Why Women Say Yes to Booty Calls

August 5, 2010

The post you are about to read was not inspired by the events of the past few days. It reflects two timely pieces of writing that showed up in my inbox this morning. Call it a happy coincidence.

The first is a post by John Ortved, Glamour magazine’s Single-ish columnist. In When Is a Booty Call a Good Idea? he responds to a letter written by a concerned friend named Kelly:

Basically, a guy my friend Alexis used to date, and still hooks up with, ignored her all night, chatted up other girls, left without her, and then texted her to come over once he was home. And she went!

If my friend was just hooking up, I would have zero problem. I like sex. I think everyone, including and especially my friends, should have lots of it. And it’s really none of my business when, where or how they go about it (perv confession: doesn’t mean I’m not a little curious). But this wasn’t just a hookup for her. She likes him. I can tell. And for some reason it’s not clear to her that she’s being used, or it is, and she’s OK with it.

She gave the following rationalization, “I just want a warm body (to sleep next to).” I think this is totally legit. New York is a lonely place. Your twenties can be lonely. Life is lonely. I can’t hold this against her. My problem isn’t with the core of this rationale, but with its application—the fact that it wasn’t true. In this case, she didn’t want a warm body to sleep next to, she wants a warm heart to beat in sync with her own.

I like my friends. I want them to be respected, and even more importantly, to respect themselves. It bummed me out that someone I’m close with would have that little regard.

Maybe there’s a post-feminist argument I’m missing here.

Kelly ends by asking the readers what they would have done:

AGAINST: 19

  1. Why not actually have sex with someone who loves and respects you? That’s a lot healthier than sex for sex’s sake.
  2. I had a booty call for a while that I eventually dumped for not wanting to date me exclusively. He knew I really liked him and he would’ve let it go on if I hadn’t ended it.
  3. I re-watched “He’s just not that into you”. Very therapeutic.
  4. If someone keeps getting what they want with no effort, there’s no motivation for them to change the situation.
  5. Unfortunately I agree with a lot of commenters here… some girls just won’t get it until they’re ready. Your friend is lucky to have an honest friend like you, rather than an enabler!
  6. ‘when is a booty call a good idea’– NEVER. eVER! baaaad idea always
  7. I wish I could share your comment with my friend. She has been doing this with the same guy for TWO YEARS! Maybe its fun in the moment, but what happens the next day?
  8. Some tough love for your friend (and other commenters): TAKE YOUR HEART AND RUN.
  9. She should be treated with respect, not like that…ugh…good luck to her.
  10. a bootycall is never a good idea..been there done that..all you feel is emptyness when the pleasure is gone..
  11. Been there, done that, way too many times than I care to admit.
  12. Make it easy on him, set up a picnic, see each other during the day and see if you still have that same chemistry.
  13. I was your friend for a very long time (6 years) and no matter how many times my girlfriends tried to get me to see i was being used and that i deserved better it didnt stop until i saw it for myself…i sure wish i had listened though and saved my self years of heartache lol
  14. Let’s learn to take better care of our hearts than our hormones!! ;)
  15. Wow, I was in this exact same situation for over a year and All it lead to was heartbreak.
  16. Yeah my best friend is going through this. her “boyfriend” in her mind treats her like nothing but a booty call and she doesn’t see it. she’d like to think she’s the one with all the power but when they only get together on his terms, that isn’t the case.
  17. Ugh…this sounds like a situation I’m in. I like this guy (and hook up with him on occasion), but he puts zero effort into hanging out AND contacting me. It’s annoying and complicated.
  18. it’s something she’s got to work through herself… she’ll keep doing it until it hurts too much, or until there’s some kind of resolution to it all. everyone has to learn their own lessons the hard way.
  19. agree w/ jessiellen. I have a friend who does similar stuff, even though I try to persuade her otherwise. It’s her lesson to learn. :(

FOR: 1

  1. I was just hands down having too much fun having sex with my FWB. We were totally compatible in bed but outside of that we didn’t have much in common. When someone was ready to move on there were no hurt feelings…that’s the way it’s supposed to work.

Keep in mind, this is not the CYA newsletter. This is Glamour magazine. I was hoping for a clean sweep, but I’ll take 95%. The vast majority of women don’t want to be a slampiece for anyone.

Ortved follows up with 5 Rules for Booty Calls. Here’s the best of what he had to say:

1) Know What You’re Getting Into
If it’s an ad on Craigslist in which the dude casually mentions an interest in bdsm, or “toys,” you can be sure that this story will probably not end with marriage and “happily ever after.” The point is, know the waters in which you’re swimming. Chances are, you’re not browsing Craigslist for your hookups to begin with (from what I can tell, it is only men and “professionals” in the Craigslist personals). No, chances are your booty call is coming from someone you know and have slept with before. That being said, I think it helps to be emotionally and physically prepared.

SW: BWAAAAHHHHAAAAAH. The irony!

2) Beware of Friends
I am totally guilty of this. On some lonely nights (usually in the winter time), I will send out a text—personalized, no blasting—to some female friends, looking for some company. These aren’t strict booty calls—I’m usually looking for a cuddle, not so much a role in the hay—they’re in the same family. I’m not passing any judgment here, just saying that when you get a call or a text from a pal at 12, he’s probably not looking for someone to play Monopoly with.

3) Pretend You’re Sober
We make bad, bad decisions when wasted. When you get that call, or when you’re about to make it, take a second. Pretend you’re not wasted, and try to apply some logic.

4) Watch Your Heart

I only disapproved of my friend responding to the booty call because I thought her heart was in it. She likes the guy and he was only calling her as his last option, after leaving without her. I feel for anyone getting her heartstrings played with. It can be so hard to resist when you like someone, but again, step back and try to be logical—is this going to hurt more than it’s going to feel good?

(5 says wear a condom. Duh.)

Like many of the male readers here on Hooking Up Smart, this dude acknowledges that booty calls are a bad deal for women. All of his recommendations have to do with being smart and thinking longer-term.

I’ve been thinking about the role of respect in casual sex. Respect for one another, and respect for oneself. I don’t think it’s possible for a booty call to be respectful, as it is a sexual summons, really. There’s a power imbalance when only one party (usually the guy) is texting for sex late night. Of course, no woman has to consent, but it’s clear that women often participate because they have already caught feelings, and they’re hoping to prove to the guy that they are relationship worthy.

We seem to have reached a point where a guy can sidle up to the vending machine of sex and punch your number. And you’ll roll on down the chute, no deposit required.

If booty calls only benefit men, why do women keep participating? Why do we never learn?

Tracy Clark-Flory, writer for Salon’s Broadsheet tackles that question in The Science of the Booty Call. For the article she interviewed Peter K. Jonason, a psychology professor at the University of South Alabama. He’s apparently a booty call expert of the academic variety. Who knew? Jonason is the author of Positioning the Booty-Call Relationship on the Spectrum of Relationships. Clark-Flory, a feminist, finds his work unsettling:

Those of us who like to believe that we are more than our primal urges, and that men and women are not mortal enemies, may find his conclusions, which rely heavily on evolutionary psychology, a bit unnerving.

I decided to give Jonason a ring to chat about the science behind casual sex, and to flirt with political incorrectness. The resulting conversation had me seesawing between indignant outrage and fatalistic despair.

I must say I’m encouraged by her openness here. She admits to anger at hearing something so at odds with her world view, but she also implies his work just may be legitimate. Excerpts follow.

On the difference between booty calls and one-nights stands:

They are more sexual, as in they include a wider range of sexual acts than one-night stands do. But they are also less emotional than one-night stands. In booty-call relationships, people don’t seem to to do things like hold hands and other emotional acts…they don’t want to do anything that would…connote a desire for a greater emotional connection.

On his past work indicating that the booty call is a compromise between men’s and women’s ideal mating strategies:

Men and women have divergent biological interests, so they are in conflict. How do you solve that conflict? Well, if you engage in a one-night stand, the man essentially wins, and the woman loses. The opposite of that is a committed relationship: A guy puts all his potential mating effort into a single partner and she wins, she gets all of his investment.

The booty call is a compromise, because neither partner wins and neither partner loses. A man’s attitude is often “I’m not gonna commit until we have sex,” and a woman’s attitude is “I’m not going to have sex until you commit.” With the booty call, a woman gets some degree of longevity and potential access to mates who wouldn’t be willing to commit. In return, men get low-investment sex.

Sex is a common commodity exchanged in heterosexual negotiations. No one is getting exactly what they want but they’re getting something close.

SW: Whoa! Did you see that? Economics!

Clark-Flory wondered how to “explain exceptions to this rule, like men who don’t have much of an interest in casual sex or women who are only interested in casual sex? And what about love?”

On women who seek casual sex:

The statement that women are less interested in casual sex doesn’t mean they aren’t interested in it, it just means that on average women are less interested and less willing to go to bed with a complete stranger than men are. There are, of course, women who do engage in casual sex and there are lots of reasons why they do it. Sometimes they’re using men, “gold-digging” being the popular term, or they’re indexing their mate value by determining whether they’re still attractive.

On men who aren’t into casual sex:

If I’m really ugly, I don’t really have the value to go out and get lots of women to have sex with. I have to commit to the first woman who is willing. I have to settle sooner because I don’t have value in the negotiation process.

On women’s tendency to rationalize behavior:

We like to lie to ourselves, and I’m sorry to say this is one of the problems with women’s magazines. You actually lie to one another and perpetuate these myths because it makes you feel better.

On women’s tendency to shame one another for promiscuity:

Women also punish other women for engaging in sexual acts. Women have a vested interest in keeping the availability of the commodity of sex low because they can ask for more from men. It’s microeconomics — if the supply is low the demand can be high.

SW: Please join me in a moment of ecstasy here. Close your eyes and imagine the 1812 Overture accompanied by fireworks at the Hollywood Bowl.

On why women would ever pursue short-term mating strategies in view of the social costs associated with “sleeping around”:

One, it provides women access to men who may not have been willing to consider her before. It can also be a way for her to figure out if she’s still attractive.

And finally, the whole damned argument in a nutshell. Feminists vs. Biologists:

TCF: A lot of what you’re saying is obviously very politically and philosophically … unpleasant. I think most of us have a desire to escape our basic biology, to evolve, to be better.

Jonason: As much as you want to escape your biology, there it is, in your face. Humans have the illusion that they can escape their biology, but we’re just like any other animal, the difference is our leash is longer. It appears that we have all this freedom to make these choices, but we really don’t.

All in all, a rather interesting look at the booty call, don’t you think? As Gloria Steinem once said,

“The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.”

2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • Passer_By

    So, is this guy suggesting that any male that commits to anything more than a booty call arrangement has huge self esteem issues and is really ugly? Fuck, I’m going to have to reexamine my life

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Haha, no, I think he’s just of the opinion that young guys who can avail themselves of the booty call will do so. It goes back to the 80/20 rule. It’s likely that no more than 20% of men can get away with booty calling. The other 80% may include ugly men, but obviously is not restricted to that. I have to say, based on my own observations, that 80% includes many extremely attractive men who are naturally more introverted than guys trying to dominate the social scene. I continue to maintain that such men are the best bets for relationships. They tend to exhibit better character, with less ego. Just my opinion.

  • The Running Board

    Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but I don’t understand why you’re claiming victory. You have an evolutionary biologist espousing an evolutionary biology theory. Doesn’t seem like Clark-Flory necessarily agrees with him.

    Evolutionary biology is fascinating and sometimes useful, but one of it’s biggest flaws is its assumption that all human behavior can be explained as an attempt to pass on your genes. So, whatever that data says, its going to be viewed under this prism, which can sometimes appear tautological.

    This is how you end up with EBs arguing that reason artists/scientists are more creative in their early years is because it’s an attempt to gain status and increase mating opportunities. Of course, this completely ignores female artists and also artists who produce their greatest works when their 40+.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Clark-Flory by no means has indicated that she agrees with him. Indeed, this would be a bitter pill for her to swallow. On the other hand, she does not condemn him as a pseudo scientist, as many of her feminist peers will. She seems genuinely interested and thoughtful about his research.
      I am obviously no scientist, but it strikes me as reasonable to assume that man, just an animal after all, should be motivated to pass on his genes. If you don’t buy that, you don’t buy into Darwin.
      As for the bit about artists – I’m not familiar with that topic. Do you have more info?

  • Artem

    This is too simplistic. I am an extremely attractive man, but I feel bad after a booty call and would not do it again. Men have feelings too. One night stands really are different because there’s emotion.

    From evolutionary perspective, maybe it is that I don’t want to have a bunch of kids from ugly women and potentially be made responsible for it by the community. Maybe I also don’t want to compromise my value by being seen with a woman below my level.

    I probably find attractive one of every two or three hundred women I encounter during the day, and I am pretty certain they would never be a booty call since they have an abundance of high quality male admirers at any given time.

    So really high value men might have less casual sex since they can afford to be very selective.

    Artem.

  • Passer_By

    “This is too simplistic. I am an extremely attractive man . . .”

    You’ve been listening to your mom too much. ;)

  • Artem

    Haha, nice. :) My mother and I do not discuss such topics because I come from a different culture than you. But I admit that I’ve been listening too much to my wifes and all the girls I had relationships and casual (but not emotionless!) sex with.

    My level of attractiveness is not the point. I judge my attractiveness based on how attractive the girls I sleep with are, which is the ultimate metric.

    I feel bad after sex with a woman that I could describe as “I could do better”. Probably very similar to what some (most?) girls feel after booty calls. I feel kinda dirty. And ashamed a little. I don’t know why, I speculated on this in my previous post. And the few rare girls that I could describe as “I like her!!!” would not ever do a booty call thing with me. Maybe with Brad Pitt, but not with me.

    Some men can bottom feed, some can’t. I for sure can’t. Maybe I’m afraid to compromise my attractiveness because no bona fide hottie would ever consider a man that sleeps with warpigs. That’s a huge turn off. I just wanted to say that the notion of “if a man doesn’t do booty calls, he’s ugly” is ridiculous. It is quite the opposite for me.

  • Artem

    Haha :) My mother and I did not discuss such things since I did not grow up in a narcissistic culture like the one you got here at the US. :-P

    But this website swallowed my comment in which I wanted to elaborate that it is not about me. I was told there are people who can have sex with a anything that has a vagina, but I personally feel ashamed after sex with a girl below my level. And girls my level would not do a booty call thing with me. It’s that simple.

    I found the statement that if a man doesn’t do booty calls he’s ugly utterly ridiculous and just wanted to give you a counter-example.

  • Sarah

    This is ignoring women who like to have casual sex for the sake of casual sex. I am not arguing that they are in the majority. It may very well be that most women like to seek out committed relationships, but you can’t ignore the fact that some women like to have sex outside of committed relationships for no other reason then they like to have casual sex.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Sarah
      I don’t ignore it. I don’t know their numbers. In this extremely small sample in a popular women’s mag, they appear to be around 5%.

  • verie44

    @Passer_By: You don’t get to say that unless you yourself post a photo. And Artem should post a better one, closer up, of his face, so we can actually judge if you are “extremely attractive.” I am wary of all people, male & female, who post that they are so hot without anything to back it up. Apparently only 7s and above post on this blog, and of the guys who have claimed that status and provided a picture, I can say with absolute authority that they’re completely delusional.

  • Passer_By

    Hey, I didn’t say I was hot . . . nor did I say I wasn’t. Besides, I was just flickin his ear for being arrogant.

  • Passer_By

    @sarah
    “but you can’t ignore the fact that some women like to have sex outside of committed relationships for no other reason then they like to have casual sex.”

    I’ve heard they exist in real life, but I mostly only see them posting on the internet.

    But, assuming they exist (and I’ll take your word on it), they should waste no more time complaining about double standards and slut shaming, and should instead sit back and count their lucky stars. Because they are the one group that has virtually unlimited ability to get their needs met in the sexual marketplace with little to no effort whatsoever.

  • verie44

    @Passer_by:
    Saying someone else isn’t hot is basically saying you are better looking. And I don’t think it’s arrogance — it’s more a fact. Just because it’s not polite to say it out loud doesn’t make it any less true. Either people are good looking or they’re not. He could very well be, but you can’t tell by the photo he posted.

  • Artem

    @verie44: It is wrong to judge man’s attractiveness by his facial characteristics. Women are judged this way (+body, of course). Men’s attractiveness cannot be evaluated in any other way than his ability to bed attractive women. So you should be asking me to send you pictures of my girlfriends/wives/one-night-stands instead.

    I would say people underestimate their level of attractiveness just as often as overestimate it, because they tend to compare themselves to their surroundings which usually matches their level of attractiveness. :) Of course, I am not an EXTREMELY attractive man if you only compare me to other men my age, my income and net worth, my social status and my level of physical fitness. I guess I would be a 7. But if compared to ALL MEN, I’m definitely a 10, no questions.

    You, too, are not a supermodel, but look around you. Start noticing EVERY woman you run at. Based on your face alone, I can tell that you’re probably extremely attractive.

  • Passer_By

    “Saying someone else isn’t hot is basically saying you are better looking . . .”

    Well, no it’s not, because he said he was “extremely attractive”, so if I could actually see his picture, I could have a valid opinion on that even if I was a 2.

    Either way, it’s irrelevant, because (i) I’m too old to be hot and (ii) IT WAS A JOKE! I have no idea if he is or isn’t. He could look like Brad Pitt and I wouldn’t know it from the size of those little icons.

  • verie44

    “Well, no it’s not, because he said he was “extremely attractive”, so if I could actually see his picture, I could have a valid opinion on that even if I was a 2.”
    And I would laugh at your opinion denouncing hot people as not attractive enough if you were a 2. That is my point: from now on, I’m going to ask people to put up or shut up. Have something negative or positive to say about your appearance or someone else’s? I want to see a photo. I’m tired of the self-delusion, quite honestly. Of course people can put up photos of models or whatever, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, especially since Susan knows who many of the posters are in real life.

  • GudEnuf

    It’s microeconomics — if the supply is low the demand can be high.

    You’re an MBA Susan, you should catch this! Reducing supply increases the price, not the demand.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Artem
    Thanks for sharing this. I think your position is unusual, in that men will often take whatever sex is on offer. But I have heard this from other men as well. It’s not surprising to me – we all fall somewhere on a spectrum. Many factors come into play. I believe there are some men who don’t really crave no-strings sex. They are much happier holding out for the real thing, fireworks and all. Just as there are women who don’t want to be in love. They’d rather keep things emotionally detached. None of this is binary. There are infinite gradations, IMO.

  • Artem

    @verie44: as I said before, I was talking about my attractiveness and appearance is only a part of it. I can send you a photo no problem, but you have to stop projecting your feminine values onto men. It is true (and sad for some?) that in women, appearance is almost same as attractiveness, but for men it’s more, like, 30% of it.

    For obvious reasons, I will not post a photo of my girlfriend in a public forum.

  • Artem

    @Susan I’ve been told that (even by a sex therapist) and it’s still hard for me to believe (here it is – the power of projection!!!). I even find it difficult to achieve and maintain an erection if the girl’s appearance does not excite me, and the girls that excite me would not let me walk all over them since they all have tons of options.

    Sometimes I really envy those men since I constantly find myself surrounded by women to whom I have zero erotic interest. I guess I can understand how most women feel, too.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @GudEnuf
    I assumed he meant that if the supply is low, women can demand more, i.e. raise the price. But it’s possible I was in a swoon over the appearance of econ. Feminists have hit hard on this particular point. They find my analytical approach to sex disgusting and cynical, apparently.

  • J

    It goes back to the 80/20 rule. It’s likely that no more than 20% of men can get away with booty calling… [the remaining] 80% includes many extremely attractive men who are naturally more introverted than guys trying to dominate the social scene. I continue to maintain that such men are the best bets for relationships. They tend to exhibit better character, with less ego.

    Hi Susan,

    This reminds of our conversation at Dalrock’s blog, so I’ll crosspost an edited version of what I wrote there. Let’s assume that the 80% are the men labeled as Beta by the evo psych crowd and the 20% are Alphas.

    You and I agreed that Beta is betta. Nonetheless, many women, especially the young ones, are attracted to Alphas, the 20% who can carry off a booty call, when they’d be happier with Betas. I think this is because they mistakenly see Alpha confidence as a sign of male competancy. A competant man is good at manipulating the environment so that his family will have a good life. His making a good income is probably equivalent in evo psych terms to killing a mammoth or two. He will have some social dominance, like a silverback alpha ape, because he needs to influence other people in the work world. Those are Alpha characteristics that often co-exist with the player characteristics that men who succeed at getting booty calls have. Because those characteristics can and do coexist, women often mistake players for men who have the characteristics that facilitate the survival of a family.

    Young, inexperienced women confuse Alpha shenanigans with the real deal of being able to protect and provide. They see the power of the Alpha male and assume that the instability has to come with it. Because they see the sizzle, they think there must be a steak. The more reliable Beta is less flashy, so he looks less powerful to the inexperienced eye.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      J, you have a way of cutting right to the heart of the matter in a clear and concise way, with nice prose. I think this is exactly right. Alpha shenanigans – I love that phrase. The thing is, Alpha shenanigans often cause emotional pain. The women who get burned once (or not at all) and learn to avoid them – like holding garlic up to a vampire – are the ones who will win in the end. If, that is, you define winning as marrying a good man. However, there is no shortage of women, aged 40+, wailing and wondering where the good men are. The lucky ones get a book deal, which is at least some small compensation.

  • verie44

    “@verie44: as I said before, I was talking about my attractiveness and appearance is only a part of it. I can send you a photo no problem, but you have to stop projecting your feminine values onto men. It is true (and sad for some?) that in women, appearance is almost same as attractiveness, but for men it’s more, like, 30% of it.”
    You have to stop assuming you know what I’m thinking. I know the basic tenants of this site probably better than you do, I definitely understand that appearance is not as important for women. If you meant you are a high value man, man with a lot of options, or desirable man, you should have said so. Instead, you said attractive. That = physically attractive to me. That is also the context which many men and women are rating themselves here: looks wise, as in “I’m an 8 in looks, I don’t understand why women don’t like me.” Probably because you’re not actually an 8.
    I don’t personally want you to send me a photo, I was talking about posting a better face photo so other people reading can decide what they think about your attractive statement.

  • Artem

    @verie44: When I say attractive, I simply mean that (with certain luck, of course), beautiful women are attracted to, want to have sex with, and fall in love with me.

  • verie44

    @Artem:
    That’s fine. I really don’t want a photo of you or your girlfriend, or any of the women you’ve dated. We just had different definitions of attractive — you are saying you are an extremely high-status man, and I’ll take your word for it. The people who start talking about how hot they are, I really want to see photo evidence from now on.

  • J

    J, you have a way of cutting right to the heart of the matter in a clear and concise way, with nice prose.

    Thanks, Susan!

    The thing is, Alpha shenanigans often cause emotional pain.

    Indeed they do. I cringe when I see guys advocating them as what women really want.

    The women who..learn to avoid them …who will win in the end. If, that is, you define winning as marrying a good man.

    I do, but but perhaps just avoiding the pain is a good second prize.

    The lucky ones get a book deal, which is at least some small compensation.

    I have a good husband, but I’d love a book deal. Gonna work on that prose.

    I’m enjoying your blog..

  • http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com white and nerdy

    However, there is no shortage of women, aged 40+, wailing and wondering where the good men are.

    They’re either hiding or not even on these women’s radar despite their desperation. Either way men are learning the truth and don’t want to be the chump for these women.

  • Passer_By

    Verie:

    I think Artem understood the joke in the spirit it was intended. Men joke with each other in ways that women would not (and in which we not joke with women). If it offended you, sorry. As to my looks, I did commit to somebody, so I’m probably pretty ugly.

  • Michael

    @Sarah

    Peter K. Jonason addressed your concerns when he said:“The statement that women are less interested in casual sex doesn’t mean they aren’t interested in it, it just means that on average women are less interested and less willing to go to bed with a complete stranger than men are.”

    This seems to be an issue that many people can’t get past, that we’re talking about averages here.

  • The Running Board

    @Susan

    What I’m saying is that while I find the feminist criticism of evolutionary biology often (but not always) amounts to “i don’t like it so it must be wrong” type of reasoning followed by snark, there are some theoretical problems with EB from a philosophy of science and simple logic perspective.

    The reason that Darwinism (or Evolution by Natural Selection) doesn’t fall into this tautological trap (ie. all individuals want to pass on their genes, therefore the reason individual A does anything is because it somehow helps him/her pass on their genes) like EB is because it has been bolstered by the advent of Mendelian genetics which gives Evolution a causal logic (you can actually see evolution occurring on the genetic level in a lab). Causal, of course, instead of simply teleological (EB has the same grounding as rational choice theory in economics and they share the same problems).

    The reason I use the artist example is because it’s shows how EB tends to simplify complex human (actually all human behavior) to how it benefits an individual’s chances to pass on his genes. This argument has been made before by Evolutionary Biologists.

    By this logic we wouldn’t see any female artists since female creativity (going by EB) isn’t really evolutionarily desired. Men don’t care about creativity or status after all. All they care about are good looks and good homemaking ability.

    It’s really kind of an oversimplification that can help us see general patterns, but it leads to gross generalizations (“Dudes just want to stick their thing in as many holes as possible” or “Women just want to trade sex for a nice house and select sperm”).

  • Pjay

    “Peter K. Jonason addressed your concerns when he said:“The statement that women are less interested in casual sex doesn’t mean they aren’t interested in it, it just means that on average women are less interested and less willing to go to bed with a complete stranger than men are.””

    In other words, “The statement that women are less interested in casual sex doesn’t mean they aren’t interested in it, it just means that on average women are less interested in casual sex.”

    I love it when history majors pretend to be scientists.

  • Artem

    @Passer_By: You’re right, I didn’t take offense. Though for your information, men take teasing very differently from random women than from our male buddies. So don’t count on this aspect of male psychology too much. :)

    @verie44: I’m not very high status. Please don’t equate attractiveness with status. For me, I think the combination of looks, fitness, personality, humor and some life achievement and standing does it. I am rather unusually handsome. I had women say “you’re so beautiful! (sic)” to me in a bar and my best pic rates 9.9 on hotornot with ~500 voters. But I wouldn’t trust your opinion of me either (it’s not personal!), because I learned two things:

    1) Since physical attractiveness is not the most important trait, women vary highly in what constitutes it when certain average standards are met (but they’re all the same about status and money, hehe). I’ve had reactions from “he’s so HOT!!!” to “not my taste AT ALL” to my appearance.
    2) Women tend to treat men outside of their erotic field of view as completely transparent. Non-existing. Empty space. So, chances are, when you rate my attractiveness, you’d be comparing me to your former lovers, guys you like, or at least guys who hit on you. I don’t know how I’d fare against this folk, but I can assure you, if you take every single man of reproductive age and line them up by attractiveness, I’d turn out to be somewhere where the “extremely hot” sign is posted.

    But men are not like this, we evaluate almost every female instantly and exclusively by how she looks and our taste is more or less the same, so with a clear conscience I can tell you: you, my lady, are very pretty.

    :)

  • Shirley

    I think FWB has been the singlemost greatest development in male-female interpersonal relationships in the last century. There are times when we crave intimacy – be it full on sex or just spooning all night – and a friends with benefits provides that without you having to go out and troll bars or create a profile on some seedy website. Plus you know and trust the person.

    I’ve moved on from my FWB. We are still friends without the benefits now because both of us have found “partners”. However, what we had was a great thing and something that would not have been imaginable even 30 years ago. And the great thing was – when one of us met somebody we actually wanted to form a “serious relationship” with, the other did not get jealous or possessive.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Running Board

    EB is really kind of an oversimplification that can help us see general patterns, but it leads to gross generalizations (“Dudes just want to stick their thing in as many holes as possible” or “Women just want to trade sex for a nice house and select sperm”).

    I agree with this. Just because something sounds like it might make sense, e.g. If you sail too far east you will fall off the earth, blind acceptance is foolish. That is why I tend to focus on studies, and research into the different hormonal triggers that men and women have. In the end, though, there is a certain leap into the unknown when one aligns with any philosophy. This is most obvious in matters of religion and politics, but it’s true in many small, everyday ways as well.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Shirley
    I agree wholeheartedly that FWB is far preferable to a one-night stand if the ONS is with a stranger just met in a bar. FWB can fulfill both emotional and physical needs. Research shows that when men and women are asked about their experiences and expectations of FWB relationships, there are considerable differences, with men focusing heavily on benefits, and women focusing more heavily on friendship. As always, there is a wide spectrum of behavior and attitudes. It’s great that it worked out for you. As Passer By said above, women who want to keep sex casual have it made, because they are the only people who can get their sexual needs met with little to no effort.

  • Snowdrop111

    I like the Glamour comments. There’s not a one of them that is mean. My favorite is “Take your heart and run.” This is how this topic should be approached and needs to be approached. I can tell the difference in the tone.

    Many probably wouldn’t believe it, but the subject comes up on Jezebel fairly often, and the comments are mostly like #11, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18. It is not all cheerleading for casual sex. Most are quick to say “I’m not judging someone who really is into casual sex just for sex’ sake, but it’s not for me,” and then proceed to a comment that sounds like Glamour comments #11, 13, 14, 15, 17, or 18.

    What would you tell a friend, I mean really friend, I mean really really friend or sister rather than some stranger who represented a whole movement? Sadly, I agree with comments 18 and 19…some people have to learn the hard way that booty calls mean you were a last resort. In my day, somehow women just automatically knew this, and the “ugly” women most certainly did not accept booty calls. They knew what it meant. I don’t know how that piece of information got lost.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Snowdrop, I think it got lost because ours is an era when men don’t need to court women in order to gain access to sex. In fact, many guys will booty call women they like or at least find attractive. And many women know that, and will feel validated by the attention. Of course, he may have texted 10 women and the first one wins his favors for the night. One young reader told me that a guy booty called her, she hopped in a cab without replying, and headed for his apartment. When she got there she apparently arrived just after another girl had done the same thing. He wouldn’t let her in. They’d been hooking up regularly for a couple of months, and after that awkward encounter she never heard from him again.

  • Sox

    …the “ugly” women most certainly did not accept booty calls. They knew what it meant. I don’t know how that piece of information got lost.

    So they knew their place. I mean that in the least sexist way possible. That alludes to the rampant over-inflated egos and self-entitlement issues we talk of today. “Ugly” women are told that they’re special, perfect on the inside. Through projection they assume that their career, education, and masculine traits make them look more attractive. They delude themselves into thinking they can have the guys. Also, since *most* women get attached through sex, they assume that they same will happen and the men in question will become attached to them if they sleep with them sooner.

  • Passer_By

    “Through projection they assume that their career, education, and masculine traits make them look more attractive. ”

    I see this assertion a lot in the manosphere, but I think it’s greatly exaggerated in both ways.

    First, I think it’s a relatively small subset of women that are totally out of touch as to how much these things can make them more “attractive”. Most are painfully aware of their relative looks and the degree to which it impacts their initial attractiveness to men.

    But the manoshpere also overstates the degree of irrelevance of those things. I’m not suggesting that they make a homely woman prettier, but the lack of those things (smarts, education, etc.) can be LTR disqualifiers (or at least big drawbacks) for a lot of guys. It may be simply an issue of social acceptance, but I doubt it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      But the manoshpere also overstates the degree of irrelevance of those things. I’m not suggesting that they make a homely woman prettier, but the lack of those things (smarts, education, etc.) can be LTR disqualifiers (or at least big drawbacks) for a lot of guys.

      I can testify to this experience in my own life. I always did better with men after they knew me first. I never lacked for suitors, and I frequently got the feedback that my intelligence, personality, and feistiness was very attractive. Many men expressed that in their minds this translated into an expectation of my being a real hellcat in bed. (I think this is in the same category as men thinking “psychos” will be sexy.) I can recall observing several times the exact moment when the guy’s attraction switch went on. Looks are obviously important, but it’s not the whole story.

  • Sox

    I see this assertion a lot in the manosphere, but I think it’s greatly exaggerated in both ways.

    First, I think it’s a relatively small subset of women that are totally out of touch as to how much these things can make them more “attractive”. Most are painfully aware of their relative looks and the degree to which it impacts their initial attractiveness to men.

    Sometimes it comes across as a little extreme but that’s simply to illustrate the point. I’ve honestly observed this a LOT (I live in DC). I’m not talking about a 3 thinking she’s a 9, but more like a 6 thinking she’s an 8 or a 9 based on her ambition and accomplishments.

    I appreciate intelligence, wit, openness, adventurousness, and vitality in a girl. I don’t care for certain indicators of that though. Women around here are very apt to spit their resume out to you within minutes of meeting. It’s more nuanced than it sounds but the truth imo is still there.

    Also, take a look at a dating site sometime. Girls whose photos are of all the wonderful places they’ve visited and all the crazy stuff like bungee jumping and skydiving, yet not one good photo of their face. Their profiles, when not the same old boring “I like going out and staying in, i love friends and family” are a list of their accomplishments.

    I’ve done a little online dating and a lot of dating in general around here and the general feeling I’ve had is that these girls a) have a HUGE “I don’t need anyone” complex, b) they’re trying to compete with me via credentials and experiences and we just met, and c) a general over-inflated sense of self worth.

    You can argue that they’re insecure about their looks/value at heart, but that and self-entitlement are not mutually exclusive, they can often show up hand-in-hand.

    There are of course exceptions, but Roissy’s observations of the DC area always struck me as accurate.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @ Sox
      The self-entitlement that women display is a real and worsening phenomenon. I’ve written about this as female narcissism, and most of the women publishing memoirs or books about what makes a man “undateable” are prime examples of this.

  • Passer_By

    “honestly observed this a LOT (I live in DC).”

    I’ve never lived in DC, but it stands to reason that the women who move there for career purposes might have a disproportionate number of the subset that think this way.

  • Sox

    I’ll agree. Seems like men and women both that move to DC are very self-entitled and very much the “I’m going to save the world types.” Most women I’ve dated have studied abroad or lived abroad for at least a year and been to 5-10 countries.

    Passer_By, didn’t you say you were a little older? It could be a generational thing- I’m in the post-college 24-28 group.

  • (r)Evolutionary

    @J and Susan:

    J, your vignette on alpha shenanigans definitely has the sizzle of good prose.

    I think it also explains why women don’t like beta-nice guys: the lack of sizzle intimates that there’s no steak, or put another way, the oxytocin-fueled pair-bonding instinct holds sway over the more testosterone-driven instincts to be socially dominant and sex a lot of girls.

    In the evolutionary environment, nice-guy betas perhaps couldn’t be counted on to defend the home or put meat on the table, and thus they produce no ‘gina tingle. The modern notion of the ‘beta provider’ is largely a socially produced phenomenon, an artifact of culture.

    The genetics bear this out. Mostly, we’ve evolved from alpha seed and that of the ‘greater betas’, as CR would put it. Some recent genetic research has shown that the current batch of humans have descended from 80% of the females that ever lived, and only 40% of the males. So that means that most of the alphas reproduce (10-20%), and the most alpha-like betas also reproduce, and the rest of the betas and omegas–sorry guys, you’re out of luck, unless you can learn game.

    But that’s the fascinating thing– that social status in men is situationally dependent. It can change, it’s not immutable. The man who is quiet and brooding at work may be gregarious and outgoing at a bar. The guy who is shy at a bar may exude confidence and swagger in a classroom or a boardroom, or when playing sports. This is the trump card; it’s how, for men, nurture can overcome nature.

    Sure, overall testosterone potential is determined in the womb, and we see external markers like high foreheads, long ring-to-index finger ratios, etc. But on a daily basis, diet and movement patterns influence testosterone, as do percieved social successes. Some research has shown that testosterone will fluctuate with the scores of pro sports teams in men whom identify with said pro sports teams, a great reason NOT to overly identify with pro sports. Men’s T levels also rise after looking at hot women, and lifting heavy objects.

    Testosterone in men, moment-to-moment, is a mood hormone. This is why Floyd Landis took T in microdoses during the 2006 Tour de France–not to build big muscles like Ahhnold (which would be stupid and counterproductive for a TdF cyclist)–he took the T to make himself more aggressive.

    Long story short, men: our fate is not sealed. We can learn social dynamics, influence our physiology, work with our strengths, and shore up our weaknesses..

    And women–we do this all for YOU. We make our selves better so that we can be successful with you and RAISE A FAMILY, because even the alpha’s high-T levels decline after marriage, and he’ll show more pair-bonding behaviour. Because raising kids is a two-person investment, and because we ARE pair-bonders, and good men do this.

    Casual sex, booty calls, one-night stands subvert this paradigm. Why? Because, as Fred says, a guy can be perfectly happy with casual sex, an apartment, and a Harley sportster. This lifestyle takes guys off the market who would otherwise be into raising a family. When more men make it into their forties still living in that apartment, banging those party girls (paging Jaclyn Friedman), and riding his Harley, there are that many more women in their forties at home…with their cats. Demographically, even WITHOUT social constructs, just pure mathematics, there are more women at that age than men. Now add to the fact that guys in their mid to late thirties and beyond can pull casual partners from 20-50. Now add to the fact that women’s fertility (and its correlate, her looks) rapidly declines after 30ish, and, well, you’ve got a recipe for what we have now: hookup culture, declining marriage & reproduction rates, men dating around until their 40s, and their age-matched female cohorts home with cats.

    One more thing, then I’m done with this epic comment: The demographic of older single women is going to get worse. All you Gen-Y chickies–and there are a lot of you, a lot more than us gen-X crowd—make sure you REALLY like cats. Why? Well, in addition to you lowering the sociosexual value of sex and thus commitment with the easy availability of casual sex, there are men missing from your cohort, up to half a million of them (the ‘missing male’ phenomenon’), for several reasons:

    Male babies are more vulnerable to all sorts of illnesses than females, and have higher infant mortality rates; men have higher mortality rates in general. Further, there are fewer male babies being born, mostly due to all the xenoestrogens floating around in the environment. These synthetic estrogens are thought to negatively influence the survival rates for male fetuses. Add to that fact that when couples select for sex in utero in a fertility clinic, they almost always select a girl. So the net result is that in the Gen Y crowd in general, there are already more females than males.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @(r)Ev

      But on a daily basis, diet and movement patterns influence testosterone, as do percieved social successes. Some research has shown that testosterone will fluctuate with the scores of pro sports teams in men whom identify with said pro sports teams, a great reason NOT to overly identify with pro sports. Men’s T levels also rise after looking at hot women, and lifting heavy objects.

      Wow, I didn’t know that. I find the chemical processes incredibly fascinating – I’m reading everything I can find on this. Researchers are learning more, lots more every year.

      Actually, your whole comment is a must read. Rather than cut, paste, and agree, I’ll just urge everyone to read it from start to finish. It’s an excellent presentation of our very complicated sociosexual environment, complete with an appropriately pessimistic prognosis.

  • Pingback: Flirten mit einer Frau » Blog Archive » DPromi Single – Traumfrau sucht Mann (Desirée, Maja, Sabrina)()

  • Passer_By

    “Passer_By, didn’t you say you were a little older? ”

    Go ahead, rub it in, man!

    But my older siblings now have daughters in college, and I do encounter 20somethings in my law office, and I just don’t see that much of the mindset that you guys describe. They may see the education and career as something of a qualifying hurdle they need to meet, but by and large not as a substitute for attractiveness.

  • Sox

    I wonder what average male testosterone counts were back, say, 60 years ago, versus today. Do T-levels correspond at all with the general de-masculinization of males today? I consider myself a part of this but my T-levels are at least a little above baseline, so there’s probably no correlation.

    Just makes me wonder since the betas of yesterday seem more alpha than today’s.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Sox
      And this doesn’t even address the fact that the Pill depresses the ovulation testosterone surge in women, meaning they prefer less masculine men overall. It may be that 60 years ago, or even before WWII, the way that men were raised actually increased testosterone levels, encouraging behaviors that boost T and creating a repeating cycle, much as the way that (r)Evolutionary has described.

  • (r)Evolutionary

    @Sox–yes, I believe there are some studies on that.

    T levels have declined, especially in Europe, but it may be that it’s just more well-studied there. Again, the xenoestrogens cause some of this. When chemists make synthetic molecules, it’s very easy to accidentally make a chemical that acts estrogenic–there are so many now, Bisphenol A, most of the common pesticides, flame retardands. It’s really hard to ‘accidentally’ make an androgen. Synthetic chemists who can come up with novel and useful androgens make a LOT of money, and they sell their products to the pro sports world. BALCO labs out of the SF bay area was perhaps the most famous–they supplied Barry Bonds et. al.
    I digress. We’re swimming in estrogens, and it takes a conscious effort with diet & lifestyle to safeguard one’s cojones & their production of the sacred T.

    T levels have also declined because men eat more sugar, and sugar makes fat, and fat is estrogenic. There’s no question that the obesity epidemic in America has been castrating. Look at all those manboobs. Sooo many moobs out there. Also, exercise. Lifting heavy increases T. Sedentariness decreases it.

    The study I found interesting was on US Airmen. A bunch of aviators in WWII had blood samples taken & frozen back in the day. Someone found these old cryosamples and data, and then created a peer-matched study group of men of the same age & similar background, and compared the two groups. The results were pretty astounding on all fronts, not just T levels. Chemicals, heavy metals (some of which will act estrogenic), all sorts of gnarly stuff in the bloodstream of the latter-day airmen. Not so or less so with the WWII dudes.

    As far as the betas of yesterday being more alpha than today’s–hell yeah. It’s clear. I’d go so far as to say that the omegas of the 1800’s, due to social conventions, strong parental marriage values, slut shaming, and all of that, I’d say that the Omegas back then were probably more alpha than today’s betas. As I mentioned before, social status is a fluid, contextually-generated value. In pre-industrial times, especially on the frontier, men had to hunt, fish, and fend for one’s self. Even without social graces, this confers some adaptation, some alphaness that the right girl in the right circumstance is going to find attractive. Arranged marriages, polygamy, these all change the game.

    In essence, modern post-feminist industrial society has removed the heaviest strictures on behavior, and made it much easier to survive. So the whole mechanism is in turmoil. Negentropy, or order, is diminishing, and chaos is rising. This is a good time to study and practice Taoism, which is in effect, the study and application of the genius of chaos. I consider game & the crimson bedroom arts to be strongly related to classical Taoist thought. We’re learning to mimic the alphas in nature. Taoism always looks to nature for answers.

    “Nothing in biology makes sense outside of the light of evolution.”
    ~Theodesius Dohbsanskz

    “Numquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit”
    ~Never does wisdom say one thing and nature say another.

  • Passer_By

    “The self-entitlement that women display is a real and worsening phenomenon. ”

    And, yet, I look at my bum of a nephew. Mid 20s. Looks – maybe a 7, only because he’s in really great shape. Blew off college to play poker and chase whatever whacky scheme comes along (and wasn’t going to be able to go to a good college to beging with). Doesn’t have any money. Really isn’t all that interesting or funny, but a genuinely nice guy who is somewhat charming and has outsized confidence. Could probably ultimately do well in some sales capacity, but you couldn’t really call him a player or bad boy type (and never really had a ton of luck with women before her). But he has a doting girlfriend who is extremely attractive (9), minimum of 10 IQ points higher than him (by my estimation), college educated, incredibly articulate and socially adept. She seems to adore him. Dumped her super succesful anesthesiologist fiance for him. And the real shocker? Her parents from the south seem to like him a lot, so I’m told.

    Good for him, but go figure. Even his mom his scratching her head.

    I guess today I’m in contrarian mode, pointing out that a lot of the generalities people discuss on these forums are just that – generalities.

  • Sox

    @Susan

    encouraging behaviors that boost T and creating a repeating cycle, much as the way that (r)Evolutionary has described.

    Forget if (r)Ev mentioned this but general competitiveness and risk-seeking behaviors when women are around also caused T-spikes in men.

    @Passer_by

    but a genuinely nice guy who is somewhat charming and has outsized confidence.

    Looks like you have your answer right there. Confidence trumps other status indicators like career and education. That’s why starving artists types can do so amazingly well versus your typical med students etc..

  • Passer_By

    “Confidence trumps other status indicators like career and education. ”

    Yeah, I thought about that, but it never really got him anywhere before this one. And the last girl he seemed to like and was seeing for a while was about a 6 (generously) with an unpleasant personality who seemed to think she was really settling for him. So, you couldn’t call it “player” type confidence. The one before that was about 6.5 who was nice enough but dumb as rocks and had little else to offer. Those are the only 3 I’ve seen him with. I’m sure he’s dated others a little, but nothing out of the ordinary.

  • (r)Evolutionary

    @Passer_By, & Sox,

    Yes, confidence is highly linked to T production, which does create those competitive/ risk-taking displays around women.

    In higher primates, serotonin and dopamine levels are linearly linked to T. When serotonin or dopamine (or both, they’re cross-linked) drop, T drops. These neurotransmitters are complex, but a gross generalization helps: Serotonin is the hormone of satisfaction & satiety. We get a serotonin surge after a healthy meal, and in being in the company of others who esteem us, from workplace satisfaction, etc. Dopamine is the hormone of the feeings joy and ecstacy. Think orgasms, chocolate, the thrill of being in love, etc. As I said, they’re dynamically linked, so as one goes up or down, so goes the other, and they influence T.

    High serotonin levels are correlative of alpha status in chimpanzees. Giving the chimpanzee troup leader, essentially the Head Alpha Chimp In Charge, a drug that blocks serotonin production will de facto, and instantly, beta-ize him. He’ll run off & hide. Simultaneously, give a beta male in the same troup a boost of serotonin, even in the form of an SSRI antidepressant, and he’ll rise to the occasion & begin to occupy the troup leader alpha role.

    So yes, testosterone, confidence, and psychosocial dominance are intimately connected on a biological level. Further we’re all mirroring each other, reflecting each other’s neurophysiology. The alpha chimps don’t act alpha in a vacuum. They need the females to respond to their alpha behavior, or else they’re just dancing chimps. It’s exactly as Passer_by has seen with the nephew–the confidence is ‘alpha shenanigans,’ and his HB9 girlfriend has crossed up the sizzle with the steak.

    The interesting thing will be to see if the nephew’s doting HB9 girlfriend sticks around after the honeymoon chemicals wear off at around 2 years into the relationship, especially if she’s already mid to late 20s herself. At that point, I postulate that if he’s not earning well & able to provide in the classical alpha sense ($$, house, cars, etc.), her hypergamous instincts will kick in, she’ll lose the ‘gina tingle, and begin to look elsewhere. The sex will drop off because she senses he’s not up to the task of head-of-household, and unless he can game her relentlessly & keep her hypergamy in check, she’s out the door. At which point, he’ll pine, grieve, get over it, and start over with another woman, or enter the casual sex carousel. Depending on where he lives and the sociosexual environment, the latter may be more likely. My two cents.

    I’ve to start a blog on this, or write a book or both, because I’m feeling quite compelled to contribute after reading and researching human biodynamics for so long.

    The funny thing is, I’m most interested in the spiritual or soul aspects of love. I’m interested in Tao & Tantra, in the heights of ecstacy possible only in LTR as a spiritual discipline. But I firmly believe we need to grasp the biological realities of our humanness before we can ascend the ladder of Maslow’s hierarchy. We need to master the basics.

    Check out Arjuna’s post I LOVE his perspective, but I think it’s a tough act to follow in the post-feminist world.

    http://arjunaardagh.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/why-it-is-wise-to-worship-a-woman/

    I commented on his post, thinking that it’s amazing for him and his wife after 20 years to go down this path, but for the average Joe with average Jane, mean age 30, fuggedaboudit. She’d leave his betaness for more Alpha pastures.

  • (r)Evolutionary

    @Susan–yes, we can’t underestimate the feedback loops of the Pill. It does produce a drive for more feminized men. Also research I’ve seen shows that women on the pill seek men who smell closer to her father–her archetypal provider. This makes sense given that the pill is exogenous progesterone, and fools the body into not ovulating because the pituitary sees the high and sustained progresterone levels and thinks she’s pregnant. Since the body is in a quasi-pregnant state, it can be assumed that there’s an unconscious drive to seek the best access to resources.
    I wonder if the pill is in large part responsible for the rise in emo and metrosexual men–these men are depressed in T and responding to troup dynamics such that a large percentage of women are seeking lower T men.
    In my experience the pill definitely creates psychodrama. The hormonal dysregulation is horrendous, especially in high-dose preparations like Depo-Provera–that stuff is eeeevil. If a woman tells me she’s gotten the Depo shot recently, I back away slowly, never turning my back to her, and then head for the hills.

  • Passer_By

    @rEvo

    “I wonder if the pill is in large part responsible for the rise in emo and metrosexual men–these men are depressed in T and responding to troup dynamics such that a large percentage of women are seeking lower T men.”

    By that theory, wouldn’t most “game”, and so-called asshole game in particular, be totally ineffective and even counterproductive with women on the pill?

  • Maggie

    Why would a woman say yes to a booty call? Hmmmm . . . Let me think.

    So I am thinking back to nights when I was a young woman, not in a relationship, horny as hell, and not willing to compromise my safety by randomly picking up a stranger in a bar. Imagine an attractive man I know and trust asks me to come over. Hell, I would have done it in a heatbeat.

    Susan assumes that by doing so I would have been “supplying” sex to this man in exchange for nothing, like some kind of moron. But, doesn’t this assumption ignore the fact that women want sex too? That sometimes you just want that physical experience? Why is the woman is always being framed as the loser when sex is casual?

  • (r)Evolutionary

    @Passers_by,

    I wouldn’t know personally, I’ve never run asshole game. In theory, yes. But I suspect there are multiple attraction triggers, and somehow even neck-deep in synthetic pregnancy hormones, asshole game works because, as we’ve coined a phraze, it sizzles like steak, and that conflation on an evolutionary level smells like resources and protection.

    But cocky-funny works, period. Confidence is hot, universally.

    @Maggie–it’s not a one-time booty call or booty calls over short periods of time in a woman’s early to mid 20’s that represent a problem for women giving away their precious femininity–it’s when women get entrenched into the booty call lifestyle for decades on end, “wasting the pretty.” Short-term booty calls are practically a right of passage in the early 20s of most women I know, even the ones who’ve gone on to successful relationships.
    But the booty call leads to feelings gettin’ involved–getting dicknotized. It’s biology.

    When a woman starts to have unreciprocated feelings for her booty call, the emotional experience is no different from a pump & dump. When these hurt feelings go unheeded years, entering the realm of slutdom, that’s when issued develop, and the road to mid-40’s cat-loving spinsterhood has surveyed and plotted.

  • Shirley

    Regarding the 16 year old who has had 10 ?! sexual partners and the advise given to her, I have this to say:

    ”Why do you hasten to remove anything which hurts your eye, while if something affects your soul you postpone the cure until next year?”

    I think Lisa has been the most informative on that thread regarding actual scientific stuff like hormones and their effects. Those in the know will be very conservative offering up platitudes of the sort you see on internet blogs. Suffice it to say that there are enough women out there comfortable enough with no strings attached one night hook ups to keep plenty of PUAs happy for a long while. What I’m not understanding is why any man with a PUA bent would criticize his supplier? You don’t know what you got til it’s gone!

  • J

    The interesting thing will be to see if the nephew’s doting HB9 girlfriend sticks around after the honeymoon chemicals wear off at around 2 years into the relationship, especially if she’s already mid to late 20s herself. At that point, I postulate that if he’s not earning well & able to provide in the classical alpha sense ($$, house, cars, etc.), her hypergamous instincts will kick in, she’ll lose the ‘gina tingle, and begin to look elsewhere. The sex will drop off because she senses he’s not up to the task of head-of-household, and unless he can game her relentlessly & keep her hypergamy in check, she’s out the door.

    Likely scenario, except that he won’t be able to game her indefinitely–precisely because the effect of the hormones wears off. People in the West love to go on and on about the joys of romance, but after 2-3 years of romance the average Western couple is at the same place as a couple with an arranged marriage is–trying to forge a relationship on common interests and values. The lucky couple trades the raging fire of chemical passion for the constant warmth of relationship; the rest get divorced. That’s another reason why beta is betta. A woman can usually forge a companionate love with a beta in addition to a sexual love. Alpha shenigans are good for ‘gina thrills, but if that’s all there is….well, that’s all there is.

  • Shirley

    Susan, what books and authors speak to this narcissistic entitlement of women and their crazy requirements? I’d like some examples.

    “Confidence trumps other status indicators like career and education.”

    So we’ve concluded that career and education matter neither for women nor men? All that matters is looks in women and confidence in men and we’re good to go?

    No wonder we’re in the economic mess we’re in with foreclosures AND divorce sky-rocketing!

    Has anybody addressed the entitlement of men who feel they “deserve” a woman 5-9 points higher than them on the purely physical scale? Has anybody addressed men who call themselves “decent looking” and then when they post their pix their faces are totally busted?

    What is the bare minimum for “decent looking” in these parts? (hee hee)

    If women have evolved through the Pill to value lower-T men, will there then be a shift in PUA techniques to mimic the Beta male?

  • Kurt

    What is wrong with the comments? They don’t nest anymore so it is hard to follow a conversation thread.

  • (r)Evolutionary

    @J:

    True, but if your boy can man-up, get ahold of himself and step into his masculine power, then he has a chance to keep her. Game can help keep the ‘gina tingle, (read Athol Kay at Marriedmansexlife.com to get an idea of how this works.

    True inner game involves total commitment to manifesting & giving his gift as a man to this world. Such men are 1 in 1000 or less, as are the women who are capable of receiving such men. David Deida is my go-to source on this aspect.

    As such, I’m trying to step back from game, not that I’ve ever been totally into it, but to retask my masculine energy into my tasks in the world. Posting on blogs like this is only anciliarily related.

  • J

    @ r(ev)

    J, your vignette on alpha shenanigans definitely has the sizzle of good prose.

    Thank you!

    I think it also explains why women don’t like beta-nice guys: the lack of sizzle intimates that there’s no steak

    I think you mean “girls, ” not women. A woman is someone who wakes up one morning wondering where her steak is. The realization that the steak is missing engages the forebrain. The demand for steak is the beginning of maturity.

    In the evolutionary environment, nice-guy betas perhaps couldn’t be counted on to defend the home or put meat on the table, and thus they produce no ‘gina tingle. The modern notion of the ‘beta provider’ is largely a socially produced phenomenon, an artifact of culture.

    Yes and no. Rememer that “survival of fittest” really means survival of what fits best. That will vary from environment to environment. The hottest guy in the cave isn’t necessarilly the best guy in the office. For a modern woman, beta is often better.

    Mostly, we’ve evolved from alpha seed and that of the ‘greater betas’, as CR would put it. Some recent genetic research has shown that the current batch of humans have descended from 80% of the females that ever lived, and only 40% of the males.

    Yeah, maybe. Or maybe not. Did you see Polymath’s analysis of those figures? That was impressive. Or maybe we are looking at figures skewed by the comparatively smaller number of ancestral men who left Africa as most of the human population is not immediately descended from Africans.

    I’m also not sure that having an unrepentantly alpha father is the best thing for a child. I wrote this at Dalrock’s bllog: “Alphas, we are told, have the manly power to provide, protect and manipulate the world to make things go it the direction of their many progeny. But they also have some extemely negative traits that endanger their progeny. (An Alpha may spread more seed, but if he doesn’t stick around to nurture and protect it, the future of those kids is very insecure. Think of what male lions do and how similar it is to the fate of children of single mothers when a new guy comes along.) Young, inexperienced, or stupid women confuse Alpha shenanigans with the real deal of being able to protect and provide. They see the power of the Alpha male, but assume that the instability has to come with it. Because they see the sizzle, they think there must be a steak. (Game essentially sells the sizzle.) The more reliable Beta is less flashy, so he looks less powerful to the inexperienced eye. The Alpha OTOH appears to be king. But, maybe that’s nature’s way of making keeping the incidence of Alpha genes low. It’s a high risk gene attractive to less intelligent and stable mothers. The children of Alphas and stupid women are less successful from an evolutionary point of view than those of Betas. That’s why there are more Betas in the world than Alphas.”

    Barring some sort of apocolypse, I think Beta seed might just eventually outnumber Alpha offspring. The children of suave educated alphas die in great numbers on the abortonist’s table; the children of alpha thugs reproduce in great quantity and poor quantity. Let’s imagine a social paradigm shift in which special K boys marry early and sire lots of kids. Those kids will be more successful–materially and eventually reproductively–than say the underparented bastards of the hoodrat harem master Roissy discussed a few days ago. His r-selected kids may end up dead or in jail before they can reproduce. They are being artificially help up by the state. Get rid of the safety net provided by the welfare system and the future will belong to SOBs (sons of betas), Mormons, black hat Jews and the Duggars. And Jim Duggar ain’t no alpha! I wonder if alphas will become an endangered species along with cat-lovers.

    And women–we do this all for YOU.

    The best of you sure do. That’s why I like men better than I like cats. ;-)

    Casual sex, booty calls, one-night stands subvert this paradigm.

    Absolutely. If I had a daughter I’d tell her to keep her panties on and not fall for Alpha antics.

    Fun talking with you. Have a good weekend.

  • J

    I always did better with men after they knew me first. I never lacked for suitors, and I frequently got the feedback that my intelligence, personality, and feistiness was very attractive. Many men expressed that in their minds this translated into an expectation of my being a real hellcat in bed.

    Susan, we really ARE long-lost twins!

    As I’ve said on CR, men like this, God love them, do exist. A girl just needs to know her demographic–and then marry it!

  • Shirley

    @ rEVOLUTIONARY, I clicked on the WORSHIP WOMEN link you gave and am reading through the comments now.

    One issue I have with stereotyping behaviours as “feminine” or “masculine” is that some (or much!) of what passes for “feminine” is really annoying.

    For example, I believe this is Arjun Aardagh’s wife here;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXJAj-JwDCQ&feature=player_embedded

    She gives seminars/workshops on “developing feminity” or some such thing and if this is what is supposed to be “feminine” — NO THANKS!

    I cringe at the fluffy, airy fairy, new-age stuff that is supposed to be “feminine”. I could not stand to listen to this woman for more than 60 seconds.

    Her “soft” and slow way of speaking is downright boring.

    Please don’t tell me this is what you guys want in a woman?

  • Shirley

    Susan, you might be interested in this from an Evolutionary Biologist, Dr. Sahtouris

    http://womenontheedgeofevolution.com/access/access.php

    Click to listen. First 5 minutes are just intros.

    “Evolutionary biologist Elisabet Sahtouris sees our current global crisis as a cause for celebration rather than despair. She recognizes the massive breakdowns of our current culture and paradigms of power as the very catalysts necessary to push forth one of the greatest evolutionary transformations in our individual and collective consciousness. As old and familiar ways of thinking and problem solving only continue to leave us in worse conditions than ever before, we are all waking up to the realization that it will take nothing less than a complete re-visioning and radical re-organization of our entire way of being and living if we are to meet the demands of our time.

    Join us for an intimate dialogue with one of the greatest scientists and visionaries of our time. Dr. Elisabet Sahtouris will share her latest research and thinking on the evolution of living systems, and offer us guidance in navigating one of the most challenging transformations of our human history. …”

    @rEVOLUTIONARY, I found this in the comments section of Arjun Aardagh’s blog you linked to.

  • http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com white and nerdy

    I wonder what average male testosterone counts were back, say, 60 years ago, versus today. Do T-levels correspond at all with the general de-masculinization of males today? I consider myself a part of this but my T-levels are at least a little above baseline, so there’s probably no correlation.

    Just makes me wonder since the betas of yesterday seem more alpha than today’s.

    The answer to this is easy and it has nothing to do with testosterone or biology in any way. The answer is 60 years ago we didn’t have a totalitarian socialist feminist government.

  • Shirley

    Cuddle hormone enchances social memory:

  • (R)Evolutionary

    @Shirley,

    No, the new-agey airy-fair femininity is not what I’m looking for. Quite the opposite, actually. I find well-grounded pragmatism to be highly attractive in women.
    I think the airy-fairyism is part of the problem. It deifies the opposite sex, and that leads to unmet expectations.
    I just admire the fact that it seems that Arjuna can be fully vulnerable with his wife seemingly without fear or risk of emasculation or loss of chemistry or attraction. I’ve been in a relationship where I felt free to be fully open, and it was amazing while it lasted, but in the end it came back to bite me in the ass. Hence my headlong foray into the study & practice of social dynamic theory, aka game.
    In my experience if game is selling sizzle, as long as there’s some quality filet backing up that sale, it’s incredibly useful. Not just to get laid, but as relationship enhancement, cultivation of chemistry, and so much more.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Maggie

    Susan assumes that by doing so I would have been “supplying” sex to this man in exchange for nothing, like some kind of moron. But, doesn’t this assumption ignore the fact that women want sex too?

    Two points:
    1. The Glamour article makes it painfully clear how many (most?) women experience the booty call. They want sex with a favored male. And they believe or hope to be a favored female. This may not be true of you. But in practice, the vast majority of women experience it in a way that makes them feel ashamed and regretful afterwards.
    2. There’s a power imbalance in the booty call. It’s not two people in each other’s presence mutually deciding to have sex. It’s a summons for sex on demand. In addition, the convention tends to be that the guy expects the woman to travel over to his place, even at 2 or 3 a.m. That strikes me as selfish, and inconsiderate of a woman’s safety. So yes, it winds up that women supply sex and receive nothing in return (or at least nothing good).

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @shirley

    Why do you hasten to remove anything which hurts your eye, while if something affects your soul you postpone the cure until next year?

    That was my criticism of Heather Corinna. She suggested removing any source of name calling that might feel bad, while failing to suggest removing the behavior that was actually damaging the girl.

    What I’m not understanding is why any man with a PUA bent would criticize his supplier? You don’t know what you got til it’s gone!

    PUAs who don’t want a LTR will certainly not criticize promiscuous women – they make the best targets for obvious reasons. As far as I know, none of the guys here are PUAs. They’re men who have studied female psychology to attract a woman into a LTR. Those men (or reformed PUAs for that matter) will not consider a LTR with a woman who has had many sexual partners.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @shirley
    A great recent book about narcissism:
    The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement by Jean M. Twenge Ph.D. and W. Keith Campbell Ph.D.
    Books by women who have spent 20 years choosing the wrong men and holding out for the “perfect” man (I’ve written about all of these):
    1. Accidentally on Purpose: A One-Night Stand, My Unplanned Parenthood, and Loving the Best Mistake I Ever Made by Mary F. Pols
    2. Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough by Lori Gottlieb
    3. I Don’t Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Felons, Faux-Sensitive Hipsters, and Other Guys I’ve Dated by Julie Klausner
    4. Undateable: 311 Things Guys Do That Guarantee They Won’t Be Dating or Having Sex by Ellen Rakieten and Anne Coyle
    5. Chastened: The Unexpected Story of My Year without Sex by Hephzibah Anderson
    There are many others – these are just ones that I’ve read within the last six months or so.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @shirley

    If women have evolved through the Pill to value lower-T men, will there then be a shift in PUA techniques to mimic the Beta male?

    Women have not evolved, it’s really a side effect of the medication. Take away the Pill, and they’re back to surging with testosterone during ovulation, which attracts them to high testosterone men (alphas). In point of fact, women do prefer beta males the other 3.5 weeks of the month. Personally, I think beta males can and do attract plenty of women. Since PUAs are hitting on women in nightspots for the most part, they’re targeting women who are more susceptible to dopamine, i.e. risk-seeking personalities, on average. Beta males will do better with women who are more risk-averse.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @J

    Rememer that “survival of fittest” really means survival of what fits best. That will vary from environment to environment. The hottest guy in the cave isn’t necessarilly the best guy in the office. For a modern woman, beta is often better.

    Yes! I’ve written about this:
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/12/14/relationshipstrategies/are-alpha-males-struggling-to-remain-relevant/
    It was written by HBS profs who consult with alpha males to help them be effective in corporate environments. Alpha males have trouble with collaboration, and take directions poorly.

    The demand for steak is the beginning of maturity.

    This is brilliant. I’m going to have to swipe this.

    J, honestly, I’m so glad to have made your acquaintance. You are an awesome addition to the conversation. And not just because we agree on just about everything. ;-)

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    In my experience if game is selling sizzle, as long as there’s some quality filet backing up that sale, it’s incredibly useful. Not just to get laid, but as relationship enhancement, cultivation of chemistry, and so much more.

    This is why women should welcome the idea of men learning game. In particular, it gives the “dads” a shot at winning against the “cads.” Game blogs often say that women, particularly feminists, don’t want the beta males to reproduce. I’m not quite sure what that means, but I believe that it’s in the best interest of women to see the market flooded with beta males who understand female psychology.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Kurt
    Ah, I can’t win. I’ve been receiving a lot of negative feedback on the nested format. It’s true that it makes conversations easier to track when comment counts are low. However, once they get above 100, it gets really hard to navigate. Even as the admin. of the blog, I often have to search through looking for the right comment. It wastes a lot of time. After the recent post that got >500 comments, it became impossible to manage. I’m trying this chronological format now – we’ll see how it goes. To respond to a particular comment, use the @Name convention or start with a quote.

  • Artem

    @Shirley about Arjun Aardagh’s wife: I found that video a little irritating, too, because she’s somewhat pretentious and sometimes feels a bit fake. But if you take that away, yes, this is what we like in a woman. The way she looks and the way she moves are soft and graceful. She also has kind eyes and kind voice. She’s very feminine.

    I don’t know why that irritates you. American culture masculinized women. Could it be that you sense competition? I am from Russia and I know tons and tons of Russian women – I have a hard time imagining any of them finding her femininity a drag.

  • Anon-E-mous

    Heh. Any discussion that solidly convinces through relevant analogies that center around steak / read meat has got me engaged. (J and (r)Rev, good job!)

  • Anon-E-mous

    J is spot on with her comment on survival and “what fits best”. It’s possible that the more successful male and female mating and socializing techniques favor individuals who are intelligent enough to adapt their behaviors appropriately to their environment, without compromising their core personality traits or core personal beliefs. [Recognizing the biological drives and guiding them in the general direction you want — kinda like riding a semi-wild horse.] Always helps when both males and females have a healthy personal sense of “suck it up and drive on.”

    The “recognizing the need for steak” comment is spot on. Reminds me of a personal experience.

    My wife told me that in the three years that she chased me until I caught her that her initial attraction was purely physical. (I rate myself as a 6.5 to her 7.5, so draw your own conclusions on what women find attractive.) But she claims that what really got her hooked on me was my demonstrated abilities in science / math (she’s a closet math and science geek) and in my art (I am a cartoonist by avocation). She had been in a long-term relationship with a nice guy who just had no ambition, and she said it became a turn-off and ultimately a wedge between them.

    Additional long-term attraction due to demonstrated future earning potential via competence in various skill sets? Dunno, but kinda fits a perceived alpha exterior + beta core pattern alluded to here by J and r(Ev).

    Besides, I knew that we’d hit it off just fine when I discovered she was an inveterate red meat eater … and it’s gotta be “just this side of moo-ing.” Teh Sexy!

  • verie44

    The last 10 minutes of Jersey Shore, Season 2 Episode 2 between Angelina, Pauly D, and The Situation actually is pretty applicable to this topic of booty calls / hooking up and how it always goes wrong. http://www.mtv.com/videos/jersey-shore-season-2-ep-2-the-hangover/1645060/playlist.jhtml
    .
    It shows Angelina, Pauly, and Situation hanging out before they go out that night. Everything is fine(ish). Then comes the nighttime. Pauly D & the Situation are both alpha males. They both constantly hook up with girls and are friends/hooking up with Angelina, who is the outcast of the house. Pauly D was in the club dancing & making out with a lot of girls. Pauly D & the Situation are both asking her why she’s emotional & dramatic & why she was such a cockblock.
    .
    Angelina (drunk to Pauly D): “I love you. I wanna marry you. I swear. I wanna marry you. I think about you every day.”
    Pauly D & the Situation: WHAT?!?!?
    Pauly D (in confessional): Me & the Situation did hook up with Angelina (yikes, not sure if it’s a gangbang or separately) at one point, and maybe there were feelings or not, whatever it is, but I don’t have those feelings for Angelina. And she’s fine with that. Or so she claims.
    Pauly D: Do you, and we’re going to do us. Stay out of it.
    Angelina: And what was I doing before that? (indicating how cool she’d been with the hooking up deal before)
    Pauly D: I don’t give a fuck. Stay out of my business. That’s all I’m saying.
    Angelina: (cries, then gets emotional. She slaps Pauly D) You just don’t care! You don’t care.
    Situation: He didn’t do anything!! You just smacked him.
    Angelina: You don’t care! You don’t care! You and him are both–
    Situation: What did he do? (genuinely puzzled)
    Angelina (to Pauly D): You’re pissing me off right now.
    Pauly D (confessional): I can’t believe this girl just smacked me, so I’m going to just shut up and hope she leaves.
    .
    Pauly & Situation leave the kitchen & go out to the patio.
    .
    Situation: She got drunk & she’s acting like a psycho.
    Angelina comes out & starts talking / approaching Pauly D.
    Pauly D: (finally breaks, showing the anger & violence of alpha males): ARE YOU TOUCHING ME?!?! STOP TOUCHING ME!!! (calms) Stop touching me. I’m done. You know how you used to chill with us? You’re on your own. You don’t have me and you don’t have Situation. So who do you have? No one.
    .
    Although the guys had some clue as to what was happening with Angelina, they clearly didn’t care. Situation tried to calm her down, probably just to avoid drama. In the end, their own interests won out & Angelina finally stopped the waterworks in the face of potential physical violence. All because she was hooking up really, really, really stupid.

  • therealdeal

    “Saying someone else isn’t hot is basically saying you are better looking.”

    wrong, most adult people (ugly or not) can identify who is hot or not (i.e. in physical appearance and dress style) and have a (more or less) unanimous view on it

  • Maggie

    Susan,

    Thanks for your response. I found the Glamour Magazine excerpt somewhat misleading because the facts presented involved overt rudeness by the man, i.e. he ignored pointedly ignored the woman at a party they both attended immediately before he called her. I would agree that most women would not want to participate after being treated rudely.

    That said, you raise a good point abut the power imbalance. If the custom of a booty call invariably involves the man summoning the woman, you are absolutely right that woman shouldn’t tolerate that. (Of course, I feel the same way about the idea that only men should be able to propose a date, pay for a date, or propose marriage.)

  • J

    @Susan

    “Remember that “survival of fittest” really means survival of what fits best. …”
    Yes! I’ve written about this…. Alpha males have trouble with collaboration, and take directions poorly.”

    Great post. I enjoyed it!

    “The demand for steak is the beginning of maturity.”

    This is brilliant. I’m going to have to swipe this.

    Feel free to quote me.

    J, honestly, I’m so glad to have made your acquaintance. You are an awesome addition to the conversation. And not just because we agree on just about everything.

    Likewise! I am going on vacation, but I’ll try to look in on this blog. Take care.

    J

  • GT

    My girlfriend of two years told me she was involved in a booty call type of thing with two different guys. The funny thing is she knew one of the guys was married and the other one didn’t bother telling her he was married. I lost respect for her and don’t see her as anything worth considering for the long term.

  • Map Quest

    “The demand for steak is the beginning of maturity.”

    What about vegetarians?

  • http://theblanque.wordpress.com/ The Blanque

    In higher primates, serotonin and dopamine levels are linearly linked to T. When serotonin or dopamine (or both, they’re cross-linked) drop, T drops.

    I find that very interesting; I have recently started taking a SSRI, and I have noticed that, while my mood had improved significantly, my libido has mildly decreased. I would have thought–given the linkage between serotonin and testosterone that you reference–the opposite would be true.

  • Mike

    Saying someone else isn’t hot is basically saying you are better looking.

    @Verie

    ??? Huh? This isn’t logical. Someone could easily recognize that someone else is a 4-5 and simultaneously recognize they are butt ugly at maybe a 2-3. An ugly person could easily recognize an average person as average and NOT HOT.

  • Mike

    @Passer_By: You don’t get to say that unless you yourself post a photo. And Artem should post a better one, closer up, of his face, so we can actually judge if you are “extremely attractive.” I am wary of all people, male & female, who post that they are so hot without anything to back it up. Apparently only 7s and above post on this blog, and of the guys who have claimed that status and provided a picture, I can say with absolute authority that they’re completely delusional.

    @ Verie (any any other women PLEASE CHIME IN)

    Not sure how useful posting a photo (just faceshot) would be in judging overall male physical attractiveness and I’m more asking then telling. Here’s the deal. Rank order the following 3 physical attributes in order of importance to overall physical attractiveness and really try to be honest on this

    1. Face – structure and symmetry
    2. Height
    3. Build of body- thin versus fat versus muscular

    I’ve got an idea of how most women would rank order these, but I am curious to see how some commenters would rank order them.

  • Mike

    Men’s attractiveness cannot be evaluated in any other way than his ability to bed attractive women.

    The confusion here is the subtle distinction between SEXUAL attractiveness and PHYSICAL attractiveness. A man can be sexually attractive WITHOUT being physically attractive, and in fact a man can be physically attractive and NOT be sexually attractive (after 10-15 minutes of interaction). For a man there is some small overlap between physical and sexual attractiveness.

    In contrast, for a woman the overlap is basically 95%. Physical and sexual attractiveness are basically synonymous.

    Put another way, a guy who is a 5 in physical attractiveness could conceivably get a 3 point bump to a 8 from things like preselection, social dominance, confidence, charm, wit, etc. A girl who is a 5 in looks can at best hope for maybe a 1 point bump if she displays certain traits. Incidentally, one thing is the walk. I was out to eat the other day with the GF and the girl doing the seating kept walking back and forth to take people to their tables. She had that hip thing going like it was just unreal. 1 point bump right there for just the walk.

  • Mike

    I find well-grounded pragmatism to be highly attractive in women.

    Will second that, and add that pragmatism is something mature, probably higher-quality guys for LTRs are likely to appreciate. It is even more valuable because in my experience, pragmatism is a rare trait in women. If a women can combine pragmatism with playfulness knowing when each is appropriate she can have any guy she wants for a LTR.

  • Mike

    after the recent post that got >500 comments, it became impossible to manage. I’m trying this chronological format now – we’ll see how it goes.

    Really hope you’ll keep this format. No surprise. Just about every other blog I read uses the chronological format. The big advantage is you know EXACTLY WHERE YOU LEFT OFF if you come back to the thread 8 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours later. 48 hours later in the nested format, you have no idea who replied to what when unless you go back to the beginning and start reading through everything again. I’m really not sure what the difficult would be here.

  • Average Joe

    Shirley,

    You miss the fundamental truth that allows pick up artistry to exist/thrive. If there were so many women comfortable enough with NSA sex then men could just go to craigslist and find all those “sluts” rather than actually have to learn/perfect a technique. And that would be a bad day, since most days for some quick satisfaction, men could just walk down the street, tap a few women on the shoulder and say” lets fuck”.

    Jaclyn Friedman wrote a propaganda piece endorsing the supposed virtues of sluthood to women because, well, surprise! … it’s just not something lots of women do… else why publish an “it’s so liberating” advertisement.

  • Average Joe

    Verie44,

    Based on your picture how do any of us know that you aren’t built like Mrs. Potato Head? All kidding aside, a thumbnail is a really bad way to determine if someone is “good looking”. I think I’d have as much luck determining personality from a resume.

    While I get the whole post up or shut up thing that has you all fired up, I wouldn’t have dated a few of my exes if I had to select them from a facebook lineup. And one of them in particular is extremely good looking in person, but not nearly so in her online photo. In real life she has great hair, better skin and looks awesome in bikini.

    Of course, the best way to determine if someone is good looking is to see them naked with the lights on… but of course that’s not practical, so we go for surrogates. Nevertheless, tiny close-up photos aren’t accurate save for those who make faces a big percentage of what defines “good looking” to them.

    PS. Great pop culture tie in with that transcription of the Jersey Shore. You would do well with current crop of 20 something’s and should think about starting a website. We need more women like you to counteract the Jessica Valenti’s of the world.

  • (r)Evolutionary

    @The Blanque

    Yes, SSRIs do have sexual side effects.

    The SSRIs actually have a very counterintuitive effect on actual serotonin levels–it drops them, and the effect worsens over time. It’s not well-understood, but the mechanism seems to be that since SSRIs work by blocking the reuptake of serotonin, they make the serotonin you already have last longer, but it does not produce more serotonin. So since the body has been ‘fooled’ into thinking there’s more serotonin than is actually present, it downregulates the precursor pathways, so the body is actually making less serotonin over time.

    This is why SSRIs are not recommended for those who are most severely depressed, it makes the problem worse, and also increases the risk of suicide & violence quite a bit.

    Personally, a drop in my libido & sexual performance would be more depressing than actual depression. I’ve used St. John’s wort successfully for this, and the studies show it’s as effective or more so than SSRIs and absent the side effects. Also exercise has been well-studied, etc.

    Bottom line, if you want to treat depression without sexual side effects, there are better ways to do it than SSRIs.

  • rick

    Verie 44

    You’re rationalizing. My Roissy-vision goggles allow me to see your exhausted little hamster on the wheel.

    I’m a 5 at BEST. But I still can tell what a 10 is and is not. You may be more attractive than me, number-wise. But I can still detect that you are not a ten. Not at all.

    What you are saying is that you don’t like it when men that you see yourself as superior to feel comfortable judging your looks.

    Well, you are not a ten. Or a nine, for that matter.

    Besides, if your hamster-rationalization was correct, then only beauty-pageant winners could judge beauty pageants.

    And only grammy-winning musicians could hand out grammys.

    You are, simply, wrong.

    :)

  • http://dalrock.wordpress.com/ Dalrock

    @Susan
    J, honestly, I’m so glad to have made your acquaintance. You are an awesome addition to the conversation. And not just because we agree on just about everything. ;-)
    .
    Hey, I found her first! I wondered where she went when she stopped commenting on my blog for a while, and I find her tarting around on yours! Now she’s probably off commenting on some other blog while telling us both she’s on vacation!
    .
    It was written by HBS profs who consult with alpha males to help them be effective in corporate environments. Alpha males have trouble with collaboration, and take directions poorly.
    .
    One thing I’ve never seen addressed is the claim by PUAs that being alpha is a reproductive advantage, and yet most men are beta. If alpha were a better way to spread your genes, most if not all men would be alpha. As the much maligned Dr Rushton says, all humans are highly K (with some groups being slightly more K than others). Yet being alpha is an R strategy.
    .
    The demand for steak is the beginning of maturity.
    .
    This is brilliant. I’m going to have to swipe this.

    .
    I think this is probably true. However, given the very telegraphed plan of the carouselers to sleep with Alphas before condescending to trap a Beta in marriage, an honest path of alpha during prime (lozzlzlzlzl!) immature years to beta once they hit their mature years might not be seen the same way by men with options the way it was for past generations. And how could you blame such a guy? Things really are different now. His best bet is to drive on by and leave them for the lesser betas or (if unlucky) the bear. In fact, this is exactly the kind of history I advise young betas in love to be on the lookout for when considering marriage.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Dalrock
      I think your advice to young betas is sound – no man should marry if he doesn’t feel secure that a woman is Head Over Heels for him. The cost/benefit just doesn’t make sense. However, I do think the claim that many women following the strategy of having sex with many alphas and then looking for a beta to settle down with is overstated. It’s quite popular in the manosphere, I know, but I’m not seeing it much in practice.
      .
      First, most women are not adhering to any strategy, even unconsciously. They simply go where the tingle takes them. All of the recent memoirs decrying spinsterhood by women hitting 40 are examples of this. I see no evidence that most, if any, women in this position, are going to suddenly find a completely different kind of man attractive. And the notion of the “beta provider” is not really accurate – most women don’t require a provider. An exception would be extremely wealthy men. In that case, they can attract a woman but even then I don’t think she’ll have the hots for him – she’s just willing to make the tradeoff. John Henry, the unattractive and very odd owner of the Red Sox, is a perfect example of this. He married an attractive woman he met in a bar.
      .
      Second, a lot of what looks like women settling in moving from cads to dads is actually women learning via past experience to select for character traits. In other words, they begin to employ a long-term mating strategy rather than a short-term one. Again, awareness of this might be nil, but she has wandered into a mode of behavior that will serve her well. This claim requires the admission that women are attracted to beta males, which I strongly argue.
      .
      In short, I think it’s rare for women to consciously settle. The women who marry dads are simply better built for relationships. They are attracted to their partners. The women who endlessly chase cads would like a relationship, but are addicted to the drama and dysfunction that comes with the sporadic attention from a man that other women find sexy.

  • http://dalrock.wordpress.com/ Dalrock

    I should add on the whole immature/mature topic that most women still manage to mature fast enough to avoid the trap of sleeping around with alphas before going off looking for a beta. This is confirmed by the census data on marriage rates for women in their early 20s, and cdc data on # of sexual partners.

    I know you, I, and J have all mentioned this before, but it does bear repeating. The big problem with being slow to mature is the rest of the world isn’t waiting while you get your act together.

  • Snowdrop111

    (r)Evolutionary’s discussion of declining male hormones reminds me of an Esquire article from, I think, December 1995, entitled “You’re Not Half The Man Your Grandfather Was.”

  • Snowdrop111

    As for Passerby’s nephew’s girlfriend, perhaps her anesthesiologist ex was abusive.
    Perhaps that is why she is happy to be with the charming, easygoing guy.

  • Snowdrop111

    P.S. I should have added…I speak from experience here. After I escaped from a long-ago abuser, I fell in love with a guy who probably weighed 300 pounds and was funny and not aggressive. His size made me feel protected, but his easygoing and funny, positive nature was so reassuring…I’m still in love with him in a way even though it didn’t work out.

  • verie44

    @average joe:
    I understand your point about the photos. I’m just tired of people, both men & women deluding themselves, but you actually are right.
    That said, I doubt Susan would let me get away with saying I was attractive (I have only said it once as a selling point in trying to meet a friend of someone’s off this website) / posting bogus photos if I weren’t. She knows what I look like.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Re Verie’s looks:
      Just weighing in here with an objective opinion. I won’t rank on the 1-10 scale, but I will say that she’s a beauty, with a very sexy body. She’s also a very exotic mix, genetically/racially speaking.
      .
      However, this part of the thread has gotten way off track, IMO. It started with Verie putting Artem in his place when he described himself as very good-looking and sexy. She was obviously trying to take him down a peg. Now others are trying to do the same with her. Verie is well aware how much importance men place on a woman’s physical appearance. While women do respond to attractive men, obviously, they select for a much wider set of traits for mating, especially long-term mating.
      .
      As Mike observed, being sexually attractive and physically attractive are not the same thing for men, though there is some overlap. One conversation women love to have is deciding who is “sexy ugly.” This is not an oxymoron – there are many men, mostly very dominant types, who pull women despite being ugly. My guess is that ugly men who are successful with women would probably overrate their own attractiveness, but it doesn’t really matter what got them to their objectives. Women who overrate their attractiveness based on their ability to draw short-term attention from males are really shooting themselves in the foot. The sexes do not pursue the same mating strategies, after all.

  • PJL

    Verie,

    Yes–I was struck by that. I’m rather surprised you have trouble meeting the holy roller of your choice. Will you confirm a general cultural suspicion I have: what’s your denomination? I’ve observed that mainline Protestant culture is very feminine, leaving many a good girl without a man. Don’t feel obliged to answer just to sate my curiosity.

  • PJL

    @ Susan,

    I actually think men interested in LTR respond to a wider set of criterion than just looks, too. I’m by no means an attractive man, so I can’t speak for the stud variety of men, but I can speak for my friends and myself. A common reason they give for ditching a girl is boredom. A common reason of mine is finding her fatuous. (I did once do the terribly stupid thing of asking a girl why she spurned me, and she replied that I was an obnoxious know-it all, so my fatuousness requirement may just be a reflection of my own massive ego). I certainly have the very common experience of falling for a girl after a third thought. That is, after realizing what a sweet/caring person she is, her face becomes somehow transfigured. The opposite is very common, too. After you’ve had a bad break up you look into the face of your beloved and wonder what beauty you ever saw.

    I’m not very introspective about relationships (my bemusement is one reason I read this blog and comment sometimes), so I really don’t know what “causes” this third or fourth thought; but it’s there and it’s often more important than “objective” looks; because I don’t want to love an object: I want to love a subject, a self.

    And yes–let’s not try to take people down a peg. Gentle reprimands for the purpose of helping someone are fine; but verie is an attractive girl from the picture–this, despite the fact that she watches Jersey Shore… jk

  • http://dalrock.wordpress.com/ Dalrock

    Hi Susan.
    .
    I think we are very much in agreement based on your reply to my recent post. I think you are right that it isn’t a large percentage of women who are intentionally following a carousel to beta provider strategy. What I think matters is the perception in this case, and how this is likely to change men’s opinions. It could end up being an internet legend, but if enough (desirable) men hear and believe this legend this would seem to me to make it much harder for women who delay marriage for any reason. This was my core point.
    .
    Your point on the rash of “Marry Him” genre of hand-wringing articles, books, etc fits with my assessment as well. As I show in my Grey Divorce P2 post, this represents some fraction of 10% of women. Most women still marry young and do so with low partner counts (3.8 median lifetime partner counts per the CDC and this would include their husband for those married).
    .
    And I agree with you that many women are attracted to beta males. The data I reference above would seem to confirm this, as well. PUAs have a response bias in their survey. Much of game is deciding when to cut and move to another target. Not surprisingly, every woman they bed or even spend much attention on is very attracted to the alpha qualities they are signaling. One of my friends and a roomate in college was a natural PUA. He was a really nice guy, who happened to fall madly in love several times a month, sometimes several times in the same week. As he fell in love with new women the old ones worked their way down his harem until they either left entirely or became booty calls (and that distinction is never really clear). He had near perfect natural game, was funny, engaging, tall, very good looking, and muscular. I mention him because I was very interested in how my then girlfriend (Mrs Dalrock) would react to him. I’d watched previous girlfriends in his presence and without knowing the term had a good idea of what an IOI was. Mrs Dalrock didn’t respond with IOIs like so many other girls had.
    .
    The point I was making which I’m not sure you addressed is that I think some young women are getting a false sense of safety in numbers. Those engaging in booty calls, chasing alphas, etc really aren’t the norm but it really can seem that way. Our choices and social circles influence each other so it can easily appear that everyone is just like you, no matter what “just like you” describes. Thinking back to my college years and immediately after, I knew a significant number of people who got stuck in unhealthy patterns at least in part because they thought it was normal. The guy who smokes pot instead of getting it in gear, or the one who develops an obsession for World of Warcraft are falling into the same basic trap.

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    “However, this part of the thread has gotten way off track, IMO. It started with Verie putting Artem in his place when he described himself as very good-looking and sexy. She was obviously trying to take him down a peg.”

    Actually, I think she was trying to knock me down a peg for making the mistake of attempting to inject some humor in response to Artem’s self assessment.

  • Snowdrop111

    ” Those engaging in booty calls, chasing alphas, etc really aren’t the norm but it really can seem that way. Our choices and social circles influence each other so it can easily appear that everyone is just like you, no matter what “just like you” describes.”

    I think this is true, and I wish there would be more discussion of it. It’s like everyone has totally given in to peer pressure because if you don’t stand the whole nine yards on one side, you’re automatically the whole nine yards on the other side. People say this is true in politics, but I think it’s also true in the culture wars.

  • Aldonza

    My rule for booty calls was always quite simple: never respond to a booty call text or call. If you really want casual sex, *make* the text or call on your terms only.

  • verie44

    @Dalrock:
    “He had near perfect natural game, was funny, engaging, tall, very good looking, and muscular. I mention him because I was very interested in how my then girlfriend (Mrs Dalrock) would react to him. I’d watched previous girlfriends in his presence and without knowing the term had a good idea of what an IOI was. Mrs Dalrock didn’t respond with IOIs like so many other girls had.”
    .
    I’m curious — did you ever ask her why she wasn’t interested in him? Was it a conscious effort on her part not to engage the alpha male because she knew betas were better for her long-term? I mean, that’s part of PUA game theory, that women in general are drawn to those qualities in men.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @PJL
    I’m by no means an attractive man.
    False. I haven’t even seen you and I know that you are extremely attractive, because of your candle power. You also clearly indicate some experience with women. Don’t sell yourself short.
    .
    I don’t want to love an object: I want to love a subject, a self.
    This is very mature, especially for a man of your tender age. Some men never get this far. I’ve always wondered how smart and interesting men can be happy with bimbos. And of course, smart women love it when men like you say they appreciate that in a woman.
    .
    @Dalrock
    some young women are getting a false sense of safety in numbers. Those engaging in booty calls, chasing alphas, etc really aren’t the norm but it really can seem that way. Our choices and social circles influence each other so it can easily appear that everyone is just like you
    Agreed. It’s a sort of inverted pluralistic ignorance. Instead of adopting risky behaviors because you believe that many other people are already engaging in them, one may use that misimpression to justify and rationalize one’s own poor choices.
    .
    @Aldonza
    You are very consistent in giving women this excellent advice: Take control and make a proactive choice, not a passive or defensive one. It’s the loss of control, that sense of having been summoned for sex, that makes booty calls seem worse than one-night stands, FWB, or any other form of casual sex.

  • verie44

    @rick:
    (Sorry, Susan, I know it’s off-topic, but I just saw rick’s comment and just wanted to respond. It’s the last thing I’ll post about this)
    .
    @rick: I just saw your comment about my looks. I never claimed to be a 10. That’s reserved for the likes of Adriana Lima & Monica Belluci with photoshop. I never claimed to be any specific number — that ranking varies depending on your own tastes and how you rank against the crowd you belong to. I do know that I’m attractive; how much depends on the person deciding. Fortunately for me, I totally could care less what some random guy on the internet wants to rank me. It’s obvious you’re part of the PUA angry-at-women crew, and you resent whenever any woman gets compliments from any guy (even online) for beauty since it makes your job harder. Others have already tried it on me in real life, and they were much better at gaming than you. I’m over those tactics, try it on some other girl with lower self-esteem, k?
    .
    I do have to say that I love your own rationalizing hamster allowing you to rank me even though you acknowledge you’re not as attractive. I would accept an opinion from a judge if I had entered a beauty pageant, but since I haven’t, and since you aren’t, I’m laughing at the idea of a guy who admits he’s definitely below average in looks ranking me. To clarify on my original comments: I told passer_by basically not to be mean to artem unless he thought he was better-looking. And I told artem if he thought he was so hot, he should have a better photo so we could judge for ourselves.
    .
    The point of me putting up a gravatar photo was to show people both on this blog and on another I occasionally comment on that I am not unattractive, since I have been accused of having specific opinions because of that. The regular commenters now know I’m not hideous, goal achieved.
    .
    I’d rather not defend myself continuously or have my appearance be an issue in the future, so I’m taking my photo down. Beyond that, I have several indications that someone has been looking for information on me in real life since I’ve posted a photo, so I’d like to be safe rather than sorry.
    .
    In any case, I wish you luck, Rick, with that attitude. You’ll end up attracting the exact kind of girl you don’t want.

  • verie44

    @PJL:
    I have dated a couple of guys who did fit the bill and I keep in touch with them to this day — different circumstances separated us (grad school, jobs, etc), but things may work out at some point.
    .
    I do think that guys who function within a religious setting & adhere strictly to it do tend to be more feminized, unfortunately. If they’re not, they usually have girlfriends in 0.02 seconds. The guys who fit the bill I was talking about before I met outside of church & I just got lucky. But it’s hard out there — between the alpha male users & bitter beta gamers I run into who proactively hit on you, it gets frustrating. I’m not saying every one who practices game is bitter, but the guys who are extremely good at it tend to be hardened & have a dismal view of women. It takes a certain “on to the next one” attitude to succeed consistently in this city I think.
    .
    I am convinced there are good guys out there who would be a good mix of alpha/beta traits, but the problem is that they tend to work a ton, especially in this city, so it’s hard to meet them.

  • http://ft.com VJ

    In-between the arguments, silly & not, I really don’t know where to put this so I’ll just append it here. Data!! Via the Daily Beast series here: ‘Will I ever Get Married?’ 15 signs:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-08/will-i-ever-get-married-15-signs-youll-tie-the-knot/2/

    Some interesting tidbits. Women Do like ‘dangerous men!’ Vol 8002:

    “9. If you’re a Caucasian male who has been incarcerated, there’s a 95.1 percent chance that you’ll get married by age 40.
    But “Ex-inmates are more likely to assault their partners than other men,” writes the author of the study that yielded this stat, “but this likelihood is reduced if they develop strong and long-lasting relationships.” [Sure, good luck with that!]
    Bruce Western (2004): Incarceration, marriage, and family life. Princeton University/Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Working paper 15-19-FF”

    And where to find the serious dudes who want to & are willing to marry? Join the Army/Navy?Marines!

    “15. If you’re a single woman serving in the U.S. military, you’re more than 200 percent more likely to get married than single civilian women are.
    “One of the biggest factors in mating is propinquity: that is, being around those with whom you could potentially mate,” says Grenier. “If you want to meet women, go to playgroups. If you want to meet men, join the service.”
    Emily Hull (2007): Military Service and Marriage: A Review of Research. Brigham Young University/National Healthy Marriage Resource Center.”

    Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • http://ft.com VJ

    And please for the love of everything rational in the known universe, Don’t be summarizing the particular details of the Jersey Shore here or elsewhere. It’s just irredeemably depressing on too many levels to count. Baboons mating have more fun, excitement, challenges & yes stimulation. And chances, BTW. It takes more skills for them, more intellect. Here? All we do is shine a camera on it and the ‘magic’ begins…to get written to satisfy our base desires. I’d rather watch the interactions in the ‘wild’, such that it still exists. It’s much more entertaining! Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • http://dalrock.wordpress.com/ Dalrock

    @verie44
    I’m curious — did you ever ask her why she wasn’t interested in him? Was it a conscious effort on her part not to engage the alpha male because she knew betas were better for her long-term? I mean, that’s part of PUA game theory, that women in general are drawn to those qualities in men.
    .
    She said he creeped her out, specifically the way he looked at her. The thing is, as far as players go he was the most toned down one I’ve ever seen. Most guys wouldn’t even know he was hitting on women. He just tended to come into a room and own it. Neither of us had ever heard the terms alpha or beta at the time, and she was very young (18, although she told me she was 19). So I don’t think it was conscious except she did have strong feelings against casual sex. She didn’t want to have sex with a man she didn’t plan on spending the rest of her life with. At some point it stands to reason that she figured out players (what we would now call alphas) weren’t the kind she wanted to spend her life with. My wife was brought up christian, but from what I’ve read that probably doesn’t always mean a whole lot. She also was raised by her German/Hungarian mother in an old school way of viewing the world. In the version of Cinderella my wife grew up with, the sisters cut off parts of their feet to fit into the glass slipper. The way the prince knew they weren’t right was from the blood filling the shoe. The original brothers Grimm stories have a very different set of messages than the Disney versions do.
    .
    One thing I will say is from rooming with this guy and hanging out with him I was able to pick up a fair amount of game, which probably did help me attract her in the first place. She still sometimes talks about other girls who at the time were at least a little interested in me at our mutual workplace, and how they reacted when she asked who I was. I had run my own crude version of game on these girls at the time, just from what I had picked up. But I wasn’t interested in them for the same basic reason my wife wasn’t interested in my roommate.
    .
    One last anecdote just because it cracks me up. The PUA roommate fell in love with a girl the last semester before he and I graduated. This was a regular occurance, so the other roommates and I just laughed a little and shrugged it off like we always did, figuring another girl would fill that slot in a week or so. He ended up marrying her, and I took my then girlfriend (now wife) to the wedding. I am of course biased but she was really much hotter/prettier than the woman he married. I’ll never forget how she looked in that dress that night. When we walked into the chapel for the wedding my roommate was at the door greeting everyone. He said hi to me and whispered something in my wife’s ear. On the way home she told me how disgusted she was that a man would hit on another woman while at his own wedding, but this is of course how these guys are. They can’t turn it off. That and the fact that my wife looked really hot, which is what he had whispered to her.

  • Average Joe

    “My rule for booty calls was always quite simple: never respond to a booty call text or call. If you really want casual sex, *make* the text or call on your terms only. – Aldonza”

    Ummm, the rule Aldonza adhered to was not an example of casual sex, but control sex. Men reserve the word “bitch” for behavior like this. And while her suggestion would surely get lauded over at Pandagon I think “humanist” readers would recognize the catch phrase “on your terms only” as code for selfish.

    The true spirit of the booty call is reciprocity. “I’ll scratch your back, if you’ll scratch mine” is the motto. And it is an agreement designed to be mutual, not unilateral. Her booty call solution has an “it’s all about me” vibe.

    Certain words provide a very effective way to call out bad female behavior of this kind, which is why feminists want to abolish such terms. Not having them around would give women a free pass to have to be self-centered without a second thought. Stigma is often a good thing.

    Feminists secretly relish the idea of control sex, because it’s a power that is primarily only available to women… and in particular to women in their beauty prime. But it’s a blatant abuse of power and karmic bad news for the women who employ it.

    Men resent a woman who only has sex when she’s in the mood” and so when the tables are turned it can get ugly for these women. If she is in college, her booty call might find her drunk one night and decide to take advantage of her vulnerability… the way she has been taking advantage of his. If she is seeing a guy, he to may decide to have his birthday party in Vegas… with lots of strippers. If she’s married, her husband may start paying a “professional” as a response to all those time she has a “headache”.

    I adamantly warn any young woman against following in Aldonza’s footsteps. Doing so is rude and risky.

  • Average Joe

    @ Verie44,

    “I am convinced there are good guys out there who would be a good mix of alpha/beta traits, but the problem is that they tend to work a ton, especially in this city, so it’s hard to meet them.”

    It’s not that hard to find the type of guy you’re looking for, unlesss… you aren’t doing it right… or actually trying… or are really picky.

    I don’t know what city you are in, but I’ve have been employed in DC, Baltimore, and went to college near San Fran and we are the same everywhere. You seem to forget that even CEO’s spend sick amounts of time on the golf course. Men love male leisure activities and it is in your best interest to also enjoy them because those are the best circumstances under which to get access to lots of us.

    I advise you to do your hunting of men while we are at play. It’s low key, and you can quickly earn our respect if you can hold your own in the conversation. As opposed to a bar, where we immediately categorize you as meat or work, where you are also competition.

    Spectator events, Sporting events, Food and Beverage tastings, Business Conferences …whatever, are all good starts. Just find something that predominantly men like, but you also enjoy… and then go collect email addresses. Just be smart about where you fish. If you decide to be a 5k race volunteer make sure it’s for prostrate cancer, not a Susan G Komen event.

  • Aldonza

    @Average Joe
    Basic fact: casual sex is a sellers market for women. Women who have casual sex on a man’s terms give away too much of their own power. Further, making the text or call themselves is forcing women to be honest about their own needs and goals. The man involved can choose whether or not to respond, so why are you up in arms about it?

  • http://thegatewayboyfriend.blogspot.com dan_brodribb

    @ Aldonza. That booty call advice rubbed me the wrong way also, Aldonza. I’m all for people being honest with themselves and if it worked for you, that’s great.

    I guess for me, whether it’s booty, business, or anything else, I don’t feel great when a person only contacts me when they want something but never responds when I call them, regardless of market conditions.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Average Joe

    The true spirit of the booty call is reciprocity. “I’ll scratch your back, if you’ll scratch mine” is the motto. And it is an agreement designed to be mutual, not unilateral. Her booty call solution has an “it’s all about me” vibe.

    .
    I have to disagree with this. Booty calls are initiated by men nearly all of the time, and they generally amount to summoning a woman for no-strings sex, at his place. It’s true that both people get to scratch an itch, but the nature of the itch is rather different between the sexes. I am not suggesting that men are taking advantage of women – it’s caveat emptor. Unless a woman is down for late night sex, usually of the drunken variety, she should ignore booty texts entirely.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @ Dan Brodribb

    I don’t feel great when a person only contacts me when they want something but never responds when I call them, regardless of market conditions.

    Touche. This is the exact problem with the booty call. It’s selfish in nature. A one-night stand is more egalitarian, as is FWB or really any consensual sex that occurs in the moment with both parties actively pursuing the same goal.

  • PJL

    @ Susan,

    I stumbled across this article. You may enjoy it. i only skimmed the first page or two. It asks an interesting question but provides a rather strange prescription. http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/10/outraged-moms-trashy-daughters/

    I am decent looking, but I’m not Clark Gable. As it is, imagine a cross between Ichabod Crane and Cyrano de Bergerac (the character, not the playwrite). I personally think the 1-10 rating system makes for a fine joke with friends but nothing else. I mean, what is it–a normal distribution curve? A Logarithmic distribution? An absolute line curve with a constant slope? If the former, I would self-assess myself as somewhere within 1 distribution above the mean.

    And I’m not being terribly noble with my comment on “other qualities.” For some reason, I’ve always seen beauty as necessary but insufficient. She has to have something. But I know I’ve viewed average looking girls as beauties beyond compare, because of how they acted. Look, personality won’t save a girl from a homely face, but one begins to notice things about otherwise average girls–eyes or gestures–that are very endearing. Likewise, an attractive girl who is a bit too into herself becomes either like a statue–not a real human being to be approached or engaged with–or, sometimes, even, ugly–you notice that the nose really doesn’t fit and the eyes are asymmetrical. Perhaps the best analogy is that personality and charm are to beauty what seasoning and lemon are to the taste of a dish. Without salt the best ingredients go to waste.

    @ Verie,

    Could you amplify what you mean by “feminine”? I think you and I may mean different things by it. I mean, I suppose, a “cloying desire to not offend” or, better, an “extreme complaisant nature.” A certain softness that feels the need to be constantly approved of and encouraged. This is a pretty dismal view of “feminine,” which is why I wanted to get rid of the word! Anyway, what do you think?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @PJL
      That is a very interesting article, but I’m inclined to agree – there’s a disconnect in concluding that feminism’s work is still not done, rather than seeing that some feminists directly embraced, if not caused, the Girls Gone Wild phenomenon.

  • Average Joe

    Dear Susan,

    Yes, of course booty calls are mainly initiated by men….. most sex is!

    But this one-sidedness is more indicative of women’s reluctance to ask for some “scratching” than it is a reflection on the spirit of the “booty call.” I mean, it’s not as if men don’t jump at the opportunity to scratch them itches… if asked. I can assure you that the number of calls that men reject is a lot lower than the number of calls that women make.

    And if as you believe, one-sided initiation is the major issue with booty calls, how would transforming them into something ONLY women initiate be a drastic improvement? Because that’s exactly what would happen if college women everywhere took Aldonza’s selfish advice.

    Susan, you are very sharp person, and I don’t know if you haven’t put a lot of thought into this or if it’s just a blind spot for you, but either way you should reconsider your feelings on the subject. The advice I have always given women is this…”answer twice as many booty calls as you make”. And that way, it is neither of you that gets taken advantage of.

    Aldonza’s call to “blanket reject” incoming requests is more a twisted version of Lysistrata than a solution. What she has put forth is reactionary and controlling, not mature and healthy. Note she earns a red flag from commenter Dan too. In short, If a woman is willing to make a booty call, then you should be willing to take a booty call. Otherwise don’t step onto the field.

  • Average Joe

    @Aldonza

    “Basic fact: casual sex is a seller’s market for women. Women who have casual sex on a man’s terms give away too much of their own power. Further, making the text or call themselves is forcing women to be honest about their own needs and goals. The man involved can choose whether or not to respond, so why are you up in arms about it?

    Of course I know that sex is a seller’s market for women. Thus all the stuff I wrote about feminism and their hypocrisy over the giant female advantage in sexual power.

    I also know that you know, relationships are a seller’s market for men. Thus that June 14th piece with your advice on finding a “good” man.

    So it’s real simple why I’m “all up in arms” You talk out of both sides of your mouth. When the seller is maximizing HER advantage, you shrug your shoulders and hide behind “choice”, but when the seller is maximizing HIS advantage, he’s a “bad guy” with a bunch of red flags.

    I really don’t think your attitude is consistent with women “hooking up smart” as much as it is women “hooking up selfishly”.

  • Aldonza

    Of course I know that sex is a seller’s market for women.

    I said *casual* sex is a seller’s market for women. What I recommend is that young women acknowledge that control and exercise it appropriately precisely because they do *not* have control over the relationship market. I understand why men would bristle at this the same way that women bristle at men exercising their control over the relationship status.

    but when the seller is maximizing HIS advantage, he’s a “bad guy” with a bunch of red flags.

    I don’t label them as “bad guys”, but they are clearly not good bets for LTRs. If a guy wants to avoid LTRs and have as much casual sex with no strings as he can, that is his choice, just like it is a womans’ choice on whether to engage in casual sex (and when, and with whom).

    If a woman wants a relationship, she is wise to not waste much time on guys who are clearly not looking for an LTR (which is what the red and green flag list was about). Unless she wants a booty call…in which case she is still wise not to waste much time on them waiting for a text when she can make one herself. For the record, I’ve never heard of a man who was insulted at receiving a booty call text.

  • Aldonza

    And if as you believe, one-sided initiation is the major issue with booty calls, how would transforming them into something ONLY women initiate be a drastic improvement? Because that’s exactly what would happen if college women everywhere took Aldonza’s selfish advice.

    The goal of HUS is to help women find satisfaction in their interactions with men (which usually means a relationship.) Responding to a booty call is almost *never* the right tactic for a woman to take if a LTR is her goal. If she’s got an itch to get scratched, she should admit it and make the call herself. There is a lot less likelihood of self-delusion about “he likes me because he texted me” in that scenario.

  • Average Joe

    “The goal of HUS is to help women find satisfaction in their interactions with men (which usually means a relationship.) Responding to a booty call is almost *never* the right tactic for a woman to take if a LTR is her goal. If she’s got an itch to get scratched, she should admit it and make the call herself. There is a lot less likelihood of self-delusion about “he likes me because he texted me” in that scenario.”

    Ok. So explain to me how only initiating booty calls, and NEVER responding to ANY is a great tactic for securing a LTR… if that is a young woman’s goal? Cause I really can’t quite figure out how guys armed with the knowledge of a woman who only texts when she needs something sexual, but never is there when he needs something sexual, will start to feel all warm and fuzzy about said woman as a long term prospect.

    Do you not comprehend that the people in general cannot stand those that pick up the phone only if THEY need something? The phenomenon is beyond just booty calls. And yes the likelihood of self delusion about “he likes me” decreases if she NEVER responds, but with that comes a giant increase in self delusion about what constitutes being “selfish”. You yourself don’t seem to grasp the inherent issues with your advice. It’s extremist! Once again NEVER responding is crap. You have several ratios to choose from 1:1, 3:5, 1:2 whatever, all of which are superior attempts to balance between protection with consideration. This site does value consideration right?

  • http://www.jeffreybrauer.blogspot.com/ Jeffrey of Troy

    @Susan
    “Haha, no, I think he’s just of the opinion that young guys who can avail themselves of the booty call will do so. It goes back to the 80/20 rule. It’s likely that no more than 20% of men can get away with booty calling. The other 80% may include ugly men, but obviously is not restricted to that.”
    The 80/20 rule is widely misunderstood/misused (not saying that you are SW). 20% of men may be have 80% of the SEX, but that is not necessarily the same thing as humping 80% of the WOMEN. Maybe 20% of men and 20% of women are much more promiscuous than average, and they are basically doing it with each other (mostly); and the other 80% of men and women are not promiscuous, and have much lower lifetime sex partners.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jeffrey of Troy

      20% of men may be have 80% of the SEX, but that is not necessarily the same thing as humping 80% of the WOMEN. Maybe 20% of men and 20% of women are much more promiscuous than average, and they are basically doing it with each other (mostly); and the other 80% of men and women are not promiscuous, and have much lower lifetime sex partners.

      THANK YOU! I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around this concept, but every time I conclude what you have just written, then Roissy or Vox Day or someone pipes up to say all the women want the same 10% (!!!!new low!!!!) of guys. Your explanation makes much more sense.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Average Joe

    In short, If a woman is willing to make a booty call, then you should be willing to take a booty call. Otherwise don’t step onto the field.

    Fair enough. I’ll never be a fan of the booty call though. If a woman just wants to scratch an itch fine, but the whole reason I write is that very few women really feel that way about sex. They want to have sex with emotional intimacy, and the booty call forbids any such displays. It’s strictly masturbation with a second pulse in the room. Many men are perfectly OK with that, so I don’t blame them for putting the offer out there if that is what they want. I’ll agree that if a woman wants to be booty called, she should just text it herself.
    .
    I’ve also written about ways of identifying (and avoiding) a player, and booty calls is a key indicator. I encourage women to hold out for men who display real affection and respect enough to wait until the sex is a natural outgrowth of intimacy (from the woman’s point of view).

  • Gorbchev

    Booty calls are always bad ideas for women.

    It puts all the power directly in the hands of men.

  • verie44

    @PJL:
    “Could you amplify what you mean by “feminine”?” (in regard to the guys in church not being manly)
    .
    I guess it’s a combination of things that make me feel as though some of them are more of a girl than I am. I’ve been through a lot of really difficult things in my life. I’m a very strong person coming from all of that, but I want to be able to trust that my partner is going to be stronger than me. I want to know they will be my rock when I want to give up and will fight with me / do the right thing when hard times come instead of crumbling under the pressure or being weak. Are they going to throw themselves off a bridge or turn to drugs if we lose all our money in the stock market? Are they going to emotionally withdraw if we have a mentally disabled child? Are they going to remove resources from our family by having to support an illegitimate child?
    .
    It’s hard for me to relate to many of the guys who have never been through anything difficult. I feel like a strong gust of wind could crush some of them and the others, well, they’re untested. This obviously relates to both religious and non-religious, but religious guys tend to lead much more sheltered lives.
    .
    I think a lot of churches focus a lot on Jesus and the “turn the other cheek” stuff too much. Much like most of American society, it doesn’t teach men to be men. I mean, sometimes you have to go Old Testament on someone’s ass. I guess I don’t feel like I could trust a lot of these guys to take care of business in the way that I know my dad would. If we were poor, he would break his back digging ditches to keep us fed and scheme until he figured out a way to build his own business rather than throwing up his hands and relying on government assistance to eke out a miserable living. If someone hurt me or my mom, he would kill them (not joking in any way — he honestly would find them and remove them from the planet). These things are not necessarily within mainstream “Christian” teachings, but they are sometimes necessary.

  • verie44

    My other comment (and someone’s response to it, I think it was Meg? Or Chili?) has disappeared from posting last night — and I noticed that last night, this above comment to PJL hadn’t posted. Is there an issue with the commenting system again?

  • PJL

    Verie,

    Very interesting. So a little bit more “A Mighty Fortress is our God” and a little bit less “Hold me Closer Sweet Jesus”? I think you yearn for the Chivalric and therefore Christian Knight of yore. Perhaps one could link the emasculation of Christian men with the jettisoning of belief in sin or Satan or “the Enemy,” as he was euphemistically called. If you have an enemy that prowls for the ruin of your soul, then presumably, Christian faith becomes analogously like a battle. I actually thought Mel Gibson’s Passion portrayed that element of Christ’s mission well. His Christ was…courageous, first and foremost.

    This–“I feel like a strong gust of wind could crush some of them and the others, well, they’re untested”–is a rather interesting line. First glance, I don’t quite know what to make of it; but it rings true to my own observations.

  • http://dalrock.wordpress.com/ Dalrock

    @Verie44
    I think a lot of churches focus a lot on Jesus and the “turn the other cheek” stuff too much. Much like most of American society, it doesn’t teach men to be men.
    .
    This is a common topic over at Haley’s Halo, a blog about Christian dating. I shared my own thoughts on it in my post titled “Roll your own alpha”. In general I agree with your assessment of many men in the church today. Although there are of course very notable exceptions, mostly from older generations.
    .
    I mean, sometimes you have to go Old Testament on someone’s ass. I guess I don’t feel like I could trust a lot of these guys to take care of business in the way that I know my dad would. If we were poor, he would break his back digging ditches to keep us fed and scheme until he figured out a way to build his own business rather than throwing up his hands and relying on government assistance to eke out a miserable living. If someone hurt me or my mom, he would kill them (not joking in any way — he honestly would find them and remove them from the planet). These things are not necessarily within mainstream “Christian” teachings, but they are sometimes necessary.
    .
    I really enjoyed reading that. A beautiful description of old school greater beta. The thing is, men still have this in them but most have been conditioned to not acknowledge it. There are still parts of the country where this kind of man feels at home though. Not to mention all of the guys who have served overseas. I’d bet most of them are very clear where they stand on the food chain.

  • http://dalrock.wordpress.com/ Dalrock

    Susan,
    .
    I’ve written a new post on the sizzle vs steak question (linked from comment luv below).

  • Congenial Ms

    Sometimes women DO just want casual sex and not a serious relationship. The best way of getting that is through an FB. An FB is different than a Friend with Benefits in that with a FwB, the friendship comes first, whereas with an FB (Ef Buddy), the effing comes first – but you still don’t have to troll bars or Craigslist or anything degrading like that.

    So yeah, a BCB. Booty Call Buddy.

    There’s nothing wrong with that.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @verie
    Checking in on the comment system. Are there currently any comments unaccounted for? I have none in my filter. I’m whitelisting known commenters to avoid moderation whenever possible, but that only happens when I find a comment in limbo. I’m not sure how WordPress flags comments – I think there are many words that can trigger that. Unfortunately, many of those words are common parlance on HUS :-/
    Keep me posted.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Congenial Ms
    Welcome, thanks for leaving a comment. I agree with you re f*ckbuddies. If a woman can get her needs met without degrading or endangering herself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. No harm no foul in that case.

  • rick

    Verie-

    You seem insecure and defensive. Personally, I could ccare less if you rank me a 1, or a negative ten for that matter.

    But what is curious and fascinating for me is that you seem to think that ranking of looks can only be accomplished downward. This speaks to an interesting elitism that you (among many other women) possess.

    Physical attractiveness is, to a large extent, a trait bestowed by nature. Clothes, makeup, exercise, etc. can enhance nature of course, but you get the idea.

    By the way, I lied. I’m actually a two at best. I’m 5 ft tall, 50 lbs overweight and look like a big version of that mini-me guy. If it were not for my dazzling hazel eyes, I’d be a 1.

    Getting back to you, though: I note with glee your absolute annoyance at being ranked by a man that you consider less attractive than yourself. You laugh – ha ha ha – at my chutzpa.

    Well, it’s a deal! You keep laughing, and I’ll keep ranking you.

    You will succumb to the Orwellian tyranny of male evaluation: A male eyeball ranking a female face – forever.

  • rick

    Susan

    It would be interesting to hear your views on whether people can rank the looks of those that are more attractive than themselves, and if saying they cannot implies elitism. I think that when people are too concerned about others ranking them it indicates that they are afraid of it hitting too close to home. For example, I think Angeline Jolie is absolutely hideous. Sour grapes, you say? No, because I think that Jennifer Anniston (even at her current age) is scorchingly hot.

    Some women seem to think that less attractive men are not permitted to have valid viewpoints about the relative level of female beauty. Arrogant thinking, really. This, to me, almost implies a cartel-like desire to subject their own looks only to scrutiny from men who she would perhaps be open to dating.

    Thought experiment:

    Do you think it bothers Angeline Jolie one bit if she found out a nobody like me found her unattractive? I bet not. How about any other top-tier female? I bet not.

    But what about your typical woman who might be a 7 or 8? Or a 6? My suspicion is that even if they know they are a 7, they would hate to think that there are men who are fives who think that they have a big nose, or a weird forehead, or whatever. I think that for many women it is critically important for them to think that all men below their ranking find them desirable. Otherwise it upsets their simplified hypergamous view.

    This is why they regard me and others with scorn. I think they are trying verie hard to put us back into the box that they feels we belong in. In some ways it is typical female thought-police stuff.

    I await your views.

  • Pingback: On gun control and wimpy betas. | Dalrock()

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Rick,
    It would be interesting to hear your views on whether people can rank the looks of those that are more attractive than themselves, and if saying they cannot implies elitism.
    .
    Personally, I think our culture reminds us all day every day what currently accepted standards of beauty are. People can quibble about Angelina Jolie vs. Jennifer Aniston (I agree with you, btw) but the truth is that we’re splitting hairs there about two women who are famous for being beautiful.
    We’re also told very clearly what the no-no’s are. Men should be tall. This leaves guys who are 5’8″ feeling crappy and defensive. Women should be slim. This means that many thousands of women starve themselves in an attempt to move from endomorph to ectomorph. We read interviews with people like Julia Roberts who understand intellectually that they are good looking, but don’t process that as a true belief, for whatever reason.
    In general, I think all men are able to agree, for the most part, on what female beauty looks like. Ditto for women and what they find hot in a man. One’s own looks are irrelevant – we’ve all been to the school of what’s desirable in our culture.
    Is it elitist to claim otherwise? Not sure about elitist, but it’s insensitive. I don’t really think Verie was being elitist, though. I think she was being a tad defensive after you gave her the “I knew Jack Kennedy, and you are no Jack Kennedy treatment.”
    In general, I think we give waaayyyyy too much attention to looks. I understand that looks are a factor in the SMP, especially for women, but come on. I go out all the time and see unattractive people holding hands and pushing strollers. What’s elitist is the idea that only beautiful people get to fall in love and be happy. Unfortunately, I think we’re all susceptible to this – a guy who is a 5 saying he wants nothing to do with a woman who is a 5, and vice versa. I see a whole lot of judgment around looks, and I think it’s led many, even most of us, to fear we are not attractive enough, so we’re constantly trying to prove our worth.