The Cracking Foundation of Sex Positive Feminism

Do we think the ladies have gone too far with the sex positive feminism? I mean I know they’re all down with the pornography and the shaved pudenda and what not, but do we really think this is the path to liberation?

Hank Moody

Even Hank Moody Wants the Insanity to Stop

I’ve been claiming that the walls of Sex Positive Feminism are tumbling down. I suppose if I were being conservative I might say the foundation is cracking. No point in getting giddy or anything. I’ve assembled some quotes for you, which generally track the demise of the movement over the past five years. Interesting stuff.


The whole argument that women are choosing this path themselves, and that that makes it OK, doesn’t particularly make sense to me. I mean, I suppose it is a tiny nugget of progress, but it’s like we have taken the cage away from women and none of us is trying to escape, we’re just behaving exactly as we think men want us to. In terms of the Cake parties, I just didn’t think that they were really about women’s sexual pleasure at all. It was like being at your average strip club. And if you’re going to try to sell that to me as feminist, then I’m just going to laugh at you.

Ariel Levy, author, Female Chauvinist Pigs, 2005

Our popular culture, she argues, has embraced a model of female sexuality that comes straight from pornography and strip clubs, in which the woman’s job is to excite and titillate – to perform for men. According to Levy, women have bought into this by altering their bodies surgically and cosmetically, and – more insidiously – by confusing sexual power with power, so that embracing this caricaturish form of sexuality becomes, in their minds, a perverse kind of feminism.

Jennifer Egan on Ariel Levy, New York Times, 9/18/05

Before it curdled into a collection of stereotypes, feminism had fleetingly held out a promise that there would be some precincts of womanly life that were not all about men. But it never quite materialized.

It took only a few decades to create a brazen new world where the highest ideal is to acknowledge your inner slut. I am woman; see me strip. Instead of peaceful havens of girl things and boy things, we have a society where women of all ages are striving to become self-actualized sex kittens. Hollywood actresses now work out by taking pole-dancing classes.

Female sexuality has been a confusing corkscrew path, not a serene progressive arc. We had decades of Victorian prudery, when women were not supposed to like sex. Then we had the pill and zipless encounters, when women were supposed to have the same animalistic drive as men. Then it was discovered — shock, horror! — that men and women are not alike in their desires. But zipless morphed into hookups, and the more one-night stands the girls on ”Sex and the City” had, the grumpier they got.

Maureen Dowd, New York Times, 10/30/05

When Dowd quotes an Ivy League professor on the mysteries of undergraduate women who outperform their male peers every day in the classroom and then capitulate their power at night, not “even getting orgasms … just servicing boys in dark corners,” it’s an observation that is surely unquantifiable and alarmist. But if it’s true for some young women — and if we’re honest, we have to admit that it doesn’t sound that implausible — then we must find a way to address the contradictions of sex-positivity and sexual objectification.

Rebecca Traister, Salon, 11/8/05

There’s a world of difference between being branded a sex object and choosing to be one…I may like to get spanked until I scream, but I still deserve to be treated as an intelligent human being… Feminists are just like any other women, and it’d be a shame for us to hold back in a misguided attempt to live up to the legacies of Susan B. Anthony and Gloria Steinem.

…We can choose to be celibate, or to have someone come on our face. Having a full range of sexual options should be a high-priority feminist goal…Thankfully, many of us are exploring our kinks in all their flavors.

Rachel Kramer Bussell, Fucking and Feminism, Village Voice, 7/11/06

Maybe that is because I have only really engaged in bareback sex with the types of dudes who don’t fear HPV and whose diseases I don’t particularly fear, because the worst thing I can think of about most of them is the ensuing lifetime of awkward conversations, and the worst thing about that is that awkward conversations summon memories, and summoning bad memories every time you’re about to fuck a new person is no way to live, but, if you can smile and say (hypothetically!) “Hey, just so you know, I have [insert STD here], but I got them from this really hilarious guy who is still one of my best friends, so it was kind of worth it,” before you do it with a new person, it’s almost nice. Like: oh yeah, that was a good time.

Moe Tkacik, Jezebel, 7/24/08

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

Jessica Valenti, Feministing, 2/20/09

The death of courtship is very, very widespread. I’ve never spoken on a college campus where people say, “No, no, no, we’re dating. We’re courting. We’re having candlelit dinners.” Even on very conservative college campuses, people are very promiscuous, but they think they’re not having sex because they’re not having intercourse. It’s extraordinary.

It’s like that Woody Allen quote — even bad sex is better than no sex. I think they feel like that’s what they’re stuck with. And given that, it’s better than solitude and frustration. But when I talk about romance and courtship and love, there’s this palpable longing from both genders. I think they wish it were not so.

Young women don’t feel empowered to set the pace or to set the boundaries. Young women’s sexuality is better served by a more gradual approach. And certainly because they are the ones who face pregnancy, they’re better served by not [having] intercourse — there’s other ways of being sexual. Frankly, I think another pressure is that grown-ups have kind of failed them. We talk to them about the mechanics of sexuality, but we don’t talk to them about love and intimacy and desire.

Naomi Wolf, Hooking Up and Losing Out, 2/12/09

While we’re “unfixing definitions of feminism,” may I humbly submit that we unfix this “sex-positivity” shit from the entire praxis? Because if I have to endure another essay on the mysteries of the female orgasm in the name of feminism, I may never have an orgasm again… Of course, there are a lot of feminist issues involved in the porn industry, sex work, and in human sexuality; I just don’t think “sex positivity” is one of them. So you’re a feminist, and you like sex—well, that’s normal. So do a lot of people, including a lot of non- and anti-feminists. So what does that have to do with feminist identity?…If people who like sex see sex-positivity as a part of the feminist movement, maybe they’ll see feminism as less prude and scary and icky and straight-laced and serious and anti-man. And I think it’s condescending to the feminist movement that we have to bring orgasms in to be taken seriously.

Amanda Hess, The Sexist, Washington City Paper, 4/1/09

Liberation always included an element of sexual libertinism. It’s one of the few things that made it so appealing to men: easy sexual access to women’s bodies. (And to their stories about sex, which helps explain why 49 percent of Jezebel’s audience is men.)

But unregulated sexual life also exposes women to the strong men around them, and here, the most visible of the Jezebel writers reflect the risks of liberation. Even if the girls gone wild stories are substantially overstated, the emergence of Tkacik and Egan as brand emissaries of Jezebel, and its attendant increase in popularity—as well as the responsive posts from the community of commenters, who call themselves “Jezzies” or “Jezebelles”—forces feminism to confront their public sexual narrative. How can women supposedly acting freely and powerfully keep turning up tales of vulnerability—repulsive sexual partners, pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, even rape?

Linda Hirshman, Slate Double X, 5/12/09

Especially in the college hook-up culture, ‘yes’ has become the default setting for us and any other decision would require a justification. It’s supported by such ingrained beliefs about freedom, progress and rights that people fall into bed together left and right without actively making the choice. Sex is expected and when you consider not having it you are fighting a whole host of other factors. Somehow, we have swung the pendulum back the other way, such that sex is a bit like the new abstinence: it feels like a betrayal to our values and ideals to say no.”

…Even if I should feel comfortable having sex, that doesn’t mean I necessarily want to.

I know. Shocking. It’s total blasphemy to admit this in a column that’s only supposed to titillate you. But it’s true, I am not so sex-crazed that casual sex appeals to me. It took me a while to realize this because I was caught in the implications that accompany the choice to abstain. I was confused by my general sense that people only abstain because they think sex is wrong or dirty, God will judge them, or they’re prudish. Otherwise, the general thinking goes that sex is so fucking awesome, of COURSE you will want to have it as much as possible. It’s a vicious feedback loop with little way out for the rational mind.

Carmel del Amicis, Sex Columnist, UC Berkeley Daily Californian, 6/15/09

There’s another sort of possibly emerging sexual conservatism among younger women that I actually find a lot more understandable and am personally a lot more sympathetic to…I do think that organized feminism or mainstream feminist activists have somewhat missed an opportunity to speak to a lot of young women who find hookup culture and the emotional brutality of contemporary sexual mores to be really unsatisfying…Sex-positive feminism became something in which women were expected to be as casual and callous about sex as the most casual and callous men.

Michelle Goldberg, author, The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power, and the Future of the World, 2009

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

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

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

Rachel Simmons, Teen Vogue Columnist, How the Hookup Culture is Hurting Girls, 2/25/10

When people concern troll the hook-up culture, they rarely talk about how young women might want a commitment for reasons outside of Twu Wuv, but as someone who does remember college pretty well as it drifted into this hook-up culture, I can say firmly that getting a capital-B boyfriend was a huge source of social validation and status. But for men doing the validating, there’s not actually much value in monogamy (outside of Twu Wuv).  They give something—validation—and instead of getting anything for it, they end up having to pay the price of not having their options open.  Who wants that?  Plus, power corrupts, as I can tell you from my own ugly college dating experiences and the ones I saw around me.  The aching need that women have for validation can make them easy to manipulate, and sadly, quite a few men enjoy doing that.  But I submit to you, dear reader, that as sexist as all this is, it’s still better than in the past.

…Of course, that doesn’t do much for young women in the here and now who are suffering from their extreme need for male validation that young men are exploiting.  What do we do for them?  I’m not really sure that telling them to quit fucking is going to get the job done, because it doesn’t address the underlying issue.  If you’re the sole individual, you get no benefit from that, since the guys will just take their validating attention to others who are willing to play ball.  If women come together collectively to withhold sex, I still don’t think that’s going to work out, because the underlying issue—that men get to define women in these youth cultures—hasn’t been addressed at all, and you’re still going to have women sobbing into their pillows because lack of male validation is leaving them as social pariahs.

…That [girls] can go out in groups and then perhaps hook up is already better than a system where they have to be selected by a man to even go out.  The girls are lurching in the right direction, but what needs to happen now is more attention paid to the boys.  How can we discourage young men from validating each other based on displays of misogyny?  How can we get boys to appreciate girls more as human beings?  How can we dismantle a system where social status in youth cultures is controlled strictly by young men?  These are the questions we need to be asking.

Amanda Marcotte, Pandagon, 2/28/10

I am a post-baby boomer who has been handed a sort of Spice Girls’ version of feminism. We’re supposed to be wearing half-shirts and jumping around. And, you know, maybe that’s not panning out.

Tina Fey, Vogue, March 2010

Feminist Web sites advise that is it our “feminist duty to 1) seek pleasure and feel entitled to it and 2) to make the world a more orgasmic place for other women.” And yet there seems to be something else at play in the culture that’s making Klausner (I Don’t Care About Your Band) and Anderson (Chastened) regretful, some new wave of anti-orgasmic sexual conservatism that makes you hate yourself for what you did last night.

Jessica Grose, The Shame Cycle, Slate, 3/3/10

The casual sex backlash is here. Even so-called sex-positive feminists are starting to express their shame and regret over past one-night stands, says Jessica Grose in Slate. This is sure to cause many conservatives to rejoice, but I suspect the report of hookup culture’s death has been greatly exaggerated…As I see it, young women have fully proved that we can have one-night stands, hear us roar –

Maybe instead of signaling a backlash, these are actually signs that we’re slowly inching toward a world where a woman isn’t either good or bad, a wife or whore, a virgin or slut.

…and maybe we’re beginning to also allow ourselves more nuanced feelings about our hookups. …We can now acknowledge regret over a one-night stand, without being considered, or seeing ourselves as, forever ruined women; if there’s been a recent change in my generation’s relationship to casual sex, I suspect it’s that we’re relaxing our defensive posturing.

Tracy Clark-Flory, Salon, 3/4/10

Chen is part of a handful of women bloggers who are sobering up quickly after their youthful indiscretions, and lately, the sober seems far more prominent than the indiscreet. Former Gawker editor Emily Gould (a friend) wrote poignantly about the highs and lows of her post-breakup life a few years ago but has since pulled back and started a much less personal blog where she writes mostly about cooking and eating.

Jessica Grose, Slate, 5/11/10

And finally, a quote not directly related to sex-positivity, but rather a general assessment of the way that the feminist blogosphere does business, from a former sex blogger:

It’s a prime example of the feminist blogosphere’s tendency to tap into the market force of what I’ve come to think of as “outrage world”—the regularly occurring firestorms stirred up on mainstream, for-profit, woman-targeted blogs like Jezebel and also, to a lesser degree, Slate’s own XX Factor and Salon‘s Broadsheet. They’re ignited by writers who are pushing readers to feel what the writers claim is righteously indignant rage but which is actually just petty jealousy, cleverly marketed as feminism. These firestorms are great for page-view-pimping bloggy business. But they promote the exact opposite of progressive thought and rational discourse, and the comment wars they elicit almost inevitably devolve into didactic one-upsmanship and faux-feminist cliché. The vibe is less sisterhood-is-powerful than middle-school clique in-fight, with anyone who dares to step outside of chalk-drawn lines delimiting what’s “empowering” and “anti-feminist” inevitably getting flamed and shamed to bits.

Emily Gould, Slate Double X, 7/6/10

I respect those feminists brave enough to take on the Snarky Sinister Sisters of No-Strings Sex. It’s never easy to speak truth to power.

One Pingback/Trackback

  • Esau

    Linguists will tell you that a qualifier has no meaning unless it has a recognized opposite or alternative. Hence, for “sex-positive feminism” to make any sense as a phrase, it must have been in contrast to some earlier “sex-negative feminism” even if the latter wasn’t called that explicitly. (See “compassionate conservative” for a similar turn.)

    .

    When I was coming of age in the 1970’s and 1980’s I would say that “sex-negative feminism” was what still filled the air of polite and “progressive” society. Coming off the “fish/bicycle” line of thought, sex was held to be bad for women simply because it was something that men wanted, and since men were always the villains of the world it must be that anything they wanted had to be bad for women. Pure anti-male opposition, which made it easy to demean and dismiss men as selfish, leering, would-be rapists, every one. Any American who was alive at the time surely remembers this phase — which wave was it? — of feminist thought. The basic tenent was that, for a man even to think sexually about a woman, any woman, was a crime of oppression, and he just an … appendage .. of the evil patriarchy.

    .

    The pure version of this view was never held by more than a tiny minority of women, but they had the cultural mojo at the time and everyone who went to college had to respond somehow. As I remember it, large numbers of a younger generation of women rejected the fish/bicycle-derived conclusion that men were essentially — ie, in their essence — dirty and revolting beings, since a lot of young women couldn’t rationally deny that they liked having sex and liked having men — at least, certain men — think about them sexually. Feminism was able to absorb this feeling, though, by simply upping the ante of female supremacy: having sex with those (evil, dirty) men was OK as long as it was what the woman wanted and as long as she was in control. Thus sex-positive feminism was born.

    .

    I can still remember first hearing about the appearance of “sex-positive feminism,” and the related term “do-me feminism,” and feeling rather uplifted — at least, at first. The old, men-are-evil, male-sexual-desire-is-evil frame had been so depressing! It made me — and I don’t think I was at all alone here — feel hesitant and defensive even asking for a date! as though I was guilty before the fact and had to apologize simply for desiring someone. Really, it was a drag all around. So when “sex-positive” was mentioned it implicitly negated the old “sex-negative” view, and seemed like potentially a great advance for society — not to mention for my personal sex life in particular.

    .

    Of course, it didn’t work out that way. Sex-positive feminism was really just another incarnation of female supremacy, the idea that women as a group are never wrong and can never legitimately be criticized for how they choose to deal with mean and the world. The feminist view of history — which I think is not completely wrong — is that criticism of women is essentially always a tool for the control of women. And since the attempt to control women, by men or by society, is the ultimate evil in the feminist view, then criticism must be stamped out whenever it appears, and from whoever. This explains what some may think of as the surprisingly hostile reaction Susan receives from feminists when criticizing (constructively, she hopes) the decisions of women, either at large or an individual.

    .

    The result is that sex-positive feminism is primarily about endorsing whatever any woman feels “naturally” like doing, and shielding her from criticism. And, what women naturally felt like doing all through the 1980’s and into the 1990’s was keeping beta nerds like me as far away as possible. So my dream that “sex-positive” meant sex that was positive for me crumbled in the wind. I had previously thought that women were sort of generally anti-sex, and once they became generally pro-sex then sex would be easier to come by for everyone. But the truth was that women simply switched from “Go away, evil lecher” to “Go away, I can have whatever I want, and he’s not you” as the proximate method for keeping the undesirables at bay.

    .

    So, taking the long view I can’t really say that another turn of the wheel interests me all that much. Even if, as this post implies, the foundations of sex-positive feminism are cracking, what are the chances that whatever new view follows it will be any better for my younger counterparts today? The late William Safire used to quote his grandmother as meeting any news of the world with the question, “Is it good for the Jews?” I take a similar approach to any news of change in relations between the sexes: “Is it good for the decent betas?” ie will this change make life better solid, kind, decent young men who don’t happen to be socially dominant, or able to imitate it? None of the changes wrought by feminism since 1970 have been good for the decent betas in this sense, and I don’t see much reason to think that the next turn of the wheel will be essentially — ie in its essence — any different in this regard.

    .

    In short, you can keep your revolution, and your counter-revolution, if neither one helps to get me laid.

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

    So, taking the long view I can’t really say that another turn of the wheel interests me all that much. Even if, as this post implies, the foundations of sex-positive feminism are cracking, what are the chances that whatever new view follows it will be any better for my younger counterparts today? The late William Safire used to quote his grandmother as meeting any news of the world with the question, “Is it good for the Jews?” I take a similar approach to any news of change in relations between the sexes: “Is it good for the decent betas?” ie will this change make life better solid, kind, decent young men who don’t happen to be socially dominant, or able to imitate it? None of the changes wrought by feminism since 1970 have been good for the decent betas in this sense, and I don’t see much reason to think that the next turn of the wheel will be essentially — ie in its essence — any different in this regard.

    I agree with this. Feminism is still feminism. One of the reasons why my blog is called Omega Virgin REVOLT is that without a revolt against feminism by men and for men, the condition of men will not improve. The whole edifice needs to be taken down.

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

    @Esau

    In short, you can keep your revolution, and your counter-revolution, if neither one helps to get me laid.

    Fair enough. Truth be told, I do believe that Sex Pos Fem is going down, but I don’t think it will really matter much. They’re a bunch of clamoring voices online, and on college campuses to some extent, but most of the culture can be traced to the fallout of the Sexual Revolution. As you say, when female sexuality was unleashed, hypergamy metasticized, and decent betas got shunted aside. I don’t think that the collapse of SPF will change that, in fact I know it won’t. It’s really more of an intellectual debate, and a personal one. I want to see these women acknowledge that the consequences of the Sex Rev, some of which were unintended, have screwed most women and men.
    In practical terms, this battle will continue to be fought one decent man, one decent woman at a time. We should not underestimate the innate desire of humans to pair bond.

  • (r)Evolutionary

    Great work in aggregating all those quotes, Susan. It’s interesting out there, and your work’s a torch in the dark.

    “In practical terms, this battle will continue to be fought one decent man, one decent woman at a time. We should not underestimate the innate desire of humans to pair bond.”

    True, that.

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

      @(r)Ev
      Thanks for the vote of confidence. I’m glad you appreciated the work that went into this post – it took me hours, but without any analysis it looks like it could have been put together in ten minutes, haha.

  • http://FT.com VJ

    You know, witnessing much of the same history as Esau, I can not quibble much with his thoughts here. I think start to finish, I’ve never seen or witnessed anything much more than disdain & contempt by any of such ‘vanguards’ of humanity or ‘righteousness’ of the feminist movement & cause (and/or any version of same) for these ‘better betas’. Even those who essentially agreed with their stated aims. Always. That’s a constant down through history with very few exceptions. The feminists never had much truck with them, and were always somehow more amenable to still screwing the very same seemingly ‘oppressive’ Alphas on the side. Or wherever they found them actually. All too often, ideology and doctrine be damned when the ‘hunks’ showed some sort of interest. The cave men are still winning.

    The evolved, ‘sensitive new age guys’ (such as they were ever noticed), were mocked derisively up & down the coasts as not much more than an unwanted, severely undesirable fashion statement. Nothing more, nothing less. Not much thought or discussion that I’m aware of ever went into such a massive contradiction of the central premise of the entire prospect. Demand that everyone treat women more as humans? Legally consider them equal to men, everywhere? Check. Have every new generation of ‘nubile females’ then wickedly go on to apply the same age old but always deeply deceptive Spencerian sorts of ‘fitness tests’ for all those who would seek ‘sexual access’ to them? Sure let that continue, in the name of ‘better orgasms’ or the ‘great dick hunt’, whatever. See absolutely no contradiction in the goals & aims of one end of the spectrum while continuing to choose poorly on the other? Check & double check.

    Finally? For this age set, which I’ll define as the 20’s & early 30’s+, it’s a ‘free fire zone’ of sexuality. Where they’re given over to all sorts of experimentation, LUG’s, Bi’s, Polys, multiples & multitudes are fine. That’s not likely to change soon. Neither is the fact that the ‘girl next door’ is now a established classification of p0rn, and you’ll never quite know what that shy coy smile might be hiding. Other than a love for ‘easy money’ & a willingness & capacity to get there as quickly as possible with few qualms.

    But what any decent respectable person might want changed is the ideology & the crass gross hypocrisy. Want to spend your 20’s on the ‘great dick hunt’? Known far & wide & proudly as a ‘size queen’? Demanding that every guy you ‘date’ measure up in the same way all the loutishly dangerous but always semi-employed itinerant rouges did as ‘performance artists’ in the bedroom? Then sure, we really are going to take your ideas about how serious you are about your future objectives as an Adult a tiny bit more frivolously & Less seiously. After all, it’s how you spent your life up until now, and that’s all the evidence we’ve got.

    One hand washes the other. The seriousness of intent & purpose can not rely on mere sexuality alone. By much of anyone. Not now, not ever. Not on ‘good looks’ either, BTW. As a philosophy as a way of life & living, this was & ever remains pretty obvious to anyone who cares to actually stop & think about the issues involved. Why it somehow continues to elude much of humanity is an eternal mystery. But it’s not just the guys being ‘led by their gonads’ now. It’s also proudly & openly women too. Now that’s some progress! Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • Anonymous

    I am the filmmaker of Spitting Game: The College Hook Up Culture.I made my film about 3 years ago & what I have learned is that most young women do not like “the rules” of this patriarchal hook up game. I have talked to hundreds of female students & what I am hearing is that guys seem to be uber-afraid of anything that even smacks of a committed or monogamus relationship. The choice given is “hook up or go without for four years.” So for those of you who think that the guys aren’t calling the shots in the hook up world–THINK AGAIN. Not only are they clearly calling the shots, but the rules of the game keep getting harder to figure out. A majority of communication is done by text or with the “shield” of social networks to protect them from the ever dreaded “live human connection” & very few guys will actually call to have a conversation about anything other than where to meet up later. And forget about actually sitting across a dinner table or having a one on one moment that requires in-depth conversation-it just ain’t happening much. There is no interest in “getting to know anyone.” & there is also no social push for boyfriend/girlfriend relationships.

    Of course there are those women that say they can have a friends with benefits & some do. BUT, even in those situations I have heard LOTS of stories about women developing feelings for their FWB & then being disappointed when they were not returned. And as far as “hooking up” goes…(which BTW means “Sex” to the consensus of college students I interviewed.If they just kissed then it is “making out.” If anything else happens beyond kissing, meaning foreplay of any kind, oral sex, or sexual intercourse, then it is HOOKING UP.)… most of the sex happening in hook ups is totally male-centric; meaning it is all about his orgasm (if he can still get it up after all that binge drinking) as the main event. Sorry, but female pleasure in drunken hook ups just isn’t happening very often.

    The entire set up for hook ups mitigates sexual pleasure for women. NOT ALL WOMEN-there are those that claim that hooking up works for them. They say they don’t like the added pressure of having an emotional attachment with a partner, but they still want to have sex. So, to those women, I say,”Okay, what ever floats your boat.” I do believe it could work out for some women, BUT once again, that is not what I am hearing from the majority of young women on campus. Most want more from their relationships with men & why shouldn’t they? Why shouldn’t women get what they want too? Why has emotional attachment & true intimacy become so taboo? You can’t even say those words in the sex-positive sectors of the feminist world without getting a lecture on how women can have emotionally detached sex if they want. Why is it suddenly “not okay” or not politically correct to want to have relationship sex that is based on mutual feelings, love,& commitment?

    Gender Equality, in the heteronormative expression of sexuality, is not balanced or equal in any way, shape, or form. IT is a bonafide myth. Patriarchy still rules. The big buzz word in the Sex Positive community is “AGENCY.” And while I do believe women have agency to make their own sexual choices within the hook up culture, as soon as you add alcohol or other drugs into that picture, then all agency is lost. Lets not fool ourselves here & say that college students are having SOBER sexual encounters with open communication about sex & intimacy..come on..get real!

    And while I like to believe in a world where women can express their own “AGENCY” to have sex with who ever they want, when they want, & how ever many times they want; within the hook up culture the threat of a bad reputation (however sexist that may be) or RAPE is very, very real. The hook up culture promotes rape culture on campus & there is no denying that, although I am sure some people will try.

    I can’t speak to all the underlying factors of how the hook up culture power balance got so unbalanced, but I am hoping to open some eyes with my film. Not only to bring into focus the amount of sexual violence happening on our campuses, but to push back the patriarchal pendulum before it swings out any further.

    http://www.collegehookupculture.com

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

      @Anonymous/Denice
      Thanks for that extremely informative comment. Your film is something I’ve referred to again and again. There are so many moments during the interviews you conducted where I still feel a chill run up my spine. I’d like to see it become part of every sex ed program, or be shown to every high school senior.

  • nothingbutthetruth

    (Beginning of rant)

    Well, I have skimmed the texts: I am so sleepy right now to read them completely. But, as it is usual in texts written by women, there’s something lacking:

    Instrospection, responsibility

    Of course, it is always somebody else’s fault. If some women want to dress like sluts, it is not their fault: they are FORCED by men to do that, poor victims. Men put a gun on their head and force them to choose the most slutty dress. (Apparently this does not happen with more conservative women, who dress in a non-slutty way: how they can escape being forced to dress like a whore is one of the misteries of the Universe)

    Women demanded sexual liberation (that is, the right of having casual sex without being shamed) and then they see casual sex is happenning. Oh, the horror!!! Now it’s the culture’s fault or men’s fault that the right of casual sex is used to have casual sex instead of, say, reading “The feminine mystique” or becoming members of NOW.

    Are women able to say something like “It’s my fault”, “I have screwed it up”? Apparently no (the writer of this post, who is 40, has NEVER heard a woman to utter these words, not even in patriarchal societies). It is always somebody else’s fault or there is always some convenient rationalization to reject the responsibility.

    It is obvious that this is a world where “guys rule”, where “guys have it so easy” with so many women being sluts only to have a chance of their attention, where guys have all the power. This is why most guys spend all their 20s in a state of celibacy being ignored or despised by women. This is the power they have: to choose between being alone or hiring a whore. They seem very powerful to me.

    Nobody will write articles or books full with outrage because these young men are not able to have love or sex during their 20s. Apparently this is not a problem: after all, they are only men (when women have the same problem in midlife, there are lots of books and magazines written about this same problem).

    It has not dawn on these outraged commentators that men are human beings too, that they have feelings too. It is always about the women (whether the sluts or the women who are shocked about the slutdoms).

    In short, while many men are rotting in their 20’s, women are competing for a few alphas and they decide to behave like sluts in order to attract one of this alphas. It is their decision to shun the betas. It is their decision to use sexuality as a weapon to ensnare an alpha. Nobody forces them. So please spare us all these victimhood stories and whiny accounts about how bad the situation is for women. They have what they want.

    (End of rant)

  • http://StuartSchneiderman.blogspot.com Stuart Schneiderman

    That’s a great collection of serious thought about hooking up, casual sex, and the general slutification of American women.

    Still, if women really do want more than casual hookups, and if serious feminists have told them that they should have the kinds of relationships that they want, then why is it that the hookup culture is so pervasive?

    It would almost seem that feminism has disempowered women at levels that are difficult to grasp.

    As I recall it, sex positive feminism came into existence when radical feminists, mixing Freud and Marx, decided that the capitalist patriarchy had built its industries and oppressed the masses by repressing sexuality, especially female sexuality, most especially the female orgasm. Ergo, each orgasm was a revolutionary act, a revolt against the patriarchy…

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

      It would almost seem that feminism has disempowered women at levels that are difficult to grasp.

      This is a very interesting thought, Stuart. It’s really the elephant in the room, IMO. I think a primary problem is that what feminists are really saying is that women should have the kind of relationships that feminists want. We see this played out in the Mommy wars – two disparate teams pitted against one another, arguing that either a woman must work outside the home, or must prioritize her children by staying home if at all possible. Women are under intense pressure culturally to live up to the objectives of the women’s movement. One of the things that I’ve been accused of the most by feminists is that I’m trying to send women back to a time when they had no choice but to endure lives of drudgery and abusive husbands. This is just a tactic to shut up any dissent, in my view.

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

    To NothingButtTheTruth: I would definitely like to hear more on the POV of college guys (sans “the rant”) As an investigative filmmaker I can see that in order to create more balance in the hook up culture we definitely need to get into the minds & hearts of the men on campus. I believe there is an entirely other side to this that needs to be explored. One of the biggest problems I had in interviewing students for my documentary was getting guys to talk about the realities they faced within the hook up culture on their campus. I had no shortage of women coming forth to air their complaints and concerns, but not the guys. Although I could easly get guys to talk specifically about their hook ups, they were really not available to talk about how their true thoughts or feelings. Now granted that was only two years worth of trying to get guys to come forward with some REAL TALK, and I was on a budget and really couldn’t afford to wait any longer. I set up many a private interview with guys who bailed out or just plain didn’t show up! I had some women who did that too, but I did note that it was mainly the guys who bailed out at the last minute…so, I am just sayin…

    However, I am thinking that now that there is so much open dialogue about this that perhaps I can get interviews with guys like yourself who will tell it like it is, for them, on a personal level instead of being silent or silenced as the case may be. So, tell me, why do YOU think I couldn’t get guys to come forth and speak plainly and truthfully about the realities of dating, mating, and hooking up in college? And since you don’t know me, you will just have to accept the fact that I was genuine, accessible, and non-judgemental when I did all my interviews. Any information you can offer me would be greatly appreciated!

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

    Susan,

    I agree with everyone about the great work you have done in putting together all these quotes! They speak volumes on the reality of this situation!

  • J

    @Anonymous at 9:41 am

    Excellent analysis of the situation. Hooking-up is a game that is rigged against young women. They can’t win and shouldn’t play.

    @Susan

    In practical terms, this battle will continue to be fought one decent man, one decent woman at a time. We should not underestimate the innate desire of humans to pair bond.

    There’s the take-away comment from this whole discussion.

    As I may have said either here or at Dalrock, in my discussions with college age women, I hear that among sub-groups of students with things in common, dating is making a resurgence. For example, musicians who jam together also date each other. The literary types who swap poems and short stories date each other. Social life around the Hillel House (Jewish) or Newman Center (RC) still leads to dates. The key to dating seems to be common interests and values.

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

      @J

      The key to dating seems to be common interests and values.

      Absolutely, and this has never been more true than it is now for college students. The best approach for someone wanting a relationship is to join groups with similar interests. Make friends. Meet their friends, etc. The worst approach is to keep doing the things that are perpetually disappointing – hoping to meet a good guy at a huge party, or going out to bars every night. It’s fine to do that stuff if that’s the social scene, but it’s a very bad idea to rely on those encounters for anything other than a hookup, which is what they generally offer.
      This is true after college too, and is especially important in urban centers where it’s generally harder to meet people.

  • nothingbutthetruth

    To: Denice Ann.

    Your comment is interesting but I am rushing to job (rush hour).

    I appreciate your honesty in trying to get the other side of the story. You are right that men are not prone to express their feelings (and this is why you have had so much problems to hear the male’s side of the history although you have tried once and again). As men, we have been shamed from our earliest childhood to express our feelings. The only feeling permitted to a man is anger (which is the only one forbidden to a woman). A woman cries and whines and everybody wants to help. A man cries and whies and he is a pathetic wimp who is despised by men and women alike.

    If you want, I can provide you with the scientific base of these statements but not right now.

    Anyway, if you ever get men to tell you their side, please don’t only interview the men that women desire, the ones women compete for. Interview all kinds of men and you can be surprised.

    IMHO, women have a way to avoid the hookup culture: giving a chance to betas. This would be the most sensible thing to do: the thing that their foremothers did. Most women (as most men) are betas so they can get betas.

    But they prefer to have alphas (which is understandable, since are more attractive), even if they have to submit to the hookup culture. They use sex to try to ensnare a guy who is out of their league. It is their decision and they can whine and whine about it because whining is free.

    Of course, they would prefer to have an alpha AND not to have hookups. Yes, and I want to be wealthy and have a harem of young hot wives.

  • Sox

    IMHO, women have a way to avoid the hookup culture: giving a chance to betas. This would be the most sensible thing to do: the thing that their foremothers did. Most women (as most men) are betas so they can get betas.

    But they prefer to have alphas (which is understandable, since are more attractive), even if they have to submit to the hookup culture. They use sex to try to ensnare a guy who is out of their league. It is their decision and they can whine and whine about it because whining is free.

    Seconded, although it’s true that we can’t hope to alter what makes someone attractive. The problem nothingbutthetruth alludes to is the way “empowerment” has led to the delusion that women CAN get these men’s commitment at all, and that having sex like men is the way to get there.

    It’s a little like betas being told that if they’re nice, respectful, and display good character around a prom queen, they might get a chance with her. You might think this analogy doesn’t fit, but consider the dynamic. You ever hear of a guy who’s a girl’s “emotional tampon”? The type of guy that is the shoulder to cry on, the surrogate bf without any of the sexual benefits. Women who prematurely submit to men are used for sex; men who prematurely submit to women are used for emotional support. If the women in question are actually content with just the sex and none of the emotional investment, then power to them…however my experience has been that they need to get that commitment/support from somewhere. If betas stopped letting themselves be LJBF’d and used, women might realize that alpha-chasing is ultimately unfulfilling. This also speaks to the phenomenon of men being less…manly now corresponding with women finding even less men attractive/pursuing their hypergamy.

    There are caveats though. I’m no alpha, I probably waivered between a lesser alpha/greater beta type in college. It wasn’t hard for me to find hookups. Things can be exaggerated a bit. That being said, while I did alright, my less committed, more douchey friends in frats were literally swimming in poon. I’d imagine I’d have been pretty frustrated if I wasn’t getting *any*.

    The post-college hookup scene is even worse for men IMO, as both sexes become loaded down with more baggage and get more jaded and and guarded and want to maximize their power relative to the opposite sex. Women’s sense of entitlement also seems to skyrocket after college. This is more prevalent in urban centers. I’m not blaming women for this – they’re fed lies just like men are. Men need to start wising up too.

  • jess

    To Denice
    Good luck with that
    I have a feeling that it will not be so easy to get a college guy to admit on camera that he cant get laid and hes never been kissed.
    When i was at uni there was a subset of guys (usually in metallica shirts and into physics/ICT) who were totally off the radar.
    I would imagine their sex life was radically different to the guys in the rugby team.
    But there were also girls who, becuase of dress sense, or weight, or whatever would also be in an equivalent camp.
    The trick you have is getting them to talk- but who wants to admit to a stanger that they are… well…sexually unattractive/unsuccesful?
    Susan says 80/20, I would say 60/40 in my day.
    If its got worse in the past 20 years thats a real shame- and I put it downto US culture.
    The Orange County, MTV, everyones so dawn good looking and superficial!

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

    @VJ

    I’ve never seen or witnessed anything much more than disdain & contempt by any of such ‘vanguards’ of humanity or ‘righteousness’ of the feminist movement & cause (and/or any version of same) for these ‘better betas’. Even those who essentially agreed with their stated aims.

    I would say especially those who agreed with their stated aims.
    The truth is that SPF most benefits the men least sympathetic to feminism, least likely to see a woman as anything more than a vagina. Straight men who proudly declare themselves feminists are often treated as eunuchs, as empowered women bestow their sexual favors on men who blatantly state they’re not looking for anything more than a “casual encounter.” Also, quite a few of these women identify as queer. I’m not sure if that is a political statement, or indicates a sexual preference, but either way it says something about the way they feel about men.

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

    @NothingButtheTruth

    IMHO, women have a way to avoid the hookup culture: giving a chance to betas. This would be the most sensible thing to do: the thing that their foremothers did. Most women (as most men) are betas so they can get betas.

    Agree 100%, but will ask you the same question I ask all the men who say this. What does “giving a chance” look like? Do women need to initiate? I fear the sexes have gotten so far apart that it will take more than mere proximity. I accept that women need to signal interest somehow. But only the most sexually aggressive females do this with regularity, and they’re obviously going for different guys.

  • Average Joe

    @ Denice Ann Evans
    Gender Equality, in the heteronormative expression of sexuality, is not balanced or equal in any way, shape, or form. IT is a bonafide myth. Patriarchy still rules.

    Oh please. Don’t ever utter “patriarchy” unless you are talking economics. Sexuality is a matriarchy and college campuses are one of the few places/times men get to exercise more sexual power than they are typically afforded.

    It’s quite obvious that Friday parties, coed floors/bathrooms, spring break, underage drinking and such, all are used by men to make sex more readily available to us than women alone are prone to offer. However these mechanisms all but disappear after college, when it’s back to woman the “gatekeeper”.

    You really need to update your definition of power so that it’s not so man hating. If a male engineer makes 30% more than an equivalent female engineer it reveals S.T.E.M. is male dominated. Similarly when a woman can put herself through school from weekend stripping rather than digging ditches like a guy, it reveals sex is female dominated. I know you’re a feminist, but you don’t get to change what constitutes “power” simply because it’s convenient. There is no such thing as sexual patriarchy.. because it is never women who do the “paying”.

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

    @Sox

    Women who prematurely submit to men are used for sex; men who prematurely submit to women are used for emotional support.

    Well put and exactly right.

    If betas stopped letting themselves be LJBF’d and used, women might realize that alpha-chasing is ultimately unfulfilling.

    An interesting idea – it addresses my previous comment. What guys need to learn is that providing unconditional emotional support is a poor strategy, and a total ladyboner killer. Each new wave of young men who adopts this strategy and fails is a lesson in what not to do, but it’s understandable that guys feel that being a terrific friend and person will get them a terrific girl. It can, but not if benefits are given unconditionally.

    The post-college hookup scene is even worse for men IMO, as both sexes become loaded down with more baggage and get more jaded and and guarded and want to maximize their power relative to the opposite sex.

    I see this power struggle being played out in nearly all relationships, even the casual hookups. The Principle of Least Interest probably guides more interactions today than anything else. It’s a terrible waste.

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

    @Average Joe

    However these mechanisms all but disappear after college, when it’s back to woman the “gatekeeper”.

    The light at the end of the tunnel? From your lips to God’s ears.

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

    To Average Joe: My “oops.” (I am new to this blog post thing where everyone picks apart every word, sentence, sentence structure, and the meaning of every word used and how its used and who used it and the possible reasoning behind why they used it in that way…it is all just a little too time consuming for me to even think about.)

    My post is all about the college hook up culture and only about that, so I will clarify (this one time) for the sake of having to be so politically correct and precise these days; “Gender Equality, in the heteronormative expression of sexuality, is not balanced or equal in any way, shape, or form. IT is a bonafide myth. Patriarchy still rules.” I meant it in the context of my post, which was all about the college hook up culture. So, I see where it was too much of a generalized statement. What I will change it to is: “Gender Equality within the college hook up culture, in the heteronormative expression of sexuality, is not balanced or equal in any way, shape, or form. IT is a bonafide myth. Patriarchy still rules….”

    Although, I will beg to differ on your version of Gender Equality after college, BUT that is another blog post for another day when I have some extra time to delve into it. :-))

  • http://clarissethorn.wordpress.com Clarisse Thorn

    To recap a point I already made on another of your posts:

    .

    I don’t get it. Why are you attacking sex-positive feminism as if it’s one big juggernaut when you clearly have so many points of agreement with sex-positive feminists like myself? I’ve already linked to my post Liberal, Sex-Positive Sex Education: What’s Missing, which tries to incorporate a lot of the elements that you seem to think are absent from the current sex-positive perspective.

    .

    As a side note, I don’t see points of disagreement within the sex-positive movement (or any movement) as signs of the movement’s demise. I see them as signs of its health.

  • J

    Absolutely, and this has never been more true than it is now for college students. The best approach for someone wanting a relationship is to join groups with similar interests. Make friends. Meet their friends, etc

    LOL. My first entry into the man-o-sphere was a post to that effect. Then I got the standard memes about the shaming language, the carousel, etc.

    It’s true though. There’s plenty of research that shows that people who build a social network based on interests and values have more access to meeting new people and finding love. Most people meet their spouses through friends and family. I think that the ideas of mimicking alpha behavior through game and of sexual attraction, not friendship, being the first step in a relationship appeal to some men exacty because they do lack a social network. Game is more learnable and controllable than developing a whole social network. If you lack social skills, (And what is game but social skill remediation?) buying a hat like Mystery’s or taking a seminar is much easier than developing a network.

    This is true after college too, and is especially important in urban centers where it’s generally harder to meet people.

    Which is a pity as most people will never again be in another that offers so many unattached people of the opposite sex in a lower pressure enviornment than a bar.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    The problem is that once a guy enters into a committed relationship, he finds himself with a whole new list of responsibilities and expectations.

    What are the responsibilities and expectations placed on girls once they enter into relationships? As far
    The problem is simple… For guys, making a commitment comes with high cost and few benefits. Who in their right mind would want go make a transaction like that?

  • Snowdrop111

    “…Of course, that doesn’t do much for young women in the here and now who are suffering from their extreme need for male validation that young men are exploiting. What do we do for them?”

    Teach them that men actually see right through that need for validation–whether the woman in question is sobbing into a pillow or acting loud and brazen at a bar–and see it as a weakness. Teach them that men might fall in love with a woman whether or not she has sex, based on qualities they view as good inner qualities–but the need for validation, not only do they see right through, they see it as a weakness. There are certain characteristics generally ascribed to men that generally women see as a weakness. Well, the need for validation is one that men see right through and view as a weakness.

    Also, teach them that the need for validation by the female queen bee’s and their A-lists based on who has boyfriends or wild sex tales is a weakness that holds us back, limits our happiness severely, and we CAN live without. In fact we can find better boyfriends without.

    “I’m not really sure that telling them to quit fucking is going to get the job done, because it doesn’t address the underlying issue. If you’re the sole individual, you get no benefit from that, since the guys will just take their validating attention to others who are willing to play ball.”

    That kind of attention is not “validating.” Again, if a woman is having sex out of fear, men see right through that, and don’t “validate,” like, or want to stay around it. They rightfully see it as a weakness–even though they have their own weaknesses. If we women could get over this particular weakness, we would so RULE. But it will take work and superhuman strength…men would notice and totally respect if we REALLY got over this kind of fear and need for validation whether from them on our arm, or our female queen bee peers to whom we hand over power to judge us “social pariahs.”

    ” If women come together collectively to withhold sex, I still don’t think that’s going to work out, because the underlying issue—that men get to define women in these youth cultures—hasn’t been addressed at all, and you’re still going to have women sobbing into their pillows because lack of male validation is leaving them as social pariahs.”

    Teach women not to judge other women by whether they have boyfriends and/or wild sex tales.

  • Average Joe

    @ Denice Ann Evans.
    Gender Equality within the college hook up culture, in the heteronormative expression of sexuality, is not balanced or equal in any way, shape, or form. IT is a bonafide myth. Patriarchy still rules…

    Nope. You still got it wrong. College sex is not a patriarchy, it is a diminished matriarchy that your broken compass mistakes for male dominance. Men have more sexual power in college than they do at most other points in their life, but that doesn’t mean that college women still don’t hold a big sexual power edge over their male peers. If college sex was “patriarchal” you can be sure that sex on Monday’s, not just Fridays would be the norm. And coed’s would be “putting out” without getting free beer too. In a nutshell, women in college still have more sexual power than men, just not as much as they typically do outside of academia. As I said before no flip flopping on the definition of “power” is allowed.

  • Lo

    I love you Susan! All this sex-positive feminist stuff is nuts. Women are deluding themselves if they think that by being brazenly sexual they have all the power. Truth is, they just set up the foundation for the hookup culture to happen. Tally the numbers of so called sex-positive feminists against the numbers of confused girls (like me!) who just want sex and love to go hand in hand, and see who wins… I see you did that in your last post, pretty obvious who won!

    It’s a long debate and of course everyone has their own opinions. But sex and the pursuit of sex has always been, for as long as we have been getting it on, a mans game. I’m pretty sure that sex-positive feminism does absolutely nothing to change that. In fact, it just validates it even more, as these women are just giving in to EXACTLY what (most) men want – easy sex! Wouldn’t it be more empowering to NOT give in? To have the power to say no, to be a little mysterious, to make a man want to chase you a little? Call me old fashioned, but being a ‘slut’ isn’t commonly accepted as a good thing. I certainly wouldn’t want to be called a slut.

    Sure sex is fun, but sex with someone who respects you and even loves you is so much more fun. We all deserve to feel how special that is, and I for one hope the foundation of sex-positive feminism falls to pieces. Finding that special something in this hookup culture is hard enough as it is!

  • Average Joe

    @Clarisse Thorn

    I don’t get it. Why are you attacking sex-positive feminism as if it’s one big juggernaut when you clearly have so many points of agreement with sex-positive feminists like myself?

    Can you get this?
    Amanda and JF collectively have a internet voice 1000 times louder than yours so what do you think we hear when the “sex possies” have something to say?

  • Snowdrop111

    “What are the responsibilities and expectations placed on girls once they enter into relationships?”

    Stay with him and build him up when he experiences a bad day. Demonstrate trust that he will pass the exam next time or whatever it is. Don’t make him worry if you are out at bars on the nights when he needs to study. I have seen loyal girlfriends who are totally like “Jake needs to study” and then I have seen girlfriends whose egos are wounded when Jake needs to study, out at the bar “I can’t hear you, my phone’s breaking up”

    Talk up his good qualities even when other women try to pick him apart. This shows other women that you can stand up to that girl-peer-pressure. Don’t be jealous if a mean girl acts like your boyfriend isn’t wealthy enough or sharp enough etc. Support his good qualities and say what they are–this will help show other women they can break the power of the mean queen bee to dictate what kind of guy is a good boyfriend. If a mean queen bee sneers that he’s from Dayton or something, respond with one of his good qualities instead of let it simmer and pick him apart because the mean queen bee undermined him. If that means you get kicked out of the mean queen bee’s circle because your boyfriend is from Dayton and drives a beat up pickup, find a new circle if need be and be happy. THIS IS HARD. Appreciate the good qualities about him if he really is good. Not all “nice guys” are as emotionally good for a woman as they seem to think they would be, but if he really is, appreciate his good qualities.

  • Snowdrop111

    Oh, one more thing that girlfriends should do … realize that guys are not a checklist you can order the perfect man by checking off all the good qualities you would like (made to order.) Even if your girlfriends persist in thinking men should be like checklists you can order. Men are a package deal, and some good qualities are much harder to find than others. Make sure your dealbreakers are important ones, and accept him as he is even if he doesn’t have the less important qualities. Some of your female friends are going to keep thinking the perfect man is out there somewhere even into their 50’s and 60’s and make fun of men who aren’t tall enough or don’t know the wine list…let it go. Happiness is not found that way even though women are so socialized to think happiness comes from pleasing the most exacting of our female peers! Happiness can come from finding a nice guy who’s really our friend even if he doesn’t know the wine list but we have to stand up to the female friend (or Mom, Dad, sister or whoever) who persists in thinking that’s a dealbreaker. Sorry for the lecture. I think there’s more mean queen bee peer pressure going on among women, including feminists, than people talk about, and some of it includes disparaging other women’s boyfriends for meaningless external qualities. NOT ALWAYS but yes, this happens among professing feminists. Women need to forge more of their own way and yes I’m lecturing myself about this.

  • Snowdrop111

    Susan, Hank Moody is the character in Californication right? When did he say the quote cited above? What was the context? Just curious, thanks.

  • http://clarissethorn.wordpress.com Clarisse Thorn

    @Average Joe:
    .
    Amanda and JF collectively have a internet voice 1000 times louder than yours so what do you think we hear when the “sex possies” have something to say?
    .
    Well, gosh. I just kind of figured that someone who is out there making generalized statements about the sex-positive movement would bother to research it a little bit more, you know? On Susan’s other thread about JF I was mentioned within the first few comments, so it’s obviously not too hard to find me.
    .
    Now, it’s pretty clear that you, Average Joe, are not interested in doing much beyond shooting off your mouth. I suppose that I can’t expect someone who uses patronizing phrases like “sex possies” to actually bother trying to understand variations in our perspective. Have you tried reading Yes Means Yes? To read more than a few sex-positive bloggers? To engage people productively rather than just throwing stereotypes around?
    .
    I’m making an example of you, actually, because I don’t think you’re going to say anything interesting. You’re obviously more interested in whining and making excitable blanket statements than doing any serious thinking. But I would hope for better of someone like the original poster Susan, who — like me — does actual work in the real world, such as running workshops at colleges. I don’t like being at odds with other feminists, so I could see myself wanting to work with someone like me if she weren’t so eager to dismiss my perspective out of hand.
    .

  • http://clarissethorn.wordpress.com Clarisse Thorn

    I don’t like being at odds with other feminists, so I could see myself wanting to work with someone like me if she weren’t so eager to dismiss my perspective out of hand.

    This sentence should have read:

    I don’t like being at odds with other feminists, so I could see myself wanting to work with someone like Susan if she weren’t so eager to dismiss my perspective out of hand.

  • Average Joe

    @Lo

    Wouldn’t it be more empowering to NOT give in?

    Not as much as having the option to both give in and not give in whenever it was convenient…to flip flop as needed for personal gain.

    In other words use sex as a tool.

    That’s the main reason sex possie feminists routinely and vigorously attack the word “slut” Without stigma you could …have sex for money, withhold sex as punishment, have sex with someone else to hurt a mate, have sex to get ahead of rivals at work. Notice how sex possies generally fight against any definition of sex as an expression of ONLY affection/love/lust. Virtue and ethics limit power and control ,which they are against because of how much potential power is available to women in controlling sex.

  • Average Joe

    @ Clarisse Thorn

    Have you tried reading Yes Means Yes? To read more than a few sex-positive bloggers? To engage people productively rather than just throwing stereotypes around?

    Actually the book made me like sex possies a lot less. The entire title (which you forgot to include) is visions of female sexual power & a world without rape.

    Such a warm and welcoming title eh? So positive it is.

    Do me a favor let me know you can tell the difference between facts and feelings and then I will give you ample opportunity to try and make and example out of me. Until then you are just making yourself look bad.

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

    Hey Average Joe…how many college age women have you interviewed about this over the past four years? Your definition may be semantically tied up in a neat little bow, but it doesn’t fit into any sort of real world application for what is truly happening on college campuses. The college women I have talked to personally, on the subject of hooking up, feel that the guys have ALL the power & control because most of the guys (not all obviously) will only spend time with them or call them if they want to hook up or think they might hook up. Women feel pressured to just go along with the standard that guys have set or go without any sexual contact. Any type of relationship (other than completely platonic friends) beyond that seems to be out of the question and actually not even on the plate. A lot of college women (not all obviously) are sharing with me there feelings of insecurity and low self-esteem surrounding their attempts to fit in with this and also deal with their thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc..

    So you can say I am flip-flopping the power balance for my own purposes or whatever…call me out or call it whatever you want. The socio-sexual environment on college campuses is definitely out of balance and creating unhappiness and dissatisfaction for a good majority of women and some men too. The facts remains that a lot of college guys, dare I say most, have been socialized through a patriarchal system and it is still alive and well and operating within the hook up culture.

    And if you don’t see it that way, and I am not asking you to, then you and I will have to henceforth, agree to disagree! :))

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

    Average Joe and HUS readers: I really think that feminist author and teen vogue editor, Rachel Simmons, sums things up better than I could. Here is her post about hook up culture.

    http://www.rachelsimmons.com/2010/02/why-the-hook-up-culture-is-hurting-girls/

  • Brendan

    The puzzling thing to me is how this is seen as an issue of young men.

    Women control access to sex. If they do not wish to abstain from having sex because of the validation factor, then that’s their lookout. I completely disagree with the concept that this is forced on women by men — it’s forced on women by other women, who themselves validate women who receive attention from desirable men. The idea that “this is a problem with young men, because they’ll just pass you up if you don’t have casual sex and then you don’t get your validation from them” is just a hopeless way of looking at this issue. Buck up, ladies. You can’t have your cake and eat it on this. Here’s a hint: figure out another way of validating each other without regard to whether attractive men have sex with you. And if more of you did that, and fewer of you were deploying casual sex as a means to compete with each other for the attention of the attractive men, you wouldn’t be in the quandary you’re in today.

    As for changing young men — hahaha. Look, young men want casual sex. The only way they will abstain from that is if they have religious reasons to do so. If they do not, and they increasingly do not, they will simply take whatever sex is on offer. It isn’t socially constructed, it’s hard-wired based on how horny men are at that age — the horniest in their entire lives. You’re not going to change that — all the sensitivity seminars and mandatory vagina monologues performances and consciouness raising symposia aren’t going to change that any more than they will change his need to pee.

    What you CAN change, however, is how WOMEN are dealing with that male demand for sex. Women have today simply given in to it. Which means they are playing the guys’ game on the guys’ terms. You aren’t going to change that by changing the guys, though — that’s not going to happen. You CAN change it by changing your behaviors, though, if enough women do it. If not, then you have the choice of either opting out and waiting (as many men are forced to do in this marketplace anyway as they are in the 60-80 percent of the men who are sexually invisible under these rules) or playing the game. But if you choose the latter, whining is not an option, ladies. Buck up.

  • Mike

    @Denise

    I am the filmmaker of Spitting Game: The College Hook Up Culture.I made my film about 3 years ago & what I have learned is that most young women do not like “the rules” of this patriarchal hook up game.

    Some other guys have already addressed this, but I will as well. Your use of the term patriarchal here really is very offputting and belies a great deal of ignorance on your part to some aspects of the “hook up game” despite making a movie about it. And it is more then just nitpicking. Not sure I understand the need to throw feminist buzzwords into something where it makes absolutely no sense.

    Here’s the thing. On some level, BOTH sexes crave validation from the other sex that they are attractive and desirable. What many college age women, and even older do not understand…but I think they are starting to get it at least somewhat is that broadly speaking the same guys they find sexually attractive…the alphas…are very willing to fuck many of them who they wouldn’t even consider for relationships for even a heartbeat. That isn’t patriarchal, matriarchal, heteronormative, or whatever other bullshit term one uses.

    That is the law of supply and demand where you have a large number of women all competing for a very small group of men. As others have pointed out, if many women just set there sights a bit lower and considered some “decent Betas” they could get the relationship. the emotional committment from guys who are close to celibate under the current framework.

    Good luck trying to get those guys on film. Who wants to be the guy on camera admitting he is the “loser” who can’t get laid. Yet they are the silent majority.

    Ultimately, women decide how this plays out in the men they give their attention and bodies to. The idea of changing the behavior and mindsets of the alphas is so absurdly ridiculous that anyone who even suggests it is completely deluded.

    I think you took some flak on this, and rightfully so, because to use the term patriarchal in this context is really a slap in face…no…pissing in the face of the numerous men who are on the sidelines of the hookup game.

  • Mike

    What Brendan said!

  • Esau

    Denice —

    .

    The socio-sexual environment on college campuses is definitely out of balance and creating unhappiness and dissatisfaction for a good majority of women and some men too.

    .

    How can you sidle up so close to the truth and then refuse to grasp it at the last moment? Just change “some men” to “a large majority of men” and you’ll be on the road to enlightenment. Why is it so hard for you to grasp or admit that most men — and, imo, the better men — are having a very bad time in the college-age SMP? Your resistance to recognizing plain reality is surely disappointing in someone who wants to document real life. The only conclusion that makes sense about you is that you feel compelled to hang on to the “Men are really in charge! Men are calling the shots here!” frame to the very last possible moment, and then some. You may have some ideological or religious reason for doing so, but I think it’s clear that it’s really hurting your work.

    .

    The facts remains that a lot of college guys, dare I say most, have been socialized through a patriarchal system and it is still alive and well

    .

    What’s your evidence for this? Really? Is it just that you’ve talked to young women who claim that they’re at the mercy of heartless men? If you manage to get some young men to talk (there may be technical difficulties in doing so, but that doesn’t change the truth) and many of them told the reverse story, that they’re at the mercy of heartless women, does that equally “prove” that the college scene is really a matriarchy? Rather than relying wholly on either of these subjective testimonies, why don’t you just sit down and ask what makes more sense as physical reality: that the large majority of young men can set whatever sexual terms they want to? or that women hypergamously compete for a very narrow stratum of attractive men, who can then set the terms they wish? Answer honestly: which is more believable?

    .

    The truth is so close and right in front of you, just reach out and grasp it.

  • Mike

    @Denise,

    The college women I have talked to personally, on the subject of hooking up, feel that the guys have ALL the power & control because most of the guys (not all obviously) will only spend time with them or call them if they want to hook up or think they might hook up. Women feel pressured to just go along with the standard that guys have set or go without any sexual contact.

    Yes, I am beating a dead horse here, and will beat it even harder, because this is such a critically important point for women to understand (Susan understands this but not many women do).

    The “GUYS” have all the power and control here because it is only a very small minority of guys “in play” here. You’ve got the top 50-70% of college age females (the bottom 30-50% are probably off the radar) all competing for access to the top 20% of guys. It really is very simple. A female 5-6 is going to have no bargaining power with a male 8-9 except as a convenient fuck, and his attitude is going to be “take or leave it” because he knows pussy is fungible. She’ll have more power and control if she goes for the guy 5-6 who maybe hasn’t been on a date or hooked up in 6 months. In that situation, she can control the pace of the relationship more on her terms because that guy is going to be excited from the attention.

    If you are sincerely interested in being intellectually honest on this, I think you really need to do your homework on this point and vet this. I’ll guarantee these women who feel “powerless” are all going after high-status males, football players, top guys in frats, etc. Of course those guys have power. But that isn’t the majority of guys.

  • jess

    to mike:

    ‘good luck trying to get beta guys on film’
    thats exactly what i said!
    its gonna be difficult to get a balanced film because the key characters are gonna hide.
    maybe she can change voices and pixelate the face?
    how does she advertise?; Are you a loser? if so would you like to be fimed? please call this number?
    mind you, having said that we have a program in the uk where people are happy to be filmed revealing the most embarrasing diseases. so maybe…..

  • Mike

    @Snowdrop,

    That was an excellent post on how to be great GF. Some of the stuff you mentioned is just as important as sex if not more.

  • Average Joe

    Hey Average Joe…how many college age women have you interviewed about this over the past four years? Your definition may be semantically tied up in a neat little bow, but it doesn’t fit into any sort of real world application for what is truly happening on college campuses. The college women I have talked to personally, on the subject of hooking up, feel that the guys have ALL the power & control because most of the guys (not all obviously) will only spend time with them or call them if they want to hook up or think they might hook up.

    @ Denise Ann Evans

    Actually I’m not really concerned with the perception of power/powerlessness as I am a scientific look at the phenomenon. Simply put, power is defined as access to or control of a resource. We need not get personal opinions to see its manifestations or determine balance.

    For instance, when we speak about economic disparity, we are talking about the differences in access to or control of money. How do we tell which of a given group has the more power? We do not ask directly. We just ask peripheral questions.
    Who gets paid more? Who determines pay? What jobs are occupied by whom? And such. Of course when we apply these questions to gender we quickly find out that men have more economic power then women. Does that mean men don’t feel extreme pressure to provide or be considered a loser? No. Does that mean the men who get “outsourced” don’t suffer self esteem issues? Of course, not.. But men feeling this way still does not change the fact that males are more economically privileged than females.

    Likewise, when we talk about sex, similar questions must be asked. Who gets sex easier? Who determines sexual limits? Who are the “handbooks” designed to protect? And the answer to these questions does not lead one to the word “patriarchy”.

    I can’t see it any other way…and neither should you.

  • Brendan

    Likewise, when we talk about sex, similar questions must be asked. Who gets sex easier? Who determines sexual limits? Who are the “handbooks” designed to protect? And the answer to these questions does not lead one to the word “patriarchy”.
    I can’t see it any other way…and neither should you.

    Exactly.

    Let’s take the example of water, and suppose that women have a monopoly on the supply of water to men. They only want to supply water (voluntarily) to the men who will pay the highest price (measured in terms of the validation value based on the relative attractiveness of the man offering to buy the water). The men who are not in a position are not even in the market for her water, in her mind, and as such are not her concern. What concerns her is only the prices that the men who are in the market to buy her water (in terms of validation they are offering in exchange) are demanding: they really want access to her water! Not an IOU of future water access, or an option to negotiate water access at a later date, subject to good behavior. No. They are offering good compensation (validation) and they want water.

    As a result the water providers feel like the buyers have “all the power”. But they don’t. Because women have a monopoly on water. Women could refuse to supply water to bid up the price, including commitment, for water. Or they could decide they don’t want to sell their water in short term contracts and instead prefer to enter into longer term arrangements with a water buyer who offers more in exchange for her water than mere validation, including such things as love, commitment, loyalty and so on … but at the cost of less validation as price.

    Or, you can sit there and whine that the buyers who provide the most validation as price for your water are not willing to give anything else, and you prefer their high validation price in exchange, yet you need to whine about it.

    That’s pretty much what we’re talking about here.

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

    @Clarisse Thorn

    Why are you attacking sex-positive feminism as if it’s one big juggernaut when you clearly have so many points of agreement with sex-positive feminists like myself?

    To be honest, I’ve experienced it as one big juggernaut. My own exposure to SPF is via the primary sites – Feministing, Feministe, Pandagon. Add in Slate Double X and Salon’s Broadsheet, plus Jezebel. In truth, I haven’t seen a lot of diversity of views, but what’s been really alienating is the unwillingness to engage dissenters. Comments often disappear into moderation, even when respectful. There’s a lot of sarcasm and derisive speech. For example, after Tina Fey expressed her view as stated in this post, she was literally dragged through the mud for not living up to feminists’ expectations.
    Look, all I’m trying to do is respond to the enormous confusion that young women are experiencing in the contemporary sexual environment. There’s also a lot of pain out there. I believe that you understand this – indeed you’ve experienced it. As women, we need to acknowledge each other’s pain, not deny it. Saying hookup culture doesn’t exist is not really helpful, IMO, because it dismisses the many women who are living it on campus every single weekend.
    It’s interesting – there is another feminist – April, who’s been engaging in very productive dialogue here. I welcome your perspective as well, and I don’t feel attacked by your comments, which is nice! I really don’t have a problem with anything you’ve said here, or in the post you linked to. I look forward to reading more of your blog. I confess I only learned of you via Clarence in the last day or two.

  • jess

    well kinda joe but….
    as Susan has pointed out some guys have no trouble getting laid.
    and actually some guys have this ability well beyond university.
    equally some girls do have trouble getting laid.
    so this gatekeeper theory is only partially true.
    i consider myself ok looking but i have had a few knockbacks in my time.
    dont forget, as a genral rule most people flock to people of comparable attractiveness.
    if i threw myself at the average 40yo i reckon i would have an ok success rate.
    if i threw myself at a 25 yo he would likely recoil in horror (unless he has a MILF thing)
    at the end of the day anyone is liable to rejection.
    good hygene, dress sense, confidence, ‘game’ etc make it easier but no one wins every time.
    the tag ‘loser’ is rather horrid but no worse really than ‘frumpy wallflower’.
    i think the power game is all about confidence and percieved attractiveness.

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

    @Jimmy Hendricks

    For guys, making a commitment comes with high cost and few benefits. Who in their right mind would want go make a transaction like that?

    Fair question. Smart women who want a commitment will make it low cost with many benefits. That means no or low drama, consistent expression of appreciation, a fun-loving attitude, loyalty and faithfulness. Plus dynamite sex.
    I imagine that for many guys, that might beat donning beer goggles at 2 a.m. and going for another wasted hookup, with all the ensuing awkwardness the next day. Certainly after years of that.

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

    @Snowdrop
    I agree that demonstrating need, whether for validation, attention, reassurance or anything else is perceived as weakness by men, and rightly so. A man who is willing to consider an LTR can and should hold out for a woman of high self-esteem and and generous nature. I would counsel men to run for the hills when a woman displays weakness in the early days, which is really the period where no problems should be manifesting.
    You know, it’s interesting. This quote by Amanda Marcotte really does show another side of her – that sliver of doubt that she expresses in the interview where she talks about why women like me get our hooks into her. She actually is exploring some of the ideas I’ve toyed with – women acting as a group, for example. Since then, though, she’s gotten a lot more extreme in her views.

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

    @Snowdrop
    Sorry, I can’t place the Hank Moody quote specifically. He is indeed the main character in Californication, played by David Duchovny. It just popped up while I was researching this post – but I’m not sure of the episode and I don’t watch the show.

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

    @Snowdrop
    Excellent advice here – it answers Jimmy Hendricks question too.

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

    @Brendan, Brilliant as Usual

    What you CAN change, however, is how WOMEN are dealing with that male demand for sex. Women have today simply given in to it. Which means they are playing the guys’ game on the guys’ terms. You aren’t going to change that by changing the guys, though — that’s not going to happen. You CAN change it by changing your behaviors, though, if enough women do it.

    Hear, hear. Men like sex. Women like it that men like sex. Understand men, and women, and you’ll see a clear path to win/win. At least, that’s my belief. The problem is indeed that women are playing according to men’s rules – this can’t be “taught” out of men. When it is, we women have proven that we don’t want those men. Women are the gatekeepers. Men will make concessions to gain access to sex. It has ever been thus!
    The most sought-after men are the least likely to make concessions, but if it’s any consolation, they’re usually assholes anyway. The opportunity here, IMO, is the match between voluntarily chaste women and involuntarily chaste males.

  • nothingbutthetruth

    Interesting topic. After a day of exhausting job, I wonder if I have some English-language skill left to make my point.
    .
    the way “empowerment” has led to the delusion that women CAN get these men’s commitment at all, and that having sex like men is the way to get there.
    .
    This is the crux of the matter. Men are willing to lower their standards when it comes to casual sex but they don’t lower their standards when it comes to commitment. So a man who is a 9 will only commit to a 9 (give or take) but he will be more than willing to sleep with a 6.
    .
    On the other hand, women are different. They don’t get laid with a man if he has not “potential” so they believe men are the same. This way, once a woman who is a 6 has slept with a man who is a 9, automatically assumes that she is a 9 and can get a “quality” man to commit. After this, the woman is ruined for men who are a 6, who are seen by her as “lower than my league”, “losers” or “not worthy of me”. Meanwhile, she spends their prime years hooking up with 9s, hoping that someone will commit (“after all, I know I am attractive to them: otherwise they wouldn’t have sex with me”).
    .
    Even if she ends up marrying a 6 when she is desperate because of her biological clock, she will never be happy. She has these fond memories of the alphas she had in the past. She remembers the excitement, the passion, the love, the fuzzy feelings. These memories chase her every time that she wakes up next to the dull and unattractive beta. Once she has some kids, the beta has outlived his usefulness and it is time to divorce, get the money and the kids and resume the chase of the alpha.

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

    A word about Denice and her film Spitting Game:
    Guys, this movie is awesome. Seriously, anyone who has the audacity to claim that hookup culture does not exist should see this film. The guys who are interviewed (and some are silhouettes in darkness) are all frat stars, athletes or similar. They’re very cavalier about hooking up, because it’s pretty clear that they are successful in that arena. One of my favorite scenes is three guys that are sort of hipster/alternative – they don’t have the ready access to sex, but they aspire to it. Obviously, Denice found it easier to interview guys who think they’re the shit – she’s aware that’s not the whole story, but she very reasonably focuses on students who are involved in hookup culture.
    There’s also some great stuff in this film about the role of alcohol – and how many state laws don’t allow for consent if the woman is intoxicated. These laws are not often enforced, but guys need to be extremely careful about this in the event of a charge of sexual assault. Yes might mean no if your date has been drinking.

  • nothingbutthetruth

    I have a feeling that it will not be so easy to get a college guy to admit on camera that he cant get laid and hes never been kissed.
    .
    Well, I am not embarassed to admit that this was my case. When I was young (some twenty years ago), I was so ashamed of never have been kissed, that I didn’t want anybody to know. I felt such a loser. I imagined all the others kids in college having lives with lots of sex. I looked to my classmates and I thought “they would think I am such a pathetic loser if they knew”
    .
    Some years after, I was co-worker of some of my classmates and I realized that most of my classmates were in the same predicament. During the college, everybody was pretending having lots of sex while, at the same time, being alone and praying God to send him a girlfriend. LOL!!!!!

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

    @Brendan
    I’m with you on the whining. When women engage in a transaction, in this case a sexual one, they are signaling that the benefit is sufficient. Often, most ill-advisedly, that benefit includes the expectation or hope of future contact and a blossoming romance. However, those were not the terms that were negotiated. So, no whining. Realize that you made a very poor deal, and sold yourself short. Next time, hold out for a higher price. Yes, you may find that they buyer looks elsewhere. You may be pricing yourself out of the market. In that case, you must ask yourself whether you prefer to hold out for a higher price, or have a “fire sale” on your sexuality.
    Obviously, I urge women to hold out, while seeking men who are willing to offer a higher price. That means targeting men who lack social proof in college, or biding one’s time while the good men mature and come into their own in their mid to late 20s. I’m not saying this is fun in the short-term. It’s not.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @ Snowdrop & Susan
    .
    You both gave great answers to my question. If there were more girls taking those measures, I think you’d see a lot more guys willing to get into relationships. At least I know I would be.

  • nothingbutthetruth

    Agree 100%, but will ask you the same question I ask all the men who say this. What does “giving a chance” look like? Do women need to initiate?
    .
    Well, I’m amazed that nobody has answered that, Susan. It is not rocket science.
    .
    It would be nice for women to initiate and share the burden of rejection, the same way it would be nice for everyone to be rich, happy and beautiful, live forever and have the perfect partner and family. But, since I don’t believe in fairy tales, let’s keep things real. Initiating is a “shit job” (as Warren Farrell said) and nobody would do it if s/he could avoid it. Women can avoid it and men cannot. So, with some few exceptions, women will never initiate. Period.
    .
    In fact, it is easy for women to give a chance to betas. After all, betas are eager of affection, companionship and sex. Let me give some tips.
    .
    A. WARMING UP.
    .
    1. Stop thinking you are a special snowflake and that you are a princess. Stop believing in fairy tales, Hollywood movies, Sex and the city and Oprah. You are a woman. There are three billion like you in the world. Grow up: you are not a little child (see 1 Corinthians 13,11). Start distinguishing fantasy from reality
    .
    2. Stop thinking your casual sex rating and your marriage rating are the same. You can sleep with men far more attractive that the men they are willing to commit to you. If your relationships always end after some months, you are dating out of your league.
    .
    3. When a man proposes or initiates, be flattered and don’t get mad. A proposal is not an insult.
    .
    B. THINGS TO AVOID
    .
    3. When you reject a man, do it politely. Don’t crush his spirit so he loses much of his self-esteem and is less likely to initiate later in the future with other women.
    4. When you reject a man, please don’t tell everyone you know how pathetic he is, not even if tearing him to pieces with your friends is a lot of fun. If you do it, you will have ruined his chances with other woman of your environment (class, college). Nobody wants to date a guy who has been labelled as a loser.
    .
    (3 and 4 don’t help your chances but they will help other woman’s chances.)
    .
    C. THINGS TO DO.
    .
    5. If you like a beta, smile often to him, laugh his jokes, talk to him, try to spend time with him, pay interest when he is talking, ask him about his interests and praise him for his accomplishments. He will get the message.
    .
    Try to know him and become his friend. For men, it is the opposite advice (men, don’t be friends with women you like).
    .
    Women have this face when they look somebody with attention, affection and tenderness. Do it often to him.
    .
    6. If you see he is initiating, try to help him. If he is leaning to give you a kiss, kiss him instead of waiting like a dead fish. If he touches your hand, touch his. He has to take the first step but you should take the second one.
    .
    This would work for the vast majority of betas. Of course, there are always exceptions. Women in other parts of the world do it all the time. I don’t see why it is so hard for American women.

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

      @nothingbutthetruth
      That is an extremely helpful list of suggestions, thank you. Especially because you acknowledge that women are not going to become the aggressors, by and large. I think there’s a post in this – some of the ideas have been shared before, it’s true, but it bears repeating in one single place.
      Wrt to why American women can’t do this – we’ve been taught that femininity equals weakness. In particular, flirtation and any attempt to please a man are viewed as retrograde. This has led to a greater distance between the sexes, and women have really stopped knowing anything about male psychology, to their great detriment.
      The complaint I hear most about American women is that we’re too masculine. The truth is that a very powerful woman can be feminine, but we’ve lost this in American culture. The angry, strident, political voices in our culture don’t help.

  • Brendan

    Obviously, I urge women to hold out, while seeking men who are willing to offer a higher price. That means targeting men who lack social proof in college, or biding one’s time while the good men mature and come into their own in their mid to late 20s. I’m not saying this is fun in the short-term. It’s not.

    Indeed. No free lunches for anyone, male or female, really.

    I respect you immensely for realizing this and being open about it — it is a service to young women that they often have no other recourse to. Thank you for providing that.

  • The Deuce

    As you say, when female sexuality was unleashed, hypergamy metasticized, and decent betas got shunted aside. I don’t think that the collapse of SPF will change that, in fact I know it won’t.

    There’s the problem. It’s not just Sex+ Feminism. It’s that when women have sexual freedom, they invariably (as a whole) end up using it to make themselves slaves to a small number of cads. The ugly lesson of the Sexual Revolution is that women are incapable of handling sexual freedom responsibly. They’ll always end up rewarding the biggest jerks, and punishing the betas.

    In practical terms, this battle will continue to be fought one decent man, one decent woman at a time. We should not underestimate the innate desire of humans to pair bond.

    Unfortunately, that’s like trying to hold back a tidal wave with a thimble. You might rescue an occasional woman here from degrading herself, and an occasional beta there from sexual misery. But to change the overall trend will require some sort of major shift in societal perspective. The “innate desire of humans to pair bond” won’t fix it, at least on the part of women. Women have had that desire this whole time, and look what they’ve done with it. It’s what’s driving their behavior.

    I know I’ve said this before, but I simply don’t see women fixing this on their own. They’re not going to do it for the sake of the beta males, because on the whole they aren’t concerned about the sexual frustration of betas any more than the typical girl is concerned about the sexual frustration of the Nice Guy chump she uses as a cry pillow after her hookups go south. It’s only when, like you, they become mothers of beta males that they (sometimes) start thinking about such things. They’re not going to do it for the sake of their own broken hearts either, otherwise they would have done it long ago and the problem wouldn’t exist anymore. What we’ve seen is that the female capacity for rationalization is nigh limitless, and they can undoubtedly maintain their own misery in perpetuity without ever realizing it.

    At base, you are trying to tell girls “Stop going after those guys who you’re really attracted to! Go after those other guys you should be attracted to instead!”. That’s just not going to work on a large scale, particularly on the emotional, hormone-ridden young female brains you’re aiming at.

    The kind of structural change that’s needed will only come from men acting in their own self-interest. And it will only happen when those men come to understand how women really work, and take the steps necessary to remasculate themselves and thereby make themselves attractive to women again. Learning Game is only the first step. Really, dismantling almost every facet of feminism will be necessary in the long-run, because the whole feminist ideology is rigged to make beta men less attractive and cads more attractive (more on this later, if anybody is interested). Unlike women, men *will* do whatever it takes once they understand the cause of their sexual frustration. Hell, the only reason feminism was ever able to get off the ground was that on some level, men thought it was going to mean more sex for them, and they still have the potential to dismantle it if they get wise. They will do what men are best at when they recognize a problem – analyze it and produce a solution.

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

      @The Deuce
      I won’t disagree with anything you’ve said here, though I’d say there are more shades of gray than you’re currently seeing. Some women are able to understand the cause of their emotional frustration and summon the self-discipline to change their behavior. Some women are highly attracted to cads, others are repulsed by them. Some women are very attracted to beta qualities, though will friend zone betas if they have no Game, it’s true.
      Overall, I agree that a major structural shift will be required to alter the sociosexual environment. I don’t see feminism being dismantled – you’re not going to put that genie back in the bottle. However, I do think we’ll see a shift over time as the feminist lobby weakens. They’re aging out, and there’s not a sizable group of young women stepping up, really. In addition, the goals of the women’s movement have really been met.
      Amanda Marcotte et al keep accusing me of wanting to return to the 1950s, but that’s not it, and even if I did, it wouldn’t matter. We need to find a new way forward, the pendulum must swing back at some point. The forces that will provide that momentum are not clear, at least to me. They might be political, biological (including the possibility of a new AIDS type virus), or even military.

  • nothingbutthetruth

    The Deuce, what an interesting post. Please keep going (I agree with everything except the ability of men to dismantle the system but I am interested in your views and I think more people are).

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

    So for those of you who think that the guys aren’t calling the shots in the hook up world–THINK AGAIN. Not only are they clearly calling the shots, but the rules of the game keep getting harder to figure out.

    So you believe that the 80% of men who have no access to hook up culture either don’t exist or should just die. Got it.

    made my film about 3 years ago & what I have learned is that most young women do not like “the rules” of this patriarchal hook up game.

    Gender Equality, in the heteronormative expression of sexuality, is not balanced or equal in any way, shape, or form. IT is a bonafide myth. Patriarchy still rules.

    There is no patriarchy. It is a myth. Anyone who talks about the patriarchy or patriarchal this or that is a conspiracy theorist no different than the lunatics who think the Rockefellers are out to murder them or the Federal Reserve is under their bed or that lizard aliens from Planet X rule the world.

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

    The college women I have talked to personally, on the subject of hooking up, feel that the guys have ALL the power & control because most of the guys (not all obviously) will only spend time with them or call them if they want to hook up or think they might hook up.

    What is happening in reality is that women are ignoring 80% of men. Their feelings are irrelevant and not a description of reality since they are deluding themselves by ignoring 80% of the men out there.

    Women feel pressured to just go along with the standard that guys have set or go without any sexual contact.

    Then go without. That is what millions of men are doing, going without sexual contact of any kind. Suck it up.

  • Jess

    To nothingbutthetruth,
    A really nicely written code. It should be stamped inside every college dorm room.
    The bit about not humiliating those you reject goes for both genders mind you.

  • Average Joe

    @ Jess

    well kinda joe but….
    as Susan has pointed out some guys have no trouble getting laid.
    and actually some guys have this ability well beyond university.
    equally some girls do have trouble getting laid.
    so this gatekeeper theory is only partially true.

    Well kinda alright… in the “Oprah is rich so black women aren’t truly economically underprivileged are they?” bad argument way.
    “Some guys don’t have trouble getting laid”. Yup. And some women are millionaires.
    “Some girls have trouble getting laid”. Yup. And some men don’t have jobs.

    It never ceases to amaze me the amount of intellectual contortion a feminist will go through to deny that women have more sexual power than men…using tactics she wouldn’t dare stand for when discussing wages .

    Anyway, when a male 6 can get/use sex as easy as a female 6 then I’ll take you serious.
    Oh and by the way the average 40yo woman with a 25yo boyfriend is considered an empowered “MILF” while the average 40yo man with a 25yo girlfriend is an exploitative, dirty old man.

  • PJL

    @Nothingbutthetruth,

    Wise words. Would you spare 15 minutes to give a code to guys attempting to *morally* become more “alpha”? You hint at a maxim that I myself have learned through experience: never befriend a girl you like.

    The whole alpha vs. beta thing is very confusing to me, not least because sometimes the distinction seems to be between coached as immoral vs. moral. I’m confident that’s not the distinction; and the HUS community is helpful in that regard. Any words?

  • Jess

    To recent posters
    I maintain a ‘6’ can get laid if he’s confident, well dressed, sexaully competent and engaging.
    In fact a male 6 has it easier in some ways than a female 6 because women are slightly less into looks.
    I have already said I think the split is 60/40 so i don’t think it’s comparable to ophrahs millions.
    I get there is some power issue in that men are the pursuers so they by default are the ones facing rejection. But girls have the irksome task of not being able to pursue without being labelled desperate so they have to flirt and if that fails they fell rejected.
    So i think you are overstating the dynamic. I think we will just have to agree to disagree. X

    I’m umfraid the friendship zone is just one of those things. It seems to be true world wide. Girls find it hard to fancy completely nice guys. They have to have an edge. I know this means we are our own worst enemy.

  • nothingbutthetruth

    Thank you, PJL, for your kind words. I will give some tips and clarification about alpha-ness this evening, when I get out of work.

  • Average Joe

    @ Susan
    A word about Denice and her film Spitting Game:
    Guys, this movie is awesome. Seriously, anyone who has the audacity to claim that hookup culture does not exist should see this film

    I’m not interested in Denice’s movie because of her obvious “feminist” slant. And while anyone with a little sense knows that college hookup culture does exist, it’s not some extension of “patriarchy” as she puts forth in her comments. It is instead a social reaction to the “matriarchal” sex that most men experience throughout their lives.

    The men that Denice interviews are not some symbol of male dominance… as they are portrayed. They are simply doing what female students can do any day of the week… which is get laid. Only college women can do so without the need for alcohol and the social pressure of weekend partying. Somehow though, I’m sure that these young men’s “easier” access to sex gets positioned as male superiority, when it really is them gaining a power typically reserved for females.

    The Alcohol, drugs, free condoms, frat parties, coed facilities, and population size all made my collegiate sex life much less work than it would have been otherwise. So I am fully aware of all the efficient mechanisms that contribute to a hookup culture. How else could an “average joe” college freshman get more girls than he ever did as a popular High School Senior? There is a huge difference between a social phenomenon that is “patriarchal” and one that is less “gynocratic” than everyone is accustomed to. But Denice doesn’t understand that.

  • Average Joe

    Commenters,
    Help needed.

    Does or doesn’t a female 6 have an easier time getting laid than a male 6?

    Jess wants to agree to disagree, but I’m not having it. This is very simple question and one of us is right, and the other is wrong. What say ye all? And please explain your responses.

  • Höllenhund

    “Patriarchal hook up game” is an oxymoron. Hooking up is impossible in a patriarchy since both female and male sexuality is restrained.

  • Dilithium

    Jess: I maintain a ’6′ can get laid if he’s confident, well dressed, sexaully competent and engaging.

    .

    Yes, and he could also be a millionaire if he’d bought Microsoft at 10-1/2. Since this option was widely available, why isn’t everyone a millionaire? After all, you or I could have made all the same trades that Warren Buffet did, so it must be our own fault that we’re not billionaires now, right?

    .

    You write “be confident” as though it’s some sort of cologne that a man can simply choose to apply when needed, but this is a ridiculous view. Honest people cannot be confident when they don’t have the experience to justify it, ie when they don’t actually have anything to be confident about. Same goes for sexual competence, of course; if you don’t already have it, then you’re not on the path to getting it any time soon! So, no: your writing is completely specious. The things you say a man could use to succeed are not easily available and cannot just be ginned up at will, and so success is not voluntarily chosen or declined. Men still suffer involuntarily in this regard, and more than women do, whether you choose to recognize it or not.

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

    @Lo
    Thank you so much for your comment! I love it when the women readers de-lurk! I really appreciate your kind words, and I promise to keep doing what I’m doing. If anything, the haters just make me all the more committed. Ha! I just cancelled lunch with a friend to work on this blog!

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

    Does or doesn’t a female 6 have an easier time getting laid than a male 6?
    .
    Watch one episode of Jerry Springer for the answer to this question. A female 2 has an easier time getting laid than a male 6. However, I would add that the 1-10 scale doesn’t apply to men in the same way. A man who is a 6 in looks alone may bump his number up a couple of points, though this is by no means easy, as Dilithium has pointed out. Still, it’s why you see more attractive women with less attractive men than vice versa. This has been researched quite thoroughly, btw.

  • Sox

    At base, you are trying to tell girls “Stop going after those guys who you’re really attracted to! Go after those other guys you should be attracted to instead!”. That’s just not going to work on a large scale, particularly on the emotional, hormone-ridden young female brains you’re aiming at.

    Exactly. It also involves effectively “disempowering” women by de-snowflaking them and taking a shot at their sense of entitlement. Many women are already suffering from the cognitive dissonance resulting form being raised to believe in their innate power and uniqueness only to find the men they lust after are actually way out of their league and only interested in sex. It makes me think of a scene from the first season of Mad Men when Joan says to a much less attractive Peggy, “let’s be honest here, you’re not all that much…”
    .
    The average ego of the American 20-something female is huge…although there’s often an equally strong undercurrent of insecurity. I don’t fully understand the dynamic that causes this to happen, but the majority of their male counterparts grow up to be less assertive, less confident than they are. Maybe it’s because men and women are both indoctrinated to pedestalize women. Or maybe it’s just because men are neutered throughout their childhood through the emphasis on soft power, being diplomatic, being friendly, being considerate, being PC, etc etc all the bullshit one finds in a hyper-individualistic, relativisitc culture.
    .
    There’s SUCH a fine line between showing respect, being diplomatic, and avoiding aggression and becoming a doormat. I was taught growing up to respect EVERYONE, to be sensitive to other’s needs, to be a good man. What the hell is a good man anyhow? As time went on I started to realize that my principles couldn’t compete with someone who is inherently selfish, who won’t follow the golden rule themself. More dominant men and “empowered” women are both examples of people who generally don’t extend others the same courtesy and consideration…nor should they really, I’ll be the first to admit it’s a dog-eat-dog world and I just missed the memo for the first half of my life.
    .
    From a male point of view though, I think we were taught to suppress our masculinity to the point that we’re handicapping ourselves, our main source of confidence and identity, and to play things by women’s rules. The problem is, when you vilify men for being men and teach men to become more like women, somebody will fill that power vacuum in society. Women are given free reign to flex their muscles with their greatest asset – their sexuality (which a man cannot match) and many beta-men are left struggling to compete with one arm tied behind their backs. Average american 20 something males today are suffering a dearth of confidence, and that needs to be fixed; the guys cleaning up are the ones who are ignoring society and feminist teachings. Why should men get behind something that leaves them disempowered?
    .
    So I don’t care how it happens, but men need to man up. Stop the pedestalizing, stop focusing so much on being fair and PC. Let women drop a peg in their eyes. Accept women’s humanity and flaws. Hell, if a man has to believe he’s actually superior to women to do that, I wouldn’t hold it against him- feminism has insidiously telling women to look at men that way for years.

  • Aldonza

    “Patriarchal hook up game” is an oxymoron. Hooking up is impossible in a patriarchy since both female and male sexuality is restrained.

    Restrained does not mean contained. People have been “hooking up” since the beginning of time. Attempts to stop it vary in effectiveness.

  • jess

    it seems i will have to bend to the will of the multitudes……

    ps. a hint of expensive cologne does actually help (the faintest hint mind)

  • Reinholt

    A few comments:

    – Denise is incorrect about the underlying cause of hook up culture. Perhaps she should consider the downright hostile reception her comments have received, and wake up to the fact that the majority of men are in the situation that she bemoans for women. Do not expect sympathy from such a crowd; either retreat to your own sheltered enclave or open your eyes to the real world.

    – Feminism can be easily dismantled (and will be), in the same way that societies that have pushed towards social engineering in the name of equality or freedom without responsibility have always ended with such a fate: the society will fail, and be born anew as something else or taken over by outsiders who will, inevitably, repeat the same mistakes because humans are really, really stupid and incapable of learning over a long timescale. I’m not talking about some kind of far-fetched post apocalyptic fantasy, either, but rather that the ebb and flow of empires and nations has always been dictated by some combination of luck, economic advantage, and military power. Societies that gut their economy, shrink their population, and lose faith in their own might eventually fade.

    – The correct solution for women requires personal accountability. For those women who are already capable of being personally accountable, finding this blog will help them to figure this out more rapidly than they otherwise might in some cases, but this leaves an underlying problem: what about the large number who are not capable of personal responsibility? Without societal and structural change, this cannot be fixed, and these women will continue to poison the well and promote hook up culture and the like. So my advice to women who are responsible is simple: don’t play that game, find men with substance over style, and then make damned sure you are a worthwhile partner yourself (living in NYC, I can assure you I know many single women who can’t figure out that the reason they are single is that they are unbearable to deal with).

    – On the topic of sex positive feminism: Susan, you are making a huge rookie mistake here. What they want is attention for their platform, and you are giving it to them. Fights and drama promote their cause (which is self-validation through attention, if you drill down to the core of it); what really slays them is ignoring them and making progress doing so. Currently they are just bogging down the blog and preventing you from writing what is in your wheelhouse: actual, useful advice. Stop fighting a land war in Asia, in other words.

  • Sox

    Regarding the alpha/cad/beta divide:

    It’s not very instructive to say that it’s just the cads/douchebags/pure alphas getting all the action. It’s the more socially dominant/assertive/confident guys period. There’s usually an overlap, but not always. When these guys are swimming in attractive women, they WILL make the most of their options. Their egos are just as huge as the women who thrive on male validation (even if its from men they’re not interested in sleeping with). They come across as jerks because they have no reason to go out of their way to be decent and these women are making it extremely easy for themselves to be taken advantage of.

    Regular more considerate “beta males” need to simply close the gap in psycho-social dominance. If thugging it up works, sure, but that’s not the only way. Game does that. Women on here are quick to say, “don’t go to the dark side!” which is completely understandable…but those women are speaking out of self interest which got us men into this conundrum in the first place. You’ll have to take the good with the bad, you can’t have it all.

  • J

    Patriarchal hook up game” is an oxymoron. Hooking up is impossible in a patriarchy since both female and male sexuality is restrained.

    I won’t say that male sexuality is restrained under patriarchy. In the highly patriarchal Middle East, a man can buy the favors of an 8-10 year for less than you pay for lunch at McDonald’s and then go home to a number of wives and/or mistresses. Victorian England was famous for its prostitution. The dark side of the FLDS church is the abuse of not just young women but also of young men (who are seen as competitors to older harem builders).

    It’s true that patriarchy limits the options of the average women, but it just drives male sexuality behind closed doors. However, that’s not real restraint. And, it creates two classes of women: wives and the rest. And both classes are at the mercy of men.

    Patriarchy works for both sexes when men are exemplary human beings. When men are flawed, patriarchy allows those flaws to flourish. Feminism has helped to level the playing filed for women in may helpful ways. The downside is that it has also allowed female flaws to flourish.

    A return to patriarch is not IMO the way to go. You can’t turn back the clock, but you can forge ahead and hopefully create a fairer system in which both men and women win and please each other.

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

    It’s not very instructive to say that it’s just the cads/douchebags/pure alphas getting all the action. It’s the more socially dominant/assertive/confident guys period.
    You’re right. I slipped into laziness there. For example, there are quite a few guys who are beta by nature but very good looking. They will draw, indeed sometimes be overwhelmed by, female attention. Some of them will learn quickly how to maximize their number of sexual partners, while others will use their looks to land a hot girlfriend and consider themselves lucky. In other words, social dominance can come from a variety of sources – and it does not necessarily imply bad character.

  • J

    Hi Susan,

    Watch one episode of Jerry Springer for the answer to this question. A female 2 has an easier time getting laid than a male 6.

    Laid is the key word here, not married.

    On a personal level, I’m not concerned with the sex lives of the Springerette’s, but I do have a situation that concerns me. The daughter of a family friend is 34, over-weight and single. She’s a sweet and helpful woman, personable but she has no sense of style or girl game. She’d make a great wife and mother, but men hve NO interest in her. I know another who is approaching 30, OK-looking but no beauty, and again lacks girl game. She’s very intellectual and serious, would make a great wife and mother, but again No interest from men. How do we help these women? They get left out as badly as the “betas” in the dating scene. Yet, when you visit the PUA sites, the zeitgeist is that women kiek this hve nothing to offer.

    A man who is a 6 in looks alone may bump his number up a couple of points, though this is by no means easy, as Dilithium has pointed out. Still, it’s why you see more attractive women with less attractive men than vice versa. This has been researched quite thoroughly, btw.

    Did you see the flurry of research a few months ago that said that the happiest relationships are between pretty women and less attractive, affluent men. The explanation was that the man feels lucky to have a good-looking woman, so he cuts her a lot of slack. The little things that a less attractive woman might do that might irritate a man don’t bother the husband of a prettier woman as long as she is a bit out of his league. An example: Jennifer Aniston is held by many to be less attractive than both Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. Therefore, she could get away with less than AJ does with Brad Pitt. Since Brad is so attractive, he didn’t have to put up with the antics of a merely nice looking woman. He held the “looks advantage.” AJ, OTOH, is held to be one of the most beautiful women in the world. As attractive as he is, he will endure more of her shenanigans than Jennifer’s. A less attractive man than Brad would endure even from Angie. And women in general, say these studies, will take money over looks in a guy, especially if the guy is enthralled by her looks and feels lucky to have her. In fact, those couples are the happiest.

    As with most married couples, my husband are pretty evenly matched in looks. I think I may have made a big mistake. ;-) My next husband will be rich and ugly.

  • jess

    hilarious….
    my partner is neither rich nor conventionally handsome buy i love him all the same.
    in all seriousness, i had always assumed that the pretty wives of less attactive sugar daddies had affairs with the handsome tennis coach?
    am i wrong in assuming that?

  • J

    @Sox

    There’s SUCH a fine line between showing respect, being diplomatic, and avoiding aggression and becoming a doormat…As time went on I started to realize that my principles couldn’t compete with someone who is inherently selfish, who won’t follow the golden rule themself. More dominant men and “empowered” women are both examples of people who generally don’t extend others the same courtesy and consideration…

    I think you are right in noting that men walk a vey narrow line. As parents, my husband and I are very aware that we need to teach our boys to behave respectfully others while not being doormats. I think the key is to raise kids to be socially aware and some hypocritical. IOW, We try to teach our sons to be aware of what motivates others, to discriminate between users and good people. Everyone gets basic politeness and decent treatment. Love and respect are reserved for good people. At the same time, when others actively try to screw you over, you either stand up or walk away if you can without inviting further aggression. The result is that we–so far–have kids who are regarded by their community as good kids, but they don’t suffer fools gladly.

    A person can be good without being naive. But it’s hard, and it takes work and insight. It builds character though.

  • J

    @jess

    i had always assumed that the pretty wives of less attactive sugar daddies had affairs with the handsome tennis coach? am i wrong in assuming that?

    I don’t know. There wasn’t any data on that. I suppose if you are young and pretty enough or the hubs is ugly enough, he’ll cut you some slack.

  • J

    @jess

    i had always assumed that the pretty wives of less attactive sugar daddies had affairs with the handsome tennis coach? am i wrong in assuming that?

    I don’t know. There wasn’t any data on that. I suppose if you are young and pretty enough or the hubs is ugly enough, he’ll cut you some slack.

  • Lo

    I wasn’t going to comment again, but I just have to comment on this whole number labeling thing, being a “6” or and “8” or whatever. I think it’s crazy! And the more we keep using this imaginary scale to define a persons worth in the dating world, the more we are enabling people to feel they don’t DESERVE to be confident. I believe that NO ONE can be so easily defined by a number! After all, what my version of a 9 is could be my friends version of a 6, and it’s definitely happened where I just don’t see what’s so SUPER attractive about a guy she professes she finds gorgeous, and she just cannot see why I find a different guy so appealing.
    I’m a 20 year old college girl, and I’ve been interested in many different kinds of guys. Any guy can have game, and any girl can have game – this holds true for BOTH genders. The key is confidence, and before you say “but what if you’re not confident!” I’m going to say, if you don’t have it, fake it. When I started college I was painfully shy, but I knew that would get me nowhere in the college culture. It was hard, but I slapped a big smile on my “6” face, I took a few style tips from my new friends, and I faked confidence like it was spilling from my ears. When I say confidence, though, I don’t mean arrogance. For some reason I find that a lot of otherwise great “beta” males take the “be confident” advice as “be as arrogant as you can” to flirt. By confidence I mean SMILE, look your best, smell nice, listen to what the other person says, laugh with them, make them laugh. On a bottle of perfume I bought the other day was a quote, and it said “Flirting is the subtle art of making a man feel completely satisfied with himself.” and yes it was directed at women, but it holds true for men as well. If you make a person feel good emotionally, you have a way better chance of getting with them physically, or even getting their phone number. Personal “numbers” shouldn’t even come into it.

    Sorry for the rant friends, but I think we need to stop nit picking apart the gender differences with mate acquisition. A man will always say it is the woman who won’t look twice, and it is nothing to do with him. A woman will always say it is the men who don’t pursue them and they can’t fathom what they did wrong. We are understandably protective of our own genders, but by blaming the other we won’t get anywhere but more frustrated than when we started. It’s certainly not going to get us a warm body to sleep next to. It’s true that both a lot of men AND a lot of women are at odds with the hookup game because they don’t feel attractive enough. I am not saying you can go from sitting on the sidelines to being the star player overnight. But isn’t trying better than sitting around saying “oh poor me! She/he didn’t call me back! I hate men/ I hate women! I’m only a 5! how ever will I find a date!”? I used to be one of these people. I didn’t even have my first kiss until January 2009. So in my second year of college I stepped up, I stopped thinking about all the reasons why a guy wouldn’t want me, and I started thinking about all the reasons he WOULD. A simple shift in strategy, but it’s amazing how much things change when you start seeing your own worth and not some number that apparently defines your dating potential.
    So men, women, martians from the planet X, PLEASE stop using this insane scale! It’s helping nothing, but it’s certainly hurting our self confidence! We can ALL play this hookup game if we want to. No idea why anyone would want to, in my experience this last year it’s led to more heartbreak than anything else, but that’s a different story. The point is, in the words of Elle Woods from Legally Blonde – “You have ALL the equipment. You just need to read the manual!”

  • Collegegirl1

    Hi, I feel like I have a duty to reply to this thread (as I am going to be a senior girl in college this fall and have dealt with this!) Ok well, I think females like the attention and like it when an “alpha” asks for their number, texts, talks, has a continuous hookup, etc. I’ve done that in the past and both “relationships” ended so horribly that now I’m terrified of starting a new one. I private emailed you, Susan for help (you didn’t get back to me yet…), but now that a different “alpha” is showing me attention, admitting he likes me, being very upfront, saying he wants to hang out as soon as I get back pretty much I’m nervous as hell. This guy and I have been talking back and forth for a year and I always had a feeling he kind of liked me but we’ve never gotten intimate and the timing has always been wrong and he never made a move. I think in this case, females ASSUME the male only wants to hook up. That is all I’m ever used to with me, my friends, etc. Maybe it is a self-fulfilling prophecy–we know guys have only wanted hook ups in the past, so they must want it in the future, right?

    I think everyone needs to think differently. I’m not sure whether I should give this guy a chance, because if I don’t, I’ll regret it. However, if I do give him a chance, I don’t want to revert to hooking up right away again. I want to establish a closer friendship and then MAYBE something more. I just don’t know how to tell him this without rejecting him or losing a chance for something to happen to us in the future. I think because of all this uncertainty, women, too are eager to hook up right away to “lure” a guy into a relationship, and then…well, they end up getting dumped.

    I don’t know how the hook up culture will change any time soon because I believe both females and males are making mistake after mistake. College guys do this because their friends are and the same holds true with college girls. The people who ARENT hooking up are getting no opposite-sex attention whatsoever (from what I’ve seen). Everyone wants attention and wants someone to be with..it’s just hard for both sides to compromise and get exactly what they want.

  • Reinholt

    @ College Girl 1

    Be honest. Tell him you want a relationship, that you aren’t going to sleep with him right away, but that if things go well and the two of you hit it off, there is all kinds of potential for wildness.

    You are right, he may reject you. If he just wants a quick lay, he’s going to say no. But one strategy that will definitely fail is trying to “lure” him in. If you are firm but fair, actually listen to what he wants as well, and can find a mutually acceptable solution, great.

    However, it is very much possible he’s either looking for FWB / hook up or nothing. If he’s actually someone with options, he may stick to it. Then you are left with the choice of either taking what he offers or declining and moving on, but don’t lie to yourself about it or delude yourself about your chances in that case.

  • Collegegirl1

    I’m just sooo frustrated because I’m sick of guys trying to USE me to get sex out of me. It’s like..does any guy like me for ME? I’m funny, fun to be around, pretty, all their friends seem to like me and they’re nice to all mine..I’m down- to- earth and dress casually a lot (I don’t really wear a lot of makeup or dress up). I know I shouldn’t care and should focus solely on work and friends and important things in life, but it is frustrating me more than ever that I’m almost 22 and every guy who I think may “like me” actually fakes it and then pretty much dumps me when they don’t get what they want. I want to take things slower than they do and they get sooo mad. Usually then I just want to be alone, but some other guy comes along like a week later and tries to play me once again.

    Is it weird that at this point I don’t even WANT a relationship? I just want to be alone and have no guys give me attention because it’s wearing down on me. I want to be FRIENDS with him first (without rejecting him, without saying we can’t be more in the future) and of course that’s really hard to say and I don’t think guys want girls as just friends when they could be spending their time trying to play one to get sex…am I right? Like is he really going to make an effort to be a friend to me? I’ll get back to you on this once the year starts….

  • Aldonza

    1. Stop thinking you are a special snowflake and that you are a princess. Stop believing in fairy tales, Hollywood movies, Sex and the city and Oprah. You are a woman. There are three billion like you in the world. Grow up: you are not a little child (see 1 Corinthians 13,11). Start distinguishing fantasy from reality

    Interesting that you chose Corinthians 13 (boldings obviously mine):
    .
    If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
    .
    Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
    .
    Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
    .
    And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

  • Aldonza

    Be honest. Tell him you want a relationship, that you aren’t going to sleep with him right away, but that if things go well and the two of you hit it off, there is all kinds of potential for wildness.

    .
    I don’t know if I agree with that. Generally speaking, I don’t think it’s a good idea to bring up the “R Word” until a man does. It has overtones of female desperation and pushiness. If he asks, you answer truthfully and then step back and listen to what he has to say and observe what he does. That will tell you what you need to know.
    .
    You also should never tell a man that you’re not going to sleep with him, because basic psychology guarantees that when you say “I’m not going to sleep with you” he’s hearing “I’m [static noise] going to sleep with you.”
    .

    If he just wants a quick lay, he’s going to say no.

    .
    Maybe. Or maybe he likes hanging around with her anyway and gives her mixed signals while he persues other sexual opportunities. Or he hangs around with her hoping she’ll change her mind. Or he doesn’t say a word and pulls back a little bit until she starts chasing. I don’t believe that human behavior is reliable enough to predict what any man would do when told that by a woman.
    .

    If you are firm but fair, actually listen to what he wants as well, and can find a mutually acceptable solution, great.

    .
    This advice rings true to me. You don’t have to be apologetic about what you want or why. You also don’t have to be judgmental of what he wants or why.
    .
    It’s good that you’re taking the time to examine your own feelings and behaviors in these interactions. The next step is being open to trying some new ideas and forgiving yourself if you don’t get them perfect right away.

  • Reinholt

    First, if a guy runs the other way at the first sign of the “R” word (so long as you are being direct and fair, not pushy and whiny, as the latter is a problem no matter what you are saying), what were your real chances with him in the first place? Pretty close to zero. You are not going to trick someone into a long-term stable relationship by sneaking it up on them, for the most part. You are better off blowing up early than wasting your time and blowing up late; there is opportunity cost to sticking with and/or pursuing a bad thing. The trick, however, is not to be whiny or pushy about it. This is key; I see so many people basically try to browbeat / shame / nag their partner into a relationship, then blame the relationship part instead of their behavior. You have to be open, honest, and non-judgmental when doing it. Delivery matters.

    Second, on average, it’s not a bad rule of thumb to assume that if a man is attracted to you, you can’t be friends. Ultimately, something gives in that kind of situation.

    Third, if he’s a guy with options and you aren’t going to put out quickly, it is unlikely he spends significant time on you. Maybe spare time where he’s hoping you change your mind, but the reality is that most ‘alphas’ are not going to be wasting time on women who won’t give them what they want. This one I am speaking firsthand on. The reality is that guys who have many options are not going to be cornered, or to be more blunt, if I don’t get it from you, I can get it from someone else, and if you don’t like it, too bad.

    That’s the problem with chasing men who get a lot of attention from women. You are eminently replaceable (unless you are seriously world-class as a babe and a person, but even then…), and there’s no way around that. I know it’s not a pleasant thing to hear, but it is true.

  • Chili

    @ college girl
    I agree with Reinholt. Dropping hints about how you want a relationship or trying to lure him into one with various baits (including sex) might work if he was a girl and you were a lesbian, but guys either don’t understand or choose to ignore “clues” like this. The only thing that gives you a chance is firm, honest communication. And try to avoid questions like “do you like me?” or “where do we stand?” or “do you think think this could turn into something more?” In fact, avoid questions. Notice how the examples I gave put all the power in his hands? And the fact that you asked them shows you’re willing to be that needy putty. Not good.
    .
    Make declarative statements like “I’m looking for a relationship.” Make it clear that anything less is not ok with you. Make it clear that losing him is not a big deal to you (even if it is), hint that you may have other options (even if you don’t), and basically act like it would be his loss to let you go. But I’m not telling you to be an arrogant bi-yatch. I’m saying while you need to be honest about what you want, and how you feel about him, you also need to create incentives for him to want to be with you. Show that you can be a good girlfriend: be considerate and respectful in all your actions. Hint at how much you enjoy sex, etc. If guys pick up on any hints at all, it’s these.
    .
    And finally, take no for an answer. If he doesn’t want a relationship, he probably never will, with you, no matter what you do. Let it go and move on.

  • Snowdrop111

    “. Here’s a hint: figure out another way of validating each other without regard to whether attractive men have sex with you. And if more of you did that, and fewer of you were deploying casual sex as a means to compete with each other for the attention of the attractive men, you wouldn’t be in the quandary you’re in today.”

    I agree completely!!!!!!

    “Even if she ends up marrying a 6 when she is desperate because of her biological clock, she will never be happy. She has these fond memories of the alphas she had in the past. She remembers the excitement, the passion, the love, the fuzzy feelings. These memories chase her every time that she wakes up next to the dull and unattractive beta.” (from another person’s post)

    You need to meet my parents. Both were virgins when they married. This didn’t stop my mother from nagging, browbeating, abusing, denigrating, and publicly humiliating my father for 59 years and counting. She’s never had to take a good look at herself and realize no one else would put up with a hundredth of what my dad has put up with from her. I, on the other hand, not having met the right guy until I was 48, appreciate the hell out of him. It wasn’t the memories of guys she thought she “could have had” that made my mother fail to appreciate my dad. It was (in my opinion) lack of experience with what was out there in the real world.

    “4. When you reject a man, please don’t tell everyone you know how pathetic he is, not even if tearing him to pieces with your friends is a lot of fun. If you do it, you will have ruined his chances with other woman of your environment (class, college). Nobody wants to date a guy who has been labelled as a loser.”

    I agree that this goes on, and it’s horrible. Back in my day, boring wallflower church type girls would tell each other not to rag on guys like that and not to accept dates “just to be dating” if they didn’t like the guy. In our more “sophisticated” times, it seems to be the norm “HA HA HA guess who asked me out…PHIL” and Phil seems PERFECTLY FINE to me. Then after the date there’s a play-by-play EEEEEEK, he tried to KISS me EWWWW” I don’t know if the guys ever know that the girl has talked about him like that. In my day some girls would say “Then why did you go out with him?” but I suppose the girls who didn’t participate on the snark were boring wallflowers. I’m not talking about a guy who was creepy either…today he’s VP of a publishing company…and he’s gay. I suppose the attempt to date Miss Stuck-Up was during a time when he was trying to figure out if he was gay or not. Miss Stuck-Up went on to better things. But it seems that today, being stuck up is considered much more of a virtue than it used to be. Does anybody EVER criticize another for being stuck up these days, or is it all “who’s the most edgy” all the time? Anyway, how would you advise guys to deal with this, even if it’s wrong, when it does go on? I am not sure if guys talk that way among themselves about girl 6’s “EWWWW she was trying to get with me EWWWWW ha ha” I suppose it does some, but I don’t know if it’s really vicious or more like “She’s all right…but…” and leave it at that.

    “There’s the problem. It’s not just Sex+ Feminism. It’s that when women have sexual freedom, they invariably (as a whole) end up using it to make themselves slaves to a small number of cads.”

    This reminds me of Anna Karenina. In that book, both Anna (the adulteress) and Kitty (the young innocent) go after Vronsky (the dashing cad.) Levin is left heartbroken to nurse his wounds because he had a thing for Kitty and thought she would have seen through Vronsky. BUT in the book, Kitty goes through a learning process where she painstakingly learns and matures and grows up from being a flibbertigibbet and LEVIN FORGIVES…. and they live happily ever after. UNLIKE people say can happen on this blog. Fine, that book is fiction, you might say. I have seen it happen in real life. It’s not impossible to forgive and accept someone who wouldn’t have gone for you at a less mature stage in their life. I’m not sure my boyfriend would have gone for me when we were younger. He might have found me boring. I might have insisted on someone who didn’t have ear hair. But he might not have ear hair. This is a dilemma.

    “while the average 40yo man with a 25yo girlfriend is an exploitative, dirty old man.”

    I disagree. That’s only 15 years. I really don’t think anyone thinks 40 with 25 is creepy. My sister’s husband is 15 years older than her. Once you’re in that age range, 15 years = ball park.

    “Does or doesn’t a female 6 have an easier time getting laid than a male 6?”

    What constitutes a male 6? Since women don’t judge men solely on looks across a crowded room? A weird looking, fat, and frightening, yelling, angry male comedian can get laid any old time. Because he’s got charisma and presence. And like the example I gave above, a male up and coming VP of a major publishing company got laughed at and ridiculed because he was scrawny, unconfident, kind of uncomfortable in his skin, and had I guess you would say mannerisms. I guess that’s why. A male can be great looking and give off a bad vibe and I can’t exactly say why. For all they say a male serial killer can get laid, Ted Bundy gave off a vibe that sent some girls running for the exits. On the very night he did the Chi Omega house, he had been asking women to dance at a club earlier. One of them said “I think I just danced with Jack the Ripper,” he was giving off such a vibe. And he was extremely good looking. I don’t know that he had THAT many marriage proposals on death row. The woman who married and stood by him was not very good looking at all. I think what consititutes a male “6” is all in the vibe he gives off but I know that’s frustrating, since I don’t know how to describe it or how a person would work on it. I probably give off bad vibes too.

    “Patriarchy works for both sexes when men are exemplary human beings. When men are flawed, patriarchy allows those flaws to flourish. Feminism has helped to level the playing filed for women in may helpful ways. The downside is that it has also allowed female flaws to flourish.”
    -J, that was brilliant.

    “She’s a sweet and helpful woman, personable but she has no sense of style or girl game. She’d make a great wife and mother, but men hve NO interest in her. I know another who is approaching 30, OK-looking but no beauty, and again lacks girl game. She’s very intellectual and serious, would make a great wife and mother, but again No interest from men. How do we help these women?”

    Perhaps they are afraid of men, and don’t strive to get male attention because it frightens them. Perhaps that is why some women are overweight and don’t go on a strict diet. It keeps them from having to face the whole rat race. Male attention can be frightening for some.

    “An example: Jennifer Aniston is held by many to be less attractive than both Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. Therefore, she could get away with less than AJ does with Brad Pitt. Since Brad is so attractive, he didn’t have to put up with the antics of a merely nice looking woman. He held the “looks advantage.”

    –I disagree. I think Aniston is as beautiful as Jolie, and Brad has gone way downhill. Some attribute Brad’s slide in the looks dept. to not having access to Aniston’s high-dollar beauty team and knowhow anymore. Maybe Jolie and he are both against the shallowness of having high-dollar stylists. Anyway, what lured Brad away from Aniston was the same thing that lured Edward VIII away from his throne—BDSM. Or so I heard.

    “I had always assumed that the pretty wives of less attactive sugar daddies had affairs with the handsome tennis coach? am i wrong in assuming that?”
    “I don’t know. There wasn’t any data on that. I suppose if you are young and pretty enough or the hubs is ugly enough, he’ll cut you some slack.”
    Dr. David Buss in “The Murderer Next Door” says he’s the most likely husband to kill her if he catches her.

    “However, if I do give him a chance, I don’t want to revert to hooking up right away again. I want to establish a closer friendship and then MAYBE something more. I just don’t know how to tell him this without rejecting him or losing a chance for something to happen to us in the future.”

    I am of the opinion that “Casual sex isn’t my thing” never drove an interested man of quality away. I am of the opinion that if you tell him that, you will NOT be blowing any chance.

    Which would hurt YOU less in the long run? 1) Have sex with him quickly and he never calls again or says “I’m not ready for a relationship” after a couple of weeks 2) Don’t have sex with him and he stops calling/texting and waves hi sheepishly across a crowded room once in a while that’s it. Because option #3) He lost interest because you DIDN’T have sex — IS A LIE.

  • Collegegirl1

    Thank you for your comments but I definitely am not upfront and would be scared to say I want a relationship. I don’t necessarily want a relationship now…I just want to be treated with respect. I don’t want to be a “hook up” for him and usually when I say stuff like that guys DO NOT believe me. Basically when I say I won’t have sex with them when it’s like ..the end of the night they hear, “I want to have sex with you” and keep pursuing in the following days or weeks.
    I think I’m just going to act FRIENDLY with him & less flirty but I don’t want to give him mixed signals. I’ve been told I give mixed signals..lead guys on..etc because basically I am not upfront and don’t say exactly what I feel in fear that they just don’t want to hear it. I think actions speak louder than words so I should just ACT as a friend to him so he doesn’t move as quickly (because it’s a week before school and to be that forward with me is basically like..yeah I want to get this thing started already haha).
    What do you think?

  • Reinholt

    I think you are destined to failure, possibly in epic fashion. If you are scared to be direct, regarding not wanting to be a hookup, you are a coward. I won’t mince words on that one, because you need to hear it.

    I mean, what is really going to happen? You are going to get rejected, at worst. It sucks, yeah, but it won’t kill you and you’ll get over it. If you avoid, avoid, avoid, and never learn to be accountable for your own actions or work to better your own life, you are going to get what you deserve: fucked over.

    Man up. ;)

  • Chili

    I think youre just wasting time at this point Reinholt. College girl, tell me if I got this straight. You go on this blog, ask for advice. Four people essentially tell you the same thing, but instead of thinking about the logic behind their suggestions, you say the equivalent of “hmm, sounds good but that just ain’t me,” and decide to do what you were going to do anyway. Why did you ask for advice in the first place?
    .
    Probably because something inside you told you doing what you were going to do anyway would end in failure. You know what you need to do. And “act less flirty” or whatever isn’t it.

  • Snowdrop111

    I have a question about this 80/20 business:
    Why were the soldiers in Germany in World War II willing to go fight and die so that the so-called “Most Worthy Genetic Males” back home could have sex with actual on-purpose harems of all the so-called “Most Worthy Genetic Women” in order to quickly breed the so-called “Master Race?” It seems to me what the guys here describe going on with the 80/20 business was consciously put into practice in Nazi Germany. Whole harems of the so-called genetically ‘best’ women were put in houses for the so-called genetically ‘best’ men to impregnate and the rank and file soldiers went off to fight, not only not getting laid, but dying, run over by tanks and left in the mud slush to rot in Russia…so the Alphas of Germany could impregnate actual on purpose harems of the bestest best German women….WHY?

    And if today, our society is quietly, “subconsciously” participating in an 80/20 thing, is it out of some hidden, subconscious desire to make the same thing happen?

    Most of all, why didn’t, say, the soldiers in Germany rise up and say, Hell no, we won’t go, we want our share of the sex too? Or did they think their lot was going to be even worse, if there wasn’t a war? Or did they think they had a shot at the so-called best women when they got home? Well those women would have been in harems… impregnated already by the SS … so why wouldn’t those German soldiers have said, We don’t want those women who have already been in harems?

    What the guys on here are saying they don’t like, being left sexless while the best women share a few alpha men, was put into deliberate practice in Nazi Germany for the good of breeding the so-called Master Race and did the German rank and file soldiers think this was just fine????? for the good of the fatherland??? or did they think they got a raw deal????

    I think in most other wars, the rank and file soldier has a wife. But in Nazi Germany the bestest best women were rounded up and put on purpose in actual harems for the SS to impregnant, am I right? and did the German rank and file soldier think “If I am a good boy, when I get home, I will get my share?” or did he think, “This is necessary for the good of the Fatherland?” or what did he think?

  • Snowdrop111

    College girl, just keep saying, “Casual sex is not my thing,” “I don’t want to be a hookup,” and DON’T DRINK more than one or two drinks … keep sober enough to go home when the pleading and cajoling gets tiresome. Borrow a page from world famous femmes fatales from yesteryear and say “I’m going home I’m bored” at the end of the evening. Just because a guy says it’s mixed signals doesn’t mean it’s mixed signals. “I don’t do casual hookups” is not a mixed signal. I assume you don’t have any of the visual or behavioral stamps of a party girl.
    Guys know what “I don’t do casual hookups” means. Don’t stay too late at a party and don’t drink enough to get tired or make you tempted to linger. It might mean you get less sex but the word will get around that you don’t do casual hookups. Fine. That leaves room for the first relationship-seeking guy who is looking for a girlfriend who doesn’t do casual hookups. It might not be THIS guy. But there are guys who are looking for girlfriends, if not that many in college, there will be later and (Old lady advice) you will be glad you waited. That doesn’t mean you can’t go to parties. But don’t act like a “party girl” and don’t drink much.

  • Clarence

    Collegegirl1:
    I agree with Reinholt, BUT there is an alternative

    You can agree to go places with him but make sure you let him know sex is not on the table that night, even if you don’t tell him you want a relationship. What I’m saying is TEST him first:
    See if he wants to go places during the day, or places with lots of people, or places with no alcohol or where alcohol is part of a menu but not the main choice – Say TGI Friday’s or Outback, or you get the picture.
    Avoid being with him at night for the first few times. See if you two have fun together, and see if he still wants to go out with you. The most you should let him do is maybe a grab somewhere and a kiss. If you two have been on 3 or more dates, he has respected your “no’s” or else not pressured you for sex at all, then you might want to consider having the “relationship” talk with him. Of course you could stumble into the “CONVERSATION” your first date, but you did say you were shy and not upfront, so I doubt this will happen. Of course I doubt he will pass the three date “test” but hey, it’s indirect but still honest because if he really pushes you have to respond, and you can see if you two have fun together.
    It would still be best if you were upfront, I think.
    After all you may not want to risk two dates or three, and you still..eventually..have to bring up your desires.

    By the way here’s something to think about:
    Both girls and guys have to learn two things:
    A. how to say NO. This is important unless you like being used and abused and possibly raped.
    B. How to communicate what you DO like..how to say YES , but not just yes.

    I recommend all three posts in this series:
    http://clarissethorn.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/sex-communication-tactic-derived-from-sm-1-checklists/

    Plus there is a post on this blog about how to spot a player. If you want, I’ll link you to that, too. You need to learn how to protect yourself, but even more so you seem to need to learn how to ASSERT yourself.

    Lastly, you are entitled to your own feelings, and remember this: you are young. If he rejects you it is NOT the end of the world. :) Us guys get used to it..heck, even the most wanted men probably strike out more than they hit unless they are famous and rich IN ADDITION to being hunky and charismatic. So I think you can learn it too. And honestly, for your own future happiness, you need to learn this stuff.

  • Clarence

    Snowdrop1:

    I’ve read over a hundred books about the Second World War and I’ve never heard that MILLIONS of women were impregnated by the SS. I don’t think married women were rounded up..and may understanding, anyway, is that lotsa raping and brothel visiting went on in both France and the Eastern front anyway so I’m not so sure all the common German soldiers (let alone psychopaths like most of the SS) couldn’t get laid.

    I’ll be honest. I’ve never heard of a book written on the sexual history of Germany (or even the German army) in the Second World War, though I seem to recall a paper thesis or two about certain aspects of it..like concentration camp rapes…hmm. I’ll have to look into this.

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

    @J
    Laid is the key word here, not married.
    This is exactly right. Men want sex, women want commitment, and there are plenty of each who are not getting what they want.

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

    Everyone gets basic politeness and decent treatment. Love and respect are reserved for good people.

    This same principle can apply to relations between men and women. Men sometimes say here that treating women with courtesy makes them chumps. I disagree. Men should treat women with politeness and decency. Love and respect must be earned. A woman who proves herself unworthy should not expect any of the above, but she must disqualify herself before a man should be rude to her.

  • Anonymous

    -J, that was brilliant

    Thanks, Snowdrop!!

    As to Jen vs. Jolie, I too personally think Jen is the prettier one, but people say that AJ is the world class beauty. I think Jen is aging better, which as I’m an older woman, impresses me. AJ is starting to look odd.–too thin, too much surgery. BDSM, huh? Wow!

    As the women I know, perhaps there is some subconscisous fear going on. It’s odd. It does belie however the idea that women are the sole gatekeepers. What good is keeping the gate is you can’t get a date?

    The Buss quote surprises me. I tend to associate violent crimes of passion with lower socio-economic status. OTOH, a rich man might feel more entitled.

  • Höllenhund

    Aldonza,

    I concede that ‘impossible’ was too strong a word on my part. But the cleverly worded phrase ‘patriarchal hook up game’ implies that it is the patriarchy and its ideology that encourages and justifies hooking up, which is total BS since hooking up is prohibited and suppressed in all patriarchies.

    J,

    “I won’t say that male sexuality is restrained under patriarchy.”

    Yes, because as we all know, young men in those times were permitted to have as much pre-marital sex as they wanted with whom they wanted. ROFL!

    ” In the highly patriarchal Middle East, a man can buy the favors of an 8-10 year for less than you pay for lunch at McDonald’s and then go home to a number of wives and/or mistresses.”

    The way you worded this sentence clearly shows that you’re bullsh*tting. Polygyny is heavily regulated in Islam (some Westernized Muslim countries like Tunisia and Syria don’t even permit it), only 2-3% of men have more than one wife (the rest cannot afford it). The only exception is Saudi Arabia but that is only due to excessive oil wealth. Prostitution of any sort is technically illegal, it’s concentrated in big cities and ports and only wealthy men can afford it. The idea that Muslim men in general are getting sexed by cheap child prostitutes, mistresses and wives is complete and utter BS that I expect only feminists to come up with.

    “Victorian England was famous for its prostitution.”

    The reason Victorian England and other countries in those times either legalized prostitution or tolerated it was due to the silent recognition that at least wealthier men (the ones who could afford visiting brothels) should have some sexual release in a culture where pre-marital sex is prohibited. Prostitution was tolerated precisely because male sexuality was also suppressed.

    ” When men are flawed, patriarchy allows those flaws to flourish.”

    The only type of men that patriarchy allowed to flourish was the dutiful provider beta who pedestalized women and played by society’s rules. Are they flawed? Maybe in the sense that they bought into the lies they were told about women.

    “A return to patriarch is not IMO the way to go.”

    I share this view, although admittedly for completely selfish and practical reasons. I have no intention of serving a system that forces me into the beta provider role of the sole breadwinner and protector of my family plus the cannon fodder of the political leadership. And one obvious flaw of the monogamous patriarchy is its vulnerability to cultural shocks (since pent-up female hypergamous instincts will always seek release) and also the tendency to destabilize itself through excessive growth and material abundance, which usually leads to moral decline and pussification.

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

    @Lo

    So in my second year of college I stepped up, I stopped thinking about all the reasons why a guy wouldn’t want me, and I started thinking about all the reasons he WOULD. A simple shift in strategy, but it’s amazing how much things change when you start seeing your own worth and not some number that apparently defines your dating potential.

    This is a model for changing your life. Good for you. I agree with you about the scale – it’s reductive in the extreme, and there is no absolute scale for beauty or attraction. I understand that men are visual creatures, and they may talk about women’s looks among themselves a great deal. But honestly, we’re better off not even knowing what they think. As you say, it’s almost always a downer. And the truth is that many guys who would demean a woman as a 6 would be damned lucky to have her. A lot of this talk is just that.

  • Dilithium

    Lo: “… this holds true for BOTH genders. The key is confidence,…”

    .

    You should not make the mistake of false even-handedness here. The task of coming across as sufficiently confident is not of equal difficulty for men and women. For any woman who’s a 6 or above (roughly speaking) all she has to do is be reasonably available, reasonably approachable and not hidden away or painfully shy; men will do the rest and she will get plenty of attention. You can call this “confidence” on the woman’s part, but it’s really a very low bar to clear. Men have to do much, much more to actually stand out from the background of other men before getting any attention at all; it’s just the wages of hypergamy in action.

    .

    By confidence I mean SMILE, look your best, smell nice, listen to what the other person says, laugh with them, make them laugh. … If you make a person feel good emotionally, you have a way better chance of getting with them physically,

    .

    Sorry, this is just a complete reality fail. If only this were true! but it’s not, and I don’t even know how to begin telling you how wrong you are here.

  • Collegegirl1

    No, I apologize. I do appreciate all your advice but it is hard to CHANGE. I am going to try my hardest though, to be upfront at the appropriate time, because I don’t want to keep doing the same thing I always did. I’m not going to drink too much because I’m not that “party girl.” I love to party but wouldn’t classify myself as a party girl who hooks up, wakes up the next morning, and doesn’t have any emotions attached.
    I think it MIGHT be different with this guy (not saying this as a fact, but as a possibility) because I haven’t seen him for eight months (I was studying abroad and there were breaks) and he has still liked me. My friends always noted they felt he kind of had a thing for me and I felt he did too.
    I think my problem is I am worrying about this too much and jumping to conclusions too soon. I don’t know if I like him because I haven’t seen him in the longest time. I also feel KIND OF pressured to be honest, because he was just sooo upfront and it makes me kind of nervous that I don’t feel the same way right now (or if I ever will). That’s the only reason I say I will be less flirty and more friendly..because honestly I don’t know if I want more.
    I am scared to get hurt because I have gotten hurt in the past. I’m not the most sensitive person but I am normal and do have feelings like a lot of people when it comes to be treated with respect. I know I deserve something good in my life….and if it doesn’t come along this year or whatever, I’ll just have to accept it. I’m going to hold out a couple times before I even KISS him (just told my friends this) to show him..look..I’m not like the others. HOpefully he gets that but if not then I get that he’s not right for me.

  • Höllenhund

    Snowdrop111,

    much of the stuff you ‘learn’ from pop historians, newspapers and History Channel documentaries about Nazi Germany is sensationalist BS. The Lebensborn organization of the SS ran a network of nursing homes (and temporary orphanages) for the wives of SS-members and the unmarried women who were impregnated by them so as to prevent the latter from a) seeking illegal abortions b) social ostracism (as long as they were deemed “racially pure”, of course, in which case the biological father was expected to marry the mother). The general purpose was to heighten the birth rate and thus compensate for the bloodletting of WW1. They weren’t breeding farms/brothels as often depicted. The fathers were cannon fodder themselves, sent either to the frontlines or to the occupied territorries to fight the partisans. German soldiers, like all other soldiers in every war, were told it’s their duty to protect their wives and children from the barbaric enemy.

  • Brendan

    I should just ACT as a friend to him so he doesn’t move as quickly

    The risk here is that he gets worried you’ve put him in the dreaded “friendzone”. A lot of guys have been tutored by other guys that a woman will show you, by her actions, very early in a relationship (even a budding proto-relationship) that she is romantically interested in you if you make an overture, whereas if you don’t make one, she’ll place you in the friendzone. So I’m not sure that the friend strategy is going to work. It *can* work, but a lot of guys are skeptical of it because many of them have been friendzoned in the past.

    Anyway, what lured Brad away from Aniston was the same thing that lured Edward VIII away from his throne—BDSM. Or so I heard.

    My understanding of the situation as well. Angie is the Mistress of the house, so to speak, in more ways than one.

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

    @College Girl
    First, sorry I haven’t gotten to your email yet, but I will. In the meantime, I think you got some excellent advice in this thread. FWIW, I’ll throw in my two cents. First, Aldonza is right about the R word – it’s toxic to guys. You don’t want to be too aggressive with a guy who would consider a relationship, turning him off by coming on waaayyy too strong too early. So I’ll second that. On the other hand, Reinholt is exactly right when he says that there is an opportunity cost to wasting time with a guy who’s no way going to commit. So the thing you need to do is find the balance between showing interest, and delaying sexual intimacy. Not an easy task. I think Snowdrop had a great suggestion to saying you don’t do hookups. One young woman I know says, “I’m not cut out for casual.” This works really well. It signals that she is selective, not just withholding sex now, but as part of her regular behavior. It also lets the guy know that pressuring her for something that she knows she isn’t cut out for would be really douchey, and play with her emotions. Hamby once suggested that women tell men they really need to get to know them first. Only you can say when you know him well enough. No man who is interested in more than a hookup will walk away if you demonstrate your character in this way. If this guy walks, he’s not relationship material, period. By the way, I love Reinholt’s suggestion that you can promise “all kinds of potential for wildness.” This request – that a man wait until you feel emotionally prepared for sexual intimacy is reasonable, by any standard, even in college today.
    I understand why you’re tired of this kind of thing – and why you want to just be alone and not deal with it. The truth is, you are better off turning down a casual offer and remaining on the market. It’s true that you’ll stop getting attention from players, and that can be both disappointing and boring, but I think you’ll find that you have peace of mind and a stronger sense of your own worth and strength. As Snowdrop says, this will not last forever, and every time you get played it leaves a little (or big) scar. You don’t want to come out of college scarred and battle-weary – too cynical and jaded to feel good about relationships.

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

    Here’s a post that Joey from Scarleteen left on the other thread. It comments on this post, though, so I’m copying and pasting it here.

    I’m not sure if you think that we’re all really stupid, or if you are just so blinded by your views that you simply cannot see dissenting view-points, but it seems as though you either didn’t read any of the articles you linked to, or hoped that no one else would. Because, of the ones I’ve read, only two support your arguments. All of the others (except for two who aren’t even talking about sex-positive feminism in any way), say something entirely different.

    Let’s start with Ariel Levy. Way back in your response to my first comment on your post on JF, you called me a Girl Gone Wild, and I wondered whether you’d read Levy’s book at all. The fact that you now quote her out of context AGAIN shows that you probably haven’t read. Female Chauvinist Pigs isn’t about sex-positive feminism. Levy talks about the fact that our model for sexuality has changed over the years to the one we have now, but that this one is still just as bad as the previous one because it still focuses on male sexuality. It just does so in a different way. Levy’s criticism is that this new model still doesn’t leave women with any choices, which sex-positive feminism (or any kind of feminism) is critical of, as it promotes choice.

    Jennifer Egan, in the second article you quote, agrees with this. She also says that it’s not feminism that Levy is critiquing, it’s the development of a system that pressures women to perform a sexuality that is not authentic to them. And that’s the opposite of sex-positive feminism, as that’s about finding what is authentic to you and being able to act on that without judgment.

    As for the articles by Maureen Dowd and Rebecca Traister, I also feel like you’re reading something into them that’s not there. For one thing, they’re not really explicitly critiquing sex-positive feminism at all. They’re not talking about the dangers or failures of any sort of feminism, but about the dangers of the patriarchal structures that remain, and the gender inequality that is still present.

    I’m not sure why you included Bussel in your line-up, as her entire article is all about making the right sexual choice for yourself, whether that includes abstinence or all sorts of sexual adventures. The same is true for the article by Tracy Clark. The title and subtitle of her article alone should show that you clearly picked the wrong lady to support your argument: “In defense of casual sex: A new raft of chastity books laments a hookup culture that is hurting young women. As one of those young women, I beg to disagree.”

    I’m not going to comment the article on Jezebel you linked to because, well, that one was neither pro or con sex positivism. It was about something different entirely.

    Your inclusion of the post by Jessica Valenti surprised me, given that it’s pretty obvious that she doesn’t support your stance. And anyone who went and read her article would find this out in fairly short order. She’s saying what I and others in your comments have been saying all along: that young women are not, in fact, going out in droves to have casual sex because some sex-positive feminists made them. Valenti cites several studies that support her claim that the moral outrage about hooking-up is unfounded, and that most of the hand-wringing about women damaged by casual sex comes from anti-woman organizations.

    The interview with Naomi Wolf may be interpreted to mean that she’s critical of hooking up.

    Hess’s article, on the other hand, is NOT saying that the sex-positive movement is crumbling. What she’s saying is there’s no point in having a separate movement for this, as feminism itself is already supportive of women who like to have sex. Her problem is having a separate movement for this, not the aim of the movement itself.

    The quote by the blogger Carmel de Amicis ties in what Jessice Grose says in her second link about sex-bloggers. What caused these women to stop blogging isn’t that they suddenly re-discovered virginity and felt bad about the sex they’d had. These women stopped blogging because they were getting so much flak for it. Just look at what happened to Lena Chen. She quit posting because a vindictive ex-partner posted nude pictures of her on the internet and she suddenly became the target of ridicule and harassment. And that’s not a problem that’s inherent in sex-positive feminism – it’s a problem that has a whole lot to do with the way our society treats women who are vocal about choosing to have sex.

    The article by Rachel Simmons you quote is being taken on in the following link to Amanda Marcotte, which you, surprisingly, quoted quite misleadingly. Marcotte starts by entitling her piece “It’s not the sex, it’s the sexism”, which brings us back to what I mentioned in my comment above. It’s not casual sex that hurts women – it’s the slut shaming that they encounter when being vocal about casual sex.

    Your reference to Tina Fey (which I had to google, as you did not provide the link) was pretty useless, as Fey is clearly talking about FASHION, and not about sex.

    So, with the exception of the first post by Grose, and the interview with Wolf, your links do shit to show us that sex-positive feminism is useless/misguided/dying. The fact that you put up these links at all insults the intelligence of anyone who is trying to engage in serious debate here.

  • Höllenhund

    OT: there’s interesting discussion over at Roissy’s blog about the new book ‘Sex at Dawn’ which is getting considerable media attention nowadays:

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/sex-at-dusk/

    I bet most feminists will love this book.

  • Brendan

    Of course. Feminists love the caricature of bonobos that has become normative: femdom, promiscuity, supposed peace etc etc.

    Of course, there’s more to the story than that: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/30/070730fa_fact_parker?currentPage=all (as Thursday posted over at the Chateau).

  • http://FT.com VJ

    Geez, what a mess. Let’s try for some cleanup. Principally for Snowdrop. The Nazi’s were in power for about a dozen years. About half of those were first provoking then fighting & losing a World War. Lots of very strange s*it went down. But nothing much like you imagined with all the sexing. The Party did indeed cruelly & dictatorially control the destinies of millions. But they never ran large sale ‘breeding farms’. For anyone. They did have plenty of strange, quirky ‘scientific’ experiments going on all the time, and yes this was one of the ‘sidelines’. But it too was a miserable failure. Almost None of the children born from such a program would have been at fighting age, even at the very end of the war in 1945. The rest is just mere p0rno fantasy actually. And yes, there’s plenty of that to go around. It’s a genre actually.

    Glad you found your honey SD, however late. Still almost everyone has ear hair, or they could not hear. You’re thinking of that thatch that’s hanging out of the ear canal. That’s an artifact of age actually. It’s a design feature. It’s how the old ‘silver back’s recognize each other, in part.

    Angry, fat & balding/short/ugly comedians are that way due to the fact that they’re Not getting laid (or regularly). Go ahead & ask them all about it. You’ll get an earful. Perhaps a BF too… But when they finally do get Popular in middle age or thereabouts, & they’re recovering from their 1st marriage perhaps even the 2nd, that’s when they finally have their pick of Some of the ‘hot chicks’ that never would have given them the time of day ‘way back when’. So after 10-20 years of hard knocks & constant work they finally ‘make it’ and can live well beyond their means & dreams. That’s precisely when they’re most amenable to the charms of someone looking for an older wealthy ‘sugar-daddy’.

    Am I the last one left in the country who does not much give a hot damn what Jen/Brad/Ange are up to or what & why & when? And even if I did? I’d make certain never to imply that such a Hollywood life style is either acceptable or applicable for either my life or the lives of most of the folks I meet everyday in my world.

    And at the end of the day? CG does not seem to be all too enamored of her current attention seeker, and sounds exhausted. Which is fine. No one says you need to leave school with an Mrs. degree, (although it might be a useful start for Some, if they’ve got their priorities straight & they’re Both mature enough).

    And yeah 100’s of comments on the same theme can be rendered moot by just trying to ‘debunk’ some yes, random quotes from celebrities on the dangers of ‘slutting it up’ Meant to Provoke Discussion here & elsewhere. Thanks ‘Joey’! Why’d we think of that? Now where’s all that sexing we were promised by this lovely revolution? I know… Cheers, ‘VJ

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

    @VJ
    You’re like our own built-in Encyclopedia Britannica. Seriously, there is NO topic we have ever turned up here that you haven’t been able to wax poetic on. Very handy, that. And as always, you make me laugh. And of course, prevent me from taking myself too seriously. So thanks.

  • http://FT.com VJ

    Thanks Susan, You know before the internets, like way back in the 1900’s? All that ‘knowledge’ was ever so impressive to all the ‘womens’ too. Like Not! Still not actually. Unless you speak their language and about something they might be interested in. Which as long as it’s not celebrities & pop culture of the last 20 or so years, I’m doing fine. Which means that mostly I’m now quite capable of picking up women my age. Which is a great improvement we guess. But obviously I missed that Dick Cavett moment way back in the early 80’s when people still ‘conversed’ & talked to each other about ‘topics of the day’ & cared about same. Now? We just seem to scream past each other mostly. And of course no one reads much anymore either. Cheers, ‘VJ’

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

    @VJ
    Funny you should mention Dick Cavett. I used to watch him with my mother – we both adored him. I always went for short guys, and he was just brilliant and funny. I even got that at the age of 14. We’ve got Jon Stewart now instead, which apparently, is the primary news source for 20-somethings. Which is fine, but personally I find him sanctimonious, though very clever as well. And speaking of talking of topics of the day, remember Firing Line? What a nerd I was, watching that on Sunday afternoons during the Carter administration, aged 20. But the conversations were always fascinating! (It’s always good to know what the enemy is thinking, and William Buckley was the most intelligent man. I used to write down words during his show to look up in the dictionary later.)

  • http://FT.com VJ

    Yeah, pretty much the same here with a NYC TV feed too. I well recall Buckley, who despite being urbane, literate & very erudite was indeed a bit of a nutter on several issues. (His son Chris has a good recent bio on him too). What I recall were these hour long discussions & deep & complicated arguments, especially if religion and/or Catholicism was ever broached. Then watch out! Katie bar the door & it then took on exceedingly tendentious & turgid qualities, like trudging through the proverbial Russian novel in Winter in an unheated Dasha. What I also recall was Everyone smoking on the early ‘Firing Lines’ too! It was just amazing. And the way it was simply shot it was like being in some hazy little jazz club after the musicians had all gone. As if all the stiff necked maître d’s from up & down the block in NYC high rent district had gotten together & deep in their cups (yes, they also drank then too) decided to have it out, every Sat/Sun night @ 5AM.

    He was a deeply complex man and no one’s really his equal on the stage today. He was dead set against the Iraq war too, and saw Bush for the frauds they were. Especially the last one. But today? His ‘Q’ ratings would be in decimal figures. It’s always Bread & Circuses now. Nothing but infotainment, if we’re lucky to get that from the maw of the media monsters. It’s like explaining the Latin Mass & arguments over same. Buckley was deeply skeptical of the entire Vatican 11 apparatus which he saw as just so much ‘liberal muddled headedness’. Much as Pat Buchanan still does today, actually. But boy of boy did they argue the finer points of that to death too. He was actually quite capable of being fairly churlishly stubborn about the retention of the ‘mysteries’ of it all & such & sundry.

    But yeah. We had, what? Maybe 5-7 channels back then too? There was likely not much on at that hour! Such are the measures of a sterling success at an early age. Lapping up the scotch & smoking like a bandit & arguing with his friends. A great job if you can still get it! Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • http://FT.com VJ

    This just in: The entire process makes everyone stupid, thereby enhancing the possibility of Hooking up!:

    http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/admire-her-body-hamper-her-brain-10780/

    Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • Anonymous

    @Hollenhund

    Yes, because as we all know, young men in those times were permitted to have as much pre-marital sex as they wanted with whom they wanted. ROFL!

    What wer the penalties for it? Honor killings? C’mon now. There’s always been a class of women that were available for the unattached. Of course, with early marriage, there weren’t that many unattached men compared to today.

    Prostitution of any sort is technically illegal,

    So that means it doesn’t exist.

    it’s concentrated in big cities and ports

    Then it does exist!!

    and only wealthy men can afford it.

    Proof?

    The idea that Muslim men in general are getting sexed by cheap child prostitutes, mistresses and wives is complete and utter BS that I expect only feminists to come up with.

    I’s suggest you read this book and its prequel– http://www.amazon.com/Princess-Sultanas-Daughters-Jean-Sasson/dp/0967673755–or anything by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, except that they’re written by women by feminists. Feminist here being defined as someone who does want her gentalia mutilated.

    Prostitution was tolerated precisely because male sexuality was also suppressed.

    Right, I think I said that patriarchy of that sort creates two classes of women: wives and thers who exist to service men. That gave men an outlet so they weren’t genuinely suppressed. Was there a similar outlet for single women and frustrated wives that was tacitly approved of by society?

    ” When men are flawed, patriarchy allows those flaws to flourish.”

    The only type of men that patriarchy allowed to flourish was the dutiful provider beta who pedestalized women and played by society’s rules. Are they flawed? Maybe in the sense that they bought into the lies they were told about women.

    That’s the meme in the manosphere, but I think all men were better off than women were.

    I share this view, although admittedly for completely selfish and practical reasons. I have no intention of serving a system that forces me into the beta provider role of the sole breadwinner and protector of my family plus the cannon fodder of the political leadership.

    I don’t know what to tell you because I don’t really buy into the meme of despised betas and crazy, hypergamous females. IRL, I’ve been happily and faithfully married for over 20 years to a man who is bright, funny, accomplished, good to family and a wonderful father. He would be dismissed as “beta” in the manosphere.

    I also know some really wonderful young women and young men. I truly hope they find each other and that we see an end to the hook-up culture in general. I just don’t think that belief in the meme is the way there. I do think that women should stop screwing cads though and oppose sex+ “feminism.”

  • J

    All-

    Sorry, I keep forgetting to sign in. Anonymous at August 25, 2010 at 6:49 pm and today at 10:22 is me.

  • J

    @VJ

    This just in: The entire process makes everyone stupid, thereby enhancing the possibility of Hooking up!

    This also suugests that game perpertuates the very flaws gamesters condemn in women–like vanity, stupidity and shallowness–by both rewarding those traits socially and passing them genetically.

    They suggest further research would be valuable to discover why some women are prone to self-objectification, while others seem protected against it. Gay and Castano’s data suggest about 20 percent of women have a strong propensity toward self-objectification and are thus particularly susceptible to triggers, such as being stared at.

    Yep, game’s target audience!

  • Clarence

    Hey, Brendon/Nova:

    Good link!
    It’s always good to see just how little we really do know and to what almost heroic exertions some reasearchers will go to find out more. That article makes it very clear that despite some serious simplifications in the press, what we know about bonobos is little, and that observing them in the wild is very, very, hard.

    I’m glad the lead researcher got married and has a kid. His wife is pretty cool too..I mean how many women would choose a life of field research and frequent flying in a dangerous area? I had no idea the Max Planck Institute was that cool, but it seems he leads a relatively privileged life most of the time balanced by a relatively thankless bit of research that won’t make headlines for years if ever, meanwhile people will continue to state it as “fact” that bonobos are totally matriarchal, and hence, of course!!!.. peaceful.

  • J

    @ CollegeGirl

    Thank you for your comments but I definitely am not upfront and would be scared to say I want a relationship.

    Your fear is the root of your problem. And I suspect that’s true of many women your age. You’ve all drunk the PUA kool-aid that sex is basically what you have to offer a guy and that “all pussy is fungible.” Only the latter is true. If a man genuinely loves the rest of you, sex is not fungible. That’s why it’s good to hold out for a relationship.

    You’ve been given some great advice. Tell men straight up you don’t hook-up. Don’t drink heavily around men. Keep initial dates to daytime and to public places. I’d add, don’t allow men to spend a lot of money on you at first. Some of them will feel entitled.

    Yes, at frst, many men will reject you. That’s actually good!! You are weeding out the players. Take a page from the players’ book. Don’t put the dick on a pedestal. Don’t moon over this guy as though he is the only man in the world, so cute, so smart, so funny, etc. He ain’t alone; lots of men are all those things. PUAs approach many women before they find the ones that put out. You need to reject many players before you find the guys who will commit.

    I don’t necessarily want a relationship now…I just want to be treated with respect.

    That rarely happens outside a relationship.

    I don’t want to be a “hook up” for him and usually when I say stuff like that guys DO NOT believe me.

    That’s because men, like dogs, can smell fear.

    Basically when I say I won’t have sex with them when it’s like ..the end of the night they hear, “I want to have sex with you” and keep pursuing in the following days or weeks.

    RIght, because they want to have with you.

    I think I’m just going to act FRIENDLY with him & less flirty but I don’t want to give him mixed signals.

    Instead of strategizing how to “get” him, you should be thinking about how to get what you need.

    I’ve been told I give mixed signals..lead guys on..etc because basically I am not upfront and don’t say exactly what I feel in fear that they just don’t want to hear it.

    That’s a male strategy to get you to feel bad and put out. If they keep pursuing you after you’ve said you don’t want to hook up, it’s because they feel they can wear you down.

    I think actions speak louder than words

    They do. Disassociate yourself from men who don’t treat you well.

  • J

    @VJ

    Actually, I’m the one guilty party who first brought up Brad/Jen/AJ–just because they were an example that most people would be familiar with. I agree about Hollywood.

    You’re thinking of that thatch that’s hanging out of the ear canal. That’s an artifact of age actually. It’s a design feature. It’s how the old ‘silver back’s recognize each other, in part.

    So, I shouldn’t encourage the husband to trim that? It confers a business advantage when competing with other man? Along with the back hair?

  • http://thegatewayboyfriend.blogspot.com dan_brodribb

    Late to the party, but here are a couple notes.

    Average Joe wrote: “Sexuality is a matriarchy and college campuses are one of the few places/times men get to exercise more sexual power than they are typically afforded.”

    In my experience, a man’s sexual power increases with age. At least it has for me. I’ve had more romantic success in my thirties than the previous three decades combined. And I haven’t gotten any taller, richer, or more handsome over the years.

    Aldonza wrote: You also should never tell a man that you’re not going to sleep with him, because basic psychology guarantees that when you say “I’m not going to sleep with you” he’s hearing “I’m [static noise] going to sleep with you.”

    in fairness to the men, that’s a good interpretation. Every time a woman has said she isn’t going to have sex with me that has been a good indicator that she’s willing to have sex with me. Women who aren’t attracted rarely feel the need to make a point about how unattracted to me they are.

  • Average Joe

    Dan,

    A good fishermen in a bad lake can sometimes catch more trout than a bad fishermen in a good lake. Like most 30 something guys, your fishing skills have improved.. alot in the last 10 years. but I doubt that you’ll find a better lake than a college campus. Think of the lake as power and you’ll realize that If you knew then, what you know now , your biggest romantic success wouldn’t have come a decade post graduation.

  • Snowdrop111

    ” If a man genuinely loves the rest of you, sex is not fungible. That’s why it’s good to hold out for a relationship.”

    THIS IS TRUE! J., you should write a book.

    “You’ve been given some great advice. Tell men straight up you don’t hook-up. Don’t drink heavily around men. Keep initial dates to daytime and to public places. I’d add, don’t allow men to spend a lot of money on you at first. Some of them will feel entitled.
    Yes, at frst, many men will reject you. That’s actually good!! You are weeding out the players. Take a page from the players’ book. Don’t put the dick on a pedestal. Don’t moon over this guy as though he is the only man in the world, so cute, so smart, so funny, etc. He ain’t alone; lots of men are all those things. PUAs approach many women before they find the ones that put out. You need to reject many players before you find the guys who will commit.”

    J., where were you when I was younger? This should be engraved in stone. Although (for some women, I admit I’m one) it’s SO HARD.

    “That’s because men, like dogs, can smell fear.”

    Dear universe, I need to go back and redo certain situations, please may I?

    College girl you’ll do fine. Susan gave some good advice too. Tell him “I’m not cut out for casual.” Guys know what that means. Some will be testing for who will put out, and some want relationships. You won’t be sorry you weeded out the ones who were looking for those whom they could play.

  • Höllenhund

    J,

    “What wer the penalties for it? Honor killings? C’mon now. There’s always been a class of women that were available for the unattached.”

    There obviously were penalties. Are you seriously trying to argue that male sexuality is given free reign in any patriarchy? Try copying Roissy’s and Roosh’s behavior in Saudi Arabia or Yemen. Hooking up was difficult because women were constrained and kept away from unmarried men. If you impregnated a girl, you were forced into a shotgun marriage. If you tried to have sex with her, you had a good chance of being hunted down by her father/brothers/the townfolk. If you have sex with a married woman in a Muslim country, you will get flogged.

    “Prostitution of any sort is technically illegal,
    So that means it doesn’t exist.
    it’s concentrated in big cities and ports
    Then it does exist!!”

    I used the word “technically” for a reason. Clearly you’re just nitpicking. Prostitution exists in many countries where it is illegal.

    “and only wealthy men can afford it.
    Proof?”

    What proof do you need? Look at the average price hookers will charge you in any country where prostitution is illegal and therefore its price is artificially inflated. Only upper-class men can afford to visit them regularly.

    “I’s suggest you read this book and its prequel– http://www.amazon.com/Princess-Sultanas-Daughters-Jean-Sasson/dp/0967673755–or anything by Ayaan Hirsi Ali”

    Yeah, because Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an unbiased and reliable authority on Islam. This is like saying Der Stürmer was a reliable news source about German Jews. Give me a break. I won’t waste my time on people who don’t even hide their obvious bias.

    “Right, I think I said that patriarchy of that sort creates two classes of women: wives and thers who exist to service men. ”

    It is men who create these classes due to biology and the simple logic that promiscuous women with low self-control are not suitable for LTR, the patriarchy merely acknowledges that.

    “Was there a similar outlet for single women and frustrated wives that was tacitly approved of by society?”

    Lesbianism, masturbation, romance novels.

    “The only type of men that patriarchy allowed to flourish was the dutiful provider beta who pedestalized women and played by society’s rules. Are they flawed? Maybe in the sense that they bought into the lies they were told about women.
    That’s the meme in the manosphere, but I think all men were better off than women were.”

    You call that a “meme”? It’s simple logic. Patriarchy benefits provider betas because they don’t have to compete with alphas and their wives/daughters cannot freely cheat with alphas since female sexuality is restrained.

    “all men were better off than women were”

    Yes, because being forced into the role of the sole provider, having to perform the most dangerous + crappiest jobs and getting conscripted into the army is a manifestation of “male privilege”.

    “I don’t know what to tell you because I don’t really buy into the meme of despised betas and crazy, hypergamous females”

    This has nothing to do with that “meme”. Feminism teaches that women are competent and responsible beings, that they can have careers and thus be economically self-reliant, that they can also be soldiers. If that’s indeed the case than society cannot expect men like me to fill the role of sole providers, it shouldn’t conscript me into the army and it has no right to maintain female privilege in any form. For this simple reason I wouldn’t support a patriarchy.

  • Snowdrop111

    OK, I looked up the Lebensborn program and maybe there weren’t a lot of houses (harems) of German women saved especially to be impregnated by the SS. I still think that possibly there were some though. I also still don’t understand why the rank and file soldier would go fight for the cause of the SS men getting to impregnate so many of the most desirable women, and the rank and file getting the less desirable (in their way of thinking) unless the rank and file had some hope they would get theirs too. I still think even if there were *some* of the highly desirable German women saved in special houses to be impregnated by the SS, that’s the same as the 80/20 thing talked about on this blog. Here on this blog, people say it’s women who cause the 80/20 thing, but I still think when men go off to fight the rich man’s war, and the rich men get to stay home, it’s the same thing, voluntarily by men.

    In my day, Vietnam vets came back from Vietnam expressly, positively, not wanting the “Miss America Type.” They said “I felt that’s what we were fighting for.” (they didn’t mean that in a good way. They meant they knew they were not gonna get theirs.) Of all the men in the world who embrace less made-up, less Miss-America-Type women, it’s Vietnam vets.

    I still wonder if some of the 80/20 business is subconsciously agreed to by men, or else they would refuse to go to war for the rich man’s war. Not sure though.
    Maybe in most wars, women do not stick to just the rich men when the fighting men come back, don’t know. I think the US said never again would there be a draft with rich men’s exemption, but today it’s certainly not the rich going to war it’s the poor who need to better their circumstances. What’s in it for them again? I am sure they are not getting any on the side in Iraq and Afghanistan and from what I hear the marriages are breaking up under the strain of repeated deployments. WHAT is in it for the soliders today? Why aren’t they coming back angry like in Vietnam days, “I went to fight the rich man’s war and where’s my reward?” Sorry so far afield of the subject but I have one even more far afield. next comment.

  • Snowdrop111

    On this blog it sounds like all men will take all offered sex, gladly, and count it as a dire need to be fulfilled that gives them the ego boost to keep going.

    How, then, do you explain the shame felt by some men after indulging in too much pron, sex addiction, etc.

    I was brought up very old-fashioned that men needed women to be gatekeepers in part because men will feel shame and turn that shame on the women who “let” them, but also, would feel shame themselves too. AT LEAST as strict as I was brought up, I was brought up that men feel shame too when they do what comes naturally … instead of total “Hee Hee I used her, that dummy” as it sounds often on this blog.

    Today Jezebel has the anonymous tale of a sex addict after rehab, relapsing and considering the party girls he could get with, but feeling shame *all by himself*
    and I do believe that happens. I have heard of lots of guys confess to sex addiction who are ashamed without a flesh and blood woman even being involved, but somehow these men (I think) have an innate sense that just giving in to the flesh so many hours of the day is leaving them feeling empty.

    If life were always as this blog sounds like, those men who had little black books full of willing party girls should be on top of the world, going around thinking, “Ha Ha, I can call her and her and her and they would any and all of them come right over.” Yet instead of feeling on top of the world they feel shame, why?

    I think some of this is just as innate as the feeling of triumph at getting away with something. I think some men long for a connection where they are not caught in the cycle of using and feeling shame.

    I was brought up very very old-fashioned that women having a lower sex drive could help men be happier by channeling the male sex drive in ways that keep him from falling into that cycle…now, if he’s going to and wants to he will in spite of a good companion/wife/girlfriend, so I’m not saying it’s her fault and I’m not saying a woman ALWAYS has a lower sex drive.

    All I’m saying I guess is where does this feeling of shame that sex addicts have, come from, if sex is all just an ego boost for so-called alpha’s and a fitting way to keep score and high-five each other? It seems to me some who could be scoring every night feel shame. Where does that shame come from?

    I feel like it comes from the fact humans are not exactly like animals and they do (most of them) crave a higher connection. Whether it is right that women have to be the gatekeepers to help men not fall into shame I don’t know…that’s how I was raised, but that doesn’t mean I EVER accepted the blame for any men’s shame because with all my old-fashioned upbringing, it still took two to tango and at least the men were taught that women needed them to be gatekeepers too. Mostly the women were taught to be gatekeepers but the men were taught to help be gatekeepers too…anyway it may be possible one day that there is no sexual shame in the world put on either gender… but even if sex positive feminists feel there should be no shame, and even if all kinds of hedonists feel there should be no shame…and even if this blog sounds like all sex is always an ego boost for the lucky ones lucky enough to attract a partner…I see and hear about people feeling shame. Where does that shame come from? Some say from being repressed growing up… do you think all “sex addicts” who feel shame grew up repressed? Or do you think there is something innate in some people that somewhere they feel by instinct that giving in to the flesh and getting caught in too much fleshly desire gives them shame?

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

      @Snowdrop
      I don’t have the answers to your very important questions about shame, but it’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately. Is there “good shame?” The kind that keeps civilization intact, that preserves the social contract? How is it different from “bad shame,” the kind that is devastating at the individual level? Or if they’re the same, where do we draw the line? In some sense I believe that you cannot have a functioning society without shame. It’s certainly imperative that children learn to experience shame as a negative consequence of unacceptable behavior. So I think shame can be useful, and beneficial. It can also be destructive.

  • Snowdrop111

    P.S. I guess one thing I am trying to say is I think I would rather life be like I was brought up, that a man who indulges too much in the flesh would be ashamed, consider the partner who indulged with him also a sinner, repent, and help each other avoid sinning again… even lather, rinse, repeat … as long as the man is also held his share of responsible … than on this blog where it sounds like sex is always and only a way of ego boost scorekeeping for the man and something he takes from a partner at a bargain price then laughs all the way to the next frat party and never wants to see her again because “SLUT!” The way I was brought up, people think it was “SLUT! NEXT SLUT PLEASE!” but not entirely. There was forgiveness and the guys were held to a standard too. It wasn’t 100 percent “HA HA SHE LET ME, I am laughing and high fiving the guys” At least the guys were always told to “Treat the women like sisters” a problem there turned out to be they really DID think of us as sisters and weren’t so attracted as we grew up. The guys in that sect said, “I grew up with her and saw her as a sister” HA HA. Anyway.

    What sex positive proponents want is for there to be *no shame* associated with sex. They think it can be eradicated in a couple of generations because animals feel no shame. Christians think shame about the flesh is part of the human condition because (I take this metaphorically) the knowledge of good and evil….animals don’t have it, humans do. Right from the get-go humans are not the same as animals and sex is more than physical….and large numbers of people feel shame when they induldge the flesh on an animal level and YES THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO WHEN THEY EAT TOO MUCH so gluttony is not excused, and when they hog all the food and let the runts starve like animals do. The way I was brought up humans are not just like animals, and humans feel shame at some things animals don’t, whereas of course animals don’t do some of the super bad things humans do. But as for sex positive proponents, they feel shame can be taken out of sex altogether in a couple of generations, and everyone will be healthier. I used to believe that too. It didn’t happen and I gave up, seeing how people behave. Shame is still there, and now USING is kinda OK too it seems to me, with no preaching against using other people because all moralizing is so WRONG it seems. What I am trying to say is I don’t think sexual shame can be discarded that easily. I think it’s innate and that’s why sex addicts and people who have used someone feel shitty a lot of the time instead of high fiving their bro’s. On this blog it sounds like all they do is high five their bro’s. But there is so much talk about peopel feeling shitty if they have used someone. Humans do not seem to me to operate like this blog thinks, keeping score by using others and high fiving their bro’s. Many have an innate shame, from somewhere, I think. We’re not just animals. Sorry so long-winded and preachy.

  • Mike

    I don’t have the answers to your very important questions about shame, but it’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately. Is there “good shame?” The kind that keeps civilization intact, that preserves the social contract? How is it different from “bad shame,” the kind that is devastating at the individual level? Or if they’re the same, where do we draw the line? In some sense I believe that you cannot have a functioning society without shame. It’s certainly imperative that children learn to experience shame as a negative consequence of unacceptable behavior. So I think shame can be useful, and beneficial. It can also be destructive.

    I don’t have answers either, but you are hitting on some very important questions/issues here. I think certain behaviors, including certain sexual behaviors trigger this. I think the SPF view is “ALL SHAME IS BAD, ALL JUDGEMENT IS BAD”. If we can get rid of all shame and judgement we can all be happy in one giant queer orgy where cisgender fucks transgender, etc. If you want to get gangbanged and bukkake but it is your choice you should feel EMPOWERED NOT SHAME. That really is the logical end point of their worldview which is why most people instinctively recognize it as nonsense.

    I think snowdrop is hitting on something. I’ve known a few player types with massive numbers who on some level I think do feel some shame.

    One can get really deep here with some really big questions about our modern age that extend beyond the male-female sexuality/relationships but here is something to chew on:

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html

    4. THE NIHILISM OF DESTRUCTION

    Here at last we find an almost “pure” Nihilism, a rage against creation and against civilization that will not be appeased until it has reduced them to absolute nothingness. The Nihilism of Destruction, if no other form of Nihilism, is unique to the modern age. There has been destruction on a wide scale before, and there have been men who have gloried in destruction; but never until our own time have there been a doctrine and a plan of destruction, never before has the mind of man so contorted itself as to find an apology for this most obvious work of Satan, and to set up a program for its accomplishment.

    Even among more restrained Nihilists, to be sure, there have been strong intimations of the gospel of destruction. The Realist Bazarov could state that “there is not a single institution of our society that should not be destroyed.”[17] “Who wishes to be creative,” said Nietzsche, “Must first destroy and smash accepted values.” The Manifesto of the Futurists–who were perhaps as near to pure Nihilism as to Vitalism–glorified war and “the destroying arm of the anarchist.” The destruction of the Old Order and the abolition of absolute truth were the admitted aims of most Realists and Vitalists.

    In the pure Nihilists, however, what to others was prologue becomes an end in itself. Nietzsche proclaimed the basic principle of all Nihilism, and the special apology of the Nihilism of Destruction, in the phrase, “There is no truth, all is permitted”;

    I’m not particularly religious although these days I find myself thinking more about these things and other types of existential questions, but when you read those words they seem a pretty apt description of the very extreme feminists, and especially the sex positive ones.

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

      @Mike
      That’s an awesome comment. I’ve clipped it for future reference. This is something I need to think about more but hope to write about. I confess my own formal education is lacking in this area – I’m not sure I have anything to add. But that bit about destroying and smashing accepted values? That is powerful.

  • J

    Hi Snowdrop,

    Thanks for all the kind words. Where was I when you were making your mistakes. I think we are in the same age range, so I was probably busy making my own mistakes. I too sometimes wish for a redo, but you can only go forward. You just have to cut your losses and keep moving. The best revenge, as they say, is living well.

  • Snowdrop111

    Mike, if you haven’t read it, there is an essay by Tom Wolfe that is a bit over my head I think. It’s hard for me to tell which side he’s on even. Well I think I can. He goes into genetic determinism for pages and pages and seems to be saying genetic determinism (or whatever you call it) is the real way things are and they are just on the verge of finding that out. Reading your brain scan and being able to prove that everything you do was mapped out in your genes. No free will or something like that.

    Then he seems to me to switch and say this is terrible! Look what has been lost! It all started with the nihilists and the destruction of (stuff like you were talking about) and look where humanity is headed without religion!

    (People think Tom Wolfe is a left-winger because he was considered a gonzo journalist but he’s not. He’s kind of a really deep right-winger who I don’t always agree with but I do sometimes on social issues.)

    At the end of the essay Wolfe seems to be saying what Mike says above.

    It’s called “Sorry But Your Soul Just Died” (the gist of it is the horrible consequences for humanity if there is just genetic determinism and no religion) (I think) (I could be selling the essay short.) http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/Wolfe-Sorry-But-Your-Soul-Just-Died.php

    It is from a book named (ha ha ha) “Hooking up.” I didn’t like his essay on hooking up or his novel “I Am Charlotte Simmons” — AWFUL — but I liked this essay. Toward the end he sort of deals with the modern idea that mankind is getting better and better as we throw off the shackles of superstition etc. etc. but he points out the 20th century was the bloodiest in history with all its genocides. You hear a lot of people today saying religion is the cause of all man’s inhumanity to man ever. Tom Wolfe begs to differ but how much that relates to what Mike said is a bit over my head.

  • Brendan

    Tom Wolfe is most certainly some sort of conservative — I think people thought that from the time of “The Right Stuff”, anyway, but Charlotte Simmons was really his coming out of the conservative closet novel, if nothing else. Stay tuned — he’s now writing a novel on race/ethnicity called “Back to Blood”.

    On Nietzsche et al, I am also reminded of the great character of Dostoyevsky, Ivan Karamazov, who famously noted “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” There were some very clever people in the 19th Century who saw most of this madness coming — some them supported it (Nietzsche) and some did not (Dostoyevsky), much as today, but it wasn’t exactly unpredicted.

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

    Liberals loathe Tom Wolfe – that’s enough information to reveal where he sits on the spectrum.

    http://gawker.com/5524391/tom-wolfe-attacks-dead-man-to-boost-self-esteem

    John Updike, Normal Mailer and John Irving have all made it a personal crusade to keep Wolfe out of the American Academy of Arts and Letters. He wrote an essay about them called My Three Stooges.

    After stating his admiration for George W. Bush in an interview, he was reviled by the literary community. He said it was as if he had stated, “I forgot to tell you – I’m a child molester.”

    He always wanted to write a novel in the tradition of Vanity Fair by Thackeray, and in my view he succeeded brilliantly each time. After he was disappointed by the reviews of Charlotte Simmons, he said he was done writing novels. Fortunately for us, he changed his mind. He is the only author I will eagerly wait in line to hear read and sign a copy.

  • Clarence

    Tom Wolfe doesn’t come off very well in that article:

    For one, anyone who knows anything about quantum mechanics knows it has plenty of real world applications -electron tunneling and now “spin” being only two of many phenomena applied to digital electronics.

    I suppose evolution should have been overturned by now -after all, that essay was written in 1996. Ooops.

    Look up the “Sokal affair” if you want to see something about the attempt to “deconstruct” science.

    I don’t think Wolfe knows very much about science.

  • Abbot

    Yep, this is the “foundation.” Must be. Its the 101 course.
    .

    This workshop will introduce participants to the vibrant history of sex-positive feminism as a response to the exclusion of women’s desire and sexual autonomy in feminist understandings of oppression

    .
    And alas! We finally have a definition. Its in bold. Don’t forget it. Now, if they could just get men to end the ultimate “oppression” aka the sinking feeling women have knowing that few men will commit following years of all that “positive” behavior.
    .
    http://clpp.hampshire.edu/projects/conference/2011/workshops

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Abbot
    What is most interesting of this Sexual Positivism is that many feminists don’t acknowledge the idea that if they are free when they are young and hot to pick any men they want and reject whatever they find displeasing, they have to concede men the same right when they are not longer hot and young and the same men they rejected because they lacked something are returning the favor.
    Monogamy was beneficial for both genders but the huge benefit was on different time-frames, men could get their women when they were hot and young and women could get their men after they weren’t that hot and young. Meanwhile they raised kids, built the pyramids, did art…everyone won. Now a huge part of the population have a lot of casualties on different times, YMMV.

  • Abbot

    “Monogamy was beneficial for both genders but the huge benefit was on different time-frames, men could get their women when they were hot and young and women could get their men after they weren’t that hot and young.”
    .
    That was natural and an appropriate response to nature and the result was a higher percentage of optimal outcomes. The current unnatural and sub-optimal [very sub] outcomes result from the explosive mix of artificial birth control chemicals and a demented sense of entitlement. Rather than admit the cause, these feminists choose to distract from it by blaming everyone else, effectively calling them sex-negative, prudes and other shame words du jour. Evidently, they are very concerned about what others think. They seek encouragement and support for their new-found hedonism to be defined as a harmless “phase” currently AND consequence-free if they choose to marry later [though they rarely if ever mention the marriage component as that would concede control to men]. In essence, they are a bunch of spoiled brats who want to redefine how men think of them.
    .
    Is it working?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Is it working?

    It really depends what you are talking about. Men are not thinking better of them, or marrying them, they are on majority just stop caring and on minority getting angrier, but they are also losing the evolutionary race and having to settle for lonely lives, porn and constant fear of being accused of rape or being creeps. I don’t see any winners on the current situation. Except maybe women like me that come from overseas with a different wiring for hipergamy and marry the guys this feminists don’t consider worth even banging and the top 20% that are getting a constant supply of punani with little to no effort.
    Again social inequity is no one’s friend, YMMV.

  • Abbot

    Well, here is some more reinforcement to send good men running for the borders:
    .
    http://www.amazon.com/My-Horizontal-Life-Collection-One-Night/dp/1582346186

  • Tom

    “Maybe instead of signaling a backlash, these are actually signs that we’re slowly inching toward a world where a woman isn’t either good or bad, a wife or whore, a virgin or slut.”

    _________________
    As it should be?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    As it should be?

    This would had been the result if women were having sex with all men available without distinction or prejudice.
    I’m pretty sure the manosphere wouldn’t be this angry if women were looking only for variety and not to fulfill their hypergamy with a minority of men and try and crucified the majority that doesn’t fit their taste.
    If women after their “slut phase” could really show loyalty to their husbands and LTR’s and it wouldn’t be accompanied by other low impulse control conduct, like shopping or binge drinking also the slut/whore/bad label wouldn’t be that problematic.
    But the rise of the hook up culture was linked to the entitlement “My needs, My body” culture and these women have sex with only certain percent of males and when they are married spent a lot of energy on showing the men that they are empowered and don’t need them and ultimately they cheat on larger numbers than their less liberated counterparts, thinking on their needs first, with no remorse, leave a perfectly good husband when they grow bored out of them and then to add the cherry to the top of the sundae try to get as much money out of him as they can, with no remorse, because they are the victims and they need to be compensate for lending their vaginas to a man for any number of years.

    THAT is the problem, women used the sex liberation in general no to achieve equality but to get revenge for centuries of abuse, even if men today were no even born back then and there is a total misunderstanding of how gender dynamics worked on the past, is not as simple as it looks, YMMV.

  • Abbot

    Not one of the quotes at the beginning of this thread, except for this one
    .

    It’s one of the few things that made it so appealing to men: easy sexual access to women’s bodies.

    .
    makes mention of the men involved, as if they are some sort of interactive sex toys; nameless, faceless [in short order anyway], a “hook-up” and not a person who followed you to bed due to all your hard work: uttering the word “yes.” Go out, drink, say yes. Donate your body to the harem. Lather Rinse Repeat. Claiming that this super easy to achieve behavior does not form and affect your character and your view of men is foolish and naive. Good or bad, it affects it for life. In addition, no mention is made of how men worth marrying view hookuppers as if what they think is unimportant. Big. Red. Flag.
    .
    Those quotes above are attempting to identify some type of vague enemy, like a boogeyman, who is making such a torturous mess for these confused and angry women. This group of women is no different than a psychotic person who hears voices. Its actually quite frightening.
    .
    Foreigners from most nations who read this stuff would wonder what happened to American women and never blame men for avoiding them beyond sex. Maybe they can help us.

  • Abbot

    This fad “sex positive feminism” is the so-called “sex revolution” temporarily rearing the worst of its ugly head. Like a perverted flashback. During the 1960s and 1970s, its influence even affected the Church. This from the John Jay College of Justice:
    .

    “The bulk of cases occurred decades ago,” said Karen Terry, PhD., John Jay’s principal investigator for the report. “The increased frequency of abuse in the 1960s and 1970s was consistent with the patterns of increased deviance of society during that time.”

    .
    http://www.usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf
    .
    The foundation is cracking because it was never strong.

  • Aldonza

    @Abbott

    “The bulk of cases occurred decades ago,” said Karen Terry, PhD., John Jay’s principal investigator for the report. “The increased frequency of abuse in the 1960s and 1970s was consistent with the patterns of increased deviance of society during that time.”

    .
    http://www.usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf

    You can say a lot of things about the feminists, but you are *not* blaming them for the priest kid-touchers. In fact, it was the changing societal attitudes towards sex and shame that allowed these people to come forward, where they would’ve lived in silence before. There was no rise in priest-pedophiles. There was only a rise in reporting of the crimes and public punishment.

  • Abbot

    you are *not* blaming them
    .
    Correct. The PSPs are just twisted manifestations of deviant group behavior from forty years earlier. And like bad priests, a dose of shame will effectively police the situation. Seems to be working.

  • Feminist Eunuch

    “Straight men who proudly declare themselves feminists are often treated as eunuchs”.

    This statement has a sort of reverse resonance because I actually am (to use the phrase which I believe is outdated) a eunuch. Following the accident which resulted in my testicles being removed I did, for various reasons, start noticing feminism and began to view it positively.

    I don’t consider feminist men to be in any way emasculated and neither should anyone else.

  • http://www.triggeralert.blogspot.com/ Byron

    Whoah. Now there’s an argument you don’t hear every day.

    I could have far more interesting discussions with feminists if they only had a little more variety like this thrown in from time to time.

  • http://living-free.us Richard

    i haven’t seen the word polyamory in this thread… all i see is the idea that pairing up is all about monogamy, ownership, (human) property, possessiveness, jealousy, etc… having lived many decades single and married, i absolutely know i can love – really love – many more than one person at one time and over time… and we have tied sex to monogamy and, then, to ownership… i mean, really. sex is sex and sex is fun and (if you are into it for yourself and the other) liberating. marriage is, typically (almost, universally) a ball and chain for BOTH parties. i think it is time we all just relax, get it on, and move on… what’s with all the drama? sex becomes something about power when people with power issues use it as such… for many (if not most) of us, sex is about smiling with compassion and kisses for another warm being…

  • Abbot

    Once again, Amanda Marcotte feels threatened by a study because it might possibly discredit her precious sex pozzy project. So out come the ho-hum predictable fembuzzwords in this debunk du jour. Can you pick them out?
    .
    Neglecting to factor in the influence of patriarchy is a major flaw in the coverage of these studies.
    .
    The entire discussion is also poisoned from the get-go by widespread misogynist narratives that assume that men can barely stand women and only put up with them in order to have sex, but that women adore and worship men and will do anything—even things that are dangerous or uncomfortable—to get men to approve of us.

    .
    From what source does this bitch come up with this shit?
    .
    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/09/11/ladies-doing-reason-science-reporting
    .

  • Pingback: Blog # 75: Why I Am Not “Sex-Positive” « Transmeditations’s Blog()