Chastened: A Contemporary Cautionary Tale

July 20, 2010

Recently I read Chastened: The Unexpected Story of My Year Without Sex by Hephzibah Anderson. It’s been reviewed thoroughly by the media, with an array of predictable responses. The feminist media was worried that Hephzibah was engaging in a bit of self-slut-shaming, but took comfort from the fact that nowhere does she explicitly state that she regrets the choices she made in her 20s. (Personally, I consider the book an explicit statement of her regret and unhappiness, but whatevs.) The snarky British media accused her of cynically cooking up this stunt to get a book deal, with no real desire to explore being chaste. And the manosphere predictably says, “Ha! Too late. You already rode the cock carousel, and now you’ll have to settle for cats.”

Hephzibah is a successful London journalist in her early thirties. A couple of years ago she was on 5th Ave. in NY waiting for the light to change at a crosswalk. Suddenly she spied her college boyfriend with his arms around a petite blonde, laughing and ushering her into DeBeers, presumably to buy an engagement ring. For some reason, this was a wake-up call, though she couldn’t have been jealous – she had dumped the guy after waking up one day eight years earlier, after realizing she was no longer in love. She graduated and found a job in publishing.

“Those were fun, giddy times, and if ever anyone had taken me aside and questioned whether I wasn’t having too much fun, I would have smiled away their doubts.”

It wasn’t long before Hephzibah had nagging doubts, yet she seemed oddly paralyzed, unable to heed her own internal warnings:

“I told myself I was looking for something more meaningful, more lasting, yet I consistently chose entanglements with men who weren’t really available or keen enough to commit, men who were emotionally or geographically unreachable. Often, even their years made them remote to me. What they had in common was that they were unlikely to impinge too much on a life that seemed to be the one I wanted. By comparison with the relationships I witnessed around me—couples bickering in the tinned-goods aisle at the supermarket, the love that seemed more like an insecure habit clung on to from university—there was even a certain mascara-smudged glamour to the unpredictability of it all. And if nothing else, these liaisons made for some good stories.”

When she reflected on her sexual past, she concluded that her being single and loveless was a direct result of the choices that she had made. For this alone, she deserves credit. For all the recent entries in the spinster lit genre, most of the women are poking a little gentle fun at themselves, telling some good stories – that’s it.

Haha, it was pretty hilarious that I dated Hobo Boyfriend, a homeless dude! Even my mother wondered about that funny smell!

Hephzibah’s is the first account I’ve read that includes real introspection, and a subsequent willingness to take responsiblity and make a change. She asked herself the tough questions.

“Sometimes my decision to have sex seemed to be based more on what was appropriate to the moment than on what was right for me. At a certain point in certain scenarios, a part of me abdicated and gave in to the inevitable. Tipsily noticing that it was after midnight and I was far from home, say, in a dwindling group that happened to include a man I’d found myself in bed with sometime before. If anything connected  my twentysomething dating experiences, it was a  profound disconnectedness. Unfortunately, the  moment I fell into bed with a man, I’d fall at least  a little in love. Was it biological? As soon as I went to bed  with a man, I’d lose any clear sense of perspective. I had consistently mistaken casual hookups for  rose-tinted beginnings.

I did badly want sex to be legitimately momentous again, rather than an inexorable conclusion given the right cocktail of time and place, as had begun to seem the case. I wanted to revel in the intensity  of it all, to believe in the meaning that my body gave the experience, without worrying about when or even whether he’d call, and without feeling like a failure for letting the thought cloud the  moment.”

As Hephzibah embarks on an examination of her dysfunctional relationships, the most significant of which was with a man who had a girlfriend the entire time, she has a moment of clarity in observing how women’s expectations have shifted dramatically in two generations:

“My favorite great-aunt, a woman of elegantly bluff wisdom, has been married to my favorite great-uncle for more than sixty years. Go round for tea, and he will still ask you to move your chair if it’s obstructing his view of her. Their account of their courtship is a wonderful tale of pursuit that might today be seen as stalking. It begins when he glimpsed her in the cinema. When the credits rolled, he followed her home on the bus.

He was a young man made plucky by passion, and she was a shy girl who exactly what she was doing. What makes it comical is the bit where my great-aunt adds: “I said to myself, he’ll do.” There it is, this sweet love story, underpinned by pragmatism.”

It is this underpinning of pragmatism that is missing today. The Sexual Revolution made it possible for women to be impractical, chasing the Big Man on Campus, falsely secure that their charms were unique. In fact, what they offered was a vagina, which, it turns out, is a commodity.

Hephzibah gets it, for the most part, and it leads her to get onto the celibacy wagon. She sees herself, at least temporarily, in sympathy with celibates throughout history, but her goal is more worldly:

“Rather than continuing to go along with what others seemed to want from sex, I had to rediscover what it meant to me. Most urgently, I had to find my way back to the place where love and sex intersected for real…I was looking for a fresh way of pursuing love into that new decade – a way that was a little less ungainly, permitted a little more self-respect and might even yield a little more success.”

The best part of the book has to do with her reawakening to the joys of the mating dance, including anticipation, a sensual awareness, and gradual arousal. For example, she understands from the start that she needs to alter the way she presents herself to the world, and so she goes shopping for clothes that suggest the female form rather than define it.

“If it seems strange that having made such a personal, private decision, I’m seeking to solidify it by altering my outward appearance—by trading a lace-trimmed camisole for a turtleneck jumper—consider this: clothing is our way of signaling to the world who we are, or who we’d like to be. As such, it has its own language, and if we let it, it’ll do the talking for us.”

If Hephzibah is to date during this chaste year, and she very much wants to, she knows that it is important not to engage in false advertising. What’s more interesting, though, is how wearing less sexy clothing makes her feel more relaxed, more herself, sending out very different signals to the men she encounters. She begins to attract men who are less flashy, less bold and aggressive.

“Those Quiet Guy traits that I’m finding so entrancing right now—that hint of reticence, the thoughtfulness that offsets his swift smile—would before have been too subtle to register with me. They are of a different frequency. I’d have been carried along on that other current of deafeningly obvious sex appeal.

Pinning down my own type is tricky—that’s his first characteristic. I seem to pick the ones who really do not want to be pinned. The fly-by-nights, the cads, the all-round rotters. They’ve come in a baffling array of shapes and sizes, though they’ve all been older than me—some older than others;  others much, much older than some.  But perhaps all this profiling is simply paving  the way for someone to come along and astonish us. For someone who is so resolutely not our type  that we’re defenseless against their charms.”

So far, so good. It isn’t long before Hephzibah understands and values what has come into her life since she removed sex from it:

“Physical celibacy has intense emotional rewards. My own newfound clarity is enabling me to see that in my headlong pursuit of sex as a route to intimacy, I’ve neglected gentler refrains like friendship. Into the space that sex filled, a quietness is flowing—a quietness that hasn’t shut out entirely those flirty overtures of lust and longing, but which is enabling me to pick up on subtler notes.”

Hearkening back to the bygone Hollywood era of romantic comedies that put today’s rom coms to shame, she observes:

“Watching Hays-era films for the first time…I’m surprised by how smoldering they are. Because physical gratification risked blue-penciling, it was delayed and delayed and delayed. Men and women circle the unmentionable together through charged badinage that draws them ever closer, sparring with lines so nimble that they seem not merely scripted but choreographed.”

This is why male-female conflict and competition can often be sexy, and may even suddenly generate an attraction for someone you’ve barely noticed before. The friction puts us on high alert as we struggle for dominance. The male welcomes the challenge of “breaking in” the filly, and the woman enjoys the parry enough to make her crave the thrust. Today, such a feisty female is generally regarded as a huge pain in the ass, and is often passed over for a “lower threshold” model. The sport has gone out of seduction, and with it much of the fun, not to mention anticipation.

Coincidentally, Hephzibah channels Stendahl’s On Love, which seems to be popping up everywhere since I wrote about him recently:

A wise woman never yields by  appointment. It should always be an  unforeseen happiness.

And she shares my own predilection for viewing relationships and sex through the lens of economics:

“While we oversell sex, we don’t seem to value it. It is too readily available, just another disposable commodity—a simple  case of supply and demand. Devalue the word no and the market is flooded, causing yes to depreciate simultaneously.”

It would be terrific if twelve months of chastity could erase the consequences of so much casual sex. Of course, it’s never that simple, and it turns out that the casual sex was an expression of some deeper, unfulfilled need. Ten years of throwing sex at low self-esteem does not address the real problem.

“Sex has been disguising something, and it’s only in the middle of the night, that I’m finally forced to acknowledge it. Despite making the final base off limits, I’ve nevertheless spent two-thirds of my chaste year in pursuit of the emotional turbulence that went with it. Perhaps it’s not my relationship with sex that is the problem, but my relationship with male attention. There is something  insatiable about my appetite for male indulgence.  I get giddy on it, losing sight of whatever it was I  might have wanted, and losing, too, my ability to  judge the genuine from the tactical on their part. To really give chastity a go, I need to wean myself off a certain kind of male attention.”

It’s an important insight into her own psyche, and one she must spend time exploring. It was perhaps unrealistic to expect that she would turn her life around in twelve short months, just by giving up sex.

As I read her month-by-month account of that year, I found myself wishing that Hephzibah had rid herself of all her old relationships when she rid herself of her sexual habit. She proceeds successfully through the months refraining from sexual intercourse (other forms of hooking up are OK), but she continues to be involved with Jake, a rake with a girlfriend, who now finds her refusal to put out tantalizing, and seems content to fool around and spoon. There’s also a man she calls the Pasha, who dated her while harboring deep love for a woman whose photograph continued to adorn his dresser. There’s the Beau, a man twenty years older, never married, who enjoys having multiple female friendships around the world.

There are a couple of new men. She spends time with N, an American rock guitarist who she’d met years before at a music festival. She gets set up with The Boy Next Door, and enjoys his company thoroughly, but bemoans the lack of a “spark.” The Quiet Guy is an object of intermittent interest, but he lives in the U.S., and he ultimately decides to marry someone else. In NYC she meets the seemingly perfect man, an investment banker who turns into a total asshole when he gets to the Hamptons.

Refusing to have sex with these men didn’t make them fall in love with her. The best we can hope for is that she learned to love herself a bit more. My biggest disappointment is that Hephzibah has not learned to apply her great-aunt’s pragmatism after all.

In the Epilogue, she feels compelled to offer a sex scene, her first in more than a year. It’s with the asshole banker in the Hamptons, and she has sex because she is there as his guest for the weekend, and hadn’t told him about her year without sex. She decides that not having sex would be too awkward, which surely is the equivalent of going on a bender after being sober for a year.

“All those months, all those lessons supposedly learned, and here I was, going to bed with a man who by that point felt like a stranger. The sex, predictably, was awful. “You need to be more intentful,” he huffed.”

Still, she had the sense to be horrified by the experience, and she does seem to have learned something. Two years after her project ended, she is still single, now 33, but says that she prefers the frustration of less sex to the frustration of emotional turbulence. She helpfully sums up the benefits of her experience:

  • If you hold back physically, I learned, it makes  it easier to open up emotionally. There are some  conversations that you feel too vulnerable to have  naked; slow the pace, and you’ll find you can risk a little more candor—with yourself as well as with  your partner. It takes the pressure off those bewitching early stages of a relationship, and yes, it helps sort the cads from the keepers. When it  comes to courtship, the fly-by-nights lack the  staying power.
  • It taught me about emotional self-sufficiency. In a consumerist society, our desire is constantly being manipulated. In tuning out these come-ons, I’ve found within myself some of what I’d formerly looked to sex to provide.
  • There were physical rewards as well. Heightened sensuality, for one—less really does become more.
  • During my chaste year, it sometimes felt that the lessons I was learning went directly against  feminist rhetoric, pointing the way to a distinctly  unevolved way of snaring a mate. That wasn’t  what my quest was about, of course, but I found it curious that the approach sometimes drew a sharp intake of breath from other women. Why is it so much more shocking to withhold sex in order  to make a man love you than it is to go to bed with  him, hoping against hope for the same outcome?

Hephzibah Anderson has rather painfully shared her own story of naivete, self-delusion and emotional devastation. Her story is a modern day morality tale that should replace the Disney favorites for today’s young women. If you are smart enough to make better choices and fortunate enough to have a daughter of your own, share Hephzibah’s story at bedtime instead of the usual fairy tales. Look to your great-aunts for relationship role models. If all else fails, share Jerry Seinfeld’s timeless advice to George Constanza:

“If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.”

  • greenfieldnews

    Great review. This book is on my reading list, for obvious reasons. It does bother me too, that she doesn’t try and find new guys to fit her new clothes and world-view. In fact, keeping them around seems to add more stress and drama to the whole mess.

    • I really do think that problem was compounded by the fact that she needed to keep things interesting and hopping over the course of the year. I imagine she came under some pressure from her publisher to report juicy stories. As it is, there is a lot of rather boring filler in the book re the history of celibacy and sex, as well as the treatment of sex in our culture.
      If you take away the jerks, there are only two guys worth dating. That’s not surprising – good men who want relationships can be difficult to identify. One she wrote off for failing to ignite the spark. She found the other one more intriguing, but he lived in another country. If she wanted to include the cads, she would ideally have stood up to them and kicked them to the curb. That’s the depressing part. It really only serves to drive her message home that spending time with these men is a waste of time, something a woman in her 30s should consider precious.

      • greenfieldnews

        Man, that spark…ever since it was an excuse against me, I brindle at that word. I really waffle on believing if you can create a spark….I know I wanted the guy who said there wasn’t one, to dig deep and find one, yet at the same time, i’m none too eager to try and find a spark with guys who have asked me out that I havent been interested in.
        its a messy thing, to be sure.

        • I’m really torn about the spark. It’s understandable that people make sexual attraction a prerequisite. But honestly, I feel that sexual attraction is a very complicated thing. Research shows that attraction occurs among people in close proximity, and that means it’s not an instantaneous event. Guys may say it’s a simple switch that’s either on or off within 5 seconds of meeting a girl. But I know for a fact it’s not that simple, because in my life I have known men for a while, and then something in the dynamic changes and the sexual attraction is sparked. Perhaps it’s not just a question of looks after all for the male. Similarly, women know that the spark can occur at any time. If we think back on high school, it’s obvious that we know guys, don’t think of them that way, then bam, we’ve got a crush. Why? Maybe it was the way he spoke up in chemistry. Maybe it’s his soccer uniform. Maybe he’s a good guy friend and our feelings grow.
          When a woman reaches her 30s, and she’s dating in hopes of finding a life partner, I think she can easily make the mistake of ruling out a guy too quickly. It’s not just the woman’s fault – there’s a clear timeline that people adhere to, including sex by the third date. I can certainly understand why women who aren’t feeling it don’t want to proceed. This is why I recommend that young people pursue their interests, join groups, network actively to meet friends of friends, etc.

        • Aldonza

          People confuse basic physical attraction with “the spark”. Basic physical attraction is, “he/she looks nice, in fact, very nice.” But, based on experience, I can tell you that the physical attraction is just the first hurdle. After that, it’s more about the interactions. And, yes, you can have a spark appear in an otherwise “dead” relationship after a period of time. For me, it happens when a man shows competence and confidence that I hadn’t seen before. I had a friend I knew for a long time, but I felt the spark when I first saw him sing in public. He was a different man on stage, and I liked it.

        • Yes! Idk if you remember, but I wrote a post about watching Bobby Flay on the Food Network. I don’t think he’s attractive at all. But watching him chop and slice and make wonderful food was just really sexy. Competence is huge, it’s a demonstration of higher value. It also reinforces self-confidence. That’s why I think it’s a powerful thing for men. They can get a lot of leverage out of being good at something.

        • Mike

          People confuse basic physical attraction with “the spark”.

          Who are these people? I think we are going backwards here in our understanding of these matters. I mean this stuff is the absolute 101 of sexual attraction. For men physical and sexual attraction are basically synonymous. No guy except for maybe an emo or feminine homo is going to talk about feeling “a spark” with a girl. He is going to say she is smoking hot and describe physical features.

          After that, it’s more about the interactions.

          Yes, as should be well known by now women are more about the interactions then pure physical appearance which is basically a foundational principle of game.

        • Absolutely. Only women look for the spark. And it can be like looking for the Philosopher’s Stone. We have this great mythical idea that a man can be everything to us at first glance, or certainly within an hour. It’s ridiculous. It’s really women trying to apply the male mode of attraction to themselves. The switch is either on or off. It doesn’t work that way for women, but some stubbornly cling to the idea that if they haven’t felt a tingle or “stomach flop” by the first kiss, they never will. Is it nice when it happens? Sure, but we all know that the tingle can also signal DANGER, bad guy ahead. Women think they’re being very selective, but in fact, they are selecting for the wrong traits.

  • Vincent Ignatius

    Books like this may slowly contribute to an improved sexual marketplace, but I think it’s too late for this generation of teenagers and twenty-somethings. There’s too much knowledge out there now. Even if I found a girl from a traditional culture, I know that deep down she’s no better than an American Carrie Bradshaw wannabe. Same goes for women. The things you read in the Manosphere are really what we think about you, at least those of us you find most desirable.

    I recently cut loose an American girl (I’ve blogged about her) who I liked a lot more than any girl I’ve dated in the past 2 years. Compared to most American women, she was great, but knowing what I do about female psychology, I could figure out what she was thinking most of the time, and it disgusted me.

    “Ha! Too late. You already rode the cock carousel, and now you’ll have to settle for cats.”

    HAHA. I knew you would know I thought this.

    • it’s too late for this generation of teenagers and twenty-somethings.

      .
      Any woman having a lot of casual sex will be better off stopping, no matter her age. It may not lead to her suddenly becoming a great LTR prospect, but her life will improve. For that reason alone, books like this are useful, even in the present day.
      .
      Vincent, your world view, at least where women are concerned, is very black and white. I don’t understand how it’s possible to generalize that all the women in the world are spoiled, damaged goods. It’s quite remarkable.
      .

      I could figure out what she was thinking most of the time, and it disgusted me.

      I find the word “disgust” quite interesting here. Not bored, disappointed, even repelled. Such a strong negative reaction to the sin of being transparent.
      You haven’t met your match yet. You’ve got some pretty big buttons, and the woman who figures out how to push them will have you doing a 180.

      • Vincent Ignatius

        I don’t believe all women are spoiled damaged goods, just that they have the capacity to be as bad as average American women. I want to raise my family in the Anglosphere, so it doesn’t matter how unspoiled she is when I meet her, I’m going to have to let this culture take its toll on her. For all the crap that I talk about Anglo women, I’m still very chauvinistic about Anglo culture and want to raise my children in it.

        It wasn’t Chrissy’s transparency that disgusted me, it was her way of thinking. The way women think disgusts me. I’m not sure why exactly but I think it has to do with the fact that their thought patterns are familiar, yet so alien at the same time. Sometimes I wish I had taken the blue pill.

        • Online I interact mostly with men who have taken the red pill. IRL I interact mostly with men who have taken the blue pill. Unquestionably, the latter group is far happier in life.

        • Mike

          Online I interact mostly with men who have taken the red pill. IRL I interact mostly with men who have taken the blue pill. Unquestionably, the latter group is far happier in life.

          Alot here to run with, but I’m short on time right now. I would argue knowing the truth of something is always better then living in ignorance. We eventually tell our children Santa Claus does not exist. And the problem is that for those who spend a large part of their life in ignorance are susceptible to the bubble popping and having a much larger negative effect.

          The catch here is to understand the truth without becoming an ultra-cynical nihilist, and to realize even within that overall framework of truth that it still isn’t binary 0 and 1.

          Saw a movie on Lifetime yesterday with the GF, flipping through channels, and saw Jennifer Love Hewitt, and I always thought she was smoking hot (her and Sarah Michelle Gellar would have been my dream threesome in the 90s). Anyways, she became a prostitute, and for the longest time her dope husband had no clue. A red pill taker is much more attuned to female behavior, communication, and what one might be capable of. This allows you to maybe head things off at the pass before you drive off the cliff. The blue piller has no clue until maybe his life is completely devastated.

          Could really get philosophical here, but short on time, but a happiness rooted in ignorance is inferior to a happiness rooted in truth and coming to terms with reality.

        • I agree, except to point out that so many of the red pill takers seem to have lost all respect or even liking for women as a result. If you see the “true nature” of women, and you’ve seen a monster, how helpful is that? Of course, it depends on what one believes to be true. You feel that you understand women, yet you love one and are generally positive about the potential of game to improve men’s lives. Vincent understands women, and feels disgusted by the way we think. Perhaps the red pill comes in different strengths.

        • Mike

          I agree, except to point out that so many of the red pill takers seem to have lost all respect or even liking for women as a result.

          I think that is because many take an element of “truth” and run with it until it becomes an absurd caricature. Additionally, many of these guys meet 95% of their women in bar/club culture which is not going to be an accurate sample of the population. I bounced for awhile and there were alot of really trashy girls you saw day after day. Good, quality girls who would make good relationship material aren’t going to bars/clubs 3-5 times a week.

          The problem is generally speaking women are not yet self-aware enough of their own weaknesses in this realm. Look, you put a hot, young, nubile 22-year old in front of stark naked begging me to f*ck her, and I’m going to want to bang her brains out. I’m going to remove myself from that temptation as fast as humanly possible so I don’t put myself in a position to hurt my relationship. Yet many women will happily engage that smooth talking, confident, guy who says all the right things and before she knows it she feels “chemistry” and “it was just meant to be” and then it leads to poor choices. See Michelle Langley’s work/analysis on wives who cheat.

          If you see the “true nature” of women, and you’ve seen a monster, how helpful is that?

          Not at all, because you won’t be open if a really quality girl comes down your path. Hard to judge from just comments on a blog, but there are a couple of regular commenters who strike me as really quality women. You can’t just throw everyone in the same pot.

        • Oh, there are definitely quality women reading and commenting here. Quite a few virgins, many women with a low number. And obviously, a self-selected group of women who want a real relationship. Some of them have been pumped and dumped and are hurting – they’re the smart ones who seek support after the first time, instead of repeating their mistakes so many times they wind up like Hephzibah.

        • Jimmy Hendricks

          I take a different approach….
          .
          I’m so disgusted by all the disgusting girls out there that I really appreciate the opportunity when I meet a quality girl. Unfortunately, I can’t say I’ve met one since I graduated college about a year ago… guess it’s bound to happen eventually.

        • Jimmy, I’m interested to know more about this. What are the things that signal quality to you? What disgusts you? And where do you meet girls? Just to be clear, I am not being snide here. I am curious about the experience of a recent male college grad, and you clearly have experience with women.

        • verie44

          You know, you’re really right about women tempting themselves with alpha males as men tempt themselves with gorgeous hot young girls. I think this field of psychology & game and most of these concepts are so new that it’s never really been presented this way. But you’re totally right about this analogy. Unfortunately, most women don’t even know the terms “alpha” and “beta” male — they just know what makes them tingle and don’t think much further than that.

          It’s nice to hear a more moderate male voice, quite honestly, after the likes of Roissy & Roosh.

        • Roissy & Roosh are funny though in thier own crude way…You gotta admit, they’re like those uncles who get drunk at christmas and say the truth just a little too harshly.”Phil come here. Look at you gettin all fat again. Pretty soon you won’t be able to see your thing when you pee!”. Oh uncle Roissy!

        • That sounds like fun for Phil. Unfortunately, for Phil’s sister, Uncle Roissy is pulling her aside in the hallway and asking, “Hey, pretty little girl, can I watch while you pee?”

        • verie44

          We definitely have different versions of “truth” if you think Roissy & Roosh tell it.

        • Mike

          they just know what makes them tingle and don’t think much further than that.

          This is problematic though. How can one make good choices if you can’t even analyze/understand your own motivations?

        • verie44

          They can read blogs like this and hopefully learn from it. But it’s not programmed in for selection like the women shouldn’t be promiscuous thing is programmed into men. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: we needed social mores and grandmothers telling girls not to be promiscuous to get them to avoid hypergamy. Now that those voices are absent, girls are reacting with their biology. But just like men learned to adapt to the new hierarchy with game, women will learn to adapt as well. It’s just happening now though.

        • Anni

          I’m not so sure that women naturally are promiscuous. If they were they wouldn’t feel so bonded to one person after a simple sex act with them. The author of the book says:
          ‘Unfortunately, the moment I fell into bed with a man, I’d fall at least a little in love. Was it biological? As soon as I went to bed with a man, I’d lose any clear sense of perspective. I had consistently mistaken casual hookups for rose-tinted beginnings.’
          .
          I think this is the experience of a lot of women. They want something serious and lasting, but make wrong choices, deceiving themselves. In my opinion it is the result of feminism which tells women that they can and should have sex like a man. Women know that sex for them is not casual. But there is so much pressure to have sex, and unless you’re a virgin it can feel like, ‘I’ve done this before and it didn’t work, but I’ll give it another shot, maybe this time it will be different.’ There is a lack of another way. It is difficult to explain to a guy (or even to yourself) why you aren’t having sex on certain terms if this is what you have done in the past. It feels wrong, you know it’s going to lead to a disaster, but you don’t know what else to do. Holding out when you really like someone can seem arbitrary especially if you haven’t been holding out in the past. Lots of times women just don’t realise that a guy may not be as invested as they are. I think the author of ‘He’s just not that into you’ is right about this one: women should get some standards. The solution is not to refrain from sex for a certain period of time, but to decide what conditions need to be fulfilled for sex to happen.
          .
          And really, who are all these guys gaming women into having sex with them when they well know that for women sex is serious? Where are their morals? In my opinion, if you’re a man who has ever had sex with a woman without having real feelings for her, then you don’t have a rgiht to complain about lack of quality women!

        • But just like men learned to adapt to the new hierarchy with game, women will learn to adapt as well.

          From your lips to God’s ears.

        • @Anni

          The solution is not to refrain from sex for a certain period of time, but to decide what conditions need to be fulfilled for sex to happen.

          Exactly! Hamby once gave excellent advice on this. He said when a woman is being pressured for sex, she should tell the man that she only has sex with someone she knows well. That’s a reasonable POV, certainly. If a man isn’t a cad, then it’s in his best interest to spend time getting to know her, and revealing himself in return. Through this process either love will get a footing or it won’t.

        • @ Anni

          if you’re a man who has ever had sex with a woman without having real feelings for her, then you don’t have a rgiht to complain about lack of quality women!

          Agreed. I object to a man’s using a woman, and then calling her damaged goods. Men justify this by saying it was her choice, she wanted it, etc. But if that’s true, it is an acknowledgement that women are powerless against men’s seduction tactics, and therefore should not be held accountable.

        • Jimmy Hendricks

          Sorry Susan & Anni, but I have to disagree with you guys…
          .
          Whether it’s a girl getting sex without intimacy, or a guy who’s LJBFed and getting intimacy without sex… if you’re not getting what you want out of a relationship, it’s up to you to take action, not the other person.

        • @ Jimmy

          Good point. I can’t really argue with that. I was thinking about this comment that Athol Kay made on another blog:

          I think the irony is that the game community is huge about NOT limiting choices. The game is to keep everyone stringing along for as long as possible and claim a role as a “seat” on the cock carousel. Then to demonize every woman that took a ride on it as not being worthy of an actual relationship.

        • Aldonza

          The problem is…”truth” is such a mutable thing, particularly when you’re talking about human behavior. There are “reliable patterns” but rarely is there a single “truth” to hang your hat on.
          .
          Further, having been in a relationship that lasted two decades, I will tell you that there is a certain amount of “blue pillishness” required on both sides. If you need to cling dearly to your beliefs, then real intimacy will always escape you, because part of being intimate with someone else is accepting their beliefs as truths as well as your own.

        • Mike

          The problem is…”truth” is such a mutable thing, particularly when you’re talking about human behavior. There are “reliable patterns” but rarely is there a single “truth” to hang your hat on.

          Well, I think we are arguing semantics. If one believes in evo psych/biology then there are “truths” about human behavior especially at the gender/sex level. If one totally rejects that view as a starting point, there really is no point in any further discussion.

          True, these things don’t apply universally across the board 100% of the time to all people, but once we’ve agreed on that we have to agree on these “reliable patterns'” as truths to have any sort of worthwhile dialogue.

          As an example, I couldn’t discuss economics with a Communist because their starting worldview makes no sense once you start from the point that people are individuals who largely operate for their own personal goals and objectives, not some greater collective good.

          Further, having been in a relationship that lasted two decades, I will tell you that there is a certain amount of “blue pillishness” required on both sides. If you need to cling dearly to your beliefs, then real intimacy will always escape you,

          Disagree, back to the Reagan Trust but Verify. One can be fully aware of the nature of something yet still love it dearly. Take the Tiger. I’m sure Siegfried and Roy loved their animals, but you always have to be aware of what the Tiger is capable of. The blue pill view would be to just view it as a cute non-threatening kitty-kat.

    • special lil’ snowflake

      @ VI:
      By, “I recently cut loose an American girl who I liked a lot…” you actually mean, “I liked her a lot until she found my blog and found out what a tool I am, and so now I have to do the name-calling so as not to seem hurt.”

      • VI

        I deleted your number on a Tuesday. I last banged you the next Friday. The decision was already made. Your post-creampie stalking was coincidental.

        • I’m torn. It’s a car wreck, for sure. I can’t decide whether it’s illuminating or not. I’ll leave it for now. Yikes. How she found you here I don’t know.

        • verie44

          I think it is. It’s complete proof that a dismal, bitter worldview like Vincent’s only ends in drama & much weeping & gnashing of teeth. This is only a tiny part of his karma coming back to bite him, you can bet there will be more if I’ve discerned his character correctly.

        • Vincent Ignatius

          Karma like religion is a crutch for weak minds.

          You make the mistake of assuming my view on women translates to the whole world. Yes, I think women are evil, but a necessary evil in this world. No, I don’t think the world overall is that bad.
          If I blogged mostly about travel or economic development, you would assume my worldview was rosy.

        • verie44

          Fortunately for me, I could care less what your opinion of my personal beliefs is. Also, don’t put words into my mouth — I don’t assume anything about you or your worldview.

        • Vincent Ignatius

          Did someone hack your account and write that other comment? Because “…bitter worldview…” implies that you’ve assumed something about my worldview and “…discerned his character…” implies further assumptions.

        • verie44

          Oh, you think my first comment was talking about you in a broader context — as in, extrapolating your bitter personality in the dating realm to encompass a generally bitter attitude toward the world. Nice to see that you’re a bit self-centered too. No, VI, sorry, I only think about your worldview/character inasmuch as it applies to women. Basically, I only think about your bitter attitude toward women — why would I care how you feel about the rest of your life?

        • Damn work! How have I been missing this fight?

  • Kurt

    This woman is damaged goods and will probably always be so. By having sex with that investment banker at the end of the year even though she didn’t really want to do so, she proved that she learned nothing during her year of no sex.

    A quote from this book on one of your linked pages read, “while we’re no longer supposed to be judged for our sexual conduct, we all know that the double standard lingers on.” Men have always been concerned about a woman’s sexual history and probably always will be because men have a hard time believing that a promiscuous woman is capable of long-term monogamy.

    • Kurt

      Also, it seems as though she gave herself freely to the alpha-type guys when she was at the height of her attractiveness. Now that she is aging she wants to hold out on sex so that she can secure a beta chump possibly for marriage. Any man who signs up for a marriage with her should have his head examined! She is probably so emotionally damaged by having casual sex that she hates having sex even if it were with a man she loves.

      • I don’t think she sees it in those terms, but you may be right. However, the two guys she dated during the year that most closely resembled betas were men she didn’t find exciting enough. She may hold out on sex longer, but I think she’ll still wind up chasing alphas.

        She is probably so emotionally damaged by having casual sex that she hates having sex even if it were with a man she loves.

        I’ve never heard this. I suppose if one got to the point of associating sex with unhappiness or emotional distress, this could happen. But I am not aware that this has ever been studied.

        • Kurt

          I saw a picture of the author and noticed some similarities between her and Lori Gottleib. First, both of these women are in my opinion very average-looking. Second, I get the impression that both of those women are self-absorbed and had inflated views of their own sexual desirability during their most attractive years and probably spent an inordinate amount of time chasing or focusing on men who were essentially out of their league. Third, both of those women are emotionally damaged and probably harbor resentment against all men for their own poor relationship choices they made in the past.

        • I agree with this analysis. I figured someone would find a picture of Hephzibah. She is not very attractive, though in all honesty, I don’t know what any of the guys looked like. Perhaps the guys were in her league, but not good prospects for a relationship. Certainly the guy the fell hard for, Jake, wasn’t, because he had a long-distance relationship that he never even considered breaking off. He told her point blank, “I am not in love with you.” A woman who hears those words needs to quit that guy cold turkey, especially if she is in love with him. It’s just crazy self-destructive behavior. FWIW, she does write a bit about her father, a cold and distant man who did not participate in family life at all. So I think she reached adulthood emotionally damaged and then repeated old destructive patterns.

        • Aldonza

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1195344/My-year-sex-Hephzibah-Anderson-took-dramatic–liberating–decision-So-did-help-real-love.html
          .
          She’s OK looking. Nice figure, but her facial features are asymmetrical and she’s showing that hollowing out under the eyes and deepening nasal-labial folds of early aging. She looks older than “early thirties” if you ask me.

        • Agreed, and that’s the best picture of her around. This is the one I was referring to:

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8217720.stm

    • She says that after that failure of will with the banker, she righted herself and has been selective since. We don’t have those specifics, but I share your skepticism that she’s learned to choose the right men. I’ve seen her interviewed on TV a couple of times, and I haven’t come away feeling confident that she will find love. Perhaps she is damaged, or maybe just exhibiting the low self-esteem that drove this behavior in the first place. Either way, she is not appealing.

      • I find it interesting that she says she is addicted to a certain kind of male attention. I wonder if this is her need specifically or if this is a female need that has morphed because of the changes in the sexual economy. That is, perhaps the old time chivalry met a female need for attention and deference? If that need is still there and not being satisfied in the old way, what are women willing to do for that attention? Just throwing stuff out here; I haven’t formulated any theories.

        • ExNewYorker

          “What’s past is prologue”.

          There may an occasional “Saul on the way to Damascus” moment for a few such women, but for most cases, past behavior is a pretty damn good indicator of future behavior. Sounds like in this woman’s case, it’s fitting that pattern…

        • That’s why she remains a cautionary tale rather than a tale of real Saul-style redemption. Also, I don’t really see how “everything but penetration” constitutes chaste behavior. She did hold off with many of the men, even delaying the first kiss, which I think was instructive for her. But simultaneously messing around with her bad boys had to have muddied the waters, to say the least. Not sure what kind of personal revelation is possible in that case.

        • grerp, that’s an interesting thought. I think you’re definitely onto something re women going to extremes for male attention/validation in the current SMP. In the old system, a woman got to advertise her desirability by going on dates, being seen in the company of a suitor, etc. In the hookup culture, there’s no public validation. In fact, it’s the opposite – the walk of shame. Even if a woman feels temporarily validated by the individual attention she receives prior to hooking up, it’s fleeting and unlikely that much of anyone noticed. If it’s a booty call it’s entirely below the radar (until the next day when he gets his high fives).
          The question of chivalry is complicated, at least in my mind. Game tells us that women do not want to be deferred to. Chivalry is often considered supplication. In eradicating chivalry, did feminism change the way women experience it?

        • The difference between chivalry and supplication is intent. Is the guy doing things because he wants to do them or is it a way of trying to get something from her?

          Problem is, it’s hard to tell the difference, especially at first, and especially since a percentage men try to use buying dinner or other gestures as a sexual bargaining chip. After getting burned a few times, many women learn to mistrust such gestures. At least with the jerk, you know where you stand. At least that’s what women I know tell me:)

          I compare it to women telling you how much they love to give blowjobs. They might be telling the truth or they might be saying it because they want something from you.

          These sorts of things come with the territory. The only real solution is time. And when we don’t have time, it comes down to doing the best we can, trusting our own judgement and learning from our mistakes.

        • Dan, I wish people did take more time. Both men and women. It’s really the only way to feel good about a person’s character and secure in their affection. And both of those really should be prerequisites to sex, IMO. All the rushing, the pressure to ramp things up quickly is very damaging. I think guys feel pressured to make moves quickly, lest they be considered odd or gay. I’ve had women ask me if I think a guy is gay because he hasn’t been sexually aggressive by the third date. Of course, women feel pressured to either put out or lose the guy’s interest. I say if people flake on you because you’re not in a rush for sex, good riddance. That’s a huge imbalance right up front, and indicates a poor match.

  • PJL

    Ms. Walsh,
    There’s been a flurry of books from feminist women that–basically–seem intent on rediscovering in a bizarre fashion the lessons their great-great grandmothers would have regarded as trite. It’s very strange, but I think we’re fast approaching a consensus among thinking women that tends toward a pragmatic behavioral “conservatism”–vague word. This is, to me, a trend that I think is fascinating. I often wonder how it will play out. Either way, the lesson is a good one–albeit one that should be commonsense: if you don’t value yourself, why would you expect anyone to value you? If you don’t value sex, why should you expect sex to be valuable?

    And it’s this lesson that the author didn’t learn, did she? To think that people used to think of sex as something between two people signifying love. It would, in the past, at least have been embarrassing for a woman to admit to having sex, because it was the going price of a weekend away. There’s the tension in our culture between the older version of seeing sex as something essentially spiritual–seen in the conservative (read: actual) Jewish and Christian religious traditions–and seeing sex as something essentially biological. To see sex as biological is somewhat disconcerting if you think about it, because–after all–it makes sex indistinguishable from masturbation, and whatever you think of masturbation, most people don’t think it’s sex. Of course the tension was always there, but the decline of religious sentiment has brought it from the shadows. What’s odd is that our Hollywood ideals about love are all reminiscent of the spiritual vision but our actions and accepted mores–even as portrayed IN Hollywood–reflect the biological story. Very strange cultural dissonance.

    Anyway, a fun post to file away in my cultural memory box.

    • Thanks, PJL, and an interesting point about the spiritual vs. the biological. I’ve said before that hooking up is a form of masturbation. By definition, one goes into it for personal gratification only. If one works hard to please one’s partner during a hookup, it’s more likely to be an ego issue around being perceived as good in bed than any real desire to be generous with another person. It’s not even as kind a gesture as letting someone go ahead of you in traffic.
      I tend to compare the emotional vs. the biological, and that generally tends to break according to gender, though there’s obviously a wide spectrum. In my view, the best sex between two people balances both. The animal hunger and need, the emotional transcendence of union with the beloved.

  • Mike

    And for a story of a different sort:

    http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/881539/Sex-and-the-City-fan-beds-1000-men.html

    The university-educated brunette longed to be as confident in bed as Sex And The City maneater Samantha.

    So she set herself a 10-year challenge – to get a thousand notches on her bedpost.

    She said: “Sam went from one man to the next and was proud of it. I wanted to be confident like her. I got hooked on the buzz of one-night-stands.”

    She slept with at least one stranger a week, travelled the world hunting for men to bed, and took part in threesomes.

    *****But now Christina, 30, admits: “All I want is a man to love me – not one who just wants me for sex.”

    She’s fucked a random assortment of 1000 guys, and now “all she wants is a man to love her”. ROTFLMAO. The sheer absurdity of it borders on surreal. Why would any self-respecting man with options not basically view her as nothing more then a c*mbucket/sperm receptacle.

    By the time she left uni with a 2:2 degree in English and sociology in 2003 she’d slept with nearly 300 men. “I didn’t feel dirty, just empowered,” said Christina.

    Empowered! You go girl. I think the pinnacle of empowerment would have occurred with another 1000 random d*cks.

    Last month she bedded her Mr 1,000th at a friend’s party. “He was gorgeous, blond and fantastic in bed.”

    Now the challenge is over Christina does have regrets. “Good friends stuck by me but others accused me of being a slut. I took things too far. Now all I want to do is settle down. I just hope I haven’t put men off.”

    Haven’t put men off? What do you say to that? Is she delusional? An attention whore for publicizing it? Just unreal.

    Not bad looking though. At least a 7.

    • Wow. 100 men a year, including one week where she screwed 15 men. You know what’s really outrageous? She’s a hooker who never charged anything! I can’t even imagine what cultures would grow from her vagina.
      I have to say, as a mother, I find this story painful. She describes her parents as average, middle class folks, and says they would be devastated if they found out. Um, they just did.
      I’ve always hated Samantha from SATC. So pathetic that a woman would emulate this fictional character with an attachment disorder.
      BTW, did you see that one guy she screwed was wearing a pink bikini in the photo? Couldn’t she have been a bit more selective?

    • Kurt

      I read that story the other day. I am convinced it is a hoax/fabrication.

      • If it is, then the woman who posed in all the photos is out of her mind. How will she ever convince the people who recognize her that it’s all a big joke?

        • Why would anyone want to have sex with a girl like that. She is guaranteed to have something. I wonder if she realizes that if any of the men knew she had sex with 100 other guys the other 900 would never had done it.

          Wow. Just wow….

        • Aldonza

          How many men in clubs ever bother to ask a woman’s “count” before going off to the toilets for a quickie?
          .
          Right.
          .
          Next question, how many of those guys were convinced that they got her to sleep with them because of their superior skills with women?

        • No one asks count. I hate that question. Lol i don’t even like to think about another penis around a woman I’m interested in.

          And second question. Depends on how she was wooed into bed. Guys knows when a girl is easy. And at going once a week and one time 15 guys in one week….she sounds kinda easy.

        • Aldonza

          My point was, there are guys who firmly believe that every woman they bed is due to their significant game skills. They don’t like to admit that some of these “targets” are just plain easy.

        • Your question:”how many of those guys were convinced that they got her to sleep with them because of their superior skills with women?”

          My response: “Depends on how she was wooed into bed. Guys knows when a girl is easy”

          If they really did think they did it with game skills they are delusional, because as I said, guys can tell when a girl is easy…she sounds easy. They might have got hooked on easy poke-a-hole, or that they were casanova but, I’m going to go with the strong majority realized she was an easy lay. But hey, we’ll never know unless we talk to all 1000. Which I would love to hear from actually. I wonder if christina would question her empowerment when she hears what kind of woman the men percieved her to be.

        • I have to say that “empowerment” really got me. They’d probably love that over at Jezebel. Come to think of it, I wonder if the feminist media has picked up on this story.

        • Mr. Opportunity broke, entered, and is eating out your fridge….

          …..no innuendo.

        • ???????

        • Usually opportunity just knocks. This time he went much farther than just knocking on your door(inside your house residing there). Lol too clever? Or did the joke at the unintentional sexual context throw you?

        • I’m so glad Passer By said this! I thought I was just being slow. I have no idea what you’re talking about! That one went zinging right over my head, haha. Explain!

        • Passer_By

          I think the question is: What freakin opportunity? And whose opportunity it is?

        • Passer_By

          Oops. That was meant for escarondito

        • Mike

          How many men in clubs ever bother to ask a woman’s “count” before going off to the toilets for a quickie?

          Zero

          Next question, how many of those guys were convinced that they got her to sleep with them because of their superior skills with women?

          Not sure if “superior” is the word. That probably overstates it. How about this question? Would this woman sleep with just about any random guy that walked up and said “Let’s go the bathroom and fuck”. I’m a bit reluctant to cite Roissy here given Susan’s feelings for him, but he did have an excellent post once how very promiscuous women are still quite selective. She isn’t going off to the toilet for a quickie with betas and omegas.

        • Haha, no worries about Roissy. I openly admit that he’s a brilliant writer and right on much of the time. I read his blog about once a week. I have no problem with men citing his work. My main objection is his reporting from the field, which I find horrifying. And not entirely believable.

  • The Deuce

    Stick a fork in her, she’s done. She’s 33 and she’s just *starting* to learn her lesson… kinda sorta maybe a little bit but maybe not? To have a chance, she should have been at this point by 25 at the latest. How old will she be when she really learns? 35? 40?

    The fact that she passed over two decent guys because there wasn’t enough “spark” just shows how little she’s learned. An at-first-glance strong spark always diminishes with familiarity and time, and if a woman builds up a guy’s confidence, she can make him generate one where it wasn’t before. When guys aren’t good at generating it at first sight it usually just means that they haven’t learned how yet and aren’t naturally manipulative. So she still hasn’t learned to stop going after cads. At that point none of the men who she finds even potentially attractive will want anything to do with her long-term (if she’s not there already).

    In a way though, this is good. It’s poetic justice. If women could reliably pivot and repent at 30+ and become happily married to attractive men after whoring around, then there wouldn’t be any consequences to them for rewarding cads and ignoring the good guys when they still possessed sexual value, and little hope of breaking the 80/20 trend. Only the decent guys would be punished for womens’ behavior. One of the best disincentives to screwing the cads and screwing over the dads in their youth is when reality makes a harsh and public example of women who do so. The harsher the better. Another bonus is that it weeds their cad-chasing DNA out of the gene pool. 🙂

    Optimally, for the good of the human race, every bad boy chasing slut in her youth would spend the last 2/3 of her life morosely petting her cats while ceaselessly reflecting on her foolishness, so that every girl was faced with the terrible knowledge that doing so meant throwing any hope of a future happiness away. So don’t feel to bad for fools like Ms. Hephzibah. She must be sacrificed so the betas may rise again!

    In the meantime, dad types can help make this dream a reality by taking Russian and Asian wives over panicked 30-something sluts frantically trying to douche off the cad residue like Hamlet and that damn spot, or if really hard-up, making a weekend trip to Nevada (or practice Game to help the natural cads usher the next generation of sluts to their doom as well).

    • verie44

      “In the meantime, dad types can help make this dream a reality by taking Russian and Asian wives over panicked 30-something sluts”
      I see you’ve missed the expat convo between Athlone McGinnis & I over at the PUA vs. the Lover. Read the material we wrote & see if you still feel the same way. I recommend the Rawness “myth of the middle class alpha male” for starters, although it goes much much deeper than that & we didn’t cover half the issues in that article & short exchange.

      • The Deuce

        Well, I read that stuff, and I don’t see where it affects my point. I especially don’t get the relevance of the Rawness article. Are you trying to say that if you marry a hot girl from a lawless part of the world, you’ll get someone who’s been conditioned to be attracted to local gang big-wigs? That just doesn’t follow from anything in that article, and besides that, there are plenty of places to find a woman that aren’t a criminal cesspool like Costa Rica.

        In any event, the stats are pretty clear that marriages with foreign women are generally less likely to end in divorce than marriages with American women. Depending on where the woman is from, possibly much less. That’s to be expected, since America has an unusually high level of divorce. This is even true for mail-order brides ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail-order_bride#Divorce_rate ), where the guy rarely bothers to learn the language and culture first (to address the conversation you and Athlone had).

        My point isn’t that foreign marriage is a magic bullet that guarantees happiness. My point is that if a guy finds himself in such a position that his remaining domestic options come down to desperate husband-hunting 30-somethings doing overtime on the kegels after having recently extracted themselves from the cock carousel (or rather, vice-versa), his chances are much better with a less experienced foreigner. And in any event, this approach has the additional advantage of depriving the sluts of any escape hatch when they get older and belatedly want to reform, thereby increasing the disincentives of slut behavior.

        • verie44

          To The Deuce: if you’ve seriously read all six parts of that article and don’t understand the implications, I feel there’s a high chance you are going to be a bitter MRA sometime in the next 10 years. I emailed with the author of the blog, T, and he said (quote) “So many people didn’t get the Myth of the Middle Class Alpha series at all or worse just complained that it was long and repetitive that it actually discouraged me for a bit…not about myself but about the state of people out there that they couldn’t really understand something so straightforward (at least in my mind). So it’s heartening to actually see someone totally get what my point was.” So at least feel comforted that it’s not just you.

          I’m not even going to bother going into more depth or talk about this anymore on the blog. I am so sick of guys talking about going expat. None of you have a clue.

          So I’ll talk about what you did mention. The link to the flimsy quote you’re talking about in the wikipedia article is broken — ie, there is no real data to back up what you’re saying. Provide some and I’ll be more convinced. In any case, the quote in the article says specifically: “The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reports that “…marriages arranged through these services would appear to have a lower divorce rate than the nation as a whole, fully 80 percent of these marriages having lasted over the years for which reports are available.” Key words being “for which reports are available” — how many couples are going to volunteer to fill out surveys about how their marriage failed? The US only keeps real divorce stats on people who were citizens before they were married, since you get a green card after you marry. And a 20% divorce rate is exactly what the US has among college-educated citizens (which I assume applies to you), check it out here: http://www.isnare.com/?aid=217950&ca=Marriage.

          All your other talk is just that: talk. You’re sadly misinformed, but I’m tired of arguing with people who don’t want to see facts contrary to their own worldview. If you’re invested in believing a foreign woman will save you, I wish you luck with that.

        • The Deuce

          Yes, I read all six parts of it. Some of it was interesting and persuasive, some of it was scattershot. A lot of what he concluded didn’t actually follow from the examples he used. His citing of the most extreme cases of forced polygamy/celibacy in history as the “natural state” is problematic for any number of reasons. Part 5, which was about how feminism was largely enabled by the regular guys, via structures they put in place to give themselves more say, was the most cogent.

          But none of what he said directly bears on whether it is better for a beta guy to go for a foreign woman over a retiring American slut. If the implications are so obvious to you, you ought to have no problem summarizing them. I have no intention of playing the mind reading game, and “you just don’t get it” is no substitute for specifying what, praytell, I supposedly don’t get.

          The ~50% American divorce rate is calculated by simply dividing the number of marriages each year by the number of divorces. Yes, I realize that it doesn’t necessarily reflect the current success rate of recent marriages if older generations get divorced more than younger ones (or if younger generations simply get married less), but it’s the only hard number we have. Many other countries have a lot lower, and the same applies to them. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find much in the way of hard statistics on the divorce rates for international marriages specifically, though the fact that the little evidence we have indicates that they’re low even for mail-order brides surely indicates something.

          Here’s one trend I’ve noticed, though sadly I don’t have hard statistics on this either: Lots of American women get hilariously bent out of shape over the very idea of American men deliberately pursuing foreign women in order to avoid them.

          Just FWIW, I’ve been married to a Japanese lady for 3 years. I met her the normal way when she was homestaying in the US, and her family loves the hell out of me. She regularly visits a website for Japanese people in the US, which is mostly populated by Japanese women married to American men. Between them and the other American-Japanese couples we know personally, the divorce rate appears to be quite low.

        • verie44

          No, just because the conclusion(s) are salient, doesn’t mean it’s short. I’d have to take you through the logic since you didn’t understand T’s website. If we were actually going to complete the conversation & do it correctly, I’d also add my own points and experiences from my family, my mother & father’s relationship, relationships in her home country (and surrounding countries) vs. his, etc. It would take forever even in person. I don’t have that much invested in convincing you. As I said, I’m done arguing with expat types. That said, I do think certain Asian countries are the best to target for American men if you are going to try it, for a variety of reasons.

          In any case, my new goal on this website is not to argue with people who are invested in their viewpoints to the point that they don’t listen to facts. You admitted you have no facts to support the idea that foreign marriages have a lower divorce rate. However, with your viewpoint & ideals and your own marriage, you obviously have a lot invested in believing that way. I get it. But I deal in facts, not feelings (about the couples you happen to know), so I don’t really think you have much of an argument at all.

          You also mentioned that American women get bent out of shape over the idea of men pursuing foreign women. You can see the effects of this in the black community — when the black men “marry out,” it leaves many women single. It’s a supply & demand issue, obviously, and I have no idea why you think it’s such a novel concept you had to point it out. If all American women started going for men in other countries, you’d see the same thing happening to the men. But me personally? To be quite honest, I don’t get empassioned about anything i talk about here, unless someone is deliberately rude to me. I view it as an exercise in logic since I have no idea who any of the people on here are and have very little invested in each individual’s opinion. I like ideas and figuring things out. I’m also not hurting for American men who want to date me, so it’s really not my problem.

        • The Deuce

          Oh brother.

          I’d be pleased to listen to facts if you would offer some. Telling me that you’ve inferred that foreign marriage is a bad idea from a 6-part series that wasn’t even about foreign marriage and was itself a bunch of inferences from a disparate set of anecdotes and facts is not presenting a fact. If it were so obvious, shouldn’t Part 6, the “practical advice” section, say something along the lines of “and don’t try to marry foreign women”?

          More ridiculously, you start by telling me that the article’s implications for foreign marriage are just obvious, and now you tell me that explaining it would require you to delve into your family’s personal relationship history? Does. Not. Compute.

          Tell you what. If you can just link me to somewhere that the conclusion has been made before, I’ll give it a gander. Otherwise, I’m not going to try to read your mind.

          No, I’m not invested in the low divorce rates of foreign marriages, except of course for my own. I didn’t marry my wife for that reason, nor did I go out of my way to marry a foreigner. We simply met and hit it off while she was here on a 2-year homestay. It’s just something I’ve noticed (at least for East Asian women), and wasn’t aware of previously.

          Yes, I know why women get bent out of shape over foreign marriage. I can’t imagine why I brought it up. Usually I’d only do it with somebody who seems to have a chip on their shoulder 😉

        • verie44

          Alright, fine. This is the last time I’m ever going to talk about expat. I am reluctant to do so because the last time I did, even though I refuted every single point of the original poster (Athlone McGinnis), he persisted in his their original viewpoint. It’s an exercise in futility — but hey, maybe someone drinking less of the kool-aid will read here & learn something.

          So if you read the series, you would understand that there is no such thing as an alpha male in the US — society has too many alpha proxies to keep alpha male behavior in check. This system was actually created by beta males so the vast majority of men (betas) get women instead of alpha males getting full harems of 80% or more of the available women. “The more alpha proxies a society has, the more attractive lesser-status men become as marriage material as a result. If you’re a lesser-status man, you no longer have to be capable of singlehandedly doing all the traditional alpha duties in order to promise financial and physical security to a prospective mate. And as a result lesser-status provider males become a competitive marriage option against uberalpha males.”

          Women test high-status & low-status males in different ways. Because of the collective rise of monogamy & alpha-male proxies, western women today are forced on average to deal much more with lower-status men, and therefore as a group modern women manipulate by being more flippant, emasculating and disrespectful. When dealing with a low-status weaker guy, a woman is going to try to openly compete to be the “head” of the relationship. Her testing and power plays will come in the form of open disrespect. Her manipulation will be blatant and emasculating. Much of this comes from perceived necessity though, because she instinctively distrusts the low-status man to provide and lead. Because he has more to prove, she’s going to test and manipulate twice as hard. This is what’s happening in the western countries right now.

          How does this apply to women in these countries with no middle class (much of eastern europe, middle east, latin & south america) — just the very rich and very poor? Nonviolent manipulation is a skill women needed to develop to compensate for other weaknesses. The more harsh the climate, the better the survival strategies throughout history like manipulating men and testing men for strength in order to choose providers of either resources or good genes. These women chose to deal with their uberalpha males in a passive, quiet, discrete way or risk being killed.

          Now apply their tactics of passive, quiet manipulation to a western beta male. He’s going to think he died and went to heaven because their methods of testing / control. A lot of foreign women who come from countries with traditional alpha males are much better at manipulating weaker men by playing to their egos because that’s what they learned growing up. That’s why so many American men are putty in their hands. They’re basically being “gamed” themselves and don’t realize it much of the time.

          There is many a story of an American man finding a foreign bride and losing her to a man from her own country or a similar one once they settle down in America because in the long run, especially after getting what she needs from him, he’s not alpha enough to keep her based on what she’s grown up with. She doesn’t respect him because her male role models were so much more alpha.

          I’ve seen this happen with members of my mom’s family, and even in my own dating experience. Guys from the other “rough” countries are much more masculine than any American I’ve ever dated. They have to tone it down a bit to live here, but it’s kind of built in, you can definitely feel the difference. To the ladies: if you really want to experience alpha, you should go foreign.

          Now to your point: you chose a woman from Japan & it’s working out swimmingly. Japan has a large middle class, and the women there can also “afford” the luxury of a middle class beta male, unlike the woman from Jaco in the series example. So I would say that if you are going to go foreign, do it in a country that has a large middle class. You run the risk with those countries that the women will be very “americanized” however — exactly what you were trying to avoid.

          Last point: “Yes, I know why women get bent out of shape over foreign marriage. I can’t imagine why I brought it up. Usually I’d only do it with somebody who seems to have a chip on their shoulder”
          This doesn’t make sense. So you’re just trying to make me upset? How childish. Again, I don’t get upset on here as long as points are argued logically.

        • verie44

          One more thing: I also think guys who want to expat have a better shot at doing it in Asia. This is a total stereotype, but the guys there overall will appear to be physically less alpha male than an American man just because of their body type. So I think that works in favor of white Americans as well.

        • verie44

          Now that I think of it, there are some comments on “Japan’s peculiar sexuality” that explain why a lot of Asian women go for white guys as well…so check that out too.

        • Höllenhund

          “society has too many alpha proxies to keep alpha male behavior in check”

          One think we need to recognize about current American society is that the violent behavior of alpha males is heavily regulated but their sexual behavior is completely unregulated. In other words, they can fuck any woman, even a married one, with impunity – which is unprecedented in Western history.

        • verie44

          Try telling Elliot Spitzer, Tiger Woods, or Bill Clinton that. There are so many examples of political & other figures who were publicly shamed for cheating, I’m not sure how you can make that point with a straight face. US society is still extremely puritanical.

          In most cases, if Average Joe (80% of society) tries to have a harem and is open about it instead of sneaky, the girls are going to bail, which is why guys have to rely on tactics like lying in order to sleep with multiple women for the most part.

          Just like with murder or any other societal more that discourages a behavior, you’re only safe to “fuck any woman” with impunity if you don’t get caught.

        • Höllenhund

          Spitzer and Woods aren’t alpha males, and Clinton wasn’t punished in any meaningful way.

        • verie44

          Oh please. This discourse isn’t going anywhere. Jesse James / Sandra Bullock ring any bells? Classic “alpha” male. Give me a break.
          .
          What do you mean Clinton wasn’t punished in any meaningful way? That’s totally a matter of opinion. He was publicly humiliated, the joke of all the late night talk shows just like Tiger Woods is right now. The difference between him & Tiger is that hillary didn’t leave him, and Elin did. The circumstances were different, their industries were different, the way each handled it was different, and so the outcomes were different. What stayed the same was the public saying “tsk tsk” and getting upset / angry about it. Period.
          .
          And what would your point be anyway even if you weren’t wrong, to complain that alpha males aren’t punished but the vast majority of males (betas) are? That still is very different from your original statement that men everywhere are sexually free to fuck whomever they want whenever they want.

        • @Hollenhund
          If you can say that Tiger Woods is not an Alpha male, when many men would like to be him, and many women would like to f*ck him, then you’ve proved that the terms alpha and beta make absolutely no sense applied to humans. Honestly, who gets to decide? There is no absolute list of requirements. This quality of alphaness is impossible to define, and even if you could, your definition wouldn’t be shared by any majority.

        • Höllenhund

          Clinton didn’t suffer any legal consequences and wasn’t even forced to resign. His wife never divorced him. Plus many feminist women were defending him. If a man does something outrageous and yet many women defend him, he’s surely an alpha. Yes, the media made fun of him. Well. duh. So what? Clinton is clearly an alpha.

          Spitzer PAID FOR SEX. That’s standard beta behavior. The quality of alphaness may be difficult to define, but one thing we can surely state about alpha males is that they never pay for sex. Women are willing to have sex with them for free because they are attracted to them. That’s fairly obvious.

          Tiger Woods responded to Elin’s actions in a very pathetic way. He actually apologized to her after she viciously attacked him and was thoroughly annihilated in divorce court. He’s a total suck-up. He was fucking used-up low-quality women even though he was one of the biggest celebrities in the world. He was punching way below his weight and was still not in control of his relationships (see his frantic messages). His life is just a huge clusterf*ck. He is a beta male through and through. Having tons of money, men looking to imitate you, fame whores seeking sex with you doesn’t make you an alpha male.

          It’s funny that you mentioned Jesse James. He’s obviously an alpha. He married a rich woman because he made her wet. He also survived the divorce pretty well or so I’ve heard.

          “And what would your point be anyway even if you weren’t wrong, to complain that alpha males aren’t punished but the vast majority of males (betas) are?”

          LOL! You have a funny way of wording things. “even if you weren’t wrong” – well, guess what, I am not wrong. And I’m not complaining either, just merely observing things. And my original statement wasn’t that “men everywhere are sexually free to fuck whomever they want whenever they want”. It was that no laws or social norms are keeping alpha males from fucking women, be they married or not. One commenter here mentioned earlier that society used to practice not only “slut shaming” but also “cad shaming”. Neither happens anymore.

          Beta men have zero legal protection from alpha males who would fuck their wives and/or daughters. If his wife has an alpha male lover, there is nothing he can do. He can file for divorce, in which case he will get the shorter end of the stick. The alpha male may impregnate the wife and have the soon-to-be-ex-husband pay child support after a child that’s provably not his. That’s legally possible. In fact, if his wife cheats on him with an alpha, many people will actually shame HIM, not the wife, because “he wasn’t keeping wifey happy and fulfilled”.

          In earlier eras men had the power to regulate alpha behavior. There were shotgun weddings. Men in smaller communities banded together and beat up the alpha guy who showed up and started attracting their wives and daughters. Wives suffered tough legal consequences if they cheated and/or cuckolded. Parents could limit the sexual choices of their daughters. ALL these things have disappeared by now and this alpha males are hugely empowered.

        • verie44

          “Clinton didn’t suffer any legal consequences and wasn’t even forced to resign. His wife never divorced him. Plus many feminist women were defending him. If a man does something outrageous and yet many women defend him, he’s surely an alpha. Yes, the media made fun of him. Well. duh. So what? Clinton is clearly an alpha.”
          Okay, this makes no sense. So your definition of alpha male is someone who does something outrageous & women defend him? You agree that Jesse James is an “alpha” male, as does everyone with any sense. He did something outrageous — where are the women defending him?
          .
          “Tiger Woods…was fucking used-up low-quality women even though he was one of the biggest celebrities in the world.”
          Again, what this behavior signifies is up for debate. How difficult would it be to handle 14 high-profile actresses without it becoming public? Maybe he likes trashy women because they’re different from his wife. He still had a harem of 14 women, which I’ve never heard of before. Are you seriously being critical of his management skills? He kept it under wraps for quite a while. Having a harem is very alpha behavior. Just because you don’t like the ones he picked doesn’t mean it’s not alpha. Similarly, many men cheat with women who aren’t “as good” as their significant others — tons of actresses with high-profile husbands have been cheated on with women who are just not as “good” as them — Sienna Miller, Halle Berry, Reese Witherspoon, Christie Brinkley, Elizabeth Hurley, to name a few.
          .
          “It’s funny that you mentioned Jesse James. He’s obviously an alpha. He married a rich woman because he made her wet. He also survived the divorce pretty well or so I’ve heard.”
          Um no, he didn’t. He publicly apologized and even went to rehab and STILL couldn’t get Sandra not to divorce him. He didn’t get a cent either. That’s pretty beta behavior, wouldn’t you say? She now sees him with their kids, but you can bet he won’t be seeing any of her money anymore.
          .
          Your whole point rests on definitions of alpha & beta that you keep changing & switching (Clinton didn’t get divorced and so he’s alpha and Jesse did but he married above his means so he’s still alpha. Clinton didn’t lose his position so he’s alpha. Neither did Tiger Woods, who also had a harem but they were all skanks so he’s beta). Can you see how ridiculous your points are? I don’t really think you have an argument.
          .
          In any case, what stands is that each of these men were shamed by society & there were consequences for them acting too alpha male, which is what those alpha male proxies are for. Alpha males probably get a bit more leeway on the women’s side and the men’s (because they aspire to be like those guys), but they ultimately are subject to society’s rules and can’t be too alpha. When they are, society punishes them.

    • VI

      If you bring her to the US, then this country will ruin her anyway. Better to expat if you really want to keep her quality.

    • Hi Deuce, first-time commenter, welcome.

      One of the best disincentives to screwing the cads and screwing over the dads in their youth is when reality makes a harsh and public example of women who do so.

      I’ll cosign this. In fact, I write posts like this to bring women like H. to the attention of young women who are just coming of age, or are in college and trying to navigate the social scene. I also have said before that the cads and promiscuous women deserve each other. That leaves the dads and the chaste women to pair up. Any suggestions?

      • The Deuce

        Hi Susan,

        My suggestion would be that ending the 80/20 problem really depends on educating men rather than women. The primary immediate cause of the problem is female behavior (women chasing after a small number cads in their youth while ignoring a large number decent guys), but the solution to the problem depends on what men do, not on what women do.

        As Exhibit A to illustrate what I’m talking about, look at the gender breakdown of this Pew poll from February: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1478/political-iq-quiz-knowledge-filibuster-debt-colbert-steele

        As you can see, despite having more political power and responsibility than ever in history, women in general remain terribly uninformed and uninterested in big abstract issues and facts that deeply affect our lives. It’s just their nature to leave the big abstract problem-solving to men, regardless of how proud they are of their supposed empowerment. So while I appreciate sites like yours, and I think that you give women pretty good advice that can help some of the smarter girls out there, I don’t think it can make headway against the tide. And what makes it harder is that your advice is targeted towards young women, who have the poorest judgment of all. Young women, in aggregate, are simply never going to recognize, analyze, and address the 80/20 problem themselves and stop chasing the tingle, even though it hurts them almost as much as it hurts beta guys.

        And what the beta guys need to do is wise up on female psychology. They need to be disabused of the garbage that feminism has drummed into their heads about what women want and how they think. And what is that?

        Before I get into it, let me say that I think that a lot of the evo psych stuff that gets thrown around in these discussions is either overblown or misused. You see people claiming that in the modern dating environment, women are simply reverting back to their “natural” cavewoman behavior of throwing themselves after a small number of roaming alpha cads to be pumped & dumped, that the only way to prevent them from doing so is with rigid norms of arranged marriage that force them to marry provider betas instead of the creeps they’re really attracted to, and that with those controls no longer place, betas who want commitment have no chance of competing with the alphas, and are therefore doomed either to loneliness or to compromising their principles and becoming cads themselves.

        It’s easy to see why guys who have this belief would come to be disgusted with women. To believe it is to believe that while most guys want to settle down with a good woman and give her a happy life, nearly all women are basically robots that are are specifically programmed to sexually punish men for being good and reward them for being bad, and that even the “good” woman who selects a decent guy is only forcing herself to do so in spite of the inferior “tingle” he gives her, which makes it almost an insult to him. So basically, according to this, all women are either cad-rewarding or patronizing. How could any guy with a sense of justice not be bitter and resentful over that?

        But I think it’s tosh. It’s not like we went back to the Paleolithic and actually observed women acting this way, and then predicted their modern-day behavior from it. Rather, we’re speculating on the past based on women’s observed behavior now, and then turning around and using their speculated past behavior as proof that the way they’re acting now is unmalleable evolutionary hard-wiring. We’re basically trying to cite a conclusion as proof of itself.

        But the modern sexual marketplace is *hardly* the “natural state”. For one thing, if women had thrown themselves after irresponsible jackasses the way college girls do now, they would have ended up pregnant and vulnerable, and they and their progeny would have wound up dead. For another thing, the availability of contraception and abortion is deeply unnatural. Particularly when you’re talking about people who were lucky to live to 40, what could possibly be more unnatural than deliberately killing your own progeny and preventing the spread of your genes when you have the chance? And yet, today’s women are doing it, and they could never sustain their present behavior without it.

        Moreover, women tend to get depressed when they get banged by guys who leave them, despite society telling them that they are “empowered” for doing so. But if screwing non-comittal cads is the human norm, they ought to be accustomed to this.

        And finally, if this pessimistic view were true, it’s hard to see how civilization could have ever developed in the first place. The men should have just gotten more and more caddish. How on earth did the civilization-building “beta providers” longing for LTRs ever get to be ~80% of the population in the first place? It seems unlikely that so many of us should have these traits if they’re just of no interest to women.

        No, what has happened is, ~80% of the male population has lost something that once made them more attractive to women, and it’s something they lost relatively recently (this 80/20 problem is much more recent than the end of arranged marriages). Or rather, it’s something that they’ve gained: nonstop feminist indoctrination that gives them an utterly unrealistic view of female psychology, together with an unrealistically crappy view of themselves that emasculates them and destroys their confidence. Together, these things cause them to act in ways that are unattractive to women.

        What they’ve been taught is that women are morally and intellectually superior to men, and that they really just want to meet a “nice guy” and enjoy a marriage that will last forever as long as the jerk doesn’t cheat. They’ve been told that they want “sensitive” guys who will “respect them”, put them up on a pedestal, treat them like princesses, be deferential towards them, let them be equals or even leaders in the relationship, etc. But in fact, all of this stuff actually turns women off, because they see it as projecting lower value.

        Look at the way that being “nice” is always equated with being good. People on both sides make a binary distinction between “cads” and “nice guys”. Dominating women and acting indifferent or unaffected by what they have to say is seen as “caddish”. Even in Christian circles, when that part of the Bible (the book that tells Christians what is good) where Paul instructs women to “submit to your husbands” comes up, the men usually rush to apologize for it profusely, and assure all women in attendance that it doesn’t *really* mean what it says. Lots of “betas” with paternal instincts, upon learning about game and female psychology, become bitter and fret that love is a lie, and that their *only* other option is to get some meaningless poon by turning evil.

        But nice and good aren’t the same. You can be a good person without being a “nice” person. You can be mean without being a “cad”. You can be loyal and loving to women while dominating them and without being particularly respectful of many their opinions. Besides, as that Pew study I linked to helps to illustrate, womens’ opinions on the big abstract issues are typically poorly-informed and don’t objectively merit a lot of respect, to be quite frank. When it comes to problem-solving and logical thinking about big things, men generally *are* smarter than women, and this is something men should acknowledge and have self-confidence in, not deny or apologize for.

        Look at our Founding Fathers. These guys were good men – exemplary men. They had vision, passion, and leadership. They weren’t cads (Ben Franklin’s dozens of mistresses notwithstanding). But they weren’t *nice* men either. These are guys who declared war over a principle. They were chivalrous, but they weren’t suckups, and they were pretty much indifferent to womens’ political opinions, and didn’t even let them in the room to observe Congress in session. They didn’t think it was wrong to assert leadership over women. The men of yesteryear were much tougher, manlier, and more aloof than today’s guys, they grew up faster, and this has almost everything to do with the lack of feminist indoctrination. Betas didn’t used to be so beta.

        The advantages that men have in problem-solving and leadership used to be common knowledge, to both men and women, but they’ve been forcibly forgotten, and even mentioning them in public gets a guy the PC reeducation treatment. The PC indoctrination gives cads a tremendous advantage over the good guys. Because cads are indifferent to everybody’s opinion, they are indifferent to the feminist indoctrinators as well, and hence they never lose that indifference that is catnip to women. Good guys, meanwhile, because they do take to instruction and are able to learn, have the appropriate level of indifference conditioned right out of them and replaced with deferential suckupitude. The effect is to make the cads more attractive and the good guys less.

        But precisely because the decent guys can learn, they can also learn their way out of this mess. That’s why informing as many of them them as possible is the way out.

        Oh, and here’s Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uPcthZL2RE 😀

        • Deuce, Wow. I’ve clipped this comment for further reflection. It’s one of the best succinct arguments I’ve ever seen questioning evo psych.
          .
          Re the Pew results, I think they’re pretty horrifying. In fact, I’m horrified even by the men’s numbers. I would easily have scored 100% on that basic quiz. Then again, we periodically hear that half of all Americans don’t know that Hawaii is a state, etc. It may be true that women don’t care about big, abstract problems, but I would argue that a woman’s personal experience of the SMP is anything but abstract. It’s not helpful to address women en masse because incentives drive individual decisions, and that’s what I’m trying to address.
          .
          I agree that men need to learn to rebel against the feminization they’ve been raised with, and there are certainly many blogs dedicated to that purpose. Although I do write a lot for young women, I do have a lot of young male readers, and I try to do some of that too. I also feel that it’s important that young women understand just what the guys have experienced growing up, and the need for a correction. The women can’t make the necessary changes, but they can certainly be more supportive if they are aware.
          .
          That video about suffrage is hilarious. By I could argue that it reflects not enough time given to Women’s History is schools. I’m not at all sure you would have gotten a different result on a coed campus. In fact, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t.

        • Höllenhund

          “women are simply reverting back to their “natural” cavewoman behavior of throwing themselves after a small number of roaming alpha cads to be pumped & dumped”

          I think there is a correction in order: they wanted sex with alpha males not only because of the enjoyable sex but primarily to get impregnated by them. In later historical eras when patriarchy was imposed on them and beta males became better providers, women probably tried harder to cuckold (get impregnated by alpha sperm after having found a dutiful beta provider, thus getting the best of both worlds).

          And the fact that only 40% of men have reproduced throughout history is the best proof of natural female hypergamy IMO.

          “that the only way to prevent them from doing so is with rigid norms of arranged marriage that force them to marry provider betas instead of the creeps they’re really attracted to”

          All civilized societies heavily regulated female (AND male) sexuality. This is hardly a coincidence.

          “For one thing, if women had thrown themselves after irresponsible jackasses the way college girls do now, they would have ended up pregnant and vulnerable, and they and their progeny would have wound up dead.”

          I doubt that’s the case. You have to keep in mind that alpha males were the best possible providers in the Paleolithic. They were the most dominant and aggressive men, physically the strongest, the best hunters, the best providers. It therefore made perfect sense for women to choose them and they were very easy to identify. Ancient society after the invention of agriculture wasn’t much different IMO. The men who fought their way on top and formed the elite were the most aggressive alpha males and women flocked to them, which resulted in polygamy, because they had the most material resources. I guess chasing the ‘Big Men’ was a high-risk, high-reward strategy for women – high-risk in the sense that she had to fiercely compete with other women and she could easily lose her provider if he died in a power struggle.

          Current society is a lot more complex but women are choosing their sexual partners as if they we were still hunting-gathering in the African savannah. The best providers today are mostly beta males and many alpha males are cads, bikers, thugs, criminals and members of the underclass, in other words they aren’t protectors and providers. I guess it can get really confusing for women because the financially successful men usually aren’t sexually attractive at all while many of the sexually attractive men are bad life partners who leave women damaged, impoverished and having to care for bastard alpha spawns.

          “For another thing, the availability of contraception and abortion is deeply unnatural. Particularly when you’re talking about people who were lucky to live to 40, what could possibly be more unnatural than deliberately killing your own progeny and preventing the spread of your genes when you have the chance? And yet, today’s women are doing it, and they could never sustain their present behavior without it.”

          You are simply saying that there used to be natural restrictions on female behavior. That doesn’t mean women did NOT always want to have lots of sex with alpha males. I’m pretty sure women in earlier times were resentful that they didn’t have reliable contraception and no access to abortion. Moreover, it should be mentioned that infanticide was very common and legal in most societies up until the modern age. It’s not unnatural. For example, young mothers in London routinely left their infants in the sewers as late as the 18th century if they couldn’t care for them.

          “Moreover, women tend to get depressed when they get banged by guys who leave them, despite society telling them that they are “empowered” for doing so. But if screwing non-comittal cads is the human norm, they ought to be accustomed to this.”

          It was only Western women who got unrestricted sexual access to alpha males and they’ve only had it since roughly 1975 or so (when contraception and abortion were legalized). Of course they are not accustomed to riding the alpha cock carousel – they haven’t done it before. But that does not mean they have no burning desire to have sex with alpha males.

          “And finally, if this pessimistic view were true, it’s hard to see how civilization could have ever developed in the first place. The men should have just gotten more and more caddish. How on earth did the civilization-building “beta providers” longing for LTRs ever get to be ~80% of the population in the first place? It seems unlikely that so many of us should have these traits if they’re just of no interest to women.”

          That’s a good question. My version is this: people in high positions realized that matriarchies are always stuck in economic backwardness and military weakness because they motivate men not to become hard-working providers but to pump & dump and compete with each other with women. I think what happened was that ancient aristocracies imposed the patriarchy (while keeping their own harems, of course) because they understood that it incentivizes all men like no other system and thereby they will have an economically and militarily strong regime under their command.

          Having said all this I think this was an excellent comment of yours. One more thing to add though: women have tremendous power to change the sexual marketplace, men don’t. If there will be change it that domain, it will be brought about by women, not men.

        • women have tremendous power to change the sexual marketplace, men don’t. If there will be change it that domain, it will be brought about by women, not men.

          !!!!!!! Tell me how! I am very surprised to hear you say this, as you seem to often imply women will never voluntarily make changes to the SMP, because most of them are getting what they really want right now. That’s been our primary disagreement.

        • Höllenhund

          I don’t think I contradicted myself. Women COULD change the SMP, but in all likelihood they WON’T. Result: the SMP will not change.

        • If they did, though, what would that have to look like? Would it be by pressuring other women in the way that I’ve suggested? Or just one by one refusing to participate in hookup culture? Something else? I’m just curious to know what you think it would take, theoretically speaking.

        • Höllenhund

          One way it could theoretically happen is young women re-regulating their sexuality the way you would prefer, i.e. exchanging sex only for commitment. I will be the first man to congratulate them if they do that. I just think it’s unrealistic for that to happen in the current circumstances. You are basically asking young women to form and uphold a pussy cartel. If I’m not mistaken, you have a degree in economics, Ms. Walsh, so it is probably not necessary to explain that voluntarily maintaining cartels is difficult – members have an incentive to break it. Whenever there is an attempt at price control there will be a price war. Just to give an obvious example: a young female college student, no matter how fed up she is with the hookup culture, will not ‘shut her legs’ unless ALL other female students do the same. Otherwise she’d simply lose out and gain nothing. Even if 80% of the women at a certain campus shut their legs, most of the guys will flock to the other 20% because they want casual sex.

          “Or just one by one refusing to participate in hookup culture?”

          IIRC you stated earlier that pretty much all relationships start with a hookup these days, at least on American campuses. It seems it’s pretty much Hobson’s choice for most young women. If they want a relationship, they will have to hook up, and then they are pretty much expected to put out early – not only by men in general but by society as well. If they demand commitment in exchange for sex, they will basically get little to none attention and lose out altogether. This is what the Sexual Revolution has brought.

          Just to correct my POV: I didn’t say “women will never voluntarily make changes to the SMP, because most of them are getting what they really want right now”. I believe you that many young women are resentful of the current SMP because they aren’t getting commitment etc. – but I guess they simply have no idea how to change it because it is entrenched by strong social and economic forces. Novaseeker has explained this a lot better than I could. For example, slut-shaming is basically impossible. I have posted a lengthy comment about this on an earlier thread. Mainstream culture is against it, feminists are against it (and they ARE strong), manginas are against it, and women have few incentives to engage in it. Alpha cads cannot be reined in. Women have growing economic power and aren’t obligated to marry a man if they want access to resources created by men. (See: AA, welfare etc.)

          But if the question is: WILL the SMP undergo serious change in the coming decades? I think that’s entirely possible. Probably both Game and 3D/VR porn will become hugely popular, more women will leave the hookup scene (but that ALONE wouldn’t cause serious change). Maybe there will be a huge economic meltdown wiping out most of womens’ workplaces currently propped up by the nanny state through AA plus the enlargement of the state and federal bureaucracies -> many women will once again become financially dependent on men and will thus be incentivized to re-adopt old morals, i.e. exchange sex and validation for long-term commitment. The demographic decline of the most promiscuous ethnic groups will continue and patriarchal minorities will increasingly assert themselves.

          What I’m trying to get to is this: even larger groups of people cannot bring about change only by willpower alone. Women won’t shut their legs only because they are told to do so. Feminist propaganda alone could never have brought the Sexual Revolution. Enormous social and economic changes did that – which is why it was inevitable IMO. It’s fair to say that it will take similarly huge social and economic changes to undo its consequences.

        • Just to give an obvious example: a young female college student, no matter how fed up she is with the hookup culture, will not ‘shut her legs’ unless ALL other female students do the same. Otherwise she’d simply lose out and gain nothing.

          This is already happening. First of all, a third of them have never even had their legs open. Many others have realized that what they “lose” is feeling as disposable as a used condom, and what they “gain” is self-respect. You may not believe that any women are capable of making this choice, but if that’s true then you are mistaken. I agree that many women will keep making the same mistakes over and over. And there are always a couple of women on campus who seem to achieve the impossible and get a star athlete into a relationship. This is not a one size fits all problem. Finally, I don’t think more than 20% of women on college campuses are having casual sex now. Even if you double that, they’re not the majority.
          It is true that hooking up is still the primary path to relationships, and that women almost always wind up having sex BEFORE commitment, as it is a prerequisite for commitment. I don’t think women will succeed by withholding sex entirely. However, I do think there’s a lot a woman can do to screen a guy for his past behavior and his probable intentions.
          It’s also true that many women in college don’t want a time-consuming relationship, and they think they can pull of a FWB arrangement. This often backfires, and it is indeed a Hobson’s Choice. No easy answers here.
          I have no idea what the future SMP looks like, or when change will occur. You explanation is as plausible as any. I agree with you that women will not voluntarily shift their behavior in any way that even registers on the radar, really. I suspect that events we haven’t and couldn’t predict will play some role. A sexually transmitted epidemic, for example.
          In the meantime, for readers here, the worst case scenario is being routinely pumped and dumped, suffering emotional damage and spending their adulthood without fulfilling relationships. The next worse case is closing their legs and getting no takers, which is possible. Personally, I believe that women who bide their time by taking a long-term view and eschew casual sex will be marriageable to men who have:
          1. surrendered their coveted seats on the carousel as they age and settle
          2. never been the beneficiary of alpha loot
          The thing is, all of these options are difficult to execute for all but those lucky few men.

        • Höllenhund

          I should have been more specific. If a young female college student shuts her legs BECAUSE she wants a better SMP where sex is exchanged for long-term commitment, then all her peers must do the same if that change is to happen. I’m willing to believe that a sizable portion of them will remain virgins for years – although I guess it’s lower than one-third due to underreporting – but I’m sure it’s due to a number of causes. Some of them are just ugly and don’t get attention, some have religious background or just abnormally low sex drive due to hormonal imbalance etc.

          “Many others have realized that what they “lose” is feeling as disposable as a used condom, and what they “gain” is self-respect.”

          True, but the fact is this: at the end of the day most girls want to enter a committed relationship but in the current environment they pretty much have to enter the hookup scene if they want one. That’s the Hobson’s choice I was referring to.

  • These change-your-life-drastically-for-a-year books seem to be really popular right now. I actually liked The Year of Living Biblically and Animal, Vegetable, Miracle. Not Buying It was less enjoyable. Having read your summary, I think I’ll skip Chastened. She may have learned something, but how likely is it that she will make long-term changes based on her new knowledge? Maybe I am too pessimistic.

    • I share your pessimism. She did learn some valuable things about herself, and about sex, i.e. it’s never casual. But whether she will continue to reflect or slip into old behavior patterns is a big question. Personally, I think she could benefit from about five years with a good therapist. That won’t solve her love life issues, but it may solve her need for male attention issue, which would make her life easier, and better.

  • I have to agree with Kurt that this woman is permanently damaged goods. Even as a sexless complete and total virgin of everything having to do with women who is well over the age of 30, I would have nothing to do with her no matter how much she “repents” her past behavior. What’s done is done.

    All that’s going to happen in the future is that more and more men will discover the truth themselves or learn it because of the internet. More and more women will have to get used to cats.

  • verie44

    “In the meantime, dad types can help make this dream a reality by taking Russian and Asian wives over panicked 30-something sluts”
    I see you’ve missed the expat convo between Athlone McGinnis & I over at the PUA vs. the Lover. Read the material we wrote & see if you still feel the same way. I recommend the Rawness “myth of the middle class alpha male” for starters, although it goes much much deeper than that & we didn’t cover half the issues in that article & short exchange.

  • verie44

    I don’t necessarily disagree or agree with the males who have posted here about the “sluts” being unable to reform. I don’t have experience with it so I can’t really say whether it is possible or not.

    However, I’ve been thinking about it and isn’t saying that women who have slept around are unable to reform the same as saying that guys who haven’t slept around (ie, betas who didn’t have the social status to do so) should also be unable to reform? In other words, doesn’t having this world view about women’s inability to improve themselves with a better mindset also chain you to not be able to use game to improve yourself & change for the better with a better mindset? It seems to me both are about maintaining the status quo — based on where you are in the social strata of desirability, you have to stay there.

    • chris

      There are two prongs, biologically speaking, as to why men don’t want to become romantically involved (aka in biological terms, ‘paternally invested’).

      The first one: Promiscuous behaviour/following a short-term mating strategy, in the past, indicates a likelihood to continue the behaviour/strategy in the future. i.e we can tell what the whether will be like today(in the future) from what the weather was like yesterday(in the past). Its called extrapolation. This applies equally to men and women.

      The second prong however only applies to women. That relates to paternal certainty and cuckoldry. An already ‘mated’ women,(aka a women thats already fucked a bunch of dudes before wanting to seek a romantic relationship with you), could already be impregnated with some other mans child, hence the reason why men have evolved an emotional aversion to already ‘mated’ women as there is a very real chance that doing so could leave you cuckolded.

      An already ‘mated’ man however can’t be pregnant with another womens child, and there is no ‘natural’ constraint forcing him to divert his resources to any other women that he might have had sex with and their children. And, biologically speaking, a man’s resources is what a women wants from a man to give to her children in a long-term relationship. Hence women don’t have an aversion to already ‘mated’ men in this particular ‘prong’ as men do. As such their only biological aversion would be, just like men’s, the first prong I mentioned. Namely, the chance that their partners past promiscuous behaviour might indicate that they will not be faithful to them in the future.

      So past sexual behaviour gives a double hit to women as it does to men. Don’t fret though, men get hit in other ways. For instance when men are judging/determining women for a long-term relationship, they don’t really care about how educated (aka certified, intelligence is still a plus) or how much money she makes/has, but women on the other hand do care about these things and do judge men harshly on this fact. i.e. no woman would want to marry a ‘hot’ male bum (not sure if this will get lost in translation or not, but by bum I mean a poor, or lazy, or dumb man with no real economic prospects) but plenty of men would be prepared to marry a ‘hot’ female bum. How many women do we see obsessing over marrying a doctor, or a lawyer, or a banker, or even just your run of the mill millionaire, yet interestingly we don’t see men obsessing about marrying such types.

      Some intersting articles that might answer some of you questions reagrding what I have stated.

      http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/ec_evolanth.pdf

      http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/pillsworth_haseltonARSR.pdf

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6H-3VXY2Y8-3&_user=10&_origUdi=B6T6H-4S4S5T5-1&_fmt=high&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1998&_rdoc=1&_orig=article&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2237a2ab605c641c6b643657f779b656

      http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/gould/Gould_JHC%202009.pdf

      http://www.uleth.ca/dspace/bitstream/10133/323/1/EP05358362.pdf

      http://www.putslab.psu.edu/pdfs/puts_10_beautybeast.pdf
      (not directly related but nontheless interesting)

      • chris

        So following on from what I stated above…
        to answer your question:

        ‘this world view about women’s inability to improve themselves with a better mindset also chain you to not be able to use game to improve yourself & change for the better with a better mindset? It seems to me both are about maintaining the status quo — based on where you are in the social strata of desirability, you have to stay there.’

        The answer is no. The reason why men hold a womens sexual past against, while part of it has to do with mindset or future intetntions (as with women), the other part has nothing to do with such mindset or intentions and instead has to do with the possibility of cuckoldry occuring, aka an already mated women being already pregnant with another man’s child.

        So while a women can change her mindset and hence her chances of being unfaithful in the future, she can’t change the fact that she has been ‘used’ and that is the extra factor that men judge women on but that women don’t. (I’m talking about in a natural context of course. I’m sure there are women out there who would try to judge men on par with women in this regard due to idealogical reasons, however such reasons have no biological reason behind them and would be a maladaptive strategy and could lead to them failing evolutionarily. i.e. just look at those artciles mentioned above of women trying to sleep with 900 and 1000 or so men purely for idealogical reasons, “It made me feel empowered!!!!”. Chances are no man will want to form a long-term relationship with such women and they most likely won’t reproduce as a result, which is what is called evolutionary failure.)

        • Great explanation, Chris, thanks for leaving that comment.

        • verie44

          Yeah, I get all that — women get judged sexually for reproductive reasons (they are less desirable reproductively because they’ve already been “used”), totally can see why. But I’m not asking why men don’t, which is what you’re answering. I’m asking why, if women are deemed biologically “unfit” why men should be able to be deemed biologically “fit” when they don’t actually have the biology to back it up either.

          Think about it the way it was viewed back in the day: a woman doesn’t have a lot of choices / can’t get a man to commit to her so she has to sleep around in order to procreate & take her chances on raising offspring alone and is thus deemed biologically “unfit.” Similarly, a man doesn’t have a lot of choices / can’t get a woman because he has no status, money, looks, or strength and so cannot procreate with a woman since he’s deemed biologically “unfit.” How are these any different? AKA why can’t a woman change her low-status behavior nowadays to change that perceived biological lack of fitness like a man can change his low-status behavior using game (to make up for the fact that he has no status, money, looks, or strength)?

        • Mike

          Yeah, I get all that — women get judged sexually for reproductive reasons (they are less desirable reproductively because they’ve already been “used”), totally can see why. But I’m not asking why men don’t, which is what you’re answering. I’m asking why, if women are deemed biologically “unfit” why men should be able to be deemed biologically “fit” when they don’t actually have the biology to back it up either.

          The way you’ve phrased this you appear to be approaching this from the perspective of what is “fair” or “just”. Biology/nature has no sense of “fairness”. Is it fair that the lion tears the zebra to shreds. It just is what it is. It is a mistake to try to overlay some moral framework on top of a system where none exists.

          That said, who exactly are you referring to that is trying to “deem men biologically fit who don’t have the biology to back it up”. It seems that many/most women are in fact “deeming” the vast majority of men as “unfit”. Most young men are essentially celibate or have sex on an infrequent basis, hence the origination of the term “getting lucky”. No alpha male is going to say he got “lucky”. Now one view would be that men are trying to pass themselves off as “alpha impostors”, but then again many highly promiscuous women are going to lie about their number. In the deregulated sexual marketplace, it is caveat emptor for the buyer.

        • verie44

          That’s exactly my point — those “poseur alpha” guys are as biologically unfit as the women who have slept around if you take that view. They both can just pretend otherwise — I’m not saying it’s unfair or fair, I’m just saying it’s the same. I view the two as the same.

        • Mike

          That’s exactly my point — those “poseur alpha” guys are as biologically unfit as the women who have slept around if you take that view. They both can just pretend otherwise — I’m not saying it’s unfair or fair, ********I’m just saying it’s the same. I view the two as the same.*********

          Well…I don’t approach this from the perspective of trying to create an equivalence and don’t even see it as an issue of biological “fitness” or “unfitness”.

          That said, fact of the matter is that in today’s highly technological, knowledge economy (as opposed to the hunter-gatherer) society Beta male genes (high intelligence, industriousness, reliability) are probably more “fit” then Alpha male genes (aggression, risk-taking, extroversion, social dominance).

          The crux of the issue is suitability for a LTR, and in that sense there is no equivalence. A Beta with good character can make for a good long-term partner but his problem is lack of creating the tingle aka chemistry aka spark. His attempt to be a “poseur alpha” as you put it is just to hopefully have fighting chance at creating that spark. In contrast, the woman who has slept around speaks directly to her character and judgement which affects her suitability for a LTR. And then you’ve got the degraded bonding abiilty as well as the number of partners ramps up.

          Again, I think you are trying to force some sort of equivalence here because it fits your worldview of what would be “fair”. Gosh darnit, if we are going to categorize a group of females as “unfit” then we need to find a group of men as well to balance it out. That really is the essence of what you are saying.

        • verie44

          I see your point, and it’s a good one. I just addressed some questions you asked below.

        • chris

          *In the following answer I will use capitals as a form of emphasis. Please do not interpret it as me shouting. I use caps in this way because it is incredibly hard to get across in text on a computer the points that I feel need to be emphasized to make my argument make sense. Apostrophes and quotation marks (‘’ and “”) can only go so far, and seeing as I readily use them to emphasize things requiring lesser emphasis, I couldn’t use them to emphasize things requiring greater emphasis, as doing so might make the reader believe that both things where on the same level of emphasis when that is not my intention, and where doing so would also lessen the clarity of what I was trying to communicate.*

          ‘Yeah, I get all that — women get judged sexually for reproductive reasons (they are less desirable reproductively because they’ve already been “used”), totally can see why. But I’m not asking why men don’t, which is what you’re answering. I’m asking why, if women are deemed biologically “unfit” why men should be able to be deemed biologically “fit” when they don’t actually have the biology to back it up either.

          Think about it the way it was viewed back in the day: a woman doesn’t have a lot of choices / can’t get a man to commit to her so she has to sleep around in order to procreate & take her chances on raising offspring alone and is thus deemed biologically “unfit.” Similarly, a man doesn’t have a lot of choices / can’t get a woman because he has no status, money, looks, or strength and so cannot procreate with a woman since he’s deemed biologically “unfit.” How are these any different? AKA why can’t a woman change her low-status behavior nowadays to change that perceived biological lack of fitness like a man can change his low-status behavior using game (to make up for the fact that he has no status, money, looks, or strength)?’

          ‘AKA why can’t a woman change her low-status behavior nowadays to change that perceived biological lack of fitness like a man can change his low-status behavior using game (to make up for the fact that he has no status, money, looks, or strength)?’

          I will assume for the sake of this argument that what a woman finds predominantly attractive in a man is his social status or dominance and what makes a man biologically fit is his social status or dominance. (I think you would agree with this.)

          Further more social status or dominance is the end in itself of what women find attractive and it’s not necessarily the traits which lead to the accruing of social status that make men attractive, i.e. strength, intelligence, wit, or looks but instead it’s just the status itself. This explains why ugly, or effeminate, or poor, or dumb men, or all of the above, can still score with hot women if they are of high social status/social dominance.

          Now, a man’s fitness is heavily based upon his status within in the group and status is a very fluid concept. The person, who is high status or the alpha male today, might get his ass beat down the following day and no longer be the dominant man in the group. That’s why men can use politics, or power grabbing in the group through manipulation, threats of force or outright war to increase his status over other men and hence his attractiveness to women. However, men aren’t attracted to status in a women or put more succinctly, they don’t care about where a women ranks in the power hierarchy. They are attracted to ‘what’ she is, not ‘where’ she is, i.e. her looks, her fidelity, her chastity. These traits which make a woman attractive are much less fluid than the trait of status is for men because like I said, a man can be top dog one second, and then a split second later be challenged by a rival male and be reduced to second best with no control over this happening. But the same isn’t true for women, a women’s value to the opposite sex is much more constant than a man’s, because a man’s status, aka what makes him attractive to women or better yet a man’s ‘fitness’, can constantly be under threat through competition, however a women’s ‘fitness’ doesn’t experience such fluidity. That’s why it’s not possible to use politicking, or competing, or ‘game’ to increase a women’s value as her value is fixed whereas it is possible to use such politicking, or competing, or ‘game’ to increase a man’s fitness because at the end of the day all that makes him attractive is where he stands in the male power hierarchy and anything can be used to get there, i.e. intelligence, or strength, or wit, or ruthlessness or even some new evolved trait like telekinesis/psychic, or mutant powers or whatever. In simple terms, ‘where’ a man in is what makes him attractive and ‘what’ a women is, is what makes her attractive. That’s why, in high schools, when a boy wants to insult another boy, he calls him a loser. Loser is relative; it implies that he is less than others on some ‘competitive’ hierarchy where there are also ‘winners’, and the traits used to obtain power in that hierarchy aren’t set, they could be anything i.e. the fanciful mutant powers I mentioned above. Girls on the other hand insult other girls by calling them ugly or sluts; this is more about what a girl ‘is’ then ‘where’ she is on some competitive power hierarchy.

          ‘ I’m asking why, if women are deemed biologically “unfit” why men should be able to be deemed biologically “fit” when they don’t actually have the biology to back it up either. ‘

          Now that I’ve cleared up the idea about what makes a man attractive, namely social dominance, and that it is much more fluid than what makes a women attractive, I can address your other questions.

          ‘Game’ as I understand it, attempts to teach men the mannerisms and behaviors of alpha males, or dominant males. Now here’s the kicker, men aren’t really able to be deemed biologically ‘fit’ by using game unless they are. They might be able to pretend, but eventually they will get challenged by another male and could potentially get the shit kicked out them. This does happen, just look at any bar or nightclub where a weaker male acts out of place in front of a stronger male, in order to impress a women. 99.9999999999% of the time the stronger male will in some way force the weaker male to show deference to the stronger male and if he doesn’t, then “BAM” he’ll get knocked out. Or better yet, look up the term AMOG in PUA literature, it basically means ‘alpha male other guy’ and often presents quite the challenge to guys attempting to use ‘game’ to appear better than they are.

          I myself, in my youth, attempted to act ‘better’ than I was, which could be considered using game, and you know what tended to happen? If I acted that way in front of a stronger male, I either had to defer/submit to him or risk getting beat up, and if I acted that way in front of a weaker male and he called me on it, then I would force him to defer/submit and hence assert my dominance over him. So realistically, men aren’t using ‘game’ to make themselves appear ‘fitter’ then they are because all men out there act as a check against such a thing. You don’t honestly believe that some 7 foot, 200 pound super-stud would let some gangly, pimple faced nerd use ‘game’ to out compete him with women. Trust me he wouldn’t. He would put that nerd in his place very fast, because no man wants to lose at the mating game. We are biological organisms and that game is ALL that matters. It is the be all and end all. As such, a guy can’t use game to appear ‘fitter’ then he is because if he doesn’t have the goods to back it up he will get beat down by other ‘competing’ men.

          Now there is also another aspect of game which I think I should address. I think ‘game’, (God I hate calling it that, it sounds so low-class.), is mainly about teaching men to be ‘masculine’. We live in a society where masculinity is disparaged by the media, by the cultural establishment and also by the political establishment. A lot of men have been raised to think that acting like a man is wrong and that a man should be subservient to all those around him. ‘Game’ or better yet for me it was evolutionary psychology, aims/does teach men that what women find attractive isn’t limp-wristed effeminate nancy-boys. No, it is strong, courageous and honourable men. This is what men NEED to learn. So when I look at ‘game’ I don’t see it as men trying to learn to be something they’re not, (they can’t be anyway cause they’ll get their ass beat down by other men if they can’t back up the goods), I see it as men learning to be what they can be, or better yet its teaching men that yes, there is a sexual marketplace and yes, your position in it and hence your attractiveness to women depends on how strong and masculine you are and hence how COMPETIVE you are and yes, if you want to start attracting women you better get out there and start COMPETING in the sexual marketplace. Basically, start acting like men and let the chips fall where they may, if you’re a weak man then you won’t be very successful competitively but at least you’ll get something out of it and at least you’re out there competing as opposed to sitting on the sidelines waiting for girls to approach you, (which generally won’t happen.) Basically I see game as teaching men that it’s not only ok to be MEN, but that they SHOULD be MEN. This is a revolutionary thing considering the feminist establishment has being spewing forth propaganda for the past 40 years telling men that what women really find attractive is passive, subservient, girly-men when the fact is that is not the case. Women like men that act like men, not men that act like girls.

          ‘AKA why can’t a woman change her low-status behavior nowadays to change that perceived biological lack of fitness like a man can change his low-status behavior using game (to make up for the fact that he has no status, money, looks, or strength)?’

          Ok, now that I have answered that, I’m going to provide another answer to the question you posed above. The reason for this is because the question could be interpreted as a descriptive question, (i.e. what biological or scientific reasons justify this, or why ‘is’ it this way) or as a normative question, (i.e. what morally justifies this, or why ‘should’ it be this way.) Now, at the beginning of my answer, all the way back at the top, I gave an answer to the descriptive interpretation of that question. As such, in the following paragraphs I will provide an answer to the normative interpretation of that question. Since the following paragraphs are going to be normative statements, not descriptive statements, they will subsequently relate to my personal morality, not to any biological science. Furthermore, I am only going to use my sense of morality as I am not a moral philosopher and do not have an extensive background in the field, (I am a law student though, so I do know the basics of jurisprudence and the like. Meaning I am not a complete illiterate when it comes to this field.)

          In regards to the question ‘AKA why can’t a woman change her low-status behavior nowadays to change that perceived biological lack of fitness like a man can change his low-status behavior using game (to make up for the fact that he has no status, money, looks, or strength)?’ I do not believe it is ‘right’ for a person to lie about what they ‘are’ to another person entering into a relationship, and if your interpretation of ‘game’ is that it is the equivalent of say a guy lying about his ability to provide, i.e. “I’m a millionaire baby!” or “I’m a doctor baby!” then yes I would agree that such behavior is immoral. However, I don’t think game in my point of view, is really about lying. I think it’s really about getting men out there and honestly competing with each other as MEN and letting the cream rise to the top and, whatever it is that falls to the bottom in this well-known analogy, fall to the bottom.

          I would like to reiterate that I do think that if a person is deceptive about their value as a mate, then they are being immoral, whether it is men lying about their social dominance/status or women lying about their chastity.

          Now if you still think that ‘game’ is about deceiving women about a males real biological ‘fitness’, (which I don’t think it is for the (descriptive) reasons mentioned at the start of my writing), then I suppose I can at least offer you one consolation. When a man lies about his social dominance or status, there are billions of other men out there ready to test whether he is as strong as he ‘says’ he is, and if he isn’t, to put him in his place. But when a woman lies about her chastity, there’s no one out there, at least in the West right now, to point out to you that that girl is a slut and you shouldn’t give her the time of day. In fact, pointing out to a guy that a girl is a slut, known by the feminists as ‘slut-shaming’, and hence isn’t worth considering as a long-term mate, is now considered a politically-correct taboo. So realistically, women have it much better/easier in the sexual market in the West when it comes to ‘faking’ it then men do.

          Finally, if you are skeptical of my assertion that men beat other men down that attempt to ‘act’ more dominant or high status then they are, then I suggest you read this article.

          http://www.putslab.psu.edu/pdfs/puts_10_beautybeast.pdf

          It’s only 19 pages, is free, and offers a much clearer and more authoritative answer then I provided.

          Definitions:

          Normative: In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong. Normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are factual statements that attempt to describe reality.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative#Philosophy

          Positive (Descriptive): In the humanities and social sciences, the term positive (occasionally positivist) is used in at least two ways.
          The most common usage refers to analysis or theories which only attempt to describe how things ‘are’, as opposed to how they ‘should’ be. In this sense, the opposite of positive is normative. An example would be positive, as opposed to normative, economic analysis. Positive statements are also often referred to as descriptive statements.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_science

        • chris

          Bloody hell, it removed the spaces I made between the paragraphs for clarity. :@

        • chris

          I would also like to clraify what my interpretation of ‘game’ is. I see it as teaching men to be the BEST that they CAN be, not trying to teach them to be something their not. It try’s to teach them to be they’re optimal selves.

          If you read what I wrote you’ll see that that is the meaning that I’m trying to get across, however I believe this statement here does a much better job of communicating that.

        • Haha, British Chris, WordPress does that – I don’t know why. Sorry. Don’t worry though, your comment is still very readable. In future, just put a line with a period in, like this:
          .
          S

        • chris

          Australian actually.

        • men aren’t using ‘game’ to make themselves appear ‘fitter’ then they are because all men out there act as a check against such a thing.

          I just want to say I find this surprising and fascinating. So you’re saying that there’s no way to deal with an AMOG? Then how can Game work? If a man develops himself to be strong, courageous and honorable, but is still lower testosterone than another male, won’t he still be beat down by that physically more dominant male, who may not be courageous or honorable?

        • chris

          So you’re saying that there’s no way to deal with an AMOG?
          I believe there isn’t, but PUA and ‘game’ practitioners would have you belive there is. Generally, if the AMOG is more alpha then you then there is no way to change that. My understanding is that most AMOG strategies aim at disarming or befreinding the AMOG so that he no longer feels the need to challange you.

          There are some concepts as ‘AMOG Destroyers’ by guys like Tyler Durden, but in all honesty I think if the guy is naturally ‘fitter’ than you, he will f**k you up if you try those techniques. Most AMOG strategies aim to take advantage of societies laws and social conventions regarding civility to disarm or even challange/defeat AMOG’s, but like I said I wouldn’t be game to try such AMOG Destroying techniques against say a mob boss. lol

          Then how can Game work?
          Like I said, my interpretation of game is that it is about teaching men to be men again. Teaching them that in order to attract women they need to go out and compete with each other in contests of strength, courage, honour and all those other masculine virtues that feminism has for so long try to dminish and disparage.

          If a man develops himself to be strong, courageous and honorable, but is still lower testosterone than another male, won’t he still be beat down by that physically more dominant male, who may not be courageous or honorable?

          I don’t know the exact source but I remember reading a study somewhere that said that testosterone increases after a winning a fight but decreases after losing one. So going by that, if a guy is naturally ‘fitter’ then that other guy, then he’ll win and he’s testosterone levels will increase and then he’ll be more confident and more sucessfull and more likely to challange other competitors. If he loses then his testosterone levels will decrease and he’ll be less liekly to challange other competitors. The fact is, our testosterone levels regulate based on our position in the hierarchy.

          This is the closest article I could find at short notice on testosterone levels increasing as a result of winning fights. It relates to californian mice but I’m guessing it would also apply to humans.

          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGC-4GG2JCT-1&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2005&_alid=1408769027&_rdoc=2&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6819&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=701&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f4adf8b82bf7c356a1b47fa4eec188cc

        • chris

          From that article I linked.

          “During the test phase, the resident male encountered an unfamiliar, more evenly matched intruder that had experience winning an encounter and was larger than the resident. Testosterone (T) plasma levels significantly increased after the final test when they had experienced two prior winning encounters, and the probability of winning a future encounter increased significantly after three prior wins independent of intrinsic fighting ability. We hypothesize a ‘winner–challenge’ effect in which increased T levels serve to reinforce the winner effect in male California mice.”

          So even when the mouse was larger, the mice where able to fight them off after having won a fight and had the increased testosterone levels.

          Furthermore “and the probability of winning a future encounter increased significantly after three prior wins independent of intrinsic fighting ability.” which relates to my notion that if the male is naturally fitter then he’ll win anyway, increase his testoerone levels and go on to keep winning.

          Of course this is a study done with mice, so some hesitation must be used when comparing the results to humans.

          To give you an example, in high school, I was on the bottom third of the social hierarchy in regards to other boys because as I was rasied by a single mother for most of my life, (she married when i was like 12), I was taught, by my mum, that fighting was wrong under all circumstances and as such I refused to get into physcial contests (aka fights) with other boys. This was despite the fact that for my age I posessed more muscle mass, broader shoulders and an above average height. In fact in the P.E. locker rooms, my friends would often tell me that based on my build I would make a very good fighter. Yet because of being raised in an “unmasculine” manner, I didn’t engage in such contests, even if I could have won most of them, and hence my social status in high school was only at the top of the bottom third and hence my testosterone levels would have reflected that fact that I wasn’t very high in social status and hence why I didn’t walk around the school like I was the King of it.

        • chris

          continued…

          which is why I think ‘game’ is needed in our day and age to re-masculinise our boys.

        • chris
        • Chris, that’s pretty interesting stuff. In your case, because you had natural size, you could probably go out, win a fight or two, raise your T level and you’d be on your way. For some guys, obviously, winning one fight may not be easy to do. Of course, in the animal kingdom, members of the pack often challenge the pack leader, and there is a lot of trading places back and forth.
          .
          I think you’re right when you say that we need to re-masculinize our boys. I’m a bit surprised to hear it’s as bad in Australia – I think of you Aussie boys as rugged and manly. In the U.S. we have thoroughly feminized the schools. Also, we have many boys who don’t get enough time with their fathers, which was obviously a big factor for you.
          .
          We used to put a lot more emphasis on character in society – the Greatest Generation, etc. We’ve lost that entirely.

        • P.S. I can’t help imagining Tyler Durden trying to take town Tony Soprano, haha.

        • chris

          I’m a bit surprised to hear it’s as bad in Australia

          While it probably isn’t as bad as in the US, being on the outer periphery of the Anglo-sphere does result in a lot of the cultural ideas of America and to a lesser extent the UK making its way over to our shores.

          The fact is, alot of the cultural changes that started with the sexual revolution in America in the 60’s has made its way over here much as its made its way throughout the rest of the West.

          Hell, we’ve even had American MTV broadcasting over here for probably 10-15 years now.

      • Aldonza

        An already ‘mated’ man however can’t be pregnant with another womens child, and there is no ‘natural’ constraint forcing him to divert his resources to any other women that he might have had sex with and their children.

        No, but a highly promiscuous man, particularly one without endless resources (read “rich”) is a risk because any other children he’s begotten can reduce the resources he has available to your and your children.
        .
        Further, the risk of cuckholding from a “mated woman” is pretty much gone after a single month passes by.

        • chris

          No, but a highly promiscuous man, particularly one without endless resources (read “rich”) is a risk because any other children he’s begotten can reduce the resources he has available to your and your children.

          “An already ‘mated’ man however can’t be pregnant with another womens child, and there is no ‘natural’ constraint forcing him to divert his resources to any other women that he might have had sex with and their children.”

          I said no “natural” constraint. Just because a male has had children doesn’t necessarily mean he has to provide for them. While with child-support laws today, this may not apply, the fact is in our environment of evolutionary adaptiveness it did.

          “Further, the risk of cuckholding from a “mated woman” is pretty much gone after a single month passes by.”

          I can’t remember where (and I doubt I’ll be able to find the source), but I remember reading that sperm can continue to exist in the uterine environment up to a month after insemination. Throwing into the equation that some women may only start showing pregnancy after 2-3 months, thats a hell of a timeframe, 3-4 months, through which potential cuckoldry could occur. Throw into the equation a hidden estrus and generally hidden mating, then if a female has been sleeping around in the past, there really is no way to no if she may potentially cuckold a particular man.

          Look at this way. Months:
          1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

          If guy is slept with in 1, then potential cuckoldry could occur up to say 4 (Assuming what I stated above is correct, I am not 100% certain of it). However, new guy has no idea where in that 4 month period she slept with other guy if she slept with him at all ,or if she has slept with an entire new guy again, which means, for safety reasons he would extend the range of potential cuckoldry in his mind.

          The fact is, hidden estrus, hidden mating, and hidden evidence of pregnancy, would mean that males would evolve to prefer ‘unmated’ women altogether for heavy paternal investing as there are too many factors which could potentially increase his cuckoldry, assuming of course that heavy paternal investing is evolutionarily adaptive in that environment. The fact is, for pretty much all of history, in pretty much all societies where there is heavy paternal investing by males, males have paid a premium for virgins. And the reasons stated above are why.

        • chris

          ‘in pretty much all societies where there is heavy paternal investing by males, males have paid a premium for virgins. And the reasons stated above are why.’

          As well as other reasons, such as desiring to not raise other mens kids, as throughout history an already mated women would most likely have kids by other men.

        • chris

          Addendum: I searched throughout the interent and it seems that under optimum conidtions, sperm can survive in the uterine envrionement for up to a week, not a month. However, that still doesn’t counteract the point that some women may no t show any evidence of pregnancy for up to 3 months.

    • I think Chris hit the nail on the head. It’s the double standard, and it’s rooted in biology, so it will never change. That’s why your remaining a virgin is the ultimate premium calling card 🙂
      One thing I will say: there is no absolute detector for a woman’s past. A woman like Hephzibah will telegraph that she’s emotionally weighed down by her past in many ways, but even she can rewrite history to some extent if she chooses to. Well, obviously the book makes that impossible, but you know what I mean.
      A woman with, say, a dozen partners, can easily keep that information private, particularly in a large, urban setting after college. Some of the game bloggers write about “slut tells” but I think this is vastly overstated. Not all women exhibit emotional damage as a result of casual sex. Especially a woman who makes a decision to go chaste. After a period of months or a year, she will be able to intelligently speak about denying herself sex as if she’s barely experienced it, IMO.

      • The Deuce

        Actually, were I still in the market, I think I’d generally take a reformed woman who had some emotional damage over one that didn’t (of course, it depends on the *type* of emotional damage). As I see it, if a woman lacks any remorse over her previous flings, it means she’s probably not genuinely reformed, but has just gone “chaste” out of pure calculation.

        One big reason that men looking for meaningful relationships don’t like women with storied pasts, which nobody has mentioned, is that such women are less likely to be as emotionally devoted to their husbands, because sex with multiple partners will have likely desensitized them to the bonding effects of sex. A woman who is truly sorry about her past, because she sees it as an obstacle in her relationship with her husband, is more likely to overcome that problem.

        I’d take a woman who goes chaste so that she can be a better wife over one who goes chaste just so she can be a wife. The latter is dangerous, because her “chastity” is actually a form of manipulation and she’s just looking for some chump to bail her out, but the former is more likely to have some emotional damage.

    • Personally, I think Verie hit the nail on the head:

      “I’ve been thinking about it and isn’t saying that women who have slept around are unable to reform the same as saying that guys who haven’t slept around (ie, betas who didn’t have the social status to do so) should also be unable to reform? In other words, doesn’t having this world view about women’s inability to improve themselves with a better mindset also chain you to not be able to use game to improve yourself & change for the better with a better mindset? ”

      I also find that a lot of us tend to hide behind science when it’s convenient to the point we’re making. When it works in our favour, we hide behind it, and when it’s doesn’t , we demand the “other team” rise above it. If you give men a pass on not being able to see past a woman’s sexual history because of biology, how can you condemn women for hypergamy or moving up when a better deal comes along?

      I believe anyone can change. It’s not easy, It’s not common, but it happens. And I have all the respect in the world for people who make that effort, whether the results come right away or not.

      • verie44

        That was inspiring.

        • verie44

          I also have hope that people can change. The world is a pretty dismal place if it’s not true.

        • Mike

          I also have hope that people can change. The world is a pretty dismal place if it’s not true.

          Of course people can change. No doubt about that at all. But it does NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW that just because someone *MAY* have changed that other people have moral obligations to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe a bank robber is now on the straight and narrow. Does that mean that I morally have to hire him to drive a Brinks truck? Maybe a former child beater is reformed. Do I have a moral obligation to hire her as a nanny?

      • Jimmy Hendricks

        The big difference is that the sluts have committed an offense that’s going to be held against them, while the low status guys are simply not good enough. Become good enough, and nobody’s going to care about your previous failures.
        .
        Instead of comparing low status guys to sluts, I think a better metaphor is unattractive girls. If they suddenly become hot, I don’t think any guy is going to care that she used to be ugly. Likewise, nobody’s going to care that a low status guy used to be unsuccessful as long as he’s successful now.
        .
        Becoming “good enough” is easier said than done (on both sides). But I think most people would agree that a clean record is going to beat out a mile long rap sheet more often than not.
        .
        And on the note of “slut tells,” I think they’re definitely there. I don’t think they’re always as easily identifiable like Roissy, Roosh, etc. claim… but they’re there. If you spend enough time with a girl over the course of a month or two, you should be able to have a pretty good idea of what you’re dealing with. Sometimes the dead giveaways happen when they get drunk. I think I’d put my slut predictor accuracy at about 80%.

        • verie44

          “Instead of comparing low status guys to sluts, I think a better metaphor is unattractive girls. If they suddenly become hot, I don’t think any guy is going to care that she used to be ugly. Likewise, nobody’s going to care that a low status guy used to be unsuccessful as long as he’s successful now.”

          You’re right, that’s a good metaphor and one I’ve used before — plastic surgery is to girls what game is to guys. Both things are faking their genetic fitness. However, if you’re also judging girls’ fitness to reproduce on their sexual choices, their sexuality also plays against what determines guys’ fitness (ie, game). So girls get a double whammy — they are judged on chastity + attractiveness vs. men who are judged on status/accomplishments (game or money, looks, power).

          I argue that the comparison still stands.

          “The big difference is that the sluts have committed an offense that’s going to be held against them, while the low status guys are simply not good enough. Become good enough, and nobody’s going to care about your previous failures.”

          This directly contradicts your next statement: “But I think most people would agree that a clean record is going to beat out a mile long rap sheet more often than not.” I agree with that. Given a choice, would you not prefer a girl who was born looking like a supermodel and never had to work out a day in her life / is naturally thin or a girl who had plastic surgery on her face & boobs & works out 2 hours a day to maintain her look?

          Similarly, don’t you think girls would prefer a college football player who is socially dominant & charismatic who became an investment banker millionaire to a guy who was the class nerd & somewhat awkward but learned game and became a guy with the same net worth? Given that both treated her the same, girls would pick the first over the second because past success most often predicts future success. The first guy has always been a winner. People do care about your past failures, and that is why I think game = a reformed attitude toward sleeping around.

        • Jimmy Hendricks

          I get where you’re coming from, but I think the plastic surgery example is a little extreme…. Just looking at the period from the beginning of HS to the end of college, I can think of plenty of girls who naturally became a lot more attractive during that time. And on the flip side, there’s probably even more girls I know who used to be fairly hot and aren’t looking so good these days. Too much partying can take its toll.
          .
          I don’t think guys are going to pass up the attractive girls because they used to be ugly. Likewise, the girls who aren’t looking so good anymore aren’t going to be able to get dates based on the way they looked 5-10 years ago.
          .
          As far as the football player investment banker goes… well of course that dude’s going to have it made. But what if one of his teammates is fat, stupid, and has a lousy job when he’s 25-30? I don’t think his past success is going to be of much help. And if that class nerd became financially successful and charismatic, I don’t really see how his past is going to be held against him.
          .
          A good resume is always great to have, but I think no resume beats out a bad resume.

        • Jimmy Hendricks

          Verie, I’m with you in the whole analogies/metaphors idea… They make things easier to understand for me too, and I think I’ve come up with a better one:
          .
          Think of a slut as a girl who goes through her first year and a half of college with a straight 4.0, only to get into hard partying, drinking, drug use, etc. to the point that it eventually kills her studying habits and grades. After a year or two of failing numerous classes, she eventually gets kicked out of her university. She might clean her act up down the road, finish up her degree at the local community college, and still be a very intelligent in the academic sense, but no decent grad school is going to want to take her in with such a terrible record.
          .
          Once a girl gets ‘kicked out’ of a guy’s LTR consideration, it’s not very likely that she’ll get back in. The ‘slut tells’ aren’t as easy to obtain as grade transcripts, but guys might consult people who have known the girl longer (or known of the girl) as ‘letters of recommendation.’ As I said earlier, given enough time, guys can usually figure it out. There’s definitely a certain small percentage of guys out there who’d like to reform a slut, but we’re talking a very small minority.
          .
          The awkward nerd is the equivalent of a guy who’s getting a 2.0 his first year and a half. Definitely not attractive, but nothing that’s going to get him kicked out. If he gets his act together, studies his material, and busts his ass over the next couple of years to bring his GPA over a 3.0 by the time he graduates, he’ll probably be able to get into a decent grad school. Probably not an elite one, but a good one. The key is that he has clean record and the end product is acceptable.
          .
          I disagree with the idea that game can help any guy go from zero to top of the pack. Everybody can’t always be a winner in society, sad as it is. Maybe the guy’s GPA goes from a 2.0 to a 2.5, and that’s all he’s capable of… nothing to be ashamed of, but he shouldn’t feel entitled to get accepted into Harvard’s Law School either.

        • I think this is an excellent analogy! I think it boils down to this: the young woman who is promiscuous is perceived as damaged goods by men, having signaled her propensity for sexual variety. The awkward nerd is perceived as undamaged goods by women, which, unfortunately, is equally problematic. It’s easier to add something than to take it away. The promiscuous woman who stops sleeping around may have damaged her ability to bond and maintain an LTR, and asks a lot if she expects a man to completely disregard her past. The nerd who gets game is probably well suited to an LTR (if he avoids asshole game) and carries only a report that he used to be nerdy, which women will actually find charming if he no longer is. Most of the men I know in their 40s and 50s have attractive wives they could never have dated in high school.

        • verie44

          Yes, you’re right. And so is Mike, Jimmy Hendricks, chris, white&nerdy, etc. It’s just sad for those women, that’s all.

    • Mike

      However, I’ve been thinking about it and isn’t saying that women who have slept around are unable to reform the same as saying that guys who haven’t slept around (ie, betas who didn’t have the social status to do so) should also be unable to reform? In other words, doesn’t having this world view about women’s inability to improve themselves with a better mindset also chain you to not be able to use game to improve yourself & change for the better with a better mindset?

      Simplistically, it is impossible to undo what you did. There is no time machine to go back and eliminate past actions. But you can do what you haven’t done.

      • verie44

        Who cares about time machines or whatever? I’m talking about the here and now, whether someone is biologically fit or unfit. As I wrote above, I see betas who are pretending to be alpha using game (which is essentially tricks to emulate the confidence that would come genetically or with power, money, or looks) in the same way as I see women who you consider to be “damaged” because of the the sex they’ve had — they both have reduced fitness on the market. They can both pretend to be different (and they do), but that act of pretending is basically the same.

        • Mike

          Who cares about time machines or whatever?

          You either are not understanding or purposefully disregarding my point. It is about actions versus mindset/personality.

          Look, a killer is always a killer. If I murder someone, I could go on to reform and be Mother Teresa, but I still killed somebody. There is no way to erase that.

          However, if I am grumpy, I can choose to stop being grumpy and be a pleasant person. If I make that change, I am not a grumpy person pretending to be pleasant, I am a pleasant person.

          As I wrote above, I see betas who are pretending to be alpha using game (which is essentially tricks to emulate the confidence that would come genetically or with power, money, or looks) in the same way

          Tricks? Pretending? Not sure really how to address this other then your characterization and choice of words here sort of confirms what many Game advocates say about the female opposition to Game. Essentially, it boils down to “Betas, know your role”, and don’t you dare to try and move up the ladder. You are entitled to this view, but know that this view plays directly into supporting what more extreme views like Vincent and Roissy espouse. Because the attitude underlying this view is likely to heighten and amplify the bitterness and resentment many Betas already feel.

          Again though Game tactics or “tricks” as you put it are really amoral, it is how they are put to use that matters. I think Susan gets it 110%.

          Again, from the perspective of a LTR. If you’ve slept with 50-100 guys because they were all able to generate the tingle, then how can I be sure if i commit to you or marry you, that you won’t fall prey to that tingle some night and cheat. You admitted yourself that women are largely ignorant of what generates the tingle and instead mistakenly attribute it to some magical chemistry. In contrast, a girl who has had maybe 3-6 partners all in longer-term relationships is a better bet for fidelity. She must have experienced the tingle a great number of times as well but was able to refrain from acting on it. Chances are she’ll be able to refrain in the future.

        • Ah, I see you’ve already covered what I just typed above. Verie, I have to say it’s hard to take you 100% seriously on this, as you have written at length about remaining a virgin to avoid the bonding that occurs in sex with even one person. Therefore, you’re on record as saying that promiscuity is damaging to women. Why is it not sensible, then, that men would be repelled by that damage?
          Mike is exactly right when he says that beta traits are more “fit” in contemporary society. The way I see it, these guys just need some practice learning skills that will attract women. Often, to be honest, it’s about shyness. In my view, a beta male who learns how to interact with women successfully is equivalent to a woman who marries still a virgin and then learns great sex skills. Both increase long-term mating value. It’s not a question of faking it, it’s a question of developing oneself by acquiring new skills. Everybody wins.

        • verie44

          I wasn’t trying to say that women aren’t damaged by promiscuity, I was saying that their reduced fitness based on this premise (plus their “rating” attractiveness-wise) is evolutionarily the same as a beta guy’s reduced fitness. I was trying to make the point that game = a reformed attitude toward sleeping around. However, with the EXTENSIVE posting (jesus, was it long), I’m seeing that the two aren’t the same with the analogies everyone is bringing up.

          Just a theory I wanted to try out. I want to believe that everyone can change, but it appears that women who have slept around a lot, damaged or not, are going to be penalized without that option. It’s sad that one group gets a second chance and the other doesn’t. Hey, it’s not really relevant to me personally, I just find it sad.

        • It is sad. A lot of young women get caught up in the scene in college especially. They may have been naive, or weak, or trying desperately to fit in. They are good hearted women who make some poor choices, and bam, they’re 19 and ruined? It’s not fair. Meanwhile, some manipulative girl gone wild can get a bf, and even if it isn’t a great relationship, it serves to get her off the market and keeps her number of partners down. The number alone doesn’t tell the whole story, though I understand that men have the right to disqualify whoever they want to. It’s a personal choice.

        • ExNewYorker

          Susan,

          Your average guys is going to be reasonably ok with a few partners. Heck, because of the 80/20 split, your average guy won’t have had too many partners either.
          .
          Problem is when “naive girl at 19” has a cad experience, but instead of learning from it, goes from bf to bf, from hookup to hookup, even after college. Instead of taking time to “learn from the bad experience” and maybe take a timeout, she jumps to the next hookup. Now, I’m sure there are cases of “reform”, but personally, the time to ascertain whether the past experiences are not indicators of future behavior is often long.

        • I agree with you. Even before the Sexual Revolution, a few women would somehow turn “bad” and get pregnant. They really were only one mistake away from everyone else. And yet that careless moment changed their lives. Women today have a lot more leeway than that. I think many if not most attractive college freshman get hit on by cads in college. They’re naive and inexperienced in many cases, and they get played. The problem is, as you say, many of them are determined to set things right, so they try again. It’s like betting in Vegas. You wind up making bad choices against long odds.
          Research shows that m