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?
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
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.
{ 328 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 »
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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
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…
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 :/
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!
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+.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
)
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.
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.
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…
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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!
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.
Also, the “Nice Guy” Craigslist segment wasn't me – it's been circulating around the internet for the past three years!
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
Is it post relevant best of craigslist time?
Why nice guys SUCK
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/wdc/205576…
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!
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)
This is SO right on it ought to be sent to college women everywhere as required reading.
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
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.
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.
Sorry, I thought that was all you! So, you never meant to be Bill Gates?
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.
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.
I agree. Very, very good stuff here.
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!
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.
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.
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'
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, I thought Bill Gates would make the “Nice Guy” – hahaha.
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
I have a couple more that mention nice guys, but they're rather dirty to say the least.
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!
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…
That's OK, bring it!
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…
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
And know that you have a whole lot of company. The vast majority of students in college are frustrated, both male and female.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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'
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.
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 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.
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”.
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.
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'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
White single motherhood is getting to those levels. Just give it time.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
“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
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)
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.
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'
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.
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.
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!
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.
I'm impressed, synthesis! Whoa. Nice work.
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.
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.
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.
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).
No idea, but it doesn't matter.
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.
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.
They're paying for it.
Which means that women didn't deserve these managerial positions in the first place.
Steveo is still paying for it so he is paying for women to be able to sleep with alphas in college.
Doesn't matter.
Steveo is still paying for it. The onerous child support system does not require you to be married.
Most victims of the false rape industry don't have the resources of the Duke Lacrosse players (and they were lucky).
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.
It doesn't matter.
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.
I thought you said things that didn't happen here didn't matter.
Women have always had unrestricted access to alphas. There were consequences to their behavior which was the difference.
It doesn't have to be “Denmark-like” for it to be a 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.
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.
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?
The consequences were the regulation!
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?
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?
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.
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.
I'm not going down to your level. I will take this as an admission that I'm right.
The consequences didn't come from government (or a quasi-governmental entity) so they are not regulation.
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.
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.
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.
“2 + 2 = 5″
This is a correct statement so you are wrong.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
This is because you're guilty of projection.
You're obviously getting very frustrated because you're failing or you wouldn't be throwing around words like retarded.
There is no such thing since the government isn't involved.
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.
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
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….
Yes, just like this anti-domestic violence lobbyist committed domestic violence against her husband.
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
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?
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.
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.
Thx, you too
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.
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.
Yes! I told Whiskey that Edward Cullen is a handsome beta and he didn't believe me!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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…
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.
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”.
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.
Isn't he a beta in alpha's clothing? What with the whole vampirism thing.
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.
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.)
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.
« 1 2 3 »
{ 4 trackbacks }