Since the premise of Hooking Up Smart is that being analytical and strategic will make you more successful in dating and relationships, I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that I’m a big fan of resolutions. Not New Year’s Resolutions, necessarily, but in general I think it’s helpful to set objectives and then craft a strategy to achieve them. It’s also important to check in every so often and assess how things are working. The beginning of a new year is as good a time as any to take stock of what you might like to do differently moving forward. Whether it’s stopping some unproductive behavior, or trying something new, change is good. It promotes growth.
During the past year I’ve learned a tremendous amount from you. Today I’d like to highlight some insights into male psychology that many of the guy readers here have thoughtfully shared in the Comments. While I feel like I’ve got a good handle on how women think, much of what I’ve learned here about the male point of view has opened my eyes to the realization that trying to find a fulfilling relationship is doomed to failure without understanding what men want and how they think. As women, we have a way of projecting our hopes and dreams onto the men we’re seeing, often with disastrous results. Understanding the male point of view is crucial to forging a winning strategy.
Here, then, for your information as you formulate your own 2011 resolutions, are the 11 most important lessons I’ve learned from the guys this past year:
1. 20% of the men get 80% of the sex.
There are clear winners in the SMP today. Some guys are naturals at getting with lots of girls. Others get a boost by virtue of their athletic status, frat membership, or high status job. For these males, every success leads to more success, as girls are heavily influenced by who their peers choose. In the end, most sexually active women are competing for a minority of the men. This has clear implications for both sexes:
- The 20% successful men go from confident to cocky to jerky to total douchebag, increasingly rewarded at each stage of behavioral regression.
- The remaining guys have the opposite experience – they may start out perfectly confident, but years of striking out while the cads clean up leave many feeling frustrated and resentful.
- At least 50% of women think they’re a hard 10. Why? Because they snagged a ONS with a top dog. Your no-strings value is considerably higher than your commitment value. Adjust your expectations accordingly.
- Women who want relationships are constantly thwarted as their promiscuous female peers give away sexual access.
2. Believe a man when he says he doesn’t want a girlfriend.
Most men will tell you straight out what they’re down for if you ask. Take him at his word. The guys are emphatic in their claims that a woman never changes their mind if they’re not looking for a relationship, no matter how great she is.
If you don’t ask, it’s on you. No fair going along for the ride and then claiming you were dicked over. My own advice? Ask before you have sex. If you don’t like the answer, walk away.
Yes, some relationships start out with casual hookups. But that only works when both parties are amenable to a relationship from the start.
3. Sex is not the way to a man’s heart.
Women who believe they can get a man to fall in love with them by being great in bed are dead wrong. In fact, men find women most attractive in the period just before sex, and tend to feel less enamored afterwards. Men like variety, so sex with one woman will never be an incentive to fall in love.
4. Men care about your sexual history.
This makes feminists see red, but it’s a fact. In the two years I’ve been writing this blog, only 3 of more than 100 male commenters have said otherwise. (It’s unclear whether any of the 3 were really straight males.) For hooking up, guys want a slut with great skills. For dating, guys want a woman who has had sex mostly in the context of meaningful relationships. There’s a short-term box, and a long-term box for virtually every man, and your number is the key determinant of what box you go into.
Men are especially sensitive to the idea that women live it up with players when they’re in college and their 20s, only to seek a really great guy later on to marry. If that man was in the 80% of guys who didn’t get laid a lot in college, forget about it. He doesn’t want to pay up now for what you gave away for free to so many others.
5. Men become more relationship-oriented as they age.
Many of the guys have stated that a male 24 or under wants as much sex as possible with as little fuss as possible. Relationships are a hassle – they require constant calling, setting aside precious weekend time, making an effort for a woman’s friends, and even getting dragged to the mall. They also entail constant drama, PMSing, trying to figure out what you did wrong even when she says “nothing.” Most young men have zero desire to jump through the hoops if they can get access to sex without it.
Once a man is out in the world, pursuing a career, nurturing mature friendships, he is far more likely to see a relationship as a desirable, worthwhile life choice. As he approaches 30, he may well be thinking about finding a life partner. As an added benefit, men become more focused on character, seeking women with integrity, honesty and generosity. Being “the hottest” is no longer a requirement, and may even be a disadvantage (see 4).
6. Men are more cautious about marriage than ever before.
The marriage rate is declining, and all indications are that it will continue to do so.
- Only 43% of college students are male. There will be a shortage of educated, professional men for the foreseeable future.
- Where cheating used to be something that men did more than women, researchers now believe that women cheat at least as often as men. 10-20% of newborns are estimated to be fathered by someone other than the man who believes himself to be the father.
- Women initiate 2/3 of divorces.
- U.S. laws around divorce, alimony, custody and child support are extreme disincentives to men considering marriage.
- Cohabitation is increasingly common, and reduces the likelihood of marriage, statistically speaking.
Many men will carefully consider whether they should marry at all, and will not do so if a woman does not demonstrate exemplary character and loyalty.
7. Men are wary of women who act entitled.
The Women’s Movement provided many financial opportunities for women. Equality cuts both ways. Chivalry is dead. Many men enjoy the role of provider, but resent a woman who feels that his spending money on her is a prerequisite to commitment. Men are extremely appreciative of women who buy them a drink for a change, offer to share the cost of a meal, or reciprocate the next time around.
8. Men are not turned on by your career achievements.
It’s become a cliche for successful women to bemoan their spinsterhood by claiming that men are intimidated by their success. Actually, research shows that both men and women are happiest when the man has higher status than the woman. In any case, don’t think that flipping a guy your impressive business card or bending his ear about your doctoral dissertation is going to make you more attractive.
Men dislike women who behave aggressively or competitively. By all means, do whatever you need to do to succeed at work, but don’t come barreling into a dinner date acting like a Wall St. trader.
9. Men judge you by the way you treat others.
Both sexes do this, but men are especially sensitive to the way you treat other men. They all share the risk of rejection, and hate to see some guy do his best to put himself out there, only to receive some pyrotechnic rejection from a woman. It’s doubly harmful if you go on to ridicule the guy you just sent packing. You shouldn’t be rude to others in any case, but keep in mind that you may disqualify yourself from consideration by the handsomest guy in the room if you treat some other guy disrespectfully.
10. Men love to be approached.
Guys often express that if a woman is decently attractive, they will receive any approach from her warmly. By taking the initiative, and giving a guy a break from the risk of making the approach, you can make an excellent first impression.
If you can’t bring yourself to approach, you should at least be aware that eye contact and a smile will be required encouragement for most men.
11. Men do not want to be your platonic friend.
There’s a reason guys don’t want to hear those dreaded words Let’s Just Be Friends. It means that a woman they’ve been hoping to hook up with has just taken the possibility off the table. Fellow blogger Solomon II quoted a commenter on his site who said it best:
If I’m not fucking you now, fucking you soon, or using you to fuck other girls, you’re useless to me.
Harsh, I know. But no straight male wants to be your sexless soulmate.
Men are more direct than women. I have found that when they are able to speak online and anonymously, they are honest, analytical and extremely generous with their time. I’m extremely grateful for those men who have educated us on the male perspective this year. If you are a regular reader but skip the Comments section, you need to make reading it your first resolution of 2011!
{ 544 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 4 »
I think you should have this post link as the header of your whole blog
100% perfect.
Great list. “At least 50% of women think they’re a hard 10.” Wow, really?
@Athol
Thanks for the thumbs up, and for being one of the men who enlightens us here!
.
@Ric
OK, that’s probably an exaggeration. There are actually hard 10s who think they’re nothing special. Still, I would say that in this current SMP, women tend to have an inflated sense of their sexual market value. The most common mistake is assuming that they can get a commitment from the same kind of guy they hook up with. The men here often encounter women with an unrealistic sense of how attractive they are.
Hi,
Susan, is there any word on the posts that went missing in the other threads? Ta.
.
I agree with the majority of what you said above, however unpalatable it may be to some.
.
My points of difference would be
1. Insinuating that women should not enjoy their sexuality in case it damages
Dorris’s chances of using sex to ensnare Danny for marriage. You do know a lot of victorian dramas have the ugly sister tutting because the saucy heroine is dancing with the preverbial heathcliff?
3. Never underestimate how important good sex is to some men. Apple pie skills are a poor second to good head. Sorry to be so crude, but had to be said.
4. You have overstated this. One of your male posters provided data suggesting this wasn’t so important even in isolation. And in a real human scenario of two people in love I’m sure it would be even less important.
.
Other than that I think you made good points that deserve a wider audience.
Love #11. It’s harsh, but precisely true. Noone.. I mean noone wants to hear they just want to be “friends”. Please.. you know what being “just a friend” means? It means not calling you unless they’re depressed. It means forgetting that you exist. It means bragging about their accomplishments. It means talking about you behind their mind. It’s disappointing and a let down.
You don’t think I’m straight, Susan?
@Jess
I combed through hundreds of spammed messages today and rescued a couple from you. I don’t know why I can’t whitelist you. I do so, and then it reverts back. I honestly have no idea why your comments go into moderation. The spam has been brutal, but I’ll try and sift through it each day to prevent comments getting lost.
.
Re your points:
1. Intrasexual competition among women has always been fierce, and is today stronger than ever. I think it is totally legitimate for women to lobby for one course of action vs. another, as all women are affected by promiscuity. Until recently, from the dawn of time, women’s sexuality was restricted by societal norms. I would argue that’s a good thing, based on what’s happened in the SMP since the Sexual Revolution.
3. Giving good head is indeed a skill treasured by men, but it doesn’t make a man fall in love. If it did, prostitutes would be whisked off the streets with regularity. What a man really wants is to patiently teach a woman how to please him sexually. Not for her to have learned on all the boys in the neighborhood.
4. There is some variation among the guys in terms of what number is unacceptable. I don’t think you can state a certain number of past sexual partners, or specify the nature of what sexual contact is OK. This will vary a fair amount depending on age and a man’s own sexual experience. Suffice it to say that for many men, it’s a consideration.
@Henway
I don’t think women have even begun to understand what a drag LJBF is for men. They want a confidante of the opposite sex, and they’re also willing to be a confidante. What they don’t realize is that no man wants that from them. Guys who want advice from girls can get it from sisters, girlfriends or wives of friends, etc. They don’t need to establish individual friendships that are time consuming and don’t lead to sex! For some reason, women find this very difficult to accept. It doesn’t help, by the way, when guys willingly embrace this role and then balk when the woman resists. I don’t think it’s intentional – just a massive misunderstanding most of the time.
@GudEnuf
Oh I know you are straight! But I don’t recall your saying that you do not care about how many past partners a woman has had. If I have forgotten, I’ll happily make you #4. The other three are Tom (currently debating in the thread on female promiscuity and suspected of really being a woman), Thomas (Jaclyn Friedman’s BFF who exclaimed that he likes to “bottom” for his wife) and one other guy who identified as queer (also a JF supporter, can’t recall his name).
.
You have been open about being a feminist, so I guess I could surmise that you would be on board with sexual empowerment for all. I think you are a rarity, though.
Thanks for sifting them out. Maybe my posts had some key words that made them suspect.
I will try and avoid certain words to reduce the chances of it happening again.
Cheers, J
Ps. Feel free to delete this post obviously as it’s just to you.
I guess you could say I do care about a woman’s sexual history–I prefer women with more experience. But that’s probably not what you meant! For the record, I value my platonic friendships with women, and think there’s something hot about high earning female.
And didn’t you already debunk #1?
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/14/hookinguprealities/sex-and-the-pareto-principle/
Comment on #8:
This is basically true, BUT, I would never consider marrying a woman who wasn’t roughly as smart as me.
So insofar as accomplishments signal smarts, I *might* be impressed by them. If a girl says she’s a medical student, law student, or going for a Ph.D. in a field that requires real brains, that’s impressive.
But a business card or a thesis for a masters in social work, yeah, that’s not so impressive.
@hepsas My mommy has a masters in social work. She also happens to be very smart. Maybe that’s just a coincidence.
@GudEnuf
Thanks for recalling that post – probably my most time-consuming post ever. What I debunked there was the notion that 80% of the women go for 20% of the men. I actually believe that there is a great deal of sex among highly promiscuous males and females. There is a large population of college women that is absolutely not promiscuous. They may not be virgins, but they’re not available for no-strings hookups on a regular basis. Let’s assume that 20% of the girls are having a ton of sex with 20% of the guys. That would account for most of the sex on campus – let’s say 80%. That is an estimate that sounds right to me, and is in the conclusion of the post you reference.
@hepsas
This point is actually sort of a sore spot with me. It has always driven me crazy to see smart guys with dumb girls. As a smart girl, I always wanted to be valued for that. I know my intelligence is vital to the sustainability of my marriage – my husband and I have many interesting conversations, and we’re both intellectually curious. In addition, I did my part in producing two smart kids.
.
However, I think women are kidding themselves when they say that men are afraid of their intellect. A woman may be attractive or not in ways that having nothing to do with intelligence. I know several classmates from b-school who were so hard-charging in their careers they never married. Did they intimidate men? Perhaps. They were ball busters, that’s for sure. I don’t think it’s possible to be sexy and a ball buster.
.
Re MSWs, I have to agree with GudEnuf. I actually know several women with this degree who are brilliant therapists. I have no knowledge, however, of the requirements around a thesis. In b-school, we didn’t even write a thesis.
as a man, this pretty much all seems spot on
it also makes me sad to realize that so much is not common knowledge to the females of today
@EM
Thanks for the comment! I can assure you this is FAR from common knowledge. I thought I knew what was up, and much of this has been new to me this year.
#9 The way she treats others.
This is part of what I call The Waitress Test 2.0 Suite. The “pyrotechnically rejected guy” likely has a strong lack of appeal in some way (whehter poor looks, goofy immaturity, poor fashion, whatever). Unlike the conventional literal meaning of “waitress test”, waitresses aren’t always lacking in sex appeal to guys. The 2.0 suite deals with people with a definite lack of sex appeal – including some extreme habits, mannerisms, style and dress. The handsome guy who is in the relationship market thinks “If she treats HIM with true dignity and respect, then she’s more likely to treat ME with dignity and respect WITHOUT me having to struggle to earn it”. Besides, if she treats these top 20% of men with high respect – so what? What credit does that do for her. Don’t even the biggest whores and (*#$@$s do the same? Two equally hot and charming women: One who does treat the “loser” with respect, and the other that treats him the exact opposite way. Who do you think HE’s gonna choose to commit to? Who is least likely to give him drama, or use him as a “trophy man” to show off to her friends?
Now to some of the background.
This is where I draw heavily from Richard Florida’s Creative Class Theory – stating that the cities that consistently give birth to “Tomorrow’s Technology Today” kinds of industries – the very ones that let America enjoy a First World standard of living (considering that poorer countries with cheaper labor costs bump America from the low-tech and rountinized segment of manufacturing and general industry). In short, it says that technologically innovative cities are that way in large part because they have tolerate people and ideas highly controversial and unpopular with mainstream society (i.e. blacks and hippies treated as equals in the 1960′s, new age “cults” in the 70s, gays likewise in the 1980s, and so on and so forth).
This is because areas open to the unique, the different, and downright weird people and ideas are MUCH more likely to be open and non-scornful of new ideas about business and industry and technology. In fact many of the very innovative people themselves are also likely to have highly unorthodox ideas in one way or another. They also picked up on the vibe of places at the forefront of accepting interracial, interreligious marriage, and gays and lesbians: Ifthey can be accepted, then I can be accepted.
To close, the forward-thinking family-oriented man is also likely to say this: Of the two women discussed above, which woman is most likely to be a mother who will mold my children’s personality, values, and attitude into people I’d be proud to call my own?
Great list all around. Points 1 through 10 are succinct, well-chosen, and above all, correct.
Number 11 is, I think, a more nuanced point than can easily fit into the space allotted. I’m willing to bet you’ll get a number of responses claiming “I have a female friend and it’s fine!” This one, for instance. The key is that being their friend isn’t a chore, and I don’t feel any pressing need to bang them. One has a boyfriend, for instance, who I respect (even though I don’t know him very well). A couple are just not attractive. The distinction being that I do not want to waste my time as the “friend” of any girl I want to date or sleep with. Either do it or move on, I figure.
I don’t expect women to worry too much about that, though. It’s the guy’s fault if he puts himself in that situation. The most women could do is declare “I don’t like you in that way,” very clearly, and hope for the best. Sure, many guys would ignore that and continue to act as a friend while hoping for pity sex later, but as long as women understand the point you’re making here, and adjust their behavior/communication accordingly, the onus can be on guys to act like men about it.
I’d also like to single out Number 1 as being absolutely vital to understanding guys. Those of us falling in the bottom 80% would benefit from that knowledge being spread around. I’d go so far as to say that’s the single biggest cause of all the problems in the SMP today. Well done putting it there, right up front.
Great list!
.
To echo your follow up, no amount of sex skill can make a man fall in love. If a guy falls in love with you and you have mad sex skills, you’ll stand a much better chance of keeping him in love with you.
.
Where there may be some confusion is here: Some men will keep a booty call around longer, and even pretend to do relationship things at some level just to keep the “This One Goes Up to Eleven” Sexpot on their dicks for a bit longer than average. But as soon as they get tired of her shit, they’ll dump her. Yes, sexual skill is somewhat uncommon in women, but it’s not worth monogamy if he’s not already in love.
@Bob
Thanks for your comment. I’m struck by your phrase “the bottom 80%.” I think many men are used to thinking in these terms but think about it – we usually talk in terms of the bottom 10% or bottom 20%. But 80% is the vast majority of men! This information does need to be out there – I was stunned to learn it myself and every single young woman I have shared this with has been amazed too. This is the dirty little secret of the post-Sexual Revolution.
@Hamby
To hearken back to much earlier conversations, I’ll assume that mad sex skills can be acquired by the less experienced with enthusiasm and focus. It seems to me that all a woman really needs is insatiability, eagerness to learn, and a long weekend.
This point is actually sort of a sore spot with me. It has always driven me crazy to see smart guys with dumb girls. As a smart girl, I always wanted to be valued for that. I know my intelligence is vital to the sustainability of my marriage – my husband and I have many interesting conversations, and we’re both intellectually curious. In addition, I did my part in producing two smart kids.
.
However, I think women are kidding themselves when they say that men are afraid of their intellect.
.
This is tricky. I agree that 95-99% of men are not “afraid of a women’s intellect”. It simply isn’t a huge priority as for most guys there are at least 3-5 things that rank well ahead of IQ. Physical beauty, perceived sexual fidelity, and personality/demeanor are light years beyond mental horsepower.
.
There is a certain IQ difference that makes things difficult. I was probably around 30-40 IQ points higher then my ex-wife, and we were simply incapable of having certain types of conversations. I’m guessing I’m probably about 15-20 IQ points higher then my current GF, and it just isn’t a big deal. Sometimes I’ll use a word she won’t know, and I’ll joke with her to go Google it, and she has fun with it. Alot of our conversations are playful banter, and silliness.
.
Here’s the thing for alot of guys with high IQs/intellectual sides. We can engage that aspect of ourselves on the Internet…for example…on a blog like this. I can have a high-level intellectual exchange about the state of the sexual marketplace with you or other intelligent commenters. I don’t need my GF/LTR to fulfill that need.
.
I do think for any guy wanting children though, he will give it some consideration, although IQ tends to be mean-reverting anyways, so 2 140 IQ parents are more likely to produce a 120 IQ child then a 140 or 160.
Intelligence…part of the excitement and pleasure of a good relationship is in the flow of verbal interaction. It’s probably harder to achieve this if the IQs of the partners are too far apart…not impossible, but less likely.
Back in the mid-1700s, Dr Johnson observed that “a man of sense and education should meet a suitable companion in a wife. It was a miserable thing when the conversation could be only such as, whether the mutton should be boiled or roasted, and probably a dispute about that.”
Susan, this post was so honest and accurate it nearly brought tears to my eyes. Everyone should read this. You hit the nail squarely on the head.
Just perfect, Susan. One for the “Best Of”, I say.
Feminism and Evolutionary Psychology: Can They be Reconciled?*
S. L. Hurley
Draft of work in progress
http://www.bris.ac.uk/philosophy/hurley/papers/fep.pdf
This draft paper by S. L. Hurley could have some bearing on number (1) and number (4) if the current course of feminism on the sexual market-place in society continues.
Yes, very nicely done. A very useful compendium, Susan. Still on the ‘numbers game’ & ‘history’, what was done & how & to whom might be even more significant here.
Again, most will likely never know the ‘true’ story, but the woman herself & her conscience, even if she chose to ever confide in a close (typically female) friend. So a proto-typical ‘serial monogamist’ might have say 10 true relationships, even in their teens-20′s. Some lasting longer than others, perhaps most not ‘fitting well’ for a wide variety of reasons, both practical & personality wise. ‘Yes, I deeply loved Freddie, but his music was more important to him so he moved to Nashville & I was not invited…’
Still what remains ‘uncounted’ or certainly under counted are the ONS’s & ‘short/fun times’ with this or that attractive musician/drummer/roadie ‘just because’ you were ‘following the band’. Or got drunk regularly that summer/semester/season/year. (Or even the better & increasingly popular, ‘just wanted to know what it felt like to do a gangbang/train/the whole team/p0rn’ etc.) Strangely enough, those ‘incidents’ just don’t ‘count for much’ in the usual accounting. Which is to be expected, given the rationalization going on. (‘But that was my Job, not any Real relationships! But they were ever BFs! He/They were my Boss(es)! It was a dare by [insert idiot implicated group here]!”Youthful indiscretions etc.’)
But HOW someone reacts to this sort of treatment via the usual cads/players is what’s most telling. Did they continue down this path for years? Sadly, all too often? For decades perhaps. Besides the long (and oh so slight) learning curve? That takes a toll on anyone’s psyche, (male & female) and their subsequent relationships with the opposite sex are usually marked by this disposition to be less trusting, much more suspicious of all motives & more flighty, and less able to bond with partners, no matter how loving. The whole ‘bitter with baggage’ issue familiar to anyone dating in their 30′s & 40′s. Some come by this ‘naturally’ after some years of marriages gone wrong, or just dating ‘unsuccessfully’. But to come by it through 20 years of dating & literally countless bedpartners is also pretty predictable too. But it’s only ‘natural’ in the sense that it’s wildly more common today as it was virtually unknown to & for almost any woman (and most men) even a generation ago.
So the information is as vital as it is highly secretive & deeply personal, and hence the most likely to be most lied about. Everywhere. It may tell someone instantly what sort of life you’ve led, and what history might tell about you. (Again for both & all sexes). No matter. And easier discriminant factor to weigh in here for the possible future success of a potential LTR leading to marriage? What do the parents look like, and what’s the state of their marriage?! That’s got probably just as much influence on their history & your success at a partnership with them. Strangely enough. (This includes of course the immediate family & social environment they grew up into, of course).
So yes, they’re separate, if somewhat related questions & issues. But if someone is unwilling or unable to faithfully answer one, they really should respond to the other. And no one should consider a serious relationship without discussing or at least knowing at least one very well. You might & can be justly be embarrassed about both perhaps. But if your subsequent behavior does not reflect credibly back upon you & your acts? How can you not think that you’d never be judged by this fact? You can not & should not remain an indulged child forever. And no one should expect to keep you in such a style as an responsible adult. Although it’s done, sadly enough! Cheers, ‘VJ’
@random_commentator
Some thoughts on your article:
-I’ll concede that the social expectations of monogamy is mostly the result of a social contract between men. But Hurley neglects to mention that there is (or was) a social contract between woman: don’t have sex with a man unless he offers a long-term commitment. Woman who offered sex on the cheap would be shamed as “sluts”. This nookie cartel kept the market price of sex high and guaranteed each woman would have enough bargaining power get a husband.
Of course, the nookie cartel is much weaker than used to be–and HUS has spilled much ink explaining the consequences. Meanwhile the monogamy cartel is mostly intact. I realize it’s fashionable to say otherwise, but how many men do you know with multiple live in girlfriends? Finally, advances in pornography have produced a massive supply glut that reduces the market value of sex even further. The combination of these factors has given men unprecedented bargaining power in the SMP.
-”Who benefits from insisting the man divorce the first wife before marrying the second?” The author argues that serial monogamy is no better polygamy, and might even be worse considering the damage it does to the kids.
But divorce is expensive. In fact, the monetary costs of divorce are higher than ever, thanks to higher lawyer fees. Not to mention the fact that it PERMANENTLY damages your psychological health.
http://news.healingwell.com/index.php?p=news1&id=529763
In fact, I think serial monogamy is a myth. Most divorces occur early in the marriage, before the wife a has a chance to grow old. Rich men (the dudes that are supposedly dumping their wives for PYTS) actually have lower divorce rates than poor men, while billionaires have the strongest marriages of all:
http://blogs.forbes.com/bruceupbin/2010/09/17/divorce-charts-of-the-billionaires/
There are high costs to serial monogamy, and for the most part, these costs act as an effective deterrent.
Wow! Spot on Susan! Every single point. Where can I find all the women who share your understanding of the male sex?
Shame on you Susan for your comments in #4.
You are right, many men do act as you have declaired.. However not all men. there are nice guys out there who will look at a womans worth a little differently. Not all men are women users. You make it sound like that is the point, and it is not.
@Tom
That’s the spirit Tom! We need guys like you to treat our leftovers like 19th century Victorian Virgins. A word of wisdom though, they’ll tire of your good guy persona and go looking for a little excitement and danger later on. Oh, don’t worry – she wont leave you. She’ll simply sport fu*k me at a work convention or seminar somewhere and return home to you. After all, you’re the safe one.
There are no good girls, and there are no bad girls. There’s a good and a bad girl inside of every woman. Whichever one you speak to will answer, I can assure you. You better man up and learn to speak to both if you want to keep her interest instead of wasting your time “looking at a woman’s worth a little differently”. If you refuse, you had better hope she doesn’t bump in to me on one of her girls nights out.
That’s why smart men care about a woman’s sexual history. It tells us how easily her bad girl side is spoken to, and how ready and willing she is to answer the call.
Your welcome susan. I’m actually pretty happy you put #1 and #11 where they are. Those are the two firmest principles that are absolutely true in 99% of cases. #11 especially.
If you think women who have sex with lots of men are dirty, then you think male sexuality is dirt. I, for one, am sick of society thinking of my cum as pollution that corrupts the “purity” of women.
Oh Solomon. Why must you be so open, honest, and truthful. You’re making tom’s lesson easier to take if he actually listens to you.
This is interesting because today The Men’s Network reported on research in the UK showing that “women want rich husbands not careers” – and here you are are saying that “men are not turned on by women’s career achievements” – I am left wondering which is the chicken and which is the egg?
http://brightonmanplan.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/five-feminist-myths-about-gender-equality/
No he hasn’t. Have you check theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com ?
Where’s his new site?
Re #11: I’m a very heterosexual male and am highly interested in female platonic friendships. Why? It gets you more hookups and better reputation among women.
Hi Ms. Walsh and Happy New Year! I’m working on the new blog, will be back with more details as they roll in; stay tuned!
As for the current topic, I’ll have a more detailed response up shortly. In the meantime though, I thought I’d toss out a few numbers courtesy of the US Census, on one of the items you mentioned above:
US Census Data On White Male Female Bachelor Degrees Aged 25 To 34
From the Census:
____________________________
“Share of population 25 to 34 years old with a Bachelor’s degree or higher, 2008″
USA
27.0% Males
34.2% Females
____________________________
SCRANTON-SIZED METROS
Scranton–Wilkes-Barre, PA Metro Area
25.7% Males
33.4% Females
Boise City-Nampa, ID Metro Area
25.3% Males
29.0% Females
Sioux Falls, SD Metro Area
25.7% Males
39.8% Females
Knoxville, TN Metro Area
31.3% Males
34.0% Females
____________________________
LARGEST METROS
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area
39.3% Male
47.3% Female
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area
28.4% Male
34.2% Female
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metro Area
34.7% Males
42.1% Females
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area
45.6% Male
53.9% Female
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metro Area
48.3% Male
58.0% Female”
Assuming he was focusing solely on Whites, the data above, taken from the US Census, is striking; note that in EVERY major metro area cited, White Women outnumber White Men in bachelor degrees attained. Moreover, note that the widest gaps to be seen along these lines are in the Boston, DC, Chitown and NYC metro areas-in the case of Beantown, a whopping 10 points, more or less!
That tallies very well with what we all know has been happening for sometime; that more and more White Women are outnumbering White Men in terms of college degree attainment, and that this can’t help but have some effect on the ways they relate or not, to each other. How will this impact the already belaegured marriage rate, among a great many other things? Seems to me the story here is that White Women are clearly outpacing White Men when it comes to having that key social and economic credential, a bachelor’s diploma – something that, if a guy doesn’t have it, can and and is, a dealbreaker for many White Women.
Fascinating stuff!
Comments?
O.
Susan – thought you might like to know. Your post has gotten some deserved attention.
Ms. Walsh,
OK, with the US Census stats out of the way, let us now turn toward giving today’s post a more proper treatment.
Let’s start with point number 11:
Men do not want to be your platonic friend.
100% TRUE. Any Man who suggests otherwise, is LYING not only to you, but most of all, to himself.
The problem I’m having in our time is this: for a Man to openly say that he is not interested in having platonic relationships with Women, is harshly criticized for all manner of things, of course, the M-word is tossed about, and so forth. What people, and by this I really mean Women, don’t seem to get is that they can and will employ all kinds of schema when it comes to who they will and won’t hangout with and why, often the criteria itself being incredibly shallow and vapid. It happens all the time. Yet, when a guy says that he’s not interested in friendship with a Woman if sex isn’t on the table, he’s a rabid, foaming at the mouth misogynist or something.
Whatever happened to the idea of right to freedom of association? If someone doesn’t wish to be friends with those who smoke, does that make him a misanthrope? If one doesn’t wish to associate with those who are bigoted in some way, does that mean he is small minded? If one says, look, I don`t choose to hang out with Republicans, does that mean they are in some way, less of an American? Of course not – yet, when it comes to the idea of friendship in our time, the mere mention of a guy saying that he isn’t interested in socalled platonic relationships with Women, is enough to get him pilloried as some kind of vapid Woman hater. It’s patently ridiculous.
A word to the ladies reading this: no one says you have to like said guy’s decisions about what he does on his personal time and dime. But you should at least be consistent. Take a hard look at the friends in your life, and then contrast that with those you don’t wish to be friends with. Chances are, someone could very well call you small minded, bigoted and misanthropic based on them, too.
Women need to accept that Men simply don’t require the need for social outreach and connection in the way that Women do, and there’s nothing at all wrong with that. Men usually desire the company of Women who, as Solomon rightly noted (he’s going on my blogroll!), hold out at least the promise of sex – if not with them outright, then with at least one of her more attractive friends. Most Men don’t have a desire for socalled confidants, at least not female ones, anyway. So, yes, all those guys you call your friend, they are in fact, orbiters – guys who think, by playing the Friendship Card, and hanging around long enough, they’ll be the Lask Man Standing and get in your panties by default. Of course such a notion is laughable on its face, but then so is the notions I’ve outlined above about so many of you Womenfolk’s friendship criteria – even as you attempt to upbraid Men for theirs.
More in minute…
O.
Obs has returned.
TO: All
RE: Such….
….a ‘target rich’ environment.
I’ll have to be selective, otherwise, I’ll put more verbiage into a reply than in the original post.
I’ll settle for this bit if pith….
A coquette is a young lady of more beauty than sense, more accomplishments than learning, more charms than personality and graces of mind, more admirers than friends, more fools than wise men for attendants. — Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
….as a start.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You think intercourse is a private act; it's not, it's a social act. Men are sexually predatory in life and women are sexually manipulative. When two individuals come together and leave their gender outside the bedroom door, then they make love. -- Andrea Dworkin]
Then you haven’t check his new site then.
I’ll leave that to him to post. I don’t have it favorited on my comp at work.
Hey Susan,
Fantastic post. Absolutely one of your best yet. I imagine that most of your regular male readers will agree with everything you wrote. I do.
That said, I would suggest being cautious with suggesting that all men share the values of the men in our little roissyshpere/game/MRA corner of the internet. A lot of the guys postings here were probably into game well before they found your site and the knowledge of game tends to push a man’s understanding of women and society into a direction that is not common in the real world. You’re getting feedback from an extremely narrow spectrum of the male population on this website, most of whom have similar views due their familiarity with the principles of game.
If you were to survey a broader selection of men, I think that you would find far less agreement than is seen on this site and in the general “man-o’sphere.
Esca, GE,
I just wanted it to be known that my original blog on Wordpress was taken down, for reasons that need not be reiterated here. In the days that followed, I put up a stopgap blog over at Bravenet. If you do a Google for my name, you’ll see it. Since then I’ve been doing a bit of research and taking time out to think about how I want to approach my new blog, and in the past few days have been taking steps toward that. If all goes well I’ll have more to say along those lines very soon.
Just wanted to clear the air up a bit, and thanks so much for all your interest!
O.
@filrabat
I just picked up Richard Florida’s book, based on an earlier reader rec. That must have been you. I am very interested in the topic. Your comment strikes me as very insightful. Especially the last part – we’d all be much better off if we selected mates based on what we hope our children will be like. Even women who can’t resist a “bad boy” probably don’t want to give birth to one.
.
I’ve been known to warn men that since the gene for intelligence in sons is carried on the X chromosome, they should refrain from marrying a bimbo.
.
I’m also fascinated by the geographical theory. I will be interested to see how my own city of Boston measures up – I suspect it will be counted among those places friendly to innovation, but I would point out that it’s very hostile to a conservative viewpoint. For example, in my own social scene several friendships were strained when some independent thinkers indicate they would vote for Scott Brown. Tolerance cuts both ways.
@Bob
Yes, perhaps this is a more accurate statement. For example, as a married woman I have male friends, though none that I would see alone without my husband present. There was that famous conversation in When Harry Met Sally, where Sally asks Harry “What about the ugly friends?” and he says, “Yeah, we pretty much want to bang them too.” Maybe this varies by individual.
@GudEnuf
FWIW, women frequently discuss manwhores in terms of being dirty, having dirty dicks, etc. Sometimes they mean they are disgusted by the variety of vaginal fluids a man has gotten wet with, other times the reference is more about STDs. For both sexes, I believe that the word dirty is being used here to mean indiscriminate.
I’m gratified to find that I have accurately represented the male point of view, at least in the eyes of commenters so far. Thanks for the positive feedback. Hopefully, we’ll get some women weighing in too.
.
@puck
I am very curious to know more about what differences you think men here, or men who know Game, would have with men in general. For example, I think we can assume I don’t have a ton of guy readers in that 20% (tho I do know of some) – they would probably feel differently, but how so? Would they view a woman’s sexual history differently? The hard core womanizers who never want a relationship would be among them, so I imagine that lots of what I wrote about selecting a partner would be moot. Interesting food for thought here.
Ms. Walsh,
Very interesting comments about your hometown. I have to ask: is it that way among the Southies, as well – are they as foward leaning as the more tonier sections of Beantown, presumably? And if not, why do you think that is?
I am very familiar with Florida’s books and have heard him several times give interviews and the like. Interesting thoughts, no doubt. I think his book, among quite a few others, should be read alongside of The Bell Curve – doing so raises some very, very interesting questions…
O.
@Obsidian
Thanks for commenting, and for your faithful tutelage on Game and much of the research that has been done on this issue. You know that I began my own trip up the learning curve at your knee
.
Re the lack of educated white males, I predict that an increased number of women will marry men with less education. For many, it will boil down to marry “down” or not marry at all. Whether these men will even want to marry women with advanced degrees is another question. Within the male population, though, there will be strata. Guys in the arts, or perhaps woodworking, will be more desirable than men who collect our trash. There are many different degrees of status in that population too.
.
I imagine you will say that black women have chosen to forego marriage altogether, rather than marry a man of lower status. Whether the same thing happens in the white community remains to be seen, but I do believe the marriage rate will continue to decline.
.
I repudiate (that’s a p, not an f) the notion that men are somehow required morally to seek platonic friendships with women. That is just feminist nonsense. We need to acknowledge and understand biological differences without judging them. This is the way it is, period.
@Joe
Thanks for alerting me to Stuart’s post! I am always pleased and flattered when I catch his eye – he is an incredibly smart and gifted blogger.
@Mellow JD
I believe that Vincent I has said the same thing. It makes sense. I think that would fall under the category of “using you to fuck other girls” though.
@ Solomon
Typical locker room moron huh?
Solomon, I grew up in locker rooms, and played major college football. Those locker rooms were full of morons just like you. The old macho guy who thinks he is really something and that all women are nothing but a piece of arse.
Did your mommy treat you badly, or something?
You dont know chit about me. I had my wild times, but I grew up. I understand there is more to a womans worth than what is inbetween their legs.
I have learned a lot since visiting Susans forums. I have learned that there are plenty of ignorant, insecure men out there who have little respect for women in general.
Sure there are women out there who are wild and will always be wild, but not all “experienced” women fall into the same catagory. If you think they do then you are a bigger moron than I thought. Trust me, there ARE women who can turn off the emotion and have sex, “just like a man” They can also fall in love and leave their former self behind.
Go ahead, fall for Pollyanna, and get sex once or twice a week, then it becomes once or twice a month. Ill keep my Experienced, high libido woman who does me at least once a day, even after we have been together well over a year.
TY Susan.
First, I’ll say that Men need to cut WAY down on promiscuity and women need cut way down on the douchebag chasing. BOTH genders are at fault here. This is simply a matter of the sexual revolution – however liberating – is VERY MUCH out of control. Both genders need to participate if we’re gonna return to a happier SMP.
Now to the rest.
Florida definitely thought outside the box that time. In fact, I picked up on what he said several years before his research was published – namely by seeing back then (in the 90s) that how a community treats its gay and lesbian population is a bellweather for how much “be yourself” to be more than just a slogan. If THEY can be themselves without lots of hassle, then I can be myself without much hassle. That’s very very important if we want our young people to have the bedrock base of self-confidence, accomplishment, and free-thinking (aka independent thinking) that allows them to break away from peer-pressured related romantic choices – thus making them more marketable in the SMP.
Of course, there are limits. Many of those same cities, unfortunately, are also the very places where destructive forms of feminism are most established (though I should note that more tradition-bound cultures without feminism – which includes more insistence on people conforming with conventional gender expectations – also tend to most encourage young males to be douchebags, so its not as if tradition-bound areas are always that great either).
It’s easy to say “find a place where there’s a more or less equal mix”, but that has risks of its own. The guy or girl there may very well figure out the right balance between legitimate feminism (equal pay, equal opportunity, seen as more than just a piece of T&A, etc) and traditional masculinity (have sex or your a loser, don’t be a sissywimp, etc.). BUT, it can also lead to a “worst of both worlds” situation, where someone’s mind soaks up the worst traits of feminism (female supremacy) and masculinity (hyperpromiscuity and douchebaggery).
Alas, we need to get the word out about this topic no matter where we are. This list is a good start.
@ Susan
To hearken back to much earlier conversations, I’ll assume that mad sex skills can be acquired by the less experienced with enthusiasm and focus. It seems to me that all a woman really needs is insatiability, eagerness to learn, and a long weekend.
————————————-
That is probably about 15-20% of the woman population. Many women have sexual hangups, and just are not willing to experiment. What are mens biggest complaints about their wives?.. Boring sex, not enough sex, no libido from his wife. Give me a high libido experienced woman any day. One that has survived her wild times unscathed.
Susan if you are describing players in your blog comment, then I would agree. I was one once.
Then I wanted more out of life, I grew up, became a man. Not just some female abusing and using player your blog describes. I dont view women as mere sex toys, as many of your readers do.
Susan, this is excellent. Keep up the good work!
@Glen Poole
Very interesting! I believe this intuitively. To be honest, when I took years off from working to stay at home with two children, I braced myself for criticism and judgment from other career women. Instead, I got both outright envy, and hostility born of envy. Obviously, not all women are the same, but most of the women I have known would sooner forfeit career success than motherhood.
Hi Ms. Walsh,
Replies below:
SW: @Obsidian
Thanks for commenting, and for your faithful tutelage on Game and much of the research that has been done on this issue. You know that I began my own trip up the learning curve at your knee
O: Aww shucks Ma’am, it aint nothin’.
Were it only more ladies were around like you, we would have a much better world.
.
SW: Re the lack of educated white males, I predict that an increased number of women will marry men with less education. For many, it will boil down to marry “down” or not marry at all. Whether these men will even want to marry women with advanced degrees is another question. Within the male population, though, there will be strata. Guys in the arts, or perhaps woodworking, will be more desirable than men who collect our trash. There are many different degrees of status in that population too.
O: OK, a lot to unpack here, so let’s get right to it:
1. “Less education” is a very slippery concept, Ms. Walsh, and I’m sure you’re aware of this. It could mean just a highschool degree, or, it can mean a few semesters at college before dropping out; or, it could mean an associate’s degree, or a bachelor’s and the Woman has a master’s; and so on. And since Women tend to like ambiguity, I don’t think this is something they’ll readily offer up on themselves, unless pressed on the question, such as, what if the guy in question just has a highschool degree? If it comes down to that, I think it is fair to say that we can expect a goodly number of such Women – I’d venture to say, at least 25%, if not more – to simply decline marriage altogether, make use of the turkeybaster and have a baby that way, or go the Mary Pols route, or just be cool with being a spinster, barring her adopting a third world baby or something like that.
2. Whether the guys will want to marry advanced degreed Women is 100%, and again, note how any of these kinds of discussions never, ever, take into account not only what guys are likely to do, but even if it is in their interests to do so or not. The assumption is that it is the Women will call all the shots in these areas, where nothing can be further from the truth. True, they do wield influence, but not a heck of a lot, or at least not as much as they might like to think. Even guys with just highschool degrees, have agency in their lives. They can still say “no”, or if Black America is anything to go by, simply vote with their feet and go ghost altogether. It is not at all unusual to see entire neighborhoods that are totally bereft of Men between the ages of 25-50 in many areas of Black America, and I think we are well on our way to seeing the same thing in a suburb near you. Surely, the Census data speaks to this, just imagine what it will be like in another decade. I think its hard to say for sure which way guys will break on this, although the early data as we have it concerning declining marriage rates among White Folk Who Matter, is something that doesn’t look welcoming.
3. Now the whole status thing is very interesting too, because quiet as its kept, at least as far as my native Philly goes, the trashman would make more money AND have way more in terms of bennies, than the starving artsy guy, unless – and this is very important – said artsy guy struck it rich somehow. Of course, the chances of that happening are about the same as hitting the Powerball, LOL. Still, like you said, perceptions do matter, and let’s face it, there’s simply no way to make trashmen sexy, they’re not even in the plot of porno movies.
Another interesting thing is, advanced degreed Women, at least in terms of Black America, have been known to date and even marry a Blue Collar guy, IF he had his own business, or was a forman and above on a high skilled tradesman gig. I’ve always thought that to be interesting, because often the Women involved were at best, at the middle management level themselves; some were “vice president” but of something like “community relations”, nothing that actually made a life or death difference to the company. So their demand – both explicit and otherwise – that a “lower” Man be a “success” somehow always seemed odd, at the very least, to me. Yet, that’s what we have right now, and if the current figures and stats as we have them are any indication, that some 70% of all professional Black Women are single, said strategy doesn’t seem to be working out so well.
.
SW: I imagine you will say that black women have chosen to forego marriage altogether, rather than marry a man of lower status. Whether the same thing happens in the white community remains to be seen, but I do believe the marriage rate will continue to decline.
O: See above; also, I think the Census data I posted upthread, along with all the other data indicators, firmly establishes a trend line downward in this regard, Ms. Walsh. Granted, it’s still too early to tell if marital rates among White Folk Who Matter will fall to current Black America levels – less than 50% – but the handwriting is indeed on the wall, as you rightly point out. It’s just hard to see the trendline moving upwards anytime soon, perhaps a generation or two, at the least.
.
As for many Black Women, yes, of a certain cohort, they have chosen to forego marriage – or, shall we say, their choices have made it a foregone conclusion? Many of these Women found out the hard way, that all things in life carry with them tradeoffs, to say nothing of opportunity costs. And as quiet as its kept, there is a growing murmuring and realization among the Sistahood in the Afrosphere at least, that their chances of marrying and settling down are growing dimmer by each passing year. In fact, since you recently posted about Carl Brunson, you might be interested to look up someone he even featured on one of his YouTube videos – Helena Andrews. She is the author of “Bitch is The New Black” and I consider her to be the Black Lori Gottlieb, sans the test tube baby (which she doesn’t have – yet). When my blog is back I’ll have more to say about Ms. Andrews. But suffice it to say that she is in the vanguard of the Sistarati contingent of Spinster Lit. Btw, you still gonna write up that article for my site or what?
.
SW: I repudiate (that’s a p, not an f) the notion that men are somehow required morally to seek platonic friendships with women. That is just feminist nonsense. We need to acknowledge and understand biological differences without judging them. This is the way it is, period.
.
O: LOL! Yea, Ms. Palin had a Dubya moment, alright. Anyway, please don’t get me wrong – I have no problem with Men who wish to have platonic female friends. I’m for the right of anyone to freely associate with whomever they please. I’m just tired of the notion that if you don’t have platonic female friends, or don’t think it’s the greatest thing since the Slinky, you’re a knuckledragging misogynist. It’s a load of crap.
O.
@tom
You are most welcome here, and I appreciate your taking the time to debate. Please understand that I am not making a value judgment about whether women should or should not have casual sex. I simply believe that women should make their choices with as much information as possible about potential future consequences. As Mike C and others have pointed out in the female promiscuity thread, women wouldn’t be worried about their number if they didn’t believe men would reject them for being sexually experienced. You may diagnose that as massive male insecurity, but it doesn’t really matter for my purposes. .
.
Whatever the reason, lots of guys care about a woman’s sexual history. And women figure it out once they finally get into a relationship. I have had many conversations with women recently out of college who get a bf and he asks their number. They intuitively know that the truth – 30, 40 or 50 – is not going to go over well. They contact me in a panic. The truth is, they didn’t think about it when they were having a lot of casual sex, but now they find themselves wanting a relationship with a man who demands to know. It is important that women understand up front that this is something they will probably have to answer for when they want to settle down. They may still choose promiscuity, but at least they will be making an informed choice. Then they can seek a man such as yourself, or a man who is flexible on the idea. As Mike C also pointed out, this will probably be partly determined by a woman’s level of attractiveness relative to the man’s.
.
What will not work is trying to shame men into changing their attitudes. Moral outrage never changed a single opinion, as far as I can tell. In the end, as Obsidian rightly says, we are free to exercise our own criteria in selecting whom we associate with.
I’ve stated this before but it bears repeating here: the main problem such women will face due to their past promiscuity is not that their potential partner will learn about it. As we know, women are adept liars, and the guy has a small chance of learning the truth anyway unless he contacts her past sex partners. The problem is that their ability to pair-bond with 90% of potential suitors has been severely weakened by them riding the proverbial cock carousel. The type of men they had sex with won’t commit to them, and they won’t be attracted to the type of men that are willing to enter a LTR with them. Having almost developed an addiction to alpha treatment, their standards have become higher and twisted.
I think an important interpretation to take from the article I linked to is that, from an evolutionary perspective, feminism can be seen as the attempt by women who are most adapted to success in a short-term mating strategy (i.e. ambitious, intelligent, not beautiful, promiscuous and most importantly have a desire to provide for themselves), trying to change society from a long-term mating strategy (male provider, female providee) to a short-term mating strategy (male cad, female slut), while at the same time using the resources of the men who pursue a long-term mating strategy to fund this shift and fund the women who choose to pursue this strategy.
Hence it will ultimately be unstable as more and more men realise that a long-term mating strategy isn’t worthwhile due to the women in society pursuing a short-term mating strategy, which would then result in those same men changing to a short-term mating strategy, which would then result in there being no funds to support the societal-wide shift from a long-term mating strategy to short-term mating strategy.
In fact, I believe the inability of the education, political and cultural establishment to get boys and men to succeed academically and go on to get high-earning and/or productive jobs (as can be seen from male/female college enrolments/graduations) with which to support the evolving system (the shift from long-term to short-term mating strategies) is reflective of men realising, atleast subconciously if not consciously (I highly doubt most men would be able to intellectualise their basic motivations), that in our society a caddish (short-term) mating strategy is more worthwhile than a provider (long-term) mating strategy.
The fact is a society can’t have both mating strategies at once as the success of one directly undermines the success of the other and without punishments on people who violate the long-term mating “contract” then people will resultingly shift to the short-term one so as not to “lose” the game of mating. The article I linked to in my earlier post directly emphasises the importance of this mating “contract” and its need to be socially enforced.
If women want to one day get married and have children with a man who will love and support her and their children (not just economically but emotionally and physically as well), then they need to prevent feminists from enacting this societal-wide shift in mating strategies, otherwise eventually there will be no men left who think and most importantly FEEL, (as we are dealing with evolved emotions here, not socially constructed thought processes/perceptual frameworks), that a long-term mating strategy is a worthwhile option.
Happy New Year!
Strong opening blog for 2011, Susan.
#4 – Sexual history
As Hollenhund said above. Also, I find that there’s a certain haggard look & attitude about a girl with high mileage. Some have called it the 1000-cocks stare.
Without even knowing the number, I find it very “unloveable” and it feels like damn hard work to bond with her. There’s something very male yet very annoying about her. Since I don’t pursue girls with “that” look, and I appear nonjudgemental, they always end up sharing the number with me (as if to brag) and confirm my guess. There’s also something very unattractive & disgusting to a man’s ears, perhaps at a primal level, when you hear a woman say “I stop counting after 60″.
#8 – Intelligence
Men generally aren’t after intellectual jousting in a LTR. We get enough of that at work and with male friends. If the woman happens to have high intellect, that’s cool, but it’s no big deal. In a LTR or marriage, it’s better to have one who’s social savvy, so that she will enhance your social standing in the company of your peers (rather than embarrass you). As much as women like to think of themselves as masters at being social, few of them can actually do that.
I work with many people who have PhDs, among which there are quite a few women. They are high achievers and consider themselves very intelligent, but they’re social retards. I heard the husband of one yelled at her for her terrible caretaking of their baby, that despite all the books she’s read & the degrees she’s had, she’s still so stupid. I’d never forget that rant.
#9 – How she treats others.
It is an old school wisdom that the most crucial test for a potential wife is to observe how she treats people who have nothing to offer her. This test used to exist in nearly every culture I’m aware of on this planet, but now people don’t really know about it anymore. In fact, this is the very reason my father told me why he decided to marry my mother, because she treated such people with kindness and respect and often went out of her way to help them.
How she treats other men is especially important for us for a few reasons. Most men can feel and have felt that pain of rejection & humiliation, just like how we all wince and shut our legs as we observe another man getting kneed in the balls, so we have a great deal of sympathy for a man who’s getting shot down in flames. More importantly, we know that regardless of how invincible we are, and how attractive we are to her right now, underneath the armours, there are weaknesses, some fatal. To have a woman so close to you (LTR, marriage) is to eventually have those weaknesses exposed to her. One day you may not be as strong and attractive as you are now, and you’ll be no better than those “lesser” men. How she treats them foretells how she will treat you then. Men who have ignored this wisdom have all paid dearly.
@Obsidian
As far as marriage rates among “White Folks Who Matter”, I agree it’s hard to tell how it will fall. However, consider that IF the marriage rates DON’T substantially drop among that group, WFWM could start seeing marriage as more of a mere status symbol / accessory (like owning a 3000 sq ft McMansion in upper middle class suburbia, a Lexus, and taking the kids on ski vacations to Vermont or Colorado every winter AND Disney World every summer). In short, marriage will be little more than a farce – a glorified photo op for the prospective couple.
Even so, there’s no doubt going to be at least a small minority (esp. among the genuinely honest play-by-the-rules set) who will take the vows seriously, as there indeed are still plenty of such couples today.
@ Susan
Moral outrage never changed a single opinion, as far as I can tell.
And even in cases where it DOES change that man’s opinion, he likely is either too unable to think for himself in order to manage the complex social interactions and situations present in a marriage. On top of that, he’s likely to be too lacking in self-confidence and/or self-respect to be connected to his true authentic self. Any women here find that sexy in a man? None of you? Didn’t think so.
TO: 108Spirits
RE: Speak….
— 108Spirits
….for yourself.
My best friend is my wife. And she’s got a higher IQ than I do. I met her through Mensa.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A over-sexed, promiscuous bimbo has more beauty than sense, more accomplishments than learning, more charms than personality and graces of mind, more admirers than friends, more fools than wise men for attendants. -- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (updated & paraphrased)]
I guess what I am witnessing here is the social dynamic with a handful of people with firm and similar views all reinforcing each others standpoints.
And wo betide anyone who tries to chisell away at their belief system.
.
I did love the bit about how active women look haggard. Of course it’s been proven that vaginal use causes skin ageing. Every pelvic thrust causes a line on the face apparently.
.
You can find the data on totalandutterbollocks.com
.
Sarcasm aside, I think 60 is a big number. That’s a big risk of STD and pregnancy.
I think its worth having a few flings when young and then settling down is a fair compromise.
So maybe 6-20 is a number that many/most guys would fly with.
.
Of course we all make our views based upon what we experience. If Susan has these girls calling all the time about the numbers dilemma then I guess the issue is a major one. Myself, I can’t think of it ever being an issue and my jobs in the past put me in a position to work with a lot of couples.
.
My advice to a girl in this situation would be to tell him the truth, have a health check and issue an ultimatum. Accept me as I am, love me for all of me or we go our separate ways and the best of luck to both of us.
Tom: facepalm. Falling for a Polyanna doesn’t relegate you to the sexless pile — Athol Kay and I easily prove you otherwise. And I find it humorous you speak with such authority, having a massive 1-year relationship under your belt. Is that the diamond or platinum anniversary? I always forget.
I challenge you to come back in 20 years, and see if you’re still having daily sex with a woman who is true to you.
jess,
It’s not a matter of communities reinforcing each other’s views. We’d be dismissing atheists and believers (of whatever), the political right and political left alike if that were a valid reason. It’s a matter of the truth or falsity of the ideas – regardless of whether “birds of a feather flock together”. Besides, I consider mainstream society in general just a hyper-large clique too — especially when 85%+ of everyone has the same view on a particular issue. That definitely includes the conventional attitudes toward sex and relationships too, reinforced by constant bombardment by pop culture.
How about some REAL arguments, rather than throw out the “groupthink” (in effect) response.
I think I agree with you… Let’s look at the arguments.
I think the double standard is an artefact of the old patriarchy.
It is not a biological remnant.
.
If Guys can can shag around so can a girl?
Cuckold risk? We have dna tests
Cheating risk? At least the oats have been sewn
Jaded risk? Possibly if it’s 60 plus
STD risk? Have a test
Comparison to other men? Yeah but if she’s chosen you, you must be hard enough, big enough, skilled enough? No?
What about the data…. Aldonza made the point that most spinsters have come to be that way for reasons unrelated to numbers.
Society is changing. I think most western and intelligent people under 45 have a more mature take on sex. They might make ironic jokes about slags’ etc but in the uk there just isn’t this puritanical zeal.
Mike c said it best, numbers may lower your value a bit but it’s not gonna be a deal breaker.
@Chuck, did you fall in love with and marry your Mensa wife primarily because she has a higher IQ than you? Do you get a boner every time you think about her massive IQ?
Or is it your lower IQ that caused you to completely miss the point, which your wife might get?
For the record, mine is in the high 150s, and I believe that’s sufficient for me to understand something as simple as “exceptions don’t invalidate the rule”.
@Jess
I don’t know which dictionary you use, but looking haggard is not the same as skin aging.
Here’s one definition:
“having a gaunt, wasted, or exhausted appearance, as from prolonged suffering, exertion, or anxiety; worn”
It’s also more of a figure of speech than an exact physical description.
Susan, this is a great post. I agree with every point you made on it!
There’s another big, big reason here for why prior history is a huge deal to a guy looking to marry. If a man is prepared to make that sort of permanent, all-in commitment for life to a woman, it is very important to him that he is the sex stud of her life, and is not competing with some prior lover(s) in her mind. The idea of being sexually overshadowed in your wife’s memory by another dude that provided more satisfying sex than you can muster evokes a primal fear in most men. It would be like getting cuckolded every day for the rest of your life, and it would be an ineradicable stumbling block to the closeness, openness, and mutual vulnerability of the marriage bond (not to mention, a woman in that state of mind is more likely to actually cheat on you as well). For a hookup, most men couldn’t care less how much the woman is satisfied relative to other guys, but when you’re signing away your life to her, it’s an issue.
.
Perhaps the best way to analogize it to something women would understand is the way that wives get particularly upset by cheating when they think their husbands have genuinely fallen in love with the other woman. Men, by contrast, get most upset when they think the other man performed better in the sack. That’s what each sex is likely to see as an insurmountable stain on their ongoing relationship, because it’s what most induces the feeling that they have been replaced as #1 in a way that can’t be undone.
.
On a related note, several times I have heard former sluts who are attempting what they imagine reform to be say things along the lines of “I just don’t see sex as that important anymore. I think love is a much higher priority now.” If you’re a guy hearing that from a woman you’re interested in, run for the hills, because it means she is planning to put a man in precisely the position I’ve described.
Which is why the best bet for a woman who wants to be the exception to this rule is to get rid of the hoops as much as reasonably possible (that and go for one of those guys in the wide 80%, who are more likely to be amenable to a relationship).
“Men are especially sensitive to the idea that women live it up with players when they’re in college and their 20s, only to seek a really great guy later on to marry. If that man was in the 80% of guys who didn’t get laid a lot in college, forget about it. He doesn’t want to pay up now for what you gave away for free to so many others.”
Woohoo! Someone finally heard my thoughts!
Yes, it is hurtful that you got to enjoy crazy sex in college, and I didn’t. Yes, it EVEN hurts that you’re now kind-of desperate and trying to convince me to get in a relationship with you; when I haven’t had a chance to experience sex and life and promiscuity.
It’s unfair and I feel like I’ve been robbed of something.
When I go on a date with you, I have a radar that was well-honed in college that can pretty much tell me if you’re trash or not. Women have a radar for creepers, men have a radar for sluts. I don’t know how, but there is something in your voice that tells me whether you’re a good high-valued gem like the woman I want to marry, or a partied-out skank who likes to pretend the past doesn’t matter.
I raise my glass to the gems! They deserve every mans adoration and love because they are the ones who rose above it all and kept a little bit of sanity in this terrible world.
Disclaimer: I was a former player in highschool, but dated an amazing girl for 5 years starting junior year of HS and became a ‘nice guy’ in college. I’ve been on both sides of the fence and know the hurt of being part of the lower 80% now….
“There’s another big, big reason here for why prior history is a huge deal to a guy looking to marry. If a man is prepared to make that sort of permanent, all-in commitment for life to a woman, it is very important to him that he is the sex stud of her life, and is not competing with some prior lover(s) in her mind.”
This is also a great point.
I hate the idea that I will be chosen as the loving husband while she will reminisce about former guys and consider them her ‘sexual husbands’.
I want to marry a woman who sees me as the sexiest thing alive. It would be wrong to marry a woman who still grins thinking about former college lovers.
Every single one of those arguments (if we can call them that) has already been addressed numerous times on other threads yet you just keep repeating them. You’re coming off as rather obtuse and close-minded.
“If Guys can can shag around so can a girl?”
.
This is another red herring Jess and Tom keep throwing out. Who is advocating female chastity who is also advocating for male promiscuity? Shirley both ideas exist on the Internet, but is any credible person asking for both at the same time? Where are the guys who have slutted it up and now demand an untouched woman? They sure aren’t commenting here.
thanks for a great blog Susan!
Almost all your points are spot on. But browsing the comments here, it is amazing how few of your female readers are willing to take them on board. They would rather try to rationalise it all away.
Sad really.
The only nit-pick I have is with no. 10. Yes, it is flattering to be approached. However, unless a girl does this so subtly that you don’t know it is an approach, then her SMV will go down such that she disqualifies herself as relationship material.
Overtly sexually aggressive women give them impression of being sluts and therefore are a turn off for me and I guess for most other men too.
This is very helpful. I think we can all relate to that feeling of obsessive worry that something precious is slipping away from us, or even worse, was never really ours to begin with. The vulnerability that comes from a fear of loss or actual loss is acute, obviously, but adding in the humiliation that you’ve been duped or made a fool of makes it just intolerable.
@T-money
Boy, I hope you’re not alone. I worry constantly that I’m influencing women to follow this path, only to find out in five years that guys don’t appreciate their lack of sexual history. Because I do hear from women that their slutty friends have nabbed a great guy to marry.
.
Ultimately I continue to believe that it is in a woman’s best interest to be selective in choosing sexual partners for numerous reasons, some of which have been mentioned in this thread. And FWIW, I would advise women to marry men who haven’t racked up huge numbers either. I’d be very worried about a manslut’s ability to embrace lifelong monogamy.
@Thunear
I’d like to hear from some of the commenters on this. Is it really a DLV for a woman to walk up to you and say a friendly hello? Or send a drink over while smiling from across the room? Naturally, guys will be flattered, but will she appear less attractive by virtue of her interest, similarly to the way this works for men practicing Game?
.
I have heard women say that in their experience, making the initial approach robs the guy of the ability to pursue, and leads to lower overall interest on his part. He may be intrigued, but he’s not going to fall for a woman he didn’t risk rejection for. Any truth to this?
@ jessIf Guys can can shag around so can a girl?
Cuckold risk? We have dna tests
Cheating risk? At least the oats have been sewn
Jaded risk? Possibly if it’s 60 plus
STD risk? Have a test
Comparison to other men? Yeah but if she’s chosen you, you must be hard enough, big enough, skilled enough? No?
______________________________
The last statement is the one most men can not handle. It is the real reason men have a problem with experienced women.
Yeah, what guy wouldn’t be overjoyed at the thought that he’s been “chosen” to give you his commitment, support, and time after the entire lacrosse team got you for free. All men should be honored to have such an opportunity.
I’m not sure Escarondito has got it right. And my comment was in relation to LTR material. As Susan keeps pointing out, but it is well worth repeating, when it comes to ONS men have very low standards. If a woman aggressively approaches in my mind she goes into the ONS (or possibly ‘fling’) category.
And I guess, it depends on what you mean by approach. I’ve had women walk up to me and grab my crotch or start rubbing my chest, which is flattering, BUT……
Usually, women approach more subtly in that they’ll hover around your group of friends until they get a chance to stand next to you and engage you in conversation. This doesn’t feel like an approach, although I guess strictly speaking it is.
As for Susan’s specific examples, walking up and saying a friendly hello might be OK in the right context, but sending a drink over is just wierd.
@ Duce
There’s another big, big reason here for why prior history is a huge deal to a guy looking to marry. If a man is prepared to make that sort of permanent, all-in commitment for life to a woman, it is very important to him that he is the sex stud of her life, and is not competing with some prior lover(s) in her mind. The idea of being sexually overshadowed in your wife’s memory by another dude that provided more satisfying sex than you can muster evokes a primal fear in most men. It would be like getting cuckolded every day for the rest of your life, and it would be an ineradicable stumbling block to the closeness, openness, and mutual vulnerability of the marriage bond (not to mention, a woman in that state of mind is more likely to actually cheat on you as well). For a hookup, most men couldn’t care less how much the woman is satisfied relative to other guys, but when you’re signing away your life to her, it’s an issue.
.
_________________________________
Bingo! and the tuth comes out. Insecurity……..
“Bingo! and the tuth comes out. Insecurity……..”
.
Why the hell would one not be insecure over it? You do understand how humiliating it’d be to marry such a woman, right?
“That is probably about 15-20% of the woman population. Many women have sexual hangups, and just are not willing to experiment. What are mens biggest complaints about their wives?.. Boring sex, not enough sex, no libido from his wife. Give me a high libido experienced woman any day. One that has survived her wild times unscathed.”
.
The “libido” has very little to do with why a woman will or won’t have sex. This is possibly one of the biggest (and weirdest) clues that you’re genuinely a man, although it’s possible you’re a girl who doesn’t understand her own sex drive.
@ off the cuff………………………………………………………………………….. “Falling for a Polyanna doesn’t relegate you to the sexless pile — Athol Kay and I easily prove you otherwise. And I find it humorous you speak with such authority, having a massive 1-year relationship under your belt. Is that the diamond or platinum anniversary? I always forget.
I challenge you to come back in 20 years, and see if you’re still having daily sex with a woman who is true to you.
____________________-
And entering into a relationship with an experienced woman doesnt mean she will eventually cheat on you or is any less capable of love than any other woman,,,,,,,,,
I was married for 24 years before I lost my wife. I was a little wild before her, and for a while after I lost her. I just may have a little more life expeience than most of you.
I understand insecuity, but insecurity is nothing but negative thoughts I(which can be controlled) Not all men are players and not all women, including some promiscuous women want players. The man you all are talking about has a players immature, selfish attitude. If that is most of the men here, well too bad.
There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who “get it” and those who don`t. If you don`t know what I mean, then you are one of those who don`t get it.
Why the hell would one not be insecure over it? You do understand how humiliating it’d be to marry such a woman, right?
___________________
I rest my case…..LOL
No son, There is more value to a good woman than what she did in the past. Look if you cant handle the thought that a woman might compare you to other men and it bothers you, then move on. But I am here to tell you, there are hundreds of thousands of men who have never asked their womans number, and “know” their woman is a good woman, a good mother to their kids and a faithful wife. Yet her true number would probably be unaceptable to him.
A woman doesnt have to have 20 lovers to have experience a great lover who knows his way around a womans body. It may have been number 2 out of 3 prior men. So my insecure friends, where does the number become unacceptable? 10? but that make 9 ok? 5? but that makes 4 ok?
Most women have learned to deal with the emotions of jealously and insecurity, and look past a mans past. Boys will be Boys has been their attitude for a long time. Men need to just get over their ego.
@Random Commentator
Great summary there of the conflict between short-term and long-term mating strategies. I agree that right now the short-term strategy is crowding out the long-term. The implications for society are enormous. Women have the power, but there’s no organized group to oppose the feminist establishment. Right now the best we can hope for is that individual women will voluntarily pursue a wise path. That’s a lot to ask in this SMP, from women still in college.
“I have heard women say that in their experience, making the initial approach robs the guy of the ability to pursue”
You’ve heard women say what about how a man feels? Susan….Come on now!
There is too aggresive tho. This is a funny subject considering women don’t approach at all. Let’s keep it unisex to get to the point easier. A man learns over the course of his life how to approach women. That is if he tries to approach women. Not every girl should be approached the same (part of the reason I think ALL pickup lines doom you to failure). Women don’t approach and don’t realize that. You approach the big dog of the group confident in your sexiness. You approach the shy one much more subtely.
When I was more of a shy guy I had a girl approach me hard. Right to my face, then put “venom” lip balm on my lips cause she said she liked them. It made my lip burn and my loins go cold. Let’s just say it wasn’t succesful. Plus she had her fat friend (“Fat” not curvy) on her hip so it was like I was double teamed. If she came by herself and didn’t shellack my big puffies with her lip toxin everything would have been mashed potatoes and gravy. Now post-game. It would have been done deal. But the question remains whether or not I would have respected her? I can’t answer that. But I know without the Venom and amigo that interaction would have been bueno suerte.
“but will she appear less attractive by virtue of her interest”
Attractive is attractive. Guys don’t have the same requisites for lowering value as women do. If a girl leans in I don’t think she’s a loser. If she seems nervous I don’t think she is weird. If she is ugly when she sends the drink she is ugly afterward. So if you’re ugly and send the drink don’t think we don’t come over to talk to you cause you sending a jack and coke and it makes you look needy.
“The last statement is the one most men can not handle. It is the real reason men have a problem with experienced women.”
@tom
Sometimes I wonder about you brother. A woman would lie. So if it’s 30 she’ll lie and say it’s 3. Why wouldn’t you just rather be with a girl who doesn’t lie? Better yet, doesn’t have to lie? Men already have so many problems. No man wants to go look for another issue. Especially when it’s one he cannot solve. How to erase the memory of a past better _____?
@ terre
The “libido” has very little to do with why a woman will or won’t have sex. This is possibly one of the biggest (and weirdest) clues that you’re genuinely a man, although it’s possible you’re a girl who doesn’t understand her own sex drive.
____________________
You know I will almost agee with you, to a point. There are many reasons why different women are promiscuous…Some go off the deep end after a bad breakup and try and bury the memories.
Some just can not resist a bad boy.
However, there are women who, by a conscience choice, are single. Could be their career wont allow the kind of relationship they want, maybe they had a bad breakup/divorce and just need to chill .What if this woman has a high libido and is single? What if she is selective in her men of choice? A different man every two months for only three years equals 18 men. In my eyes, a different lover every 60 days on average is hardly slut behavior.
Now add that to her 4 yeas in college where she had 3 lovers in four years and her number is over 20.
My point is there are experienced women who ARE good relationship material. But many men, who entertain insecure thoughts of jealously, can not handle it.
I just can not understand why be jealous of things she did before she even knew you were alive.
I will be the first to admit there are a lot of women, promiscuous or not, who are not good relationship material. Men too.
But to just look at a womans number and make a general assumptiom about her as a person is just ludicrous.
If a woman is “experienced” I will look at what kind of a person she is NOW, and also take into account the reasons she slept with several men.
I can give you my email, then I will give you my facebook. You will see I am all man. I am in a great relationship (started out to be a one night stand) I have a daughter who is in her mid 20`s who also was an athlete at the same major college I played at. She is in a great relationship with a great guy.
Because I do hear from women that their slutty friends have nabbed a great guy to marry.
I’d bet in 90-95% of those situations, the “slutty” girl has NOT been candid about her previous sexual history, or has flat out lied.
.
That could work, and work well over a lifetime. There is that expression, “ignorance is bliss”.
.
The problem comes if the truth ever comes out. Just look at “tom’s” comments about her situation where when the guy realizes the truth, he looks at you with different eyes. Maybe he gets past it, maybe he doesn’t.
.
I could be completely off-base, but with the manosphere, Game, Internet, guys are getting more savvy, especially younger guys. I read comments from guys in their early 20s that represent a deep knowledge level of women, their psyches, and behavior that is something I was completely ignorant and naive about it my early 20s.
.
Point being, I think it is going to be harder to pull off the “bang a bunch of alphas” and then settle down with a great guy. Many “great guys” are getting shrewder about being duped.
.
That said, I work with a guy who recently got married (was a virgin when he married) who is so naive it is almost comical. The alpha cad I work with has met his wife, and has her pegged as a “reformed slut”, so it looks like she pulled it off.
Is it really a DLV for a woman to walk up to you and say a friendly hello? Or send a drink over while smiling from across the room?
.
No
Naturally, guys will be flattered, but will she appear less attractive by virtue of her interest, similarly to the way this works for men practicing Game?
.
No
.
Me personally, if a girl has the cajones to approach me and start a conversation, I am going to be impressed with her boldness. The key is the approach should NOT be sexually aggressive (in which case she gets thrown in the casual sex box)
TO: 108Spirit
RE: Getting It On
It’s more than just one think.
Our intellects allow us more latitude in learning how to love each other: mentally, physically, morally and spiritual.
I’m sure with your intellect you can appreciate that it is more than any single aspect. Like so many other aspects of Life, it’s a holistic approach.
Hope that helps. If not YOU than others who read this.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Show me your Mensa membership number and I’ll call you ‘bro’.
“I rest my case…..LOL
No son, There is more value to a good woman than what she did in the past.”
.
You’re not making one argument or even addressing what people are saying. I’m not claiming a woman’s value lies solely in “what she did in the past”, and even if I were, it’s totally irrelevant. I’m saying that any rational human being would be insecure and feel insulted that a woman doesn’t really love him completely or consider him the best, and that he’s getting added responsibilities to boot. It would not be sane to see this as anything other than extremely undesirable.
As for the “women approaching” issue, I’m of two minds. If she’s of good character and still behaves somewhat coquettishly, I’d be in favor of it. But by and large, it’s an area where the double standard (i.e. men are expected to approach) doesn’t bother me insofar as the alternative would be a worse price to pay. I remember a magazine I used to read about men in Russia where one writer noted that American women would vigorously approach everyone at a party, and that it was very much a turn-off. It just gives off vibes that she has some ulterior motive (babies, bio-clock).
In the era of facebook and Google, it’s practically impossible to keep a secret like that for very long. Nobody’s perfect, but I’d venture to say my slut detection is spot on 80%-90% of the time. The signs are always there if you’re patient.
Yes you are right Jimmy.
Patience will reveal all.
Eventually, with a women whos been active, she will try and be normal but sooner or later she will fall off the wagon and be on her kness fellating your in laws and the local football team. (source: hilariouslunacy.com)
.
to 108,
you are right, vaginal activity does effect skin tone and an overall haggard appearence.
My grandmother must have been a right goer by the looks of her!!
.
mike C,
im aware i have made similar assertions on this thread and others, but they are but a fraction of the repeated assertions made by many people here.
Mine bear repeating because they win the mini-arguments hands down.
You cannot argue with the fact that a negative HIV test is not negative any more than you can argue that a paternitiy test does not prove paternity.
.
Susan,
If you know ex ‘sluts’ that married well then why the panic stations?
“Yes you are right Jimmy.
Patience will reveal all.
Eventually, with a women whos been active, she will try and be normal but sooner or later she will fall off the wagon and be on her kness fellating your in laws and the local football team. (source: hilariouslunacy.com)”
.
Jimmy is completely correct, and there are cues that men probably don’t fully understand but avail themselves of all the time for telling when a girl is a slut or not. It’s extremely difficult to erase one’s past.
well maybe its the ‘i am a slut’ tatoo?
.
or maybe its akin to gaydar?
.
or skirt length?
.
or, sperm in the hair? (ala ‘theres something about Mary’)
.
you guys are too funny.
.
from a ‘partied out skank’
mike C,
im aware i have made similar assertions on this thread and others, but they are but a fraction of the repeated assertions made by many people here.
Mine bear repeating because they win the mini-arguments hands down.
You cannot argue with the fact that a negative HIV test is not negative any more than you can argue that a paternitiy test does not prove paternity.
.
(Scratching my head in bewilderment)
Not sure why you are addressing me with this paragraph as this does not appear to have anything to do whatsoever with what I’ve said in this thread. Not sure this thread should be turned into a repeat of the “female promiscuity” post.
.
I will make this one comment though. Let me grant for sake of argument that biological imperative, paternity issues have nothing to do with, and it is all 100% male insecurity. Now what?
.
The point of a long-term relationship is to be HAPPY, and to be SECURE with one’s partner. Constant insecurity doesn’t sound like a recipe for happiness and contentment to me. So even from that vantage point, men have a perfectly reasonable case for rejecting promiscuous women for long-term relationships.
TO: Jess
RE: [OT] Talking about ‘Tests’
You cannot argue with the fact that a negative HIV test is not negative any more than you can argue that a paternitiy test does not prove paternity.
Actually, the paternity test, i.e., DNA comparison is MUCH MORE ACCURATE than the HIV test.
Why?
Because the presence of HIV in human blood is not detectable until a number of weeks AFTER the individual has become infected.
Sooo…..
….someone CAN be contagious with HIV while still giving off a ‘negative’ test. Whereas a DNA test for the presence of one partner’s genetic contribution to the DNA of a human baby is not a ‘delayed’ function.
Such is the state of the art in testing.
Hope that helps….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Even atheists 'pray' when taking one of those two tests.]
“well maybe its the ‘i am a slut’ tatoo?
.
or maybe its akin to gaydar?
.
or skirt length?
.
or, sperm in the hair? (ala ‘theres something about Mary’)
.
you guys are too funny.
.
from a ‘partied out skank’”
.
No, the cues are generally much more subtle. How she talks about her past, how she uses syllogisms to describe her experiences/desires, her temperament, daily routine, behaviors, activities, etc. I can sincerely say I’m rarely wrong when it comes to estimating a girl’s past, and I don’t believe I have some peculiar gift not common to all men.
The point of a long-term relationship is to be HAPPY, and to be SECURE with one’s partner. Constant insecurity doesn’t sound like a recipe for happiness and contentment to me. So even from that vantage point, men have a perfectly reasonable case for rejecting promiscuous women for long-term relationships.
_____________________
Well stated Mike. But what most people do not know is, you can control most emotions with thought process. Jealously IS seeded in insecurity, we all know that. If a guy keeps thinking, ” geeses just think of all the men, and I bet some of them had huge cocks and were better than me in bed”… Of course that guy is going to be jealous. ….But what if he says, “Aww , man I love the fact she loves sexI She should, she has had a lot of practice, I bet she would like to use her mad skills with me.”
A little different angle that doesnt promote insecure feelings.
Grannys used to say, you have to kiss a lot of frogs to meet a prince.. Well in todays society, that has kind of changed…lol
All men have to do is put a little less importance on sex. Sex is no big deal when you are dealing with single people. Sex becomes a huge deal when it takes place, outside an established relationship, and it breaks the trust of those involved….. Many people will tell us that with adultry, it is not the sex they had that is so upsetting, but the secrecy and trust that was broken that is the big deal.
So, by your same logic girls en masse need to start dating short & skinny guys and get over their evil insecurities of feeling too big/fat in comparison.
“All men have to do is put a little less importance on sex. Sex is no big deal when you are dealing with single people. Sex becomes a huge deal when it takes place, outside an established relationship, and it breaks the trust of those involved….. Many people will tell us that with adultry, it is not the sex they had that is so upsetting, but the secrecy and trust that was broken that is the big deal.”
.
What does any of this even mean? Is this coherent English? Sex is always a big deal; it’s not some trivial act like tripping over a rock or finding a penny.
@ jess Yes you are right Jimmy.
Patience will reveal all.
Eventually, with a women whos been active, she will try and be normal but sooner or later she will fall off the wagon and be on her kness fellating your in laws and the local football team. (source: hilariouslunacy.com)
___________________
LOL Jess.. Their egos wont let them understand the sense behind the humor.
Many men, who are very happily married, are unknowingly married to a former slut. ( I hate that word) Yet some men still see them as damaged goods, even though there is no evidence of the damage..
Thank you rend! Sex is the most important function of human beings. The notion that it’s not a big deal is a lie told only by sex pozzy fems and players. And most of them have plenty of sex but no relationships. Which might be just what some people want. Those people will find other blogs more to their liking than this one.
What does any of this even mean? Is this coherent English? Sex is always a big deal; it’s not some trivial act like tripping over a rock or finding a penny.
_____________________
No Rend to many people sex is not a big deal. Hence the term “casual.”…Back in the 1950`s sex was a big deal. Men wanted it and women were taught how not to give it up…Now a few generations later, with the onset of condom popularity and the pill/IUD`s ect, women who enjoy sex are exercising their right to have casual sex, as men have for eons.
Sex is one of the most common activities on earth. Over 200 MILLION couples have sex on any given day. There is over 6 BILLION people on this planet, which means there is a whole lot of sex taking place. I`m not getting into a religious disscussion, because not all people think sex is some evil sin. If sex is a good thing then how can having it be bad?
Like I said before (to help your reading comprhension along) single people having sex is not a big deal, but sex outside a relationship that crushes the trust factor IS a big deal.
Thank you rend! Sex is the most important function of human beings. The notion that it’s not a big deal is a lie told only by sex pozzy fems and players. And most of them have plenty of sex but no relationships. Which might be just what some people want. Those people will find other blogs more to their liking than this one.
_____________________
Oh really Susan? Then explain my view on single sex vs relationship sex. I am not a fem nor a player. There are a lot of people out there who do not put the stock into sex as others do.
For me sex IS a big deal within the confines of a relationship. Monogamy is important for reasons of trust, security, etc………..Millions of single people who hookup at least on occation would disagree with your importance of sex stance………Sadly, many see sex as nothing more than a handshake with an orgasm. Again single people have sex for a variety of reasons, both male and female.
TO: Tom
RE: Nice Idea….
But what if he says, “Aww , man I love the fact she loves sexI She should, she has had a lot of practice, I bet she would like to use her mad skills with me.”
A little different angle that doesnt promote insecure feelings. — Tom
….BUT….
It’s more highly probable that she’d “like to use her mad skills with” anybody else as well.
Self-control IS important. And if someone has a history of lacking such control, i.e., a list of lovers that looks like the line-up of every varsity sport at the college she attended….well….’history repeats itself.’
What was it someone over at Had Enough Therapy pointed a few months ago…..
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2010/10/karen-owen-hookup-queen.html
And then there’s….
http://www.elle.com/Life-Love/Sex-Relationships/Failure-to-Launch-When-Beauty-Fades
Actions have consequences. Many of them are not as immediate as might be helpful. Or even recognized as long-term threats.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Never lie down with a woman who has more troubles than you do.]
@ Escar
I do understand the point you are making. However In my life experience, and with talking with lots of men and women over the years, I have found that many people are capable of even seeing THEMSELVES in a different light according to their relationship status. An example is me. I am different when I am single vs how I am when I am married/ in a relationship. I think a lot of people see that in themselves. There is the single me and there is the relationship me. The single me will have, on occation, casual sex… The relationship me would never dream of cheating. I guess that is why I can separate what someone did as a single person to what I expect of them in a relationship……As a man I can separate fun sex and emotional relationship sex. Like it or not, many women are capable of doing the same. Maybe not to the extent men can, but they can have “sex like a man, with no strings”
To say otherwise is being ignorant of the facts.
My advice to women is this….First understand the double standard is alive and well. You sleep around and there are men who will dismiss you as a prospective wife. Sad but true. You will be put into the same catagory as the woman who did the entire soccer team in one night. Oh they WILL have sex with you, but dont expect more, players ALWAYS walk. You have to get good at recognizing players.
You have to know that there ARE enlightened men out there who will not judge you SOLEY on your number. If the other parts of your life are in order, you still have a chance with a good man.
It’s more highly probable that she’d “like to use her mad skills with” anybody else as well.
Self-control IS important. And if someone has a history of lacking such control, i.e., a list of lovers that looks like the line-up of every varsity sport at the college she attended….well….’history repeats itself.’
What was it someone over at Had Enough Therapy pointed a few months ago…..
________________________
This is where you and I differ in opinion.The fact that millions of men are unknowingly married to former “experienced” women and have no clue as to their past, begs to differ with your opinion.
You see it is not a loss of self contol with ALL promiscous women. They very well may have excellant self control. They just wish to have casual sex. That is a far cry from loss of control. They have chosen not to live up to your personal expectations, but follow their own life path. Now once she decides enough is enough, and wants to settle down, she then might see herself as a wife, and no longer a wild single woman and lives that life accordingly.
I have been single, and I had casual sex. I would not cheat on my wife for a million dollars.
There are women who feel the same way.
I’ve been out of convo for a bit but have read up now. @tom If I may jut in I’d like to address you.
If your point is that we men should take our women as they stand today. I understand what you are saying. True equality would reason that I should judge men or women as they stand on their merits today. The only thing is that requires the negation of past. If the girl I want to be my wife, and she says Esca you’ve been with 40+ women you have to work for my trust, would she not be correct in harboring some suspicions towards me? Would she not be correct in her hesitation of giving me her commitment and loyalty?
And, furthermore, I see where you are coming from to say, “I hope I get to see how she wants to use her experience with me”. I think that aspect of nuancing perspective is lost on many people in my generation. In some cases, we want an order me up wife. But that’s because many of us men also see women our age wanting an order me up prince. Wrapped with the fact that we are all taught things should be fair…I hope you see where I am going with this. It’s a hard pill to swallow. I can turn off the aspect that some things aren’t fair in my life the same way I can turn off twitter feeds. Understanding is hard when you can become that compartmentalized.
Let me get this straight….
First tom and jess laugh at the idea that given enough patience a man can figure out a woman’s history, and label such actions as insecure.
But now Tom says to get to know a girl first to ensure she isn’t another Karen Owen?
On another note, Susan I think this is the best post you’ve ever written. It’s a shame this stuff isn’t common knowledge.
@tom
Rape.
Incest.
Pedophilia.
Adultery.
Transmission of disease.
.
Sex in itself is not good or bad. It can be good or bad for us. It can be good or bad for the person we’re having it with. And finally, it can be very, very good or very, very bad in terms of quality.
@Jimmy
Thanks. You know, several people have expressed recently that there was a time when the sexes understood each other better. That it’s surprising women really don’t already know these things. I’m here to tell you that we live in amazing ignorance about each other. Even after 25 years of marriage, some of this was brand new to me.
.
Esca has asked for insights about women, but I’m not sure if I can think of any that Mystery hasn’t already covered
@Tom
No one says it better than Helen Fisher. There is nothing casual about casual sex. I have never known or met anyone who has had a lot of casual sex and is emotionally healthy.
Story link: MyFoxNY.com
I was going to respond to some of the comments here, but Susan, I feel that the point of your blog (as great as it is) has been lost. Few if any of your female readers will understand what you’re on about. So far it’s just been a bunch of blokes arguing. I hope I’m wrong though.
“No Rend to many people sex is not a big deal. Hence the term “casual.”…Back in the 1950`s sex was a big deal. Men wanted it and women were taught how not to give it up…Now a few generations later, with the onset of condom popularity and the pill/IUD`s ect, women who enjoy sex are exercising their right to have casual sex, as men have for eons.”
.
First of all, “casual sex” is a positivist term: it’s used by people who want to promote what they describe as “casual sex”, and very rarely by the people having sex themselves. While I’ve seen a few people on the internet describe this “fuck buddy” phenomenon (god I hate that term with a passion) it’s certainly not popular outside of America, and probably not outside of college campuses within America either.
.
Secondly, “men” haven’t had “casual sex” for eons; not only were the vast majority of men in history strictly monogamous, over half never even reproduced. Most men had neither the time nor the ability to sleep around, at least in non-hunter gather societies.
Susan,
I checked the link of yours. I’m not quite sure Helen was saying that casual sex is ALWAYS meaningful to one of the parties, just some of the time.
.
I certainly know of men and women who eventually fell in love with a fuck buddy or one night stand. But its just as common that both just wanted a roll in the hay.
.
I know you married one of your one night stands but you don’t didn’t marry the others I assume?
.
As to promiscuity being mentally unhealthy, thats quite an allegation.
I hate to ask the question again but what qualifies as ‘too many’ to make you a nutter?
.
Have the USA psychiatry community got a threshold?
Is 30 plus straight jacket territory?
To chuck pelt,
I think most people know there is a 6 month potential delay for HIV detection. So rubber up for 6 months and re test. Don’t forget a girl or boy with just one event could contract something. Low numbers is no guarantee of safety even if they are being honest.
“Sadly, many see sex as nothing more than a handshake with an orgasm.”
.
The mind honestly boggles. Are you aware of which position you’re arguing for? You’ve now taken both sides in just a few comments.
Terre,
Are you being serious? Most men in history have been monogamous? Umm, sources please?
.
I thought prostitution is the oldest profession?
Don’t some old and modern cultures have harems or at least multiple wives?
.
I’m not sure you will have many men agreeing with you that there is no temptation to enjoy more than one woman, even if just for variety.
.
Athough guys I stand to be corrected……
“I’m not sure you will have many men agreeing with you that there is no temptation to enjoy more than one woman, even if just for variety.”
.
The difference between the “temptation” and the actual doing is that the latter requires the means, the time, the resources and a favourable clime. Given that men for most of history have been bound to the soil, this is not a temptation often indulged.
Jess is obviously a hopeless case.
Yes terre, that sounds right, throughout millennia men have rarely endulged in casual sex.
It’s beyond rebuttal. The orgies of rome are a fiction and the spread of syphilis was due to mosquitoes apparently.
.
Yes, H, I am a hopeless case of reason and sanity except for when it’s my time of the month obviously.
“It’s beyond rebuttal. The orgies of rome are a fiction and the spread of syphilis was due to mosquitoes apparently.”
.
The depths of female solipsism never cease to amaze me. Most of Rome was composed of slaves and plebeians; they had neither the time nor the money to hold orgies. Ironically Rome fell into debauchery around the same time that the equivalent of today’s no-fault divorce was enacted (the gradual extinction of cum manu marriage and the ascendancy of sine manu, wherein the former was ‘traditional’ marriage and the latter a kind of informal, matriarchal cohabitation), and even then the supposed sexual liberalism of the Romans was confined to the high upper classes (Pope John XII, Leo X, Alexander VI, etc.)
Great post, Susan. And I loved this from random_commentator:
I think an important interpretation to take from the article I linked to is that, from an evolutionary perspective, feminism can be seen as the attempt by women who are most adapted to success in a short-term mating strategy (i.e. ambitious, intelligent, not beautiful, promiscuous and most importantly have a desire to provide for themselves), trying to change society from a long-term mating strategy (male provider, female providee) to a short-term mating strategy (male cad, female slut), while at the same time using the resources of the men who pursue a long-term mating strategy to fund this shift and fund the women who choose to pursue this strategy.
I’ve thought for awhile now that things are the way they are because a small number of insistent square pegs have been trying to make all the holes square. The result is that many or most of the round pegs either rattle around in damaged holes or just fall out(of the game) entirely.
“Really ya’ll? Have we gotten to comparisons of Romans?”
.
It’s not an unwise path of inquiry, actually. The Romans already went through much of what we’re going through now.
Grerp,
I wish you had used a different analogy given we are talking about sexual dynamics.
My perverse mind conjured up square penii and round VJs
Quessyness aside I’m not sure you are right.
.
For better of for worse, most women do settle down eventually regardless of their past.
Those that don’t are thrawted due to lack of attractiveness or opportunity.
.
So the sex pos crowd aren’t really complaining about the status quo, because the quo suits them fine. When they whinge it’s probably in defence when they get attacked.
.
And if you think it’s a small number, then I’m very surprised. Have you ever been to ibitha? Have you watched late night tv recently, have you read sex pos blogs, read cosmo? Most oer least many men and women have modern ideas about sex and are perfectly decent, caring and normal. If one wants to retain a traditional approach then that’s totally cool but I can’t see one choice being intrinsically superior to the other.
.
Susan and i have had a one night stand at least one in our history. And we both have great partners and great kids. Susan seems like a pretty stable, sensible person to me.
Really ya’ll? Have we gotten to comparisons of Romans?
“Men care about your sexual history…This makes feminists see red”
.
Well, then caring about this really has more than one benefit.
.
It is noted by the red-seeing feminists that the number of men willing to marry known promiscuous women is directly proportional to the number of promiscuous women. That is, as the promiscuous women population increases as a percentage of all women, men will have less options if they wish to marry. So what will feminists do to achieve this hell-bent goal?
@Jess
Helen Fisher’s point is that the hormonal cascade that occurs during sex makes it a major physiological event. It is anything but casual. It is perhaps the most complex series of signals, triggers, and firing synapses that we are capable of.
.
I do not disagree that some women are interested in casual sex. In fact, research shows that a not insignificant number of women in college prefer hooking up to relationships. The reasons most frequently cited are usually stressful schedules/no time for a relationship and not trusting relationships due to parents having divorced.
.
Your question about my marital history is obviously disingenuous. I’m happy to discuss it, but not in response to a taunt.
Susan:
What’s more amazing to me is how little women today understand themselves. It truly blows me away how many women, under sway of feminist dogma, will swear up and down that women are not attracted to dominance, for instance, and how any cause except hypergamy will be used by them to rationalize its obvious effects.
Susan,
.
A possible twelfth insight might be “women don’t understand their own desires, and don’t understand how foolish they look when the contradictions arise.” With the follow-up being that women will wax eloquent about what they think they “want” in a man, or what they think people want to hear, or what they think the man they want wants to hear. Then you look at who she actually dates and says she “looooves,” and it’s clear she’s totally confused about what really activates her.
.
The upshot is that good men can be very put off by a woman who goes on about what she wants and then does the opposite (usually it’s Mr Nice Guy versus dating a total asshole who gives the tingles) both because it looks hypocritical, even though often it’s simply a lack of self-knowledge, and it portends erratic hamsterizing behavior down the road. I’ve seen so many women reject normal guys because they don’t match the checklist, but give it up for a lowlife badboy who doesn’t match any of it either. It’s literally what creates gamers.
Happy New Years, Susan!
Sadly, it looks like I’ll have to repost this :
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/08/defining-slut.html
I’m afraid to tell both Tom and Jess that sexual partner count DOES matter-at least when it comes to risk of divorce. We may not know WHY, but the effect is replicated over multiple studies, and it seems that promiscuous women are greater divorce risks than promiscuous men.
“Yes, H, I am a hopeless case of reason and sanity except for when it’s my time of the month obviously.”
You are hopeless because you have zero willingness to face the very simple fact that all decisions in life, like the one to be promiscuous, inevitably come with trade-offs. The more promiscuous a woman is, the less likely she is to form a meaningful pair-bond with one man and more likely to cheat on him. Very simple, yet you keep denying it in an obtuse way. The ostrich effect, I guess. You fail to respond to counterarguments or just toss them aside with dumb sarcasm.
Your debating skills are also very rudimentary. You say the past existence of harems, orgies and prostitution are proof that most men have not been monogamous, which is disingenuous because you know well that such opportunities have existed everywhere only for a small group of wealthy men of the ruling class. You resort to dumb statements which I suppose are meant to be sarcastic witticisms, you keep constructing straw men, you keep making false arguments (DNA tests neutralize the risk of cuckoldry, the sexual double standard is a remnant of the patriarchy and men can be shamed out of believing in it etc.) even though they have already been addressed on other threads.
Abbot,
Ms. Walsh had a great post about such feminist intentions:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/10/05/hookinguprealities/college-math-slut-lush-slush/
“I believe that if men had less alternatives, that is if most or many women had a fruitful sexual history, then that would become the norm and therefore acceptable.”
Many comments have examined her idiocy. Check them out.
Wow! that really is evidence that this issue is very important to feminists. Its almost as if its an equal rights concern – but not an equal right to have sex because that seems too easy to acquire and that is already not equal since women have more access to it. They want the way of thinking about sex to be equal which is quite twisted. But that is what we see here on this site too come to think of it. Do as I do [if you can] and then think as i do [which you better or you will be shamed and called names].
Now I see it is about “whinging in defense when attacked” but that “attack” is the refusal to accept and is a hit on the ego of women who are offended by men’s attitude, not actual words aimed at women. I know of no men who use verbal attacks on women but I do know many who avoid certain types of women and that avoidance stings louder than any words. This I believe is the crux of the protest from women and no amount of denial or dancing around it will change anything, not that anything really needs changing as there are enough non-promiscuous women to meet what most men want.
What frustrates me about arguing with Jess (and feminists in general; I’ve had this exact same experience on another board) is that they respond to trend-based hypotheses (“Promiscuous women are not a strong bet for marriage”) with exceptions to the rule, as though anyone was saying that literally all promiscuous women will divorce. “Casual sex is still not common”: Jess comes in with “Well read the blogs”. “Most men do not feel secure about a woman’s sexual history”: “I know plenty of smart, capable and intelligent men who don’t care one bit”, etc. etc.
.
.
I admit this is very true, and I think Deuce has correctly identified the source – feminist dogma. Imagine for a moment a young girl in elementary school saying that someday she wants to marry a strong man who will take care of her. She will immediately be challenged, even scolded. Females today grow up being told what they should want, and what is retrograde. This serves to divorce them from any real understanding of what motivates them, as it is painful to contemplate how unacceptable one’s secret desires are.
What frustrates me about arguing with Jess (and feminists in general; I’ve had this exact same experience on another board) is that they respond to trend-based hypotheses (“Promiscuous women are not a strong bet for marriage”) with exceptions to the rule,
.
I’ve noticed the same thing myself which is why I mostly stopped engaging on the other thread, except for entertainment button-pushing.
.
Anyways, as a general principle, I’ve noted in many online discussions that most people are incapable of distinguishing between general principles and specific anecdotes from their personal experience. I really don’t think it is intentionally deceptive. I really think they just don’t understand the difference between the population and a very limited sample to put it in statistical terms. Therefore, a single highly promiscuous women who they know who is a great mother and wife is all they need to nullify the general principle that they are higher risk for LTRs.
.
As a side point, the single most valuable class I ever took was in my MBA curriculum which was a class in Critical Thinking which is basically what is a logical, rational argument and what is flawed thinking. Most people would be well served to get a good book on Critical Thinking. As just one example, extreme sarcasm is not a refutation.
1 2 3 4 »
{ 5 trackbacks }