fits the description you gave. Of course, he just wanted to hook up with her but she was willing to at least hang out with him before telling him she wasn't going to sleep with him. If a genuinely nice guy were confident like that, he would already have his foot in the door.
    We realize how hard it is for guys to approach girls and we like it when guys are sure of themselves in that way. If you were bold enough to do that (as it seems from your comment that you were), I highly doubt that all girls you asked would have rejected you.

  • http://www.antifeministtech.info/ Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech

    “The error in their thinking arises from a collective refusal to acknowledge that the vast majority of male workers toil in the nether regions of our economy.”

    This is a correct statement so you are wrong.

    The synthesis fallacy: The user of this fallacy subscribes to the idea that any random idea pulled out of his/her ass can be attributed to anyone else. Reality is defined by repeating the same false statements over and over again.

    Do you realize how retarded you sound?

    I'm not going down to your level. I will take this as an admission that I'm right.

    The consequences were the regulation!

    The consequences didn't come from government (or a quasi-governmental entity) so they are not regulation.

    I was demonstrating what a socialist redistribution for a sexual market looks like.

    No you weren't. While amounts of redistribution matter so do where its going and for what purpose. Both the US and Denmark have lots of redistribution going to women. It's done in different ways and different amounts, but all you said is the problem exists in both places.

  • finsalscollons

    Thank you, Susan. After doing that, you may come to the conclusion that all what Devlin says is BS but you will be able to say this with knowledge.

    It is always a pleasure to talk to you.

  • finsalscollons

    I couldn't agree more. The problem of the modern woman is that what she wants is the opposite of what she needs. A nice beta guy is the best boyfriend.

    I always think that if some smart woman had accepted me while I was a beta, I would have done ANYTHING to make her happy for the rest of my life.

    Sadly, this was not possible. When I was beta, no woman would have touched me with a ten feet pole. I had to develop alpha mentality. I lost my betatude but I lost something very precious: the ability to love and bond completely with a woman.

    Now that my number of sexual partners is above 30 and that women chase me, it is difficult to give up all these things and love a woman the way I used to love a woman before. No woman can satiate me now. Alphaness and promiscuity change your personality. But I would have been happier with one woman in my beta days than I am now with several women. But if I remained beta, I would still be a virgin.

    So it's a Catch 22. You can't win. If you are a beta in your teens, you can remain:

    a) A bitter omega forever a la Sodini.
    b) An alpha a_hole.

    I had to choose and I choose b.

    So women lose when they despise a beta guy, but beta guys also lose: the ability of being satisfied with one woman. It is a game where everybody loses.

  • synthesis

    “2 + 2 = 5″
    This is a correct statement so you are wrong.

    The synthesis fallacy: The user of this fallacy subscribes to the idea that any random idea pulled out of his/her ass can be attributed to anyone else. Reality is defined by repeating the same false statements over and over again.

    The funny thing is is that this is vaguely my criticism of you, only less eloquent. I mean, I referenced the Bible. Yours is just crass in comparison.

    I'm not going down to your level. I will take this as an admission that I'm right.

    That you're right? You're either being completely disingenuous in your logic, or your logic is seriously messed up. Besides, I declare that I have won. Game, set, match. (Are you noticing how I'm using your techniques against you and it comes off as completely asinine?)

    The consequences didn't come from government (or a quasi-governmental entity) so they are not regulation.

    It's social regulation. Sex is a social activity. While you could buy and sell it, the same could be said for hanging out with the cool kid in school. He could charge you for it, or he could decide who he spends his time with based on social factors.

    My argument is simple: the current sexual market trend was not caused by a socialist redistribution to females. Causation is the key here.

  • http://www.antifeministtech.info/ Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech

    “2 + 2 = 5″
    This is a correct statement so you are wrong.

    Do you seriously think most men are corporate executives making over $200K a year with their own personal lobbyists? If you deny the apex fallacy, then this is what you are saying. Most men do toil in the nether regions of the economy. This is a fact. They aren't corporate executives with major influence on the government.

    The funny thing is is that this is vaguely my criticism of you

    This is because you're guilty of projection.

    That you're right?

    You're obviously getting very frustrated because you're failing or you wouldn't be throwing around words like retarded.

    It's social regulation.

    There is no such thing since the government isn't involved.

  • finsalscollons

    You might be right, Susan. But I am from a country where feminism is recent and the so-called patriarchy lasted until recent times. I was able to see how things worked in this system when I was a child.

    And husbands loved wives a lot more than the other way around. I saw it in my aunts, my mother and my female neighbors. This was evident even for a child. The way husbands looked at their wives, touched them, talked to them was more affectionate than the other way around.

    Having inside information from my family, I can tell you that women were relatively uninterested in sex. I know a woman in my close family that was disgusted by her husband's sexually approaching her (her husband was a hardworking, nice beta men who always treated her well and did everything she said)

    Men used to get married for love and women used to get married because “I am of that age and I don't want to become a spinster”. The pressure for a girl to get married was overwhelming in an age when women didn't work. A girl who dated a boy was “touched” and therefore, other men refused to marry her. So women married the first boy who dated them.

    I grew up thinking that women weren't able to love men the way men love women. But now that I have experienced women's loving me with passion, I think that women can love this way as long as the guy is an alpha. You can develop affection for your beta husband but it would be more like loving your brother.

    Now I interpret the situation this way: the women of my neighborhood were the 80% of women who married a beta and therefore, after marriage, he was unattractive to them. Alphas lived in wealthier neighborhoods.

    But I could be wrong.

  • synthesis

    I was making fun of your argument with the 2 + 2 = 5. Men occupy the very top and the very bottom, but the whole structure is a pyramid. I wasn't even making any apex fallacy in the first place. I merely wanted you to clarify what a super-majority was.

    I'm projecting what I do and placing it on you? You do know this indented thread system shows temporal precedence, right?

    You're obviously getting very frustrated because you're failing or you wouldn't be throwing around phrases like “pulled out of his/her ass.”

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regulate

  • Dilithium

    autumpari —

    “so I may be totally shot down on this”

    I can do this job for you, and at a substantial discount. But first I want to get a finer read on what you've written, to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding. Are you saying, or agreeing with the claim, that jerk-hood and confidence are highly correlated? ie a large percentage of confident men turn out to be jerks? Presumably so, since if the percentage of confident men who turn out to be jerks was small, then you and other women would be in heaven and not have so much to worry about. But I don't want to presume; is that what you're saying? And, if so, do you have an idea why this correlation should exist? Let me know what you think, and I will reveal the rest of the story for you.

    PS, on a separate note regarding “No girl is going to be attracted to a guy who is down on himself, quiet and a loner;” have you met Edward Cullen? I think what you've said only applies if the guy is _not_ extremely handsome….

    • Mani

      Dilithium –

      Hmm, maybe I can weigh on on my opinion with this.

      I think the type of guys autumpari is describing is what I like to call the classic college alpha frat boy.

      Definitely not all confident guys are jerks – but it's not that simple. First, there is just something very appealing about guys going for what they want. That is attractive in any type of guy. But now, the jerk part. Back to the frat boy, the confidence in them is what I'd like to call more cockiness than confidence. First off, they walk around with a serious sense of entitlement – getting into a frat in the first place is already setting up an "i'm better than you" mentality. Next, these guys party. A lot. And when they party, they learn quickly that they will have an endless stream of women just constantly throwing themselves at them (alcohol helps lubricate situations like these, of course), that's room enough to make any guy's head get big. These guys may come ACROSS as confident, because they know the game, and what they do they do all the time (hit on girls, etc) because they have been thrust into so many social situations where they've had to do so in order to get any. Then again, these types of guys, at least to me, come across as guys who just want "notches on the bedpost" opposed developing long term relationships. I do say that these boys are cocky though – and that's not to be mistaken for confidence – because I think deep down if guys feel like they need to validate themselves by how much T&A they get, then there are some deeper insecurities hidden below the surface.

      Why are they so attractive, then, even when they're not so attractive physically? The first is a given – to get attention from any male is flattering. To get attention from an alpha like this feels ultra flattering because – from my observation and experience – frat guys or frat-like guys equal the ultimate validation for a lot of girls. They are stereotyped as the epitome of shallow, they constantly surround themselves with good looking girls…and for them to acknowledge or pay attention to you, well, that feels pretty damn good ("Oh, I'M attractive enough to be recognized by a FRAT BOY? I must be hot, then.") Or, if these guys show signs of wanting to develop a deeper desire to want to connect with you, then STOP THE PRESSES. You hold the cards in taming a player (Not really, but girls get sooo excited when they think they do.) And I am sure you know that's every girls dream – to get the play boy to settle down with you.

      There are lots of these types of guys walking around my campus (I'd say honestly they make up about a good 30% of guys here), no doubt, so maybe I am quick to judge, but from my track record, yes, THESE types of confident guys turn out to be jerks.

      I may have TOTALLY missed the mark here, but that is what I took from autumpari's post. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though, autumpari!
      My recent post

      • Mani

        Note: I am not TOTALLY trying to hate on frat guys here, don't get me wrong. I am sure there are some out there who are very nice guys, but JUST from my experience, the great majority of ones that I have encountered have been nice, yes (and I know they're not bad people), but they have also been super shallow and quite pretentious. This is a common stereotype that I have seen and experienced, maybe there will be some frat guys in the future who will combat it :P
        My recent post

      • Mani

        "getting into a frat in the first place is already setting up an "i'm better than you" mentality."

        And this can be easily taken out of context, so I will have to say that this will not apply for all of the guys who joined such an organization…but, again, just so happens that the ones I've encountered…well, you get the picture.

        Ok, going to stop now :X ….

        Sorry for the huge influx of comments on this, susan!
        My recent post

  • http://www.antifeministtech.info/ Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech

    I'm projecting what I do and placing it on you?

    Yes, just like this anti-domestic violence lobbyist committed domestic violence against her husband.

    You're obviously getting very frustrated because you're failing or you wouldn't be throwing around phrases like “pulled out of his/her ass.”

    More projection.

    This is the context we have been using the word “regulation” in (from your link):

    Main Entry: reg·u·late
    Function: transitive verb
    Inflected Forms: -lat·ed; -lat·ing
    1 : to govern or direct according to rule
    2 a : to bring under the control of law b : to make regulations for or concerning

  • autumnpari

    Yeah, I can see how you would think that from what I wrote. I should have been clearer.

    No, I don't think confidence is correlated with being a jerk all the time. I have a friend who is pretty reserved, very intelligent, kind and not necessarily the best looking guy in the world. He walked straight up to the girl who he liked and asked her out to coffee (something very few guys do around here, BTW) and she said yes. Now, it turned out that the girl was monstrous and he found this out eventually, but I doubt that she would have even noticed him had he not been brave enough to do this in a campus culture where this is NOT done with any sort of frequency. He was persistent in following up after her. If you met him, you would immediately classify him as “beta” and that's even how he classifies himself. But he didn't let himself be typecast. Betas can be confident too.

    Definitely, some guys know they have the looks, charm, intelligence, etc. so they turn out to be arrogant. I'm assuming this is what is generally meant by the “alpha” in a negative sense. So, at least in my age group, yes, there might be a correlation between guys who are confident and jerks at the same time. Confidence is attractive; being a jerk is not. If more guys were like the friend I mentioned above, meaning they find something in themselves to be confident about, then I think women would find so-called “betas” very attractive as well.

    But on campus, I find a lot more “beta” men are content to chill with their friends, play video games, get drunk, smoke weed, etc. without making a real effort to have female friends, let alone a girlfriend. I don't think it's entirely fair to blame women for being oblivious of these guys – they don't come out of their rooms.
    My experience is limited to what I have seen in my own college and heard from other college age friends about their schools. So if you want to hit back with “real world” info, that's fine, but it won't be relevant to my experience.

    Also, Twilight is not a fair example. First, it's fiction. Second, it's consumed by adolescents who don't have a clue. Third, I don't find EC attractive.
    I think men have too much of a complex about their looks when women don't care half as much as they might think about looks. Hygiene, clean clothing, and smelling nice are all highly appreciated. But not every man has to be gorgeous to get noticed. And a gorgeous man with no confidence – major turn off.

    Susan, if you're reading this, do you think there is such a thing as an “alpha” and “beta” camp among women?

  • synthesis

    Dude, you're the one projecting. I read your blog. I read Roissy and Ferdinand too. I'm not your enemy, per se. I'm only disagreeing with you about what started the problem. I'm not saying you can't prop it up with redistribution, I'm not saying it's not already happening with NAMs and the poor, but I am saying the situation for the white middle class is different.

    I don't want to pay for someone's kids just because they're pursuing some constitutional right to happiness. I certainly wouldn't want to be tricked into paying child support or pay alimony. I don't want my tax dollars to go to some college girl who's going to waste it on some bachelors degree in the social sciences and doesn't even do anything with it. Is Title IX stupid? Yes. Do I think unqualified people getting jobs / getting promoted is stupid? Yes. Do I think it's stupid how stimulus money was rerouted to females? Yes.

    As for the link, you went to the bottom and got the legal dictionary definition. You skipped right over how I have been using it: 4. to put in good order. We have not been using the legal definition, only you have.

  • aldonza

    All of the advice to the women about “go beta” doesn't seem to take into account women who would love to do so, but it's also my experience that all guys, even the betas seem to chase the same 10-20% of “hottie” girls.

    This is not a problem where we can blame hypergamy and feminism and call it a day.

    • Mani

      Well, I can certainly attest to this, lol.

      I am not stunning, but I don't think I am unattractive either. Yet, a lot of the beta guys I have encountered seem to chase after the super hot girls that everyone else wants. To feel overlooked, well, that's certainly not a good feeling. It can get discouraging for us girls too, sometimes.

      Il Cabo did comfort me when he said that beta guys, at least college beta guys, tend to be more idealistic in terms of what they want in a woman. Aka, if she's not a total jaw-dropper then she's not really worth pursuing. It's a bit depressing to hear that, but he did say that in a few years they'll drop this mentality. And for every girl in my position's sake, I hope they do.
      My recent post

  • susanawalsh

    Thx, you too :-)

  • susanawalsh

    Wow, that is really sad if true. I don't know how old you are, but it's very possible you will feel differently over time. If you do meet someone who you think is real quality, I urge you to approach her differently than the usual target. At least long enough for you to get a true sense of her character. Of course, if you are acting like a cad, you will attract the women who find cads irresistible. Not all women do, contrary to popular belief.

  • susanawalsh

    I don't think you are wrong. The sad thing is, those beta husbands could probably have kept their wives on their toes if they hadn't looked at them quite so longingly. This is why Game is so powerful and useful – it decodes female sexuality and psychology. Alpha/Beta is not about looks, or even power. Women are drawn to attitude, confidence, even swagger. As you now know.

  • susanawalsh

    Yes! I told Whiskey that Edward Cullen is a handsome beta and he didn't believe me!

  • ExNewYorker

    The reality is that ALL men find the 10-20% of hottie girls attractive (and I'm being heteronormative here). But then, most all women find the alphas attractive too. It's only a sub-group of either men or women who can expand their vistas a little more. So, for a woman it might be a beta who has some alpha qualities, while for a guy it might be cute girl studying in library rather than the hot cheerleader.

    However, there is one difference between men and women there. Most guys, particularly beta guys, have generally learned that the the 10-20% hotties aren't going to give them the time of day, or if they do, they often don't have the qualities for a LTR. So, they've expanded the field beyond that 10-20% already, and for a lot of beta guys, those women won't give them the time of day either.

    With women, expanding the vista beyond the 20% is a huge numbers improvement because those guys are not usually spoken for. Of course, there will be some percentage of jerks in that beta group, but winnowing is something women have always done.

    It can be a lot of work, I suppose. But the same is true for a guy looking for a future spouse. Heck, in this day and age it's riskier for guy to take that plunge and he better damn well make sure he chose the right woman.

  • susanawalsh

    autumnpari, hey, sorry for being a bit late to respond here. I don't think there are separate camps per se, but I think women do vary a lot. I agree that men must present with confidence or it's Game Over. However, there are some women (especially less experienced ones) who will fall all over cads in hopes of being selected by him, even for just one night. His history of being a Player will not only not discourage some women, but will make him a desirable target. These are women who seek the sexual validation that Alpha can bestow, however temporary or meaningless. These women often get badly burned by their experiences. Some learn to avoid these guys, some keep going back for more.

    The ones who avoid cads either as the result of experience, or because they don't find that level of self-absorption attractive, will naturally be more open-minded about their interactions.

    By the way, like the article about UNC made clear, many of the women who are trying to get with Alphas are alphas themselves. They are in the same social scene as most of the douchebags are. A woman who is focused on studies, enjoying her classes, etc. is much more likely to discover and be attracted to guys in class, at the library, whatever. A woman who writes for the school paper will likely meet beta guys there. One who joins any group that is politically active is also likely to meet betas, as is a woman who joins a philanthropic or scholarly organization.

    For these latter women, and men, the biggest obstacle to lasting relationships is probably the mobility of today's youth. Even if you met the perfect mate in college, staying together and working it out long-distance is daunting, though some do it and succeed.

  • finsalscollons

    Yes, you are right. Too bad Game has only been known for the last years. Back then, the advise given to men to obtain good women was “be a good husband, a good provider, understand her feelings, be reliable and do whatever she wants”. Yes, and pigs fly.

  • susanawalsh

    This is 100% true, IMO. The 80/20 rule cuts both ways, it's just that guys don't have the same opportunities to act as women do. Lots of guys who describe themselves as beta-types write to me that all the hottest girls are taken, or similar things. Since a third of college women graduate as virgins, it's obvious that many of them are having nothing to do with guys, period. These are not girls exercising hypergamy. Why are the betas not going for them?

  • ExNewYorker

    Two thirds of that 1/3 are the ones who think: “either an alpha or noone”. And they got noone. And for the other third of that 1/3 are the women us reformed betas target when looking for a LTR, we just do it a few years later, when the cards are in our favor…

  • susanawalsh

    I'm not sure that 2/3 of virgins think Alpha or no one, because four years is a long time to pursue that strategy if Alpha is not even looking your way. Most women who are willing to have sex with Alpha will have the opportunity to do so.

    I do think those girls will benefit from what was either good judgment or lack of opportunity in a few years, as you say.

    BTW, I'd love to see some divorce stats on this, though I doubt they exist. I'd be willing to bet that the divorce rate between betas and women who didn't sleep around much in college is FAR lower than in the general pop.

  • aldonza

    Actually, it's not quite that simple. It seems that women are most attracted to alphas during the fertile part of their cycle, only 3-5 days total out of the 28-32 cycle. The rest of the time, they are actually more attracted to beta traits. Further, use of the pill seems to erase even that preference.

    Clearly there is more going on here than just “women want alphas”.

  • susanawalsh

    Yes I wrote a post about this: Is the Pill Making You Choose the Wrong Men?
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/10/22/hookin

    I think everyone here knows that I am a beta fan, and that I don't use that word in a pejorative sense. In animal communities where Alphas get sex through dominance of other males, it's well documented that females copulate with Beta when Alpha isn't looking. This is also probably how cuckolding became a problem initially – while Alpha men were off slaying the woolly mammoth, betas stayed home to protect the women and got lots of sex.

    Women select for about a dozen different traits for long-term mating, most of which are primarily found in beta guys. When they are selecting for short-term sex, it is a bit different, and then dominance and physical strength (high testosterone) become more important. This is indeed most likely to happen during ovulation, when a woman is programmed to go after genes that will give her offspring the best chance of surviving. In fact, much of female cheating occurs during this time, especially if a woman is not married to a natural Alpha.

    So yes, women want cads 3-5 days a month, and dads the other 3 and a half weeks. However, the cad makes her very wet when she is most fertile, which is why beta guys benefit so much from studying Alpha behaviors and traits. This is the perfect mate.

  • synthesis

    Isn't he a beta in alpha's clothing? What with the whole vampirism thing.

  • susanawalsh

    Yes, exactly! Guys make the mistake of calling him Alpha b/c he is dominant and capable of being EXTREMELY aggressive physically, duh. But he doesn't use it. He works hard to apply Beta Game! He never negs Bella, does a takeaway, or dominates her in any way. He is at her beck and call, it's just so dreamy. He does physically protect her, I'll give him that. Otherwise? Pure Beta, I love it.

  • autumnpari

    I completely understand what you're saying. I also find a lot of the cads attractive, but I wouldn't be trapped by that (and I have had the opportunity to be so trapped.) I realize that HUS is targeted towards women who are trying to make better decisions about who to date, but I think there's also a sizable portion of women, like me, who are avoiding hookups, friends with benefits, etc. and that the frustrated men commenting here have fairly selective vision when it comes to the way they characterize women. If women should do their best to be good gatekeepers, shouldn't some of these men at least be ringing the doorbell?

    On another note, a lot of guys at my school, both the alphas and betas, are good students and involved on campus. It's just that the alphas are having a lot of sex and the betas aren't. Do you think that the alphas are always going to be skirt chasers or do you think these men will eventually grow out of that? I have seen beta men become more confident and self-possessed as they get older, but I don't know if alpha men become more marriageable sorts (I feel like I've only seen this in movies or in books.)

    • Mani

      Autumnpari I'd say that you and I are a lot alike :)

      I'd like to have hope that alphas will grow out of their skirt-chasing ways, but I think it all and all boils down to the person. Some people NEVER change with age. Just from reading these comments, it seems like beta guys in college grow into their own eventually, and that is good to hear too. So hopefully we'll both have better luck in the future with this!
      My recent post

  • susanawalsh

    I do wish nice guys were ringing more doorbells, no question. Guys here have explained that a lot of those guys are pretty discouraged, having had little sex, or perhaps being virgins still. They witness lots of girls expressing and acting on attraction to the cads. So they tend to hang back, and it's really quite understandable. I think if you find a guy that you like who isn't a player or typical DB, you will need to understand that you should explicitly demonstrate your attraction and show interest. Many guys will pick up on the cues at that point. But in general, those guys are not going to ring a stranger's doorbell. However, if you invite them over, they are likely to hang around a lot longer than a typical Alpha.

    Re your other point, yes, I think beta man do come into their own as they mature. For one thing, they're usually very smart and focused in school, perhaps in part because they don't have as much opportunity to be distracted as they would like. When I went to business school, I would say that nearly all of the guys there were betas. My husband was one of them, but he was 27 by then, and had self-confidence, and a certain style that was his own. He was also very artsy, which I liked. When I went home to meet his parents for the first time, and I saw pictures of him as a teen, I realized I had fallen in love with a total geek, haha. I NEVER would have liked him in high school, or college, probably. I'm being 100% honest here. This is why I know from personal experience that this kind of man makes a really, really great partner.

    Re Alphas maturing out of their selfish ways, yes I think that can happen. As I said elsewhere, not all Alphas are bad guys, for starters. Others act like bad guys in college but eventually get tired of the hookup scene and turn over a new leaf. However, I personally would not want to marry a man who had been with A LOT of women. I would worry about his propensity for prioritizing sexual variety. As well as his experience almost certainly hurting and disappointing many women. I suspect the most sexually aggressive men have been changed in some way by their success with women, and they've had no practice giving in a real relationship. Just my two cents, I don't know that this has been studied or proven.

  • ExNewYorker

    My anecdotal evidence of my undergrad fraternity brothers does agree with that conclusion…probably only about 10% of them actually divorced, a figure much lower than average. Sample size is about 20 couples I knew well enough to keep in contact with…

    Oddly enough, my post-undergrad engineering cohort (grad school and work) is probably closer to 33% divorce rate, a higher number than my undergrad pals, but still a little better than the average. Not sure why that is…maybe the cleverest women picked off the most loyal men in the earlier group? The latter group also went to schools that were not solely sci-tech (though they did have large such departments). Perhaps that made that group less beta-like…

  • ExNewYorker

    Not all alphas are bad guys, I agree. My uncle was an alpha cad, but he was a wonderful uncle who did a lot of the “dad” things a young boy hitting puberty needs: sports, the outdoors and some exposure to the opposite gender. And for a 14 year old boy, who was mostly ignored by girls his own age, meeting his girlfriends was my first friendship experience with women I wasn't related to, even granted these were 5-10 years older than myself. And what a pretty bunch of women they were!

    Toward the end of his life, in his late 40's, he mentioned to me that he was planning to “turn over a new leaf”, as he felt he'd sowed all the oats he needed. So, yes, even the most alpha of cads can change. But if he hadn't been my uncle, and a woman who mattered to me (a cousin, for example) had asked me if he was worth pursuing for a LTR, I would have said no.

    There is a finite chance that I'll hit the lottery tomorrow night…but that doesn't mean I'll be quitting my job tomorrow morning.

  • susanawalsh

    EXACTLY!

  • P Ray

    Steveo: I know exactly how you feel, I got these same platitudes handed down to me when I asked people for advice.
    Best part of it was, the men (and the women) when they spoke privately with me had some of the meanest things to say about their partners. So, no, I disagree that the so-called “negativity” is the thing that scares the women away. It's got more to do with social capital and the people you hang around with. I'd examine my friends to see whether they were stabbing me in the back in social situations. If they were – you need to ditch those friends. If women look to friend approval before they begin a relationship — let me tell you that you really need to watch out for relational aggression.
    Being angry is a legitimate response to injustice. The way around this nonsense that you find yourself in, which I am taking myself, is learning a foreign language and going overseas. Build yourself up — I'm your age, and your experiences mirror mine in many ways. Develop a keen nose for bs, and dump the people who never have your back. Hopefully we'll both be okay!

    – P Ray

  • P Ray

    Steveo: Nice, you're a comp. sci. graduate as well? Same here!
    What you are hearing is a defense of a system that was marketed to us as being fair as long as you did the right things.
    But we later discover that we've been sold a load of crap.
    And people have to defend the status quo by saying that we are the problem.

  • Pingback: No Good News From Booze » Blog Archive » How Feminism Got Drunk and Hooked Up With a Loser | Hooking Up Smart

  • Indian Sex Cult Kool Aid Dispenser

    I disagree with Nona here: “But beyond that, maybe discovering what you want sexually and emotionally is just part of growing up–and that’s okay.”

    NOPE. “Discovering what you want sexually” is NOT part of “growing up” but rather “part of BEING a GROWN UP”.

    HOWEVER, I agree with her here: “How can we discourage young men from validating each other based on displays of misogyny? How can we get boys to appreciate girls more as human beings? How can we dismantle a system where social status in youth cultures is controlled strictly by young men?”

    … and I disagree with SUSAN’S response to that here: “Blaming men is 100% ineffective. Men are responding to hard-wired cues that give them an advantage in the reproduction sweepstakes. You might as well suggest that we tame lions into house cats.”

    ….Men are to blame for 50% of it. The other half of the blame goes to women. It takes TWO to tango. Men DO NOT HAVE TO RESPOND to “hard-wired cues”. We are humans, not animals. We have the ability to control our instincts and build cultures/civilizations. Men controlling their impulses or learning to delay their gratification (possible) is not the same as taming lions into house cats (impossible).

    You appear to be giving the boys a pass and laying all the blame and responsibility on the girls.

    And again, back to this “nice guys” thing that so many male commenters talk about, as exemplified in their posts above, how many of these nice guys have ADD, ADHD, ASPERGERS, OCD, DEPRESSION or some other such disorder, either diagnosed or not???

  • http://www.mind-manual.com RT Wolf

    Don’t excuse men for simply responding to hard-wired clues. We have a hand in this mess, too.

    Check out Self-Made Man by Norah Vincent. She’s a lesbian who decided to pretend to be a guy for year and half. That may sound a bit like a stunt, but she actually had some interesting things to say about guys which even I as a guy found insightful and revealing. Masculinity is a tough cookie to crack and most men don’t have anyone to turn to to get guidance. Who do we look out? Our fathers? They’re out dated. TV? Well, that doesn’t help us work through our discomfort, just tells how us how we should be. James Bond? I dunno.

    Vincent suggested that the patriarchy that hurts women…well, turns out it hurts men, too! Men are forced into roles and attempting to act in ways which don’t quite fit but seem to be the norm. Men are hurt by hookup culture, too! We’re not quite sure waht the end result will be (cause there’s way less research on men…because we’re supposed to be able to take it), but I’m sure they will reveal themselves in time.

  • http://nothing.com Feminism failed

    I’m a relationship minded guy who has spent my entire life looking for a girl to love and spend time with.

    Unfortunately, my high-school sweetheart broke up with me in college so she could participate in the hookup culture. Which sucked because women have the power to choose sex whenever they like, and have a much easier time enjoying casual sex than men – who have to deal with the flakiness of women and aggressiveness of other men.

    I was dumb enough to ask a girl who liked me on a date and she acted like I was a loser for doing it.

    Recently I messed around with a random girl at a party and was hurt that she admitted to having no further interest in me.

    I fear I’ll spend my entire life watching amazing women flock to the loser guys who they consider ‘alpha’ (AKA: no job, no future, no respect for others). Maybe I’ll marry a woman who uses me as a ‘second choice’ because she was not chosen by the large number of ‘alphas’ she slept with but needs to marry SOMEBODY.

    Also, I am a good looking guy; women are always checking me out and seem to be genuinly interested until they realize I’m legitimate. Lately I’ve been acting like a dick at parties and women seem to give me alot of play until I crack and start falling for them – at which point they start losing interest.

    I don’t blame females; their biology is what it is. However, I will fight to reserve the ONE choice us men have in the dating game. I will fight to avoid walking into Tiffany’s and getting that ring. The longer I stay unmarried the better chance I have of finally validating myself as a male by catching up to the so-called ‘alphas’ in the hookup game.

    It’s a fucked up world. Most women get to enjoy all the sex they want at relatively no cost, but get their heart broken by the men they want and settle for men they don’t want in the end. Most men get to watch indifferent, rude peers enjoy sex and attention while they wait to be locked into a relationship before they ever get to experience enough women to know what kind of girl they truly want.

    So there you go. A normal guy’s thoughts and emotions laid bare. Analyze it as you will – maybe you’ll find something interesting, maybe not.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Feminism failed
    Ah, welcome! You need to click on Home and go to my newest post. There you will find many guys in exactly the same position you describe. It sucks, but you can and should learn to withhold interest until the right time. You’re showing your hand too early. As you say, this is a matter of biology, and understanding the way women think and select mates is crucial for you as you move forward.

  • http://insanity-later.blogspot.com Kalushkin

    Late to the party (as always and not even fashionably), but I agree with Ff. Watching women “hooking up” has made me fully reconsider marriage and it made me completely paranoid when it comes to my own relationships.

    Any woman that shows interest in a relationship with me, I now automatically assume that they were burned by a few alphas and are now ready to settle down for the beta. Inevitably, that makes me defensive and gets me thinking that I am getting sloppy seconds. It has become a vicious cycle.

    The thing that gets lost in this whole conversation, is that the biggest losers here are not women (although, they will lose in the long term when society reverts to the natural order of things and becomes Saudi Arabia), but beta men. While 20% of men get the benefit (and almost all women get to ride the alpha carrousel for a few years), there are 80% of men that have lost out. The problem is that we are the 80% that are not the most aggressive or the leader types, so our voice is the one that is repressed, and we are the 80% that drive society.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Kalushkin
      I believe that 80% of women are also in the same boat. If you ignore or reject all the promiscuous women, and attend to all the remaining women, you will find many that have not ridden the carousel. Research supports this – the average number of sexual partners for a college senior is 1. Don’t come at this from an attitude of scarcity. There is an abundant supply of women seeking committed relationships who have not been burned by alphas.

  • http://insanity-later.blogspot.com Kalushkin

    That number is skewed because women under-report. From my experience, the gals are way more “experienced” than the guys.

    I say this as both a guy who went through college in the mid zeroes and as a young professional in the big city in the last few years. I had a guy friend in college who slept with all my attractive and even the less attractive gal friends. There was no case of that happening in reverse. Same thing happened on my fencing team in college. Almost the entire girls’ team plowed by two male team members, and in both groups everyone knew that the guy would dump the girl as soon as he slept with her (that includes the girls). In the working world, most of my male co-workers are in a relationship with the exception of Indian guys who are waiting for the arranged marriage, while most of my female co-workers get plastered every night while on the prowl.

    I do realize that a lot of this is my own fault, in that I have been too picky myself and should step down a notch to get the girls on the lower rung. However, that starts to irk me too. Why should I be the one to step down? In most cases, I am better looking, more educated, and better employed than the guys getting the tail. Surprisingly (or maybe not that surprisingly), it is when I take the train of thought that I am too good for the girls that I get almost anyone I want.

    The problem is that when I let this douche persona drop and revert to my natural beta pedestaling behavior I lose the girl. The only girls with whom I can let my inner nerd out and not have them lose interest, are the overweight ladies. I am like a magnet for the overweight, it is like everyone that is a future diabetic knows that I am a guy who has no option but to, for better or for when the insulin payments come be more than willing to share my medical plan.

    Still in either case I am living a lie. If I act like a douche I am not myself, and if I date a girl who I have no physical attraction to than I am leading her on for no reason. It is like I have to decide whether I want the attractive girl who likes a fake me, or a girl that likes me but I find unattractive. That is definitely not a winning combination. Maybe, I should blame the fattening of America.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Kalushkin
      The solution to your dilemma is to stop faking it and start making it. Learning to see yourself as a prize instead of a chump is the key. You don’t need to believe that you’re too good for women, but that you are a good catch and they would be lucky to have you. Why should you pedestalize women if you know that to be true?

      If you act like a jerk, you’ll get women who like jerks, and they will dump you the minute they find out you’re a decent human being. If you get some Game, learn how to calibrate attraction – it’s a process – then you can be your delightful self and attract a woman who is compatible. There are lots of us who like some inner nerd in a man – but you have to be proud to have those interests and passions.

      It’s hard work, but you’ve already got a lot going for you – my guess is that you could make some small changes, or tweaks, and see a huge improvement.

      Whatever you do, your goal should be to eliminate pedestalizing behavior. Women don’t want it, and will punish you for it.

  • http://insanity-later.blogspot.com Kalushkin

    Yeah, I know that. Though, the small changes you talk about are a lot tougher than people think, and not that small.

    The problem is that we used to not have to make changes. Society was built to make us betas, the productive members of society, actually get rewarded for our production by letting us get the girl we wanted and start the family that civilization needed to go on. It was a win-win. Now it is a why the heck do I even do this, just to be a conciliation prize.

  • yumpopink

    “Blaming men is 100% ineffective. Men are responding to hard-wired cues that give them an advantage in the reproduction sweepstakes. You might as well suggest that we tame lions into house cats. It is not in their nature, and it does not mean they are misogynist.”

    I don’t understand this desire to treat men as helpless animals who are incapable of changing their behavior and actions. Is there anything more misandrist than thinking men are “hard-wired” robots who lack free-will? Humans, men AND women, are “hard-wired” to do many things in the evolutionary sweepstakes that are wrong and harm others–yet we manage to rise above. Anyone who respects men should expect the same of them.

  • jhan6120

    Most sexuality studies – most ‘cultural studies’ in general, including feminism – is a bunch of half-cocked, po-mo Marxist drivel. Not one contemporary ‘intellectual’ has ever said anything about sex that hasn’t been better said by Sappho, Shakespeare, Yeats . . . we’ve back-pedalled a hundred years because of these sheltered, government-grant-fed idiots. Gotta get these folks off the Foucalt and back on common sense.

    The problem with the 60’s inspired, conteporary feminist pro-sex movement is that it is soul-shrivelling. It leads to objectification of the self, as well as objectification of others. Funny how second wave feminists were initially so against ‘objectification’ of women re: pornography. Now they’re trying trying to convince young girls to objectify THEMSELVES!!

    I see the contemporary, pro-sex-for-young-women movement as the following: 1) A childish revege ideation against male sexuality. 2) A typical resistance toward anything that might be considered ‘traditional’ morality; doesn’t matter what the morality is, as long as there’s a ‘fight’ against it.

    My second point is important. Contemporary academic/pseudo-academic feminism is largely leftist and ‘revolutionary’ in orientation. A revolutionary’s main goal is to destroy the ‘status quo.’ Doesn’t matter what the status quo is – it must be destroyed. The feminist pro-sex movement is really only one aspect of this culture-war. In fact, if you ask most hard-core feminists on any college campus, they’ll readily admit to engaging in a culture war.

    Feminists rage at ‘abstinence’ the same way they rage against traditional religion, capitalism, etc, etc. For them, it’s all the same fight.

  • Doc

    Pardon me if I’m not politically correct, but the problem has nothing to do with men – we are as we have ALWAYS been. We want the same things we wanted 1000 years ago – to have sex with as many women as possible. Women were always the “gate-keepers” so to speak. They controlled access to what men want – and legislated against women who were willing to sell that commodity for money. So men had no choice but to play by the rules they placed upon access – we had to be in a relationship before the “gates” were open to us. Women have that same control today, as they did then.

    If women are upset about things, they need to stop blaming men, and look closer to home. The simple fact is that women have always lied to themselves and everyone else about what they “want” when it comes to men. So they say they want “a list of beta-attributes” but they reward with access to sex those men who fit a “list of alpha-attributes” – they have always done this. It’s just that today the word is out and women are upset that those alphas are now enjoying it fully. What man wouldn’t?

    This isn’t an example of “the patriarchy” but an example of what happens when women get what they really want and all of the sugar coating is stripped off. Now, I for one am happy for this change and enjoy it. And if women didn’t enjoy it too – it wouldn’t exist.

    It’s just as with lying about what they want, women are now lying about not getting what they want – if they didn’t want what they are getting it would stop – they do so it doesn’t – it really is that simple. Men, and our behavior, is consistent and is as it has always been – we want sex. You can keep your relationships – we want sex. Except that without being forced to be in a relationship to have sex – we chose not to be in a relationship. Who wants to shackle themselves? No one…

    Of course a lot of women don’t like to face facts so blame men or society… And a lot of the ones lamenting the loudest are the ones doing “the walk of shame” every weekend. :)

  • jhan6120

    Excellent post, Doc.

  • Maria

    It’s pretty obvious that you believe in male sexual superiority. The problem is patriarchy and we will never make any progress until we all make men take equal responsibility for it.

  • jhan6120

    “It’s pretty obvious that you believe in male sexual superiority. The problem is patriarchy and we will never make any progress until we all make men take equal responsibility for it.”

    Translated: we will never make any progress until women can do whatever they want and have men take responsibility when things don’t work out.

    That’s what this is really about, isn’t it? A continuation of victim ideology. The more women advance, the deeper feministas have to dig to keep the victim ideology going. Without the victim game, whole bunches of ideologues will lose their tenure and well-guarded sinecures. Gotta keep the narrative going!!

    This articles should be titled: “How Feminism Got Drunk and BECAME a Loser.”

  • http://gmail.com lacholita

    its an individual thing—there are some women who can fuck like men and some who cant—and we being the conformist creatures that we are, cant seem to leave it at that

  • iyk

    Completely disagree, is this really about equality? Why wouldn’t the goal be for men to play by the same rules as women in terms of sexual morals instead of fighting for the rights to play by no rules as well. By rules i mean the values and morals most people are raised by that says sex is an expression of emotions between to people that care. Women are in control of who and when they have sex, much more so than men and now that now one cares about values they have nothing to check them if they decide to abuse this privalege and have sex for reasons of gratification that usually lie somewhere between validation and physical gratification. Willingly turning yourself into an object for someone else so you can use them, I don’t agree with either sex doing this. If this is about equality or supremacy or have they became one in the same. Everything i read is about her meeting her own needs but its impossible to live your life that way without trampling on other people. I do not advocate a double standard just a standard.