549»

Eleven Key Insights From the Men of Hooking Up Smart

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!

5 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • http://www.marriedmansexlife.com Athol Kay: Married Man Sex Life

    I think you should have this post link as the header of your whole blog :-)

    100% perfect.

  • Ric

    Great list. “At least 50% of women think they’re a hard 10.” Wow, really?

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

    @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.

  • Jess

    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.

  • http://www.colonzone.org Henway

    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.

  • GudEnuf

    You don’t think I’m straight, Susan?

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

    @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.

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

    @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.

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

    @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.

  • Jess

    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.

  • GudEnuf

    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/

  • hepsas

    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.

  • GudEnuf

    @hepsas My mommy has a masters in social work. She also happens to be very smart. Maybe that’s just a coincidence.

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

    @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.

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

    @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.

  • EM

    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

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

    @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.

  • filrabat

    #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?

  • Bob

    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.

  • http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/ hambydammit

    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.

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

    @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.

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

    @Hamby

    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.

    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.

  • Mike C

    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.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    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.”

  • http://thequestfor50.wordpress.com Dagonet

    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.

  • OffTheCuff

    Just perfect, Susan. One for the “Best Of”, I say.

  • random_commentator

    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.

  • http://ft.com VJ

    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’

  • GudEnuf

    @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.

  • stillcode

    Wow! Spot on Susan! Every single point. Where can I find all the women who share your understanding of the male sex?

  • tom

    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.

  • Solomon II

    @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.

  • Escarondito

    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.

  • GudEnuf

    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.

  • Escarondito

    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.

  • http://themensnetwork.org.uk/ Glen Poole

    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/

  • GudEnuf

    No he hasn’t. Have you check theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com ?

  • GudEnuf

    Where’s his new site?

  • Mellow JD

    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.

  • Obsidian

    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.

  • Joe

    Susan – thought you might like to know. Your post has gotten some deserved attention.

  • Obsidian

    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.

  • Escarondito

    Obs has returned.

  • Chuck Pelto

    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]

  • Escarondito

    Then you haven’t check his new site then.

  • Escarondito

    I’ll leave that to him to post. I don’t have it favorited on my comp at work.

  • puck

    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.

  • Obsidian

    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.

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

    @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.

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

    @Bob

    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.

    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.

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

    @GudEnuf

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

  • Obsidian

    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.

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

    @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.

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

    @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.

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

    @Mellow JD

    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.

    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.

  • tom

    @ 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.

  • filrabat

    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.

  • tom

    @ 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.

  • tom

    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.

  • locard

    Susan, this is excellent. Keep up the good work!

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

    @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.

  • Obsidian

    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.

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

    @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.

  • Höllenhund

    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.

    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.

  • 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.

    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.

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

      @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.

  • 108spirits

    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. :D 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.

  • filrabat

    @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.

  • filrabat

    @ 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.

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: 108Spirits
    RE: Speak….

    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.

    — 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)]

  • Jess

    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.

  • OffTheCuff

    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.

  • filrabat

    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.

  • Jess

    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.

  • 108spirits

    @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.

  • The Deuce

    Susan, this is a great post. I agree with every point you made on it!

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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).

  • http://nothing.com T-money

    “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….

  • http://nothing.com T-money

    “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.

  • Höllenhund

    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

    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.

  • Badger Nation

    “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.

  • Tim

    thanks for a great blog Susan!

  • http://thunear.wordpress.com Thunear

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

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

    @T-money

    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.

    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.

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

    @Thunear

    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.

    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?

  • tom

    @ 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.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    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.

  • http://thunear.wordpress.com Thunear

    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.

  • tom

    @ 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……..

  • rend

    “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?

  • terre

    “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.

  • tom

    @ 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.

  • tom

    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.

  • Escarondito

    “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.

  • Escarondito

    “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 _____?

  • tom

    @ 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.

  • Mike C

    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.

  • Mike C

    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)

  • Chuck Pelto

    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’.

  • rend

    “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.

  • rend

    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).

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    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.

  • 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)
    .
    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?

  • rend

    “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.

  • jess

    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

    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.

  • Chuck Pelto

    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.]

  • rend

    “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.

  • tom

    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.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    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.

  • rend

    “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.

  • tom

    @ 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..

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

    Sex is always a big deal; it’s not some trivial act like tripping over a rock or finding a penny.

    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.

  • tom

    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.

  • tom

    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.

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

      @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

  • Chuck Pelto

    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…..

  • Chuck Pelto

    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.]

  • tom

    @ 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.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Eleven Key Insights From the Men of Hooking Up Smart | Hooking Up Smart -- Topsy.com

  • tom

    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.

  • Escarondito

    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.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    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?

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    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.

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

    @tom

    If sex is a good thing then how can having it be bad?

    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.

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

    @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 ;)

  • 108spirits

    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.

  • terre

    “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.

  • Jess

    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.

  • terre

    “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.

  • Jess

    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……

  • terre

    “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.

  • Höllenhund

    Jess is obviously a hopeless case.

  • Jess

    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.

  • terre

    “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.)

  • http://grerp.blogspot.com grerp

    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.

  • terre

    “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.

  • Jess

    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.

  • Escarondito

    Really ya’ll? Have we gotten to comparisons of Romans?

  • Abbot

    “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?

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

    @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.

  • The Deuce

    Susan:

    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.

    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.

  • Badger Nation

    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.

  • Clarence

    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.

  • Pingback: No Woman Is Unable To Find A Man « Omega Virgin Revolt

  • Höllenhund

    “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.

  • Höllenhund

    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?

    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.

  • Abbot

    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.

  • terre

    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.

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

    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

    .

    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.

    .
    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.

  • Mike C

    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.

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

    @Abbot

    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].

    Could you explain what you mean? Are you speaking of Jess or me?

  • Abbot

    It seems that they are on the defensive or have something to defend. Nobody likes to have their lifestyle, past or present, questioned. Feminists especially do not like it when its men doing the questioning. So its a double wammy for them. Even if promiscuity among women is not a trend or not so common, as long as their marketing campaign that it is that way works, well then, they have succeeded. I do not think that non-promiscuous women are out there promoting non-promiscuity because they have nothing to defend or are not concerned about a looming threat for them to secure matrimony.

  • Abbot

    “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].

    I think that sums up these women in the so-called sex positive clubs as a message to men

  • tom

    OMG where do I start..
    First Tere, you really either have a reading comprehension problem or you have selective reasoning.
    If you actually read my posts you will see that I do not think all promiscuous women are a good relationship risk. However just because a woman expolred her sexuality with several men does not automatically make them a skank or a slut or not worthy of a good man. You all seem to think that somehow ALL promiscuious women fall into the same catagoy. I am here to tell you, they do not.
    As for you who believe biology is important in our present day behavior. You now say men have not always been prone to being promiscuous. Wait, what happened to all the talk about men having the uncontrollable urge to “spread their seed” to as many women as possible..You cant have it both ways.
    Hell ,women are changing. Wasnt long ago, men, who control most everything, didnt even let women vote, for Gods sake. The bathing suits covered women up like a full dress. Sex in the 60`s was taboo on TV. They even made Jeanie put tape on her navel. You people are living in the dark ages, holding on to old ideas. Read Cosmo, it will probably shock most of you.

    @Susan
    If sex is a good thing then how can having it be bad?

    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.

    I guess I should have said ,”sex between two consenting single adults..Good grief, I do not consider rape , incest, etc sex, they are acts of aggression or at least crimes. Way to avoid the real question.
    I loved Jesses response.. If having alot of sexual partners is bad for a person mentally then at what point does a person cross over from being a sane resonable responsible person into a skanky damaged slut? 5 partners? 10? 25? And is it the same for each person?
    NO ONE and I mean no one has addressed my point that millions of men are unknowingly married to a former slut. By all appearances,they are normal in evey way. He kisses the ground she walks on… How was she damaged by her experiences? Fact is she was not. So people who judge her for her past are the ones with the problem, not her.
    I am the first to admit women who sleep around will be judged. The ones who judge, are narrow minded, holier-than-thou people, who sterio type people into the same pigion hole.
    Normally it is based on their own fears, insecurities or tainted beliefs that everyone must behave the same way. Society and their belief system ischanging, like it or not….Most the people here just have not woke up yet.
    Remember when living together and not being married was taboo?..Pretty common place today.

    @ Jimmy
    My stance has always been that one needs to evaluate EVERY potential mate. My use of the word insecure has been directed towards men who automatically dismiss a good woman based soley on her sexual past. If a good woman is a good woman then the problem lies with the man who is insecure with her past and not her past itself.

  • tom

    Höllenhund

    You infered as fact that the only men who have not been momogamous ” have existed everywhere only for a small group of wealthy men of the ruling class”

    You have GOT to be kidding me . Fooling around with lots of women, having 3somes, has no social class barings what so ever. Men from all walks of life and all social classes have committed adulty, remained players, and participated in what some might call kinky sex.
    Where do you guys get this crap?

  • Clarence

    tom:

    You are either a fool or a troll.
    Answer this seriously: Do you believe the VAST MAJORITY of men who ever lived have participated in threesomes, orgies, or had harems?
    As for the rest, prostitution isn’t exactly legal and it isn’t always cheap. It’s been pointed out to you that a minority of men in history have reproduced. I’d bet the majority of men have had sex but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that most of that for the poor men was of the sporadic, occasional variety including the occasional once-in-a-blue moon visit to a house of “ill-repute”.

    In short, your rather ridiculous idea that most men have lived like the most sexually adventurous of men -heck, that most men even had the CHANCE to live that way -doesn’t comport with reality.

  • tom

    @ Susan

    Susan I do think your 11 insights are pretty much spot on.

    However, most of the”MEN” with those some of those attitudes are players…Not all of them, but most.

    Probably the 20% who seem to be getting all the sex. The other 80% probably would not subscribe to a few of the “facts”
    The Players really do not want to get married anyhow.

    Player attitudes or facts are….#1..#2..#3..#5…#8..#11
    Most sex goesto players 1
    Most players do not want girlfriends 2
    Players need variety 3
    Players wait until 30 or longer to settledown…5
    Players only want sex, could care less about anything else….8
    Players want sex friends,no time for female “friends”…..11

  • jess

    dear susan,
    i really had no intention of any ‘taunts’- truly. i was making the point to him that 2 people with different views have had a similar experience with the current SMP ie we both met our loves via a one night stand and had great realtionships and adorable kids.
    I know i have had more ‘variety’ than you and i know there is loads we differ on but even if that guy doesnt respect me I would at least hope he respected you- after all hes on your blog.
    .
    Hollenhund,
    it wont suprise you to learn that i find some of your arguments lacking in substance and riddled with inconsistencies and unlikely claims. In fact some claims are so silly that, along with Mike C I suspect you are trying to button push.
    im sure others will know that prostitution is rife in the third world and is the hobby of many men from every class, chaste and disposition. talk to the sough african embassy about the male sex drive. talk to WHO about the hiv pandemic. Really, why dont you have the argument with them? or some anthropologists?
    I am making the assertion that many (not all) men endulge in casual sex given the opportunity (which is nearly always there) and have done so since the dawn of time.
    Susan, Aldonza, Grerp- what do you think? Am I totally off base?

  • Höllenhund

    tom, it has already become obvious that you and your ilk have absolutely no intention of keeping this civil but nevertheless I’ll dignify your response (if we can call it that) with another response. Jess stated that the existence of harems, prostitution, polygamy and Roman orgies proves that most men throughout history weren’t monogamous. I merely pointed out that these practices were limited to a small number of upper-class men. Most men in history couldn’t afford prostitutes, harems and multiple wives. Regardless of class, only alpha men (roughly 15-20% of all men) had de facto harems, threesomes and the like. DNA evidence proves that only 40% of al men have reproduced throughout history, which in turn proves most of them never had any secure sexual access.

    Then again, I’m not surprised Jess would resort to such “reasoning”. This mentality is common among women. They only notice alpha men – roughly 15-20% of all men (the rest fly under their radar) -, get outraged by the types of behavior that ONLY such men display (caddishness, unfaithfulness, aggressiveness, disrespect for and contempt of women) and then assume that they apply to men in general.

  • Höllenhund

    it wont suprise you to learn that i find some of your arguments lacking in substance and riddled with inconsistencies and unlikely claims. In fact some claims are so silly that, along with Mike C I suspect you are trying to button push.

    Hah, I find it hilarious that YOU among all people are accusing me of making unsubstantiated arguments. What inconsistencies and unlikely claims are you talking about? Which one of my claims are silly and why? Elaborate carefully or nobody will take you seriously. So far you have ignored pretty much all counterarguments that were presented to you.

    im sure others will know that prostitution is rife in the third world and is the hobby of many men from every class, chaste and disposition.

    Are you going to seriously claim with a straight face that the majority of Thirld World men can affor prostitutes? Source? Remember it was you who argued that only a minority of men have been monogamous.

    talk to the sough african embassy about the male sex drive.

    And your point is?

    talk to WHO about the hiv pandemic.

    The HIV pandemic proves that only a minority of men are monogamous? Based on what? Elaborate please.

    Really, why dont you have the argument with them? or some anthropologists?

    Because you are the one making blatantly false arguments.

    I am making the assertion that many (not all) men endulge in casual sex given the opportunity (which is nearly always there)

    No, it’s not always there, not even nearly. Again you’re assuming that all men or most men behave exactly in the same way alpha males do.

  • tom

    @Clarence
    You are either a fool or a troll.
    Answer this seriously: Do you believe the VAST MAJORITY of men who ever lived have participated in threesomes, orgies, or had harems?
    As for the rest, prostitution isn’t exactly legal and it isn’t always cheap. It’s been pointed out to you that a minority of men in history have reproduced. I’d bet the majority of men have had sex but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that most of that for the poor men was of the sporadic, occasional variety including the occasional once-in-a-blue moon visit to a house of “ill-repute”.

    In short, your rather ridiculous idea that most men have lived like the most sexually adventurous of men -heck, that most men even had the CHANCE to live that way -doesn’t comport with reality.
    ______________

    I assure you I am neither….
    No, Ofcourse not, most men have not been in 3somes ( I will reserve Harems for the rich kings..lol)
    I guess I was not clear as to what I meant. ….Over time men of all walks of life have “played the field”,cheated in relationships and had kinky sex. Orgies are not a richmans privledge,neither are threesomes. Granted most men have not tried these kinks.
    I have, however.
    Most generations think they invented sex…..lol My Mother once told me,” It wasn`t called the Roaring 20`s for nothing!” …lol
    I guess what some men fail to understand is the only thing that kept single women from having more sex was the risk of getting pregnant. That is no longer as big of an issue.
    Still slays me how some people will put all experienced women in the same pigion hole.

    Kind of like saying all black men are thugs, or all people who drink are alcoholics…Just nonsense.But there are people who think that.
    I guess some people are so smart they are stupid,influenced by their emotions and insecurities they can not think for themselves.

  • jess

    clarence,
    i looked at the data for the 1st link. if i have interpreted it right the most safe marriage is the 1st bar with a virgin bride.
    now i havent seen the data presented in a more distinguished arena but im going to suspend any cyncism for the sake of this post.
    the data doesnt surprise me that much- I would imagine a virgin bride (wow!- can tbe that common in the uk) may well be a safe marriage bet.
    But from a feminist standpoint I would worry for such a girl.
    Has she missed out on finding a better match by never knowing other men?
    She will never know what she missed so perhaps will put up with a poor relationship?
    I imagine a virgin bride is more likely to be religeous and maybe hoorified at the thought of divorce so putting up with years of servitude and loneliness.
    .
    Now I know these comments make peoples blood boil.
    i know stability is good for kids
    i know stability is good for men and women
    maybe too much is made of sex/attraction and too little put on character and trustworhiness.
    .
    BUT (and its a 20 foot high but)
    .
    I have worked in a job giving me access to disfyuntional couples.
    they always included faithful women who were utterly miserable- suicide level miserable.
    more often than not they were inexperienced when married.
    .
    so there is another human side to this.
    being married as a virgin does not always equal eternal happiness.
    far, far from it.
    and a slice of that 1st graph will contaim women that end up bitterly unhappy, and that had they chosen differently, would have led fulfilling, happy lives.
    .
    having said that I have worked with couples that really did live the dream- married as virgins and are as happy as larks.
    .
    so im not going to argue with trends and data. but one can overstate a case and perhaps thats the biggest cause of the arguments on this thread.

  • terre

    tom/Jess, if you’re interested in the lives of men from the past, I would suggest reading novels produced in the Romantic period. Zola (particularly Germinal) and Victor Hugo are a good place to start. Maupassant gives the other side of the coin; “Bel Ami” tracked the fortunes of a wealthy serial adulterer, and even in mid-19th century France it was considered essentially fantastical.

  • terre

    “so im not going to argue with trends and data. but one can overstate a case and perhaps thats the biggest cause of the arguments on this thread.”
    .
    What you’re doing is precisely arguing “with trends and data”. No one can really dispute whether or not you’ve worked with miserable virgin brides who missed out on the Jess Experience, because how would we ever know? It makes the purpose of debate completely meaningless.

  • terre

    “I guess what some men fail to understand is the only thing that kept single women from having more sex was the risk of getting pregnant. That is no longer as big of an issue.”
    .
    Well which is it then? They did have more sex in the past, which has to be the case if you’re claiming men were such philanderers (there has to be a girl for every copulation, after all) or they didn’t but now they are because of reproductive control?

  • tom

    @ Jess

    But Jess personal life experience counts for nothing. lol

    Maybe,just maybe the promiscuous woman in some cases can think for herself. Maybe she would not be so apt to divorce if the man she married treated her well. Maybe she is the type who understands what it is like to be treated like chit, and will not stay in a bad relationship as much as a less experienced woman might.
    That angle sure spins a different light on the promiscuous woman and her divorce rate, now doesn`t it? But leave it up to”researchers” and men in general to blame only the promiscuous woman
    I too met my wife to be on a one night stand.
    Jess you are one of those who get “it”

  • jess

    terre,
    i would invite you to contact any london organisation that supports domestic victims.
    if you want to look further afield try any charity supporting womens rights in the third world (not for the feint hearted).
    you will see there is plenty of data on this issue of unhappy married women who prior to their husband had limited expereince.
    On a similar theme, We had an honour killing in london only last month.
    but even if data werent there or its was too time consuming to find why would i argue my case?
    its no skin off my nose- i have my kids and partner.
    if my life experiences were different maybe i would champion ‘no sex before marriage’ and all the rest of it. but well, my life hasnt shown me that has it?
    i know i have had a shletered life. goodish family and life in london and loads of opportunities blah, blah. i am priveldged really. not rich but really privelged- life of a princess compared to most women on the planet. but i have looked beyond that and i have worked in the justice system here and done a number of other roles. i would hope my views are as good as any. and data only show half the story.
    Clarences graphs are probably valid but they dont measure happiness. You see my point? You do have to look at the individual humans to get at the truth and the real dynamics.
    So anecdotes may not carry the weight of hard data but they cant be dismissed.

  • tom

    @ terre
    Well which is it then? They did have more sex in the past, which has to be the case if you’re claiming men were such philanderers (there has to be a girl for every copulation, after all) or they didn’t but now they are because of reproductive control?
    ___________________
    First,dont put words in my mouth…. I never said men had more sex in the past. There has always been non monogamous men ( and women)
    The stats say 20% of men have most of the sex, I would think that stat has not changed much.
    You made a good point…In the past men had to have sex with someone. Promiscuity has been around for along time. But for women,not to the extent it is now. Nowdays more women are available to that 20% because of the pill. You deny that?

  • Höllenhund

    I am making the assertion that many (not all) men endulge in casual sex given the opportunity (which is nearly always there)

    How do you explain the involuntary celibacy of Athlone, one of the regular commenters here who shared his experiences with us?

  • http://grerp.blogspot.com grerp

    I am making the assertion that many (not all) men endulge in casual sex given the opportunity (which is nearly always there) and have done so since the dawn of time.
    Susan, Aldonza, Grerp- what do you think? Am I totally off base?

    I don’t know. I’m inclined to believe that Susan’s #1 point is correct. A subset of men have access to sex; the rest not so much. Many of the older men I know come from religious backgrounds, and I do not think they’ve been promiscuous. I would doubt they’ve had more than two or three lovers their whole lives, if that. Of my generation and younger, I think that the number is definitely higher, but that the access to regular sex is not much higher. For guys who are socially tone deaf or in some other way significantly unattractive to women, there’s probably still a total drought. I think that’s why we’re seeing the explosion of game blogs because they perception is that if you can learn certain skills, sex is the cheapest – emotionally, financially – it’s ever been. A poor, ugly guy in the 1940s and in the 2010s is looking at celibacy. A poor, ugly guy with game has access to a sex buffet, or that is the hope.

    The men in my social circle were not virgins when they married – or didn’t marry – except for a few really traditional Catholic men I know. But getting sex on a regular basis was a frustrating process, I think. They had to jump through hoops to get noticed, to get a date, to get a relationship, and then they had to put up with emotional blackmail and occasional relationship histrionics to maintain that access – or decide it wasn’t worth it and go back to celibacy. I knew/know happy couples who dated, got along, and it wasn’t just sex keeping them together, but, and I’ve said this before, by the time I became of age to date, it was very hard to get a boyfriend without sex being on the table. It was only negotiable as to when – which is why I hardly dated at all in college.

    Perhaps I was in the extreme minority among women (women’s magazines & other progaganda certainly made it seem so), but I had zero interest in being someone’s part-time, temporary sexual plaything. I only wanted sex with someone I could trust totally, and I never thought that I could keep my emotions and my sexuality completely separate, employing the latter while laying off the former.

    My answer to the question would be: yes, I think most men, given access to casual sex, would not hesitate to indulge, at least for awhile, but I don’t think most men have perpetual, easy access to casual sex they same way young women of reasonable attractiveness have, so…

    Historically, outside of marriage, few men had ready access to sex. Yes, there was prostitution in the cities, but most people lived hand to mouth and under serious scrutiny from their neighbors. Soldiers, sailors, loggers, miners, etc. used prostitutes, but only sporadically when they had money. They also lived short, dangerous lives, bereft of most of modern comforts.

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

      @Jess

      I am making the assertion that many (not all) men endulge in casual sex given the opportunity (which is nearly always there) and have done so since the dawn of time.

      I think that most single men will engage in casual sex if given the opportunity. I hope most committed men would decline. However, I strongly disagree that the opportunity is “nearly always there” as is evidenced by my belief in Point #1, as grerp pointed out. And there are some men who just don’t want the casual experience – many men have said it makes them feel like crap afterwards.

  • Clarence

    tom:

    Thank you for the reasoned response. Perhaps I was a bit harsh but if so it was based on my interpretation of your argument. You’ll get no argument from me that both sexes breach sexual ethics constantly, nor that not all highly sexed women are the same. Nonetheless, the data say what they say and that is that casual sex does not seem to affect men and women equally *on average* and that does take on increased importance for men who hope to start families given todays easily abused divorce and custody laws.

  • tom

    Sounds to me like most of the men here are of the old school thinking. Sometimes it is tough to tell if they are hardcore players,or they are in the 80%of sexually frustrated men who are bitter towards women from all the rejection.

  • Clarence

    jess:

    Thank you for examining my links. Trust me, this wouldn’t be of such importance if it wasn’t for the messed up family laws in most anglo-saxon countries and the easy divorce regimes.
    Yes, most men still have their two pigeon-holes – but in the past, it was a bit easier to overlook in the interests of love when the consequences for a mistaken choice weren’t so dire.

    I don’t think it’s the sex or amount of sex per-se that does it, I suspect it’s the TYPE of sex. Many if not most of the women who have high numbers (obviously not all) tend to have lots of anonymous drunken sex. Now that I know this I would aim to avoid such a woman unless sometime in the future I want a one-night stand.

  • tom

    Clarance

    “Nonetheless, the data say what they say and that is that casual sex does not seem to affect men and women equally *on average* and that does take on increased importance for men who hope to start families given todays easily abused divorce and custody laws.”

    I understand that view,and there is valdity to it…..
    However,and I am repeating my self

    Maybe,just maybe the promiscuous woman in some cases can think for herself. Maybe she would not be so apt to divorce if the man she married treated her well. Maybe she is the type who understands what it is like to be treated like chit, and will not stay in a bad relationship as much as a less experienced woman might.

    See the stats do not cover those women. Stats can be spun a lot of different ways

  • Clarence

    I think grerp gets it! Excellent post at 1:42!

  • Clarence

    tom:

    Please don’t attempt to argue marital stats with me.

    Now, you do seem like you might be older than I am. I’m 39. But I’ve been on the internet since 1996 and was reading about the problems of modern marriages since I discovered various men’s sites in 1998. So I’ll take my knowledge of the laws and stats and put it up against your musings about why women divorce any day. For now, I’ll just say that when you reward bad behavior you get more of it, and current laws reward bad behavior to an extreme degree.

  • tom

    Many if not most of the women who have high numbers (obviously not all) tend to have lots of anonymous drunken sex. Now that I know this I would aim to avoid such a woman unless sometime in the future I want a one-night stand.

    Clarance,you and me both. Evaluation of the woman no matter her past is a necessity.

    one cannot pigionhole all promiscuous women….Well actually they can.

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

      Many if not most of the women who have high numbers (obviously not all) tend to have lots of anonymous drunken sex.

      The vast majority of casual hookups involve two intoxicated individuals. That’s one of the reasons the sex is usually bad. Men and women report equally that they need to get drunk to reach the level of disinhibition required to get naked with a stranger.

  • Abbot

    I think Susan summed it up best:
    .
    “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.”
    .
    Then, it is not a revolution at all. Its just an expansion of available women to the same class of men. That is one change that is directly related to the other change: the vacuum left by the women who would have been available for marriage at the most desirable point in their lives to the other 80% of men. Desirable in terms of attractiveness and sweet vulnerability.

  • tom

    I am older than you Clarance, by 16 years.

    You also get divorce from bad behavior from men. As you know,the majority of divorce is intitiated by WOMEN. Why? Mostly because men treat them poorly.

    A promiscuous women more than likely has been treated like chit by several players. I doubt they will put up with it from their hubbys too.As Jess pointed out,a lot of “inexperienced” women she has encountered in her carreer were very unhappy,but STILL married (yippppii)

    LikeI said stats can be spun a lot of ways

  • Escarondito

    “I am making the assertion that many (not all) men endulge in casual sex given the opportunity (which is nearly always there)”

    Jess. It may be easy for you to get sex but not for many (not all) men. I am undervaluing myself when I say I am decent-looking. I have a good job. I good car. Take care of myself. Am consistently complimented on my style from women. And it is STILL hard work for me to engage in casual sex.

    For me to even engage in the realm of casual sex in my best was when I was in college. I had 6 girls that I could call to get with if I wanted throughout the week or weekend. BUT, and the all-caps is necessary. Throughout the week I needed to spike them with little convos here and there since there was constant competition from other males (those jocks who don’t need to work for the same) daily. To even get to that position required three months of work for the Harem and anywhere from one-night to a month to get to the point with each girl that I could put them into rotation.

    I don’t even consider myself in the % of men who don’t even have to work for that and I still know I’m doing better than atleast 70% of the other men in my college frame. AND, the all-caps IS necessary, it only gets worse for those guys as a small portion make the effort to learn game (most of those will fall out at early setbacks) and the rest will ghost.

    Would any of these men take the opportunity for casual sex? You damn right they would. But do a large majority ever get the chance for “opportunity (which is nearly always there)” for casual sex? Hell no. And you must seriously be delusional if you think it is easy for them.

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

    @Frost
    Welcome, and thanks for commenting. Wow, that’s a pretty high risk strategy for women you’ve got going there.

    An analogy: NSA sex is to girls in the 21st century, what dinner dates are to men in the mid-20th.

    And that’s a real problem. Dinner dates might set a guy back a few bucks but rarely broke his heart, gave him an STD, wasted weeks or even months.

  • Abbot

    Interesting. So the so-called sex revolution that enabled a much larger group of women to get casual sex from the same proportion of men or player types causes women today to bail quicker from a marriage. Who knew.

  • Jess

    Grerp,
    Thanks for responding. I thought your answer very thoughtful and detailed. You actually described some of my traditional family members!
    A totally unrelated point- is your avitar actually a pic of you? I only ask because according to my partner it’s the spitting image of me!
    .
    Tom,
    When you were younger was the split really 80/20?
    I would have thought it was more like 50/50?
    Or do guys exaggerate their sex life?
    .
    Clarence,
    I do agree about the poor divorce and custody laws.
    It’s an example of the pendulum swinging too far the other way.
    I have known some great guys totally screwed by the uk system and also at the expense of the kids welfare too.

  • tom

    I have a male friend, who I ran track with a long time ago. Decent looking guy, always telling me he can not find a decent woman. Lets just say he had a horrible mother. He has put on alot of weight. Not so attractive now. He has dated and slept with well over 100 women. (match.com)
    He is pretty disfunctional when it comes to knowing how to attract, treat,and keep a woman.
    It was not all the sex that screwed him up, he has always been a mess.

    Anyway, he tells me of this “guru”on “ASK MEN.com” who sells a manual to help men get “game”.
    He showed it to me. It was a very detailed manual about how to be a player, or bad boy type.

    How to treat a woman like chit to get sex,is more like it. I told him that if he had to treat a woman like that to get her, she wasnt the type of woman HE was looking for in the first place.
    He didnt listen ..wasted his money and wasted his time and efforts.
    I am guessing that there are a lot of men who have game, and the poor women have to sift thru all the crap until they find a good guy….Theold, “gotta kiss a lot of frogs”. theory

  • Aldonza

    @108spirits

    There’s something very male yet very annoying about her.

    .
    Perhaps she’s high mileage because exactly *because* she has more male hormones, which might also explain that “hard” look about her.
    .
    @Susan Walsh

    Because I do hear from women that their slutty friends have nabbed a great guy to marry.

    .
    Most of the sluts I know did nab great guys. They were also better looking than average and knew how to sexually engage men easily. It was the shy prudes that had trouble finding good guys. The simple fact that nobody is mentioning here in the bandying about of “numbers” is that how women *always* have choices, even in relationships. A man will literally give up higher brain functions when he looks at a very attractive woman. Marrying a hot slut isn’t a rational choice. But then again, attraction is rarely rational.
    .
    @terre

    The “libido” has very little to do with why a woman will or won’t have sex.

    .
    Actually, it has quite a bit to do with women and having sex. My libido has been all over the place (due to changes in hormones over time with childbearing etc.) There was a time when sex almost disgusted me. I was post-partum, nursing, and if Tom Brady had shown up with a smile and a bottle of wine, I’d have shown him the dirty laundry pile and gone to take a nap. There have been other times when my (now ex)husband couldn’t keep up.
    .
    Further, I know that baseline libido levels vary wildly among women. Some of us are very high, having trouble with men keeping up. Some of us are non-existent, and while sex can still be enjoyed, it isn’t sought out or thought about much. Most of us vary quite a bit depending on where we are in our lives and bodies. But, fact remains, women still control access to sex. And if they don’t feel like having it, they mostly don’t have it.
    .
    @Jess

    I am making the assertion that many (not all) men endulge in casual sex given the opportunity (which is nearly always there) and have done so since the dawn of time.
    Susan, Aldonza, Grerp- what do you think? Am I totally off base?

    .
    I dispute the idea that all men have the opportunity for casual sex. I know plenty of “Omegas” who exist in the world outside of the SMP. Would they take it if they could get it? I believe they would. Can they get it even with the help of game? For most of these guys…no. It would take a billion dollar IPO to do that…and even then, I’m not sure.
    .
    Frankly, I believe a lot of the “numbers” angst is bitterness from guys who were home with Rosie Palm and her five hairy sisters while lusting after Mindy, who was taking on the athletes two at a time in her dorm room. Are they right to judge Mindy? Doesn’t matter, they do.
    .
    @Susan Walsh
    I’d love to see this article given from the perspective of men who are or have been married or are in real LTRs. In marketing, it makes sense to study the demographic you’re really aiming at, and perhaps your noters here aren’t really representative of the “marrying type guys” we’re really talking about.

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

      @Aldonza
      Ah, it’s good to have you back in fine form!
      You make a good point about women with very high sex drives looking male. It is thought that since testosterone controls the sex drive, women who pursue a lot of sex with different partners may have higher T levels than average.
      .
      It’s also true that women have choices – one of which is to conceal her number. Perhaps some men can figure this out, but not all can. Consider this comment I saw today on Bitch magazine:

      slutPosted by Christy Sibley (not verified) on August 6, 2010 – 3:34pm

      slut, slut, happy slut, never felt bad about my experiences. It had no impact upon my self-esteem, I’m happy for each and every experience, all good, none bad and am now in a rockin monogomous relationship where hubby doesn’t know about my past only because he’s more sensitive about things of that nature. Knowing me now, he probably wouldn’t care and would be appreciative of all that the experiences taught me not being timid about my body or how it feels at any given moment. If you don’t want me because I’ve had too many partners (not that I’d tell you anyway) I don’t want you because you probably haven’t had enough. I really don’t want a dullard in bed:-)

      .
      Re the status of the male commenters, many of the ones I’ve drawn from are married or in LTRs. Someone above suggested that guys friendly to Game might have a different overall view, and I certainly think that’s possible. But I also know that knowing a lot about Game means understanding both male and female sexuality. It’s a highly educated group of males here wrt issues in the SMP.
      .

  • Clarence

    tom:

    I’m going to be nice and offer you a chance to retract your statement. I have a link to studies that show why women divorce men and its not because of alleged bad behavior. So, do you want that link?

    We opened the Pandora’s box when we messed with our family laws while at the same time messing with the SMP with our pills and abortions. Men in my age group and younger are the ones suffering for it.

  • Frost

    Very good list, but I disagree with #2. I always tell girls that I’m not interested in a girlfriend at first, so they don’t take it personally if I get to know them and that turns out to be the case. I’ve had two serious relationships in my life. Both started out as friends-with-benefits situations and grew slowly from there. If a guy has options, sex may be a girl’s only chance to entice him to stick around and get to know her.

    An analogy: NSA sex is to girls in the 21st century, what dinner dates are to men in the mid-20th.

  • Aldonza

    Well which is it then? They did have more sex in the past, which has to be the case if you’re claiming men were such philanderers (there has to be a girl for every copulation, after all) or they didn’t but now they are because of reproductive control?

    .
    Of course they had sex. There was birth control (and abortion…and infanticide) back pretty much as far as recorded history. But the repercussions for a woman who not only carried the burden of supporting a child, but usually without the financial resources available to someone who could have a career (or in some cases, even the legal right to own property) kept all but the most insistent impulses more or less restrained.

  • Aldonza

    @Clarence

    I have a link to studies that show why women divorce men and its not because of alleged bad behavior. So, do you want that link?

    .
    I’d be interested in reading. However, I take “self-reporting” studies with a huge grain of salt. Having left a marriage and downplaying the reasons to all but a few very close friends, I now understand that “We grew apart” as an answer to the often-asked question “Why did you divorce” is really just a nice way of saying “It’s none of your damn business.”

  • terre

    “But, fact remains, women still control access to sex. And if they don’t feel like having it, they mostly don’t have it.”
    .
    As I’ve said, the female libido is far less base than that of the male. It’s a lot less common for men to be on the receiving end of a bout of insatiable horniness from a woman than it is for the man to require applying the seduction to her person first. To put it one way, a girl rarely expects sex in the evening but will often want it once the man has played his part.

  • tom

    Jess,

    Tom,
    When you were younger was the split really 80/20?
    I would have thought it was more like 50/50?
    Or do guys exaggerate their sex life?
    _______________________________-
    Im not sure it is 80/20 now. Seems not that lopsided to me.
    I was an athlete in the 70`s at a major college. Sex was easy to get. I just thought it was because of the hippy movement. Most people I knew were having sex…Either in a relationship,or casually…. I knew no male virgins, athletes of otherwise. Of course some guys lied, but how do you know for sure?
    Back then there was a lot of “love the one youre with” attitude. Evenback then lots of women racked up some pretty big numbers(guys too, obviously) Over the years I stayed in contact with a lot of the women. NONE of them seemed worse for their “experience” All Married, had children,most had careers, and aregrandmothers now. That is why I have to laugh at some mens attitudes toward women of experience. If they did not tell you, you would have no clue. Which basically means it did not damage them in any way. Men here would be shocked by that……lol
    I know it has to piss you off when the men here pigionhole all promiscuous women.Obviously YOU came out of your wild times unscathed, no matter how impossible these people seem to think it is.

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

      @tom
      The “love the one you’re with” days of the 1970s, including having children in communes, swapping keys at neighborhood cocktail parties a la Ice Storm and Looking for Mr. Goodbar drove divorce rates sharply higher. Today, the children of those couples, now in college, cite their parents acrimonious relationship history as the primary reason for avoiding relationships and going for the hookup instead. Your personal social circle notwithstanding, the Sexual Revolution has turned the SMP upside down, and many have suffered in different ways. A few have thrived.

  • tom

    Terre you do understand the clit is the ONLY organ in a human body designed solely for pleasure, right?

    Believe it or not, there are lots of high libido, “horney” women out there.
    (now if most men actually knew where the clit is, and how it works)..lol

    But that is another blog…lol

  • tom

    Aldonza, great answers,but you will soon see they fall on deaf ears.

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

      Aldonza, great answers,but you will soon see they fall on deaf ears.

      Ha! tom, Aldonza has been hear for ages. You’re the newbie. She argues intelligently and has the respect of our little HUS community. Most notably, she does not debate from an emotional place, which is where you keep getting into trouble.

  • http://grerp.blogspot.com grerp

    @tom
    I am older than you Clarance, by 16 years.
    You also get divorce from bad behavior from men. As you know,the majority of divorce is intitiated by WOMEN. Why? Mostly because men treat them poorly.

    Are you seriously trying to argue that the reason women initiate divorce most of the time is because men abuse them in some way?

    Maybe, maybe in 1959. Not in 2011. I know many divorced women whose impetus could summed up simply as, “Bored now.” I’ve been married 12 years now, and I’ve been at home for 6 years with my son. If I left, I’d probably get custody, the house, half of the savings, half his retirement; I could go off and “find myself” and still walk around freely and unchastised by most of the people I know. (My parents and sister would have an absolute coronary, as well they should.)

    What would I be losing in the deal? The love of a good man. A second hands-on parent for my son. My integrity and self-respect. Future security. But I have to be able to both hold myself accountable and see down the line to see how crummy the equation is on the back end for me. And I have to have a conscience to see what I’d be doing to my husband and son. All that stuff is just so 1959.

  • Aldonza

    As I’ve said, the female libido is far less base than that of the male. It’s a lot less common for men to be on the receiving end of a bout of insatiable horniness from a woman than it is for the man to require applying the seduction to her person first. To put it one way, a girl rarely expects sex in the evening but will often want it once the man has played his part.

    .
    Women’s sexuality can be *astonishingly* base. Some women get quite adept at restraining/hiding this from men for reasons mentioned here. I dated a man for a long time who never saw that side of me because he seemed to judge/fear it. His loss.
    .
    That said of course women can and do can respond to an artfully played seduction. Particularly in a LTR, switching gears from dinner/homework/chores to “hot mama” usually requires more than just a boob grope and a leer. I believe that all women, regardless of relationship status want to feel pursued and desirable. Even in more casual sex circumstances, they want to feel that they’re just more than a body to masturbate into. It’s less to do with spending money or shit tests and more to do with just showing her that you want *her*…not just a lay. And for the man who shows that he desires her, and isn’t afraid of the results of that desire…he is well-rewarded.
    .
    I believe that what a lot of the game/manosphere teachings lose is the art of real seduction and sensuality. Looking at women as “targets” or “some of numbers” negates who they are. If you truly love women, you love the virgin and slut inside all of us.

  • terre

    “i would invite you to contact any london organisation that supports domestic victims.”
    .
    Domestic violence is not particularly common in terms of attrition, and violence is not one-sided; i.e. women commit or initiate as many instances of physical violence as do men. What this has to do with virginity, sexual history or promiscuity is beyond me.

  • Aldonza

    @Tom

    Aldonza, great answers,but you will soon see they fall on deaf ears.

    I don’t write for them. I write for the 10 lurkers that read for every one that posts.

  • tom

    Frankly, I believe a lot of the “numbers” angst is bitterness from guys who were home with Rosie Palm and her five hairy sisters while lusting after Mindy, who was taking on the athletes two at a time in her dorm room. Are they right to judge Mindy? Doesn’t matter, they do.

    Bingo!
    .
    @Susan Walsh
    I’d love to see this article given from the perspective of men who are or have been married or are in real LTRs. In marketing, it makes sense to study the demographic you’re really aiming at, and perhaps your noters here aren’t really representative of the “marrying type guys” we’re really talking about.

    Another great comment Aldonza…..Hard to tell if guys here are players or just bitter guys from the 80%

  • Aldonza

    @Grerp

    I know many divorced women whose impetus could summed up simply as, “Bored now.”

    See above my comment about “We grew apart” and what it really means.

  • terre

    “I know it has to piss you off when the men here pigionhole all promiscuous women.Obviously YOU came out of your wild times unscathed, no matter how impossible these people seem to think it is.”
    .
    No one thinks it’s impossible, tom, just very unlikely.

  • Badger Nation

    I have to admit I think I’m getting combat fatigue with all of this discussion about hooking up, NSA, heavy promiscuity, the outrages of family court and generalized social dysfunction.
    .
    Red-pilling can be bad for your health and it’s inducing a great anxiety and mistrust in me wrt both men and women. I’m losing the wonder for humanity, instead replacing it with hindbrain behaviorist models, incomplete evo-pysch rationalizations and the suspicion that everybody is broken.
    .
    I recently finished a book on the history of AIDS, which graphically described bathhouse culture and rampant promiscuity (some victims counted thousands of partners) that was part of the disease’s early phase in the West. I knew it before, but reading the book filled me with another wave of disgust, which is exactly how I feel reading about hookups, reasonable guys and girls who can’t find love, 25-year old women who have been cored out by over 30 men, dark-gamers farming for one-night stands into the triple digits, and how awfully these sexual pawns treat both other people and themselves.
    .
    I certainly don’t want a Roissy lifestyle; the more I read about game the less interested I am in engaging people at that level (and I’m no game hater). What I read about the prevalence of deflated counts and rationalization hamsters, along with the race-to-the-bottom culture we are feeding our young people, threatens my faith that I can screen for a suitable partner who hasn’t planted a psychological time bomb in our relationship because of her previous behavior. To say nothing of the possibility I may have a bomb of my own ticking thanks to my distant exposure to this culture.
    .
    I have a bunch of posts in the can for the blog I was thinking about launching this month, but I’m wondering if I shouldn’t drop out of the discussion for a while instead.
    .
    Or maybe I should take up existentialism, which on the whole is a more optimistic exercise than analyzing the sex lives of statistical outliers.

  • tom

    Aldonzo,
    I am about to marry an “experienced” woman..One thing she said to me that stil has my ears tingling…. She said, “what makes you so special to me,is you love me for me,and not for what I can do for you sexually” Like you said, I have been well rewarded. She has been a model girlfriend for over a year. She has no sexual hangups,a high libido, great corporate job, great mom,funny and intelligent. What else could a man want?……Some might say a woman who has had less sexual experience…….I disagree

    oh yeah,we met and it was supposed to be a one night stand……..

  • tom

    Terre

    it is a lot more likely than most people think.

  • Clarence

    tom:

    If all you have is insults and not arguments prepare to be ignored.
    I, at least have numbers to go by.

  • Clarence

    Aldonza:

    Yes, because it’s so important to save social face on anonymous surveys.

  • Abbot

    “I believe that all women, regardless of relationship status want to feel pursued and desirable. Even in more casual sex circumstances, they want to feel that they’re just more than a body to masturbate into.”
    .
    Is that the BFE thing I read about somewhere here? The boyfriend experience – the need to feel like its a boyfriend even if its just a fling or for one night. But really, how many men care to deliver a BFE for just a screw? Maybe that is why women feel jipped from short encounters and risk getting bitter about it over time. How does she unwind that harbored negative energy later on?

  • tom

    yeah Clarance

    and the Warran Commission had the gun and the pristine bullet.

  • terre

    “it is a lot more likely than most people think.”
    .
    That’s not a convincing argument.

  • tom

    ok Clarance

    Here is a different take on experienced women…… Not all got that way as drunken out of control wild women.

    http://hubpages.com/hub/On-Promiscuity-and-self-esteem

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

      @tom
      Re the different take on experienced women – the author plays both the slut shaming and fat shaming cards, then says this:
      .
      We all need to learn that regardless of what sexual choices we make those do not devalue us as human beings.
      .
      Like you, she wants to “educate” men to eradicate the double standard. It’s never going to happen. She’s probably a woman who has not been discriminating in her own choices, and now wants everyone to accept her as having high “value.” It’s the same old sex positive argument, and it isn’t working, here or anywhere (except for feminist blogs, which you might enjoy!).

  • terre

    “Instead of assuming that the woman with mulitple sexual partners is in fact being (as the dictionary defines it) promiscuious [sic], I believe it would be far more valuable to simply state that someone has made the decision to have multiple sexual partners.”
    .
    Come on.

  • Abbot

    The pattern I pick up from some comments is that many men are bitter about being settled for after her numerous rounds with non-committing players and women enter such a relationship hurt by disappointing non-BFE encounters and she is quick to quit the deal due to depressed tolerance levels from all the crap she put up with before in addition to a sexual performance comparison palette that leaves her bored. In summary, marriage between two people like this is a huge risk that both parties would be wise not to take on.

  • http://grerp.blogspot.com grerp

    @tom
    I am about to marry an “experienced” woman. Tom, I would not marry her. If she is as hang-up free as you say, she shouldn’t need a little piece of paper.

    @Aldonza
    Generally speaking, people don’t have much of a problem telling other people what went wrong when they were the victims of bad behavior. Especially on anonymous surveys, as Clarence says.

  • terre

    “I recently finished a book on the history of AIDS, which graphically described bathhouse culture and rampant promiscuity (some victims counted thousands of partners) that was part of the disease’s early phase in the West. I knew it before, but reading the book filled me with another wave of disgust, which is exactly how I feel reading about hookups, reasonable guys and girls who can’t find love, 25-year old women who have been cored out by over 30 men, dark-gamers farming for one-night stands into the triple digits, and how awfully these sexual pawns treat both other people and themselves.”
    .
    I have a feeling that modern gay mating patterns have strongly influenced heterosexual rituals, in part because the last barrier to “consequence-free” sex was removed with the advent of birth control. Bathhouses were places where gay men would desperately indulge in the pleasures of the body that they had no outlet for in regular society. Such rampant promiscuity, however, was most assuredly not consequence-free when all was said and done, and even the diseases aside the ravaging effects it has on a soul to behave like a vessel for animal lust probably accounts for the abnormal rates of depression in gay communities.

  • tom

    That’s not a convincing argument.
    _____________
    Prove it wrong

  • tom

    I am about to marry an “experienced” woman. Tom, I would not marry her. If she is as hang-up free as you say, she shouldn’t need a little piece of paper.

    She doesnt need the paper. We have discussed it a lot. We both have been married before,and we both like being married, for a lot of reasons.

    Any other solid advice?

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    We can beat this dead horse all day, but the point is this: All else being equal, MOST men will prefer a woman with lower numbers. If young girls want to maximize their attractiveness for a LTR, they would be wise to take this information into account.

    Is being a slut morally wrong? Absolutely not. For guys, is being a spineless wimp morally wrong? Absolutely not. But rightly or wrongly, we all know guys would be wise to know that such behavior won’t maximize their relationship attractiveness to the opposite sex. Does this make girls insecure for rejecting guys for morally neutral behavior? Hell no.

    Both sides can whine all day about how it’s not fair, but that won’t change reality.

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

      @Jimmy
      Exactly right. We’re not changing any minds here. Tom bemoans the insecurity of men, but why does he care? He’s about to get married to a woman he loves. Why does he need our approbation re her sexual history?

  • tom

    Generally speaking, people don’t have much of a problem telling other people what went wrong when they were the victims of bad behavior. Especially on anonymous surveys, as Clarence says

    RIGHTTTTTTT!

    Just like men are honest about penis length on anonymous surveys…..Surveys done where the men areactually measured,come out shorter on average than the anonymous surveys.

    Most people can not even be honest with themselves

  • terre

    “Prove it wrong”
    .
    Oh please. Is this your last refuge of argument?

  • Aldonza

    @Abbot

    Is that the BFE thing I read about somewhere here? The boyfriend experience – the need to feel like its a boyfriend even if its just a fling or for one night. But really, how many men care to deliver a BFE for just a screw?

    Not quite. It’s one of these things that is hard to describe. There is nothing “boyfriend-like” about the way that a man can communicate his desire and make you light up. This isn’t about cuddling, or even about the nuances of slight “power play”. This is simple about knowing that this man wants to be with *you* and isn’t looking over your shoulder at Sally Mae to line her up for tomorrow night.

    @Grerp

    Generally speaking, people don’t have much of a problem telling other people what went wrong when they were the victims of bad behavior. Especially on anonymous surveys, as Clarence says.

    I highly doubt that the nuances of reasons for divorce will never be adequately captured on any survey. Despite what any self-proclaimed victim might say, t’s rarely as simple as “she’s a saint, he’s an asshole” or vice versa. People are people, along with their own issues, motivations and circumstances.
    .
    You seem quite intent on judging people who choose to divorce. I’m glad you have a good marriage. I didn’t. But then again, if you’d asked me 12 years into my own marriage, I’d have probably sounded pretty smug about my chances of success.
    .
    @Jimmie Hendricks

    All else being equal, MOST men will prefer a woman with lower numbers. If young girls want to maximize their attractiveness for a LTR, they would be wise to take this information into account.

    …all things are *never* equal, but I agree that it is useful information for women to know. I think it’s equally useful for women to understand the difference between “ONS value” and “LTR value” and accept that even if you’re a supermodel with porn star skills, they are not and never will be the same.

  • Abbot

    “Not quite. It’s one of these things that is hard to describe. There is nothing “boyfriend-like” about the way that a man can communicate his desire and make you light up. This isn’t about cuddling, or even about the nuances of slight “power play”. This is simple about knowing that this man wants to be with *you* and isn’t looking over your shoulder at Sally Mae to line her up for tomorrow night.”
    .
    Most likely I think the man wants to be with you is because you said “yes” and the girl has to create a delusion or drink or both to make the he-wants-to-be-with-you fantasy seem like reality. Do that enough times and its got to wear on something.

  • tom

    I agree with Jimmy

  • Abbot

    Yes Jimmy is right. Reality is not fair so there is no point whining about what you cannot change or will not change.

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: Jess
    RE: [OT] HIV Transmission Avoidance

    So rubber up for 6 months and re test. — Jess

    Wearing a condom is like frenching with a diaphragm over your mouth….to avoid transmission of herpes simplex.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Hefty Condoms...for when you pick up real trash!]

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: All
    RE: Back On-Topic: Item 6.

    Men are more cautious about marriage than ever before.

    Indeed. Having witnessed a number of divorces, two of which were first hand, a third, my first wife’s SECOND divorce—let alone all the angst one can read at Dr. Helen’s blog—I can attest in the first and second person to the truth of THAT statement.

    The ‘family [dissolution] court’ system is definitely a place that no man in his right (or left) mind wants to be a participate. Even if they are the plaintiff.

    Therefore, men are likely to think more in terms of non-marriage approaches to access to the female of the species. However, I’m confident that the attorneys who thrive on divorce, as well as the women who want what men have, e.g., money, will come up with more creative ways to get what they both want out of men….money.

    Do the terms….

    • Paternity
    • Palimony

    ….mean anything to you?

    The question is how does a girl overcome this blatantly realistic ‘fear of commitment’?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [No woman ever took a man to hell, unless he had a ticket in his pocket.]

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: All
    RE: [OT] Disagree with Jimmy

    For guys, is being a spineless wimp morally wrong? Absolutely not. — Jimmy Hendricks

    It is reprehensible for a ‘guy’ NOT to be a ‘man’ about things. Whether the feminists like it or not, men are the better ‘warriors’. They have responsibilities to uphold and defend society. And that topic is far afield from this threads, but there it is.

    Even Jimmy said Life is ‘unfair’. Indeed. I told my second daughter that within 60 seconds of her presence in this ‘venue’. Gazing into her still unfocused, bewildered eyes. But such is Life.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid.]

    P.S. My working definition of ‘stupid’ is “Ignorant and proud of it.”

  • djb

    224 comments, once again on the “numbers” issue. Most women say its because men are insecure and obsessed with being compared. Most men say its a reasonable factor in considering a LTR because a woman with a promiscuous past is more likely to cheat. This drives women mad because it is the LTR that is the scarce resource to her (it also drives men like Tom – if he is a man- mad because in the back of their mind they are afraid there is some truth to the numbers concern). This is irreconcilable, and I would suggest this blog move away from this issue. In short, a woman can have sex with 60 men and perhaps get married once or twice in her life. She’s not complaining about the lack of partners, but the lack of “committed” partners. On the other hand, men know it is harder for them to achieve a number like 60, but if they wait, ignore their deep-seated sexual psychology (or rationalize as the hypothetical man-Tom does), then they can probably end up with a woman whose had “60″ when they get older. But, then, why marry in such a situation when that bastard stud down the street didn’t have to marry the same woman to get his. Plus, there are so many women out there who want relationships when they get older that the power has shifted. Women respond with the patented insecurity response, but they know the stud gave him better or more thrilling “sex.” Men see through it. But, damn it, she wants that commitment now because of babies or whatever. This is the typical emotional cycle in this kind of argument. At root, the only solution for women is to either make sex less important in a man’s eyes (good luck with that) or hold out for commitment. But doing the latter is hard for a young woman with a lot of sexual power. So here we are. Irreconcilable.

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

      @djb
      Well said. It is irreconcilable. I suppose it’s only fair, and not particularly surprising that the discussion will come up again about a post in which I directly address the issue of women’s sexual history. This tends to be a point that I find necessary to drive home again and again to young women, for better or worse.

  • Abbot

    “This drives women mad because it is the LTR that is the scarce resource to her”
    .
    They can drive themselves less mad by not being promiscuous in the first place and demand commitment early on. It seems that you lay in the bed you make.

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: djb
    RE: This….

    At root, the only solution for women is to either make sex less important in a man’s eyes (good luck with that) or hold out for commitment. But doing the latter is hard for a young woman with a lot of sexual power. So here we are. Irreconcilable. — djb

    ….Gets Into Item #1

    Women who want relationships are constantly thwarted as their promiscuous female peers give away sexual access.

    Then maybe the younger, more sexually ‘powerful’ woman who WANTS and RECOGNIZES the importance of a committed relationship should look for older men. After all, Item #5 (above) indicates….

    Men become more relationship-oriented as they age.

    Not a bad idea. Especially if the man is well-established in a career.

    Does this correlate with the recent reports of women marrying for {HORROR!} money?

    What WILL the feminists think? Three guesses….first two don’t count….

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Is it better for women to marry as young as possible and for men to marry as late as possible?]

  • Abbot

    “All else being equal, MOST men will prefer a woman with lower numbers. If young girls want to maximize their attractiveness for a LTR, they would be wise to take this information into account.”
    .
    There is something else going on here: friendship. Think about it. When a bunch of guys are friends with each other, they tend to have a high level of commonality including luck with women. Its sort of rare to see men from the so-called 80% being close with guys from the 20%. When choosing a long term woman, you would think that guys want the friendship to have as much commonality as possible. So do the women. But in the West it is more difficult to have sexual exposure commonality as women on average have more sex exposure. By the time women realize that this commonality will be very difficult to achieve, they dismisses it as unimportant.

  • Chuck Pelto

    P.S. Wasn’t THIS younger women/older men thing going on long ago? Why do you think there is so much mention of ‘widows’ in that Old Book. Was it because teenage women were married to 30-something men who had established themselves in the community to the point they could raise a family?

  • Abbot

    “She’s probably a woman who has not been discriminating in her own choices, and now wants everyone to accept her as having high “value.” It’s the same old sex positive argument”
    .
    Is this not defining your morality by claiming that certain behaviors are moral since you engaged in those behaviors? Its begging and pleading disguised as an argument. Very few if any discriminating women would find it necessary to make an argument in defense of their behavior or educate men to eradicate the double standard. Why is it always promiscuous women wagging the flag?

  • http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/ slumlord.

    Jess

    I imagine a virgin bride is more likely to be religeous and maybe hoorified at the thought of divorce so putting up with years of servitude and loneliness.

    I deal with a lot of divorced women Jess. In my experience divorce is a disaster for such women despite all the ramblings of the men’s rights advocates. Most of them are poor and lonely and have a hard time with life. Repeated studies have shown that religious married couple are statistically more likely to be happier and have more active sex lives than singles. (The Sex in America Survey, University of Chicago, widely regard as the best and methodically sound study ).

    There are traditional couples that aren’t happy, but in my experience, the more “alternative” couples are the ones with the most issues. In the end it’s about playing the odds, and the odds overwhelmingly favour traditional marriage. Lots of drunk drivers make it home without killing themselves or others, but does not mean drunk driving should be the norm.

    Divorce is a disaster for everyone, especially the kids. The legitimisation of divorce was based on the humane idea of liberating people from intolerable personal situations, Now, after nearly four decades of no fault divorce, can you honestly say that people’s marriages and society are happier than in the past? Methinks not. You don’t need a scientific study, look around you. Family life has become Hobbsian. Sure, there are some exceptions, which proponents of divorce wave about as if they were the norm, but by and large, for a woman, divorce is the sure fire vehicle to poverty and depression. Fred Reed gives the most realistic picture of it ever.

    The traditional marriage is boring/stifling/abusive trope is an enabling fantasy, allowing the rationalisation hamster to justify divorce. Yeah, some marriages suck, but traditional marriage is the way to bet.

    Polyamorous societies fail because sexual jealousy consumes them. Sex and possession are linked, no matter how many men and some women would wish otherwise. The aversion to sluts is not based just on the envy of their sexual history or experience, its rather, that the slutty potential mate has a low emotional threshold for spreading her legs. Past behaviour is generally a good indicator of future behaviour, and no man or woman wants to be cheated on.

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: All
    RE: An Epiphany, Anyone?

    Why, after reviewing this thread of comments for the seventh time, I come to the idea that all most here are doing is merely, the proverbial….

    ….discussing the re-arrangment of the deck chairs on the Titanic?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [This generation can discern the signs of the season, but they cannot discern the signs of the Times. -- some Wag, about 2000 years ago]

  • Chuck Pelto

    P.S. Some ‘bright spots’ recognize that this ‘boat’ is ‘sinking’. Few. But some.

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: Slumlord, et al.
    RE: Think of the Children

    Polyamorous societies fail because sexual jealousy consumes them. — Slumlord

    They also fail because the children are not brought up with the essentials to ‘carry on’ the society that brought them into being.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [You know you were a good parent, if your grand-children turn out alright.]

    P.S. Look at Europe. The demographics are VERY telling…..

  • The Deuce

    tom:
    .
    Alright buddy, time for some tough love.
    .
    It all makes sense now! I was convinced you were secretly a female slut trying to pose as a man because you thought it would give your slut-rationalizations more credibility. But instead, you’re a thoroughly feminized, out-of-touch free-love hipster offering slut-rationalizations on behalf of a slut, in order to rationalize your decision to marry her.
    .
    I guess some guys just have to learn the hard way. Praytell, how old is this woman? If she’s already over 40, there’s a slim chance that she won’t cheat on you.

    I am about to marry an “experienced” woman..One thing she said to me that stil has my ears tingling…. She said, “what makes you so special to me,is you love me for me,and not for what I can do for you sexually”

    In other words, she had a lot of exciting hot sex with hot studs in her past – way better than she expects to get with you – but she’s aging and was getting desperate that she wouldn’t be able to find a cuddly, clueless, pedestalizing older teddy bear to stick with the baggage and help her to have her cake and eat it too, and she’s grateful that you not only are willing to play that role, but are (she thinks) totally okay with neither being able to give or receive the mind-blowing sex she had with those guys. And hearing this makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

    Like you said, I have been well rewarded. She has been a model girlfriend for over a year.

    You’ve known her a whole year and she hasn’t ridden another dick during your engagement as far as you know?! Touche, sir, you have proven this woman’s loyalty, and I hang my head in shame (sarcasm doesn’t always come across on the Internet, so that was sarcasm, just to be clear).

    She has no sexual hangups,a high libido,

    no deep-seated problems with promiscuity or cheating, combined with a strong desire for sex…

    great corporate job,

    sees good-looking, high status men that aren’t you every day…

    great mom,funny and intelligent.

    got knocked up by one or more of those previous studs, now you get to support their kid(s) for them…

    What else could a man want?……Some might say a woman who has had less sexual experience…….I disagree

    oh yeah,we met and it was supposed to be a one night stand……..

    Oh, well THAT should give you confidence!

  • Höllenhund

    I will LOL hard when tom gets his ass handed to him in divorce court.

  • http://grerp.blogspot.com grerp

    @Aldonza
    You seem quite intent on judging people who choose to divorce.

    No, I am judging divorce – as being catastrophic for society in general – bad for men, bad for women, horrible for children. The economics of divorce alone are enough to collapse society. Wonder why we have so many more women and children in poverty now and seem to need so many more social programs to help keep them afloat? Wonder no more. Rising poverty, crime, illiteracy, promiscuity, child abuse and molestation all are consequences of divorce gone viral.

    Given that I believe this about divorce, when I hear someone is divorcing my first reaction is to wonder if what they get out of calling it quits is worth the social consequences we all have to bear from one more divorce. Even the friendliest, child-free divorce is still a battering ram on marriage in general as it reinforces divorce as an option for everyone else.

  • http://grerp.blogspot.com grerp

    Just like men are honest about penis length on anonymous surveys…..Surveys done where the men areactually measured,come out shorter on average than the anonymous surveys.
    Most people can not even be honest with themselves

    Men exaggerating penis length are doing so to salve their own egos. Clarence is saying his survey indicates that women report leaving marriages for reasons other than “I was a victim” – which means that they are admitting to choosing divorce themselves – not an ego salve, an admission.

  • http://nothing.com T-money

    Wow I can barely keep up with this!

    @Susan
    “Because I do hear from women that their slutty friends have nabbed a great guy to marry.”

    Really? Maybe these guys aren’t so ‘great’. Perhaps they are simply ‘attractive’ because they are losers. I look at some slutty girls that I have grown up with and they are now engaged or married to complete morons who have no future. They are turning into nice guys, but are SOOOOOO far behind the rest of us guys as far as career/wisdom/responsibility.

    Can you give some examples? I would like to see what you’re seeing here. It’s not that I don’t believe you – it’s just that I have no anecdotal evidence.

    @Aldozna

    ” Even in more casual sex circumstances, they want to feel that they’re just more than a body to masturbate into. It’s less to do with spending money or shit tests and more to do with just showing her that you want *her*…not just a lay. And for the man who shows that he desires her, and isn’t afraid of the results of that desire…he is well-rewarded.”

    Maybe this explains why women prefer men when we’re drunk? It is extremely easy to have sex (even with a sober girl) when you are drunk and don’t care. But what women aren’t realizing is that we really DONT care when we are drunk. We see women as pieces of meat and can be easily angered/frustrated when their personality gets in the way. For this reason I wish women DIDN’T come after me when I was drunk, even though I love getting laid and will continue to drink. It sort of hurts that women like the impartial, uncaring side of me rather than the real, loving, person that I am when I’m sober.

    Sort of reminds me of something a cop said: “You’ll never meet a hardened criminal with girl problems”. Women like the evil, they like the shadiness. It excites them.

    After my ex dumped me to bang frat guys in college, I began to transform into a grinning, uncaring, wolf. I wanted to get my number as high as possible. Two years later (and alot of personality changes) I am finally reaping the reward; but I feel really dirty. I started my life as a self-centered bitchy teenager who got alot of girls, became nice, now I’m becoming self-centered again. It’s like I’m reacting as needed to get sex.

    @The women complaining about what they do and don’t want in a married man

    Sorry, this conversation is about men and their needs and their psyche. 99% of discussions involve only women’s feeling and desires. Finally we have a discussion about what men want, and you keep interjecting about what YOU want. This is not the topic at hand.

    Yes, no man wants to marry a woman who is more experienced than him. Yes, men are going to judge you and you need to impress and prove to them that you are a good girl if you want a ring. Sorry, you got to choose sex, but cannot choose marriage. I personally think women get the better choice, because they can always twist sex into a relationship and then marriage. You can’t go through life expecting men to have to jump through your hurdles in every single aspect of relationships. We get to choose who we hand a ring to (woman have the choice to, but tend to lean towards “yes” just as men do towards sex) – quit acting like it makes us rude for choosing wisely on the one little tiny thing we get to decide on.

  • Jess

    Grerp,
    Whilst I agree on the penis thing I would not totally agree with you on divorce.
    Most people, especially women, hate the idea of divorce and go out of their way to avoid it.
    Why?
    It’s expensive
    It’s traumatic
    It causes family and friends to judge you
    It hurts kids
    Its inconvenient
    .
    So if someone divorces it’s because they are really unhappy.
    The reason divorce used to be Rare isnt due to them being happier. It’s becuase they couldn’t escape. In the same way gays had to hide. Not a good situation.
    .
    Deuce,
    Are you saying women should not work in case they meet men?

  • rend

    Jess, divorce is not generally expensive for women.

  • Reinholt

    What the fuck?

    As a Wall St. trader, I demand you take back your vicious insult comparing us to women on dates! Even with our public perception being somewhere between pond scum and politicians, I will not stand for such slander.

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

      Haha, Reinholt, good to see you, it’s been awhile! I want you to know that I don’t think there’s anything better than a Wall St. trader – on the trading floor. Seriously, women sometimes talk about how they have a hard time transitioning from hard-charging at the office to personable and feminine over dinner. And those are the ones with self-awareness. In my view, this is a major problem area for successful career women – learning to compartmentalize is essential if one wants a love life.

  • The Deuce

    Good Lord, some peoples’ capacity for rationalization is absolutely infinite. Clarence shows statistics demonstrating the large number of women who admit to divorcing for frivolous reasons, and tom decides that the women are lying to deliberately make themselves look worse (and somehow sees this cockamamie idea as analogous to men lying about penis length)?! Meanwhile, jess insists that women simply don’t divorce for frivolous reasons, because, well, because she just thinks it would be traumatic for them and so she’s sure they don’t do it, regardless of what the statistics say. This is what you call invincible ignorance – a false belief held so dogmatically that no contrary proof can dissuade it. *Any* rationalization will do to maintain it, no matter how illogical.

  • The Deuce

    jess:
    Are you saying women should not work in case they meet men?

    No, I’m merely pointing out how every single one of the items tom has presented to persuade us that marrying a slut is a good idea is actually factor that makes her cheating on him more likely. The picture he has painted is pretty much the exact Roissyesque archetype of the slutty career woman with kids from her days screwing alphas trying to hook an oblivious beta before she hits the wall. Seriously, everything is there. I’m not even sure how he could improve on it.

  • Jess

    Well, I don’t actually associate myself with the sex pos crowd per se.
    I’m not particularly well versed In marcotte or roissey.
    .
    For women I have spoken to about divorce it wasn’t for frivolous reasons.
    It was stuff like:
    Domestic violence
    Male infidelity
    Extreme character clash
    Sexual incompatibility
    Emotional neglect.
    .
    I expect some people will agree the 1st 2 are serious and the others less so.
    But what if your husband hasn’t uttered a word to you in 3 years? Just put up with it?
    What if you cannot stand the sight of each other? And counselling didn’t work?
    .
    With the exception of gold diggers, divorce is horrible for all.
    .
    Deuce,
    I’m not making many assertions about patterns really. I’m happy to follow the data.
    I’m entitled to express my opinions and experiences.
    .
    As I said I don’t know of any experienced women who couldn’t get a guy.
    Clearly I’m not alone in that.

  • Aldonza

    Repeated studies have shown that religious married couple are statistically more likely to be happier and have more active sex lives than singles. (The Sex in America Survey, University of Chicago, widely regard as the best and methodically sound study ).

    Would that be the same book that said that the *median* number of sexual partners for women was…2?
    .

    Wonder why we have so many more women and children in poverty now and seem to need so many more social programs to help keep them afloat? Wonder no more. Rising poverty, crime, illiteracy, promiscuity, child abuse and molestation all are consequences of divorce gone viral.

    Damn women…ruining things for everybody. If only they’d keep their legs shut, stay married, stay home and raise the chillun’s everything would be nirvana.
    .
    I won’t argue that divorce is a good thing. It isn’t. But it isn’t as simple as “women get bored and leave their husbands…ergo society goes downhill.”
    .

    Jess, divorce is not generally expensive for women.

    Citation please? Everything I’ve read, including the adjusted studies say that women’s standard of living declines from 15-40% after divorce, while men’s increases 5-20%. For every story about a man who was taken to cleaners, I can provide ten from women who are financially strapped as single mothers without financial support and inadequate social programs.
    .
    Women in aggregate do *not* choose divorce lightly and almost never for financial gains.
    .

    Clarence shows statistics demonstrating the large number of women who admit to divorcing for frivolous reasons

    Clarence never posted those studies. I’m still waiting. He did post links to another blog talking about the same tired Heritage Foundation paper (not study).
    .
    I’d still be interested in seeing the links to the studies Clarence mentioned.

  • rend

    “I won’t argue that divorce is a good thing. It isn’t. But it isn’t as simple as “women get bored and leave their husbands…ergo society goes downhill.””
    .
    So what else is it? With a ~50% divorce rate, you honestly believe all these dissolutions are justified? Even when there’s kids involved?

  • rend

    “No, I’m merely pointing out how every single one of the items tom has presented to persuade us that marrying a slut is a good idea is actually factor that makes her cheating on him more likely. The picture he has painted is pretty much the exact Roissyesque archetype of the slutty career woman with kids from her days screwing alphas trying to hook an oblivious beta before she hits the wall. Seriously, everything is there. I’m not even sure how he could improve on it.”
    .
    I don’t see why you’d backtrack on her assertion. I wouldn’t be happy at all with a wife who worked with strange men for hours a day (not that I have any intention of getting married).

  • The Deuce

    Clarence never posted those studies. I’m still waiting.

    I’ll do it for him then. Here’s dalrock’s entry on it:
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/stats-on-the-reasons-for-divorce/

  • The Deuce

    rend:

    So what else is it? With a ~50% divorce rate, you honestly believe all these dissolutions are justified? Even when there’s kids involved?

    The ticket is that in Jess’ list of “non-frivolous” list of reasons for divorce, only two of them (violence and infidelity) are objective, straightforward violations of the marriage vow on the part of the man and therefore legitimate grounds for spousal abandonment on the part of the woman (and, as you probably know, the definition of “domestic violence” is itself frequently stretched beyond recognizeability and abused in order to use it as an excuse). The other three (character clash, sexual incompatibility, and emotional neglect) are subjective and broad enough to drive a semi through.

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: All
    RE: An Addendum….

    ….to my January 6, 2011 at 8:44 pm comment to Slumlord. It relates to the proper raising of children in order to prevent a society from falling into ruin.

    Some foolish woman once wrote a book titled, It Takes a Village. The premise was that we needed a ‘village’ approach to raising a child.

    I, and a growing body of evidence, think differently. Rather than a ‘village’ to raise a child, it takes a LTM-WR. First to conceive the child and then to raise it showing it a good example.

    In this era of NSA ‘gaming’, that’s ‘problematic’, considering the resources—time, money, attention—to raise a child properly. Indeed. the selfishness of all too many women when they realize they’re in (1) ‘trouble’ and (2) have no prospect of help are terminating, i.e., murdering, their unborn children. A report today says that in NYC 39% of all pregnancies end in murder.

    Folks….NYC is the BIGGEST ‘village’ we’ve got. And if THEY can’t raise a child, the premise of the ‘village’ is obviously fouled up.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [You know you were a good parent, if your grand-children turn out alright.]

  • Clarence

    Aldonza:

    A. You never asked for those studies
    B. I don’t know if you are deliberately lying or not. But Teachman’s STUDY is NOT the Heritage Foundation paper that started the whole series of “defining slut” posts. Of course I noted you superficially looked at the Heritage paper over on a feminist blog when all this stuff first came out. Having assumed you found the answer you wanted quickly, you forgot about it as one is inclined to do with information that challenges their world view.

    Meanwhile me and TSP and many others were looking at The National Survey of Family Growth to see if Heritage had misused the data , and TSP was busy going over the numbers and received criticisms in a series of posts at his blog. It was in this much longer series of posts (posts I’m convinced you’ve never read) that he discovered the paper in the first link I posted above.

    You see, to me to this stuff is of possibly life altering importance, so it was important for me to get it right and I spent considerable time doing so as well as throwing this information out to all and sundry to try and see if it could hold up to evaluation. So far it has.

  • Clarence

    @TheDeuce:

    WIN for your whole comment at 1:45pm.

    It’s easy to set up a police state when the police can be called in to break up a family over incidents as small as doors being slammed or names being called.

    Oh well, when people get what they wish for, they often find it isn’t all they thought it would be.

  • Clarence

    Here’s a link on the Dalrock page to another study that deals with why women initiate most divorces.
    http://www.unc.edu/courses/2006fall/econ/586/001/Readings/Brinig.pdf

    It’s conclusion? Child custody and the control of the children (and to an extent the Ex’s life) that goes with it is often a big factor.

    It buys into the “women lose out in divorce to men financially” meme as well, using studies from the late 80′s up to the year 1994. Convenient, since massive changes were brought in by the Clinton administration in 1995 and 1996. I certainly doubt it’s normal for it to be that way these days, more to the point both men and women tend to lose out financially in the event of the divorce unless either one of them is a sole breadwinner or one or both of them is rich. For most divorces, the only real financial winners are the lawyers.

  • rend

    Whenever a woman says, “Well, why should I have to be tied to a partner I’m not attracted to?” my reply is: you shouldn’t have gotten married in the first place. The proper recourse is not to dissolve the binding principle behind marriage. If you can leave a marriage at any time purely because you’re bored or unhappy in the abstract or you have “lifestyle differences”, there’s nothing left to distinguish marriage from “relationships” and the entire concept of marriage is pointless.

  • Pingback: Friday Special: Links We LOVE This Week! | CollegeCures.com

  • Höllenhund

    Would that be the same book that said that the *median* number of sexual partners for women was…2?

    I don’t see how that disproves anything that was said here. 50% of women SAY they had two or less sex partners. Yeah, ok.

  • Anonymous

    Duce you know nothing about me or my lady. I do know you are the typical insecure ass…..hole who thinks he has it all figured out.
    Funny , you can make those type of hateful statements without even coming close to any of the facts.
    She was single only 3 years
    I am what you call an Alpha male. I am one of the best athletes in my age group. I can still bench 340 lbs, and have a 9% body fat. I am an ex college athlete. Too bad you sir are probably an aging fat lazy type, who couldnt get a date, let alone get laid.
    I am mature enough to understand there is a lot more to a woman than her past sex life. Most men either have ego problems or are so insecure they cant phatom their woman “knowing” someone else. Biology directs both of those assumptions. With age comes wisdom, and you , you fat moron, have neither.
    For the record I am not saying ALL women, promiscuous or not are good relationship material (same goes for men). But I am willing to get to know someone before passing judgement. Which is a MATURE thing to do. Unlike you sissy boys who dont want the women to know you have a small dick, cum in 30 seconds flat, and cant even get it up if you think you are being compared to someone else..
    Duce How did I do, isnt that you?

  • http://www.collegecures.com Annie

    We absolutely love this article and think it’s great! We added it to our “Links We Love” section of our site this week! Check it out here:

    http://collegecures.com/2011/friday-special-links-we-love-this-week/

    Keep up the great work, we’ll be back soon :)

  • tom

    Why did my last comments to Duce show me as anonymous?

    The one thing your studies do not take into consideration is the human factor as to why a woman slept around,and how choosy she was,and how careful she was . Getting to know her is a way of evaluating her as relationship material……

    Too bad Clowns like Duce, and a few of the others can not see there is a difference
    I will agree, many promiscuous women may be prone to cheat…..I never denied that. However, the stats shown up above, show that not all promiscuous women cheat which substantiates my position of the evaluation process.

    Being a man,and I am one, I know how men think. Your aveage man on the street is not familiar with any stats about how an experienced woman might be more apt to cheat. Most of them do not want such a woman BECAUSE of her experience,not because she might cheat.
    But it`s ok,keep thinking like a boy, and bypass the women, who after one evaluates them ,finds a wonderfu woman…
    Oh and Duce,most casual sex is not as “hot” as you would love to think it is. But you wouldnt know would you?…..lol (Susan has stats on that too)

  • tom

    @ rend

    Easy to say,unless you have been in a very unhappy marriage. Surely you do not think a person who is THAT unhappy,should stay for the next 40 years?……People change, and lots of times it is not for the better

  • rend

    “Easy to say,unless you have been in a very unhappy marriage. Surely you do not think a person who is THAT unhappy,should stay for the next 40 years?……People change, and lots of times it is not for the better”
    .
    I don’t care; it’s not the point. The solution is not to destroy the meaning of marriage. As I said, it’s pure pragmatic; if marriage is indistinguishable from a “relationship”, why bother marrying?

  • The Deuce

    She was single only 3 years

    So she racked up a big notch count in only three years, or was some of it while she wasn’t single? Speaking of which, this lady isn’t divorced, is she?

    Biology directs both of those assumptions.

    So if biology itself directs men to think that sluts are likely to cheat, what does that tell you? Or is the obvious conclusion too “immature”?

    Duce How did I do, isnt that you?

    Heh, I’m in Susan’s Facebook list. Ask her.

    Anyhow, I’m not mad at you, just trying to deflate the slut-rationalizations you’ve given us with a bit of reality. It’s your funer- I mean life!

  • rend

    pragmatics*

  • Höllenhund

    It’s worth citing an older comment from this site:

    In more contemporary analyses, however, we still see the rather disingenuous statements thrown out there about women faring less well financially after divorce than men do. This is mostly due to (1) women winning full custody, which restricts their ability to work the same number of hours (and women generally seem to want full custody, so it’s more than disingenuous, if not unexpected, to turn around and then complain about the financial impact of having “won” what you were fighting for in the first place) and (2) not taking cs transfer payments into account (i.e., treating them as the tax law does — income of the payor spouse and not income of the payee spouse, meaning that the “counted” cash on hand for the purposes of these analyses between the spouses gets rather distorted from what it actually is).

    Read the rest here:

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/10/05/hookinguprealities/college-math-slut-lush-slush/#comment-19717

  • rend

    It’s also worth nothing that both child support and alimony is usually entirely tax-free. I can think of seldom few other forms of “income” that are treated in such a way.

  • rend

    No-fault divorce as a remedy for people in “unhappy” marriages to me is like sex education/giving birth control to one’s teenage daughter. You don’t push the solution for a problem that isn’t there and then act surprised when the problem develops.

  • Reinholt

    That is true of any profession that suffers from that curse, however. Lawyer is another good example. With that said, I do agree this is one of the drawbacks of being a serious career woman: you tend to drive off quality men because you are a huge pain in the ass to deal with outside of work, and to be blunt, guys who have their act together, are responsible, functional, ambitious, capable human beings usually have options.

    Which don’t need to include having to feel like they are at work when on a date.

    So I’m sympathetic to the fact that if you train yourself to do that, it’s hard to turn it “off”. I mean, I’d be unbearable as a woman, I’m sure, as I’m competitive, assertive, and outspoken even by male standards (probably how I ended up in the job I am in).

    My main piece of advice would be, from when you start the job, you need to make an effort to have a life outside of it. If you throw yourself into your career and let it consume you, you will always become the thing that you do… parallels of the Nietzsche quote about battling monsters and all.

  • http://brightstormyday.wordpress.com Mandy! XD

    “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.”

    If this is the same study I learned in my behavior class, it’s outdated and was done incorrectly.

    The more realistic estimate is 3%.

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

      @Mandy
      I wasn’t citing a specific study there – it’s just a number I’ve seen referenced repeatedly. I do recall reading that no one has a really good handle on this number, b/c without paternity testing it’s all guesswork, and few women would own up to the possibility. You may be right that it’s much lower – I don’t know. In any case, there are numerous other studies about cheating. One article I saw recently said that 20% of men cheat vs. 15% of women, but the female number is rising.

  • Abbot

    I re-read some of the above and noted random comments here and there. There remains some perplexity.
    .
    It seems confirmed that men do not care or care very little about a womans’ so-called experience when its just about a quick bout of sex or a weekend or some such event. That means a man does not care about a woman’s experience, even if its clearly obvious and well known by him. But that does not mean he does not place value on sex. So to say men are insecure about a woman who may compare or is disgusted by her behavior because she does it willy nilly is a contradiction. I do not think this manner of thinking has anything to do with the “sex revolution” and has been going on for many many years.
    ,
    But therein lies the possible source for what happens later on. If a man participates in such quick sex as women will allow in combination with observation of it happening all around him for years – women allowing sex with multiple men, it is unsurprising that opinions develop about the women engaging in such activity. That is, they are viewed as people who place relatively less value on becoming naked and engaging in a very close intimate act because if they placed a higher value on it, they would treat it as such. The men conclude that is just fine and its nobody’s business that the women allow this and that is true. But, it is not a group of women from which to select a wife. In their minds, a woman who desires marriage is not one who has allowed men to intimately take her down on a whim and especially numerous times as that it just how she is. So the man seeks the so-called “wife material” and that includes many attributes, sex past only one of them but an important one.
    .
    But really, who cares and why does all this matter? It may matter because women now are worried. The men do not seem to be worried because if they are not lazy, they can easily find women who did not allow such activity. The real difference between men and women regarding this subject is singular – its the value placed on sex. If Western women had an equal or higher value of sex then men, this website may not exist and women would be marrying before the age of 25 like they do in nearly every town on Earth. But alas, they do not attach value to it and they probably have not for the past 45 years because there is no reason for this value in their minds and they HATE when men place a value on it. But men do. And its not because they are insecure. It because of what they have witnessed.

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

      @Abbot
      That’s a very logical summary of the sex differences re the value of sex, and correctly ties in how the Sexual Revolution changed women’s priorities, but not men’s.

  • Badger Nation

    “I have a feeling that modern gay mating patterns have strongly influenced heterosexual rituals, in part because the last barrier to “consequence-free” sex was removed with the advent of birth control.”
    .
    I actually believe it went in the other way for the most part. As straight people became more comfortable with public flaunting of sexual mores, gay sexual liberation and being “out” became more acceptable.
    .
    Since I came up in the safe-sex era, it’s taken a lot of research and reading for me to figure out how wild the post-pill fast-lane 70′s really were. Didn’t one-night stands go mainstream in the 70′s? Now that’s something that may have leaked into the straight world from the gay one, probably because social pressures had long influenced gays away from relationships and into “rough trade” types of “accidental” sex (which is also what played out in the bathhouses).

  • terre

    The fact that men don’t want to marry the town bike isn’t even peculiar to their being male; it’s entirely incidental, leaving aside the added paternity worries. Just put yourself in a man’s shoes: would you want to “pay” (figuratively or literally) for what others took and left for free? How would you even keep a straight face by marrying such a person?

  • TWR

    Here are some additional notes for you:

    1. 20% of the men get 80% of the sex.

    Absolutely true, though some will debate the percentage of men there. 20% may be optimistic. It may be something like 10% or 15%. Generally, these are the best-looking men, and the most rich men in that order. Rich men who are also not good looking need to beware.

    The rest of the men are left “begging for scraps” if you will. Many can get girlfriends or one-night-stands here or there, but it takes a lot of effort and there’s a lot of rejection for the guys who fall into this category.

    It’s like this. Normally men display, women choose. This is inverted for the top 10-20% of men, who basically get to choose! What happens is a sort of soft polygyny. Virtual harems. The women who opt into these harems do not often know about each other. Many who are successful have 3 or 4 women they visit regularly and try to keep at least that many, and many of the women don’t even know it. This is also why women complain about the “assholes who won’t call back.” Pretty funny, isn’t it?

    At the bottom of the male hierarchy is the abyss. Some 10-25% of men will either never get sex or will go years and years between getting any. These are the “involuntary celibates” and so on. People like that guy who shot up a gym, George Sodini. This is walking death for a man.

    4. Men care about your sexual history.

    Yes, we do. But what might surprise you is how few sexual partners can statistically ruin a woman in a man’s eyes. The desire for a woman who is a virgin or has had few sexual partners has basis in reality and is not merely unrealistic fantasy.

    Peep this:

    http://imgur.com/0qOZ2.jpg

    Even 5 prior sexual partners before marriage drops the rate of a marriage staying together for 10 years to below 30%. This is why men are very wary of marrying sluts.

    Given divorce laws, paternity fraud (cuckolding) and a host of other problems that will seriously fuck a man’s life to which he has no redress under the current legal system which is blatantly anti-male, it’s not worth the gamble to marry a woman with a high number of partners. The “I won’t measure up to previous partners” fear is part of this, of course. It raises the chance she’ll cheat if you don’t measure up to one of the best partners she’s had.

    As an additional note, the guy’s who weren’t lucky in the teens and 20s are becoming very wary. More and more of them are becoming wise to what it means what women suddenly and mysteriously start giving them the time of day that they didn’t before.

    Many women are now marrying men to subsidize her to have her babies. Yes, her babies. These men aren’t always rich men because even women know the supply of rich men is quite low. Lots of these women are cheating on these men they marry. Many of these women don’t seem to care that these babies also belong to the man they married. The Maury Show is a microcosm of what’s happening in society. It is AT least 10% children born who are not fathered by the man who think he is the father. DNA testing laborities say 25-33%– yes, up to a full third. This is an unacceptable risk to many men who will not only have any legal recourse against it but many times be forced to actually pay for these bastard children that aren’t theirs via the “justice” system.

    You have to understand that as more women have more sexual partners, what will happen is not that men will “settle for them” but many men will refuse to marry altogether, especially as more men learn these statistical facts. This is what is happening now. Never-married rates are their highest and marriage rates are getting lower every year.

    My conclusion is that one has to believe that those who created the social controls on sexuality in times past knew these things to some extent. Feral female sexuality as we see today does not keep societies going. It’s not going to work in the long run. Too many males will opt out and/or become non-producers because they are being excluded and/or duped.

    As for the argument that “men have always enjoyed casual sex” — No. This never happened. If men were having sex, women were having sex. Unless you somehow believe that there were cadres of super horny nymphomaniacs servicing large numbers of men. Which there weren’t.

    Polygamy did happen but what happens with polygamy is that some men are excluded altogether. Again, not a very good argument at all.

    Let me quote something for you to sort of put this in perspective and show you that historically, a lot of men didn’t get much sex at all:

    http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

    Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women?

    It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes, every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children.

    Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

    I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

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

      @TWR
      Great info there, thanks. Also, I’ve read numerous studies by Roy Baumeister, but that link to a speech by him is really good. I’ve clipped it for future reference.

  • Jess

    Rend,
    Are you sure about the tax free thing?
    In that alimony is/isn’t exempt but surely before alimony can be paid it has to be earned?
    It’s been taxed once already at source hasn’t it?
    J

  • terre

    “It’s been taxed once already at source hasn’t it?”
    .
    God, you make me laugh Jess.

  • Jess

    I applaud your mockery sir. Nicely done.
    I ask because in the uk any support payments would be from the guys net income ie post tax.
    .
    I suppose you could consider it as income to the woman so liable for a secondary tax and given the IRS’s international reputation for vigour perhaps it is a surprise.

  • terre

    Jess, that’s why I found it unbelievably amusing. I said that alimony is tax-free, and you said “well the man has to pay tax, doesn’t he?” Of course he does. That’s my point.

  • Jess

    But terre,
    That pre-supposes the IRS has its talons out for the male only.
    But it doesn’t, it has its talons out for the breadwinner.
    .
    If a couple isn’t divorced any money the breadwinner makes comes to her and the family after one tax only.
    .
    When divorced alimoney ensures that cash stream and I guess there is no reason why the taxman gets to have a 2nd bite of the cherry.
    .
    If you did tax alimony the judge would simply increase the payments so the women and children didn’t suffer.
    .
    Same for welfare payments. If you taxed those at 20% they would simply bump up the payment to 20% so the people didn’t suffer and net payments stayed roughly constant.

  • Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: It Will Never End Edition

  • Willy

    Congrats Susan, this is the best relationship post on the net. You “get it”.

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

      @Willy
      Thank you, come by again :)

  • Badger Nation

    One final item for the list might be “de gustibus,” or “there’s no accounting for taste.” A woman (or man) can do everything right, good match, no red flags, no problems and the other might decide they just don’t want to be with that person. The reasons are often inscrutable even to the dumper, it’s part of our not-fully-rational psychology.
    .
    Many people (women especially as evidenced by revenge fantasies) don’t take well to someone saying they just don’t want to be with them. But the freedom to get dumped is the same freedom that allows you to dump someone YOU don’t want to be with; you aren’t entitled to anyone else’s essence, so you have to take the good with the bad.

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

      Many people (women especially as evidenced by revenge fantasies) don’t take well to someone saying they just don’t want to be with them.

      This is where a lot of time gets wasted on the hamster wheel. Women will say they “want closure,” when what they really mean is that they won’t leave it alone until they are given a reason they find acceptable. Of course, there is no reason they will find acceptable. One young woman told me that a guy dumped her, and one of the reasons he gave is that she didn’t have enough extracurricular activities. We all laughed heartily about this, but it’s possible he was racking his brain for something – anything – that would end the conversation. :(

  • Abbot

    Well just to add to that summary. I think in the past, say before this sex revolt, most men did not think about a potential wife’s sex past. There was no need too really even if she was promiscuous there was no suspicion of it. Men today are just “shell shocked” by what they have seen for many years and all those TV shows where woman just hop in the sack. Of course women are affected by those shows too and expect that everyone is just accepting this in realty as well. Men do accept it just fine BUT they do not view those women whether in reality or on TV as someone they would marry. Men are not insecure about it…but are choosey when it comes to a wife because they want her to be above that behavior, because he is bringing her home to mom, as it were. Its not about sex exactly but it about living a certain life and you cannot blame someone for evaluating a person’s way of living and the overall use of sexual power and the treatment or view of intimate acts. The men believe there is a significant number of women who do not participate in that permissive culture and because they have that choice or at least believe they do, they choose to employ it. Just because most women do not hold men to that same standard does not mean that it is unacceptable for men to have that standard. If there is blame, it should be placed on how women display themselves and display their behavior and on the media too. The message being delivered is that women are engaging in this behavior but there is no alternate message that helps men decipher what is best for him in terms of a life mate. Can you imagine if there was a TV show plot where groups of men decide to seek wives outside the hookup pool? The storm of protest would rain down so hard that the TV network would run and hide. Guess who would be protesting?

  • TWR

    I honestly believe that if many men knew the scientific realities about paternity rates alone there would be major noise about it.
    .
    This info is NOT mainstream at all. Not even close. Unpolitically-correct truths don’t get airtime.

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

      @TWR

      I honestly believe that if many men knew the scientific realities about paternity rates alone there would be major noise about it

      I support the right of any men to see the results of a paternity test upon the birth of his child. I don’t know if you saw the story last week, but a woman in Poland gave birth to twins. Wanting to leave her husband for her lover, she ordered a paternity test to prove to her husband that the babies were the lover’s. It turned out that each of the men had fathered one of the twins. She had had sex with each during the same ovulation. This is only the seventh known case of this occurrence.

  • Abbot

    Simply based on the mathematics of probability its a near certainty that paternity fraud numbers will rise among circles of promiscuous women. Choose wisely…make your mom proud.

  • TWR

    Don’t choose wisely, get paternity tests!
    .
    As Ronald Reagan once said: Trust, but verify.

  • terre

    “When divorced alimoney ensures that cash stream and I guess there is no reason why the taxman gets to have a 2nd bite of the cherry.”
    .
    As I said, I’m absolutely certain women see no reason why it should be taxed twice, since they’d finally be paying any tax at all (on money they didn’t earn in the first place).

  • Fresco

    If I was married, which I’m not, this is how the whole, promiscuous women thing would seem to me.

    I’m married. I work to support a woman. I put in the work of raising kids. I spend time doing married stuff, like visiting in-laws, that I don’t want to. I listen to a lot of complaints. I’m responsible for all her problems. And honestly, she’s not as hot as I originally thought, not anymore. So whenever she reminisces about her crazy flings with some dude who didn’t have to do all this stuff to have sex with her, I ask myself – why couldn’t I have been that guy.

    Maybe it’s just a question of courtesy. If she doesn’t say anything about her slutty past, it might not be an issue. If she insists on being open and *real* she’s just rubbing the dude’s face in it and the lack of respect in itself would be a problem.

    I don’t know how true it is, but supposedly women like womanizers. They want to snag the guy all the girls were trying to get. Being a *slut* works for, say, George Clooney. So maybe the girls George gets with like it when he talks about the beautiful women he has had sex with before.

    It doesn’t work the other way around though. At the very least its bragging, even though all a woman has to be is decent looking for someone to have sex with her.

    In sum, it wouldn’t bother me that my wife had slept around per se, but it’s likely she’s got some psychological bs that I won’t want to deal with if she makes this sort of thing known.

  • http://www.rooshv.com Roosh

    I approve this list. Surprisingly accurate.

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

      @Roosh
      Whoa. OK, I know I should be put off by this endorsement, because I have soooooo many problems with your view of relationships. Although, in all fairness, I respect your honesty. Still, I have to admit – I’m flattered. You’re a very significant presence in the community, and you know your shit. So, yeah, I guess this means I’m doing something right, even if it’s just listening to the very gifted and intelligent men who comment here.

  • Josephine

    Dear Ms. Walsh,
    .
    This website is the BEST. It is my most recent procrastination device, but it is so worth it. Thank you!

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

      @Josephine
      Thanks and welcome! I am delighted that you found us, and that you already joined in the conversation!

  • Abbot

    “Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.”
    .
    Per the Roy Baumeister speech, it seems that behavior toward this aim still persists but without nearly as many births due to the pill or other birth control. Now its just twice as many women are having sex mates than men are having sex mates. Interesting though that hardly anyone participating in the hookup cesspool are aware of that. But back in the Genghis Kahn days, folks were probably very aware because it was more clearly obvious. Then, as now, non-Khan men should be encouraged to not select wives from the Khan harem. Kahn harem women should just be left to fight each other for the few Kahns or stay single. You lay in the bed you make.

  • tom

    @ Fresco

    And honestly, she’s not as hot as I originally thought, not anymore. So whenever she reminisces about her crazy flings with some dude who didn’t have to do all this stuff to have sex with her, I ask myself – why couldn’t I have been that guy.

    _________________

    Seriously?

    There IS a difference between casual sex and relationship sex with committment

    Interesting artical

    http://anadder.com/sexual-ethics-promiscuity

  • terre

    Can you please explain this difference, tom?

  • Abbot

    A comment from that http://anadder.com/sexual-ethics-promiscuity site:
    .
    “Night out, looking for a one night stand they will not care how many partners she’s had and in some cases the more the better, but when it comes to settling down…”
    .
    You see, men are not insecure about a women having many partners. How is it you can be not insecure and then insecure?

  • Fresco

    Tom, all I am saying is, being a partner in a long term relationship can be a lot of work. If you think of sex as being one of the benefits of being in that relationship, then the fact that other people got for free what you work for might bother you.

    I’m not saying that its all there is to relationships, but to be honest, a big part of the reason people get into long term relationships is for the sex. Least for men anyway.

    Sometimes I hear that women hate *sluts* cause the mess up the sexual marketplace. They’re like scabs. They lower the barter value of sex. On the flip side of this, men who have paid big bucks for something they could have got for nothing are going to feel ripped off.

    I’m not saying it’s rational, or good, but it is there. Sexual relations aren’t exactly a rational thing, are they?

    One last point, I don’t have anything against *sluts* or any other women. But that said, I don’t have to marry them either.

  • OffTheCuff

    If there’s anything to take from all these comments, is that everyone really agreeing with #4 — that men care about your history. But I think the comments are straying from what Sue said. Look closely. It is quite accurately worded, now I think about it:
    .
    It doesn’t say “all men want your number to be low” – not true.
    It doesn’t say “all men want you to be a virgin” – not true.
    It doesn’t say “you are a bad person if your number is high” – not true.
    It doesn’t say “you don’t deserve love if your number is high” – not true.
    .
    Example: “Tom” insists that the number shouldn’t be too *low*. But to make this preference, he must still care what the history *IS*, so he is actually agreeing with #4. Alphas may indeed prefer sluts, and so be it. Go have fun.
    .
    I think what this really means that men need to know if your number is something they are comfortable with, and deserve the truth. We will judge, it’s necessary for us to judge, and it’s not some character flaw. It also means that women should accept the consequences of their choices: if you exercise free choice by sleeping with 200 men, don’t get mad if some men are disgusted by it. Make your bed, lie in it.
    .
    The reality is that it’s far more LIKELY that undesired consequences will arise from too many partners than too little, for two reasons: it’s trivial for women to sleep with as many men as they want (Roissy says here “you might as well as give a dog a prize for licking his own balls”), plus most men prefer a count that isn’t too high for them.

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

      @OffTheCuff
      That’s a valuable clarification. I hadn’t even considered that it’s possible that some men would prefer more sexual experience, though GudEnuf said so early in the thread. I try to steer clear of preaching – it would be hypocritical, and also ineffective. Women talk to me precisely because I don’t judge – otherwise they would confide in their moms, which few do, sadly.
      .
      We are all free to make our own choices, and we all live with the consequences. I see my role in this post as trying to reflect to women what those consequences are likely to be. Tom has no case, and no role to play. This has nothing to do with ideology or who deserves what. Men can and will choose when it comes to commitment, so women are better off if they know the criteria. Even if the cow is already out of the barn, they’re still better off. It is always better to be informed rather than ignorant.

  • Marmot

    This is an absolutely fantastic post. I won’t go into the details of each point, most of the comments have covered them very well and I heartily agree.

  • Abbot

    “Men can and will choose when it comes to commitment, so women are better off if they know the criteria.”
    .
    Then it can be concluded that a woman’s object of desire for commitment is the very same object, based on his criteria, that has the power to limit her freedom for objects of sex before the object of commitment is identified or known. On so many levels then it is rather easy to understand why freedom-spoiled entitlement-minded women are frustrated and feminists are outraged.

  • Anonymous

    I believe that men will do what they’ve grown up believing is right. Their association is number #1. If they hang out with other guys that think that sex is important and that relationships become important as they age then thats what they’ll think. But I know that if boy hang around real men who know how to treat women thats what they’ll do, if they hang around people who value marriage and that commitment, than that’s what they’ll value. Most men have great dads who don’t mentor them.

  • Badger Nation

    This slut debate is getting ridiculous and is taking over the blog IMHO. It is not unreasonable to state that men generally care about a woman’s sexual history, there is no number that demarcates sluthood, and women need to understand that various sexual activity will close out certain pools of men from them.
    .
    I think the unspoken premise of the debate – that sexually-experienced men are looking down on slutty women and demanding virgins for marriage – is false. (Where I think it is true is the oft-cited paradigm that women punching above their weight by offering easy sex to alphas will be rejected _for relationships only_ by those men.) Some PUAs get off on “busting” virgins but they aren’t looking to marry anyway.
    .
    I also think it’s useful to consider “cohorts” in the debate. By Spengler’s law, you tend to get what you give, so if you’re not fishing in that pool you don’t need to worry about it.
    .
    -Religious men will probably expect virginity or something close to it. Your purity is a direct value proposition.
    .
    -Beta men who were studying while you were blowing the football team are not going to accept your sexual history as a normal ball of college fun. Beta men don’t dream of “taming the slut” the way women do of taming the alpha. Beta men have relationship impostor syndrome and are terrified of not being good enough for a lady who will leave him.
    .
    -If Fratty Freddie was keeping a harem in college he has no right to expect Sorority Sue to have a number much lower than him.
    .
    -Here’s my favorite sex-pozzie paradox – sure, no one has a “right” to know your sexual history (I’ve seen them stomp up and down to assert this), but at the same time you don’t have a “right” to not be judged if you look like you are taking the fifth. Why not just be open about it and not risk looking dishonest and evasive?
    .
    -The law of unintended consequences behooves us to not get too panicky about any one piece of the issue. Example: as “deviant” sexuality has gone mainstream (i.e. as oral/butthex is normalized), the abstinence debate has spawned the absurd “technical virgin.”

  • Badger Nation

    “But I know that if boy hang around real men who know how to treat women thats what they’ll do”
    .
    Welcome to the board, but you just checked yourself out of the discussion with the “real man” shaming. Good luck digging out of that hole with the posters around here.

  • http://www.bronanthebarbarian.wordpress.com Bronan

    This posting is spot on. Never read your blog before today, but I’ll be sure to check back – it’s interesting to see a game blog directed towards women.

  • 108spirits

    I have one thing to add to:

    5. Men become more relationship-oriented as they age.

    I know there’s a lot been said about men over 25 getting serious with relationships, and under 25 we just want to get laid. While it’s largely true, it’s not the full story.

    I’m in my late 20s now and looking for a serious relationship (although once again I’m changing my mind about it). When I was younger (18 to early 20s), I was also looking for a serious relationship, like many of my male peers at the time. My peers were undergraduate STEM students, mostly, the decent betas that Susan’d recommend to her female readers. However, we quickly learned that it was our female peers that weren’t looking for something serious, and for us to pursue them for serious dating with commitment at such a young age means a lot of LJBFs and nights alone. The girls looooove changes and moving around: be it jobs, suburbs, cities, states, countries, continents – living the lifestyle of a modern liberated young girl. Having a stable BF means getting locked down. No fun! My friends and I eventually had to abandon our earlier mindset to “go with the flow”, and that means casual dating and aping the behaviours of the successful guys (i.e the just-wanna-get-laid mindset).

    I believe that male behaviours in the dating market are very much dictated by female behaviours, because after all, women are the gatekeepers in that market. By and large, men have to adapt to behave in ways that women find desirable, else they get shut out. So if women have any complaints, look to other women, not men.

  • Lurky Lu

    @Badger Nation

    “This slut debate is getting ridiculous and is taking over the blog IMHO”

    I agree, and I wonder if “slut issues” loom bigger than they really are because it’s such a sensational topic (like, “how do those bitches get away with that?”).

    “think the unspoken premise of the debate – that sexually-experienced men are looking down on slutty women and demanding virgins for marriage – is false. (Where I think it is true is the oft-cited paradigm that women punching above their weight by offering easy sex to alphas will be rejected _for relationships only_ by those men.)”

    Okay, but again, we’re left with the question of prevalence (since surveys show that most people, male or female, just aren’t that slutty) and how much this issue truly interferes with the moderate betas and mouseburgers sincerely looking for stable LTR/marriage. And if a beta is disporportionately concerned about the possibility that their future wives might have been sluts (something sexually experienced alphas are not concerned about), then doesn’t the insecurity around that have the potential to mark a man as fear-based, insecure, and therefore kinda weak? Just askin’.

  • OffTheCuff

    I don’t think it’s “some prefer more”. I think it’s probably relative to our own comfort zone. Let me explain.
    .
    When I was a 19-year old virgin, I was accepting of someone with roughly equivalent status: a virgin like me at the low end, to someone who had a few relationship partners at most, and no significant amounts of casual sex. I didn’t engage in casual sex, so I expected the same of people I dated. Now, I knew the reality of how easy women have it to have sex, I knew people make mistakes, I know people sometimes make bad choices. That’s why I was tolerant of higher counts. Slightly.
    .
    Based strictly on the numbers, you could think of this as me “preferring more experience as myself”. However, obviously a virgin can can’t prefer anyone in “less” department. I view it more like a window of comfort — where the acceptable range is some less to some more, relative to me. A 30-notch 17yo sex freak (which I think I’ve posted about before) would be too scary to that 19yo virgin.
    .
    What if it were a a different situation? What if I graduated single, discovered Game, made up for lost time, and racked up 20 partners by 25? Same rule applies. I expect I’d want a woman of similar worldliness. I’d probably feel like Tom, and want a person with some partners, so I didn’t feel like I was “training” them. But I’d still avoid the girl who was in a 300-man gangbang posted on RedTube and was a member of a few internet anonymous sex clubs. Too much is too much.
    .
    So, I see it as not an issue of “less” or “more” or “virgin” or “slut” or a specific number — but rather, a roughly equivalent compatible order of magnitude.

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

      @OffTheCuff
      In the old, traditional dating system, like married like. 9s married 9s, 4s married 4s. Today, with unrestricted female sexuality, there are many women trying to punch above their weight. Perhaps the “order of magnitude” is an attempt for like to find like, even in this SMP.

  • Lurky Lu

    “if a beta is disporportionately concerned about the possibility that their future wives might have been sluts (something sexually experienced alphas are not concerned about), then doesn’t the insecurity around that have the potential to mark a man as fear-based, insecure, and therefore kinda weak? Just askin’.”

    Sorry, I realize that this comment of mine could sound a bit shaming to some people. I guess my point is that this thread does seem to have become taken over by the “slut debate” as BN called it. It’s like train wrecks get all the coverage because they are such a spectacular mess, but that leads to the impression that they happen more than they do.

  • Abbot

    “doesn’t the insecurity around that have the potential to mark a man as fear-based, insecure, and therefore kinda weak? Just askin’.”
    .
    How is then that the same man who is having a fling for a night or a weekend does not care at all about her past? How does the same man go from being not insecure to insecure? That is why the whole insecure thing seems like unfounded nonsense specifically designed to shame men into saving panicky older women.

  • Beta men

    - Beta men don’t dream of “taming the slut” the way women do of taming the alpha.

    yes i do. how do i accomplish this?

  • http://lovesexblackjack.wordpress.com Blackjack

    the slut debate only goes on in a man’s head, and ultimately depends on whether the man is secure or insecure.

    if a woman tells a man she’s slept with n men, he will assume she means n+x. if n happens to be large, he may assume x is lower, but it’s still there.

    thus, being (or not being) a slut will get a woman nowhere. with modern day contraception and medicine, it’s virtually impossible to tell whether a woman is a slut or not. secure men will acknowledge this and accept it. insecure men will look for largely inaccurate “slut tells” such as tattoos or the angle of the pussy. both secure and insecure men will assume n is a lie.

    unfortunate truth: men who enjoy sex and receive a lot of it (i.e. “alphas”) on a regular basis will reject women who remain chaste.

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

      @Blackjack
      Thanks for commenting!

      unfortunate truth: men who enjoy sex and receive a lot of it (i.e. “alphas”) on a regular basis will reject women who remain chaste.

      I’m not sure this is unfortunate. Perhaps it is better all around if the promiscuous stick together and the less experienced find one another. FWIW, I bet the inexperienced couples who fall for each other have much better sex within a couple of weeks ;)

      Insecure men will look for largely inaccurate “slut tells” such as tattoos or the angle of the pussy.

      Angle of the pussy? Please. Any claims that a woman’s vagina gets loose or otherwise changes with a lot of sex are totally bogus. The vagina is incredibly elastic, and only something the size of a baby’s head, which rips the perineum, can make the vagina seem larger. Today, OBs stitch women up as a matter of course.

  • Badger Nation

    “if a beta is disporportionately concerned about the possibility that their future wives might have been sluts (something sexually experienced alphas are not concerned about), then doesn’t the insecurity around that have the potential to mark a man as fear-based, insecure, and therefore kinda weak? Just askin’.”
    .
    I think we are conflating pragmatic risk management with “insecurity.” Sex and commitment are deeply risky, always have been on several levels, and we’ve evolved numerous psychological and social mechanisms to warn us and help us manage that risk.
    .
    This is an exact parallel to dismissing a man’s rational avoidance of an LTR as “fear of commitment.” There are men who “fear” commitment, but the charge is usually just a projection of the woman’s fear of lack of commitment in the face of the fact that the man just doesn’t think it’s a net positive step for him.

  • tom

    “doesn’t the insecurity around that have the potential to mark a man as fear-based, insecure, and therefore kinda weak? Just askin’.”
    .
    How is then that the same man who is having a fling for a night or a weekend does not care at all about her past? How does the same man go from being not insecure to insecure? That is why the whole insecure thing seems like unfounded nonsense specifically designed to shame men into saving panicky older women.

    ____________________-
    Abbot this is the second time you made that statement. Most men could care less about a womans experience level for a one night stand. He ALSO could care less about any opinion she has of him. This means he doesnt care if she thinks he is a good lover compared to her other lovers or not, he just wants to get his rocks off and leave. Now on the other hand, if a man is looking for a possible relationship, he may care what she might think of his abilities in comparison. This is where insecurity comes into play.
    An insecure man maybe secure enough to frag them and forget them, but not secure enough
    if emotions and caring come into play.
    Living half my life in locker rooms, I heard it all. Trust me, a lot of men think about the
    “ew” factor. However, that is purely subjective. One mans ew is another mans ahhh.

    Badger said, “Beta men have relationship impostor syndrome and are terrified of not being good enough for a lady who will leave him.”

    If that is not insecurity based, I don`t know what is. I guess the beta guy thinks if he gets a near virgin, he can scam her with his poor performance, and she won`t know the difference?.. Lurky mentioned the word weak. He might be right. Could the beta be thinking,”I might not be man enough to hold on to her?”…I mean after all, we ARE talking about highly sexual women here, are we not?

  • tom

    Blackjack I do agree with most of your statements, however, what is this ” angle of the pussy” you referred to?

  • Abbot

    “insecure” / “fear of commitment”
    .
    Classic female speak to make it the man’s fault or problem and a way of saying that he cannot be thinking rationally as there is nothing about me, past or present, that’s worthy of rejection for a long-term relationship.
    .
    Many years of witnessing or are participating with women in the hookup cesspool may just cause men to suddenly become rational when approached by a woman who suddenly wants a due-diligence-free commitment. Ya know, just sayin’

  • Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c)

    “Where cheating used to be something that men did more than women”
    There is NO evidence of this. Indeed, the evidence is all in the direction WOMEN cheated VASTLY more than men over the last 1000 years or so and that the recent ‘increase’ in cheating of women is merely that the women are being more honest about it.
    Before WW II mens working hours were so long and they were so highly observed in their community that cheating was well nigh impossible in all but the bigger cities or the ‘travelling salesman’.

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

      @Peter-Andrew
      Links please, for women cheating vastly more than men. Look, I get that you have been burned. But your ex does not speak for all women, nor does she represent all women. She is just one woman. I assume you found HUS because Roosh linked to me – both a flattery and a curse. For the record, I am fairly sympathetic to many issues near and dear to MRAs. But I am not one of them, and when push comes to shove, MRAs often find me unequal to the task. I direct much of my writing to young women, so I have a somewhat different agenda, though I hope I respect truth in any case.

  • Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c)

    Susan,
    “Men are more cautious about marriage than ever before.”

    And for good reason. If you care to check out my site on http://www.peternolan.com you will see that many crimes were committed against me such as perjury, kidnapping, theft and extortion. These have been admitted to by my ex because she feels that she can do so with impunity.If you add that the ‘split’ was 95% vs 5% which was a deception in the ‘court order’ you can see that when I tell men “5% is the new 50% if you happen to be a man” I can back that up.
    I was also the first man to video record the crimes occurring in the family courts and to publish the video and transcript.

    Men are RIGHT to be cautious, even to the extent to refuse while you OTHER women openly condone crimes against us with impunity, which you do. Almost NO women will denounce a woman committed crimes. NO WOMAN has yet denounced my ex for the criminal she is in THREE YEARS. Hmmm…can you say ‘lost credibility’?

    I have challenged MANY women to stand up to their claim for ‘equality’ and they failed miserably. And this can no longer be hidden by the women. The backlash is coming. It’s going to be bad. How bad depends on how many women work furiously over the next 5 years to mitigate it. So far? That number would be ZERO.

  • tom

    In my experiences, the vast majority of men ,both beta and Alpha, have never seen ANY stats on whether or not a promiscuous woman is a good bet for a long term relationship…Mostly all they know is, she has had sex with several men….Either they can handle that, or they can not.
    I personally have turned down a few promiscuous women who WERE interested in me long term.
    Why? Not because of the consensual sex they had. There were other factors. No job in the last couple years, another woman was because she had zero sense of humor, a very negitive type of person. Another, I was just not attracted at all to her, she stillis a good friend, however.
    I did find one, who was everything I wanted in a woman….. She had been married for 12 years, went trough a nasty divorce, then 3 years later was dumped by a man she really loved.
    She had some real trust issues with men,and rightly so…So for 3 more years she dated around and was played by players,lied to by men,had some fun and thought, based on her experiences,she may never find the one again. She was not even sure she wanted a relationship. Then we were introduced by a mutual friend who owns a nice tavern. We really hit it off. I told her I was not really not looking for a relationship, but she wanted to take me home anyway. She later told me she wasinterested in me right from the start, but was not expecting more than a one night stand, because she knows how men are.Well needless to say it turned out to be more, for both of us. We are still together over a year later. She is the sweetest, most kind, funny, smart, and great looking woman I have known.She is a great mother to her 11 year old son (from her12 year marriage)
    This is what I mean, one has to evaluate ANY prospective woman for a relationship…What was I supposed to do, let this fabulous woman get away JUST because she has slept around some?
    By the way, she has showed me emails she gets evey so often from some former lovers wanting to hook up. In evey instance she has told them she is now in a relationship, is happy and for them to “take care”……She tells me she rarely eventhinks of her past, it is a time of her life she would rather forget

    I am guessing there are men, especially some men here, who would not even have given this woman a chance because of her number. Their loss.

  • Lurky Lu

    Do men have right to be concerned (ie. ask questions, do your own detective work) about the sexual past of a prospective mate? Absolutely, and the desire for this assurance is as old as time, due to the biological reality that men can be cuckholded.

    Can viligence get out of hand and turn into the kind of paranoid theories and jealousy that can circumvent or ruin a perfectly good relationship? Absolutely — it happens way too often.

    I think this is one of those issues that nearly every man has to grapple with at some point, to figure out what’s a good balance between due-diligence and hypervigilence. I think most men do manage to figure that out for themselves so they don’t get cuckholded or paralyzed with fear to the point where they either can’t have normal relationship or harangue the women they’re with.

    As other posters have admitted, either engaging in the pick-up scene oneself (or hovering around it) seems to karmically color one’s perspective to the point where all women are seen as skanks. And that’s a problem for those who are not. I write about this so much because the male envy of what seems like “easy sex” for women is probably the biggest source of misogyny out there — and what’s tragic about it is that it’s based on so many erroneous assumptions and generalizations.

  • Jess

    Re: Peter Nolan,
    Go to his site if you must.
    All I will say is, and I’m not interested in a discussion on the minutae here, that a lawyer friend told me a few things about him and his situation.
    Let’s just say there is an alternative version of events ( as there always is in domestic situations).
    J

  • OffTheCuff

    Perhaps the “order of magnitude” is an attempt for like to find like, even in this SMP.

    I never thought of it this way, but it does make a lot sense. Too bad you’re the only woman who seems to agree that men are even allowed to make this decision for ourselves.
    .
    As a relationship-oriented college guy, I subconsciously sabotaged or plain stayed away from overly promiscuous women who were, on further reflection, were throwing themselves at me. This is why I take issue with the idea that any sort of character judgement must be rooted out of “bitterness” or “insecurity”. I had plenty of opportunities, but I turned them down.
    .
    Like the 9 who grabbed me in the men’s shower — I didn’t reciprocate because she was my RA’s fuckbuddy, and my RA was a total player. Everyone in the dorm knew she was changed men like underwear. Either I could look back and think “Boy, I was stupid for not taking her up on her offer!” but there’s an equal chance she would have given me some disease, gone totally psychotic on me, or treated me like shit. Or all three.
    .
    I’m sure Tom or someone else will say I’m weak and insecure, but you know, I’m 13 years into on my first and only marriage, and most others are not.

    I write about this so much because the male envy of what seems like “easy sex” for women is probably the biggest source of misogyny out there — and what’s tragic about it is that it’s based on so many erroneous assumptions and generalizations.

    Show me.
    .
    Please point us poor souls to some material that will help a man understand this, because the more I research and learn about this stuff, the more I realize that women *do* have it easier. I used to think men held all the cards, but now I realize it’s just the apex fallacy. I’m not part of the group!
    .
    But here’s the thing – if the material simply shames me for being a man, I’m going to dismiss it is biased. Why should I give empathy I don’t get any? That’s why Susan’s writing is so valuable, it helps me build compassion, without making me feel like I’m evil just for being born male.

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

      @OffTheCuff
      Thank you very much for your kind words. Appreciation from readers, along with the belief that I can make a difference, is why I write this blog.

  • Anonymous

    I found this to be an interesting article that seems to contradict much of what is typically discussed on this site. I would also find it interesting whether or not this has a lot to do with age. A lot of the readers on this site seem to be older people who are already married with children, so it is interesting to hear a younger male perspective on this.

    http://coedmagazine.com/2011/01/12/he-said-she-said-sex-on-the-first-date/

  • Lurky Lu

    @offthecuff “I’m sure Tom or someone else will say I’m weak and insecure, but you know, I’m 13 years into on my first and only marriage, and most others are not.

    ‘I write about this so much because the male envy of what seems like “easy sex” for women is probably the biggest source of misogyny out there — and what’s tragic about it is that it’s based on so many erroneous assumptions and generalizations.’

    Show me.
    .
    Please point us poor souls to some material that will help a man understand this, because the more I research and learn about this stuff, the more I realize that women *do* have it easier. I used to think men held all the cards, but now I realize it’s just the apex fallacy. I’m not part of the group!”

    Sorry OTC, but I’m baffled. You’re saying that women have it easier, but you yourself have been married for 13 years!

    Are you talking about marriage or are you talking about casual sex? Because if you are talking about casual sex, what theoretically seems like women’s greater ease in being able to access it is nothing to envy, because most of us don’t want sex casually, but in a decent relationship (preferably marriage).

  • terre

    Lurky Lu, in my experience, women are less determined about commitment than you’d think. What you’re describing is the need for rationalization that women all possess; the sex has to have some ‘meaning’, and if he doesn’t provide it she happily will (“it was an on-off relationship”, “we weren’t right for each other”, “it just happened”, etc.) If the man is sufficiently desirable, women are more than amenable to “casual sex”. They just have to dress it up a little.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sorry OTC, but I’m baffled. You’re saying that women have it easier, but you yourself have been married for 13 years!

    .
    I’m baffled too. The fact that I’ve been in my one and only relationship for 20 years, doesn’t automatically erase an entire middle school, high school, and (mostly) college experience almost entirely devoid of the company of women, and the cumulative effects that loneliness can have on a person.
    .

    Are you talking about marriage or are you talking about casual sex? Because if you are talking about casual sex, what theoretically seems like women’s greater ease in being able to access it is nothing to envy, because most of us don’t want sex casually, but in a decent relationship (preferably marriage).

    Here we go again with the “it doesn’t count as something we want because we don’t really want sex, even though we’re willingly having sex anyway” argument. Spare me. If you really didn’t want it, you really wouldn’t do it. But I’m not talking about that.
    .
    I’m talking about having any sort of physical intimacy with one person of the opposite sex at all. Why do we have to box it into either “sex” or “marriage”? Sex counts as intimacy. Kissing without sex counts, too. Holding hands, even. Dating. As does marriage. And hookups.
    .
    I sense a profound lack of understanding how important human touch is, independent of sex, marriage, dating, or hookups.

  • OffTheCuff

    Lurky: Ugh, I almost totally forgot about my question! I asked “show me how I can understand”, which you ignored. Instead, you’ve got me defending my own feelings, implying that I have no business feeling the way I do, because I’m married for 13 years. Well played, excellent frame control. I almost didn’t even notice it.
    .
    Again: show me.

  • Lurky Lu

    “Here we go again with the “it doesn’t count as something we want because we don’t really want sex, even though we’re willingly having sex anyway” argument. Spare me. If you really didn’t want it, you really wouldn’t do it. But I’m not talking about that.”

    I didn’t say women didn’t want sex! Women want sex, but for most in the context of a relationship, whereas most men seem to have not only a resiliency but a desire for casual sex — I thought there was a certain amount of agreement on that here. Are there women who’ll have casual sex? Sure, some women, maybe “a lot”, but do you understand that it’s just not an option for most of us? For one, it’s not that enjoyable for biological reasons already discussed, for another, we’re deemed sluts if we do!

    “I’m talking about having any sort of physical intimacy with one person of the opposite sex at all. Why do we have to box it into either “sex” or “marriage”? ”

    You make it sound as if women, being “wanted” physically, have more access to intimacy than men! But what good is physical intimacy for a woman if comes at the expense of being used? Or if you can only get it in situations where you don’t feel any attraction or pleasure? That’s not intimacy.

    I think you’re alluding to another source of resentment towards women — their position as “rejectors”. But that goes with the territory when men hold the biological perogative of pursuit — they may get rejected, but at least they get to pursue the women they want (and thus reject by not pursuing). Do you not think that women also endure loneliness as they have to wait for the guys they like to ask them out, rather than asking them — which you soon find out that kills the “thrill of the chase” for the guy, or sets you up for being used?

    Think of it this way — having to be the “pursued” means your romantic fate is largely left up to chance. Sure you can improve your chances by working on your looks, personality, etc., but women largely must choose from those who are **choosing them**. Imagine if that was the only way you could get a job — by having the employer seek you out — do you think your chances would be better for finding a job you like, or do you think it would be better to be able to send out resumes and do cold calls?

    Everybody, male or female, has to deal with rejection, especially when they are first starting out. Men have to deal with more upfront rejection, but then mother nature has bestowed upon them the perogative of pursuit, which really is first refusal. I really don’t think that one sex has it any worse than the other, although current “hook-up” trends add in some special challenges for women, which is what this blog seems to be addressing.

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

      @Lurky Lu
      I cosign everything you said in your comment at 1:22 a.m. The notion that it’s much easier for women to get what they want is commonly expressed by men here, but often they confuse what they want with what women want. Sexual access is not what we want, though it’s easier for us to get. Commitment and monogamy is not what men want, though it’s easier for them to get.

  • Lurky Lu

    “I asked “show me how I can understand”, which you ignored. Instead, you’ve got me defending my own feelings, implying that I have no business feeling the way I do, because I’m married for 13 years. Well played, excellent frame control. I almost didn’t even notice it.”

    You asked “show me how I can understand”, and so I asked what I thought were good questions so that I could understand **you**.

    While you were accusing me of ignoring your question I was crafting what I was hoping would be a well balanced and thoughtful response to it. But then, you probably think it’s just more “frame control”.

    Anyways, from your back posts, I can see that you really want empathy and compassion for the lack of intimacy you experienced in your life. I’m not even ask for that here — just taking an opportunity to ask for freedom from misogyny (evident in many of the posts here, not yours specifically) via widening of perspective.

    BTW– do you really blame those lonely early years on **women**?? Or was it that you had to grow and mature into someone who could have a relationship, get married, stay married?

  • terre

    “BTW– do you really blame those lonely early years on **women**?? Or was it that you had to grow and mature into someone who could have a relationship, get married, stay married?”
    .
    Oh please. Women weren’t spending those early years with “mature” men. This is the duplicity of women at its worst.

  • Abbot

    “This is the duplicity of women at its worst.”
    .
    Quite profound. This duplicity seems to be the root cause of men’s unease when considering marriage to women in the West. After all, how much fun would it have been to actually seek out mature discriminate respect-minded men when its much easier to just fool yourself that those fling men actually respected you? The growing trend is to claim it was all “just” a dress rehearsal and now you’re “ready” to have mature men line up an buy tickets to the “real” show.
    .
    Years later its only a matter of convenience to state that you want to be loved and not used for your body because “suddenly” that matters. Now, there is nothing wrong with running your life this way and its nobody’s business that you do. But do not expect a man to buy into the inconsistencies, conflicts and contradictions that you allowed to creep into your conduct and dedicate his entire life to you as if you’re a woman worthy of his fantasies. That expectation alone is disrespectful.

  • Abbot

    “Commitment and monogamy is not what men want, though it’s easier for them to get.”
    .
    Well, its easy to get from the “wrong” women. To make it easy to get from worthy women, a passport would certainly help.

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

      “Commitment and monogamy is not what men want, though it’s easier for them to get.”
      .
      Well, its easy to get from the “wrong” women. To make it easy to get from worthy women, a passport would certainly help.

      Hey, make it easy on yourself. Just order a woman up by mail, then marry her and make her a citizen. Easy peasy.

  • OffTheCuff

    You asked “show me how I can understand”, and so I asked what I thought were good questions so that I could understand **you**. While you were accusing me of ignoring your question I was crafting what I was hoping would be a well balanced and thoughtful response to it. But then, you probably think it’s just more “frame control”.

    Point taken. I can see that now.

    Anyways, from your back posts, I can see that you really want empathy and compassion for the lack of intimacy you experienced in your life. I’m not even ask for that here — just taking an opportunity to ask for freedom from misogyny (evident in many of the posts here, not yours specifically) via widening of perspective.

    .
    Thanks. That’s pretty accurate. Realize that being a man, there’s someone who is going to call us “misogynist” for pretty much *anything* we do or say.
    .

    BTW– do you really blame those lonely early years on **women**??

    Nah, I don’t blame my situation on women, or even how I was raised (conservative/church/feminist) even though it clearly caused it. I blame myself for not being able to see through lies and misinformation handed to me.
    .

    Or was it that you had to grow and mature into someone who could have a relationship, get married, stay married?

    .
    No. I did not need to grow into someone who “could have a relationship, get married, stay married” — I was born ready for that. Instead, I had to grow and mature into someone who could take risks, gain some small amount of social dominance, display confidence, and think critically about the SMP. That is, learn the tiniest bit of Game, just enough to Get The Fuck Out before I got hurt.

  • Lurky Lu

    @terre “Oh please. Women weren’t spending those early years with “mature” men.”

    Right. They spend those years alongside their male cohorts, who like themselves, are not mature — and therefore are not always that appealing. And like them, they are in the situation of trying to get the people they like to like them back (enough to actually date them, that is, if they date at all). And then there’s the dilemma of do you date the guy that asks you out that you have no attraction to, hoping that the attraction will click in for you, and if it doesn’t and you don’t want to keep seeing him, be in a situation where he may be upset and say that you’re a “tease” who “led him on”. Or going on a date with what seems like a nice enough guy, only to have him (with or without sex happening), lose interest as the thrill of the chase wears off for you (and starts building for something — or someone – else). These are the more common experiences of young women, much more so than slutting it up with “fling men”, as Abbot calls them.

    @OTC “Realize that being a man, there’s someone who is going to call us “misogynist” for pretty much *anything* we do or say”

    Even if that word gets overused, there is such a thing as misogyny, predating feminism. And it’s always been fuelled by male jealousy (the possibility, real or imagined, that a partner might cheat) and envy (of women as a group, who appear to have greater access to sex or “physical intimacy”, but really do not for reasons already discussed). Hopefully you can see now the potential for misunderstanding in all of that — and how the myopic tarring all women with the same ugly brush happens — and when it does, that’s misogyny.

    I don’t think that men should go to the opposite extreme, the “white knight” mentality that thinks women pee champagne. But there has got to be more guidance to young men about the bigger picture on the rejection they experience and how wrong it is to deal with their frustration by branding all women as bitches and skanks who have oh-so-many options. Besides, I think the “manosphere” would have a lot more success in furthering some of its better goals (ie. father’s rights, discreet paternity testing) by getting some perspective and toning down the misogyny, which you must admit is pretty rampant — you’d have to be kidding yourself to say that it isn’t.

  • Lurky Lu

    @SW “I cosign everything you said in your comment at 1:22 a.m. The notion that it’s much easier for women to get what they want is commonly expressed by men here, but often they confuse what they want with what women want.”

    Thanks Susan. You can see by this thread that it’s a huge stumbling block and that they can’t be convinced otherwise. It’s a perspective that’s foundational to so many beliefs, justifications and attitudes these guys have, many of which would have to be loosened if the truth was to be accepted about the predicaments of both sexes. But that’s why I’m a bit more sparing than you (not that that’s better) in my commiseration with the guys. These arguments have been going round in circles in the blogosphere for years (but every now and then I throw in my 2 bits worth!).

  • Abbot

    Did not know it is possible to order one and if so, it seems very complicated and not easy. A man would be immune to any feminist angst against such a strategy if he travels to her country

  • Clarence

    Lurky:

    Your argument falls apart when you try to claim that women are spending their youth among their same age male peers.

    No, they are spending time chasing a very small percentage of the available men, mostly for status reasons. I will blame them for not choosing based on character but only on dominance and nothing else. That you would claim the 80 percent of men who get limited to no access to that of the opposite sex is morally responsible for the behaviors of those men is ridiculous. It is as Devlin says: Women, esp. young women, are going to have to learn to date responsibly. Until they do, most of their problems with men -including the many, many potentially good men they’ve overlooked or rejected, will be on their heads.

  • Abbot

    As Susan stated, men have an easier time finding committed relationships, if they decide they want one. In the end I think both men and women want to have that love deal. So its a desired commodity that men control and women must be very tuned in to anything that men put down as criteria for to achieve this coveted life goal. Its pretty well known what women want – a man with nice personality, a steady job, etc etc. But how well known are men’s desires for a life mate? Maybe as Clarence stated, one of them is – not having a history of rejecting good men. So women are now learning some of this criteria and they don’t like a lot of it and if they were in control of when relationships happen, well then they would not give it any concern. I think this is why there is so much anger out there among women who just can’t believe the rejection criteria. Its like they are besides themselves and the resort to immature name calling and its out of frustration because there is not this readily available other pool of men to choose from.

  • Lurky Lu

    “That you would claim the 80 percent of men who get limited to no access to that of the opposite sex is morally responsible for the behaviors of those men is ridiculous”

    Excuse me? Where do I claim anything even remotely close to that? I don’t even buy the “80% of men get no access to women” canard. That statistic may apply to casual sex among club goers, but it certainly doesn’t apply to young people dating. Of the 20-somethings I know, male and female, who are in relationships, most are definitively not alphas.

    I don’t think you’ll get very far quoting Roger Devlin (is he anything more than an internet phantom? ) or any of the other crackpots associated with the Occidental Quarterly or any other scary white pride publications.

  • Lurky Lu

    @Abbot “But how well known are men’s desires for a life mate? Maybe as Clarence stated, one of them is – not having a history of rejecting good men.”

    Quite well known, but you’ve disingenously left off the number one desire — that being physical attractive (and no, that is not a complaint). I’ve never heard of “not having a history of rejecting good men” being a criteria, if anything, guys seem to take pride in being “the one who won her over”.

    As I’ve said before, men may have lower standards for a women’s looks if it’s just a one night stand, but when it comes to marriage, a guy has to be really attracted to a woman in order to seal the deal (with “nice girl” now added to the criteria). Whereas women seem to have higher standards for a man’s attractiveness when it comes to casual sex, especially if it’s not something they are ordinarily into and sure, some women can be pursuaded into it if the guy is hot enough, but most women want a more steady situation before having sex (which just isn’t likely to happen with an alpha, unless you’re superhot too, and even then it’s pretty high risk). Conversely, when it comes to relationships leading to marriage, women have lower standards when it comes to looks because when have to choose from among those who are choosing you, it’s much harder to get your “type” (if you have one) and of course, you’re hoping for other qualities as well.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Clarence:

    Your argument falls apart when you try to claim that women are spending their youth among their same age male peers.
    No, they are spending time chasing a very small percentage of the available men, mostly for status reasons.

    I go to a fairly unconventional school, but here, most girls give up on dating college men around their junior year and start looking to date young professionals instead. They realize the hookup scene is unfavorable and start gravitating towards men who are more mature and ready for relationships. There is no “status”-seeking, only relationship-seeking.

  • Sox

    Freshman-soph year I was very open to dating and did….I met two of my 4-5 most serious gf’s in college. Lots of other guys I know were exactly the same way. This whole, “college guys don’t want relationships” meme is kind of disturbing to me, and I think it’s pointing back to the original idea that it’s only the top 20% (or whatever) getting all the action that don’t want relationships, the others are totally off girls’ radars. In fact, the girls I did get, ironically thought I had no interest in a relationship at the time.
    .

  • Sox

    Wanted to add that I disagree that it’s easy to get commitment as a guy. If it’s not easy for a guy to get sex, it’s not easy for him to get commitment. And even then, it’s not really a given considering nowadays most women my age are avoiding commitment just as much as the men are. Women my age don’t seem to want commitment at all. Not complaining btw, just an observation.

  • terre

    Lurky Lu, you’re missing my point. You accused OffTheCuff of blaming women for ignoring him in his youth when really it was because he just wasn’t mature enough yet. I pointed out that the men women form relationships with during that stage of development are rarely “mature”, and they’re certainly not selected on the basis of their maturity. You’ve refuted and answered nothing.

  • terre

    “As Susan stated, men have an easier time finding committed relationships, if they decide they want one.”
    .
    I don’t really see how this is true at all. It might apply if you said that the men who women want have an easier time deciding the terms of a relationship, but then one finds it hard to sympathize that men desired by many women won’t “commit”.

  • Clarence

    Lurky Lu:

    I don’t particularily care what you “buy” into the 80/20 statistic is what it is, and it says what it says. I’ve known plenty of guys in my life, and the vast majority that didn’t marry young haven’t had stable access to sex or companionship. The last few years I’ve known and befriended some pick up artists and even there I’ve heard and seen lots of terrible tales of rejection and isolation no matter how successful some of those guys are now. It’s not like a guy BRAGS when he’s got no girlfriend, so how would you know anyway? I went five years of my life without a hug from a member of the opposite sex not named “mom” or “granny” in my mid-twenties, do you think I told people this or complained about it? Seeing what men women were ending up with, often because they confused confidence with character made me rather ill, and plus in those days I was still half brainwashed by the cultural stupidity that passes for dating advice , so I had no way of understanding what I was seeing other than to think that women were either stupid or admired low character.

  • OffTheCuff

    I will make one last attempt before I give up, trying to explain how men feel, and really, please stop with the misogynist name-calling tangent. It is irrelevant to my point.
    .
    So, OK. I will concede that since men and women want different things as Sue notes, it is meaningless to compare them. If Lee needs a billion dollars to be happy, and Terry needs a strawberry donut, who has a tougher time?
    .
    To make a useful comparison, we have to get as close as possible a single thing, that both men and women want. How about this?
    .
    Consider omegas: people who have never had a date, no sex, no relationship, no love, nothing. If we assume that everyone wants something from that list, then the omega is surely NOT getting what they want, because they have gotten nothing. An omega is someone who is completely shut out of the SMP, for whatever reason. Therefore, what they want is very simply: they want a chance. They want to be in the game.
    .
    Are there more male omegas then female?
    .
    Based on observation, I say male. And this is what I mean when more men have a difficult time.
    .
    Useless anecdotal evidence: my best man was an omega for many years. He had one girlfriend for a month or so in college, and then nothing until he was around 35. I knew lots of guys like him. Conversely, I’ve only ever known one woman who was so revolting that nobody would date her, and still I doubt she was a virgin.
    .
    Nearly every guy can sympathize with the omega a tiny bit, even if we think they are losers, because we were all there once. Every single one of us had to toughen up, and mature, just to get in the game. There is a much higher barrier to entry into the SMP for men than women. Plenty of men do not overcome it.
    .
    OTC, your resident misogynist, is out!

  • SayWhaat

    Useless anecdotal evidence: my best man was an omega for many years. He had one girlfriend for a month or so in college, and then nothing until he was around 35. I knew lots of guys like him. Conversely, I’ve only ever known one woman who was so revolting that nobody would date her, and still I doubt she was a virgin.

    Your anecdote just proves the point. The omega who couldn’t get sex was at least able to be in a relationship for a month. The revolting woman who couldn’t get a date was still at least able to have sex.

    Are there more male omegas then female?

    Doubt it. You’re defining male omegas as “men who can’t get sex”, and you’re defining female omegas as “women who can’t get sex”. No. Women want relationships, and the overwhelming majority of women prefer to have sex within the context of relationships. I doubt that the inability of a man who can’t get sex makes him more of an “omega” than a woman who can’t get a relationship.

  • SayWhaat

    There is a much higher barrier to entry into the SMP for men than women.

    And there is a higher barrier to entry into the relationship marketplace for women than men.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Sox:

    May I ask how old you are? I recall that you’re in the DC area, am I correct? I’m curious about your experiences with women who don’t want commitment.

  • OffTheCuff

    And there is a higher barrier to entry into the relationship marketplace for women than men.

    .
    By SMP I don’t mean “casual sex” only. I mean the sum total of all people looking for other people whether it’s love, sex, dating, relationships – ANYTHING. You’ve either missed or ignored my main argument to by resorting to the “we want different things, thus any comparisons are invalid” again.
    .

    Doubt it. You’re defining male omegas as “men who can’t get sex”, and you’re defining female omegas as “women who can’t get sex”.
    .
    That is not what I said or meant. I am defining omegas as: men or women who can’t get sex, can’t get relationships, can’t get a date, nothing. The exact words I used are people who have never had a date, no sex, no relationship, no love, nothing. I don’t know how I can be any clearer. There is no qualification for sex or separate lists for what they want.
    .
    My example of my omega friend (flawed as it was) was to show that, other for a tiny brief time – he was omega from the age of 14 to 35. If we discount the one short relationship, that’s 20 years OUT of the entire scene. You are taking my imperfect example, and ignoring the DEFINITION I just wrote.
    .
    I’ll ask you directly. Do you personally know any women who are omegas according the literal DEFINITION I wrote above, not the example: women who have had no dates, were asked by NOBODY, no sex, no relationships, and no love for 20 years? Really. It’s a very simple question and I’m astounded how nobody will answer it.

  • OffTheCuff

    Ugh, goofed the quoting.

  • Clarence

    Thank you, OffTheCuff.

    I’ve seen even very fat girls with boyfriends and/or at least FRIENDS of the opposite sex, whereas I’ve known several males who went months or years at a time without anything more than a hug from a member of the opposite sex if they got that much.

    It’s like I’ve said elsewhere on this site: The sum total of male “omegas” is probably twice that, as a percentage, of female omegas, and the current SMP lets girls all the way down to the “6″ level go for male “alphas” for at least one night stands. The barriers to entry are not of the same magnitude between the sexes: the amount of de-facto polygamy, esp. in big cities and on college campuses proves that.

  • SayWhaat

    @ OffTheCuff:

    Ah, I see what you were trying to get at now. Sorry, I did miss your main point. But I still think that it would be erroneous to say that there are more omega males than females based on solely your own personal experience.

    I’ll ask you directly. Do you personally know any women who are omegas according the literal DEFINITION I wrote above, not the example: women who have had no dates, were asked by NOBODY, no sex, no relationships, and no love for 20 years?

    I’m afraid I can’t answer this, simply because I am not old enough to have observed dating trends for 20 years. However, I can say with certainty that there are women who may graduate college without ever having been asked out on a date, no relationships, no love, etc. Whether this trend persists in the real world, I cannot say, again because I am simply not old enough to observe objectively.

  • http://alpharivelino.wordpress.com/ Rivelino

    Excellent. Every girl should read this.

  • Plain Jane

    I’m one of those girls who went through college without being asked out on a date! The only dates I went on were with a foreign exchange student, and I was the one to first ask him to “hang out”. I realized from dating him that in other countries men are different and don’t place so much value on the type of “hotness” that is valued here. Girls like me would do well to scan the Asian Clubs and other foreign clubs on campus.

  • AlekNovy

    “””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.””

    I realized this the other day too… I was wondering, why do so many women have an unrealistic view of their value on the dating market, and then it hit me… Its because they’ve all had a date with a male 10 or a male 9 or whatever… So they project that to mean that they must be female 9s or 10s…

    Truth is, the male top dogs go on dates and don’t mind getting laid with even female 4s… Banging the most popular guy in college, doesn’t mean you must be one of the most popular girls, it just means you’re not ugly… That’s it. Male standards are very low when it comes to whom they check out, date, hook up with.

    Now, if you’ve been married, had a long relationship with a male 10, then yes, you’re most likely a female 9/10… But these women who go years and years (some decades) rejecting perfectly fine men, because these guys are “not good enough for me”… tend to have a distorted self-assessment. If you haven’t dated a male 10 yet, it means you can’t have one as you are. So waiting to be grabbed by one, is a futile thing. Anyone can become more attractive. So if you’re waiting and at the same time increasing your value, then that’s fine. But just waiting for a male 10, despite the fact that you’ve never in your life managed to catch one for anything serious, means you’re deluded. Again, hooking up with a male 10 is not an accomplishment… it just means you’re not utterly ugly.

  • Lavazza

    AlekNovy: Whereas a man who’s had sex with a female 9/10 most likely will be welcome to enter a LTR with her, as well. Female 9/10s are more likely to be non-sluts, and to be quite safe bets for LTRs, if you are able to attract them for sex and do not allow them to make you into a beta.

  • AlekNovy

    #9 is Also soooo very true. I’ve definetely disqualified quite a few women after seeing them do massively overblown rejections to guys they weren’t interested in. If a woman is only nice to me, because she find me attractive, but treats guys she’s not attracted to like crap… I automatically, almost instinctively disqualify her.

  • AlekNovy

    @LurkyLu

    “””But there has got to be more guidance to young men about the bigger picture on the rejection they experience and how wrong it is to deal with their frustration by branding all women as bitches and skanks who have oh-so-many options.”””

    I agree with *one* caveat. Men would deal with rejection much faster and be able to understand the female perspective a LOT faster, if there wasn’t such a high percentage of women who think its neat/cool to reject men in INCREDIBLY pyrotechnic ways (to borrow a term) :D

    If 99 out of a 100 women rejected men with a mental frame or attitude of “ooo, I’m so flattered that you approached/asked me out, but unfortunately I can’t take the offer. It doesn’t mean you’re a bad person, and I’m really grateful you thought I was worth the effort to approach/ask out”.

    Unfortunately, a good 2 or maybe even 4 out of 10 women feel that it is their duty to reject men with an attitude of “how dare you you little POS to even think you can EVER get a date with any woman and dare even TRY to flirt with men”. Now, you might say 2 out of 10 isn’t that bad, but I’d say it makes men developing compassion for women’s position at least a 100 times less likely.

    I’ve studied women’s perspective for years and years and I now have compassion for women, and do not feel they have it any easier. But don’t expect the average man to do PhD’s worth of research on what it’s like to be a woman to have any compassion. I think its up to women to take some responsibility. If you see female friends who take joy in massively embarassing and destroying men in pyrotechnic ways when they’re not interested… speak up… Tell her that she’s ruining it for all of you… she’s ruining it for ALL women.

    “”””Besides, I think the “manosphere” would have a lot more success in furthering some of its better goals (ie. father’s rights, discreet paternity testing) by getting some perspective and toning down the misogyny, which you must admit is pretty rampant — you’d have to be kidding yourself to say that it isn’t.””””

    I agree… A lot of parts of the manosphere do have misogyny. Some a lot, some moderate, some none at all. Places like Roissy and Spearhead have tons of it (bunch if bitter cynical losers)… And then some parts of the manosphere have no misoginy (fidelbogen,voice for men, glenn sacks). And these guys (the misogynist ones) don’t get it… theyre shooting themselves in the foot with it. No one will take them seriously until they tone it down.

    You know what makes it hard for them tone down their misogyny or even see it in themselves? They’ve been accused of misogyny their whole lives falsely… About 9 out of 10 times that they’re accused of misogyny its a FALSE accusation. Like completely senseless accusation that is not even 0% true. That has actually made them insensitive to REAL misogyny, since the only way to deal with those false accusations is to block it out mentally… So I blame the false accusers mostly, not the men who have it.

  • Lurky Lu

    @ terre “You accused OffTheCuff of blaming women for ignoring him in his youth when really it was because he just wasn’t mature enough yet. I pointed out that the men women form relationships with during that stage of development are rarely “mature”, and they’re certainly not selected on the basis of their maturity.”

    I didn’t accuse OTC of anything. I asked what I thought was a fair question to better understand his situation. As for maturity, it depends on how you define it, and I think OTC did a good job of offering at least a partial definition: “someone who could take risks, gain some small amount of social dominance, display confidence, and think critically about the SMP”.

  • tom

    It ia absolutely true that women can sex WAY easier than men.. Even an average looking woman could go to a tavern and get laid, most any night she wanted.The average looking guy, not so much. Why? There are plenty of willing men who will have no strings attatched sex, and most have low standards for looks for that type of sex. On the other hand, there are a lot less willing women who will have no strings sex. Therefore, the few (women) have the selection advantage. If it is just casual sex, you know they are going for looks first. It seems there are a lot of bitter betas here, who now hold a grudge toward women in general because these guys were not on the menu.
    Also people need to get a grip on reality. People here seem to think all promiscuous women are”used” for sex..Trust me, the using goes both ways. That is the nature of casual sex.
    It is the alphas who normally are the bad boys. Most of them know they can get women for sex, most of them have little respect for women and will use their physical advantage to their advantage…

  • Lurky Lu

    @OTC “I’ve known plenty of guys in my life, and the vast majority that didn’t marry young haven’t had stable access to sex or companionship.”

    Exactly! That’s why people who want stable access to sex and companionship should aspire to marry young. That’s what religous conservatives are saying, and I think they have a point.

    “The last few years I’ve known and befriended some pick up artists and even there I’ve heard and seen lots of terrible tales of rejection and isolation no matter how successful some of those guys are now.”

    Sorry, I don’t have much sympathy for those who aspire to be PUA’s. Sure, there are some good things that can be learned (and it’s not like they hold a premium on that knowledge) but even Mystery found that his methods didn’t work on the one woman he really loved and wanted to be with.

    “Seeing what men women were ending up with, often because they confused confidence with character made me rather ill, and plus in those days I was still half brainwashed by the cultural stupidity that passes for dating advice , so I had no way of understanding what I was seeing other than to think that women were either stupid or admired low character.”

    Again, this sounds like a “some women, some of the time” thing being generalized to the larger whole. A lot of the guys on MRA sites complaining of paternity fraud and being taken to the cleaner by wives who leave for greener pastures could just as easily have made the same mistake of being duped by the sexual magnetism of a higher SMP value female — should we generalize those shallow and stupid relationship priorities to all men?

    “Consider omegas: people who have never had a date, no sex, no relationship, no love, nothing…Are there more male omegas then female?…Based on observation, I say male. And this is what I mean when more men have a difficult time…I’ve only ever known one woman who was so revolting that nobody would date her, and still I doubt she was a virgin.”

    There probably are more omegas in that situation because statistically, on many measures, there tends to be more male outliers (ie. more learning disabled and more geniuses, more in prison and more nobel peace prize winners) whereas women tend to be more middling. So does that mean that women should be willing to scale down their expectations so that “no man is left behind”? That’d be a hard sell! It isn’t fair to judge either sex as a whole by how they relate romantically to the least advantaged members of the opposite sex.

    Looking more closely at the “beta experience” tells the tale. Much has been made of “female hypergamy” and how accommodating men are sexually to less attractive women, but there hasn’t been much ownership here of the male proclivity to “punch above weight” in the looks department, particularly when it comes to finding a mate. It’s easier to date or have less committed relationships with women you’re not that into while leaving your options open for one you really are. Now, I realize that this experience may be different from “low beta” to “high beta”, but even then, it looks as if “low beta” people of both sexes seem to have a harder time getting excited about one another. That doesn’t necessarily mean that those individuals are waiting for “high betas” or alphas, but perhaps hoping they will find someone that they like at a similar RMP value, which may be a taller order. Just because you’re low on attractiveness doesn’t mean that you’re going to be attracted to those who are also low on attractiveness.

    “Nearly every guy can sympathize with the omega a tiny bit, even if we think they are losers, because we were all there once. Every single one of us had to toughen up, and mature, just to get in the game. There is a much higher barrier to entry into the SMP for men than women. Plenty of men do not overcome it.”

    Likewise, there are plenty of women who just can’t kiss the frog!

  • Lurky Lu

    @AlekNovy “At least 50% of women think they’re a hard 10.” Uhhh, I wouldn’t run too far with this statement, because I think Susan later retracted it.

    “Now, if you’ve been married, had a long relationship with a male 10, then yes, you’re most likely a female 9/10… But these women who go years and years (some decades) rejecting perfectly fine men, because these guys are “not good enough for me”… tend to have a distorted self-assessment.”

    Wait a second!! Just because a woman rejects a “perfectly fine man”, it doesn’t mean that she’s got a “distorted self-assessment” or that she’s chasing after male 9-10s! For the sake of discussion, I’m going to reckon that you are a male 6. Does that mean you want to date every female 6 you meet? Of course not. Some may be nice but not very interesting. Some may be interesting, but look a little too much like your sister or cousin. Some you ask, some you think maybe…nah! Fair enough. Same for women, except we’re put on the spot having to account for an answer.

    “Unfortunately, a good 2 or maybe even 4 out of 10 women feel that it is their duty to reject men with an attitude of “how dare you you little POS to even think you can EVER get a date with any woman and dare even TRY to flirt with men”. Now, you might say 2 out of 10 isn’t that bad, but I’d say it makes men developing compassion for women’s position at least a 100 times less likely.”

    Sorry, Alek, but your math really doesn’t add up here. Even if we were to take your middling estimate of 3 out of 10 women rejecting badly (giving the guys a nice big benefit of the doubt, assuming that they didn’t ask badly, ie. too needy, too sleazy, etc.) that does not justify “100 times less likely” compassion for women’s position.

    “I’ve studied women’s perspective for years and years and I now have compassion for women, and do not feel they have it any easier. But don’t expect the average man to do PhD’s worth of research on what it’s like to be a woman to have any compassion.”

    I don’t. Even if women were to reject in your prescribed “I’m so flattered” approach 99 times out of 100, I don’t think it would make the slightest difference. That women reject men at all what’s at issue here — that, and the fact that elder men don’t teach younger men how to deal with it, and that being unchecked is a lost opportunity to avert a lot of misplaced misogyny.

    “I think its up to women to take some responsibility. If you see female friends who take joy in massively embarassing and destroying men in pyrotechnic ways when they’re not interested… speak up… Tell her that she’s ruining it for all of you… she’s ruining it for ALL women.”

    Overwhelmingly, women do take responsibility in this way! Turning guys down in a mean way is taboo for the very reasons you state (that it ruins it for everyone). The only exception I can think of is if the guy is really being inappropriate. Again, there are bound to be exceptions, at least 2/10 by your estimate, and to that I would ask, do you think there are any male misbehaviours that affect the female population at a similar ratio? Would that justify misandric attitudes?

    “They’ve been accused of misogyny their whole lives falsely… About 9 out of 10 times that they’re accused of misogyny its a FALSE accusation. Like completely senseless accusation that is not even 0% true. That has actually made them insensitive to REAL misogyny, since the only way to deal with those false accusations is to block it out mentally… So I blame the false accusers mostly, not the men who have it.”

    I agree that the word “misogyny” has been misused and overused by the doyennes of feminism, but I don’t know about your 9/10 x estimate. And no, that doesn’t let anyone, male or female, off the hook when they indulge in that, or misandry. Besides, this pattern of rejection experiences followed by negative attitudes towards women predates feminism (and seems to have been one of the forces that led to its creation).

  • AlekNovy

    “”but there hasn’t been much ownership here of the male proclivity to “punch above weight” in the looks department, particularly when it comes to finding a mate””

    This is a common misconception among women. Men only FANTASIZE about women of better looks. The difference is that if the average man gets approached by an average looking woman, he doesn’t say “ewww, get away, you don’t look like megan fox… eww…”

    The average woman however get repulsed by the average guy approaching her, and labels him creepy while she shuts him down in a brutal fashion.

  • AlekNovy

    “”””Wait a second!! Just because a woman rejects a “perfectly fine man”, it doesn’t mean that she’s got a “distorted self-assessment” or that she’s chasing after male 9-10s!”””
    .
    I never said that. You’re misreading what I’m saying. I’m not saying *every* female 6 thinks she’s a 9 because xyz. I’m saying “in the cases where a female 6 IS refusing and rejecting anything less than a male 9* then xyz”.
    .
    “”assuming that they didn’t ask badly, ie. too needy, too sleazy, etc.) “”
    .
    That’s the whole point. Needy/sleazy/creepy is defined by the woman based on how attractive the guy is. When I was overweight the same approach labeled me sleazy that today labels me cute and charming. Universally BAD approaches (the “yo babes, wanna hookup?” type) are rare. Most of the time a woman labels an approach cheesy or creepy its a backwards rationalization for rejecting a guy she thinks isn’t up to par.
    .
    “””that does not justify “100 times less likely” compassion for women’s position. “””
    .
    Actually it does very well justify it. Let me ask you something… Imagine the following… you spot a cute guy across the room, and you think to yourself, ok, i’ll go introduce myself to this guy. You walk up, and you’re shaking with excitement and you barely let the words come out of your mouth… I mean the guy is gorgeous right? You barely utter “Hey, I’m lurky, I thought I’d say hi”… And he reflexively turns his back to you, doing a motion like “get away you pest”… Then you see him make fun of you to his buddies…
    .
    Even more interestingly, you go to facebook, and you read how this guy has posted something like “man, these women suck so much, some creep approached me the other night, omg, she was soooooo creepy, what’s with women today, they can’t even approach a guy… where have all the REAL women gone… lame”.
    .
    Imagine if you were forced by society to always initiate everything, and if you didn’t men would call you names, call you gay, retarded and your entire worth as a human being was linked to your ability to approach and ask men out. Then, imagine further, that a full 10-20% of the time you asked a guy out, they treated you like in the scenario above, and they blamed YOU for it… That you were cheesy, creepy, lame… Even though, all you were was shy and stilted. These men would complain that you were an unworthy human being (after they rejected you harshly) for daring to ask TOO soon, not soon enough, too directly, not directly enough, for asking in a too untraditional way, for asking in a way that’s not traditional enough etc… etc…
    .
    How motivated would you be to understand why men do it? If you just received 20 rejections, and you’re told you’re not a worthy human being unless you subject yourself to massive rejection and 4 of them were BRUTALLY harsh… How motivated would you be to read up on why the men reacted that way to your approach. Be honest lurky, please answer this question honestly. Would you be going “oh wow, those men must have a valid reason for treating me like crap, let me spend 3 years reading up on what it’s like to be a man so I can realize why men treat me like crap…” Be honest… you wouldn’t.
    .
    “”””I don’t. Even if women were to reject in your prescribed “I’m so flattered” approach 99 times out of 100, I don’t think it would make the slightest difference.””””
    .
    Some people are oddly enough experts in things that have never been tried :D Women have used the above line as an excuse to treat unattractive men like crap since forever. “Oh, it wouldn’t make a difference…”.
    .
    “”””Overwhelmingly, women do take responsibility in this way! Turning guys down in a mean way is taboo for the very reasons you state (that it ruins it for everyone). The only exception I can think of is if the guy is really being inappropriate.”””
    .
    Actually, this is my point. Women make backwards rationalizations for treating unattractive guys like crap all the time, by inventing inappropriatness. I’ve witnessed hundreds of cases of women rejecting men harshly… In every single one of these cases the woman had some excuse like “bah, the way he came out of nowhere, that creep” or “bah, i hate guys who are older and think they are entitled to me”, “bah that creep lurked 2 minutes before saying hi”, “bah, what a creep, he just sauntered up without first making eye contact”.
    .
    Women reject guys harshly for being lower-status, then they backwards rationalize why they were harsh. Again, LET ME make this one thing clear. I’m not saying TRULY inappropriate responses don’t exist. They do, something like a guy walking up and grabbing a woman by the boobs, or getting sexual from the very first line… (I could go on, but you get the point)… MOST cases I see of women complaining of a guy’s approach being inappropriate involve FUSSY minutaue crap that’s subjective and not universal. The latest, a girlfriend of mine complaing about this “LAME” guy who asked her out after only knowing her for two weeks, how does he not know how inappropriate that is :D Whereas this same girl has complained of a guy being dumb like bricks for not making a move yet (despite her only knowing him for a week).
    .
    Virtually any guy I know who’s got EVEN ONE iota of shyness or lack of charm, when approaching a woman in a somewhat shy/uncomfortable way gets accused of being a creep or weird… I’m sorry, but shyness or lack of George Clooney smoothness is NOT a crime.
    .
    Summary: Women reject men harshly for being lower status, and they backwards rationalize it by inventing inappropriatness or creepiness.
    .
    “Besides, this pattern of rejection experiences followed by negative attitudes towards women predates feminism (and seems to have been one of the forces that led to its creation).”
    .
    The pattern of women handing down rejection in incredibly unwarranted levels of harshness and brutality and then backwards rationalizating it and blaming it on the men’s approach predates Misogyny and has led to its creation.

  • AlekNovy

    @lurky “Wait a second!! Just because a woman rejects a “perfectly fine man”, it doesn’t mean that she’s got a “distorted self-assessment” or that she’s chasing after male 9-10s!”

    Further clarifier on this, I wasn’t talking about individual cases. I’m not talking about if a female 6 rejects a male 6 one time (one individual case). I (just like the author of this article) am talking about women who consistently believe they are worth nothing LESS than a male 9, even though they themselves are a 6 and go decades rejecting 6s because they’re “not good enough” for my beautiful 9-self (even though she’s a 6). Make sense?

    You seem to believe in that feminist theory that men refuse to take female rejection so much that they think they’re entitled to women and won’t accept a rejection. That’s I’m guessing why you misread my paragraph… where I wasn’t talking about *a rejection*… you just read into it. That’s how that belief gets reinforced. A woman will reject a man harshly and cause him to react badly (to the harshness) and then rationalize his anger as “those men feel entitled to me, blah! can’t take a no! blah! They think I owe them a date just cause they want one, blah!”.

    Truth is, 99% of the time, men aren’t rejecting badly to not getting a date, but the process and the lack of respect and mistreatment of men in general.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Who came up with this ridiculous idea that guys have an easier time getting committed relationships than their female counterparts?
    .
    If a guy isn’t generating sexual attraction, he isn’t going to be involved in ANY kind of relationship with the opposite sex, casual or committed. It’s been noted many times, that’s a very large percentage of guys.

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

      Who came up with this ridiculous idea that guys have an easier time getting committed relationships than their female counterparts?

      This concept has gotten totally derailed and then magnified. It was simply a reference to the time-tested dynamic between the sexes. Women want commitment, and grant access to sex in order to get it. Men want sex, and expend resources, including commitment, to get it. This does not address the relative ease or difficulty which any particular individual may experience.

  • Plain Jane

    It may be a stretch for a 6 to expect a 9 (though guy sixes lust after nines regularly, come on), however I don’t think its a stretch for a 6 to expect an 8 – either sex. I know several couples who are 2 points at odds from each other on the scale, sometimes more.

  • AlekNovy

    @Jimmy The Guitarist

    I think it means getting a relationship once there has been attraction established. The truth is, women hold all the power before sex. But once sex/kissing/successful date has been had, the man holds all the power and decides if it goes into anything more.

    And yes, reiterating what you just did is important, that to actually EVEN get to a date is a massive feat for a LOT of guys… so women continue to forget that. From a woman’s perspective she goes on tons of dates that go nowhere because all the guys just want to use her for sex.

    Believe it or not, the average woman, experiencing this actually thinks the average guy is out there running around like a horny dog hitting on everything in sight, getting 675 dates a night, having sex, and then deciding if he wants something more. She’s forgetting that it’s 20% of guys who are having 80% of these dates…

  • tom

    Gees, what ever happened to the,” Lets go on a date, get to know one another, and see how it goes”….lol

    It seems today it has boiled down to animal instints.
    By the way, a male 9 will take a female 6 in 90% of the cases if he knows sex will happen AND he has no better offers.

    It obviously happens the other way around too. Many times one will see a male 5 or 6 with a female 9 or 10..Ofcourse, he is most likely rich. lol

    Female 8`s and above know they do not HAVE to give up sex to get a date. They will get plenty attention from the male Alpha`s….They hold all the cards, if they slect wisely. If she unknowingly selects a player, she has no advantage. He may talk her into bed, but that is about as far as he will go. True players are rarely reformed.(at least until they are ready)Personally, being a good guy alpha, I would not trust a player,even if he says he is reformed.
    Both sexes have to get good at the “interviewing” process. Many women think the way to a mans heart is thru his penis. While that may be true for a few men, it is not true for most.
    Many men think they can attract and keep a near chast woman by being alpha like. While that may have been more true in the past, I do not think that is as true as it used to be.
    Sometimes it is tough for me to relate to the 80% of men who are not having success with women. (I still do not believe the 80% number) I was used to being approached by all kinds of women, 6`s and 10`s. Some were true sluts in every sense of the word. (not choosey, low self esteem,used little protection, had no reason to ever want a relationship) I also experienced,level headed women who, for one reason or another, were in between relationships, but were very choosey about who they had sex with, always used protection and really did want to find the “one”
    I guess I do understand a beta mans view of women of experience. ” I wasnt good enough for women like you before, but now I am? AnAlphas thought process isdifferent than a betas.

  • AlekNovy

    “””It may be a stretch for a 6 to expect a 9 (though guy sixes lust after nines regularly, come on)”””

    The difference is that men simply LUST. A male six fantasizes about female nines. He doesn’t however turn down female sixes and rather be alone than dare settle for anything less than a female nine. That’s the biggest difference. In fact, it is the male six asking female sixes out and getting rejected time and again, because they think he’s not good enough for them…

    I think the point of the article was about perceived SMP value, and why so many women today have a distorted SMP self-assesment. Susan suggests it has to do with many women conflating the ability to hook up with a man, with the ability to get a man to commit. Any woman can get a hookup with a man 3-4-5-6 grades above her… But rarely can any woman get a man of more than 1-2 grades above her to commit.

  • Aldonza

    The difference is that men simply LUST. A male six fantasizes about female nines. He doesn’t however turn down female sixes and rather be alone than dare settle for anything less than a female nine.
    .
    Sure they do. They’ll screw 6s all day, but a lot of guys hold out for a 9, who is also intelligent, virtuous, younger and mostly subservient before he’ll marry.

  • Plain Jane

    “But rarely can any woman get a man of more than 1-2 grades above her to commit.”
    BULLOCKS! Women have always “married up”. Otherwise there would be no meaning to the term hypergamous if it was an impossible feat! As for men holding out for women above their league – don’t you read Roissy or Roosh? They regularly talk about how it’s better to go without than to “bottom feed” as they say.
    “They’ll screw 6s all day, but a lot of guys hold out for a 9, who is also intelligent, virtuous, younger and mostly subservient before he’ll marry.” Don’t know about this though. I woman who is a 9 in looks AND intelligent, AND virtuous, AND younger, AND “subservient”???? Sounds like a fiction storybook character OR one of those made to order robots that the Japanese are being inventing for the Singularity.

  • Lurky Lu

    @SW “Who came up with this ridiculous idea that guys have an easier time getting committed relationships than their female counterparts?

    This concept has gotten totally derailed and then magnified. It was simply a reference to the time-tested dynamic between the sexes. Women want commitment, and grant access to sex in order to get it. Men want sex, and expend resources, including commitment, to get it. This does not address the relative ease or difficulty which any particular individual may experience.”

    Exactly. I wasn’t at all claiming that either sex has it harder or easier. I was simply refuting the notion that men have it harder, and showing how this notion fuels misogynistic attitudes that most women are out slutting it up with alphas while mocking the earnest beta guys living sexless lives.

  • AlekNovy

    @Aldonza
    .
    “””Sure they do. They’ll screw 6s all day, but a lot of guys hold out for a 9, who is also intelligent, virtuous, younger and mostly subservient before he’ll marry.”””””
    .
    You’re again forgetting the fact that men don’t “screw 6s all day”… lol… Most men can’t even get to the point of screwing a 6, let alone afford to change them like underwear. Your sentence above is based on those 20% of men who can even get 6s in the first place, so that they’d afford to hold out for a 9, lol.
    .
    @Plain Jane
    “””BULLOCKS! Women have always “married up”. Otherwise there would be no meaning to the term hypergamous if it was an impossible feat! “””
    .
    1) Notice I was *very* careful with my language. I said ” women *rarely* marry men of more than 1-2 grades above them.
    .
    2) I did not say women *never* marry men more than 2 grades above. If I had used the word never, then you would be right to read my sentence as suggesting an “impossible feat”.
    .
    3) Your sentence as-is would constitute a mathematical impossibility in a monogamous and egalitarian society. If there’s a roughly equal amount of men and women and they are roughly equal in status, then by definition only *some women can marry up, not “women” as a group. For some women to marry up, some have to marry down in an equal and monogamous society.
    .
    For “women” as group to consistently marry up and marry 3-4 grades yup, that could only be achieved if A) polygamy was legal and rich men could take 7-8-9-10 wife’s B) women as a group had much lower status… so all women would need to be rated 3-4-5-6 grades lower than men… and that’s increasingly not the case. Women make almost as much money, get almost as much recognition etc… etc..

  • AlekNovy

    “””As for men holding out for women above their league – don’t you read Roissy or Roosh?””

    I’m well familiarized with their ilk.

    1) roissy as is what’s known as keybord jockey. This is usually an obese geek blogging in this underwear about game, whereas the last time he had a date was back in 1998 (maybe). They regularly talk about how it’s better to go without than to “bottom feed” as they say. The only thing he’s good

    2) roosh is what’s known as scam-artist. I’ve worked with, made business with, taught with and and so forth will all the pick-up-artists of his kind. Their dirty secret?

    a) most of them are massive alcoholics. They get so drunk they can’t spell their own name, then they hit on about 300 girls

    b) then they find the one bottom of the pond girl who’s there just as drunk as he is and is super low self-esteem, begging to be approached by just one guy in her entire life. He takes her home, they kinda have sex… he goes online and blogs about how he banged this perfect 10 the other night and then it turned into a threesome.

    I personally know roughly 20 roosh-es (same caliber and name recognition). I won’t name names. They regularly lie about numbers, quality and kind of women they get. There’s one guy who recently got back into the business after a break, started blogging again claiming hundreds of satisfied clients and countless women seduced… I was with him the whole before he retired. he never had more than a dozen clients in his life (not hundreds) and none were satisfied. The countless women, its a similar exaggeration…

    These people are snake oil salesmen my dear, and I know because I used to help print the labels for the bottles for most of them :D

  • Plain Jane

    @AlekNovy, “But rarely can any woman get a man of more than 1-2 grades above her to commit.”
    My bad, I misread you. Reading fast I thought you wrote that it was rare for a woman to get a man 1-2 grades above, not MORE than. I actually agree with you. Everyday I see several couples who are more or less evenly matched – within 1-2 grades of each other. For a man or woman to get 3 or 4 grades higher, that is rarer.
    I know PUAs are scam-artists. If you see photos and in-field videos, they hit on ordinary looking women with lots of makeup – not great beauties. Tyler Durden’s baby’s mama is not even attractive. Even then, Roissy and Roosh claim to not sleep with “fatties” or what is termed “war pigs” (never got that terminology). So while they may not be gaming the Angelina Jolies of the world (when she was under 30 of course!) – still they are approaching women they deem to be of a certain level of attractiveness according to their standards. I highly doubt they get lucky even a small percentage of the time.
    Roosh is of Persian background and Persian women are a goodlooking lot. The fact that he has not been able to secure a Persian girlfriend for himself from amongst his father’s community says a lot.

  • AlekNovy

    “””My bad, I misread you. Reading fast I thought you wrote that it was rare for a woman to get a man 1-2 grades above, not MORE than.”””
    .
    It’s ok :) I did assume a miss-communication. I’m not totally blameless either. My writing style is very rambly and not clear, so its easy to missunderstand if fast-reading.
    .
    “””If you see photos and in-field videos, they hit on ordinary looking women with lots of makeup”””
    .
    And that’s just the women they hit on without being rejected outright lol… Most of the women you see in the video will never date or have sex with the pua, they’re just being friendly or flirting for fun.
    .
    The thing is that the community attracts a lot of guys who lack basic social skills so the mere act of approaching a woman and not getting blown out makes you a god in their eyes. We oldies have a running joke about this when some kid contacts us asking for help (they find our contact from the ol days), we say “time to be some kid’s god!”.
    .
    This joke is based on the fact that all it takes for me (alek) or any of us oldies to make a kid think we’re some sort of dating god is to walk up to a woman on the street or a club and make her smile. I as I sit here Alek, am able to take out 99% of Roosh’s fans into a club or a supermarket and have them drooling by how women react to me. Guess what though? I don’t actually hook up or date with any of those women (nor am I able to). Its just for show. Its extremely easy to charm women. And that’s all PUAs ever get good at. The actual conversion rate though, of how many of those women they hook up with is never larger than random. In other words its pure numbers game.
    .
    What those videos don’t show is that the PUA then gets drunk, and hits on 50 more women that night until he stumbles onto one super super super desperate super drunk chick when the club is closing. (if he does, most nights he does not).
    .
    “””Tyler Durden’s baby’s mama is not even attractive.”””
    .
    Yeah and the funny part is that nobody has ever witnessed him hooking up with any girl before her. Former partners of his claim he would hit on women 10 hours straight every single day and had never witnessed him getting anywhere…
    .
    “” Even then, Roissy and Roosh claim to not sleep with “fatties” or what is termed “war pigs”””
    .
    Well I doubt Roissy sleeps with anyone except mrs rosy palms… And roosh is a massive alcoholic… Its called beer googles. Even when sober, PUA still vastly exaggerate the looks of the women whose phone number they got (99% of the time a number is all they get). In my vast experience with PUAs, when they describe a rare gem of beauty, in truth, its just an average girl with a lot of makeup.
    .
    “”still they are approaching women they deem to be of a certain level of attractiveness according to their standards.””
    .
    Sure, but the discussion was about how and if men overshoot and won’t settle for a woman their level. Roosh is an ok looking guy, and if he refuses to try to hook up with women who are less than “ok looking” then he is in fact shooting within his league, not above it. The difference is he’ll hook up with an ok looking girl and then brag about this scoring with this amazing beauty unlike the world has ever seen.
    .
    “””The fact that he has not been able to secure a Persian girlfriend for himself from amongst his father’s community says a lot.”””
    .
    Yes, that’s true of most PUAs. They come from a background of failing massively in their original community.

  • Lurky Lu

    @AlekNovy, “I never said that. You’re misreading what I’m saying. I’m not saying *every* female 6 thinks she’s a 9 because xyz.”

    You had quoted and affirmed the “at least 50% of women think they’re a hard 10″ notion, reasoning that it was “because they’ve all had a date with a male 10 or a male 9 or whatever… So they project that to mean that they must be female 9s or 10s”. Anyways, I think now we understand each other.

    “Needy/sleazy/creepy is defined by the woman based on how attractive the guy is. When I was overweight the same approach labeled me sleazy that today labels me cute and charming. Universally BAD approaches (the “yo babes, wanna hookup?” type) are rare. Most of the time a woman labels an approach cheesy or creepy its a backwards rationalization for rejecting a guy she thinks isn’t up to par…Women make backwards rationalizations for treating unattractive guys like crap all the time, by inventing inappropriatness.”

    I don’t doubt that harsh rejections and backwards rationalizations do happen, but again, I question how many of them are truly harshly given — or just harshly taken. A similar attraction bugaboo happens there too, whereby rejection from the girl you really want is experienced much more harshly, regardless of her delivery. Universally bad approaches and truly harsh rejections probably are both equally rare. Awkward or cheesy approaches would be far more common, as would be awkward and cheesy rejections. Btw – probably most guys would find the “I’m flattered but” to be cheesy and patronizing, kind of like LJBF. I remember reading another guy’s take on it: “be clear, make sure the knife is sharp and make it snappy!”– not my approach, but obviously not all guys feel the same way as you do.

    “Let me ask you something… Imagine the following… you spot a cute guy across the room, and you think to yourself, ok, i’ll go introduce myself to this guy. You walk up, and you’re shaking with excitement and you barely let the words come out of your mouth… I mean the guy is gorgeous right? You barely utter “Hey, I’m lurky, I thought I’d say hi”… And he reflexively turns his back to you, doing a motion like “get away you pest”… Then you see him make fun of you to his buddies…How motivated would you be to understand why men do it? If you just received 20 rejections, and you’re told you’re not a worthy human being unless you subject yourself to massive rejection and 4 of them were BRUTALLY harsh… How motivated would you be to read up on why the men reacted that way to your approach.”

    I learned fairly early on that a woman must NEVER NEVER just walk up to a cute guy you don’t know who’s hanging with a group of friends and start talking to him. What’s more, doesn’t the PUA scene warn against this? Don’t they say that if you see a woman you like with a group of friends that you don’t just walk up to her and start talking, but rather, first talk to the **women as a group**? And if you’re “shaking with excitement”, that will come across as creepy!! You can call it “minutae” but there’s no substitute for good social skills. Is it a slam dunk guarantee that you’ll never get rejected? No — nothing is ever a guarantee.

    Women are avid students of communication, reading up on how to “connect” and sharing said information with each other. Something too many guys write off as touchy-feely crap. At their peril they ignore those skills and then blame women for being “fussy”.

  • Lavazza

    Lurky Lu: “Women are avid students of communication, reading up on how to “connect” and sharing said information with each other.”

    Well, I have quite often heard women complain about other women being unnecessarily harsh or unnecessarily vague, not able to take a hint or too thin skinned, imagining slights, in interfemale communication.

    The few times women have approached me I have not been impressed with their ability to read me, deliver and adjust in a suave manner.

    A lot of back seat driving, if you ask me. It is easier to review than to perform.

  • terre

    Many of the commentators here are drastically exaggerating the female desire for “commitment”. Women do not want “commitment” the same way men want sex; the latter is unqualified, simple and boundless, men simply want sex with willing women. Women do not always ‘want’ commitment, and nor can they define it when it actually comes into play; Roissy advocates leaving immediately after sex precisely because one can be easily thwarted by submitting to a girl’s desire to have you “commit”. It is trivial for her to rapidly fall out of love when her dreams of committed bliss do not come to fruition (as well they cannot; a committed alpha is by definition tamed). Women are not so desiring of commitment itself but the process of having a desirable man commit. Indeed, her satisfaction, chemical in nature, has never been enough to ensure paternity.

  • AlekNovy

    @Lurky

    I don’t doubt that harsh rejections and backwards rationalizations do happen, but again, I question how many of them are truly harshly given — or just harshly taken. A similar attraction bugaboo happens there too, whereby rejection from the girl you really want is experienced much more harshly, regardless of her delivery. Universally bad approaches and truly harsh rejections probably are both equally rare.

    Point well taken. Yes, you’re right (how its taken/perceived) probably also plays a part… The 2 in 10 rejections probably needs more qualifiers. It is probably more correct to say 2 in 10 rejections are harsh in cold situations (bar/club/supermarket/cafe)… And yes 2 to 4 women will completely destroy a man in these situations no matter how good intentioned he was, for simply not being smooth.

    It is true that if he approached the exact same women in an exact same way at a birthday party, university library, yoga class… harsh rejections would be rarer, maybe only 1 in 20.

    Btw – probably most guys would find the “I’m flattered but” to be cheesy and patronizing, kind of like LJBF.”””

    I was very clear in what I wrote. I wasn’t talking about *words* uttered by the woman, but her “attitude”. There’s what you say, and how you say it. You can say “hello, how may I help you” with an attitude of ” I’m just saying it because its my job, i hate my job” or with an attitude of “I love helping people, and you look coool!”.

    As supposedly emotionally retarded as men are, they can read non-verbal communication very well. They can tell a difference between “no thanks” uttered with a tonality of “I’m sooo flattered, and I wish you the best”, or a tonality of “how dare you even attempt to speak with me you worm!”.

    Your point holds true, it is a factor. How emotionally you’re tied to the response will determine how harshly you perceive anything less than ideal… BUT women do by large have a complete disrespect for the difficulty of approaching, and most women do have… an attitude where they assume every man is a pig jumping from one woman to the next, just playing the numbers.

    I learned fairly early on that a woman must NEVER NEVER just walk up to a cute guy you don’t know who’s hanging with a group of friends and start talking to him. What’s more, doesn’t the PUA scene warn against this? “””

    Nope. There’s like 50,000 pua schools and they’re all very different from one another. The only thing remotely related I can think of… Is a theory by that freak mystery who does believe you must approach everyone else in the group first, but his theory is based on lowering the self-esteem of the “target”. That is… he approaches everyone else in the group first, so that she (the target) starts wondering if she’s attractive. That’s manipulation… Nothing to do with “social skills” and nothing to do with “not approaching women in groups”. He just rearranges the order of whom he talks to first.

    Me personally (alek) I can walk up to any woman, anywhere in any situation (supermarket, street, club where she’s with a group of 50 friends… whether she’s got the friendliest body-language or she’s sitting there with her arms crossed looking hostile. And in 99.99999999% of situations the woman/women will react great to my approach. I’m talking “Omg, wow, thanks for talking to me” great reaction. But this is because I’ve developed charisma and charm over years of trying it.

    My point is that its BULLS*IT that there are universal rules of where/how you can approach. Its just BS that women use to rationalize treating uncharismatic guys like crap… and an excuse PUAs use to fill up products full of rules. If there were universal rules then all puas/women would AGREE on this list of rules! If you poll a 100 women/puas to compile a list of when/how its ok to approach, you’ll get a 100 COMPLETELY different lists.

    Example1

    - One woman will WHINE about how she never gets approached in the club (even though she’s there surrounded with 10 friends)…

    - Another woman will whine why do guys approach her when she’s with friends

    On analysis: If you suggest to the first woman “well, did ya think that maybe men can’t approach you when you’re with a group” she’ll respond “where have the real men gone, why are they such wusses that I’d have to walk ALONE to meet a man!!?!? Don’t they know its basic social knowledge that you meet people in groups!?”…

    The other woman if asked “well, what’s wrong with being approached when with friends”, she will answer “Don’t these d-bags know you don’t approach a woman when she’s out with friends! OMG, that’s like SUCH BASIC social skills! In other words she’s taking her PERSONAL preference and naming it a “basic social skill” as if it were a universal rule.

    Example2

    - One woman will look at man for 5 seconds, the man will approach her, and she will blow him off HARD.

    - Another woman will glance at a man she likes for 3 seconds, and if he doesn’t approach she’ll whine and rant about how men are ball-less wusses who won’t approach like a real man.

    On analysis: If you suggest to the first woman “well, did ya think that maybe looking at him for 5 seconds might have been taken as an approach invitation” she’ll respond “what!?!?!? I hate it when men take some accidental look as an excuse to pester you!! If I was interested I would have kept on looking and I would have been smiling for like minutes!!” I mean c’mon, that’s like COMMON knowledge!…

    The other woman if asked “you do realize you only looked at him for barely 3 seconds and you weren’t even smiling? Men generally want to make sure they’re not intruding and want to make sure you’re really interested before you approach”. She will respond “OMG where have the real men gone! Do I have to draw a freaking map to get him to come over! Omg, men are such wusses!” In other words they’re both taking PERSONAL preference and naming it THE WAY men should be… and then using as an excuse to treat men like crap.

    And you’re doing the exact same thing I talked about. You’re saying if a man walked up to a woman in a group, got treated like crap, its his own damn fault, and that supposedly its common social knowledge not to do that. This is the backwards rationalization most women use to justify the mistreatment of men. They INVENT a rule he broke, AFTER she humiliated him for not being charming/charismatic.

    And if you’re “shaking with excitement”, that will come across as creepy!! You can call it “minutae” but there’s no substitute for good social skills.

    Are you suggesting only sociopaths approach women? Are you suggesting that CHARISMA is a “good social skill”? I’d say its a super duper advanced social skill. I’m sorry, but SANE, NORMAL individuals feel excitement if they need to approach a person they’re attracted to.

    The only way to overcome this excitement is… TO DO IT! I’m at the charismatic/indifferent stage right now. To me approaching a supermodel in the middle of a club surrounded by 10 bodyguards is the same excitement as approaching a neighbour in the elevator… That is, I’m pretty indifferent about it,and this is the reason why I come across as charismatic. But this is because I HAD TO DO IT hundreds of times first in a less than charming way and get treated like crap hundreds of times, then neutrally hundreds of time, then well, then super well etc…

    What women don’t get is that men coming across clumsy is NORMAL. The only guys who never approach in a clumsy way are sociopaths who have no conscience. Every other guy has to go through the stage of approaching clumsy/creepy/badly/shyly… And that’s no excuse to treat men like crap. In fact, its because of all the incredibly unwarranted harshness that most men simply give up on mastering approaching.

  • AlekNovy

    @Lavazza
    .

    The few times women have approached me I have not been impressed with their ability to read me, deliver and adjust in a suave manner.

    .
    I’m not approached that often when on my own, but I have friends that attract approaches by women. Either the girl approaches us the group, or one our friends.
    .
    Let me confirm this… women suck at approaching just as much as men. They’re clumsy, silly, say and do silly things, they can’t assess the timing or the right way to do it. To their luck, men are a lot more forgiving and understanding.
    .
    But I think as you said, reviewing is so much easier than doing. Women can whine about how men approach, but if put in the same shoes couldn’t do crap. Both experiments I know of, where a woman was dressed and made up to look like a man, and approach women, in both cases the women were surprised by how mean women are and how hard it is to approach women as a man.
    .
    Women are armchair quarterbacks when it comes to criticizing approaches.

  • tom

    Ive been approached, many times before. Never did I care if she was “suave” in her delivery. I was flattered she came over to talk. Most of the time she was nervous, so I took that into account. Some women were VERY smooth, like they had done this many times before. I understand we are talking hookups here, and not dating, looking for a mate. For that reason alone I get why we classify a man or woman as a 6 or a 9 etc…. But we all have to admit, that is pretty damn shallow. I would much rather go out with a 6 or 7 who is a really cool person, than a 9 or a 10 who is insecure, or has bitch written all over her. As for relationship material, her personality is WAY more important than is a difference of 2 or 3 numbers on some unreliable scale.
    Ive seen more 9`s and 10`s with sexual hangups than I care to admit. Nice to look at, but lousey in bed. I would much rather be with a well grounded 7 who has a high libido, high sexual skills, as well as having the rest of their house in order.
    I know my attitude is different than most men. I too classify women into two classifications.
    Sex only or relationship material. However, the biggest detemining factors for me, do not necessaily have to do with their “number “…In my eyes there are a lot more important factors involved in making such an important decision.

  • Lurky Lu

    “Nope. There’s like 50,000 pua schools and they’re all very different from one another…that freak mystery who does believe you must approach everyone else in the group first, but his theory is based on lowering the self-esteem of the “target”…so that she (the target) starts wondering if she’s attractive. That’s manipulation…Nothing to do with “social skills” and nothing to do with “not approaching women in groups”. He just rearranges the order of whom he talks to first……My point is that its BULLS*IT that there are universal rules of where/how you can approach. Its just BS that women use to rationalize treating uncharismatic guys like crap… and an excuse PUAs use to fill up products full of rules….And you’re doing the exact same thing I talked about. You’re saying if a man walked up to a woman in a group, got treated like crap, its his own damn fault, and that supposedly its common social knowledge not to do that. This is the backwards rationalization most women use to justify the mistreatment of men. They INVENT a rule he broke, AFTER she humiliated him for not being charming/charismatic.”

    Whew! I must have hit a nerve there! First of all, I wasn’t talking about “not approaching women in groups” as a rule to be strictly followed (or severely punished), but as a ***risk to be calculated***. I (and probably most women) think that it’s too risky to walk up to a group of guys you don’t know and just start talking to the best looking one. This is true for either sex, and if you do it, then you take your chances and don’t blame them later for being so “harsh” and snobby. Does that justify harsh or snobby behaviour? No, but at some level people have to take responsibility for the risks they take, and realize the quality of your approach (including selection of “target” and setting) will have some bearing on the quality of response you get! Besides, Mystery may vainly attribute his success with his “rearranged order” approach to “good manipulation”, but it probably has more to do with impressing the women with his confidence and being cool enough to talk to everyone in the group (not just the hottie), and in a non-sexual way, if I recall correctly.

    “Me personally (alek) I can walk up to any woman, anywhere in any situation (supermarket, street, club where she’s with a group of 50 friends… whether she’s got the friendliest body-language or she’s sitting there with her arms crossed looking hostile. And in 99.99999999% of situations the woman/women will react great to my approach. I’m talking “Omg, wow, thanks for talking to me” great reaction. But this is because I’ve developed charisma and charm over years of trying it.”

    Exactly. You had to learn that there is such a thing as ***quality*** in communication (whether or not you call it “charisma” or “charm”), and that although it’s no guarantee, it’s what makes the difference between a great response and one that’s lukewarm. So you’re basically affirming my point, which is that good approaches can be learned and should be taught from elder to younger. Likewise, if these things can be learned, the learner must own up to that rather than blaming others for a less than warm reception — same thing goes for learning other communications based skills, whether it’s sales or stand-up comedy.

    “Are you suggesting only sociopaths approach women? Are you suggesting that CHARISMA is a “good social skill”? I’d say its a super duper advanced social skill. I’m sorry, but SANE, NORMAL individuals feel excitement if they need to approach a person they’re attracted to.”

    A bit of awkwardness is one thing, but “shaking with excitement” (a too-furtive indicator of sexual attraction) is unacceptable — that guy needs to calm down and get a grip before approaching anybody. Why? Most women just aren’t physically attracted to most guys right from the get-go, and being prematurely confronted with a guy’s sexuality before you’ve even had a chance to form any attraction to him actually has the reverse effect — hence the reflexive “ewwww” reaction.

    “BUT women do by large have a complete disrespect for the difficulty of approaching, and most women do have… an attitude where they assume every man is a pig jumping from one woman to the next, just playing the numbers…It is true that if he approached the exact same women in an exact same way at a birthday party, university library, yoga class… harsh rejections would be rarer, maybe only 1 in 20.”

    Disbelieve me if you want, but women feel greatly for men having to be the pursuers, that’s how so many after-the-fact misunderstandings occur (“I was trying to let him down gently”). Hey, why don’t we just truce this by agreeing that neither men or women should make judgements about either gender from their experiences with them in alcohol-centered settings? If harsh rejections could be reduced from 4/10 to 1/20 by approaching women in other kinds of settings, with 99.99999999 % “great responses” possible (wow!) with a bit of acquired charm, then maybe women aren’t the hard-headed rejection machines we’re made out to be. :)

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

    Excellent piece Susan, wouldn’t change a word. Thanks!

  • Lurky Lu

    “that guy needs to calm down and get a grip before approaching anybody.”

    Let me tweak that a bit…that guy would do well to get as much exposure to women as possible — in platonic contexts: hang out with sister(s) and female cousins, interacting with them and having discussions that encourage mutual learning about communication differences between the sexes (shouldn’t be too difficult, since women LOVE talking about that stuff). Take up activities and volunteer for things that tend to draw more women than men (which is very often the case). Cultivate friendships with women you’re not all that attracted to — doing this along with a male friend is a great idea, because then you can organize parties and other events where you can get the women to bring their friends. Don’t worry about getting LJBFed by a female friend, because if that happens you can get access to more women through her (which isn’t “using” her, it’s just plain good networking). Besides, women tend to develop attraction more slowly, and you may end finding that one of the women who originally JWTBF now seems more interested in you — and if you happen to be interested in her, push aside any bitter feelings about the earlier LJBF, chalk it up to gender differences in attraction process and just go for it.

  • terre

    Disbelieve me if you want, but women feel greatly for men having to be the pursuers

    .
    Oh please.

  • tom

    LOL @ Dr. Love who sells his “system” on Ask Men. com. He is trying to teach “game” to guys. He is trying to teach men to act like a bad boy to attract women….Oh boy, where do I start…lol

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

      @tom
      the Your Tango article is fine and accurate, with the exception of “A man is selfless” (compared to a boy who is selfish). No one should be selfless. It’s certainly not a quality that a man looking for a mature relationship will display. And it’s definitely not a quality that will produce or maintain sexual attraction in women. A man should be generous and considerate but also have self-respect, and determination to have his own needs met. Otherwise, he’s a doormat.

  • terre

    Alek would also do a lot better to just learn game than to follow Lurky’s advice about “befriending” women. One can get sex on the tap while keeping sexless interactions to a minimum.

  • Plain Jane

    Good advice Lurky Lu. Women know when they are dealing with a well-adjusted human being who can navigate the social world of both men and women, and when they are not. If a guy hopes to land a girlfriend someday, he should do what you are doing. If sex is all he’s after, he will save money, time and emotional distress by going to hookers.

  • AlekNovy

    Alek would also do a lot better to just learn game than to follow Lurky’s advice about “befriending” women.

    Have you read any of the discussion or just blindly read into sentences assuming what it’s about? Lurky isn’t giving anyone advice on what to do in their own personal dating life.

    I was suggesting how in general women underestimate how much SKILL it takes to approach a woman in an effective way (due to approach anxiety etc), and how most men aren’t naturals at approaching women. She was suggesting how one way to become more comfortable approaching women, might be to become more comfortable with women (make more female friends to get comfortable and not so afraid of women).

    She never said “befriend a woman to get into her pants”. She was saying how one way of getting better at approaching women is to get comfortable around women in general. And she’s right, it is one factor and useful tool.

  • terre

    You’re being as sufficiently vague as she was. Game is precisely about being “comfortable with women”, which you won’t be if you’re unnaturally stifling your sexual id around them. Intentionally making platonic friends is as good as doing nothing at all.

  • AlekNovy

    Intentionally making platonic friends is as good as doing nothing at all.

    .
    Ah, the good old days, I remember being like this. I think it was back in 2002, when I first discovered masf, or some other major PUA site.
    .
    When you’re a newb, you misunderstand most of the information given in a totally literal way, and are very fatalistic in the understanding. You read about cocky-funny (or negs) and not understanding social subtleties, you go around and you insult women, thinking that’s game… Oh… sweet memories…
    .
    Or for example you read about how you shouldn’t try to get women by befriending them, and lacking basic social subtlety, you misunderstand that to be a commandment of “never ever be friendly to any woman anywhere under any circumstance, or that means u’re a beta afc” :D
    .
    You know what’s painful terre, I know where you are, but… there is absolutely no way for me to communicate with you, because that level is one where you 1) don’t get it 2) think you “get it” but everyone else doesn’t. On average it takes 2-3 years to grow past the phase you’re currently in… You’ll be looking back on today (from the future), cringing, going “omg, I was such a noob”.
    .
    If the conversations between adults, i.e. me and lurky seem “vague” its because its a language you don’t yet speak due to lack of experience. I wish you luck, and a quick journey Good luck.

  • terre

    Thanks for the five paragraphs of dripping condescension, but I have more experience than is really required to make a point like “be honest about your sexual intentions with girls you want to have sex with”. Again, you or Lurky can advise frustrated guys to act like eunuch boy scouts till the cows come home, but it won’t help them get dates, and it certainly won’t help them get laid.

  • AlekNovy

    @Lurky – P.S Look into the tags below, they allow you to write a post that is more readable, by using blockquote (to quote) and other such tags. I enjoy discussing this with you, can you make the post more readable using tags? Like when quoting me use the quote tag etc… Thanks.
    .

    Whew! I must have hit a nerve there!

    .
    Yes you did hit a nerve :). One thing I hate is intellectual dishonesty. Now, women (or you) when it comes to this subject aren’t doing it on purpose. Its a blindspot, but its still irritating like heck to see women’s denial about it.
    .

    You had to learn that there is such a thing as ***quality*** in communication (whether or not you call it “charisma” or “charm”), and that although it’s no guarantee, it’s what makes the difference between a great response and one that’s lukewarm.

    .
    You completely missed my point. You missed how I stated that it involved MASSIVE effort, and does for pretty much anyone who tries to master (if not already a natural at it). If I could guesstimate, I’d say that becoming good/suave at approaching requires about the effort it takes to get a master’s degree at a decent university… or starting and getting a business running… In other words, its a MASSIVE AMOUNT of effort. The only reason I mastered it is because I’m a stubborn prick who masters anything he ever starts. Its unrealistic to expect every man to invest THAT MUCH energy to simply be treated like a human being.
    .
    To call this a “basic communication skill” would be like calling gymkhana well… “basic parking skills”. (youtube gymkhana to see what I mean). I do think its unfair to expect men to invest that much effort to simply be treated like a human being.
    .

    A bit of awkwardness is one thing, but “shaking with excitement” (a too-furtive indicator of sexual attraction) is unacceptable

    .
    The only reason you can say this, is because being a woman you have the female privilege of NOT knowing what “approach anxiety” is. You can come close to re-creating it though. Go out tonight and try to walk up cold to the hottest guy in the place. If you’re not shaking with excitement, you’re either a sociopath, or lying.
    .
    You see, all guys except naturals start out at this point. And you know what the irony is? The only way to overcome this stage is to burn through it. The first approaches (in their life) for guys are always going to be “shaking with excitement”. Its natural, and women in their lack of empathy and privilege don’t understand this. Some guys will have to do just 2-3 “shaking with excitement” approaches, and some might need to do as much as a 100 to pass that level. Then, you progress to awkward, then neutral, then good, and only then amazing (or what women expect to be normal). Some guys might need to do 10,000 approaches to get to “amazing” and some might get there in only a 100.
    .

    hence the reflexive “ewwww” reaction.

    .
    In other words, women are having ewwww reactions to guys who aren’t sociopaths, or haven’t yet clocked in the 10000 approaches it takes to get good. That’s hardly good evidence that women have compassion for the pursuer role. They don’t.
    .
    My point is this… women have a VERY warped sense of what is “normal”, I’m guessing “thanks to” hollywood movies. What you see in romance novels or movies is like LEVEL TEN of suaveness, but somehow women have concluded that this is supposed to be normal. And further, when a guy approaches who isn’t at a hollywood level of suaveness, women respond in a weirded out manner, like “omg, this guy is sooo creepy”. That’s like a guy calling an average girl “ugly” because she doesn’t look like the cover of playboy magazine.
    .
    In other words, your calibration is TOTALLY OFF. What to you is “awkward” is in real world terms “normal”. And what to you seems SUPER CREEPY EWWW is actually “only awkward” in the real world. Make sense?
    .

    Disbelieve me if you want, but women feel greatly for men having to be the pursuers

    .
    The real world does not bear out this assertion. The only contexts in which women are forgiving to men who aren’t yet masters of seduction is in social circles. If women were truly compassionate about the male role, they would be so everywhere, not only in social circles. In fact, it seems to be selfish really. She will not completely destroy a guy in a social circle because she doesn’t want to disrupt the social circle and lose status. Yet, when in a club, she feels free to destroy the man utterly.
    .

    Hey, why don’t we just truce this by agreeing that neither men or women should make judgements about either gender from their experiences with them in alcohol-centered settings?

    .
    In vino es veritas. So its actually that you see the true spirit of women in clubs. Like me, the first thing I do when I meet a woman is see how she acts in a club and how she responds to strangers hitting on her. I don’t care how well she treats me, if she treats complete male strangers like crap for failing to have GeorgeClooney smoothness (how dare they!). It means in clubs she’s showing her true lack of compassion for men, and everywhere else, she’s faking niceness to men.
    .

    If harsh rejections could be reduced from 4/10 to 1/20 by approaching women in other kinds of settings, with 99.99999999 % “great responses” possible (wow!) with a bit of acquired charm, then maybe women aren’t the hard-headed rejection machines we’re made out to be. :)

    .
    That’s good in theory, not so much in practice. People have a limited time. You can’t join the yoga club AND the volunteers club AND the gym AND a photography club AND a debating club… You generally can make 2-3-4 circles at most, for an average person with average available free time. If the dozen or so single women in those circles don’t happen to be your type, or you theirs, you’re screwed…
    .
    So in practice, people have to approach people in cold situations to meet someone new, unless they get lucky and their circle had a good match… Most people have to either work the cold-situations, or become a social-life-freak… like prioritize socializing…
    .
    We, however live in a very workaholic enviroment where people don’t have that much time to socializeand build and maintain many social circles, so most people are pretty much forced and left to cold-approaching situations through out their daily life (starbucks, supermarket, club, the elevator, etc…)

  • AlekNovy

    @ Lurky 2

    that guy would do well to get as much exposure to women as possible — in platonic contexts: hang out with sister(s) and female cousins, interacting with them and having discussions that encourage mutual learning about communication differences between the sexes (shouldn’t be too difficult, since women LOVE talking about that stuff). Take up activities and volunteer for things that tend to draw more women than men (which is very often the case). Cultivate friendships with women you’re not all that attracted to — doing this along with a male friend is a great idea, because then you can organize parties and other events where you can get the women to bring their friends.

    .
    Again, this is all very theoretical because being a woman you have no practical experience with the approach anxiety that these guys experience. What you said above is “truish” in the sense that its a factor. You want to know how much of a factor it is? Maybe 5% at most.
    .
    Yes, being more comfortable around women non-sexually increases your comfort around women you’re attracted to, but the transference is VERY VERY VERY VERY small.
    .
    Example1:
    Like take a guy who’s never left his house and has zero social experience with women, like never talked to one in his life, right? For him to go from shaking-with-excitement approaches to then akward and then good approaches it might take him maybe a good 100 approaches.
    .
    Example2:
    Take the exact same guy, but first have him make a bunch of female friends he’s not attracted to ,develop good relations with women in his life… Guess what? His first 10-20 approaches to women he is attracted to are STILL going to suck (shaking with excitement)… Except he’ll maybe have to do, i dunno, maybe 90 approaches to pass the same journey? And again, this is at best.
    .
    Being a woman you have no understanding of what approach anxiety is, and you assume it to be directly tied into general women anxiety, and its not. There’s only maybe a 5-10% intersection between the two.

  • terre

    It’s a little bizarre that you’ve just made exactly my point in the first place, Alek.

  • Sox

    @SayWhaat
    Sorry for the delayed response…

    May I ask how old you are? I recall that you’re in the DC area, am I correct? I’m curious about your experiences with women who don’t want commitment.

    I’m in my mid-twenties and in the DC area. I’ve been here since college. One girl more or less said after a bottle of wine that she was gonna screw my brains out, I actually held off on sex the first night, we made out all the way home on the metro though. Soon after that she established that it was a FwB thing. We hung out for a couple of months but I noticed her getting pretty clingy from the get-go. I maintained my emotional distance and only hung out twice a month or so, to keep things from getting too familiar. Finally she decided it wasn’t working for her and we ended it, which I respect.
    .
    Other girls, mostly ones I was friends with first, repeatedly got involved with me knowing I didn’t want a relationship, but we almost always ended up having an uncomfortable conversation down the road. Wash, rinse, repeat.
    .
    Here’s my take- women today deep down mostly all want the same thing. They want relationships. They’re vulnerable as anyone emotionally. But they’re hamstrung by their egos, what society’s telling them they should want, and of course, desire for pleasure and all that. They have a hard edge to them that most guys can see right through. Whether it’s in the form of snarkiness, bitchiness, or an “I don’t need anyone” type attitude, it usually comes across as overcompensating and borderline ridiculous. But even so, I’d take a woman like this over one who can have consistent casual sex without any emotional attachment whatsoever any day.
    .
    Which brings my to a roommate I have, whom I’ve mentioned elsewhere. In the 6 months she lived in my place, she slept with 12 guys that I knew of, including 2 roommates (one of them an ex boyfriend) and 3 guys from the same friends circle. She acted completely on impulse, got wasted constantly, and tried hooking up with me the second week she lived in my place. In all this time I’ve never seen her remotely interested in any of the guys she’s hooked up with, past the sex that is. She’s got issues. I had another roommate her age (early 20′s) who had the same mentality (including not being able to go more than a week w/o sex) and just as many issues so it made me wonder if we’re just fucked with this new batch of GenY.

  • Sox

    @terre

    It’s a little bizarre that you’ve just made exactly my point in the first place, Alek.

    Can’t you see he had to establish his alpha-cred first? :D

  • Lurky Lu

    “When you’re a newb, you misunderstand most of the information given in a totally literal way, and are very fatalistic in the understanding. You read about cocky-funny (or negs) and not understanding social subtleties, you go around and you insult women, thinking that’s game… Oh… sweet memories…Or for example you read about how you shouldn’t try to get women by befriending them, and lacking basic social subtlety, you misunderstand that to be a commandment of “never ever be friendly to any woman anywhere under any circumstance, or that means u’re a beta afc”

    Oh yeah! This is something you see not only in guys who are newbies at game, but with guys who, for whatever reason aren’t successful at dating, PLUS have a chip on their shoulder because of it. So they cotton onto some dating advice and overapply it. Maybe it’s a “learned helplessness” or self-sabotaging thing. Sometimes I think guys may be more prone to “all or nothing” thinking and end up missing out on the more nuanced aspects. But these things can be overcome if the individual truly wants to learn, especially if there are others around who he can debrief with and get true wisdom.

    PS. No doubt, women have their awkward and ill-advised moments, everything from unforthcoming to TMI (the old dilemma of how to strike a balance of being approachable without talking too much).

  • Lurky Lu

    See how this experiment with blockquote goes…

  • Lurky Lu

    So I’m trying this blockquote thing again.

  • Lurky Lu

    But not quite.

  • Lurky Lu

    For some reason, I’m not doing this blockquote thing correctly (it makes what I quote disappear, and puts everything else that I’m not quoting in blockquote).

  • Lurky Lu

    @AN “Yes you did hit a nerve . One thing I hate is intellectual dishonesty. Now, women (or you) when it comes to this subject aren’t doing it on purpose. Its a blindspot, but its still irritating like heck to see women’s denial about it.”

    Alek, since you’re enjoying discussing this (me too), I’d appreciate it if you didn’t refer to my less than total agreement with you as “intellectual dishonesty”. I agreed with you that there are some women who reject harshly, and agreed that some unfairly justify harsh rejections with the kind of backward rationalization you’ve mentioned, because it is hard for men to have to bear the burden of rejection along with the perogative of pursuit — no denial or blindspot there. And you agreed (or at least I thought you did) that most women most of the time don’t reject harshly, right? You even said that approaching in a place like a “birthday party, university library, yoga class… harsh rejections would be rarer, maybe only 1 in 20.” A ratio that’s at got to be least at par with the ratio of truly bad approaches from men. So intellectually, I’m having a hard time with the justification that despite this gracious ratio, it makes “developing compassion for women’s position at least a 100 times less likely”, which is the issue we were originally discussing.

    “You missed how I stated that it involved MASSIVE effort, and does for pretty much anyone who tries to master (if not already a natural at it)…Its unrealistic to expect every man to invest THAT MUCH energy to simply be treated like a human being.”

    Not every guy will necessarily have the same experience as you (and I think a lot of this is cultural as well, since men from “hot weather” countries in places like Latin America don’t seem to have quite the same degree of social anxiety as their North American counterparts). I would think that there’s quite a range between a “natural” and someone who requires a “massive effort” to master enough skill to avoid harsh rejection most of the time. Again, despite men’s awkwardness or foibles, we’re left with women either accepting or rejecting quite reasonably 19 times out of 20!!! That suggests to me that women, even if we don’t have penises that go schwing when we don’t want them to and don’t know EXACTLY what it’s like for men, we DO have enough compassion and grace to reject men in a nice enough, reasonable no-scenes way, the vast majority of the time — ***even when we feel uncomfortable with the approach***.

    “The only reason you can say this, is because being a woman you have the female privilege of NOT knowing what “approach anxiety” is…Go out tonight and try to walk up cold to the hottest guy in the place. If you’re not shaking with excitement, you’re either a sociopath, or lying.”

    Again, most of us just aren’t going to walk up to the hottest guy in the place, and if I had to, I’d be mentally prepared for the fact that if a conversation is going to happen, it will probably be very brief because that has almost always been my experience with hot guys – if you overstay your welcome, you will be dismissed – which is why I don’t bother with them. It also has a lot with what you tell yourself about the person — women see a good looking guy and they don’t know if he’s a creep or a loser, so that mitigates some of the nervousness of meeting them. I think guys put attractive women on a pedestal too much and that only fuels nervousness.

    Btw – women do experience “butterflies” around men they like, and it sucks when that inhibits you from being interesting enough to get or keep his attention, so even if it’s not quite the same thing as what guys experience, I do think women are a lot more empathic to the male experience than you give them credit for.

    “In other words, women are having ewwww reactions to guys who aren’t sociopaths, or haven’t yet clocked in the 10000 approaches it takes to get good. That’s hardly good evidence that women have compassion for the pursuer role. They don’t….women have a VERY warped sense of what is “normal”, I’m guessing “thanks to” hollywood movies. What you see in romance novels or movies is like LEVEL TEN of suaveness, but somehow women have concluded that this is supposed to be normal. And further, when a guy approaches who isn’t at a hollywood level of suaveness, women respond in a weirded out manner, like “omg, this guy is sooo creepy”.

    No, just because a woman is feeling “ewww”, doesn’t mean that she’s saying “ewwww” to him or thinks the guy’s a creep. If guys want women to understand that nervous excitement is a reflexive thing for them, then they need to at least understand if they are out of control in how they express that, there’s greater likelihood that the woman’s going to feel uncomfortable (which is also reflexive, for reasons I’ve already gone over).

    “In other words, your calibration is TOTALLY OFF. What to you is “awkward” is in real world terms “normal”. And what to you seems SUPER CREEPY EWWW is actually “only awkward” in the real world. Make sense?”

    lol! Believe me, I KNOW that awkward is normal! Awkward is actually kinda cute. Too much rico-suave does come across as slick, which is not my thing (and scary, ie sociopaths, as you pointed out).

    “The only contexts in which women are forgiving to men who aren’t yet masters of seduction is in social circles. If women were truly compassionate about the male role, they would be so everywhere, not only in social circles. In fact, it seems to be selfish really…So its actually that you see the true spirit of women in clubs.”

    I’m sorry, but this is an incredibly cynical and unfair way of looking at women. Clubs are not the be-all end-all arena of human interaction — that sounds like PUA site talk to me. How people behave in a club only tells you about how club people behave. And I guarantee you there’ll be an overrepresentation of alcoholics, druggies, drama queens and sex addicts there.

    “People have a limited time. You can’t join the yoga club AND the volunteers club AND the gym AND a photography club AND a debating club…We, however live in a very workaholic enviroment where people don’t have that much time to socializeand build and maintain many social circles”

    Excuses, excuses!

  • AlekNovy

    I agreed with you that there are some women who reject harshly, and agreed that some unfairly justify harsh rejections with the kind of backward rationalization you’ve mentioned, because it is hard for men to have to bear the burden of rejection along with the perogative of pursuit — no denial or blindspot there.

    .
    That’s not the blindspot I was speaking of :) In fact I keep bringing this one other thing, and you keep missing it, because it is a blindspot. Here’s what the blindspot, is:
    .
    - Women have unique and individual preferences
    - Most women seem to think their preference is the RIGHT one. That is if a woman prefers to be approached in groups she will BERATE men who approach her when alone and accuse them of being a guy who doesn’t “get it”.
    .
    Make sense? Like I see this all the time. You have a thread on a woman’s forum where women rant and whine about men suck.
    .
    - Female poster 1 will whine how men are retards and approach her while she’s to herself (how do those freaks not get this, you approach women in groups!).
    .
    - Female poster 2 will whine how men are retards and approach her while she’s with her group (how don’t they get this! if i wanted to be approached I’d move away from the group to get approached!)
    .
    - Neither poster notices that the other poster has the exact opposite claim, but both will agree that men suck in approaching and its fair to treat men badly if they break the rule, even though they have the OPPOSITE rule. This is the blind-spot.

    You even said that approaching in a place like a “birthday party, university library, yoga class… harsh rejections would be rarer, maybe only 1 in 20.” A ratio that’s at got to be least at par with the ratio of truly bad approaches from men.

    .
    Agreed.
    .

    So intellectually, I’m having a hard time with the justification that despite this gracious ratio, it makes “developing compassion for women’s position at least a 100 times less likely”, which is the issue we were originally discussing.

    .
    You’re forgetting that most approaches are not done in warm enviroments, but in cold ones (starbucks, store, park, art gallery, mall, club, etc…). Most people’s social lives simply don’t involve enough single potential partners. An average man with average social life meets at most maybe 1-2 new women a year through his social circles. Compare this to the dozens he approaches in cold situations. Make sense? Men get most approaches in situations where women are extremely unforgiving and vicious… He has the choice of either 1) going celibate and giving up on women, 2) praying a good candidate appears in his circles by some luck, or 3) have to go through massive doses of rejection and some harsh treatment from women until he finds one. Both choices 1 and 3 breed misogyny and bitterness in men and lack of compassion. Its women who can change it by being more understanding of men in cold situations and/or approaching more themselves.
    .

    Not every guy will necessarily have the same experience as you (and I think a lot of this is cultural as well, since men from “hot weather” countries in places like Latin America

    .
    That’s irrelevant because we’re discussing our western culture. We’re discussing how western men respond to western women, and I’m telling you its because how they’ve been treated by western women. None of what I’m talking about has to do with me indicting women or men on a biological level :) We’re discussing the real world (cultural based) not the theoretical, i.e. what’s possible.
    .

    I do think women are a lot more empathic to the male experience than you give them credit for.

    .
    I believe they believe they’re empathic, but have huge blindspots. In other words, they have empathy for moderately confident guys for failing to be charismatic (hollywood level) guys. They however treat akward guys like crap, and backwards rationalize it as creepiness. If they were truly empathic they’d look into what approaching is like and try to understand it. The same way how I’ve understood how women’s defensive reactions are somewhat instinctive and not vicious in nature.
    .
    In other words, that’s like me claiming I’m empathic because I feel for Reese Witherspoon, and what it’s like for her to not be Angelina Jolie (poor thing)…
    .

    lol! Believe me, I KNOW that awkward is normal!

    .
    And a lot of women don’t, and these are the women who treat men like crap and ruining it for everyone.
    .

    No, just because a woman is feeling “ewww”, doesn’t mean that she’s saying “ewwww” to him or thinks the guy’s a creep. If guys want women to understand that nervous excitement is a reflexive thing for them, then they need to at least understand if they are out of control in how they express that, there’s greater likelihood that the woman’s going to feel uncomfortable (which is also reflexive, for reasons I’ve already gone over).

    .
    It is reflexive, but based on ignorance. In other words, yes, reacting ewww to a guy who’s approach is bad, is reflexive, but the definition of a bad approach is learned. Make sense?
    .
    If I go “ewwwwww” when I see an average looking woman, is it justified because as a man its reflexive for me to do that when I see an “ugly woman”? Or is it unjustified, because watching too much porn, my definition of beauty was warped so much, that I’d refer to perfectly normal women as “ugly”. I’d say Hollywood romance scenes and romance novels are the equivalent of porn.
    .

    I’m sorry, but this is an incredibly cynical and unfair way of looking at women. Clubs are not the be-all end-all arena of human interaction — that sounds like PUA site talk to me. How people behave in a club only tells you about how club people behave. And I guarantee you there’ll be an over-representation of alcoholics, druggies, drama queens and sex addicts there.

    .
    You missed that I wasn’t talking about clubs, but cold approaches in general, with clubs being just one venue. We’re talking approaching a woman in the supermarket, starbucks, art gallery, park, cafes, malls etc… P.S. – The irony is that women are actually nicer in clubs than most other cold-venues.
    .
    My point remains, when women don’t have much to lose in terms of disrupting a social circle, they are capable of being a lot more vicious toward men, so I think that shows women’s character much better. In a cafe where she doesn’t know anyone, she has nothing to lose by treating a man like crap, so I’d say its a more honest assessment of how empathic she is to men being thrust in pursuer roles.
    .

    Excuses, excuses!

    .
    Its called reality. This is why if you do a simple assessment of which guys are most successful with women, you’ll find that they’re either rich/famous, that is using fame and money to get women…
    .
    OR
    .
    They’re unemployed losers who are not successful in any other area in life. They literally socialize for a dayjob… And its the only thing they ever do in a serious manner. Only thing they have going for them.
    .
    This is another point of how women don’t have much empathy for men. They expect a man to be driven, ambitious, and make something of himself, while at the same time having the social skills of a guy who socializes 12 hours a day. In real life we prioritize.

  • Tom

    @ Susan

    I agree the term selfless is a bit much, almost doormat like.

    After reading that article, I am amazed at how many boys try and pass themselves off as men. I think it matters little the age we are talking about. I know 50 year old “boys”

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

      @Tom
      Yes, I agree – there is some dividing line between men and boys that has nothing to do with age. I listened to a podcast at The Art of Manliness about this issue, and the guest was an elderly gentleman author who compared the experience of growing up in the WWII era, and the years after that, with growing up today. There has been a major change in the way we’ve raised men, and a significant loss of both opportunity, and expectations for mature, manly behavior. I don’t know if this explains it fully, but it was very interesting to hear his perspective.

  • Tom

    @ sox
    You said,
    “Here’s my take- women today deep down mostly all want the same thing. They want relationships. They’re vulnerable as anyone emotionally. But they’re hamstrung by their egos, what society’s telling them they should want, and of course, desire for pleasure and all that. They have a hard edge to them that most guys can see right through. Whether it’s in the form of snarkiness, bitchiness, or an “I don’t need anyone” type attitude, it usually comes across as overcompensating and borderline ridiculous. But even so, I’d take a woman like this over one who can have consistent casual sex without any emotional attachment whatsoever any day.”

    That is a very interesting take. One I kinda agree with…. The snarky, bitchy, I dont need anyone woman, is usually only putting on a front. Most of these women know their methods are frowned upon by many men. They are kissing a lot of frogs until they connect with a man ( sex today has replaced kissing of yesteryear) Most of these women mistakenly think the way to a mans heart is thru his penis. Most of us know that usually is not the case. There has to be an emotional connection there to really connect with a man. Many women connect emotionally when having sex with a guy, so they think the man will feel the same. Boy are they wrong. Now they may get a guy to keep seeing them for a while by using sex as the lure, but it more than likely wont last. Boys, posing as men, players, call them what you will, will say almost anything to get sex. Problem is for the woman, they have a hard time telling the difference between a real man and a player. A woman can rack up some pretty impressive numbers, looking for Mr. Right while sifting thru all the players who only want to be Mr. Rightnow.

  • OffTheCuff

    Let me tweak that a bit…that guy would do well to get as much exposure to women as possible — in platonic contexts: hang out with sister(s) and female cousins, interacting with them and having discussions that encourage mutual learning about communication differences between the sexes (shouldn’t be too difficult, since women LOVE talking about that stuff). Take up activities and volunteer for things that tend to draw more women than men (which is very often the case). Cultivate friendships with women you’re not all that attracted to — doing this along with a male friend is a great idea, because then you can organize parties and other events where you can get the women to bring their friends. Don’t worry about getting LJBFed by a female friend, because if that happens you can get access to more women through her (which isn’t “using” her, it’s just plain good networking). Besides, women tend to develop attraction more slowly, and you may end finding that one of the women who originally JWTBF now seems more interested in you — and if you happen to be interested in her, push aside any bitter feelings about the earlier LJBF, chalk it up to gender differences in attraction process and just go for it.

    Oh gawd. This is, by far, the worst dating advice for men on the planet. I had sisters and aunts and cousins and jobs and friends and co-ed activities by the tons in high school. All that means jack shit, unless you have the guts to be honest and direct, and ask for a date shortly after you meet her. Otherwise you get put in the “platonic friend” bucket.
    .
    It is precisely listening to this crap that keeps “nice guys” alone for years. The right approach is to spend lots of time with men who actually have successfully attracted a woman. Then, when you meet woman, be genuine. Ask her on a date. Don’t be her platonic friend hoping she’ll someday fall in love with you.
    .
    Dating advice that women give to men is poison. Do the exact opposite.

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

      @OffTheCuff

      when you meet woman, be genuine. Ask her on a date. Don’t be her platonic friend hoping she’ll someday fall in love with you.

      I’m no expert on Game, but I have to agree. If you are attracted to a woman, you need to make it clear very early on. She’ll know anyway before long, and hiding in the platonic friend role will just make her pity you and lose respect. You make your move, and if she is not interested, and you really like her, tell her she’s wrong and missing a great opportunity. Assume major attitude.

  • terre

    Lurky, as I said in the last post, Alek actually made exactly my point for me: there is no neutral “comfort” you can build with women, just as there isn’t one with men; with all different types of people you’ll have certain intentions, and between the sexes these become so paramount that distinct types of communication exist. To put it another way, one cannot become comfortable by “starting out” as a neutral, placid coworker or friend and work one’s way up to becoming comfortable with women sexually; that’s not how women work and it’s meaningless for overcoming the approach anxiety which solely manifests itself in men who have sexual intentions with women. You have to be sexual from the start.
    .
    The best advice you can give a man who’s had little experience with women (whether it’s because he’s a loser or because he grew up in an all-boys’ school) is to come on strong from the start. When one says that a guy has to learn “how to talk to women”, it doesn’t mean literally talk about small minutiae and make trivial conversation; it means he has to learn how to develop a sense of fantasy, humor and mystery that attracts a girl’s attentions. He has to know how to talk to women, who can really be bedded with a good story. It’s very much like the difference between conversational speaking and political oratory.

  • AlekNovy

    Oh gawd. This is, by far, the worst dating advice for men on the planet. I had sisters and aunts and cousins and jobs and friends and co-ed activities by the tons in high school. All that means jack shit, unless you have the guts to be honest and direct, and ask for a date shortly after you meet her. Otherwise you get put in the “platonic friend” bucket.
    .
    It is precisely listening to this crap that keeps “nice guys” alone for years. The right approach is to spend lots of time with men who actually have successfully attracted a woman. Then, when you meet woman, be genuine. Ask her on a date. Don’t be her platonic friend hoping she’ll someday fall in love with you.
    .
    Dating advice that women give to men is poison. Do the exact opposite.

    .
    Well, I woudln’t go THAT far, but yes, women have no clue what its like being a guy. For example the error that lurky was making here is assuming that approach/pursuing anxiety is the same as “woman anxiety”, and even though there is *some* intersection between the two, its very very very very tiny.
    .
    You can have 50,000 close female friends, but if you’ve never asked a woman out, if you decide to start asking women out, the first few times you’re still going to shake with excitement… having had all those close relationships with women might at best reduce your anxiety by maybe (at best) 5%.
    .
    There is an opposite danger though!
    .
    The game community does produce the opposite extreme. I said that understanding women on a non-sexual (platonic level) is only 5-10%… but, if you don’t have it, you can never fully “get” women either.
    .
    What a lot of guys (like terre) do when they discover the community is misread “don’t only befriend women” as “Oh, I should hit on every pair of breasts I ever see, and only see it in a sexual way.
    .
    You see, the community was borne out of a societal problem where men were supressing their sexuality… they were pretending to be women’s friends and being brothers to women. So community comes in and says “don’t do that, be direct with women, show interest! Sexual interest! don’t hide it”. Well, men missunderstood that as “never ever see women as more than a set of boobs and ass”…
    .
    And the truth is that yes, you do need some platonic relationships with women to fully “get” women. No amount of hitting on women will get you to mastering male-female dynamics. You do need those 5% gained by having a bunch of female friends and non-sexual interactions.
    .
    The nice-guy extreme is these guys who make a hundred female friends, but never show interest to even one single girl, ever… The opposite extreme is when a nerd who used to be scared of women, discovers the community, and then goes and over the next 4 years hits on a 1000 women on the street and in the club, but never so much as has a conversation with any woman outside. That is, in 4 years, his ONLY interaction with women is the women he approaches on the street or club. Like literally NO SOCIAL life involving females, at ALL. No non-sexual relations, nothing. And I’m not kidding, its real. And these guys end up having a problem of something being “off” with their game, and they can’t figure it out, but more “sarging” can’t solve it. In their case, they need that 5%, i.e. to make female friends, talk to female neighbours, befriend women they’re not attracted to sexually… etc…

  • terre

    Alek, I have no idea why you’re trying to pin me as some kind of game fanatic. Most men don’t intentionally “befriend” women because they rarely have mutual interests and the sexual tension is divisive. You don’t need any kind of platonic experience to “fully understand” women at all. The two concepts are entirely apples and oranges.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Economics 101: People respond to incentives. In today’s world, being a “man” has high cost and little reward. Trying to shame guys into becoming men won’t work. If you want guys to start acting like men, then give them incentive to do so.
    .
    On the other side of the same coin, being a “Bro” (I refuse to use the word “boy”) has very little cost and many benefits. If you want guys to stop “Broing Out”, then there needs to be an incentive to stop.

  • Lurky Lu

    “That’s not the blindspot I was speaking of In fact I keep bringing this one other thing, and you keep missing it, because it is a blindspot. Here’s what the blindspot, is:..Women have unique and individual preferences…Most women seem to think their preference is the RIGHT one. That is if a woman prefers to be approached in groups she will BERATE men who approach her when alone and accuse them of being a guy who doesn’t “get it”.
    You have a thread on a woman’s forum where women rant and whine about men suck.”

    Now this is just going around in circles. You’re talking again about women who rationalize backwards their bad rejection reactions pointing to something they think the guy did wrong (which, for the third time, I KNOW that SOME women do that!), in this case breaking a “rule” that the girl doesn’t realize is simply her own preference, and therefore is something the guy cannot possibly figure out without knowing each individual woman personally (as if we’re all so idiosyncratic that nothing can be learned — even though you did). Again I ask: how often does that kind of “harsh rejection” really happen (i.e. because the approach, however decent, wasn’t quite to her liking) or is it really about the fact that the girls reject, period?

    Besides, those women venting on the net aren’t necessarily out there harsh rejecting, anymore than the guys at Roissy’s are really out there “negging” — should we use either forum to judge the opposite sex? You decide.

    “You missed that I wasn’t talking about clubs, but cold approaches in general, with clubs being just one venue. We’re talking approaching a woman in the supermarket, starbucks, art gallery, park, cafes, malls etc… P.S. – The irony is that women are actually nicer in clubs than most other cold-venues……….You’re forgetting that most approaches are not done in warm enviroments, but in cold ones (starbucks, store, park, art gallery, mall, club, etc…). Most people’s social lives simply don’t involve enough single potential partners. An average man with average social life meets at most maybe 1-2 new women a year through his social circles. Compare this to the dozens he approaches in cold situations. Make sense? Men get most approaches in situations where women are extremely unforgiving and vicious… He has the choice of either 1) going celibate and giving up on women, 2) praying a good candidate appears in his circles by some luck, or 3) have to go through massive doses of rejection and some harsh treatment from women until he finds one. Both choices 1 and 3 breed misogyny and bitterness in men and lack of compassion. Its women who can change it by being more understanding of men in cold situations and/or approaching more themselves.”

    Riggghhhtttt, “in vino veritas”.. women are nicer in clubs now are they? lol jk. It seems like you’re switching your facts around to fit your argument rather than the other way around. Actually, most couples meet through mutual friends, acquaintances, and activities. Good candidates don’t just appear by luck in your social circle — there’s always going to be a certain amount of work (and risk) involved with including more people. You are more likely to encounter rejection (and harsh rejection) in a cold environment, but again, you’re left with the same question of how many truly harsh ones, where women are “vicious and unforgiving”, as opposed to just chilly and unforthcoming (which most urban people, male or female, tend to be to strangers)?

    “That’s irrelevant because we’re discussing our western culture. We’re discussing how western men respond to western women, and I’m telling you its because how they’ve been treated by western women. None of what I’m talking about has to do with me indicting women or men on a biological level We’re discussing the real world (cultural based) not the theoretical, i.e. what’s possible.”

    Well, here’s the real world, my original point: not all men have the same experience as you (taking a such long time to get good at talking to women). In your first post to me, you attributed the kind of misogyny I was talking about (where all women get branded as bitches and skanks) to “a high percentage of women who think its neat/cool to reject men in INCREDIBLY pyrotechnic ways” and I’m sorry, but you really haven’t demonstrated that the percentage is all that high! Kind of reminds me of that quote

    “A man has to be Joe McCarthy to be called ruthless. All a woman has to do is put you on hold.”

    “believe they believe they’re empathic, but have huge blindspots. In other words, they have empathy for moderately confident guys for failing to be charismatic (hollywood level) guys. They however treat akward guys like crap, and backwards rationalize it as creepiness. If they were truly empathic they’d look into what approaching is like and try to understand it….And a lot of women don’t, and these are the women who treat men like crap and ruining it for everyone.”

    Again, listen to what you’re saying — if this happens once out of 20 times, well, that’s just not good enough. Woe to all you women!

    “It is reflexive, but based on ignorance. In other words, yes, reacting ewww to a guy who’s approach is bad, is reflexive, but the definition of a bad approach is learned. Make sense?
    …If I go “ewwwwww” when I see an average looking woman, is it justified because as a man its reflexive for me to do that when I see an “ugly woman”? ”

    No, experiencing an internal “ewwww” is not based on a learned definition of a bad approach, it’s biologically based as a response to that which is ***intrusive and/or sexual*** in unfamiliar males. And you see the same recoiling in females of other species. It’s a stronger sensation in younger women (kind of like a female “counter-schwing” equivalent) that wanes a bit with time (but not entirely).

    “This is why if you do a simple assessment of which guys are most successful with women, you’ll find that they’re either rich/famous, that is using fame and money to get women…OR…They’re unemployed losers who are not successful in any other area in life. They literally socialize for a dayjob…This is another point of how women don’t have much empathy for men. They expect a man to be driven, ambitious, and make something of himself, while at the same time having the social skills of a guy who socializes 12 hours a day.”

    Sounds like a simple assessment alright, of the black and white kind — oh, you must be rich and famous or a loser with nothing else to do but socialize! Women could make the same counter claim, that we have to work for a living, then spend all that time on workouts and beauty regimens, but we still make it a priority to expand our social networks and social skills. There’s just no substitute for it.

  • Lurky Lu

    “Oh gawd. This is, by far, the worst dating advice for men on the planet. I had sisters and aunts and cousins and jobs and friends and co-ed activities by the tons in high school. All that means jack shit, unless you have the guts to be honest and direct, and ask for a date shortly after you meet her. Otherwise you get put in the “platonic friend” bucket…It is precisely listening to this crap that keeps “nice guys” alone for years. The right approach is to spend lots of time with men who actually have successfully attracted a woman. Then, when you meet woman, be genuine. Ask her on a date. Don’t be her platonic friend hoping she’ll someday fall in love with you.”

    I knew there be this reaction! I wasn’t offering this up as a one-size-fits-all strategy for getting girls, like all men should waste their days pining after LJBFs. I was offering this up to really inexperienced guys who have really had no exposure to girls and need to get used to being around them and initiating things — and in today’s world of only-child families and video games, there are A LOT of them. To expect someone in that situation to just walk up to some girl he doesn’t know, have a brief conversation and get a “number close” from the get-go just isn’t realistic. That guy needs to cut his teeth on asking girls to dance, inviting them to join him and his friend to Denny’s after the dance, or walk her to her car, etc. That’s what I was talking about.

    Alek put it well:
    ” I said that understanding women on a non-sexual (platonic level) is only 5-10%… but, if you don’t have it, you can never fully “get” women either…And the truth is that yes, you do need some platonic relationships with women to fully “get” women. No amount of hitting on women will get you to mastering male-female dynamics.”

    And also I agree that men would do well to make their intentions clear early on, there is something to be said for not assailing a woman with out of control sexuality from the get-go. A woman needs to know that the guy she’s dealing with has some class and isn’t a car without breaks. There’s even some research that men who touch women first in nightclubs are less likely to get their numbers. I think it was David DeAngelo who advised guys to start out in a non-sexual way, to “seem like a nice guy” and that if the woman starts touching you, to say, “hey, get your hands off the merchandise!”

  • Plain Jane

    Lurky Lu, from reading your comments and also from my own experience I really do think it might be best if men DON’T approach women at all unless and until some sort of signal is giving from her side, like a smile or intentful eye contact. Guys face rejection when they are not the guys that the girl would smile or stare at of her own accord.

  • Lavazza

    AlekNovy:

    “Example1

    - One woman will WHINE about how she never gets approached in the club (even though she’s there surrounded with 10 friends)…

    - Another woman will whine why do guys approach her when she’s with friends

    On analysis: If you suggest to the first woman “well, did ya think that maybe men can’t approach you when you’re with a group” she’ll respond “where have the real men gone, why are they such wusses that I’d have to walk ALONE to meet a man!!?!? Don’t they know its basic social knowledge that you meet people in groups!?”…

    The other woman if asked “well, what’s wrong with being approached when with friends”, she will answer “Don’t these d-bags know you don’t approach a woman when she’s out with friends! OMG, that’s like SUCH BASIC social skills! In other words she’s taking her PERSONAL preference and naming it a “basic social skill” as if it were a universal rule.

    Example2

    - One woman will look at man for 5 seconds, the man will approach her, and she will blow him off HARD.

    - Another woman will glance at a man she likes for 3 seconds, and if he doesn’t approach she’ll whine and rant about how men are ball-less wusses who won’t approach like a real man.

    On analysis: If you suggest to the first woman “well, did ya think that maybe looking at him for 5 seconds might have been taken as an approach invitation” she’ll respond “what!?!?!? I hate it when men take some accidental look as an excuse to pester you!! If I was interested I would have kept on looking and I would have been smiling for like minutes!!” I mean c’mon, that’s like COMMON knowledge!…

    The other woman if asked “you do realize you only looked at him for barely 3 seconds and you weren’t even smiling? Men generally want to make sure they’re not intruding and want to make sure you’re really interested before you approach”. She will respond “OMG where have the real men gone! Do I have to draw a freaking map to get him to come over! Omg, men are such wusses!” In other words they’re both taking PERSONAL preference and naming it THE WAY men should be… and then using as an excuse to treat men like crap.

    And you’re doing the exact same thing I talked about. You’re saying if a man walked up to a woman in a group, got treated like crap, its his own damn fault, and that supposedly its common social knowledge not to do that. This is the backwards rationalization most women use to justify the mistreatment of men. They INVENT a rule he broke, AFTER she humiliated him for not being charming/charismatic.”

    This is soo good. At times I have been baffled with the female penchant for making their personal preferences, in any given situation, into universal rules that are common knowledge. One other thing many women are good at is construing the things they want from a man as rule bound obligations for the man rather than a personal favour from the man.

  • Lavazza

    AlekNovy: “Its called reality. This is why if you do a simple assessment of which guys are most successful with women, you’ll find that they’re either rich/famous, that is using fame and money to get women…
    .
    OR
    .
    They’re unemployed losers who are not successful in any other area in life. They literally socialize for a dayjob… And its the only thing they ever do in a serious manner. Only thing they have going for them.”

    Men are paying, one way or the other. Either by working hard, getting money and/or fame, or by abstaining from earning good money and using the time/freedom to have an attractive lifestyle(club rep is better than law school), perfecting their people skills and having time to play the numbers game.

  • terre

    To expect someone in that situation to just walk up to some girl he doesn’t know, have a brief conversation and get a “number close” from the get-go just isn’t realistic.

    .
    Actually it’s the only realistic course out there. Women don’t respond to sexless “Wanna go out with me on Friday…?”-type propositions any more. It’s why Roissy spends so much time describing flaking (and how to weed out or prevent flakes). So long as he’s secure in himself he can eventually pull off a number close (one must sink a certain amount of rejections). He doesn’t need to be specifically secure “for women”.
    .
    You also appear to be making a strawman when it comes to the issue of displaying your sexual intentions. I’ve never said one should just grab her hand and shove it on your crotch. Even the DeAngelo vignette is basically a pick-up tactic; it has nothing to do with intentionally making platonic friends.

  • AlekNovy

    @Lurky
    .

    Now this is just going around in circles. You’re talking again about women who rationalize backwards their bad rejection reactions pointing to something they think the guy did wrong (which, for the third time, I KNOW that SOME women do that!), in this case breaking a “rule” that the girl doesn’t realize is simply her own preference, and therefore is something the guy cannot possibly figure out without knowing each individual woman personally (as if we’re all so idiosyncratic that nothing can be learned — even though you did).

    .
    I was responding to you doing it, right here, in actual real-time :D If you know women do it, why did you do it right here and kept doing it? You kept talking about how “omg, its common knowledge not to approach people in a group, duh”. By doing that you were effectively giving a pass то women who mistreat men approaching a group.
    .
    That was the gist of my point. Not that women reject, but that women PROJECT their own preference as being a universal rule as an EXCUSE to reject men in a harsh and condencending way. Make sense?
    .

    Besides, those women venting on the net aren’t necessarily out there harsh rejecting, anymore than the guys at Roissy’s are really out there “negging” — should we use either forum to judge the opposite sex? You decide.

    .
    I’m not basing it on the internets. I’ve interviewed hundreds of women in real life. Whenever I give an example you assume I’m basing all my beliefs/aims on that one medium/context/example. I’m just giving “one example”, not using it as the sole entire basis of my argument. I interviewed dozens of even close female friends for example after witnessing them harshly blow off a guy, and they all have the same insane “logic”. That logic isn’t invented on the internets, its just that women talk more about it there.
    .

    Riggghhhtttt, “in vino veritas”.. women are nicer in clubs now are they? lol jk. It seems like you’re switching your facts around to fit your argument rather than the other way around.

    .
    No, you just keep speed-reading.
    .
    I said women in clubs are NICER than in other cold-enviroments like the cafe, starbucks, libraries, art galleries etc…
    .
    I said: Women are quite harsh to men in cold enviroments like clubs, cafes, streets, art galleries etc…
    .
    You: Welll wellll welll, its because of the alcohol! That’s why clubs suck so much… You can’t judge women when they’re on alcohol
    Me: WHAT ALCOHOL? I’m talking cold-contexts in general! Not just club… lol (oh btw) Actually, of the cold-approach contexts, the clubs are the least harsh, in fact, women in clubs are the nicest out of the cold contexts
    .
    You: Oh, so you’re now saying women in clubs are the nicest?
    .
    Me: Rolleyes…
    .

    Actually, most couples meet through mutual friends, acquaintances, and activities. Good candidates don’t just appear by luck in your social circle

    .
    That is the people who DO meet someone. We have an ever-growing amount of involuntary singledom. People are just not getting together. People don’t have the time for the warm-contexts i.e. social circles, and women are making it hard to meet in the cold-contexts for anyone but a George Clooney or a guy of IMMENSE outstanding social skill or “masteful game” if you will, whatever you prefer.
    .
    Try to understand this: For the average guy, life is like this, he spends his life, most of it, seeing all the women hookup and date the same 10-20% of jerks and players. In his social circles women are nice, but there aren’t many women, and being busy working like a horse at work just to keep up to what a woman expects a man to be earnings… he doesn’t have time to expand his circles much more. So, he attempts to meet women in cold situations and he gets mocked, frowned upon, blown off. If he tries to expend his social circles and social life, he has to cut down on his ambitions and take a pay cut. A victory?
    .
    Nope, he’s now an “unambitious loser” according to women, not good enough for them… So he goes back to a higher paying overworking career and cuts back on the social life again. And then finally, a woman stumbles into one of his social circles, and he gets a relationship. He is now expected to be happy at this catch. “Sure, I spent the last 10 years dating and hooking up with the jerks, womanizers and players and rejecting guys like you, but you’re now supposed to be happy that you get to have a relationship with me.” And men are supposed to not grow bitter at this no-win situation?
    .

    You are more likely to encounter rejection (and harsh rejection) in a cold environment, but again, you’re left with the same question of how many truly harsh ones, where women are “vicious and unforgiving”, as opposed to just chilly and unforthcoming (which most urban people, male or female, tend to be to strangers)?

    .
    You’re proving my point. Your female privilege blinds you to what an average man is like. The average man, getting started approaching in cold situations will have 10-20% super duper vicious harsh rejections, and most of the other reactions will just be cold and unfriendly. Following this, he will maybe continue trying at most 1-2 times a week…

    So Why Don’t You See These Guys? How come you don’t see women being harsh to men 20% of the time

    Because its not the same guys!! The average guys are rarely approaching because it sucks for them! That’s the whole point. Most guys do NOT approach women in cold situations all that much. Most guys are either “naturals” at it such as sociopaths or accidentally getting it… OR they’ve tried it a few-times, gotten super-bad reactions, and… now maybe trying it 1-2 times a week, still getting bad reactions and reconfirming to themselves that women are “mean and vicious”.
    .
    Women being women get approached by guys in cold situations so they assume its normal for guys to do so. What they don’t get is that its the same small percentage of guys doing most of the approaching in cold contexts. These guys do 100 approaches a month and are good at it.
    .

    Well, here’s the real world, my original point: not all men have the same experience as you (taking a such long time to get good at talking to women).

    .
    You’re distorting things with the sentence above. I didn’t say it takes a long time to “get good at talking to women”. I said it takes a long time to become charismatic and EXCELLENT in approaching women in COLD CONTEXTS. You keep mixing up that general communication with women has NOTHING AT ALL to do with approaching women in cold contexts. Most men are good at “talking to women” in general. That is a basic social skill.
    .
    Approaching women in a smooth, charismatic way in cold-contexts however is not, and its not just my personal experience, its the experience of most guys.
    .
    A man can have 4 billion female friends, but if he hasn’t approached women in cold contexts before, the first times will STILL SUCK and he’ll be treated like a serial killer. Do you get this? Women in cold contexts expect a level of SKILL from men that takes anywhere from 1-4 years to master, and punish men for anything less.
    .

    In your first post to me, you attributed the kind of misogyny I was talking about (where all women get branded as bitches and skanks) to “a high percentage of women who think its neat/cool to reject men in INCREDIBLY pyrotechnic ways” and I’m sorry, but you really haven’t demonstrated that the percentage is all that high! Kind of reminds me of that quote

    .
    Because you’re doing the common mistake that all women do, which is ignoring the 80% of men. Let me make this clear:
    .
    - Most men get mistreated and harshly rejected by women in cold contexts
    - Women are not-harsh most of the time when they get approached
    .
    How can both of these statements be true? Because MOST approaches are done by the same 10-20% of men? Most guys only approach 1-2 times a week, but get bad reactions… And, the skilled guys approach as much as 50 women a week, being proficient at it, they get good or at least neutral reactions. From a woman’s perspective she’s ok to most men, but she’s being ok to the guys who are PROFICIENT, they do most of the approaching.
    .

    Again, listen to what you’re saying — if this happens once out of 20 times, well, that’s just not good enough. Woe to all you women!

    .
    You’re just distorting things now. We said 1 in 20 for WARM contexts where men meet FEW women! The average guy meets maybe 1-2 new women a year in his social circles. That pales to the dozens he meets in cold contexts. Men are forced to do most of their approaches in COLD contexts where the viciousness is much bigger. That means from his perspective, most of the women he meets are vicious.
    .
    “No, experiencing an internal “ewwww” is not based on a learned definition of a bad approach, it’s biologically based as a response to that which is ***intrusive and/or sexual*** in unfamiliar males. And you see the same recoiling in females of other species. It’s a stronger sensation in younger women (kind of like a female “counter-schwing” equivalent) that wanes a bit with time (but not entirely).”
    .
    Yes it is learned. I know this because when I explain this stuff to women, I point out that how certain body language was really shyness, i explain how hard it is for the average guy to approach women… Guess what? That “ewww” thing goes away. Its learned. Your definition of “ewww” is defined by the media. When women understand men, all of a sudden what used to be a creepy approach now evokes an “owwww, that’s cute, the guy is soo shy”.
    .

    Sounds like a simple assessment alright, of the black and white kind — oh, you must be rich and famous or a loser with nothing else to do but socialize! Women could make the same counter claim, that we have to work for a living, then spend all that time on workouts and beauty regimens, but we still make it a priority to expand our social networks and social skills. There’s just no substitute for it.

    .
    Your female privilege is again blinding you to the MUCH HIGHER standards set for men. A woman only needs decent social skills to get a date. A man needs superior and excellent skills. A man does not decide to NOT ask a woman out if she’s not charismatic.
    .
    Women do reject men for not being charismatic (we’re taking whom to date). So a man is expected to have the game of a professional pua (who has no dayjob, no hobbies and does this for a living) just to get regular dates… Most guys are not getting dates regularily, and can not, most of the dates had in the western world are had by the top 20% of men, do you get this?
    .
    At the same time… Men are expected to be successful in their ambitions. The average woman finds a man of average means to be a “loser” and unambitious. So men are expected to be above-average in earning capability, while at the same time being above-average in social skills. Like Chris Tucker says to women: “No guy will ever not-fu*k-you because you’re broke”.
    .
    I’m not saying its impossible. I’ve done it. I have both a successful business and an above average social life. But that’s like being a triathlete, and at the same time having a PhD in Engineering. Its possible, but not realistic to expect that to be the norm. And you’re telling me “well well, women can combine the two, so why can’t men”… Because the female equivalent is like working a part-time job and also having a small hobby at the same time. A much, much, much smaller achievement.
    .
    Just look around you, do the research. You will find most playas who get most of the dating success live in a 1-room-apartment and can’t hold a job and they live, breathe, sleep socializing. Most womanizers, that’s the only thing they’re good at. Most super savvy, charismatic and super social guys? Its the only thing they have going for them.
    .
    Yet, most women expect the charisma of the broke playa, and the financial success of the guy pulling 60 hour workweeks.

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

      @AlekNovy, @Lurky Lu
      You two need to get a room, or at least meet for a drink. Does the geography work?

  • OffTheCuff

    Lurky/Alek, I don’t disagree with what you wrote. I agree “You do need those 5% gained by having a bunch of female friends and non-sexual interactions” — it’s true, but I can hardly believe the lack of this is problem. Unless you are raised in a monastery, you’ve been dealing with women platonically your whole life. I was the nerdiest of the high-school nerds. Still, I had female classmates, lab partners, teammates on volleyball, coworkers, friends in band, and drama club and lots of other activities. Dealing with women as humans is not a problem, we’re raised that way now. Dealing with your own male sexuality as a positive force is a problem.
    .

    I really do think it might be best if men DON’T approach women at all unless and until some sort of signal is giving from her side, like a smile or intentful eye contact. Guys face rejection when they are not the guys that the girl would smile or stare at of her own accord.

    More horrible dating advice from people who admit they can’t get a date.
    .
    I approached my wife cold at a party, with no signals from her, no introductions, no common friends. I said “Hi, you’re in wind ensemble aren’t you?”.
    .
    Again guys, again, do the exact opposite as women say: do not wait for a signal to approach. You might miss her “obvious” signals. Even if you get one, you aren’t smart enough to know what kind of smile is the “approach” kind, or what kind of eye contact is “intentful”. You can’t read her mind. As Alek brilliantly points out, If she doesn’t like you, she will rationalize that *you* did it wrong. If she does like you, it won’t matter.
    .
    By all means, if you get a signal, approach! But don’t wait for one. Instead, you must learn to accept rejection.
    .
    Note this doesn’t mean refuse to read body language. After you approach, learn to read body language to see if she wants to leave, or for you to escalate.

  • Mike C

    By all means, if you get a signal, approach! But don’t wait for one. Instead, you must learn to accept rejection.
    .
    Absolutely. Even guys who are very successful with women get a lot of rejection.
    .
    http://solomongroup.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/i%E2%80%99m-not-a-superhero-but-i-play-one-in-real-life/
    .
    I’ve never written about the dozens upon dozens of times I’ve been shot down just in the past few months alone. I’ve been blown off by some of the finest ass in the city, and shot down by more average looking girls than I can count. Likewise, my friends and coworkers only see me out with different women, but they’re not there to see me get rejected over and over.
    .
    It is funny to read some of the comments from the young ladies on how to approach, interact, etc. Doubt many guys are reading here for advice, but definitely ignore 95%+ of it.
    .

  • Lurky Lu

    “I was responding to you doing it, right here, in actual real-time If you know women do it, why did you do it right here and kept doing it? You kept talking about how “omg, its common knowledge not to approach people in a group, duh”. By doing that you were effectively giving a pass то women who mistreat men approaching a group….That was the gist of my point. Not that women reject, but that women PROJECT their own preference as being a universal rule as an EXCUSE to reject men in a harsh and condencending way. Make sense?”
    .
    Actually Alek, I not only acknwledged your point but agreed with it, when I said that there are “women who rationalize backwards their bad rejection reactions pointing to something they think the guy did wrong (which, for the third time, I KNOW that SOME women do that!), in this case breaking a “rule” that the girl doesn’t realize is simply her own preference”, so I’m not quite sure what it is that you think I keep doing, other than agreeing with you (albeit with limitations) .
    .
    BTW, I NEVER said “it’s common knowledge not to approach women in a group”, I said that it’s bad form to do so and only talk to the most attractive one. But even then, I’m not even saying don’t do it, I’m saying don’t do it and whine about how awful women (or men) are when it doesn’t work out for you. Is that letting the harsh rejectors off the hook? No, if judgement day really does come, they’ll have to answer to that. But still, if you’re going to get good at anything, you’ll have to take responsibility for your own risk management. Camille Paglia once made the same statement to WRAs who were whining about sexual harrassment, she said that if you’re up to the risks go ahead to the frat house kegger, but realize you’re walking into the land of loaded guns and prickly cacti, and if you get groped, don’t go crying to the campus harrassment committee all oh mommy and daddy I threw down my tuition money on the craps table and lost”, just get up, dust yourself off and learn from the situation — otherwise “stay home and do your nails”.

    “I’m not basing it on the internets. I’ve interviewed hundreds of women in real life. Whenever I give an example you assume I’m basing all my beliefs/aims on that one medium/context/example. I’m just giving “one example”, not using it as the sole entire basis of my argument. I interviewed dozens of even close female friends for example after witnessing them harshly blow off a guy, and they all have the same insane “logic”.”
    .
    Even then, all this tells you is what harsh rejecting girls think. It doesn’t tell you a thing about women who don’t harsh reject.
    .
    “That is the people who DO meet someone. We have an ever-growing amount of involuntary singledom. People are just not getting together. People don’t have the time for the warm-contexts i.e. social circles, and women are making it hard to meet in the cold-contexts for anyone but a George Clooney or a guy of IMMENSE outstanding social skill or “masteful game” if you will, whatever you prefer.”

    It has ALWAYS been harder to meeting people in cold environments — women haven’t changed in that regard. As for not having time for warm contexts, if you have time for World of Warcraft, you have time for socializing in mixed company. Men don’t make it enough of a priority because they would rather be doing male-oriented things with each other — fair enough, but don’t complain when you’re left having to resort to cold approaches in cold environments.
    .
    “For the average guy, life is like this, he spends his life, most of it, seeing ****all**** the women hookup and date the same 10-20% of jerks and players. In his social circles women are ***nice***, but there aren’t many women, and being busy working like a horse at work just to keep up to what a woman expects a man to be earnings… he doesn’t have time to expand his circles much more. So, he attempts to meet women in cold situations and he gets mocked, frowned upon, blown off. If he tries to expend his social circles and social life, he has to cut down on his ambitions and take a pay cut. A victory?…Nope, he’s now an “unambitious loser” according to women, not good enough for them… So he goes back to a higher paying overworking career and cuts back on the social life again. And then finally, a woman stumbles into one of his social circles, and he gets a relationship. He is now expected to be happy at this catch. “Sure, I spent the last 10 years dating and hooking up with the jerks, womanizers and players and rejecting guys like you, but you’re now supposed to be happy that you get to have a relationship with me.” And men are supposed to not grow bitter at this no-win situation?”
    .
    ****ALL**** this hyperbole isn’t doing you or your argument any favours, Alek. Even if the jerks and playas are bustin most of the moves, that doesn’t mean that all the women are dating them (again, I call pua club bias). If mr average doesn’t want to date any of the “nice” women in his social circle, sure it is his perogative to play 21 for as long as he wants while increasing his odds of finding someone “better” in the colder environments by climbing the ladder of ambition — and no, he has no call to be bitter if he stayed out there so long that all that’s left are been arounds — and mouseburgers (you forgot them, natch).
    .
    “How come you don’t see women being harsh to men 20% of the time—Because its not the same guys!! The average guys are rarely approaching because it sucks for them! That’s the whole point. Most guys do NOT approach women in cold situations all that much. Most guys are either “naturals” at it such as sociopaths or accidentally getting it… OR they’ve tried it a few-times, gotten super-bad reactions, and… now maybe trying it 1-2 times a week, still getting bad reactions and reconfirming to themselves that women are “mean and vicious”…What they don’t get is that its the same small percentage of guys doing most of the approaching in cold contexts. These guys do 100 approaches a month and are good at it. …From a woman’s perspective she’s ok to most men, but she’s being ok to the guys who are PROFICIENT, they do most of the approaching.”
    .
    You’re taking the simplistic and absolutely wrong assumption that women, when they are super-harsh in their rejections in cold situations, reserve that for the sincere but awkward approaches from average nice guys, whereas, the bad approaches from bad guys really don’t account for a significant percentage of harsh rejections that women give. I would say the opposite. Bad ass guys are indeed overrepresented among the population of men who hit on you in public and they get rejected a lot more than you think, regardless (and of then because) of their “smoothness”.
    .
    A lot of guys on MRA sites carry on about how women love bad boys, when in fact MOST DO NOT. And approach isn’t the only thing influencing women’s reactions- context plays a role too. When a women reacts to a “nice” stranger as if he might be a serial killer it may be because she doesn’t know if he is one or not! Just by association, approaching in some cold contexts is a good way of getting lumped together with the bad asses (for better or worse), especially if you start with the assumption that they are the ones occupying most of the real estate there.
    .
    “I said it takes a long time to become charismatic and EXCELLENT in approaching women in COLD CONTEXTS..Women in cold contexts expect a level of SKILL from men that takes anywhere from ***1-4 years*** to master”
    .
    A skill that takes 1-4 years to master? That is hardly too much to expect — that’s like a diploma in nursing.
    .
    “We said 1 in 20 for WARM contexts where men meet FEW women! The average guy meets maybe 1-2 new women a year in his social circles. That pales to the dozens he meets in cold contexts. Men are forced to do most of their approaches in COLD contexts where the viciousness is much bigger. That means from his perspective, most of the women he meets are vicious.”
    .
    I didn’t say men meet few women in warm contexts – you did. Of course you can swap that for greater numbers in cold contexts, but your contention that “most” of the women you meet there will be “vicious” (as opposed to simply cold), well, that all rests on mathematics that quite dubious to say the least.
    .
    “Yes it is learned. I know this because when I explain this stuff to women, I point out that how certain body language was really shyness, i explain how hard it is for the average guy to approach women… Guess what? That “ewww” thing goes away. Its learned. Your definition of “ewww” is defined by the media. When women understand men, all of a sudden what used to be a creepy approach now evokes an “owwww, that’s cute, the guy is soo shy”.
    .
    I think you may be giving yourself as bit too much credit here. I think most women can figure out that the guy who approaches them “shaking with excitement” probably is shy or nervous. Knowing that may only partially mitigate any internal “ewwww” it may evoke on a biological level.
    .
    “Your female privilege is again blinding you to the MUCH HIGHER standards set for men. A woman only needs decent social skills to get a date. A man needs superior and excellent skills. A man does not decide to NOT ask a woman out if she’s not charismatic….Women do reject men for not being charismatic (we’re taking whom to date). So a man is expected to have the game of a professional pua (who has no dayjob, no hobbies and does this for a living) just to get regular dates… Most guys are not getting dates regularily, and can not, most of the dates had in the western world are had by the top 20% of men, do you get this?
    .
    You sound really angry here, but if anything, it’s the women who are being short changed. Females start out with a higher baseline as far as communication skills go, so they quickly learn not to expect too much of men, to let the guy do most of the talking, even if it revolves around his pet interests (guys can be very unidimensional). If men are less likely to reject women over their social skills, then maybe it’s because it’s not an area where they are typically lacking! Either that , or it’s because they are being prized for their looks at the expense of other things, in which case each man must live with his choices if he ends up with a bimbo. Again, I reject the 20% canard with its roots in the PUA casual sex arena.
    .
    “I’m not saying its impossible. I’ve done it. I have both a successful business and an above average social life. Because the female equivalent is like working a part-time job and also having a small hobby at the same time. A much, much, much smaller achievement.”
    .
    This is just bullshit. With the exception of a slight margin of men at the top of the heap, single women work just as hard as their male counterparts at their careers and find time for social involvement and learning. I think what you really don’t want to admit is that men would require more time and effort at matching what women have for social lives and social skills because they are starting from a step or two behind (not because anything exceptional is required of them socially).
    .
    “Just look around you, do the research. You will find most playas who get most of the dating success live in a 1-room-apartment and can’t hold a job and they live, breathe, sleep socializing. Most womanizers, that’s the only thing they’re good at. Most super savvy, charismatic and super social guys? Its the only thing they have going for them…Yet, most women expect the charisma of the broke playa, and the financial success of the guy pulling 60 hour workweeks.”

    With this kind of either/or black/white hyperbole, you must be living in a parallel corporate universe or have a wee bit of attachment to seeing women in a pretty bad light — so, what’s the payoff?

  • Lurky Lu

    “Women don’t respond to sexless “Wanna go out with me on Friday…?”-type propositions any more.”

    No. They respond to guys who engage in conversation, then move on to talk to other girls (maybe girls who are already friends), then come back and to “number close” or whatever you want to call it.

    “Even the DeAngelo vignette is basically a pick-up tactic; it has nothing to do with intentionally making platonic friends.”

    He doesn’t say “hands off the merchandise” for the purpose of first making a platonic friend out of the girl. And I wasn’t saying go do that either. I think guys would benefit by having a mix of women they cultivate friendships with and women they try to date, as well as a bit of overlap.

  • Lurky Lu

    “Lurky Lu, from reading your comments and also from my own experience I really do think it might be best if men DON’T approach women at all unless and until some sort of signal is giving from her side, like a smile or intentful eye contact. Guys face rejection when they are not the guys that the girl would smile or stare at of her own accord.”

    Oh no, this is not what I was saying at all. I think single guys should feel free to initiate contact with single women in any situation regardless of risk. It’s up to the guy to determine what is a reasonable degree of risk for himself. All I was saying is that if a guy is quite vulnerable, ie. shy, inexperienced, etc., he would do well to practice approaching in less risky situations, such as asking less attractive women to dance, etc.

  • Lurky Lu

    @SW “You two need to get a room, or at least meet for a drink. Does the geography work?”

    Geography – who knows? But the difference in age (and probably other things!) probably wouldn’t!

  • Xiri

    got to this from youtube user pinegrove33

    i have just one question for you ms walsh: WILL YOU MARRY ME PLEASE? thanks in advance for accepting.

  • Plain Jane

    Internet dating sites get rid of the need for a cold approach.

    You exchange a few emails and phone calls and buy the time you decide to meet, the ice is already broken and you feel more comfortable.

  • tom

    How about ,when approaching a woman you dont know, just try being yourself? Maybe make some eye contact first and read her to see if there is any interest there. First off, be realistic, if she is out of your league, then accept that she is and move to the next. Because of the offer of sex, most women can indeed date out of their league. Rich guys have the same privledge.
    It is true most women do not go for the bad boy.
    However, there is an army of men out there, who come across as a good guy, say what ever needs to be said to get a woman into bed, and then dumps her as fast as he met her. Not sure he is a player,could be. But at least, they are jerks.
    That is a easy way for a woman to run her number up. They think they need to have sex to get a man interested, and when they get dumped, they just do it all over again to get over the pain of rejection. They may eventually find the “one” using this method, but just might have sex with quite a few men while searching for Mr. Right.
    If women only knew, the way to a mans heart is not thru his penis. There has to be an emotional connection, and sex normally will not cause that effect in a man.(as it does in woman)
    If a woman would just hold out on the sex and made a man get to know her first, she would know if he is really interested in her or just her body. There ARE men out there who will love a woman for her, and not just her body. The other guys are just grown boys who let their dicks do the thinking. Not all desirable alpha types are interested in sex only but are open to relationships…..That may not be true of a younger man in his early to mid 20`s

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

      That is a easy way for a woman to run her number up. They think they need to have sex to get a man interested, and when they get dumped, they just do it all over again to get over the pain of rejection. They may eventually find the “one” using this method, but just might have sex with quite a few men while searching for Mr. Right.

      Is it just me or does it seem that Tom has changed his viewpoint in the last couple of weeks?

  • Lurky Lu

    “First off, be realistic, if she is out of your league, then accept that she is and move to the next.”

    If a guy gets rejected by a woman, I don’t think he needs to assume that she did it because she’s “out of his league”. Women are usually not looking for bad boys and alphas to have relationships with, so that means women will be choosing from among the betas who are choosing her. As I’ve said before, probably most rejection happens because the guy isn’t “the right kind of beta”. Think about it: if women can only select from those who by chance are selecting them, they options available to them will seem like a random array of options. Imagine having to choose from a limited bunch of names and photos of women that you’d drawn from a hat (then having to call them all to tell them if you’re interested or not) — THAT is what it’s like being a woman.

  • Lurky Lu

    The other part of that is it’s fine for a guy to “punch above his weight” (if that’s what he’s doing), but he should really be willing to accept the consequences (that he might get blown off) and not whinge about it.

  • Xiri

    @tom

    ‘How about ,when approaching a woman you dont know, just try being yourself?’
    -cause its been proven for decades not to work. there are books, video, etc from guys of all walks that blow that bullshit advice apart.

    ‘It is true most women do not go for the bad boy.’
    - well i suppose i shouldn’t write more cause its evident that you’re not talking about women on planet earth, much less in the western world.

    sorry tom but that’s bullshit. and there is too many videos on you-tube that blow most if not all of what you say out of the water. i used to be one of those guys that was everything girls bitched they wanted in a guy from the age of 12, i mean the whole 9 yards with the chivalry and not pressuring for sex, simply put i was a whipped bitch slave genie here to grant bitches their 3 wishes. but when i realized that they only used me to heal themselves up in the self esteem and ego dept. after some ‘bad-boy’ snapped his fingers and said ‘get on your back and spread it’, i said fuck em. simply put no guy needs to get with a girl to not have sex, we can (and despite what any say, do) do plenty of that while single. maybe if girls started fucking the nice guys even if they are the nerdy types (like me even though i sure as all hell don’t look like it) then they wouldn’t have a problem. but when they: shit on guys like us, use us for all expenses paid dates (cause we wouldn’t get the time of day if we didn’t pay for the date. gotta love equality eh), psychological consoling, etc then tell us months later ‘oh you’re a good friend and blah blah blah’ when 1- they knew we wanted sex just like all the guys they gave it to that didnt do shit for them, b- can tell in 10 sec weather she will fuck a guy or not (i have yet to hear any female say this isnt true, but get the cameras and spotlights off them first), sorry you get no sympathy from me or guys like me. we where all that you asked for in a guy (and were like that not to get with girls but because thats just how we are) yet you skipped us over. ill bet left and right nut that you come back to guys like us when: you hit 30, have x number of kids (greater than 1 and by more than one guy), looks start to slip, the guys you would have given it up to, are off fuckin the new model 18-25 year old bitches, and you probably gained some weight. guess who is the one you come running to to all of a sudden give a chance and let hit that worn out, stretched out, trillion mile high, and probably disease ridden pussy? how is the one that gets to take the ‘bad boy-alpha males’ crumbs? more and more guys are waking up to the bullshit, and we’re not taking it anymore, especially since we didn’t sign up for it.

    ps – insulting men by throwing them in the line of fire saying ‘The other guys are just grown boys who….’ is a man-gina thing to do. (dont know what that is? look it up, you can start with youtube) and it makes you come off as a girl pretending to be a man weather you are or not.

  • Plain Jane

    “The other part of that is it’s fine for a guy to “punch above his weight” (if that’s what he’s doing), but he should really be willing to accept the consequences (that he might get blown off) and not whinge about it.”
    I get the feeling that a lot of guys do this and become really angry and bitter against women, writing all kinds of horrible things about us in general on the internet, all because they keep approaching women who are out of their league and getting blown off. Its as if they feel they “deserve” each and every woman they approach. As if the world owes them something.
    What gives?

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

      @Plain Jane
      FYI, I’ve taken you out of moderation. I appreciate your responsible posting.

  • Lurky Lu

    “I get the feeling that a lot of guys do this and become really angry and bitter against women, writing all kinds of horrible things about us in general on the internet, all because they keep approaching women who are out of their league and getting blown off. Its as if they feel they “deserve” each and every woman they approach. As if the world owes them something.
    What gives?”

    Guys punching above their weight are more likely to get rejected and probably do end up more hardened because of it, but even guys with more realistic expectations (who don’t really think the world owes them a relationship) can experience the same thing, if they don’t understand this whole “right kind of beta” thing.

  • tom

    @ Susan

    “Is it just me or does it seem that Tom has changed his viewpoint in the last couple of weeks?

    ___________
    No not really. I know how it works out there. There are lots of reasons women are promiscuous, and because of that I do not file all of them in the same slot. I would not classify a women who goes out and gets gang banged on a weekly basis the same as a woman who makes the mistake of sleeping around on occation looking for Mr. Right. Does that make sense?
    That is why I have said in the past, each woman has her own story and each woman should be evaluated in an individual basis. If I were a woman, (I`m not) I coundnt care less about the “Alphas” who sleep around and just use women fo sex. They are not quality people, in my opinion. I know lots of them, and if women heard what they think of them when it is all guys around , no women, it would be a real eye oener.
    I understand the double standard very well. In many cases it is hypocritical, and based on insecurities and fear. I can understand a man might not be attacted to a woman who has had 100 partnes, or 50, or 20, but if he himself has done the same thing, then shame on him. Remember this, 99.9% of men have never seen ANY study that may suggest promiscuous women might be a bad choice if one is looking for a LTR. Their decision is based on other factors, many are silly and immature in nature.

  • Lurky Lu

    “If I were a woman, (I`m not) I coundnt care less about the “Alphas” who sleep around and just use women fo sex. They are not quality people, in my opinion. I know lots of them, and if women heard what they think of them when it is all guys around , no women, it would be a real eye oener.”

    Here’s the thing, locker room talk and having a low opinion of women isn’t just restricted to alphas. There are plenty of betas who, having probably had more rejection experiences, end up with a bad attitude. Being “beta” doesn’t automatically guarantee that a guy is a nice guy. Just as being unattractive doesn’t automatically mean that a woman has a “great personality”.

  • terre

    I don’t really see why the debate should even exist for men. Being “nice”, kind or even moral is a neutral facet at best and far more likely a negative one; moral men are less likely to engage in risky behavior or social domineering tactics. It holds no attraction for women and it’ll likely leave you in solitude. The irony is that men are not criminal enough; they’d be more attractive if they were.
    .
    Just be narcissistic, selfish and charismatic. That’s all you need.

  • terre

    Remember this, 99.9% of men have never seen ANY study that may suggest promiscuous women might be a bad choice if one is looking for a LTR. Their decision is based on other factors, many are silly and immature in nature.

    .
    No Tom, they’re genetic in origin. Just like the female preference for taller men.

  • pjay

    @Plain Jane:

    “I get the feeling that a lot of guys do this and become really angry and bitter against women, writing all kinds of horrible things about us in general on the internet, all because they keep approaching women who are out of their league and getting blown off. Its as if they feel they “deserve” each and every woman they approach. As if the world owes them something.
    What gives?”

    Agreed. Men should take rejection in stride and use it to overcome anxiety. But it’s a lot like women complaining about why men won’t commit after women sleep with them.

    There are a lot of angry and bitter women who complain about this as well. What gives?

    My advice to them, too, is to use their experience, move on and make better choices about who you sleep with in the future.

  • pjay

    @Lurky Lu:

    EVERY guy gets lots of rejection during his life – that’s just part of the nature of being the one who initiates asking women out.

    Guys that get skeeved out because they are rejected really need to calm down, quit blaming “women” and try to find out what they can change in themselves to improve their odds.

    Unfortunately the internet is a place where every bitter group (hard core feminists, guys at The Spearhead) can get together and rant while displaying everything to the world.

    Typing in your mother’s basement (or at the Take Back the Night Men Are Rapists Rally Headquarters) about how you hate half of humanity is probably not going to improve your social life in the future…

  • Lurky Lu

    What pjay said.

  • pjay

    There is no better teacher than adversity. Every defeat, every heartbreak, every loss, contains its own seed, its own lesson on how to improve your performance the next time.

  • pjay

    -Malcolm X

  • tom

    Terre said……..”No Tom, they’re genetic in origin. Just like the female preference for taller men.
    ______________
    You just keep on telling yourself that Terre. Sorry, I dont buy it. I have been privey to way more convesations than I would like to admit. Immature ideas such as,”just think of all the cum that has been in her, or dicks that have been in her. She MUST be dirty, No one guy could ever satisfy her etc…..Sorry that is not genitics talking, it is coming from a man with a boys brain. Social conditioning has a LOT to do with mens attitudes. Fight or flight is inborn, not the “eww” factor that many men epxress. Men today are not kuckle dragging Neanderthals you seem to think they are. Most of mens actions are from conscience thought.

    No one has a higher libido than I. But somehow I learned how to tame it. Maybe most men, thru social conditioning, have lost the ability to be empathetic. Breaking hearts and not caring about it, is a character flaw, not a genitic accident.

  • terre

    I don’t really see what an aversion to rubbing up where other men have shot a wad has to do with maturity. It’s a phobia more than anything.

  • Abbot

    @tom
    .
    “Their decision is based on other factors, many are silly and immature in nature.”
    .
    Probably most factors that men use to decide whether a woman is a good fit for him can be viewed as silly and immature in nature, depending on who is doing the viewing of course. So why is the one in question being isolated out and scrutinized as its as valid as any other that is silly and immature. Why is that one being picked on and most especially by women who were promiscuous?

  • tom

    @ terre

    I don’t really see what an aversion to rubbing up where other men have shot a wad has to do with maturity. It’s a phobia more than anything.
    _______________________

    Well first off, all that cum has been washed away. A rational clear thinking man understands this.
    Webster defines a phobia this way….. an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation .
    Surely the majority of men do not have this exagerated and illogical fear of experienced pussy. But I do think there are many men who have an insecure sense of being compared to other men. That is where maturity and confidence come into play. They use excuses to try and cover their insecurities
    However, I do understand the bitter attitude of beta men towards experienced women. Pity too. There are some pretty fantastic women who love sex and who would make a good guy a great companion. They may have been looking for Mr Right, the wrong way, according to some people,but that does not make them all bad people.

    I see it this way……..
    All Sluts are promiscous women

    Not all pomiscuous women are sluts

    To me it depends on the “whys” and the “hows”and the “whens”…I dont see them all as the same type.A woman who is into gang banging every weekend, to me, is not the same type of woman as one who has kissed several frogs looking for mr. right.

  • tom

    @ abbottProbably most factors that men use to decide whether a woman is a good fit for him can be viewed as silly and immature in nature, depending on who is doing the viewing of course.
    _______________________
    Really?
    I think most men are looking for a woman who is nice to him, is intelligent,funny, good mother, or mother material, good career, admired by her friends , attractive….
    Tell me how silly and immature are those criteia?
    To me discounting ALL experienced women soley because she has entertained several dicks is silly and immature.
    Face it, men can not handle the fact that now that unwanted births are normally kept to a minimum, women are more free to express their sexuallity. This totally intimindates a lot of men, especially if the man is fairly inexperienced himself.

  • Abbot

    No Tom, I was speaking of the silly reasons why a man would reject a woman. There is not one that is more or less valid. If he rejects her because she has an annoying laugh, annoying to him that is, well, that is silly to someone who finds out about his reason. But nobody would denigrate him for using that reason. So why is the focus so much on the silly reason of her sexual past? Why is that worthy of denigration and not other so-called silly reasons? Why is he not made to question his decision regarding her laugh but is made to question it regarding her spring break romps?
    .
    **********”express their sexuality”************
    .
    Once and for all – what the hell does that mean??????????????????????????
    .
    and do men also “express their sexuality” because men DO NOT use such euphemisms

  • Xiri

    at tom:

    ‘To me discounting ALL experienced women soley because she has entertained several dicks is silly and immature.
    Face it, men can not handle the fact that now that unwanted births are normally kept to a minimum, women are more free to express their sexuallity. This totally intimindates a lot of men, especially if the man is fairly inexperienced himself.’

    - well its more than evident that tom is some feminist. every man is different but there are things that no male would say. all theses male shaming tactics coming from a supposed man, that claims he has experience. this is the same bullshit as saying ‘men are intimidated’ by women that are ‘successful”. simple fact is heterosexual manly men, dont want a whore for a wife. that girl i memoirs of a geisha said it best. ‘who wants a plum after someone has already had a bite’? the majority of you women (which tom convinced tom is one of) think that you can be ‘free to express their sexuallity’ but that it wont come with consequences. most of you seem to think you can have your cake and eat it too. a virgin will always be more prized for a wife than a whore, just like a brand new car with 0 miles is going to be more prized than a used up car with 200,000+ miles. simple fact despite what manginas like tom want to say to the contrary. and you can talk about ‘silly and immature’ all you want. those are the facts that all women (including the ones posing as men) will have to deal with weather they like it or not. men and women are different so holding us to the same rules is very foolish.

  • Abbot

    Now now. No reason to grill. This “tom” is about done here. The insecure argument was chipped away and no longer mentioned. The silly/immature shaming nonsense is now being dispensed with as well. In conclusion, a woman’s sexual history is just a common and acceptable qualitative point for a man to consider; with no more or less weight than her bizarre laugh, tone of her voice, body shape, spiritual beliefs, political leaning, choice of music and on and on. There is no justification for claiming that one point has more or less weight than another. But for some reason, certain women get all in a lather over the sexual history one and of course that is their problem. Only a level-headed woman accepts this and does not resort to denigrating men.

  • Abbot

    So, how many male sex mates is necessary before a woman is “expressing her sexuality” and is this express thing like a feeling? Is there some sort of recognition for it? Does she slip out of the stranger’s bed with a splitting hangover and feel all expressed?
    .
    Middle English, from Anglo-French expres, from Latin expressus, past participle of exprimere to press out, express, from ex- + premere to press
    .
    So is something pressing out from her that we should take note of once she is done expressing and is now ready for marriage?
    .

    From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.44 [gcide]:
    .
    Express \Ex*press”\, verb (used with an object)
    .
    1. To press or squeeze out; as, to express the juice of grapes, or of apples; hence, to extort; to elicit.
    .
    2. To make or offer a representation of; to show by a copy or likeness; to represent; to resemble.
    .
    3. To give a true impression of; to represent and make known; to manifest plainly; to show in general; to exhibit, as an opinion or feeling, by a look, gesture, and esp. by language; to declare; to utter; to tell.
    .
    4. To make known the opinions or feelings of; to declare what is in the mind of; to show (one’s self); to cause to appear; — used reflexively.
    .
    5. To denote; to designate.
    .
    6. To send by express messenger; to forward by special opportunity, or through the medium of an express; as, to express a package.
    .
    7. (Genetics) to produce products that cause the appearance of the corresponding phenotype; — of a gene or of an organism with a specific gene; as, to express the beta-galactosidase gene, [PJC]
    .
    Syn: To declare; utter; signify; testify; intimate.

  • Xiri

    since this thing has a lag from when i post to when it shows up, here is all of what i want to say in one post (if you can mrs walsh delete the rest and keep this one)

    @tom

    ‘To me discounting ALL experienced women soley because she has entertained several dicks is silly and immature.
    Face it, men can not handle the fact that now that unwanted births are normally kept to a minimum, women are more free to express their sexuallity. This totally intimindates a lot of men, especially if the man is fairly inexperienced himself.’

    -well its more than evident that tom is some feminist woman posing as man. every man is different but there are things that no male would say. all theses male shaming tactics coming from a supposed man, that claims he has experience. this is the same bullshit as saying ‘men are intimidated’ by women that are ‘successful”. simple fact is heterosexual manly men, don’t want a whore for a wife. that girl i memoirs of a geisha said it best. ‘who wants a plum after someone has already had a bite’? the majority of you women (which tom convinced tom is one of) think that you can be ‘free to express their sexuallity’ but that it won’t come with consequences. most of you seem to think you can have your cake and eat it too. a virgin will always be more prized for a wife than a whore, just like a brand new car with 0 miles is going to be more prized than a used up car with 200,000+ miles.a whore is good for some pit stop pussy just as a car with a trillion miles on it is good for a starter driver, point is you don’t keep it forever, you keep it until such time as. simple fact despite what man-ginas like tom want to say to the contrary. and you can talk about ‘silly and immature’ all you want. those are the facts that all women (including the ones posing as men) will have to deal with whether they like it or not. men and women are different so holding us to the same rules is very foolish.

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

    @Xiri,
    I’m working on it, keep your boxers on. FYI, avoiding words like whore might help. The spam filter is capturing you.

  • Abbot

    Well, Xiri, a virgin is nice but not necessary. But an Expressed woman? Now, that could be interesting. In fact, on your first date with a woman, ask if she would like to express her sexuality because I believe ONLY woman know this code phrase and you might get yourself laid for being such a sensitive and understanding guy.

  • Xiri

    @mrs walsh

    thanks and sorry for seeming like im spamming the page

    @abbott

    virgins are the best but in today’s day/age and western society, no one is even born a virgin anymore, i just used that as an extreme to prove my point. i was actually thinking of saying that exact thing to a girl but knowing my luck, i know i would hear ‘rape/sexual harassment/(insert ad hom shaming maneuver here)

  • Abbot

    As I said, “tom” is done here. Men are perfectly justified to disqualify a woman fit for a long term relationship based on any criteria he sees fit, included her sexual history. This is legitimate, normal and acceptable according to nearly all men and women.

  • Tom

    lol @ xiri

    You and Abbot are two of the most insecure peabrains here. I am the first to admit many men will automatically discount an experienced woman. My point is the “why” they do it. I will agree men including myself will not show interest in a true slut. You know, the gal who jumps into bed indescriminately, participates in gang bangs and runs her number into the stratosphere. Not all experienced women are like that.

    Perfect example is our lead bloger Susan. She admits to a number between 11-20. Is she a slut? She married a one nightstand..Is she a slut?.. to most of you inscure bozos she would be
    . She has had too many lovers in your judgemental eyes.
    Yet she is sucessful, happy, loyal, a good mother AND has been married for 25years. Obviously a good catch for a man who is sexually secure.

    All I hear is excuses from you “boys” I laugh everytime some jerk compares a used car to a woman of experience
    .
    Hey, if all you can stomach is a virgin, so be it.. At least you will know you are her best  lover
    , LOL  You wont have to wonder if she likes your little member or not Admit it, that is your biggest fear, being compared.

     ..You talk of real men.. A real man understands not all experienced women are created equally. You morons talk like sex is dirty. My experience is sex is fun, gives pleasure, can cause emotional closeness etc. All you want to do is put down people who enjoy sex where you can not even get up to bat.

    There are hundreds of thousands of former “sluts” who are happily married.. No one is the wiser..You know why?.. Because they are not damaged goods. They go on to lead a normal life, in many cases.

    I also have to laugh at you poor insecure pittiful boys who keep thinking I am a woman. .. I am just a man who resents morons like the guys here who clump all women of experience into the same group.

  • Abbot

    Tom, it may be useful to not continually and consistently jump to conclusions about how folks here are thinking. Your choice. Take a deep breath and relax. 
    ,
    so again, just for the record
    .
    **********”express their sexuality”************
    ,

    Once and for all – what does that mean?
    ,
    Since you mentioned it, you must know what it means. Please elaborate and without angry insults if that is possible. Thank you.
    .

    Now, for the second time this too:
    .
    Why should a woman’s sexual history not be equally as valid a point on a list of items a man may have along with such things as a bizarre laugh, tone of her voice, body shape, spiritual beliefs, political leaning, choice of music and on and on? It must be different somehow just based on all your rants claims but as yet, it has not been explained. Since you are the authority, we are counting on you for an explanation. .

  • Abbot

    “Hooking up is purposely uncaring,” he says. “If they turn off the emotional spigot when they’re young, what will happen to them as older adults?”
    .
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301371.html

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

      @Abbot
      Unhooked by Laura Sessions Stepp was one of the first books that blew my mind about hooking up. The other, which I read at the same time, was Tom Wolfe’s I Am Charlotte Simmons. They nailed it years ago, and we’re just starting to see the smallest degree of backlash.

  • Xiri

    @ tom
    ok, now to handle this imbecile. ad-hom shaming tactics aside, let’s do this.
     
    ‘You and Abbot are two of the most insecure peabrains here’
    ~so then, because I make a statement of fact (that has been proven so many times in official and unofficial studies) I’m ‘insecure’? just cause a guy doesn’t want a slut for a wife doesn’t mean im insecure. neither you nor any other feminist can shame me or any other man into accepting you all shoving as many dicks in every hole as possible.
     
    ‘I am the first to admit many men will automatically discount an experienced woman. My point is the “why” they do it’
    ~ the hell does it matter ‘why’ the point is it happened. would you prefer the reason be that she wore red heels while banging those trillion guys? or how about that she wore silver lipstick? what difference would that make as to the end effect?
     
    ‘I will agree men including myself will not show interest in a true slut’
    ~1- weren’t you the one that said in a earlier post that you married an ‘experienced’ woman? yeah you did show interest. 2- what then is your definition of a ‘true slut’ if its not a woman that has 10-50+ guys?
     
    ‘You know, the gal who jumps into bed indescriminately, participates in gang bangs and runs
    her number into the stratosphere. Not all experienced women are like that.’
    ~ yeah so no girl jumps into bed without knowing they are doing it. and besides there is no
    difference between a girl that bangs 100 guys all at once or one that bangs 100 guys one at a
    time. 100=100. but by your f’ed up logic, a girl that bangs 1 million guys but doesn’t do it through a 3-way, 4-way, x-way, gang bang, etc isn’t a slut.
     
    ‘Perfect example is our lead bloger Susan. She admits to a number between 11-20. Is she a slut? She married a one nightstand..Is she a slut?.. to most of you inscure bozos she would be’
    ~is she a slut, depends on who you ask. if someone asked you, then no she could have added 10 more zeros to that number but since she may not of done it through 10 guys one girl, etc. if you ask me? then yes, my answers dont change just because of who is being talked about. if my mother had that number or greater then she would be one too.
     
    ‘She has had too many lovers in your judgemental eyes’
    ~ you dont know my eyes, so acting like a psychic isnt working. i have never said (nor can anyone say) how many is too many. based on your logic no muber is too many. and thanks for calling me ‘judgemental’ (judgmental), why? ever heard of the phrase ‘use your best judgement?’
     
    ‘Yet she is sucessful, happy, loyal, a good mother AND has been married for 25years. Obviously a good catch for a man who is sexually secure.’
    ~1- so then one (supposed) exception disproves the rule? hmm, well then 99% of all sciences (except computer science) is now null and void. 2- i don’t know about anyone else but i guarantee you you can’t point to ONE POST where i said that a woman with double/triple digit numbers on her vagina can’t be all the things you claim she is, so that’s null and void.
     
    ‘ All I hear is excuses from you “boys” I laugh everytime some jerk compares a used car to a woman of experience’
    ~well you can call me a ‘boy’ all you want, the facts (that you and other feminists wont accept) remain and will always be there.
     
    ‘ Hey, if all you can stomach is a virgin, so be it.. At least you will know you are her best  lover, LOL  You wont have to wonder if she likes your little member or not Admit it, that is your biggest fear, being compared’
    ~thats not all i can stomach. its all i want. what i will know is that she won’t be stretched out like a rubber band, and bring a higher than 0% chance of STDs. and since i have a 8.5″ penis on my best day when get to absolute full power (it was 9 once when i masturbated for the first time at 15, but i can never get it back to that), i dont need to worry about being ‘compared’. besides who the hell in their rigt mind would listen to a woman on that? if you have a 12″ penis thats 3″ thick, and a girl is mad at you, she’ll say how you suffer from micro-penis. but if you do actually suffer from that and shes happy with you, she’ll tell you how you messed her back up, her vagina doesn’t work right anymore, and that you’re the biggest shes ever seen or had. any guy that listens to a girl about his penis size is a fool.
     
    ‘ ..You talk of real men.. A real man understands not all experienced women are created equally’
    ~ im not even going to get into this crap. what do you (a feminist bitch) know about being a man. real men dont let women tell them what a real man is. for further information, i turn you to my youtube video on this very topic
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8Jj84HlrNQ
     
    ‘You morons talk like sex is dirty’
    ~wrong again, no where did i say or hint to sex being dirty, sluts are dirty though, i hint to that (and i just said it)
     
    ‘ My experience is sex is fun, gives pleasure, can cause emotional closeness etc. All you want to do is put down people who enjoy sex where you can not even get up to bat.’
    ~ you can try to mask the fact that youre a slut all you want, youre not fooling me. and as for the claim you just made, lets see the evidence you have to prove that claim.
     
    ‘ There are hundreds of thousands of former “sluts” who are happily married.. No one is the wiser..You know why?.. Because they are not damaged goods. They go on to lead a normal life, in many cases.’
    ~ and compared to the millions (billions) that were never sluts and lead a better life, once the ratio is reduced its still essentially 1 exception to the rule. they are none the wiser because the guy doesnt see the signs, and all the infinite men that been with her first dont tell the poor imbecile. not cause shes not damaged goods. i saw it somewhere that no one (guy and especially girl) can have casual sex many times without having mental and/or emotional problems. and how many of those same happily living sluts, end up cheating cause they are hooked on the life of new dick every night and can’t stop? funny how you dont say anything about that.
     
    ‘ I also have to laugh at you poor insecure pittiful boys who keep thinking I am a woman. .. I am just a man who resents morons like the guys here who clump all women of experience into the same group.’
    ~ the one thing more than anything else that is IRRIFUTABLE, ABOSULTE, SET IN STONE, BIBLICAL, SCIENTIFIC, FACT!!!!, that proves youre a ….woman (for lack of a better term that wont make the spam filters blow up), is that NO HETERSEXUAL MAN WILL EVER! comment on another mans penis much less use it to degrade him. yes thats right i am speaking for ALL heterosexual men when i say that. that is one thing that we will not do. thats something that you women never seem to catch to and also something that you women cant ever seem to stop doing.
     
    anyway, i have won this fight (yes fight). how? because the moment someone starts throwing ad-hom shaming tactics….its the same as physically fighting a blind, def, mentally challenged, quadriplegic. they are just flailing on the ground.

  • Tom

    @ xiri

    Tell me oh wise one. You agree that having sex is a good thing between a man and a woman, I assume

    So if having sex is a good thing, please tell me, EXACTLY why a man or a woman having multiple partners over a period of time is bad.

    If you dont like it explain it.
    First lets set some paramiters. She/he is disease free. She/he never was in a gangbang. Dated over a 5 year period…..
    In a sense I am like you. A woman who has banged 100 guys, especially in a short period, is probably not my type. Could be some problems there (this goes for a man as well)

    However, if a person is single and over a 5 year period has lets say 25 partners (average 5 a year). To me that is hardly slut material.  That is about one new man every 75 days. .. I personally can not understand, other than my reasons Ive stated before
    , why someone would think a person like him/her could not leave that life behind and successfully fall in love and be faithful to one man (by the way it happens just like this all the time) Our blog leader Susan is a perfect example.

    I understand many men do have a problem with it, and women do need to know this……My only point is”why” they have a problem with it.

    @ abbot……..to answer your question concerning “expression of her sexuality”
    3. To give a true impression of; to represent and make known; to manifest plainly; to show in general; to exhibit, as an opinion or feeling, by a look, gesture, and esp. by language; to declare; to utter; to tell.
    .
    4. To make known the opinions or feelings of; to declare what is in the mind of; to show (one’s self); to cause to appear; — used reflexively.
    .
    Those definitions work… Think of the opposite of repress.. Women have had to repress the fact they are sexual beings for a long time. Now many are giving the impession, are making known, are exibiting, that they too like having sex, as men do, also. Really not complicated at all

  • Tom

    xiri

    You are 23, I have 30 years life experience on you. I respect you after watching your video. I know you want to do the right thing. You have a good head on your shoulders, are ambitious and have your priorities straight.

    You are right, there are as many difintions of a real man as there are men. Each man is an individual, and it is up to him to live his life as he sees fit.

    However, as you get older, you will see no mold or sterio type fits eveyone .
    Examples

     All black men are thugs. There are people who think all black men are the same, obviously they are not. Not all Ghetto dressing black men are dangerous gangbangers, some people think because they dress a certain way, they will act or “be” a certain type.

    Will Rogers once said,” I never met a man I didnt like”…….That doesnt mean he liked all men, it means when he met them,he had no reason to dislike them, because he didnt know them yet.

    Based on your life experience and probably what you have witnessed, you seem to clump all women of experience into the same catagory.

    I am here to tell you this

    All sluts are promiscous, however all promiscuous women are not sluts.

    How many is too many? At what number does a woman become a slut?”  I guess that depends on whos opinion is being expressed. For some it might be 2 or 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 etc.

    Do I catagorize these two women the same?

    They both have 25 partners, both are  single…….
    One accumulated that number in 6 months, the other in 5 years.
    One had a new partner about once a week, the other, a new partner every 75 days.

    What  is different? They both have the same number

    First off, their attitude is most likely different.  One screws a new guy every week, probably is not very selective, is hopping in and out of a lot of guys beds in a short period of time. Probably is not looking for a relationship, and may continure to run her number up pretty high……

    The other IS selective, Is deliberate in her actions, may or may not be looking for a relationship , conducts her sex life in a more mature manner, might be too busy for a relationship (might travel a lot with work)

    Personally the one who has banged 25 guys in 6 months, is probably not my type…..The one who accumulated the same amount , but over a much longer period  just might be a good, more stable personality.
    Her number does not bother me, nor  intimidate me… It might some, I know
    this.
    For reasons like these, life has taught me that you can not pigionhole everyone into the same slot.
    Have both of these women probably had some really good, fun enjoyable sex? Probably yes, Sex is supposed to be fun and enjoyable. Have they both probably had some pretty lousely sex? ..No doubt they probably have. Do those facts have to bother a future man?…No, but they will some, for various reasons . The girl who ran her number up in 6 months bothers me, it might not some. For me it is most likely her personality type, not the fact she has had 25 partners… The one who arrived at her number in 5 years, doesnt bother me, but it may some.

    In my case, I would have to get to know the 5 year woman before passing judgement. The 25 partners would not be a factor,because, in my eyes,she did not act like a slut,even though she was still promiscuous..

    Make sense?

  • sdub

    “Since the premise of Hooking Up Smart is that being analytical and strategic will make you more successful in dating and relationships…”
    I don’t know…it seems to me that the premise of this blog is to convince women that their sexuality is a commodity to be alternately hoarded and put on a pedestal; that abstaining from casual sex unequivocally equals self-respect. You don’t seem to want to help people so much as you want others to tell you that you’re right about the way life works. It’s not good enough for you to repress your own desires; all women must do so, lest the price of your stock go down!
    At the end of the day, we all have different perspectives and values. We are all motivated by different goals and interests. Some men have a problem with promiscuous women…others don’t. Some people care about superficial things like the number – it is itself the bottom line – and others are more concerned with the reasons behind why another person made a certain decision at a certain time and how that choice shaped the person they’re becoming.
    Most of us are attracted to true self-confidence, whether we realize it or not. And how do you know if you have true self-confidence? You consistently decide for yourself how to live your life and you don’t need anyone else’s permission to do what you think is right for you.
     
     

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

      @sdub

      I don’t know…it seems to me that the premise of this blog is to convince women that their sexuality is a commodity to be alternately hoarded and put on a pedestal; that abstaining from casual sex unequivocally equals self-respect.

      Actually, you couldn’t be more wrong. The premise of this blog is to support women in pursuing strategies that lead to committed relationships. Hoarding one’s sexuality doesn’t accomplish that, neither does putting it on a pedestal. What makes a woman feel good about her interaction with a potential partner is having sex when emotional intimacy precedes physical intimacy, not the other way around. Abstaining from casual sex is respectful of oneself if one is not ready for sex. Or if one does not wish to exchange bodily fluids while intoxicated only to be studiously ignored on campus afterwards.
      .
      The majority of hookups amount to women getting pumped and dumped. How does that not trouble you? Do you not see anything wrong with this picture?

  • Xiri

    @tom

    ‘Tell me oh wise one. You agree that having sex is a good thing between a man and a woman, I assume’
    -correct

    ‘So if having sex is a good thing, please tell me, EXACTLY why a man or a woman having multiple partners over a period of time is bad.’
    - for the same reason why having multiple of anything is bad. ever heard the saying ‘too much o a good thing is a bad thing’?

    ‘First lets set some paramiters. She/he is disease free. She/he never was in a gangbang. Dated over a 5 year period…..’
    - why? it doesnt mater

    ‘A woman who has banged 100 guys, especially in a short period, is probably not my type. Could be some problems there (this goes for a man as well)’
    -so why the bitching?

    ‘However, if a person is single and over a 5 year period has lets say 25 partners (average 5 a year). To me that is hardly slut material.’
    - yeah, ‘to you’. and since i said ‘it depends on who you ask’ there still is no reason for bitching

    ‘why someone would think a person like him/her could not leave that life behind and successfully fall in love and be faithful to one man (by the way it happens just like this all the time) Our blog leader Susan is a perfect example.’
    - i dont know why they would think that either. its possible, just like its possible (and usually the case) that the person that gave all those ‘free rides’ (if you get what im saying) usually miss that life of ‘freedom’ and usually cheats on the person that was last in line and married him/her (cause they can and get away with it). now before you bitch noticed i said USUALLY, meaning eveyone can act like this doesnt apply to them.

    ‘I understand many men do have a problem with it, and women do need to know this’
    - once again then, why the bitching

    ‘My only point is”why” they have a problem with it.’
    - again, because no self respecting man wants to be last in line, getting sloppy 100,000+. again would you want a fresh apple or a half eaten one? would you want a car fresh from the factory or one from a junk yard with infinite miles on it? you get it now?

  • Xiri

    @ tom
     
    ‘You are 23, I have 30 years life experience on you. I respect you after watching your video. I know you want to do the right thing. You have a good head on your shoulders, are ambitious and have your priorities straight….’
    - thanks. the simple fact is that 1 both men and women should be virgins before they get married. this would solve all of this and this topic/blog wouldn’t exist. and probably this sex drenched society. 2 people aren’t supposed to be waiting till 30,40, 50 to be getting married (and banging each other to death), people used to get married round about when puberty hit. this was from bible days right up till late 18th century/early 19th century. nothing in this society (western – us/uk) is supposed to be the way it is now. but few people realize all of what i said much less understand it
     
    ps: despite what feminists say, in the past men where not allowed to be sexually free while women got cooped up. simple fact (which they don’t say and doesn’t get taught in schools is that if a man wasn’t able to resist a woman till he was married, he was considered ‘weak, less of a man, not right with god, etc’

  • Xiri

    @tom
     
    ‘You are 23, I have 30 years life experience on you’
    - what does that have to do with anything (if thats even right). doesnt mean that i cant know something you dont or that what you say is automatically right. age means absolutely noting.
     
    example, you have a person thats 80 years old but never once stepped outside his/her town in his/her life. then you have some one thats 20 years old but has been all over the country much less world. who do you think will have more ‘experience’ and/or can teach the other person something?

  • Tom

     i dont know why they would think that either. its possible, just like its possible (and usually the case) that the person that gave all those ‘free rides’ (if you get what im saying) usually miss that life of ‘freedom’ and usually cheats on the person that was last in line and married him/her (cause they can and get away with it). now before you bitch noticed i said USUALLY, meaning eveyone can act like this doesnt apply to them.
    _____________________

    It really depends on why they left that life behind, and why they led that life in the first place…Some women grew really tired of meaningless sex, and knew they couldnt do that any more… That woman, to me, ihas learned her lesson and might make a good partner.
    _________________________________
    -                                                                                                                                                                  again, because no self respecting man wants to be last in line, getting sloppy 100,000+. again would you want a fresh apple or a half eaten one? would you want a car fresh from the factory or one from a junk yard with infinite miles on it? you get it now?

    ________________________________

    Being with an experienced woman has NOTHING to do with self respect.. That is spoken like a young man
     
    you mention a used car or an apple..come on that is childish… If you were having a heart surgery would you want a doctor who has only treated skin conditions or a heart surgeon who has performed a lot of heart surgeries?….See we can play that game all day.

  • Xiri

    @tom
     
    ‘you mention a used car or an apple..come on that is childish… If you were having a heart surgery would you want a doctor who has only treated skin conditions or a heart surgeon who has performed a lot of heart surgeries?….See we can play that game all day.’
    - naw that one you gave doesnt work. and id want one that knows how to treat heart disease but not one thats treated a trillion before me (if you get what im saying). then we go back to all of what i said about everyone should be bangin after marriage and shouldnt be waiting till 40-50 to get married and all that.

  • Abbot

    “@ abbot……..to answer your question concerning “expression of her sexuality”
    .
    That answers nothing. The point being that the term is even used at all. It is a euphemism used when a woman knows that she got drunk on cheap easy low hanging fruit and feels ashamed for having done so. It does NOT have to be sex. Any over indulgence in the easily attainable goes against the grain of good human character and is considered a non accomplishment not worthy of any appreciation. Typically, obese people are not viewed positively although they would be if food was scarce because then it would be a sign of accomplishment. But junk food is cheap and is practically thrown at people just like male gonads are thrown at women. A person who over indulges need not be shamed by anyone to feel ashamed – they already know and are often so hooked they look for comfort by redefining their “activity”  - that is, they put a positive spin on it and are shocked when someone points out the deception. Well, it is hereby being pointed out. 

  • Abbot

    and no Tom, I am not going to define “over indulge” so dont bother asking for a number to be assigned to it. Just from reading this blog I have learned that women do not want sexual history to even be a consideration which is one of many on a list of items when a man is considering a life partner. This is not about numbers. It is solely about certain American women who do not what their character questioned when it comes to sexual matters. Why that is has NEVER been explained. Perhaps for once you can enlighten us.

  • terre

    The surgeon analogy would be more like if the guy had performed ten or twenty botched operations, grafting fingers into right aortas and so on.

  • Xiri

    @terre
    (O_O) BWAH HA HA HAAAA nice

  • AlekNovy

    ===
    Lurky Lu Said:
    BTW, I NEVER said “it’s common knowledge not to approach women in a group”, I said that it’s bad form to do so and only talk to the most attractive one. But even then, I’m not even saying don’t do it, I’m saying don’t do it and whine about how awful women (or men) are when it doesn’t work out for you.
    ===
    It doesn’t matter, the point stands. You’re justifying women treating men like crap based on a personal preference. So some women prefer that a man only pay her attention, and some prefer if he paid attention to the entire group. And yes, men do have a right to blame it on women, because women are unfairly doing it to men for daring to not be James-Bond-Suave.
    You’re saying its justified that women shut-down a man harshly if he only talked to them (and not the entire group?). What about the opposite preference. A woman who will shut a man down and treat him like crap for having dared talk to the entire group and not paying her enough attention.

    ===
    Lurky Lu Said:
    Even then, all this tells you is what harsh rejecting girls think. It doesn’t tell you a thing about women who don’t harsh reject.
    ===
    Actually, most women are “harsh rejecting girls” when it comes to normal guys. Its just that they have an excuse. They backwards rationalize it, blame it on the men, and 2 days later claim they’ve never been mean to a man in their entire life. The only count the alphas they were all giggly around, but the guy they treated like a serial killer, well, its his fault, he was “creepy”.
    ===
    Lurky Lu Said: Even if the jerks and playas are bustin most of the moves, that doesn’t mean that all the women are dating them (again, I call pua club bias).
    ===
    Actually the studies do show the jerks get most of the dates and relationships and hookups while women are young. Many studies have confirmed this. I’m being kind to women, to explain this phenomenon by saying that “its because jerks approach more”. If I was bitter and cynical about women, I’d say something like “women want jerks and idiots!”… I don’t think that’s true. Women do prefer good guys, but what does it help, when the ‘bad boys” are doing most of the moves, and most of the good guys have given up.
    ===
    Lurky Lu Said: A lot of guys on MRA sites carry on about how women love bad boys, when in fact MOST DO NOT.
    ===

    We actually agree. I already said several times that the reason badboys get most of the dates and relationships is simply because they don’t give a crap about harsh rejection. I also think women prefer good guys.
    What you missed however… Is that I pointed out how good guys give up after only a dozen or so harsh rejections on mastering this thing. And women hand out harsh rejections to guys who are akward like mad. That means that most moves will be performed by badboys. So women choose from a pool of badboys. It doesn’t matter if women prefer good guys, when good guys are at home playing World Of Warcraft.
    ===
    Lurky Lu Said: When a women reacts to a “nice” stranger as if he might be a serial killer it may be because she doesn’t know if he is one or not!
    ===
    Then women have no right to complain when that nice stranger gives up on mastering the art of approaching, and decides to master WorldOfWarcraft instead, do they?

     
    ===
    Lurky Lu Said: A skill that takes 1-4 years to master? That is hardly too much to expect — that’s like a diploma in nursing.
    ===

    Imagine if when you signed up for that course in nursing, you were told in every single class, by every single professor that you are a failure of a human being, you were told how much you suck for even having to learn nursing.
    Any time you showed ignorance of some aspect of nursing, you were mocked, derided, made fun of, and assumed to be a defunct human being for not having been born knowing how to nurse. Now imagine having to go through 4 years of this to get that diploma in nursing? Would you do it? Is a diploma in nursing really worth that?
    Again, if women were supportive of men trying to master the skill of approaching, more men would master it, but women act as if a man is support to be born smooth and suave, and treat every man who isn’t already there as somehow being the equivalent of a serial killer.

    ===
    Lurky Lu Said: I didn’t say men meet few women in warm contexts
    ===

    I didn’t say that you said that. You completely misread what I’m explaining. You were using the warm-approach stats, and applying them on the cold-approaching stats to fit your point.
    ===
    Lurky Lu Said: You sound really angry here, but if anything, it’s the women who are being short changed. Females start out with a higher baseline as far as communication skills go, so they quickly learn not to expect too much of men, to let the guy do most of the talking, even if it revolves around his pet interests (guys can be very unidimensional).
    ===

    Please, we’ve managed to keep the discussion respectful and free of ad-hominems until now, don’t stoop to the level of mind-reading and assigning to your conversationalist, and projecting anger, this or that. I enjoy this conversation, but let’s keep to the general topic, and not personal attacks and insinuations? Ok?
    As for the women being short-changed, that’s simply not true. You’re missing what I said. I said that women expect men to be charismatic, and anything less than a movie-scene approach is deemed “creepy”. Women in general might have better social skills than men, but they are definetely not charismatic. In fact, the percentage of socially anxious and shy women is the same as of men. By adulthood, women and men have the same social skills.
    A great article on the daily mail showed how much female narcissism has been on the rise in the past 30 years. Women over-estimate their abilities and skills more than ever. In other words, a woman with below-average social-skills having some crappy social-studies diploma, thinks that she’s “charming and cool and suave and sophisticated and educated and accomplished” and will shoot down any man who isn’t at her level (which is imaginary to begin with).
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1213212/The-ego-epidemic-more-inflated-sense-fabulousness.html
    ===
    Lurky Lu Said: This is just bullshit. With the exception of a slight margin of men at the top of the heap, single women work just as hard as their male counterparts at their careers and find time for social involvement and learning.
    ===

    This is simply not true. Read Warren Farell’s “why men earn more”, and you will find that men do 95% of the overtime, represent virtually all of the people designated workaholics, men represent 95% of workplace injuries and deaths, men do 95% of the career-required relocations etc… etc. In other words, its pretty much a fact that men work, much, much, much harder and make many more sacrifices for work. Women don’t come even close, and its the major reason why women earn less. Women prioritize socializing and friendships over career success.
     
    ===
    Lurky Lu Said: I think what you really don’t want to admit is that men would require more time and effort at matching what women have for social lives and social skills because they are starting from a step or two behind (not because anything exceptional is required of them socially).
    ===

    And I think what you really don’t want to admit is how unrealistic women are in self-assessment (the fact that women believe they work just as hard as men for example), and then in expectations of men (they believe a Hollywood level charisma is “basic social skills” and equal to her own level of skill). A female 7 in career and social skills, expects nothing less than a male 9 in career and social skills. And if he fails to match these requirements, she deems he to be out of her league, and then backwards-rationalizes some excuse to treat this man like crap and shoot him down in flames.

  • terre

    Men are “unidimensional”? God, that’s a laugh. Hands up the last time anyone here had a stimulating, thought-provoking conversation with a girl?

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

    @terre

    If you’re not interested in talking to girls, this is not the blog for you, as we tend to be present here. We also tend to be smart – perhaps this makes you uncomfortable. In any case, you are behaving like a troll.

  • Xiri

    @terre
     
    with a girl? hell no. and not with a guy either. the closest comes after a chess game every now and then but my mind doesnt start moving unless im by myself and can properly let my mind run free without the foolishness of imbeciles that i normally find when i am round people. im able to be my smartest when im by myself. i feel dumbed down when im around people.

  • AlekNovy

    Terre Said: “Hands up the last time anyone here had a stimulating, thought-provoking conversation with a girl?”
    Unfortunately it goes both ways, due to a common problem. When we’re talking to an member of the opposite sex, the sexual tension kind of dumbs us down, and instead of letting our light shine, our IQ drops.
    This happens to both men and women. Perfectly awesome men are deemed dumbtards when trying to chat up a woman… And a woman who’s ussually super-deep and philosophical with her friends, will, shut-down and get shy if she’s talking to a guy and not really let her light shine.
     
     
     

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

      @AlekNovy

      When we’re talking to an member of the opposite sex, the sexual tension kind of dumbs us down, and instead of letting our light shine, our IQ drops.

      So true! With the first boy I ever dated – I was a freshman in high school – I was so tongue tied and nervous I couldn’t utter a word. Then, as now, I was a gregarious and talkative person, so it was very out of character. He broke up with me in three weeks, saying, “You never say anything!” :(

  • AlekNovy

    @Xiri
    .
    Amid the moody reply, there’s some gems of value to be extracted, so can you please refrain from the language? All you will achieve is that Susan bans, you and we gain nothing from it.
    .
    Ok?

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

      @xiri
      I did have to delete that comment Alek referred to. It wasn’t even the language so much, it was the hostility and personal attack on Lurky Lu. She’s been commenting here a while, and I respect her. I don’t tolerate that kind of anger here. Warned.

  • Xiri

    @ aleknovy
     
    i doubt ill get banned, especially after that one part a few days back where it looked like i was spamming the page with 15 comments of pretty much the same thing. not saying im going to list out every swear word in every language but replacing ph with f in everything gets by alot shit….opps shyt

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

      @Xiri

      replacing ph with f in everything gets by alot shit….opps shyt

      It’s not the spam filter you need to worry about, it’s the Susan filter.

  • Xiri

    heres a thought. how about we switch this around and women hunt men. you might think the world population (or abortion rate) would each infinity in one step, but im willing to bet left and right nut that more girls are gonna have a break down/commit suicide from being blown to bits out of the sky by men than any girl or guy is willing to admit.

  • AlekNovy

    @Susan, I apologize upfront for posting multiple comments in a row, but comment editing isn’t a feature, so this is how it ended up :)
    .
    @Xiri
    .
    I’ll try to answer some of the questions you posed, if you genuinely want an answer and are not just trying to protest woman-hood.
    ===
    Xiri Said:all this is such bull. if women want nice guys then why when those nice guys come around and try to get with them (simply put, the girls getting what they want), they give them ‘harsh rejection’ instead of getting with them?
    ===
    .
    1) Nobody said women like nice guys. We said women like good guys. Check the dictionary for a distinction. Its an important one
    .
    2) Why do women reject these good men harshly, then get with the jerks?
    .
    Note, that what I’m about to say doesn’t mean I’m condoning women’s behaviour, its just me having compassion for how they got that way. What you don’t realize is… that women have been brainwashed by the movies, romance novels and massive industries. What that means is that these media have programmed women to feel that a “normal approach” looks like you see James Bond or Jason Bourne do.
    .
    What that means is, anything less is deemed as being “abnormal” or “creepy”. You have to realize that women have a deep, instinctive fear of being raped, stalked or hurt in some way. Its instinctive for them to react badly to “abnormal men”. Now I’m not condoning the fact that they’ve bought the hollywood version of reality, and fell for it, I’m just explaining it.
    .
    We men are no better: The average guy actually refers to the average girl as being ugly. And we refer to the pretty girl as average. We have been brainwashed by male media as well. We actually think that the average sitcom actress is what “average looks” are. This is an exact equivalent to women labeling the average guy creepy. We both do it.
    .
    ===
    Xiri Said: especially when you ad the fact that those same bitches are gonna be the ones complaining how the bad boy acts like….a bad boy, and treats then like crap. and feminists say women are smarter than men?
    ===
    .
    We men are no better: We will actually ignore the average dorky girl who’s been checking us оут all night, go up to the bitchiest, meanest cheerleader, ask her out, have her treat us like crap, and then complain how all women are bitches… We will then continue to pursue and try to get bitchy women. So we do the same thing.
    .
    ===
    Xiri Said: can anyone here explain that logic to me? and while youre at it give the number you get when you divide by zero and the number you get when you reach infinity. if im asking for an asina girl with a thick body, big tits, ass, wide hips and a shy submissive attitude (and that is what im asking for actually) and SHE comes to ME trying to get with me (when i already want to marry her), DOES IT MAKE ANY PHUCKIN SENSE THAT I SHOOT HER DOWN WITH FIREWORKS THEN BITCH HOW I CANT GET WHAT I WANT? ….NO? SO HOW THE PHUCK IS THIS DIFFERENT?
    ===
    .
    Well, you’re leaving one thing out. Imagine if that asian girl came up to you and was actually dressed in butch clothing that hides her attributes, and actually came up to you with a cocky swagger, and insulted you with some cocky^funny backhanded neg. If you’re insecure, you might take it as an insult, and shoot her down and tell her off…
    .
    Well, its actually an equivalent of how good guys approach women. They approach in what the woman perceives as a “creepy” way (the equivalent of the butch-lesbian clothing), and then they try to talk to her in a way she perceives as predatory and disrespectful (the equivalent of the asian girl giving you a neg). Again, I’m not justifying women perceiving regular awkwardness as being the equivalent of being a potential stalker. Its their responsibility not to be brainwashed by the media. I’m just giving you more clarity.

  • terre

    This idea that women love beta males but just can’t find them through the roughage is basically an attempt to whitewash the female sex instinct (and it’s ludicrous, too: are women that immobile?) Fortunately, it’s possible as a man to come to terms with women for what they really are, and your interactions will immensely… benefit as a result.

  • AlekNovy

    Terra Said: “This idea that women love beta males but just can’t find them through the roughage is basically an attempt to whitewash the female sex instinct”
    .

    When has anyone ever said that “women love beta guys”? I will say this with all the kindness I can muster Terre… please go out and apply this stuff for a few years, you know, all this pua/game/alpha-beta stuff you’ve been reading about.
    .
    You’re still stuck in that black-and-white, all-or-nothing stage, because you lack the subtleties gained through real world experience.
    .
    To get back to your question… Women do, genuinely, prefer good guys. Not “beta” guys, but a good guy. A good guy is a guy who has integrity, moral, honesty and is compassionate YET strong, confident, charismatic, and can say no.
    .
    Here’s the kicker. The second part (strong, can say no, confident, charismatic, has boundaries) is more important. If a woman has to choose between a confident a-hole, and an unconfident honest guy, she chooses the a-hole. Those are not the only two options. You’re not either a confident jerk who doesn’t care if u hurt women and you smack women and abuse them OR a guy who cares, but is whiny, can’t say no, and has no preferences.
    .
    The problem is today in the world women do mostly have to choose between macho-aholes, because all the good guys are at home playing WoW, feeling bitter and resentful. Is it women’s fault? In a big part it is. They drove the good guys to give up… But, if you go deeper, you’ll realize the women never even recognized the good guys, BECAUSE they’ve been brainwashed about how a good guys is supposed to come packaged in. They expect that a good guy will have the approach of James Bond.

  • terre

    Mencken, Lord Chesterton, Oscar Wilde, Byron and even Jane Austen would scoff at your platitudes, Alek. Women are at best neutral towards “good” men; women are not attracted to morals. A man’s ethical conduct is totally irrelevant (and being moral usually puts a man at a disadvantage, since he can lose out on key opportunities to establish social dominance).

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

      @terre
      I beg to differ, Jane Austen always had the cads lose out, and the women fall for good men. Wyckham, Willoughby, Frank Churchill. Contrast with Darcy, Bingley, Colonel Brandon, Mr. Knightley. Pshhhh. Your suggestion is treason.
      .

      A man’s ethical conduct is totally irrelevant (and being moral usually puts a man at a disadvantage, since he can lose out on key opportunities to establish social dominance).

      This makes you dangerous. You clearly seek to practice Dark Game. No wonder you were so sensitive about your Lord and Master.

  • Tom

    @ abbot

    This is not about numbers. It is solely about certain American women who do not what their character questioned when it comes to sexual matters. Why that is has NEVER been explained. Perhaps for once you can enlighten us.

    ______________________
    Ok this is where we differ in opinion……..You seem to think women of experience are of bad character. I think that definately some are, as well as men, but not all

    Not about numbers?..Answer this for me… You see an attactive woman, you find out she has had 25 sex partners, is she relationship material in you eyes? Assume you know nothing else about her

  • Xiri

    @aleknovy
     
    well it seems like you got this on your own so i have little if anything to add
     
    ps james bond does what most if not all women bitch about guys doing. (sweet talk them -most times at the expense of male gender-, phucks em, then leaves and doesnt call back) yet thats how we are supposed to act or we arent smooth and all this other bullshit.
     
    now then has any girl on this planet realized that while they have all these things that men have to be….us men (sure as all hell me) have our own ransom list of demands? and that maybe, just maybe, most if not all of them arent being covered? yet we take what we can get and make do.
     
    just wondering

  • Xiri

    @susan walsh
     
    ‘I did have to delete that comment Alek referred to. It wasn’t even the language so much, it was the hostility and personal attack on Lurky Lu. She’s been commenting here a while, and I respect her. I don’t tolerate that kind of anger here. Warned.’
    -you didnt have to delete it. and what about what she said to get that coming to her, the attack on men in general? was her comment deleted as well (then there is the fact that whats his name actually pointed out the ad-hom she threw at him. what about that, i see no warning for her)
    does she not need to have any respect for the rest of us just cause shes been running her mouth for a while? she some how has special immunity to throw ‘hostility and personal attack’ but cant take it when it comes back. when that kind of favoritism and censorship starts to come up, its a bad sign. people have been throwing people in the lights left and right for what they write on here all the time (remember me abbott and tom?-3 guys, or at least two guys) and nothing, yet one of use breaks the nail of some veteran on here and i get deleted?….well as i said, not a good thing, but its your show. just wish the gun shot both ways.

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

    @xiri

    It’s not a question of different standards – I’d defend you in the same way. I think you make some good points – it would be better if you dialed down the strong language and anger. As it is, I think your point is getting lost in all that.

    If Lurky Lu or anyone else calls you names, or suggests that you might wind up committing suicide, I’ll be happy to delete their comment.

  • Xiri

    @susan
    not trying to tell you how to run your program. but considering i didn’t threaten her life or anything like that, just told the truth. i see nothing that was done to dear ms lu that wasn’t done to anyone else here.

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

      Didn’t threaten her life? Can you hear yourself? It’s possible to be offensive and hostile without threatening someone’s life. It’s not like everything up to threatening to kill someone is OK.

  • Xiri

    @susan
     
    ‘…or suggests that you might wind up committing suicide…’
    -wait, what? that suicide part wasnt directed at anyone. it was in general to what a vast majority of women would do to themselves if they where the ones chasing men and realized just how much rejection they would get. i said that and the nervous breakdown part cause, (seriously) no woman can say they are an expert at getting rejected like men. women (99.9%) of the time) have never had to put themselves on the line repeatedly. they have no way of dealing with rejection cause they damn near never have to face it once much less their entire life like us men. and no one preps women for it like so many people try to prep some guys. thats why i said it.

    i gotta start using bold to show my answers from now on, seems like it make it easier to find.

  • Xiri

    @susan
    ‘Didn’t threaten her life? Can you hear yourself? It’s possible to be offensive and hostile without threatening someone’s life. It’s not like everything up to threatening to kill someone is OK.’
    yeah i can, and i actually have the comments i ever write saved in word. calling some one names isnt hostile, and what she did to even get the short end from alek and the long end from me was also offensive so that cancels out. i wasn’t ever going to threaten her and i wasn’t leading up to it. and lets say i did. is  ‘lurky lu’ her real name? probably not, how would i possibly find her to do anything (that assuming shes even in the US and not in some village in new guinea or something. BWAH HA HA HAAAAAA, i laugh cause as of late, ive been hearing a string of people kill them self for ‘cyber bullying’ or ‘feel threatened’ cause of some comment on youtube. and i think to myslef ‘what sorry phucks, gonna call the cops or kill themself cause of what they read on the internet. like some one is gonna pull some ring2 BS and come out the screen and get em.’
     
    but anyway, i get what you’re saying (to some extent even though i think its wrong). but this is one of those topics that can (and will given a certain about of time) get the decibels raised. (especially in my case when people keep coming with the same arguments for women that both men and other women have already made prehistorically obsolete with various solutions). try a blog about say who should be blamed for rape. then youd see a light show

  • AlekNovy

    Xiri Said: ps james bond does what most if not all women bitch about guys doing. (sweet talk them -most times at the expense of male gender-, phucks em, then leaves and doesnt call back) yet thats how we are supposed to act or we arent smooth and all this other bullshit.
    .
    Or as I put it for Lurky… Women want a guy to have the social skills and social network of a broke playa, the ambition of a guy pulling 80 hour workweeks, the physique of a professional athlete and the intelligence of a professional nerd… All in one package. And if u miss any of these, you’re a “loser”…
    .
    Another way to notice this, is when women want the guy who has a harem, to fall in love with them, dump all his harem, just for her, and if he doesn’t, well… men are pigs :)
    .
    Well, you could get angry at this (and I have been in the past), but guys, look at it, this way… These women end up living out their lifes with a harem cats after being used up by the playas… So its not like they end up well off from this dumb game.
    .
    A more useful emotion, once you figure out what’s happening, is compassion. Notice, I’m not saying “condoning” or “justifying”. I’m just saying discover how much brainwashing women have been receiving. How much they’ve been told since being a little girl they are a princess and any man would be happy to have her. Then contrast that with being brainwashed by the media to actually believe that good guys come in the shape of James Bond… Then being brainwashed by the media that if you “feel chemistry” with a man, he is “the one”, and you will successfully tame him, and get him to dump his harem for you… And by the time women figure out this only works in romance novels, they’re the cat-lady. When you figure out that the system is screwing both men and women, you’ll look at things much differently.

  • AlekNovy

    Terra Said: Mencken, Lord Chesterton, Oscar Wilde, Byron and even Jane Austen would scoff at your platitudes, Alek. Women are at best neutral towards “good” men; women are not attracted to morals. A man’s ethical conduct is totally irrelevant (and being moral usually puts a man at a disadvantage, since he can lose out on key opportunities to establish social dominance).
    .
    Let me put it with an analogy. You know the kinds of women who sit around and moan “bahhhh men are such losers… men are intimidated by smart, strong women… all men want is a dumb, blonde bimbo who’s a zombie… preferably, retarded”.
    .
    You are the male version of these women. What they do is that they see a hot blond bimbo chick getting all the sexual interest, and concluding that intelligence is a bad thing when it comes to men, and that men don’t even want to have deep conversations with women.
    .
    Are they right? No, they make the same mistake you’re making, the mistake of black-or-white thinking. Sure, if I could choose between 1) a super-philosophical, intelligent, but obese girl… AND 2) a dumb, bratty, snotty Megan Fox… I’d choose Megan Fox. (especially for a short-term thing)
    .
    Am I choosing Megan Fox because I am attracted to dumbness, snotiness and annoying bitchy bratiness? No, of course not. If I could choose between 1) a bratty, bitchy megan fox and 2) a smart, intellectual, nice, kind, loving megan fox… Which would I choose? Obviously the smart version.
    .
    That’s kind of what its like for women and goodness. Goodness and character only come into play if the sexual attraction is met, just like intelligence and personality only matters to us if our looks requirment is met.
    .
    To claim that a man can’t be sexually attractive and good at the same time, is like saying a woman can’t be smart/nice & hot at the same time. Claiming that a man needs to let go of morals to trigger attraction in women, is like saying a woman needs to dumb herself down in order to be attractive to men… BOTH are excuses that unattractive people make. The un-confident, shy guy adopts the belief that women WANT bad-jerkiness… the dorky, ugly girl adopts the belief that men like stupidity and bitchiness. They’re both excuses made by unattractive people, as a way of protecting the ego.

  • AlekNovy

    @Xiri
    Asked: now then has any girl on this planet realized that while they have all these things that men have to be….us men (sure as all hell me) have our own ransom list of demands? and that maybe, just maybe, most if not all of them arent being covered? yet we take what we can get and make do.
    .

    I forgot to answer this part. Notice that women have been brainwashed, and continue to be brainwashed by media, parents, women’s “lib” that they’re “special”. To never ever settle. You’re told from a very young age that you are special, you are a princess and any man would be happy to have you.
    .
    Dissent against this model is highly frowned upon, and punished. Any female author that tries to educate women and say “hey, you know, men have needs, fears, lists too, but, you know, you do need to make do sometime too, you know?” ===> gets IMMEDIATELLY slapped by the feminazi machine. If you don’t believe me, see the criticism and sheer insults that Susan gets by the “machine”. Its considered treason to even suggest to women that they “dial standards down” or “be more modest”, or anything of some sort.
    .
    By the time women figure out that they’ve been used by the system, its too late… they’re old, and used up by the playas. You have to take that into account too. The system does this in order to make women into work-slaves, who never reach happiness with a good man, and slave away at a dead-end job to make the system richer.

  • terre

    This makes you dangerous. You clearly seek to practice Dark Game. No wonder you were so sensitive about your Lord and Master.

    The choice to consciously act immorally is, again, peripheral to the fact that morality has absolutely nothing to do with sexual attraction. Said of Hitler by his maid: “He was a charming man, someone who was only ever nice to me, and a great boss to work for. He was good to us.”It pays to be immoral not because of the morality or the choice itself but because, like I said, you’re far more likely to establish social dominance. Colombian gangsters rarely sleep alone.

  • Abbot

    “You seem to think women of experience are of bad character. ”
    .
    You’re reaching for assumptions. Any one or number of traits can indicate bad character. One has no more weight than another; therefore, there is no rational reason to not consider all of them.
    .
    “You see an attactive woman, you find out she has had 25 sex partners, is she relationship material in you eyes? Assume you know nothing else about her”
    .
    In the actual rational world, where the rest of us live, that is not a realistic plausible scenario. 

  • Tom

    “You see an attactive woman, you find out she has had 25 sex partners, is she relationship material in you eyes? Assume you know nothing else about her”
    .
    In the actual rational world, where the rest of us live, that is not a realistic plausible scenario. 
    _______________________
    Nice cop out……

    Ok I`ll play.. you meet a woman You talk about football for an hour.. you overhear some people at the next table talking about sex. You overhear them talking about the “number”.. She turns to you and playfully asks, so what isyour number?…. In time it is her turn… She says 25…What is your reaction?…Relationship material or not?

  • Abbot

    If her idea of being playful is such a topic, especially with a stranger, then she will come across as being out for sex and more importantly not very intelligent. First impressions are what they are. Women who are not bright may be relationship material, I do not know.
    .
    If anyone wants to continue playing charades with…tom, please feel free. Not me. It borders on the infantile. 

  • terre

    Tom, why buy the cow when the milk’s free?

  • Abbot

    Careful, the feminists want [beg] men to change their free-thinking and commit despite the super easy widespread distribution and access to female sexuality, aka “fun distribution”
    .
    http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=2623

  • Tom

    LOL @ Terre AND abbot.

    Terre there is more to a woman than the “milk” With the right woman a relationship can be a wonderful thing. But a beta like you wouldnt know much about that.
    Abbott again, way to skit the question.. You just do not want to adimt any woman with a number over 5 has too much experience for your insecure self. You wont admit it because you know just how shallow it really is. But really it is OK. No good woman, no matter her experience would want such a shallow man,such as yourself.
    I admire Susan for alerting todays woman about the”men” (I use that term lightly in your cases) As long as a manchild such as terre will refer to women as “milk” and other sexest remarks one just knows Susan is just scratching the surface of the insecure and immature. Its too bad other men can not see how stupid it is to hold a double standard. But I guess as long as some men see “ALL” women of experience as damaged goods, and put them all in the same boat, I guess women will continure to to quest to find real men who see them as a person and not just a pussy with a body that surounds it.
    I am glad my daughter will never meet morons like you, but then again she has her head onstraight.

  • Pingback: More on Kala « Becoming Alpha

  • John

    “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.”

    How the hell am I supposed to deal with this? Don’t most women sleep around in college? I can’t stop thinking about this even though I’d much rather get over it.

  • Abbot

    John
    .
    Think no more. The US government balances out its one-sided entitlement pandering to women by providing men with a license to access well adjusted worthy women in NAWALT nations. Apply today!!
    .
    http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2008/03/0926trav_passport.
    .
    Why look for that needle in the haystack when you can just go to the needle factory!

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

    @John
    No most women do not sleep around in college. The average # of sexual partners in college for both men and women is 0-2, depending on the school. I’d estimate that about 20% are hardcore promiscuous, and another 20% have had some experience (1-5) partners. If you can’t live with that, then you need to seek a virgin – not a lot of those around.

  • detinennui32

    Susan:

    I’m a Johnny come lately to the manosphere and it looks like this thread played itself out a while ago. But let me add on #8. This is a common thing about women I run into.

    Many professional women seem to think that their professional pedigree, accomplishments, achievements, intellect, career, position or salary will somehow be impressive to men. Actually, we’re not intimidated by a woman’s career success. We’re not afraid of you making more money than we do. It’s that a woman’s intellect and career just are not that important to us. They aren’t what we find attractive or interesting.

    And, once I get to know her, if she starts bashing me over the head with her intellect or job, or making constant reference to them, then I think she’s competing with me. I’m married now. I don’t want to compete with my wife. When I was dating I didn’t want to compete with my dates to see who was smartest. I compete with other guys all damn day. When I go out at night dating or on the scene, I’m competing with other guys for female attention. I don’t want to have to compete with you once we’re on a date or we start dating. If all you want to do is one-up me, I’m not horny for you anymore. Jeez, we just want to date and have a good time, not find out who has the highest IQ.

    Ladies, here’s what we’re looking for: a pleasing physical appearance; a pleasant, optimistic demeanor; and relative chastity. That”s pretty much it.

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

      @detinennui32
      Welcome, I’ve seen you commenting at Badger’s, I think, and maybe Dalrock’s? Glad to have you here.

      Ladies, here’s what we’re looking for: a pleasing physical appearance; a pleasant, optimistic demeanor; and relative chastity. That”s pretty much it.

      I’d say that is definitely the consensus of the men here. Sadly, it’s not easy to find. But that was also true when the Proverbs were written…

  • LaLa

    At the risk of being flamed, I actually think most of these are just myths. There is not a one-size-fits all description for any guy, and this pretty much just paints them as sex-hungry, selfish robots (much like the media). I believe I’ve actually read that many men, ages 18-21 even, do want relationships, and are not afraid of marriage or commitment, contrary to what the media, and the men that wrote these quotes, wants us to think. It seems that they don’t care anything about personality- just pussy. That I find untrue. Relationships have many benefits to them, as opposed to the cons. I honestly think it is just a stereotype that men only want sex with as many girls as possible (not the emotionally secure young men anyway).
    And from experience + talking to others, no men do not care about your number. Most of the time it is not even brought up. The past is the past. Men do have somewhat fragile egos, and I think that most think that it is better not to go into that.
    As for men wanting variety, well, women do too! No, really, do you know of anyone, male or female who wants to be with ONE person their entire lives? I don’t. Never met anyone who does (young people anyway).
    Moving on, you say that men care about how you treat other men. Well, we also care about how they treat other women. If he’s just using them for sex, and rejecting them, I sure as hell wouldn’t want him.
    As far as men being more direct, in many cases, yes. But some women are too. I say what I mean and don’t beat around the bush. Am I masculine in that respect? Nope. I’m just me!
    Overall though, may be a pretty honest article for many men, but then again, everyone is different. I think you should start out as FRIENDS if you want to establish a relationship. That way the relationship has a much better chance of working. Many men would NOT be opposed to that. That ”If I’m not fucking you now” sentence is a disgusting thing to say. Of course men and women are of use to each other besides just sexually (or maybe that’s what I want to think…sigh). It is ridiuclous to think that men hold women to follow the rules that they broke (treating the opposite gender right, promiscuity, etc.).
    Neither men nor women are monolithic. Even some of the rules mentioned of men above may apply to women as well…times are changing. Hope I didn’t misinterpret the rules in your article Ms. Walsh. But these quotes all seem to be from the stereotypical guy. I don’t think that sex is always their one aim, and that their bad qualities overpower the good.