In an era where casual sex is perhaps more commonplace than relationship sex, at least among young people, intrasexual competition is fierce. This is particularly true for women, who prefer to mate with high status males. Because the number of such males is necessarily limited, there is a fixed percentage of men (15-20%) who are likely to attract the attention of many females.
However, male preferences are at odds with female priorities, and vary according to relationship goals. Men select for very different traits depending on whether they seek short-term sex or a long-term commitment. It is essential for women to understand the nature of male attraction, so that they can maximize their chances of success in attracting the kind of relationship they want, from a man with compatible objectives.
Not surprisingly, men are much choosier in selecting a woman for a relationship than for a one-night stand. For the random hookup, the prevailing philosophy is “beauty is only a lightswitch away” as men pursue the objective of “getting it in.” This means that they are willing to have sex with most women. To enter into commitment, men have a very different set of criteria.
A “mate preferences” study published last year from the University of Iowa looked at what men want in a partner. The researchers surveyed 1,100 college students and asked them to rank various traits in order of importance. This was a continuation of annual mate-preference studies since the 1930s, when, according to study author Christine Whelan:
Marriage used to be a practical arrangement. Getting married for love or attraction was considered foolish and perhaps even dangerous.
Today, Americans don’t even contemplate marrying without those things. In fact, priorities have changed significantly in 75 years:
What Men Want (2008)
Essential characteristics:
- Mutual attraction and love.
- Dependable character.
- Emotional stability.
Important characteristics:
- Education and intelligence.
- Good looks.
- Ambition.
Desirable characteristics:
- Good financial prospect.
- Good cook and housekeeper.
Unimportant characteristics:
- Similar political background.
- Chastity.
I find the finding about chastity interesting. In 1939 it ranked tenth, but came in dead last in the 2008 survey. Chastity is defined “abstaining from sexual intercourse before or outside of marriage.” Apparently, very few men prioritize virginity in a marriage partner, perhaps because it is rare today.
“When we administered the survey, several female students snickered at the idea that we even included the chastity item,” Whelan said. “This is consistent with the widespread hook-up culture on college campuses.”
This study looked at what men want in committed relationships. But how can women trigger initial attraction? What makes a man decide to go for a hookup? Is it strictly a matter of proximity and convenience? How might that kind of attraction differ from a man’s interest in wanting to get to know a woman better, possibly with the intent of becoming a couple?
Pamela Paul wrote For Long Term, Men Favor Face Over Figure for the New York Times on Sunday. She reported on a study: “More Than Just a Pretty Face: Men’s Priority Shifts Toward Bodily Attractiveness in Short-Term Versus Long-Term Mating Contexts” by Jaime C. Confer, Carin Perilloux and David M. Buss, Evolution and Human Behavior.
“To determine how men and women rank the relative importance of face versus body, the authors showed 375 heterosexual college students an image of a person with head [or] body covered up, and described the person as either a potential short- or long-term mate.
Women treated bodies and faces alike, independent of short- or long-term interest. Men, however, made a distinction between face and figure, depending on their intent…
Here is how the authors explain it: a woman’s face and body signify different things, they say. To put it in clinical terms, facial features are cues of youth and health, and features like large eyes are feminine because “they are sensitive to the rise in estrogen levels that accompanies puberty and persists through a woman’s reproductive lifespan.” This would indicate long-term reproductive value; that is, the time a woman has left to reproduce.
The body, meanwhile, signifies fertility in the here and now…Evolutionary psychology theory holds that men value current fertility (body) more in a short-term mate and reproductive value (face) in the long term.”
Roy Baumeister, another evolutionary psychology expert, said “The face is a signifier of emotion and character. Men who want a long-term relationship aren’t just interested in reproductive value; they’re also looking for emotional intimacy.”
David Buss, in his book The Evolution of Desire, devotes a chapter to what men want, and how it differs from what women want. The differences are critical, and women who project their own priorities onto men are likely to experience missteps and confusion as they display traits they’re looking for instead of traits that men seek. Buss explains that men evolved mechanisms to sense cues to a woman’s reproductive value. Cues for youth imply a long, fertile period ahead:
- Full lips
- Clear, smooth skin
- Clear eyes
- Lustrous hair
- Good muscle tone
- Behavior: bouncy, youthful gait; animated facial expression, high energy level.
These are the physical cues to youth and health, which comprise the ingredients of male standards for female beauty. These cues are critically important to male reproduction, which explains why men prefer women 2.5 years younger than themselves on average, who display the above fertility traits. Buss found in his research, however, that for long-term relationships American men consider faithfulness and sexual loyalty the most important of 67 desirability traits.
Men worldwide want physically attractive, young, and sexually loyal wives who will remain faithful to them until death. These preferences are universal across all cultures and absent in none. Beauty is not skin deep, it reflects internal reproductive capabilities.
Dodai Stewart of Jezebel is unhappy with the “culture of lookism” that forces women to focus on their appearance in order to attract men. She takes umbrage at an Amy Alkon essay published at Psychology Today:
“The gist of it is that men care about packaging. Your heart and mind matter, but won’t get you anywhere without some Pilates, eyebrow tweezing and lipgloss. And: “While we wish things were different, we’d best accept the ugly reality: No man will turn his head to ogle a woman because she looks like the type to buy a turkey sandwich for a homeless man or read to the blind.”
…Alkon basically supports every negative message ever sent by a woman’s magazine — and most sent by men’s magazines. You’re not good enough just the way you are. Alkon clearly chafes against the idea that lookism is wrong, stating: “Looks matter a great deal. The more attractive the woman is, the wider her pool of romantic partners and range of opportunities in her work and day-to-day life. We all know this, and numerous studies confirm it — it’s just heresy to say so.”
You know a little heresy never stopped me, so I’ll just remark that of course looks matter! They matter for both sexes, though more for men, and researchers say they have come to matter a very great deal more in the 20th century. We have embraced a “culture of lookism” and once again, I doubt the ability of feminists to reeducate men to find large, hairy women sexually appealing.
Dodai continues:
“None of those surface enhancements can make a person happy, and none of those things guarantee a fulfilling life. Plenty of beautiful people live sad, confused and lonely existences. Furthermore, the culture of lookism thrives on competition and exclusion. It creates an atmosphere in which things a young woman has no control over — acne, a big nose, a non-hourglass figure — trump the things she does have a say in: Sense of humor, book smarts, kindness. We’re left with a system in which those who luck out in the genetic lottery win at life, hard work and merit be damned.”
Her logic is faulty here, in the classic feminist manner – instead of addressing the role looks may play in mating strategies, Stewart points out that beauty doesn’t guarantee happiness, which is an entirely different point.
She is correct to say that mating involves competition and exclusion – that’s biology. In fact, many women embracing a steady diet of casual sex are doing so as a form of competition for desirable men. According to Buss:
Most women can obtain a more desirable temp. mate if they are willing to forgo commitment. Men of high status typically insist on more stringent standards for a spouse than most women are able to meet.
It’s true that all human beings have “design flaws” over which they have no control. The good news is that for each one of us, there are many others of the opposite sex of similar attractiveness, and studies have shown conclusively that marriages are most likely to succeed between people who match up physically. Additionally, Stewart is wrong about some facets of appearance – in each of the cases she gave a woman can take action if she wishes to improve her appearance and make herself more desirable to men. She is not required to, but blaming men for not liking her “as is” will not be an effective strategy.
What strategy should you follow? Easy peasy!
A. Short-term Relationship
If you are looking for a short-term fling, pile on the makeup and go light on clothing. Display your sexual assets aggressively. When communicating with men face to face, animate your features with sexually explicit gestures such as lip licking, pursing your mouth, flipping your hair, and tilting your head to expose your neck. This will ensure that you are sending a clear sexual invitation. There are no “barriers to entry.”
But remember: You are in the short-term box, and movement to the long-term box is unlikely.
B. Long-term Relationship
If you are seeking a long-term relationship, dress modestly. No need to go the Amish route – you can follow the 1 of 3 Rule. Use your choice of outfit to signal that your physical assets are not for public display, but are reserved for an exclusive partner. Animate your features through conversation. Display friendliness, curiosity and generosity. Use your eyes to say CCMU (Come Chat Me Up) instead of CFM (Come F*ck Me). This will ensure that you are sending a clear message of selectivity and approachability to a particular male.
But remember: You are in the long-term box. Men interested in a quick hit are unlikely to target you for attention.
{ 222 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2
I thankfully don’t know who these chicks are but Rachel Kramer is uglier than Jaclyn Friedman. At least Friedman has good hair. They’re both not cute and they’re vile attitudes make them really ugly.
@Susan
As a fellow fan of British drama, I wonder what you think about the way Brits cast their actors. Yes, Richard Armitage is hot, hot, hot. But in general, I think they do a much better job of casting normal looking people in leading roles. They select their leading actors from the RSC, where we tend to cast good looking airheads here. Furthermore, some of their actors are sexy without being good looking. That’s less common in the U.S., and virtually unheard of for women. I think this is why American remakes of foreign films are usually terrible. The acting takes a back seat to looks.
I’ve found it refreshing how not gorgeous most of the women are on Spooks, actually. They tend to be average at best, and the men – apart from Richard Armitage and the other male leads like Rupert Penry-Jones – aren’t either. For me it’s almost easier to enjoy what’s going on when I’m not thinking, “How come I don’t have mile-long legs and a perfect jawline?”
Did you watch The Office on BBC? The four leads – not terribly attractive people and just right for the point the show was making. Martin Freeman is going to be the Bilbo Baggins in the Hobbit.
@Obsidian,
You seem to be talking about the Karen Owens of the world. With regards to your nephew, at my college we had the same thing going on. The African American football players, no matter how unattractive they were, were getting the attention of the Karen Owens of the world along with some alpha females. This caused tension between them and the non-athlete African American males. Both groups were competing for alpha females and the football players were winning. And the non-athlete guys would turn their noses up at the beta females, because they believed that only alpha females were good enough for them. Talk about being delusional about your worth on the dating market!
Nobody here denies that there are females out there who only go out with high status males. On the other hand, what types of females were you going after in your youth? If I had to guess, I would say you are a beta male who feels entitled to alpha females. I have run across several beta males in my life who not only feel that they are entitled to alpha females but are actually quite obnoxious to the beta females who approach them, because they think such a female is beneath them. I think that many guys who complain about being ignored by women are really complaining about being ignored by high status females. They aren’t complaining that some plain Jane ignored them in favor of a cad, they are complaining that the hot girl ignored them in favor of the cad.
@grerp
If that damn funding could ever get off the ground
Grerp,
Yea, Brit ladies aren’t exactly known for their hotness, that’s for sure, LOL. Btw, I’ve watched the show Spooks and liked it a lot.
You should checkout my comment above wrt “hatin’ on spinsters”. Lemme know what you think…
O.
“And you know what? She’s a really screwed up young woman. She has struggled with anorexia and cutting. She chooses the worst men imaginable, and lets them act as Sugar Daddies.”
It seems a general rule of the SMP that hot women are WAY more likely to be crazy. Don’t know how that works but it seems to be that good looks bring insecure vanity and low self-worth with them. Just went to a wedding for a hot woman who played doormat for an abusive jackass for years (then married what appears to be a well-dressed herb). She has a sister who is plain looking – the sis is pretty down to earth.
Karen,
First off, there is no such thing as an “alpha female”. This “his/hers” line of (un)reasoning that pervades our culture in our time has no meaning or application in terms of human sociosexual dynamics. Please stop the madness. Read The Game.
Second, let me repeat what I said for the umpteenth time: “character” has little utility for young guys in the SMP, for a very simple reason – because they, and the gals they tend to gun for, are, let’s all say it together now: YOUNG. And, being young, one doesn’t tend to have a keen understanding of or care much about, what “character” or what it means. When you’re young, what matters are things that are much more apparent like LOOKS. And this applies for both sexes, although we all know how important it is for guys.
So, no, a kid barely into his 20s isn’t gonna have his sights set on that quiet, demure gal over in study hall with the heart of gold. When they’re both in their 30s, the story might be different. But that’s just not the way world works when they’re younger. Like her male counterpart my nephew spoke of, such a gal will at best be noticed just long enough to be given an unceremonious kissoff. Most likely she probably won’t be noticed much at all.
You still haven’t addressed what my nephew actually said, and this is understandable, since I had a hard time giving him the old college try spiel. He had seen the very same things I had seen, and I knew too much and cared about him too much to attempt to shovel a load of BS into his brain. It is, what it is.
When you’re young, things like hotness MATTERS. It just does, and there aint a blessed thing you or I or anyone else can or will do about it that will make a hill of beans’ worth difference out there on the ground where it matters. The SMP is brutal, especially for those who are simply unable to compete. Which brings us back to the matter I’ve broached…
Telling nice guys who don’t have the options my nephew has – mind you, he’s able to tell these gals TO THEIR FACE that they’re whorse, smuts and jumpoffs AND STILL GET LAID by those same gals-that “character counts” is not only a cruel joke, but it denies the stark reality of life AT a very brutally difficult time of life for said guys. Yea, yea, I know – not all gals are having a ball, either. But you know what, at least they can, if they choose get something out of the deal. Most of these guys get NOTHING, and my nephew was hip enough to see it for what it is. Mind you, I never said that I agreed with or endorse his views; simply that I couldn’t in all fairness, tell to his face that he was simply and flatly wrong accross the board. When you’re young like that and in an evironment where social dominance and hierarchy matters, it is, what it is, and theres no good in me trying to BS him otherwise.
So, the issue isn’t whether the Karen Owens’ of the world exist or not, or whether that’s a good thing or not. The issue is what my nephew said, and its basically unassailable. Me telling him to look for the quiet demure gal kooped up in the library on the weekends is the same thing as me telling Ms. Walsh’s readers they need to be giving Jeremy the STEM Guy mad fever. Just not gonna happen, because that’s not how the real world works when you’re YOUNG.
Get it?
O.
Karen,
Moreover, your attempts to suggest that I’m just some bitter guy crying foul and sour grapes couldn’t be more laughable. You should ask Ms. Walsh about me before spouting off such nonsense. Of course, the reason why you do this is simply because, you can’t address what I’m actually saying, so you address ME. Ad hominem, anyone? LOL!
I could cue you in on the deal with me personally, but I have no need or desire to qualify myself to you. Focus on my words and the arguments made, and then come back with a better argument. Theres a dear…
O.
Wow…..
.
A ton here to respond to and comment on but unfortunately I am short on time. Very quickly, on the “character” issue for young men (under 30 and absolutely everyone under 25) let’s really break this down to the most simple components. What is character indicative of? What is it reflective of in terms of dating/mating/the SMP.
.
IT IS REFLECTIVE OF THE POTENTIAL TO BE A GOOD HUSBAND/DAD!
.
OK, now take the typical 20-year old female, 22-year old female, or even 25-year old female (not all but probably 95-99%). They aren’t looking for husbands….fathers of their children. They are still young and there is “fun to be had”. Marriage and kids is for 5-10 years down the road.
.
So Obsidian is absolutely right. Character is a non-starter for young guys in the SMP. Good for your other relationships and career, but pretty much irrelevant to success in the SMP.
.
On a different note, really I get annoyed with the comments that guys ignore the Plain Janes, beta females, etc. Firstly, I think that is mostly BS. Unless you are butt ugly, a regular guy isn’t going to blow-off a regular girl who shows some interest. It just isn’t going to happen. Generally speaking, guys are alot more realistic where they sit on the totem pole, and sure the Average Joe would like to bang the 8-9s but he knows that is mostly out of reach so he’ll gladly go for the Plain Jane if she even shows the slightest hint of interest. BUT YOU HAVE TO SHOW SOME INTEREST….SOMETHING!!!
.
Susan has mentioned a few times that many young women appear completely oblivious/ignorant to the fact that although they aren’t the pursuers, they have to do at least something to get the guy to potentially pursue, especially the average Joe who might not be as bold and forward as Mr. Hot Alpha.
.
On a different note, the Plain Janes really need to take the bull by the horns to improve their physical appearance. Really, most chicks can bump themselves 2 points easy, maybe 3. Very simple. Lose the bodyfat, lose the bodyfat, lose the bodyfat. Get extremely toned. Go see a top-notch make-up artist. Spend $300-400 to learn how to exactly do your makeup to hide your flaws and accentuate your positive features. Get a new wardrobe. Learn to walk right. Some chicks just have the thing with their hips when they walk. This is the parallel to guys walking with good posture, a little swagger, and slowing it down.
.
Look, I’ve done both. The physical transformation (working out, getting muscular, etc.) and the personality transformation (learning Game). I can absolutely, unequivocally, without a shred of doubt say the physical transformation is easier. It is formulaic and simply requires discipline of changing your daily habits. Changing your personality, communication style, demeanor, is alot more ambiguous.
.
In terms of self-improvement/elevating your status in the SMP, women actually have it much easier because improving your physical appearance is 100x easier then improving your psychosocial dominance and status.
Re character, it is never the concern of the young. Sluts get boyfriends, jerks are the most popular guys, the coldest women get hot guys pursuing them. In today’s SMP short-term gratification dominates. The young women who abstain from hooking up are in exactly the same boat as the frustrated males, regardless of their looks. Once the word gets out that they’re “prudes” their sexual market value goes to zero. Let’s face it – Game is about “getting beautiful women into bed.” If you don’t want to get into bed, you’re a waste of time. I have seen this happen plenty of times even with ugly guys or guys who have zero social proof. Those guys aren’t going to go on traditional dates when the BMOC is getting it for nothing. They want to be him, so on the off chance they get the opportunity, they say, just like the players do, that they’re “not looking for a relationship.” There used to be a saying that “boyfriends are ugly” but these days I hear more “boyfriends cheat.” (See the Karen Owen 13 – all of whom were in “committed” serious relationships.) What I tell women is that their reward for avoiding promiscuity will come in a few years, even though they’ve priced themselves out of the market for now. So both sexes are in that boat. One voluntarily (reluctantly), one not, but the result is the same.
.
Re the question of “alpha” females: It’s just nomenclature, and Karen is describing a valid divide among women. There are high status females on every campus – they’re the girls that guys want to get with. Social proof strongly affects men too – Buss discusses it extensively. Men want the girl on their arm (or stumbling into their room) that other guys want. These women are the fuel for the fantasies of most of the guys on campus, including the engineering students. Nice girl Betty who is reserved and studious will never be one of these girls, even if she is pretty. I agree with Mike C that it will benefit these women to learn the art of signaling interest and even approaching guys. Some guys will turn down a “regular” girl, but the guys seeing less action are far more likely to exchange commitment for sex.
Ms. Walsh,
You ran right past the part where Mike C exhorts the nice Bettys to make themselves hotter looking, why am I not surprised there? LOL. That sort of thing MATTERS out there on the SMP ESPECIALLY for young folks. It just does, and there’s really no way of getting around that. And some Women are better able to get this done, for reasons that are all but taboo to discuss here and elsewhere. I can dig it. But that doesnt change the facts. I don’t know how else to explain this to you: there is a marked difference btw what guys, keyword here, find “pretty” and what they find “hot” and again, was have to keep this in mind of the guys my nephew’s age are likely to see it. That’s neither right or wrong, it just is.
I personally find the whole Karen Owen thing to be a red herring, because it really doesn’t have alot to do with the discussion here.
Guys suffer more out on the SMP than Women do, when they’re both younger. Theres simply no getting wround that fact. How to deal with that fact is another matter, though its little comfort to tell a guy it’ll get greater later. No wonder more and more guys are just taking their ball and going home altogether.
O.
@Karen
I was actually anjoying reading your argument until you began the ad hominen attacks. It makes you look like the average girl who just tries a spiteful attack when she can’t win the argument. You were completing your point right?
@Susan
Chic noir tries to say this too and I really think that this is another woman projection that women and men like the same things. Do we look at that hot girl who every guy wants on his arm? Yes. But not because every guy wants her. it is because she is hot. Pure and simple. The difference is that women want the guy who all the women want because his hotness derives fromt he fact that all the women want him. Not the same with men. Her hotness is derived because of her beauty. Chanel iman is not beautiful because every dude is wanking to her victoria secret ads. She is hto to men because she is hot. See what I’m saying?
And 2 other things:
1) In your response to prudes, just because you don’t put out doesn’t mean you don’t get male attention, it just means you don’t get the male attention you want. Honstly alot of guys in college are douches(cause it works) but dudes do want some real women. You are right to tell the girls give a little hint. I’ve always wondered why women are afraid to do this but through reading your blog I think I kind of understand. Because all women can easily get male attention if you try to initiate something on it and it fails in your face must be a huge blow to self-esteem. Super neurotic but I get it. Because here is the silver lining to rejectionf or a girl. It’s guaranteed that there are 5 other guys in the bar who are gonna bite the hook.
2) The odd thing that I notice about todays society and culture in general, is that as a women, as long as you are not ugly to the range of butt ugly, you have so many options in this world. Especially f you’re white. The only thing that holds most back is what people will think of them. Her faimly won’t ehre abotu what happens in college but her friend s will call her a slut. Her friends will condone her actions but she gets a reputation around the dorm. But if a woman truly doesnt care what others say and wishes to do whatever she wants, she is in a wolrd were she has a sexual embarassment of riches. For men, this is completely different. We have to fight for every interaction we get. It’s why I always wonder why women actually expect their man not to cheat. I actually am beginning to feel men of a certain stats are meant to cheat. The reason alot of guys will understand this and many ladies on this board willc ry foul is because we deal with sex differently. Women are offered the pathway to sex from the moment they wake up to the moment they close their eyes(if they aren’t busted: I hope I don’t need to keep saying this). Even ugly ones will get laid if the liqour and self-control are high and low on a man. Men get no love or looks daily. So when a man gets a little swag going and the girls start checking him out, even when they see you on his arm, how can he not cheat? Look at all this attention coming to me? It’s easy for women to say brush it off, but it’s like how can I brush this off? I just came from the third world and I found out you guys have chocolate, how the hell can I go back to eating bootlebee root? That’s why I am fully outright saying there is no such thing as a double standard when it comes to sex between men and women. None. To say there is, is to imply that there is equal scenarios in both cases of acquisition and rate of close and there isn’t. The only double standar could be if ugly girls got mad ass and where still called a slut.
Henway:
“I think evolutionary psychology is important, but nothing to just take lightly. Ignore it at your own peril – it pretty much does an excellent job of explaining divorces, cheating, and why men select certain mates, and mating strategies.”
Staring into the past will only explain those who live there and will never give you a clue how to get out… if you’re one of them.
@Obsidian
You do not listen. Here’s what I said:
Pretty isn’t enough. Pretty and quiet doesn’t get a girl anywhere. When you say “hotter” do you mean “sluttier?” I would not encourage any woman to make herself hotter by lowering her neckline, or trying to make herself look cheap, e.g. Kim Kardashian.
I disagree that guys suffer more in the SMP. There’s plenty of suffering to go around. 80% of guys can’t get laid, and 80% of girls can’t get a boyfriend. If guys can’t hack it, let them go home with their balls. The women and men that stick it out are the ones whose genes will stick around.
hint: less time trying to line oneself up with what other people seem to have loved… and more time loving in your own right.
The reason that ‘slut’ and ‘beta’ behaviours are a turn-off is because they are insubstantial, extracting, depleting behaviours.
Their opposites would be radiance from women, and penetrative, originative love, from men.
@Esca
You’re wrong about social proof. Check out this post and the accompanying comments:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/07/26/hookinguprealities/the-power-of-social-proof-in-dating/
“The men’s interest in the women was generally positive after watching the videos but it increased significantly if the male peer in the video appeared to be interested in that woman and if the online men were considered as attractive or more so than the study participant. When the men in the video seemed uninterested, however, the male participants’ interest didn’t change much.
An intriguing finding involved the sway men had on each other. Place found that the interest of male study participants in the women in the videos increased in relation to the good looks of the men in the video.
“For men, relative attractiveness of the people they’re watching matters — not just anyone can influence their behavior, just other men they think are at least as attractive as they are,” Place said.”
.
Clearly, men take their cues from dominant men. They determine who’s hot according to what the most socially dominant males find attractive. This functions as social proof for women, but it also raises the question of whether men are realistic in their hopes. In the old paradigm of dating, during an era when men exchanged commitment for sex, 10s dated 10s and 5s dated 5s, more or less. With female sexuality unleashed, we understand that many women are gunning for the men with the most social proof. This can be easily observed on any college campus. This study suggests that perhaps men are falling victim to the same unrealistic long-term expectations. Because women are the gatekeepers to sex, they have found it relatively easy to gain sexual access to the men with the most social proof. For men, it’s a very different matter. They may desire a woman with considerable social proof, i.e. the campus hottie, but if they don’t have social proof of their own they’re unlikely to succeed in attracting her attention. Everyone has set their sights on the most attractive members of both sexes. The end result is that many young women are romantically frustrated, and many young men are sexually frustrated.
.
Men in the manosphere try to say this too and I really think that this is another man projection that women and men like the same things. When, oh when will men stop saying that we’re lucky because we can get laid twice a day? WE ONLY WANT TO GET LAID WITH A FAVORED MALE. Do you understand? Cat calls, come ons, etc. are not enjoyable. 99% OF US DO NOT WANT SEX WITHOUT LOVE. IT IS WORTH LESS THAN NOTHING.
Susan, I think pretty is enough for a girl, provided she’s not after a “Prince.” I was decent looking, studious, never the party girl and still very quiet, but I did more than fine with men. I went for nerdy and geeky guys, who were more my type anyway. Every now and then I’d get attention from a “normal” guy, but he usually realizes quickly that I’m too strange, reserved and nerdy.
I have only had serious relationships, and I didn’t have to go out, flirt or date to get them either. They mostly just happened with little effort. Maybe that means I’m more attractive than I think I am, but I think it really means that there are a whole lot of guys who want meaningful relationships, but who get consistently overlooked.
@Hope
I wonder if it really helped that you were a nerd yourself. You were presumably interacting with guys in class, labs, on projects, etc. So a guy interested in you might be able to get to know you over time and then make a move when he feels confident. Those same guys would most likely find it much more difficult to approach the cute history major in the dining hall, having had zero interaction with her.
I just want to be clear that I am not talking about which gender has an easier time picking up strangers at a bar on a Saturday night for a one night stand. I am talking about the fact that plenty of women are overlooked because they don’t fit the porn fantasies of many young men. In my college, I heard many females lament the fact that they couldn’t get boyfriends for LTRs. All they were getting was the hookup culture. Many females were willing to engage in the hookup culture with certain males in the hope that they could snag a boyfriend for a LTR that they could take home to meet the family. And these were decent looking females who just didn’t dress provocatively and did not want to engage in behavior that would have them labeled as sluts, like sleeping with several athletes. And they weren’t trying to snag alpha males either. My point is that plenty of males, alphas and betas, ignore decent females who would make great girlfriends in college because they are going after the hot alpha females and then they complain that they can’t get a college girlfriend when what they really mean is that they can’t get a hot alpha girlfriend.
In my college, I heard many females lament the fact that they couldn’t get boyfriends for LTRs. All they were getting was the hookup culture. Many females were willing to engage in the hookup culture with certain males in the hope that they could snag a boyfriend for a LTR that they could take home to meet the family.
Here is the problem Karen, and really IT IS WHAT IT IS. The vast majority of young guys are simply not going to be interested in LTRs and monogamous girlfriends. I could type an exposition on why that is, but IT IS. A girl is going to have to go pretty far down the “guy with very little options” chain to get a committed, steady boyfriend, but that isn’t the guy she wants.
There is this thing about “unintended consequences” and the deal is the past 50 years of the “womens’ movement” has resulted in some unintended consequences. At least, unintended from the female point of view.
Not sure what to tell the 20-22 year old college woman but for the 23-25 year old, I’ve said it before, but if you want a boyfriend, you’ve got to go older. At a certain point, a guy just transcends the party boy, drink, get laid with different chicks mentality. The desire for sexual variety is always there, but other things become more important. That isn’t true for the 23 year old guy. Why would he commit to you to be his boyfriend when he just wants to get laid by different girls and if you won’t put out someone else will.
@Susan,
I wish I could disagree with Mike C. and Obsidian, but for you average young male, character isn’t particularly high on the list of SMP valued traits. There are some exceptions, of course. Some of my close undergrad friends were “picked” off by clever women who wanted an LTR early on, and their good character was probably a factor. But, the numbers who fall in this category are small. Most of the rest of the time, I wouldn’t say character helped in the SMP at all. Heck, having a less than sterling character actually helps, because it allows a guy to do some of the more “dark side” parts of Game without any pangs of guilt. And as was true in Star Wars, the “dark side” is quicker and easier…
.
Now this becomes less true later on. Some subset of women eventually learn that character might actually be a good thing in a long term partner (or they get better at faking that character matters), and character can also help in gaining the respect of male peers.
Obsidian–
-
“Please stop the madness. Read The Game.
Second, let me repeat what I said for the umpteenth time: “character” has little utility”
-
-
Character has no utility but is its own reward. Plato’s Republic anyone? (character for the purpose of utility is not character but selfishness masquerading and reinforcing its own doubting mindset. etc. etc)
.
I know you and others like you have fought hard to leave “beta” mentalities behind but here is another remnant… you see women as some kind of authority. Can’t it be that they are even more confused than you are? Why look to ‘hypergamy’ and evo psych and all of their supposed failings to explain the simple fact that they, too, are desperate to be included in the ranks of the ‘worthy’… and in their urgency they overemphasize the surface of things and misunderstand the deeper things.
.
.
.
Escarondito and Mike C – -
..
“If you are a physically attractive male, and you associate with or are friendly to unattractive women, unfortunately, attractive women will assume there is something else very wrong with you. Unfortunately, you can’t really be seen in public with them, especially not anything that hints at romantic, sexual, or flirtatious.”
.
.
It’s easy to hate the shallowness of it but helps to recognize that people are just afraid. Women are terrified of being ‘deep’ if it means the potential of being deemed unworthy. They chastise you for dealing with the ‘outcasts’ because they’re afraid of becoming one. The beta male is cautious and nice around his woman because he’s afraid of becoming one.
.
There’s nothing especially ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ about it… it’s gender neutral. It’s just the prevalent fearful, validity seeking mentality. Are you good or bad? etc. Where people must pretend to be more shallow than they are, to fit in to the superficiality of the culture of which to be deemed unworthy might mean suffering, it might mean facing their weaknesses… it might mean a lot, in a place where emotional value and worth of character is constantly attached to where one fits on some imaginary hierarchy.
.
Don’t try to explain it with science. This is confusion. Understand it within yourself and you won’t need any more studies.
Men in the manosphere try to say this too and I really think that this is another man projection that women and men like the same things. When, oh when will men stop saying that we’re lucky because we can get laid twice a day? WE ONLY WANT TO GET LAID WITH A FAVORED MALE. Do you understand? Cat calls, come ons, etc. are not enjoyable. 99% OF US DO NOT WANT SEX WITHOUT LOVE. IT IS WORTH LESS THAN NOTHING.
@susan
Don’t use all caps. It’s internet angry and is unbecoming.
Also, you’re pulling the not reading card.
Susan:
“WE ONLY WANT TO GET LAID WITH A FAVORED MALE. Do you understand? Cat calls, come ons, etc. are not enjoyable. 99% OF US DO NOT WANT SEX WITHOUT LOVE. IT IS WORTH LESS THAN NOTHING.”
Esca:
“In your response to prudes, just because you don’t put out doesn’t mean you don’t get male attention, it just means you don’t get the male attention you want.”
@karen
KK. I get you. I don’t know all the reason behind that but there’s one reason I did overlook them. After going through and doing crazy shit with some of those alpha girls, I honestly felt upon meeting those good girls, “I don’t want to corrupt you”. Because the fact is, and Susan knows I hate this, but the games you have to play and the dumb shit that is done to get those alpha females becomes ingrained in you. And I don’t want to do any of that to that type of girl but fear and know that I will. I won’t lie the girls you are talking about I have actually gotten to the verge of starting something with them, then broke it off. I could pump and dump them, but that’s not what my moral fiber is.
“Those same guys would most likely find it much more difficult to approach the cute history major in the dining hall, having had zero interaction with her.”
I actually majored in a BA degree, not history, but not too far from history either. I was also approached once in the dining hall by a totally random guy, and we became friends later. Maybe I just have a nice look that says “I won’t be mean to you if you talk to me,” because I did not get the jocks approaching me, but the slightly nerdy kind of guys.
Incidentally, I was always an outcast, was comfortable being an outcast, and had no problems talking to, befriending and loving other outcasts. This might have had something to do with it.
@Esca
Apologies for the caps. Bah, I was not internet angry, I just wish I could raise my voice a little to express frustration. I did read your entire comment, though, and while you do acknowledge that women get male attention they don’t want, you don’t indicate that you understand the attention they receive is designed to get men sex and can be crass at times. The point is that saying women can have sex whenever they want it, as if they are fortunate, makes no sense. It’s like saying guys can have two-hour long heart-to-heart talks on the phone every single night!
@Mike C
Indeed. This is truth. I tell college women to study, enjoy friends, and meet as many new people as you can. I encourage them to act as gatekeepers and be selective about hooking up. Very selective. It stinks but it’s the best strategy for long-term success.
.
I strongly second your advice to go older. I recall your saying that different bars attract different crowds. Women just out of college and eager for a relationship should avoid getting crazy at bars for recent graduates (and underage kids with fakes). They need to go to bars where one might order a martini, not a PBR.
@ENY
I think/hope I am writing for that subset. If my readers ignore my advice, I will be happy to say “I told you so.” I don’t think women fake that character matters, at least I hope not. I do think that many women get burned a couple of times, and that experience can teach them important lessons about character, if they are willing to learn. Inexplicably, there are some women with so little introspection, and perhaps such a desire to be mistreated, that the lessons never take hold. The experiences may even fuel the addiction to the bad boys.
.
I think your point about the respect of male peers is interesting. I would think that in college, the cads get the most respect from male peers, but perhaps it depends on whom one is friends with.
@Susan
LOL. Can you explain a little better. The analogy was a wee bit weird.
Obsidian – I understand the schadenfreude. I think it’s unfortunate, but a natural reaction to pushing the age of marriage way off into the distance. I don’t think women get how painful the approach/get shot down dance can be for men; I’m not sure I get it and I’ve heard about it plenty from men I know. I’ve seen a lot of dismissal of this – “Men are bitter.” Implying that they are just losers and should get over it or “man up” or not have emotions. But 1) men are a critical component in the mating game; if they stop showing up there is no mating game and 2) shouldn’t we care that we are raising our boys to face this/shouldn’t we care that so many men feel this way?
What I hope women lurking here get out of these sort of threads is the message to look harder at the men around you. I think Susan is right in her advice to wait out college because the scene there seems all about transitory exploration of sexuality and not forming real relationships now. But the more I read from the male perspective the more I realize that I have forgotten the indications of interest I had when I was young and single. I remember being what is described here – cute but quiet. I could not compete in the big leagues; I did not even register on the radars of the BMOCs. And I remember feeling like there were NO GUYS out there, but in reality there were men I could have encouraged and didn’t. When at 25 I finally felt like I was ready to look around for relationship material and get serious about encouraging interest, it didn’t take that long before I met my husband. At the time I thought this was a lucky break. Now I wonder if my perspective on the dating market was accurate.
I know a man who gave up on women years ago because he couldn’t get the time of day out of any of them. He is not attractive. But he is talented, easygoing, smart, reliable and terribly funny. I once brought him up as a prospect to a woman I know who at the time was single and in her early thirties. She looked at me in horror. But from what I can tell he would probably make someone a great husband. She, in comparison, would probably be a challenge to live with as she is emotionally up and down and can be quite manipulative. She has a couple of other strikes too. It’s fortunate for him that that idea was a non-starter.
My grandfather was 5’4″ tall, barrel-chested and not handsome. He was freckled and bald by his mid-twenties. He was an outstanding man of character – hard-working, generous, kind, morally upright. He would frequently say to my grandmother and others that he “got the prettiest girl in the neighborhood” although my grandmother was not above average looking. When I think of how he might have done today on Match.com, it depresses me.
@Susan
I wasn’t clear with that phrasing. I mean to say the they may “fake” themselves into believing it matters, along the lines of “what she does, not what she says”.
Yes, it does depend on your circle of peers. I was in a fraternity, but at a STEM school, so there weren’t as many cads as you might see at a fraternity. But there was admiration, however grudging, of cads who were successful with women.
You know I hate to break your hearts folks, but Character Counts. Everywhere. At all times.
Now it may not be especially helpful to you very often in your ‘average’ SMP/dating situations. But people? You’ve got to find the Market Audience that Conforms to your own Desires. Not only can this be this true for ‘dating & mating’, but it’s also true for business too.
Now it’s true, much of the time in many places this may mean that most of your 20′s is going to be spent offering up the ‘unpopular’ to the ‘unwilling’ or slightly better the ‘disinterested’. But as they say, the real Long Term game for most gals is not mating with as many alphas in the end. Sure it’s pleasurable, and it’s fine enjoyable entertainment for many. Some will easily spend a decade or more chasing down those dark alleys of heady heedless desire.
But at the end of her days on her grave stone are listed not the ‘wild hummers’ she gave which lovely NFL teams & when, or what MLB outfielders she did in the grass next to 3rd base a few hours after the lights went down for the 1955/1974 World Series. No. What’s on the tombstone, that last indelible record of her life & even ‘achievement’? ‘Loving Daughter, Sister, Wife, Mother, Aunt, Grandmother… ‘ and her dates & perhaps even the names of her kids & hubby too.
Now this is not to say that when you got ‘Granny’ deep in her cups she’d might tell you a bit of her ‘wild days’ down on the farm, following the carny/circus/Dead/Dodgers whatever. But what Defined Much of her life? Was her Family. How she made it, came to grips with it, functioned within it, survived the turmoil & trouble from without & within it, and ultimately & typically those were the folks still around who cared enough to yes bury her & memorialize her.
Why? Because that’s what ultimately Most Women Want & desire in the end. To finally create a family somewhere, with someone they love. Some may take a very long while to get there (more than half of their lives if they reach 40 something), and some will define it a bit differently (cats/dogs/GF/partners/droids whatever). But it’s what they want out of life in the end. That’s important to understand. Even if they blow off most of their 20′s on the largely fruitless ‘Big Dick/Whale/Mr. Big’/Cute ‘plyable’ Alpha hunt.
Because most people are not beautiful & famous forever. Only a very select few. Because Home is where you go & they’ve (usually) got to take you in & care for you. And home is with your family. And where’s your family? And how do you ‘get’ or ‘create’ one? There’s many, many answers to that simple seeming question. But again, it’s usually not measured precisely by the length or girth of any sterling sized body part, or even by the ‘motion in the ocean’ using same. That might even be the ‘key’ that gets you in the door, but it’s not typically the secret to life. No not really.
So Character. Real fine, good Character. Counts. It counts even & especially when the chips are down and you’re broke and looking for work, and the wife knows what to do to manage to garner some extra income. And hangs on. Dutifully. Uncomplainingly for years. It counts when the wife gets very sick soon after your wedding, and that lovely tall & handsome young groom hangs on & does the cooking & cleaning & most of everything else, for love & commitment. Because character counts. It counts when your erstwhile BF/but really only a dude you’ve been dating for awhile takes care of you for weeks after coming home from the hospital after a dangerous bout MRSA. And you suddenly realize at almost 30 that even though you felt ‘meh’ about him when you described him to friends? Despite his ‘geeky looks’ and almost ‘autistic’ manner and you worrying about ‘no zing & little chemistry’? You knew & you could recognize that character within him. And that & that alone really, really attracted you to him. And it turned your head around. Maybe just maybe his ‘faults’ were just quirks you could live with…
Now those may sound like some rom-coms, perhaps written a while back (but no one really does ‘suffering’ or ‘troubles’ much anymore, right)? But those are real scenarios from real life I know of. So no. This will not work in bars. It works in the predictable places you might expect. But it needs time & a receptive audience to nurture too. Perhaps even Beta to Beta for a better mach up. But again, you’ve got to know & be working for & with the right receptive audience. Once I figured that out? It was a piece of cake.
And with a little ‘game learned? Geesh the things I can do. Like find the prettiest gal in a room in an very crowded art show, strike up a conversation with her, find all about her life, perhaps even get an email too, and then gently deposit her at where my wife is invariably sitting waiting for me. Retriever like. I’ll wink & she’ll smile back at me and ask about my new ‘friend’ and we’ll make introductions. Smile, greet & wave goodbye. What attracted me to my now wife was her smarts & character & personality. And on a good day, she was a solid 6. With some work, perhaps a 7, but she never went in for much of that. Now? She’s about average. You’d not be able to pick her out of a crowd, just to look at. But in too many other ways to count? She’s literally off the charts. I could not & would not change or ‘trade’ her in for a harem of younger 8′s or 9′s. And to know them Really? They’re almost all seemingly mostly silly, troubled or lost & drifting kids. Not my honey. Never. She had character. Real, intrinsic intelligence & character. And it’s kept her & me mostly out of much trouble ever since. Sorry for the length. Hope the paragraphs ‘work’ this time! Cheers, ‘VJ’
@Esca
Haha, it was a bit weird. And I wasn’t even tipsy when I wrote it. Basically, saying that women are fortunate because they don’t risk rejection for sex is pure projection. It’s only an incentive for a woman who makes casual sex a priority, and as we’ve seen, the sky’s the limit for those girls. The overwhelming majority of women do want a relationship, or if they are too busy with work, school, etc. and least an emotional connection of some sort. That is as elusive to women as sex is to men. It’s like saying that men are really lucky because they have a good shot at a committed relationship once they’ve had sex with someone.
I think grerp @ 11:50 followed by VJ have posted two of the best and most touching posts I’ve seen here in awhile and full of good advice too.
In the current college SMP character does not matter. But all you have to do is take ONE step back and your chances of a relationship go up exponentially. “Game” is real, but the hookup culture in which game is the only thing rewarded is only one aspect of reality. It is a game, and you DO NOT have to play.
My only advice to the girls is you are going to have to put yourselves in guy’s shoes for a bit and not try to shame them or otherwise manipulate them into being with you. Instead, merely look for indicators of character, and follow your nose.
Will enough young females get this message to make a big difference? Probably not, but I’m willing to bet a few will – and for those lucky few things will work out better in the end.
@Escarondito
.
“That’s why I am fully outright saying there is no such thing as a double standard when it comes to sex between men and women. None. To say there is, is to imply that there is equal scenarios in both cases of acquisition and rate of close and there isn’t.”
.
Exactly. Since women state that there is a DS (and its always women who promote the notion of a DS) then it is a form of shaming language and this is what it really means:
.
A standard that I do not agree with.
A standard that puts me in a bad light.
A standard that (gasp) could make me feel bad about how cheap and easy it is for me to access casual sex.
A standard that could undermine my ability to secure a future husband or at least love and commitment from one man
.
The sexual DS is harmful to women, not men. Therefore, the two standards of access to sex is harmful to women who now or one day desire to garner the discriminating interest of a man worth marrying. If the goal of women is to eliminate the sexual DS then they should keep their “partner” count very low or just deal with it. Changing men is NOT an option.
Come to think of it, I’m not convinced the mere existence of a double standard is something worth complaining about. It’s simply the border between having your cake and eating it too, and having nothing. Don’t expect much sympathy from those who have nothing.
@Jack Arthur
Many women are confused about what they themselves want, vs. what they are supposed to want. Women who say, “I don’t like jerks, I want a nice guy” aren’t being disingenuous. I believe that nearly all women would make this claim. Then they proceed to rush to a party hosted by jerks, and men understandably reply, “Don’t ever listen to what a woman says, watch what she does.” This is fine advice, but it doesn’t address the question of why women respond to jerks. It’s not the jerkiness per se, it’s the confidence/social dominance. They emphasize dominance (surface) as it is immediately evident, to the exclusion of character (deeper), which takes some time to assess. This is not smart, but it’s a trap that women fall into again and again, romantics that we are.
When said women have the fortitude to stop having sex without love, since it’s their *choice*.
.
I really disagree with this. I think if it really was less than nothing, as you say, women WOULDN’T DO IT.
.
I posit that women DO like the attention, the flirting, and yes, even the sex. The only way I can accept the average women has it as tough as the average man, is if they simply do not go out, flirt, enjoy their whims to experience social dominance and attention and pursuit and sex, even if vapid and loveless. At all. Then, and only then, are they equals to the hordes of beta men in misery.
Nice post Susan.
It’s funny how quickly men in the blogosphere seem to think that men are only beta because they haven’t learned game, while women are this and that terrible thing because it’s just “their nature”. I suspect this is just latent bitterness.
Anyway as for “character” vs “jerks” and “nice guys” vs “assholes”… I suspect it is exactly as you suggested: it isn’t the jerkiness that attracts women, but the strength.
We have to be a little careful when we talk about “character”. I believe that many modern men use a mask of niceness, goodness and virtue to cover up their fears and insecurities, and this is not good character in my books. Then to blame women for liking assholes? At least assholes aren’t terrified of having their ego bruised.
I think this is nasty behaviour. For hundreds of years the Western world has downplayed and minimized femininity, and it’s because of attachment to self-image. From Luther, through the ‘enlightenment’ (note that the Romantics loved women), to the modern era… the fact is many men are so emotionally invested in their ideas, their thoughts, their self-image… that they are terrified to recognize and admit how powerful women’s intuitive capabilities truly are. Women must be messed up, they say; they have hypergamous traits; they are defective.
Surely, they say, a reasonable and rational rendition of things is far superior to some woman’s ‘feel’, or ‘intuition’. And now they even have many women believing this lie and feeling bad about liking ‘bad boys’… “Why can’t I be attracted to that guy who is nice and polite to me all the time?” … maybe because his lack of courage is palpable. But to admit that power is frightening (even more frightening to these males, who might actually have to suffer, quit arguing for awhile and face who they really are.. or arent)
The truth is a feminine woman can see all the way through a man… even when they don’t know it or at least, don’t know how to say it.
.
An honest man is not “trying to secure access to sex”. He is pursuing the rhythms of life manifested in the movements of the corporeal womb of man, the beautiful remnant of his forefathers’ love, the inspiration which whispers to him about who he really is and hints at a promise to break him free from the chains that bind him to the flat, dry earth on which his mind resides.
Vj
I wanted to say I totally agree with your take on the gravestone acheivment thing
Wits needed often is a bit of perspective
You seem to have it in spades
Oh, Jack Arthur, you poor little feminist you.
It’s because some males aren’t very confident that women will often date men who string them and 5 other women along.
It’s because some males aren’t confident that some women will repeatedly go back again and again to men who physically abuse them.
It’s because some males aren’t confident that girls often compete to see (as detailed on this very blog) who can have the most stringent and yet arbitrary criteria to refuse to date a guy.
It’s because some males aren’t confident that 10 women will chase after 4 men.
Yep, it’s all those socially awkward males faults.
And of course if these awkward males learn game they are merely putting on a front, not learning social skills or how to present their best parts in a way congruent with what women enjoy. I suppose they should curl up and die while the young women make stupid decisions that will leave many of them heartbroken and never able t have a true ltr with anyone.
You seem like a sociopath who hides behind poetry.
Your schtick is rather old and has been refuted on this blog time and time again. The basic premise of this blog is that there are several problems with the current sexual market place and that these problems don’t entirely lay at men’s feet. If you don’t believe that, this blog isn’t the place for you.
“When, oh when will men stop saying that we’re lucky because we can get laid twice a day? WE ONLY WANT TO GET LAID WITH A FAVORED MALE. Do you understand? Cat calls, come ons, etc. are not enjoyable. 99% OF US DO NOT WANT SEX WITHOUT LOVE. IT IS WORTH LESS THAN NOTHING.”
This interpretation is way too simplistic for my taste and is apparently designed to instill a false sense of optimism into men with no success in the current SMP by presenting a false image of female sexuality. Women value their sexual freedom and want casual sex as well – the difference wrt male sexuality is that they only favor a small cadre of men for that. After all, the sexual revolution was driven by women, not men.
Plenty of women are obviously getting laid by favored men (= the alphas). They do it over and over, and no amount of reasoning will change their minds – because such behaviour is driven by their hypergamy. It is indeed “worse than nothing” – in the sense that this will largely destroy their LTR potential for obvious reasons (men avoid pair-bonding with sluts, and women who got the taste of alpha will always want to go back).
All in all, the majority of women are at least getting something out of the current SMP (sex with alphas) whereas the majority of men aren’t.
Just to make myself clear: humans have no inherent desire for lifelong commitment. We haven’t evolved that way. Monogamous marriage is a cultural construct of the West. I believe Western women’s apparent desire for lifelong monogamy with an “eligible” man is largely a leftover from the patriarchy’s rather heavy cultural conditioning, which goes back to centuries. Needless to say, an advanced civilization is difficult to maintain if people don’t form monogamous marriages. But an advanced civilization is not humanity’s natural state.
So Clarence you think it is good to pretend to be good and hide fear behind niceness, and that women should respond to that, yes? But they are what, too messed up? To love fear? What are you saying? I am saying don’t blame women for not liking “character” where character is synonymous with bitterness, fear, and hate.
.
It is good to learn to be masculine. But it has nothing to do with complicating the mask… it has to do with having the courage to leave it behind. Blaming others for your problems and nurturing threats and doubt in your head won’t serve you.
.
I know how hard it is. The whole world flees from suffering. But do you think feminists, or women, or whomever… that they are different from you? They “get sex” and that is perhaps all you ever long for (I don’t know you but using an example). You are intelligent and that is all some people have ever longed for. On and on. But it’s all a lie, a mask and trust me when I say increasing your comfort zones in life do not increase your happiness.
.
It is no one else in the world’s responsibility to get over yourself but you. Feminism is just another in a long line of revolutionaries that blames everyone else for what it sees is wrong with the world. It removes femininity and replaces it with a cold, flat image.
.
For one thing, I am a traditional Catholic and everything feminists seem to loathe, the very image of the “patriarchy”…. but trust me when I say I know what it is to love a woman and I know also that that is all you need.
.
The basic nature of both men and women is wonderful and there is no need to complicate that with baggage yes? Or extract from each other in an effort to shore up the very part of us that keeps us in chains.
But you will do what you like. You are doing what you like, arent you.. (I hope you’re not doing what you dont like)
Hey Hollehnhund…
.
Did you know that “cultural constructs” can reflect the metaphysics of reality better than what you pretend is evolution’s brain, or “inherent desire” as you call it.
.
Or do you think swimming in the ocean without feet is more natural than dancing too?
(sorry for the triple post
)
.
PS Clarence if there is a problem nowadays with the sexual market it is that we don’t encourage femininity in females and masculinity in males anymore. This is a natural way of heightening eros between opposites without any need for conscious interference.
.
I sympathize with the socially awkward male. Truly. I was like that too. The best thing is learning to be masculine and learning to accept the darker dichotomies, forgive others’ and your own darkness……. but I dont want to sway you either way. Good luck
Re dear Aunt Enid’s dating advice: Or, you could flicker your nasal appendage to send the message: “I’m great at hunting small animals!”
That’s what initially attracted me to the hypergamous foreign babe Amy. I think she was attracted to my alpha dominance, and insouciant dangling cigarette.
Alpha alpha alpha alpha,
Sexy Pterodactyl
Some in the manosphere would debate whether women truly have this desire, but the point I wanted to address was the origin of these impulses. I was hearing recently (from a geneticist at a dinner party, no link, sorry) that there is evidence that behaviors adopted even over just a short while may change our genetic print permanently. So for example, a person who behaves with extreme promiscuity can and will change their own genes, in this case possibly the D4 receptor gene length, and pass that “promiscuity” gene along to offspring. The possibilities are mind-boggling. I will try to research this.
Hollenhund,
On this issue you write with great clarity- I agree with you on the civilisation thing.
I think people dont like to admit it as they derive great comfort from tradition and history.
Susan,
I await your genetic research with some interest, I had no idea about a specific gene controlling sex behaviour. that could be quite explosive data.
@Jess
There is a gene called the D4 receptor. (D stands for dopamine here.) Thus far, only men have been studied, but those with a “long” version of the gene have 20% more sexual partners and are more likely to cheat. At some point, we may demand testing for this the way we do now for STDs! It is hypothesized that women probably have a similar marker for sexual variety and infidelity, but that still needs to be tested.
Its an interesting concept. The 20% thing- could it be that the gene allows for some phsycial characteristc like height or jawline etc that might make them more attractive and that might account for the 20% increase?
As opposed to the gene meaning the person is more likely to be dishonest/unfaithful/disastisfied?
I just read up a bit on genetics- I couldnt find anything on behaviour affecting genes.
Your genes come from both parents and reside in the nucleus of most cells.
The only thing that can change your genes is radiation, chemicals or a disruption during cell division.
The genes in your eggs/sperm are what you pass onto your children and they also can only be effected by the 3 things I just mentioned.
So how would me suddenly leaving my partner and participating in a year long orgy effect my genetic code? Have I misunderstood this?
Its called epigenetics. For a woman, it probably includes a gene for skillful dishonesty. She would have be a real natural at hiding all knowledge of that year-long orgy in order to secure a man worth marrying and have any chance to put a curse on the next generation of girls.
Well, putting aside your intended offence, how would the scenario you describe alter the genetic code in a womens ovums?
Its only an offense if she succeeds. But its inconsequential as few men would give her the chance. That’s how the population of such women are kept in check as a tiny minority…solely by mens’ selection choices. You would need to research epigenetics for a description of how the genetic code is altered.
i actually meant the offence you intented, not the imaginary girl
.
and susan is going to get back to us on her rearch
@Jess
Some links about the D4 receptor:
.
http://www.srm-ejournal.com/article.asp?AID=7099&UID=
Heritability estimates were 41% for infidelity and 38% for number of sexual partners. A strong genetic correlation between infidelity and number of partners was reported (0.47), showing a genetic link between the 2 traits.
.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n3/full/5201763a.html
Among the male young adults, possessing one or two alleles of the 10R is associated an 80–100% increase in the number of partners as compared with those possessing two alleles of the 9R. This finding is not evident among females. An equivalent interpretation can treat one or two 10Rs as the ‘wild type’, which amounts to about 91% of the individuals in the sample. Then the homozygotes for 9R can be considered as the ‘conservative’ or ‘undaring’ type whose reported number of sexual partners is about one half of the number reported by the wild type.
.
Re your understanding of altering the genetic code with behavior, as I mentioned I heard about this from a geneticist at a recent dinner party. This is cutting edge stuff, and all hypothetical at this point. I’m not aware of any completed studies. FWIW he treated this as a foregone conclusion, and would say, “Yes, if you leave your partner and engage in a year’s worth of orgies, you would alter your genes. So that a child conceived pre-orgy and one born post-orgy would be dealing with two different sets of genetic code.” It really is mind-blowing.
.
This is entirely independent of physical characteristics as determined by testosterone, for example. The D4 receptor gene is thought to determine the propensity for “novelty-seeking” in an individual. It is a gene for temperament.
thanks for this susan
I read the links. I found them highly interesting although I confess they are quite heavy going for a lay person (why cant scientists write in plain english?)
i think a gene for temprement and ‘risk taking’ is perfectly feasible.
And a 0.47 correlelation is massive so there must be something in it.
I couldnt find anything about what your dinner guest said in the links or elsewhere.
I did read several times that your eggs (several 100 or so) are actually manufactured when you are a foetus so that means the genetics are fixed during the lifetime of the female. Behaviour itself cannot effect the genes nor the order of ovulation of particular ovums.
Do you think he might have meant that a certain gene might pervade the gene pool over several generations?
Or did he count ‘a walk through the Chernobyl disaster site’ as a possible behaviour due to a gene for risk taking? (sorry- i stole that joke from one of the sites i read)
” a child conceived pre-orgy and one born post-orgy would be dealing with two different sets of genetic code.”
.
Another extremely good reason for a man to choose the mother of his children wisely. VERY wisely. You deserve better. Screw locally, marry globally.
@Jess
All good questions. If I get the chance I will try to learn more from this man. That makes sense about the eggs already being fixed, of course. I will certainly report back if I learn more.
“When, oh when will men stop saying that we’re lucky because we can get laid twice a day?”
Well, realistically speaking, average women ARE lucky – WHEN compared to average guys on campus who cannot even get casual sex without serious investment and effort (read: learning Game). Sorry, Ms. Walsh, that’s just a fact. Something is still better than nothing.
“WE ONLY WANT TO GET LAID WITH A FAVORED MALE. Do you understand? Cat calls, come ons, etc. are not enjoyable.”
In other words, they are not enjoyable IF done by males that aren’t favored (read: betas). Cat calls and come-ons are not enjoyable when done by attractive alphas? You mean women don’t enjoy it when alphas validate their sense of sexual attractiveness. Come on, Ms. Walsh, you know that’s pure BS.
I think you may have overstated your case.
Yes women like compliments from an attractive man sometimes.
They are less likely to appreciate them coming from a 60 yo drunk in the street.
.
Also women differ in their preferences.
I have always found men stare in a lewd fashion if i wear a dress.
And I find that invasive, irritating and disconcerting so I dress down. Always have.
But I know some women who revel in male attention, even the overt type, so poor guys don’t know how to play it I guess.
.
Generally speaking a subtle hint of a compliment is usually ok.
Overt sexual overtones and the man risks offending.
Wolf whistles are very risky. I know a lot of guys and girls that think guys who do that are morons BUT I have seen the tactic work. I’m afraid attractive guys can get away with a lot. I would not dispute that Hollenhund.
“They are less likely to appreciate them coming from a 60 yo drunk in the street.”
I made it perfectly clear that I’m not talking about such men.
“I have always found men stare in a lewd fashion if i wear a dress.
And I find that invasive, irritating and disconcerting so I dress down.”
Since you’re talking about “men” in general, I assume the reason for your reaction is that you don’t find the majority of them attractive.
“Well, realistically speaking, average women ARE lucky – WHEN compared to average guys on campus who cannot even get casual sex without serious investment and effort (read: learning Game).”
The social and biological risks for casual sex are higher for women compared with men, on average.
I also fail to see how learning game is any more or less of an investment—time-wise, psychologically or physically—than the current levels of consumerism/consumption for products, interventions and activities to appeal to a beauty standard.
Men can decrease their mating efforts with women for whom the social and biological risks of casual sex are lower; mating effort for either sex is highly dependent on gender ratios as well.
“I also fail to see how learning game is any more or less of an investment—time-wise, psychologically or physically—than the current levels of consumerism/consumption for products, interventions and activities to appeal to a beauty standard.”
.
In that case, you probably don’t know much about game.
“The social and biological risks for casual sex are higher for women compared with men, on average.”
That had been the case until the invention of the Pill, the legalization of abortion and the disappearance of slut-shaming. I concede that STDs are a higher risk to women for biological reasons. But you should also keep in mind that men assume an enormous risk when engaging in casual sex that women don’t: the possibility of a false rape charge.
Some interesting new comments on this old thread!
@Hollenhund
I think you fail to fully take sex differences into account. Obviously, for some women casual sex is better than nothing – or we wouldn’t have a hookup culture. For other women, though, the promise of physical intimacy without emotional intimacy holds no appeal. Still others are tempted but understand that way lies misery. This may be true regardless of the attractiveness of the male, though it’s no surprise that attractive males will fare better than unattractive ones with all women. Physical attractiveness is not correlated to alpha/beta, IMO. I do agree that favored status is more often granted to socially dominant males.
.
The women most likely to be approached and cat-called are the women least likely to desire or need the sexual validation. Most women feel genuinely uncomfortable being stared at. The most beautiful women I know walk down the street with their eyes straight ahead, effectively wearing blinders, so that they don’t even notice the way people stare at them. Of course, narcissistic women are a different story.
.
@ Cercando di Capire, @terre
I think an argument can be made that women work extremely hard to achieve the cultural standard for beauty. It is a different set of tools than Game, perhaps easier to implement, but still very high stakes emotionally. A woman who is deemed unattractive in this culture is SOL. Game offers the possibility of success with women regardless of one’s genetic code. Women do not have this option.
I agree with Susan mostly here.
It’s certainly true that staring gets tiresome.
When younger my friends and I would get asked for dances or drinks offers 20 times a night.
It was maddening. And drunk guys feeling horny are not very seductive.
.
I slightly disagree on susans last point. Women can use a bit of game to improve their sexual value.
Playing hard to get, ( or not), the right shoes, the right dress, being flirty and engaging.
I know women who have ‘landed’ men that might be considered more hot than they were.
But ‘game ‘ probably is easier for guys generally.
Maybe the reason is that the majority of people doing the staring and cat-calling are unattractive men?
My point is that your argument is inconsistent. You say women want to get laid by the favored men. Fair enough. You imply that “favored men” = “men that women fall in love with”. Well, the standard behavior of women in the SMP makes this unlikely. Do alpha men have lots of casual sex because women fall in love with them all the time? I don’t think so.
And then you say women aren’t advantaged by their ability to have casual sex pretty much whenever they want, yet you also say that women want to get laid. I concede that women run into difficulties when trying to achieve the best-case scenario (committed relationship and regular sex with a favored man), but the fact is that something is still better than nothing.
“But you should also keep in mind that men assume an enormous risk when engaging in casual sex that women don’t: the possibility of a false rape charge.”
Then stop raping women.
« 1 2
{ 1 trackback }