How to Destroy a Relationship

February 1, 2011

How would you feel about the love of your life giving 110% effort in your relationship to make you….think he’s getting ready to dump you. Would you love it? Can you imagine a better fairy tale ending? I’m not just talking about hooking up with the hottest guy on campus, either. No, if  you play your cards right, you may be able to engineer a lifetime of married dread with the man of your dreams!

In a recent post at Haley’s Halo about women’s need for emotional drama, Haley appears to support the claim that keeping women interested means keeping them in a perpetual state of emotional instability about the relationship.

Roissy has discussed at some length women’s need for emotional drama, and why it is important for men in relationships to keep a push-pull dynamic of varying degrees of emotional instability going in order to maintain her interest and attraction.  (I think he typically refers to it as “installing dread.”)

…I think the bottom line, at least for men, is that all women crave some drama, and they will find it somewhere.  Yes, even the most upstanding, drama-free, moral pillar of civility wants drama.  The question a man, particularly if he is a husband, should ask himself is, “Do I want her to get her fix from me, or from somewhere else?”  Because she will find it somewhere.

Naturally, this led me to the Dark Lord’s post Dread:

“There are two ways to guarantee a healthy relationship. By healthy, I mean the girl is in love with you and there is no threat of her leaving; you have all the leverage you need to assure yourself peace of mind and a steady sexual outlet.

  • Meet your soulmate
  • Instill dread

Managing your relationship in such a way that she is left with a constant, gnawing feeling of impending doom will do more for your cause than all the Valentine’s Day cards and expertly performed tongue love in the world. Like it or not, the threat of a looming breakup, whether the facts justify it or not, will spin her into a paranoid estrogen-fueled tizzy, and she’ll spend every waking second thinking about you, thinking about the relationship, thinking about how to fix it.”

He then goes on to suggest excellent ways to foster this mental health crisis. His list reads like a sadistic adaptation of The Rules:

Cut off communication:

  • Turn off your cell phone at least two days a week.
  • Ignore her calls for a week.
  • Cook her a romantic dinner and then no contact for four days.

Make her jealous:

  • Make a move on her friend.
  • Call her when other women are laughing and shrieking in the background. Refuse to explain.
  • Describe how your ex gave awesome head.
  • Flirt with other women in front of her.

Act like a psycho:

  • When she calls you out on your dick behavior, do the following: “Accuse her of sabotaging a perfectly good relationship, ‘just like all the other women in this stupid city. I thought you were different’. Hang up on her angrily.”
  • “Have a threesome. Spend an inordinate amount of time admiring the labia of the other woman.”
  • Have an affair, and make sure she finds out about it. After her sobbing subsides, do the following: “Tell her she’s never looked more beautiful and you will never stop loving her. Then without waiting for her response calmly walk out the door and break off all contact for two weeks.”


I understand that women like men who are strong, dominant, and refuse to put up with their shit. Indeed, if a man cannot do these things, he may strike out time and time again. But that’s a far cry, a whole other continent, away from wanting to feel dread in the pit of your stomach for the rest of your life.

If you are in a relationship where:

  • You give love freely and it is not returned
  • You are loyal and faithful but worry that your partner will cheat
  • You frequently worry that your partner will leave you
  • Your partner knowingly and callously hurts your feelings

…then you are in an unhealthy relationship with a narcissist. End it now. Walk away.

The idea that a woman wants, even needs, to be treated like crap to appreciate her man is lunacy. It can only be effective in a highly dysfunctional relationship.

Playful teasing? Sure. Making sure you notice that women are flirting with him? Fair game. Not being available to take every call from you? Of course! Not saying “How high?” when you say “Jump!” Naturally. Calling you out on your own lapses? OK.

There is a very distinct difference between increasing a woman’s attraction and dependence on you by being masculine, and trying to create a “love slave” by torturing her emotions and playing on her insecurities.

Around Halloween, Lifehacker adopted an Evil Week theme, and one of their featured articles was How to Manipulate People. Unlike Dread, it begins with a disclaimer:

It’s worth noting that manipulating people is generally a bad thing to do. Please do not take this advice. Instead, use it as a guide to spot manipulation in your day-to-day interactions and protect yourself from manipulative people. Such is the goal of Evil Week.

The tactics outlined are child’s play compared with the sadistic tricks outlined above, but will give you a feel for how we can and do manipulate one another. Some highlights:

I. Prey on the emotions of others

If you let people think too much they’re more likely to make a logical choice. If you can guide them to feel a certain way—a way that benefits you—you’ll have a much easier time getting what you want.

II. Master your own emotions

A master manipulator needs to be able to act. Shedding a tear when it suits your needs or losing yourself in a fit of rage are both important skills you’ll want to master.

III. Cultivate charm

Charm is an important part of manipulating people. If you’re ridiculously likable most of the time, when you react with extreme emotion it’ll have a greater impact…Because manipulation generally makes the target feel poorly, whether they understand that they’re being manipulated or not, the more they like you the better. Disregard the boundaries of your own sexuality and throw in some suggestive touches when you think they’ll be effective. This tactic is especially effective with people who are lonely and have low self-esteem.

IV. Overcome distrust

If you believe trust is an issue, the quickest way around that problem is to share something very personal and very private with the target…It’s not important that your story is true, but that they believe it. Again, acting is key.

The biggest enemy you’ll have when trying to manipulate another person is doubt. If they don’t notice something fishy about your behavior, they might start to notice that they’re not acting like themselves…If they openly question the way they’re acting, remind them that change is often uncomfortable but they need to go through this tumultuous period in their lives to make positive progress.

V. Conceal your evil nature

You have to seem like a good person, even if you’re not. If you ever need to take a negative action like criticizing behavior, blaming another person (whether it’s their fault or yours), or even yelling at the target, you should always find a way to wrap it in altruism.

VI. Act calm and reasonable when you are discovered

If you don’t react like a traditionally manipulative person, they’ll likely wonder if their assumption about you was correct. In most cases they’ll already feel attached to you and will jump on any excuse to believe you’re truly a good person. Often times “catching you” is simply because of something a friend—or another manipulator—told them. Be smart, be careful, and be prepared to surprise if you find yourself discovered.


Through manipulation, A man may succeed in getting a woman to feel desperate to keep him, but it will not be love that she feels.

How much nicer it would be if we could ultimately, with trust and love, be ourselves.

Have you been in a relationship with someone who thrived on your feeling worried and afraid? Did they succeed?

Let’s hear it in the comments.

Recommended further evil reading:

The 48 Laws of Power, Robert Greene

How to Be an Effective Liar

Top Ten Secrets of Highly Effective Liars

4 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • OffTheCuff

    Roissy may have many valid observations on female nature, but I think he has zero authority on what a healthy, loving, monogamous relationship is. To him, a “healthy relationship” is probably something like having girlfriend for 6 months, where he had the upper hand the entire time. Sure.
    .
    I don’t see the connection between Roissy’s post and Haley’s. Haley say women like a little drama in their life, and from what I can see, that is true. But a little drama, like her Mom experiences, is quite different from needing the utter psychological manipulation of what Roissy describes.

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

      @OTC

      I don’t see the connection between Roissy’s post and Haley’s. Haley say women like a little drama in their life, and from what I can see, that is true. But a little drama, like her Mom experiences, is quite different from needing the utter psychological manipulation of what Roissy describes.

      Yes, I was surprised she channeled Roissy in that post. I would agree that women like drama, even if it’s bad. Having an infatuation play out badly is better than sitting alone in your room – I think that’s the way most women feel. Still, liking things to be interesting and a bit unpredictable is very different than wondering if the man you love is about to ditch you.

  • AnonymousF

    Like the post. Would also add that the air of instability suggested by Roissy would majorly traumatize a couple’s children. Not a concern of his, but relevant for most people.

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

      @AnonF

      Would also add that the air of instability suggested by Roissy would majorly traumatize a couple’s children.

      OMG, I didn’t even think of that! Terrible! I can tell you one thing for sure – if a woman is worrying that her husband will leave her, so are the kids. Children always know what’s up. Plus, it’s unlikely such a manipulative man would be a parent who loves his children unconditionally either.

  • Lavazza

    I don’t know. I guess it is better to pro-actively create drama yourself rather than having drama pushed on you by your woman when you are off guard minding your business.

  • Matt T

    Regardless of how malicious some of Roissy’s counsel may seem, the irony is that it is all directed towards the preservation of a relationship. The fact is that in any relationship, there is one side that is “winning”, usually the female. The “winner” is the person that needs the other less, and therefore has the power in the relationship, just like a CEO has the power in his work relationship with a factory worker, since he doesn’t need the factory worker as much as the factory worker needs him.
     
    When women realize that they are the “winners”, they get turned off towards the man, and yearn for a higher status mate. Roissy’s counsel directs men to show that they are high status, and therefore don’t need the female since she can be replaced. This makes the man the “winner”, and the woman proceeds to crave the man for being a high-status mate.

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

      Regardless of how malicious some of Roissy’s counsel may seem, the irony is that it is all directed towards the preservation of a relationship.

      No, that’s the point. What Roissy would create is not a relationship. It’s some kind of gender warfare with nuclear options. The Principle of Least Interest is real, but a good relationship is one where it’s hard to know who is least invested. When a couple is in love, who cares less? How to measure? Why would you want to? Roissy’s perspective is from the man who does not have that. He does not have love.
      .
      A man is either high-status or he is not. Game can help him get there, but if he needs to follow a romantic dinner with four days MIA, or hit on his girlfriend’s BFF, then his status in artificially manufactured and maintained. He is not relationship material. I’m sure Roissy would agree. This is one thing that belongs on every woman’s checklist – as a disqualifier.

  • Lavazza

    Matt T: Very possible, but it would be best if the few or many women who work like that would not have babies. Even if the father makes the relation steady like this I do not think it is a healthy situation for the kids. Children need a mother who is more mature than that.
     

  • (R)Evolutionary

    Susan, I’ve found through accidental and unintentional application of the inspiration of dread, that, well…it works.
    I’ve been really busy at work, and spend a lot of time on various projects. Through total immersion, I’ll forget to make calls back, to return texts for hours or even days, and the girl I’m seeing right now is always seeking that validation, always checking in. She’s definitely heavily invested, and I think much of it is due to the mostly accidental way in which I manage my communications with  her.
    Contrast with a few months earlier, I had met a two girls a few months apart, both of which were very good prospects. I lapsed back into the betatude, calling back right away, emailing, texting back quickly… I really liked each of these girls, was heavily invested.. and you can guess the outcome. Yep, both backed away. My last serious romantic relationship–same thing, DOA due to betatude.
    Of course the Chateau post you quoted goes beyond mere lags and lapses in communication and devolves into psychological warfare.
    I think the key to realizing the middle ground is to know that Roissy writes in a certain voice that is appealing to men. It’s an overdriven, souped-up, turbocharged voice, because that’s what we have to do to get psyched up to practice game. I don’t condone the extreme to which he takes this concept in his writing, but I also realize he’s playing it up. It’s theatrical. And in the instances in which his psy-ops are heartily recommended, it’s for when the male’s SMV may be perceived as markedly lower than the females. Even if she THINKS she’s a lot better than him, he’s got to game her hard. The proportional difference in SMV will dictate the strength of the game. Big differences in SMV may require diabololical game. And through this process, the SMV of each partner will be reset to a more equiibrated level. Seen it. Been there, done that, we do what we have to do, I suppose.
    At the end of the day, the man in each relationship must master the hamster. He must run it off its rails, or else be consumed by it, eaten up and spat out like so much woolly hamster regurgitate. It’s not pretty, but that’s the way it is in the modern SMP. We didn’t make the rules, we’ve only discovered them.  I wish it were some other way. I wish, in some way, I could go back to being the mewling, cuddling, deeply (overly) emotionally beta that I was. It was comfortable. But it was unmanly, dammit.

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

      (R)Evolutionary,
      Thanks, that was an epic comment! You’ve given me a better appreciation for what young men see in Roissy. I confess I’ve never fully understood the appeal of his message. As for the situation where the male’s SMV is lower than the female’s – this is something I have witnessed up close, unfortunately. I am convinced that it cannot work. The male will never truly be comfortable, especially if he has resorted to tactics such as the ones outlined here. He will always be on guard, waiting for her to leave him. Which is ironic – his keeping her wondering whether he’ll dump her is a pre-emptive move.

  • LJ

    I also think the “dread” thing only works in the early stages of a relationship. Then, if a guy is TOO interested, and TOO available, a woman will assume he’s not really that great a catch. But once monagamy / coupledom is established, while you need to maintain your own identity and not follow her around like a puppy dog, intentionally being a jerk will send a girl packing. Unless she believes that no other guy would date her, or you’re the best she can do.

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

      @LJ
      Welcome, I appreciate your comment. I agree completely – part of what is so troubling is that I do believe there are men using this tactic, or some variation of it, even in marriage.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    I’m with (R)Evolutionary…
    If you stopped rewarding us for being assholes, or stopped punishing investment, then maybe you’d see a change in behavior.  Don’t hate the player, hate the game (or biology).

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

      If you stopped rewarding us for being assholes, or stopped punishing investment, then maybe you’d see a change in behavior.

      I reject AWALT. When you say “punishing investment,” who are you speaking of, exactly? Do all women reward men for being assholes? I don’t believe so. In fact, I know it’s not the case. The real danger with Roissy’s thinking is that men begin to internalize it. If it is meant to be inflammatory and over-the-top, then this is obviously wrong-headed.

  • Florence

    “Have you been in a relationship with someone who thrived on your feeling worried and afraid? Did they succeed?”
    …………..
    My very first boyfriend was like this. Whether he was doing it on purpose or that was his natural personality, I don’t know but it resulted in torturing my emotions and enhancing my insecurities. I spent a year with him, after which I got sick and tired of the whole thing and I realized that all of the emotional torture I was going through wasn’t even worth it.  He was an average guy and nothing that cannot be replaced. In addition, all of the emotional manipulation resulted in me doing poorly during the last year of my bachelor’s, when I was in serious competition for grad school with other students. I decided that I will not ruin my life just because I wanted to keep someone so badly. I broke up with him. It was the hardest thing I’ve done in my life. He got a new gf almost immediately after me (ugly though), while I couldn’t even think about having a new guy in my life for many months. He might of been the short-term winner, but I feel like I saved my life and will end up with someone much better than him. Anyway, the point is that IF you manipulate a girl by making her feel insecure of your commitment to her and intentionally torture her emotionally, she will eventually get sick and tired of it and she will realize that she doesn’t want to ruin her life because of you and will walk away.
    Specific things he did to emotionally manipulate me were:
    1) Keeping photos of his exes and other girls on the wall of his room and when asked to put them down in an album, his reply would be – “Why can’t you accept that I have a past?” and blaming me for being “insecure and possessive” only for demanding that from him.
    2) Saying that I didn’t value him because I hadn’t invited him to meet my family 5 months into the relationship, when he hadn’t invited me either.
    3) Joking about having a threesome with me and my best friend;
    4) Having another girl as a “best-friend” and talking to her about his problems with me. At first I didn’t mind him having all the female friends he had, but later into the relationship it started to really bother me. I felt like he was closer to them than he was to me. It destroyed my trust in him.

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

      @Florence
      Ugh, those descriptions of your BF’s behavior are horrendous. It sounds like he tried to make you jealous all the time. I’m glad you walked away, and you clearly have no regrets. I think women find it so difficult to contemplate abandoning a relationship like that, but experience immediate relief when the torture stops! Haha, of course he got a new GF immediately, and of course she was busted. How predictable.

  • Geoff

    @Matt T,
    Impressive, sir.  I have nothing to add.
    .
    @Lavazza,
    “Children need a mother who is more mature than that?”  Such women do not exist.  Maybe Mother Theresa when she was still kicking.
    .
    And for the record, I don’t think Roissy explicitly says go hog-wild and do EVERYTHING on the list, ALL the time.  He has repeatedly said that there are different types of women, and less attractive women do not need to be hammered like 8s and 9s do.  He’s listed a tool box to use on women you want to stick around–it is no different that the alpha behavior he recommends to GET that girl in a LTR with you in the first place.

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

      He has repeatedly said that there are different types of women, and less attractive women do not need to be hammered like 8s and 9s do.

      Good to know that if a woman is born pretty, she can look forward to being “hammered” by the likes of Roissy. Newsflash: 8s and 9s do not need Roissy’s hammer.

  • Plain Jane

    “In a recent post at Haley’s Halo about women’s need for emotional drama, Haley appears to support the claim that keeping women interested means keeping them in a perpetual state of emotional instability about the relationship.”
    *
    This infuriates me.  The amount of children who are born into neglectful or abusive situations, combined with the number of children who later in their development, though not born into dysfunctional situations nonetheless experience the trauma of loss through divorce, death of a loved, or any other number of things is a large percentage.
    They grow into insecure adults who have a void inside them that needs to be filled.
    And someone you have opened your heart to with trust – your HUSBAND of all people is going to play sinister psychological games with you rather than provide you with the emotionally stability that you need?
    This is getting into VERY dangerous territory and I would say that whatever happens to these men who do this to women, well, they deserve it.

  • Plain Jane

    Speaking of which, Roissy has all the signs of AD (Attachment Disorder)in genereal, and RAD (Reactive Attachment Disorder) specifically.
    I wonder what happened to him as a child?

  • Florence

    “He has repeatedly said that there are different types of women, and less attractive women do not need to be hammered like 8s and 9s do.  He’s listed a tool box to use on women you want to stick around–it is no different that the alpha behavior he recommends to GET that girl in a LTR with you in the first place.”
    ……….
    The bottom line is that she will eventually realize that you are not worth her ruining her mental health for you and will find the strength to walk away for you.

  • Geoff

    @Florence,
    My wife loves it.  Can’t get enough alpha.  She’s lubricated on a daily basis better than a NASCAR vehicle.
    .
    You ladies are confusing game, which involves twinges of concern and surprise at my smartass remarks, with dungeon-like emotional rape.  They’re not the same, and you’re way off target.  Read it as:  Roissy recommends that if you used game to get a girl, use game to KEEP the girl.  Full stop.

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

      You ladies are confusing game, which involves twinges of concern and surprise at my smartass remarks, with dungeon-like emotional rape. They’re not the same, and you’re way off target. Read it as: Roissy recommends that if you used game to get a girl, use game to KEEP the girl. Full stop.

      Interesting, Geoff, since you recently mentioned making your wife worry that you’ll leave her as an effective tactic that you employ.

  • Florence

    @PJ
    Roissy sounds insane. I feel sorry for those who are being brainwashed by him.

  • Matt T

    After a while in a relationship, women will start to implicitly demand some form of game, or they will become disinterested and act rudely, withold sex, and eventually initiate a breakup.

    This was how I lost my first girlfriend back when I wasn’t involved in game. However, I’m proud to say that I initiated the breakup and got her to cry. Small consolation I guess.

  • Plain Jane

    Florence says:
    February 1, 2011 at 6:54 pm
    @PJ
    Roissy sounds insane. I feel sorry for those who are being brainwashed by him.
    *
    He’s an adult suffering with RAD (Reactive Attachment Disorder) that was never resolved as a child.
    He’s dealing with some deep infant rage.
    There are therapists out there who are trained to deal with this disorder, though they recommend a child undergo as early as possible, they also work with adults.
    Part of the therapy is to regress the individual to the age at which the trauma happened and fulfill the needs that went unmet to him at the time.
     

  • Mike C

    Susan, I’ve found through accidental and unintentional application of the inspiration of dread, that, well…it works.


    Yup, it does.  I had to do this one time with my current GF (in 5 years).  In fact, it was the cut off all communication tactic.  I mentioned it in another comment.  I would hope that I would never have to be that extreme again.  I did NOT enjoy it.

    Unfortunately, I think there is more then a grain of truth to the “women crave drama” and they will go out of their way to create it.  I think the corollary to this fact is that it varies TREMENDOUSLY from woman to woman.  Your typical party girl/Hooter’s waitress needs her daily fix of drama for her life to have any meaning.  In this case, Roissy’s advice probably applies 110%.  On the other hand, I think the more mature, the more intellectual, the more responsible, the higher quality girl needs very little drama.  My guess is more mature women get their fix of drama from watching soap operas or TV dramas rather then manufacture it in their own lives.

    In the old Highlander TV show, it would end with “there can be only one”.  I think Matt T is on point with the winner versus loser dynamic, and women getting turned off by the guy who is the loser.  Frankly, it makes me very uncomfortable to say some of these things.  I wish it were not so, but my empirical experience does seem to support the unpleasant truth of these things.  I knew I lucked out when I found a woman who needed/desired very little drama in her life, and where the game playing can be kept at an absolute minimal level.

    In fact, I would say that any guy considering a LTR/marrying someone should consider this issue above all else (probably 100x as important as sex partner number although I would argue and bet a huge sum of money that high sex partner and need for drama have a high positive correlation).  There are a few blogs that talk about “Game” for your wife.  You want a wife where you have to do very little of this beyond just being a strong man, and not a supplicating wuss

    There is a very distinct difference between increasing a woman’s attraction and dependence on you by being masculine, and trying to create a “love slave” by torturing her emotions and playing on her insecurities.


    Absolutely agree.  That said, that line between “masculine dominance” and perhaps playing to emotions can have a few areas where maybe things get just a bit blurry.  Again, I would say that if a guy is with a quality mature woman anything excessive becomes unnecessary.  If you have to psychologically manipulate a girl non-stop to keep her interested and connected, then that is a f’ed up girl.

  • Matt T

    I guess we should keep in mind that game was formulated with regards to LA club chicks, who may or may not represent the whole population. Still, it’s true that women need drama and smentsl stimulation, and so do men. If they don’t get it, they move on, it’s that simple.

  • Plain Jane

    ” I had to do this one time with my current GF (in 5 years).  In fact, it was the cut off all communication tactic.”
    This works as a form of punishment when the person violated boundaries and knows it.
    I’ve had to do it a few times with boyfriends and family members.  When they are regulated, have realized the error of the way, and make contact with you for apology and reconciliation then you reestablish contact from your end – on your terms.
    However, this is punishment for bad behaviour used as a learning and growing lesson.
    It should not be employed out of the blue for no reason at all.
    If it is, its nothing more than psychological manipulation i.e. abuse.

  • http://thetitanproject.wordpress.com/ Jonathan Manor

    I’m going to have to take Roissy’s side on this.  Do I agree with his “rules” or “bulletpoints,” not exactly. From what I could measure, peace is something that’s more for the married.  As long as something’s not guaranteed, it has a great margin of falling apart.  So therefore, in a relationship, one person has to keep things exciting, and controlled.  To do that, someone has to push someone away to be able to pull them back in, which reminds each other why they’re together, and the good qualities that instill in each other.  When something becomes too comfortable, mundane or routine even, then people start to question why they’re together.  It’s the same reason why married couples renew their vows, or relationships celebrate anniversaries, it’s so both people can remind themselves why their together.  Unfortunately, in some unique way, turbulence does that too.
     
    This makes me wonder what happened to my relationship.  I would be lying if I said that this wasn’t hard to get through.  It’s as if I’m being lectured on all points as to why I didn’t get the outcome I wanted.

  • Mike C

    Of course the Chateau post you quoted goes beyond mere lags and lapses in communication and devolves into psychological warfare.I think the key to realizing the middle ground is to know that Roissy writes in a certain voice that is appealing to men. It’s an overdriven, souped-up, turbocharged voice, because that’s what we have to do to get psyched up to practice game. I don’t condone the extreme to which he takes this concept in his writing, but I also realize he’s playing it up. It’s theatrical.


    He is like the Spinal Tap amplifiers dialing up something that has some element of truth to 11.

    Even if she THINKS she’s a lot better than him, he’s got to game her hard. The proportional difference in SMV will dictate the strength of the game. Big differences in SMV may require diabololical game. And through this process, the SMV of each partner will be reset to a more equiibrated level. Seen it. Been there, done that, we do what we have to do, I suppose.At the end of the day, the man in each relationship must master the hamster. He must run it off its rails, or else be consumed by it, eaten up and spat out like so much woolly hamster regurgitate. It’s not pretty, but that’s the way it is in the modern SMP. We didn’t make the rules, we’ve only discovered them.  I wish it were some other way. I wish, in some way, I could go back to being the mewling, cuddling, deeply (overly) emotionally beta that I was. It was comfortable. But it was unmanly, dammit.


    What else can I add?  Nothing.  Word.  This is straight up gospel truth here.  It is what it is.  I’ll say this, generally speaking, I really think it is just a bad idea for a guy to try and have a relationship with someone who’s SMV is way above his for basically what you say here.  Ultimately, what it is “going to take” to make it “work” and I use that term work loosely is simply not worth it.

  • Florence

    @ Mike C
    ” I think the corollary to this fact is that it varies TREMENDOUSLY from woman to woman.”
    ……..
    Just out of curiosity, what kind of “drama” are you exactly talking about? “Drama” is a very broad term.
    Personally, when I’ve committed to a guy and trusted him enough to sleep with him in a relationship, the last thing I want for him is to start making me feel insecure of his commitment to me. It gets extremely annoying when men start creating their own manly drama by acting like they are losing their interest in you because “the chase is over”. Well, the chase is not going to continue forever you know! Once we give you the goods, we expect some stability.

  • Plain Jane

    The problem with Roissy and people like him is that he is trying to therapize his dates/gfs without having been therapized himself, and advising other issue-laden, emotionally disturbed men to do the same.
    If one finds oneself in dysfunctional relationships one must look at oneself and ask why they attract that sort of drama.
    When you can understand that, which usually only happens in some sort of therapuetic environment, either formal or informal, then you can being to heal.  Once healed then you can heal others.
    Perhaps you have heard of TP, Thearapeutic Parenting?
    Well, Roissy is attempting therapeutic boyfriending, but he himself has been healed.
    We have seen over and over again the question asked to women on this blog by men;
    WHY DO YOU WOMEN REWARD BAD BEHAVIOUR FROM ASSHOLE MEN?
    Notice the language used, “reward/behaviour”.
    Ladies, this is VERY telling.
    There is a deep psychological need in children to be punished for bad behaviour and rewarded for good behaviour.
    Why?
    It sends the message to the child that he/she is safe and secure!
    When you hear men asking you, “why do you reward bad behaviour in us?” that is nothing more than a plea from his inner child that DID NOT get properly punished and rewarded.
    As a result, he is an insecure adult that is glutton for punishment!
    When you see men “acting out” i.e. behaving in assholish ways, these men are crying inside for you to punish them!
    Similarly, when you see men behaving in GOOD ways, they are dying for some reward i.e. appreciation.
    Giving these men what they need is what I refer to as “therapeutic girlfriending”.

    HOWEVER it is very important for people to WORK ON THEIR OWN ISSUES FIRST, before attempting therapeutic relationships.
    And the catch is – if you have worked on and indeed HEALED yourself – you will no longer attract men/women into your lives that need you to be their therapist.

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

      When you hear men asking you, “why do you reward bad behaviour in us?” that is nothing more than a plea from his inner child that DID NOT get properly punished and rewarded.
      As a result, he is an insecure adult that is glutton for punishment!
      When you see men “acting out” i.e. behaving in assholish ways, these men are crying inside for you to punish them!

      I confess I was rolling my eyes as I read Plain Jane’s comment, but this bit stopped me. It is true that the worst men often wind up falling for the woman who won’t tolerate their BS. Russell Brand tells the story of falling in love with Katy Perry when she threw a water bottle at his head and screamed, “You’ve met your match, mother fucker!”

  • Plain Jane

    BIG MISTAKE!
    “Well, Roissy is attempting therapeutic boyfriending, but he himself has been healed”
    I MEANT
    Well, Roissy is attempting therapeutic boyfriending, but he himself has NOT been healed

  • Stephenie Rowling

    IME this is true but is true from women that grew up on drama filled homes themselves so in their heads love=drama. So this game will work on those women, but if she comes from a quiet family life (wich is rarer and rarer this days sadly) then all this insecurity will make her run from the hills and never come back.
    Also I think it would be better to accompany her to a couple of romantic movies a year and buy her the crappy books she likes. I can tell that every time I re-read Twilight or watch the movies somehow I feel closer, more romantic and more thankful to my husband (and hornier) than before and probably that I will ever be if he made me think for a second that he is seeing someone else, which probably just drive me jealous insane and completely disappointed, because for me a winner is a person of strength of character and impulse control so him falling into cheating certainly will place him into loser box on my brain and it would be hard for me to be attracted to him.
    Thus I think the advice is to get to know what work with a woman and what doesn’t for every particular woman because even if there are general guidelines not everyone has the same ideas or feelings about insecurity.

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

      I can tell that every time I re-read Twilight or watch the movies somehow I feel closer, more romantic and more thankful to my husband (and hornier) than before and probably that I will ever be if he made me think for a second that he is seeing someone else, which probably just drive me jealous insane and completely disappointed,

      Haha, so true! I love watching sexy movies with my husband – and I can tell you that’s a much surer route to sex than his treating me like shit.

  • Plain Jane

    “IME this is true but is true from women that grew up on drama filled homes themselves so in their heads love=drama. So this game will work on those women, but if she comes from a quiet family life (wich is rarer and rarer this days sadly) then all this insecurity will make her run from the hills and never come back.”
    *
    BINGO!
    Stephanie, please see my comment a few scrolls about regarding “therapeutic girlfriend/boyfriending”!
    The thing is, in American culture, many (most?) kids are now growing up in dysfunctional families.  They enter relationships as adults “broken”.
    They require partners to use therapeutic methods on them, HOWEVER, those partners should themselves FIRST be healed.
    Roissy is not.
    Moreover, in the dishing out of reward and punishment to your boyfriend/husband, it must be made very clear what behaviours you are punishing and rewarding.
    To just pull this stuff out of the blue for no reason, like is suggested by Roissy and others, is nothing more than psychological abuse.
    But like I said, adults who have resolved their dysfunctional childhood issues and healed themselves will no longer attract dysfunctional partners to them.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Stephanie
    Let me start by saying you’re definitely a great addition to the comments section of this blog.  But this quote:
    “for me a winner is a person of strength of character and impulse control,” is not something you’re likely to hear from most college-aged girls in the US.  And even when you do hear it, the actions don’t match the words.
    If words reflected actions, then we’d regularly be hearing: “For me a winner is a man of status, swag, and dominance.”

  • Mike C

    If words reflected actions, then we’d regularly be hearing: “For me a winner is a man of status, swag, and dominance.

    Well…..in another thread…in a moment of blunt honesty we did have a young commenter say “I want a cocky, good-looking guy who “owns the room””

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

      Well…..in another thread…in a moment of blunt honesty we did have a young commenter say “I want a cocky, good-looking guy who “owns the room””

      Yes, and I’m sorry she seems to have flown the coop….

  • Mike C

    @StephanieLet me start by saying you’re definitely a great addition to the comments section of this blog.

    Let me just second that.  I’ve been really impressed with the tone and substance of your comments, Stephanie.  If most young women held your views and attitude, then 95% of the craziness would go away.  Unfortunately, my sense is you are in a distinct minority.  Just look at some of the other commenters to see that.

  • Geoff

    7 out of first 27 posts made by Plain Jane.  Just sayin.

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

    Pretty clear that some people–of both sexes–tend to need a lot more drama in their lives than do others. What distinguishes the high-drama people from the low-drama people? Stephanie suggested that family background is one key factor: this makes sense. Other things being equal, someone from a low-drama home is likely to seek a low-drama relationship.
    Also, though, I think a person who has some creativity and some serious interests is likely to find emotional release in work and/or hobbies and will be less likely to require constant drama in their relationship.

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

      @david foster

      Also, though, I think a person who has some creativity and some serious interests is likely to find emotional release in work and/or hobbies and will be less likely to require constant drama in their relationship.

      This is an interesting idea. Especially if we assume that a woman who constantly finds herself embroiled in drama lacks a healthy self-image. Perhaps the key to that, rather than constant reassurances from the culture that we’re special and unique, is pursuing intellectual interests that help us establish a real identity.

  • Plain Jane

    @David Foster, “Pretty clear that some people–of both sexes–tend to need a lot more drama in their lives than do others. What distinguishes the high-drama people from the low-drama people?”
    Functional, loving, in-tact families.
    I came from one.
    I dated men who didn’t.
    Dating men who did not come from functional, loving and in-tact families who met their childhood needs for punishment and reward was an eye-opener for me!
    I approached them just like I approached my family members – didn’t work!
    These are deeply wounded boys inside men’s bodies.
    They “act out” because they are glutton for punishment.
    If you don’t give it to them – like I naively didn’t – they spiral down and down and make your life a living hell.
    Simply ignoring a bad behaviour from these men or pretending it didn’t exist would NOT make the behaviour go away.
    The only thing that works for these men (and women) is by setting very clear boundaries and sticking to it.
    Punish them for bad behaviour, reward them for good behaviour.
    Yes, its exactly what parents have to do with children.
    Remember, these are people who never got their childhood needs met.
    Its so much easier to just date people who come from functional, loving, in-tact families.
    Those are rare in the United States.
    Most parents don’t realize how traumatizing divorce can be for kids.
    They interpret a parent leaving another parent as abandonment of themselves.
    Then these kids grow up and are tossed out into the world of dating and relationships!
    Its a mess.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention How to Destroy a Relationship | Hooking Up Smart -- Topsy.com

  • AnonymousF

    @david foster 8:08

    I think there may be something to the last part. I think for people involved in intensely competitive pursuits where the risk of failure/losing is always hanging in the air, it’s especially important that a relationship be a safe, happy place of unconditional love and affection (including sex).

  • Plain Jane

    ” I can tell that every time I re-read Twilight or watch the movies somehow I feel closer, more romantic and more thankful to my husband (and hornier) than before and probably that I will ever be if he made me think for a second that he is seeing someone else”
    *
    Stephanie, Roissy has written many blogs/posts/comments about how Twilight spells doom for millions of boyfriends and husbands across the globe as it transfers what little attraction a gf or wife might still possess for her partner onto a Super Alpha Vampire that triggers her primal reptilian sexuality hidden deep within the recesses of her very being. 
    He says boyfriends and husbands should do all they can within their power to prevent their women from nurturing such fantasies.
    There were literally hundreds of comments from men agreeing with him.
    This is a man (Roissy) and men (his peanut gallery) who feel deeply threatened by fictional characters in what I would call “childrens books”.
     

  • Benjamin Fox”

    The more I r

  • Aldonza

    People are taking relationship advice from Roissy?  For real?  Come on.  You’d do better to take humility lessons from LeBron James.
    There are plenty of people out there who need the drama/adrenalin/dopamine rush on a regular basis and they will seek it out with new relationships, risky sexual behavior, addictions, work drama, driving too fast, jumping out of airplanes, snorting unknown substances in club bathrooms.  Not coincidentally, these people also tend to have very low impulse control.  They have a feeling and they go with it, without bothering to consult their higher brain functions to evaluate the risk/reward of that action.  They’re barely above primates in how they govern themselves and they respond readily to emotional triggers.  Modern marketing and politics is *all* about manipulating these sorts of people.
    If you fall for a girl like that, then you do need to give her a little dopamine rush every now and then.  But for heaven’s sake, consult <a href=”http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/”>http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/</a&gt; for realistic advice on how to do this from someone who is walking the walk in a long-term relationship.
    For the rest of us who are capable of delaying instant gratification for a higher goal, this shit just pisses us off…and not in the fun way.  I’ve left men for exactly this behavior and didn’t look back.  You don’t need to be a simpering beta, but you also don’t need to be a manipulative asshole.

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

      @Aldonza
      Great comment!

      People are taking relationship advice from Roissy? For real? Come on. You’d do better to take humility lessons from LeBron James

      One of the reasons I wrote this post is b/c it’s clear that many men do take Roissy quite literally. I think it is hard to know when he’s serious, and when he’s just blowing smoke. It worries me – he does have a good read on female nature, but he lumps us all into one bucket, when in fact, as you’ve pointed out, there is enormous variation according to personality traits.
      .
      Athol Kay has broken the code. He understands the value of all the beta traits, which women desperately want and need. 100% alpha = douchebag asshole.

  • (R)Evolutionary

    I think what the women here (PJ, Flo,) is that in many modern relationships, the emasculation process has produced in men a complete dread of ‘pissing off the wife(or gf.’
    How many times have you heard the triteness “If mamma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy?”
    That’s the beta’s wounded-heart mantra. By god. Don’t piss her off. Don’t do anything that might upset her. God almighty, we’ll all suffer mightily if that happens.
    So the idea of dread-instillment is really just a cultural counterweight to the natural dread already instilled in beta men by the millions. This is merely natural systems seeking balance.
    And for all the bagging on Roissy as a sociopath, poorly-attached psycho, well I will have to disagree. He gets the lion’s share of the criticism out there because he’s the alpha game blogger by virtue of his virtuoso writing style & sheer volume of both posts & traffic.  But if you go back through his archives, even in recent posts, he talks about love. He mentioned on several occasions that the worst thing a man can do, the worst beta mistake is to never love, and conversely, it takes a true man to abandon one’s heart totally in love. And that’s a hard thing to do, in today’s world, without going beta.
    Read the 3-part installment “The Lover, the Wench, and the Cuckold.” He clearly has feelings for her, has empathy for her suffering (she neglected to tell him about her husband for months into the relationship, the hubs was out of country on business.)
    There is much futility in attempting to explain why game is both necessary and why it works to women. I know Susan knows both, but it seems she objects to some of the methodology when taken out of context. It’s all about calibration, and behaving in ways appropriate to both the situation and the contextual fabric of the relationship.  Women want and need to be led, and sometimes, rather Machiavellian methods are required to do the leading. That is all.

  • (R)Evolutionary

    Aldonza, good call. Athol Kay’s blog is well-written and nicely balanced.

  • Jess

    Roisseys advice is disgusting and ammoral.
    it would not suprise me he if it turned out he churned out sensationalist drivel simply to increase traffic.
    only a moron could beleive the crap he spouts.
    I know a few women who have fallen for players and cads but none of them would have indulged the stuff above.
    My advice to men reading this is to totally ignore his rants.
    Show respect, be confident and funny and hold your own.
    Thats attractive.
    And if you want a decent reputation (sexually) after a fling you may not want to annoy a girl too much durign the relationship otherwise you might find yourself going through a dry patch for a while.
    .
    if enough people act normally maybe we can bury this ‘game’ culture anyway?

  • Stephenie Rowling

     
    @david foster @Mike C @Jimmy Hendricks
    Thank you guys you are making me cyberblush! :)
     
    Yes I do know I’m in the minority, I did had a couple of factors that allowed me to grow up a strong smart independent woman without taking away my femininity, desire for motherhood or making me into a Slut, but again I don’t think I’m special given the same circumstances any woman can learn what works and what doesn’t, specially if they seek the guidance of honest people that won’t sugarcoat the consequences of their actions, neither will lie about it. I think what we are proposing is social engineering which takes time but we are obviously on a time of change. Many of the promises of the sexual revolution are blowing on our faces so obviously some people will start to look for answers somewhere else. Is just a matter of time, IMO.
     
    Stephanie, Roissy has written many blogs/posts/comments about how Twilight spells doom for millions of boyfriends and husbands across the globe as it transfers what little attraction a gf or wife might still possess for her partner onto a Super Alpha Vampire that triggers her primal reptilian sexuality hidden deep within the recesses of her very being. 
    He says boyfriends and husbands should do all they can within their power to prevent their women from nurturing such fantasies.

     
    I think we already discussed that men and women have different perceptions of things. Could you link me to this comments? Is an interesting theory but also how would he know that? Didn’t someone mentioned that he never had a steady girlfriend or a wife? If he never had a real relationship how can he know what happens into the mind of committed females when the read romantic fiction or watch rom-coms? And really the Romance Genre predates Feminism for centuries, one would think that if this were true we will be having the issues he said long before and I don’t think that is the case, is it?
    Trust me I grew up watching corny Telenovelas (This is the best definition I read of it: The plot is always the same. In the first three minutes of the first episode the viewer already knows the novela will end with that same couple kissing each other. A telenovela is all about a couple who wants to kiss and a scriptwriter who stands in their way for 150 episodes or in the case of Twilight four books) and it was mostly a safe way to WATCH some drama that I could easily turn off to go back to the quiet home-life I was privileged to have and so did the majority of the very praised Latin women of my generation that many people here say make good life partners in general terms, so whatever he is thinking is going through our minds he really needs more research into the female brain, not the female vagina if possible. I never seen a vagina making good judgments that is brain’s work.
     

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

      I never seen a vagina making good judgments that is brain’s work.

      This is brilliant! I’m considering it as a sub-heading for the blog (with attribution, of course.)

  • Brendan

    It’s easy to attack Roissy because he purposely uses hyperbole to get his point across, and also because he finds exaggeration quite fun from the perspective of writing.  It’s clear, however, that he exaggerates for effect.
    .
    Having said that, the “core” of what he says is correct, more or less, for all women.  That doesn’t mean that every single Game technique is effective with every woman in every situation — of course not.  A guy needs to tailor his Game to his own SMV, the context, the personality type of the woman, and the relationship context (ONS/pick-up is different from LTR which is different again from Married Game).  Yet the basic ideas of Game proposed by Roissy — primarily revolving around DHV and maintaining what he calls “disinterested mastery” — are quite applicable across the board, regardless of how a guy actually *achieves* them in a specific context.  The same holds true for “maintaining a frame”, which basically means *not* being constructed or phony, but being congruent.  These things work with women.  They just do.  And they work in all contexts, albeit done very differently in different contexts, to be sure.
    .
    Personal boundaries are also an issue.  The Dark Lord practices Dark Game at times.  Many of the rest of us who have different goals do not wish to do that for various reasons, ranging from moral/ethical to personal.  For many of us, there is a line there, whereas for others there is not.  But the core techniques can be used in a “Dark Game” way or a non-Dark-Game way.  The difference is that in Dark Game it is outright manipulation for narcissistic purposes, regardless of the harmful impact on the other, while in non-Dark Game it’s about maintaining attraction, and not trying to harm the other person in doing so.
    .
    Applying that to this, we see that Roissy is again hyperbolizing.  However, the basic core message is: don’t be too predictable, too boring, too set, too staid, too flatlined.  Women will get bored with that.  Change things up.  Be a bit of an “on the fly” type of guy.  Be variable (in good ways).  Be flexible without DLVing and so on.  All of that works, and all of it appeals to a woman’s distaste for “boring men” and taste for difference, for interest, for drama.  Drama is just a more extreme version of this.  I agree that not all women crave extreme drama — that’s personality-driven.  But the “milder” version of drama is doing these kinds of little things — or rather changing yourself into the kind of person who is less like the things I said — so that you have a personality type that women find less boring and more attractive.  That’s the core of what Roissy is saying here.
    .
    Ladies, I have to say this very honestly.  I wish that Game did not work.  I wish that female attraction did not work this way, and I wish that in LTRs and marriages some kind of attraction-maintaining techniques were not necessary.  It would make my life much simpler, for starters.  And, frankly, although I first discounted Game as useless with most women (because I was thinking simply of the specific techniques used in clubs and bars, as mentioned in many Game books, which really *are* only applicable in certain settings), I was shocked to see that the basic principles work.  They just do.  Changed my view of women a lot, really, but neither women nor men get to set the rules of what the opposite sex finds attractive, and frankly it’s quite clear that many women find how men are attracted to be very irritating.  So be it.  We’re sort of stuck with each other — the straight ones among us, at least.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Read the 3-part installment “The Lover, the Wench, and the Cuckold.” He clearly has feelings for her, has empathy for her suffering (she neglected to tell him about her husband for months into the relationship, the hubs was out of country on business.)
     
    I don’t know this man but being friends with a couple of Alphas. he might had been hurt because the woman gamed him and no the other way around like he is used to. Had you seen an Alpha that takes cheating warmly? Unless he absolutely not cares about the woman if he thinks he has her on the palm of his hand and it turns out he didn’t noticed something as big as a husband, chances are he will feel very bad about it, and can even confuse it with love, after all part of the game is the idea that you OWN and control that person if that person is out of your control (in this case married) she is not totally yours so of course you want her more. Is all part of the twisted mind of gamers and game, IMO.

  • Plain Jane

    @Aldonza, “You don’t need to be a simpering beta, but you also don’t need to be a manipulative asshole.”
    *
    The simpering beta is the unrewarded child looking for reward and the manipulative asshole is the misbehaving child glutten for punishment.
    It has to do with the way these men were RAISED (or not) and if they were properly punished and rewarded as children by loving adult caregivers who they trusted.
    One mistake new age parents make is ONLY rewarding the good behaviour in their children and NOT punishing bad behaviour.  This results in their children becoming spoiled, narcissitic assholes.
    When I was less experienced I had a boyfriend whom I would only reward for his sweet and attentive behaviour.  He sometimes like to do things for me like make lunch and carry it on a plate to me as I was sitting on the bed working on the computer.
    The smile on his face and expectancy in his eyes was just ADORABLE – indeed like a child.
    I would always express gratitude and reward him appropriately, however – I NEVER PUNISHED HIS BAD BEHAVIOUR.
    (Ladies, remember the question the guys asked us, “WHY DO YOU REWARD ASSHOLES?” )
    Men DESIRE to be punished when they act out.
    All of Roissy’s blogs about being mean to women? 
    That’s nothing but a hurt little boy CRYING OUT to be properly punished by someone who loves him!
    There’s something comforting in being “put in our place” when we KNOW we are doing something wrong.
    Anyway, I was always rewarding this boyfriend for his good behaviour but I would just IGNORE his bad behaviour.   I would let things slide.  Then gradually they would build up in me to the point where they would be expressed MUCH LATER in passive/aggressive ways.
    By the time they got expressed, the guy had forgotten what he had done!
    The key here is to IMMEDIATELY punish bad behaviour so the offender can logically connect behaviour to punishment.
    Otherwise it is just confusing and will not help the person grow.
    When I looked back on that relationship I realize the mistakes I made were because in my own family dynamic where me and my siblings had gotten appropriate punishments and rewards for our behaviour as children, we grew into balanced men and women who did not subconsciously seek out punishment, like my boyfriend was doing and like many men and women from dysfunctional backgrounds do today.
    Therefore I had no idea how to deal with an adult male who was “acting out”.
    Assholish behaviour is his inner child acting out and BEGGING for a loving caregiver to punish him.
    Always remember that.
    Hence, STOP REWARDING THE ASSHOLES!
    It’s not even what they want!
    *
    @ Aldonza,
    “For the rest of us who are capable of delaying instant gratification for a higher goal, this shit just pisses us off…and not in the fun way.  I’ve left men for exactly this behavior and didn’t look back. ”
    —–
    I guarantee you that they remember you with warmth, respect and affection, even if they don’t realize it on a conscious level.
    You provided them with the “punishment fix” their inner child very much needed and deserved.

  • http://www.decoybetty.com Deidre

    Mr. Slurpee was kind of creating drama kind of guy – he ignored me for days and sometimes weeks on end, he told me about other girls he was sleeping with…and in the end, I couldn’t possibly have stayed with him for a second longer than I did.

    Inspector Climate on the other hand has made it explicitly clear that he’s into only me – he called me regularly. he sent me texts. it was not only a turn on but such a relief. I never had to question what he was thinking about.

    Do I create my own drama…of course I do. sometimes I am a blubbering mess of crying girlness (and hardly it’s because of IC), what can I say it happens. And holds me lets me cry and then we all move on. It’s lovely and simply.

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

      Inspector Climate on the other hand has made it explicitly clear that he’s into only me – he called me regularly. he sent me texts. it was not only a turn on but such a relief. I never had to question what he was thinking about.

      This is what men are missing. That women would rather feel turned on and reassured than turned on and frightened. It really doesn’t have to be that way.

  • GudEnuf

    Now we can’t strike-through OR hotlink?

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

      Now we can’t strike-through OR hotlink?

      Your links do work.

  • GudEnuf

    “Have you been in a relationship with someone who thrived on your feeling worried and afraid?”
    I spent a number of years in a relationship categorized by fear, manipulation and outright lies. I had to spend a year and a half in therapy after it was over. In the long run though, I’m glad I broke up with Catholicism.

  • jess

    gudenuf
    sounds like we broke up with the same guy.
    .

  • jess

    and its probably for the best…
    .
    i heard hes gay…..
    .
    and prefers the younger models

  • Chili

    I’d just like to point out that this type of behavior works on men too. I went through a similar situation as (r)evolutionary, where a guy was texting me, and I would get back to him every now and then because I was busy. The less frequently I texted, the more interested he seemed to get. And from what he told me, it wasn’t for lack of options. He became more and more possessive and jealous as time went on, and we were barely dating.
    .
    In the days of old, I believe they called this ‘playing hard to get.’ I wasn’t doing it on purpose, but noticed that it did seem to work in securing his attention. And like I’ve mentioned, I’m nothing special in the looks department.

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

      In the days of old, I believe they called this ‘playing hard to get.’ I wasn’t doing it on purpose, but noticed that it did seem to work in securing his attention.

      Yes, this is clearly part of human nature. However, I would draw a distinction between a challenge and a lost cause, or hard to get vs. emotionally disabled.

  • Plain Jane

    Gudenuf, that picture of Roissy and his friends sitting in a bar – look at there eyes.
    All of them lost and hurt children trying to drown their trauma in alcohol and nightlife.
    Wow.
    And the guy sitting next to Roissy with the short black buzz cut looking down – he looks like the emotionally disturbed character of Jim Carey in the move CABLE GUY.
    I guarantee you that all 4 of the people in that photo come from a troubled childhood. Its in their eyes.

    *
    – – ”

    Would also add that the air of instability suggested by Roissy would majorly traumatize a couple’s children.”

    *

    — “OMG, I didn’t even think of that! Terrible! I can tell you one thing for sure – if a woman is worrying that her husband will leave her, so are the kids. Children always know what’s up. Plus, it’s unlikely such a manipulative man would be a parent who loves his children unconditionally either.”
    ————————–
    Roissy is just repeating the behaviours he learned from his parents and other adult figures growing up as a child.
    In this way the cycle of pain and dysfunction perpetuates itself.

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

      Gudenuf, that picture of Roissy and his friends sitting in a bar – look at there eyes.
      All of them lost and hurt children trying to drown their trauma in alcohol and nightlife.

      Again, I’m tempted to say this is nonsense, but PJ is right about Roissy. Part of what intrigues me about his looks is a very clear vulnerability. I’ve seen 4 or 5 pics of him, and it’s always the same. He never smiles.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    One more word of advice.
    When I was looking for relationship advice on books and websites. I always looked for a therapist or expert that had at least 30 years of marriage himself or herself under his belts. Banging chicks is harder for men, but still easier compared to having a long lasting marriage so I really think all the guys seeing Mr. Roissy advice should look at the results the game left him so far and decide if that is what you want on life.
     

  • GudEnuf

    Jess: Congratulations! I didn’t know you were an ex-Catholic. I’m so glad the authoritative, reactionary kind of Catholicism appears to be dying off. I still have friends who buy into the anti-gay, anti-condom, pro-pedophilia bullshit and have seen firsthand the damage it causes.

  • Brendan

    Ah ha! Proof that men DESIRE to be properly rewarded for their good behaviour and punished for their bad behaviour.  Remember ladies, the question, “why do you women always REWARD assholish(alpha) BEHAVIOUR?” has been asked of us here over and over again.
    .
    You’re confusing “desire to be rewarded/punished”, on the one hand, with “desire to do what works to maintain the relationship”.  Motives matter, and your rather pathetic attempts to psychologize men here are simply conjecture and projection.

  • Plain Jane

    BRENDEN, you and other men here consistently express your desire that women would not REWARD assholish (alpha) BEHAVIOUR.
    You consistenly express your wish that women would instead REWARD good (beta) BEHAVIOUR.
    Roissy has written many times his disappointment with how “easy” it is to get women to REWARD him (by going to bed with him) for his bad, assholish, alpha behaviour.
    Seeing this phenomenen over and over again has made him JADED.
    Roissy is CRYING OUT for women to PUNISH his bad behaviour by REFUSING to reward it with sex.
    *
    @Stephanie, “When I was looking for relationship advice on books and websites. I always looked for a therapist or expert that had at least 30 years of marriage himself or herself under his belts.”
    —–
    Good.  I would also suggest Therapeutic Parenting books because the adults that are out on the dating and relationship market today have issues due to unmet needs in their childhood.
    Dealing with them is similar to dealing with children.
    Its eerie how grown adults respond like children when properly rewarded and punished.
    But hey, it WORKS!

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

      BRENDEN, you and other men here consistently express your desire that women would not REWARD assholish (alpha) BEHAVIOUR.
      You consistenly express your wish that women would instead REWARD good (beta) BEHAVIOUR.

      That is total BS. Brendan is one of the men who are totally accepting of biological reality, and embrace women without judgment. He’s also quick to acknowledge that women experience frustration trying to understand men. Plain Jane, just pipe down now. You are out of line.

  • Plain Jane

    If you stopped rewarding us for being assholes, or stopped punishing investment, then maybe you’d see a change in behavior.
    *

    @ Susan, “I reject AWALT. When you say “punishing investment,” who are you speaking of, exactly? Do all women reward men for being assholes? I don’t believe so. In fact, I know it’s not the case. The real danger with Roissy’s thinking is that men begin to internalize it. If it is meant to be inflammatory and over-the-top, then this is obviously wrong-headed.”
    —–
    Susan, you came from an intact, loving and functional family and so did your kids.
    I’m willing to be that your sons girlfriend did too.
    I’m also willing to bet that families like your’s are the minority in the United States.
    When you have adults in the Sexual Market Place who are products of divorce, dysfunction, trauma and hurt, you WILL see women that do in fact reward assholes and punish good men by not rewarding them.
    The inner child of the grown man will interpret not being rewarded for goodness as “punishment”.

  • Mike C

    Motives matter, and your rather pathetic attempts to psychologize men here are simply conjecture and projection.


    Judging from her numerous string of comments, PJ appears to have switched gears to armchair, amateurish psychoanalyst.

  • Benjamin Fox

    *Argh! Someone delete the previous post, please. I hit enter while fixing my SN*
    The more I read this blog the more I wonder. Why does everyone suggest that Betas stop being Betas? The best I can ever be at anything is being myself. Advancing from that standpoint, shouldn’t people be suggesting how to be a better Beta? I’m a marriage kind of guy, however. Being a mere twenty-four years-old (i.e. poor), should I really be annoyed at the fact I’m dateless?
    I kind of look at my SMP value as a 401k. I won’t really be able to cash in until it’s mature. That probably means waiting until my thirties… I can’t tell you how much I hate typing that… Until then, I need to work on the portfolio: and I am.
    These are the latest contributions:

    Hitting the gym. CrossFit has been great to me. I’ve never been more fit in my life and it’s a great place to practice social skills. In fact, I’ll be interning as an instructor late this Spring.
    Learning to cook better than any restaurant I’ve ever been to. Being a geek, I adore the chemistry aspect of it all. Perhaps I obsess a little too much, however, when my buddy reacts “Holy shit, dude! Will you marry me?” I think I’m doing something right.

    Ballroom dancing: I’ve been taking a few classes on and off over the past two years. Now, I’m upping it to four hours a week and will compete Pro-Am this December. The group classes are a great way to meet (and hold) the opposite sex. It’s getting to the point where I’m one of the guys sought out to dance with.

    It’s not a strategy for getting laid. It’s just a plan for being the most awesome version of myself that I can be. I may not be able to attract the “strong bidders” now. That’s okay. I have no problem throwing a bunch of bad hands only to win the tournament. If I want to win a “strong bidder” then I have to play the long game. It’s the only way for me to play my hand without re-dealing myself into something I’m not.

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

      @Benjamin Fox
      Good for you, it sounds like you are a model of self-development. I applaud that. Obviously, you’re enjoying pursuing your interests and becoming a more well-rounded person. I for one will tell you not to stop being a beta – women love and require the beta traits for LTRs or marriage. However, you will need to bring some masculine dominance to the table – and all of your hobbies should help with that!

  • SayWhaat

    “he called me regularly. he sent me texts. it was not only a turn on but such a relief. I never had to question what he was thinking about.”
    .
    I felt the exact same way about this guy I had been seeing. When we first started dating, he would not only text me back fairly soon after I had texted him, but would actually just text me out of the blue to comment on something or other. I was completely giddy from receiving his attention, and most importantly, it was relieving. I absolutely appreciated that he would respond and keep in touch between the times we saw each other. I just hate fretting about if/when I’m going to hear from a guy I’m dating and whether or not I will see him again. It’s awful, it really is.

  • (R)Evolutionary

    Susan wrote:<blockquote cite>

    “A man is either high-status or he is not.”
    Far from true. Status, primarily male status,  is situationally dependent, and shift dynamically with social and political environments. In a defined (corporate, organizational or military), the alpha is clearly anyone in charge. It’s the biggest title in the room.
    In loosely defined social circles, it’s defined by social dominance and influence. It’s tough to describe, but it is clear when one sees it. As it was said on this site a while back, it’s the sizzle that smells like steak. It’s political. Game a.k.a social dominance tactics, does create a form of status, especially when it’s full internalized, because it’s  not a proxy for social dominance, it IS social dominance. Plain & simple.

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

      (R)Evolutionary
      Yes, I worded that poorly. I didn’t mean that men cannot change, or that dominance is not contextual – it is, and it can obviously be learned.

  • (R)Evolutionary

    @Ben Fox,
    Good looking out, man!  I like that you’re putting in work on yourself. It’s been my path for years, and it will be till I take a dirt nap. I’m into CF also, and been following paleolithic diet protocols for a while, they’re epic together.
    With the cooking–I like to cook too-let that be a reward for only the most deserving of women, and do it sparsely. Many women subconsciously see that as beta–the kitchen hearth has for milllenia been a woman’s domain. That’s why your buddies want to “marry you.” Don’t let anyone call you kitchen bitch, either, and if they do, only give them toast until they recognize & come correct.
    Also, don’t neglect the cash flow piece. There is something to be said, as Athol writes, for being able to play the beta provider role. Just make sure that’s not the only game you’ve got. That’s sucker game. in fact, it’s better to hide one’s income until after you’ve ruled out the presence of gold-diggers. And even then, keep separate accounts, be financially upright.
    That said, I like what you wrote. I think long game is the only game, as it’s a manifestation of internal game, that is to say, the work you put into your own programs, your own body, mind, spirit, your businesses, your house, these all are living testament to your own opinion of yourself and your life, and are the ultimate DHV. This is why I disagree with Susan’s statement about men’s SMV being static. Nothing further from the truth, a  man’s SMV is malleable, it shifts with context and IT CAN BE IMPROVED over time, and not just a little. Keep swinging for the bleachers, man.

  • Plain Jane

    Well…..in another thread…in a moment of blunt honesty we did have a young commenter say “I want a cocky, good-looking guy who “owns the room””

    —-

    Yes, and I’m sorry she seems to have flown the coop….
    *
    She made it clear those were the qualities she was looking for in a hook-up, not a longterm boyfriend.  She expressed sadness that the qualities she looks for in a boyfriend have not yet been found in any of the guys she knows.
    Til she gets those qualities – she’ll continue to hook-up.

  • GudEnuf

    “Naturally, this led me to the Dark Lord’s post”
     
    James C. Wiedmann not a Dark Lord. He’s a K-street lawyer with knack for pushing people’s buttons.

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

      @GudEnuf
      Ha, Roissy despises lawyers. He worked for FINRA before he was outed by Lady Raine. Word is he’s left DC, and handed over his blog, at least some of the time, to other anonymous writers, none of whom can hold a candle to him, IMO. Some say he has a book contract – that would be interesting! He certainly does have a way of pushing people’s buttons. By the way, those photos were used by Lady Raine to prove that Roissy is ugly. I think he’s hot in a neurotic, tortured sort of way. I’d like to see him meet his match.

  • http://www.snubbr.com Henway

    I’ve been in both sides of the relationship. As a guy, I never felt crazier about a girl than when she stopped contacting me for 2 weeks straight, and never responded to my emails… to make matters worse, she would put random pics of her and some random dude on Facebook.

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

      @Henway

      As a guy, I never felt crazier about a girl than when she stopped contacting me for 2 weeks straight, and never responded to my emails… to make matters worse, she would put random pics of her and some random dude on Facebook.

      Notice you said crazy, not happy. You got played, and it doesn’t sound like it was a very pleasant experience. Why would any of us want to either put ourselves in the position of playing someone else in exactly the same way that felt so terrible to us? This model assumes a winner and a loser, as someone else said. It really doesn’t have to be that way.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Thanks @Susan by all means. You don’t need to quote me this is obviously a very fake name so it doesn’t really matter. I’m glad I’m useful to the cause.

  • Brendan

    Athol Kay has broken the code. He understands the value of all the beta traits, which women desperately want and need. 100% alpha = douchebag asshole.
    .
    Yes, his balanced view is more accurate.  But in the context of marriages and LTRs, most guys today are not having a problem with their beta side — it’s the alpha side that needs some development.  Not by eliminating the beta side, but by developing the alpha side.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Susan, I’ve found through accidental and unintentional application of the inspiration of dread, that, well…it works.”
    .
    This was my first reaction. People can debate relationship ethics, btu the fact is that, as Gordon Gekko observed, it works.
    .
    “I really liked each of these girls, was heavily invested.. and you can guess the outcome. Yep, both backed away. My last serious romantic relationship–same thing, DOA due to betatude.”
    .
    People need to admit the facts that men would be falling over themselves to do the rom-com beta stuff for girls if it worked. It doesn’t.
    .
    Just as I am fond of reminding women – there would be no assholes if women didn’t sleep with them.
    .
    “I think the key to realizing the middle ground is to know that Roissy writes in a certain voice that is appealing to men…I don’t condone the extreme to which he takes this concept in his writing, but I also realize he’s playing it up. It’s theatrical.”
    .
    Roissy has also been a composite character for some time, so without doubt there is some intra-blog competition going on amongst the authors to be as bold and intense as possible. There’s a self-satire going on that people looking to get pissed off aren’t going to recognize, but it’s hard to declare that Roissy wants people to pull this stuff verbatim.
    .
    ” I wish it were some other way. I wish, in some way, I could go back to being the mewling, cuddling, deeply (overly) emotionally beta that I was. It was comfortable. But it was unmanly, dammit.”
    .
    I can tell the exact same story. I do dearly miss the softer me that was a few years back.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Speaking of which, Roissy has all the signs of AD (Attachment Disorder)in genereal, and RAD (Reactive Attachment Disorder) specifically.”
    .
    AGAIN – ROISSY IS NOT A PERSON! “Roissy” is a composite and almost certainly partly fictional character. People trying to psychoanalyze the CR blog are tilting at windmills.

  • lalady

    Sometimes I think I need to stop reading Roissy. I do think his blog has made me more aware of the bad guys out there and how they operate, but on the other hand it’s made me a lot more cynical. Maybe it’s the  drama-addicted female in me that feels the need to read his every post? A lot of them do manage to instill dread in me.
    On a more positive note, I just wanted to say THANK YOU to Susan for writing this blog. It’s partially filled the void that was left by never getting dating advice from my mom/grandma/the entire post-sexual revolution culture. It dampens some of the dread and sometimes even gives me a little bit of hope!

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

      @lalady
      You are most welcome! Thanks for leaving a comment – and I hope you will continue to join the conversation. Re Roissy, I understand why women read him, but I don’t find that he adds to my understanding of the SMP, though certain posts of his have been linked to here, and are often interesting. Frankly, in the last year or so, the quality of writing on his blog has plummeted, IMO.

  • Plain Jane

    BRENDEN, you and other men here consistently express your desire that women would not REWARD assholish (alpha) BEHAVIOUR.
    You consistenly express your wish that women would instead REWARD good (beta) BEHAVIOUR.

    *
    That is total BS. Brendan is one of the men who are totally accepting of biological reality, and embrace women without judgment. He’s also quick to acknowledge that women experience frustration trying to understand men. Plain Jane, just pipe down now. You are out of line.
    ——
    Susan, you missed the following comment made by Brenden:
    Ladies, I have to say this very honestly.  I wish that Game did not work.  I wish that female attraction did not work this way, and I wish that in LTRs and marriages some kind of attraction-maintaining techniques were not necessary.

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

      Susan, you missed the following comment made by Brenden:
      Ladies, I have to say this very honestly. I wish that Game did not work. I wish that female attraction did not work this way, and I wish that in LTRs and marriages some kind of attraction-maintaining techniques were not necessary.

      He is 100% correct. Yes, he wishes that female nature was different. Life would be far easier. But he’s not saying that women should behave differently than they are wired. He accepts the biological realities, and works within those limitations to maintain a high quality relationship. That’s good strategy.

  • terre

    Matt T, I completely agree. Probably the biggest mistake the average man will make in his life is assuming that once he’s “got” her, he can rest easy and just be himself. When it blows up in his face 2 – 5 years down the line, he sits around wondering what he did wrong.
    .
    When it comes to maintaining a ‘relationship’, one really has to ignore everything women say and watch what they do. You have to be as narcissistic as you were when seducing her.

  • puck

    Hey Susan,
    I would argue that many men take Roissy’s advice quite seriously, but not necessarily literally.  There is a huge difference.  As several others have already noted in this thread, Roissy uses extensive hyperbole in his writing to communicate a message.  Those who only stop to read a single post or two at his sight fail to grasp this and take his writing literally, rather than as the exaggeration that it often is.  And, as many women do with a lot of pick up material, they grossly misinterpret his writing as somehow misogynistic (admittedly, that may be a reasonable concern about a small percentage of his posts), but again, that’s largely because these people fail to understand the underlying context and principles of his writing.
    The key to understanding Roissy is to be able to decipher the principles underlying his stories and hyperbole.  I’ve read his site consistently since 2007(?) and his advice has had huge positive on my both my life in general and and my dating life in particular.  I’ve recommended his site to several of my friends over the last several years, and most of those who understood his advice have also seen significant improvements in their sex/relationship lives.   Many men take Roissy seriously because he is fundamentally correct.
    Fundamentally, I perceive his writing to be Romantic rather than misogynistic or manipulative.  He is on a mission to improve relations between the sexes.
    To the extent that it can said to be manipulative, I see it as informing men that manipulation occurs in the SMP and that both women and men can manipulate each other to achieve their desired end goals.
    His writing is only problematic to the extent that some men (maybe a majority?) fail to grasp the underlying principles of Roissy’s writing and take his advice literally.  Taken literally, his advice is not appropriate to maintaining a healthy LTR.

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

      OK, a word about Roissy – there seems to be some confusion on this thread.
      First, I consider him a brilliant and insightful writer, and have repeatedly said so. He does have an excellent understanding of female nature. I do not doubt that men find his posts helpful and inspiring, and I don’t have a problem with that per se.
      .
      Second, the Dread post dates back to 2007, I believe, it’s not a “composite” work.
      .
      Third, I agree that Roissy engages in hyperbole, and he follows a marketing strategy of “shock and awe.” It’s effective. However, it’s clear to me from comments throughout the manosphere, and here at HUS, that many young men absorb his recommendations at face value or something close to it. In addition, I have personally witnessed or been made aware of college-aged guys behaving in exactly the way Roissy advises in this post. Again, I can only compare it to the Rules – with a big dose of sadism thrown in.
      .
      Fourth, the notion that Roissy is romantic is ludicrous. He is highly misogynistic and manipulative. Tyler Cowen (famous blogger of econ blog Marginal Revolution) has called him evil, with good reason. I have cited statements from him before that directly advocate hitting women to show them who’s boss. He’s also confessed explicitly to enjoying making women wince with pain during anal sex. That may be a common fantasy among men, and you may not find it offensive. Women do.
      .
      Fifth, in the two years I’ve been blogging, Roissy’s blog has changed enormously. When I discovered it, it was an extremely sadistic and cynical blog entirely written by James Weidmann. Quotes of the sort I’ve been referring to here were plentiful throughout. Once Lady Raine outed him, he deleted nearly all of those posts, for fear of being discovered or even prosecuted for inciting violence against women. The word is that he lost his job at FINRA over the blog, and left the DC area. At that time, the name of the blog was changed to Citizen Renegade, and “the Chateau” appeared to become a group of anonymous writers. Posts are not attributed to any particular writer, but it is very clear which of the posts are written by Roissy himself. The other posts are far less insightful, often poorly written, and appear in many cases to be in direct contradiction with Roissy’s own mission. The love poem that Mike C shared recently is a case in point. If one reads the comments there, it’s clear that loyal fans of the real Roissy have little tolerance for such sentimental stuff. There have been rumors that Roissy is working on a book, which would make sense. He has been quoted in the national media, most recently the Weekly Standard. I can’t imagine what his blog strategy is at this point – I suppose he wants to keep it going for bio purposes, but has no time or perhaps inclination to write as he once did.
      .
      Sixth, Roissy is now in his mid-40s. He was a mid-level bureaucrat and undoubtedly did well with Game. However, his field reports of his own successes have strained credulity, especially in the time before he was outed. If the new Roissy is kinder and gentler, I suspect it has to do with his being unable to pull 21 yo chicks.
      .
      As I say, I’m hardly a loyal fan, but none of this is opinion. There is ample evidence for all of the above claims. Those who have his old posts from the Google cache will certainly confirm this easily.

  • terre

    I’m also absolutely with Brendan. I’m not fond of it either, and it’s not my idea of love, but I’ve given that up a long time ago: it’s what women want, so why futilely fight it?

  • puck

    Also, after the name change from Roissy in DC to the Citizen Renegade masthead, the general quality of both the original postings and the comments have declined significantly.  I believe (though cannot confirm) that several ghostwriters began contributing to the blog at that time.

  • Plain Jane

    Badger validates my premise about men glutton for punishment and reward with these gems:

    1. People need to admit the facts that men would be falling over themselves to do the rom-com beta stuff for girls if it worked. It doesn’t.
    *

    2. Just as I am fond of reminding women – there would be no assholes if women didn’t sleep with them.
    *
    3. I wish it were some other way. I wish, in some way, I could go back to being the mewling, cuddling, deeply (overly) emotionally beta that I was. It was comfortable. But it was unmanly, dammit.
    *
    4. I can tell the exact same story. I do dearly miss the softer me that was a few years back.
    ——————–
    This tells us nothing more than that men are crying out for their faux assholishness to be punished and their “softer” side rewarded.
    FAIR ENOUGH!
    But gentleman, my hypothesis is that the women who reward bad behaviour and punish good behaviour are themselves wounded, confused adults who did not get their childhood needs for stability and security met.
    Like Aldonza said, she and other balanced women don’t play that shit.
    *
    As fara as Roissy being a “composite” – if that is indeed the case that doesn’t change my AD or RAD diagnosis.
    It just speaks to the current collective consciousness of men – wounded children with attachment issues because their needs for punishment and reward have never been met.
    *
    I have to repeat this one because its just too good.  Ladies, remember, this is the MANTRA of TODAY’S COLLECTIVE MALE;
    *
    — there would be no assholes if women didn’t sleep with them.—

  • terre

    This amateur open mic psychoanalysis bent the thread’s taken is terribly amusing as well. (What is it with women and childhood?) It’s kind of emblematic of human arrogance that people here think their myriad liaisons, entered and exited at will throughout their lives, are somehow more healthy and normal than anything Roissy does. None of you know anything about love that he doesn’t. You’re both exactly the same. He’s just more real about it.

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

      None of you know anything about love that [Roissy] doesn’t. You’re both exactly the same. He’s just more real about it.

      I would like any links you can provide where Roissy describes being in love, accepting love, giving love, enjoying a loving relationship, or all of the above. By “love” I do not mean a cocktail of brain chemicals. I mean a caring, lasting commitment to another human being.

  • Brendan

    Ladies, I have to say this very honestly.  I wish that Game did not work.  I wish that female attraction did not work this way, and I wish that in LTRs and marriages some kind of attraction-maintaining techniques were not necessary.
    .
    First, its BrendAn.  Learn to read.
    .
    Second, again, as I said it would be *easier* for me if this were not the case, because it would be a lot easier if I could maintain attraction by “being myself” (meaning in a non-self-improved way).  But that doesn’t mean that I can do that.  As I say later in the passage that you deliberately selectively quoted, neither men nor women can change the rules of attraction, and much angst exists between men and women because they do not like what the other sex demands, attractionally.  That creates angst, to be sure, and it would *nicer* in some ways if we didn’t have that angst, but it is just the way it is.  We each have to deal with it as a sex.
    .
    I know you will spin this with some crackpot psychological theory, but, believe me, you’re really tilting at windmills here, PJ.

  • rick

    Plain Jane-
    Shaming language alert!!
    You may feel a moment of power with your pop-psych, posturing, but I am sure Roissy cares nothing for your insistence that he has “infant rage”.
    You actually sound like the angry one. I can just picture your pale little hands quivering with fury as you typed out that comment.
    Face it – you want him.

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

      Face it – you want him.

      I think I’m the only woman who has admitted to finding Roissy sexy. And yes, part of that comes from some deep place in myself that wants to make him better. Part of it comes from his incredible dominance. But I know it’s pure projection – none of us knows the real man. If he behaves the way he suggests that other men do, I would predict he has a string of short-term concurrent liaisons. He may piss women off, but I doubt he breaks any hearts.

  • terre

    No, that’s the point. What Roissy would create is not a relationship. It’s some kind of gender warfare with nuclear options. The Principle of Least Interest is real, but a good relationship is one where it’s hard to know who is least invested. When a couple is in love, who cares less? How to measure? Why would you want to? Roissy’s perspective is from the man who does not have that. He does not have love.
    .
    Again, Susan, this is the absolute height of arrogance (and especially from someone who takes umbrage at her marriage being questioned). Who are you to say Roissy “does not have love”? What exactly is love to you? To me, it has absolutely nothing to do with the confluence of chemicals that the students commenting here regularly induce via mutual bodily frission, and nor does it have to do with some kind of caring mutual business partnership. But that’s me: what does the word “love” mean to you? Does Roissy (just assume for now that his vignettes are true) have more or less “love” than an adult male virgin?

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

      Does Roissy (just assume for now that his vignettes are true) have more or less “love” than an adult male virgin?

      Uhhhh, wow, is that the only choice? You’re only agreeing with my point. He does not want love, so he doesn’t pursue it. So let me reword that:
      .
      When a couple is in love, who cares less? How to measure? Why would you want to? Roissy’s perspective is from the man who does not want that. He does not write about love, only access to sex. In the Dread post, he only mentions the word in conjunction with “slave.”

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Benjamin Fox,
    .
    “Why does everyone suggest that Betas stop being Betas? The best I can ever be at anything is being myself.”
    .
    If you keep an eye on my blog you will soon see a post about how to be a better you. As someone who was once in your situation, I do recommend developing some “hard edges.”
    .
    I used to (naively, I now realize) hope that if I found “the right girl” to “settle down” with, I wouldn’t have to run from my betatude. The fact is that without at least some alpha tones, you won’t be able to attract women or keep women attracted (being attractive to OTHER women is a big part of keeping YOUR woman attracted to you). Even the confirmed betas I know have alpha/attraction features, or at least they display them around their lady. Attraction is as essential as comfort.
    .
    “I kind of look at my SMP value as a 401k. I won’t really be able to cash in until it’s mature. That probably means waiting until my thirties… I can’t tell you how much I hate typing that… Until then, I need to work on the portfolio: and I am.”
    .
    With all due respect I highly discourage you from thinking this way. Working on your beta traits that will form the “back end” of a successful marriage/LTR is great and all, but you should get to work sharpening your points NOW. You don’t have to date the women if you don’t want to, but work on flirting (smart guys should be able to flirt intelligently), tactical aloofness, social dominance among men, posture/standing tall, the right facial cues, etc. Just don’t think that what’s on paper is going to make any women attracted to you.
    .
    Read this for more: http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2011/01/following-on-from-yesterdays-post-of.html
    .
    Take it from a guy who’s been there: when you have a lot of good beta, you don’t need THAT much alpha to really make yourself marketable (I hate that beta-bait term “a catch.”) Greater-beta types are possibly the largest ROI for game in the entire SMP.

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

      Take it from a guy who’s been there: when you have a lot of good beta, you don’t need THAT much alpha to really make yourself marketable (I hate that beta-bait term “a catch.”) Greater-beta types are possibly the largest ROI for game in the entire SMP.

      As a woman I will second this. A lot of good beta and a bit of alpha is the sweet spot for long-term harmony (and attraction).

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    PlainJane has gone full-on troll. Third-party psychiatry frealz? I’ve mentally blurred out her posts (does that mean I wasn’t loved as a child?)
     

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “This is what men are missing. That women would rather feel turned on and reassured than turned on and frightened. It really doesn’t have to be that way.”
    .
    Susan, you are smart and experienced enough to know that this is not categorically true. There are legions of women who find a reassuring man “too boring” and “nice.” How many? Enough to make drama-seeking women a part of the typical male experience.
    .
    However, comments from women like Deirdre and SayWhaat here simply back up my conviction that women who crave daily drama are immature, stupid or both (future guests on Jerry Springer). The unfortunate fact is that I went to school with a lot of intelligent but immature women, and a lot of them are still that way. Like you say, we gotta get the calm people together on the same side of the gym.
    .
    That’s the reason I try to screen against impulsive behavior and for having passions she can succeed at in the long term. It’s only partly about what I want in my partner, it’s also about finding someone who won’t get bored with my highly active but drama-free lifestyle.

  • terre

    Another thing to consider is that even if a minority of women who don’t thrive on drama actually exists, the odds are too small (and the issue of life or death importance: love and procreation) to warrant catering to them. One really must play to the majority.

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

      Another thing to consider is that even if a minority of women who don’t thrive on drama actually exists, the odds are too small (and the issue of life or death importance: love and procreation) to warrant catering to them. One really must play to the majority.

      This is the most honest and telling comment re the use of Game that I have seen. It acknowledges the opportunity cost of not engaging with emotionally healthy, mature women. And it also implicitly recognizes the collateral damage caused by treating those women as if they were narcissists. By definition, you’ve just eliminated the possibility of a drama-free relationship.

  • Bob

    This divide between guys (and some women) saying “it works” and the women saying “Roissy is a psycho” is darkly hilarious.  There is truth, though, in the typical guy’s desire for women to reward nice guy behavior and stop reward sociopaths, and in the perceived (accurately or not) failure of women to live up to that.

    In the off chance I ever marry, I have no idea how I’m going to handle the need for drama, which I fully believe in.  The only way I see to be reliable without creating boredom is to only be reliable when things really, really matter – and if such desperate situations happen with any regularity, you have no need for internal drama, anyway.  Tougher to start a fight and then disappear for a week (though not impossible).

    I suspect part of the confusion is analogous to when guys say “don’t be fat” and girls hear, “be anorexic,” when what is meant is, “be hot enough that cheating is not worthwhile” (which requires more than just not being fat).  Chicks say, “be interesting,” and guys hear, “be a sociopath,” when what is meant is, “be more exciting than the other men in my life.”  It requires that guys be keenly aware of, and in control of, a large portion of a woman’s perception and emotions.  Tough to do, especially if you’re not big on manipulating people.

    What is true, and I believe has been expressed elsewhere on this blog, is that the fear of loss is a more powerful motivator than the potential for gain.  “Dread,” for lack of a better word, would be a more powerful motivator than an equal amount of temptation from another man.  We men value loyalty, and some men will value their woman’s loyalty more than they will value her emotional health – those that don’t are at risk of being cheated on.  Incidentally, I’m fairly certain you can switch the genders in this paragraph and still be spot-on.  Point is, even a normal, nice, loving beta who perceives (accurately or not) that dread is more likely than, say, basic human compassion to keep his woman loyal and loving – even that beta could turn to the dark side, so to speak.

    Still, nature is nature.  I have no idea how women could temper their urges toward more productive ends, but if there is a way, it would probably be best for women to find it and employ it.

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

      The only way I see to be reliable without creating boredom is to only be reliable when things really, really matter – and if such desperate situations happen with any regularity, you have no need for internal drama, anyway. Tougher to start a fight and then disappear for a week (though not impossible).

      We men value loyalty, and some men will value their woman’s loyalty more than they will value her emotional health – those that don’t are at risk of being cheated on.

      I don’t have a comment here, I’m speechless. I just wanted to highlight and post these statements.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    That’s the reason I try to screen against impulsive behavior and for having passions she can succeed at in the long term. It’s only partly about what I want in my partner, it’s also about finding someone who won’t get bored with my highly active but drama-free lifestyle.
     
    I think that is better for the sake of our species than catering to drama kings and queens and continuing the cycle given that if they have kids they will grow up with the same association drama=love and we are going to be in this situation for centuries. Part of the reason this blog exist. I think is for smart dating and that should include to screen out bad dating material on all fronts not only sluts and alphas but also people that consider stability and security unattractive or well people that try to get that out of their relationships, instead of I don’t know Bungee Jumping, watching horror movies, reading romance novels, you name it? You can find a healthy way to get your drama fix that doesn’t include cheating or being on constant game mode, IMO.

  • filrabat

    I could read only 12 or so posts on this board before I hit my saturation point!
    Anyone who needs drama in their lives definitely has serious issues.
    It’s like they can’t find anything interesting to talk about or do with their their lives, so they manufacture drama to try to look like what they’re not — fun and interesting people!  Ive noticed this is especially true with the party animal types, or even non-partiers who are great at being the life of the party.  This appears to be the type of women Roissy and his disciples interact with the most (yeah, what a surprise!).
    One more reason why I say go for those with common interests and common values and attitudes more than “hotness” or other kinds of superficial appeal.  People who meet on these bases are less likely to “need” drama in their lives in order to “feel alive” (read “feel the rush of satisfying their addiction to excitement – an all too common problem in our society).

  • filrabat

    david foster says:
    February 1, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    Aldonza says:
    February 1, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    You get my personal Five Stars Award right there.

  • Florence

    The ability to control one owns emotions, to cope with everyday problems and to effectively communicate and express their needs/concerns with a partner are influenced by a number of factors – family environment, life experience, maturity, and to some extent having positive role models.
    .
    The notion of women seeking daily amount of drama is very misleading. I don’t think that there would be a woman out-there agreeing to admit that “she is a constant drama-seeking queen.” What is true, however is that there are people (both men and women) out there who have issues and don’t know how to deal them, expecting their partner to fix those issues for them. When the partner’s had enough of “trying to make it work” and calls it quits, they wonder what just went wrong. A woman asking her bf constantly “Do you find me attractive? Do you think I am fat?”, clearly has self-esteem issues. A man fixated with the idea that a woman might cheat on him, leave him, or screw him over for money, has issues of insecurity that need to be dealt with.
    .
    That being said, anyone interested in how the male version of a drama queen looks like? The number 1 case is a man fixated with the idea that a woman doesn’t appreciate him and if she does something to show him that she appreciates him, he would say “I don’t want you to do things in order to make me feel better.” Case 2 is a man who is constantly seeking other women’s validation in order to get his “daily ego boost” through “variety”. I can tell you that it is rather exhausting to deal with one, when all you want is a happy, stable relationship.

  • Matt T

    I think Roosh had it right when he said that you should never ask a woman for romantic advice for the same reason that you should never ask a car salesman for advice on buying a car for a good price. Just like car salesmen won’t sell out their own kind, neither will women.

    Smart men ignore what a woman says and look at what she does: she says she wants a nice, drama-free guy, but she categorically LJBF’s such guys while craving a spot in an alpha’s harem (this isn’t hyperbolic, I read a similar story on Susan’s blog).

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

      @Matt T

      Smart men ignore what a woman says and look at what she does: she says she wants a nice, drama-free guy, but she categorically LJBF’s such guys while craving a spot in an alpha’s harem (this isn’t hyperbolic, I read a similar story on Susan’s blog).

      I agree with this, and yes I did write a post about a sorority girl eagerly trying to get into a soft harem. Watching what a woman does – how she behaves towards others, including other men – her history, her reputation – all this is helpful in identifying a woman who might have strong values and be looking for more than ego gratification and drama. If you will not or cannot do this, then you are left with Terre’s approach of assuming that all women are the same. If that strategy suits you, then reading Roissy or Roosh will prove fruitful – even taken at face value.

  • Florence

    @ Matt T
    “Smart men ignore what a woman says and look at what she does: she says she wants a nice, drama-free guy, but she categorically LJBF’s such guys while craving a spot in an alpha’s harem (this isn’t hyperbolic, I read a similar story on Susan’s blog).”
    …………..
    Well then that probably applies in regards to men as well. Men say they don’t want to feel insecure, when they seem to want a woman to keep them on their toes, not to answer their calls for prolonged periods of time, to treat them like shit, to reject them, to emotionally manipulate and torture them by flirting with other guys, to threaten them, to withdraw sex, to have a very close male “best-friend” and to constantly bring him up and to compare him to you, etc….sometimes I’ve wondered if certain men are plain masochists and I’ve felt sorry for what I’ve done to them, but wondered why would someone keep liking me when I’ve rejected them multiple times in a variety of ways. Knowing that a guy would dump his current gf in a minute if you give him a sign of your interest sometimes makes me feel really scared of how shallow men could be. If torture is what men what, sure we can give it to them…The problem is they say they don’t want it and when we act sweet and nice to them, they take us for granted or break up with us “because they want to be single again”, which obviously means that they want to “play the field”. The bottom line is that men seek as much daily drama as women do…

  • terre

    Well then that probably applies in regards to men as well. Men say they don’t want to feel insecure, when they seem to want a woman to keep them on their toes, not to answer their calls for prolonged periods of time, to treat them like shit, to reject them, to emotionally manipulate and torture them by flirting with other guys, to threaten them, to withdraw sex, to have a very close male “best-friend” and to constantly bring him up and to compare him to you, etc….
    .
    I have absolutely no idea where in the world you’ve gotten this impression (seriously, where to start?) but if it’s from this blog, that’s absolutely hilarious.

  • terre

    Also note that women in this thread speak of exes who had “beta qualities” they supposedly admired. Particularly that dude who constantly sent updates to his girl. Wonder why they split, then? (“We just weren’t right for each other”, “different goals”, “no chemistry”, etc.)

  • Florence

    @ Terre
    Umm, I’ve seen it in real life. I can tell you that a lot of men out there are masochist! They say they don’t want bitches, but end up marrying them. The quite, sweet and honest girlfriend doesn’t do it for them, irregardless of the fact if they are betas of alphas. I always date betas (or at least I think I am dating betas) and when I treat them too-nicely they stir the wrong way or start to display very low levels of commitment.

  • VI

    How do you go about building the trust when she already thinks you’re cheating?
    My girl is scared that I am/will cheat on her, and she definitely has good reason to, but I really do love her and don’t have a desire to cheat.  The problem is that I have a philanderous past, and the women of my past have instilled the dread in my girl by directly trying to sabotage us.

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

      @VI

      How do you go about building the trust when she already thinks you’re cheating?
      My girl is scared that I am/will cheat on her, and she definitely has good reason to, but I really do love her and don’t have a desire to cheat.

      This is the problem with being a manwhore. You were in effect lying to the girl you love about your number, and she found out. The trust has been destroyed. You don’t say whether you cheated on her – I didn’t think you had. If you did, that makes things a lot more complicated. If not, it’s a matter of convincing her that she has truly flipped a player. It happens. I believe it will require quite a bit of time and patience on your part. You will have to abandon all of Vincent Ignatius’ prior methods of dealing with women. Your awesome amount of preselection will have her attraction for you as high as ever, it’s the beta traits that she’ll need to see now. This means providing comfort and reassurance. Your actions will need to be transparent – no mystery. You will need to publicly attend to her in a way that reassures her you are sending out signals of unavailability to other women.
      .
      Bottom line: If you are a changed man you will have to prove it. The good news is she wants you to.

  • terre

    Umm, I’ve seen it in real life. I can tell you that a lot of men out there are masochist! They say they don’t want bitches, but end up marrying them. The quite, sweet and honest girlfriend doesn’t do it for them, irregardless of the fact if they are betas of alphas. I always date betas (or at least I think I am dating betas) and when I treat them too-nicely they stir the wrong way or start to display very low levels of commitment.
    .
    I honestly don’t know where to begin with this.

  • Aldonza

    I honestly don’t know where to begin with this.
    No, I’ve witnessed it too.  There are men who are as addicted to the highs and lows of constant relationship drama as the women.  If things are too calm, too nice, too stable, they crave more and will create instability if they have to.
    .
    Drama queen behavior is not exclusive to women.  Women just display it differently.

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

      There are men who are as addicted to the highs and lows of constant relationship drama as the women. If things are too calm, too nice, too stable, they crave more and will create instability if they have to.

      This is exactly the behavior that Roissy is advocating in his post! He is basically encouraging men to manufacture drama, angrily slamming down the phone for no reason, when he is in the wrong.
      .
      In the cases where I’ve heard of guys making drama, or lashing out irrationally (unreasonable suspicion and jealousy), it’s because the woman has much higher SMV than he does. When guys do really well – get a girl who’s out of their league – they run the risk of completely messing it up with insecure drama. Happens all the time. By the way, a guy who likes constant drama is an emo. There are plenty of men who happily subscribe to that style.

  • Florence

    @ Susan and @ Henway
    This is exactly what I am talking about!!!! Men go crazy, when we treat them poorly. It’s hilarious and it makes me laugh each time I do it, but I restrict myself for I am not a bitch and I have very strong morals. This is what I meant, when I said some men are masochists!

  • terre

    Aldonza, I don’t know how to address either you or Florence, but that isn’t how men are wired at all. Men don’t “crave [drama]“. I can say that 99% of these cases where he goes back to a girl who mistreats him are because a) he doesn’t believe he can do any better or b) he’s too attached. (Some of these occasionally apply to women as well, but the need to be dominated and especially the need for emotional turbulence are both strictly female qualities).

  • terre

    Here’s a Roissy quote on this issue which puts it bluntly:
    .
    [...] When forced to ponder female mating behavior that is less than angelic, feminists will often resort to the “Yeah, but he does it too, Mom!” form of argument. It’s not a very good debate tactic, but it’s made even worse by the fact that it’s a lie. Men are not attracted to asshole girls. Men are attracted to sweet, feminine, hot girls with minimal drama. The holy fucking grail of chickianity is the drama-free, faithful, feminine and beautiful babe. That more than a few of these beautiful babies bring drama with them is sometimes not enough negative externality to turn men off from fucking them. Or even marrying them.

  • Florence

    Men are not attracted to asshole girls. Men are attracted to sweet, feminine, hot girls with minimal drama. The holy fucking grail of chickianity is the drama-free, faithful, feminine and beautiful babe.
    ……….
    That’s BS. Men get bored of the sweet, feminine, hot girls with minimal drama or say “this is going to fast for me” or they say “I know myself. I don’t want to hurt you. We are not meant for each other.” Then you see them chasing dominant, strong bitches, who emotionally torture them and then screw them over something

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

      Then you see them chasing dominant, strong bitches, who emotionally torture them and then screw them over

      There has definitely been an increase among males in the preference for edgy, bitchy females. This may be true only for dominant men – but as guys avoid commitment-minded chicks they wind up with higher T girls, or more manipulative ones. Manipulation works both ways, and many women are quite good at it.

  • terre

    Susan, that’s a decent hack job but Roissy’s entire charm is is predicated on putting into print what is palpably true; what tens of thousands (hence his blog views) of men have suspected about women, but who’ve been browbeaten into staying silent and acting the part of the gentle citizen.
    .
    There is an inherent tension between women’s most primordial desires, a legacy of a much more violent time, and their ability to upkeep a civil front. Decorum demands that women, as Devlin has once put it, keep quiet about their true feelings. Many of these feelings are not politically correct: Nature does not observe our want for a conflict-free planet, and that leaves the work of building one to ourselves. But the truth still lies there, dormant and ever powerful. The line between women liking for their men to be ‘dominant’ (which always belies at least a tinge of cruelty to some other living being) and women writing love letters to serial killers is not as long as you would think. They both express qualitatively the same urge to supplicate to an aggressive alpha male. The only difference is the magnitude.
    .
    Almost all of these desires are predicated on pure domination. You may or may not like it, but women do often go back to their abusers; they do usually choose the most dominant male in any group for sexual liaisons and they do see themselves, in the moment of pleasure, as something other than victims. A lot of girls prefer to get their asses reamed without being asked for consent (incidentally I don’t care for the practice, and it was an ex of mine who once told me that “only real men want anal”). Most prefer to be on their toes; many want a man who doesn’t need them, who could live with or without them.
    .
    Educating men to the prevalence of these things is not particularly “evil” (lord knows how diluted the word would be if that weren’t the case). If women aren’t free, adult human beings with minds capable of making decisions about partnership, “consent” is impossible to give and women should be barred from all sexual conduct in the first place. But of course, women are free to make their own decisions, and they know it. Women repeatedly select for precisely those qualities that Roissy believes reflect an element of masochism; if anything, leading men to falsely believe that women respond to kindness and long-lasting expressions of love is a far greater evil. Few men will have the nerve to read a Roissy post and head out to slap a girl. But millions genuinely think a girl will eventually find them and love them for who they are. Here lies the road to emotional destitution and solitude.
    .
    If Roissy’s prescriptions are ultimately manipulative, that’s because the bonds of sexual union, whether expressed through relationships, sex, marriage or whatever, are brought together by acts of mutual gratification and coexisting self-interest. I desire you; you desire me. I have far more time for uncouth truthisms than I do for harmful platitudes, and I don’t think I’m alone.

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

      I have far more time for uncouth truthisms than I do for harmful platitudes, and I don’t think I’m alone.

      Yes, I agree, and I think it succinctly explains his appeal.

  • terre

    Uhhhh, wow, is that the only choice? You’re only agreeing with my point. He does not want love, so he doesn’t pursue it. So let me reword that:.When a couple is in love, who cares less? How to measure? Why would you want to? Roissy’s perspective is from the man who does not want that. He does not write about love, only access to sex. In the Dread post, he only mentions the word in conjunction with “slave.”
    .
    The vast majority of men see sex as a necessary prerequisite to love, and for good reason. If Roissy writes to help men find sex, all the better that it should go on to help them find love. You cannot put the cart before the horse.

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

      The vast majority of men see sex as a necessary prerequisite to love, and for good reason.

      Which is why maintaining one’s virginity is not a good strategy.

  • terre

    Also, when it comes to evaluating something like relationship protocol, one must always remember that biology is paramount; biology will ultimately almost always trump everything else, every higher order function and every attempt to escape it. Every sociological phenomenon can be explained via biology (even the male cuckold fetish). If women still use primitive mating behaviors, this is probably because of the female chromosome’s low mutability rate, in turn caused by the lack of selection pressures on women (most women reproduce; most men do not. For men, it’s adapt or die). If one uses the cold, clinical lens of biology to try and understand certain phenomena, all of Roissy’s assertions will appear trivially true.

  • Florence

    “He is basically encouraging men to manufacture drama, angrily slamming down the phone for no reason, when he is in the wrong.”
    ……..
    LMAO!!! If a guy did that to me, my first reaction would be, “He’s got anger issues!” Wow, this Roissy guy is starting to entertain me with his ideas!

  • GudEnuf

    Susan: The word is that [Roissy] lost his job at FINRA over the blog, and left the DC area. At that time, the name of the blog was changed to Citizen Renegade, and “the Chateau” appeared to become a group of anonymous writers.

     
    Do we have source on this? Or is this just speculation?
     
    I agree though, the blog isn’t nearly as entertaining as it used to be. Oddly enough it seems to be gaining more mainstream acceptance, being referenced on “real” blogs like Marginal Revolution.

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

      @GudEnuf
      His job loss and move are speculation, as far as I know. I think Lady Raine may address it on her blog, I’m not sure. The whole situation is shrouded in mystery. From what I understand, he and Roosh are good personal friends, and some of the news may have come from Roosh. Some people believe that Roosh is one of the Chateau writers, but I’m not sure what he might gain from that.
      .
      The part about the blog change is not speculation. The “new” version makes frequent references to a group of writers at the Chateau.

  • terre

    Which is why maintaining one’s virginity is not a good strategy.
    .
    I’m speaking about men. Susan, the sexes are not interchangeable. Human beings are as dimorphic as all the other animals, let alone primates.

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

      @terre
      But if a man needs sex as a prerequisite to love, then how can a woman ever get love from a man if she’s unwilling to have sex?

  • terre

    In fact, that last comment made so little sense I’m having a hard time believing you posted it. Women should only surrender their sex after they have a promise of commitment from a worthy suitor, which is why I advocate chastity (just as I would never say “hit women”, I’d never say “stay a virgin until marriage”). Men attempt to gain access to it. If a woman eventually surrenders for him where all other men failed, what better proof of ‘love’ could exist?

  • Wayfinder

    I don’t read Rossy, and the bits I’ve seen don’t really make me think he knows anything about finding a relationship past the initial attraction. There is probably some need for excitement in a relationship, but cheating on someone and bragging about it just sounds like you’re desperate for attention.
    .
    I’ve hesitated to post anything on this thread because I haven’t observed enough drama-seeking behavior to know from personal experience if it’s widespread. I can easily see that some degree of emotional energy (positive or negative) would strengthen the bonds of a relationship. But that could be two people who love each other and can’t get enough of each other, or two people who hate each other so much that their thinking is dominated by their negative feelings towards each other.
    .
    Athol Kay has a a couple of recent posts that summarize a more balanced post view that does match up with the things I’ve observed. I kind of wish there were more marriage-minded bloggers looking at the sexual marketplace as it actually exists, versus the current dominance by hookup-crazed pickup artists.
    Here’s the posts:
    http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2011/01/you-cant-be-too-alpha-or-too-beta.html
    http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2011/02/in-love-feelings-pair-bonded-love-and.html
     

  • terre

    Marriage really means absolutely nothing (indeed it’s often a net negative and means you have to ‘game’ a lot harder than a free agent would). Advice that applies for ‘hookups’ or relationships or whatever applies just as strongly to marriage.

  • Florence

    @ SW
    This may be true only for dominant men – but as guys avoid commitment-minded chicks they wind up with higher T girls, or more manipulative ones.
    …….
    Yup, I think you’re very right! My last ex was all about acting tough, dominant, etc and always dating older than him chicks. I didn’t perceive him as “dominant”, because around me he was always acting “shy” and very beta-like. I was 2 years older than him, but I wasn’t the manipulative type. His ex was a cop and apparently a very high T-female (3 years older than him). His mom was also 3 years older than his dad. He had admitted to me that his sister constantly manipulated him when they were growing up. He was craving manipulation and was acting great until the “chase was over”. Once the chase was over, my soft, emotional and feminine personality threw him off guard. He was suddenly expected to act like “the man” and to take the relationship up to the next level, but couldn’t because he was always used to someone manipulating him into doing things. I gave him a good chase, which was enough for him to make me an official gf and to tell and introduce me to everyone, but not enough to keep him in the long term. He craved manipulation that I didn’t know how to provide.

  • terre

    Well I would hope she had the self-esteem to last for a while without male love. If you’re asking for some specific time frame, I honestly don’t know. All I can say is that girls should only surrender for men who’ve promised to commit — that is, marry them. Not only is this well within reason but it does immeasurable benefits for a woman’s health. There are really no downsides.

  • Florence

    @ Terre
    “All I can say is that girls should only surrender for men who’ve promised to commit — that is, marry them.”
    …….
    Are you aware that men freak out at the word “marriage” nowadays? Even when a woman stops on the street to admire someone’s baby, a man freaks out immediately?

  • Wayfinder

    @terre & @Susan
    I think you’re talking past each other.
    If I’m reading terre right, he’s saying that men need sex as proof of love, not to create love.

  • Höllenhund

    Blaming and demonizing Roissy is easy, women will lap that up. What women refuse to realize is that such literature is driven by demand, not supply. People like Roissy thrive in the current SMP, which was created by feminists and women. As long as it exists, as long as feminism and female bullsh*tting in general exists, as long as women keep quiet about what they really find attractive, writers like Roissy will be popular. If he and Roosh died in accidents tomorrow, other gifted PUAs will start their own websites to fill in the gap, because there’s enormous demand for that among men that are kept in the dark about female rules of attraction by women and are marginalized/victimized by the current system.

  • Anonymous

    Another thing to consider is that even if a minority of women who don’t thrive on drama actually exists, the odds are too small (and the issue of life or death importance: love and procreation) to warrant catering to them. One really must play to the majority.

    @Susan
    This is the most honest and telling comment re the use of Game that I have seen. It acknowledges the opportunity cost of not engaging with emotionally healthy, mature women. And it also implicitly recognizes the collateral damage caused by treating those women as if they were narcissists. By definition, you’ve just eliminated the possibility of a drama-free relationship.”
    .
    I can confirm from my social circles that a lot of guys at one time wanted a stable relationship.  But years and years of dealing with the drama queens and attention whores (who I agree make up a majority of college aged girls.  At least the attractive ones) have caused them to give up on that.  It might not be romantic, but it’s wise for guys to play the numbers and odds in their favor so they at least get something out of the SMP.
     
    Maybe you have another case for “slut shaming?”  When good guys start to believe “all girls are whores,” because that’s what they see on a regular basis, they’re going to have absolutely no motivation to find a relationship quality girl, or be a relationship quality guy themselves.  Maybe it’s just in the circles that I run in, but I think it’s pretty common for guys my age.  We can’t undo the things we’ve seen and experienced.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Another thing to consider is that even if a minority of women who don’t thrive on drama actually exists, the odds are too small (and the issue of life or death importance: love and procreation) to warrant catering to them. One really must play to the majority.

    @Susan
    “This is the most honest and telling comment re the use of Game that I have seen. It acknowledges the opportunity cost of not engaging with emotionally healthy, mature women. And it also implicitly recognizes the collateral damage caused by treating those women as if they were narcissists. By definition, you’ve just eliminated the possibility of a drama-free relationship.”
     
    Maybe you have another case for slut shaming, Susan.  The more guys start to get bitter with the SMP, the less willing they are to look for a relationship quality girl, or be a relationship quality guy themselves.  It’s a lot easier to just spit some game and enjoy the party.

  • Florence

    @ Wayfinder
    I think you’re talking past each other.
    If I’m reading terre right, he’s saying that men need sex as proof of love, not to create love.
    …………
    I thought so too. The truth is in this SMP, men need sex as an EGO BOOST! When a woman trusts them enough to “surrender”, they think she’s easy, rather than doing it because she genuinely likes/loves them. Gees, nowadays a woman can’t even tell a man if she loves him without sending him running for the hills…

  • Rhen

    On the “drama queen” thing—if a woman had a stormy relationship with her parents and/or former boyfriends, be very careful. During the early stages of a relationship, a man will tend to automatically believe her side of the story. ‘taint necessarily so. Maybe her parents/boyfriends weren’t really so bad and she’s just really hard to live with.

  • terre

    Hollenhund, I don’t generally expect women to come clean about their actual desires or behavior because a) many don’t understand it or give it thought and b) it doesn’t serve their interests at all. (Misleading men is even a net benefit, since it weeds out potential suitors).
    .

    Are you aware that men freak out at the word “marriage” nowadays? Even when a woman stops on the street to admire someone’s baby, a man freaks out immediately?
    .
    As I’ve said, the road to social equilibrium is hard and fraught with compromise. Marriage has always been a tough sell for men, which is why sexual access was constrained solely to conjugal pledges as an incentive. When sexual access has nothing to do with marriage, marriage’s appeal to men fades dimmer still. It is, as one who posts here might say, a sexual market place.

  • Wayfinder

    @Florence
    All men? Well, we might want to unpack why that is. I think this is one of the critical ways in which the sexual market has changed.
    .
    Studies have shown that men won’t commit until they reach a point in their life when they are ready to commit. Any number of things could catalyze this, but the important point is that most men aren’t in that state at the time.
    .
    So its not surprising that pre-commitment men would “freak out”, even if this catches many young women off guard, because its not in most of the historical scripts.
    .
    Commitment from men is in short supply (because only a subset are ready) and high demand (because more women are ready). Sex from women is in high demand (because all the men want it) and short supply (because it’s harder for a man to convince a woman to have sex than vice versa). So we have a situation of men withholding commitment to get more sex and women who traditionally withheld sex to get commitment but who now trade the long-term gain of commitment for the short-term gain of having sex.
    .
    The sexual revolution destroyed young women’s bargaining power in the relationship, making it much harder for them (and for men in the commitment phase, or who are unable to break into the pre-commitment sexual market). Hence the creation of blogs like this.

  • Wayfinder

    <blockquote>
    Maybe you have another case for slut shaming, Susan.  The more guys start to get bitter with the SMP, the less willing they are to look for a relationship quality girl, or be a relationship quality guy themselves.  It’s a lot easier to just spit some game and enjoy the party.
    </blockquote>
    I suspect that part of the bitterness is beta commitment-phase men who are unable to find any women who find game and move into a very bitter post-commitment exploitation of the sexual marketplace. There are a lot of bloggers who match that profile.

  • Aldonza

    Men don’t “crave [drama]“. I can say that 99% of these cases where he goes back to a girl who mistreats him are because a) he doesn’t believe he can do any better or b) he’s too attached. (Some of these occasionally apply to women as well, but the need to be dominated and especially the need for emotional turbulence are both strictly female qualities).
    .
    The need to be dominated is far from a strictly female quality.  There are actually quite a few passive guys out there who find dominant/strong/aggressive woman very appealing.  In fact, among sex workers, Dommes are always in high demand.
    .
    I’ve dated guys who, on the surface, were anything but passive guys.  In fact, most of them had pretty dominant careers and physical appearance.  But they craved a sort of dominating woman who made most of the decisions, was sexually aggressive, and basically ran the relationship.

  • Rhen

    I’m not sure women realize what a huge and scary thing it is for a man to get married. If  you’re a woman, marriage does involve a sacrifice of future sexual variety–but this is less important to most women than to most men. But it also means greatly enhanced lifetime security through financial support from a husband: although a woman MAY contribute to the income greatly, and even generate the majority of it, she is rarely EXPECTED or legally required to do so. And a woman who marries also gets increased status among other women.

    For a man, you are taking on a lifetime financial obligation, like a mortgage that you can never pay off. The sacrifice of future sexual variety is much more painful than it is for women. And the things you most want from your wife, like real friendship and emotional support in times of vulnerability and crisis, are private intangibles, not subject to enforcement in a court of law or the court of public opinion in the way that your obligation to support her financially is.

    Women asking “why won’t he commit?” should make more of an attempt to understand what “commit” really means from a man’s point of view. The situations are very asymetrical.

  • Florence

    @ Wayfinder
    In some countries, where prostitution is legalized, men can get all the sex they need and commit to whoever they want. Look at the Netherlands – prostitution is legal, yet men commit to women and have amazing families. The country is pretty rich and has one of the highest standards of living worldwide. Maybe we should legalize prostitution and solve the problem for men looking for sex only. Knowing that sex is in good supply and within easy access for men, women may feel more comfortable that a man is committing to them for more than just the sex…no? Personally, I hate the idea of a man committing to me in exchange for sex…

  • terre

    I knew prostitution would inevitably come up. As I said, Florence, most men will never solicit a prostitute. Sex is a necessary prerequisite to male love; it’s not the only thing a man wants from his partner.

  • terre

    I also have to say that it’s only a woman who could manage to argue for legalizing prostitution with her reason being that she doesn’t want to put a price on her sex. These are truly great times.

  • SayWhaat

    @ terre:
    Also note that women in this thread speak of exes who had “beta qualities” they supposedly admired. Particularly that dude who constantly sent updates to his girl. Wonder why they split, then? (“We just weren’t right for each other”, “different goals”, “no chemistry”, etc.)
    I’m assuming you were referring to me. I’ll tell you exactly what happened.

    I wanted to be exclusive. He didn’t. I ended it.

  • Florence

    @ Terre
    What’s wrong with that reason? I see nothing wrong. I don’t price sex. I see it as a gift of love and knowing that men aren’t after the free gift because they have plenty of it is quite comforting. The thing is men want to have it all- sex is not enough, it has to be from a good, quality girl and not from just a prostitute. They hate the idea of putting their P into the V of someone who’s had another P in them just an hour ago. It’s about the ego boost. Prostitution is one of the oldest professions for a reason.

  • terre

    What’s wrong with that reason? I see nothing wrong. I don’t price sex. I see it as a gift of love and knowing that men aren’t after the free gift because they have plenty of it is quite comforting. The thing is men want to have it all- sex is not enough, it has to be from a good, quality girl and not from just a prostitute. It’s about the ego boost. Prostitution is one of the oldest professions for a reason.
    .
    I’m laughing because you’re seriously saying “don’t put a price on me” while advocating prostitution for precisely that reason. One pays a prostitute a price. All you’ve really accomplished is to shift that price around somewhere (and convert it into hard cash to boot).

  • Florence

    “One pays a prostitute a price. All you’ve really accomplished is to shift that price around somewhere”
    …………..
    That is true, but the idea is that a man would have the opportunity to chose how to pay. Whether it would be in the form of a commitment and love or in the form of hard cash would depend on his long term intentions. Paying someone 50 bucks for a BJ is much easier than paying a woman with your commitment. Thus, men who’re not after commitment would chose the first option and remove themselves from the dating pool and make things easier for everyone else. In addition, those men constantly complaining that they never get any sex, would be freely and legally able to do so.

  • OffTheCuff

    Aldonza, Stephanie, thanks for posting, you give me hope. In the meantime, I’m tuning out our darker female trolls.
    .
    Ben, take heed to what Badger has to say. You are working on great self-improvement skills which is a wonderful thing, but it’s not sufficient. If you’re like me, working on those long-term skills is a challenge but it’s really part of our natrual beta personality. It comes easy to us. It’s not scary and uncomfortable like the alpha skills of flirting, good eye contact, posture, and dominance.
    .
    If you’re not having dates as often as you would like, then you have to work on the short game too. It won’t take a lot, since you are the “real deal” and have something good to offer behind it, but you will need some to get things moving.
    .
    Further, these skills don’t become useless over time. Once you are in a relationship, you will need to continue applying those alpha skills at a minimal level. Abdicating them entirely is recipe for disaster, I’ve watched marriages fall apart as good men give up on maintaining attraction for their women, and the women grow bored. I’d highly recommend reading Athol’s blog.

  • terre

    Florence, your original contention was that men already aren’t willing to commit. If what you have isn’t attracting marriage proposals, obviously there’s some other cause to the dilemma.

  • Florence

    @ Terre
    Yup, my selection strategy is probably wrong and so is the selection strategy of many other young women. This is why I am advocating prostitution to be legalized. It would make it easier to chose someone who’s really after commitment, not one that pretends that they are after commitment, when in fact they are only after sex (>90% of men below 28) or an ego boost. And those who are reading and citing Roissy, are exactly after that and that makes me very nervous…

  • Florence

    “your original contention was that men already aren’t willing to commit”
    – right after 7 months of a “committed relationship”, randomly mentioning the word “marriage” freaked out someone. So supposedly that should tell me that I never had their commitment at the first place….but they said they were committed and made me an official gf.

  • Florence

    @ Aldosa
    “I’ve dated guys who, on the surface, were anything but passive guys.  In fact, most of them had pretty dominant careers and physical appearance.  But they craved a sort of dominating woman who made most of the decisions, was sexually aggressive, and basically ran the relationship.”
    ……….
    Thank you for sharing this. My personal experiences support this as well.

  • Florence

    For a man, you are taking on a lifetime financial obligation, like a mortgage that you can never pay off. The sacrifice of future sexual variety is much more painful than it is for women. And the things you most want from your wife, like real friendship and emotional support in times of vulnerability and crisis, are private intangibles, not subject to enforcement in a court of law or the court of public opinion in the way that your obligation to support her financially is.
    Women asking “why won’t he commit?” should make more of an attempt to understand what “commit” really means from a man’s point of view. The situations are very asymetrical.
    ……………
    A man can always chose to marry a woman with higher education who is making some decent living on her own, but apparently  the “education and career” of a woman are not on the priority list of many men. Maybe it should be, because it would definitely make your life easier than if you marry a woman without education and without a job and who is only interested in shopping with your credit card of course!
    .
    Most women who have jobs and education and who are earning a living for themselves are appreciative of the financial commitment you would make to them with the purpose of creating a family. They would support you by doing everything possible to cut down family expenses. They will not push you to buy a house bigger than you actually require to live comfortably, etc.

  • Wayfinder

    @Florence
    I think part of the problem you’re experiencing is that a man saying he’s committed isn’t the same thing as being committed. Unfortunately, today even marriage isn’t always enough. Some young men naively think that they are committed because they were told that was what women want, without realizing the full extent of what that means to a women. Others do it knowingly.
    .
    I’ve said before that for a man “girlfriend” still has the connotation that he can walk away. You might get lucky and trigger his attraction/infatuation/dopamine and he discovers he’s ready to move to the commitment phase. But that can be a long shot.
    .
    I’m afraid that you’re not going to ever be able to get away from men wanting sex. Few commitment-oriented men are after only sex, but sex is always going to be a dominant part of what every man is looking for. Legalizing prostitution won’t help a woman who still puts out without monogamous commitment.

  • terre

    You’re missing my point. One has to incentivize marriage for men because it represents a sacrifice; if only your partner benefits (and it puts you at substantial risk), why bother? As it stands, the benefits that used to be exclusive to marriage (fidelity in both spirit and the law, sexual access) have vanished while the many negatives still weigh heavily like a set of steel ben wa balls.

  • Matt

    Dread only works as a punishment.  E.g., if a girl is coming too fast and furious with the shit tests, it’s good to bump back with some terse words and a little withdrawal.  But if you teach a woman (or a man) that her positive, sexy/kind/generous/sweet/whatever overtures are met with disdain or apathy, she’ll stop making them altogether. 

    A lot of Roissy’s posts (I suspect that some of them are guest posts like today’s) — and a LOT of the comments — read like the bitter over-reactions of guys who have just exited relationships with women who were themselves abusive (emotionally or otherwise).  After my bitter, closed-up and always-unhappy ex-wife announced she wanted to leave me, all I could think about was all the times I should have been just as big an asshole to her as she was a bitch to me.  But to pay it forward now with the sweet, sexy girlfriend I’m with now would be a really dumb move. 

    I think stuff like the Dread post are meant to be satirical.  The point is to teach guys who’ve been weak Nice Guys all their lives that a little controlled rage goes a long way. 

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

      Dread only works as a punishment. E.g., if a girl is coming too fast and furious with the shit tests, it’s good to bump back with some terse words and a little withdrawal. But if you teach a woman (or a man) that her positive, sexy/kind/generous/sweet/whatever overtures are met with disdain or apathy, she’ll stop making them altogether.

      This is correct. A man who punishes a good woman destroys the relationship.

  • terre

    I also have to say that it’s really bizarre to see ‘educated’ women hypothetically throwing their sisters under a bus for their own flagrant benefit: I thought prostitution was demeaning? I certainly wouldn’t want my daughter to become one.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Marriage really means absolutely nothing (indeed it’s often a net negative and means you have to ‘game’ a lot harder than a free agent would). Advice that applies for ‘hookups’ or relationships or whatever applies just as strongly to marriage.
     
    What are you doing here then? The whole purpose of hooking up smart is to teach women how they  can get better chances at finding a life partner/husband. Like established for hook ups and casual sex women don’t need any special skill and given that teaching all men to be uncommitted Alphas would make the purpose of hooking up smart null, then what is the point of your advices, then?

  • Wayfinder

    Most women who have jobs and education and who are earning a living for themselves are appreciative of the financial commitment you would make to them with the purpose of creating a family. They would support you by doing everything possible to cut down family expenses. They will not push you to buy a house bigger than you actually require to live comfortably, etc.

    .
    Does the data actually support that correlation? I’m not sure I’ve seen any evidence that a woman’s career makes her any more sympathetic or less of a consumer, and I’ve certainly seen anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Anybody know of a study on this?

  • terre

    What are you doing here then? The whole purpose of hooking up smart is to teach women how they  can get better chances at finding a life partner/husband. Like established for hook ups and casual sex women don’t need any special skill and given that teaching all men to be uncommitted Alphas would make the purpose of hooking up smart null, then what is the point of your advices, then?
    .
    I’m having trouble parsing what you’re saying. The part of my post you quoted was in response to another man’s contention that you don’t have to run game as much when married (it’s men who run game). My advice for women is simply to be chaste and seek marriage first and foremost; I’ve no idea where you got the impression I’m against helping women find a husband.

  • Zammo

    Roissy to get ‘em.
    AtholK to keep ‘em.
    And like so many other men say, Game works. It doesn’t matter who is spreading the message of Game, it’s the message of Game that matters.
    I strongly believe that Game makes women so uncomfortable – and downright hostile – because the secret of female attraction has been revealed and this creates a situation where an otherwise beta man can mimic being an alpha man. Think of it as a push up bra and makeup for a guy’s personality and demeanor. That’s a facile analogy and doesn’t take in to account that one of the first rules of Game is to work on yourself so that the alpha characteristics become more natural.
    Regardless, the secret is out and is spreading throughout the Internet.

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

      @Zammo

      Roissy to get ‘em.
      AtholK to keep ‘em.

      That’s actually pretty good advice, I think. Of course, where you draw the line between “get” and “keep” will matter a great deal.

      I strongly believe that Game makes women so uncomfortable – and downright hostile – because the secret of female attraction has been revealed and this creates a situation where an otherwise beta man can mimic being an alpha man.

      You’re barking up the wrong tree here. I’m a big proponent of Game, because it increases the pool of eligible men. I also believe that the next audience that needs to learn the secret of female attraction is females. We are generally woefully ignorant of our own attraction mechanisms. Game actually helps women understand the why of our responses, and that is very helpful in making good long-term choices. Game, when used ethically, benefits both women and men.

  • Florence

    @ Terre
    I also have to say that it’s really bizarre to see ‘educated’ women hypothetically throwing their sisters under a bus for their own flagrant benefit: I thought prostitution was demeaning? I certainly wouldn’t want my daughter to become one.
    ……………….
    Why can’t a woman have a right to decide what happens with her body? And who said that prostitution was “demeaning”. I have respect for sex workers, just like I have respect for regular workers.

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

      @Florence

      And who said that prostitution was “demeaning”. I have respect for sex workers, just like I have respect for regular workers.

      Oy. Sex workers, including porn actors, have received more than respect. Sex-pos feminists have pedestalized them, and quite a few of them have lucrative speaking careers as they tour college campuses. That’s fine if it’s a private school, but I recall when William and Mary hired sex workers to teach pole dancing and host a career information sessions during Sex Week. Yeah, if I were a Virginia taxpayer I would be most displeased.
      .
      I think prostitution is incredibly demeaning, as is porn work. There is not a mother alive who would want her daughter selling her body for the entertainment of others.

  • Matt T

    Honestly, the verbal parts of Game are incredibly overrated, but the attitudes and mindsets of a high quality man that Game teaches you are something that everyone should learn. A real man doesn’t worship women, he worships himself, and internalizing that (and all its implications) will get you far in any field.

  • Aldonza

    I also have to say that it’s really bizarre to see ‘educated’ women hypothetically throwing their sisters under a bus for their own flagrant benefit: I thought prostitution was demeaning? I certainly wouldn’t want my daughter to become one.
    .
    I don’t want my daughter to become one either, but prostitution is a fact of life in every culture.  Whether sanctioned or not, it happens everywhere.  I’d prefer it to be sanctioned here for the simple fact that women who work outside of the law are denied the protections of the law.  If something happens to a prostitute, she can’t just call the police.

  • Aldonza

    A real man doesn’t worship women, he worships himself, and internalizing that (and all its implications) will get you far in any field.
    .
    The same goes for a real woman.

  • Matt T

    The same goes for a real woman.


    True, but that’s not the point. Men obviously need more relationship help than women do. I mean, you don’t see women paying thousands of dollars to a bizarrely-dressed lady in a giant felt top hat and black nail polish to teach them how to get men.

  • Wayfinder

    @Florence
    I don’t know how it is for women, but I think it will be difficult for most men to ever respect a prostitute. The male has demonstratively evolved a deep-seated instinct to devalue someone who provides sex without a relationship and without any real effort. Note the reaction men will have to a sell-out in their sphere of work: the reaction goes beyond the sex aspect. No amount of legitimization or legalization is going to change that.
    .
    Even if the woman entered prostitution willingly (doubtful) she is destroying her capacity to have a safe, secure, human relationship with the opposite sex. In a real sense, prostitution cuts one off from the human race in a way that hooking up doesn’t. It’s trading your birthright as a women for cold, hard cash.
    .
    I’m doubtful that regulating prostitution will make it markedly safer for those in the margins, but that’s an entirely separate discussion.

  • Rhen

    Florence…”A man can always chose to marry a woman with higher education who is making some decent living on her own, but apparently  the “education and career” of a woman are not on the priority list of many men”

    I personally think there’s much to be said for a woman with a serious career, in addition to the financial benefits–for one thing, she’s likely to have more empathy with her husband’s career issues, for another, she’s less likely to look for drama in the relationship, for another, she’s likely to be a more interesting person.

    BUT there have been quite a few reports lately of women getting very expensive educations…Harvard Law, Wharton MBA, etc…and, soon after marriage to someone who makes substantial $$$, deciding they want to be full-time wives and mothers, and apparently without any intent of returning to work at some later time. Which is fine IF that was the mutual understanding going into the marriage.

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

      BUT there have been quite a few reports lately of women getting very expensive educations…Harvard Law, Wharton MBA, etc…and, soon after marriage to someone who makes substantial $$$, deciding they want to be full-time wives and mothers, and apparently without any intent of returning to work at some later time. Which is fine IF that was the mutual understanding going into the marriage.

      Rhen, come on now, did you know I’m was a SAHM mom with a Wharton MBA? Guilty as charged. FWIW, I can attest to my own circumstances. To my employer a Wharton MBA = 80-100 hours/week. I did that until my son had a crisis at age 2, at which point my husband and I made the mutual decision that I would take time off. It was not an understanding going into the marriage – we never negotiated on that point. It was a choice we made for the good of our family. I have gone on to do various consulting projects over the years, but my income was severely constrained, and I never returned to a corporate setting.
      .
      Interestingly, I am a member of a Harvard MBA Women’s Group (I’m the token, the diversity pick). 25 of us meet once a month to share information and advice around career and life – the age range is 30-60. Five of the women are incredibly successful entrepreneurs or professionals in consulting, investment banking, etc. The rest of us have cobbled together gigs as best we can around our parenting responsibilities. All five of the women who earn the big bucks are complete wrecks. Every one has been through or is now going through a horrendous divorce. Their kids are off at boarding school getting into all sorts of trouble. Worst of all, none of them wants to continue working this way, but they no longer have a choice.
      .
      Being in Boston, I also have friends who went to medical and law school here. Their stories are exactly the same, with the exception that docs can carve out part-time jobs pretty easily if they’re willing to give up a specialty and go into internal medicine.
      .
      I have no idea of your personal situation, Rhen, but if you haven’t walked this walk I would respectfully submit that you can’t talk the talk.

  • SayWhaat

    I mean, you don’t see women paying thousands of dollars to a bizarrely-dressed lady in a giant felt top hat and black nail polish to teach them how to get men.
    No, but you do see women propping up romance novels and self-help books to bestseller lists, writing in to magazines and this blog looking for answers on how to get a guy to be in an exclusive relationship. We could very well see “Bitch Girl Game” seminars on the way.

  • Florence

    @ Wayfinder
    Does the data actually support that correlation? I’m not sure I’ve seen any evidence that a woman’s career makes her any more sympathetic or less of a consumer, and I’ve certainly seen anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Anybody know of a study on this?
    ………………..
    I couldn’t find studies on consumption, but found a study that examines the divorce rates in correlation to education:

    “We examine the trends in divorce using  the marital histories collected in the 2004
    Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP).  In general, divorce rates are lowest among
    those with a college-degree, are the highest for those with some college, while those with a high
    school degree or below have divorce rates that fall in-between the two groups [13].
    The fact that it is those with “some college” that are the most at risk of divorce illustrates the potential role of selection in explaining why marital and divorce outcomes differ by educational attainment.  Those with “some college” have either attended a 2 year program or have failed to complete a 4-year program [14]. As such, those with some college disproportionately represent those without the stamina or resources to complete their education.   It is perhaps not surprising that this group would have similar difficulties maintaining their marriage [15].”

    Name of study: “WOMEN’S EDUCATION AND FAMILY BEHAVIOR:TRENDS IN MARRIAGE, DIVORCE AND FERTILITY* ”
    Link to source: http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/Marriage_divorce_education.pdf

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

      @Florence
      The divorce rate of college-educated couples is very low – 17% I believe. Brendan has described before how this is at least in part due to their being “consumption” marriages – the lifestyle could not be maintained if the couple separated. I think the question of whether women have good spending habits is probably related to education, but not entirely so. Many women who are good earners, and who are married to good earners, will still demand the house on Martha’s Vineyard, the new BMW, etc. I believe this is related to narcissism and self-indulgence, or poor impulse control.

  • Florence

    @ Aldosa
    I don’t want my daughter to become one either, but prostitution is a fact of life in every culture.  Whether sanctioned or not, it happens everywhere.  I’d prefer it to be sanctioned here for the simple fact that women who work outside of the law are denied the protections of the law.  If something happens to a prostitute, she can’t just call the police.”
    ……………
    I am with you on this one again! Thank you!!

  • Florence

    I mean, you don’t see women paying thousands of dollars to a bizarrely-dressed lady in a giant felt top hat and black nail polish to teach them how to get men.
    ……………..
    No, but you do see women spending thousands of dollars on beauty products and on plastic surgeries!

  • Florence

    @ Rhen
    BUT there have been quite a few reports lately of women getting very expensive educations…Harvard Law, Wharton MBA, etc…and, soon after marriage to someone who makes substantial $$$, deciding they want to be full-time wives and mothers, and apparently without any intent of returning to work at some later time. Which is fine IF that was the mutual understanding going into the marriage.
    ……………
    Yeah, I think you are right about that and it annoys me a bit, but women such as Maura, would be quite upset if I make a statement, so I won’t.

  • Florence

    @ Rhen
    I don’t know how it is for women, but I think it will be difficult for most men to ever respect a prostitute. The male has demonstratively evolved a deep-seated instinct to devalue someone who provides sex without a relationship and without any real effort. Note the reaction men will have to a sell-out in their sphere of work: the reaction goes beyond the sex aspect. No amount of legitimization or legalization is going to change that.
    …………
    I agree that it sounds unpleasant and that it carries risks. Being a sex working is one of the riskiest professions for women, but there are risky professions that men taken on as well. Try to see it from this point. Prostitution will always exist, everywhere, whether legal or not. Thus, making it legal would only make it safer for those who chose to practice it.
    PS: This may sound harsh, but IF your daughter wants to become a prostitute, she will irregardless of your knowledge and irregardless of the fact whether it is legal or not. Making it legal, will only make it safer for her.

  • Wayfinder

    @Florence
    Yes, I’m aware of the correlation between socio-economic status and lower divorce rates; but does that also apply to women with careers? And are some careers better than others? This might be useful information for a young woman choosing a major and career, but I haven’t seen anything on anywhere. Maybe a future topic for Susan?
    .
    I will say that if you have $200K debt from law school you just limited your potential partners to the tiny percentage of the population that has any hope of coping with that expense month-to-month. A smarter education would be a better bet.
     

  • karen

    I personally don’t know any female of my generation who would put up with that type of behavior.  That being said, I have noticed how many guys from stable loving families end up with females from similar stable loving families.  I don’t think it is divorce that necessarily messes people up but rather the way in which they were raised and that person’s personality.

    For example, I’m a no drama type of female. People have always remarked how I’m very mature for my age.  My parents never had to worry about me mixing with the wrong people, doing drugs, or anything bad as I grew up.  I’ve had people meet me and right away try to set me up with their sons upon just meeting me once.  Now my younger sister is the total opposite.  She is a promiscuous, manipulative, anorexic, alcoholic, who is a drama queen.  In school she did poorly and was more concerned with being pretty and popular rather than getting good grades.  She is constantly looking to high status males for validation.  We were raised in the same home but are total opposites.  One of the major differences in how we were raised is that my mom made many excuses for my sister’s behavior.  She didn’t want to see the way my sister really was and consequently let her get away with a lot of bad behavior.  To this day, my mom still talks about my sister as if she is a sweet innocent little girl. 

    Advice to Men: Mature women like little to no drama.  If your female partner is a drama queen, don’t you dare marry her and have kids.  That will be one miserable relationship.

  • Stephenie Rowling

     
    The sexual revolution destroyed young women’s bargaining power in the relationship, making it much harder for them (and for men in the commitment phase, or who are unable to break into the pre-commitment sexual market). Hence the creation of blogs like this.
     
    You need to remember that pre sexual revolution we had some sort of arrangement were both genders had power on different areas, men couldn’t clean, cook or do laundry for themselves neither had free access to sex, while women couldn’t earn money neither have access to commitment and sex and both couldn’t procreate without each other, so marriage offered tons of incentive with low risks and power for both gender even if outside the home the man was the one in charge, the women were queens of their own home thus all both genders had to do was to not really annoy each other too much to keep a marriage. The sexual revolution destroyed all that screwing BOTH genders. I think that is the part that is missing here BOTH genders are in trouble, unsatisfied and angry over the changes. We are all in this together. So the solution is reeducate men to be more confident (which is pretty much the whole point of Game) and women be more realistic and both gender try to exhibit long term traits early on, before they both got bitter: women from lack of committed partners and men from being rejected regularly. Both genders need to compromise in a middle ground to make things work again without destroying individuality or sending women back to the kitchen and men to work endless hours to support a family with no time to relate to it, IMO.
     
     
    I’m having trouble parsing what you’re saying. The part of my post you quoted was in response to another man’s contention that you don’t have to run game as much when married (it’s men who run game). My advice for women is simply to be chaste and seek marriage first and foremost; I’ve no idea where you got the impression I’m against helping women find a husband.
     
    Okay then I misunderstood.
     
    I don’t know how it is for women, but I think it will be difficult for most men to ever respect a prostitute.
     
    You know I had known my share of men that had married a prostitute (a former one of course), my guess is that this women convinced the men that they only did it because they couldn’t find any other means to survive and offered loyalty after that, or they knew they could get a wife that wouldn’t mind them cheating up because they will rather have that that come back to their former life…of course I actually never asked so I have no idea what happened there, but I had seen it happen before so things are always more complex than we believe, YMMV.
     
     

  • Half Canadian

    Given that Roissy is narcissistic, I’m not surprised by what he writes.  Just dismayed.

  • OffTheCuff

    So the solution is reeducate men to be more confident (which is pretty much the whole point of Game) and women be more realistic and both gender try to exhibit long term traits early on, before they both got bitter: women from lack of committed partners and men from being rejected regularly. Both genders need to compromise in a middle ground to make things work again without destroying individuality or sending women back to the kitchen and men to work endless hours to support a family with no time to relate to it, IMO.

    .
    Bravo, Stephenie. Couldn’t say it any better. I’m ready to do my part, and help men what they need to do, if they want success. And it’s working.
    .
    Women? I’m not so sure. Based on the resistance I get here, it’s clear I can’t give advice to women though. The fact that I am/was what they say they want (a guy who only ever wanted a GF, and never played the field) means nothing. So be it; I don’t need to offer what’s not wanted. They need more women like you and Sue to step up to plate and deliver the message.

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

      So be it; I don’t need to offer what’s not wanted. They need more women like you and Sue to step up to plate and deliver the message.

      Well I enjoy having you around, even if you’re not saving any souls this week ;)

  • terre

    I’m not really sure why people here think prostitution will “always exist”. That seems like a very defeatist attitude to a profound social ill in my estimation. The best means of “protecting sex workers” would be to prevent women from becoming sex workers in the first place (and in the First World, the incentive is basically because it pays well).

  • terre

    Anecdotal, but my experience has been the opposite of Matt’s. The more disinterested I was, the harder a girl would try to please me.

  • OffTheCuff

    I’m a big proponent of Game, because it increases the pool of eligible men. I also believe that the next audience that needs to learn the secret of female attraction is females. We are generally woefully ignorant of our own attraction mechanisms. Game actually helps women understand the why of our responses, and that is very helpful in making good long-term choices. Game, when used ethically, benefits both women and men.
    I think you’re the exception. Didn’t you admit that Game made you really suspicious at first? I wager that more women will feel like you initially did, and very few will dig deeper into the uncomfortable truths. In a sense, I think Zammo is right – most women don’t like Game because they can sense the uncomfortable truth in it. You’re just not most women.

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

      Didn’t you admit that Game made you really suspicious at first?

      So suspicious! My introduction to Game was via Ferdinand, then Roissy. That led to a thread at the Spearhead where I was vilified by Pro Male Anti-Feminist Tech. Ultimately, Obsidian took pity on me and took me under his wing. I still have nightmares about October, 2009.
      .
      Obvs I’ve never interacted with Roissy, but Obs is still a regular here and Ferdinand has been very kind with the link love. In short, I think it depends on how a woman is introduced to Game. Reading Neil Strauss made me realize its value. Reading Roissy did not. Watching Mystery videos gave me respect for his knowledge, always applied without deceit. There are bloggers who apply Dark Game with no concern for the women. Game is so powerful that it is a terrible weapon in the hands of unscrupulous men. I think that’s where a lot of the objection comes from.

  • Florence

    @ Terre
    I’m not really sure why people here think prostitution will “always exist”. That seems like a very defeatist attitude to a profound social ill in my estimation. The best means of “protecting sex workers” would be to prevent women from becoming sex workers in the first place (and in the First World, the incentive is basically because it pays well).
    ……….
    I must admit, I find you extremely intelligent for a 21 year old (I think you had mentioned that somewhere)! I respect you and I very much appreciate your participation on this forum. I am sorry if my comments sometimes seem stubborn or outright rude. I also wish that we could be able to give jobs to those women who engage in prostitution, so that they wouldn’t do so, but I wonder if even given the opportunity to chose another profession some of these women would chose it over the easy cash prostitution provides. I think that there are women out there who deliberately chose to be prostitutes or strippers.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com/ Joe

    @Stephenie said:

    marriage offered tons of incentive with low risks and power for both gender even if outside the home the man was the one in charge, the women were queens of their own home thus all both genders had to do was to not really annoy each other too much to keep a marriage.

     
    As often as I’ve seen that here coupled with the idea that the “Sexual Revolution” changed things, I think it’s not quite that simple.
     
    Not to get too personally revealing, but my great grandparents came to the US fleeing the chaos of eastern Europe prior to World War 1. They came for survival. My grandparents met just before the roaring ’20s started and lived in peace (if not prosperity), but four of their sons fought in World War 2 and Korea (three returned). To me they all had to do more than just not annoy each other. They were married for life and for over 50 years.
     
    I have a sense that people were more mature, and mature earlier too, back then. Think about Clarke Gable in Gone With the Wind. Confident, suave, able, a leader of men – a real “alpha” and only 35. Think of Lauren Bacall in To Have and to Have Not. 18 years old, I believe, worldly-wise, not naive, not childish (and definitely not Snookie).
     

    pre sexual revolution we had some sort of arrangement were both genders had power on different areas, men couldn’t clean, cook or do laundry for themselves neither had free access to sex, while women couldn’t earn money neither have access to commitment and sex and both couldn’t procreate without each other, so marriage offered tons of incentive with low risks and power for both gender

     
    I don’t think it’s so much that men and women are permitted or not permitted to do certain jobs or have certain opportunities. That’s not where the incentives for marriage come from. I think what’s different today is that it takes a lot longer for people to take on the job that has to be done. That’s true both in the work world and in relationships.

  • LJ

    “The divorce rate of college-educated couples is very low – 17% I believe.”
    This surprised me so I clicked on the PDF Florence linked to to see if that was true. It appears that of white college-educated women who married around 1990, yes, around 16% were divorced after 10 years (see Table 1 on p 27). But I think most people hope to stay married for longer than 10 years so that statistic isn’t super-helpful. But of course they don’t have the 20-year divorce rates since the data was from 2004, so you have to extrapolate it out a little from earlier decades. Looking at the 1980 marriages, there’s a 31% 20-year divorce rate for college-educated white women, and a 20% 10-year rate (higher than 1990 marriages). So the 20-year rate for 1990 marriages will probably be a few % points lower than 31%.
    Anyone know what % of divorces occur after year 20?

  • Aldonza

    I’m not really sure why people here think prostitution will “always exist”. That seems like a very defeatist attitude to a profound social ill in my estimation. The best means of “protecting sex workers” would be to prevent women from becoming sex workers in the first place (and in the First World, the incentive is basically because it pays well).
    Prostitution exists because men are willing to pay for sex and there is usually no shortage of poorer women willing to do it.  Women who have other economic options usually avail themselves of those options before turning to prostitution.  Although I’m sure some women get into it for the kind of sexual “high” and feeling of “empowerment” that has been reported from casual sex.  Further, as the economic options for women go down, the number of women willing to sell their sexuality (either directly per transaction, or indirectly as “rented girlfriends” along the lines of the current system in Thailand) goes up.  It’s simple economics.

  • Geoff

    @Terre (and indirectly, Florence [who I'm starting to really like having on HUS]),
    (Terre quoting Roissy): “The holy fucking grail of chickianity is the drama-free, faithful, feminine and beautiful babe.”
    .
    Indeed. If you can’t be beautiful ladies, at least try to be the other three things. And please please PLEASE don’t tell us you got rejected even though you are all those things–YOU ARE VALUABLE. It’s just that you got rejected by a man who only wanted to have sex with you.
    .
    If you’re drama-free, faithful, feminine (and not a former slut) and STILL can’t find a guy–let me tell you you are worth your weight in gold to many, many men who just haven’t found you yet. You are fishing in the wrong pond(s).

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

      @Geoff
      That is the nicest comment you’ve made yet! I appreciate the support to the women, who do experience rejection, and who may indeed by fishing in the wrong pond.

  • Aldonza

    Rhen, come on now, did you know I’m was a SAHM mom with a Wharton MBA? Guilty as charged.
    .
    Heh, I was wondering when you’d jump on that one.  Nobody I know went to an Ivy League grad school with the idea of becoming a soccer mom.  These are intelligent, driven women who expected to be able to have the dream of a fulfilling and lucrative career along with a vibrant and satistfying homelife, only to find that the firms that reward men for having spouses usually only rewarded those with SAHMs or women who down-sized their own careers to take up the slack left by a man who is gone 80-100 hours a week (or more.)
    .
    Further, those decisions were rarely made in a vacuum by the mother alone.  In all the cases I know it was a joint decision made for the good of the family as a whole and the father benefited from it as much or more than the mother.

  • GudEnuf

    Susan: Game is so powerful that it is a terrible weapon in the hands of unscrupulous men. I think that’s where a lot of the objection comes from.
    That’s probably the strongest endorsement I’ve ever heard a woman give.
    Really, I think the ethics of game has a lot in common with the ethics of marketing. Same questions about consent and free will. Unfortunately, most marketing ethics is CYA and not really published to protect the consumer. And certainly not philosophically vigorous.
     
    Is it wrong to use Game to make your partner so interested that you achieve absolute control of the relationship via the principal of least interest? Probably.
     
    Is it wrong to use Game to get a woman who would normally be out of your league? I honestly don’t know. These kinds of questions are hard to answer to everyone’s satisfaction. Which is unfortunate because we need an answer.

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

      @GudEnuf
      Your analogy to marketing is an interesting one, for that is exactly what Game is. And there are some who feel that marketing is unethical – especially advertising. Back in the 60s there was a scandal because of suspected subliminal messages in advertising:
      http://www.slate.com/id/3136/
      People are very wary of being manipulated.

  • Lupo

    @Stephanie: “IME this is true but is true from women that grew up on drama filled homes themselves so in their heads love=drama.”


    I think you’re onto something there, but you’re not 100% correct. The fact of the matter is, most women grow up with television, which also fills their heads with ideas like “love = drama.” I also think love = drama is deeply a part of the female emotional architecture, and so there is always a tendency in this direction. It’s a standard human tendency really: it’s called “loss aversion bias” in the trading business. If a woman has experienced many men, she’ll eventually fall into this mental trap: it’s as certain as gravity. Sure some women are raised properly, grow up undamaged and would run for the hills if something like this happened to them. I’d feel very badly for a “nice girl” this happened to. I also think “nice girls” (like, say, Athol Kay’s wife who was a virgin when he met her) are such a small set they’re statistically insignificant in the modern day. Y’awl think this is you. Most of you are wrong.

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

      @Lupo

      I also think love = drama is deeply a part of the female emotional architecture, and so there is always a tendency in this direction. It’s a standard human tendency really: it’s called “loss aversion bias” in the trading business. If a woman has experienced many men, she’ll eventually fall into this mental trap: it’s as certain as gravity.

      I agree that loss aversion bias explains a lot. In fact, I believe that a lot of the drama that women make is designed to up the ante enough to reassure them that the relationship is still viable. It’s like having a fight just to get to the makeup sex. A woman who is getting what she needs emotionally from a relationship is not likely to constantly rock the boat. A woman who perceives impending loss, if she’s in a relationship with someone who instills dread, will be constantly testing. As long as she can get some kind of rise out of the guy, she knows it’s not over. Women know that the opposite of love is not hate or anger, it’s indifference.

  • Plain Jane

    @ Matt T, “A real man doesn’t worship women, he worships himself, and internalizing that (and all its implications) will get you far in any field.”

    Narcissim.
    Ever since the 70s parents have been raising their kids to have “self-esteem” for no reason at all.  Rewarding them for doing nothing.  This has resulted in our current “me generation” (going on for what – 2 generations now?) and the type of narcissistic reasoning we see above.
    *
    Aldonza and Florence,
    In the BDSM world the men who want the most beatings (literally) are the high powered ones in the outside world.
    *
    Karen, I agree. Not all divorces are going to mess the kids up.  Certainly its better to get kids out of a situation in which abuse or alcohol/drug/gambling/etc addictions are going on.
    When I speak of divorce I’m speaking of the most common form of divorce in the States today – divorce because the parents “fall out of love” or “grow apart”.
    I think those situations should just be worked out for the sake of the kids.
    And parents should NOT fight in front of their kids.
    It really disturbs a child’s mind.
    In some cultures the only reason to marry is to start a family.  So if having kids was the REASON to marry – you have no excuse not to stay married.

  • Plain Jane

    Anthony Robbins lists “UNCERTAINTY” i.e. “drama” as one of the 6 psychological human needs.
    See here;
    http://peopletriggers.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/rethinking-the-core-human-needs/

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

      @Plain Jane
      Interesting article about Tony Robbins.

      It’s irrational to need uncertainty; if we were all acting in our own rational self-interest, we would want life to be as predictable as possible so that we could reap the most advantage. We typically try to eliminate unpredictability, but Robbins acknowledges that we also crave it.

  • Plain Jane

    VI says:
    February 2, 2011 at 9:39 am
    How do you go about building the trust when she already thinks you’re cheating?
    My girl is scared that I am/will cheat on her, and she definitely has good reason to, but I really do love her and don’t have a desire to cheat.  The problem is that I have a philanderous past, and the women of my past have instilled the dread in my girl by directly trying to sabotage us.
    ——
    VI, you probably can’t.
    Face it.
    Guys with a philandering past are just not good longterm and reproductive investment for a serious woman who wants a family.

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

    Hmm… Plain Jane… RAD?  That’s quite a brave long-distance diagnosis of a pretty obscure and controversial disorder.
    But anyway, yeah, Roissy is over the top for sure with this, and it’s kind of hard to know for sure whether or not he buys his own bull.  I can see both sides of it.  But like most things in the Game community, there’s some truth to this.  Women do get bored with predictability and beta compliance, and it is definitely in the best interest of a man to maintain some level of insecurity.  But it doesn’t have to be evil insecurity.  Relationships are like a pair of treadmills side by side, not a pair of armchairs.  Men need to make it clear through both their actions and words that they will not be content with losing what they have — a hot girl who is into sex and treats them like a high status male.  That necessarily implies a constant knowledge by the woman that she must keep up her end of the bargain or lose what she has.  And that’s insecurity.
     
     

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

      @Hamby

      Men need to make it clear through both their actions and words that they will not be content with losing what they have — a hot girl who is into sex and treats them like a high status male. That necessarily implies a constant knowledge by the woman that she must keep up her end of the bargain or lose what she has. And that’s insecurity.

      Well, that’s the deal we all make when we enter relationships. There are no guarantees, nor would we want there to be. As a woman, I want to earn my partner’s respect and affection. If he’s supplicating – well we know what happens in that scenario. Knowing that I am with a person of worth – who has options – is as much insecurity as I need to give my all in the relationship. If a man attempts to instill dread by arbitrarily withdrawing affection in ways that confuse and upset me, I’m outta there.
      .
      Are there women who would respond to such tactics? Yes, you can see them on Jerry Springer.

  • Plain Jane

    “Men need to make it clear through both their actions and words that they will not be content with losing what they have — a hot girl who is into sex and treats them like a high status male. ”

    Men who want that should field women who don’t want kids.

  • Stephenie Rowling

     
    You are fishing in the wrong pond(s).
    Heh I used to write a site teaching Spanish speaking people to find love other the net (like I did) and one of my advices was: Do you know the old “wisdom” that says that you need to kiss a lot of toads to find the prince? I say: If you find yourself kissing a lot of toads you are most likely living on a swamp. MOVE THE HELL OUT! My readers found that very amusing.
     
    Prostitution exists because men are willing to pay for sex and there is usually no shortage of poorer women willing to do it.
    I actually asked this on Jezebel. If women are the same as men why there are no more women willing to pay for sex as men do? I mean some very old women do pay for sex with young guys, but the percentage is so minimal that doesn’t even register.When I was visiting Las Vegas with my husband last year I decided to see if anyone offered male companionship to women (like they did to my husband with females even walking with me! My answer was I’m cheaper!) the only male services were for gay men as well. Again gay males are usually as lucky as getting sex as women (at least IME) so why the difference if we are identical genders and everything else is a social construct?
     
    I think what’s different today is that it takes a lot longer for people to take on the job that has to be done. That’s true both in the work world and in relationships.
    I believe we are talking about the same thing. Sex revolution created this Eternal Teenagerhood ideal because young people didn’t needed to commit to get sex in a time where they are filled with hormones, so comparing the freedoms and lack of responsibility with committing and our tolerance to settling down growing more tolerant of age. I will say that before SR when less people were expected to go to college to specialize on something before joining to job market,  a woman passed 25 and and was considered and old maid and had a hard time marrying when I think now I think a woman can reach at least 35 getting away with no having a partner without a lot of social pressure. So I think a lot of this can be traced back to SR, IMO.
     
    I think you’re onto something there, but you’re not 100% correct. The fact of the matter is, most women grow up with television, which also fills their heads with ideas like “love = drama.”
    This is the same idea behind things like the Stupid Code for comic books that practically killed the industry on the 50’s because of that hideous book Seduction of the innocent (spits on floor). I will say it again 99.99% of women my generation grew up watching cheap melodramas on TV and I will say 99% of us enjoyed the fantasy and knew the difference between the fantasy and the reality. I think we have had this ideas about pretty much everything under the sun: movies,porn,video games… but somehow if men don’t get harmed with unrealistic expectations about women by porn that is as widely consumed by males (and I’m sure you are aware that some men DO develop and addiction to porn, but I don’t believe this guys were perfectly balanced before porn corrupted their minds, you can’t soil a seed on dead land). I really think that thinking that women’s brains somehow  are weaker and a little fantasy drama is needed to screw them forever for wanting a happy quiet life. I really don’t buy that. And I tell you this as a woman that enjoys both Porn and Romance Genre, so I have nothing against porn. Both are as fantasy as watching the Enterprise D go on Warp 3 and given that I don’t look at my car thinking that it should be a space ship I don’t look at men wanting them to be like porn stars or prince charming.
     
     
     

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

      Both are as fantasy as watching the Enterprise D go on Warp 3 and given that I don’t look at my car thinking that it should be a space ship I don’t look at men wanting them to be like porn stars or prince charming.

      Stephenie, I find your style of communication completely delightful – funny and charming, in addition to smart. You are a great addition to the HUS scene!

  • Florence

    VI says:
    February 2, 2011 at 9:39 am
    How do you go about building the trust when she already thinks you’re cheating?
    My girl is scared that I am/will cheat on her, and she definitely has good reason to, but I really do love her and don’t have a desire to cheat.  The problem is that I have a philanderous past, and the women of my past have instilled the dread in my girl by directly trying to sabotage us.
    ——
    As a person who generally tries to restrain from criticizing, condemning, or complaining, I’d first say that you are already doing something to regain her trust in you. Recognizing and acknowledging your mistakes is usually the first step to fixing them. Trust could be regained, but you have to prove your loyalty to her first. Cut contacts with those girls from your past or at least minimize them to the bare minimum. Don’t ever bring them up and don’t talk about your past. Talk about the future with her. How have the women in your past instilled fear in your gf? Do they have a direct contact with her? If yes, try to break it if you can. If your past comes up again, tell her that those girls mean nothing to you. Stand up for your morals and don’t cheat for yourself first, rather than for her sake only. I am sure that she loves you and has faith in you, otherwise she wouldn’t be dating you. Don’t screw it again, thought! After all, we all make mistakes, but have the ability to change and become better people tomorrow.

  • Plain Jane

    Men are attracted to sweet, feminine, hot girls with minimal drama. The holy fucking grail of chickianity is the drama-free, faithful, feminine and beautiful babe. That more than a few of these beautiful babies bring drama with them is sometimes not enough negative externality to turn men off from fucking them. Or even marrying them.”

    I applaud Roissy for being honest enough to admit that men would rather marry hot and drama-filled than non-hot and stable.
    Of course, we women have known that for millenia already.

  • Lupo

    @Stephanie: I will say 99% of us enjoyed the fantasy and knew the difference between the fantasy and the reality.
    I think you’re wrong. The objective reality is that most people are weak minded and creatures of their times. That’s why what Roissy says works. It’s sad, very sad, but true. The fact of the matter is, stuff like Susan’s blog is necessary. What’s more, the common wisdom she spits out here is rare and it goes decidedly against the grain of modern life. It would be great if things didn’t work this way, but they do.
    So, you can fight against the reality of what Roissy says because you think it doesn’t apply to you, but it probably applies to most people. That is why, in patriarchal cultures, stuff like hook up culture is anathema, as is porn and stuff like TV melodrama. It’s bad for most people.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    That is why, in patriarchal cultures, stuff like hook up culture is anathema, as is porn and stuff like TV melodrama. It’s bad for most people
    Latin America is pretty much patriarchal and TV melodrama is one the of must lucrative industries. Just Google Telenovela and you will see that they make tons of those on every country and make billions out of it. You are right about hook up culture, but that was before USA exported it and the new generations are being brainwashed into it and all cultures have some source of porn, so I will like to know where did you actually experience patriarchal culture is, because those three are no related at all.

  • Matt T

    Narcissim.Ever since the 70s parents have been raising their kids to have “self-esteem” for no reason at all.  Rewarding them for doing nothing.  This has resulted in our current “me generation” (going on for what – 2 generations now?) and the type of narcissistic reasoning we see above.


    You would think that the “me generation” of men would spend more time obsessing over “me” and less time obsessing over “does she like me”?

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

      @Matt T

      You would think that the “me generation” of men would spend more time obsessing over “me” and less time obsessing over “does she like me”?

      Although all kids were affected by the self-esteem movement, and received trophies just for showing up, it was born of concern about adolescent girls, and the message was heavily skewed toward promoting academic excellence for them, especially in math and science. The marginalization of boys in elementary and middle schools happened at the same time, and was probably caused by it.

  • Plain Jane

    “If torture is what men what, sure we can give it to them…The problem is they say they don’t want it and when we act sweet and nice to them, they take us for granted or break up with us “because they want to be single again”, which obviously means that they want to “play the field”. The bottom line is that men seek as much daily drama as women do…”

    Flo, I don’t know about “drama” but I do know men like to be punished for their bad behaviour.  By letting it slide you are not doing him (or yourself) a favor. 
    A man feels secure when he knows his woman will call him out on bullshit.
    From another prspective, Anthony Robbins says “uncertainty” is a human need. 
    Some translate that as “drama”, others “adventure”.

  • Geoff

    Women who think men want drama are delusional.  There may be a statistically insignificant number of men who do, just as there is a statistically insignificant number of men who like to be tied up, don a Gimp mask from Pulp Fiction, and have a woman beat them senseless with a rubber truncheon.
    .
    Vast majority of men = no likey drama.

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

      @Geoff

      there is a statistically insignificant number of men who like to be tied up, don a Gimp mask from Pulp Fiction, and have a woman beat them senseless with a rubber truncheon.

      OMG I have never recovered from that Pulp Fiction scene! Every time I hear “BDSM” my mind goes straight to the Gimp.

  • Plain Jane

    Since there’s always a lot of talk on this blog about “numbers” and “carousels” – sexual promiscuity and how it affects us and our relationships in general, here is another type of promiscuity discussed over at Jamila’s blog:
    http://www.jamilaakil.com/2011/02/learning-to-avoid-emotional-promiscuity/
    *
    An excerpt:
    *
    I’ve read books, magazine articles, and blog posts about avoiding the dangers of sexual promiscuity. Unfortunately I’ve heard little about avoiding the dangers of emotional promiscuity, a type of promiscuity that is just as dangerous as the sexual. Emotional promiscuity is defined as engaging with someone on a deeper emotional level than the type of relationship we have with that person should allow. Emotional promiscuity is sharing our hurts, promises, goals, dreams, and sensitive personal information with people who have no need to know that information and who have not–and perhaps cannot–make a good faith effort to not use that divulged information to harm us.

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

      @Plain Jane
      Thanks for linking to Jamila’s article about emotional promiscuity. It is very insightful – an excellent post.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Your analogy to marketing is an interesting one, for that is exactly what Game is. And there are some who feel that marketing is unethical – especially advertising. Back in the 60s there was a scandal because of suspected subliminal messages in advertising:
    http://www.slate.com/id/3136/
    People are very wary of being manipulated.

     
    And I will say that even on advertising nothing works the same way for everyone, even if you know your target audience there is a percentage that won’t respond to the adds or being downright disgusted by them. Social sciences, claiming that it works the same is really risky. How do we know that Roissy is not subconsciously selecting the women more prone to respond to game? He could be as trapped on gaming than the women he claims he owns, there is such a thing as a type.
     
    Also I read the married sex life blog and I understand a bit more the game dynamic and I do agree it has a ton of logic and merits, but I think he is wrong about some things: you can be too Alpha and too Beta. I think it will be better to talk about Game as an spectrum of behaviors that keep a specific woman (or an specific type) interested, the most extreme Alpha lovers will tolerate things like cheating on their face while the most extreme Beta lovers would tolerate things like the man having less power or ambition, while in the middle there were everything else. Much like the spectrum designed for sexuality and Authism,YMMV.

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

      @Stephenie

      I think it will be better to talk about Game as an spectrum of behaviors that keep a specific woman (or an specific type) interested, the most extreme Alpha lovers will tolerate things like cheating on their face while the most extreme Beta lovers would tolerate things like the man having less power or ambition, while in the middle there were everything else. Much like the spectrum designed for sexuality and Authism,YMMV.

      I agree 100%. I think this idea is understandably threatening to men who work hard to improve their lives via Game. Game is a very powerful tool, I’ve said it often, but that doesn’t mean it’s equally effective on every woman. The notion is preposterous and completely at odds with what we know about human nature. Key personality traits include degree of risk-aversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. All of these factors can and will affect any woman’s interactions with others, including men spitting Game.
      .
      This is not to say that women do not share certain triggers of attraction. They do. But some women define a “bad boy” as the disruptive class clown in high school – others want the serial killer. YMMV indeed.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    After Susan’s long reflection on Roissy I went back to read Lady Raine’s “outing” post (did she use the Crying Game poster as her banner picture?) Although I find LR irritating and borderline trollish, I don’t think LR did anything ethically wrong by discussing his identity, for one particular reason: Roissy had already outed himself.
    .
    And that’s what’s got me goddamn confused.
    .
    As a review, LR posted email from a reader quoting a Toronto Globe and Mail article in which “J Weidmann” cited the Roissy blog as his own. LR followed up with photos of JW procured from God knows where, possible addresses that had been sent to her and contact info for his employer.
    .
    Roissy is obviously highly intelligent, very observant and very disciplined to write the volume and quality of material he did for ~3 years. If he really wanted to keep his anonymity, why would he blow it in a major newspaper interview – and then LINK to said interview from his blog? LR claims he convinced the G+M to strip the identifying info but his name is still in the online article so I don’t know what she’s talking about.
    .
    So it’s really hard for me to believe, as big as his ego must have gotten writing that blog, that he would leave such a breadcrumb trail. This is a guy who writes advice on not being busted juggling multiple girlfriends. So I want to believe he was setting his own trap. Perhaps part of him got tired of writing and/or keeping up the persona. Firebombing yourself is not unheard of among creative types.
    .
    I don’t really want to get into his methods themselves right now, but the irony of the shrieking femosphere is that applied judiciously, Roissy’s methods work. The old “that PUA stuff would NEVER work on ME!!!” has been debunked countless times. Another irony: it was very strange in a funny way that for a bunch of blogging women who scream and yell that they want to be taken seriously and that Roissy suborns misogyny, their first reaction to Roissy’s outing was to mock his age and appearance as an underdressed middle-aged pasty white guy (oh, and the obligatory jab that he must have a small penis). This is mature discourse? Not to mention the fact that it is not at all shocking that JW/CR/Roissy isn’t particularly attractive – if he had great looks going for him, why would he become a black belt in game?
    .
    Susan’s vague interest in Roissy’s emo stare is interesting. FWIW, I could see a great modern romantic comedy (we’d have to twist the plot so that Susan was a widow or something) – middle aged mother who writes relationship advice for her kids’ friends falls – over the Internet – for a master PUA who inside the alpha demeanor just wants to be loved and appreciated. I can see the climax, when two of their students go on a chaperoned date to execute their mentor’s advice, and they meet in person for the first time after years of online cross-correspondence. She finds his alpha actually turns her on, he finds her hooking up smart advice actually warms his heart. Kind of like You’ve Got Mail meets Hitch? I’m getting misty just thinking about it. Meryl Streep and Vince Vaughn can audition for the leads. Natalie Portman will play Susan’s daughter. Andrew Garfield can be CR’s beta-boy protege.
     

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

      @Badger
      The plot thickens, but you’ve left out some crucial details. I will share what I have heard about the Roissy saga – am I really the only one around here who’s been around 2 years?
      .
      Long since deleted, Roissy wrote this post:
      http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/i-am-in-the-globe-and-mail/
      I don’t have it, but I know some men have all of his posts from the Google cache.
      “Mr. Wiedmann, who did not want his full name used, launched his “reality-based seduction” blog, “Roissy in DC: Where Pretty Lies Perish,” last year. Reviled and beloved, the blog is full of devilish relationship strategies.

      “I’ve written about the importance of instilling dread in your girlfriend by turning off your phone twice a week, or calling her from a busy place where women are laughing in the background … despite her protestations to the contrary, a little bit of uncertainty goes a long way to keeping her aroused for you,” Mr. Wiedmann said in an interview.”
      .
      Ha! So much for the claim the Dread post was meant as satire!
      .
      As I recall, Mr. Weidmann successfully appealed to WordPress to force Lady Raine to remove some data, including the addresses of his parents and siblings. She writes about it.
      .
      Others have confirmed that Mr. Weidmann no longer works for FINRA. His frenzied deleting of posts occurred at precisely the time of the outing.
      .
      Lady Raine has a pic of him walking across the street in DC, and it’s clearly the same guy in this pic with his sister and brother:

      Notice the black guy on the right – another DC blogger and supposed good friend of Roissy’s. He’s also here:

      roissy2

      So yeah, James W. is definitely him. (If it isn’t the real James Weidmann has quite a defamation suit to wage.) I can’t explain why he would have let the Globe and Mail use his real name. Vanity, perhaps. LR does say that he begged them to remove his name, but she doesn’t say that he succeeded.
      .

      So it’s really hard for me to believe, as big as his ego must have gotten writing that blog, that he would leave such a breadcrumb trail. This is a guy who writes advice on not being busted juggling multiple girlfriends. So I want to believe he was setting his own trap.

      An alternative explanation is that his field reports are made up, or at least greatly embellished. He is a brilliant writer, but that doesn’t mean he is a brilliant manager of his own brand.

      Not to mention the fact that it is not at all shocking that JW/CR/Roissy isn’t particularly attractive – if he had great looks going for him, why would he become a black belt in game?

      I maintain that Roissy is hot. He looks like a wolf cub caught in a trap. The first pic I posted is terrible of him, but in the other 3 pics I’ve seen I think he’s cute. For an old guy.
      .
      Love, love, love the screenplay idea.

      Meryl Streep and Vince Vaughn can audition for the leads. Natalie Portman will play Susan’s daughter. Andrew Garfield can be CR’s beta-boy protege.

      I would like a crack at playing that role myself. Totally love Natalie as my daughter, though.

  • Plain Jane

    The history of game: it was created to be used on women in bars and strip clubs in and around Hollywood California – to get these women into bed for one night stands as soon as possible.
    It has nothing to do with longterm relationships amongst non-promiscuous people.

  • filrabat

    @Stephanie
    If you find yourself kissing a lot of toads you are most likely living on a swamp. MOVE THE HELL OUT!
    filrabat: Great advice overall, but…as they say, the Devil is in the details.
    The problem is, not all swamps are equal.  You have “swamps” that are little more than soupy smelly mud that are not at all aesthetically appealing even in summer’s luxuriant growth.
    Then, you’ve got swamps that support luxuriant tree growth and fun little critters, great for light nature watching.  That’s not an unattractive swamp (this is akin to the ordinary everyday small swamp you see within 2 hours of your home).
    Yet again, you’ve got coastal saltwater marsh, supporting saltwater grasses that look peaceful and soothing for the soul on a nice late spring or early autumn day.  These marshes support lots of bird life and – where patches of dry land are availiable, small mammals.  (Think the Gulf Coast saltwater marshes before the BP oil spill).
    Then, yet again, you’ve got the brackish marshes full of even greater wonder and variety – enough to actually attract people to them (The Everglades)
    If you want to see ultimate green and luxuraint growth, well, swamps can offer you that too (the Okeefenokee Swamp in N. FL / S. GA; or , most famously of all, the swamps of S. Louisiana just outside New Orleans and Baton Rouge)
    My point: Swamps may be “just bad places to find LTRs, or even HookUps. BUT, it’s easy to be infatuated with the swamp’s appeal.  So while it’s great to view the swamp from a distance, don’t go hunting in it. Otherwise, the ‘gators’ll eat you.

  • filrabat

    PS:  More to the point, while swamps can be beautiful places full of wonderous things, DO NOT be fooled by its beauty and overall aesthetic appeal (even if the bald cypress is positively buried under mats of hanging spanish moss). Swamps are still very unstable and dangerous environments most of us aren’t adapted for living in. Better to just stay on “boring but safe and ‘providable'” solid ground.

  • karen

    I have to agree with most of the women here that men DO WANT DRAMA.  Over the last few months, on other online forums, I’ve seen discussions from divorced men decrying marriage.  The one thing all these men had in common was that their ex-wives were drama queens.  At least that was the claim.  These men didn’t divorce stable drama-free women.  Why did they marry these drama queens?  I feel that what men are saying on this topic and what actually happens are two totally different things.

    It is like when men complain about how women say they want Beta men but end up chasing after Alpha males.  I’ve never seen so many negative comments about marriage as I have within the last few months.  But it is also what I’ve always suspected.  From my own observations in high school, college, and post-college, it is the drama queens who spend very little time as single women.  They go from one guy to another guy to another guy until they end up married.  Many women are drama queens because they know that this bad behavior on their part won’t be punished. 

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

      @Karen

      From my own observations in high school, college, and post-college, it is the drama queens who spend very little time as single women. They go from one guy to another guy to another guy until they end up married. Many women are drama queens because they know that this bad behavior on their part won’t be punished.

      Absolutely right. This ties in with my recent post about the Least Deserving Girls Always Having Boyfriends. The guys claim that yeah, they’ll hang with these women for sex, but would not marry them. I see little evidence that that’s true. I don’t think men seek drama in the way that women do, but they certainly tolerate it. Perhaps because they think it’s just female nature, idk.

  • (R)Evolutionary

    Badger,
    I LOVE your film proposal. I think you need to give it “the treatment,” and submit it to some major motion picture studios, get yourself an agent, and get that film made.
    It will be genius.
    Better, even, than Blue Valentine,
    which I saw recently and found to be very powerful.

  • terre

    Badger, I’m of the opinion that he fed them a fake name. It’s very unlikely that a man as intent on keeping himself anonymous as Roissy would just give it up for no reason.

  • Florence

    @Steph R.
    Great advices, thank you. I agree that expanding one’s circle is not only beneficial from a relationship point of view, but also from a networking point of view. I think that the longest I’ve ever spent living in the same location was 10 years.
    I grew up in N.America, but my family has an European background and I often get to travel back and forth. I’ve seen a variety of cultures and met a variety of men and women. My experience tells me that certain male behaviors tend to be universal, while others (usually the ones that have to do with daily social functions)can be greatly influenced by the external environment (culture or religion). Whether a man pays on the first date or not is largely influenced by culture and is not a good predictor of whether the man would make a good boyfriend or not. It is in the woman’s best interest to look for signs of character beyond the superficial ones (the ones influenced by culture). I am interested in understanding why certain male behaviors that tend to be universal, seem so contradicting such as the idea that a man could theoretically “fall in love”, but at the same time prefers sexual variety, which makes me wonder if the idea of a “man falling in love” is actually unreal but socially constructed. Terry had mentioned something about the need of a woman to “surrender” as a “proof of love” and that as being a necessarily ingredient to male love, but I had never heard this from the modern man nowadays and to my experience, the modern man perceives sex as a biological need to be fulfilled (such as receiving food and water) and nothing more. I am however, now curious on this topic and wonder whether the idea of a woman “surrendering” is socially constructed, just like the idea of a woman being “damaged goods if she has been with several men (which as science proves is totally untrue)” or whether it is triggered by something else such as an universal male characteristic or behavior. In addition, I am struggling with how much importance and consideration to give to such ideas, without seen as disrespectful or trying to “emasculate” a man, while at the same time using modern science as the base for my decisions. I have been raised as a Christian and I respect religion and I have faith, but at the same time do not necessarily agree with what the church teaches. I do take it into consideration and it serves as the basis for my moral standards, but it does not guide most of my decisions.
    ……….
    @ filrabat
    I like your poetic analogies. I am sure that a lot of women engage in the swamp hunting, strategically choosing the swamps that support “the ultimate green and luxuraint growth”. Personally, I’ve never had, but I could be interested in the swamps around some of the more famous universities in the US. I could never see myself hunting in the very southern swamps, as I find the animal life forms there quite primitive in their way of thinking (conservative, racist, etc) but as you mentioned, the gators are everywhere.

  • Mike C

    I am interested in understanding why certain male behaviors that tend to be universal, seem so contradicting such as the idea that a man could theoretically “fall in love”, but at the same time prefers sexual variety, which makes me wonder if the idea of a “man falling in love” is actually unreal but socially constructed. Terry had mentioned something about the need of a woman to “surrender” as a “proof of love” and although I had never heard this from the modern man nowadays, who perceives sex as a biological need and nothing more, and I am now curious on this topic.


    @ Florence

    I can most certainly assure you that a man can fall in love and it is NOT some social construction.  There is no contradiction where you see one.  Again, men can compartmentalize sex and love.  There is no contradiction is loving one woman very deeply yet simultaneously desiring to fuck every single attractive woman you see.
    .
    The comments in this thread are the quintessential examples of female projection.  Many of the comments from the armchair psychoanalysts that “men” desire this, desire that, etc. are what women want, particularly the parts about being called out for bad behavior.

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

      @Mike C

      There is no contradiction is loving one woman very deeply yet simultaneously desiring to fuck every single attractive woman you see.

      I believe you, but honestly, I could not wrap my mind around this if I had 1,000 years. I don’t even want to know!

  • terre

    Florence, my point when it comes to sex and male love is not that men actively seek out ‘love’ (again, depends on the man in question) but that sex is a necessary precondition for male love; conversely, love is usually a necessary precondition for the female to surrender her sex. Men who love women who’ve never slept with them are wallowing in the realms of unrequited fantasy.

  • a-non

    I agree with Mike, and in fact would go further: i think many men may fall in love deeper than women. One of the reasons women live longer than men is that old men often simply give up on life and die once their wife has passed on. Women’s love for their partner often takes second place once she has had a child. A woman has much more impetus to want a secure, long lasting relationship, to provide shelter and security for her children. Men don’t need to stick around but generally do, for love rather than survival. The biological drive for sexual variety most men have is just that: biological. It genuinely has no bearing on whether a man is in love with you that he desires sex with other girls. He has no intention of leaving you for them. The more you can accept these understandably strange foreign customs the happier you will be when journeying into the land of men.
    It’s also not an “ego boost” for men to want to do this, as some posters here have repeatedly suggested. That is simply the projection of female imagination onto male behaviour that they can’t understand, because sex and love have evolved to be more closely linked with them.
    The good news is, i’m glad to say, this site is a place that men and women can truly talk openly about such things for maybe the first time ever, learn from each other and grow.

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

      this site is a place that men and women can truly talk openly about such things for maybe the first time ever, learn from each other and grow.

      Thank you, a-non. Comments like this are enormously validating for my effort, and I greatly appreciate it.

  • Dilithium

    Stephenie: “I think that is the part that is missing here BOTH genders are in trouble, unsatisfied and angry over the changes. We are all in this together. So the solution is reeducate men to be more confident (which is pretty much the whole point of Game) and women be more realistic and both gender try to exhibit long term traits early on, before they both got bitter: women from lack of committed partners and men from being rejected regularly. Both genders need to compromise in a middle ground to make things work again”
    .
    Superficially this sounds appealing, but the even-handedness is really forced and IMO unconvincing.  In my life as a young man I basically did my part of the plan recommended here, but got very little in return, so I don’t see the situation as being at all symmetric.
    .
    I was always relationship-minded and naturally monogamous, the opposite of a player, and so did “exhibit long-term traits early on”.  And so, no woman who ever met me or my friends had reason to complain about a “lack of committed partners” for having done so, while we certainly did suffer being “rejected regularly”.
    .
    As for “reeducat[ing] men to be more confident” all I can say is that I was a rational and reality-oriented person, and my level of confidence was only what could honestly be justified by what actually happened in the world.  As a practical matter I think it’s quite ridiculous for women as a group to be telling men to be more confident while simultaneously dealing out constant rejection; it just doesn’t make sense.  So the best “reeducation for confidence” would have been to have had more actual success and received less rejection.
    .
    Note that I’m not claiming to be at all unique here.  All of my friends, and nearly every man my age I’ve ever known, had basically the same experience: interested in commitment, approaching the world honesty and kindness, and receiving only continual rejection.  So while I think Stephenie’s plan sounds reasonable, it must to be said that the need for more effort is <i>not</i> at all symmetric between the sexes.  Speaking for myself and a very large number of men, I would say that we showed up and did our part; it was our female peers who weren’t interested, and so it is they who needed to change if the SMP was to be improved.
    .
    Even-handedness is not an unalloyed virtue.  Sometimes, one side actually is more guilty and more responsible for problems than the other.

  • terre

    Dilithium, I really don’t think a “dialogue” would have any purpose at all (and, as many women have been quick to remind us, this blog is intended for college women to turn their crushes into boyfriends; intersex dialogue is not one of its overriding themes). I’m basically of the belief that utopian conceptions of a sexual Eden, replete with mutual understanding and egalitarian compromise, are and will always be precisely that: utopian pipe dreams. It’ll never happen. Too many human beings are born too ugly, many still defeated through years of struggle and the whole of the sexual interplay itself is borne from dyadic conflicts between partners of wildly varying quality and capacity. It cannot be controlled. Even men and women who were ‘educated’ as to their respective realities would die and pass the world on to children who’d revert back to inchoate animal mating forms.
    .
    The best one can expect is some kind of system of rough monogamy. Only a few of man’s deepest desires are satisfied this way, but at least the majority of men and women won’t sleep alone. Life is not kind.

  • Spank

    You’re missing the point. Most men who employee these tactics, most of Roissy’s tactics in fact, don’t do so because of a sick sadistic desire to hurt women. They do so because they really do help. Like it or not women really do respond positively to this type of behavior. Following this type of advice has turned my once pathetic lovelife around, and judging by Roissy’s popularity I’m assuming the same is true for many men. Men are results-oriented. We don’t like to hurt women, but we do like getting laid.

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

      @Spank

      Men are results-oriented. We don’t like to hurt women, but we do like getting laid.

      There is an error in your logic. You can hurt women and get laid, or you can alpha up without hurting women and get laid. Hurting women is not an essential ingredient.

  • GudEnuf

    Also, you know how everyone was saying that MEN AND WOMEN ARE BORN DIFFERENT and our culture will never be able to change gender roles? Well turns out men and women’s preferences have been changing, and it’s not due to biology!

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

      @GudEnuf
      Wow, great link. Helen Fisher and Stephanie Coontz are top names in the field, so I immediately have faith in the design of the study.I’ll be exploring this further and writing about it shortly. At first glance, though, I don’t see any contradiction with the biology piece. No one said that culture can’t change gender roles – indeed, feminism flipped the script to turn women into creatures who display in order to get men to select. The question is how changing roles and attitudes affect the SMP, given that we’re all hard-wired to some degree. Which leads to a thought I had in reading that men have gotten more desirous of relationships – and are now more likely to feel lonely. Could it be that it’s the 80% who are SOL in the post-Sex Rev SMP?

  • Aldonza

    I don’t think men seek drama in the way that women do, but they certainly tolerate it. Perhaps because they think it’s just female nature, idk.
    I’ve known more than a few men who consciously or unconsciously create drama so they can be the “cool head” while the other party goes nuts.  Is this the same thing?
    .
    Further, to tie this back to femininity, “more emotional” is usually described as a feminine trait, and we all know men want more feminine women…ergo…

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

      I’ve known more than a few men who consciously or unconsciously create drama so they can be the “cool head” while the other party goes nuts. Is this the same thing?

      If you mean the same as women creating drama just to get reassurance, then yes, I suppose it would be the same thing. Keeping your cool while driving the other person into an emotional state of fear would confirm their investment and give you the upper hand.

  • Geoff

    @Karen,
    “I have to agree with most of the women here that men DO WANT DRAMA.”
    .
    Chicken or the egg, egg or the chicken. You can argue all day about who is truly to blame for men being “dramatic” or “using game” (take your pick). Fact is though, it’s the WOMEN RESPONDING to drama that is key. If MEN responded to FEMALE drama, then most women, in order to interest a guy, would throw a huge fucking hissy fit during the first date. That works out well, doesn’t it?
    .
    Yet when men use game, sex magically happens. Doesn’t mean men ENJOY using game–however, we DO quite enjoy the sex that occurs after game-use.

  • Aldonza

    Also, you know how everyone was saying that MEN AND WOMEN ARE BORN DIFFERENT and our culture will never be able to change gender roles? Well turns out men and women’s preferences have been changing, and it’s not due to biology!
    If you know your biology, you know that we are all conceived the same…until hormones start making the changes that form sexual differences.  For a long time, medicine assumed that those changes were all physical.  Newer research is proving that those changes go deeper, even into how our brains are structured.
    .
    Now, I’d have really bristled at that as a younger woman.  But going through the hormonal onslaught of pregnancy/birth/nursing, I can say that I’m a *different person* than I was before.  Those hormones literally changed my thinking.  I was a much more rational person before.  I have a job in technology and long strings of logic made sense to me.  I was able to focus for long periods at a time.  Now?  I’m much more emotional.  I cry at commercials.  I’m still good at my job, but it’s much more of an effort to get into a “rational mind” and force my brain to focus on one task, instead of automatically monitoring eight different things in a household with children.
    .
    Is this nature or nurture?  I’d argue it’s both.  Those hormones certainly changed things…but so did staying home with small children.  My brain re-wired to adapt, but it was primed to do so.
    .
    Bringing this back to gender differences, yes, overall, men and women have different hormonal profiles and respond differently to stimuli.  There is substantial overlap in that, though, as we can see a man flooded with oxytocin exhibiting very nurturing behaviors towards his infant child, and we can see a women triggered into violence, perhaps when that child is threatened.
    .
    The really cool part about humans is we *adapt* to our surroundings.  It’s why we’re the only species able to survive in almost all environments on earth.  To assume that all women are one way and all men are another is pretty limited thinking based on the vast variety of human behavior.

  • GudEnuf

    It’s completely off, but do you remember that OK Trends post that said you should never pay for a dating site?
    Well now that Match.com bought out OK Cupid, they deleted that post. I really hope they don’t OK Cupid into a pay site :(

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

      @GudEnuf
      I’m bummed that Match bought OKCupid. It sounds like they’ll keep it free for now. If they don’t, I think they’ll completely choke off the growth in the 20-24 demographic. My biggest worry is what will happen to OKTrends – I don’t see how it could stay objective.

  • terre

    Violence is usually considered a masculine quality: would you advocate men becoming correspondingly more violent to please women?

  • Aldonza

    @Stephanie
    How do we know that Roissy is not subconsciously selecting the women more prone to respond to game? He could be as trapped on gaming than the women he claims he owns, there is such a thing as a type.
    .
    Part of game *is* profiling the women most likely to respond to game.  Venue plays a big part, of course, but how a woman is dressed, and IOIs (Indicators of Interest), etc.  Fact is, women who are open to casual sex tend to display this by dressing and acting a certain way, and putting themselves in target-rich environments.
    .
    Further, some of those IOIs happen almost spontaneously when women are ovulating.  Strippers (not on birth control pills) make 40% more in tips when they’re ovulating as when they’re not.  Coincidentally, women who are ovulating are more attracted to masculine features (vs. the rest of their cycle when they are naturally more drawn to lower-testosterone faces.)  <snark>Of course judging by Roissy’s pix, it probably worked in his favor to approach non-ovulating women.</snark>

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

      Of course judging by Roissy’s pix, it probably worked in his favor to approach non-ovulating women.

      Haha, yeah, he’s a real babyface.

  • Aldonza

    @terre
    Violence is usually considered a masculine quality: would you advocate men becoming correspondingly more violent to please women?
    .
    Violent men are inherently attractive.  A football player in high school gets more female interest than a kid on the golf or tennis team.  “Badge Bunnies” exist for a reason.  As a woman, actual violence makes me very uncomfortable, but I admit that knowing that a man is capable of violence should it be necessary is a big turn-on.

  • Aldonza

    @Geoff
    If MEN responded to FEMALE drama, then most women, in order to interest a guy, would throw a huge fucking hissy fit during the first date.
    .
    Women don’t throw hissy fits on the first date for the same reason most men don’t exhibit signs of being interested only/primarily in sex.  Putting our best foot forward and all that.

  • Höllenhund
  • terre

    Violent men are inherently attractive.  A football player in high school gets more female interest than a kid on the golf or tennis team.  “Badge Bunnies” exist for a reason.  As a woman, actual violence makes me very uncomfortable, but I admit that knowing that a man is capable of violence should it be necessary is a big turn-on.
    .
    I’m surprised at your response. Feminist-minded women are usually not so candid.

  • Rhen

    Susan–I must not have expressed myself very well, I apologize. Certainly I’m not opposed to any woman, regardless of her education/career, becoming a SAHM, and there are probably many who would do so and be happier absent social pressure…I do think it’s unfair to take a scarce slot in a graduate program if one has no intent of practicing in the field and one’s only purpose is to meet someone with a lucrative future…I’ve heard of such things happening but feel sure that they are pretty rare.

    My point was that usually, the man in the relationship IS going to be the one with primary financial responsibility in the long term, and the dynamics of child care and of the time demands of high-powered careers point strongly in this direction. 20 years ago, young guys may have been able to think otherwise, but I doubt if many do today, and this is one thing that makes them “reluctant to commit”..especially given that their responsibility will be a tangible and enforceable one and the things they expect to get in return (love, companionship, emotional support, sex) are much less tangible and not at all enforceable.

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

      @Rhen
      I agree with your point. I think that both men and women are naive about the demands of family before they have one. It’s hard to explain the toll of months of interrupted sleep, the logistics required in sheperding school age children. The truth is, couples where both have high powered careers farm out much of the parenting responsibility to a nanny or other caregiver. It’s simply not possible to raise children and work many hours per week. Women who work 40 find it extremely challenging. So I think for a lot of couples, something’s gotta give, and if they can afford to make due on one income, they’ll go for it. As I’ve said before, I’ve only known two dads who stayed home – one was a novelist with a trust fund, and the other was a real estate developer, who worked on deals from his home. The fact is that most men would rather focus on career, and most women would rather step off the fast track. This feeling is not universal of course, it’s just the way things tend to play out.
      .
      FWIW, I am extremely appreciative of my husband’s having earned the lion’s share of our income, and do everything in my power to make his life easy and uncomplicated, and to make sure that home is an enjoyable refuge. Shit happens, but barring a crisis, he knows that I’ve got it covered. He chose to be a very involved parent, but has happily left most of the household errands and chores to me. :)

  • Geoff

    @Aldonza,
    Some chick said men WANT drama, and I’m saying if that’s true, give it to them.  First date.  If men want drama then showing your ass on first date as a woman WOULD be putting your best foot forward.  It’s fucking ridiculous.
    .
    Your analogy would be more appropriately laid out as “Women don’t show drama on the first date (even though men REALLY LIKE DRAMA?) for the same reason men don’t use game on the first date (even though it works like a charm on women).  Which would be a silly analogy.

  • Dilithium

    terre: “I’m basically of the belief that utopian conceptions of a sexual Eden…, are and will always be … pipe dreams.”
    .
    Don’t be giving me too much credit; the utopian ideal was expressed by Stephenie, and unlike many commentators I’m not so much of a big-picture type.  I just wanted to make the smaller point that the program Stephenie recommends has already been tried, at least from the male side, and has been seen to fail completely.  Plus, I always want to take the opportunity to inveigh against the cult of reflexive even-handedness, since I think it’s often the enemy of rational thought as well as often a tip-off as to who is really at fault (does anyone place the quote: “Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion.  Let’s not bicker and argue over who killed who.”).

  • Dilithium

    Aldonza: “Violent men are inherently attractive.  A football player in high school gets more female interest than a kid on the golf or tennis team.  “Badge Bunnies” exist for a reason.”.
    .
    terre: “I’m surprised at your response. Feminist-minded women are usually not so candid.”
    .
    Second that.  Aldonza, try posting that idea at Pandagon, then come back and tell us how it went.

  • Mike C

    Second that.  Aldonza, try posting that idea at Pandagon, then come back and tell us how it went.
    .
    Yeah…that should be interesting.  I’ll say this, I’ve got a lot of respect for a woman who is introspective enough to realize the truth of some of these things and candid enough to bluntly admit it.  One of the biggest problems with any discussions on male-female dynamics and sexuality/dating/mating is that 95-99% of women are in a state of self-delusion and self-denial.  Most guys are oblivious but that is more a result of believing the lies society tells them rather then willful ignorance.
    .
    Aldonza, do you have a source for the 40% more tips during ovulation.  I’m not questioning the veracity of it, but just curious how this was actually determined.

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

      Aldonza, do you have a source for the 40% more tips during ovulation. I’m not questioning the veracity of it, but just curious how this was actually determined.

      Ha, I’m the source, and it’s actually 50%.

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/10/22/hookinguprealities/is-the-pill-making-you-choose-the-wrong-men/

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

      Second that. Aldonza, try posting that idea at Pandagon, then come back and tell us how it went.

      You know what’s odd? Sex-positive feminists are all about BDSM, fetishes and kink. For example, at Yale Sex Week, they feature demonstrations where a woman with nipple clamps gets roughed up by a man. From a post I wrote on this (http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/02/26/hookinguprealities/talking-about-sex-instead-of-having-it/) a while back. The writer is Nathan Harden, a reporter:

      BDSM 101 introduced students to the basics of bondage, discipline, and sadism and masochism.

Madison Young played one of her videos for demonstration purposes.
      In the video, she was naked and bound by all four limbs. Soon, a man on screen began thrashing her with a whip. Welts were visible on her torso. I looked away, but I continued to hear the sound of the whip striking her, as well as the sound of a male voice taunting her.

When the video ended, Young asked a volunteer to come up and pin clips on her thighs. Two other students ripped the clips away with attached strings, following her directions. Young then removed the top of her dress, exposing her bare chest, and began to show students how to position nipple pinching devices. At that point, I left the room.

      Isn’t this a clear admission that women get turned on by violent men? And how does that square with their political agenda?

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    OK. Just wanted to make sure everything was working.

    Ms. Walsh,
    Just wanted to say that I’m greatly enjoying the discussion (Plain Jane notwithstanding) and think this is one of your best posts yet. In particular, I greatly enjoyed your character sketch of Roissy – so much so that I included in my post today on my blog:

    WHY Won’t Women Read Books On Game?
    http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/61430

    For those so inclined, come on over and check it out – and as always, keep up the good work!

    O.

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

      Thank you Obsidian, I will definitely be by to check it out. Confession: I’m worried that I’m going to hurt Roissy’s feelings. Is that not completely ridiculous?

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hang on GudEnuf,
    Now, I’ve checked out the USA Today article/study you’ve referenced, and I must say on its face, it looks intriguiging – until we get to this part:
    .
    “But some behaviors of these singles don’t reflect changing beliefs, especially among women, the study shows. Although 87% of women surveyed said they would pick up the tab on a date under some circumstances, 89% have not asked someone out, and almost half (48%) typically wait for the other person to call after a first date.”
    .
    In other words, when the rubber hits the road, Women really aren’t all that different from previous eras in American history, at least since say, the 60s. What this study tells me is that a lot of Women talk a mean game about equality, but aren’t willing to actually foot the bill for it.
    .
    I might write about this more in depth over at my place next week. Stay tuned – and until then, Don’t Believe The Hype.
    .
    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Yea Aldonza, I’m with Mike C. on this one – what you said about strippers and their ovulation periods correlating with them gettinr more tips and so forth is very interesting to me as well, and would very much like to know where you got such information so I can go back and check it out for myself. Please share? Thanks!

    O.

  • http://thunear.wordpress.com Thunear

    @Susan: “Absolutely right. This ties in with my recent post about the Least Deserving Girls Always Having Boyfriends. The guys claim that yeah, they’ll hang with these women for sex, but would not marry them. I see little evidence that that’s true. I don’t think men seek drama in the way that women do, but they certainly tolerate it. Perhaps because they think it’s just female nature, idk.”
    IDK either, but I suspect that what these women are doing is nothing more than the age old manipulation of men, by offering, or refusing to offer sex, by turning the tears on and off, by playing hard to get and the being really flirty, in short, by using their feminine wiles.
     
    Many men fall for this sort of stuff.  I used to. Perhaps it’s the female version of ‘Game’,  more than the ‘Rules’ ever were.
    I know that admitting to using the feminine wiles has become unfashionable in the last few decades, but they are a group of techniques that have been used by women since time immemorial and if they work, why not?
     
    I know they work on some men, but the more experience a man has with women, the less likely they are to be effective and even counter productive.

  • Mike C

    I believe you, but honestly, I could not wrap my mind around this if I had 1,000 years. I don’t even want to know!

    FWIW, I think you’d be extremely hard-pressed to find a single guy who wouldn’t echo exactly what I’ve said.  It is simply the way we are wired.  Honestly, I think you probably have no conception whatsover how powerful the urge for variety is.  If I could get rid of it, I would.  As I mentioned in a previous comment, I try to live my life in a very deliberate manner to even avoid any temptations whatsoever.  Funny little thing…last night there was a preview for that movie Hall Pass while my GF and I were watching TV and right away she was like “don’t even think about ever getting any hall pass”.  Just today, I’ve already mind-fucked two attractive girls I saw.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Whoa, Match.com bought OKCupid??? If that’s true then I agree with Ms. Walsh, I do not see how OKC can be an honest broker in terms of their studies – they did a recent study about the viability of online dating and among the for-pay sites they studied, was Match.com. I just don’t see how they could continue to keep such things going in an honest fashion per their studies – which to me, is the really big selling point of OKC. If nothing else, all their studies, assuming they continue to do them, will have to be seen with a big asterisk besides it. It simply won’t be considered purely impartial anymore.

    Bummer.

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Completely, 100% cosign what Mike C. said at Feb 3, 2011 1.13pm…

    O.

  • terre

    Social scientists who claim that humans can “change gender roles” miss the point entirely. No one with a vestige of sanity that’d outsize a lima bean would say that men can’t be housewives or court eunuchs or that women can’t join the Army or whatever. On an individual level, human beings have the free will to do whatever they feel like; lifestyles or perversions of the human form are only limited by a person’s imagination. This applies to human cultures; Jonestowners, apartheid practitioners, squatters, yak farmers, NASCAR fans… the breadth of human culture far exceeds the petty shufflings of members of the animal kingdom. But these cultures are tested for their potency, their ability to last. Darwin was, if anything, an optimist; all forces compete to survive, even cultures.
    .
    Weak matriarchy or polygyny is in all likelihood far older than patriarchy, and probably man’s most primitive social arrangement. (This makes sense; if primitive man didn’t understand the cause of rain or fire, he likely couldn’t fathom the sexual process leading to childbirth that we take for granted). Only the realization, after some millions of years of Flintstones-esque trial and error, that specific children were produced by specific men would lead to paternity and hence a patriarch of that child’s new family. Matriarchy withered away, since cultures that practiced patriarchy had a tremendous surplus of male labor both a) no longer used in competing for women and b) belonging to men willing to die for their children. Thus while two radically different societies with radically different gender modes shared the same primordial plateau of human habitation, only one stood the test of time. If records of ancient matriarchies even still exist, we’ve yet to find them.
    .
    The expressions noted in that article are not surprising. They’re precisely what one would expect given our current cultural shift towards informal polygyny: women ask if it’s alright to have a one-night stand because that’s precisely what they’re doing, while surplus men look for commitment in direct proportion to the decreasing amount of female attention they receive. Again, this is ultimately an expression of biology which’ll come to take its turn at the evolutionary three-card monte table.
    .
    That human beings are capable of changing their own cultures is a tautology. That these changes are always de facto an advantage is not, and we’ll eventually see the fruits of our latest planetary paradigm shift.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Susan
    “Absolutely right. This ties in with my recent post about the Least Deserving Girls Always Having Boyfriends. The guys claim that yeah, they’ll hang with these women for sex, but would not marry them.”
    .
    Again, this needs to be though from two perspectives: the guy that has options and the guy that doesn’t.  For the guy that has options, the claim stands.  But for the guy without options, the whole scarcity mentality comes into play.  My youngest brother, while a college freshman and at the time a regular beta (though not as much as his STEM older brother), managed to do what the guy in Blue Valentine did, get with the hot girl with a show of charm.  And as you can imagine, after the initial honeymoon period, drama ensued. And why did he put up with it? I’ve known him all my life and he’s a laid back guy, with little desire for drama. So why ? Because of the scarcity mentality…in his mind there was no certainty he’d be able to get a girlfriend at that point, much less the hot girlfriend.  Add some generic pedestalization of women, and you have the recipe for disaster.  So when his hot girlfriend cheated on him with a varsity football player, it at least had the benefit of being such a shock to his system that such a thing never happened again.  But at the time, if she’d been more discreet, she could have easily strung him along for however long she wanted.  It’s a problem some us who were beta when younger had…we managed to, for a short time, get the attention of an attractive but dramatic woman.  And we put up with it because we felt it was either that or back to the video games…
    .
    And before the regular suspects retort with “why were you chasing the drama girls, and ignoring the good girls?”, well, we were actually pursuing the “good girls”, to no avail, as Dilithium pointed out.  And by accident, not by specific planned design, we wound up in situations where we found ourselves with the drama girl (again, see how “accidental” the initial encounter in Blue Valentine is).

    .

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

      And by accident, not by specific planned design, we wound up in situations where we found ourselves with the drama girl (again, see how “accidental” the initial encounter in Blue Valentine is).

      This confirms something I’ve long witnessed – there are many good-looking beta guys. Are they “hot?’ Probably not. It’s the same with women being either hot or cute. Both sexes are looking for displays of sexuality. However, many good-looking beta do pull hot girls – and as you say, it tends not to last. They would do better with cute girls, but no one can blame them for jumping at the chance.
      .
      My “focus group” of young women recently came to this conclusion: “We want beta inside, alpha outside!”
      The truth is that doesn’t work very well – as Mike C has testified. Women want the beta traits in a dominant male. The man must bring the alpha inside, and balance it with his beta nature to achieve success, not to mention peace.

  • Mike C

    I’ll also add the male drive for variety explains some other things women find perplexing.  There is an old joke “show me a super-hot women, and I’ll show you a guy tired of banging her”.
    I’ve noticed women are often flabbergasted when a guy cheats with a woman less attractive than his spouse or LTR.  Almost like it is a mystery of the universe.  Here is the simple fact.  A 7 you have never banged is more arousing then a 9 you’ve been banging for 5 years.  At some looks differential, looks supersedes different but it is a pretty wide gap.  One takeaway for women is they REALLY need to try and mix things up, different outfits, something different, although this is a tricky thing to try and communicate.

  • ExNewYorker

    One clarification, when I said “some us who were beta when younger had” this implied that I’m no longer beta and possibly an alpha, which is not the case.  I sort of see myself as  “reformed beta” who understands that some of the alpha cad thinking is needed to be “reformed” and successful.
    .
    Susan, what’s interesting is that from your “focus group”, even a reformed beta is not what is desired: they want an alpha first and foremost, a tameable one with some beta thrown in.  Which isn’t that surprising…before I met my wife, a lot of the women I dated were like that, and when I saw that aspect in them, it pretty much removed them from my “marriage-worthy” list (but ok for short term stuff).  I needed to find a woman who wanted a “beta with some alpha qualities”, a reformed beta.   There are some women like that, and it took me several years to find one.
     

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

      @ENY

      Susan, what’s interesting is that from your “focus group”, even a reformed beta is not what is desired: they want an alpha first and foremost, a tameable one with some beta thrown in.

      I’m not sure how to tell these two men apart. What is the defining thing that separates them?

      @terre

      One cannot really be a “mix” of alpha and beta…Beta traits are not sexually appealing, and they’re antithetical to a man who doesn’t want to be used

      I disagree. But for my mentor on this topic, see Athol Kay at http://www.marriedmansexlife.com. He does a great job of explaining just how to mix the two. And I think he’s really onto something – he’s developed a loyal following of married men who say his suggestions are extremely effective.

  • Mike C

    <i>This confirms something I’ve long witnessed – there are many good-looking beta guys. Are they “hot?’ Probably not.</i>
    .
    Yup, where “hot” is connected to some of those very specific alpha personality traits.  And I’d bet a good chunk of them are perplexed why they are not more successful with women.  You probably wouldn’t believe the crazy experiment I ran when I was much younger to validate this, but it absolutely validated that men were looks oriented while there was some other X factor that women needed for a guy to be “hot” although at the time I didn’t know what that X factor was.
    .
    <i>It’s the same with women being either hot or cute.</i>

    .
    Not really.  Hot versus cute is still all about looks where hot is your 8-9s and cute your 6-7s and I’d say cute is more about face while hot is BOTH face and body.  Gotta have the bod to be hot.
    .
    <i>However, many good-looking beta do pull hot girls – and as you say, it tends not to last. They would do better with cute girls, but no one can blame them for jumping at the chance.</i>
    .
    I think in a lot cases they sort of fall into it, and can’t believe their “lucky stars”.  In most cases, they are probably woefully underprepared to deal with the dynamics of dating a “hot” girl and especially one who knows she is hot.
    .
    <i>My “focus group” of young women recently came to this conclusion: “We want beta inside, alpha outside!”</i>
    .
    LOL, and the typical guy wants a supermodel who cooks, cleans, and can suck the paint off a wall.  Welcome to fantasy land.  The quantity of guys who are going to have that combination are very rare, probably like a black swan.  My opinion is that greater betas can do a lot to build some “alpha” outside but it is work and requires ongoing conscious effort.  Natural alphas I think will not be able to soften up.  I could be wrong on that but I doubt it.

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

      The quantity of guys who are going to have that combination are very rare, probably like a black swan.

      Haha, that’s close to what I told them: unicorns.

  • terre

    I think a lot of commentators here (Susan isn’t alone in this) don’t understand the Greek hierarchy labels. One cannot really be a “mix” of alpha and beta. It does work on a grading scale, but this is in the sense that a man is defined in the hierarchy by his company; if he’s a lesser alpha, it means he’s probably an alpha in his own social circle and most others on the local level. He’d be outstaged by an alpha plus, who’s achieved some kind of celebrity.
    .
    Beta traits are not sexually appealing, and they’re antithetical to a man who doesn’t want to be used (i.e. Susan is only on the ball when she notes that women want “betas” in alpha’s clothing; this really means they want alphas to commit). It’s extremely unwise for a man to lapse into any kind of beta behavior.

  • Mike C

    <i>Susan, what’s interesting is that from your “focus group”, even a reformed beta is not what is desired: they want an alpha first and foremost, a tameable one with some beta thrown in.</i>
    .
    I’m not sure this is the conclusion one can draw with certainty, but if correct, it is problematic, because again natural alphas are a very small minority, and like I said in a previous comment I don’t think they are “tameable”
    .
    <i>Which isn’t that surprising…before I met my wife, a lot of the women I dated were like that, and when I saw that aspect in them, it pretty much removed them from my “marriage-worthy” list (but ok for short term stuff).  I needed to find a woman who wanted a “beta with some alpha qualities”, a reformed beta. There are some women like that, and it took me several years to find one.</i>
    .

    Looks like you and I had very similar experiences.  It is simply too much work and exhausting to be with a woman where you have to be “on” all the time.  One thing I like about my GF is that I can be comfortable revealing my geeky/intellectual side without having to worry about it damaging my sexual value.  There were a few women where I knew that side had to be completely shut down.

  • Tom

    @ Susan
    Game, when used ethically, benefits both women and men.

    Great point  However there is an abundance of players out there who just love to misrepresent their intentions with zero conscience involved to the millions of vulnerable, naive, attention starved and sometimes hurting women. If some betas can learn to have confidence, not fumble over words, and get some dates with more women of their choice, then that is great
    Too bad morons like Rossie even have a platform to spew their trash. 

    With divorce rates over 50% and cheating rates even higher than that,it is not a given, no matter who one gets into a relationship with, as far as a LTR goes. It is still all about the relationship dynamics between the two people involved.(no matter their past)
    If 46% of sluts cheat in marriage that means 54% do not.. That is why it is mandatory to be selective when picking a mate, whether she was promiscuous or not… Try those Rossie mind games on a worldly woman and see how fast that relationship crumbles…They have seen all the games they can stomach.

    No one has made a comment about this comment
     
    All sluts are promiscous women, however all promiscous women are not sluts.

  • Mike C

    I’m not sure to tell these two men apart. What is the defining thing that separates them?
    .
    Not sure this is the defining thing, but I think it is one.  Natural alphas were ALWAYs successful in getting girls.  There was never a time they were not.  They probably lost their virginity at 12, 13, 14.  I would say natural alphas are probably 100% extroverts.  I would almost say that is axiomatic.  Their social dominance/skills isn’t learned in any way, it is intrinsic/inherent to them probably along with the cocky swagger they have.  To use one commenter’s term…they “own the room” and there was never a time in their life they didn’t own the room.  I would argue these characteristics are almost permanently intertwined with some element of narcissism, selfishness, self-centeredness thus the idea that they can soften or be tamed is probably an oxymoron.

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

      @Mike C

      I would argue these characteristics are almost permanently intertwined with some element of narcissism, selfishness, self-centeredness thus the idea that they can soften or be tamed is probably an oxymoron.

      I’m inclined to agree. In which case a reformed Beta is the ideal mate, as I have often suspected, and claimed. Here’s the big problem with the focus group, and by extension, nearly all young women – they are ignorant of this narcissism being endemic to “alpha.” Certainly, at first, a good-looking beta guy who has gotten some game may be indistinguishable from a “lesser alpha.” It’s a spectrum – but there is enough apparent overlap to be confusing to women.

  • terre

    I disagree. But for my mentor on this topic, see Athol Kay at http://www.marriedmansexlife.com. He does a great job of explaining just how to mix the two. And I think he’s really onto something – he’s developed a loyal following of married men who say his suggestions are extremely effective.
    .
    A man who retains the affections of his wife is not a “beta” or getting those affections because of his “beta” characteristics; he’s getting them because of his alpha ones. Whatever it is he’s doing that he claims is “beta” is either neutral or even a negative in his wife’s eyes, but it’s outweighed by the net plus of running game on her.
    .
    Again, in a world that sanctions liberal divorce and which has no shared moral values, it’s an extremely bad idea to marry with the hope of keeping up the charade for ten or twenty years. Game is no guarantee that you won’t be outgunned by some passing entrepreneur, and that applies in or outside of marriage.

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

      A man who retains the affections of his wife is not a “beta” or getting those affections because of his “beta” characteristics; he’s getting them because of his alpha ones.

      Please. You’re a 21 yo kid. Athol describes clearly how women desire both sexual attraction traits and comfort traits. It’s the comfort traits that generate a lot of the affection. In fact, demonstration of affection is a beta trait. A man who is pure alpha in bed will not engender loyalty and faithfulness in his wife. The best he can do is instill dread.

      Again, in a world that sanctions liberal divorce and which has no shared moral values, it’s an extremely bad idea to marry with the hope of keeping up the charade for ten or twenty years

      I can’t imagine taking any step that required acting a part for 20 years. Having done a lot of acting, I can assure you that a 3 hour play exhausts an actor. No, the principles of dominance must be fully internalized. It’s not White Swan/Black Swan. Marriage is irrelevant to this point.

  • Plain Jane


    I’ll also add the male drive for variety explains some other things women find perplexing.  There is an old joke “show me a super-hot women, and I’ll show you a guy tired of banging her”.
    I’ve noticed women are often flabbergasted when a guy cheats with a woman less attractive than his spouse or LTR.  Almost like it is a mystery of the universe.  Here is the simple fact.  A 7 you have never banged is more arousing then a 9 you’ve been banging for 5 years.  At some looks differential, looks supersedes different but it is a pretty wide gap.  One takeaway for women is they REALLY need to try and mix things up, different outfits, something different, although this is a tricky thing to try and communicate.”
    —-
    Variety is the male version of drama.
    Relationship books geared towards women always say to mix them up to satisfy this desire.
    The problem is that always mixing up does not sit well with many personalities.
    My personality is such that mixing up would seem fake, superficial and silly to me.
    I’m not going to wear ridiculous outfits or roleplay in bed.
    That stuff is just not a turn on for me and in fact, makes me sick.

  • Plain Jane

    However, if mixing up means sometimes acting like a bitch, I can do that.
    LOL

  • Aldonza

    One of the biggest problems with any discussions on male-female dynamics and sexuality/dating/mating is that 95-99% of women are in a state of self-delusion and self-denial.  Most guys are oblivious but that is more a result of believing the lies society tells them rather then willful ignorance.
    .
    See, now you lost me with that assessment of the difference between men and women not being introspective.  Women are deluded and in denial, while men are just listing to society.  Uh huh.  Sure.  Women listen to society too, and plenty of men are deluded and in denial.  I’d argue that the lack of introspection in our society in general is a *human* trait, not one either sex has the inside track on.

  • Aldonza
  • Tom

    I think there are a lot more beta/alpha combo`s than people think…The confident, successful, good looking, well built man who is a really nice guy does exist. All alphas normally are decent looking, sometimes successful, normally confident, but sometimes can be pricks especially to women. Lots of women want the alpha look with a beta attitude. Not the door mat beta,but the nice guy side.

    That old saying that…. “some women want to screw all the bad boys they can stomach, then when they get tired of being treated like shit they look for a nice guy”…is somewhat true. If that someone is an alpha/beta mix…all the better 

    Another way to destroy a relationship is to marry someone who has a drastically different libido than you have. Sex becomes an issue when one partner or the other is not happy with the frequency. Other factors also come into play such as techniques, sexual activities, etc, but those are other issues.

  • Aldonza

    I’m not going to wear ridiculous outfits or roleplay in bed.
    That stuff is just not a turn on for me and in fact, makes me sick.

    .
    Why does that make you sick?  It doesn’t all have to be about leather restraints and safe words.  Just a little dress-up, maybe a new hairdo/makeup style, and acting a little different than you do in day-to-day life.  After being with the same man for over a decade or so, you might appreciate changing it up a little as much as he does.

  • terre

    Tom, the alpha/beta distinction is predicated on female attention. If a “successful, good looking, well built man” isn’t getting sex, he’s just a beta.

  • Aldonza

    I think a lot of commentators here (Susan isn’t alone in this) don’t understand the Greek hierarchy labels. One cannot really be a “mix” of alpha and beta.
    .
    There is no on/off switch for “now you’re a beta”, “now you’re an alpha”.  Human behavior and interaction is way too complex for something so simple.  A man can be alpha at work, but beta at home.  Alpha to one girl, beta to another.  Alpha with a great job, marriage, house, Beta when he gets divorced, loses his job, the house is foreclosed on.  He can be the biggest, bad-ass in town…until a bigger, badder-ass shows up.
    .
    Further, we can’t even agree on what “alpha” really is.  Roissy insists it’s the pussy-quotient.  How much pussy could this guy pull if he wanted to?  (He amended this from his original assertion of how much pussy *does* he pull.)  By that standard, Brad Pitt should be about as alpha as it gets.  And yet, he’s practically Angelina’s Manny, herding the brood around.

  • Tom

    If the need to spead ones “seed”to as many females as possible was so innate, poligamy would have been legal centuries ago. It is just an excuse men have used too often for their lack of committment and self control.

    There must be an innate need to get drunk a lot too because men(and women) use that excuse too for their behavior.

  • Mike C

    See, now you lost me with that assessment of the difference between men and women not being introspective.  Women are deluded and in denial, while men are just listing to society.  Uh huh.  Sure.  Women listen to society too, and plenty of men are deluded and in denial.  I’d argue that the lack of introspection in our society in general is a *human* trait, not one either sex has the inside track on.;
    .
    Not worth arguing this point too strongly but….
    .
    I’m pretty sure Susan is on record as stating that pretty much all the young women she talks do NOT understand why they are attracted to the men they are, and why they are NOT attracted to certain men.  I don’t know…That speaks to a lack of self-analysis, self-delusion, and lack of introspection to me.  A simply inability or unwillingness to really dissect why they make the choices they do.
    .
    On the other hand, guys, especially guys of my generation grew up with society (movies, Oprah, etc.) telling them the way to “win the girl” was to show up at the door on the first date with flowers and a box of candies.  Guys didn’t just pull that shit out of our asses.  Society told us that, our Moms told us that.  Be the good, polite, sweet, nice boy.  I know I didn’t come up with that on my own.  Going back to the men pursue, women choose meme, it seems as though collectively many women don’t know why they choose what they do, while guys followed a script for pursuing that was a total crock of shit.  It took a bunch of geeks like Mystery to try and reverse engineer the choosing process.
    .
    I’ll absolutely agree that lack of introspection plagues all of the human race, both genders.  I think it is Pascal that said “All of man’s troubles come from the inability to sit in a room alone and do nothing but think”.

  • Plain Jane

    “Why does that make you sick?  It doesn’t all have to be about leather restraints and safe words.  Just a little dress-up, maybe a new hairdo/makeup style, and acting a little different than you do in day-to-day life.  After being with the same man for over a decade or so, you might appreciate changing it up a little as much as he does.”
    —-
    Changing a hair-style or makeup is ok, however guys don’t notice that type of stuff.
    I’ve gotten haircuts that went completely unnoticed.
    I’ve bought pretty new dresses that went completely unnoticed.
    They just don’t notice.
    Acting a little different?
    Humans don’t act the same all the time anyway.
    However, putting on an act, like in roleplaying or dressing up in a French Maid’s outfit or something – that’s completely out of character for me and totally fake.
    It might be natural for a man to desire variety, but a good man will not act on that desire, he will remain faithful.
    He can get his fix for variety by looking at other women about town.
    However, he should NOT make that looking obvious to his partner.
    That is insulting and disrespectful.

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

      Changing a hair-style or makeup is ok, however guys don’t notice that type of stuff.

      Not true. My husband notices when I get a haircut – even though I’ve been wearing a bob for 25 years. I only wear makeup when we go out – and he notices that too. He likes me both ways, and he always notices the difference.

      However, putting on an act, like in roleplaying or dressing up in a French Maid’s outfit or something – that’s completely out of character for me and totally fake.

      Yes, well that’s kind of the point. If you can keep your man happy sexually by providing a little variety, isn’t that worth doing? And if Mike C and others are to be believed, he’ll be looking at other women no matter what. I think every woman should strive to communicate that she is open to hearing her partner’s fantasies and should at least consider them. Does she need to consent to an outing to a swingers club? No. But a bit of role playing? Or switching up the routines – the occasional rough encounter, for example – this is sexually gratifying for both women and men.

  • Lupo

    @Stephanie: “Latin America is pretty much patriarchal and TV melodrama is one the of must lucrative industries.”
    Yes, and the type of wackado relationship drama we’re talking about here is as common as air in Latin America. Roissy’s prescriptions could be accurately described as “act like a Latin American man.” QED.

  • Mike C

    <i>If the need to spead ones “seed”to as many females as possible was so innate, poligamy would have been legal centuries ago. It is just an excuse men have used too often for their lack of committment and self control.</i>

    Haha.  You know, “Tom”, if you want to continue this charade, great, but if you are going to successfully fake being a guy, then you really need to not dispute things that ALL guys know are innate to their maleness.  See Obsidian’s referencing of my comments.  You continue to write stuff that clearly to any guy reading is clearly written by a woman.  And I’m going to keep calling you out on this because it is fun to point this out.
    .
    That said, a natural drive isn’t an excuse for behavior.  When you commit, you commit to monogamy.  Full stop.  But a guy WITH OPTIONS who commits is making a big sacrifice so the woman better be bringing something to the table to warrant that commitment.

  • Plain Jane

    “Just today, I’ve already mind-fucked two attractive girls I saw.”

    Mike, please don’t think we women don’t do the same thing when we see attractive men.
    Even when we are in satisfying relationships with men we love, the sight of a very attractive OTHER man will cause us to fantasize.
    Good people remain faithful nonetheless, just like you are doing.

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

      “Just today, I’ve already mind-fucked two attractive girls I saw.”

      Mike, please don’t think we women don’t do the same thing when we see attractive men.

      I disagree. I don’t think most women mind-fuck strangers. We’re much more likely to fantasize a rough kiss. Perhaps porn is changing this for some women.

  • Plain Jane

    @Stephanie: “Latin America is pretty much patriarchal and TV melodrama is one the of must lucrative industries.”
    Yes, and the type of wackado relationship drama we’re talking about here is as common as air in Latin America. Roissy’s prescriptions could be accurately described as “act like a Latin American man.” QED.
    ——
    Forgive me but I must say it, Latin Americans come off as completely loco when it comes to “being in love”.
    They are the personification of crazy drama – men as well as women.
    I’m convinced its genetic.

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

      @Plain Jane

      Forgive me but I must say it, Latin Americans come off as completely loco when it comes to “being in love”.
      They are the personification of crazy drama – men as well as women.
      I’m convinced its genetic.

      This is the kind of “shooting from the hip remark” that gets you into trouble. Stop generalizing by race/country. Discussing culture is one thing – but leave the HBD stuff out of it.

  • terre

    There is no on/off switch for “now you’re a beta”, “now you’re an alpha”.  Human behavior and interaction is way too complex for something so simple.  A man can be alpha at work, but beta at home.  Alpha to one girl, beta to another.  Alpha with a great job, marriage, house, Beta when he gets divorced, loses his job, the house is foreclosed on.  He can be the biggest, bad-ass in town…until a bigger, badder-ass shows up..Further, we can’t even agree on what “alpha” really is.  Roissy insists it’s the pussy-quotient.  How much pussy could this guy pull if he wanted to?  (He amended this from his original assertion of how much pussy *does* he pull.)  By that standard, Brad Pitt should be about as alpha as it gets.  And yet, he’s practically Angelina’s Manny, herding the brood around.
    .
    I’m not sure what this was intended to rebuke since it’s a rewording of exactly what I said. Brad Pitt’s alphaness outweighs his beta supplications. This is not being a mix of “alpha” and “beta”; this is being an alpha full stop. These are qualitatively different things. The guy who writes that blog is at risk precisely because being an ‘alpha at home’ is no guarantor for marital fidelity.

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

      Brad Pitt’s alphaness outweighs his beta supplications. This is not being a mix of “alpha” and “beta”; this is being an alpha full stop.

      What about Brad Pitt is alpha, exactly? I see him as AJ’s bitch. Other than his handsome face, which says nothing about his alphaness, what do you see? Attracting AJ is not a valid answer, btw. Perhaps after Billy Bob, she just wanted a beta around to shit on.

  • Mike C

    <i>Not sure why I am even responding to you.  Trust me, you don’t have it all figured out.  Especially not at 22</i>

    <i>Variety is the male version of drama.</i>
    .
    Ummmm….OK…moving along
    .
    <i>Relationship books geared towards women always say to mix them up to satisfy this desire.
    The problem is that always mixing up does not sit well with many personalities.
    My personality is such that mixing up would seem fake, superficial and silly to me.
    I’m not going to wear ridiculous outfits or roleplay in bed.
    That stuff is just not a turn on for me and in fact, makes me sick.</i>

    .
    Well, all that is your prerogative.  One premise of this blog I think is to get and KEEP a guy for a relationship.  I’m a 37 year old guy with a lot more life experience then you, and plus being a guy I know what guys like and desire.  If you are a woman, and you want to maximize the chances your guy stays sexually faithful, then I am telling you one factor that can help.  If that doesn’t work for you, well…so be it.

  • Tom

    If Brad pit can pull woman like Anison and Jollie, he is definately an alpha. He is just a nice guy with alpha taits.

    Rossie thinks an alpha is the biggest baddest prick in the room.. He hasnt a clue what an alpha is.

    Alpha`s are not always true extroverts. They could be nice guys who are smart, good looking, successful, and have overcome their former shy selves…

    As a former college athlete, getting hookups was never hard. I know women saw me as an alpha, but I never considered myself as such. I always exposed my intentions about committment. (too young to commit back then) Even well after college there was no poblem getting dates or hookups… So I do believe there CAN be combo`s alpha/beta….

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

      If Brad pit can pull woman like Anison and Jollie, he is definately an alpha.

      This reasoning doesn’t work with celebrities. If Jake Gyllenhaal gets dumped by Reese Witherspoon, does that mean he is beta? If you don’t think Shaq’s gf is hot, does that make him beta? The point is, celebrity men will always have options, even the ugly ones. This is also true with political types, by the way:

      Sorry, but that guy is 100% beta, I don’t care who he’s banging.

  • Tom

    Hey mike…Blow me, is that man enough for you?.. You must have been burned badly to have the opinion of women you do.

    Facebook (19)

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

      Tom, none of these links to Facebook work!

  • Plain Jane

    BDSM 101 introduced students to the basics of bondage, discipline, and sadism and masochism.

Madison Young played one of her videos for demonstration purposes.
    In the video, she was naked and bound by all four limbs. Soon, a man on screen began thrashing her with a whip. Welts were visible on her torso. I looked away, but I continued to hear the sound of the whip striking her, as well as the sound of a male voice taunting her.

When the video ended, Young asked a volunteer to come up and pin clips on her thighs. Two other students ripped the clips away with attached strings, following her directions. Young then removed the top of her dress, exposing her bare chest, and began to show students how to position nipple pinching devices. At that point, I left the room.

    *
    Isn’t this a clear admission that women get turned on by violent men? And how does that square with their political agenda?
    —–
    Not any more than it is an admission that men get turned on by violent women because a minority of men are submissives in a BDSM relationship.
    BDSM is a disgusting turn off for me and, I’m assuming, for most people.
    For those whom its a turn-on, well, they know where to go.
    I’m appalled that a University would allow this sort of thing to be “taught” on campus.
    Imagine what the foreign exchange students say about Americans when they return to their countries!!!
    I’m ashamed of ourselves.

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

      I’m appalled that a University would allow this sort of thing to be “taught” on campus.

      Me too, which is why I’ve written about it. However, Yale is private, and answers only to its students and the [wealthy] families and alumnae. Much more troubling are the public schools that subsidize these “sex weeks” with taxpayer dollars.

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

    Self-delusion, denial, lack of introspection, etc…..I’m not a religious person, but one thing we’ve lost with the fall-off in religiousness and “sense of sin” is the habit of seriously analyzing one’s own behavior in terms of its rightness or wrongness, indeed even of its practicality. The whole “self-esteem” thing has made it much worse.

  • Plain Jane

    “I’m a 37 year old guy with a lot more life experience then you, and plus being a guy I know what guys like and desire.  If you are a woman, and you want to maximize the chances your guy stays sexually faithful, then I am telling you one factor that can help.  If that doesn’t work for you, well…so be it.”
    —-
    You don’t know if you have a lot more life experience than me or not.  This is the internet.  Nobody knows each other here.
    Nonetheless, I have already figured out what works to keep a man faithful to me – its choosing guys that have been raised right.
    I screen for intact, happy families.
    Works like a charm.

  • Geoff

    @Mike C says:
    February 3, 2011 at 4:27 pm
     
    “I’ll also add the male drive for variety explains some other things women find perplexing…”
    .
    Ditto. It’s not so shocking if women consider that sperm is cheap, and we, like caribou bulls, are driven to spread it as far as is humanly (caribou-ly?) possible. That doesn’t mean we can’t rise above our urges, either through logic and/or religious guidance…but the URGE to fertilize every hot, semi-hot, almost-hot-enough-oh-fuck-it-I’d-do-her-anyway-hot woman we see is, well…there.
    .
    And although I’d second Mike C’s advice to the ladies to mix up hairstyles, clothes, etc.–I’d ALSO recommend not gaining weight nor being a drama queen. Ladies, it’s hard enough sometimes keeping marital vows. Becoming Rosie O’Donnell in both size and demeanor does NOT help. At all.

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

      That doesn’t mean we can’t rise above our urges, either through logic and/or religious guidance…but the URGE to fertilize every hot, semi-hot, almost-hot-enough-oh-fuck-it-I’d-do-her-anyway-hot woman we see is, well…there.

      And it’s exactly the same with women and alpha douchebags. We often do employ the cerebral cortex to take a pass.

  • Geoff

    @Aldonza,
    Great point on definition of “alpha.” It’s tough, and Roissy’s original “how much pussy DOES the guy pull” wasn’t good enough. His updated “how much pussy COULD the guy pull if he wanted to” is somewhat better. I’d say the best def. of alpha would be “how much pussy would throw itself at him (if he wasn’t rich or famous, presuming the guy is).”
    .
    So, Brad Pitt himself = not an alpha. As Aldonza said, he’s Angelina’s personal assistant.
    .
    That kind of ugly, somewhat overweight dude you know over in sales, who gets laid 3x a week? = alpha.
    .
    Mark Zuckerberg, worth $50B but still dating a chunky Asian chick who eats Taco Bell and never works out even though her BF is worth $50B = a fucking disgrace to the male community.

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

      Mark Zuckerberg, worth $50B but still dating a chunky Asian chick who eats Taco Bell and never works out even though her BF is worth $50B = a fucking disgrace to the male community.

      Mark Zuckerberg is pure beta. Lower beta. His money is his only avenue to pussy. 99% of the women on the planet find him repulsive, so don’t be too hard on him. For the record, I don’t see what his gf being Asian has to do with anything.

  • Plain Jane

    Men are saying if you want to keep your woman happy and faithful – keep her surprised – be this way one day, that way another.  This will satisfy her drama fix.
    Conversely men are saying if you want to keep your MAN happy – keep him surprised – be this way one day, that way another.  This will satisfy his variety fix.
    Variety and drama are 2 words for the same phenomena.

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

      Men are saying if you want to keep your woman happy and faithful – keep her surprised – be this way one day, that way another. This will satisfy her drama fix.

      Who said this? If anyone did, I missed it.

  • Plain Jane

    @Anonymous:I can confirm from my social circles that a lot of guys at one time wanted a stable relationship.  But years and years of dealing with the drama queens and attention whores (who I agree make up a majority of college aged girls.  At least the attractive ones) have caused them to give up on that.  It might not be romantic, but it’s wise for guys to play the numbers and odds in their favor so they at least get something out of the SMP.
    —–
    Another commenter who confirms men would rather  have “hot” women who are out of control drama queens than non-hot women who are calm, stable reliable partners.
    Perhaps the solution is to become attracted to qualities rather than appearances?
    Oh no, we can’t have that now can we!

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

      @Anonymous:I can confirm from my social circles that a lot of guys at one time wanted a stable relationship. But years and years of dealing with the drama queens and attention whores (who I agree make up a majority of college aged girls. At least the attractive ones) have caused them to give up on that.

      Jane says:

      Another commenter who confirms men would rather have “hot” women who are out of control drama queens than non-hot women who are calm, stable reliable partners.

      She has a point! Unattractive men refuse unattractive women, and will positively reinforce bad behavior from psycho bitches if they’re hot.

  • Mike C

    Guess I am a glutton for punishment but this cracks me up
    .
    <i>You don’t know if you have a lot more life experience than me or not.</i>

    You already admitted you are 22.  I’ve been in a 5-year relationship.  To match that, you would have had to have been dating the same person since 17.  I’ve been married and divorced and dated probably 10x the women relative to the men you’ve dated.  Seriously, you are still a kid.  No offense, I was a kid too at 22.  Your problem is rather then trying to pull up a chair and learn something, you are too busy thinking you know everything, arguing everything, and playing psychoanalyst.

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

      Wait – something is amiss. I think Plain Jane is older – at least late 20s. Jane, am I wrong about that?

  • Aldonza

    However, putting on an act, like in roleplaying or dressing up in a French Maid’s outfit or something – that’s completely out of character for me and totally fake.
    .
    What you call “fake” I call fantasy.  Fake is when you try to sell something as real when it isn’t.  A fake diamond. Fake boobs.  Dressing up like the red-headed waitress your husband told you about and play-acting in the privacy of your own bedroom…that’s fantasy.  That’s fun.

  • Geoff

    @Mike C,
    You know why you should never argue with an even-toed ungulate?  You get muddy, and it annoys the even-toed ungulate.

  • terre

    Please. You’re a 21 yo kid. Athol describes clearly how women desire both sexual attraction traits and comfort traits. It’s the comfort traits that generate a lot of the affection. In fact, demonstration of affection is a beta trait. A man who is pure alpha in bed will not engender loyalty and faithfulness in his wife. The best he can do is instill dread.
    .
    Dread is what in essence binds her to him. Push-pull (i.e. handing out affection only to disappear for days at a time) is a way of maximizing the human need for intimacy (note that I don’t call this a “female” need) while maintaining the sense of dread and scarcity which engenders a girl’s visceral loyalty. If Athol is doting on his wife, he’s either a) marginally more attractive than her or b) outweighing the supplication by running game. If neither are true, the marriage ultimately won’t last.

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

      If Athol is doting on his wife, he’s either a) marginally more attractive than her or b) outweighing the supplication by running game. If neither are true, the marriage ultimately won’t last.

      Whoa, calling Athol Kay! This is the height of arrogance, terre. I would like to know on what basis you hand out all this cocksure advice. If all you’ve done is read, you don’t know jack shit. At 21, you couldn’t know much more, especially since by virtue of your familiarity with Game, you are not a natural alpha. How could you possibly feel comfortable passing judgment on someone’s marriage – I believe they just celebrated their 16th anniversary.

  • AnonymousF

    re: noticing hair/makeup changes
    I don’t wear skirts, dresses or makeup ever, unless dress code for an occasion requires. When I do get all dressed & made up (very lightly), blow out my hair, don heels, I always ask fiancee how I look. I always get the same response: “Hot. But I liked the first outfit better.”
    The “first outfit” being what I was ‘”wearing” fresh out of the shower before getting dressed.

  • terre

    Pitt is an alpha plus because he could bed essentially any breathing female in the continental United States. Incidentally, his being alpha is a perfect example of the strength of preselection over both looks and even testosterone in generating female sexual attraction; he’s an ectomorph with feminine features, and without his fame he’d fare… markedly worse. But the female sex instinct is such that winning the competition (for most beautiful male) itself is far more crucial than actually <i>being</i> that most beautiful male.

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

      he’s an ectomorph with feminine features, and without his fame he’d fare… markedly worse.

      = beta. Add his pussy whipped behavior and you’ve got something less than that. He’s dumb too – it’s all marketing.

  • Geoff

    Zuckerberg’s been dating the same chick for ages.  I said she was Asian because, uh, she’s Asian.  And not the hot Lucy Liu kind, either.
    .
    He’s not bad looking.  And his financial value has skyrocketed 5×10 to the 10th power.(check my math, it’s good)  But his girlfriend that he had when he was penniless continues to eat burritos like he’s still a software geek worth nothing.  Which I find outrageous.  He should be able to cock-block Brad Pitt at this point and she’s saying “meh” to a Yoga class.

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

      He should be able to cock-block Brad Pitt at this point and she’s saying “meh” to a Yoga class.

      He should, but he can’t, because no woman wants to see that guy’s O face. Any hot woman who goes for him is digging for gold, period. And keeping the lights off.

  • terre

    I should note here that the distinction is very fine to the undiscerning, and this is where most PUAsphere bloggers trip up.
    .
    One can be an alpha and exhibit beta behaviors. This does not make one a beta, nor a “mixed alpha-beta”; this still makes one an alpha. An individual act can be cringe-worthingly beta with no real repercussions for its actor. The sexual hierarchy is such that one is distinctly either an “alpha” or a “beta”, and it’s the sum of the parts that determines the appellation.

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

      I should note here that the distinction is very fine to the undiscerning, and this is where most PUAsphere bloggers trip up.
      .

      The pup speaks! Honestly, this is cracking me up. Unless you are Roissy in disguise, you need to just pipe down unless you can tell us your qualifications for being the final arbiter of what constitutes a sexually attractive male.

  • Plain Jane

    I recommend EVERYONE here read Susan’s blog from last year regarding BDSM taught on Yale Campus during “Sex Week””
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/02/26/hookinguprealities/talking-about-sex-instead-of-having-it/
    ……
    Susan, you say the families of Yale supported this? 
    This kind of ties into a theory that many have regarding elite families.
    Amazing that a priveleged Yale student of all people would inquire from a guest speaker how she could become a sex worker of all things!
    And the fact that this was standing room only goes to show that Yale students are more than open to BDSM, I guess.  That or perhaps many were curious about it in a morbid sort of way.
    When you say public schools are hosting sex weeks as well, what do you mean? 
    Any links?
    I can say this, I have known one family that have been my friends for years with NO IDEA that they were into this stuff.
    The family is “as American as apple pie” as they say – perfectly “normal” – educated, nice, good kids, etc.
    I found out however they have been part of an underground BDSM community in their state for YEARS. 
    The wife says in her community it is far more prevelant for MEN to want to be the submissives than women.
    There is also a cuckholding fetish where husbands will hire very young and muscular Black men to screw their wives right before their eyes – in groups!
    They have house parties for this called a certain something, forget the name.
    I guess these husbands get off on “humiliation”?
    I read an article about that and these husbands say that they only hire men who look “superior” to themselves physically.
    Mind you, these are “normal” people with 9-5 jobs.
    Its a wild, wild, wild, wild world!

  • Plain Jane

    Men are saying if you want to keep your woman happy and faithful – keep her surprised – be this way one day, that way another. This will satisfy her drama fix.

    Who said this? If anyone did, I missed it.”
    —-
    Roissy and others here agreeing with him that you have to keep your wife/gf “guessing” in order to fulfill her drama fix.
    Instilling dread is a part of that for those with no conscience.
    Going from hot to cold (indifferent) is another method.
    That’s what this entire blog has been discussing.
    Basially what I’m taking away from this is that men and women both need an element of “mystery” in order to keep themselves and their partners happy.
    Can’t say I agree with that because my family is comprised of very happy marriages amongst my  relatives and I don’t see much “mystery” and game playing in them.

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

      @Plain Jane
      Yes, I see what you mean. Roissy is indeed recommending that men create unnecessary drama in the belief that women “need it” to stay in line. Haley made the point that women do like drama – which brings us to Tony Robbins point about humans craving uncertainty. I think disagreement around this point largely revolves around varying definitions of drama.

  • terre

    Again, given your brazenness in claiming Roissy was incapable of experiencing love, I’d say I have as much grounds to “pass [...] judgment” as you would the same.

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

      Again, given your brazenness in claiming Roissy was incapable of experiencing love,

      I didn’t say he was incapable. I said he does not have love. That is not my judgment, that is taken directly from his own accounts of his relationships, or lack thereof. He is very open about avoiding commitment, which love requires. I simply report what he himself has claimed. I have no idea what Roissy is capable of, though you may have seen that I feel a certain protective female instinct to soothe his anxieties…

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Plain Jane,
    Can you offer any studies or percentages in this regard per your BDSM comment above? In other words, what do the studies indicate in terms of the numbers of Men who are into submission and cuckold culture? Please explain? Thanks!

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh says:
    “He should, but he can’t, because no woman wants to see that guy’s O face. Any hot woman who goes for him is digging for gold, period. And keeping the lights off.”

    O: LMAO

    O.

  • terre

    = beta. Add his pussy whipped behavior and you’ve got something less than that. He’s dumb too – it’s all marketing.
    .
    I’m not sure if you’re saying he is a beta or he would be one? If it’s the latter, sure. If it’s the former, no: as I said, he’s absolutely alpha. Only something utterly humiliating on the part of Jolie (like birthing a black baby or being caught with her personal trainer) would do much to stint that.

  • terre

    The pup speaks! Honestly, this is cracking me up. Unless you are Roissy in disguise, you need to just pipe down unless you can tell us your qualifications for being the final arbiter of what constitutes a sexually attractive male.
    .
    What are yours?

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    Replies below:
    .
    SW: Jane says:

    Another commenter who confirms men would rather have “hot” women who are out of control drama queens than non-hot women who are calm, stable reliable partners.

    She has a point! Unattractive men refuse unattractive women, and will positively reinforce bad behavior from psycho bitches if they’re hot.
    .
    O: Well, duh. Hotter Women can and will get away with more drama and BS, than more homlier gals. Why that should come as any shock to anyone who is a functioning adult is beyond me…
    .
    O.

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

      @Obs
      As you’ve no doubt noticed, there is a certain sensitivity on the part of women who perceive that beta guys want nothing to do with beta gals.

  • terre

     
    I didn’t say he was incapable. I said he does not have love. That is not my judgment, that is taken directly from his own accounts of his relationships, or lack thereof. He is very open about avoiding commitment, which love requires. I simply report what he himself has claimed. I have no idea what Roissy is capable of, though you may have seen that I feel a certain protective female instinct to soothe his anxieties…
    .
    Roissy has never to my knowledge made a post saying he “does not have love”. If anything, he often tries to rescue ‘love’ from his own cold outlook; the poetry, details about the ‘perfect girl’, etc. I know exactly what angle he’s coming from and it’s the opposite of the one you think it is. If you’re claiming he doesn’t have love, that’s because you’d like for it to be that way. Nature, as one soon learns, does not observe karma.
     

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

      I’ve just had a wild and crazy thought. Could terre be Roissy? Doing it just for shits and giggles? I’m at a loss to explain his persona. He’s way too cocky and authoritative for a 21 yo guy. If he was all that, he wouldn’t know anything about Game.

      I know exactly what angle he’s coming from and it’s the opposite of the one you think it is.

      The biggest argument against it, and it is a very big one, is that Roissy the Dark Lord would not deign to show his face here at my little blog. Even in disguise. Still….

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

    <blockquote>Roissy has never to my knowledge made a post saying he “does not have love”. If anything, he often tries to rescue ‘love’ from his own cold outlook; the poetry, details about the ‘perfect girl’, etc. I know exactly what angle he’s coming from and it’s the opposite of the one you think it is. If you’re claiming he doesn’t have love, that’s because you’d like for it to be that way. Nature, as one soon learns, does not observe karma.</blockquote>

    It’s clear you haven’t been reading him long. The poetry and other romantic stuff is not written by him. The old Roissy would never have gone there. As for wanting him to live without love – you’re wrong, of course. I would love nothing more than for him to see the light. I’m sure it would make him far happier.

    .

    By the way, did all of you notice in this thread that bad boy Vincent Ignatius is in love? More power to him! He says VI the player is dead. God, I love it when that happens.

  • Mike C

    Regarding Brad Pitt and his “alpha” status,
    .
    Brad Pitt has status as a celebrity actor and preselection (Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie).  Just those two alone are powerful attraction switches.  Neither of those by themselves you lead you to conclude he is a natural alpha.  You would need to test Brad Pitt the janitor instead of Brad Pitt the celebrity actor and see if he can still pull.  Obviously, we can’t run that test.
    .
    I’ve actually asked the question on his looks quite a few times of different women, and I’ve gotten a large variation in responses.  Some women think he is gorgeous…some are like mehhhh.  Me personally, I think he is a handsome man.  Forget the movie, but he plays Achilles, and I would think most homosexual guys would be turned on by his looks alone.  Sometimes though he goes for that grimy look like Fight Club.  He almost seems to go out of his way to detract from his looks.
    .
    When I was bouncing, a natural alpha took me under his wing.  Honestly, I am a better looking guy then he is, but I could NEVER pull like him in a million years.  EVER.  He didn’t have much money, didn’t spend shit on women, but he had a motorcycle, and had the exciting bad boy aura.  I learned so much from that guy.  Natural alphas get women NOT from status, jobs, money, etc which is why this Mark Zuckerberg or Tiger Woods are probably not natural alphas.  If they weren’t rich and famous and celebrities probably no woman of high caliber would be interested them for their personalities alone.  I’m speculating but neither strikes me that way.
     
    In the end, it is very simple.  Natural alphas get women on nothing but their personalities and how they interact with them.

  • Geoff

    @Susan,
    “As you’ve no doubt noticed, there is a certain sensitivity on the part of women who perceive that beta guys want nothing to do with beta gals.”
    .
    I notice you used the key word “perceive”…beta males are happy to get ANY kind of action in today’s SMP.  Beta ladies, take your Zebco rod and reel, get up, and try the pond down by the river.  Nothing but swarming alpha spermfish where you’re currently fishing.
     

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

      @Geoff
      Yes, I do think it’s a matter of perception. For one thing, as good as the manosphere has been to me, it’s not necessarily a reflection of reality. Sometimes people say things anonymously that don’t really reflect how they behave in real life.

  • Plain Jane

    Forgive me but I must say it, Latin Americans come off as completely loco when it comes to “being in love”.
    They are the personification of crazy drama – men as well as women.
    I’m convinced its genetic.

    This is the kind of “shooting from the hip remark” that gets you into trouble. Stop generalizing by race/country”
    —–
    But generalizing by sex/gender is OK?
    I’m not an HBDer, however if we accept that there are innate differences between men and women, is that too far from speculating there might be innate differences between ethnicities or socially constructed differences between cultures?
    I’ve travelled enough to know that there are indeed some generalizations that can be made between cultures.
    Latin American people have the sexy reputation as being “passionate” about love.
    How often have we heard the term “Latin lover” being tossed out by a woman and know exactly what she’s talking about?
    Does it mean ALL Latin Americans are like that?
    No.
    But enough to garner a stereotype.
    —-
    Regarding women “mind fucking” hot-looking strangers, you may be right that the fantasy is more of a passionate kiss, however its still a cheating fantasy, which was my point.

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

      @Plain Jane
      I confess to having little sympathy for claims of genetic differences between the races. For the same reason that Obsidian often states – assuming all of it is true, then what? Would you fashion policy to reflect that some races are less able than others in various ways? I don’t know if Latin Americans are crazy about love due to genetics. And I don’t know if Asians are smarter than whites in terms of IQ. I prefer my ignorance, because I don’t see the use in knowing such information. I think the potential uses are all detrimental.

  • terre

    Mike, in my experience more women find him less physically attractive on average than do women who think he’s appealling. It’s basically completely peripheral because of his status as “world’s sexiest man”. He could look like a sack of wet spuds for all it matters.

  • Mike C

    I’m inclined to agree. In which case a reformed Beta is the ideal mate, as I have often suspected, and claimed.
    .
    Absolutely!  I’m guessing your own personal experience supports that?  From what you’ve described, your husband sounds like a greater beta (not knocking it all because that is how I would describe myself) and it looks like it worked perfectly for both of you.
    .
    Certainly, at first, a good-looking beta guy who has gotten some game may be indistinguishable from a “lesser alpha.” It’s a spectrum – but there is enough apparent overlap to be confusing to women.
     
    I have absolutely no data to back this up at all other then my instincts but I think one result of the current SMP and women “empowering” themselves is you are seeing more greater beta types especially younger ones take themselves out of the relationship market and try their hand and racking up the poon.  I think you’ve sort of hinted around at that yourself with some of your relaying of young women saying that guys say they are just not “interested in relationships”.
     
     

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

      From what you’ve described, your husband sounds like a greater beta (not knocking it all because that is how I would describe myself) and it looks like it worked perfectly for both of you.

      Yes, exactly. And he is quite comfortable with this designation, btw. We’ll discuss these issues over dinner, and he very happily resides in that cohort. He know’s what’s up – I would guess that all men know where they fit in, for the most part. However, he is smart and successful, so he has the benefit of having realized increased value over time. I’ve told this story before, but when we went to his 25th high school reunion, all the alpha dogs were off in a corner drinking Heinekens, and my husband was approached by all the women who didn’t know he existed in high school, now wanting investment advice. A classmate of his, also a complete loser in the high school sex sweepstakes, is now DA where they grew up. It was interesting to observe how the tables had turned – the high school geeks were successful and highly educated. The varsity football team was overweight and trying to make a go of it here and there. And the women had switched allegiance, not that it mattered at that point. Still, it’s nice to have the last laugh.

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

      I think one result of the current SMP and women “empowering” themselves is you are seeing more greater beta types especially younger ones take themselves out of the relationship market and try their hand and racking up the poon.

      Yes, and this is very disappointing, though I understand it. Greater beta guys do well hooking up with a girl or two. Common sense says that they could commit and spend years getting regular sex, but they seek to leverage that social proof, or preselection. They aim for the brass ring, declining the relationship, doubling down in the open market. I really can’t blame them, but I suspect most of them will get a lot less sex as a result. I think it speaks to the power of male peer pressure.

  • Geoff

    Attractiveness is irrelevant to game.  ESPECIALLY if you’re famous.
    http://www.boatinglicense.ca/Content/Boating-Celebrities.aspx
     
    Photo number 6

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

      @Geoff
      LOL! First, is it possible that Amy Winehouse is the daughter of Tim Curry? The resemblance is striking! Second, what the hell is that puffy hat Tom Brady is wearing. Honestly, that guy is a wonder on the field, but kind of an asshat off of it.

  • Plain Jane

    “there is a certain sensitivity on the part of women who perceive that beta guys want nothing to do with beta gals.”

    How many times have we met a woman who fell for a hot guy who gets into drunken brawls with other men at bars?  Then when he gets into a drunken brawl WITH HER, expects sympathy.
    Most of us are like, “we told you so!”
    Then there’s the woman who carries on an affair with a committed man who, after he leaves his partner to be with her is dismayed and shocked a while later when he starts CHEATING ON HER.
    Most of us are like, “we told you so”.
    Similarly, tradmarked “nice guys” who lament that their “hot” girlfriends whom they felt so elated at landing are beginning to show their true narcissistic drama queen colors get no sympathy from me.
    WE TOLD YOU SO!

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Mike C.,
    .
    100% agree with what you said about Natural Alphas. And, the flick you’re thinking of is “Troy”. I thought Pitt was a bit undersized for the role of Achilles, though I’m not a historian and don’t know for certain what Achilles might have looked like. Nevertheless, there’s no getting around the fact that Pitt looked really good in the film. That said, I thought Russell Crowe pulled off a very believable role as a general in the Roman army. He was in shape but not “too” cut, and his physical dimensions, facially (the beard/haircut was cool) and heightwise, and I think Crowe is just under 6′, all made sense to me. Again, I’m no scholar of Greco-Roman history and whatnot, so take my comments for what they’re worth.
    .
    Plain Jane,
    Are you going to answsers or are you going to continue to ignore me and go on making outrageous claims that do absolutely nothing to further the conversation in any meaningful context?
    .
    O.

  • Plain Jane

    terre says:
    February 3, 2011 at 7:14 pm
    Pitt is an alpha plus because he could bed essentially any breathing female in the continental United States. Incidentally, his being alpha is a perfect example of the strength of preselection over both looks and even testosterone in generating female sexual attraction; he’s an ectomorph with feminine features, and without his fame he’d fare… markedly worse. But the female sex instinct is such that winning the competition (for most beautiful male) itself is far more crucial than actually <i>being</i> that most beautiful male.
    ——
    Pitt is not from the ethnic background and coloring scheme I usually find attractive HOWEVER, I found him to be VERY good-looking when he was in his 20s and 30s. 
    He has a symetrical face with good features – pretty color eyes, a proportioned nose, and nice shaped lips. 
    As far as “feminine features” I don’t know that he has them, however,  good looking men tend to have “pretty faces” that with a close shave and lipstick, they might be able to pass for a woman at a distance.
    My favorite is big eyes with naturally curly eyelashes which many good-looking men possess.
    What’s disappointing about Pitt and other good-looking actors like Johnny Depp is that we get so used to seeing them looking good when they are young, that when they start to show signs of aging like wrinkles and getting out of shape, it is like an airplane flying straight into your gut. 
    I cringe when I see Johnny Depp now with his bloated body and wrinkles.
    Nonetheless, I wonder if he and Jolie had something going on when they filmed THE TOURIST.
    They seem like they’d make a well-matched couple and his interviews regarding the film show him praising her like anything like a smitten teenager.
    I’m sure Pitt and Johnny’s partner were both worried during the making of that film!
    Or, who knows, with celebrity culture being what it is, they may have had some partner swapping orgy fest.
     

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

      As far as “feminine features” I don’t know that he has them, however, good looking men tend to have “pretty faces” that with a close shave and lipstick, they might be able to pass for a woman at a distance.

      Haha! I’ve never made this a prerequisite!

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Plain Jane,
    I see you’re going to opt for “A” and try to ignore me, huh? Where is the data that proves that Men makeup a large part of submissives in the BDSM culture? I’d surely like to see it.
    .
    As for Pitt and Depp, please keep in mind that both Men are approaching 50 and are in incredibly great shape for their ages, often being able to play Men at least a decade younger. Clooney would be a Man who looks more his age, but again, he’s still considered quite handsome; and Denzel is in his latter 50s, still looks great, and Black Women in particular consider him the go to guy.
    .
    Holla back
    .
    O.

  • Plain Jane

    Susan said on her blog about BDSM at Yale:I guess that’s why Albert Einstein wasn’t known as a Player, though he did have sex with Marilyn Monroe.
    ——————
    Whaaaaaaaaaaat?!?!?

    And here we thought ugly smart geeks with no game could never pull the hottest babes.

  • Plain Jane

    @ Susan, what about Brad Pitt makes you think he’s the “bitch” off Angelina and gets shit on by her???
    In the few interviews I saw of her and him, she treats him respectfully and affectionately.
    *
    @Karen: “I have to agree with most of the women here that men DO WANT DRAMA.  Over the last few months, on other online forums, I’ve seen discussions from divorced men decrying marriage.  The one thing all these men had in common was that their ex-wives were drama queens.  At least that was the claim.  These men didn’t divorce stable drama-free women.  Why did they marry these drama queens?  I feel that what men are saying on this topic and what actually happens are two totally different things.”
    —-
    The Drama Queens satisfy mens’ desire for “variety” by keeping him on his toes, not knowing what to expect from her next.  One day she’s the shy, submissive, sweet and doting madonna-like figure, the next day she’s Vampira oozing dangerous and “edgy” sexuality through her displays of anger.
    —-
    Regarding this link someone linked to;
    http://yourlife.usatoday.com/sex-relationships/dating/story/2011/02/Men-women-flip-the-script-in-gender-expectation/43219110/1
    *
    “Data show men are quicker to fall in love and more likely than women to want children: 54% of men say they have experienced love at first sight, compared with 44% of women; among singles without children under 18, more men (24%) than women (15%) say they want children.
    And, across every age group, women want more independence than men in their relationships: 77% of women say having their personal space is “very important,” vs. 58% for men; 78% of women say the same about having their own interests and hobbies (vs. 64% for men). And 35% of women (vs. 23% of men) say regular nights out with the guys/girls are important.”
    ***
    I found this to be true in my own life.
    Several men I dated, after only the 3rd date proclaimed they were “falling in love” with me. 
    Also, once together, I needed “alone time” more than they did.
    As far as “guys nights out” I can’t encourage them enough.  That’s often the only time I get my much needed alone time in my girl-cave.

  • Plain Jane

    @ Terre, “Dread is what in essence binds her to him. Push-pull (i.e. handing out affection only to disappear for days at a time) is a way of maximizing the human need for intimacy (note that I don’t call this a “female” need) while maintaining the sense of dread and scarcity which engenders a girl’s visceral loyalty. If Athol is doting on his wife, he’s either a) marginally more attractive than her or b) outweighing the supplication by running game. If neither are true, the marriage ultimately won’t last.”
    —-
    You are suggesting that a marry man “disappear for days at a time”?????
    You are suggesting that Athol is “doting on his wife” by NOT disappearing for days at a time???
    What kind of household did you grow up in???

  • Florence

    @ Geoff
    Mark Zuckerberg, worth $50B but still dating a chunky Asian chick who eats Taco Bell and never works out even though her BF is worth $50B = a fucking disgrace to the male community.
    ………….
    Mark Zuckerburg is actually giving me some faith that not all men are shallow, selfish, whore-digging bastards. The girlfriend he is with now has probably chosen him when 1000 girls rejected him. She gave him a chance and stayed with him, when he was nothing but a poor, repulsive nerd. She obviously loves him irregardless of his money. If he leaves her, he’d be the biggest loser of all. I also find it quite offensive of you to mention her race as a factor of importance. People (men and women) have different preferences. How do you know that she doesn’t go to the gym?

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Plain Jane says:
    .
    “Just today, I’ve already mind-fucked two attractive girls I saw.”

    PJ: Mike, please don’t think we women don’t do the same thing when we see attractive men.
    .
    O: But here’s the problem PJ – no one cares about what Women are thinking here. The gent was talking about HE was thinking about. So, what YOU are saying, is irrelevant.
    .
    As is the vast majority of the stuff you’ve been popping off here.
    .
    I’m just sayin.
    .
    O.

  • Aldonza

    @terre

    If Athol is doting on his wife, he’s either a) marginally more attractive than her or b) outweighing the supplication by running game. If neither are true, the marriage ultimately won’t last.
    .
    Thankfully Susan already called you on this bullshit.  I know it’s the interwebz, and all that, but really, you stand in judgment of a man who has a happy marriage after more than a decade?  He’s walking the walk.  You’re just talking the talk.

  • Aldonza

    One can be an alpha and exhibit beta behaviors. This does not make one a beta, nor a “mixed alpha-beta”; this still makes one an alpha. An individual act can be cringe-worthingly beta with no real repercussions for its actor. The sexual hierarchy is such that one is distinctly either an “alpha” or a “beta”, and it’s the sum of the parts that determines the appellation.
    .
    So you’re saying that alpha is something inherent to the man.  And it’s not based on behaviors.  If so…are men who master game really alphas?

  • Mike C

    FWIW, Brendan comment from another blog:
    .
    http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/fuglies-are-forgotten-and-beauty-is-cheap/#comment-3086
    .
    Yep, because for men variety drives arousal — something that really is utterly foreign to the sexuality of virtually all women (yes, there are some outliers who have a male-type sexuality, and they tend to be rather loud sex-positive feminists). As Bill Maher explained in one of his routines once: “For men, there’s “old” and “new”, and that’s it.”
    .
    http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/fuglies-are-forgotten-and-beauty-is-cheap/#comment-3089
    .
    “What I mean is that it is typical for women to make this kind of “comparative” observation (“how could he have cheated with *that* skanky ‘ho when he’s married to an attractive, smart lawyer?”), which simply reflects female sexual attraction — something which is inherently comparative. Male sexual attraction is much *less* comparative –> yes, men prefer hotter women, but even a man married to a hot woman is *still* aroused by sexual variety, by the new, by the different, precisely because it’s new and different. This is a fundamental and huge difference in sexual psychology between men and women, and the source of a lot of misunderstanding and mutual recrimination between the sexes I think.”


    I’m actually quite surprised that apparently there is some doubt about this fact as if I making this up or something.  Query a 1000 guys.  We’ll all say the same thing on this.
    .
    On a different note, this variety is physical/visual, NOT behavioral.  Hence, the reason guys like wigs, different looks, outfits, etc.   It doesn’t mean we want manufactured drama to get sexually excited.

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

      @Mike C

      I’m actually quite surprised that apparently there is some doubt about this fact as if I making this up or something.

      I don’t think you’re making it up – I said that I believe you. It’s just that women are so completely different in this regard. It’s like hearing someone is obsessed with something that you think has no appeal. And it’s quite hard, really, to think of the man we love mind-fucking strangers as he goes through his day. It feels like a betrayal, like we are not enough. I understand that this is male nature, but just as female nature leaves you scratching (and shaking) your head, we women feel the same way about this male need for sexual variety. I won’t ever understand it, which is why I said I’d rather not know. In this, ignorance is bliss, I think.

  • Plain Jane

    Im not surprised Zuckerberg has an Asian gf.  Nerds do better with Asians.
    Asian parents raise their kids to value math and science.

  • Plain Jane

    “On a different note, this variety is physical/visual, NOT behavioral.  Hence, the reason guys like wigs, different looks, outfits, etc.   It doesn’t mean we want manufactured drama to get sexually excited.”
    —-
    Probably why even guys who did not ordinarily like hairy armpits and legs on women still liked me.
    They had always had shaven women so a hairy one was “new and different” for them.
    ;)

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

      Probably why even guys who did not ordinarily like hairy armpits and legs on women still liked me.
      They had always had shaven women so a hairy one was “new and different” for them.

      I’ve never met a man who prefers this. I’ve joked before that this is my son’s primary objection to the crowd at Phish concerts, though they are a generous, “make love not war” kind of crowd.

  • Geoff

    @Obsidian,
    Why you guys continue to engage Plain Jane is beyond me.
    .
    If you ignore her, she’s relegated to “read only” status, which is, frankly, EXACTLY what she should be doing on HUS.  Reading.
    ———–
    @Florence,
    “How do you know she (Zuckerberg’s GF) doesn’t go to the gym?”
    .
    Because she is fat.
    .
    And I’m not recommending he leave her because she’s not attractive.  I’m saying she doesn’t respect him enough to even TRY to lose the weight.  He invented Facebook.  He invented FACEBOOK.  HE INVENTED EFFING FACEBOOK!  Couldn’t she invent a reason to go get on the treadmill?

  • Mike C

    So you’re saying that alpha is something inherent to the man.  And it’s not based on behaviors.  If so…are men who master game really alphas?


    To quote Brendan again (might as well take someone elses material when it covers the bases):

    http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/fuglies-are-forgotten-and-beauty-is-cheap/#comment-3114

    I’ve found that people tend to use the word differently in different contexts. For example, some people may look at a CEO or someone similar and say that they are alpha by definition, but a man who is a CEO may still not be a sexual alpha. I would guess that there are probably *more* sexual alphas among CEOs than among, say, accountants, but I also suspect that a good number of them are higher betas who get to higher beta status due to their drive, but don’t really have the right combination of looks/charm(vis-a-vis women) to be sexual alphas.


    Now in my view, an “alpha” has to be born, not made.  Good analogy might be a native born speaker versus someone who learns a language as a teenager or adult.  An alpha is the boy all the girls liked in 7th grade.  He was ALWAYS attractive to girls.

    If you have to learn it, then you are not an alpha.  You are a beta who has learned alpha behaviors.  From a practical standpoint, it really doesn’t matter.  Either you display the behaviors that women find attractive or you don’t.  Most guys do NOT.  Most guys never even figure out that they are NOT.

  • Mike C

    That said, I thought Russell Crowe pulled off a very believable role as a general in the Roman army. He was in shape but not “too” cut, and his physical dimensions, facially (the beard/haircut was cool) and heightwise, and I think Crowe is just under 6′, all made sense to me. Again, I’m no scholar of Greco-Roman history and whatnot, so take my comments for what they’re worth.
    .
    FWIW, I think Maximus is the quintessential example of an alpha in terms of leader of men in that movie.  He is not exactly physically imposing yet there is something in his demeanor that men yield to him.  Look at the steroid monster dude.  Even though he is bigger and stronger then Maximus, he tastes Maximus food for him.  There is no question he would defer to Maximus on anything.  Look at him in the battle scene directing the action.  In any group of men, the group quickly sorts itself out and it becomes clear who is the leader of the pack.  In a business setting, it is determined by titles.  In social settings, it naturally asserts itself.

  • Geoff

    Moderation?  Was I immoderate?  Should I don the Gimp helmet?

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

      @Geoff
      Sorry, no clue as to why you went into moderation. WordPress is funny that way. I haven’t cracked the code in two years.

  • Plain Jane

    @Plain Jane
    I confess to having little sympathy for claims of genetic differences between the races. For the same reason that Obsidian often states – assuming all of it is true, then what? Would you fashion policy to reflect that some races are less able than others in various ways? I don’t know if Latin Americans are crazy about love due to genetics. And I don’t know if Asians are smarter than whites in terms of IQ. I prefer my ignorance, because I don’t see the use in knowing such information. I think the potential uses are all detrimental.
    —-
    Susan, to be fair, Latin Americans may be that way due to culture and not genetics.  However, culture and genetics intersect at some point.
    Again, what I said about Latin Americans, although not an attractive trait in my opinion, is something that the world covets in them as attractive, hence the “latin lover” stereotype, which works IN their favor. 
    Believe me, those geeky Asian guys at MIT would probably *kill* to have a similar stereotype floating around about them.
    Just as you prefer your ignorance in these matter because you don’t see a use in know such information, there are also men and women out here who prefer their ignorance regarding “sex differences” which are celebrated on this blog!
    Its the same stripes on a different zebra.
    —-
    @ Mike C, the boy who was liked by all the girls in 7th grade would be considered an echtomorph “feminine” pretty boy by some of the guys on this blog.
    What male fail to realize is that little girls, teen girls and very often grown women, find something very attractive in a man who has a bit of “feminine” quality in him – be it looks or otherwise.
    Hence pretty boys like Pitt and Depp (when they were young and pretty) getting voted “sexiest men alive” etc.
    Many of us women also like long hair, which was a look sported by Pitt and one time and still sported by Depp.
    The nerdy white guy on CRIMINAL MINDS gets sexier the longer his hair gets.
    My advice to men who want to improve their looks is always – grow out your hair.
    You don’t have to look like a dirty hippie (god forbid), but there are some very attractive longer hair styles for men.

  • Aldonza

    FWIW, I think Maximus is the quintessential example of an alpha in terms of leader of men in that movie.
    .
    That role is a pretty good example of what women mean by “alpha” as well.  Including the part where he loves his wife and son more than anything.  Russell Crowe as a person…not so much.  I know he has that arrogant thing going for him that a lot of women find compelling.  But I watch an interview with him and feel…distaste.  But Maximus?  Uh huh.  There’s my sweet spot.  Intellectual warrior with a devoted soft side.

  • filrabat

    @Susan
    As long as she can get some kind of rise out of the guy, she knows it’s not over. Women know that the opposite of love is not hate or anger, it’s indifference.
    Then you have people like me who will leave her the first time she tries that.  I’ve got enough on my plate as it is without this kind of stuff.  Result:  Testing me = She’s Outa Here!  Yes, I know it’s part of the game, but a guy with true self-respect, strength, and brains will say “Even if I can deal with s*** tests, it’s a waste of time and energy to be with someone who likes them in the first place”

  • Plain Jane

    “It was interesting to observe how the tables had turned – the high school geeks were successful and highly educated. The varsity football team was overweight and trying to make a go of it here and there. And the women had switched allegiance, not that it mattered at that point. Still, it’s nice to have the last laugh.”
    ———-
    THANKYOU SUSAN!
    I asked over on your latest blog with Avril’s video about this “age is the great equalizer for men” meme that is floated by the men on this blog – how does that work?
    Like you said, the women at your reunion switched alliances but those women are also in their 50s, they are not young, 20 something hot college girls.
    The current young hot college girls are not going after the geeks.
    So when the current young geeks say, “when we hit 30 our value will increase and we will get our’s!” with their fists thrashing in the air reminiscent of infant rage, exactly WHO are they going to “get their’s” from???
    Certainly not the new batch of 20 something college hottie drama queens!

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

      @Plain Jane

      So when the current young geeks say, “when we hit 30 our value will increase and we will get our’s!” with their fists thrashing in the air reminiscent of infant rage, exactly WHO are they going to “get their’s” from???
      Certainly not the new batch of 20 something college hottie drama queens!

      No, they were all married to good women (like me!) who had come along and realized the value and character of these men. To be fair, when I met my husband he was 27 – and much hotter than he had been 10 years earlier. Geeks grow into their looks and confidence as they establish their careers, in my experience. Business school was full of guys like that – and they were on a spectrum of less dominant to more dominant. Though my husband was a geek in high school, by the time he entered business school he was considered quite attractive and cool. All of this is relative.

  • Aldonza

    My advice to men who want to improve their looks is always – grow out your hair.
    .
    Ugh.  I’m not a fan of long hair on guys.  And Depp and Pitt were never high on my list (although Pitt in Troy…yummy.)  Tom Brady…gets more beta the longer his hair gets (which Gisele apparently likes.)  And ponytails?  *shudders*

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

      And ponytails? *shudders*

      I’m with you there, but there is a notable exception I must mention. Javier Bardem in Biutiful. We went with another couple, and the three of them all thought the movie was slow and long. I could have sat through another hour without even thinking of checking my watch. Looking at him caused a sort of low-grade fever in me – a two and a half hour tingle.

  • Mike C

    BTW, I tried that Facebook link as well, takes you to a newsfeed page.

  • SayWhaat

    My advice to men who want to improve their looks is always – grow out your hair.
    Haha, I actually have quite a thing for men with long-ish hair. Not as long as mine, of course, but enough for me to run my hands through. ;)
    The current young hot college girls are not going after the geeks.
    Unless they’re Asian. :D
     
     

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Having done a lot of acting, I can assure you that a 3 hour play exhausts an actor.”
    .
    What about method acting? If you are playing yourself do you still get exhausted?

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

      What about method acting? If you are playing yourself do you still get exhausted?

      That’s the most exhausting of all, b/c you’re calling up emotional experiences/trauma, and flogging yourself into reliving them in a new context. Method acting is never about feeling good and happy, it’s always about the tough stuff. Totally wrenching.

  • Brendan

    The wife says in her community it is far more prevelant for MEN to want to be the submissives than women.
    .
    This is because, overall, men are more fetishy in their sexualities than women are — substantially more.  Look at the discrepancy in sexual so-called “paraphilias” for example.
    .
    A woman I knew some time ago who has been involved in the BDSM community for decades told me once that the breakdown, demographically, in declining order, is:  dominant men, submissive men, submissive women, dominant women.  That is, there are more men interested in BDSM than women, period, but among men there are more dominants and among women there are more submissives.  This generally means that the submissive guys (who are straight) have a very, very hard time, because there just aren’t that many women who really enjoy sexual dominance as a regular thing (which we’d expect from Game — there are women who have this kind of sexuality, but they are outliers).  She did say that for the married couples who were involved in BDSM, it was more common for the male to be submissive (although she herself was married and a BDSM submissive to her dominant husband).

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

      @Brendan
      I know nothing of BDSM, but it seems that a woman being submissive to her dominant husband – is that novel? Isn’t that what we had for thousands of years? And no doubt these folks consider themselves enlightened…when in reality it’s totally retro. I recall one commenter here – Thomas, a pal of Jaclyn Friedman’s, who proudly announced he was a bottom and his wife was a top. Haha, none of us knew what to make of this – and then he explained he was a submissive. I’m not surprised that a submissive straight man who refers to himself as a “bottom” is not commonplace.
      .
      When my husband and I were dating, I wanted to try a bit of roleplay with me being dominant. Oh boy, he did not like that AT ALL. That lasted less than ten minutes, and has never been mentioned again.

  • Mike C

    And it’s quite hard, really, to think of the man we love mind-fucking strangers as he goes through his day. It feels like a betrayal, like we are not enough.
    .
    I hear ya, but flip that script.  Instead of feeling like the mere thought is a betrayal, I think the opposite is true in that NEVER acting on that takes love, commitment, and respect.
    .
    I understand that this is male nature, but just as female nature leaves you scratching (and shaking) your head, we women feel the same way about this male need for sexual variety. I won’t ever understand it, which is why I said I’d rather not know. In this, ignorance is bliss, I think.
    .
    I agree, but I think you have to understand that part of the equation to really get the male reluctance to commitment, and that is why you can forget about young alpha types committing for the most part.  They simply lack the maturity and life experience to realize other things (such as love and quality companionship) might be more important then that base drive.  There are alot of things about human sexuality that I think are not understandable.  I’ll never understand why I am more attractive if my girlfriend is around then if she is not.  Makes no sense to me unless you consider the preselection effect.

  • Höllenhund

    So the solution is reeducate men to be more confident (which is pretty much the whole point of Game) and women be more realistic and both gender try to exhibit long term traits early on, before they both got bitter
     
    Average men will regain their confidence when their social status markedly improves compared to women’s and society sends them a clear message that they are needed and their sacrifice will be respected. All of this will only come to pass after the current feminist system implodes.

  • IglooBob

    “Similarly, tradmarked “nice guys” who lament that their “hot” girlfriends whom they felt so elated at landing are beginning to show their true narcissistic drama queen colors get no sympathy from me.”
     
    Is this actually happening?  Seems like we’re making people up to argue against.  Many beta nice guys are having trouble landing any girls at all, and certainly aren’t even on the radar for the “hot” ones.  No need to “I told you so” at someone who’s imaginary.

  • Brendan

    I understand that this is male nature, but just as female nature leaves you scratching (and shaking) your head, we women feel the same way about this male need for sexual variety. I won’t ever understand it, which is why I said I’d rather not know. In this, ignorance is bliss, I think.
    .
    I don’t know if ignorance is really bliss in this case, though, Susan.   I would think that understanding how a male brain works sexually also helps understand what he is dealing with, what he is tempted by, and how he is dealing with that (well or badly), rather than the more typical response from women which tends to be shock, horror, and judgment that this is different from how they experience sexual psychology, often with the “that’s pathological” type of statement thrown in.  I think that doesn’t do women any more good than it does for men to deny the facts about female sexual psychology, as unpleasant as we find that (and many of us do find it un uncomfortable truth, if you will, at least at first), and act accordingly.
    .
    A big part of the problem, I think, is that sexuality is so deeply wired into our brains that it is an intrinsic part of our psychology, and that as a result it’s just very, *very*, hard for men and women to really *get* what the sexual psychological experience actually *is* of the other sex other than in a very dry, intellectual way — we can intellectually understand it, but we can’t really *get* it, because it is both so different from our own wired sexual psychology, on the one hand, and because we have no access to experiencing that sexual psychology.

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

      @Brendan
      I agree completely, and I don’t deny that understanding, even empathizing is the mature thing to do. But it’s very hard to feel OK about the idea of my husband mind-fucking a bunch of strangers. I understand it intellectually, and I accept it. But I confess it is hard emotionally. I never do that about other men, although of course I am not blind to attractive men. I will say this – hearing you and Mike C talk about this makes me especially grateful for my husband’s faithfulness.
      .
      Honestly, it’s a wonder we make relationships work at all!

  • Plain Jane

    “When my husband and I were dating, I wanted to try a bit of roleplay with me being dominant. Oh boy, he did not like that AT ALL. That lasted less than ten minutes, and has never been mentioned again.”
    *
    Interesting.  According to the men here a spouse is supposed to fulfill all the sexual desires of their mate, even the ones they find to be distasteful.  Lets hear the men commenters weigh in on this one.
    *
    As far as men desiring sexual variety, its no different than you experiencing that low grade fever when you see Javier Bardem on the screen, despite the fact that you are sitting right next to your husband when watching the film.
    I think women might get more jealous than men over these things.
    I recall with one boyfriend who was constantly noticing other women, I would get furious.
    He never got furious or jealous over me noticing other guys or talking about how “hot” they were or even talking about my previous boyfriends.
    Probably because men know that simply finding someone sexually attractive does not mean that your relationship is threatened.
    It just means you think someone is hot, might picture them naked or thing for a second about sex with them.
    Big deal.
     

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

      Interesting. According to the men here a spouse is supposed to fulfill all the sexual desires of their mate, even the ones they find to be distasteful. L

      No, I’ve never heard men here say that. For any couple, it’s about finding which activities, or fantasies work for you. If one person is repulsed or loses their erection, it’s a non-starter! I couldn’t enjoy that if it was a boner killer for my husband.

  • Höllenhund

    I understand that this is male nature, but just as female nature leaves you scratching (and shaking) your head, we women feel the same way about this male need for sexual variety. I won’t ever understand it, which is why I said I’d rather not know.

     
    The human animal would’ve gone extinct a long time ago without that need.

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

      The human animal would’ve gone extinct a long time ago without that need.

      True. But evolution also provided for considerable differences between us. Perhaps the human animal would have gone extinct if women were not uncomfortable with mens’ desire for that variety.

  • Plain Jane

    ” 
    The human animal would’ve gone extinct a long time ago without that need.”

    BULL!
    People remaining monogamous is not going to cause humans to go extinct.

  • Plain Jane

    In fact, I’ll say that some cultures where variety is forbidden – are more populous than our’s where variety is easier to get at.

  • Plain Jane

    “But it’s very hard to feel OK about the idea of my husband mind-fucking a bunch of strangers. I understand it intellectually, and I accept it. But I confess it is hard emotionally. I never do that about other men”
    —-
    And yet you said, ” Javier Bardem in Biutiful. We went with another couple, and the three of them all thought the movie was slow and long. I could have sat through another hour without even thinking of checking my watch. Looking at him caused a sort of low-grade fever in me – a two and a half hour tingle.”

  • Höllenhund

    erhaps the human animal would have gone extinct if women were not uncomfortable with mens’ desire for that variety.
     
    As it has been stated before, the genders have evolved in tandem. The desire and ability of alphas to indulge in sexual variety is complemented by women’s innate urge to cuckold their partners with philandering alphas spreading their seed. It’s no coincidende that women’s sexual desire for alphas AND their fertility both peak during ovulation. Women have a deep urge to be impregnated by alphas and extract commitment from betas. The truth is that women wouldn’t be happier if men had no desire for sexual variety; far from it.
    Food for thought:
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201005/higamous-hogamous-women-arent-truly-monogamous
     

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

      @Hund
      Hmm, the author of that Psych Today article is plugging a book he wrote on polyamory. Also, he focuses too much on the female ejaculation. It’s a hotly debated topic, but if it is real, it is fluid that is expelled through the urethra, not the vagina. So his claims that it changes the ph in the vagina and clears it for the new sperm of a lover makes no sense.

  • Stephenie Rowling

     
    Wow many things to respond to please bear with me
     
    I know they work on some men, but the more experience a man has with women, the less likely they are to be effective and even counter productive.
     
    I could say the same about Game. The most lines a women has been feed the most likely she will recognize a gamer and run from the hills. So till what point the game works for itself or because the woman knows what you are doing and chooses to engage?
     
    There is no contradiction is loving one woman very deeply yet simultaneously desiring to fuck every single attractive woman you see.
     
    I agree with this, by testimony of my Alpha friends, (Susan I don’t get it either but I heard it enough to believe it) but there is a point in which a man has to choose between acting on those impulses and the consequences and resisting and continue comiting. No man has ever died because he couldn’t bang a certain woman so its not a basic need that cannot be avoided.
     
    That human beings are capable of changing their own cultures is a tautology. That these changes are always de facto an advantage is not, and we’ll eventually see the fruits of our latest planetary paradigm shift.
     
    In my darkest days my guess is that unless we change this the current trend in the near future sex bots will be our demise. Women able to program Alpha/Beta males and males able to program loyal wifeable women that can change forms every time they want to, that will kill our species for good.
     
    My “focus group” of young women recently came to this conclusion: “We want beta inside, alpha outside!”
    The truth is that doesn’t work very well – as Mike C has testified. Women want the beta traits in a dominant male. The man must bring the alpha inside, and balance it with his beta nature to achieve success, not to mention peace.

     
    I think that is pretty much all female fantasies, the oldest one on the book is Beauty and the Beast, the beast is narcissist and animal like, but Beauty’s tame it. Pretty much all successful books of romance are filled with variations of this fantasy. The thing is that women that are aware of this fantasies or wired to pick Beta males will know that reality is a lot different, and that dating a man with the hopes that “the power of love will change him” is stupid. I do think it happens but really is such a far chance that its no worth to try.
     
    Yes, and the type of wackado relationship drama we’re talking about here is as common as air in Latin America. Roissy’s prescriptions could be accurately described as “act like a Latin American man.” QED.
     
    Mmm then why most men tired of the dating scene here, recommend men going there to find wives? Also Roissy could be suffering of fantasy envy, I don’t know if you have noticed but men usually hate with a fire od two thousand suns whatever male women love, from the times of Rudolph Valentino, to Leonardo Di Caprio to Justin Bieber getting booed by Knicks fans. Men usually feel very threatened by any other male even if there is no a chance of women banging them, Roissy doesn’t look much different than the typical men. And talking about this why is that? I mean what is the harm of having a crush on a famous actor or a fantasy character? I got my theory but I will like to know why men feel this irrational hate for this.
     
    Self-delusion, denial, lack of introspection, etc…..I’m not a religious person, but one thing we’ve lost with the fall-off in religiousness and “sense of sin” is the habit of seriously analyzing one’s own behavior in terms of its rightness or wrongness, indeed even of its practicality. The whole “self-esteem” thing has made it much worse.
     
    I do agree. I was raised as a catholic and a lot of the services give you time between the diferent steps to reflect about how certain situations reflect on your personal life, take a step back and consider if you are doing the right thing. I really think a moment of meditation should be something that everyone should do at least once a week to know why are they doing stuff and how their actions will have consequences on their future. Many people will benefit from that, IMO.
     
    More to the point, while swamps can be beautiful places full of wonderous things, DO NOT be fooled by its beauty and overall aesthetic appeal (even if the bald cypress is positively buried under mats of hanging spanish moss). Swamps are still very unstable and dangerous environments most of us aren’t adapted for living in. Better to just stay on “boring but safe and ‘providable’” solid ground.
     
    Heh great analogy, is true that swamps can be tempting, hopefully one will realize what a swamp is or not when it comes to it.
     
    In my life as a young man I basically did my part of the plan recommended here, but got very little in return, so I don’t see the situation as being at all symmetric.
     
    Well I think that you are missing the point of the blog, we agree that there is 80% of women chasing the top 20% of male. That leaves a short surplus of women that will appreciate a guy that is commitment orientated. No one is saying that you got it easy now, you got it harder, but its not impossible for you to find your match and second your value will increase with time, while the value of the ladies that are rejecting you decreasing proportionately. So is a hard reality that I know doesn’t offer you consolation right now, but thing is that you are offering something that will be valuable on the long term but its not right now.

    As for “reeducat[ing] men to be more confident” all I can say is that I was a rational and reality-oriented person, and my level of confidence was only what could honestly be justified by what actually happened in the world.  As a practical matter I think it’s quite ridiculous for women as a group to be telling men to be more confident while simultaneously dealing out constant rejection; it just doesn’t make sense.  So the best “reeducation for confidence” would have been to have had more actual success and received less rejection.
     
    You really think I never experienced rejection? I also spent many dateless night, many of my less picky friends having dates and fancy dinners, many lonely San Valentine’s days, I even developed the habit of going to the movie theater alone because for the longest time I had no boyfriend. Its not pretty and I hated it, but sometimes you can be the right person on the wrong place and time and that is how I took it, and after all that I still managed to initiate contact when I found a person that was my type and it was in the same page about relationships that I was. My now husband.
    I know is easier for me because women usually seek the support of other women and we are very good protecting each other self stem “he is the one losing it, you are a wonderful woman, if I were a man I’d marry you….) but you can also try to look at ways to protect your self stem, because sadly this is only going to end when the right person gets to your life and we have no idea when that is going to be. Again I don’t know your particular case, but I do know something, don’t get bitter over women, because if something I know is that men or women that get bitter over the opposite gender sometimes find the right person and are unable to see it because they obsesses over being rejected again, or start to make the person that said yes pay for all the others that said no, and that will reduce your chances at happiness to almost zero. Because no matter how much interested on a relationship a woman is, dating someone that is always punishing you for something you didn’t do is a big turn off.
     
     
    The best one can expect is some kind of system of rough monogamy. Only a few of man’s deepest desires are satisfied this way, but at least the majority of men and women won’t sleep alone. Life is not kind.
     
    This is how I think our ancestors invented Monogamy if you seek animal kingdom that is almost 98% non monogamy, you see a lot of males failing to father offspring, females losing babies given that they only the mother to take care of and their strategy wouldn’t work with us because human babies need constant care and given our big brains we cannot have a ton of those to substitutes the one we lose, they take too much out of the mother. Also a small percentage of males passing the genes produces inbreeding, males always competing for women with fights and resources will no create enough equilibrium for a society to prosper, so they regulating they amount of pairing it can happens, allows the Alpha males getting the hottest women, but the other males still have enough to share and the women knowing the Alpha male availability will choose lower because without procreation neither of the gender had any place on the society, of course this was not the solution for every society but it looks like agriculture most society developed a type of bonding that was very socially charged to avoid breaking it. I can totally see our ancestors giving themselves an epic facepalm looking at how things are working when we decided to change the system. YOU IDIOTS!
    I like to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill Monogamy is the worst form of relationship, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

    We don’t like to hurt women, but we do like getting laid.
    IME. Men usually hurt women when it benefits them for more laids or doesn’t hurt their chances of more laids, the thing that men place getting laid over hurting women is that makes this thinking fucked up in the long run. And to be fair this is true for women as well.
     
    Part of game *is* profiling the women most likely to respond to game.  Venue plays a big part, of course, but how a woman is dressed, and IOIs (Indicators of Interest), etc.  Fact is, women who are open to casual sex tend to display this by dressing and acting a certain way, and putting themselves in target-rich environments.
     
    I’m going to share a little horror story that happened in my country that has to deal with this.
    “My mother is a teacher, one of his very married male coworkers during recess started to make stories about how when his wife was not in the mood he forced himself of her, now my mother and many of the teachers usually left when he was telling this horrible tales, well it turns out he was fishing for an affair and not only he succeeded he won the prettiest teacher on the school (I will say she was a natural 9), she was also very married and she cheated on her husband with him, and let me tell you the guy was disgusting, black teeth, beer belly and all that, but he got game, now the sick game won him ONE of all the women (at least 25) that were present when he started this technique, I’m pretty sure that is no the first time he tried game so obviously from his POV he could clearly could had said that all women want to be raped and that is how you get women interested, if someone asked him, failing to mention the other 24 that didn’t shed a tear when he died of cancer a few years later, because they were absolutely disgusted by him.” Thus I will like to have real data of how much this actually works. Do we have any statistic of how many times he had failed on the game? Has he try game on women that are clearly drama-free ladies? Has he tried to game a woman to keep her interested and in love with him and only him for a serious relationship? Again I don’t doubt the effectiveness of game on certain type, but God’s knows that I do know my share of women that dropped a guy like a hot potato as soon as he starts playing games like not calling, being pretentious or treating them like crap.

  • Aldonza

    Interesting.  According to the men here a spouse is supposed to fulfill all the sexual desires of their mate, even the ones they find to be distasteful.  Lets hear the men commenters weigh in on this one.
    .
    There are some men who believe that.  I think most of the men here were just agreeing that having a partner who is open to sharing fantasies and tries to please him in bed are good things in a partner, especially for a long-term relationship.  My point was that some of those things can be fun for the woman too.  I tell you what, there is something inherently feminine and *powerful* about being aware of what can make your man excited.  If I know my man has a thing for sexy shoes, you know damn well that I have a closet full of them.  If he gets hot just thinking about women with big hair and pornstar makeup, I will put on the false eyelashes and rock the hairspray.  Those things are fun for me because being sexually desired by a man I love is fun for me.
    .
    Now, I could just insist that he automatically find me sexually attractive after a few decades, a few pounds, a few kids, with greasy hair, unkept nails, wearing day-old sweat pants and jungle pussy underneath…but knowing what I know about men, that seems pretty self-delusional to me.    If he’s a good guy, he probably still loves me and respects me as the mother of his children and his intelligent life partner and all that.  And he will still likely fuck me because he loves me (and because he’s not allowed to fuck other women anymore.)  But wouldn’t it be nicer for both of us if he wanted to fuck me because he wanted to fuck *me*?
    .
    I’m a feminist.  Some might even call me a sex-positive feminist based on some views I have.  But I’m not a feminist because I hate men or think that we should be alike in all ways.  I’m quite fond of men actually…even with all the things that make them different than me.  Or maybe I’m fond of them because of the things that make them different from me.

  • filrabat

    @ Hollenhund
    I also disagree that monogamy = potential extinction.  Firstly, common sense tells us that all it takes is one fertile woman and one likewise fertile man to create children.  That same couple could theoretically have up to as many as two dozen children.  This remains true even if both partners were virgins on their wedding night.
    Secondly, “natural”, “human nature” arguments always leave me feeling queasy – for 9 times out of 10.. or more accurately 99 times out of 100…”human nature” means “the part of human nature that is more animal than <i>distinctly</i> human”.  i.e. True human nature is what enables us to consciously and deliberately overrule our animal desires when absoultely necessary. It also enabled us to be able to visualize how to “build a better mousetrap” – from stone spears all the way up to space probes, the internet, cracking the human genome, and launch space probes to Saturn, etc.
    Put more simply , there’s “human nature” and Human nature.  Which one do you think more closely resembles that nihilistic world of the animal realm? Which one enabled us to have even a concept of morality and ethics?  Which one let us extend our expected life span from 25 to (as of now) the early 80s?
    By extension, which nature is more effective at delivering us the sustainable (i.e. longest-term) results from a relationship we truly want?

  • Plain Jane

    “There are some men who believe that.  I think most of the men here were just agreeing that having a partner who is open to sharing fantasies and tries to please him in bed are good things in a partner, especially for a long-term relationship.  My point was that some of those things can be fun for the woman too.  I tell you what, there is something inherently feminine and *powerful* about being aware of what can make your man excited.  If I know my man has a thing for sexy shoes, you know damn well that I have a closet full of them.  If he gets hot just thinking about women with big hair and pornstar makeup, I will put on the false eyelashes and rock the hairspray.  Those things are fun for me because being sexually desired by a man I love is fun for me.”
    —–
    Fair enough.
    But Susan said when she wanted to roleplay being a Dominitrix her husband was turned off and they therefore never “went there” again.
    What if it turned HER on though?
    Heck, he could let her whip him a few times, pin him down, tie him up, and if that made HER hot – then they could switch to the stuff that made him hot.
    Experimenting goes both ways.
    If you are going to rock the falsies and hairspray to turn your man on – even though it might do NOTHING for you – then he MUST ALSO submit to doing things that turn you on – even if they do nothing for him.

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

      Experimenting goes both ways.
      If you are going to rock the falsies and hairspray to turn your man on – even though it might do NOTHING for you – then he MUST ALSO submit to doing things that turn you on – even if they do nothing for him.

      Aldonza is saying she enjoys doing those things. If her man asked her to pee on his face, she might say no way. There are many paths couples can travel – why waste time engaging in a fantasy that doesn’t work for one or both parties? For the record, I was not being a dominatrix, haha. It was more just flipping the script. Oh, never mind. I was an idiot to even share that.

  • Brendan

    I know nothing of BDSM, but it seems that a woman being submissive to her dominant husband – is that novel? Isn’t that what we had for thousands of years? And no doubt these folks consider themselves enlightened…when in reality it’s totally retro.
    .
    Indeed, but in this case she was a “BDSM” submissive — so more fetishy and so on.  No doubt that’s not new either, but it’s also never been very common, at least not in the baroque way that BDSM people seem to go about it.

  • Stephenie Rowling

     
    My advice to men who want to improve their looks is always – grow out your hair.
     
    Generalizing again. I hate men with woman’s hair unless he is dressed on costume from ancient play or something like it. I don’t get turn on by women so long hair is a big turn off. My husband used to have long hair like a year before we meet and I always told him good timing, because no chance in hell I will have dating him with that hair. So yeah Fabio always looked horrible to me, specially adding his muscles. So gross.
     
    True. But evolution also provided for considerable differences between us. Perhaps the human animal would have gone extinct if women were not uncomfortable with mens’ desire for that variety.
     
    Yeah I think the men here are forgetting that as much they desire variety women also had ingrained jealousy on their brains as much as males. Had you ever seen a woman bragging and being joyful about their husband’s fucking their pretty secretary? I had been the shoulder for many women and as much attracted they are to the Alpha types they suffer a lot when they cheat so I will think is very possible that we are not supposed to understand and accept as much as men are supposed to crave for it. It creates a balance. Although other times I think evolution has a sick sense of humor and played a joke on all of us.
     
     

  • Aldonza

    If you are going to rock the falsies and hairspray to turn your man on – even though it might do NOTHING for you – then he MUST ALSO submit to doing things that turn you on – even if they do nothing for him.
    .
    I think you’re missing my point.  Wearing heels and falsies does nothing for me in a vacuum, but I do like seeing the look on his face when I do it.  He turns me on…by being turned on.  That’s what I get off on.  Now, if Susan had a *strong* interest in being dominant in bed, and needed that as part of her sexual experience on a regular basis, it would be up to her and her husband to decide how to satisfy that desire.  Maybe she needs more than he can give and it becomes a relationship dealbreaker.  But it might also be as simple as her describing what she would do to him to get excited without actually having to take out the ballgag and painwheel.  My gut, though, is that she didn’t find this all that appealing and just wanted to try it…to try it.
    .
    I absolutely do agree that it should be a two-way street.  Maybe your thing is candles, soft music, mutual massage (with oils, of course) and him reading erotic novels to you in a low voice, so you can feel the vibration of his voice on your skin and his breath on your neck.  Or maybe you like being shoved onto the bed and forced to submit to a string of orgasms before you’re allowed the privilege of fucking.  If it gets you going, he should be all for it.  Men like variety, and, of course, he benefits from you being turned on too.

  • Brendan

    If you are going to rock the falsies and hairspray to turn your man on – even though it might do NOTHING for you – then he MUST ALSO submit to doing things that turn you on – even if they do nothing for him.
    .
    Arousal in men and women tends to work differently.  There was an interesting article about female sexuality a year or so ago in the NYT (Google it) which explained that arousal in women seems to be most highly related to a man whom they want to desire them *strongly* desiring them, whereas men are generally aroused by the object of their desire.  Hence what Aldonza wrote makes a lot of sense — when he’s turned on by her, she’s turned on and having fun.  So it might “do nothing for her” to dress up as she described, but his arousal and desire in reaction to that does a lot for her.
    .
    It’s not about taking a piece of paper, slashing a line down the middle, and placing equal numbers of stuff on each side, really.

  • Mike C

    @Stephanie
     
    I agree with this, by testimony of my Alpha friends, (Susan I don’t get it either but I heard it enough to believe it) but there is a point in which a man has to choose ****between acting on**** those impulses and the consequences and resisting and continue comiting. No man has ever died because he couldn’t bang a certain woman so its not a basic need that cannot be avoided.


    I think you misread/misinterpreted my initial comment.  If you go back and read it, I did say *desiring* …not actually doing anything.  A monogamous commitment is just that.  Full stop.

    I think Brendan hit the nail on the head with the comment that many tend to say “that’s pathological” when the simple fact of the matter is that the instinct is quite normal.  It is another one of these situations where society almost says a guy has to apologize for being a guy.

    Take something like the Tiger Woods situation.  Now I do NOT condone his cheating for one second.  That said, I saw and heard stuff like he was some kind of demon spawn while I often see women excused/given a pass for acting on their hypergamous instinct.  I think this is because can justify/rationalize acting on the hypergamous drive while not “understanding” just how powerful the male polygamous drive is.

    Again, commitment is commitment especially marriage vows but I definitely see a situation where generally speaking women are not held to the same standards as men with respect to their different sex drives.

  • Brendan

    Yeah I think the men here are forgetting that as much they desire variety women also had ingrained jealousy on their brains as much as males. Had you ever seen a woman bragging and being joyful about their husband’s fucking their pretty secretary? I had been the shoulder for many women and as much attracted they are to the Alpha types they suffer a lot when they cheat so I will think is very possible that we are not supposed to understand and accept as much as men are supposed to crave for it. It creates a balance.
    .
    The balance is created a bit differently I think.
    .
    Men, for example, have historically been very intolerant of female hypergamy manifesting itself in female infidelity as well.  That makes evolutionary sense, too, because raising another man’s babies is an evolutionary goose egg for a man’s genes.  However, today, where sexual and relational freedom is normative, even in marriages (after all, dissolving a marriage is easier than it has ever been), it seems more important for men and women to understand these fundamental drives so that they can address them in the context of the relationship or marriage, rather than doing an ostrich and then being surprised later when they manifest.  For women, that means taking care of the man’s need for variety in some way, while for the man it needs taking care of the woman’s need for hypergamy.  Both of these approaches, however, require each sex to understand what makes the other “tick” in terms of sexual attraction and maintaining that attraction, and adapt.  Believe me, it is no easier for men to adapt than it is for women, given the new ruleset we have culturally and legally.  But I think marriages get stronger when men and women understand the way each other ticks, even if only in an intellectual way and never in a visceral way, because it’s only through that kind of understanding that they can adapt behaviors and actually offset the “bad” impulses that men and women have, in attractional terms, that undermine relationship stability.

  • Aldonza

    Hence what Aldonza wrote makes a lot of sense — when he’s turned on by her, she’s turned on and having fun.  So it might “do nothing for her” to dress up as she described, but his arousal and desire in reaction to that does a lot for her.
    .
    Yay!  Brendan gets it!  And men aren’t immune to that feeling either.  Most men I know like knowing that a woman desires him.  Part of the reason he likes those things is that it’s my way of showing him that I desire him.
    .
    Sometimes this blog and a lot of the manosphere reading gets me downright depressed about sexual interactions.  Game her into your bed.  Game her to keep her in your bed.  She’s a slut if she does and a bitch if she doesn’t.  She has no brain, just keep her hamster going and the pussy runs free.  Good Lord, instead of coming up with petty ass games to make me anxious about whether or not you’re going to leave me, just send me a single text telling me what you’re going to do to me tonight and then refuse to elaborate.  Call and tell me that you got hard just thinking about how my ass looked the other night.  Before I go to work, back me into a wall, grab my hair, kiss me hard and tell me you’re going to fuck my teeth loose when I get home.  *That*, my friends, is alpha.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Take something like the Tiger Woods situation.  Now I do NOT condone his cheating for one second.  That said, I saw and heard stuff like he was some kind of demon spawn while I often see women excused/given a pass for acting on their hypergamous instinct.  I think this is because can justify/rationalize acting on the hypergamous drive while not “understanding” just how powerful the male polygamous drive is.
     
    Well I did called all types of names to Tiger Woods (He was my celebrity crush…one of them actually ;)) but I don’t condone women for cheating on Beta guys with an Alpha guys either. I totally despise the trope and I totally hated the Bridges of Madison County (and sorry Susan I know that book is on your list of favorite romances) because cheating is not romantic IMO. Again I the cheating is what bothers me. If he would had been a single guy that likes to bang everything that moves I wouldn’t even paid attention. The fact that he made his vows was my problem and I’m equal opportunity anti-cheater here. I also reacted the same way when Christina Aguilera for cheating on his Beta husband and brought her new hot boyfriend to the house before he moved out! The nerve! And I was a fan, not anymore. Of course this people’s lives are no my businesses but this are examples of things that everyone knows and everyone can express their opinion specially on the net. So again stop generalizing you don’t know me and you might not believe me but I really try to be fair to both genders.

  • Brendan

    Again, commitment is commitment especially marriage vows but I definitely see a situation where generally speaking women are not held to the same standards as men with respect to their different sex drives.
    .
    Yes, the downsides of the male drive are pathologized pretty much always, whereas the downsides of the female drive are often celebrated as “empowering” or “liberating”.  In other words, you see things like “of course she left him for that guy, because the guy she was with was a loser!”.  The translation of that is that the new guy was an upgrade over the old guy, so the trade-up “made sense”.  But that’s just an outright endorsement of female hypergamy, even when it breaks up a marriage, while a man who strays due to the polygamy instinct is simply vilified, even if it doesn’t break up his marriage (see: Spitzer, Clinton, etc.).  This is embracing hypergamy and vilifying polygamy, when in fact both instincts have their downsides.  The information spreading that is now going on among men regarding hypergamy will work to undermine this disparity, but only slowly, I think.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue, on the male preference for sexual variety. Here’s one way to think of it, that maybe makes sense to you.
    .
    When you’re single, you find yourself open and attracted to many possibilities of people of the opposite sex. The attention of a guy can be exciting, and the attention of another is? Right?
    .
    Women, when they fall in love… this openness it seems to automatically shut off, through no effort on your own. My wife often says “the thought of other men touching me is repulsive”. It’s so basic to your very being, you can’t think of it any other way. When you’re in love, other men somehow all get uglier. Is that accurate?
    .
    Men, when we fall in love… it simply doesn’t shut off automatically. We still find other women attractive as before we met you. Nothing changes. It doesn’t mean you’re bad in bed, or we’re not getting “enough”. A man getting sex 3x a day still feels the same way. It is completely independent of what you do or don’t do.
    As Mike notes, we do suppress the outer behaviors of this with great conscious, rational effort – these might be things as bad as cheating, down to sorta-okay things flirting, and even all the way down to perfectly fine things like benign social situation when available women might gather. If we do this, it is because we love you. Not because it happens as an automatic side-effect of “love”.
    .
    Put more bluntly, imagine if 20% of the world’s population ware as hot as Javier Bardem. That’s the low-grade fever we deal with every day of our lives. PJ might go on and on about “hot girls” being a 8 or 9 out of 10… but the reality is, for men hotness is binary. We can find a plain girls very attractive, past some fairly low threshold of nastiness. She’s hot to us at a genetic level, meaning, we wouldn’t deny sex with her *if* we were single, amoral, and she offered. A 10 revs the engine just as much as a “our kinda 6″.
    .
    I was at a gig a few nights ago, and during my break I talked to one of the dancers (not stage, social dancer). She was average-looking, chunky, sort of cute as girls in their 20s are, but not what anyone would call pretty or hot. But oh, she was “my type”! When I talked to her, she was so friendly, feminine, flirty, and touchy that she instantly became a 9 in my book. She was the hottest girl in the room to me, and imagine if I told anybody that, they’d think I was crazy. It took a great deal of effort to walk away… when your body is screaming to dance with her, return her touch, and get her phone number. (OK, I did touch her arm. Sue me.)

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

      @OffTheCuff
      Thanks, that is helpful, and extremely informative. For me personally, but also for the many eyes reading along. If anything, women’s awareness of men’s sexual nature is the thing that instills dread even when the male doesn’t intend it. We do get very threatened by this. I will agree that for me, the idea of being touched by another man is not appealing in theory, and I can’t even imagine it with any of the men I know. Javier Bardem is obviously just a harmless celebrity crush. By the way, I would never tell my husband he is super hot, or that I had a fever! I did say that he and Penelope Cruz make an extraordinarily handsome power couple, and I’m psyched they’re in love, married, and having a baby. Which is true. In other words, even there I channeled my feelings into something appropriate. This is what some women do – those of us who would not cheat or leave a man out of boredom. Unfortunately, many women appear to fail to channel feelings of attraction for other men, based on the stats around cheating.

  • Brendan

    Most men I know like knowing that a woman desires him.  Part of the reason he likes those things is that it’s my way of showing him that I desire him.
    .
    In the context of a relationship, sure.  Outside of that, not as much.  That’s one of the reasons why men tend to utilize sex workers at a much higher rate than women do — the arousal is there regardless of the fact that he pretty much knows she doesn’t desire him.  But certainly in the context of a relationship that is longer beyond casual sex, men definitely do prefer their partners being quite turned on as well.  Prefer, mind you.  It isn’t a pre-requisite for arousal, and perhaps that’s the main difference.

  • Geoff2

    @Susan,
    Sorry about the DP (double post).
    .
    Thought this might help…
    http://codex.wordpress.org/Combating_Comment_Spam#Moderate_All_Comments
     

  • Stephenie Rowling

    However, today, where sexual and relational freedom is normative, even in marriages (after all, dissolving a marriage is easier than it has ever been), it seems more important for men and women to understand these fundamental drives so that they can address them in the context of the relationship or marriage, rather than doing an ostrich and then being surprised later when they manifest.  For women, that means taking care of the man’s need for variety in some way, while for the man it needs taking care of the woman’s need for hypergamy.  Both of these approaches, however, require each sex to understand what makes the other “tick” in terms of sexual attraction and maintaining that attraction, and adapt.  Believe me, it is no easier for men to adapt than it is for women, given the new ruleset we have culturally and legally.  But I think marriages get stronger when men and women understand the way each other ticks, even if only in an intellectual way and never in a visceral way, because it’s only through that kind of understanding that they can adapt behaviors and actually offset the “bad” impulses that men and women have, in attractional terms, that undermine relationship stability.
     
    This very sound advice I do agree completely. Communication and understanding, but game its not comunication is manipulation, the same way that feminine wiles are (whatever those are I don’t think I have those) so when this understanding and communication is supposed to happen? So far the case for women Hypergamy screwing the dating game has been placed but men needs for variety during younger age has not. Shouldn’t we try to make both genders to learn to suppress or at least moderate their instincts to make a good selection?

  • Mike C

    So again stop generalizing you don’t know me and you might not believe me but I really try to be fair to both genders.


    Not sure if that is directed at me, or we are getting our lines crossed or something.  I think you’ve been spot on with like 90%+ of your comments, and I really do get the sense that you are fair to both genders in your views.  That said, you are a rarity.  Women like yourself, Susan, etc. who have the ability to empathize with the male view, the male position are an anomaly.  Your time spent on Jezebel should have shown you that.  Many women are still caught up in some delusion of patriarchal oppression despite really having the upper hand in these matters.

    Again, to revisit the Tiger Woods situation.  Many women were making light of the golf club stuff, saying she should have clubbed him etc.  What if a bunch of guys advocated that a wife should get punched in the face for leaving her husband for a higher status man?  What would be the reaction to that?  Giggles?

  • Mike C

    So far the case for women Hypergamy screwing the dating game has been placed but men needs for variety during younger age has not. Shouldn’t we try to make both genders to learn to suppress or at least moderate their instincts to make a good selection? <em>
    </em>



    Yes, we should.  Here’s the problem though.  Ultimately, men pursue, women choose.  Again, women choose.  One more time.  Women choose.  So as long as the 5-7s are willingly to make it really, really easy for the 20% of alphas to sleep with them under the guise of empowerment, then Houston we’ve got a problem.  See Athlone’s comment on the other thread.  The gears in the system mucking it up are the female 5-7s who aren’t going for the guy 5-7s who would probably be in monogamous relationships, but instead thinking they are going to land a 8-10.

    Ultimately, you aren’t going to change the behavior of the 20% at the top of the pyramid because they are living a life of paradise.  Absent cultural and religious pressures, forget about it.  The women have a better chance of being influenced since they are probably going to eventually realize down that path happiness does NOT lie.

  • Geoff

    @Aldonza,
    Wow.  You understand men more than pretty much any other woman here:
    .
    A-”If I know my man has a thing for sexy shoes, you know damn well that I have a closet full of them.”             
    G-Good for you.  Not into shoes myself, but you get that it’s a woman’s job to make herself sexy.            
    .
    A-”Now, I could just insist that he automatically…(blah blah blah) jungle pussy.”
    G-That cracked me up.
    A-”And he will still likely fuck me because he loves me (and because he’s not allowed to fuck other women anymore.)  But wouldn’t it be nicer for both of us if he wanted to fuck me because he wanted to fuck *me*?”
    G-You are so getting the way to a man’s heart–which is of course his pants.  If I wasn’t splendiferously happily married and I actually knew you, this post would make me want to big gold star next to your name in my Rolodex at this point.
    .
    A-”I’m a feminist.””
    .
    G-But then you had to go and kill the potential boner.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Not sure if that is directed at me, or we are getting our lines crossed or something.  I think you’ve been spot on with like 90%+ of your comments, and I really do get the sense that you are fair to both genders in your views.  That said, you are a rarity.  Women like yourself, Susan, etc. who have the ability to empathize with the male view, the male position are an anomaly.  Your time spent on Jezebel should have shown you that.  Many women are still caught up in some delusion of patriarchal oppression despite really having the upper hand in these matters.
     
    Okay sorry about that, my mistake. I do love men. Men when they are good are the most wonderful thing ever on the universe.

  • Dilithium

     
    Stephenie, re at February 4, 2011 at 12:23 am
    .
    I appreciate your reply to my comment at February 3, 2011 at 10:41 am remarking on your comment at February 2, 2011 at 4:28 pm (my but we do seem to run on at the keyboard here).  Your concern for my welfare is touching, but you haven’t addressed my main point at all (which was, admittedly, a small one).  When you wrote:
     
     
    .
    “So the solution is … both gender try to exhibit long term traits early on, before they both got bitter: women from lack of committed partners and men from being rejected regularly. Both genders need to compromise in a middle ground”
    .
    I’m saying that you’re just plain-on-the-page wrong.  The approach of “exhibiting long-term traits early on” has been tried by a very large number of men, and the results were terrible; what you propose as a “solution” is, in fact, nothing like a solution at all.  It’s ridiculous to say that “both sides need to compromise”; men, in the main, already made the compromise that you seek! it’s explicitly women who, by your formula, now need to do their part.  The cult of false even-handedness is not doing you any good here.
    .
    How can I make this any clearer?  what you wrote was just plain wrong, and you should recognize that and admit it.
    .
    Now, as for this
    .
    “You really think I never experienced rejection?”
    .
    it’s rather a pitch from left field. I never said anything about you in particular, or about who else did or did not get rejected when or how often.  My main statement is that in general the responsibility for having produced a terrible SMP is not split equally between men and women and I certainly stand by that.  But since you chose to bring it up, let’s see what we can learn from your experience.
    .
    You say that you spent a good bit of time lonely.  However, you also countenance the “80/20 rule” which means you admit to the existence of a great middle 60% or so of men at that age who are not outright ugly (that would be the bottom 20%) but are yet shut out by their female counterparts.  This great middle 60% should have been free for the taking; so, why didn’t you take any of them?  Your referring to “many of my less picky friends having dates” implies directly that you yourself dateless by virtue of being more picky, so much so that the middle 60% of men were effectively unacceptably unattractive you to.
    .
    As Susan and others have said, whom a person does or does not find attractive is not really voluntary, at least in the short term, so being picky is not strictly a decision per se.  However, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that, the pickier you are, even if it’s not your “fault” that your are so, the less sympathy you deserve for the same amount of loneliness.  Your feelings may vary, of course; but I don’t feel I’m going out on any limbs when I say that I don’t think a decent young woman whose taste restricts her to only 10% or 15% of her peer men and who winds up dateless is at all comparable to the decent young man who’d be happy to have a date from 60%-70% of his peer ladies but of whom none will give him the time of day.  Again, the cult of even-handedness fails you: just because two people both experience loneliness does not mean that the world as a whole is symmetric between them.
    .
    Lastly, cycling back to the original topic, it should be stated clearly that both men’s and women’s general problems in the SMP can be traced directly back to female hypergamy.  Once you admit that the upper 80% of women will all restrict their attention to the same upper 20% of men — the 80/20 rule, which Susan has her doubts about but you seem to accept — then it’s inescapable that 60% of the men and at least 60% of the women are going to be frustrated (and, it’s highly likely that the upper 20% of men will not develop or mature, but will remain self-centered jerks simply because they can).
    .
    The important point here is that the middle 60% of men have no say at all in the matter, and so effectively bear no responsibility for how the SMP has turned out.  People like Susan maintain that the middle 60% of men could learn Game, and so join the pool that women consider acceptable.  But I think this is wrong, for two reasons: (i) learning Game is so unnatural to so many — and, often, the best — men that I don’t think the effect could be very large, and (ii) even if all men were turned into Rudolph Valentino overnight, I think that women at large would still find a way to carve out a new “top 20%” among the men and still restrict their attention to a small group once again.  That’s the nature of hypergamy: to go only for the cream no matter how good the milk might be.
    .
    So, your own experience as you tell it just confirms what so many here have been saying all along: unbridled female hypergamy is the root cause of a great deal of suffering; it’s poison in the groundwater that ruins the world for men and women alike.
     
     

     
     
     
     
     

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

      Once you admit that the upper 80% of women will all restrict their attention to the same upper 20% of men — the 80/20 rule, which Susan has her doubts about but you seem to accept — then it’s inescapable that 60% of the men and at least 60% of the women are going to be frustrated (and, it’s highly likely that the upper 20% of men will not develop or mature, but will remain self-centered jerks simply because they can).

      That’s not exactly right. I believe that 20% of the men get 80% of the sex, which is not quite the same thing. And I think they get it from something close to 20% of the women. Maybe up to 40%. Impossible to quantify at this point.

      even if all men were turned into Rudolph Valentino overnight, I think that women at large would still find a way to carve out a new “top 20%” among the men and still restrict their attention to a small group once again. That’s the nature of hypergamy: to go only for the cream no matter how good the milk might be.

      I don’t think so. We’ve discussed this before on HUS. If you put the 100 hottest guys on the planet on a desert island with 100 women, they will not relegate 80 of those men to “invisible.” Hypergamy states that women select partners of higher status. For long-term relationships/marriage that manifests as prestige. For the short-term, it’s a question of social dominance. Assuming the stay on the island is a short one, then as long as the men on the island all offer high dominance, they should all meet every woman’s need for higher status than herself.
      .
      At least this is what the research says. The definition of hypergamy has been revised and expanded in the manosphere – but I don’t know the basis for it. The Mystery Method focused on “getting beautiful women into bed,” i.e. short-term liaisons, so social dominance was key. The literature in evo psych says otherwise for marriage.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    it’s rather a pitch from left field. I never said anything about you in particular, or about who else did or did not get rejected when or how often.  My main statement is that in general the responsibility for having produced a terrible SMP is not split equally between men and women and I certainly stand by that.  But since you chose to bring it up, let’s see what we can learn from your experience.
     
    I mentioned my loneliness because you said that being rejected several times makes you unable to be confident. Thus I mentioned that I was lonely and clearly I was rejected for a while thus I do think you can still find confident knowing that the person that rejects you is not doing it out of any inherent defect you have most of the state of the sexual market. I also mentioned that there is 20% of women that are willing to date you. So is the minority but as we can see here there are young women willing to compromise. Why are you not trying to get this women that are willing to do so? Unless you are aiming for the 20% of 9’s and 10.
     
    You say that you spent a good bit of time lonely.  However, you also countenance the “80/20 rule” which means you admit to the existence of a great middle 60% or so of men at that age who are not outright ugly (that would be the bottom 20%) but are yet shut out by their female counterparts.  This great middle 60% should have been free for the taking; so, why didn’t you take any of them?  Your referring to “many of my less picky friends having dates” implies directly that you yourself dateless by virtue of being more picky, so much so that the middle 60% of men were effectively unacceptably unattractive you to.
     
    I also mentioned that I am from another culture and my dating pool was even shorter than yours, my less picky friends were willing to date men that were not willing to commit just for the fun to have date and with the hopes they will change their mind, so I didn’t screened out because they were ugly, or were betas, (I married a Beta I’m only attracted to Betas I didn’t had any availables ones so opened my options to other countries) mostly because they were Alphas and usually married and older (with kids) and the younger ones wouldn’t want to commit, unless you were really wealthy woman (Men can also play the Hypergamy game) that added to their value. So I was on the same boat as you, and many men here, even worst a good beta on my country is worth his weight on gold and women get him out of the dating market practically fresh out of high school, so indeed my dating pool was very limited when I say pickyness I meant no settling for a guy I was sure as hell I couldn’t get to marry and guarantee raising my family.
     
    Lastly, cycling back to the original topic, it should be stated clearly that both men’s and women’s general problems in the SMP can be traced directly back to female hypergamy.  Once you admit that the upper 80% of women will all restrict their attention to the same upper 20% of men — the 80/20 rule, which Susan has her doubts about but you seem to accept — then it’s inescapable that 60% of the men and at least 60% of the women are going to be frustrated (and, it’s highly likely that the upper 20% of men will not develop or mature, but will remain self-centered jerks simply because they can).
     
    Even if female hypergamy is a real issue, you need to remember that overabundance of sex choices can affect Beta guys as much as Alpha ones. Many guys mention here how scary is to settle down and mostly they do it after feeling they are done playing the field or when there is little chances they will get regular sex again, even if all women decided to get into hipogamy if you suddenly felt you have a ton more options and chances of getting laid, your variety instinct will kick out and you will start to play the field as well as Alphas do. So that is why you need both genders working on this. Isn’t it obvious?  The difference between Alphas getting all the ladies and Betas not getting any, is that ladies are offering to Alphas ONLY, if the situation was reversed the market will just change hands to the Betas and we still be on the same problem, except the Alphas will be the ones crying for the ladies no putting out.
     
    even if all men were turned into Rudolph Valentino overnight, I think that women at large would still find a way to carve out a new “top 20%” among the men and still restrict their attention to a small group once again.  That’s the nature of hypergamy: to go only for the cream no matter how good the milk might be.
     
    If you really think women are unpleasable and you have no chance no matter what you do, then what is the point of coming here? You just want to vent?

  • terre

    Thankfully Susan already called you on this bullshit.  I know it’s the interwebz, and all that, but really, you stand in judgment of a man who has a happy marriage after more than a decade?  He’s walking the walk.  You’re just talking the talk.
    .
    I stand by my judgment. I never said his marriage was definitely going to fail; I said if he’s acting as beta as Susan implied, it would likely come apart. This doesn’t even apply to this blog writer specifically, it goes for all marriages in the First World.

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

      I stand by my judgment. I never said his marriage was definitely going to fail; I said if he’s acting as beta as Susan implied, it would likely come apart. This doesn’t even apply to this blog writer specifically, it goes for all marriages in the First World.

      Again, terre, I will ask you what your qualifications are for making such statements. You are not interested in discussion or debate, you just keep issuing edicts like you’re the final arbiter of truth. Will little or no life experience in this realm, I don’t understand the source of your authority.

  • terre

    So you’re saying that alpha is something inherent to the man.  And it’s not based on behaviors.  If so…are men who master game really alphas?
    .
    I never said “alpha is something inherent to the man”…? You seem to have great difficulty understanding anything I say. A man is alpha or beta depending on the summation of his parts. Someone who masters game is an alpha, yes.

  • Florence

    Mike C: Just today, I’ve already mind-fucked two attractive girls I saw.
    .
    Mike C:The takeaway for women is they REALLY need to try and mix things up, different outfits, something different, although this is a tricky thing to try and communicate.
    .
    PJ:The problem is that always mixing up does not sit well with many personalities.
    …………………….
    PJ, Mike was just trying to explain how difficult it is for men to suppress their biological need for variety in order to be faithful to one woman. I can understand that. Mike was kind enough to give us tips on how to keep our boyfriends/husbands. If you are dating a guy with a lot of options, it would be beneficial to use these tips. Let’s face it: You’d be in a serious competition with several other girls for this one guy. They’d all be giving him the eye and the smiles and the temptation for him would be as strong as the temptation of a drug addict. I can totally understand that and I have a lot of respect for a man with options, who can manage to suppress this need and stay faithful.
    .
    PJ, you don’t have to do anything you don’t feel comfortable with such as playing the French maid or the dominatrix, or having a different outfit every other day, but let’s face it: you have to generate an attraction for your man one way or another, otherwise someone else will. Is it fair? No. Another unfair thing is the male ego. It is important to them to be seen with a good-looking smart woman by their male friends. It could get especially annoying if you’re an introvert (like myself) and being forced to go to official dinners and things. That being said, if a boyfriend asks you to wear a particular outfit in bed, you can say “okay” and ask him for his credit card.
    .
    PJ:Mike, please don’t think we women don’t do the same thing when we see attractive men.
    Even when we are in satisfying relationships with men we love, the sight of a very attractive OTHER man will cause us to fantasize.
    ……………….
    I wouldn’t say that I have ever “mind-fucked” another attractive man, but I do fantasize about making out with the dude or even what it would be like to date him. This is why my first reaction if (he is alone) and I am single, would be to catch his eye.
    .
    PJ:Variety is the male version of drama
    ……
    PJ, I agree here. You have the right to dump any guy who is constantly making you insecure and jealous by flirting with other girls. I have. It was simply too much “drama” to try to keep this guy and he wasn’t even anything special. Having to deal with all the “she said this, she did that”, was just too much “drama”.
    ………..

    Mike C:Natural alphas get women NOT from status, jobs, money, etc which is why this Mark Zuckerberg or Tiger Woods are probably not natural alphas.[...]Natural alphas get women on nothing but their personalities and how they interact with them.
    ………
    I agree with that. A lot of guys who aren’t anything special at all (not good looking, no status, etc) get a lot of women and usually the good looking women. They are really good at generating attraction and they are extremely fun to flirt with, but not good for the long run. In addition, beyond the flirting skills, they’re often quite dumb (main reason for no-status) and seeking an advice/opinion from them is basically a no-goer.

  • terre

    Again, terre, I will ask you what your qualifications are for making such statements. You are not interested in discussion or debate, you just keep issuing edicts like you’re the final arbiter of truth. Will little or no life experience in this realm, I don’t understand the source of your authority.
    .
    Who’s to say I have no life experience? And as I’ve said, you’ve had little to no problem with making wild assumptions about another blogger’s life (Roissy’s) when his lifestyle is ostensibly far removed from your own. What were your qualifications then?

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

    @terre

    You didn’t answer my question. On what basis do you speak about marriage with any authority whatsoever? I did not make wild assumptions about Roissy’s life, as I have said. I have not made any statements that he himself has not made. If you didn’t read him before he deleted a large percentage of his posts, you are unfortunately doomed to remain in ignorance, unless you can find one of his followers who grabbed them all and saved them for posterity.

  • terre

    Can you please link me to a post (Google cache/archive.org is your friend) in which he’s claimed he “does not have love”?

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

    If you can access all his old posts, spend some time reading his posts about how essential it is to cheat, complete with elaborate tips on how to lie without getting caught. There are also posts about making women feel loved when you feel no such thing, in order that you may continue to ride the gravy train of poon for as long as possible. Don’t miss the posts about inflicting physical pain on one’s partners, and how the best sex he ever had came from debasing women. Let’s see….there are lots of posts saying that women are only good for one thing, and a man should remember that at all times.

    .

    It’s true that now one may find a post about guilt, or about the bliss of feeling her breath on your neck. That is not Roissy. Having said that, the real Roissy did write some charming posts. He wrote one about Blind Girl Game that I liked, for example. He thought the blind girl was kinda cute. No love, though.

    .

    OK, I’m done discussing Roissy’s mental and emotional health. I really don’t care, and it’s terribly OT. This post accurately reflected his own writing, so let’s limit discussion to that.

  • Lavazza

    SR: “If you really think women are unpleasable and you have no chance no matter what you do, then what is the point of coming here? You just want to vent?”
     
    I think the answer was regarding ALL men having game. Game is the solution for one man outside of the 20 % to replace another man in the 20 %. All men learning game is not a way of changing hypergamy. Hypergamy has no connection to something absolute and is by definition relative, like majority/minority, over/under, mainstream/alternative, central/peripheral.

  • terre

    Here’s the thing: you’re engaging in the purest of hypocrisies. You see the best in men who ostensibly take your side (marriage bloggers) and the worst in the ones who don’t; it’s really obvious that even if Roissy “had love”, whatever that means, you’d redefine it so that he didn’t. I put a question to you before which you ignored, and for good reason: does a male virgin have more “love” than Roissy? To any reasonable human being, the answer is “no”. Obviously, then, there is no overarching system of fluidic karma to realign the universe when someone does something bad. Roissy is not going to be punished for his sins, and it’s totally feasible he’ll spend his golden years getting foot massages on some Tahitian playa from a besotted young girl. Likewise, when women sleep around young and start to panic in their late 20s, they’re not suffering because they’ve committed some grievous sin but because they acted against biology, which is as merciless as photonic ephemera in bringing reality to the fore.
    .
    I see no difference between my making a judgment about one blogger without having met the man or known him personally and you doing the same. Attentive readers will notice said hypocrisy, and it’s my belief that you’re well aware of it too.

  • Anonymous

    @ SW
    I can no longer log into ur blog. Something’s wrong with the way your page is displaying.

    @ Terre, @ SW
    I don’t know why your blog discusses Roissy so much. I thought that this was about HUS, but there is a large number of comments about some guy that most of us have never even heard of. I can’t make comments about him because I don’t even know him. He has the right to write whatever he wants, but I hope that those who are reading him are aware that Game has never been scientifically proven and that they apply some judgment when making decisions as to whether to use his advice when making decisions. He sounds like the kind of man, who’s been jaded and as a result is a little off.
    @ Terre
    I think that you’re quite smart for your age. I think that you should look for good-looking women who are as smart as you. Don’t take shit or put up with drama from stupid women. Be yourself. I am sure that you don’t need Roissy to figure out your way with women.
     
    -Florence

  • terre

    It’s hardly off-topic given Susan quoted him verbatim in the original post.

  • terre

    Florence, you seem particularly interested in me. Why so?

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

    You see the best in men who ostensibly take your side (marriage bloggers) and the worst in the ones who don’t

    Not true. I’m quite fond of several regular commenters here who virtually never take my side. They can back up their opinions, though, with sound logic, links, etc. I don’t respect anyone who pontificates.

    .

    Obviously, then, there is no overarching system of fluidic karma to realign the universe when someone does something bad.

    Of course not! When did I claim otherwise? Honestly, I don’t spend a nanosecond thinking of Roissy’s future prospects one way or the other. I judge him on his portfolio of editorial writing. Simple as that. To me he’s a nameless stranger. I care no more about him getting his due than I do about any other douchebag. All I’ve done is take him at his word.

    @Florence

    Rest assured I won’t be writing again about Roissy any time soon. He is relevant because he is enormously influential on the thinking of young men, and lately I’ve been hearing more of this “instill dread” strategy, even here, so I wanted to weigh in. Now that I have, I don’t feel the need to continue discussing it.


  • Pingback: Links We LOVE This Week! | College Cures

  • Plain Jane

    Westerners use the word “karma” out of context.
    Karma means “activity”.
    Roissy’s reward or punishment for his own actions are the CURRENT circumstances of his life – not something that will happen in future.

  • Plain Jane

    “Once you admit that the upper 80% of women will all restrict their attention to the same upper 20% of men”
    —-
    The solution then is for the rest of the 80% of men to rotate the remaining 20% of women amongst themselves.
    That way everybody “gets some”.

  • Plain Jane


    I know nothing of BDSM, but it seems that a woman being submissive to her dominant husband – is that novel? Isn’t that what we had for thousands of years? And no doubt these folks consider themselves enlightened…when in reality it’s totally retro.
    .
    Indeed, but in this case she was a “BDSM” submissive — so more fetishy and so on.  No doubt that’s not new either, but it’s also never been very common, at least not in the baroque way that BDSM people seem to go about it.”
    —-
    BDSM is not about what a person is like in their ordinary day to day live/relationship.
    That’s why you find people who are in dominant positions at work or socially or in their daytime family life who take submission positions in a BDSM bedroom and vice versa.
    —-
    @Off The Cuff,
    “Women, when they fall in love… this openness it seems to automatically shut off, through no effort on your own. My wife often says “the thought of other men touching me is repulsive”. It’s so basic to your very being, you can’t think of it any other way. When you’re in love, other men somehow all get uglier. Is that accurate?”
    *
    NO.

  • http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/130ad2c51b96dc58607d5464f690b75e?s=80 Geoff789

    I know that Roissy (the person or the amalgam, either way) isn’t willing to commit given women’s proclivities for hypergamy.  But i also get a sense that he’s not exactly happy about it.

  • nothingbutthetruth

    “Once you admit that the upper 80% of women will all restrict their attention to the same upper 20% of men”
    —-
    The solution then is for the rest of the 80% of men to rotate the remaining 20% of women amongst themselves.That way everybody “gets some”.
    —-
    That’s right. It’s a perfect solution. When the 80% of women who have been wasting their prime years chasing the 20% of men get tired of being pumped and dumped by men who won’t commit, then they are going to want marriage with one of the remaining 80% of men.
    .
    Then,  the 80% of men will be accustomed to rotating women and are going to welcome these women to the rotating pool, so everybody gets “a bit more”. Then women can forget about commitment. After riding the alpha carousel, they are going to ride the beta carousel until their looks are gone and they are let alone.
    .
    It sounds like a very smart solution for women, if it could be put into practice. Wait! This has already been put into practice. It is the current American mating market.

  • SayWhaat

    When you’re in love, other men somehow all get uglier. Is that accurate?
    No. I think it’s more accurate to say that when you’re in love, other men somehow become invisible. Women just lose interest in other men when they’re head-over-heels, unlike men who can still have sexual interest in other women despite being in love with their partner.

  • http://gravatar.com/geoff789 Geoff

    @SayWhaat,
    Agree, with a qualifier:  women just lose interest in other men when they’re head-over-heels…until they gain interest.

  • SayWhaat

    Agree, with a qualifier:  women just lose interest in other men when they’re head-over-heels…until they gain interest.
    In which case, they lose interest in the man that they are currently with.

  • OffTheCuff

    I think it’s more accurate to say that when you’re in love, other men somehow become invisible. Women just lose interest in other men when they’re head-over-heels, unlike men who can still have sexual interest in other women despite being in love with their partner.
    Fair enough, but this is pretty much what I meant. You “lose attraction”, I guess I just termed in men’s terms. For us, “losing interest” is almost identical “becoming uglier”!
    In which case, they lose interest in the man that they are currently with.
    Sure, makes perfect sense. Normal women (interplanetary alien trolls notwithstanding) usually have one-itis.

  • Jess

    @nothing but the truth
    but the gaping hole in your argument is that most women play the field a little and then settle down and have kids.
    they may have prefered alphas when younger and perhaps settled for a more homely type in later life but thats true of both genders.
    .
    all this anger stems from jealousy i think. deep down you resent not being an alpha perhaps? I dunno. Maybe you have some religeous conflict and you are a cad yourself.
    .
    Pointless resenting others. We are what we are. We cant all be super models or porn studs. You make the best of what you have. A bald short guy shaking his fist at a pretty girl kissing the tall hunk isnt an endearing image and thats whats coming through on these threads. Just dressed up in some altruisitc endevour by the guys.

  • filrabat

    @Jess
    It depends on the individual guy.  Sure, there are some who are doing it out of jealousy, but I’ll bet there’s at least as many who are simply frustrated with how the system works (figure out what kind of person you are, look for common hobbies and interest, wanting to be part of the crowd in order to up his chances of getting laid, etc.).  This whole blog proves there’s no straight-forward formula to all this. This naturally leaves these guys confused.
    Most of all, though, is their failure to realize that nature itself is gaming them – that’s what game practitioners play on (fortunately, “game” didn’t get widespread attention until I was well in my 30s, so I was sophisticated enough to see that “game” simply played on some destructive mass-culture memes:
    1)If you aren’t getting laid, then you aren’t worth the gum that sticks to your shoes
    2) If you aren’t on the bandwagon in general, then likewise.
    True freedom comes from just leaving all that behind.  To me, a REAL alpha doesn’t let himself get hijacked by hormones and “animal nature” AT ALL.  Isn’t alpha-ness supposed to be about domination (in the civilized, gracious sense)?  Then when you insist that sex should be part of your life, then YOU are the one being gamed. Your own genetic programming telling you to “get laid! get laid!” is making you a tool…a slave with his wrists tied together by that DNA double helix . Unlike animals, WE have the power to overrule our baser natures.  That’s how we became the Alpha Species of the planet, after all.
    Botttom line: Grow to the point of NOT needing it. If women want you badly enough, let them come to you.  You’ve got more productive things to do with your time.
    P.S.:  I’m NOT saying to just ditch women altogether. I’m just saying the less you chase women, the more sexy you’ll be to a woman

  • filrabat

    problem with that spam filter or whatever again, grrr!

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

      @filrabat
      I’ve “whitelisted” you, which will override any moderation. Sorry. I am actually spending the weekend on tech maintenance, and I’m trying to figure it out. Because I’m a girl it takes me a lot longer to learn things.

  • Lavazza

    Jess: “they may have prefered alphas when younger and perhaps settled for a more homely type in later life but thats true of both genders.”
     
    Isn’t it the other way around for men? Normally a man can marry a more attractive woman than he can pump and dump.
     
    Anyway, questioning or speculating negatively about another commentator’s motives is not a way to have a fruitful discussion.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hi Mike C.,
    Replies below:
    .
    M: FWIW, I think Maximus is the quintessential example of an alpha in terms of leader of men in that movie.  He is not exactly physically imposing yet there is something in his demeanor that men yield to him.  Look at the steroid monster dude.  Even though he is bigger and stronger then Maximus, he tastes Maximus food for him.  There is no question he would defer to Maximus on anything.  Look at him in the battle scene directing the action.  In any group of men, the group quickly sorts itself out and it becomes clear who is the leader of the pack.  In a business setting, it is determined by titles.  In social settings, it naturally asserts itself.
    .
    O: Excellent observation, Mike. I think a big part of it is Maximus doesn’t fight for glory or riches, which is something that Achilles is all about. Instead, Maximus fights for an ideal, something bigger than himself. This is why Marcus Aurelius, the Emperor of Rome at the time, passed his powers on to Maximus before he died – because he saw this in Maximus, and because he knew his son Commodus was not “a moral Man”.
    .
    Also, while Maximus is a warrior, notice that he isn’t into flashier displays and moves like Achilles is; his moves are very militaristic – effecient and right to the point. In fact, you may recall the scene where he is chided for killing opponents too quickly, LOL. That’s what a soldier does. And it’s his experience as a soldier, which involves his years of being in command, and actually being on the ground fighting right alongside his Men, that is the reason why much bigger and stronger Men deferred to him. Achilles on the other hand, had more, shall we say, flamboyant moves in “Troy” – like what I call Achilles’ “hop-skip” move in the beginning of the movie, and again during his duel with Hector. Two styles of Game to be sure, but like you said, a distinction with a huge difference.
    .
    And we include Gerard Butler’s portrayal of another historic figure, Leonidas, in the film “300” – he was a beast in that flick, Man. Huge AND cut. Don’t know what the real Spartans looked like back then, but given what we know about their culture and way of life, I suppose it made sense.
    .
    O.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “I don’t know if ignorance is really bliss in this case, though, Susan.   I would think that understanding how a male brain works sexually also helps understand what he is dealing with, what he is tempted by, and how he is dealing with that (well or badly), rather than the more typical response from women which tends to be shock, horror, and judgment that this is different from how they experience sexual psychology, often with the “that’s pathological” type of statement thrown in.  I think that doesn’t do women any more good than it does for men to deny the facts about female sexual psychology, as unpleasant as we find that (and many of us do find it un uncomfortable truth, if you will, at least at first), and act accordingly.”
    .
    I double this up. Accepting and understanding male sexuality is not the same as suborning infidelity – it just means you’ll understand what sorts of primal pressures your partner is under.
    Athol recently had a very candid post that mentioned “crushing” on other women. (http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2011/02/in-love-feelings-pair-bonded-love-and.html)
    His wife copy edits his stuff (she gets a spanking if she misses a mistake, lulz) so clearly they’ve discussed this. Even so, it blew my mind to hear him openly admit this, because almost every guy will probably go through it. We’re going to have little flashes of interests in other people, it’s just what happens – as long as we don’t act on it we haven’t done anything wrong, and denying that it happens (whether a man or woman is doing the denying) is not going to help anybody.

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

      Athol recently had a very candid post that mentioned “crushing” on other women. (http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2011/02/in-love-feelings-pair-bonded-love-and.html)
      His wife copy edits his stuff (she gets a spanking if she misses a mistake, lulz) so clearly they’ve discussed this. Even so, it blew my mind to hear him openly admit this, because almost every guy will probably go through it. We’re going to have little flashes of interests in other people, it’s just what happens – as long as we don’t act on it we haven’t done anything wrong, and denying that it happens (whether a man or woman is doing the denying) is not going to help anybody.

      Yes, I was also very surprised when I read this. I recall another post where he spoke about flirting with other women in an overtly sexual way – I think he said something like “You have a problem and I’d like to fix it for you….heh heh.” That’s not it, but it was along those lines. I told him I was shocked and that I would not appreciate my husband’s speaking that way to another woman. He told me then about Jennifer editing his posts. Wow. I give credit where it’s due, and they obviously have a great sex life, so…..

      In the post you reference, Athol describes swinging back and forth between crushes on Jennifer and crushes on others. Again, my own preference would be ignorance. This will vary by individual, obviously. I understand that my husband finds other women attractive. But I truly would rather not know when he is crushing on someone else, or even wonder whether, at the moment, his crush is on me or some other woman. I can accept, even understand that men like variety without needing or enjoying a demonstration of it over many years. If there’s something I can or should do, I want to know. If it’s something beyond my control, well then you’re just raising my anxiety level — instilling dread.

  • Chili

    @Susan
    “Because I’m a girl it takes me a lot longer to learn things.”
    .
    Speak for yourself! What kind of statement was that?
     

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

      @Chili

      @Susan
      “Because I’m a girl it takes me a lot longer to learn things.”
      .
      Speak for yourself! What kind of statement was that?

      It was a sarcastic retort to Geoff, who said that my not having solved the problem was unsurprising b/c I’m a “girl.”

  • Mike C

    Speak for yourself! What kind of statement was that?


    She was being facetious.

  • Mike C

    And we include Gerard Butler’s portrayal of another historic figure, Leonidas, in the film “300″ – he was a beast in that flick, Man. Huge AND cut. Don’t know what the real Spartans looked like back then, but given what we know about their culture and way of life, I suppose it made sense.


    OT, but no doubt in my mind, he did a cycle of roids/GH (growth hormone) for that role.  Actually, the real Spartans probably weren’t that big.  Ancient cultures simply were not that huge.  I forget where I read it, but Goliath of the Bible was probably something like 6’4″.

    Leonidas is probably another good example of an alpha in terms of leader of men, and sexual alpha.  Look at the Queen in that movie.  She is very clearly a very strong woman.  You can tell that Leonidas deeply loves her and vice versa as well and the dynamic between them is you can clearly see he is the dominant one, but in a respectful way of her as well.  I think it is key that the concept of “dominance” does NOT mean ordering the woman around.

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

      I think it is key that the concept of “dominance” does NOT mean ordering the woman around.

      Yes, it is key! The problem is that the traditional exhortation that a wife must be submissive to her husband has always meant, or be interpreted to mean, that she should do whatever he says. That definition no longer works.

  • Mike C

    but the gaping hole in your argument is that most women play the field a little and then settle down and have kids.they may have prefered alphas when younger and perhaps settled for a more homely type in later life but thats true of both genders.


    No, it is not true, because the equivalent opportunity set doesn’t exist for guys.  You really think average, normal, beta type guys are out banging “alpha” females which would be the hot ones and then settling down later with more “average” types.  It is beyond ridiculous.

  • nothingbutthetruth

    Jess, if you think my reasoning is wrong, you are free to discuss it rationally. If you give me reasons why I am wrong and you convince me, I will be happy to say that I was wrong. I am far from owning the truth. I am a learner and a truth-seeker. I know very little and I love somebody that can bring me closer to the truth.
    .
    What is intellectually dishonest is to change the focus to my person. As I explain below, I am not resentful. But, if I were so, so what? The truth is the same whether I am resentful or not. Even a resentful person can tell the sky is blue. Arguments must be assessed for its intrinsic value, regardless the person who utters them. “When the wise man points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger” (Confucius)
    .
    As I have said, I don’t resent anything. And I have no anger. I am a happy man. True, I was a beta for many years. But, since longtime ago, where I expatted  and discovered Game, I have been an alpha and I had my fun (I can’t remember all the women I have had sex with and, if I had not settled down, I wouldn’t have any problem to find more).
    .
    Now I have settled down with an amazing girlfriend. I have had best of both worlds. Fun and a stable relationship leading to family. The current system has been very good for me. I can compare to the previous generations in my country (when men had to get married to have sex) and I feel blessed. Since I have had a lot of experience with women, I have known to find one that is good for me.  What else could I ask? I am a lucky guy.
    .
    Having said that, I don’t think a system that rewards alphas and punishes betas is good for society.  Many women still get married after riding the alpha carousel because the system is really new and there is a lot of inertia from the old mating system. But marriage rates are dropping steadily. Betas are changing their behavior and refusing to be the backup plan of a girl who despised them ten years before. It is a really slow change because changes of mores are always painstakingly slow.  But it’s happening and men (whether alpha or beta) won’t be the disadvantaged ones in this new scenario. Women will.
    .
    This is my opinion, but I really don’t care, because I am not in the mating game anymore. Everybody can make their own decisions and reap the consequences. However, I feel fascinating to analyze the trends in this game, which is the oldest game in the world and which has changed so radically during the last thirty or forty years.

  • http://gravatar.com/geoff789 Geoff789

    @Mike C
    .
    Curious that we’re talking about women who ride the carousel and then retire to the bush leagues, and Jess uses the expression gaping hole.  Freud would have a field day with that one.

  • Sox

    Re: Maximus and Leonidus and the like…
     
    I completely agree that these guys portray an archetype many guys strive for and many women swoon over.  They’re alpha and also caring/ethical/family men.  I think it needs to be said that in society today, men can’t express their masculinity like they could back then, there just simply aren’t the outlets.  Something about working in a cubicle sucks the life out of you, smothers your soul.  Something about all of this emphasis on playing nice, being PC, and repressing impulses so natural..it not only suppresses masculinity but also basic humanity.
    People just want to feel alive, and feel like their life has purpose.  For both sexes it involves risk-seeking, for women it may involve looking for types that break the rules.  I totally understand this.  I think it’s sad that so many men really are just…housebroken shells of what they could/should be as a result of simply listening to those around them growing up.
    I know that the times I’ve felt most “alive” were the times when I was the best version of myself, where I was being challenged and succeeding, and where I was living into the kind of narrative I’d envisioned for myself.  A lot of us were built up as kids feeling like we could change the world, and typical life in the U.S. isn’t conducive to accomplishing that.  I do know that playing into a woman’s romantic narrative (i.e. focusing on the rush of the moment and creating a powerful dramatic context) intensifies things to the nth degree.  I don’t mean this in a manipulative way, although I’m sure PUAs and others do take the same approach.
    As a guy growing up – I saw the Disney films and loved movies like Gladiator and the Count of Monte Cristo (great book too).  It was pretty dismaying though to find out that women were going for characters more closely resembling the villains in those films than the heroes.  I’m sure women were equally misled.  (Sorry for the rambling).  Sometimes I wish I lived back in the WWII era.

  • Brendan

    BDSM is not about what a person is like in their ordinary day to day live/relationship.That’s why you find people who are in dominant positions at work or socially or in their daytime family life who take submission positions in a BDSM bedroom and vice versa.
    .
    Actually it depends on the relationship.  In this particular case, the woman in question was submissive pretty much always to her dominant husband.  That doesn’t mean she wore a collar in public or anything like that, but it wasn’t a “strictly bedroom game” either.  They were what you would call “lifestyle BDSM” people, sort of like what you see portrayed in the film “Secretary”.  Of course, there are other couples where it’s a bedtime game, and there are others where it’s just a very occasional one at that.  But in this specific case it was a lifestyle — she told me that she would only have a LTR with a man who could live that lifestyle as a dominant, and she ended up marrying the guy.  They were both in their 40s and had no kids, so I guess that probably helped with the “lifestyle” aspect of it, I’d guess.  I’ve never been really interested in BDSM myself, but it was interesting learning about this couple, really.

  • Brendan

    Yes, it is key! The problem is that the traditional exhortation that a wife must be submissive to her husband has always meant, or be interpreted to mean, that she should do whatever he says. That definition no longer works.
    .
    Is that really true, though?  I mean, I don’t get the sense that 1950s marriages were so male dominated that women simply did whatever their husbands said.  I’d think there were a lot of marriages where the wife was more dominant, even well before feminism came into the forefront, simply by dint of personality, or because the guy simply couldn’t be bothered.  Surely there were many that were male-dominated, too, but I’m not sure it was anything close to as imbalanced in the recent pre-feminist past as we are led to believe today.

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

      @Brendan

      I’m not sure it was anything close to as imbalanced in the recent pre-feminist past as we are led to believe today.

      You know, I was thinking when I wrote that comment of a time when I fell in with a super religious crowd as a teen in LA – early 70s. CA style fundamentalism – we thought of ourselves as Jesus freaks. (I lasted a year before my parents dragged me back to the Catholic church.) It was a very robust social scene, though very chaste, and we would all attend weekly Bible studies. A recurring theme was the Biblical exhortation for a wife to be submissive to her husband. A kind of “taken in hand” approach, where the man makes all the important decisions, and has the final say.

      There are several popular blogs adhering to this theme in our corner of the internet – so it’s no uncommon, even today. But it’s not mainstream either, and I agree with you – it probably never was.

  • terre

    To be frank, fetish cultures seem like a product of social pathology to me. Women who have too much sex to enjoy it any more and men who imbibe too much ambient pornography to feel frission at the prospect of intercourse. I really question just how much novelty and “alternate” sex we’ll accept as perfectly normal, perfectly healthy before there’ll be a spate of retrospection.

  • Florence

    No, it is not true, because the equivalent opportunity set doesn’t exist for guys.  You really think average, normal, beta type guys are out banging “alpha” females which would be the hot ones and then settling down later with more “average” types.  It is beyond ridiculous.
    ………
    Every time I hear that, I disbelieve it. Nowadays guys have some much sex and usually have higher numbers than most girls. The guys who are holding out, are doing it because they want to be in a relationship with a good looking woman or never go to bars/clubs where the hook-up scene usually occurs. Even in countries where prostitution is legal, some guys deliberately chose not take advantage of the opportunity and remain sexless. I am really starting to argue the idea that sex is hard to get for men, nowadays…
    -Florence

  • Brendan

    I am really starting to argue the idea that sex is hard to get for men, nowadays…
    .
    It depends on the man.  For the top 20-30% of men, they are getting more sexual access than at any time since we were swinging from the trees.  For the rest of the guys, there’s a lot of involuntary celibacy going on — they may have a GF every now and then and get sex that way, but most of them go through long dry spells where they get no sex at all.  That doesn’t equalize between men and women (involuntary celibacy) until you go quite low down the scale to say the 1-3 range.  In the midpack range (4-7), it’s a hugely different experience between men and women when it comes to access to sex.  Women often dispute this, I think, because they see the male-equivalent 8+s getting laid quite easily, and these are the men they generally notice, as well as the men who dominate socially when they are present — in other words, the other guys who are undergoing involuntary celibacy are simply not on the radar screen of most women, so women “don’t count them” when they judge how much sex access most men really have in this marketplace.

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

      the other guys who are undergoing involuntary celibacy are simply not on the radar screen of most women, so women “don’t count them” when they judge how much sex access most men really have in this marketplace.

      I agree. In fact, there’s no other explanation for the bafflement women experience when they learn of this dynamic.

  • Tom

    Facebook (21)

    did that work..it works whenI click on it

  • Mike C

    No, it doesn’t work.  Very simple, go to the upper left corner and click on your name, that is the link to your profile.

  • Florence

    That doesn’t equalize between men and women (involuntary celibacy) until you go quite low down the scale to say the 1-3 range.  In the midpack range (4-7), it’s a hugely different experience between men and women when it comes to access to sex.
    .
    I am pretty sure that the men who get the most sex, do so because they are willing to do any woman on the scale. They have random ONS every Sat. The picky men usually find themselves in “long dry spells”, which is okay because women who are looking for relationships often find themselves going through long dry spells as well. Sounds like men are complaining for not having continuous access to sex with good looking quality women, rather than just access to sex in general, which is actually “voluntary celibacy”.
    -Florence

  • Florence

    For the record, I know two guys who are virgins. Those two never go out to places where they can meet women. They don’t even have online profiles anywhere.  When you’re that introverted and don’t make an effort to change, don’t complain for not being able to get a gf. “Involuntary celibacy” is an excuse for having no motivation to change.
    -Florence

  • Keoni Galt

    Very interesting thread. The differences in male and female perspectives on Roissy and his insights is amusing and makes for compelling reading.

    But two particular comments made me decide to log on and put in my own $.02 on this discussion:

    That’s BS. Men get bored of the sweet, feminine, hot girls with minimal drama or say “this is going to fast for me” or they say “I know myself. I don’t want to hurt you. We are not meant for each other.” Then you see them chasing dominant, strong bitches, who emotionally torture them and then screw them over something.”

    When men dump women, your typical, self-absorbed and narcissistic woman will engage her rationalization hamster to explain to herself why he left without having to face the truth of her own role in ending the relationship. While she may think to herself that she was a “sweet, feminine, hot girl with minimal drama,” the man’s perspective most certainly disagrees on at least one, some or all of those assessments. That’s why he left.

    You also fail to understand that the weighting of importance between these traits. For most men, the hot girl part is the most important trait (the biological hard wiring to try and mate with the genetically superior specimens). If you really are a sweet, feminine, minimal-drama woman, and he left you for a bitchy, demanding, high maintenance woman, it’s a safe bet that your “hot girl” rating is lower than the bitch’s hot girl rating, from his point of view.

    He didn’t leave you to chase the bitch because she’s “more exciting and challenging.” It’s because she’s hotter than you and he’s willing to pay the price in dealing with that negative drama to access what he perceives as her higher sex appeal.

    He wasn’t bored by your sweet, feminine, low-maintenance charm. He was most likely bored with your sex appeal.

    But I will concede that you are not entirely wrong. There most certainly are men who, as one of you ladies put it:

    “…addicted to the highs and lows of constant relationship drama as the women. If things are too calm, too nice, too stable, they crave more and will create instability if they have to.”

    Not all men are like that.

    But do you know where the kind of men who are like that come from?

    They come from the homes of their never-married or divorced mothers that bring an endless amount of drama into their son’s lives.
    These are the men who grew up in a home where they watched their mothers bring home an assortment of violent and abusive men to give her the drama she needs.
    These are the men who were used as weapons when they were boys in custody battles by their vindictive divorcee mothers.

    These are the men who never learn to control their emotions and temper. They had no masculine role models to learn from on how to channel their natural male aggression into productive outlets. They learned to let their emotions be the primary influence on their behavior.

    These are the men who were alienated from their Fathers. They are the male manifestations of their primary role models in life…their single mothers. See Myth of the Ghetto Alpha Male.

    Pointing to such damaged men as proof that the female psyche’s need for drama is invalid or that “doesn’t apply to me,” is missing the forest for the trees.
    Women need social drama, which is why all women gossip. Gossip in and of itself is not good or bad. “Good” women gossip too, they just do not gossip with malicious intent.

    The discussion of Roissy on this thread regarding his personal life, and speculations on how truthful he is about his success with women and his ability or inability to have a meaningful, “REAL” LTR, and the entire farcical episode with “lady” Raine “outing him” is just another manifestation of this female need for gossip and social drama. It is irrelevant in terms of why Roissy and his blog are still relevant and influential to men all over the world.

    You ladies think that understanding the personal details of his life gives you insight into whether any particular advice or observation he writes about is invalid or not. This is why most of you fail to comprehend the “big picture” with regards to why his blog has struck such a chord with so many men.

    Men who “get it”, on the other hand, read what he writes, and can immediately recognize the underlying truths of his hyperbole because they recognize those truths and how they apply to their own life experiences with women. We men don’t have the rationalization hamster obscuring our critical self analysis.
    Hindsight is not always 20/20. You can’t learn from your mistakes if you don’t understand why you made them.

    When Roissy writes something with regards to the darker aspects of the female id, men experience that “AHA!” moment of clarity and suddenly understand why things happened to them in their own past experiences with women.

    Pick any thread in the Chateau’s archives dealing with the topic of women, and you can find numerous testimonials of men who gained insight into their own past relationship successes and failures because of a particular point or view expressed by Roissy. His insights explained things to them that they formerly failed to comprehend.

    This is why you have plenty of men who have a much different outlook on morality, still giving Roissy his just due and blogroll linkage despite religious and/or moral objections to the PUA lifestyle Roissy espouses.
    Men like Vox Day, the Social Pathologist, Dalrock, Ulysses, Eumaios, Athol,.Mormon Man ..none of whom are Players participating in the great gangbang of our current liberalized, secular, feminist-driven culture…men who are self-described dedicated,faithful Fathers and husbands. Nevertheless, each in their own way “get” the point of Roissy and the truths he espouses and how it applies in some way to their own relationships with their wives and their own awareness of their own masculinity and the role it plays in their relationships.

    The reason why 99% of the women who read Roissy just don’t get it, is because most of you ladies read his observations of the darker aspects of the female id and you immediately kick the hamster into gear to justify how his observations don’t apply to yourself.

    You can’t help it.

    As a woman, you are hardwired to believe you are a special, unique snowflake. This is why we men who understand the big picture, are amused whenever a woman weighs in with her own variation of NAWALT.

    The only difference between a woman that seeks out relationships with abusive men and those that don’t, is how she’s channeled her darker aspects of the female sexual id into either positive or negative outlets. If you are a woman who is not in an abusive relationship, you’ve found a man who feeds your base, visceral desires in a positive manner. This is why you mistakenly believe that NAWALT, especially your own unique, special self.

    For instance, Susan seems to be most offended by Roissy’s observation that the threat of masculine physical violence is a sexual turn-on for women. You completely missed the disclaimer he wrote along with that post saying that for many women, you do not have to physically assault her, but imply that it is possible, and that presence of controlled, masculine aggression will inspire attraction in her.

    Whether women admit this to themselves or not doesn’t make it untrue.

    This attraction to masculine aggression is the main driver of passionate make up sex. There is no hot and heavy makeup sex if the conflict was resolved by the man profusely apologizing and begging and pleading with her for forgiveness while she’s raging in anger. That just turns her anger into bitter contempt and disgust.
    It is only when her anger is either matched and overpowered by his own angry response — or he maintains a stoic, calm and detached indifference to her emotional outburst — that makes her attraction kicks into high gear…even if she feels justified in her anger.  On the instinctual level, whether she is logically right or wrong in her argument, at some level it is still a shit test.

    His demonstration of having a spine in the face of her emotional aggression, satisfies her primal desire to mate with a man who would stand up for her and their offspring in the face of external sources of aggression. Women are attracted to the male capacity for violence and aggression. Just because you may not be attracted to, and in a relationship with, an abusive thug that beats you, doesn’t mean there is an aspect of your sexual nature that is not attracted to male aggression. You’re just attracted to the kind of man that learned how to channel it into a positive outlet. That doesn’t mean your a different kind of women. That just means you were, most likely raised in an healthy, “normal” environment where you learned to be attracted to the qualities that made your mom attracted to your dad.

    While it’s true that this comment is attempting to make the point that “not all men are like that,” while “all women are like that,” that just highlights the fact that gender differences are real.

    Women need drama and they are attracted to men who have masculine aggression.

    Men need hot women, preferably women who channel that need for drama into positive outlets…but if she’s hot enough, we’ll tolerate the negative drama up to a certain point before we decide it’s no longer worth the trade off.

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

      Wow, just want to say that Keoni Galt’s comment should be required reading. May have to dedicate a post to it.

  • Stephenie Rowling

     
    Is that really true, though?  I mean, I don’t get the sense that 1950s marriages were so male dominated that women simply did whatever their husbands said.  I’d think there were a lot of marriages where the wife was more dominant, even well before feminism came into the forefront, simply by dint of personality, or because the guy simply couldn’t be bothered.  Surely there were many that were male-dominated, too, but I’m not sure it was anything close to as imbalanced in the recent pre-feminist past as we are led to believe today.
    If you look at comedies and movies from that time you see the classic meme of the wife holding a rolling pin or a pan and/looking straight to the eyes of her husband and the guy will stop cold whatever idiot thing he was doing and say “yes dear” and do whatever the wife was asking. Even if popular media its not a good way to measure a culture we need to remember that feminism has had detractors from the moment the movement was born, women that though that feminism was no portraying their life choices in a fair way. So the idea that women were ALL slaves that feminism freed is at best inaccurate.
     
     
     

  • Keoni Galt

    I wrote a really long response to this thread, and it looks like it didn’t make it through for whatever reason.Glad I cpied it and posted it at my own blog here.

  • Brendan

    I agree. In fact, there’s no other explanation for the bafflement women experience when they learn of this dynamic.
    .
    The way I conceive of it — correct me if I am wrong, as I am doing this obviously based on observation of women rather than through experience as I am not a woman — is that in any given setting most men are in black&white, whereas the top 20-30% are in color.  I’m an amateur photographer so this analogy came to mind — if you have ever seen an image which is in monotone but has one or two subjects highlighted by being in color, you’ll know what I mean.  My perception is that this is how women experience the world of attraction.  And the subjects that are “in color” are not in color just because of their appearance, but because of that combination of appearance + charm (which we sometimes now call Game).  So a woman enters a room and most guys are in monotone, and a few may be edging between monotone and color on a slider based on their looks or how socially dominant they seem … and as she assesses the situation over the course of a few minutes, some of those guys fade back down to monotone while others begin to shine in bright color.

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

      @Brendan
      The color analogy is brilliant. That is exactly what it is like. I’m not sure appearance + charm captures it though. I think it’s a certain intensity that women can’t resist. It could be pure charm – like George Clooney’s usual shtick – but it could also be a brooding intensity, or even an overt anti-social quality. As Aldonza pointed out, it might even be a vibe that borders on some kind of violent explosion. This is one of the reasons that it’s very good for men to be observed doing something they do extremely well – women deduce that passion – the 10,000 hours of practice that Malcolm Gladwell talks about – went into mastering that skill. Women seek passion, it’s the men who emote who are “larger than life” – or, to use your analogy, in bright color.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Women seek passion, it’s the men who emote who are “larger than life” – or, to use your analogy, in bright color.
    Totally on that. But is possible that some male passions are considered more Alpha than others. I remember on the a rom-com with Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon (Fever Pitch) that he is completely obsessed with baseball and when his obsession becomes a problem on the relationship she tells him that the reason she picked him is that because she though that the same passion he had for the sport will be a passion he will invest on her and the relationship (Things balance out on the end and they of course end up happily ever after) but I do think this is the subconscious though of every woman that had found a man passionate about something.
     
    Heh I think if anything we are uncovering that attraction for a woman is a complex mix of a man that has Alpha traits, beta traits and passion, maybe the difference is that the proportion of each traits that are preferable for different type of women?
    I know I’m not very attracted (and sometimes downright repulsed) by Alpha traits but as much as I love Betas I couldn’t feel atraction to a Beta with no passion for anything at all. I already mentioned my husband passions for miniature painting (he is also a gamer so is double for me :D) that earned tons of points and that totally made the sparks among us fly.

  • Dilithium

    “Involuntary celibacy” is an excuse for having no motivation to change.”

    Florence, this is vicious, hateful nonsense, and you should be ashamed of having written it.
     

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Keoni

    Wow. Now that you translated game in a way that doesn’t read like “all women are bitches and deserved to be treated as such” that was till now what I read about it I totally agree. I can see myself as being one the lucky ones that is attracted to male aggression channelized on a positive matter (self control and passion) and repulsed by male aggression channelized on negative matter. It makes ton of sense.
    I’m always in a journey of self discovering and I’m learning a lot more about myself by this blog, the comments and going back and remembering my childhood and the relationship with my parents and siblings.

    Thanks Susan and all commenters. :)

    I think I’m a best more complete person now and hopefully I will be a better mother, wife and I will make sure that I pass this unto my kids, when I have them.

  • http://gravatar.com/geoff789 Geoff789

    @Stephanie is no longer the winner of the longest post of the year contest.  Keoni Galt has raised the bar, substantially.
    .
    I gotta say, Susan’s stock went up with me when she not only didn’t take offense to my “she can’t figure out moderation cuz she’s a girl”…she joked around with it.
    .
    Follow her example…lighten up, people.
    ————-
    And this brought up an important point that I’d like to pass on to women who aren’t clued into it yet.  Don’t bitch about 12 things in one day.  Just don’t do it.  Pick one thing (if you HAVE to), and be nice about the way you ask him to change his behavior.  I know a LOT of women either ON their second marriage or DESPERATELY WANTING ONE who say “I just don’t sweat the small stuff anymore, it’s not worth the pain it brings.  Who really wants to get into a screaming match about the toilet seat being up or down?”
    .
    Amen ladies.  Amen.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Heh @Geoff @ Susan doesn’t mind and I totally know more texts. So don’t tempt me ;).
     

  • filrabat

    @Susan,
    Thanks for the little tweak to the blog. Makes my visits a lot less stressful :D
     
    On to the rest….
     

    Kenoi’s post is agreeable in many, many contexts – namely the age group HUS primarily targets and the favored settings of that age group as a whole. Yes, men in this age group typically emphasize hotness at the expense of more substantive traits, but some men require more hotness than others. Likewise, some women the same age require more social dominance and/or aggression from men than others (though I read out of Kenoi’s post a conflation of aggression and dominance , at least where it concerns the more positive aspects of each trait – particularly the societally redeeming connotations of each trait).
    In the end, It depends on what the person wants out of a relationship, which is a very good argument in favor of stepping back from the SMP and deciding which is more important to you: the hormone surges other’s hotness or dominance generates…or the boring but important character traits vital to a sustainable relationship (i.e. as in lifelong sustainability). Therefore, there’s very likely going to be a tradeoff between “animal appeal” and integrity. The same is true for gossip and drama (in fact, I think there’s an even stronger negative relationship between gossip and integrity than there is between hotness and integrity, although I do sense a strong correlation between hotness and gossip). Unfortunately, people these days tend (not always, but tend) not to grow out of it until their late 20s, or even early 30s.
    Again, the good news is that not all people are going to participate in the mainstream SMP. Some types or cliques or lifestyle interests strongly tend to be more serious-minded and mature than others (although Kenoi’s post is still valid here – within the context of what one means by “Alpah”, “Beta”, “Dominant”, and even (to a degree) “Beauty”). Even those whose definition of beauty lines up with the mainstream definition, some men put different values on hotness than other men. Likewise, some women put less emphasis on gossip than others. Even those that do put a lot of emphasis on gossip itself are not necessarily going to value the same kind of gossip (e.g. some may draw no lines at all, while some angrily walk away from character attacks, unkind remarks, and other petty trivia). The good news here also, as with men, certain women who prefer certain kinds of gossip – or even certain frequency levels of gossip – are going to congregate in certain settings, activities, and cliques more than others.
    So while I find Kenoi’s post basically accurate, you still has to consider which kinds of the traits and their extent before entering into any kind of SMP – mainstream or not (i.e. mainstream or niche). Finding your own niche can literally be as complex as house shopping. That’s what makes blanket statements so simple-minded, not to mention unfair. So if you’re planning to stay in the SMP, then identify your strengths and weaknesses, what your deepest beliefs and interests are, and your general outlook on life BEFORE continuing on. You’ll save yourself a lot of unnecessary heartbreak and drama doing so.

  • Brendan

    Florence, this is vicious, hateful nonsense, and you should be ashamed of having written it.
    .
    No it’s just that she cannot “grok” the male experience.

  • Brendan

    I’m not sure appearance + charm captures it though. I think it’s a certain intensity that women can’t resist. It could be pure charm – like George Clooney’s usual shtick – but it could also be a brooding intensity, or even an overt anti-social quality. As Aldonza pointed out, it might even be a vibe that borders on some kind of violent explosion. This is one of the reasons that it’s very good for men to be observed doing something they do extremely well – women deduce that passion – the 10,000 hours of practice that Malcolm Gladwell talks about – went into mastering that skill. Women seek passion, it’s the men who emote who are “larger than life” – or, to use your analogy, in bright color.
    .
    Exactly.  As I explain to many young men, developing mastery is absolutely key.  Pick your passion, and just do it.  Women will love you more for it.
    .
    At the same time, though, general “social game” serves all men well.

  • OffTheCuff

    No it’s just that she cannot “grok” the male experience.
    .
    Well, no woman can really grok it, but some (Sue, Aldonza, Stephenie) at least acknowledge we are better arbiters of our own experiences than women are. Flo appears to be a lost cause.
    .
    Like PJ, Flo wants to think average guys are “too picky” and are at fault for loneliness, when this is really just projection of their own attitudes to higher-status men. For the billionth time, the issue is NOT PICKINESS, DAMMIT! It’s not understanding social dominance that causes us to fail.

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

      No it’s just that she cannot “grok” the male experience.
      Well, no woman can really grok it, but some (Sue, Aldonza, Stephenie) at least acknowledge we are better arbiters of our own experiences than women are. Flo appears to be a lost cause.

      To be fair, the women mentioned here who “get it” have clearly put in many hours of reading, observing and discussing it. When I started HUS I had pretty much the same impression that Flo does. As Brendan says, the guys who are successful in the SMP are living large, sucking all the oxygen out of the room, while their less successful counterparts are largely flying under the radar. That’s not surprising, given how a man’s sexuality is such a key part of his identity.

  • Mike C

    For the record, I know two guys who are virgins. Those two never go out to places where they can meet women. They don’t even have online profiles anywhere.  When you’re that introverted and don’t make an effort to change, don’t complain for not being able to get a gf. “Involuntary celibacy” is an excuse for having no motivation to change.


    Maybe, but what is the overall history here.  Maybe they tried for a long time, got absolutely no results, and finally just gave up.  I think Brendan is right, and you simply cannot relate to the male experience.  Imagine that you have to be the approacher, the pursuer, the initiator, and then you get shot down over and over and over and over and over and over and over.  Some guys just say fuck it.

  • SayWhaat

    Imagine that you have to be the approacher, the pursuer, the initiator, and then you get shot down over and over and over and over and over and over and over.  Some guys just say fuck it.
    It can be just as frustrating for a woman to be interested in a man who has initiated the pursuit, but then doesn’t follow up on dates or texts in a timely manner, or just drops the ball completely. It’s also disheartening when we indicate interest in a guy and get no reception at all. We get rejected too, you know!

  • Dilithium

    Brendan: “As I explain to many young men, developing mastery is absolutely key.  Pick your passion, and just do it.  Women will love you more for it.”
     
    Does this include passion for and mastery of calculus?  Or, do you perhaps want to add, that some passions and masteries have a better effect than others?
     
    (Susan mentioned earlier that even calculus would work as a mastery if one had an audience for it, which of course makes me think of the classic Far Side comic, mentioned here:
    http://www.math.qc.edu/~zakeri/mat131/mat131_10.html )
     

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

      (Susan mentioned earlier that even calculus would work as a mastery if one had an audience for it, which of course makes me think of the classic Far Side comic, mentioned here:
      http://www.math.qc.edu/~zakeri/mat131/mat131_10.html )

      I can’t tell if you thought I was full of it or not, but I was serious. I can give two examples off the top of my head. One is an econ professor I had – he was entertaining, but when he spun around and wrote a proof on the board he was sexy. All of us thought so. The second is my younger brother – a physicist. He is not particularly nerdy in his demeanor, though he has some nerdy interests, haha. Many years ago, he was visiting and left a legal pad sitting around. It was about 7 pages of equations. I don’t know if this was his idea of fun or what. But a friend of mine saw it and thought it was hot.

      Granted, not all women are turned on by high IQ, but some are. Just as not all women are turned on by knife skills, or a man’s working with his hands to build something. And of course mastery is not enough – it doesn’t provide social dominance by itself. But it can be a DHV.

  • Brendan

    I am pretty sure that the men who get the most sex, do so because they are willing to do any woman on the scale. They have random ONS every Sat. The picky men usually find themselves in “long dry spells”, which is okay because women who are looking for relationships often find themselves going through long dry spells as well. Sounds like men are complaining for not having continuous access to sex with good looking quality women, rather than just access to sex in general, which is actually “voluntary celibacy”.
    .
    No, and again this is in the “just don’t get it” category.
    .
    Women of the mid pack have sex access to men of the upper pack.  This depletes the sexual availability of women in the mid-pack for their SMV peers.  Of course men in the mid-pack could go for the women in the low-pack, but for almost every man there is a “floor” of attraction (and there is for women as well, expressed differently).  To expect men in the 4-7 range to be skippy-dippy-happy about having sexual access to women in the 1-3 range is silly — these women (and men) are underneath the attractional radar of both sexes.  The key problem is that mid-pack women are carouseling with high-pack men (because they can), and the resulting mid-pack men are left with a choice between porn and 1-3 women, and they choose porn.

  • Brendan

    Does this include passion for and mastery of calculus?  Or, do you perhaps want to add, that some passions and masteries have a better effect than others?
    .
    The guys who have calculus mastery as their only one will need Engineer Game.
    .
    Seriously, though, you need an interesting mastery.  I’m a geek and a lawyer — boooorrrrring.  But I’m also a photographer and a musician.  Develop other stuff and women love it.  They really do.
    .
    Just not poetry.  Anything other than poetry.  Women have killed poetry, and if you are poetical, kill that drive and channel it into music — much much much more bang for the effort.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Brendan:
    No, and again this is in the “just don’t get it” category..Women of the mid pack have sex access to men of the upper pack.
    This is true……but so what? Just because women of the mid pack have sexual access doesn’t mean they’re getting what they actually want, which is a relationship. And quality women who want one are usually holding out for it, so it’s not like they’re getting sex anyway.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    It’s also disheartening when we indicate interest in a guy and get no reception at all. We get rejected too, you know!
     
    Oh this reminds me once I was fishing on a mall. I dressed up nicely and started to read a comic book on one of the tables at the food court. It worked a guy that worked on the only comic book store that was on my country back them (its not nerd friendly country) approached me, he talked to me, we laughed I smiled I did all the signs that I was interested and he stayed there for a bit over and hour, it was getting late and I had to go and the guy didn’t asked for my phone number!!! My conclusion was that wasn’t attractive/hot/my hair looked awful/make up sucked enough for him to want to continue trying to talk to me,my husband knows this story and he said that likely the guy didn’t felt confident enough to ask it (we actually have a small bet that if I cross paths with him ever again I should ask him what the heck didn’t he wanted my number). Anyway, God’s knows that hurts and I didn’t tried that technique ever again I did recover and that was when I decided to try the net (successfully) but I agree it hurts when you do your best and nothing happens, specially for people like me with special tastes in men. Of course I’m not denying that it sucks a lot for men too, but aside from me other girlfriends had been into “I sent all the right signs and got nothing” situation and they are not prancing about it.

  • Brendan

    This is true……but so what? Just because women of the mid pack have sexual access doesn’t mean they’re getting what they actually want, which is a relationship. And quality women who want one are usually holding out for it, so it’s not like they’re getting sex anyway.
    .
    Yes but it was in response to Florence’s claim that men don’t have a lack of access … that isn’t true.  That was the point of my post.

  • Brendan

    likely the guy didn’t felt confident enough to ask it (we actually have a small bet that if I cross paths with him ever again I should ask him what the heck didn’t he wanted my number).
    .
    Many guys will feel VERY unsettled making a move in that circumstance.  Malls and work and so on are supposed to be “sanitized” from sexual advances (except for alpha males who can break the rules without sanction), so men look but don’t advance.
    .
    Don’t blame men for this.  Blame the women who taught them how to relate to women.  Because it was largely women, due to the divorce rate.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Many guys will feel VERY unsettled making a move in that circumstance.  Malls and work and so on are supposed to be “sanitized” from sexual advances (except for alpha males who can break the rules without sanction), so men look but don’t advance.
    No in my country, specially not back then. Getting picked up on a mall, store, at the doctor and even the street is fairly common, there.

  • Brendan

    No in my country, specially not back then. Getting picked up on a mall, store, at the doctor and even the street is fairly common, there.
    Not in the US today.  Guys who can pick up in malls are alphas. Other men are in monotone.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Yes but my point was that it hurt to get approached after I showed that was open and welcoming, it hits my self steem a lot. I just wanted to show that women also feel the pain of rejection.

  • filrabat

    Susan mentioned earlier that even calculus would work as a mastery if one had an audience for it, which of course makes me think of the classic Far Side comic, mentioned here:
    Question: What kinds of things attract audiences?
    Answer: Things with high entertainment value
     
    So while I appreciate that passion is something attractive, this is so almost exclusively in the context of things of high entertainment value.   In short, women – as a group – tend to appreciate a man’s entertainment value over a true passionate following of his interests.

  • filrabat

    @Dilithium
    Sorry for not attributing to you the first part of my last post

  • http://gravatar.com/geoff789 Geoff789

    Can’t really speak to beta guys rejection, but I know I saw a TON of 5-6 girls at parties in college who were wearing fuck me heels and had their boobs spilling out while they threw themselves at the jocks.
    .
    I remember thinking, “are these girls high?  They think top dogs are going to…” and then I’d watch the top dogs taking the 5-6 girls upstairs for 20 mins.  Didn’t get it then, don’t get it now–giving away the milk for free.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    “are these girls high?
     
    The sad truth is that they are high…on the lies and misinformation about what actually means that a top dog is willing to shot a load on them. I would say society is the worst drug. There is no 12 steps for recovering anyone from the idea of what a “modern woman” has to do. :(

  • http://gravatar.com/geoff789 Geoff789

    It depresses me too Steph.  If there’s a better example of “we all should have listened more to our grandmothers”, I don’t know of one.

  • Jet Tibet

    Most of the guys who have taken advice from Roissy and gotten positive results are guys who were hopelessly stuck in Betaland.
    After ratcheting things up the drama a couple of notches in their marriage or LTR they are often still more beta that the average Mad-Men era husband figure.

  • terre

    I’m not really convinced that women are being “duped” by society. I’m more inclined to believe that sleeping with jocks sans commitment is their natural mode; the only types they really seek commitment from in any practical way are betas. There’s no lie being told by anyone here.

  • terre

    Stephanie, this is kind of getting on my nerves (and it’s not a femme-only habit, c.f. Jet Tibet) but television really isn’t a substitute for history, and it’s not a good idea to quote characters or tropes from TV as though they bear any resemblance to reality.

  • Florence

    Wow, I’ve got a LOT to comment on! I agree with Sue, that Keoni Galt’s comment deserves a post on its own. I’ve got a few questions that I’d like answers from him. I think it was Mike C who mentioned in a previous post how a man dating a woman who is a 10, could leave her in order to fuck 7s.


    @ Mike C
    Imagine that you have to be the approacher, the pursuer, the initiator, and then you get shot down over and over and over and over and over and over and over.  Some guys just say fuck it.
    .
    Saying “Fuck it” is an excuse. In this world, one needs to keep trying and trying and trying and trying and trying until eventually they get the dynamics of something and become and  master it. That applies to both men and women and in every area in life, including the SMP. I actually do have a lot of sympathy for my male friends who get little attention from women. I have tried to help them created online profiles on dating websites and gone shopping with them trying to pick clothes that make them look attractive and often given them advice about women. However, sometimes they’re just not motivated to do any of it or refuse to listen. Sometimes, I’d tell a certain guy to stop trying with a certain girl if the situation has gotten to the point of him hurting himself (he has become masochistic) rather than the girl hurting him, but they refuse to listen to me.
    .
    @ Brendan
    Florence, this is vicious, hateful nonsense, and you should be ashamed of having written it.
    .
    No it’s just that she cannot “grok” the male experience.
    .
    I have a lot of sympathy for men who go unnoticed. There are great women who go unnoticed as well on male radar. I advocate that they something to change and be motivated to not be discouraged when they face rejection.
    -FLorence

  • Florence

    Sue, sorry for the poor grammar on this one. I wish I could edit it, but I can’t even log onto ur blog right now.
    -Florence
    I agree that it take looks to attract a man at the first place, but it certainly takes more than looks to keep a man continuously interested. That being said, I could argue that some men have unrealistic expectations of women. A woman can try to do a lot to keep her man attracted, but when that becomes a “struggle” that results in her starting to fail in other areas of her life such as school, work or her mental health starts to suffer, I’d also say “fuck it”, especially if the man in question is an average guy.
    -Florence

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

      @Florence
      I’m sorry you’re having such trouble logging in. I don’t know why – I don’t think it’s happening to other users?

  • jess

    i can rarely log on. i use an ipad and it just wont work at the mo.
    i have to use my work pc or my partners mac to post here.
    R

  • jess

    to nothingbuttruth
    .
    i couldnt post till now due to the reasons above.
    Congrats on using game to fill your boots so to speak.
    I;m always suspicous of claims for the power of game but if its worked for you then fair enough.
    The current situation may act against beta men in the short term.
    But any system has winners or losers.
    A vistorian system may have seemd harmoneous and equitable but just meant lots of miserable humans. people married to people they didnt fancy. Men stuck with wives they despised. Gay people trapped in loveless realtionships etc.
    The minute you give someone freedom then they have can leave.
    Whoever they leave will be upset right?
    So can you make it unlawful for peopel to leave each other?
    Some countries do? You want that?
    Many women cannot bring themselves to fancy ‘beta’s.
    You say game defeats that- Im not convinced but either way how you improve th esituation for a beta? Disfigure other men? Remove the eyes of young women?
    it seems to me betas have to play the long game.
    If a beta rejects a girl because whrn they were younger she didnt fancy him- thats sooo silly

  • jess

    over here we have the expression ‘cutting your nose off to spite your face’.
    .
    very apt.
    .
    if i was a 30 something guy, bitter at serail rejection for many years, and then some attractive girl comes my way, i would be delighted. I would want to increase my sexual enjoyment not destroy it with a big fat sulk.

  • terre

    The attitude that an “attractive girl” is so valuable, so inviolate that you can stomach any amount of humiliation and any negative consequences to her ‘changing her priorities’ is probably a far greater danger than simply turning her down. One must always ask why she changed her mind.

  • Brendan

    i can rarely log on. i use an ipad and it just wont work at the mo.i have to use my work pc or my partners mac to post here.R
    .
    Just tried my iPad and the same thing happened — cant type in the text box.  Hmmm.

  • Brendan

    If a beta rejects a girl because whrn they were younger she didnt fancy him- thats sooo silly
    .
    No it’s not.  The problem, Jess, is that you really, really, really don’t understand male sexual psychology, as you have demonstrated again and again and again.  And you won’t listen.  You’re stuck in your own female sexuality feedback loop.

  • jess

    to terre,
    If you are referring to my comments then i think you ask a fair question.
    Possible answers:
    a. womens sexual tastes change over time. as a kid i fancied boybands. As I women they are sterile to me now. I used to find baldness a turn off- now I dont care too much.
    b. prioritites change. Biological clock might be ticking. emotionmal and financial stability become more importnat than jawline, pecs & bulges.
    c. A womens own attractiveness may be compromised and she is more mature and realistic
    d. A good sense of humour an dintelligence can becoem more of a turn on then height and looks. The uk comedian Micheal McIntyre is no oil painting but i am totally turned on by his wit.
    .
    its not a case of putting someone on a pedastool and in any case, one can easily turn the tables.
    This poor beta, you talk about, is he happy to date obese women, elderly women? ugly women? Becaue if he has sexual preferences he is no better nor worse than a girl who doesnt fancy him.
    You cannot, up to a point, help who you fancy. And people who try to force themselves to fancy people end up getting pretty unstuck. Please refer to Elton Johns marriage. Hows Tom Cruise getting on these days by the way?

  • Dilithium

    Susan: “Many years ago, he was visiting and left a legal pad sitting around. It was about 7 pages of equations. I don’t know if this was his idea of fun or what. But a friend of mine saw it and thought it was hot.”
     
    I hope that this pause did not make the two of you late for feeding the unicorns.  They need their rainbow dust, you know, to keep their manes sleek and glossy.
     
    Seriously, though: do you have any evidence based on what this woman did, as opposed to what she said?
     

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

      Seriously, though: do you have any evidence based on what this woman did, as opposed to what she said?

      As I said, he was visiting, there wasn’t really an opportunity for her to take action. I’m just recounting what happened. She thought my brother was handsome (he is) and his smarts made him more attractive to her. I base that on her exclaiming, “Whoa, look at this! Your brother is hot!”

      As I said, I’m not trying to advocate calculus as a selling point. I agree with Brendan – some interests are more conducive to appreciation – and sharing – than others. But I still maintain that mastery in general is a DHV. It certainly beats incompetence.

  • terre

    Possible answers:a. womens sexual tastes change over time. as a kid i fancied boybands. As I women they are sterile to me now. I used to find baldness a turn off- now I dont care too much.b. prioritites change. Biological clock might be ticking. emotionmal and financial stability become more importnat than jawline, pecs & bulges.c. A womens own attractiveness may be compromised and she is more mature and realisticd. A good sense of humour an dintelligence can becoem more of a turn on then height and looks. The uk comedian Micheal McIntyre is no oil painting but i am totally turned on by his wit.

    A man willing to be a girl’s sperm donor, not to mention one who is being settled for because she’s behaving “realistic[ally]“, has a pronounced deficiency in either dignity or common sense. This is not only bad in and of itself but bad for his chances of keeping even her; she’ll note his weakness, compare it to her past lovers and the urge to treat him with contempt at best, to stray at worst, will be inescapable.

    (As a Brit, Michael McIntyre is the boy band of the comedy world. Jimmy Carr’s takedown of him was positively delicious).

  • jess

    Not so re the comedians. im a bit of comedy groupie so know my stuff here. I didnt see Carrs pisstake of MM so will take your word for that but:
    a. JC is nowhere near as funny as MM
    b. MM is not a teenager and has been learning his craft for many years
    But he does have young looks but then so does JC.
    .
    This idea of settling is barmy.
    EVERYONE settles to some degree. Supermodels settle at the end of the day.
    .
    You are saying that some beta should wait at home for a knock at the door from some gorgeous blonde. She should be a virgin and be passioantley and sexually attracted to him and that he be the ‘best ever’. Yeah, good luck with that guys.
    .
    If a some beta rejects attractive women who in their younger days may not have chosen him then good luck to him. The girls certainly wont have a problem getting an LTR. He may have to settle himeself when he relaises hes blown tha chance of great relationships.
    .
    I should also add that some guys grow into themselves as they age. They often shed the nerdy, nerdy wakwardness of youth. They becoem fanciable without the need for ‘game’.

  • Sox

    Is it no longer possible to subscribe without posting?

  • terre

    I’m not saying a beta should do anything. I’m telling him what he shouldn’t do. The only positive advice I’d give would be a) to learn game and stop being a beta and b) steer a million miles away from marriage, until he’s absolutely, completely certain the girl is worth it.

  • Brendan

    If a some beta rejects attractive women who in their younger days may not have chosen him then good luck to him. The girls certainly wont have a problem getting an LTR. He may have to settle himeself when he relaises hes blown tha chance of great relationships.
    .
    Again, you don’t understand male sexual psychology very well.  Men do not, generally, like to commit to women who have been around the block.  Have sex with, sure.  Commit, no.  Because she’s full of risks — every relationship has risks but she brings more risks to the table, from the male perspective, than average.
    .
    Women are not the brass ring — you’re basically assuming they are as in “heh, get what you can, boys, and suck it up”.  That isn’t how we think.  I’m a divorced guy, and I know that brings issues to the table as well for any woman, but I did not dive into the pool looking for women who had a long history.  Instead I waited years to find someone who does not, and she’s wonderful and suits my values (and I hers, as well, because I also do not have a long history, despite being divorced).  If I hadn’t met her, I would not be “settling” for some ex-carouseler who had changed her priorities.  That’s good for her, but I’d rather be alone, and I’m fine with that and many, many men are.
    .
    Go ahead and keep blowing your own grrl power sex-pos feminist smoke all you like, Jess.  It doesn’t impress me, and frankly it doesn’t impress most men who have any sense of their own value.

  • Sox

    @Jess
    This poor beta, you talk about, is he happy to date obese women, elderly women? ugly women? Becaue if he has sexual preferences he is no better nor worse than a girl who doesnt fancy him.
    Right, so a man who’s hypothetically a 5-6 should go after female 1’s-3’s because his equal-SMV counterparts are too busy pining after the male 8 that didn’t call them back? You’re essentially saying betas are the dregs of the sexual marketplace when in reality they make up 80%.
    @Steph
    It’s also disheartening when we indicate interest in a guy and get no reception at all. We get rejected too, you know!
    I personally don’t see that as rejection.  Sure, your ego gets bruised, but how much did you really put yourself out there? Is it possible that he missed your signs of interest? Could you have taken the initiative there? There’s really no way to know what might’ve been going on in his head, and it was totally your choice to turn it back on yourself and assume you weren’t good enough for him in the moment.
    I’m not one of the guys trying to tell women to start approaching men en masse…but complaining that your passive approach doesn’t work like it “should” or like it “does” for othesr is IMO based on fallacious assumptions and is really just setting you up for a victim mentality.  I mean this generally and not specifically towards you Steph.

  • jess

    to Brendon,
    First off I reject your 1st generalisation and Susan and others have posted data that supports my stance.
    Of course ’round the block’ is subjective but that threads been done to death now.
    Almost all my female friends are married with children and most have ‘history’.
    .
    If you would prefer to be alone then totally good for you. Im not sure many men are happy with celibacy and loneliness but if they are then again, each to their own.
    .
    As for impressing men, thats never been an aim for me on any level. (just ask my partner or any exes!) but what I would say is that guys who excue confidence and self esteem are the ones I find are laid back and non judgemental about female sexual freedom. The guys consumed with doubt and low self esteem and bitterness tend to be the whingers. I’m sure htios doenst apply to you but its a general obsetvation that rather cuts across the idea that self assured men will hold out for the ‘virgin bride’. My advice would be that if 2 people are sexually attracted to each other, and are single, they should give it a shot. and i would urge people not to let religeon, families, friends or politics get in the way of that.

  • Brendan

    As usual, we fundamentally disagree, Jess.

  • OffTheCuff

    I smiled I did all the signs that I was interested and he stayed there for a bit over and hour, it was getting late and I had to go and the guy didn’t asked for my phone number!!!
    .
    This is hardly rejection.
    .
    Rejection would be directly asking for something and then him saying NO, perhaps politely, or not… maybe laughing at you, or say “go away, you disgusting pig” loud enough that the entire room hears.
    .
    Rejection is not him failing to pick on signals that you think are obvious, but he’s not sharp enough to pick up on; or him failing to have a high enough level of extroversion to ask you out right there. Now, I don’t expect women to make the first move, but this is simply not rejection.
    .
    We don’t experience rejection by being passive and hoping people read our signals. Being passive and hoping people read our signals is how we avoid rejection – it allows us to build plausible deniablilty that we weren’t really rejected to save our ego. Men and women alike.
    .
    Similarly, a man who sits in a bar and waits for women to approach him is not being rejected.

  • OffTheCuff

    To be fair, the women mentioned here who “get it” have clearly put in many hours of reading, observing and discussing it. When I started HUS I had pretty much the same impression that Flo does.
    .
    There’s a big difference, that I can tell. Your mind is open to being changed.
    .
    Let’s summarize: Flo asserts typical men do easy access to sex. The guys here assert that it’s not true, and give lots of examples and experiences why. We are men, thus we know our experience a lot better.
    .
    Someone who’s mind is open will sometimes concede a point, nobody can be right all the time. Instead of saying “I never thought of it that way, it must be tough!”, or countering with some other evidence, the response usually reverts to “well, women have are hard time finding boyfriends”. That may be true, but it’s dodging the subject. I said nothing about that, we were responding to the original assertion. Or, “women experience rejection too”, which again is true, but dodging the subject.
    .
    Over and over. Make an assertion, assertion challenged with evidence and experience ==> change the subject.
    .
    Over time, you build up a sense of who may be open to accepting a single point, and those who will give no quarter, no matter what. With the latter, you realize that only really made a good point based on the degree of fallacious response — either it goes unchallenged, they change the subject, go absolutely psychotic in yelling, or start rambling incoherent things.

  • Brendan

    I advocate that they something to change and be motivated to not be discouraged when they face rejection.

    Most of the men here agree with that — hence Game.

  • OffTheCuff

    BTW, Keoni, brilliant post.
    .
    I think there is a lot to be said for people who have the ability to successfully translate between the male and female perspective, put their own sex’s perspective in terms the opposite can understand, or (much harder, but more beneficial) put the other sex’s perspective in terms their own can understand. That latter is more likely to be “trusted” and heard.
    .
    Sue is one, because her rational and analytical style make a lot of sense to us guys, and maybe that’s why we have so many male commenters here.
    .
    In my mind, such a person who actually makes a dent in intersex understanding, should be up for the Nobel Peace Prize more than any politician!

  • CSPB

    Many things have been touched on in comments; Game, Attraction, Hypergamy, Polygamy, Infidelity, Marriage, Divorce, Christian/Catholic, Dominance, Submission, BDSM, Fantasy, Education, Prostitution, Partner counts and Ovulation to just name a few. These things are not unrelated and discussions are gaining popularity and proof in seemingly opposing areas.

    Discovery Channel: The Science of Sex Appeal (9 parts)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGfznq9OgdU

    Dr. Philip Mango – Full Time (5 parts)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfJh9vda4YI

    If you take the time to watch, you will see the similarities and complementary views. Recent scientific study and facts support many religious teachings and aspects of Game. (Make sure you listen to the Mango video long enough to get thru the initial religious part.) There are wonderful insights into relationships to be found in both of these videos.

  • SayWhaat

    @ OTC:

    Rejection would be directly asking for something and then him saying NO, perhaps politely, or not… maybe laughing at you, or say “go away, you disgusting pig” loud enough that the entire room hears.

    You’re right, this is rejection–for men. When you have a social situation, women typically try to issue IOIs for men to approach. When these IOIs are not received, we feel rejection. It is not your version of rejection, but it is ours.

    Likewise, we face rejection when we go out on dates and he doesn’t call back, or somehow disappears after one or two outings. (I know that this happens to men too.)

    Of course, I’m all for women upping the ante and approaching men they’re interested in. I’ve done it myself. The trick is to approach and indicate your interest, but let him pursue, and it’s a difficult trick to pull off.

  • Rum

    The first principle of game is that human females are, by natures design, quite unable to consciously apprehend the workings of their own sexual instincts. That is why when they tell you, “I am not like that!!!”, they really seem to believe it to be so. Nonetheless, an experienced man learns to ignore(or take as propaganda) anything a woman says on the subject.
    Obviously, this creates a sort of Catch22 for any woman who truly disagrees and wants to explain herself. But she and her sisters don’t need to use words to win this argument.
    I will type real slow so everyone can follow – Fuck the nice guys first. Not after spending your young ripeness responding strongly to assholes. When you suck/fuck assholes first it ruins everything forever. There is no going back – at least to having anyone believe that ass-hole Game is an ineffective way to work your buttons – the ones you are not even aware of.

  • terre

    SayWhaat, it’s not ‘rejection’ by anyone’s standards. Men are not mind-readers; you’re not being “rejected” because in his mind there was nothing to reject. The latter (‘hooking up’ with an alpha and being spurned once he leaves) is the female equivalent of rejection.

  • Sox

    @SayWhaat
    You’re right, this is rejection–for men.

    This would be rejection – for anyone, but most women don’t put themselves out there that way. Every time this comes up, women try and say, “but we have it badly too!” Honestly, why is it so hard to accept that in this one area, men might have it tougher? Women have to deal with pregnancy. Men have it rougher on the battlefield (generally speaking). We’re talking about the difference between passive and active rejection. Like OTC said, passively awaiting to be snagged up works more as a rejection avoidance strategy than anything else.

    I’m not saying women have it easy. I sympathize with how much it must suck to get passed over- like getting picked last for the baseball team. It’s outright SCARY for many men to approach women because the chances of rejection for them are quite high.
    A woman who doesn’t get approached MAY blame herself, but her ego has plenty of ways to rationalize why it might not be on her, unless she actually asks a guy for a number and gets shot down.
    Once again, not looking for this to change. I’m fine with this dynamic, but I’d like some understanding from women. A, “fine, that sucks” would suffice. But I think a lot of people have a hard time giving up the victim card.

  • Sox

    I personally view rejection as thwarting of intentions. A job interview, you’ve submitted your resume and expressed clear, demonstrable interest in the position. If you don’t get the job, that’s rejection. A woman can say, “Oh, well I made it clear I was interested!” Did you? Did you state it in plain speech or send out signals in hopes he’d understand? If I put my resume up on monster or USAJOBS or something, and I don’t get contacted – does that mean I’m getting rejected? I suppose I could construe it to seem that way, but it’d involve some assumptions with little proof to back them up.

  • Brendan

    @CSPB —

    Great videos! That Phil Mango stuff is great — although I don’t think you can really get what he is saying unless you are a “catholic” Christian (lower case because I consider Catholics and Orthodox to both be “catholic” and certainly in the sense that Mango is). God bless him, really.

  • http://gravatar.com/geoff789 Geoff789

    @Jess,
    “if i was a 30 something guy, bitter at serail rejection for many years, and then some attractive girl comes my way, i would be delighted. I would want to increase my sexual enjoyment not destroy it with a big fat sulk.”
    .
    Oh, he wants to fuck her if she’s hot. He just isn’t willing to MARRY the girl. Especially if she has 2 kids from 2 different alphas who now want nothing to do with her. Why that’s beyond your comprehension is surprising, until I remember you’re a girl. Who has done zero research compared to Susan on understanding men. Ergo, we should all listen to you.
    —————-
    @Jess,
    “You are saying that some beta should wait at home for a knock at the door from some gorgeous blonde. She should be a virgin and be passioantley and sexually attracted to him and that he be the ‘best ever’. Yeah, good luck with that guys.”
    .
    I recommend you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument
    and then never do this again. Cuz no man on this blog has ever, is saying now, or will ever say some stupid shit like that. You have failed to grasp anything any guy on this blog is saying.
    .
    So, Miss Jess, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  • CSPB

    The most profound thing I learned from Dr. Mango is the 3 greatest fears of men and the 3 greatest fears of women. #1 for men is FAILURE. #1 for women is ABANDONMENT. Understanding the different motivations and fears is so critical in understanding the reactions and reasons for the behaviors of the opposite sex. This understanding is not religiously based and transcends faith because it is hard wired.

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

      @CSPB
      Welcome, and I”ll second that thumbs up for the videos. As much as people, i.e. feminists, complain about John Gray, I think his books are excellent, and are very much in line with Dr. Mango.

  • http://gravatar.com/geoff789 Geoff789

    @OffTheCuff,
    Yeah, men AND women are guilty of cognitive dissonance.
    .
    Women who aren’t willing to concede they may not understand men will never grok the SMP of today, neither will they figure out the alpha cock carousel is a disastrous move until around age 30 when the impact hits. They’re unwilling to even admit the POSSIBILTY that they should maybe wait for marriage like women did for about 3,000 years. So the women stay stupid.
    .
    Likewise, there are a lot of men who aren’t willing to concede that they may not understand WOMEN. And they’ll live their lives thinking women value honesty, integrity, and hard work (e.g. that bullshit article on National Review by Dennis Prager who has maybe slept with 4 women in his life). Those guys are unwilling to even admit the POSSIBILITY that game works and that women act in ways men find irrational and disloyal. So the men stay stupid.

  • http://www.theracerx.wordpress.com Racer X

    “I would like any links you can provide where Roissy describes being in love, accepting love, giving love, enjoying a loving relationship, or all of the above. By “love” I do not mean a cocktail of brain chemicals. I mean a caring, lasting commitment to another human being.”

    I found your previous summary of Roissy’s history interesting also. I really don’t read his blog much anymore, so I was unaware that it may be a composite now of different writers. I was also not aware that he lost his job over his blog and moved out of the DC area.

    I can think of some instances in the past, before he changed his blog, where he does write about the power of romantic love and how this was the ultimate goal for most men when it came to sex. I do not have any links, so this is only from memory, but I do know that Roissy did write them. Occasionally I would comment that his venom for women was fueled by his own disillusionment over past romantic break ups. At least that was my theory. The bitterness he felt was the result of previous heart breaks, at least when he was younger. Although I am sure many of his past break ups were in part due to his being a psychopath. I suppose it was sort of a vicious cycle he was in. The psychopathic romantic who can’t hold on to a woman because he is a psychopath which in turns feeds his psychopathy.

    Still, Roissy, or whoever it was that wrote those posts, was a great writer. Some of his stuff was priceless, and good satiric art. Now I find his blog predictable and boring so I do not read it anymore, except occasionally. This would bear out your theory that others are now writing it.

  • terre

    I have to admit I’m surprised a man would take his turn at amateur psychology (it’s by and far typically women) but Roissy is not a “psychopath”.

  • Brendan

    This understanding is not religiously based and transcends faith because it is hard wired.
    .
    Yes but what Mango says (and which I believe as well) is that you need God to actually *do* that, and specifically God in the Eucharist and the other sacraments. He is clear on that, I think. So you can internalize the message but *consistently* acting on it is something else. I certainly can’t do that without God.
    .
    Nevertheless, there are great take-aways there for everyone regardless of religion. I just think you can’t really *get* the guy, or really consistently do what he is suggesting, without the *rest* of what he suggests, only occasionally, because he was speaking to a group of Catholics rather than proselytizing.

  • Brendan

    Others are writing, but he still writes as well. It’s annoyingly un-transparent, but I can hear Roissy’s voice in quite a few posts.

    .
    He’s troubled, but he isn’t a psychopath. He was burned. I have no idea what it was, but one goodish guess is that his parents divorced. Another goodish one is that he struck out a lot in his early 20s and decided to “get back”. Most of us have those kinds of feelings as well (sorry ladies), but most of us also get past them and develop a new modus-vivendi with women that matches our values and realistic expectations. Roissy decided to go with getting back, probably because when he got Game he just became addicted to it. Still, he has tremendous insight (something a natural alpha would NOT have, so don’t get started on him being a natural alpha — he isn’t) and tremendous writing skill. He’s much, much more insightful than Tucker Max, and I wish him well with his writing endeavors.

  • OffTheCuff

    You’re right, this is rejection–for men. When you have a social situation, women typically try to issue IOIs for men to approach. When these IOIs are not received, we feel rejection. It is not your version of rejection, but it is ours.
    .
    No, no, and no. Rejection is an intentional action aimed at one person. If a guy just misses your IOIs, or doesn’t approach out of fear, or doesn’t ask you out because he doesn’t want to be sued, he’s not rejecting you. The rejection you feel is all in your head.
    .
    Now, if he look at you, recognizes it, reads your mind and knows you positively want him to approach, and rolls his eyes in “what the fuck are you thinking?”, then it is a rejection. But we don’t have ESP. We can’t often tell the difference between an IOI and basic politeness. We have to risk rejection to find out becasuse we can’t read your mind.
    .
    Likewise, we face rejection when we go out on dates and he doesn’t call back, or somehow disappears after one or two outings.
    .
    Now you’re finally making sense. This is rejection, an intentional act aimed at one person. Imagine “not getting called back” roughly 95% of the time, and you’ll have and idea of what we face when approaching. Can your ego take that?

  • CSPB

    @Brendan

    I do agree with you, We have similar views as demostrated on other blogs we frequent. I try to temper my religious perspective to not scare people away as I believe in the the principle of gradualism.

    I like reading posts from intelligent people that I disagree with, because it tests my mettle and I always learn something. Since I learn much from the non-religious people, I encourage the non-religious to learn from the religious without trying to convert them. That is God’s job (but I am not above planting mustard seeds).

    I have studied GAME for about 3 years. It takes quite a while to grok and integrate into other beliefs. (GAME is amoral, useful and possible to use without “cutting a wide swath” and “putting multiple notches on your belt.”) The “red pill” is bitter but once swallowed, few regret the choice.

  • Plain Jane

    “Right, so a man who’s hypothetically a 5-6 should go after female 1′s-3′s because his equal-SMV counterparts are too busy pining after the male 8 that didn’t call them back? ”
    —Not 1’s, but certainly 3’s.
    Going within 2 points up or down from where you sit is realistic. It’s the same range.

  • Anonymous

    @ Sue. I am using a Dell laptop and still can’t log on. I tried both Mozilla and Internet Explorer. My menu on the right ends at “The Lost Art of Self-Preservation (for Women)”. That problem happened a few days ago.
    -Florence

  • SayWhaat

    @ OTC:

    Imagine “not getting called back” roughly 95% of the time, and you’ll have and idea of what we face when approaching. Can your ego take that?

    Yeah, actually, I can. Imagine falling for someone after a period of time and then being denied a relationship with him. Then you’ll have an idea of what we girls face when we actually let ourselves open up to guys these days.

    Put down your battle axe, old man. I’m one of those girls who actually wants to be with one of those guys who falls under the 80% you champion, and I haven’t gotten any results so far. So chill out.

  • Brendan

    I do agree with you, We have similar views as demostrated on other blogs we frequent. I try to temper my religious perspective to not scare people away as I believe in the the principle of gradualism.
    I like reading posts from intelligent people that I disagree with, because it tests my mettle and I always learn something. Since I learn much from the non-religious people, I encourage the non-religious to learn from the religious without trying to convert them. That is God’s job (but I am not above planting mustard seeds).
    I have studied GAME for about 3 years. It takes quite a while to grok and integrate into other beliefs. (GAME is amoral, useful and possible to use without “cutting a wide swath” and “putting multiple notches on your belt.”) The “red pill” is bitter but once swallowed, few regret the choice.

    .
    Yep. You and me see eye to eye.

  • OffTheCuff

    Imagine falling for someone after a period of time and then being denied a relationship with him.
    .
    I’m sorry that 95% of your dates fizzle, but unless you fall for a new guy every day or so, then the frequency of this form rejection you deal with is no way close to what we deal with.
    .
    Then you’ll have an idea of what we girls face when we actually let ourselves open up to guys these days.
    .
    I don’t even need to imagine, I’ve been there. It is precisely what happened to me when I was, say, 14-19. This has happens to any romantic beta who gets one-itis, waits a few months to gather up the courage to ask her girl out, all while being a good platonic friend like he thinks he’s supposed to do, and then is LJBF’d. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
    .
    Men get dumped by women, too, and it hurts, unless you believe we are monsters that cannot fall in love. Your equivalences here are really stretching.
    .
    I’m one of those girls who actually wants to be with one of those guys who falls under the 80% you champion, and I haven’t gotten any results so far. So chill out.
    .
    So says you, but so does you? If you really want to be with one of those 80%, you’ll actually have to give a tiny bit and try to see it from our perspective. Of which I have, and you don’t. Your unwillingness to concede an inch, without reverting to “but we have it bad too!” me-too arguments demonstrates otherwise. Like I said above, I know I’m gaining real traction when folks ignore my points, tell me to “chill out” and call me an “old man”. Shame on you, you dirty old man… who’s only bit older than the guys you are dating!
    .
    I will chill out, but if I do, know that you’re on my “refuses to try” list.

  • SayWhaat

    If you really want to be with one of those 80%, you’ll actually have to give a tiny bit and try to see it from our perspective. Of which I have, and you don’t.

    Oh, have you? Guess what, I’ve taken plenty of advice from other guys here to heart, but there seem to be a few who just want to keep making the case about how it sucks for men, 80% of men are fucked, etc. It takes two to tango in this SMP, and it seems to me like your only intention is to admonish girls who are currently struggling in it without taking their own perspective. So you’ve had trouble when you were 14? Guess what, so did we. And we still are.

    I have dated guys who were in that 80% and I am telling you right now, I have yet to meet a single one who wanted a relationship DESPITE not having anything else on the horizon, and it makes me think that all the bitching that goes on from the guys here is somewhat of a generational thing. Yes, I can agree that men have it harder in some respects, but I think that at the same time sexual access has gotten much easier than it used to be for men, PARTICULARLY in my generation, and we are seeing the results and dissatisfaction of that right now.

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

      @SayWhaat @OTC
      Listen, you’re both very reasonable voices here, and I don’t really think your positions are very far apart. I believe you’re each responding to the “other” sex as a composite of numerous commenters.
      .
      There are a couple of things going on here. Age is one, but I don’t think it’s the primary thing. Rather, I’ll assume you are both in that 80% of people who has been disappointed in the SMP. OTC is now married and a father, so it worked out for him. SayWhaat is a virgin who avoids player types and is looking for a real relationship with a good man. Her actions since she first came here prove that.
      .
      The truth is that a good-looking virgin in college will have a very hard time sustaining the interest of a male. Many guys here have acknowledged that. I do believe that the pressure to score casual sex is so strong on young men that even guys who might enjoy a relationship and are most definitely not getting regular sex will forego it. Another problem is that relationships are very time consuming. They tend to either fall into one of two categories in college:
      1. relationship in name only – basically low emotional investment for regular sex
      2. college marrieds – total co-dependence as a way of bypassing the hookup scene altogether
      .
      The woman will behave similarly in each scenario, but the guy in #1 is probably an alpha and the guy in #2 is probably a beta.
      .
      The bottom line is that there are plenty of disappointed women and men in college. Men risk and experience rejection much more frequently. If they get into an LJBF situation, they can have their hearts broken as well. Women generally experience rejection as heartbreak – which is on a spectrum, depending on how long she’s been pursuing a relationship with someone. I fully agree that women who don’t get looked at in a bar are not being actively rejected. They may feel crummy about it, but indeed it doesn’t compare to a pyrotechnic rejection in front of one’s friends.

  • terre

    Seconded, Brendan. Words are cheap, especially from girls who think they have any idea what “alpha”/”beta” means, or that they “really want a beta”.

  • terre

    Oops, not Brendan, OffTheCuff*

  • SayWhaat

    Hey Terre, may I remind you that when I described a guy who demonstrated beta qualities while we were dating, you questioned what happened if things were going so well? And I told you that I wanted to be exclusive, and he didn’t?

    Funny how you overlooked that, bro.

  • terre

    It would be almost trivial to find a beta partner, unless you’re unusually unattractive.

  • Mike C

    I recommend you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument
    and then never do this again. Cuz no man on this blog has ever, is saying now, or will ever say some stupid shit like that. You have failed to grasp anything any guy on this blog is saying.

    Geoff, I’m going to toss back a variation of what you told me. “Never wrestle with a pig in the mud, you get dirty, and the pig enjoys it”. I actually had to resist replying to the latest ramblings. It is clear that some cannot even fathom even an iota of a rational argument nor try to grasp at least even a shred of the typical guy perspective.

    Look, simple fact is if you are average guy you are supposed to just suffer through your 20s, and then come 30+ you are supposed to thank your lucky stars that someone now looking for a third-stringer to settle down with is showing “interest”. Don’t be mad that she spent years empowering herself and exercising her “freedom” with guys who weren’t going to have a serious interest in her. Suck it up, accept it, and be happy that you are eating anything at all even if it is ground chuck that has been left to spoil for a few days.

    http://solomongroup.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/proverb-30-meat-market-economics/

  • Brendan

    I have dated guys who were in that 80% and I am telling you right now, I have yet to meet a single one who wanted a relationship DESPITE not having anything else on the horizon, and it makes me think that all the bitching that goes on from the guys here is somewhat of a generational thing.
    .
    That’s because men know that the family law sucks ass for men. Non-religious men are fools to marry, because when men marry, under the current law, he has just made a woman into a castratrix. For religious men, it is a bit different, in that self-fornication is not an acceptable option (even though many take it regardless),but in any case the whole thing is garbage. I am not personally excluding marriage, because my current GF is a complete Goddess morally, but for guys who have not found that, or who are totally secular, staying away is the mark of the alpha male.

  • http://gravatar.com/geoff789 Geoff789

    @Mike C,
    Thank you. I should follow my own advice. Jess and Plain Jane are free to read what I post, or not–but I’m not wasting any time trying to help gals that don’t want my advice.
    . .
    Hope we don’t lose Florence though. I think she’s got a chance to be open and use this info.

  • terre

    Susan, again, I ask you to apply the same skepticism the average man would when it comes to a girl’s word. Avoiding “player types” is one thing — one can be a lesser alpha and come across as nothing like a player. But claiming you’re being actively spurned by “betas” is proof that the speaker doesn’t understand the male sexual hierarchy.

    Here I tend toward’s Devlin’s interpretation, which is that women have a particular “erotic view”. This is the real root of the 80/20 split, and this is why it’s most likely that SayWhaat saw ‘beta’ traits in a lesser alpha. There’s a distinct difference, especially when it comes to the question of comparative disadvantage in modern dating rituals. The key quality of the beta male is that he doesn’t excite sexual attraction in the female; they’re at best subjects to personal Machiavellian machinations, but they’re cleanly not objects of desire. The reasons for this are complicated and multiple, but the end effect is that the odds of a young girl seeking one out is extremely low. The only modern exceptions I can even think of would be Mormon and Muslim communities as well as other religious enclaves.

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

      @terre
      The alpha/beta definitions vary quite a bit depending on whom one is speaking with. I’ve seen men debate it ad nauseam. Splitting hairs between lesser alpha and higher beta is one I haven’t heard before, but I don’t see any point in debating that. By your definition, 80% of men are desired by zero women, and that just ain’t so.

      By the way, do you apply skepticism to a man’s word? Or are women just inherently unworthy of trust?

  • OffTheCuff

    I had forgot SayWhaat is a virgin. In which case, I will say her situation is probably more difficult than an average man’s. I applaud you for sticking to your guns in a tough market. Personally, I think virginity is overrated and does most people a disservice, but I will not dispute your right to run your life the way you want.
    .
    I’m not here to admonish you, the only thing I’m saying is that if you really want a guy in that 80%, you will have to understand how we think, just a bit. That requires a bit a empathy for our position, without getting all judgmental, or competing for victim-hood. Once you do that, you’ll start to get why “all” guys you “happen” to meet don’t want relationships. (Lest you think I’m sexist, the same goes for beta men — if I guy thinks “all” women reject him, they better figure out how women think, at least to the first order, or to the genetic trash-heap they go.)
    .
    Speaking for myself, if I met a girl like as a college freshman, I would be freakishly happy to have you as a girlfriend. When the sex question came up, since you are a virgin, I’d definitely give you plenty of time to make up your mind, and date you for a long time before I gave up — probably a year. If you were a reformed virgin, then you’re just lying to me and you get no such consideration, I’m not gonna wait if you’re not.
    .
    Note I said “freshman”. By the time I was a senior, I saw the writing on the wall. Only chumps wait indefinitely for affection and sex. I’d still give it time, lots of time, but I’m not gonna wait indefinitely. Older guys than that not only have seen the writing, they’ve been bashed up against that wall.
    .
    Now, maybe I’m totally wrong, and there’s nobody like me left today. I’m sorry if this is the case, but I really am confident there are good people in this world, if you only put yourself in the position to find them.
    .
    I think you are really in a bind if you want to find a beta-at-heart guy, who also exhibits alpha qualities, and will accept no possibility for sex for a long time. One of those three is going to have to go missing, and you don’t need to me to tell you which one. It’s like car repairs — you can have it easy, fast, or cheap; pick any two.

  • http://gravatar.com/geoff789 Geoff789

    @Susan,
    It gets pretty complicated, but Vox Day has a more detailed breakdown of male categories for female pantie-drop success.
    .
    Piecemeal quotations follow:
    .
    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html
    .
    Alphas - the male elite, the leaders of men for whom women naturally lust.
    .
    Betas - the lieutenants, the petty aristocracy. They’re popular, they do well with women, they’re pretty successful in life, and they may even be exceptionally good-looking. But they lack the Alpha’s natural self-confidence and strength of character. They’re not leaders…
    .
    Deltas - the great majority of men. These are Roissy’s Betas.
    .
    Gammas - the obsequious ones, the posterior puckerers, the nice guys who attempt to score through white-knighting, faux-chivalry, flattery, and omnipresence. All men except true Alphas will occasionally fall into Gamma behavior from time to time, this is the behavior and attitude that Roissy is attempting to teach men to recognize and avoid. The dividing line between a Gamma and a Delta is that the Gamma genuinely believes in the Gamma reality to the very core of his soul whereas the Delta is never truly comfortable with himself when he behaves in this manner despite being thoroughly indoctrinated in it by his culture.
    .
    Sigmas - the lone wolves. Occasionally mistaken for Alphas, particularly by women and Alphas, they are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. Alphas instinctively view them as challenges and either dislike or warily respect them.
    .
    Omegas - the losers. Even the Gamma males despise them. That which doesn’t kill them can make them stronger, but most never surmount the desperate need to belong caused by their social rejection. (I would add: potential serial killers of women at aerobics classes).

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

      @Geoff
      Thanks for Vox’s definitions – I’d read it before but had kind of lost the concept. This is the best definition I have ever heard. When I say I have been happily married to a Beta for 25 years, this is the definition that rings true for me. I also think that when young women talk about betas there, they are adhering to this definition. Women who say, “I want a beta guy!” are not saying they want a loser or someone they aren’t attracted to. They are saying they want a man of good character, without narcissistic tendencies, and without too much sexual experience. If he’s “doing pretty well in life,” including with women, then he’s perfect. The true alphas are the players and are generally seen by women as not being relationship material in this SMP. Some women will indeed take their 5 minutes with alpha. And alpha and alpha and alpha. It’s a poor strategy though. Obviously, all of this was very different 50 years ago.

  • SayWhaat

    @ OTC:

    Personally, I think virginity is overrated and does most people a disservice, but I will not dispute your right to run your life the way you want.

    I think it’s overrated, too. I’m not committed to maintaining my virginity, though, so….

    Sorry I blew up earlier. I think Susan was right in that I was responding to you as a composite of other commenters. I just get really frustrated here when I feel like women are being vilified for behavior they sometimes have no idea about, much less being able to correct it.

  • Sox

    Speaking personally, I think my main issue is when females on here say they “are looking for a beta” or “married a beta and have always been happy with him”. (*cough* Susan *cough* :o )

    It’s an illogical to say, akin to a man saying, “I’m looking for an unattractive woman.” I’d wager that these men you ladies are with/are looking for are actually at least possessing of Alpha qualities that at least turn you on. Provider qualities can be a turn on but only if they’re presented with dominance.

    I’m repeating my previously stated opinion here that most men simply aren’t as well balanced in the alpha/beta department as they used to be. Part of having good character is possessingconfidence, again my opinion. Most 20-something men are seriously lacking in this area compared to their female peers. Why? Most of them for one reason or another have attached their own self-worth to female attention. Blame society, lack of mentors/father figures/responsibility, etc. They usually have a fairly balanced emotional make-up coming into their 20’s, but then hit a wall of cognitive dissonance that is just a total mind-fuck. They question themselves, they wonder why girls don’t like them, they wonder why douchebags are in such demand, and they wonder why every girl out there seems to have irrationally high levels of self-confidence. During this time, men struggle. They’re unattractive to women or totally invisible. They wonder WTF is wrong with them. They need a source of confidence, and it’s hard to struggle through those years without becoming jaded, as they slowly see how wrong they were about people, relationships, women, and themselves. Many of these men would be more alpha had things played out differently; had they found the truth earlier. All many of these men need is a little success and they all of a sudden become very attractive to women.

    Women experience their own struggles as they reach 30 and realize they were sold a raw deal and these men that they’re longing for only want them for sex. It just happens on a different timeline because they’re riding the wave of validation they got from being at the peak of their attractiveness. How quickly a woman makes it through this is IMO directly proportional to how quickly she reconciles reality with her world view and stops rationalizing.

    When you’re looking at men, don’t look at them and sort them into alpha/beta. Look at where they get their confidence. Look at how bitter they are. Look at how alpha they act with you when they gain some confidence and comfort.

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

      When you’re looking at men, don’t look at them and sort them into alpha/beta. Look at where they get their confidence. Look at how bitter they are. Look at how alpha they act with you when they gain some confidence and comfort.

      This is profound and very, very good advice. Re my own relationship, I think I explained it above with the comment about Vox Day’s concept. My husband calls himself a beta male. He is extremely smart, engineering undergrad, MBA, has done well in finance. He is also quite reserved by nature. He is a talented singer and musician, and has a great sense of humor, and reads a great deal. He had girlfriends growing up, including in high school, despite being a drama geek (his words). He is physically attractive.
      .
      What is he? I don’t know! He’s not and has never been a chick magnet. He does not enjoy being the center of attention. He is as true and loyal as anyone I have ever known. I’ll go with Vox’s beta categorization. I think there are many men in this group. They aren’t the womanizers, but they are attractive prospects. Two generations ago, no one would have found men like my husband wanting. We’ve widened the chasm between the male “haves” and the “have nots.”

  • Anonymous

    Good to know that if a woman is born pretty, she can look forward to being “hammered” by the likes of Roissy. Newsflash: 8s and 9s do not need Roissy’s hammer.

    So whose hammer would 8’s and 9’s prefer then? Perhaps…Maxwell’s?

    Now that is a guy with game, gents.

  • terre

    Geoff789, that’s an interesting breakdown but it misses the point in the most crucial sense, which is the one at which a woman considers her partner an object of sexual desire or a neuter. This is where there is a very distinct, incontrovertible alpha/beta (or whatever else you’d like to use) break, and it’s observable in any small group of mixed company. The grander distinctions necessarily follow from this point of contact.

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

      @terre
      According to Vox’s framework, Alphas, Betas and Gammas can all attract women, though obviously the number of women attracted gets smaller as one moves down the alphabet. This is quite realistic, I think.

  • terre

    As an aside, the only girls my heart bleeds for are the exceptionally ugly. I have no room for others.

  • Jess

    Thanks to sw for mending the posting system.
    .
    To Geoff et al,
    I liked the advanced definition system. Not unilke the physics particle model.
    Is there an anti alpha?
    Perhaps an delta-beta pair?
    There are certainly bosons.
    And far too many are negative that’s for sure.
    If I was a neutrino, and had seldom interacted with anything, I wouldn’t be too choosy about my next hook up regardless of history.

  • terre

    Susan, that’s not what “beta” means, I’m sorry. (Note that you define one as someone who’s “without too much sexual experience” as well as someone who’s “doing pretty well [...] with women”; what a trick to pull off).

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

      (Note that you define one as someone who’s “without too much sexual experience” as well as someone who’s “doing pretty well [...] with women”; what a trick to pull off).

      Not all all! How about an attractive guy who has had sex with 5-10 women by age 30? That’s no alpha, yet many women would consider that more than adequate preselection.

  • CSPB

    Today I have been doing some posting on “Catholic Answers Forum.” I declare that most overly religious woman have SFB (shit for brains). OK, this extends to life in general, but at least secular woman do not have the sanctimonious holier-than-thou mentality, even if secular women do often believe their shit doesn’t stink. Religious women are living in a la-la land where pink unicorns are common. To be fair, they have not contemplated Game at all but they have absolutely no inclinations to learn or acknowledge their own nature. The projection of all the problems of their lives and the world upon the shoulders of men is equal to the most rabid feminists.

    There have been many recent manosphere posts on the feminism of the Christian church and advice for men to avoid religious Christian/Catholic women and I must say that such observations seem warranted. An Alpha man could not lead most of these women out of a burning barn.

  • terre

    I’m not familiar with Vox outside of that comment, but like I said, it only really corresponds to a macro view of the total male hierarchy (rather than exclusively the sexual one) and even then I would give it a berth at best. What women at this blog tend to do is define “alpha” as everything undesirable about alpha males themselves, with “beta” corresponding to vice versa (i.e. everything desirable about an alpha male without the commitment-killing dark triumvirate). The word “beta” loses all explanatory power. Where I also disagree with Roissy is the existence of “omegas”; I’m of the opinion that on the plane of seduction, where all of this really counts, you either do or do not, and you’ll be placed into a) or b) accordingly.

    This kind of discoloring is also, I think, caused by the crowd that this and other blogs tends to attract; this is a kind of myopia which excludes what the vast majority of the real world is like.

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

      This kind of discoloring is also, I think, caused by the crowd that this and other blogs tends to attract; this is a kind of myopia which excludes what the vast majority of the real world is like.

      Hilarious! I hope count yourself as one of “those types!”

  • terre

    Not all all! How about an attractive guy who has had sex with 5-10 women by age 30? That’s no alpha, yet many women would consider that more than adequate preselection.

    Ten women (sans prostitution) is absolutely nothing to sneeze at. I really think the kind of company you’ve kept has blinded you to what the normal male experience is like (not terribly important since this isn’t a blog intended for men, but still).

  • CSPB

    At 30yo a REAL count of 10 is low for either man or a woman these days. Of couse men usually count ALL and women may deduct their reported count by the ones that “don’t count,” due to various hamster rationalizations.

  • terre

    I’m of the opinion that men exaggerate far worse than women undercount.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue, I’d put your husband as a natural greater beta, in the same league as Athol. (Athol Kay would call this a “gamma” male who balances alpha and beta well.) Me, I was a lesser beta, who graduated to greater beta without any sort of introspection, I just had realized what was not working, and stopped doing stupid things. I guess I like Roissy’s categorizations here. They speak to a man’s true nature and how he thinks of himself in the world.
    .
    Yes, I know it’s a continuum, and labels ares simplistic. My working definition is: a guy who was more alpha qualities than beta, is alpha. It says a lot in not very many syllables.
    .
    A lesser beta is a guy who was really does a lot going for him, but doesn’t realize it, and hasn’t figured out what make women tick to the first order yet. It is a near-total absence of alpha qualities. When women say they want a “good guy”, “nice guy”, or say “my guy is beta” they do NOT mean a lesser beta — the alpha qualities are implicit in their desire. They want/mean a greater beta, where there is some balance.

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

      @OTC

      When women say they want a “good guy”, “nice guy”, or say “my guy is beta” they do NOT mean a lesser beta — the alpha qualities are implicit in their desire. They want/mean a greater beta, where there is some balance.

      Agree 100%. Most women do want the balance. A seeming total absence of self-confidence around women will kill the attraction. For many women, myself included, a near-total absence of beta qualities is an absolute disqualifier, and always has been.

  • CSPB

    @terre
    I disagree. Men do not exaggerate in anonymous studies, yet women seem to minimize. This is an important thing to understand.

    When do men lie and when do women lie? Why do they lie? Do they internally believe their lies? How does it relate to self worth? Is it rationalized away or is it reason to reflect on past actions? These are loaded questions, but GAME answers them. This is but one of the reasons that the “Red Pill” is bitter. This speaks to consensus and herding.

    A man has to be able to love a woman for who she is and not who he thinks she should be. The recognition of reality and a smattering of dominance is necessary to protect her from herself. That sounds condescending but the most astute and intelligent women will agree. Those are the women I value and therefore the unenlightened women can go pound sand. This is not a one way bargain, because as a man I will protect and even die for such a woman. But I no longer believe or tolerate the BS that most women peddle. As has been said on this thread before, there ARE some women that get it, understand men, and understand themselves. They are uncommon women.

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

      @CSPB

      The recognition of reality and a smattering of dominance is necessary to protect her from herself.

      I endorse this view, and love your phrasing here. A smattering will do very nicely.

  • http://gravatar.com/geoff789 Geoff789

    Alphas, Betas, and Sigmas get laid. A lot. All the others, not so much.
    .
    So even Vox Day might have missed an opportunity to break men up into two pools, the haves and have-nots. Then specialize within each pool.

  • ActaNonVerba

    I was married to a woman that, literally, could not live without chaos. She held the beast in when we were dating; I didn’t see it coming. But, that simple fact is not the most intellectually interesting part. What is most interesting is how she related to me concerning her inability to live in peace as our circumstances changed. In the first few years, I was doing pretty well career-wise and I think she felt pretty good about our finances/lifestyle. Though, generally, she had a horrible time ever admitting she was wrong, during this time she would, on occassion, refer to herself as being “psycho” or being “messed up” regarding her outbursts and general need for chaos. But, later, we had some struggles and, wow, what a change. Now, she never admitted she was wrong and be completely unreasonalbe. It was a horribly painful experience as I did love her and come from an “old school” family regarding “stcking it out” in marriage. In any case, just wanted to share that story.

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

      @ActaNonVerba
      I’m sorry, that’s a terrible story! I can understand why so many in the manosphere emphasize the importance of being absolutely certain about a woman before marrying. It sounds like she made life hell for you.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Stephanie, this is kind of getting on my nerves (and it’s not a femme-only habit, c.f. Jet Tibet) but television really isn’t a substitute for history, and it’s not a good idea to quote characters or tropes from TV as though they bear any resemblance to reality.

    Its not substitute but can you imagine sex and the city pitched as a series on the 50″s? Had you noticed that a lot of TV dads are usually fat, stupid and lazy while their wives are hot, smart and skinny and usually long suffering from their husbands stupidity. Look at family comedy on the 50’s and tell me if this were depicted the same way. Again society changes affect every fiber of society, from entertainment to clothing (if you ever read a story of dresses book you will think that changes in fashion came usually with big social revolution) Society is a tapestry and you can trace a lot of stuff from many of the “useless” parts of it. Like I said of course its not a substitute but really they do reflect trends and things that people tolerate and embrace more often than not.

    I personally don’t see that as rejection.  Sure, your ego gets bruised, but how much did you really put yourself out there? Is it possible that he missed your signs of interest? Could you have taken the initiative there? There’s really no way to know what might’ve been going on in his head, and it was totally your choice to turn it back on yourself and assume you weren’t good enough for him in the moment.
    I’m not one of the guys trying to tell women to start approaching men en masse…but complaining that your passive approach doesn’t work like it “should” or like it “does” for othesr is IMO based on fallacious assumptions and is really just setting you up for a victim mentality.  I mean this generally and not specifically towards you Steph.

    This is hardly rejection.

    Well I felt rejected and terrible and even tough I made the choice to think I wasn’t good enough, you think all women thing they are the cat’s meow? At that point on my life I did everything I could to show my interest and it hurt like hell to go home with my head filled with “Why no one loves me? “What is wrong with me?”

    However I’m not a victim I’m a warrior this didn’t worked out (and I had tried it before several times with no one even approaching me) and then I realized that I needed to do some changes if I wanted to succeed on love like I did on college and was starting doing on my nascent career. I took modeling classes, started going to the beauty parlor, took make up classes I read dating advice books of people with long and successful marriages, I did some PNL then when I felt…confident enough I signed in on several dating sites and I made the first move in that occasion. I’m not telling you that you go and do the same or that if you don’t you are wrong. I just don’t want you to think that I am the type that goes crying “Oh poor little me on the big bad world”. My sense of rejection might be of no importance to you on comparison, but it doesn’t erase my experience with it. One of the reasons I try to understand the male POV is because I can see myself on your shoes, it might imaginary according to you, but I do feel that any person feeling as bad as I felt (or anything close to it) deserves understanding and support.

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

      However I’m not a victim I’m a warrior this didn’t worked out (and I had tried it before several times with no one even approaching me) and then I realized that I needed to do some changes if I wanted to succeed on love like I did on college and was starting doing on my nascent career. I took modeling classes, started going to the beauty parlor, took make up classes I read dating advice books of people with long and successful marriages, I did some PNL then when I felt…confident enough I signed in on several dating sites and I made the first move in that occasion.

      And that is as close as you’ll get to Girl Game.

  • Florence

    In regards to men having high numbers, I find it disgusting when a guy has slept with let say 30+ women. This is not preselection. This is simply being a male slut. However, I wonder if the number of women a man has slept with before he settles for one would increase/decrease the chance of him leaving his wife for “variety”. If a guy has been around the block and had enough variety and is now feeling ready to settle and be faithful to one, I’d rather choose him than some bitter (beta or gamma) dude who’s constantly felt like he never had enough access to sex when he was in his 20s. In the later case, as soon as this same guy gains some status and starts to feel more like an alpha at 40+, he might just decide to “enjoy life” and leave his wife. This just seems to be happening too often.
    -Florence

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

      If a guy has been around the block and had enough variety and is now feeling ready to settle and be faithful to one, I’d rather choose him than some bitter (beta or gamma) dude who’s constantly felt like he never had enough access to sex when he was in his 20s.

      First of all, I think we can all agree that bitterness is a dealbreaker. It’s one of the least attractive qualities in anyone because it’s saying LOSER! Second, I haven’t seen data on men and high numbers, but anecdotal evidence would suggest that man sluts rarely do settle down and become faithful to one. In my view, a man who has had many partners is unlikely to welcome a return to same old, same old for very long. That’s going against nature, and especially against his nature.

  • Dilithium

    “I’d rather choose him than some bitter (beta or gamma) dude who’s constantly felt like he never had enough access to sex when he was in his 20s.”

    Can I take a moment to point out that I really detest the phrase “access to sex” as a description of what men desire? Certainly it doesn’t describe at all what I, or anyone I know, and I find the usage offensive. What we were missing in our 20’s was not “access to sex”, it was being desired for sex, which is a whole different thing.

    The phrase “access to sex” or “sexual access” conjures a really-lowest-denominator image where the woman’s principal job is simply to hold still, like a fleshy blow-up doll or a piece of liver or apple pie (to use some famous literary examples). Really, it’s an ugly description of male desire, it doesn’t apply to me and I really resent the implication that this outlook is standard or commonplace for men.

    Speaking for myself and every man I’ve known, what we always wanted was not a piece of meat to shoot into — yuck! — but to desire and to be desired in turn. Sex should be fun! The woman should have fun! If the woman doesn’t actively desire the same thing, then for us the encounter is a failure and really not worth having. This explains, for those who are still unclear on the subject, why prostitution (and other less explicit forms of sex-in-trade) holds so little appeal — the essential element of female desire is missing.

    The phrase “access to sex” utterly fails to capture the importance to men that the woman be involved, enthusiastic and gratified, and so I reject the use of the phrase. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that just because the men you’ve historically desired, the alpha pumper/dumpers, don’t care about the woman’s investment that that applies to all other men; not all men are like that (NAMALT!), though most women may never bother to discover this fact.

  • terre

    Dilithium, part of the problem, and this even causes confusion among men themselves, is that a man’s feeling of being loved and validated as a human being is intimately intertwined with a woman’s sex. I agree that this is an element of misdirection when it comes to women, depicting men as being overly anxious and desirous over something vaguely dirty and selfish. In truth, a man who’s reached his thirties with sporadic female attention has gone not just without sex but without love.

    Here I quote liberally from Houellebecq’s “Whatever”, which I can’t recommend enough (not that it’ll make a difference):

    Anyway Tisserand said so the other day (he’d been drinking): “I feel like a shrink-wrapped chicken leg on a supermarket shelf.” He’s also come out with: “I feel like a frog in formaldehyde. Besides, I resemble a frog, don’t I?” I gently replied “Raphael…” in a reproachful tone. He started; it’s the first time I’ve called him by his Christian name. He was flustered and didn’t say a word.

    The next morning at breakfast he stared long and hard at his bowl of Nesquik; and then in an almost dreamy voice he sighed, “Fuck it! I’m twenty-eight and still a virgin!” I was astonished, even so; he then explained that a vestige of pride had always stopped him from going with whores. I upbraided him for this; a bit too strongly, perhaps, since he persisted in explaining his point of view to me again that very evening; just before leaving to Paris for the weekend. We were in the parking lot of the departmental head office for Agriculture; the street lamps were exuding an extremely unpleasant yellowish light; the air was cold and damp. He said, “I’ve done my sums, you see; I’ve enough to pay for one whore a week; Saturday evening, that’d be good. Maybe I’ll end up doing it. But I know that some men can get the same for free, and with love to boot. I prefer trying; for the moment I still prefer trying.”

  • Sox

    Someone who I’m close to who’s approaching middle age confided in me the other day. She’s got an amazing personality, is a lot of fun, etc. However, she’s cheated on almost every guy she’s been with. She lost count of her number a while ago, and she cheated on her most recent boyfriend with multiple different guys. He never found out, but he did break up with her for other reasons (his own reasons as well as her rampant insecurity). Since he broke up with her, she’s been a complete mess. She is angry and resentful towards him despite the fact that she clearly took their relationship for granted. She’s extremely jealous and possessive which I just find ironic.

    Anyway, the other night she told me that she realized her pattern. Of course she hooked up with all those guys and cheated because she was insecure. But, more than that, she said, “up until now I’ve done whatever the hell I want…” and “…I did whatever I wanted to in the moment, short term, and I very often felt like shit.”

    I care about this person a lot and it’s always been frustrating to watch her do this to herself. If we weren’t related, I’m not sure I’d have very much respect for her based on her actions. Sorry if this is OT for this thread. I just wonder how prevalent this mindset has been.

  • Sox

    @Stephanie
    I’m not trying to invalidate the way you felt. The truth of the matter is, people make up all kinds of stories when things don’t go the way they had hoped. Same for men- part of inner Game is realizing that rejection means nothing about us as people necessarily, but how we marketed ourselves or what might’ve been going on for the girl to react in such a way.

    People get hurt for all kinds of reasons. I still carry around some scars from being rejected by girls I never really tried with, though I still perceived having being rejected. And that’s what I’m alluding to here..perceived rejection vs. actual, and the amount of investment a guy has when approaching a woman vs. a woman waiting to be approached by a man. So again I’m not trying to minimize your very real pain, only drawing the distinction that what a man subjects himself to when approaching a woman is usually a very real, clear blow to the ego and he’s expected by society to pick himself up and do it all over again. It’s part of the dynamic, with women as gatekeepers.

    I admire your efforts to put yourself in our shoes and your comments have been very insightful, but I think this might be one area where you still don’t fully understand what a guy goes through. I’m not asking for a pity party, just asking for some understanding.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “What we were missing in our 20′s was not “access to sex”, it was being desired for sex, which is a whole different thing.”
    .
    BING.
    .
    GO.
    .
    An attractive woman is a turn-on, sure, but there’s nothing like having a gal who wants you.

  • Pingback: The Badger’s Four-Point Scale « The Badger Hut

  • Florence

    “But I know that some men can get the same for free, and with love to boot. I prefer trying; for the moment I still prefer trying.”
    .
    Those who get it for free (too often) and with love to boot, often don’t appreciate it. Maybe the majority of men are not meant to get it easily in order to be driven to gain status, achieve, create, invent, become a father, and drive the development of human species. According to S. Freud, the sex drive is the most important motivating force.

    -Florence

  • JM

    And what if we turn that around: those who benefit from our drive to gain status, achieve, create, invent, become a father, and drive the development of human species, for free (too often) and with love to boot, often don’t appreciate it. Maybe the majority of men should stop giving it so easily.

  • terre

    Florence, you would have something approaching a point if you hadn’t originally claimed that these men should not only accept their subservience but do it with a smile. (Incidentally, you’re making the quite amusing argument that those who contribute the least to civilization should rightfully receive the majority of young women’s affections).

  • http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/130ad2c51b96dc58607d5464f690b75e?s=80 Geoff789

    @Florence,
    Very insightful question/point about the danger of marrying a former alpha versus marrying a bitter beta or gamma (stay away from gammas regardless).
    .
    A great indicator of likely faithfulness is an alpha who has returned to the church (e.g. “me”). Also, look at his background. If most of his family has been in marriages for 20+ years, you have a good shot at a guy who’s genuinely willing to settle down. ESPECIALLY if all the men in his family appear to be former alphas.
    .
    Other than that, it’s tough. If you try to get him to trip up and admit he’d like open marriages, you’ve found out that he’s not the guy you want to marry. But if he is horrified at your suggestion, then you found the guy for you but YOU’RE no longer what HE wants. Susan is right, it’s hard for a lot of alphas to keep it in their pants even after marriage–but is in fact possible. An alpha who intends to be faithful is probably the best possible combination for women.
    .
    The only thing I could think of to pre-qual the guy is your desire to sign a pre-nup that leaves you not a whole lot–UNLESS HE CHEATS, in which case you get 85% or something crazy. A former alpha who’s definitely not planning to cheat should be willing to sign it. A former or current alpha who wants to keep his options open, not so much.
    .
    I admit this is a problem with no easy solutions for women.

  • Doug1

    Hawaiian Libertarian wrote a great rejoinder to this post and many of the commenters here who say that men are just as likely to be attracted to drama as women are on his blog at this link:

    h:ttp://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/02/hooking-up-with-dark-lord.html

  • Stephenie Rowling

    The only thing I could think of to pre-qual the guy is your desire to sign a pre-nup that leaves you not a whole lot–UNLESS HE CHEATS, in which case you get 85% or something crazy. A former alpha who’s definitely not planning to cheat should be willing to sign it. A former or current alpha who wants to keep his options open, not so much.

    I agree with this, as a general rule I think is better to no think of Alphas on long term conditions unless he has a TON of reasons to change and is willing to do it for himself. Most Alphas I know get marry but with the intention of having something on the side so they have the benefits of a wife and the variety and Alphas are always on high demand so he will have to be committed enough to never try to bang another chick no matter how things are at home. Hard bet overall, IMO.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I will also add that observing how a guy reacts to a male friend cheating is a good test: if he supports it, justifies it or worst helps the guy to cover it up. RUN! guys are rarely ever close friends with guys that don’t share basic traits so a guys close friends area good indicative of how he really thinks (many men use this rule for women too, if you act like a nice girl but your girlfriends are sluts and you take pride on their behavior, chances are that guy is going to put you on the same bag) and this is very likely something they do so their friends will help them cover once is their turn to cheat.

  • Doug1

    Florence—

    If a guy has been around the block and had enough variety and is now feeling ready to settle and be faithful to one, I’d rather choose him than some bitter (beta or gamma) dude who’s constantly felt like he never had enough access to sex when he was in his 20s. In the later case, as soon as this same guy gains some status and starts to feel more like an alpha at 40+, he might just decide to “enjoy life” and leave his wife. This just seems to be happening too often.

    I’ve certainly not read this whole thread but I like what I’ve seen of your tone and thinking.

    I think it’s really dysfunctional for American women to worry so much about their alpha or alphaish husbands cheating and to so often get so crazy nuts hurt and mad when and if their husband’s do cheat. Now leaving her for a younger woman, or leaving her period when they’ve got kids still to raise, sure. But some discreet mostly just sex cheating when he doesn’t neglect his wife including sexually? What’s the huge deal? Though it’s much better if there so explicit or implicit understanding.

    Men especially with young children at home rarely leave their wives for another woman, especially if it’s even a tolerable marriage. Women however often do feel the last parts of their “in love” feeling for their husband dissolve when sex with another man turns into love for him as it so often does with women, especially if they haven’t been real sluts. Our feminist culture through entertainment and magazine media, relayed directly and through girlfriends, tells American women they should divorce “to grow” (find a new lover) if they’re no longer feeling “in love, but only just that they still love him, in a way. It doesn’t tell men that at all, but rather that men are dogs and need to keep their commitments, particularly if there are kids or their wife is aging. Besides having sex with another woman is far less likely to lead a man, particularly an alpha man, to want to divorce his wife, particularly if his wife lets him do it once in awhile, if she doesn’t veto it.

    Yes I’m suggesting a double standard here. Because the genders are inherently ever different here, or by far most in each gender are.

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

      I think it’s really dysfunctional for American women to worry so much about their alpha or alphaish husbands cheating and to so often get so crazy nuts hurt and mad when and if their husband’s do cheat. Now leaving her for a younger woman, or leaving her period when they’ve got kids still to raise, sure. But some discreet mostly just sex cheating when he doesn’t neglect his wife including sexually? What’s the huge deal? Though it’s much better if there so explicit or implicit understanding.

      Well, you might as well just go the polyamory route. Or is she not allowed to cheat as well? I can tell you that if my husband cheated, we’d be done. F*cking finito. It’s not about whether the man leaves. It’s about a total destruction of the trust that monogamy requires. If a man isn’t prepared to be monogamous, he is morally obligated to divulge that before marriage. If he breaks that trust, he has broken the marriage. In which case I hope she takes him to the cleaners.

  • Snowdrop111

    I can’t possibly read through 650-odd comments so I am going back to the original post and hopefully someday I can read all the comments.

    I’m nobody’s prize and never was…but any of several of the strategies mentioned in this post, and I have always immediately walked.

    Every time, in my youth up to now, a guy I had been dating threw up other women to me, I immediately walked. I’d do the same now. I am not talking about if he sees someone gorgeous and I can tell he’s looking–I look too–or if he is gaga for an actress etc and maybe says hubba hubba. I am talking about deliberately throwing up another woman to me. This has been attempted by men in my past, resulting in my response “Go get her” as I walked. I hope some other women have said they do the same in this thread. I’d have no dignity if I hung around trying to get compliments and crumbs after that very clear message. I’d feel the same about a woman who threw up other men to her man. He should walk and not look back.

    If he had a threesome, affair, whatever I would be out of there immediately. I wouldn’t hang around and ask why. I know why. Have a nice life. (I don’t have kids…so that’s easy for me to say I guess. I hope if we had kids together I would be able to help examine if I’d contributed to the problems that led to the affair…but if he’s bragging in my face about it? That’s a very clear message and I would walk immediately.

    If he hung up on me angrily I would immediately think this could be a dangerous person. My sister hangs up the phone angrily and she used to throw things and hit me. It’s not only guys who do those things…but I’m not hanging around someone with an anger problem. I’ve never hung up on anyone in my life. I think people who hang up angrily are too angry for me to be around. I can forgive them as a person and be their friend but not in a relationship. Bye. I’ve been in an abusive relationship (mercifully briefly) and hanging up on a person is a bad sign. No one has to do that, and people manage not to do it at their workplace. Again, my sister does it. This doesn’t have to be a “men angry women victims” thing. I don’t feel safe around a person who would hang up on someone angrily or “act like a psycho.” He acts like a psycho I’m gone. Again, my sister acts like a psycho and men should also skedaddle, to teach her a lesson.

    I understand the need not to act like a doormat, to “keep ‘em guessing” especially in the dating stage. I assume this advice is exaggerated for effect. But any of those actions–hitting on my friend, throwing up other women to me, “acting like a psycho,” hanging up on me, I walk. Always have always will.

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

      @Snowdrop
      Good for you, I couldn’t agree more. Some have claimed that the post I wrote about was hyperbole, or satire. The bottom line is that we should judge people by what they do, not what they say. If a man did any one of these things to me, I would take off. I don’t know whether “all women are like that.” I’m not like that, and it appears that you are not either.

  • Pingback: On Dread: A Reply to Susan Walsh | Freedom Twenty-Five

  • filrabat

    30 year old men are NOT horny early 20s guys any more. They can assess the situation somewhat more clearly by the time they hit 30. This leads to a whole bunch of things

    *(obviously with lower libido) They’re not as motivated to have sex, let alone relationships.

    *They’ve seen what divorces among their acquaintainces and friends can do to a guy. if they’re not worried about the potential risk to their assets, then they’re worried about getting their heart ripped out yet again — only ten times worse and they know it.

    *They’ve had their experiences with hot women, and they were often not very kind-hearted people. Would you go out with a guy who insulted and demeaned you in your early 20s

    *They also get more and more accustomed to their independence (if not at 30, then almost certainly by 35). They’re less willing to compromise inside the “four walls of their castle”, they know it..and decide to go their own way (though not necessarily become MGTOW as such).

    *They may even decide to remain childfree – having lost the desire to be a father because it increases demands on their time, money, and energy…just one more thing to worry about (same thing with a relationship).

    *Hobbies, interests, books, career climbing can do a good job of repairing at least some of the damage to their self-esteem.

    All in all, once a single guy hits 30, don’t be surprised if he’s more indifferent to women than he was even as early as 3 years earlier, not to mention 8.

  • filrabat

    Another “moderation” one. I though I was “whitelisted”?

  • Anonymous

    I guess a woman can only look for the positive signs and hope for landing on a man who can control himself and he can’t then she’d have to find a way to deal with it when the time comes.
    -Florence

  • Dilithium

    Karen: “Plus if you have the attitude that there aren’t any good women, I’m sure that attitude is coming off in your social interactions. …. many good women …will run away from guys with negative attitudes.”

    Susan: “First of all, I think we can all agree that bitterness is a dealbreaker. It’s one of the least attractive qualities in anyone because it’s saying LOSER!”

    I’ll give both you ladies the benefit of the doubt and just assume you haven’t realized how completely awful and vicious the sentiment behind these statements really is. You both seem like good people, but honestly the things that come out from time to time can be pretty scary.

    What you are both saying here — and this is a widespread feeling among many female writers — is that if a man actually has gotten a raw deal from women in his life then he cannot dare to complain about it, at penalty of being totally excommunicated and dying alone in the gutter. Don’t you see how utterly pernicious this attitude is on the part of women? The empire of women shall brook no criticism! Any man who dares complain will be branded a LOSER and sleep alone for the rest of his life! or until he swallows his bitterness and agrees to pretend that he himself is always and fully to blame for any time he was rejected in the past.

    For a decent man who actually has been systematically mistreated by women — and there are many, many in the world — the only options you leave him are either to (i) pretend it didn’t happen, or (ii) pretend it didn’t mean that much to him. And to then agree that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Really, such an absolute emphasis on silencing criticism has been the first hallmark of corrupt dictatorships and oligarchies down through history. I expected better from Susan and the women commentators generally, but disappointment is also part of life.

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

      @Dilithium

      What you are both saying here — and this is a widespread feeling among many female writers — is that if a man actually has gotten a raw deal from women in his life then he cannot dare to complain about it, at penalty of being totally excommunicated and dying alone in the gutter.

      Of course he may complain about it. He may in fact have every reason to complain, and no one should blame him for it. That is a different question than requiring people to listen to his complaints. Many people have gotten a raw deal. I know a woman of 42 facing down a pretty bad cancer. Does she have the right to complain? Yes! Endlessly! No doubt the people who love her would patiently support her as she vented as much as she felt necessary. But how about the neighborhood barista? Or the other mom on the sidewalk in front of the school, only a passing acquaintance?

      The fact is that bitterness among young men may be justified, but it will prevent them from getting laid. Because a woman cannot hear the complaint, and empathize, and feel sexually attracted at the same time. It’s impossible. As always, it is a question of strategy. And bitterness is bad for business.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    For a decent man who actually has been systematically mistreated by women — and there are many, many in the world — the only options you leave him are either to (i) pretend it didn’t happen, or (ii) pretend it didn’t mean that much to him.

    I don’t think anyone is saying you have no right to complain and being hurt, but you have the right to inflict pain to the women that will be wise enough to treat you right? I’m sure you know some men that get a good girlfriend and spent a lot of time waiting for her to act like girl X that cheated on him or girl Y that ended up treating them like a slave and so on…This is I think what they meant by bitter. Someone that makes YOU pay for past women’s behavior. What would you think of that?

  • Dilithium

    Susan, can you really, honestly write this:

    “He may in fact have every reason to complain, and no one should blame him for it.”

    right next to this

    “but it will prevent them from getting laid.” ?

    Call me crazy, but I would say that rejecting someone because they complained is, in fact, blaming them. So I don’t think your whole remark hangs together logically, unless you want to say that this rejection is something women should not do (and I’m certainly with you there). Now, as to this:

    “Because a woman cannot hear the complaint, and empathize, and feel sexually attracted at the same time. It’s impossible.”

    I won’t dispute this statement right here; but assuming it’s true I will ask: does this make you proud of your sex?

    Meanwhile, Stephenie I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say

    “but you have the right to inflict pain to the women that will be wise enough to treat you right?”

    Again, this seems totally out of left field. I never inflicted pain on anyone who treated me right. Sorry, I really don’t see how what you’ve written is responsive at all.

    In any case, it doesn’t seem that either of you are disputing my basic point: the behavior of women is such that, if a man has been mistreated and didn’t like it then he must conceal or deny that fact as the price of ever getting laid again. Are we agreed that this describes reality? (And yet women still wonder where it is that men learned to hide their emotions….)

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

      @Dilithium

      Call me crazy, but I would say that rejecting someone because they complained is, in fact, blaming them.

      First of all, let’s not confuse the terms. I don’t think most people would find complaining a dealbreaker of any kind, if it seemed reasonable and was not repeated too often or at great length. I was talking about people who are bitter = “full of anger, resentment and cynicism.” I challenge you to find one human being that selects for this quality, or even feels neutral about it.

      Because a woman cannot hear the complaint, and empathize, and feel sexually attracted at the same time. It’s impossible.

      I won’t dispute this statement right here; but assuming it’s true I will ask: does this make you proud of your sex?

      I wouldn’t expect it to be any different for men. Can sexual attraction be kindled toward a person who is angry, resentful and cynical? Perhaps, but they’d better have some powerful other assets – like being a brilliant and famous painter, for example.

      Dilithium, I’m not speaking here about what is fair. Human nature is not fair, and the triggers for sexual attraction have nothing to do with fairness. Perhaps the quality of bitterness signals to a woman that a man is unlikely to be a collaborative and loving partner over the long term.

      the behavior of women is such that, if a man has been mistreated and didn’t like it then he must conceal or deny that fact as the price of ever getting laid again. Are we agreed that this describes reality?

      Of course not! Some men like this have been heroes – MLK, for example. Revolutionaries of all types. A man who has been mistreated has two choices: he can choose to lead from a position of strength, or he can recede into bitterness. The expression of bitterness is an acknowledgement that one is incapable of moving forward or changing one’s life. It’s defeatist. That is why I said it screams “loser.” Bitter means giving up.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    “if a man has been mistreated and didn’t like it then he must conceal or deny that fact as the price of ever getting laid again.”

    Okay lets try other way. If a woman has been used and abused by men, would you find her attractive/sex/worth a relationship if she complains all the time about it to you? That are not one of those men?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I think it’s really dysfunctional for American women to worry so much about their alpha or alphaish husbands cheating and to so often get so crazy nuts hurt and mad when and if their husband’s do cheat. Now leaving her for a younger woman, or leaving her period when they’ve got kids still to raise, sure. But some discreet mostly just sex cheating when he doesn’t neglect his wife including sexually? What’s the huge deal? Though it’s much better if there so explicit or implicit understanding.

    I won’t say what I feel as a person who things that no one should make promises the don’t plan to keep when I got married I promised faithfulness forsaking others, like my husband did, if you had a 50% partner and he started to no fullfill the terms of his contract will you keep the partnetship?
    Now lets take a look from a logical POV.
    *Cheating is costly: Even if the man doesn’t leave he is spending time, money and possibly other resources on another woman (women)
    *Cheating is risky: Even if the man doesn’t leave he is exposed to STD’s diseases, unwanted pregnancies, emotional stress that will disturb the household. Imagine having to raise your husband lover kid or having to add him/her to all the income.
    *Cheating is unpredictable: How many men had leave their wives and young kids for the lover? Even if his intentions are only to fulfill his need for variety he doesn’t know if eventually he will consider one of his lovers attractive enough to keep her and in exchange for her commitment to him she could ask for him to dissolve the marriage, or she could had been aiming at that from the moment he started to bang her.
    *Cheating is stressfull, even if the man doesn’t leave adding a third person to a relationships is complicated, even if is not a regular, making time for doing someone else (unless is a call girl), canceling meetings, lying if your wife like all normal women doesn’t agree with you banging other chicks, asking for friends to cover for you, living a double life is stressful.
    So no your argument *coughbullshitcough* doesn’t add on. If cheating was beneficial to marriage women will be having this conversations:

    Wife 1: Oh my husband just started to bang the new secretary! I’m so proud she is so hot!!
    Wife 2: Ha! That is nothing, my husband just had threesome with my cousin and the blond 18 year old neighbor on our marital bed. He even let me tape it to show to our friends during the next party!

    Wife 1: *My marriage sucks*

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

      @Stephenie Rowling

      LOL! Cosigned!

  • Dilithium

    Stephenie: “Okay lets try other way. If a woman has been used and abused by men, would you find her attractive/sex/worth a relationship if she complains all the time about it to you? That are not one of those men?”

    First, note that “complains all the time” is a bit of an elision: I’m not defending people who do nothing but complain and so have nothing else to offer. Susan’s original remark was that “bitterness is a dealbreaker”; and since “breaking” is something that happens quickly and usually early in an encounter, I thought the implication was that a man is done for as soon as he reveals any amount of bitterness, the same way he’s instantly done for if he betrays any amount of weakness or over-eagerness. (And, as a practical matter, I think this is true as stated.)

    Now, on to the more direct reply. How I would feel about a woman who had been “used and abused” would, I imagine, depend on how complicit she was in what happened to her. If she used her choice in life to pick bad men over good men, and got hurt as a result, then that would come across to me as bad judgement on her part, and so certainly unattractive — and doubly so if she fails to recognize the mistake as being her own. The man that I’m imagining, by contrast, is one who had no meaningful choice at all in the matter: he was lied to, tried to do his best anyway, and came up with nothing while obviously bad actors were given all the favor instead. Sorry, the male and female cases are not really parallel here (that reflexive even-handedness is still not working for you).

    Now, in the extreme case of a woman who was unambiguously victimized, like having been raped by a stranger — eek! — then I honestly can’t say for sure. I’d like to think it wouldn’t weight my feelings against her. But I believe as a matter of history that men in general do have a tendency to unfairly treat such victims, even unconsciously, as “damaged goods”, and I’m not so vain as to say for certain the same tendency wouldn’t arise in me. HOWEVER, the difference here is that I recognize that tendency as being deplorable, whether it occurs in me or another man, as something to be ashamed of and not simply written off as an amoral biological impetus.

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

      @Dilithium

      First, note that “complains all the time” is a bit of an elision: I’m not defending people who do nothing but complain and so have nothing else to offer.

      Again, I don’t mean to split hairs on the verbiage, but I would describe bitterness as pervasive as an attitude, where complaining is an act. Certainly a bitter person may complain a lot, but there are bitter people who are fairly noncommunicative. They still exude resentment, anger and cynicism.

      Taking action against oppression is a positive action. It requires hope. Residing in bitterness is the opposite of that – it generally flourishes when hope is gone. As I mentioned earlier, history is filled with men who were revolutionaries and womanizers. I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing at all.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    that reflexive even-handedness is still not working for you

    I’m starting to notice a trend of this on your post. To clarify something is there is such a thing for you as an innocent women? and I don’t mean raped by a stranger a woman that dated a couple of men with the best intentions and be paid off with lies, mistreatment and came out with nothing as well? Or you really think all women have the power of what happens or not on a relationship?

  • Dilithium

    Susan: “I was talking about people who are bitter = “full of anger, resentment and cynicism.” I challenge you to find one human being that selects for this quality, or even feels neutral about it.”

    It depends on what’s causing the bitterness. In a bad political situation, say living under some kind of horrid dictatorship, I could certainly imagine deliberately selecting my friends and allies, and even lovers, exactly because of their “anger, resentment and cynicism”, just because that would represent mental health under the circumstances! Along the same lines, I would be suspicious and wary of anyone who didn’t have feelings of resentment toward being oppressed. (One of my friends’ favorite artifacts from the Bush administration years is a t-shirt with the logo reading “If you aren’t completely appalled then you haven’t been paying attention.”)

    Of course, people who are actually part of the oppressive regime are invested in defending it and so can’t see things this way; does that make sense?

  • JM

    Bitterness goes hand in hand with “expecting better.” General consensus around here seems to indicate that “better” is simply not possible. Therefore it seems the way out of bitterness is to stop “expecting better.” But at what cost?

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

      @JM

      Bitterness goes hand in hand with “expecting better.” General consensus around here seems to indicate that “better” is simply not possible. Therefore it seems the way out of bitterness is to stop “expecting better.” But at what cost?

      In my view, bitterness results from disappointment in one’s past. You expected better than you got, and now you feel angry about it. You now can figure out how to start getting better outcomes, or give up permanently. Only the former path will produce improvement. Instead of feeling angry because your expectations were thwarted in the past, you are free to make changes that will enable you to expect better in the future. That is the only way out of bitterness. I’m not having any real insight here – this is the premise of Game.

  • pjay

    @Dilithium:

    You should develop a thick skin if you want to date women and get laid.

    Women don’t want to be your therapist or hear about your problems – that’s just the way it is.

    You don’t live in Saudi or Dubai – lots of women here.

  • Dilithium

    Stephenie: “”that reflexive even-handedness is still not working for you”
    I’m starting to notice a trend of this on your post.”

    For as long as you need it*, I’m here to help.

    (*Well, no; really I’m unreliable and may retire from blog commenting soon. But I’m sure you’ll be able to imagine the sound of my typing….)

    “To clarify something is there is such a thing for you as an innocent women? and I don’t mean raped by a stranger a woman that dated a couple of men with the best intentions and be paid off with lies, mistreatment and came out with nothing as well?”

    I’m not sure what you mean by “best intentions”; certainly if you back over someone with your car, even if you didn’t intend to do it it certainly shows bad and careless judgement, and it’s the latter that matters.

    Sticking with the “judgement” criterion, from purely personal experience I guess the answer has to be no. In every case I’m personally familiar with, when a woman was treated badly it was pretty clear that she had chosen a bad guy to give herself to — meaning that all her family and friends, female and male, were telling her not to stay with him but she went ahead anyway, and the abuse that followed was a surprise to no one (except her). So while the wronged innocent woman may exist in theory, I can’t say I’ve known one personally (though my direct experience is of course statistically limited).

  • Dilithium

    pjay: “Women don’t want to be your therapist or hear about your problems – that’s just the way it is.”

    Are you contesting Susan’s oft-mentioned claim, that women in general are caring and nurturing creatures who can’t resist an opportunity to help nurse a wounded man back to health?

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

      Are you contesting Susan’s oft-mentioned claim, that women in general are caring and nurturing creatures who can’t resist an opportunity to help nurse a wounded man back to health?

      Examples please? When did I ever categorically state that?

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    ” In every case I’m personally familiar with, when a woman was treated badly it was pretty clear that she had chosen a bad guy to give herself to”
    .
    I can’t be anywhere as near as categorical as Dilithium, but a few years back I started running an experiment regarding women with “bad” boyfriends. Whenever I heard girls tell me of a girlfriend dating a jerk, expecting head-tilting sympathy, I’d ask them “when did she know he was a jerk?” (This was modeled after a Dr Laura call where a woman asked for advice about her alcoholic husband. Dr L asked “when did you find out he was a drunk?” “…uh, a week after I met him.”)
    .
    The results of the experiment were harrowing but predictable to any reader of HUS or Roissy. These women knew their men were jerks going into the relationship, and in many cases actually sought those traits out versus the alternative. I had no choice but to finally accept the dark maxim that chicks dig jerks.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Thanks for your honest Answer Dilithium, another question; Any reason your are retiring from commenting?

    “I had no choice but to finally accept the dark maxim that chicks dig jerks.”

    I know I’m the minority and you might no believe it, but I will appreciate if you at least say: many chicks digs jerks, Susan me and Snowdrop had declared that we are no into jerks so generalizing its not good for the ones that don’t seek out this type.
    No to mention did you did a similar experiment with women with “good” boyfriends?

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Stephenie,
    .
    “Chicks dig jerks” is true enough to be a premise of discussion of the SMP.
    .
    Generalization does not equal “in every case,” and it gets irritating to have to add “NAWALT” to every observation for those who cannot or choose not to recognize the difference between generalization and categorization.
    .
    I didn’t do a parallel experiment simply because the sample space was too small. I knew lots of good guys but not many that women had chosen to have as boyfriends. Deny it or not, this is the world many young men live in – the prosperous few and the restless, lonely many.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Dilithium, you can’t retire – I need you to keep the pot stirred at my blog!

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Generalization does not equal “in every case,” and it gets irritating to have to add “NAWALT”.

    Okay I will cut you a deal I will end every post with NAMALT if I ever do the same,I don’t mind clarifying I try to put YMMV or IMO or IME as much times as I need is needed.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I didn’t do a parallel experiment simply because the sample space was too small. I knew lots of good guys but not many that women had chosen to have as boyfriends. Deny it or not, this is the world many young men live in – the prosperous few and the restless, lonely many.

    That is not a parallel experimen you stated that you started with girlfriends talking about their bad boyfriends, no asking the bad boyfriends why their girlfriends tolerated their jerkiness, no matter how small asking the girls with good boyfriends when did they knew he was a keeper, if someone opposed, if he started bad and change you know the same situation even if it was with just one.

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

      In every case I’m personally familiar with, when a woman was treated badly it was pretty clear that she had chosen a bad guy to give herself to — meaning that all her family and friends, female and male, were telling her not to stay with him but she went ahead anyway, and the abuse that followed was a surprise to no one (except her). So while the wronged innocent woman may exist in theory, I can’t say I’ve known one personally (though my direct experience is of course statistically limited).

      So in your view of the SMP, 100% of the women are going for 20% of the guys.

      I have no sympathy for women who knowingly pursue jerks, and have said so many times. I do not believe that all women engage in this behavior – not by a long shot. The fact that you do goes hand in hand with your feeling bitter. Your comment does not accurately reflect hookup culture on college campuses, which is the impetus for this blog.

      1. College is the first time that women are away from family.
      2. Friends will step in and veto a prospect when he has a clear reputation as a cad. This amounts to just a handful of men on most campuses – the top dogs. Women are generally supportive and hopeful for their friends if a guy shows interest.
      3. Hope springs eternal. A woman meets a guy, he seems nice and attractive. If he hasn’t created a trail of broken hearts of P&Ds, it’s easy to get invested when he is displaying significant interest.
      4. Jerks lie. Not only individually, but they employ their friends as wingmen to vouch for their character. “Teddy really, really likes you.” “Zach is such a good guy – he’s my best friend.” “Hey Tess – where’s your boyfriend tonight?”

      I suppose you can accuse women of being idiots, endlessly deceiving themselves, not astute to the red flags that pop up here and there. But it’s a fact that women who welcome attention from unscrupulous men often do so unknowingly.

  • Tom

    @ Susan
    So Susan, what is it about your man that made him look the other way when it came to your “experience?”.. It is no different than what I did with my fiance.

    I think he decided to evaluate the entire person and not judge you on your past….In my opinion, that is a very mature thing to do. Many men let their bitterness get in the way of finding a good woman
    Wouldnt you agree if your husband had passed on you, it would have been a mistake? I guess it is tough for me to understand just how bitter many men are because I personality, have not faced that type of rejection. Even though I have always have had a high libido, I never have looked a twomen as sex objects only. Sure, I am attracted to beauty But I am also attracted to their personality, brains,kindness,etc. I have turned down uppity 9/10`s for 7`s when the 7`s were really cool people. Yeah I have had my share of hot women, but I just find sex for sex sake nothing more than masterbation with assistance .Empty…….Was it fun?..Sure but I am also aware of the women who had hoped for more from me were hurt. I have a conscience, and I didnt like that feeling. I was always upfront about my intentions. I guess they thought they could win my affections. My number could have been astronomical had I really been a player. I may not be the typical male, but that is fine with me. I have had my share of empty sex these poor bitter men here crave so much. For me there is no better sex than sex within a relationship, than has purpose and meaning.
    I think it is just a sad comentary that men have to resort to methods such as game to get laid. It is just as sad these bitter souls put so much stock in appearance. I do not need a 10 to find a woman attractive. But that is jus tme.

  • terre

    I’m actually with Susan, even if her sort of gloating, go-lucky spirit about the thing is less than palatable. “Shoulds” and wishes are a waste of time. If you want to get laid, understand what turns women on, play to their emotions and just do it.

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

      I’m actually with Susan, even if her sort of gloating, go-lucky spirit about the thing is less than palatable.

      Susan herself has admitted she gets uneasy if her husband doesn’t keep up a courageous face for anything less than twenty four hours a day.

      Pity you didn’t heed Geoff’s advice about debating with class. Your rather extreme bitterness is showing.

  • terre

    Stephenie, even if there were a minority that behaved totally contrary to every other woman on the planet, it would make no difference. Love at that point is a numbers game, and you have to play to the majority.

  • terre

    Are you contesting Susan’s oft-mentioned claim, that women in general are caring and nurturing creatures who can’t resist an opportunity to help nurse a wounded man back to health?

    It’s been my experience that if anything, women are extremely alert for any sign of weakness in a man, like sharks at the smell of blood. Susan herself has admitted she gets uneasy if her husband doesn’t keep up a courageous face for anything less than twenty four hours a day. I wouldn’t trust a woman with my true self any more than I’d trust a German spy to hold the a-bomb schematics for me while I go to the can.

  • terre

    That’s a little rich given your spate at Ferdinand’s blog.

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

    @terre
    Ferdinand and I made peace more than a year ago. And we both apologized, FWIW, as we had both been guilty of some rather harsh remarks. As has been noted here previously, discovering Game via Ferd, Roissy, and the guys at the Spearhead felt like being thrown to the wolves, lol.

    Women are rather emotional, you know.

  • Florence

    First of all, I think we can all agree that bitterness is a dealbreaker. It’s one of the least attractive qualities in anyone because it’s saying LOSER!-

    People (men and women) are naturally attracted to winners. Winners have strong personalities and control over their own emotions. They have the ability to stay positive and optimistic even in the worst situations that life could throw at them. Losers complain, nag, cry, blame others for their failures and in general have a negative outlook on life. This applies at the SMP. If you want to get laid, you have be a winner. If you don’t feel like a winner, start acting like one. Employers don’t hire employees because they feel sorry for them, right?

    @SW
    I can tell you that if my husband cheated, we’d be done. F*cking finito. It’s not about whether the man leaves.
    Yes, I also think so now, but I can tell you that it is easier said than done. Many factors come into play when a woman is faced with such a decision, with the first being the mental health of her children. You may handle it well, but who says your children would? Second, women like Maura who think that giving up career in order not to “screw up being a mother” actually works to your disadvantage. In addition, loving a man deeply makes it hard to be rational. You’d be left with no resources, no income on your own and little power to leave a cheating man. You live in the US and women have a lot of opportunities to find a new job and make a living on their own, but in other parts of the world, it isn’t so.

  • Florence

    @Doug1
    Besides having sex with another woman is far less likely to lead a man, particularly an alpha man, to want to divorce his wife, particularly if his wife lets him do it once in awhile, if she doesn’t veto it.

    From a male point of view, that is correct. I know someone whose father treated his first wife extremely well only as long as she forgave the affairs. The man felt extremely guilty for his need for sexual variety. It was like he was trying to make up for his need for variety by doing everything he could to be a great husband and a father. He even went to counselling but couldn’t manage to change and they ended up divorcing. Personally, as a woman, I don’t know what I’d do in such a situation. Divorce would be the easiest, but then we’d all be lost.

    -Florence

  • Florence

    @Dilithium
    For a decent man who actually has been systematically mistreated by women — and there are many, many in the world — the only options you leave him are either to (i) pretend it didn’t happen, or (ii) pretend it didn’t mean that much to him.
    How about an option (iii) where he accepts that it happened and sees it as a positive experience that taught him something about the way the world functions.

  • Florence

    The above post was mine.

    @ Badger
    These women knew their men were jerks going into the relationship, and in many cases actually sought those traits out versus the alternative. I had no choice but to finally accept the dark maxim that chicks dig jerks.

    I agree, it is easier to make such a conclusion than to make the effort to walk in the shoes of women. For example, one of my exes kept photos of his exes on the wall in his room. That bothered me a lot and I saw it as ‘mistreatment”, although it probably was not meant to hurt me or to disrespect me. Sometimes, men do things that hurt women unintentionally. I am not advocating that women should allow mistreatment, but certain things need to be forgiven because there is no such a thing as the perfect man.
    -Florence

  • Dilithium

    Susan: “So in your view of the SMP, 100% of the women are going for 20% of the guys.
    I have no sympathy for women who knowingly pursue jerks, and have said so many times. I do not believe that all women engage in this behavior”

    Sorry, but this seems completely non-responsive to me. In my comment of February 8, 2011 at 1:04 am I didn’t make any statement about what all women do or don’t do. What I said was, in the cases I am personally familiar with, whenever a woman was treated badly it was by a man who was pretty clearly a jerk — someone her friends and family were all warning her against, not really a hard call at all. This is not logically equivalent to “all women pursue jerks”; what are you thinking?

    Note that I’m not making any grand claims, and I carefully limited this observation to just my own direct, low-statistics experience. But since you insist on taking away some kind of big-picture statement from me, I suppose the best generalization of what I said is “Women who experience bad treatment from men typically had some choice in the matter — they chose the jerk over the nice guy, and could have chosen differently. Men who wind up painfully lonely, however, typically had little or no choice in the matter; they did everything they knew how to do and still came up empty.” That’s it in a nutshell: the level of choice, and hence culpability, between the two sides’ complaints is not symmetric. This is a direct response to the question as raised by Stephenie.

    As to the question of what a woman should or shouldn’t be able to tell about a man in advance, all I can say is that perhaps I give women a lot more credit (too much?) for having a brain than you do. To be more direct, here’s an idea for you to try out with your focus group: women should be automatically suspicious of men who are extremely glib, charming and confident, and correspondingly attractive. Think: what kind of experience do you think allowed him to develop those qualities? Think: if he has this kind of appeal, what are the odds that you’re actually his first? What are the odds that you’ll be his last? Think: even if his history is not known explicitly, what are the odds that you’ll be just one in a long line? or are you being “snowflake-blinded,” believing that you’ll somehow be the exception? Think: are glibness and charm usually good indicators for honesty and integrity? I’m not saying to avoid attractive men completely! heavens, what would be the point? I’m saying that women can exercise a little more conscious thought and not just be led along by their hindbrains — pretty much the anthem of HUS! — and so take responsibility for their choices.

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

      @Dilithium

      In my comment of February 8, 2011 at 1:04 am I didn’t make any statement about what all women do or don’t do. What I said was, in the cases I am personally familiar with, whenever a woman was treated badly it was by a man who was pretty clearly a jerk — someone her friends and family were all warning her against, not really a hard call at all. This is not logically equivalent to “all women pursue jerks”; what are you thinking?

      I think I was misled by this:

      while the wronged innocent woman may exist in theory….

  • Dilithium

    “Your rather extreme bitterness is showing.”

    Susan, how long will it take you to recognize that these constant accusations of bitterness are in essence a new shaming language? You can apply it like an all-purpose solvent: whenever a man says anything critical of women at all, you can just say “Your problems are brought on by your own bitterness.” Et voila! absolutely any male complaint can be instantly de-legitimized. Really, this is the kind of thing they do at Pandagon to pass the time of day; I hope you won’t fall prey to the same temptation.

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

      @Dilithium
      I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt re shaming language. That response was pale in comparison to the shaming language terre has been indulging in for quite some time. I highlighted two examples for you. Since you ignored terre’s rudeness – at my blog – can I assume that this is another situation where evenhandedness does not apply?

      Terre may have every right to his bitterness. I have no idea. However, when it’s directed at me, or any other commenter here in a most unfriendly way, I will call him out on his behavior. Again: anger, resentment, cynicism. terre displays all three in abundance.

      For the record, I am not in the habit of telling men that their problems are brought on by bitterness. In fact, I can only think of three or four commenters here who I would classify as bitter, and I haven’t seen two of them in ages. The other one is a favorite of mine, because while he feels strongly, and angry, he retains a sense of humor and is always respectful (hi rick!). I get why guys are unhappy in the SMP – at least I get part of it. I have carried that message as best I can, but it’s not enough for you, is it Dilithium?

  • http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/130ad2c51b96dc58607d5464f690b75e?s=80 Geoff789

    .
    .
    FEMALE PERSPECTIVE: Jerkish behavior by men is indistinguishable from alpha attitude by many, many, many, many, many women. Note I didn’t say all. So the women think they’re getting alpha when they may, in fact, be buying jerk with a better label. That being said, in keeping a woman’s interest, a LITTLE bit of jerk goes a long way.
    .
    NON-ALPHA MALE PERSPECTIVE: Women date jerks repeatedly (relationships including sex), THEN moan about why there aren’t any good men left. so screw them if they’re FINALLY willing to settle for a nice guy after they screwed 20 alphas. Meanwhile, if a girl in my looks range was sweet/innocent and was making me wait for marriage to have sex with her, I’d be interested in marrying her!
    .
    ALPHA MALE PERSPECTIVE: Where’s the next chick I’m going to bang?

  • terre

    I’m not particularly bitter, Susan, and I’m more than somewhat perplexed at your assertion that I’ve “[...] indulg[ed] in shaming language”. You do know what “shaming language” is, right?

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “2. Friends will step in and veto a prospect when he has a clear reputation as a cad.”
    .
    I don’t think I saw this even once when I was in college. The hope/cognitive dissonance/desperation for male attention and/or a boyfriend you speak of became a collective groupthink rationalization. It’s like there’s a “cloud hamster” they all tapped into. I suppose the collective support is admirable FWIW, and I do understand how hard it would be to tell a girl who’s never had a boyfriend to refuse Johnny Basketball’s advances because he may or may not be a cad.
    .
    But I really can’t believe we’re debating whether or not, generally speaking, (i.e. in enough cases to make in generalizable allowing for exceptions) chicks dig jerks. Susan and Stephenie may not, but they’re peddling a “no true Scotsman.”

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

      @Badger

      Yes, chicks dig jerks. I said it here:

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/11/04/whatguyswant/duke-frats-are-crude-because-chicks-like-it/

      You are right that friends will not intervene if they do not have clear evidence against Johnny Basketball. They will probably hope for the best. However, for those few men on campus who are true cads – the guys who P&D every weekend – friends will definitely speak up. Of course, the girl herself knows his rep – it’s more a case of her friends urging her not to take that destructive path. I will agree that it’s usually ineffective once the girl is starry eyed.

  • AnonymousF

    @Badger
    “I didn’t do a parallel experiment simply because the sample space was too small. I knew lots of good guys but not many that women had chosen to have as boyfriends.”

    Just anecdotal here, but I know a ton of good guys with girlfriends/fiancees/wives. Most of my guy friends and my fiancee’s friends are both pretty good and paired off. And the couple of guy friends I have who are or were “players” do not have girlfriends (or didn’t while they were living that life) because they never elevated any of the girls they slept with to that status. It’s rare that I see a guy treat an official *girlfriend* badly, although I do see guys treating women that they are otherwise involved with badly.

  • Snowdrop111

    About bitterness, especially bitter guys: I saw something on a forum a long time ago that was great. Essentially it said there is a way for a bitter guy to complain and get laid lots and lots. Learn guitar and set it to music. Works every time.

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

      there is a way for a bitter guy to complain and get laid lots and lots. Learn guitar and set it to music. Works every time.

      Haha, indeed! Every pop punk heartthrob is an angry young man in skinny jeans.

  • JM

    @Susan: I think we are largely in agreement, though worded quite differently. Take the case of Dilithium here: clearly he expects better of women, and it seems this is causing much of his bitterness. From what I’ve read, the solution seems to be to stop expecting better of women, and play the situation to best personal gain. In this, bitterness is not morally wrong, it is only wrong in that it inhibits personal gain.

    I must, however, admit that I find this concept rather frightening, for our expectations do not exist in a vacuum. To give up these expectations would naturally mean giving up the reciprocal expectations on ourselves. It would mean a lot of what we once thought was true is false, what was pure is base, what was valuable is worthless, what was wrong is strength. How much of our internal moral compass would have to be gutted? Would we be able to criticize VI or even Roissy, or are they to be lionized for playing the game to maximum effect?

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

      It would mean a lot of what we once thought was true is false, what was pure is base, what was valuable is worthless, what was wrong is strength.

      Yes, it is rather frightening. For me, “what was pure is base” is especially alarming.

      Would we be able to criticize VI or even Roissy, or are they to be lionized for playing the game to maximum effect?

      Roissy is already lionized by other men. Quite a few men defended Roissy in this thread. VI the player is dead (his words) – he fell in love.

  • Dilithium

    JM, your remark is profound; but I think you’ve gone farther than you need to. The frightening trouble starts before we consider reciprocity, but just within ourselves.

    Your summary of the general consensus:

    “play the situation to best personal gain. In this, bitterness is not morally wrong, it is only wrong in that it inhibits personal gain.”

    matches perfectly onto Susan’s statements:

    “I’m not speaking here about what is fair. Human nature is not fair”“As always, it is a question of strategy.”

    Well, no, I disagree: “it” is not a question of strategy, “it” is a question of human dignity. Pursuing strategies to maximize personal gain is what animals and cancer cells do, and if that’s your highest value then you’re not distinguished from an animal, other than by your lost potential — I believe it was the famous Roosh who described himself in full PUA mode as being no more than “a machine of flesh”. I’m not a religious person, but I do believe that moral sense is a divine gift that should not be wasted by devolving into an animal or a machine.

    I don’t recommend living as a total prig, of course, criticizing everything you come across that you object to. We all have to get along in the world, tolerance is a supreme virtue, and an absurd insistence on moral rectitude hurts everyone’s dignity. But when one is living in a dehumanizing regime — which I think the SMP really is — there comes a point when one has to object just to remain human. Going along to get along, acting as though the system is acceptable while milking it to personal advantage, as is recommended by so many is, in my view, animalistic and ultimately impoverishing.

    I wish the choice hadn’t been forced upon us; but when one has to choose, the soul should come before the body. That’s what I believe, anyway.

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

      Well, no, I disagree: “it” is not a question of strategy, “it” is a question of human dignity.

      I am not suggesting that a man pretend he is not bitter. I am suggesting that his life will improve if he is not bitter. I see overcoming bitterness as a self-development issue. Working through anger and resentment to arrive at peace. That strikes me as far more dignified than bitterness.

      Pursuing strategies to maximize personal gain is what animals and cancer cells do, and if that’s your highest value then you’re not distinguished from an animal, other than by your lost potential

      I never recommended pursuing strategies to maximize personal gain without regard for the feelings of others. Indeed, that is precisely what I protest in this post. I encourage personal responsibility, respect and empathy. A person may experience gain while also providing benefit to others, in which case both parties gain. IMO, a man who abandons his bitterness stands to improve his own life as well as the lives of others. If he is able to find the relationship he wants, the gain is even greater for them. Certainly, this is not possible if he is bitter. In fact, I would go so far as to say that actively inflicting bitterness on others is an antisocial act. In that case, the individual is focusing entirely on himself and the unfairness of his circumstances – it’s about his lack of personal gain.

  • Mike C

    @ JM,

    I think it is a mistake to view the world in binary terms. I believe it is possible to be practical about things without becoming amoral or “animalistic” to use Dilithium’s term. In my opinion, there is a damn enormous middle ground between naive idealism, and calculating cynicism. Ultimately, us human beings are flawed, but we are a combination of instinctual drives and higher level cognitive functions mixed with some spirituality. I think some of the “disappointment” some are talking about is because we cannot totally eradicate the former.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Stephenie, even if there were a minority that behaved totally contrary to every other woman on the planet, it would make no difference. Love at that point is a numbers game, and you have to play to the majority.

    WHY?
    Really finding the elusive nice girl is hard, God I know is hard, the last statistic on my country before I decided to look overseas said that 95% of men cheated and didn’t felt guilty about it, and my experience backed it up with only 4 men of at least 1000 I had been friends, coworker, neighbor that I know for sure never touched a women while dating or marrying to another. Playing into the minority in order no to become someone you consider a immoral is the hardest route, but once I realized that the picks was settling for a guy on my country and look the other way if he cheats and being alone. I looked for an alternative. Going overseas with the amount of cheating among men being like 50% back then, better chances so I took it. I would say I find more Alpha trait to keep truth to yourself and find a mate (as hard as it is) than succumb to society pressure and become an emotional gamer or wallow on your bitterness and consider all women idiots and die alone. I know that I never felt more attracted or respected and admired more my now husband than when he told me that when he was done with his last girlfriend at 31 he was ready for the monastery (it helped that he had to work as a technician for a traveling dancing company for years and I think the dancers were the typical entitled bitchy princess than only looked his way when they needed a favor) but he couldn’t bring himself to quit looking for what he wanted: a good woman loved him and gave him his family, he didn’t had it on him to quit and that is when he decided to sign for the service we both meet. So again why no make a strategy or look for a third alternative to find what you are looking for even is they are on the minority?

  • MARK

    “I’m not really convinced that women are being “duped” by society. I’m more inclined to believe that sleeping with jocks sans commitment is their natural mode; the only types they really seek commitment from in any practical way are betas. There’s no lie being told by anyone here.”
    Agreed. There’s no lie. Women like to have fun with the hot guys while they can and then settle down with a family oriented man when its time to get serious. We men also play a similar game. Screwing sluts in our youth (if given the chance) but looking for “good girls” to be the mothers of our children.
    Humans will do whatever we can get away with.
    It is what it is.

  • JM

    @Dilithium: Rock and the hard place, isn’t it?

    @Susan: Good on VI I suppose. As for Roissy–this is true, but is his lionization something you approve of?

    @Mike C: Perhaps. Truthfully I am not yet sure what to believe. You could accuse me of not writing in good faith, but only on the “faith” portion–my intentions are good but my faith is lacking. Right now it’s like trying on new clothes. If what I’ve read is even halfway correct, reality is massively different from what I’ve been led to expect, and the moral implications potentially unthinkable. The possibility that is most frightening on this end of the rabbit hole, so to speak, is not the conscious rejection of morals, but the unconscious rejection of morals–to use Roissy as an example again, a worldview in which one, when faced with moral criticism of Roissy, would not even try to justify his actions, but would be genuinely mystified that one would find moral fault with him. Now I don’t know if things will reach that point, and indeed I very much doubt it will go quite that far (even Roissy himself doesn’t seem to have gone that far). But while I agree it’s fair to argue that morality in general is not incompatible with practicality, it’s beginning to appear that my current morality is incompatible with practicality, and it’s not at all clear how drastic the changes to my morality to make it compatible will be, or whether I would recognize myself after I made such changes.

    Put another way, I can’t say for sure that there’s no cover in no man’s land, but I can’t see any near me from my spot in the trenches.

    @Stephenie: The existence of a desirable (in whatever sense you may define desirability) minority is not going to keep the majority of people from being disappointed in terms of that desirability. If 80% of men/women are trying to get 20% of women/men into a one-to-one relationship, three-quarters of the tryers are going to be disappointed (more, if some of the 20% get matched to the not-80%, or not matched at all). Doesn’t matter how you define desirability, which way it’s going, whether we try dress it up as moral or immoral, use terms like “hypergamy,” “entitlement,” “strategy,” or so forth.

    Indeed, there’s an interesting likeness with hypergamy here from a strictly numbers perspective but I’ll leave that for others to analyze.

  • Dilithium

    “I see overcoming bitterness as a self-development issue. Working through anger and resentment to arrive at peace.”

    Ah, Susan, I can just picture you visiting Alfred Dreyfus on Devil’s Island: “Don’t be such a downer, Captain! Even as the prime of your life is burned away on this hellish rock, as punishment for a crime you did not commit, you should overcome your anger and resentment. Besides, remaining bitter over this vast injustice is really rude to all those around you, so we’ll all be better off if you just get over it. If it helps, think of it as a self-development issue.”

    I don’t know, maybe Dreyfus did forgive his persecutors and find his peace in the end, and that doing so did improve his life. But that’s for him to decide, it’s not for you or me or the French government to tell him to do so. The job of the French government was to acknowledge the vast injustice and apologize for it — which sort of happened, as Dreyfus was eventually reinstated and later inducted into the Legion of Honor. Maybe the partial vindication helped him get over the trauma, I don’t know. Meanwhile, a hundred years later, to those who are right now having the prime of their lives burned away through no fault of their own, do you have anything better to offer than just “Get over it.”?

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

      Meanwhile, a hundred years later, to those who are right now having the prime of their lives burned away through no fault of their own, do you have anything better to offer than just “Get over it.”?

      I’m sorry, but I don’t. Do you? Honestly, Dilithium, I don’t know what you want me to say. That men have it harder than women? That women are heartless creatures? I don’t have the answers. Life sucks sometimes. We cannot control events. We can’t control biology. We can’t control the behavior of other people. The only thing we can control is our response.

      I write because despite all the crap, the terrible state of the SMP in which so many are unfulfilled, I believe that there is always opportunity in chaos. There will be winners and losers, and my aim is to help people get what they want without hurting anyone else along the way.

      I have heard you, and everyone who has shared their pain and frustration here. I don’t know what else I can do except continue to write about topics that I think might interest readers, and provide a forum for conversation. I know you will not respond to this – too emo. I am sorry to disappoint.

  • SayWhaat

    However, for those few men on campus who are true cads – the guys who P&D every weekend – friends will definitely speak up. Of course, the girl herself knows his rep – it’s more a case of her friends urging her not to take that destructive path. I will agree that it’s usually ineffective once the girl is starry eyed.

    Seconded. I can give you an example from my life.
    A couple summers ago, I went on a couple dates with this guy from my Econ (!!) class. He never called back, and fucked my friend a week later. (We weren’t friends at the time, but we studied abroad together later that year and discovered this guy was in our shared history–to much hilarity, I might add.) While we were abroad, I found out via Facebook that he was making the moves on another one of my friends back in the States. As soon as I got back home, I (and my study abroad buddy) warned her that the guy was definitely not dateable. She didn’t heed our warnings, but soon became uncomfortable when she realized the number her new boyfriend had racked up. He dumped her later after she wouldn’t put out in the relationship.
    .
    Ironic thing is, she’s moved on (she seemed to take the breakup really well, actually), but he still seems into her and contacts me to get things like her email address (ugh). The guy is a total tool, but I did my part in letting her know about it. What she did after that was up to her.

  • MARK

    “The only thing I could think of to pre-qual the guy is your desire to sign a pre-nup that leaves you not a whole lot–UNLESS HE CHEATS, in which case you get 85% or something crazy.”
    Only career women or otherwise independently wealthy women should sign pre-nups.
    People who feel in their gut that remaining faithful is going to be a major challenge for them should not be getting married, or at least taking monogamous vows. Some other alternative should be worked out.

  • Mike C

    @JM

    If what I’ve read is even halfway correct, reality is massively different from what I’ve been led to expect, and the moral implications potentially unthinkable.

    Not sure what to tell you except you’ll have to wrestle with, contemplate, and try to digest the “new reality”. I’m assuming you are talking about just SMP and women stuff. I’ve been there. Like I’ve said numerous times, guys of a certain generation were lied to. We were massively lied to. But after that, so what? Whatcha gonna do? Cry woe is me, the world is unjust, its all unfair. What is that gonna get you? And its interesting to engage in a some of the mental masturbation of the blogosphere, but then there is the actual living of real life, and any guy knows you gotta get laid, not just from the physiological need of it, but there is definitely an ego/self-esteem thing at work.

    But while I agree it’s fair to argue that morality in general is not incompatible with practicality, it’s beginning to appear that my current morality is incompatible with practicality, and it’s not at all clear how drastic the changes to my morality to make it compatible will be, or whether I would recognize myself after I made such changes.

    Well, you’ll have to work that out for yourself. Hard for me to have much input beyond that without knowing what your curent morality is and what changes you think you need to make to it. I think it is possible to shift along the beta-alpha spectrum without turning into a evil, manipulative bastard.

  • JM

    @Susan and Dilithium: I do not see a necessary disagreement between the two of you–yet. What I see here is a pick-two-out-of-three situation:

    1. Dilithium: It is our moral right to be bitter.
    2. Susan: Reality will punish you for being bitter.
    3. The hidden third: Reality is fundamentally just.

    So… what will it be, folks?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I will add that bitterness even if is your right is not productive or beneficial to yourself.
    Will you bitterness erase what happened? Will it make the women that hurt you come back and beg for forgiveness and offer you the love and comfort you wanted from them? Will it make society change overnight to help you heal?
    I think the answer to all that is NO.
    Are you right to be bitter? Yes you are, life hasn’t been fair to you, you did your best and it paid you with salt and stones.
    If we advice you to move on is because we believe is the best for you, no because we think that you are no justified into it. But in the long run it won’t help you get more love or affection or success. We are not asking men that had been hurt to move on for women’s sake but for their own sake.Its like abuse therapy where they ask you to forgive your abusers in order to move on, but no because your abuser is justified or deserves it (that is irrelevant) it because it allows you to get better and be free of the bitterness that keeps people jailed.
    You can be bitter for the rest of your life, is your right, but we are not trying to invalidate your pain. No one here wants you or any men that seems like it could be happy and loved stay the rest of their lives locked into bitterness and loneliness this is the best we can say, sorry if is not enough.

  • Bandit

    1. Dilithium: It is our moral right to be bitter.
    2. Susan: Reality will punish you for being bitter.
    3. The hidden third: Reality is fundamentally just.

    How about working out your angst by learning game and pumping and dumping lots of girls?

    It solves issue #1 because you won’t be so bitter.
    It solves issue #2 because you can channel your bitterness into something productive.
    Is solves issue #3, because feminists of our age need as much pump & dump as they can get to give them an incentive to change the rules. The frame “Sith game isn’t fair or ethical” just forces us to shoot ourselves in the foot. Us men need to adopt the principle “the personal is the political” just like the first feminists did.

  • JM

    @ Mike C: Aye, that is the question. It is not just SMP and women stuff, but the details are not really relevant in this particular conversation. I will admit to being somewhat bitter (and flabbergasted) now, but, my personal situation nonwithstanding, I am still fairly young, and I am certain my morality will eventually change itself to accommodate this new knowledge. It’s what form this will take that has me worried now. With any luck, it will not worry me then.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Stephenie Rowling, what you said on bitterness is quite eloquent. That is something I’m struggling with in the aftermath of losing a baby at nearly full term. It is very different from a long-term problem romantically, but nonetheless it is painful and makes me feel like “life is unfair,” my husband and our family didn’t “deserve” what happened, etc. But it is life, and life sucks a lot of times. Just have to keep looking at the bright side, or else life itself seems not worth it. And life is always worth it.

  • MARK

    I posit that people who nurture bitterness for a long time are predisposed towards depression. Otherwise, like PUA gurus state, when you get a passion in life and pour your heart into it, you experience mastery and happiness and those are attractive qualities – life improvement notwithstanding.
    Even adults who were severely abused in childhood are advised to “get over it” in the form of forgiveness of their perpetrators – not for the perp’s sake but for their own. Otherwise, holding on to the resentment and anger is allowing the perp to control and abuse them even several decades later!
    It is true that for our own sanity at some point we all need to get over it and move on.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Hi @Hope.
    Is interesting how my last post touched you. When I read your story I wanted to tell you something, anything, but I couldn’t find the words that might be of comfort or expressed what I was feeling, so I stayed silent. I’m glad that somehow I found a way to connect with you.You are very brave, my prayers for you, your husband and (this might sound silly and I don’t know what you believe in) your little angel now in heaven. come to you.

  • MARK

    Hope, my comment was in no way directed towards you, even though it appeared after your’s, I was typing it while you had posted your’s so I did not even see your’s til now.
    My deepest condolences for your loss.
    Your loss is one of the deepest that a human can face and I don’t pretend to know what you are going through.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope