Day Fratting at Vanderbilt
Love is the master key which opens the gates of happiness.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
One of the most difficult things about today’s sexual climate is that for those who want something more than casual sex, options are few. This affects both men and women, although in different ways. However, the hard, cold reality is that women in aggregate have to change their behavior. They have to return to being the gatekeepers of sex. Biology has determined that women select who enters their body, and the most selective women are constantly being undermined in their goals by the least selective women.
The irony is that women who permit regular and free access to their bodies often do not think of themselves as the one making the selection. They feel proud to have been chosen by a dominant male, even if it’s just for one night. The males, in turn, become understandably heady with their easy access to sex, and find no incentives to commit to a relationship with one woman. Supply and demand. Many of the relationships I do hear about sound like little more than glorified FWBs, and cheating abounds. I get the sense that guys often enter them kicking and screaming to lock down the sex supply, rather than out of any real emotional connection.
It’s very tempting to blame the guys, and indeed many do treat women poorly. Still, in the end what it boils down to is that women are the ones in control, and they have to take responsibility. Nature demands it. I regularly urge women to exercise their right to be selective, but I’m well aware that can mean sitting it out on the sidelines while their friends always seem to have new boy drama to keep things exciting. Never mind that the drama often ends badly, or that the women are used and then cast off, feeling terrible. Even a woman who wouldn’t trade places with them for a minute can still feel envious of the attention from guys, no matter how fleeting.
In truth, my approach has been one of approaching sex with a long-term view, and I try to support women who are straddling the line between enjoying being young and attractive, and holding out for something real. I haven’t held out much hope that women would start standing up in great numbers and voluntarily pulling themselves off the casual sex market anytime soon. However, there’s been some recent press that I find extremely encouraging. It’s far too early to say this is the “market correction” we need, or that women en masse are shifting their behavior, but some women have installed a bouncer at the gate. No longer can any guy just wander in for the price of a drink. No longer will a bad fake get you in. Some women are willingly signing up for a dry spell, waiting for a man with the credential of being worthy.
Readers Joey and Stuart were thoughtful enough to send me the link to an article at CNN this week: No Hooking Up, No Sex For Some Coeds
The article features Frannie Boyle, a 21 year-old junior at Vanderbilt. She’s cute, and she’s in a sorority. A Greek at Vanderbilt? Oh yeah, she’s in the middle of it, allright. She describes how “day fratting,” which is drinking outside frat houses on nice days, often leads to “afternoon delight.” Frannie has done something interesting. She has stood up and sworn off random hooking up. She used to do it, and it made her feel like crap, so she stopped. This perhaps is not extraordinary in and of itself. I know many young women who have made this choice, with some success (and some backsliding). However, Frannie made this choice after freshman year and she’s stuck to it while keeping the same friends. She’s also come out in the national press to talk about it.
I saw it [hooking up] as a way to be recognized and get satisfaction. I felt so empty then.
The article goes on to discuss the Love and Fidelity Network. This nonprofit states its mission as defending marriage, family and sexual integrity. It grew out of Princeton’s Anscombe Society, which promotes abstinence. LFN doesn’t like to throw the A-word around, but make no mistake, their goal is chastity before marriage. As you know, that is not my goal. I have written about women having the right to be celibate or abstinent – every woman keeps her own gate. But I don’t have a religious agenda and I believe that fulfilling sex in a relationship is a worthy goal.
Frannie Boyle made it clear that religion was not the impetus for her decision. Similarly, Emily O’Connell is a freshman at William and Mary who, after observing the hooking up scene all year, has decided to start a non-religious group to discuss the issue and find alternatives.
Right now, people conceive the idea of what they think from the media and friends — that the only options are two extremes: to deny everything fun, including sex, or just to hook up. There’s definitely a middle ground, and it’s not that outrageous.
Students at Vanderbilt are also discussing starting a non-religious support group. This is a trend that bears watching. One person can change the world, or in this case, her own individual campus. Women can seek out groups like these and feel empowered. Empowered to not have casual sex. What a radical idea!
“I’m respecting myself, ,” Boyle said confidently one sunny morning before class. “And I won’t waste my time with some guy who doesn’t care about me.”
We may be seeing the start of a real and tangible backlash. Is it possible that women will start acting in their own best interests?
I’m picturing an army of women standing at the gate, guarding the keys to the kingdom together. That’s real feminine power.
Related posts:
{ 136 comments… read them below or add one }
I just discovered a Pew Research study that suggested that young people text more than they talk. And I just posted a few remarks about it and other aspects of human communication. For now I would mention that hooking up involves less talking; dating involves more talking. If young people, for having spent too much time talking with their thumbs, lack confidence in their ability to sustain a conversation with another human being, then perhaps this is why dating is so foreign to their experience. Clearly, Susan is correct that women are the gatekeepers to sex and that they have a responsibility to control access judiciously. And I also agree that when it comes to sex, very often less is more.
Hopefully, this attitude will encourage more conversation, however awkward that feels. The truth is, if you want to learn how to converse with other people, even to the point of dating them, you do not just have to close up the sexual shop, but you have to put away the cell phone and abstain from text messaging.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.
My recent post From Texting to Botox… Losing Emotional Fluency
Stuart, this is very true. Most young people I know say they absolutely hate to talk on the phone. They just have no practice doing it. Young men love texting because it softens the blow of potential rejection. Some also use it as an efficient way to get a message, i.e. booty call, out to a number of women at the same time.
Texting is a serious problem, but I don't see a potential solution. Technology makes connecting easier and more difficult at the same time.
P.S. Great post about the most effective ways to communicate!
It's an interesting movement but I don't think it'll take. Turning off the sex spigot or closing the gates for these people will just divert the flow of guys looking for sex, I know, I'm a guy. I go to were the sex is. It'd really have to take a monumental movement to change the current hook-up culture and I just don't feel like it can be reversed. Traditional dating just isn't an efficient way to get what we want – sex.
The last time I went the traditional dating route, I took the girl out 6 times over a few months before anything physical happened, spent wayyy too much money than I should have and then ended up getting dropped for some muscle bound casual fling… sheesh. Now compare that with heading out to your local college bar, finding some girl with the word 'sexy' bedazzled across her ass, muttering some pick-up routines and next thing you know you're inside the gate. Easy peasy.
I know, I know, this is all very superficial as I'm only talking about the pursuit of sex, but what about love, emotional connection, having fun, all that stuff? Honestly, I think you can still have that in the hook-up culture, if you do it right. It'd be more reflective of, say, a polyamorous culture than a monogamous one. I'd even be willing to bet that monogamy will be out the door in the next 15 years and something else will emerge as the preferred relationship model.
My recent post Girls With Hairy Legs and Hairy Armpits
It's an interesting movement but I don't think it'll take. Turning off the sex spigot or closing the gates for these people will just divert the flow of guys looking for sex, I know, I'm a guy. I go to were the sex is. It'd really have to take a monumental movement to change the current hook-up culture and I just don't feel like it can be reversed. Traditional dating just isn't an efficient way to get what we want – sex.
The last time I went the traditional dating route, I took the girl out 6 times over a few months before anything physical happened, spent wayyy too much money than I should have and then ended up getting dropped for some muscle bound casual fling… sheesh. Now compare that with heading out to your local college bar, finding some girl with the word 'sexy' bedazzled across her ass, muttering some pick-up routines and next thing you know you're inside the gate. Easy peasy.
I know, I know, this is all very superficial as I'm only talking about the pursuit of sex, but what about love, emotional connection, having fun, all that stuff? Honestly, I think you can still have that in the hook-up culture, if you do it right. It'd be more reflective of, say, a polyamorous culture than a monogamous one. I'd even be willing to bet that monogamy will be out the door in the next 15 years and something else will emerge as the preferred relationship model.
My recent post Girls With Hairy Legs and Hairy Armpits
It's an interesting movement but I don't think it'll take. Turning off the sex spigot or closing the gates for these people will just divert the flow of guys looking for sex, I know, I'm a guy. I go to were the sex is. It'd really have to take a monumental movement to change the current hook-up culture and I just don't feel like it can be reversed. Traditional dating just isn't an efficient way to get what we want – sex.
The last time I went the traditional dating route, I took the girl out 6 times over a few months before anything physical happened, spent wayyy too much money than I should have and then ended up getting dropped for some muscle bound casual fling… sheesh. Now compare that with heading out to your local college bar, finding some girl with the word 'sexy' bedazzled across her ass, muttering some pick-up routines and next thing you know you're inside the gate. Easy peasy.
I know, I know, this is all very superficial as I'm only talking about the pursuit of sex, but what about love, emotional connection, having fun, all that stuff? Honestly, I think you can still have that in the hook-up culture, if you do it right. It'd be more reflective of, say, a polyamorous culture than a monogamous one. I'd even be willing to bet that monogamy will be out the door in the next 15 years and something else will emerge as the preferred relationship model.
My recent post Girls With Hairy Legs and Hairy Armpits
You never know what can happen with culture. Ultimately, I don't think it will matter. Whether they believe in hooking-up or waiting until marriage,the most effective people are the ones who worry about staying true to themselves and let culture do whatever it feels like.
And I think others are more likely to climb aboard when they see someone doing something that is working as opposed to someone pointing fingers and telling them what to do.
It's also why I respect Frannie Boyle. She's taking charge of her own happiness and whether or not it's path to happiness others would choose, I think that's fantastic.
My recent post Friends Without Benefits: When You Have Crush On Someone Who Wants To Be Just Friends Edition
I'm definitely reading about a backlash against hooking up, but I'm not really seeing much evidence on the ground. Granted I'm not in college in anymore, but I'm a young, urban professional and the hook-up scene still seems to be the order of the day, even in places where you would think people go to find relationships (ie, Match.com, etc).____I just don't think (young) women have the wisdom to band together in a large enough group to force a market correction, frankly. Even the women in the piece had to get burned a lot before changing up…and I'm skeptical of their ability to continue to forego the hook-up after they've left college. Guys in the real world are more attractive and have much tighter Game than their collegiate brethren. These women (correctly) view their 20s as their salad years, and just don't want to be sitting on the sidelines. They have such tremendous sexual power during that time, and it's absolutely intoxicating—they literally can't fathom a time where they won't be operating from such a position of strength. In so many ways, it's absolute power and it exerts a will of it's own over the women who wield it.____
I think the real market correction will likely be brought about by men—either ghosting in large numbers or learning Game is sufficient numbers while avoiding committment. Even if you do, by some act of God, begin to have millions of young women opt out of the hook-up scene I think men will still be thinking twice about committment as knowledge of inherently misandric marriage & divorce law gains traction.
I think individuals are always capable of making smarter decisions than any large group, and this situation is no different. I think the few truly independent women—armed and supported by blogs like this—will avoid the hook-up scene. But expecting anymore than that seems foolish to me, and the people trumpeting this huge "backlash" are probably selling something: a thinly veiled condemnation of male promiscuity as manipulative and predatory while saying nothing about or even celebrating female promiscuity.
I think the relationship model you're thinking of is called a harem. It's already going on, and it is indeed possible that it will get more entrenched. I've always been of the belief that a major correction will occur at some point, because society will fail to function sufficiently over time. Dropping marriage rates and high divorce means we won't be replacing our population. Men will continue to fall behind women in terms of education and earnings. At some point, the dam will break. I think it's possible that that will have the effect of restraining female sexuality.
BTW, I don't think women want to return to traditional dating. Most women would like a relationship that includes friendship and intimacy. They're happy to have sex early and often if the guy is willing to make them a gf. It's not about a return to chivalry or guys footing the bill, IMO.
Another possibility is a health crisis – AIDS had an enormous effect on behavior before a drug regimen was found. Viruses are opportunistic, and we are already seeing enormous increases in STD transmission. Proliferation and mutation are very possible. Either way, I don't think the current MO can be sustained for another 20 years.
If women continue to give men free access to sex, men will continue to insist on polygyny in greater numbers. At some point, women will look around and realize not a one of them has what they want. But I agree that they are unlikely to organize in any real way – intrasexual competition is too strong.
Dan, that's pretty much my guiding philosophy. We've all been dealt a hand, and all we can do is play it to the best of our ability. We're talking here about changes that will affect not your generation, but the next one, IF we're lucky. There will be people who are successful in this environment, but there will be too many who are left out.
While many aspects of traditional dating were restrictive and excessive, it did insure that the vast majority and men and women could mate and marry. The reason for that was the absence of "free love." The Pill and Roe have changed sexual dynamics forever, so there will always be fewer risks to having sex, and that means women will continue to have it, barring unforeseen developments.
Whether women organizing on campus in small numbers can have any effect remains to be seen.
I share your respect for Frannie Boyle. I think she will be successful, because men who reach the age where they contemplate settling down will also respect the choice she's making now. She said in the article that she did lose some guy friends, but that they weren't real friends anyway. She's right about that. Most frat guys are not going to be interested in having you around if there's no hookup potential.
My hope is that women like Frannie who step off this path will interact with higher quality men, though they may be few in number.
P.S. You made a good point re Frannie's happiness – she felt bad before. She stopped hooking up. Now she feels better, even though there's not a bf in the picture. There's something to be said for, "If it hurts, don't do it."
Wow. She felt uncomfortable doing something, so she stopped doing it?
<img src=http://files.meetup.com/41513/Common%20sense%20is%20a%20Super%20Power.jpg>
I don't think you'd see a noticeable difference on the ground for some time, especially if you're talking about bars and clubs. That's where you'll find the most hypergamous women to begin with. I don't see women banding together either, not across the population. What I do think is possible is say, a critical mass of attractive women on campus making it clear that they're done with that scene. Yes, the frats and athletes will just say "see ya" but there may be an alternative social scene where expectations are more moderate. I'm not talking about chastity, but maybe two people who actually like each other having sex sober.
You are right about the intoxication of the power women wield over men, but that intoxication is of very short duration and leaves a terrible hangover. I'm not sure you realize how many women literally fall into despair after a hookup, especially if the guy doesn't follow up. Highly promiscuous women must become numbed to the experience to some degree. Every time they start feeling that pain they run right out and seek sexual validation from someone new, which is very easy to obtain.
Re your second point, I will have more to say about the backlash, and the feminist take on it. They certainly will be ready to blame men and give women a pass, as usual. However, they do make an interesting point that I want to discuss further, and that is the rising stigma of the "man whore."
Now, I can see you rolling your eyes, because Game states unequivocally that women will happily share the most dominant male, and that social proof is all powerful. I hear that. However, there is a limit, especially in the age of STDs. Many dominant, high status guys boast extremely high numbers – well into the hundreds. This is obvious, as we know that most sexually active women will take their shot at alpha. Women have always viewed these men as risky, but until recently the risk has carried that bad boy charm. Increasingly, I hear women describing guys like this as "dirty." That's a big shift. A woman knows that when a guy's penis has been in that many vaginas, she isn't special. She won't give the best blow job, she can't rock his world. She knows that there is nothing new she can offer, and being with a man like this makes her feel dirty too.
Once college ends, women have a harder time knowing what's up, but in today's world of social media, even the largest city can start to feel like a small town around gossip.
I saw this article in Slate last week and thought of you, Susan: http://www.slate.com/id/2250706/. I think there is some evidence of a backlash against hookup culture, or at least evidence that not everyone is doing it. I do think, though, that it's difficult to opt out completely. As you know, I never hooked up with anybody in college, probably for a variety of reasons (shyness, personal values, who knows what else)… and some guys who approached me at parties could be pretty nasty (I used to wonder if I should just wear a shirt that said, "Why yes, I am the f*cking Ice Queen. Thanks for asking!"). Depending on what your friends are doing, there may be more or less peer pressure to participate in the hookup scene just to seem "normal" (I've seen both sides of the equation here). And if you don't hook up with some guy, there's usually always someone who will, which tends to make you feel like you always lose out (even if his quick change of attention indicates he wasn't going to be around for the long haul anyway). So I don't know who's in the best position to change the incentives, or if that's even possible. But it will be interesting to see whether there's a shift underway and in which direction it will go.
"I'm not talking about chastity, but maybe two people who actually like each other having sex sober."
I guess I tend not to define the hook-up scene as automatically needing booze, but that's probably the definition that is widely used. I've never really thought of hooking up as a "scene" so much as an "act". Something that is done by the people that are looking for it. You can hook up with people you meet in bookstores, at a ballgame, at a resturant, etc. I agree, this is less likely to happen to in college…but college is only four years.
I think it would be helpful to define what the expectations actually are. A lack of harems? Serial monogamy?? Relationships? I guess my point is that even in these "alternative social scenes" there is still a lot of room for mismatched expectations and short-term hooking-up—I know from personal experience. But I definitely agree it's better than getting hammered at a frat and just going with whatever happens.
I think your point is entirely valid but I don't think this disproves Game. Game has always stated that women have more to risk from engaging in sex than men (ie, possibly pregnancy, STD, etc) and that getting sex is a delicate balance of managing that risk versus sparking the attraction. So that women would become more wary of so-called "man whores" in this day only makes sense to someone with knowledge of Game.
I think it is likely that women will think twice about these guys…but I think it's every bit as likely that these guys will eventually recall the lost art of discretion. I think a lot of these "man whore" types go around publishing their sexual conquests for all to know. If they weren't such public douchebags about it I really don't think it would be as big a deal to women. Personally, I was never one to kiss-and-tell…but then again, I never aspired to triple digit numbers.
And I know better than to roll my eyes at you, Susan. Ease off the trigger a bit
I think your comment system ate my last comment, about 30 seconds ago…any chance you can fish it out? Thanks.
I think this is the image you wanted to post?
<img src="http://files.myopera.com/clean/files/poolsie.jpg" alt="Common Sense is a Superpower"/>
I'm curious Dragnet – when you meet a woman at a bookstore, say, and secure her attraction, do you generally find that she is down for no-strings sex very quickly? Because I'd think that a fair number of women, especially after the college years, would not be thinking along those lines. They'd be hoping for an follow-up invitation, permission to call, have coffee whatever.
How ubiquitous is the "one and done" hookup after college?
"Whether women organizing on campus in small numbers can have any effect remains to be seen."
It really doesn't remain to be seen; it's a simple matter of human nature. These small numbers of women may be able to help each other have a better time without hooking up, but they will have no effect on the culture at large.
People respond to incentives. Back when there was no hook-up culture, there were massive incentives against promiscuity – the risk of disease, the risk of a child, and the risk of massive social humiliation because "sluts" were brutally stigmatized. As you point out, effective birth control and the availability of abortion have removed the risk of a child, or at least the perception of that risk. The sexual revolution has removed most of the social stigma of female promiscuity. With these changed incentives there is no chance these women can have an effect on our culture. That's not to say that what they're doing isn't worth it – if it enhances their own lives that's great. But don't expect them to change anything.
At this point the only way to move back from hooking up would be either for an STD that was so virulent and deadly that fear of it overwhelmed even the perception of safety from condoms to emerge, or for the social stigma against promiscuous women to return even more powerfully than in existed in, say, the '50s. (It would have to be more powerful than it was back then to make up for the loss of pressure resulting from the availability of birth control and abortion.)
All true, but there are several disincentives to promiscuity that have emerged:
1. Emotionally painful experiences.
2. Compromised physical health – genital herpes skyrocketing. Most women have friends who have already gotten this diagnosis.
3. Awareness over time that men will not commit to a woman with a high number
4. The cautionary tale of the plethora of women now in their 30s and 40s who never found a man, but dated all the wrong people.
These disincentives will largely lead to some women reforming their behavior. It will not prevent the new crop coming into college each year from hooking up casually. As you say, some catastrophic event would be required for that. Still, I applaud any effort that gives women a place to connect around this issue. Kind of a Hookup Addicts Anonymous.
Ubiquitous? Nah, but then again, I don't think it's ubiquitous in college either. Are older people hooking up? Of course. Maybe there is even more of it because of less repercussions from getting a reputation on campus. Even senior singles are getting into the act as their rates of STD cases is rising fast.
You know, I'd love to see you address the pros and cons of polygamy. as well as BDSM. Are these truly on the rise as accepted ways to express your sexuality or just a way to up the sexual ante?
And btw- I hate how guys remark that they spend too much money before sex. If you are that frugal and don't want a relationship- get a hooker. Even the cad I know doesn't hit a homer every time he's at bat.
It’s far too early to say this is the “market correction” we need, or that women en masse are shifting their behavior, but some women have installed a bouncer at the gate.
……
We may be seeing the start of a real and tangible backlash. Is it possible that women will start acting in their own best interests?
I'll take the other side of that trade.
If there is one thing I've learned about markets it is that trends run much further then you would ever imagine before they finally end and reverse. My own view is we are still in the early to middle innings of the trend of hook-up culture, rampant female promiscuity, and the associated behaviors of men learning Game to capitalize and avoiding commitment and marriage. It will eventually end and reverse, but don't think that will happen until the evo psych view/paradigm of these issues is the consensus view. The majority are still in denial about these issues and equate female promiscuity with female "empowerment".
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
We are still somewhere in stage 1 or 2.
Sure, I think it's possible, too—I just don't think it's likely. And I'm not just talking about bars and clubs, but anywhere you meet young women. I don't go out to many bars these days, and I haven't been clubbing in years. I mostly do the house party thing with friends of friends or people that at least have some vague affiliation.
In my experience, the “one-and-done” is less common after college, but still prominent. Probably recedes as you get older.
As for the bookstore—what you’re really asking is what a guy can expect after running Day Game. You can get no-strings attached sex from it, but you do have to invest a bit more time. You usually can’t grab her from the bookstore and go back to your place. You have to follow-up, usually with a few dates. They’re not going to be down having sex ASAP.
But then again, the kinds of girls you meet at a bookstore during the day aren’t really the kind of girls you would want to pump and dump, in my experience. They’re usually higher quality people. I met a really sweet girl at Trader Joe’s a few years back and got her number—we ended up going out for a few months before she moved out for grad school. I would have been really surprised to see her ho-ing it out at a club or something like that.
So yes—it’s possible to pull one-nighters from a bookstore…but why would you?
I think it's still prominent after college, but less so. And it probably recedes further as you get older.
As for the bookstore—what you're really asking is what can a guy expect after running Day Game. Yes, you can have no-strings sex with someone you met at the bookstore, but she isn't likely to be up for it ASAP. You'll usually have to invest a bit more time, and a few more dates…
…During which you may find out she's a pretty interesting person which moves her into gf/relationship territory. This has happened to me—I started talking to a girl once in Trader Joe's just because she was attractive, and all I was thinking about was the sex. Turns out we were both avid chessplayers—we ended up dating a few months before she left for grad school. In my experience, I really don't want to pump and dump the girls I meet at the bookstore or places like that, etc. They tend to be better quality, the kind of people I would be surprised if I saw ho-ing it out at a club or something. You actually want them to hang around, if you can manage it.
So yes, you can pull ass at the bookstore for one-nighters…but why would you want to?
You are right about the intoxication of the power women wield over men, but that intoxication is of very short duration and leaves a terrible hangover. I'm not sure you realize how many women literally fall into despair after a hookup, especially if the guy doesn't follow up. Highly promiscuous women must become numbed to the experience to some degree. Every time they start feeling that pain they run right out and seek sexual validation from someone new, which is very easy to obtain.
Susan-
You are absolutely correct. That same analysis could also be applied to people who are addicted to a drug, or alcohol, or whatever. With each new affair, they further damage their ability to bond in a happy marriage. Once this cycle is started, the damage cannot be reversed. It will be a future generation of women who will eventually learn from the mistakes of older generations.
I don't want a girl like Frannie. I might have wanted a girl like her before all the hookups, but not after.
She, like most of the rest, will eventually deal with reality and understand that it is just too late for her. No one wants a reformed slut, really.
As one of the PUA bloggers said, there are two kinds of men, now. Those who are drowning in "vaj", as he put it, and those with broken spirits.
These women are unworthy of marriage, and deserve the life they have cut out for themselves.
Susan – I tried to cite your comments in my above post as a quote by you – didn't work, for whatever reason.
I suppose this might be a tiny baby step forward, but no one is offering any definitions of anything here. What is a hook up exactly? I'm assuming she means sex very early with men she hardly knows, but even Boyle doesn't clarify what it means to her or in her sexual history. And she doesn't say she is going celibate. There's a lot of wiggle room between sex with a near stranger and sex with a romantic interest and sex only with your boyfriend or sex only with your husband or complete celibacy. It's good to acknowledge that hooking up (however defined) isn't good for girls. But no one is laying down exactly what is healthy sexual behavior for unmarried girls or what promiscuous means now. What is promiscuous now? Is it the same as it ever was or has it changed? [Ook, now I have that Talking Heads song in my mind.]
I see Frannie as only eliminating the/a bottom tier of casual sex which is fine, but…there are still dozens of tiers of chaos to navigate, and no one is stepping up to say anything authoritative. I think because attempting to have the "What is a slut?" conversation with college women/dating women is like pulling the pin out of a grenade and then just standing there. WHAM!
My recent post Piece of Advice #23: Realize that Debt = Slavery
Nisie, I have to say I am probably not one to list the pros of polygamy or BDSM. I'll give it some thought tho – personally I suspect that certain women equate shocking sex with personal empowerment. I think what's really going on is that people keep upping the ante in order to feel something. I read one article by a woman who went to a swingers club in NY with her husband, and really got off on having sex while others watched. She said she did it because their sex life at home had been lacking. I don't think they've solved their problem though – what's next? I think they'd be much better off figuring out what's not working at home, and trying to change things up there.
Good point. Another example of thinking in black and white. There are lots of kids in college having zero sex. OK, honestly, the seniors getting down and dirty is a visual I just don't want to entertain! I can't even imagine how 70 yo women feel about a one-night stand. Maybe they like it more than young women do. After all, they've done it all, they don't have to answer to anyone. What double standard? In a way, even getting an STD as a senior isn't necessarily that big a deal!
Dragnet, I find this comment comforting somehow. It's telling me that men do differentiate between women who are selective and women who aren't, and only the former are gf material. Especially after college, as men mature into their 20s and begin to consider a committed relationship, it's important for women to understand what the requirements are.
I can't believe you mentioned Trader Joe's – I was actually there this afternoon and noticed at least half a dozen young, attractive guys. I made a mental note to put it on my list of where to meet people other than nightspots. It's definitely a better bet than Whole Foods, which is older professionals and marrieds, mostly. And forget about the big supermarket chains. Just a bunch of middle aged women.
She has stood up and sworn off random hooking up. She used to do it…
That's it she's done. Once a girl has had a dozen random guys, she's no longer LTR material. No amount of playing sweet girl is going to change that. Maybe it's culture, maybe it's evolutionary psychology, but either way, men do not want to commit to girls who have been around the block, no matter how chaste they play now.
This may help teenage girls who have yet to experience hookup culture from making the same mistakes, but the girls who have already been through it are spent.
BTW, that picture reminds me why I hate the undergrads at this school.
My recent post Girls need to stop doing these things
The fewer sexual partners a woman has the greater her marital and sexual happiness on average. If you're a man "shopping for a wife" it's best to put the heavily handled fruit back and look for something fresh.
The more sexual partners a woman has before marriage the more likely she is to cheat, cuckold or divorce her husband.
Riding the cock carousel is fun in the moment, but in the long term not in the best interest of women.
My recent post What I Suggest For My Own Daughters For Further Education.
In fairness I should point out that in the article it sounded like she just did a lot of making out. If that's true, she's fine. Who knows? Your point is well taken. I find it interesting that men are so confident they can figure out a woman's number. How do you do it if she isn't stupid enough to tell you? And don't tell me her vagina gets big because that is just ridiculous. Roissy says that and it's laughable. Total disinformation.
Are you at Vanderbilt? The whole shirt and tie thing during the day with a Solo cup in hand is pretty obnoxious in my view. As if the manner of dress reflected the manners of the men.
If we get to stage three, America will implode.
I agree 100% about the feminism problem – and you know what? They know they have a problem, they're starting to write about it. Should be interesting.
I guess I don't need to point out that a backlash is a huge boon to beta males.
OK, seriously, everyone is being too hard on Frannie. She's a nice Catholic girl who made out with a bunch of guys freshman year. Her behavior since has been above reproach. She's probably in the top 10% morally at Vanderbilt. In fact, she's probably still a virgin. Don't ask for the moon here.
I agree that many young men have broken spirits – there is a real feeling of dejection. A backlash against female promiscuity would benefit them enormously.
This fact is so self-evident that it hardly bears discussing at this point. Any argument to the contrary is essentially self-serving, and I tune them out. Sexual power is corrupting, and status is alluring. I hardly see a chance for change without some sort of fundamental societal evolution away from the concept of sexual autonomy as defined during the sexual revolution. It may be an uncomfortable truth, but individual sexual behavior is a matter of community concern. The community pays for the consequences of individual sexual autonomy in any number of ways, it should have a say in how that autonomy is exercised. But, I am afraid, this will land on deaf ears. Thus, we continue down this road.
The fewer sexual partners a woman has the greater her marital and sexual happiness on average.
I think many young women don't realize this – how could they? There is something spoiling about a lot of casual sex, which makes your heavily handled fruit analogy absolutely PERFECT. Do you think this is also true for men?
They have some reasonable wines there at Trader Joe's. Good value for the dollar…
I have noticed that for a segment of guys, we get more selective, in certain ways, as we mature and start to look for LTRs. I certainly remember making such a classification between selective and non-selective women, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone in doing that.
Whole Foods has better meats than the regular grocery stores, so for that lightly seared tuna, it can be the difference between an enjoyable meal or a night in the bathroom…
How do you figure out the number? It just takes a little patience, listening, observing behavior, meeting the family and friends. It requires a little bit of work, but the clever man needs to find out as much as possible of the person if he is planning on a committed LTR with. And it doesn't have to be exact, particularly at the larger numbers. Even if one is off by 50%, it's still a good enough approximation to help make the final decision…
And yes, a dozen random encounters is definitely a sign that an LTR is likely not in the running…
This is an interesting case…she may still be a virgin, but her original behavior indicates a propensity for short term thinking, maybe a little bit of an adrenaline junkie. Definitely worth waiting to see if her change is for real…
I think for a lot of selective guys, the virginity think isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, if actions afterward indicate character and long term thinking. But, it is a "flag" that the clever man needs to be mindful of…
I think a lot of the male dejection can be attributed to the fact that we were taught that being a good guy and following the rules were attractive male behaviors, when in reality, it wasn't quite that way, and we had to learn the hard way. When you've been the target of a con all your life, it can make you bitter when the scales fall from your eyes. The truth may be a little bitter, but at least it can prevent one from playing the fool all the time…
Susan-
Being a beta male being chosen due to a pragmatic re-evaluation is not that great.
In times past, women GREW UP being taught to value those traits in men.
The "boom" for beta males will feel very much like the boom in apartment rentals due to all the foreclosures nationally.
Which brings up another analogy:
Market price is market price. Individual girls may decide to "hold out" for a better price (i.e.: a long-term commitment), but there are so many other girls willing to "sell" for less that they are not likely to draw a guy.
The whole sexual marketplace will need to change; we may continue to see articles like these, but they will be the outliers.
Many of us need to realize that we are destined to remain alone. Some by their own actions, some because they are going along for the ride.
I never thought about it, but there is actually a financial burden assumed by the community. In fact it is quite large! How will $ spent increase for sexual health under health care reform? Children born out of wedlock? Of course, there are many other kinds of costs as well, but the impact of personal sexual behavior on the economy will be quite a drag.
Is it real? It's really hard to say. I think that it's a novel concept, good in theory, and might gain momentum temporarily…but I also have a feeling if it picks up off the ground, it will be very short lived.
Hook up culture in college has no intention of slowing down. So long as fraternity parties (or fraternity-like parties in general) exist and maintain popularity, hook up culture will as well.
People will do what they want to do. And honestly, if you choose to hook up, that is your choice and I won't say anything about it (I say that because the old me WOULD probably have something to say about it…in other words, HOOK UP BAD) BUT the important concept that college students, especially females who can fall prey very easily to this lifestyle, must remember is that if you want to hook up, just be SMART about it. Which is what this website is all about, right? You don't have to abstain entirely from it if you realize and ACCEPT all of the territory that most often comes along with hook up culture (hurt feelings, emotional attachment, etc) This is purely personal – statistics can give you a blueprint on what's up, but you know yourself better than anyone else here…if you TRULY think you can pull a Samantha Jones (which has been evidenced in the past that it is HIGHLY unlikely..and plus, she's fictional) and have sex without feeling, have no fear about catching an STD or getting pregnant, than go ahead, hook up. More power to you, as LONG as you are ok with the fact that you might, just might, run the risk of attaching yourself to that last guy and end up with a broken heart. If you are willing to go through with that, go ahead. If you'd rather play it safe and wait on the sidelines, be labeled as the "prude" and not hook up (cause that's what happens most of the time with girls who refuse to hook up, unfortunately), that's your decision as well. Know that you probably won't get a lot of action or attention from guys if you don't give in, but holding out could have its reward in the future as well. It's all dependent on you.
There are pros and cons to both sides of the story. For me, I think that college is a healthy time in your life where you get to experiment, so striking a happy medium between the two is best. Maybe not wildly hooking up every weekend, but allowing a drunken make out to slip by you once in a while (at least, not beating yourself up over it if it happens!) Everything in moderation.
Personally, I just don't like the idea of hooking up (what I define as hooking up is one night stands) at all. I understand that we are humans, we have needs. But I think the physical and mental detriments of it all just aren't worth it in the long run. You're harming your body and your mind every time you have casual sex with someone (unless, again, you're like Samantha)…why do that to yourself? Respect, love, and value yourself. You will be happier in the long run, and so will your future mate.
And I don't want to speak for all college aged guys, but I would say that yes, a lot of them are out there to just hook up and not want anything LT. Not even short term..they just want to get some and leave. So college aged girls out there who don't hook up, realize this. Don't get discouraged. Take everything with not a grain, but a pound of salt. I have had guys hit on me all night long, but one they realize they're not getting any they disappear faster than water in a drought. Really, don't take it personally. It's not worth wasting your energy on.
My recent post
This might be a silly question, but is this the same for men? The fewer sexual partners he has, it's in the best interest of him as well? Would women see this as more attractive?
It's pretty well known throughout our society that men don't really reap the bad consequences of having many sexual partners, whereas women do. If a man has had many sexual partners, well, he was young, he just wanted to have a lot of sex while he was in college. If a women has, she automatically becomes undesirable.
Maybe that's just the way we are as of now. It's not fair…but double standards exist, unfortunately.
My recent post
Haha, yes but you're just showing your professional, smug married status! The guys I'm talking about were in shorts and backwards baseball caps. They don't know what "seared" means. Give them time, they will, but not yet. On the other hand, a 28 yo woman lawyer? Yeah, the seafood counter at Whole Foods is not a bad place to loiter…
It makes sense that you could ferret out this information over time, but that stinks for men. You may conclude a month or two in that she's been promiscuous, after you've developed feelings. Of course, if a woman cares about a man's sexual history, it's the same deal, and she may actually have a harder time getting to the truth. On the other hand, lots of men would happily confess it.
Just to clarify, if you knew that Frannie had made out with a dozen guys freshman year, though not had sex with any of them, and then chose to stop any and all physical encounters outside a relationship, you'd rule her out as a LTR? That's harsh. It rules out a very large number of good young women, IMO.
That makes sense. Being the dumpee is by definition rejecting, and that most definitely takes its toll.
Haha, love the Talking Heads reference! Ugh, now I'll be thinking of it. And to be honest, I used to love them but totally OD'd on David Byrne.
Wow, this is a really, really good point. If we haven't defined hooking up (and who has?), then it's pretty difficult to define a backlash. Personally, I don't think it's necessarily unhealthy for girls to make out with a guy they think is cute, even if they don't really know him well. The problem arises when the guy sees that as Step 1, which he invariably does.
My own definition of what is unhealthy for women would be anything that makes them feel shame afterwards – feeling used, cast aside, ignored, rejected, etc. A woman who makes out with a guy and then experiences him ignoring her on campus is going to regret that makeout session. To avoid shame and regret, trust is required. And you can't have trust without knowledge of the other person.
It would be hard to make a standard definition – but perhaps women can think about avoiding what feels bad, and understanding why certain things feel right.
An excellent report from the trenches here. You have your head in the right place, and I'm afraid you are right about what most men are interested in. It's a no win for girls in a way – hook up with a player, and feel terrible afterwards, or refuse to play and feel generally ignored all the time.
An excellent report from the trenches here. You have your head in the right place, and I'm afraid you are right about what most men are interested in. It's a no win for girls in a way – hook up with a player, and feel terrible afterwards, or refuse to play and feel generally ignored all the time.
Rick, you are right about the current generation. It's not going to happen that suddenly beta guys are going to be getting texts from girls inviting them to hang out, as part of "I don't hook up" rehab. I was really talking about a shift over time. When female sexuality is reined in, hypergamy is suppressed, and beta males are back in the game. It won't be reined in to prior levels, most likely, the conditions are too changed for that. That's why Game exists – men need to develop other tools, which of course is quite difficult to do.
Re a chaste girl drawing a guy – what about all of you who don't want a girl with a lot of sexual experience? If a girl is wise enough to take herself off the casual sex market, she is already signaling that her hypergamous instincts are either weak or suppressed. Does she not become a desirable LTR candidate for men who value that? It's not as if all women are "used up" – in fact, I'd estimate the number of women with partners in the double digits to be a small minority – 20% max.
Don't forget coffee houses. Lots of single people squat there with laptops to "work" and check one another out. Even better if it's the kind of place that turns social with musical acts and drinks later.
Absolutely! If I were single I would post up all morning at some quirky coffee house with wifi.
As an aside, alcohol is a pretty useful way to learn more about a girl you're with. I actually found this out during my ill-fated hookup attempt back in january. Before this drunk girl got bored and decided I was a rapist, she had been spilling quite a few details about her prior life that I'd have never guessed. Apparently she'd already had some sort of experience with a guy in the very room we were in.
I was way too drunk to probe further or to even realize the importance of what she was admitting and how it reflected on her. But if I'd been smoother and more aware(read: If I had game) it wouldn't have been hard to indirectly probe some stories out of her while joking around and piece together her history. I believe that Roissy, Roosh, 11minutes and a few other guys have figured this strategy out as well.
Drunk girls in social setting will let you know things, so long as they feel comfortable around you and believe that you won't judge them. That's the key-don't appear judgmental.
A girl with a high number is usually jaded. Constant pump and dumps leave their toll on a woman. If a woman seems jaded to me, I assume her number is either too high or she has other incidents in her history that have damaged her beyond LTR potential.
I'm not at Vanderbilt but I am at an equally douchy school. My IP would give me away easily…
My recent post Girls need to stop doing these things
I'll post about this soon. Let women know how men know these things.
This fact is so self-evident that it hardly bears discussing at this point.
I don't think any fact is that self-evident. I've seen this "fact" thrown about pretty often in the manosphere without any citations to back it up. My own research has uncovered *one* study that was not quite so black and white in it's findings.
To some degree it can be true of men as well, but for men I think the big danger for women is marrying a guy who has a ton of sexual access to women. Men like that are big cheat risks — almost to the point where the cheat risk is 80% or higher. The trouble is that these guys also tend to be quite attractive to women, even as mates — the fantasy of the former cad turned into a loyal husband. I'm sure that happens sometimes, but I also think in many of these cases the guy is cheating. The key for women is finding a guy who is attractive yet not so attractive as to have very easy sexual access to women — guys who have that kind of access to women aren't common, but almost all of them are manwhores, really, because they can be. Without constraint, that's kind of how the male sex drive works.
So your definition of LTR material is someone who never made any mistakes, even if they learned from them?
Wow.
Highly promiscuous *people* must become numbed to the experience to some degree. Every time they start feeling that pain they run right out and seek sexual validation from someone new, which is very easy to obtain.
Fixed that for ya.
It's not necessarily an implosion scenario. I think that things will change when the pain of the current system becomes high enough such that the incentives on behavior change. I think that tipping point matters much more than the ideology on either side, really. Incentives drive behavior.
A person with a high number is usually jaded. Constant pump and dumps leave their toll on a person. If people seem jaded to me, I assume their number is either too high or they have other incidents in her history that have damaged them beyond LTR potential.
Fixed that for ya.
I agree. People will tell you a lot about themselves…if you listen and don't seem judging. I've had guys tell me all about the women they pumped and dumped while I smiled, nodded, and mentally declined any forthcoming dates.
As far as the Gamers using this as a strategy, I also agree. It's been my assertion that a large part of game is pre-selecting the women most likely to have casual sex. If a woman casually admits to slutty behavior in the past, I'd say she's a good Game target. Heck, she just as much as told you that Game works on her!
No, LTR material is someone, who: 1) avoids making mistakes in the first place by having some common sense (or learning from someone else's mistakes) or 2) makes a mistake and truly learns from it (indicated by consistent corrective ACTION, not words, after the mistake).
And if the person goes ahead and partakes of the same type of actions that led to the original mistake, then that's a red flag. And this is equally true for men an women.
This particular example, there seemed to have been multiple "hook-ups" before the "change of heart". A red flag. Not necessarily a deal-breaker, but something to take note of.
Me I want to know how any of these kids have the time for 'day fratting' and still manage to get through college. My famous quip was the thought that college teaches you how to play & think & work 'hurt, sleep deprived & often drunk'. Which is fine, but come on! This more or less looks like some over privileged kids who are self entitled enough to all play hooky at the same time, knowing that they'd likely never be called on it. How seriously can we take the enterprise of learning here if this 'day fratting' crap is happening several times a semester, or every Fri/Thurs, or if you & your fellow Frat rats have worked it to where in your 6 year college plan of 'pick & play' you never ever have any classes beyond Weds. afternoon?
Want to see & get a honey worth her/his salt? Skip these frattybrats & look for the folks actually finishing in 4 years or less. I know, that might be some sort of miracle here too! Cheers & Good Luck, 'VJ'
I don't really think men bond in the same way that women do when they have sex. It's literally just a physical act a lot of times with them — when I asked him why he didn't call a one-night stand later, my one guy friend said "Sex to me is like a bodily function that feels good — eating, pooping, or whatever. The fact that she's there while I'm having sex is just incidental if I don't know her or have any connection at all. it's like eating a sandwich, why do I need to call the sandwich after I've eaten it?"
So sadly, I don't think men really do suffer the same effects that women do.
It would be harder to find a long-term economic problem that is not in some way related to the sexual revolution than vice versa. Take budget deficits. The primary cause of our increase in government unfunded liabilities is population aging. But why is the population aging? Recent studies show that over the last decade at least, life expectancy has not increased significantly, if at all – certainly, not enough to account for the rapid aging of all Western populations. The primary cause is the lack of children being born. But so parents are choosing to have smaller families? Is this the cause? Certainly the mean family size has decreased, but it would still be at replacement level if the marriage rate held up, since child mortality has declined (the replacement rate is only 2.1). No, aging is primarily caused by fewer and later marriages, resulting in individuals having too few children to replace populations, with a consequent rise in average age. Almost all pension systems, not to mention our other entitlement programs, assume a growing population, thus we are screwed, unless we allow immigrants to take up the slack. But most immigrants are poor, thus straining budgets in other ways. Health care systems are also burdened as a greater proportion of the population is elderly. Are we going to deny care to a proportion of the voting population that is growing? Take crime. The cost of housing a prisoner for any significant period of time is astronomical, and taking a larger portion of state budgets. But children of single parent families are disproportionately represented in the prison population. How much is it costing us to support these grown children in loco parentis? How about education? It costs us billions yearly in terms of truancy, special education programs, school breakfast and lunch programs to replace the 2-parent family. I'm not even discussing the other costs related to our juvenile justice and child support systems. Most importantly, where is the safety net going to come from when all these government entitlements begin to run out of money. From taxing two parent families more? Will that affect economic growth? In China, there is said to be a preference for boys. Actually, the single-child policy has led to the perverse result that old women adopt daughters to take care of them, since this is what daughters were expected to do. What will we do? It shall be interesting. I'm ranting because I'm tired of the "it's my body I'll do with it what I want" bullshit. It's juvenile, and doesn't recognize that our behavior affects others.
It's common sense. Everyone who has hooked up knows that there is a thrill-seeking aspect to it. The nature of the thrill may differ between men and women, but It takes great self control and awareness to understand yet deny this impulse over extended periods. Lifelong marriage, which is the only one any man should ever consider given the costs of divorce, will span many different life stages. There will be peaks, plateaus, and valleys. Does a woman have the self-control not to stray, even when the offers still abound? Her past behavior is the best predictor of the future. A woman who has never given it up easily is less likely, in general, to give it up easily in the future. Is it a certain predictor? No, but its the best evolved strategy men have in their arsenal to ensure paternity. There are many others, but weighing a woman's past, and having the social smarts to determine her past, is the best first step in ensuring matrimonial bliss. Studies, in this regard, are bunk. Garbage in, garbage out.
Back east, all meat was cooked well done, with a side of charcoal…
The Trader Joe's does tend to skew younger, but around here, there is a reasonably large overlap in clientele…
Yes, it make take a little time to ferret the info out, and yes, one may have started developing feelings, but that's the breaks. At that point, one needs to evaluate and see how much of a dealbreaker it is, or if it's indicative of how that person really is. And, a month into a relationship is still reasonably early, even if one has started to develop feelings.
Now finding out one year into the relationship is a whole different ballgame. It's something the guy should have sussed out much earlier, since it was an issue for him. I think there must have been some deliberate blindness on his part…a number of 35 would leave too many clues to hide easily.
Nowadays, a lot of women almost want to flaunt this. I remember one date with a very pretty woman who didn't directly spit it out., but when I got around to talking about my summer backpacking trip in Europe before grad school, she got excited talking about all the guys she had met in her trips to Europe. Not the culture, the food, the art, but 'the men", and lots of them. Red flag time…
djb gives a quite good account of some problems associated with the current sexual culture, but I think there is (at least) one other very important economic problem: ghosting. Many men work hard because they want to get pussy by being providers – so they fight (litteraly and more metaphorically), they search, they invent, they work, and the economic fruits of that work not only get them pussy (at least under the old system), but they finance the State and its social programs.
Remove the prime directive for working – "it wil get you pussy" – and men will cease working more than necessary for their survival and some comfort. When being a provider with a good character isn't enough anymore (and you know it), you either go ghost or learn game. Going ghost makes it unnecessary to work much – once you have enough for a place to live, a computer and internet you won't need much other things. Learning game will have a similar effect: knowing the trics and how to press the buttons makes it less necessary to work hard in the economy.
Roissy is quite big about this theory, and considering the evolution of technology, I think that he's in quite a danger of being proven right.
I've slept with women of wildly differing degrees of sexual experience and I've never noticed a pattern one way or the other.
(Insert "too small a sample size" joke here)
My recent post Friends Without Benefits: When You Have Crush On Someone Who Wants To Be Just Friends Edition
Why do people think that stories of exes or past conquests have any upside at all? This baffles me!
I agree, and I do see an increase of disincentives to female promiscuity, which is not the same as a decrease in incentives. They exist side by side. (I outlined these in my reply to Kenrdrick above.) The fastest acting disincentives would be those applied externally, i.e. disease, or some other calamity. But I do believe that we are seeing some women realizing that truth of the cost/benefit ratio of casual sex. Despite what is said in the Gamesphere, the two choices are not 5 minutes with Alpha or 5 years with Beta.
There's also a lot of hand-wringing going on in the feminist community, which is always a good sign. It means their agenda is threatened. Unfortunately, they hold little to no sway with women under 35. It should be interesting to see this play out.
OK, I'll buy that, but I would still say women suffer more than men do emotionally in a casual sex culture. They can easily obtain that sexual validation, but very few men can.
A lot of those kids dont have very demanding majors.
The same constellation of attributes that made them a hit on the day-frat circuit could probably guarantee them success as a pharmaceutical manufacturer's rep, a marketing droid, or an executive headhunter….
djb, this strikes me as a thorough and excellent summation of the problem, and it's cause/effects. Re taking up the slack with immigrants, we will certainly need to do this massively in the U.S. European countries are in terrible straits with immigrant Muslim populations who refuse to assimilate. Here we are fortunate that our immigrants tend to want to assimilate readily within a generation. Still, the point you make about public subsidies needed for immigrants is valid.
He may be right, but there's something about it that seems off to me. Perhaps I'm projecting – but do we really believe large numbers of men are going to resign themselves to lifelong celibacy? Everything djb said is true, but the truth is that nearly 80% of men will marry. That number is down, but it's still the vast majority. Add in the men who choose not to marry but still have sex. How many men are really and truly consigned to a life of involuntary celibacy? How much larger is that percentage than it was in 1950? I'm in earnest here – I know there are some, and I'm not debating the 80/20 rule re sex, hypergamy, etc. I just really am trying to gauge the impact on society over time. I just think this Roissy scenario is worst-case. It could happen, but I don't think it's likely that a large incremental percentage of men will go ghost. Then again, I'm just winging it here – call it intuition.
I'd have to say that regardless of gender, past sexual behavior offers some clue as to a person's preference for sexual variety. A man who is a serial monogamist is a much, much better bet for marriage than a guy who's had a very large number of sexual partners. Men who get that much sex won't ever be able to settle down, IMO. Perhaps Warren Beatty is the miracle exception to the rule. A woman with a history of promiscuity is signaling, intentionally or not, that she enjoys novelty and short-term gratification over doing the work required for a relationship. This perception will hold even if the woman has never been offered a relationship.
OMG!
Eating, pooping, whatever.
HAHAHAHA. That's honest folks, you heard it straight from a guy. In the film Spitting Game, a college guy says, "Sex is like a drug in college, that's it." It's a temporary high, and you come down the next day and move on to the next thing. I think there's a lot of truth in that, especially for men.
Why do I need to call the sandwich?
That's priceless.
So true! They start going out and drinking Wednesday night. Day fratting on Thursday after class. Out Thursday night. No classes Friday, drink all day. Out at night. Tailgate and game on Saturday. Out at night. Study hung over Sunday. Early to bed Sunday. Drag sorry ass to class Monday. Repeat Tuesday and Wednesday. Repeat cycle.
Total study hours per week: 15 max? How do they graduate? Maybe the claims of grade inflation are underreported.
No you didn't. A man who can't have emotionless sex is not a man. Men aren't jaded by dozens of random hookups. We are however jaded if we go through too many break ups with girls we were emotionally invested in.
My recent post Girls need to stop doing these things
"I agree 100% about the feminism problem – and you know what? They know they have a problem, they're starting to write about it"
Sounds interesting; do you have any favorite examples / links? Not sure what the "problem" is as feminists recognize it, as I thought for example that the "Flurry of Flustered Feminists" weren't really critical of female behavior at large. When you see a feminist betray some sympathy for beta men, let us know, that should really make news.
They need booze by the brewery. They need to hide behind phone texting. They need their wingmen like mittens need to be tied to childrens' snowsuits. And they need the voice of authority over the Internet telling them this is their only reason for being. But yeah, once they have all that, real men never get shaken up. Never.
That's not realness. This is realness:
"Give up the savage ways, be effective soldiers
To elevate the mental is to be poor no more."
A man who can't have emotionless sex is not a man. Men aren't jaded by dozens of random hookups. We are however jaded if we go through too many break ups with girls we were emotionally invested in.
True dat.
Can't prove this, but my sense is that women can form and break emotional connections much easier then men (less inner turmoil with the severing of an emotional bond) but that they initially form emotional connections from just about any sexual activity.
Men on the other hand, really can have purely emotionless sex without much emotional damage although a high number count could lead to cynicism which I would differentiate from the effect of a high number count on women which is losing the abiilty to really emotionally bond. In any case, I think when men do form a emotional bond it is a very strong one which is why men have to be very careful of the women they actually give their hearts to, and which is why any guy will try to screen out the women who are not going to be solid LTR material and most likely break their heart or betray them.
Tvulture, I think you are a poet at heart, and a very honest one at that.
And when they do feel hurt, they FTOW, right? This makes women feel that they didn't matter at all. Guys move on so damned fast. I know it might just look that way, but that's often the problem in relationships too. No emotional expression. Just internal feeling and then suffering.
Feminists will never betray sympathy for any man. They will go to their deaths fighting the patriarchy. While they will stand up for women as a whole, they can be extremely critical of certain women and their choices. Feminists are extremely intolerant of women who don't get in line, and in fact, fight quite a bit amongst themselves.
The significant outcry of young women who are crying and complaining about casual sex has forced feminists to respond. Cosmopolitan magazine warns young women about hooking up, irony of ironies. The Flurry post was inspired by a feminist who happens to be the advice columnist at Teen Vogue, and is concerned about how unhappy young women are. More and more research is being done, showing that college counseling centers are filling up with depressed women who know they will never have a boyfriend in college. Don't forget – there are beta females, too.
Several feminists have begun to ask if the Sexual Revolution is harming women in some ways. They couldn't care less about men, but if the vast majority of women are complaining (and they are), then the press picks it up and the feminists are forced to answer for it. This will lead to increasing discomfort, and at least some will break ranks.
I'll be writing a post about another feminist article about the backlash against casual sex in the next few days that might interest you.
And when they do feel hurt, they FTOW, right?
LOL, I seriously had no idea what this meant when I first read it. I had to Google search to find out what the heck FTOW was the acronym for. Susan, you officially have a PhD in Game terminology.
This makes women feel that they didn't matter at all. Guys move on so damned fast. I know it might just look that way,
Maybe to sexual relationships, but not another serious emotionally committed one. In fact, I think it could take guys a real long time before they can move on.
God…sometimes I forget just how horrible the fashion and hair was.
Haha – the hair, the clothes. Incredible how quickly fashion changes, and how sex doesn't.
For guys: the power of pre-selection. Although the key is leaving a lot to the imagination while conveying the idea of pre-selection. And never mentioning anything negative.
For girls: because they think it sounds cool. It doesn’t.
Was just surfing youtube looking for a old song…I am a child of the 80s…and saw this in the videos to the side. Maybe time for today's college girl to tune into some Lisa Lisa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy1Wws60q0M&fe…
and how sex doesn't.
Yup, on a 80s kick tonight ripping old stuff from Youtube to my player. Here's 2 different outlooks. Think I'll go with Vanity
(the guy was gay so what does he know, good tune nonetheless)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID_N7rv-iN8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryVJaxBMG5c&fe…
I am truly honored to have achieved a PhD in Game terminology. My first honorary degree.
Re the way guys move on, I understand what you're saying, but women see them run right out and find a new sex partner and assume their emotional involvement was minimal. For that particular couple it doesn't matter perhaps – they've broken up anyway. But because women prefer sex with a "favored male" they don't interpret this correctly. It leads to the general belief among women that guys just don't fall in love in the same way.
Yes, this sounds right. NEVER a good idea for women. Useful for men if executed with subtlety.
Only a small minority of humans accepts lifelong celibacy willingly. But those who don't really want it may numb their pain through porn, hookers and their robotic equivalents (this depends on the evolution of the relevant technologies). If they could get a loving girl who gladly has sex with them, they would take it – but they wouldn't believe that to be possible, and be too numbed by rejection and their "crutches" to try to change that.
The central problem is that the strategy of working hard and producing much doesn't get you a decent girl anymore (I'm probably too pessimistic), and neither do you keep said girl if you can attract her by being a good provider. Once that gets known widely, men will probably abandon this strategy and search another (or go ghosting). Work and marriage are two bedrock institutions, so anything that undermines it, will take a very long time to manifest its results. Maybe there will be a sufficient and timely backlash to counter the corrosive factors which undermine the strategy of being a provider.
It all depends upon the measure in which being a provider is indeed a failing strategy, the rate at which this becomes known and is acted upon, and the backlash against the factors causing it. I don't know what the interplay of all these elements will give.
I'm not saying that men can't have emotionless sex. Of course they can. My point is that an endless stream of pump and dumps has repercussions for both genders. Point me in the direction of someone who has used game successfully for years and then had a successful LTR relationship afterwards.
Men doing the pumping and dumping certainly arent' suffering much.
I disagree. Only a narcissist or sociopath (or similar pathology without the ability to empathize) would be able to do that for a long period of time without suffering some repercussions. The only way an emotionally healthy man could survive that is to completely objectify women as the "inferior gender" much the same way people did to endure slavery.
Wish that was me, but it wasn't. Boston's own Keith Elam.
Trader Joe's in Coolidge Corner?
Of all the gin joints in all the world…
I knew you didn't write the quote, I just appreciated the way you used it.
Yes, it will be interesting to see how women choose men over time now that they don't need men to provide for them anymore. The Game/MRA sites tend to say that women would rather go it alone than settle, and there is definitely something to this. The current generation of women aged 28-40 has quite a few who have wound up alone. However, they're not happy about it. Women will want love and romance, partnering and parenting, regardless of what happens economically. Things will surely change somewhat, and it will take time to see how this all shakes out, as you say. But the bottom line, I believe, is that this most basic of human drives – the reason we're here, really, will trump everything else in the end. Women will indeed "settle" rather than grow old alone in most cases. The trick is in realizing that before you're market value has plummeted.
I agree completely. Pumping and dumping destroys the soul. We both could come up with examples of that quite easily without even going offline….
My intuition and experience agrees with Aldonza.
That said, the question is tricky because who gets to decide what 'suffering repercussions' means? Is it the person experiencing it? Is it the people around them?
Can a person be suffering and not realize it? Or what if they know they are hurting themselves but are okay with it? And how do you measure one person's suffering against another's let alone one gender to another?
My recent post Friends Without Benefits: When You Have Crush On Someone Who Wants To Be Just Friends Edition
Dan, I just want to say that I really, really like your new blog. Welcome to my Blogroll.
You're very kind.
Thank you.
Dan
My recent post [For Men] The Absence of No
A lukewarm reception for you on this post Susan, but I think you've looking in the right direction. Your timing has been good before (think of the date you started your site) so if it's on your mind, it must be on other minds too.
Good point. Truth is, I think narcissism is on the rise, among both men and women. It's not unusual for young men to spend 4-8 years having nothing but casual sex these days. Perhaps that is what turns them into narcissists, because there can't be that many in the population to start with.
Ah, Tvulture, thanks so much for the support! Some posts are busts, some go crazy, and some are just sort of middling. That's OK – if I thought I had to knock the cover off the ball every time I'd probably never write anything.
Of course, it also doesn't escape my notice that men (at least some men) have a vested interest in casual sex being the order of the day. Just saying.
This is very good.
One advantage of a hook-up culture is that it is an efficient means of losing virginity. I wish I knew where the hook-up culture was when I was in college. I am a 32-year-old virgin and I am ashamed of it.
Does polygamy mean that people get to have as many partners as they can find.
Or is it polygamy for one gender, and monogamy for the other gender?
Why would hooking up hurt?
The other side of prOmiscuity is adult virginity.
Adult virginity is very emotionally painful. I know, for I am 32 and a virgin. Every single woman my age has had sex. Just by doing research on Facebook I found out that many women with whom I went to college or high school have gotten married, had children, or both.
I would never advise anyone to remain a virgin.
@ vera44
So what is wrong with women that they get emotionally attached to people just because they shared their vaginas with them?
And the number of women my age (32) who are virgins is a big fat zero.
Do you know where the local hook up culture in Long Beach, California is? I need to go get some action and start measuring up to other people.
It hurts emotionally. Empty sexual experiences produce a loneliness that many find painful.
Only because they have expectations of sex turning into a relationships.
No expectations leads to no regrets and no disappointments.
I should also add that adult virginity would also produce painful loneliness.
Maybe the world would be a happier place if everyone got married upon reaching puberty; we have to start dealing with things from where we are, not from where we wished we were.
There’s a bazillion articles on this on Susan’s website. Check out “sex is chemistry and it’s never casual” for more info. Basic idea: oxytocin, the bonding hormone, is released in both men & women during sex, but men’s testosterone blocks the effects. So women end up bonding and men don’t.
Lisette, you know me well! I’ll be posting about that article in the next couple of days – it surprised me somewhat. I think it will be fun to discuss.
I have to say again that I agree with Dan above. You’ve made choices that are right for you, and you hope that it will all work out. You’re trying to maximize your chance of finding love without compromising your values. I respect that tremendously. Personally, if my choice were between having many casual sexual experiences and no lasting relationship, or being celibate for 5 years and then getting a relationship, I’d choose the latter. But I realize it’s hard to do, and of course one doesn’t get a guarantee about 5 years down the road. I just think all that random hooking up changes us in some way, and it also makes us emotionally unavailable for any real connection that might come along.
This is clearly a defect in women.
The only two possible solutions to this defect is for people to marry upon reaching puberty, or for women to take a drug that blocks the effects of oxytocin.
Guess which solution is better.
Um, defect is an interesting choice of words. I could say you were defected for not bonding with oxytocin or valuing long-term relationships if that was your opinion & you were a man.
Also, obviously a lot of women would take such a drug if it existed. Unfortunately, oxytocin was just discovered as a compound a few years ago. No such drug exists (yet), but once it does, you can bet women will take in en masse. Then they really could have sex like men.
“The only two possible solutions to this defect is for people to marry upon reaching puberty, or for women to take a drug that blocks the effects of oxytocin.
Guess which solution is better.”
Neither. The best solution is to institute an arranged marriage system. Betrothal by 16, marriage-family-anger management courses taken in school at 17, marriage at 18, virgin til marriage, attend the same college/university together, careers built by 25, kids by 26.
That would be the perfectly engineered society.
No need for drugs OR child marriage.
Wrong. Oxytocin makes people who don’t necessarily want an attachment form one. It’s a problem in women who hook up a lot — they end up chemically attached to the guy even when they don’t want to be.
I value long-term relationships, but not because of some stupid drug. The only alternative to using oxytocin-impeding drugs would be to marry upon reaching puberty. Guess how popular that would be.
<blockquote>Wrong. Oxytocin makes people who don’t necessarily want an attachment form one. It’s a problem in women who hook up a lot — they end up chemically attached to the guy even when they don’t want to be.</blockquote>
Then they are going to have to deal with it.
People get chemically attached to alcohol and heroin; that does not mean that they should continue to abuse such substances, even though they are chemically inclined to do so.
If girls simply did what oxytocin led them to do, they would marry the first boy that they have a crush on as soon as they develop a crush. Guess how such a thing would work out.
Your original point was “Only because they have expectations of sex turning into a relationships. No expectations leads to no regrets and no disappointments.”
And I just gave you a reason why that’s not true — it’s not chemically possible for girls. So why are you now restating the point of this entire blog, namely “then they are going to have to deal with it.” Susan wrote hooking up smart so women can “deal with it” — realize the repercussions of sleeping around & what to do to get what they want out of the deal.
And to your last point, there are a lot of girls who do want to marry the first guy they sleep with. How does such a thing work out? The guy doesn’t want to marry them / moves on.
Oxytocin is a neurotransmitter, not a sex horomone.
Apparently, Susan’s way of dealing with it is to withhold sex without commitment.
I did not write “marry the first guy they sleep with”.
I wrote:
.-= Michael´s last blog ..Michael is now friends with eldorado Restaurant lounge =-.
{ 1 trackback }