468»

We Could Be Friends!

Thanks to Stephenie, who linked to this in the Comments. The scary thing is, this guy’s reasoning makes perfect sense to me! It seems like such a good strategy! Aarrggh, why do chicks dig jerks?

From the fabulous xkcd.

 

  • http://sweetebonyrose.livejournal.com/ Renee

    The first thing that came to mind after I read that was “AWWWW” lol.

    But yeah, that’s my ideal way of meeting your future boyfriend and/or husband.

    And this is a little OT, but is it rare for females to have looks as the very 1st step when considering a guy? I ask because with me, the first thing I look at with men is looks. But it seems that in these types of discussions, men don’t bring this tidbit up.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Susan
    Heh is very funny because I use this comic as an example of WHAT NOT TO DO. You really thing emotionally manipulate a woman into depending on you is not creepy? No to mention than making friends with someone just to get on their pants is NOT NICE. YMMV.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Oh BTW
    I don’t agree with the chick dating the jerk at the end either. I think the comic message is that if the chick knew what the Nice Guy TM strategy was and had to pick between manipulative guy and honest but jerky guy she will pick the jerk.

    Or it could also mean that the first stage on his evil plan started with her doing what he wants to: date jerks so when she is sad and heartbroken she goes to him her “friend”

    Is a brilliant comic with other interpretations.

  • VI

    Your typical LJBFed lap dog isn’t thinking through those things, but he does hope the friendship will develop into something more. Blame biology for liking bad boys, but don’t blame men for responding to the incentives you create.

    There is an army of men out there just waiting to treat girls great.

  • http://www.nomadicneill.com NomadicNeill

    @Stephanie

    Interesting that you think that the ‘nice guy’ is intentionally being manipulative. I’d say that a lot of guys genuinely think that being nice and attentive is the way to get women to like them. But they’re often faced with the reality that the girl ends up with the ‘jerk’ showing them their effort was wasted. Of course the jerk is just a confident man who isn’t afraid of rejection, but that’s a whole different story.

    Yes, there is an element of hiding / denying their sexuality, which is unhealthy, pitiful and sad, but I wouldn’t call it creepy or evil.

    The problem is that a lot of men don’t have many positive examples or role-models that depict men who are confident with women and whom are able to take the initiative.

    As far as I can tell from the media (I hardly watch TV or movies, so it may have changed) men are either depicted as nasty players who get all the girls or nice guy losers. That Charlie Sheen show being a good example.

    If the creator of this comic was a guy then I bet he is tussling with the seeming problem. Do I have to become a ‘jerk’ to get the girl, why can’t I be nice? etc. etc. Maybe he does know that there is a third way but because it’s a sentiment many men will immediately understand, whether they live their life that way or not.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Yes, there is an element of hiding / denying their sexuality, which is unhealthy, pitiful and sad, but I wouldn’t call it creepy or evil.

    The evil is part is when he is hoping that the girl dates jerks that mistreat her just to have a chance to comfort her. Do you ever wish ill to your real friends so they seek you out for help and connect more with you? I never wished any of my girlfriends dated a bad guy that break their hearts so that they talked to me and we could bound over their pain, so a person that has this line of thinking, is not a true friend and shouldn’t pretend he/she is. I also fault any Nice Girl that tries that too, is a shitty thing to do no matter the gender, IMO.

    That Charlie Sheen show being a good example.

    I do agree with this we have a whole generation of single mothers that knew little about dating so they cannot get good men around for their kids and the media only has the extremes. Nice loser or bad boy winner. Nothing like normal well intentioned game. Sad situation indeed.

  • Hope

    Call me a cynic but I think the girl is just as much to blame for this situation. Maybe it’s just my own sympathy and tendency to side with the beta guy, or maybe it’s because of my husband being that “friend” in the past when he was in high school and college. But if you’re a girl and in a relationship with another guy, WHY go out with and cuddle with a “friend” that you know to be a hot-blooded young man?

    Girls employ this strategically and are just as, if not more, manipulative than the guy. Often they know they’re leading the guy on and love the attention (from multiple guys at the same time). They also get to play out fun melodrama in case it blows up between the boyfriend and the “guy friend.” Classic subterfuge and “let’s you and him fight.”

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Hope
    My husband also used this strategy when he was younger but the moment the girl in question started dating he was out of there or moved on and just looked at her as a friend, my husband consider that if the guy doesn’t respect a woman’s choice its not much o a nice guy to start with and I happen to agree.

    I think there is a difference between hoping to be more and be on denial, if you hope to date a girl and hang around waiting for her to come around and she starts dating other guy I think that if you stay hoping they brake up, he hurts her or clearly don’t tell the girl that you wanted more so she can make a choice doesn’t gain you any sympathy if you get caught in a mess. The girl might be loving the attention and be shitty herself but what would you want to stay around with such a person? Leaving is the best strategy after that if the girl is a bitch then you dogged a bullet and if the girl clearly started to have feelings she could decide to pursue you (very unlikely but no impossible) and drop the guy or you could talk like adults and see if you can still be just friends in spite of the feelings (this is also very unlikely but it does happen). Being nice and be a doormat willing to take any crumbs of affection you can get are two different things, IMO.

  • Passer By

    “I don’t agree with the chick dating the jerk at the end either. I think the comic message is that if the chick knew what the Nice Guy TM strategy was and had to pick between manipulative guy and honest but jerky guy she will pick the jerk.”

    Yes, I think that was essentially the message – that the nice guy is worse because he’s “manipulative”, whatever that means, and wants to make her settle for him even though she’ll be unhappy having done so. This is a meme that seems popular when some women come to realize that women often prefer jerks, and they want to explain the phenomon in a way that puts the blame on men rather than on female preference and attraction. So they come up with a narrative that these nice guys are actually being incredibly deceiptful and manipulative by trying to be nice. The reality, of course, is that nice guy just really likes her and doesn’t know how to get from here to there, so he is following his mother’s and sister’s bad advice (or his own bad intuition). But at least it makes women feel better about their bad choices to be able to recharacterize nice guy as a scheming manipulator.

  • Lurky Lu

    I would say the so-called jerk dating girl and the so-called nice guy here are both one in the same. Both are under the delusion that they can win over an unattainable person of the opposite sex simply by being nice and giving. Everyone has the right to set their sights as high as they like, but it is hardly noble to waste your time loving someone who doesn’t love you back.

    But sometimes a man can succeed in getting the girl who “just wants to be friends” to marry him (more so than women who get ljbfed) — and I’m guessing that this is a common scenario among some of the MRA guys in the blogosphere who complain of getting taken to the cleaners in divorce court (a risk that could probably be reduced somewhat by pursuing women who aren’t so unattainable).

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Anonymous
    First the person that this comic is a guy so I doubt he is trying to make women feel better and second I never dated a jerk on my life and I still find this man evil. Both are bad choices, IMO.

  • Keoni Galt

    The first thing that came to mind after I read that was “AWWWW” lol.

    But yeah, that’s my ideal way of meeting your future boyfriend and/or husband.

    Ideal? Deigning to hook up in a moment of loneliness and weakness? Egads. Another perfect example of why men should never ask a woman for dating advice.

    And this is a little OT, but is it rare for females to have looks as the very 1st step when considering a guy? I ask because with me, the first thing I look at with men is looks. But it seems that in these types of discussions, men don’t bring this tidbit up.

    Of course it’s the first thing you look for…but women simply cannot ignore their subconscious read of his psycho-social presence – his demeanor and charisma.

    Even a “hot” guy can give off “creep” vibes that kill initial attraction.

    Check out this youtube vid on this blog post about an audition from the last season of American Idol:

    http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/01/game-concept-demonstrated-on-american.html

    A good looking young man got the lady judges all attentive because of his physical attractiveness and swagger when he first strode into the room. Than he opened his mouth and not just killed the attraction…but actually caused the female judges to recoil in horror and disgust.

    Women value looks…but they will not ignore their gut instinct reading of a man’s personality. Their attraction will turn to revulsion and outright hatred for a physically attractive guy who is socially inept and clueless.

    But the same is not true for men. Men can and do overlook many faults, flaws and downright indicators of bat-shit insanity — if she’s hot enough. That is because we know that on some level or another, all women are crazy…

    Girls employ this strategically and are just as, if not more, manipulative than the guy. Often they know they’re leading the guy on and love the attention (from multiple guys at the same time). They also get to play out fun melodrama in case it blows up between the boyfriend and the “guy friend.” Classic subterfuge and “let’s you and him fight.”

    Very astute observation, Hope. I’ve seen that scenario play out numerous times.

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

      Keoni OMG! That video was fascinating and horrible, like a 20 car pile up. That guy had the lowest emotional intelligence of any human being I’ve ever witnessed. He is very handsome, in the classic alpha way, yet he was totally repellent. The judge had it right when she said he had very negative energy. I wish it were possible to reboot human beings and start again – despite his talent and looks, he is creepy and a little scary. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out he’d become a serial killer.

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

    I’ve gotta run out this p.m. so won’t check in again till later, but I do want to quickly say that I am 100% with Nice Guy here. He loves her! And he tries to prove his worth and loyalty, and demonstrate what a good partner he would be. It’s not like he’s just trying to get something (sex) from her. I see him as wanting to give her real love, and have it be returned. Of course, he does know that even if it happens, it will not have fulfilled her fantasy. He knows he’s “not enough” but doesn’t know what else to do.

    She’s not really to blame either – she gave it a try. She’s just heeding the call of the clit. Women need to wean themselves away from this – it’s like devouring a whole devil’s food cake at 11 pm. Yeah, it’s good now, but there will be hell to pay later.

  • http://2centtab.blogspot.com Samson

    Hilarious. The last thing a guy wants to do is be a hanger on. I have said it before and will continue to say it; the “friend zone” is nothing more than a guy who wants more, but is afraid to make a move.

  • Passer_By

    @Rowling

    “First the person that this comic is a guy so I doubt he is trying to make women feel better and second I never dated a jerk on my life and I still find this man evil.”

    The Anonymous was me. You find him evil because of the thought process that the author attributed to him. I’m not a mind reader, but I’m just saying that the nice guys who get the LJBF zone treatment are almost certainly not that calculating and are not thinking along those lines. If they were that calculating and manipulative they would have figured out a better way to proceed. The nice guy is just trying to ingratiate himself to her in any way (however ineffective) he knows how. You can call that “manipulative”, but, if so, then we all trying to be manipulative when we attempt to behave in ways that we assume will cause people to like us. I think I will manipulate some people later today by not belching or farting at the dinner table.

  • Höllenhund

    Brilliant comment by Anonymous at 5:12 PM!

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Passer_By
    Yes but there is a difference between be polite, supportive or nice and be manipulative in a way that makes you happy regardless of what the other person wants or needs. Where do you draw the line?

  • Höllenhund

    This dumb comic is nothing but a bizarre caricature of the evil, manipulative and shrewd “nice guy”: a mythical bogeyman that only exists in the female mind.

  • Lurky Lu

    “I am 100% with Nice Guy here. He loves her!…He knows he’s “not enough” but doesn’t know what else to do. ”

    He doesn’t know what to do? Move on! Find someone more attainable who can love him back!

    Sorry, I just don’t see how the guy in this situation is more noble than the girl — both are going after the unattainable. And in real life it probably happens more often that the girl is talking not about guys she’s dating who are treating her badly, but guys she would like to date –and he’s probably disingeniously doing the same thing, so she has no idea that he has a crush on her until he busts a move.

  • Keoni Galt

    but I do want to quickly say that I am 100% with Nice Guy here. He loves her! And he tries to prove his worth and loyalty, and demonstrate what a good partner he would be.

    Just as Samson wrote, he’s got no spine. He’s indecisive, and afraid to directly attempt to seduce her. He plays being her friend while pining to be her lover. He’s waiting for her in a moment of weakness to lower her standards and let her passively seduce him. I’ve seen this happen to several friends. This has never, ever, ever ended well. The woman ends up hating him for it. She feels tricked that he pretended to be her BFF only to wait until she was vulnerable to get sex from her. This contributes to the “ALL MEN ARE PIGS” shibboleth, when she realizes that yes, all those jerks she was dating all wanted to sex her up…but so does her so-called sensitive and caring “friend” who “understands her.” She thought he valued her for more than just for her body, but in the end, he was no different from all the other jerks.

    Than when Mr. Too-afraid-to-directly-attempt-seduction is confronted with her regrets and apprehension, he usually goes into full-blown Beta-apologetic mode, turning her regret and confusion into full blown revulsion.

    I have never ever heard of a “NICE GUY” approach to wooing as depicted in this cartoon ever working out into a happy LTR.

    “I’ll tear down the jerks you date and wait for you to realize how good I am for you!”

    That’s passive-aggressive and gossipy. Any so-called nice-guy who acts like this deserves to get the “Let’s Just Be Friends” speech…because that’s the role he’s stepped into here: the girlfriend she feels comfortable emoting with.

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

      @Keoni

      This contributes to the “ALL MEN ARE PIGS” shibboleth, when she realizes that yes, all those jerks she was dating all wanted to sex her up…but so does her so-called sensitive and caring “friend” who “understands her.” She thought he valued her for more than just for her body, but in the end, he was no different from all the other jerks.

      Than when Mr. Too-afraid-to-directly-attempt-seduction is confronted with her regrets and apprehension, he usually goes into full-blown Beta-apologetic mode, turning her regret and confusion into full blown revulsion.

      I’ve also seen a lot of situations where the Nice Guy never does score with the woman – there’s just never a moment of weakness pronounced enough for things to go in this direction. What seems very common in these cases is that the guy eventually “gives up” and angrily distances himself from the girl. The girl, who may not consciously have detected or admitted his real interest in her, pines for the loss of her BFF. In speaking with women in these kinds of situations, it’s very clear to me that the guy was interested based on the time he was spending in a platonic friendship. I can’t tell you how many times women insist that the guy only liked her as a friend, despite obvious pining behavior. I think part of it is denial – she doesn’t want the drama of that – and part of it is a real lack of understanding about how male attraction works. I often tell women “Guys do not want to be your friend.” I know there are exceptions, but more often than not, it’s true.

  • SayWhaat

    I have said it before and will continue to say it; the “friend zone” is nothing more than a guy who wants more, but is afraid to make a move.

    Yes.
    .

    Just as Samson wrote, he’s got no spine. He’s indecisive, and afraid to directly attempt to seduce her. He plays being her friend while pining to be her lover. He’s waiting for her in a moment of weakness to lower her standards and let her passively seduce him. I’ve seen this happen to several friends. This has never, ever, ever ended well. The woman ends up hating him for it. She feels tricked that he pretended to be her BFF only to wait until she was vulnerable to get sex from her. This contributes to the “ALL MEN ARE PIGS” shibboleth, when she realizes that yes, all those jerks she was dating all wanted to sex her up…but so does her so-called sensitive and caring “friend” who “understands her.” She thought he valued her for more than just for her body, but in the end, he was no different from all the other jerks.

    Yes Yes Yes.

  • http://www.2centtab.blogspot.com Samson

    @Keoni

    Exactly. “Nice guys” who end up in the friend zone always complain about being manipulated, but if we’re being honest, they’re the ones who set the game in motion. Instead being honest about your intentions, you build a relationship where you have alterior motives but hope to gain what you want through osmosis, or in hopes that she’ll eventually come around. That’s kind of creepy, because throughout the course of the relationship you’re putting up a facade. It’s one thing to put your bid in and make your intentions clear, only to be told that she only wants friendship, at which point you accept it and remain friends. But to stick around and act like Mr. Friendly because you’re afraid is just spineless and misleading in itself.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Heh I think Susan didn’t read it through the part where he says that “I will make you depend on me” that only shows that he is not doing a normal attraction game, but really playing games to erode her will and personality in order to get into her pants.

    I will mention something that my little brother (a nice Alpha) does when confronted with a flirty girl that is dating a man and starts to get too friendly (of course in my culture that is rubbing your ass close to the manly parts and overly sexual things like that) he grab her ass, or boobs and/or attempt to kiss her. It might sound harsh (and its not something I find particularly nice of him but it does works) she will have to come clean. If she didn’t wanted more she will be offended and walk away so you will end of your torture and if she wants more she will act follow and if she was indeed just playing she will have to stop and make a mature choice. He told me once I asked him about it and he told me that if you think a woman is harboring feelings towards you the worst thing to do is letting things stay on the lukewarm zone you will not move on and the situation will get worst, specially if the woman in question is dating a policeman with a big gun and short temper, like it happened to him once.

    I will say the same to women if a guy is overtly nice and goes out of his way to be with you don’t pretend that is just a friend and ask him right there what is going on, then decide if you want to date him, be friends with him or give some space to both of you, coming clean is better than having someone lurking around you to take advantage of a moment of weakness or be the guy telling everyone what a bitch you are because after all they did for you you ended up dating a “jerk” Honesty is the best policy, YMMV.

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

      Heh I think Susan didn’t read it through the part where he says that “I will make you depend on me” that only shows that he is not doing a normal attraction game, but really playing games to erode her will and personality in order to get into her pants.

      How is this any different than a woman saying to herself, “I’m going to be so fabulous he won’t want to date any other women?” Women cook, do favors, give good head, all in the name of getting a guy to make her #1. That’s just good tactics. Making a woman emotionally invested in you strikes me as a reasonable goal. That’s why I said up front that his strategy struck me as sound. I also said that was scary because I know what a disaster this is 90% of the time. We women are just not wired that way.

  • Passer_By

    @rowling
    “you will not move on and the situation will get worst, specially if the woman in question is dating a policeman with a big gun and short temper, like it happened to him once. ”

    Then the music stopped
    When I looked the cafe was empty
    Then I heard Jose say
    “Man you know you’re in trouble plenty”
    So I dropped my drink from my hand
    And through the window I ran
    And as I rode away
    I could hear her say to Jose, yeah

    Come a little bit closer
    You’re my kind of man

  • ExNewYorker

    @SayWhaat:
    “Yes Yes Yes.”
    .
    The part of Keoni’s post you so vociferously agree with: “She thought he valued her for more than just for her body, but in the end, he was no different from all the other jerks”, it isn’t him agreeing with you. You missed the earlier line:
    .
    “This contributes to the “ALL MEN ARE PIGS” shibboleth, when she realizes that yes, all those jerks she was dating all wanted to sex her up…but so does her so-called sensitive and caring “friend” who “understands her.” It’s the typical hamster, but on overdrive…

  • Stephenie Rowling

    For the record the few times this happened to me I didn’t though my male friends were evil that I was to stupid to notice them before they entered the “friends zone” but it was mostly because (as far as I know) they didn’t tried this with every girl they were attracted to, (we had mutual friends and is a small country) which makes me believe that they didn’t befriend me to get on my pants but that they got attracted to me during the course of the friendship, totally different circumstances.

    Given that I only went for drinks with really close friends the idea that a friend is waiting for me to get drunk enough to consider to find them sexually attractive is creepy and really for all guys here thinking we are just hamsterwheeling would you think that a guy that needs to wait for a friend to get drunk to get laid as a nice guy?

  • GudEnuf

    If “being nice” in order to get in her pants is manipulative, than so is wearing makeup and dressing nicely.

    And do we have any empirical evidence that “chicks dig jerks?” Personal anecdotes don’t count.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @GudEnuf
    I will think that for the purposes of this example the equivalent will be dating a guy just for his money, she will be after something and only pretend to be in love with him to gain it, pretending to be a friend to get on someone pants is not different, YMMV.

  • Rum

    The way these comments have played out gives credence to one of the darker speculations I have ever read about the typical modern female psyche. And that is that, for them “Truth and honesty” is hopelessly tangled up with “My gina is twitching”. Or that, “My gina is going numb, so what I am hearing must be false and is trying to lead me away from the Truth.”
    It never seems to get asked what the beta guy really feels towards the girl (and by extension, how he might treat her long term). It is always 110% about how he makes her feel that defines his purported intentions. As if the guy was assumed to have no independent will or intentions at all.
    It is this kind of thing that vaccinates a guys consience against the possibility of feeling guilty in The Arena.

  • Anonymous

    The somewhat ironic/hilarious thing is that if this “Nice guy” actually WAS what many women here implied that they wanted him to be (i.e. like her as a friend and without any sexual attraction) he’d be more apt to get her.
    .
    If the Nice Guy actually dropped something in the middle of a deep conversation to the effect of “you know what’s great? That we’re friends, but totally platonic — I like you as a person, but don’t have any sexual attraction for you and it makes things a hell of a lot easier to hang with you” and actually meant it, it not only would be aloof enough to generate attraction, but it ironically would increase the consternation of the very same women here who detract from him now who would paint him to be a jackass.
    .
    It’s somewhat unbelievable how women are attracted to things they say they don’t want.
    -Visionary

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

      @Visionary

      If the Nice Guy actually dropped something in the middle of a deep conversation to the effect of “you know what’s great? That we’re friends, but totally platonic — I like you as a person, but don’t have any sexual attraction for you and it makes things a hell of a lot easier to hang with you” and actually meant it, it not only would be aloof enough to generate attraction

      Definitely! I’ve seen women think twice after LJBF’ing a guy once he’s had enough and walks. Of course, by then it’s too late, and the attraction isn’t based on anything sound anyway. They just like him more now that he has lost interest. It is seriously effed up. Not very intelligent design.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Visionary
    Wrong again my best friend once told me that I looked like a horse and implied strongly that I would be the last woman on earth he will sleep with. That didn’t changed my feelings, neither bothered me. I’m not that vain to feel enraged by his honesty in fact it was a relief to know there was no chance in hell he will pull anything beyond that. So no, you are hamsterwheeling on your own.

  • Rum

    Reality check 101. If the girl in question is passably hot and the guy is heterosexual, the only real question is what he intends or wants to do with her BESIDES sex her. Of course he wants some, regardless of whether he thinks he has a chance. Duh X10.
    But it is entirely possible that he ALSO respects her for who she really is, etc., etc.
    It is just mindless to assume the truth of his overall intentions have anything to do with the state of her gina tingles.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Susan
    “I’ve gotta run out this p.m. so won’t check in again till later, but I do want to quickly say that I am 100% with Nice Guy here. “
    .
    Get the BatSignal to Amanda Marcotte! Code red Nice Guy (TM) sympathy!
    .
    There was once a discussion on her blog that went into this exact same strip. What was funny was how fast the discussion converged on how this guy was worse than the jerks. Here’s one comment that captures the essence of the discussion, where one male commenter was trying to be a little sympathetic to the guy and he got this response from another commenter:

    “Therefore, based on the elimination of real regard and feelings, you only have emotional manipulation on the part of the man “friend” on the emotionally vulnerable woman.
    And seriously, if Chet feels that doing an emotional version of Chinese water torture on people in order to get them to be in a romantic relationship with him is NORMAL, there’s something that we can all conclude about him.
    He’s a creep.”

    .
    So the poor deluded male character has become someone who has no real regard or feelings for the female character, a manipulator, and ultimately, a creep. It’s actually just projection, methinks. As opposed to being just a poor brainwashed typical male, brought up to just follow the rules, and someone who needs the red pill…

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

      @ExNewYorker
      Ugh, that comment from Pandagon is just rude. It’s straight to the snide sarcasm, as per usual. Chinese water torture? I’m beginning to see just how pervasive this “creep” meme is among certain women. By creep they obviously mean “not dominant” – which is ironic coming from feminists. They want a dominant non-dominant male! That’s why many of them reproduce with a petri dish, if at all.

  • Retrenched

    Yeah, I would say that chicks do indeed dig “jerks” more than “nice guys”. Why? Because the “jerks” have things going for them that “nice guys” don’t. Such as…

    1. They are confident. They believe in themselves. They are able to effectively “sell” themselves to women because they believe in their “product”, so to speak.

    2. They are assertive. They know what they want, and they are not afraid to go for it. (Unlike the “nice guy” in the cartoon.)

    3. They don’t pedestalize women. Pedestalizing women just puts them out of a man’s reach.

    4. They don’t take rejection personally. More to the point, they don’t let it affect their self-confidence. They just shrug it off and move on to the next girl.

    This is why “jerks” get the chicks, and “nice guys” don’t.

  • Anonymous

    Wrong again my best friend once told me that I looked like a horse and implied strongly that I would be the last woman on earth he will sleep with. That didn’t changed my feelings, neither bothered me. I’m not that vain to feel enraged by his honesty in fact it was a relief to know there was no chance in hell he will pull anything beyond that. So no, you are hamsterwheeling on your own.

    .
    You’re asserting that if most of these nice guys were to mention that their friends were sexually unappealing and “[looked] like horses” that their “friends” (who, btw, already have a defined proclivity for dating “jerks”) would be relieved? I very much doubt that, and I’d believe that it’s way more likely that he’d be labeled a “jerk” instead. Thus amazingly vaulting himself into a valued category.
    .
    You seem to be adhering to the erroneous assumption that, in general, a man’s sexual value cannot change by his actions. “Hamsterwheeling” indeed.
    -Visionary

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

      I would just like to say a thank you to Visionary for introducing the verb “to hamsterwheel.”

  • Chico

    I am baffled by this comic’s interpretation of the nice guy “strategy”, and even moreso by Stephanie’s interpretation, which reeks of a rationalization hamster on ecstacy.

    Who said a nice guy would WANT to see a girl he likes date and get bruised by jerks? That obviously isn’t very nice. The truly nice guy does not wish for this. Women just do it anyways, and nice guys react the only way they know how. I’ve never played the role of crying shoulder regarding asshat boyfriends. If someone is dating a person who clearly isn’t good for them, I tell them my honest opinion. You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make them drink it.

    I agree with Samson’s interpretation of the nice guy “strategy” being the lack of a strategy altogether. It has more to do with a fear of rejection and the fear of a sexual harrassment lawsuit if we’re too open. Not every guy is born with a built-in instruction manual on flirting and kino-escalation either.

    Also, men think differently about relationships. Speaking for myself, as well as many other guys I know, we value friendship as a big part of a relationship. Prefering a relationship with a mysterious and exciting bad boy, women see friend and lover as mutually exclusive. So building on the friendship base is only natural for many of us guys. We often become “jerks” later in life because we discover it’s the only to get by in this world, especially when it comes to women.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Visionary
    I’m actually saying that you were wrong about the idea that if the nice guy were a true friend a woman will consider him sexually desirable.
    You seem to be adhering to the erroneous assumption that, in general, a man’s sexual value cannot change by his actions. “Hamsterwheeling” indeed.
    Mmm didn’t we discussed on the familiarity post that a man that enters the “friends zone” is very likely doomed and most of us agree, including men? So indeed a man actions can change his sexual value but the “friends zone” is rarely ever left once in it and that is why is so creepy to enter the “friends zone” winning trust on the fact that you are not sexually interested on the girl in question, hoping to get and upgrade after a moment of weakness.“Hamsterwheeling” right back at you.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Chico
    Also, men think differently about relationships. Speaking for myself, as well as many other guys I know, we value friendship as a big part of a relationship.

    We women do it, after you come clean about what exactly you want. The funny thing here is that men are focusing on the Nice Guy feelings mostly out of projection, if the girl is accepting your friendship with no show of sexual interest on your part why then wanting to upgrade is considered fair? You never showed what you were after so she might choose to continue your friendship or not, so why would she feel flattered and fall for you and why is she is a bitch if she did what you stated on your first approach: see you as a friend?
    I mean if you meet a guy that was always hanging with you, and it turns out that he was gay and hoping to win you would you feel flattered?

    Really this is not about gender or double standard is about intentions one of the reasons I stopped watching Glee is because Kurt was pulling this crap on Finn, pretending to be his friend while trying to show him that he was better than women so he will fall for him. Really horrible and the show portrayed Kurt as some sort of hero, again its not nice to friend people with ulterior motives.

  • SayWhaat

    Prefering a relationship with a mysterious and exciting bad boy, women see friend and lover as mutually exclusive.

    Wrong. I’ve fallen for so many close male friends over the years, and none of them saw me as more than a friend. The ones who did admitted it years later, after they’d already moved on. I wish they’d told me when they still had feelings, because something definitely could have happened, but they said that they didn’t have the confidence.
    .
    I still view friendship as a great way for romance to blossom, but the one time it happened, the guy backtracked. Now, in order to not get LJBF’d again, I make sure that my feelings to any guy I’m interested in are known. The Fake Boyfriend I’ve mentioned in earlier threads also wanted to try to be friends after our “break up”, and I said Hell No, because I didn’t want to get placed in the same situation as the guy who backtracked after we’d hooked up.
    .

    The part of Keoni’s post you so vociferously agree with: “She thought he valued her for more than just for her body, but in the end, he was no different from all the other jerks”, it isn’t him agreeing with you.

    No, I agreed with that part:

    when she realizes that yes, all those jerks she was dating all wanted to sex her up…but so does her so-called sensitive and caring “friend” who “understands her.”

    At least with the jerks, she can know better not to get dicked over.

  • Chico

    You never showed what you were after so she might choose to continue your friendship or not, so why would she feel flattered and fall for you and why is she is a bitch if she did what you stated on your first approach: see you as a friend?

    I never said she was a bitch for it or had any higher expectations. How are you reading this?

    For the record, if I like a friend, it’s typically something that builds during the friendship. I don’t throw pick-up lines and run game on every attractive woman I see. If I’m looking for a relationship, I want to get to know her first. What is wrong with this?

  • Sp. the Duck

    @Stephenie

    Your anaylsis is simply not how guys operate. No guys intends to enter the friend zone in an attempt to get a woman interested in him romantically. A guy becomes a friend because either he is too afraid to actually ask the girl out or she has already rejected him. The first one is vastly more common. Friendship is the best he can do. Of course he hopes it will develop into a romantic relationship, but that does not make him manipulative. He is doing his best to get a woman attracted to him. He is not hoping that he can “spring” at her in a moment of weakness. He hopes that she will genuinely find him attractive because he is a good friend, similar to how she finds the jerk attractive.

    Further, most guys, if not all, who become friends in the hope it will lead to a romantic relationship are unaware that as soon as the woman labels him a friend, that there will never be a romantic relationship.

    If you and other women find guys doing this creepy, then women cannot have male friends. Your male friends are only your friend because they want to “date” you or use you to “date” other people.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Sp. the Duck
    Oh come on are you telling me that my gay friend wants to get on my pants? Or that the friend that called me a horse is too? So is truth that no guy is ever a woman’s true friend?

    Further, most guys, if not all, who become friends in the hope it will lead to a romantic relationship are unaware that as soon as the woman labels him a friend, that there will never be a romantic relationship.

    I agree with this. But then we should spread this knowledge and not keeping it here, women need to be more honest about this to their male relatives on desperate need for advice is indeed a problem. My guess is not politically correct to say it and there is to be a minority that can use this strategy and work so everybody things this is the best way to have a lasting relationship.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    For the record, if I like a friend, it’s typically something that builds during the friendship. I don’t throw pick-up lines and run game on every attractive woman I see. If I’m looking for a relationship, I want to get to know her first. What is wrong with this?
    Okay sorry for the comments I was thinking on someone else.

    Nothing wrong. I say again if you start the friendship with no ulterior motives and the attraction happens is different than that be her friend. I mean the crutial question is I will be friends with this woman just because I like her? Or I will be friends with this woman so I can have sex with her at some point? Different takes.
    Again go back at the guy gay that is your friend vs the gay guy that is trying to find a way to get you to agree to sex with him.
    But again maybe that is why many straight men don’t like to be friends with gay men, if what Sp. the Duck said is right they know/think that they want to get on their pants at some point so no to “friendship”.

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

    Now that you’re back, Susan, you can see the the jerks decisively won this round.
    .
    I’d guesstimate that about 47 more nice guys decided to pack it in, too.

  • Mike C

    I still view friendship as a great way for romance to blossom,
    .
    Well…then you are a rarity. Generally speaking, I think this is a very bad tactic for any guy to use….trying to establish a friendship first and then switch gears to romance/sexual relationship. 9 times of out of 10 it simply won’t work. In my view, it is critical that a guy establish the interest is romantic/sexual right away. Once he is “friendzoned” best bet is to move on.

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

      Well…then you are a rarity. Generally speaking, I think this is a very bad tactic for any guy to use….trying to establish a friendship first and then switch gears to romance/sexual relationship.

      Switching gears is extremely difficult to pull off, in either direction, for both sexes. I have seen people go from friendship to something more, but only when their intentions were aligned. In other words, from the start they both sought friendship, not something more. One or both of them may have been in a relationship. Perhaps one was looking for something serious, and the other wasn’t, so they decided to keep things platonic. Later, the stars may line up in such a way that it now seems like a good idea. I know one engaged couple that was best friends for each other for three years. They were each other’s crying shoulders as they dated other people. Finally, they were both single at the same time, but kept hanging out the way they always had. The light bulb went off. They figured “what we have is so great, should we try adding the physical piece?”

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Sp. the Duck
    Mmm also does this means that a husband/boyfriend shouldn’t allow his wife/girlfriend to have male friends? Just curious about how guys see other guys that are friends with their beloved.

  • SayWhaat

    In my view, it is critical that a guy establish the interest is romantic/sexual right away.

    Like I said, it’s important that the guy make his interest known. He doesn’t get to complain otherwise.
    .
    Whether this happens at the beginning or over the course of a friendship, the moment he tells her he wants more is the moment she starts considering it.

  • Anonymous

    @Stephanie

    I’m actually saying that you were wrong about the idea that if the nice guy were a true friend a woman will consider him sexually desirable.
    Mmm didn’t we discussed on the familiarity post that a man that enters the “friends zone” is very likely doomed and most of us agree, including men?

    “Friends Zone” is defined as a place where the men who reside there are less likely to change their actions, primarily because they usually don’t know how to attract women in the first place, and are thusly “friended”. It’s a self-selecting pool of men who don’t know HOW to be attractive. It doesn’t mean they can’t do things to get out, they just usually don’t know how (or are afraid to do so for a variety of reasons). The men who do “get out” (usually via things like Game) become attractive (by definition) and would be labeled “manipulative” by you. Men don’t create the “friend” or “lover/jerk” dichotomy, as mentioned earlier, women do. You’re simply defining a “true friend” as someone who you will always find sexually unattractive. I just don’t think that’s true for many women (as evidenced by SayWhaat’s response above) — it’s just that the friend doesn’t know how to MAKE himself attractive and in most instances always ends up being that way.

    So indeed a man actions can change his sexual value but the “friends zone” is rarely ever left once in it and that is why is so creepy to enter the “friends zone” winning trust on the fact that you are not sexually interested on the girl in question, hoping to get and upgrade after a moment of weakness.“Hamsterwheeling” right back at you.”

    This sentence of yours strangely again assumes that it’s MEN who are “friend-zoning” themselves in order to “upgrade” while your sentence immediately prior to it mentions that everyone, “including men”, know that this is a strategy that won’t work. So are men engaging knowingly in a strategy that they know will fail in your opinion? And for what purpose? To expend incredible amounts of energy watching his woman voluntarily getting plowed by “jerks” and passing him over?
    .
    Or could it just be that there are many women who are far more complicit than you’re implying, and that they like having such “friends” around, thus doing things to keep them there? Who’s really the manipulative one here?
    -Visionary

  • Chico

    Stephanie,

    In regard to motives, I don’t necessarily go in knowing what the motive is. It’s simple exploration. It’s usually not a crush, but more of a “hey, let’s see where this goes”. If I don’t like her, I’ll jet. If I like her, I like her. But by the time I know I like her, she sees me as a ‘buddy buddy’ guy. See the predicament? It’s almost as if you need to be overtly sexual right off the bat. Perhaps I should pursue a strategy of pursuit based on looks alone, and then ‘dump her’ if I don’t like her as a person. I may end of being one of those “assholes”, but hey, sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do to win.

    And yes, it is possible for a male to have female platonic friends that he has no romantic interest in. Only if they’re physically unattractive. If she’s attractive, he still wants to bone her if he gets the chance. I know I’ve had platonic female friends take interest in me, but I’ve had to turn them down for this reason. It always sucks.

    Gay guys? I’ve had a gay friend before, but really he was more of a friend of a female friend of mine. Nice enough guy, but I distanced myself when he got drunk and grabbed my ass a couple times. That shit ain’t cool. Not to mention, gay and straight males tend to have divergent interests in a lot of cases.

  • http://sweetebonyrose.livejournal.com/ Renee

    Keoni Galt,

    Ideal? Deigning to hook up in a moment of loneliness and weakness? Egads. Another perfect example of why men should never ask a woman for dating advice.

    No it’s not like that at all. Grant it, my response was in a more general manner, but I think it’s ideal (at least for me) to become friends with a guy 1st before they become something more (if it gets that far), instead of them asking for your number after a few meetings, or even just one.

    Now that I think about it, I’m pretty sure that I just described courting.

  • Rum

    Ms Rawlings

    Thank you for coming up with the analogy (for a guy sincerely acting nice towads a girl he fancies) of a gay guy pretending to be simply a “friend” of a straight guy, when all along, he wanted to get his dick brown.
    I say thank you because you gave away more than you probably wanted. See, straight guys have zero interest in gay sex. And that is if they are open-minded.
    What you are telling us here is that beta males are regarded by females the exact same way that gays are regarded by straight males…. ” I can usually tolerate your bare existence but if you ever act like you want to touch me then you deserved to die”.
    Keep it up, babe. The message is definitely getting thru. At this rate, the last guy with benign intentions towads females will achieve irreversible enlightenment within 3 – 4 years.
    Welcome to the Jungle.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    ” I can usually tolerate your bare existence but if you ever act like you want to touch me then you deserved to die”.

    Heh actually you gave away what you feel. We women see friends as….wait for it friends. Gasp! I know is a foreign concept to you (maybe you should breathe a bit now, maybe you need some water as well, is your head spinning?) you can like a lot a person, spent time with him and not wanting to have sex with them, you know liking a person just because he or she is a person, the same way we like our female friends. So thank you for your comment and how you feel about women (no sex = No worth it of being part of my life), about gays that might fancy you (Deserve to die) and about friendship in general (Manly Men can only be friends with manly men, the rest is just sex). Is always nice to know.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Now that I think about it, I’m pretty sure that I just described courting.

    Pardon me but I think that even in courting it was clear from the very beginning that the guy was interested on courting=a romantic relationship so it was slow and measure but the intention was clear.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Gay guys? I’ve had a gay friend before, but really he was more of a friend of a female friend of mine. Nice enough guy, but I distanced myself when he got drunk and grabbed my ass a couple times. That shit ain’t cool. Not to mention, gay and straight males tend to have divergent interests in a lot of cases.

    Well that is the same issue with Nice Guy TM strategy, you were friendly towards him because he was supposedly not interesting on you on that way, but if he would had showed that he liked you that way you might had no giving him the chance of grabbing your ass. The thing is all men here will understand you, while we women are evil for doing the same, double standards indeed.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Well guys I guess that if you needed an excuse to be a jerk to women I guess you have it now.

    Is funny how my husband was one of you and yet he pretty much accepted that he should had made his intentions clear from the beginning and learned from the times on college and HS where this didn’t worked without considering become a jerk to women, in fact the fact that he was very nice to me won me over, the difference? He was a nice guy that MADE CLEAR he wanted me from the moment we entered in contact, why is so hard to understand that you can be nice and honest at the same time is baffling.

  • Chico

    lol wow…Stephanie really turned the tables on Rum there.

    Rum, you mean to tell me you’ve never had a fat/ugly platonic female friend because you enjoyed her personality?

    Stephanie, my apologies if I came off a little harsh earlier. I just interpreted what you said about nice guys as “this is how nice guys think…they’re all manipulative, blah blah blah…and this is why jerks are better”. I hope by now you realize that not all friend-zoned guys can be put in the same basket.

  • Chico

    Well that is the same issue with Nice Guy TM strategy, you were friendly towards him because he was supposedly not interesting on you on that way, but if he would had showed that he liked you that way you might had no giving him the chance of grabbing your ass. The thing is all men here will understand you, while we women are evil for doing the same, double standards indeed.

    It was pretty clear from the start that I was straight. I started avoiding him because he kept repeating the same actions even though I told him to fuck off with doing that. I don’t grab my female friend’s asses repeatedly after them admitting to disinterest. Nor do I call them bitches/evil/etc for it. Where did you get this crazy idea?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Chico
    Oh I meant the part where he didn’t made clear that he wanted you.

    Stephanie, my apologies if I came off a little harsh earlier. I just interpreted what you said about nice guys as “this is how nice guys think…they’re all manipulative, blah blah blah…and this is why jerks are better”. I hope by now you realize that not all friend-zoned guys can be put in the same basket.

    Oh no that is obvious you really don’t look like a nutcase, other commenters on the other hand…

    Also where did I said that jerks are better. Both guys were bad choices and in any case I had no idea if she meant a real jerk of she just called him jerk because the Nice Guy decided that jerk=Men that are banging her that are not me.
    The fun part of the comic is that we don’t see the guys she is dating everything is from the Nice Guy TM POV.

  • Rum

    I deal with fat, ugly females at work. Beyond Platonic. More like Unbridge-able Moat.
    But then, I go to work only because I get paid extremely well for doing so. If the paying stopped the pretended tolerance of fuglies would as well.
    I feel stupid for even falling for writing this.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Stephenie is normally so sharp on these issues I can’t believe what I’m hearing. It’s a hamsteriffic projection to presume that beta orbiters are intentionally “manipulating” you. If they had that much mental acuity and agency, they’d be running aloof game instead of playing clinger. Like Anonymous said, Beta Boy is just doing what he’s been taught by mom, sis and society – he thinks he can “win” her love. It’s not his fault he’s been deeply deceived.
    .
    I understand women don’t like it because it costs them their male girlfriend when he finally tires of being sexually exiled, but it’s selfish of a woman to expect a man to keep his sexual feelings under wraps because she wants his emotional support, and tell him he’s wrong or shallow because he wants what you won’t give him (which is your mind AND your body, together).

  • SayWhaat

    If the paying stopped the pretended tolerance of fuglies would as well.

    .
    Clearly, the bulk of your paycheck goes towards forcing you to behave as a decent human being.
    .
    Your lack of success with women has less to do with your “beta” status than you realize.

  • SayWhaat

    it’s selfish of a woman to expect a man to keep his sexual feelings under wraps because she wants his emotional support, and tell him he’s wrong or shallow because he wants what you won’t give him (which is your mind AND your body, together).

    .

    It’s only selfish if she is aware of his feelings in the first place.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    The cartoon itself is pretty spot-on – it’s the beta male’s version of the woman who plays fuckbuddy to a guy, hoping he’ll catch feelings and make her a full-fledged girlfriend. The guy hopes that by showing enough support and attention, she’ll realize his true love and let him into her bed.
    .
    I think Stephenie and others are reading too much into the intentionality of the guy – it is subconscious and not intended to be harmful. He takes what he can get from the woman he loves, because it seems better than nothing. If he had game he’d know that the best he could do was to pull a takeaway, but even today that’s esoteric knowledge.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I understand women don’t like it because it costs them their male girlfriend when he finally tires of being sexually exiled, but it’s selfish of a woman to expect a man to keep his sexual feelings under wraps because she wants his emotional support, and tell him he’s wrong or shallow because he wants what you won’t give him (which is your mind AND your body, together).

    Well that is the point. If I knew the guy liked me then that would be right but if he behaves the same way my girlfriends behave with me: Supportive, attentive, no sexual overtones on his care for me how can I possibly know that is because they want to have sex with me? I mean do you think women friends are banging each other behind closed doors or something? We are not psychics.

    So of course I wouldn’t say that a guy should conceal his sexual urges for my benefit but he if comes acting like a duck, sounding like a duck and looking like a duck he shouldn’t think I’m a insensitive when I get him corn to eat because he really was a cat all along and cats eat meat.

  • Chico

    I had no idea if she meant a real jerk of she just called him jerk because the Nice Guy decided that jerk=Men that are banging her that are not me.

    I think you just touched on a really important point. I can think of so many instances with couples I know where the guy gets the girl, and he is honestly not a jerk. However, he is often extraverted. Jerks are often extraverts. But not all extraverts are jerks, even if they’re the life of the party. I’m sure some of the jerk labelling is a product of jealousy. Although some of the guys I know who’ve screwed the most women, and often the most attractive women, are indeed jerks. So I do believe there is some inherent attraction towards jerky qualities with women, particularly for good-looking women.

    But when you look at some of the embittered guys in the manosphere, you can’t exactly say that all guys who aren’t getting a piece are “nice guys” either. Some of them are actually pretty nasty and sociopathic. But in this case, I think it is more often a matter of becoming assholes as a product of their life experiences.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    The cartoon itself is pretty spot-on – it’s the beta male’s version of the woman who plays fuckbuddy to a guy, hoping he’ll catch feelings and make her a full-fledged girlfriend. The guy hopes that by showing enough support and attention, she’ll realize his true love and let him into her bed.

    EXACTLY! Best interpretation ever.

    I think Stephenie and others are reading too much into the intentionality of the guy – it is subconscious and not intended to be harmful. He takes what he can get from the woman he loves, because it seems better than nothing. If he had game he’d know that the best he could do was to pull a takeaway, but even today that’s esoteric knowledge.

    Again if this Nice Guys TM didn’t reacted the way they do “Idiot women only date jerks I will become a jerk and show the bitches…” I will agree with you, but then you have comments like Rum and you wonder if there is not something darker going on indeed on this guys minds. Of course you also get men like Chico that genuinely do show that they are not being Machiavellian about their strategy so I will guess that at least SOME Nice Guys TM are indeed not so nice after all.

  • Höllenhund

    Keep it up, babe. The message is definitely getting thru. At this rate, the last guy with benign intentions towads females will achieve irreversible enlightenment within 3 – 4 years. Welcome to the Jungle.

    That’s pure gold!

  • ExNewYorker

    @SayWhaat

    “No, I agreed with that part”.

    .
    So you agreed with the part where he put hamster-like rationalizations in the mouth of the fictional woman?
    .
    The hamster is strong in this one :-)

  • Stephenie Rowling

    But when you look at some of the embittered guys in the manosphere, you can’t exactly say that all guys who aren’t getting a piece are “nice guys” either. Some of them are actually pretty nasty and sociopathic.

    Heh maybe we should have Susan do a I post: I’m a real Nice Guy or I’m a borderline sociopath?

    Of course not sure if that is actually possible most jerks and Alphas do have sociopathic tendencies: narcissism, lack of empathy, how come a guy that is a sociopath is not getting laid? I mean no to offend the ladies but so far this blog is full of evidence that it seems that this are the types to attract the most ,Idiotic I will say, women so I guess some of them are sociopaths without Game?

  • Rum

    Silly modern females are deeply unaware of just how much their personal comfort and safety depends on the good will of the sort of guys they actively hate.
    In other words, females comfort and safety depends on most guys being kept largely unaware of their(hers) actual opinions…
    Keep talking Ms. Rawlings. Testify. Put it on the record so that men everywhere can escape the mental prizon that mainstream society would impose on them.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “I will think that for the purposes of this example the equivalent will be dating a guy just for his money, she will be after something and only pretend to be in love with him to gain it, pretending to be a friend to get on someone pants is not different, YMMV.”
    .
    I think what you are not getting, and it’s apparently been colored by your personal experience, is that in most of these LJBF cases, the man is DEEPLY in love with the woman. It’s not a trick of the tail to get close to her so he can ramp up for a seduction and then pump and dump, it’s a serious one-itis case.
    .
    If a woman can’t reciprocate the feelings he has, he has every right (and owes it to himself) to get out of the relationship. For you to think he was just shallow or bitter or “only wanted to get in my pants” is to assign moral blame that doesn’t exist. He would have loved to have your friendship but at some point he can’t take the frustration of sexual blockage.
    .
    Retrenched,
    .
    “Yeah, I would say that chicks do indeed dig “jerks” more than “nice guys”. Why? Because the “jerks” have things going for them that “nice guys” don’t. Such as…”
    .
    This comes up a lot as a rationalization of chicks digging jerks, and it’s an incomplete analysis. The fact is…it’s both. Chicks dig the traits associated with jerks, and they dig jerkdom itself. It’s been scientifically demonstrated that women are attracted, generally speaking, to the dark triad. Talk to a few honest women and you’ll get some hamsterism about “I want a man I know can protect me” which is code for “he may be a jerk but he’s my jerk.”
    .
    “Mmm also does this means that a husband/boyfriend shouldn’t allow his wife/girlfriend to have male friends? Just curious about how guys see other guys that are friends with their beloved.”
    .
    Oh please. Women need to come to terms with the fact that a significant portion of men they socialize with want to f$#% them. They shouldn’t flatter themselves by thinking everybody wants their booty, but they need to be cogniscent of the fact that guys are going to have sexual thoughts about them. That doesn’t make guys pigs, unless they are making moves on a bro’s wife in which case they are out of the man club.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I think what you are not getting, and it’s apparently been colored by your personal experience, is that in most of these LJBF cases, the man is DEEPLY in love with the woman. It’s not a trick of the tail to get close to her so he can ramp up for a seduction and then pump and dump, it’s a serious one-itis case.

    Okay define what is love for a man? Or what does a man feels when he is in love that is different than just lusting after a woman?

    Oh please. Women need to come to terms with the fact that a significant portion of men they socialize with want to f$#% them. They shouldn’t flatter themselves by thinking everybody wants their booty, but they need to be cogniscent of the fact that guys are going to have sexual thoughts about them. That doesn’t make guys pigs, unless they are making moves on a bro’s wife in which case they are out of the man club.

    Come to term is a good way to put it. I really, really, really, have a hard time believing that my male friends want anything from me aside from my platonic company. I will have to really let this one sink. Call it hamster wheel will if you want to, but is a part of this gender honest talk is hard for me to swallow.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Stephenie is really undoing most of the goodwill she has painstakingly built here over the last few months.

    SayWhaat,
    .
    “It’s only selfish if she is aware of his feelings in the first place.
    .
    This is never a good excuse. Women need to learn game too, so they can tell when their orbiters are interested. Seriously it’s not that difficult. Susan wrote a post on it:
    .
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/08/03/relationshipstrategies/is-your-best-guy-friend-thinking-of-you-with-his-right-hand/
    .
    I’m told women are the more social and perceptive sex, and then I meet significant numbers of women who claim ignorance about whether a man likes them or not. Pick a side and stick with it.

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

      This is never a good excuse. Women need to learn game too, so they can tell when their orbiters are interested. Seriously it’s not that difficult. Susan wrote a post on it:
      .
      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/08/03/relationshipstrategies/is-your-best-guy-friend-thinking-of-you-with-his-right-hand/

      Here’s the thing – I wrote that post for women who hope the guy is interested. Most of the comments on that post, still active btw, are from women who feel friend-zoned. Which implies that a woman wants to know if a man is interested if she is already interested. If she is not interested, his feelings are an overshare, because they put her in the awkward position of rejecting him, and forfeiting the friendship. SayWhaat is right about that – women hate letting guys down. That’s not necessarily a matter of empathy, though it may be. It’s often a sense of resentment that you’ve been forced to even deal with the guy’s feelings. Ugly truth.

  • Höllenhund

    “Okay define what is love for a man? Or what does a man feels when he is in love that is different than just lusting after a woman?”

    Apparently Ms. Rowling is heavily invested in the idea that nice guys don’t actually exist.

  • Höllenhund

    “I really, really, really, have a hard time believing that my male friends want anything from me aside from my platonic company. I will have to really let this one sink. Call it hamster wheel will if you want to, but is a part of this gender honest talk is hard for me to swallow.”

    ROFL! You have just dished out an ample amount of helpful, honest gender talk on this thread.

  • Chico

    Come to term is a good way to put it. I really, really, really, have a hard time believing that my male friends want anything from me aside from my platonic company. I will have to really let this one sink. Call it hamster wheel will if you want to, but is a part of this gender honest talk is hard for me to swallow.

    lol..looks like Stephanie has to swallow a red pill of her own. At least this one is not as bitter as the ones I had to swallow.

  • Chico

    Apparently Ms. Rowling is heavily invested in the idea that nice guys don’t actually exist.

    I would say this is how most women view ‘nice guys’/beta males. Not necessarily with malice. They just don’t exist. That, or they exist, but only as asexual beings.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    A big reason for oneitis and pedestalization (as in this cartoon) is the idea in a man’s mind that a certain woman is irreplaceable. “No woman is irreplaceable” is a strong candidate for the One Truth of Game. While I understand men who say “if my wife died I’d never get involved with a woman again” and those who follow through, for young guys there’s almost always another woman in reach who can light his fire the same way. Men or women, no person is worth that kind of unrequited heartache.
    .
    Anyway, here’s a song for the thread: “I don’t think we could ever be friends,” available as a demo by the Police that was eventually recorded by Dusty Springfield.
    .

  • Stephenie Rowling

    lol..looks like Stephanie has to swallow a red pill of her own. At least this one is not as bitter as the ones I had to swallow.

    Heh possibly.

    Stephenie is really undoing most of the goodwill she has painstakingly built here over the last few months.

    How so?

    Apparently Ms. Rowling is heavily invested in the idea that nice guys don’t actually exist.

    I asked because you guys clearly had said many times that wanting to bang a woman is not the same than wanting them for a relationship. How come I’m in the wrong now for asking how different is?

    I would say this is how most women view ‘nice guys’/beta males. Not necessarily with malice. They just don’t exist. That, or they exist, but only as asexual beings.

    Had I mentioned that I married a beta male that I currently bang on a regular basis, like twice a day and more on holidays. I see guys that don’t show sexual interests as…guys with no sexual interest. It is that so hard to understand?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I’m told women are the more social and perceptive sex, and then I meet significant numbers of women who claim ignorance about whether a man likes them or not. Pick a side and stick with it.

    Well I can explain that I’m strictly monogamous so I’m social on every aspect except on that one. So indeed a lot of women don’t know when a person is sexually interested on them. I pick that side I’m clueless on that aspect.

  • Keoni Galt

    Stephanie…you’re ignoring the context of the actual dialog and narration of the comic and projecting your own experiences with your “friend” who became you’re husband.

    I think Susan fell for the same thing as well in asserting her support for the “NICE GUYS.”

    You’re essentially playing NAGFALT – Not All Guy Friends Are Like That.

    Have you not seen “When Harry Met Sally?” Pay attention to what Billy Crystal tells Meg Ryan about male/female friendships.

    Harry: You realize of course that we could never be friends.
    Sally: Why not?
    Harry: What I’m saying is — and this is not a come-on in any way, shape or form — is that men and women can’t be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.
    Sally: That’s not true. I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.
    Harry: No you don’t.
    Sally: Yes I do.
    Harry: No you don’t.
    Sally: Yes I do.
    Harry: You only think you do.
    Sally: You say I’m having sex with these men without my knowledge?
    Harry: No, what I’m saying is they all want to have sex with you.
    Sally: They do not.
    Harry: Do too.
    Sally: They do not.
    Harry: Do too.
    Sally: How do you know?
    Harry: Because no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her.
    Sally: So you’re saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive?
    Harry: Nah, we pretty much want to nail ‘em too.

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

      @Keoni
      That Harry/Sally dialog is the go-to best example ever of the “can men and women be friends” question. I constantly drag it out to young women. Most women now in their early 20s have seen the movie, but this won’t be true for much longer. Perhaps we need to include a psych component to sex ed, and have high school kids watch this film. I’m serious about changing sex ed to address bio differences between the sexes, btw.

      I am aware that I was projecting – which is why I said it was scary. I consider myself pretty well educated re the nice guy dilemma at this point, yet I saw this comic and found myself rooting for a happy ending between nice guy and girl. At the time I had no idea I would be in a minority – or maybe even the only woman? – who felt this way.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Have you not seen “When Harry Met Sally?”

    Yes I did watched the movie. But then this is pretty much the only movie that actually says this and is from the 80′s. I think Sarah Michelle Gellar did a movie were her male friend tell her that but it was not succesful also mainstream love to say that men are not just about sex and that they are like us, enjoying platonic friendships just for the company.
    I mean you need to concede that social interactions are not like this.

    Stephenie: Nice to you meet you
    Guy: I will like to have sex with you.
    Stephenie:… I just want to be friends
    Guy: Okay but keep in mind that if I ever have a chance I will like to have sex with you.
    Stephenie:…okay.

    And all your guy friends say that the moment you meet them, then we women will know this for sure before befriended any of you that there is always sex involved even if he never makes a move. I mean we women don’t want to bang all males we meet so its a shock when it happens, at least for some of us is.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “I asked because you guys clearly had said many times that wanting to bang a woman is not the same than wanting them for a relationship. How come I’m in the wrong now for asking how different is?”
    .
    Let me clarify. A man’s sexual hardware will function in the absence of love. A man’s love apparatus does not function without sex in the picture. In other words, if he wants you to be his girlfriend, it follows that he will want to bang you; the converse is not true.
    .
    You are assuming that because a “friend” wants to bang you, that’s all he wants. That’s totally backwards; a man in love wants a woman’s mind, body and soul.
    .
    The female idea of being “in love” appears to comprise “he gives me tingles.” Whereas a man in love wants to give a woman material and emotional resources. It appears female love is more shallow than male love.

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

      Let me clarify. A man’s sexual hardware will function in the absence of love. A man’s love apparatus does not function without sex in the picture. In other words, if he wants you to be his girlfriend, it follows that he will want to bang you; the converse is not true.

      This needs to be a HUS Maxim.

      The female idea of being “in love” appears to comprise “he gives me tingles.” Whereas a man in love wants to give a woman material and emotional resources. It appears female love is more shallow than male love.

      You know I can’t let that stand. I think you’re confusing male love with female limerence here. Both sexes are fully capable of both states, and this will vary according to personality traits, as I’ve mentioned previously (and often). The worst disasters occur when “real love” types get mixed up with “limerence” types.

  • Chico

    Let me clarify. A man’s sexual hardware will function in the absence of love. A man’s love apparatus does not function without sex in the picture. In other words, if he wants you to be his girlfriend, it follows that he will want to bang you; the converse is not true.
    .
    You are assuming that because a “friend” wants to bang you, that’s all he wants. That’s totally backwards; a man in love wants a woman’s mind, body and soul.
    .
    The female idea of being “in love” appears to comprise “he gives me tingles.” Whereas a man in love wants to give a woman material and emotional resources. It appears female love is more shallow than male love.

    *Two thumbs up!*

  • Stephenie Rowling

    The female idea of being “in love” appears to comprise “he gives me tingles.” Whereas a man in love wants to give a woman material and emotional resources. It appears female love is more shallow than male love.

    It seems that men are incapable of platonic love then, loving something without desiring. That is why women feel bad when they want a relationship with a man that only wants sex. When it seems to me for a man not being seeing as a desired for sex what makes them feel bad. That is the point were we are different, but is not shallow is more like emotions are for women as sex is for men.

  • Wayfinder

    . I see guys that don’t show sexual interests as…guys with no sexual interest. It is that so hard to understand?

    .
    This. This is the disconnect.
    .
    The thing you need to understand is that young men, especially Americans, have been socialized to never show any sexual interest. The alphas and the jerks ignore that rule and get away with it (in part because they have practice at it), but the betas either were told that demonstrating sexual interest was wrong or they aren’t able to transgress the social disapproval.

  • Mike C

    I asked because you guys clearly had said many times that wanting to bang a woman is not the same than wanting them for a relationship. How come I’m in the wrong now for asking how different is?
    .
    I’m not sure what your confusion is. Guys will see certain girls as “relationship material”. Wanting to bang them goes without saying. Then there is another category of girls who are ONLY desired for banging and nothing else.

  • GudEnuf

    Badger: A man’s love apparatus does not function without sex in the picture. In other words, if he wants you to be his girlfriend, it follows that he will want to bang you;

    You’re generalizing from a tautology.

    If by “love”, you mean “sexual love” (and not the myriad of other ways men love their family, friends, and country), then yes, a man has to be sexually interested in a woman to love her sexually. But “love” can mean other things too, and many men do have platonic love for women they are not interested in sexually.

    Go to a random male’s Facebook page. See how many of his friends are female. You really think he’s trying to bang them all?

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “The thing you need to understand is that young men, especially Americans, have been socialized to never show any sexual interest. The alphas and the jerks ignore that rule and get away with it (in part because they have practice at it), but the betas either were told that demonstrating sexual interest was wrong or they aren’t able to transgress the social disapproval.”
    .
    Maybe things are a little more “rough” and out in the open in the DomRep.
    .
    In any case, American guys need to learn game, the whole lot of them. Not the whole bible, just qualification, posture, controlled sexual tension, passing shit tests and anti-oneitis innoculation. That will bring most of them up to the level of average men two or three generations ago.

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

      In any case, American guys need to learn game, the whole lot of them. Not the whole bible, just qualification, posture, controlled sexual tension, passing shit tests and anti-oneitis innoculation. That will bring most of them up to the level of average men two or three generations ago.

      Yes, this 80/20 rule applies here too. Men who get down 20% of the most important concepts can improve their lives dramatically. Leave the fine tuning for later and get out there.

  • GudEnuf

    Mike C: Then there is another category of girls who are ONLY desired for banging and nothing else.

    I’m sure some of the women reading this have had sex with men they would never want a relationship with.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    This. This is the disconnect.
    .
    The thing you need to understand is that young men, especially Americans, have been socialized to never show any sexual interest. The alphas and the jerks ignore that rule and get away with it (in part because they have practice at it), but the betas either were told that demonstrating sexual interest was wrong or they aren’t able to transgress the social disapproval.

    I get that, I do. But what makes you think that women are socialized to know this? I mean, again women can love deeply without desiring sex so unless someone (a brother, or a father) tells them different or explains this hard truth they are going to assume that a male friend is seeing them the same way: no sexual.

  • Mike C

    The female idea of being “in love” appears to comprise “he gives me tingles.” Whereas a man in love wants to give a woman material and emotional resources. It appears female love is more shallow than male love.
    .
    Scary thought…but I wonder if you hit on something here. For men, as you put it better then me, sex and love can be disconnected. In other words, I can want to f*ck your brains out yet have no emotional connection to you whatsoever so when it is love it is coming from someplace different then purely sexual whereas it seems perhaps with women the sexual attraction and love are somehow tied up together which implies that a loss of attraction means a loss of love?
    .
    This thread has taken on a somewhat disturbing direction. I’ve taken the red pill but some of the female comments are very surprising especially because they are not who I would have expected.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I’m not sure what your confusion is. Guys will see certain girls as “relationship material”. Wanting to bang them goes without saying. Then there is another category of girls who are ONLY desired for banging and nothing else.

    Yes, but then I got chastised for assuming that a guy that makes friendship with you is not placing you on the ONLY desired to bang pile. That is my confusion
    Then the lesson for me here is: that a man that makes the effort to be your friend in hopes to have sex never sees you as only for sex? Did I got it this time?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    In other words, I can want to f*ck your brains out yet have no emotional connection to you whatsoever
    Is the other way around for us, we women can make a deep emotional connection but no wanting to f*ck your brains out. Why is that more shallow?

  • Mike C

    “The thing you need to understand is that young men, especially Americans, have been socialized to never show any sexual interest.
    .
    BINGO!!!!!!!!! I think this is especially true for Gen X men as we were the first generation to be raised after feminism had its impact on society. The most extreme ludicrous messages of course are the sorts of “all penetrative sex is rape” but I think that mentality permeated society in that male sexual desire and the expression of it was made into something bad. Therefore, we were supposed to repress it, and hide it. I mean it is just crazy when you have to think twice if telling some girl in the office she looks pretty in the new outfit is going to get you reported to HR. The great irony is that many women apparently expect you to switch gears between this totally asexual being during one part of the day, and then during another to effectively communicate your sexual interest. It is what it is.

  • 108spirits

    Is the other way around for us, we women can make a deep emotional connection but no wanting to f*ck your brains out. Why is that more shallow?

    Because it’s all about your needs, not his.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Maybe things are a little more “rough” and out in the open in the DomRep.

    Oh true. Things are a loss less…politically correct I guess.

    Few guys try the nice guy thing must men will at least show you up front what they are after I guess the difference is that in my country being a sexual being is not demonized for guys?

  • Mike C

    In any case, American guys need to learn game, the whole lot of them. Not the whole bible, just qualification, posture, controlled sexual tension, passing shit tests and anti-oneitis innoculation. That will bring most of them up to the level of average men two or three generations ago.
    .
    Passing shit tests and framing is #1. Something I took from Roissy that I’ve actually been using alot is the Agree and Amplify.
    .
    Quick example. My GF was going to be gone all day a recent Saturday, and she said I “had to behave”. The old beta me years ago would have said “Oh yeah, don’t worry I’ll behave”. Instead, I told her I was inviting the player from work, and we were bring Hooters girls and strippers over, and he was going to bring some coke to snort. Now I’m an introvert that spends time looking at stocks on my computer. The notion is laughable but it is all about frame and not being on defense.

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

      @Mike C

      Quick example. My GF was going to be gone all day a recent Saturday, and she said I “had to behave”. The old beta me years ago would have said “Oh yeah, don’t worry I’ll behave”. Instead, I told her I was inviting the player from work,…

      What I like about this is that your GF said that to enjoy the response she anticipated. It’s like saying, “I know I’m going to be away from you all day – give me a tingle for the road.” And of course you delivered, she thought about you during the day, and you checked out stocks, knowing she had gone off in no mood to meet someone new. Perfect.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Because it’s all about your needs, not his.

    And it should be about his needs only?

  • Mike C

    I’m sure some of the women reading this have had sex with men they would never want a relationship with.
    .
    Sure, we are talking general principles here, not 100% of all cases.
    .
    In those cases, was that the case from the beginning? I’d bet in many cases, they were interested in a relationship at some point early and then got dicknotized and couldn’t give that guy up.

    In other cases, I do believe there is a subset of women who have more masculine sex drives, perhaps it goes back to the T-level thing and they are high testosterone women so they exhibit more male characteristics.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @GudEnuf

    Oh God I feel like you (all men here) are messing with my head. Which is which? Do men want to bang all women including their female friends or do men can have platonic love for their female friends?

  • 108spirits

    No, Stephanie. Those Nice Guys are willing to offer both. A man’s love for a woman is tremendous. Much of mankind’s greatest creations were a result of a man’s demonstrating to a woman how much he loved her.

    If you don’t like them nice boys, fine. Just don’t be like the author of xkcd (a typical mangina nerd) and other women and demonise them for their clumsiness. That is the source of much beta bitterness, not the actual rejection itself.

    I thought Roissy was over the top when he said women hate, HATE betas. But then even the nicest women show nothing less than contempt for betas and prove him right.

  • 108spirits

    Do men want to bang all women including their female friends or do men can have platonic love for their female friends?

    Of course we do. Here’s a Red Pill, take it.

  • Mike C

    Do men want to bang all women including their female friends or do men can have platonic love for their female friends?

    Stephenie,

    1. No offense to GudEnuf, but if you are trying to understand how the typical guy thinks, I would pretty much ignore 99% of what he says. IIRC, for quite awhile there was an open question whether he was a guy or girl, and I think he has pretty much allowed feminist ideology to confuse natural male thoughts.

    2. The definition of platonic love is non-sexual. You are making this much more complicated then it needs to be. Very simple. If we find you physically attractive, then we want to fuck you whether you are a “friend” or not. It is that simple. We may never act on it, may never communicate, may never give any indication, but in our minds we have fucked you…probably a number of times…BUT ONLY IF WE FIND YOU PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Much of mankind’s greatest creations were a result of a man’s demonstrating to a woman how much he loved her.

    I agree with that. But don’t downplay a good woman’s love. Just because those are not as plenty as they were doesn’t mean we are not capable of great feats for a man we love.

    I thought Roissy was over the top when he said women hate, HATE betas. But then even the nicest women show nothing less than contempt for betas and prove him right.

    How many times had I said that my husband is what you describe a Beta and I married him how can I hate him? Again you are interpreting no sexual interest=hate. Not the same thing, for us women at least.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @108spirits
    Thanks I will get some water.

    @Mike C
    I though that was Tom? Okay then I will go with democracy and listen to your majority. I will need like a box of this red pills :p

  • Wayfinder

    The thing we usually call “love” has been theorized to consist of three parts:
    1. Sexual Lust
    2. Attraction: Falling in Love/Limerance
    3. Attachment: Pair-Bonding
    .
    You can read Athol Kay’s explanation or the Wikipedia summary.
    .
    They can occur in any order. Since the sexual component is testosterone-driven, males will tend to gravitate towards that first and gradually move towards the second and third. The evidence is more complex for female behavior, but the second state is the one that has been immortalized in all the films.
    .
    The “Be friends first” strategy attempts to go for the third first and then pick up the other two.
    .

    I get that, I do. But what makes you think that women are socialized to know this?

    Oh, I don’t think that the women are socialized to know it either. Selling fairy-princesses to little girls is a billion dollar industry, after all.

  • Rum

    Girl Talk = nothingness
    Girl Suck & Swallow = Maybe…

  • Chico

    Stephanie,

    I wish I could post a Venn diagram in the comments section to show you, in simple terms, all the different possibilities. I’ll try and list them out.

    1) Purely platonic friendships where the guy has no sex on the brain. This is only possible when he doesn’t find you sexually attractive. However, just because he hasn’t made a move, you shouldn’t make assumptions. Your ‘gay friend’ most certainly falls into this category.

    2) Sexual attraction + friendship (the overlap between 1 and 2). Yep, he secretly wants to bone you, but there’s a good chance he thinks you’d be relationship material as well. Now, he may be testing the waters with other women and taking his chances with them, but be aware that he is probably open to the idea of something happening between you two, especially if your bond is strong. Additionally, if your friendship is that strong, he will be even more afraid of rejection, thus more apprehensive about making the moves, as he feels there is a lot at stake. This, by the way, is the kind of guy you could count on most for commitment.

    3) Your male friend who wants sex from you, but wouldn’t consider a relationship. Well…chances are, he’s not much of a friend to begin with. If he only hangs around you because he wants sex, you need to re-evaluate your friendship with him.

    4) Outside of the friendship sphere, there’s girls who a guy wants to have sex with, but doesn’t want anything to do with them otherwise. This only works when he doesn’t respect the woman. A good example would be going to the strip club to get a handjob, where I really don’t want to hear about her life story, coke habit, or workplace politics.

    How many times had I said that my husband is what you describe a Beta and I married him how can I hate him? Again you are interpreting no sexual interest=hate.

    Are you saying you have no sexual interest in your husband but you still married him? That’s a scary thought.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Are you saying you have no sexual interest in your husband but you still married him? That’s a scary thought.

    Nope I’m saying he is a Beta according to what you (the posts here) describe and trust me I’m way sexually interested on him. What gave you that crazy idea that I’m not? Is beta man a man that is not sexually active? I though it was a guy that was smart, funny, charming, sweet, faithful, trustable, but doesn’t act like a jerk to get laid. Am I wrong?

  • Chico

    Stephanie, it was this post:

    How many times had I said that my husband is what you describe a Beta and I married him how can I hate him? Again you are interpreting no sexual interest=hate. Not the same thing, for us women at least.

    Perhaps I’m misinterpreting, but you made it sound like you don’t hate your husband, but at the same time have no sexual interest in him.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Chico

    I get the point system the division is that I think the guy on the comic is number 3 why most guys here thing he is number 2.

    Now you also assume that the girls that agree with me think that when it had happened to them is means that their “friends” were number 3 where most men here assumed that they were poor number 2s that were trapped into the friendszone by women and that we had no right to expect a guy to be a friend without wanting to have sex at some point. I think that is pretty much what had derailed the conversation on this point.

    Now again what I meant to say is that you (generally you) assume that a good smart woman would had have sex with Nice Guy after he expressed sexual interest because after he fulfilling her emotional need for friendship she should fulfill their sexual needs, is that the point of this lesson?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Chico

    Sorry English is not my first language. But come on give me some credit what kind of idiot marries a man without having sexual interest on him? I know I’m a bit daft on some male ideas but even the most clueless woman is at bit aware of the important things that should drive you to say the I do…me thinks.

  • Chico

    Stephanie,

    No guy can expect sex from you because you’re friends. At the same time, you can’t feel outraged if he does have sexual thoughts about you. It is his RIGHT to have those feelings, just as it is your right to decide how you want to react to them.

    Now again what I meant to say is that you (generally you) assume that a good smart woman would had have sex with Nice Guy after he expressed sexual interest because after he fulfilling her emotional need for friendship she should fulfill their sexual needs, is that the point of this lesson?

    The good smart woman doesn’t “have” to do anything she doesn’t want. But if you feel a strong bond of friendship with the guy, that is a far greater indicator of a relationship’s long-term prospects than the strength of your gina tingle. If things DO go wrong in the relationship…sure, you may lose a friend. But friendships come and go regardless. If you never take risks, you are sure to be doomed to a mediocre life.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Heh comment from my husband.

    He asked me what was I discussing on the net so passionately and I told him about the male-female friendship thing and he told me that all of you need a cold shower, that yes sometimes hanging out with a female friend the reptilian brain goes “Oh you could bang that!” but is barely a moment and always pass. Of course I also asked him if he would had turned down if one of his female friends would had offered him sex and he told me that if he was single and she was single probably not.

    So yeah, although we already had this talk before there was article on Jezebel that had a lot commenter claiming that is a lie that women get all the sex they wanted because a lot of them had several stories of failed attempts at seduction and he told me that there most be something wrong with them, because he told me that he single and a woman single that he at least knew he wouldn’t turn down sex if she offered.

    So yeah, I love this blog! Aside from some nasty commenters is always fun to learn about what the other half of the world thinks, thanks guys ! :)

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Stephenie is confused (or feigning confusion) because she’s not separating “love” into eros (lust)/agape (romance or integration)/philio (brotherhood).
    .
    “Platonic love” is philio and unrelated to sex or romance. Male-female platonic love exists but only when it is mutual.
    .
    Eros and agape are deeply linked. I find the idea of agape without eros to be nonsensical, as do most men. Men are hardwired to express (and want to express) love through sex. To hear “I love you but I’m not in love with you” (code for “I don’t have the tingles”) is a rejection.
    .
    “But come on give me some credit what kind of idiot marries a man without having sexual interest on him?”
    .
    To judge from the divorce rates and marital forums, a large number of American women.
    .
    “He asked me what was I discussing on the net so passionately and I told him about the male-female friendship thing and he told me that all of you need a cold shower”
    .
    Ooooohh, in absentia whiteknighting. Is he going to come beat us up too?
    .
    In any case I don’t see what the point of continuing the discussion is. Stephenie was clearly burned in the past by some dude(s) running a failed experiment in crypto-friendship game, and no amount of debate is going to move her towards understanding the position of LJBF’d men.

  • VI

    To Chico’s 2) I’d add that a man won’t have a strong desire to bang a female friend if he is sexually satisfied by other women. He won’t be blind to her attractiveness, but a man with options isn’t going to throw away a good friendship just for a quick lay.

  • http://www.nomadicneill.com NomadicNeill

    @MikeC

    “Scary thought…but I wonder if you hit on something here. For men, as you put it better then me, sex and love can be disconnected. In other words, I can want to f*ck your brains out yet have no emotional connection to you whatsoever so when it is love it is coming from someplace different then purely sexual whereas it seems perhaps with women the sexual attraction and love are somehow tied up together which implies that a loss of attraction means a loss of love?”

    BINGO!

    “This thread has taken on a somewhat disturbing direction. I’ve taken the red pill but some of the female comments are very surprising especially because they are not who I would have expected”.

    How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

  • blackdude

    @Stephenie- think of it like this…. Its like a football (american football) game. MEN play offense, WOMEN play defense. A “touchdown” is different for every guy, but it ALWAYS involves sex or some sexual act if the guy invests HIS time in a woman. Maybe for one guy a touchdown will be sex AND a relationship, maybe for another guy a touchdown is just sex, and for another it could be a threesome… depends on the guy. And maybe (if the guy has game) it involves sex with a female friend OF THE FEMALE FRIEND (thats probably the ONLY TIME a platonic non sexual relationship btwn male and female will happen bc he wants a better girl… If the guy wants to bang his platonic female friend’s HOTTER FEMALE FRIENDS, and if he pulls that off, he will probably bang both for obvious reasons ie STATUS +1)

    So- OFFENSE, and DEFENSE…. See you mentioned women not being socialised to know these things but that is irrelevant. Why? Because u play DEFENSE. You dont have to really do much to get sex or a relationship (even uma thurman’s character in Kill Bill got laid while she was in a coma- albeit unintentionally). But us guys, if our OFFENCE sucks like the guy in this comic, he wont score a touchdown (and in his case, a touchdown is a marriage with his little angel perfect woman..and yes this includes sex).

    Youve seen microscopic films of sperm cells fighting to get to the egg right? Well…. we men are basically that until we die or get ED (HELLO VIAGRA lol) or are gay.

    Oh yeah one more thing… your husband isnt necessarily a beta, but defintions vary. He may have the rite combo of beta and game (he MUST) since you r attracted to him… even if he doesnt realize it. If u ever become unattracted to him (like if he does nothing but play xbox all day) then u shall know the meaning of beta. But im guessing he knows how to make u laugh, joke around, and belittle you JUST ENOUGH to keep it fun for both of u, and he prob keeps in ok shape= NOT beta…

  • blackdude

    @stephenie

    also, the whole “nice guy vs manipulator” is stupid… there really arent any NICE GUYS or nice girls for that matter. Society, religion, upbringing, etc all place limits on the MONSTROSITY that is humanity. So the guy in this comic MIGHT have some good qualities, some bad WHATEVER, but all people are flawed. The whole “nice guy” thing is what they call themselves because they dont understand women, but they also realize they ARENT being manipulative like the “jerk”. So they say, “hey im not a jerk, so i MUST be such a NICE GUY!” BULLSHIT! In reality, everyone is different and its complicated- I mean, there are still debates going on about how much of a “nice guy” Ghandi was…seriously. Soooo that term just means, “I dont understand women, but I dont want to treat them like complete shit so im nice??!!??!! DUH WINNING!!!”
    BUT a guy can show interest in a woman, be funny, and be SOMEWHAT of a jerk, and get the girl and still not have to go on complete asshole mode like those guys, but RARELY do u see that any more for reasons that would take too long to explain (short story- remember what i said about football? well i have to have the best OFFENCE to compete with the other guys, the smp has no rules, and sex for women involves emotional addiction more or less. Assholes (10% of guys) are like giant CRACK ROCKS to women’s tingle zone… the nice guy (80% of guys) is like a GUNSHOT WOUND. I (10% of guys) however am like a soothing BONG HIT- juuuuust RIGHT…)

    BUT heres where things get tricky/ REALLY FUCKED UP. See most guys (the 80% above) go through life failing MISERABLY with women ( we call sex GETTING LUCKY for gods sake). SO, imagine the guy in the comic- he wanted to marry that woman, but now in the back of his mind he has to think about her fucking a bunch of jerks. “Well,” he says to himself, “that was just bad luck. Next time I will find my angel!” Well angel after angel comes and goes, and each of them end up fucking jerks, and douchbags… comic book man sees this and thinks, “EVOLVE OR DIE” so he has three roads- become a hermit (and actually add value to the world- you know like that EINSTEIN GUY?) learn the basics, and still get married/ have relationships, but drop the “angel” goggles and see the truth or….. become “DARTH GAMER (patent pending)”

    This is why women are shooting themselves in the foot…. as women, you havent experienced what guys have (offense and defense remember?), so if our narrator learns the truth about the tingle, he will be very, VERY PISSED. all those little “angels” were actually acting on fairly predictable evolutionary templates, and their actions were ordinary (not a bad thing… women are only human its HIS FAULT for thinking she was an angel but….)

    With this knowledge, a lot of guys get angry at all those wasted years of failure, and many become very dark and tormented people… all those years of harsh rejection, lies from his church and family and TV, WIPED AWAY in an instant. BOOM. The beast has awoken, and it wants vengenace…. (but it really was his fault to a large degree. He blame shifts and tries to screw over every new female like shes sally from the 6th grade who rejected him)

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Stephenie is confused (or feigning confusion) because she’s not separating “love” into Eros (lust)/agape (romance or integration)/Philio (brotherhood).
    I was really confused.

    “Platonic love” is Philio and unrelated to sex or romance. Male-female platonic love exists but only when it is mutual.

    I think you forgot the part where women do this very early on the relationship if a guy sells itself as Philios most women will place him on the philios box and lock the box and built a emotional connection with him under that premise. Now if the guy seeks Eros later on with no warning then the woman is probably going to have a hard time opening the box of Philios, if the guy would had make a clear show that his intentions were to get the box Philios to try and go into Eros at some point, then the woman could at least choose to not lock the Philios box so he can jump into Eros box at some point or indeed deny access to Philios box.
    To use another example Is like you labeling a woman a slut because she gave it away too fast and/or to too many men (she behaves as a slut so she gets the proper label) and then the woman later wanting to marry you at some point, because she gave you sex. Not how it works as far as I know.


    To judge from the divorce rates and marital forums, a large number of American women.

    Ouch, no touching that one.

    Ooooohh, in absentia whiteknighting. Is he going to come beat us up too?

    It was mostly a tongue in cheek comment, hence the Heh at the beginning.

    In any case I don’t see what the point of continuing the discussion is. Stephenie was clearly burned in the past by some dude(s) running a failed experiment in crypto-friendship game, and no amount of debate is going to move her towards understanding the position of LJBF’d men.

    Wrong again. First if I was dead set in not trying to see things your (men’s) way I would just use the “agree to disagree” excuse on move on, second its not a matter of being burned out, completely. But is also a matter of behavior.
    I give friendship in exchange of friendship. I give love on exchange of love I give sex on exchange of sex and I want to elaborate on this point given that it seems the most important for men.

    If I came here saying that I have sex with my husband in exchange of…a diamond ring/new car/he listens to me you You will probably think of me as a whore (in case of the listening to me an emotional whore) and you will be totally right, but if I were a guy giving friendship on exchange of sex without even making sure my intentions to the girl I was expected to have sex with, then is the girl’s fault and mistake no wanting to give me what I wanted, specially if she does it out of the sheer fact that she sincerely though that her none sexual company was what he appeared to be seeking, neither she has the right to feel betrayed because she accepted the friendship with no knowledge of this sexual feelings.

    Is my duty as female, to avoid hurting nice guys, so I should be aware that is very likely that all men that seek my company are indeed in search of sex and that the pleasure of my presence is inversely proportional to how much sex will they guy in question get from it, the company I provide has no value, if sex is not tied to it.
    I accept it as the way it is, but you need to remember that till less than 24 hours ago I was under the delusion that men can value female company with no sex involved in the same way we do it, with some men and again women don’t think you are an insect, if they don’t want to have sex with you, they just think of you as friends, but then it looks like this is the worst insult for a man, not being see as needing sex from you personally.
    I’m pretty much just letting all that new info sink.

  • 108spirits

    Stephanie, if it helps you to understand what we’re getting at…

    The guy in the comic is a projection of women and manginas who are kissing their arses. He is a caricature that doesn’t exist.

    Personally I’ve never been a guy who does the stupid friends first with women, but I’ve counselled many guys who are devastated by such LJBFs. And you know why they’re devastated? It’s certainly not because they couldn’t get a root. If a root were all they were after, they wouldn’t be in such state.

    Logically I shouldn’t give a shit about those men. The more of them, the less competition for me. You women however should care more about them (your safety, wealth and future depend on them) and lay off the demonisation of their clumsy attempts. What’s the old saying? “Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.”

    On the other topic, do men want to bang their female friends? Yes. Are men capable of platonic friendship with women? Yes, but only if those men have other sexual options, and the cost of losing the friendship is higher than the attraction for that woman. I have a very good female friend like that. She’s somewhat attractive, and I’d certainly done the usual visualisation of what it’d be like to bang her in my head, like all men with functioning equipment. However, I have better options sexually, and her friendship is too valuable for me to risk over some half-hearted (at best) sex. If she were a 9 or a 10 though, she’d better be helping me make tons of $$$ and hook up with her hot friends weekly for me to be able to maintain a strictly platonic friendship.

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

      Gaaah, it happened again! I had no idea that I could put up a comic with zero work and spark such a discussion! I think there’s a lesson for me here somewhere….Wow, I’m digging in to read the thread now and will chime in soon. At first glance, this looks like a real battle of the sexes.

  • someguy

    Someguy weighs in, for whatever it is worth.

    Nice work Badger, as usual. I like your new blog. That video by Alexyss Tylor is one of the best things I have ever seen.

    I haven’t felt friend-zoned since high school, thank God. In my case, I thought I was being patient and loving by not applying pressure and letting things blossom, or some such nonsense. Of course I was afraid of rejection. And yes, I think that the messages young men receive to be unoffensive and respectful do contribute to this.

    I have quite a few female friends. Some are unattractive (to me). I don’t want to sleep with them and that’s that.

    On the other hand, some of these women are very attractive. Some of these hotties are in relationships and some are not. The ones in relationships are off-limits (Chapter 2 of the Someguy Code). Those who are not could potentially turn into something else, but I am hardly pining for it. I tend to keep several poles in the water.

    As has been mentioned here or elsewhere, hot female friends can help validate men in the eyes of other women. It think it’s also good to have attractive female friends because it naturally makes you more at ease with women in general, and thereby more attractive to women in general.

    So yes, NAMALT and some of us DO find value in having female friends, whether attractive or not (to us).

    But how much value? This is the issue for me. Because in my case, I feel that my female friends generally value my friendship MORE than I do theirs. I don’t call them very often. They call me though. They get frustrated if they go a long time without seeing me. I know what they want: They want to TALK. They want to empty the contents of their heads onto me, their male friend. They want the male perspective on things, because they find men baffling. They want me to explain my opinion on current events. They want me to advise them on their problems and play Coach Someguy when their self-esteem is in the gutter. They want me to say something with authority so they can act decisively. They want me to make them laugh and laugh. Christ, sometimes they even want me to help them decide what to eat. Of course I like them too. They can be funny and surprising and considerate and insightful. But I can’t listen for as long as they want to talk, and while their company is nice, I ultimately find male friendships more fulfilling, so I end up limiting these encounters. I believe Susan once wrote on this blog something to the effect of: “Many women LOVE to have a male BFF!” So I ask: How many men really LOVE to have a female BFF?

    Also, one of my very best friends in the world is gay. Gay people can be fucking HILARIOUS. There’s no need to fear the gay.

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

      @someguy
      That is a fantastic description of how male/female friendships! All women should read it. I’m clipping it for future reference.

  • someguy

    Actually, a woman did try to friend-zone me about a year ago, after we had slept together. She clealy wanted to hang out with me and enjoy my company, but had apparently cooled to me physically. I asked her what was going on and she said she didn’t want any commitment. Of course I hadn’t asked about that and I said that was fine, but I also told her that I all the talking and relating without sex was basically the same — in my view as a man — as if I went over to her house, fucked her, got my things and left.

    She was baffled and I took my ball (friendship) and went home.

  • someguy

    Perhaps a guy has to have a lot of genuine female friendships to be able to enjoy a hot female friend WITHOUT it being a problem.

  • Höllenhund

    “It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out he’d become a serial killer.”

    Way to go completely overboard, Ms. Walsh.

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

      Way to go completely overboard, Ms. Walsh.

      Yes, I admit it. It’s just that I completely understand the women recoiling in disgust. Just watching him triggered my fight or flight response. That is not an exaggeration.

  • someguy

    Susan, it’s like a female strategy executed by a man. Therein lies part of the problem?

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

      Susan, it’s like a female strategy executed by a man. Therein lies part of the problem?

      Yes, I think that’s it. In a situation like this, I’m identifying with the man as if he were a woman. Gotta watch out for that.

  • 108spirits

    At this rate, failure to create gina tingles will soon be a crime. Line on the left, one cross each for the losers.

  • Höllenhund

    As FB said: when making women’s ginas tingle is outlawed, only outlaws will make women’s ginas tingle.

  • Workshy Joe

    Its a great cartoon because the Nice Guy (TM) clearly doesn’t understand how women become attracted to their partners.

    Kindness and friendliness don’t do jack in terms of attraction. They are only useful once the attraction criteria have already been met.

    Women are looking for a combination of biological fitness (usually judged in terms of good looks) and psychosocial dominance (aka “Game”).

  • VD

    It’s not at all hard to get out of the Friend Zone. There is 100 percent sure-fire way to get a woman homing in on you like a laser-guided Hellfire missile. Just nail her most attractive girlfriend who she considers to be less attractive than she is while simultaneously maintaining your friendship with her. The key is to never fight her instincts, but flow with them instead.

    Learn to flow like water, grasshoppers.

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

      It’s not at all hard to get out of the Friend Zone. There is 100 percent sure-fire way to get a woman homing in on you like a laser-guided Hellfire missile. Just nail her most attractive girlfriend who she considers to be less attractive than she is while simultaneously maintaining your friendship with her. The key is to never fight her instincts, but flow with them instead.

      I’ve been thinking about VD’s new blog while reading this thread – I think it would appeal to many of the men here. I find it extremely compelling reading, as VD has a good representative sample of male writers from throughout the sociosexual hierarchy. Check it out here: Alpha Game

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

        There’s a ton of good stuff in this thread, from my perspective. Meaning lots of things for me to think about, and good fodder for future posts. :)

        I’m particularly intrigued by the idea of what differentiates a creep (repulsive) from a sociopath (sexy). Women will claim that creeps are sociopaths, and sociopaths are creeps but they sleep with one and not the other. It’s not just dominance, as Keoni’s video demonstrates. There’s some kind of energy at work here. Not sure, but welcome any thoughts on this.

        Reading the comment again, I guess I can see why people might feel that nice guy was being manipulative, but honestly, I just didn’t read it that way. The comic, Randall Munroe, is a former NASA roboticist who now makes his living from xkcd. He’s a cute geek: Randall Munroe

        I think we can safely say he is on the side of nice guy here, and the nice guy dilemma. I highly doubt he intends to present nice guy as manipulative. Rather, he’s clueless, and RM himself may have been (or still is?).

  • Wayfinder

    Since others have covered its pervasiveness, I’ll just point out that there are two exceptions to “your guy friend wants to have sex with you.”
    .
    1. He doesn’t find her attractive. Maybe he has no sexual feelings towards her at all. Though I think this is a narrower category than most women realize. Being completely unattractive is not how most women want to think of themselves, and most men have very wide ranges on appearance and age.
    .
    2. He thinks of her as off limits. Maybe he’s in a relationship. Maybe she’s in a relationship that he doesn’t want to break up. Maybe she’s married. Maybe he sees her as too old or too young for him. Maybe he doesn’t want to deal with the drama. Maybe he’s too shy. Maybe he desires sex but doesn’t think a relationship would be a good idea, so he never acts on it.
    .
    There are a lot of reasons a man won’t act on sexual desire, but that doesn’t mean that he isn’t attracted to her.
    .
    This is probably where Stephanie is at, which might be what’s confusing her. Since she is a married women, most men won’t ever act on their sexual attraction to her, and her husband, if he is worth the name, has trained himself to refocus his sexual attraction on her. Which fits with those brief impulses she mentions him saying. It’s perfectly possible for a married man to feel brief attraction but never act on it, but every man will still have those brief moments of feeling.

  • Mike C

    Kindness and friendliness don’t do jack in terms of attraction. They are only useful once the attraction criteria have already been met.
    .
    Well stated. This is exactly it. I’m still surprised by how much the perception is that “nice guy” is trying to “manipulate” into a sexual/romantic relationship. He just thinks the way to get that is be kind, generous, friendly, shoulder to cry on, etc. not realizing that stuff has ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH with making a woman be interested romantically/sexually.
    .
    What I don’t get is why some of the rom-coms still try to sell the notion that in the end the girl realizes what a great guy the “nice guy” is and goes for him. Again, the problem is that a lot of guys buy into this nonsense.

  • Wayfinder

    What I don’t get is why some of the rom-coms still try to sell the notion that in the end the girl realizes what a great guy the “nice guy” is and goes for him. Again, the problem is that a lot of guys buy into this nonsense.

    .
    A shocking amount of advice from mothers is exactly along these lines. The really nasty thing is when the girls buy into this, and demand friendship first while simultaneously rejecting nice-guys because they’re too creepy. It mostly happens in religious/moral circles where they both have been brought up to avoid any appearance of sexual expression at all.
    .
    Both sexes would be served if they all had a better understanding of how attraction works, contra the occasional comments here about it being better to be in ignorance than to talk about Game.

  • GudEnuf

    Mike C: No offense to GudEnuf, but if you are trying to understand how the typical guy thinks, I would pretty much ignore 99% of what he says. IIRC, for quite awhile there was an open question whether he was a guy or girl, and I think he has pretty much allowed feminist ideology to confuse natural male thoughts.

    Wtf? Who thought I was a woman?

    This supposed “red pill” assertion that men never want to be platonic friends with women is just another self-serving delusion. Men who only want women for sex want to see themselves as normal, and other men who have platonic friendgirls challenge his normalcy. So to protect his delusion of normalcy, the man rationalizes: “I bet he’s only pretending to be her friend for sex”. No evidence can falsify this delusion, so a man can pretend he’s normal for life.

  • GudEnuf

    From Susan’s blogroll:

    Regardless of if you’re in the friend zone or not, if you are a genuinely attractive guy, and not a guy that just puts up an attractive façade, these women will become attracted to you and find a way to let you know it. The friend zone is only bad if you aren’t genuinely attractive, otherwise, it will work to your advantage with each and every girl that you meet.

    Friend zone or not, women will want to sleep with an attractive man. If a man can’t break out of the friend zone, that his fault, not the friend zone’s.

  • SayWhaat

    @ VD:

    Just nail her most attractive girlfriend who she considers to be less attractive than she is while simultaneously maintaining your friendship with her.

    Ha. Good luck. She’ll just be happy that her less attractive girlfriend has finally found someone to love.

  • SayWhaat

    The female idea of being “in love” appears to comprise “he gives me tingles.” Whereas a man in love wants to give a woman material and emotional resources. It appears female love is more shallow than male love

    It seems that the male rationalization hamster seeks to constantly find ways to belittle the female sex.
    .
    A woman in love wants to give a man everything she’s got (sex included). If she’s not in love, by and large she won’t want to give in. Women suffer worse one-itis than men do in that she can’t think of fucking a dude if she’s not into him. And you’re calling that shallow?

  • GudEnuf

    Susan: I’ve been thinking about VD’s new blog while reading this thread – I think it would appeal to many of the men here. I find it extremely compelling reading, as VD has a good representative sample of male writers from throughout the sociosexual hierarchy. Check it out here: Alpha Game

    Stay away from it if you have any feminist sensibilities. Which I’m guessing comes of to some of you as an endorsement.

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

      @GudEnuf

      Stay away from it if you have any feminist sensibilities. Which I’m guessing comes of to some of you as an endorsement.

      This is where the gender confusion comes from. Of course a male can be a feminist, but there’s you, Hugo Schwyzer, Tom from Yes Means Yes and…..that’s all I can think of.

  • blogster

    Way to go completely overboard, Ms. Walsh.

    Yes, I admit it. It’s just that I completely understand the women recoiling in disgust. Just watching him triggered my fight or flight response. That is not an exaggeration./blockquote>

    Susan, when I watched that video I was wondering about that – the women’s reaction is quite visible and instantaneous – a complete 180 from their initial impression literally three seconds before.

    In your opinion, what is causing this gut reaction? An idea I had was that, at a deeper level they felt angered at the guy for ‘tricking’ them into thinking he was alpha, when in reality he was not. Their initial reaction indicated the tingle, they felt a cool alpha presence walk into the room – and then he opened his mouth and removed all doubt.

    Does it all come down to the fear of handing over their genes to someone who appears alpha but is actually beta(omega)?

  • blogster

    My above comment shows I’m still mastering HTML…

    Susan, when I watched that video I was wondering about that – the women’s reaction is quite visible and instantaneous – a complete 180 from their initial impression literally three seconds before.

    In your opinion, what is causing this gut reaction? An idea I had was that, at a deeper level they felt angered at the guy for ‘tricking’ them into thinking he was alpha, when in reality he was not. Their initial reaction indicated the tingle, they felt a cool alpha presence walk into the room – and then he opened his mouth and removed all doubt.

    Does it all come down to the fear of handing over their genes to someone who appears alpha but is actually beta(omega)?

  • Höllenhund

    creep = no social skills
    psychopath = no sense of empathy

    That’s the difference.

  • Mike C

    I’m particularly intrigued by the idea of what differentiates a creep (repulsive) from a sociopath (sexy). Women will claim that creeps are sociopaths, and sociopaths are creeps but they sleep with one and not the other. It’s not just dominance, as Keoni’s video demonstrates. There’s some kind of energy at work here. Not sure, but welcome any thoughts on this.
    .
    I’ve got no answers but this intrigues me as well. Here’s the thing. Many of the men that will register as “creepy” are actually most likely harmless and pose no real threat. They are just really awkward. In contrast, the sociopath poses real physical danger and often goes totally unnoticed on many female radar screens.,
    .
    Two examples. Take Ted Bundy and Scott Peterson. They were both known to be very charming with women. I believe Ted Bundy was known as a ladies man. So the real serial killers go undetected while some guy (the American Idol segment) gives off a “serial killer” vibe and he is probably just some harmless, awkward, socially inept doofus. Not sure what that means.

  • Mike C

    Susan, when I watched that video I was wondering about that – the women’s reaction is quite visible and instantaneous – a complete 180 from their initial impression literally three seconds before.
    In your opinion, what is causing this gut reaction?

    .
    Fascinating, isn’t it?
    .
    Just goes to show how unimportant physical looks are for women. Might open the door for a split second, but displaying the wrong personality characteristics and that door gets violently slammed shut. Actually, the door gets ripped off the hinges and then you get beaten with the door. :)
    .
    It’s funny because men are so different. Take a hot girl, and have her open her mouth and be the bitchiest, most inept, idiotic person possible and she is STILL HOT. We are just not going to feel that visceral repulsion at the thought of being sexually involved with her. We will still want that. For women, a guy can go from an 8-9 in physical attraction to a 2-3 in sexual attraction in 10 seconds if he acts, says, and does all the wrong things.

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

    I have very much appreciated the comments of Badger, Hollenhund, Rum & Mike C on this article, they said almost everything I would have wanted to say. Thanks guys. I found Stephanie’s remarks early on pretty mean-spirited & wrong-footed, projecting female fears onto the intentions of men. But I was impressed with the work she did later on to try understand other peoples points of view. What a great bunch of commentators.
    And I love this quote:
    “Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.” That almost explains evrything about this whole thread, i think.

    Oh & by the way, I’ve been reading HUS for quite a while & I was sure GoodEnuf was a woman, too(!) Oops :)

  • Passer_By

    The one characterized as creep cares enough about your perception of him to be nervous about it and, consequently, appear awkward and uncomfortable. If he’s the rare version of this who is weird enough, this is the kind of guy who can go “postal”, but not likely.

    The sociopath serial killer type, on the other hand, does not care (in the emotional sense) what you think of him, so he can be completely calculating and will appear completely self assured and natural. He’ll seem like your dream finally come true right up until the time you realize he is about to cut you into little pieces. Thankfully, these types are almost certainly far more rare than we are led to believe by TV and movies.

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

      @Passer By, @blogster

      Re the difference between creep and sociopath being one of confidence: that makes total sense, I think that’s usually the way it works. But not always. Keoni’s American Idol video had such an impact precisely because it unfolded in such a suprising way. The guy walks in, strutting, brooding, and he immediately sends out vibes that he’s a little unhinged, even though he is very confident. In fact, he’s too confident – he starts giving Simon a bunch of crap. Maybe it’s that a display of low emotional intelligence, even in someone very confident, is a red flag – they are not what they seem to be. Maybe the women did feel deceived, but my sense is that the reaction is more primal than that – this is a foe. His anger was not justified, was in fact way out of whack, so it generated fear in the women.

  • Confidunce

    This isn’t a judgmental comic. Speaking as a guy who employed this strategy to hook up with his now-ex-wife, the point of the message is that the beta strategy of “attracting” a girl without being attractive to her is doomed to fail. The hilarity is in the express narration. And btw, it’s funny because it’s true.

    There’s no one being “manipulative” here. The people’s motivations here are sincere — just ill-guided. Y’all are too quick to cast aspersions.

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

      @Confidunce
      Hey, welcome, I’ve seen you around Alpha Game ;)
      I agree about the comic, including where the humor comes in. I find it fascinating that this comic has provoked such serious debate and so many different interpretations. It clearly has to do with the frame of reference, or baggage, each of us brings to the reading of it.

  • blogster

    It’s funny because men are so different. Take a hot girl, and have her open her mouth and be the bitchiest, most inept, idiotic person possible and she is STILL HOT. We are just not going to feel that visceral repulsion at the thought of being sexually involved with her.

    True Mike C. I think what the commentary in this blog has highlighted for me is that generally, men and women experience this sexual attraction equation differently. In a simplistic sense, if pure sexual attraction (y) equals physical attraction (a) + ‘other factors’ (social dominance, intelligence, personality etc)(‘b’), the male equation would have an overwhelming weighting on a, while the female equation would have the stronger weighting on b. The female sexual attraction equation tends to extrapolate further into the future in a biological sense (cues for social dominance, ability to protect and support offspring, comfort and safety etc.)while the male equation is more focused on the here and now (deposit seed in fertile soil and move on to next patch of fertile ground).

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

      @blogster

      In a simplistic sense, if pure sexual attraction (y) equals physical attraction (a) + ‘other factors’ (social dominance, intelligence, personality etc)(‘b’), the male equation would have an overwhelming weighting on a, while the female equation would have the stronger weighting on b.

      Yes, but I would add one other thing. Men will perceive a woman as hot or not, and there will be at least some variance among them re individual women. They won’t go for a woman they don’t feel attracted to initially just because other guys do, i.e. pre-selection is not much of a factor. Women, on the other hand, put a lot of weight on B, but the perceived total value of B is determined by consensus, at least implicitly. Those “fitness” cues are generally interpreted the same way across the female population. And a woman can start feeling attracted to a guy just because someone else does. This is why so many women try to get a guy back after they’ve broken his heart. I did this myself in college after I dumped my bf and all my sorority sisters fought with each other to invite him to the formal. (It worked but it took me nine months, and then after I won him back he quickly lost his allure again. Please don’t hold this against me.)

  • Scipio Africanus

    Daran at Feminist Critics once said “Nice GuyTMs and nice guys are the exact same guys – the latter have just learned to shut up about it.”

    The real issue here is that many women don’t want to be made to feel uncomfortable about how their orbiters really feel and the pain those guys suffer with. Nice GuyTMs cross that line, so the Nice GuyTM meme has emerged in the last 5 years or so as a silencing technique. The point of the meme is to get these guys to stop rocking these women’s emotional boats – just shut up about it, basically.

  • Hope

    Physical attractiveness in men is a proxy for good sexy genes. There’s a reason for the phrase “tall, buff and handsome” rather than “short, skinny and ugly.” A handsome face indicates higher testosterone levels, larger jaw, more prominent forehead and looking more masculine. Women also experience more orgasms with more symmetrical men. Not sure how they did that study, but it was done.

    The fact that such men are also usually confident and good with women is a biproduct of how women often treat them. They have a flock of the most extroverted women after them from puberty onward. Sure, the less attractive guys (6-8) get less attention, but it isn’t like they get no attention whatsoever. It’s just that the kind of girls who do approach tend not to go after them first.
    All you guys claiming that women experience no physical attraction are wrong. You aren’t female and have no concept of that ovulation phase daze when you get a whiff of high testosterone. It’s similar to what guys describe in the presence of super beautiful women. My husband is 6′ tall and muscular, with a symmetrical face and body. Of course I love him for tons of other reasons, but there’s a definite physical component in the equation. During that time of the month he suddenly seems ten times sexier and smells downright amazing.

    Ever wonder why women like confidence and dominance? Confidence and dominance are biproduct of higher testosterone levels, which is a huge indicator of male fitness. Likewise submissiveness, hourglass body and feminine/pretty face are expressions of higher than average estrogen levels, an indicator of female health, fertility and fitness. Don’t dismiss the male part of biology when talking about attractiveness.

    And finally, biology is not constant. Just changing your posture to a more dominant one increases testosterone levels. Likewise with getting a promotion, doing leadership activities and working out in a gym. So men who learn to be confident and dominant are changing to be more masculine and therefore attractive. They might not have the height or the looks, but biologically speaking women primarily and instinctively respond to the testosterone. We can practically smell it, and some scientists say we can (t-shirt sweat studies).

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

      biologically speaking women primarily and instinctively respond to the testosterone. We can practically smell it, and some scientists say we can (t-shirt sweat studies).

      There’s also a lot of testosterone in male saliva, and it is believed that kissing evolved as a way for women to measure it.

  • Hope

    There are other very subtle forces going on in mate selection. You should also understand the stuff that shape your psyche, because the brain is also a major sex organ and produces a cocktail of neurochemicals to change sexual response. For example in studies to treat women who have sexual dysfunction, inert placebo pills worked equally well as the experimental medication.

    This is possibly why girls like Stephenie have zero attraction for a close guy friend after he’s been “friendzoned,” while girls like me get pesky crushes on close guy friends all the time. It’s a very real psychological difference that can’t be changed, although it can be consciously worked with, similar to introverted and extroverted personalities.

    There are early models of interaction that we learn from family, society and culture. In Asian cultures friendship between adult men and women is nonexistent. Little girls and boys from an early age do not play together, do not talk to each other much, and are segregated even in integrated classrooms. I can remember conversations with boys from elementary school because it was such an unusual event. Clearly that’s different from American culture, where the stereotype is little boys tease and tug on girls’ ponytails. In Asia girls and boys never touch, never hug, and never kiss in public or risk great humiliation. In Japanese anime/manga the big story is how friendship between young men and women inevitably blossom into romance.

    I theorize that this is why lots of white male nerds go for Asian girls, many of whom are immigrants. The default shy nerd courtship ritual of being the nice friend works on fresh off the boat Asian girls, who are not used to interacting on such a level with guys, and fall for the “forward and dominant” white nerdy guy! The white nerdy guy’s default mode is to go into a friendship with girls because that’s what he learned from an early age, when getting close to another little girl involved being a friend, and the adults reinforced this with playdates and gushing over how cute it is to have girls and boys play together. The thing many people don’t remember, or don’t want to remember, is that sexual imprinting begins VERY early. I had crushes on boys when I was in kindergarten. Sexual identity does not happen all at once during puberty.

    I grew up in the US from the age of 10 onward — but the foreign foundation was already there. One cannot underestimate the power of cultural differences, nor how early these cues are laid into our subconscious minds. My husband is a white nerdy guy who, despite his handsome looks, had never been in a real LTR before me. When I showed him the xkcd comic last night, he laughed and said, “Yep that’s basically the story of my love life until you.”

  • Chico

    The reaction of the female judges to that guy on American Idol was shocking. Sure, the guy was a bit awkward and said some stupid things to say the least. But rather than just keeping it at that, she made a wholesale judgement about him as a person, who she got to meet for about 15 seconds. “How DARE you destroy my tingle”. Really eye opening.

    And wtf is up with her asking him if he’s ever had a girlfriend? Totally uncalled for. It reminds me of a couple situations where a couple of giggling girls asked me if I was still a virgin (in my late teens/early 20s). I normally don’t advocate hitting a woman, but that kind of stuff brings out the rage inside of me. COMPLETELY unacceptable.

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

      @Chico
      I totally disagree with you about that guy auditioning. He gave off a vibe of simmering rage. First off, he was beyond pissed that he had waited 3 hours for an audition on American Idol. The judge was correct when she said wtf, people wait years for this opportunity. He was confrontational, even combative, and I don’t think that’s hyperbole. He demanded an explanation from the judges. Then when he was dismissed he got a bit fawning, which was obviously insincere and obnoxious.

      Her asking him if he’d ever had a gf is not the same here as if he were some earnest geeky guy. He is really good looking, but so unpleasant, she was basically pointing out that no sane woman would seek his company. I think she said that after he made it clear he had no idea why they found him unpleasant. He had zero self-awareness – he came out saying the guys had liked him, and couldn’t figure out what was wrong with the women. That’s why I said he had very low social intelligence.

      If my daughter brought that guy home I would have a heart attack three seconds after he opened his mouth.

  • SayWhaat

    I theorize that this is why lots of white male nerds go for Asian girls, many of whom are immigrants. The default shy nerd courtship ritual of being the nice friend works on fresh off the boat Asian girls, who are not used to interacting on such a level with guys, and fall for the “forward and dominant” white nerdy guy!

    Haha, I’ll second this. I was born and brought up in the US but culturally I was taught to maintain distance from boys at an early age. Perhaps this is why I view friendship as a possible springboard for romance as well.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “What I don’t get is why some of the rom-coms still try to sell the notion that in the end the girl realizes what a great guy the “nice guy” is and goes for him. Again, the problem is that a lot of guys buy into this nonsense.”
    .
    Roissy had a great post on this a long time ago where he said that women project themselves onto rom com protagonists, regardless of their gender. This explains why they aren’t disgusted by beta men in rom com leads – they see them as crypto-women (not sure what this says about Mrs Doubtfire). In this sort of plot, women can project onto both characters at once: the woman who finds the perfect man right under her nose, and the pining beta who ingratiates himself into the woman’s heart.
    .
    The core message of this thread appears to be that women HATE betas.

  • Hope

    @SayWhaat, agreed. The more I think about it, the more I think the old cultural taboo against young boys and girls interacting is the key to this puzzle. In America the emphasis is not only on “equality” between the sexes but pretending boys and girls are interchangeable, so mingling them together and having them be buddy buddy friends is cool.

    It’s not cool. After feminism, many boys are raised like girls and girls raised like boys. It also meant tons of confusion and heartache as culture clashed against biology. I can be almost sure that the great-grandparents of Americans did not play with the opposite sex as little kids and didn’t believe in the “men and women can be just friends” stuff. It simply defies thousands of years of tradition… for some idea that males and females are the “same.”

    Also on the subject of “creepy” guys, a guy being socially awkward and shy or even stuttering when talking to a girl is seen as cute and adorable in Asian culture, because he is not used to talking to a girl, which is normal and a sign that he would be a good marriage material. I bet SayWhaat also likes guys who are a bit awkward and nerdy, and prefers them to be nice and friendly as opposed to jerky and mean.

    This is plain and simple cultural psychology and imprinting from early age. Just as boys and girls who are raised together too closely see each other as siblings and develop no sexual attraction and get the “eww” feeling even thinking about it, having boys and girls grow up together so closely as “friends” and being taught they are the “same” and “equal,” and constantly being in close, friendly contact with each other, makes the sexual attraction approach nil.

    So the stereotype that girls from Catholic all-girl schools and foreign women are “easier” to attract is not entirely unfounded. They aren’t used to being around guys a lot, and so when a guys is constantly around (“friend”) he is seen as ultra attractive. The critical psychological development period is earlier than puberty. During this time girls and boys should not be shoved together but should be separate.

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

      This is plain and simple cultural psychology and imprinting from early age. Just as boys and girls who are raised together too closely see each other as siblings and develop no sexual attraction and get the “eww” feeling even thinking about it, having boys and girls grow up together so closely as “friends” and being taught they are the “same” and “equal,” and constantly being in close, friendly contact with each other, makes the sexual attraction approach nil.

      Great insight here.

  • Mike C

    The core message of this thread appears to be that women HATE betas.

    Well….HATE might be too strong a word and ascribe a sort of deliberate malice that isn’t there. I think what we are seeing is that there is visceral repulsion to the idea of thinking of betas in sexual terms (and I thinking really weak beta almost omega types). I think the one commenter may be onto something that the “hate” feeling comes in when they feel like they’ve been “tricked” in thinking a guy is a sexual option and then he does something to remove that entirely and they are thinkinig “Oh shit, I might have accidently fucked that guy”. I’m not entirely sure what the specifics of the dynamic are, but this thread has been enlightening in seeing just how much womn basically don’t see some guys as sexual options AT ALL. I kind of knew that already, but we are really getting it firsthand here.
    .
    Here is the thing though. I’m not going to assign blame. We have inclinations based on tens of thousands of years of biological programming so how you can really fault that? To be truthful, where I get really irked is just that we get these elaborate defenses of female sexuality, female sexual proclivities and tendencies, but again guys are demonized for how biology has programmed us. Again, to give an example I’d say the two primary drivers of male tendencies are variety and youth. Now obviously, that isn’t conducive to a modern functioning society, but if a 30-40 year old guy candidly admits that the natural drive would be to have numerous 18-22 year olds, then he is going to be labeled as “sick” or something when it is simply natural programming.
    .
    So women have likely been programmed to have a strong aversion to “weak” men. Biology had them set to be the worker bees and resource providers, not gene providers. I’m not sure it makes any sense to ascribe any malicious intent.

  • Mike C

    This is plain and simple cultural psychology and imprinting from early age.  Just as boys and girls who are raised together too closely see each other as siblings and develop no sexual attraction and get the “eww” feeling even thinking about it, having boys and girls grow up together so closely as “friends” and being taught they are the “same” and “equal,” and constantly being in close, friendly contact with each other, makes the sexual attraction approach nil.

    So the stereotype that girls from Catholic all-girl schools and foreign women are “easier” to attract is not entirely unfounded.  They aren’t used to being around guys a lot, and so when a guys is constantly around (“friend”) he is seen as ultra attractive.  The critical psychological development period is earlier than puberty.  During this time girls and boys should not be shoved together but should be separate.
    .
    Very interesting hypothesis. You may be on to something here.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “I theorize that this is why lots of white male nerds go for Asian girls”
    .
    Boy, does this open a can of worms! Interesting to hear the Asian/South Asian perspective, because in my experience hell hath no fury like spoiled white princesses who have seen men in their “league” date Asian women. The shaming and projection is mindblowing, not to mention lots of racism about how Asian women are submissive and unchallenging and all the rest of it. Not to mention accusations of fetishism and “they can’t get white girls.” I’m sure you’ve heard it all before.
    .
    It’s a big crock of horseshit. It just shows the white girls’ complete lack of understanding of what men want and what makes them comfortable in relationships.

  • SayWhaat

    The core message of this thread appears to be that women HATE betas.

    Women hate betas who:

    1) blame ALL of womenkind for ignoring them, when they haven’t even indicated their interest
    2) blame women for failing to recognize this interest (it’s hard enough to recognize sometimes when a guy we like is reciprocating, what makes you think it’ll be any easier for a guy who won’t even tell us what’s up?)
    3) blame women for falling for assholes, without recognizing that their behavior is asshole-ish in itself (“I deserve to have a woman after all this work of being a “nice guy” just so I can get some poon.”)
    4) ruin the friendship we had with you because we can’t reciprocate your feelings*

    .

    *This one goes both ways. From a woman’s POV, though, we hate being saddled with a guy’s feelings when we know we absolutely can’t reciprocate. We feel like a bad person for letting that other person down (and it does suck – I agonized for a long time about letting down a male friend of mine when he confessed his feelings for me, and our friendship was tepid at best. However, I seriously empathized with him. I’d always been LJBF’d before, being on the other side of things was a new experience for me).
    .
    Women can view men in platonic friendships, but straight men can’t do the same for women (that they are attracted to). It’s a fundamental difference between the sexes, and the sooner everyone understands that the better off we’ll all be.

  • SayWhaat

    I bet SayWhaat also likes guys who are a bit awkward and nerdy, and prefers them to be nice and friendly as opposed to jerky and mean.

    Yup. I think friendly, nerdy guys are adorable. :)
    .
    Also: nerdy guys who are passionate about whatever it is that makes them a nerd? HOT.

  • OffTheCuff

    Steph:

    I asked because you guys clearly had said many times that wanting to bang a woman is not the same than wanting them for a relationship. How come I’m in the wrong now for asking how different is?

    Different scenario. The sexually successful guy who just wants sex, probably already has a girlfriend, wife, or harem. This comic is a different topic. This guy DOES NOT have a girlfriend. He is IN LOVE with the woman. He want to be her girlfriend and would wait months to have sex, which is proven by his willingness to be friends for as long as it takes for her to develop feelings for him.

    I see guys that don’t show sexual interests as…guys with no sexual interest. It is that so hard to understand?

    Without education from succesful MEN, men are told repeatedly from birth that showing overt sexual interest is “creepy” at best, illegal at worst. Showing it is bad in all forms, and so we do our best to avoid it, not realizing that it’s precisely what will cause us to fail. This is what the culture and women tell us.

    Steph, usually your comments are quite fair, but on this thread you seem to really be off the mark in understanding men’s motives. I hope the other guys strike a chord and you can tell the difference between a love-struck man with one-its, no girlfriend, and no education how to build attraction vs. a player that has women at his disposal wants to use women for sex. You seem quite confused. However, I
    applaud your for REALLY trying. Few women do. I hope you can see the light!

    How many times had I said that my husband is what you describe a Beta and I married him how can I hate him? Again you are interpreting no sexual interest=hate. Not the same thing, for us women at least.

    Your husband isn’t beta to you. Women who fall in love with a beta promote him, but still feel that cold indifference to others exactly like him. You love your beta husband, but cannot seem empathize with guys who are exactly like him. That’s what Roissy means when he says “Women hate betas”. Not that they can’t love A beta, but taken as a whole, the mass of beta men deserve no empathy.

    I was under the delusion that men can value female company with no sex involved in the same way we do it

    You’re downgrading “friend” to “valuing female company”. I do remember some female friends in college, that I enjoyed their company, but really didn’t have any sexual interest. I liked them as people, I would talk to them at parties even though they were very heavy, and we’d work on homework together. They were really acquaintances, though, not people I talked to every day, or spent extended amounts of one-on-one time with.

    Lastly, the explicit narrative going on in the man’s head is not to show evil manipulation. The character isn’t self-aware of those reasons or feelings, he’s doing what he think is right from the way he was raised.

    For a comic, it would be pretty unfunny for these subconscious desires to not be written out in words. Otherwise, the guy would just have no explicit thoughts other than “I LOVE YOU” and it wouldn’t make any sense. Randall is writing this from the perspective of a reformed beta; he can look back and see what he did wrong. That future wisdom is grafted onto the character’s current thoughts, and is what makes it so funny.

  • Mike C

    And wtf is up with her asking him if he’s ever had a girlfriend? Totally uncalled for. It reminds me of a couple situations where a couple of giggling girls asked me if I was still a virgin (in my late teens/early 20s). I normally don’t advocate hitting a woman, but that kind of stuff brings out the rage inside of me. COMPLETELY unacceptable.
    .
    Yeah….I’m not sure if this is something women are taught, figure out instinctively amongst each other as teenagers, or just instinctively know but to go after a guys’ lack of dating/sexual success really is a “go for the jugular” type maneuver. Most guys who are very unsuccessful with women are deeply embarrassed and ashamed of it, and it is something that eats them up every single day of their lives. I know because that was me from about 16-22. It was literally something I thought about every single day and a massive source of pain and angst so this really is the stab the knife in, twist it, and eviscerate the internal organs verbal maneuver. And it is quite common. One of the most common rejoinders you’ll see from women in these dating/mating/sex discussions is “You’re just a loser who can’t get laid”.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Say Whaat,
    .
    “2) blame women for failing to recognize this interest (it’s hard enough to recognize sometimes when a guy we like is reciprocating, what makes you think it’ll be any easier for a guy who won’t even tell us what’s up?)
    4) ruin the friendship we had with you because we can’t reciprocate your feelings*”
    .
    I’m cool with most of your comment, but these items contradict each other. You want a guy to be forward about his interest, but if being forward about his interest means you can’t be friends anymore, you want him to keep his interest under wraps.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Yup. I think friendly, nerdy guys are adorable. ”
    .
    Bless your heart!

  • SayWhaat

    Interesting to hear the Asian/South Asian perspective, because in my experience hell hath no fury like spoiled white princesses who have seen men in their “league” date Asian women.

    I don’t hang out with spoiled white princesses, so I wouldn’t know about this. :)

  • Scipio Africanus

    “when they feel like they’ve been “tricked” in thinking a guy is a sexual option and then he does something to remove that entirely and they are thinkinig “Oh shit, I might have accidently fucked that guy”.”

    This is why so many feminists despise and hate Game. They think alpha-betaness is immutable, and that something like Game only conceals a man’s true betaness, which is the type of covering-over no woman would ever want to be folled by. Of course this is mostly on an intuitive level in their brains, or even subconscious – most of them still don’t have the vocabulary we use to discuss most of this.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Hope is onto something with the gender separation idea. That’s been a low-lying theory in the manosphere for a while, that men and women have lost the sense of wonder for each other by being thrown together at a young age.
    .
    Specifically, I think cross-gender pooling at a young age confuses gender roles. Not in a “who cooks and who goes to work” way but in the sense that male and female social groups operate very differently, and status is assigned and arguments settled in different ways, and throwing kids together before they have a well-formed social calculus can damage their ability to play by the right rules in the right situations.
    .
    “gushing over how cute it is to have girls and boys play together”
    .
    I think it is a disturbing sign of our female-oriented parenting ideals in this country that people think it’s cute when little boys act like little girls. I’m not saying it’s going to make a kid grow up gay, but he might never succeed with women, which is schematically the same thing.

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

      Re the effect of boys and girls growing up close, a field report:

      Had lunch today with Sara, a 21 yo woman I’ve known a very long time. Her only close guy friend Sam is 22, and they met in second grade. Through middle school, high school and college they remained close friends. In high school he asked her if she was gay because she never hooked up with any guys. She is not. He is extremely good looking, and has had several girlfriends, though he has spent plenty of time single too. When he was a freshman in college he told her his number was 48. (I wrote a post about these two a while back, when she told me that she could never go for him because of this – she has little sexual experience and says she is repelled by man whores.)

      Sometimes he suggests what she calls “fake dinner dates” – they go out to grab a bite somewhere pretty nice, and he refuses to let her pay. At these times she feels that there is some sexual tension in the air, but neither has ever addressed it and he’s never made a move. Now they’re preparing to graduate from college, they’ll both be returning to the same city, and he has been increasing contact all year – texting, phoning, “thinking of you” etc. But no declaration of feeling. She has been feeling some attraction to him, wondering if they might make a good couple (despite/because of? his number), but quite nervous about taking this into new territory. She thought he might be wrestling with the same thoughts.

      The other night they were both home for spring break and met up with friends out at a restaurant/bar. The evening started off well but then he proceeded to get extremely drunk, and wound up trying to manhandle her in front of everyone – “I just wanna touch you! You are the hottest! You are the mother of my children,” etc. She was embarrassed and horrified, and wishes she could turn the clock back. She says that this weakness, this failure to be honest, relying on alcohol and acting like a tool, made her disrespect him.

      “It’s never going to happen. I don’t know what I was thinking. I really don’t like his pheromones.”

      Even the players are clueless sometimes.

  • SayWhaat

    I’m cool with most of your comment, but these items contradict each other. You want a guy to be forward about his interest, but if being forward about his interest means you can’t be friends anymore, you want him to keep his interest under wraps.

    Yeah, I can see the confusion. *sigh* I think it just depends on the guy, and the amount of time you spend with him. I had a guy friend who had a crush on me, and I didn’t find out until years later. It wouldn’t have made a difference – I did not consider him attractive, much less relationship material (he proved me right on that count when he dated another one of my girlfriends and badmouthed her behind her back after they broke up, even to this day).
    .
    On the other hand, I had a friend who I’d started to spend considerable time with, and when he made his move I rebuffed him at first (for two reasons: A. I wasn’t expecting it, and B. I was still nursing my wounds from another guy). BUT then I fell for him.
    .
    IDK. It’s not a science. I think you were spot-on when you talked about how you removed yourself from your one-itis case’s life. You have to force her to evaluate you in a different light, if you want more than friendship. If she still doesn’t view you differently, it’s a lost cause. FIDO. But women will always appreciate the courage it takes for a guy to admit his feelings for her. I think that’s constant, at least.

  • OffTheCuff

    BTW, excellent discussion thread. This topic touches on some nerves, huh?

    One of the most common rejoinders you’ll see from women in these dating/mating/sex discussions is “You’re just a loser who can’t get laid”.

    Indeed. There are are many permutations. What’s telling is even the most sympathetic, rational women do this. Aldonza twisted the knife a day or two ago with something akin to “You’re only complaining because you’re not in the 20%”. That’s as close to “You’re just a loser who can’t get laid” as possible. The go-for-the-loser’s-jugular must be a very deeply embedded female psychological impulse.

  • SayWhaat

    The go-for-the-loser’s-jugular must be a very deeply embedded female psychological impulse.

    If it makes you feel better, women do it to each other more, and far worse than they do to guys. Mean Girls are awful. :(

  • Hope

    @Mike C, “if a 30- 40 year old guy candidly admits that the natural drive would be to have numerous 18- 22 year olds, then he is going to be labeled as “ sick” or something when it is simply natural programming.”

    You’d get a “that happens” reaction in Japan, where high school girls mostly younger than 18 date 30-40 year old business men, and it happens enough there’s a special phrase for it. They also used to sell underwear worn by young girls in vending machines. Not kidding. It’s been joked that Asian women often look so young because otherwise no Asian man would want them. Long-term mate selection pressure, quite possibly.

    I was taught from a young age about men’s proclivity toward youth, beauty and variety. I was told that I was too fat and ugly, and my waist was too thick. I was told that men want young virgins as wives (I wasn’t even hitting puberty yet). I was told that men like to cheat and have mistresses, and to find a man who doesn’t do these things. When my husband briefly considered teaching high school or becoming a professor, I was scared and jealous that he might go for a younger prettier girl down the line, because of all that I had internalized from my upbringing.

    So it’s not that women would never acknowledge these things. I was told all of these by women, my own relatives and my mother. Once again, it’s about the culture. They hear these things from the society around them, from their female friends, from literature and history, and they pass it on because it is de facto knowledge.

    @Badger, yeah I’ve heard all of that before. Some of it is true. Asian girls often are more submissive because culturally speaking it is the standard. Women were considered inferior and expected to bow to men, service men, and follow the male lead. Female babies are abandoned, and male babies are favored. Not all of this is good, by the way, and I think it could explain another part of the attraction to white men, who have a reputation for treating women well. Besides that, not all Asian women are naturally submissive. The stereotype of the Chinese dragon lady exists for a reason, too.

  • Chico

    If it makes you feel better, women do it to each other more, and far worse than they do to guys. Mean Girls are awful.

    If a guy did the kind of stuff some of these mean girls do, but to other guys…

    Let’s just say that curb-stomping did evolve out of somewhere.

  • Chico

    This is why so many feminists despise and hate Game. They think alpha-betaness is immutable, and that something like Game only conceals a man’s true betaness, which is the type of covering-over no woman would ever want to be folled by.

    And by their logic, I should hate make-up and women’s gyms.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “I think you were spot-on when you talked about how you removed yourself from your one-itis case’s life. You have to force her to evaluate you in a different light, if you want more than friendship. If she still doesn’t view you differently, it’s a lost cause.”
    .
    Not to mention the fact that in the process of withdrawing, a guy will usually (a) realize she’s not all that (hormones blind us), and (b) find someone else to be interested in, who will oftentimes work out because he’s grown a very useful spine. Many times takeaway+social proof = attraction from the former target. But she had her chance, he’s moved on.
    .
    “But women will always appreciate the courage it takes for a guy to admit his feelings for her. I think that’s constant, at least.”
    .
    The trouble with this is that we don’t want your appreciation. We want your love.

  • Chico

    ^Regarding my last post:

    “Oh honey! Stuff worrying about this unibrow and 200 pounds overweight business! You’ll find someone. Just remember to be yourself!”

    See why men don’t value dating advice from women?

  • ExNewYorker

    While the xkcd comic that is the subject of this post was viewed positively by the feminist commentariat (it put us Nice Guys (TM) in our place, which is worse than the jerks), this one wasn’t viewed as positively…
    .

    .
    How dare the man think he has a right to hit on women, or imply women play games! And even worse, it’s not using creepy in a feminist approved way! :-)

  • http://pops3284@twitter.com pops3284

    That comic is funny but true. What i would advise is to befriend the pretty girl but not develop felling for her but use what shes telling you and who she is dating and doing to get insight on how to get these girls. Have a pretty girl as a friend has its benefits.

  • GudEnuf

    Of course a male can be a feminist, but there’s you, Hugo Schwyzer, Tom from Yes Means Yes and…..that’s all I can think of.

    Think of how many males there are on Hooking Up Smart. (click the “audience” tab)

    There’s only slightly fewer men on Feministing.

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

      @GudEnuf
      I’ve never seen that before! How do they know who’s who? This is an awesome tool, can’t wait to dig in more. It is very, very close to my sense of HUS demographics overall, which is very different from HUS commenter demographics.

      Re commenters on feminist sites, I confess I don’t spend the time there to take notice. I stand corrected.

  • ExNewYorker

    Damn sticky fingers…once more into the breach…
    .
    http://xkcd.com/642/
    .

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

      @ExNewYorker
      Another funny cartoon. Why don’t feminists have a sense of humor? (I’m going to try and come up with a punchline for that.)

  • Scipio Africanus

    Wasn’t that one of the comics that precipitated the Schroedinger’s Rapist phillipic, a few years ago?

  • ExNewYorker

    @Scipio
    LOL! You’re right, that’s the one. I’d forgotten about that. “Schroedinger’s Rapist”…what will latter day feminists come up with next?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @blackdude
    Thanks for the football analogy even if the only football I know is from sports movies (baseball kind of girl) ;)

    Oh yeah one more thing… your husband isnt necessarily a beta, but defintions vary. He may have the rite combo of beta and game (he MUST) since you r attracted to him… even if he doesnt realize it. If u ever become unattracted to him (like if he does nothing but play xbox all day) then u shall know the meaning of beta. But im guessing he knows how to make u laugh, joke around, and belittle you JUST ENOUGH to keep it fun for both of u, and he prob keeps in ok shape= NOT beta…

    So a beta is a guy that you are not sexually attracted then? But them all men are beta to at least one woman, even the most successful guy won’t be able to bang all the ladies.
    I will say that at least I know my husband is not a sure thing, he will never cheat on me, something that was important for me to know. But one thing I found out about him that his other girlfriends didn’t knew so they lost him, is that he is quiet and he avoids conflict so at least 80% of them assumed that this meant he was a doormat and tried to walk all over him or/and turn him into a project. When the truth is he will lose attraction as soon as he feel bitchiness/I will change him vibe and looks don’t make a real difference after a while. So I know very well that if I ever decide to disrespect him or do something of the “unforgiveables” on his list I’m majorly screwed (he will stop loving me which would be a tragedy of biblical proportions for me) so I will guess that is part of the Game he has even though its not a conscious choice just the way he is, he loves me deeply and treats me right, but doesn’t mean that I have a free pass on everything. So I will guess that would be secret.

    (but it really was his fault to a large degree. He blame shifts and tries to screw over every new female like shes sally from the 6th grade who rejected him)

    You don’t say! Really then what is a girl to do then? I don’t want to raise a girl that turns guys into dark gamers, more than enough of those already, so what should I tell her to do? Always consider the possibility that your male friends will have an interest on something more at some point so make sure you will give it a try even if there is no initial attraction? I mean will the guy feel better if she dated him at least briefly or it will make it worse if she still doesn’t want more from him? Or is there any other good advice for a girl that its not going to be raised to become insensitive of the male needs?

    How is this any different than a woman saying to herself, “I’m going to be so fabulous he won’t want to date any other women?” Women cook, do favors, give good head, all in the name of getting a guy to make her #1. That’s just good tactics. Making a woman emotionally invested in you strikes me as a reasonable goal. That’s why I said up front that his strategy struck me as sound. I also said that was scary because I know what a disaster this is 90% of the time. We women are just not wired that way.

    Mmm didn’t you mentioned that once your brother was dating a girl that went to your house to cook for him and you found that very…inappropriate? and even told your brother that and were happy he quickly disposed of her. Do you remember why you though that?

    This is probably where Stephanie is at, which might be what’s confusing her. Since she is a married women, most men won’t ever act on their sexual attraction to her,

    Heh had never occurred to you that I might be extremely unattractive? Just curious so far no one has raised this one and I’m wondering why.

    @Byron
    Well thanks. Does that means that I am forgiven or I’m still on “maybe secret bitch” zone? Just curious again.

    Haha, I’ll second this. I was born and brought up in the US but culturally I was taught to maintain distance from boys at an early age. Perhaps this is why I view friendship as a possible springboard for romance as well.

    You might hit the nail. In my country genders interact very closely from an early age, there is no such a thing like “Girls have cooties” stage (actually I needed to be explained that one after I watched The Little Rascals movie), you always grow surrounded and play with girls and boys so you learn to socialize and interact, touch, kiss, play, heck guys watch corny soap operas with their mothers and sisters and try to guess the plot, I used to play that with my brothers and my sister and that was common among all my friends, the most successful Telenovelas had men and women running after work to don’t miss it. So yeah it might be very well that the friendzone imprinting is hard on me. But again men also know this, so is very rare for a guy to try that.

    Also there is no such a thing as a Dominican man that can’t get laid (Oscar Wao is fiction) in the last sex study there was 84% men that admitted to cheating and that is an improvement from the 98% of the study that said the same on ’95. So I will guess a man that has a wife/girlfriend and something steady on the side or/and if there is a short dry spell have access to prostitution (is technically illegal but no one enforces that and you can find hookers for 100 pesos (3 bucks) as early as 10 pm on the capital city no the prettiest ones but you get the idea) So I will guess the fact that getting laid for any man is a given on my country I guess they can afford to have female friends, without needing to make a sexual move, in fact plenty of my friends had shared a bed during travels when there is few available or is cheaper to just share the room with female friends and nothing happens, neither of them even goes there.I know it might sound odd, but indeed its common enough for no being a shock.

    Not to mention accusations of fetishism and “they can’t get white girls.” I’m sure you’ve heard it all before.

    Its called exotification, did you forgot your feminism handbook again? Tsk, tsk :p

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

      Mmm didn’t you mentioned that once your brother was dating a girl that went to your house to cook for him and you found that very…inappropriate? and even told your brother that and were happy he quickly disposed of her. Do you remember why you though that?

      What was inappropriate in that case was her showing up with bags of groceries and a suitcase, when none of the family had even heard of her, much less met her. She worked fast.

  • Matt T

    “when they feel like they’ve been “tricked” in thinking a guy is a sexual option and then he does something to remove that entirely and they are thinkinig “Oh shit, I might have accidently fucked that guy”.”
    This is why so many feminists despise and hate Game. They think alpha-betaness is immutable, and that something like Game only conceals a man’s true betaness, which is the type of covering-over no woman would ever want to be folled by. Of course this is mostly on an intuitive level in their brains, or even subconscious – most of them still don’t have the vocabulary we use to discuss most of this.

    So true. But even most game purveyors agree that learning game won’t actually make you an alpha, the best it can do is make you a “synthetic alpha” (Roissy’s words).

    Ironically, most post-Mystery gamers are natural alphas looking to make a buck off random betas (ie: Rob Judge).

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

    Just a couple of comments.

    I do think Stephanie Rowling is right to a certain degree. Most nice guys are trying to seduce the woman by being nice. Their niceness is their “seductive technique” and so therefore, in that sense, they are trying to get the woman to get into bed with them. This does not mean that the guy does not love the woman, its just that his method of “escalating” the relationship from friend to erotic relationship is by being nice, instead of displaying game behaviours.

    This technique is based on the false notion that by increasing the intensity of a male and female friendship sex will eventually ensure. This a wrong. It also why most men can’t be close friends with women, eventually they’ll want to have sex with them.

    Being different to men, women are able to have intense asexual friendships with others and not get sexually aroused. A lot of men don’t get this idea, and as such, he keeps ramping up the supplicant friendship and is angered because his technique for the most part doesn’t work. The cultural meme, “that the nice guy always wins in the end” serves to bolster this male illusion.

    Women seem to be able to quickly relegate men into the friend or lover zone. The only hope for a men who has been relegated into the LJBF zone is to move away quickly before he becomes entrenched in it. Nice guy behavior keeps him firmly entrenched in that zone. Any sexual crumbs that he gets by accident(because of some form of emotional unbalance in the woman), will be regretted by the woman later. Should any relationship develop, in today’s maritally permissive environment, such a nice guy’s female partner will always be susceptible to “alpha capture”.

    The nice guy is equivalent to the fat chick who wants to be an alpha males “friend”. She does all sorts of nice things for him in order for him to like her; and he does like her, it’s just that he doesn’t get horny for her. Being more nice to him doesn’t make her any more attractive. A man, like a woman, has to press the sexual buttons if they expect the relationship to escalate.

  • Passer_By

    I’m not sure why I’m in song mode, but who knew the Temptations were such a bunch of beta orbiters?

    http://www.metrolyrics.com/im-gonna-make-you-love-me-lyrics-temptations.html

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

      @Passer By
      That’s a great song. I was 12 when it was a hit, wearing bell bottoms and crushing on Rocco Commisso. I don’t think that attitude was beta then – women didn’t hold nice guys in contempt. The SMP had not yet been turned on it’s head, though it would be shortly.

  • GudEnuf

    Alexa gets it’s data from a toolbar it offers users. If it knows the demographics of its users, it can extrapolate them to the general population.

  • http://thegatewayboyfriend.blogspot.com dan_brodribb

    I’m not surprised this is getting so many comments. I think it’s something we’ve all had happen to us. Certainly it was the most popular thing I wrote about on my blog.

    (yes, that’s shameless self-promotion: It’s at http://thegatewayboyfriend.blogspot.com/2010/04/friends-without-benefits-part-2-lets.html

    I agree with whoever said that the trap is when you start thinking that this person is the only person for you and no one can replace them. When we think this woman is the only one in the world who can ever make us happy….well, not only is it probably not true, it’s also putting a lot of pressure on ourselves. Plus it makes the other person feel awkward; it’s no fun being on a pedestal. People aren’t liking you for who you are, they’re liking you for the Image they have of you in their head.

    Also–and it took me a long time to get this–pretending to be someone’s friend in order to get into a romantic relationship can come off as dishonest. I don’t think people are intentionally trying to deceive…a lot of us were taught to make sure she likes us before we make a move because we don’t want to offend her or make her uncomfortable. But when I look at it from the other side…I want people to want to be my friends because they want my friendship not because they’re trying to get something from me.

    I’ve also come to realize that trying to get women to change or men to change is an excercise in futility. Blaming people for being who they are isn’t the best use of my energy.

  • LJ

    This comic makes me cringe b/c I have guy friends who have been in situations, with other girls, where they pined after a girl for a reeeaaally long time without making a move. She usually ends up dating another guy. I don’t view it as a “chicks dig jerks” thing, but girls like guys who are assertive enough to make a move. And having enough of a backbone/independence that you are not available 100% of the time she’d like you to be is important too. I do think friendship can develop into romance. I think it’s more likely to happen in the young stages of a friendship, though (a few months). After too long, it’s true that it’s like “I don’t think of him that way.” But I think if a guy is interested in a girl but doesn’t want to go out on a limb with a bold move, just hanging out with her and inviting her to things (eg parties, drinks with friends) can work. She sees that your world is fun and interesting and wants to be a bigger part of it.

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

    @LJ

    girls like guys who are assertive enough to make a move.

    .
    Because you were speaking of guys who are NOT friends trying to become more, this is slightly (but only slightly) out of context.
    .
    I just read a number of the articles found from BING after searching for “Schrodenger’s Rapist”, and way too many of the comments following the original article. After reading that, there appears to be no way left for any guy to NOT be too assertive, except to do nothing.
    .
    Fortunately, people of both sexes take the risk daily, so it’s not all darkness.
    .
    Sadly, it’s still the exact same nice guy that women say they want who finds himself out in the cold. They pass a very real milestone when they decide to come back in, but no one should think for a second that it’s easy.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I might sound insane but that Schrodenger’s Rapist post and its massive response sounds a lot like the teachings of that piece of garbage grow-your-own-paranoic-woman book “The gift of fear”. Basically the “expert” starts telling frightening statistics about how many women are killed by men on USA, how many of them were men that they knew and trusted in and then proceeds to explain that if you feel any kind of uncomfortable feeling in the presence of a man that is some sort of sure sign that that man is a predator and is going to hurt you.
    In fact I was actually surprised when I read one of the Roissy’s fans blogs something that reminded me that how Gavin de Becker “saved” a girl from being very likely lured into a possibly violent assault, because of some things a guy told her. And it was virtually the same pick up technique the guy used to have sex with a waitress.
    And the freaking books is written in a way that is perfect to enter the female brain, its engrossing and full of empowerment words “I will give you the power to defend yourself”, “you are going to finish this book able to identify predators” it was only missing “you are beautiful no matter what they say” and I’m pretty sure that many women read it and then networked with other female friends about this “truths” to protect themselves.
    So yeah totally BS sold to the masses craving for more reassurance that they are the victims 24/7.

  • filrabat

    It’s OK to be friends with a woman as long as (a) you’ve outgrown your attraction to her in a sexual or romantic sense and (b) you’re sure she won’t ever fall for you. I think all guys have had those kinds of friendships at one time or another. In fact, I’d say NOT to be friends with anyone who gets you hard / gives you butterflies. Just go straight to the flirting and “mating dance”. If you can woo that person, great. If not, then (if you approach the matter healthily with an “I don’t care, this is just fun regardless”), well, no big loss.

    I hate to sound cold and “strategic” but the only purpose for a man to have a woman as a friend is to figure out female psychology, unless the two have A LOT of common genuine interests AND their temperaments mesh together well. Also, it’s useful if you don’t have any female relatives your age, nor closeby (like your truly). That’s not to say women aren’t good people, of course, but it does mean that men and women are too fundamentally different from each other to really seek each other out “just” as friends.

  • Hope

    Have you heard about this Susan?

    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/03/16/u-of-c-students-launch-hookups-website/

    I got into UChicago but didn’t go. This honestly surprises me because it is definitely not a party school and has a nerdy reputation.

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

      @Hope
      I hadn’t seen that, and I’m having trouble seeing how that would work. Using a site to match up people for casual sex seems odd, when they’re people who go to class together, socialize together, etc. So you show up for some NSA sex and the other party is your lab partner? That is just too awkward for words. Or how about you sign up and get matched to your BFF’s boyfriend? In a small community this could absolutely never work.

  • Brendan

    One of the most common rejoinders you’ll see from women in these dating/mating/sex discussions is “You’re just a loser who can’t get laid”.

    @Mike –

    I think this is simply programming designed to keep women away from very low quality sperm. The kind of revulsion people have for, say, feces is like this because casual contact with feces is exceedingly unhealthy — so we revile it. Omega men sexually give off that “feces” vibe to women probably because of genetic wiring to make them truly revile these men — again, because mating with them would be an exceedingly bad idea for the woman’s genes. Vocalizing that revulsion is common enough in the case of both feces and omega males, probably for the same reason –> i.e., to announce the risk openly so that others can avoid it as well.

    Steve Moxon pointed out in one of his books that the truly discriminated against class in human society has always been the lowest (sexual) caste men, who are well and truly despised and reviled by almost everyone.

  • GudEnuf

    David Brooks wonders whether delaying sex can signal self-control-a key element to successful marriages.

    And it appears some feminists still think the vagina cartel still works Do they even see the irony here?

  • CSPB

    Wow, I found and read the Schrödinger’s Rapist blog post. As I was reading I could imagine the hamsters feeling fear and the wheels spinning faster and faster. There is nothing like a few misleading statistics and a “what if” scenario to spiral things to such an absurd level that anything is possible. I have seen this happen in real life.

    One woman starts with a victim story. Another woman empathizes with the fear. The next follows along and relates a story she heard about her friend’s sister’s cousin’s neighbor’s daughter. Then another woman pipes in about her experience. Not one pulls back from adding to the fear fest or asking for details to verify culpability or circumstances. It is group think that keeps growing until all men are dangerous. Then any action by any man can be interpreted as threatening. The only way a woman counters this is by feeling tingles for a particular man that overwhelm the fearful thoughts. So any man that does not incite tingles is creepy or scary. The creepy and scary guys are capable of anything. Hence the nice guys that don’t cause tingles are feared and despised.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    This thread just continues to reveal social double-talk – women say they want a man who can be supportive and loving, but then say guys who want to do such things put them out. It just boils down to the old secret desire for “an alpha who will commit.” There just ain’t many of those.
    .
    Given the state of the modern female mind and the betatude into which feminism has cast men, it’s going to be a very tough next 20 years for hamsters. I can’t forsee anything other than a relationship great depression – there are too many men who can’t turn women on and too many women with whacked out expectations for their men and their lives. It almost makes me want to go over to the Spearhead.

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

    @GudEnuf
    That Planned Parenthood video is one of the most offensive things I’ve seen in a long time. It is no doubt a response to the Planned Parenthood worker who recently quit because she found that instead of providing full reproductive health care to women, PP is an abortion mill. They allegedly find abortions profitable beyond all other services, and market them accordingly.

    I went to a PP fundraiser years ago – I have always appreciated that I was able to get birth control there when I didn’t know where else to go. At this fundraiser, the president of PP Massachusetts triumphantly announced the number of abortions that had been performed during the past year. As if it were a sales milestone. “I’m so proud of all of you! Abortions were up 12% this year!” I thought I was in a dystopian nightmare. Abortion is the only method of birth control PP is really interested in.

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

      I stumbled across this 2 yo post of Amanda Marcotte’s:

      http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/02/07/the-guide-to-nice-guys-in-comic-form/

      She uses the hamster wheel metaphor to describe nice guys! I thought Roissy was the source of this and that it only applied to women? If any nice guys here are hamsterwheeling, I respectfully request that you cease and desist immediately. That’s a right we women have fought hard for.

  • filrabat

    One of the most common rejoinders you’ll see from women in these dating/mating/sex discussions is “You’re just a loser who can’t get laid”.

    Sad to say, but equating getting laid with respectworthiness is one meme deeply embedded in American culture. But that makes several misassumptions:

    *Mainstream definitions of “loser” are the yardstick by which one should measure one’s own worthiness of respect (and almost by definition, self-respect – unless you just completely don’t care what others think of you, which is actually a plus, IMO)

    *That “can’t get laid” itself necessarily means “loserhood”, and hence worthiness of respect (only true omegas and shallow people believe this.)

    *That how you’re perceived in the eyes of your peers (especially of the opposite sex [if heterosexual]) ought to be the standard by which you judge yourself (ditto the 2nd commentary).

    I would say that anyone who believes any of the above is a true mid-level beta at best (sorry to be harsh). A REAL man (since men is the subject here, but it also applies to women as well) doesn’t hook his/her self-esteem to what anybody thinks of him. He creates his own definition of “normal behavior” and “respect-worthy” person according to his own standards; rather than simply uncritically accepting mainstream society’s definitions of the labels. In short, anyone who adheres to these definitions either has low self-esteem or is brainwashed by too much pop culture propaganda to engage in sufficiently independent thought.

  • Chico

    Steve Moxon pointed out in one of his books that the truly discriminated against class in human society has always been the lowest (sexual) caste men, who are well and truly despised and reviled by almost everyone.

    Very true. They are the only group not yet protected by political correctness.

  • Chico

    Sad to say, but equating getting laid with respectworthiness is one meme deeply embedded in American culture.

    Sad but true. At 22, I was once asked by a 42 year old woman over MSN if I had “any prospects (in life)” because she got a tip from someone else that I was a virgin at the time. Otherwise, she never met me or knew anything about me, but one fact determined my entire sense of worth.

    It’s particularly shocking because you’d expect someone at that age to have a shred of wisdom in their brains. I expect 15 year old girls to think this way. Does she talk this way to her son (who I am still young enough to be)?

  • Retrenched

    @ Badger

    “Talk to a few honest women and you’ll get some hamsterism about “I want a man I know can protect me” which is code for “he may be a jerk but he’s my jerk.”

    Fair enough. I guess it could be said that women are turned on by “strong” men – i.e., men who have the ability and the will to inflict violence on other men if the need arises. And a “jerk”-type personality may be a good indicator for that.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Fair enough. I guess it could be said that women are turned on by “strong” men – i.e., men who have the ability and the will to inflict violence on other men if the need arises. And a “jerk”-type personality may be a good indicator for that.”
    .
    The issue, as has been alluded to, is that boys and men are lied to by their mothers and sisters as to what women want and how to attract them. In many cases the women themselves don’t understand their own desires (a sign of solipsism), and even when they do the truth about women’s preferences are rationalized away, as has been done in this very discussion. Women don’t want to admit they are attracted to jerks, so they cover it up with memes like “I just like a confident protective man.”
    .
    The truth about men’s preferences are not really covered up – a pretty woman who’s enjoyable to be around and doesn’t cleave a man from his sense of self is ideal.
    .
    It’s a sad but sobering experience for men to open their eyes and learn the truth – that you’ll do better and better with women the less you make a concerted effort to be nice to them, and that being nice will actually engender women’s resentment (again this thread as evidence). Some men never recover from the shock. The problem is so bad that it’s an axiom of the manosphere to never take dating advice from women, due to the combination of projection and ignorance about both sexes. Susan has earned an exemption.

  • blogster

    “The issue, as has been alluded to, is that boys and men are lied to by their mothers and sisters as to what women want and how to attract them.”

    Very true. In the case of mother’s I think its often projection of how she wants the son to be with her. She’s in a different role – she’s not the single female seeking a man who can make her feel attraction, she’s the mother seeking love and respect from her son.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh,
    Indeed, this is one heck of a discussion obtaining here! Enjoying it immensely. But, as you might have guessed, I do have to point out just a few flies in the ointment here…

    I am noticing that so many of the guys are laying the blame of “Nice Guy Syndrome” squarely at the feet of said Nice Guy’s mama and sister(s) – yea, OK, I can see that. The little problem with this is, well…I’m, you know, BLACK? – and that means, that if anything, given what we know about Black America, where there are a heck of alot of mamas and sisters, that there should be more Nice Guys there, than less. Right?

    Well, comparitively speaking (in relation to White folks, I mean), we know this not to be the case, if anything it’s the exact opposite. Brothas, compared to White guys, are most definitely Alphas, there is no getting around that fact. And they come from a part of society where it is definitely a Matriarchy. Moreover, the White guys here bemoaning what’s happened to them and what’s brought about the “Nice Guy”, all come from at the least, nominally middle class, if not solidly upper middle class families, which means, virtually by definition, TWO PARENT fams.

    So, what’s up with dad?

    NOWHERE in this entire discussion, have I heard “dad” mentioned. Which I find quite odd, to be frank. The whole thing just doesn’t pass the smell test.

    Any thoughts on this?

    My second point, which is really an observation, is the following…

    I know your blog isn’t setup to address per se, but I’m just gonna put it out there: I think we are coming to a point in our national life where we are going to have to have a heart to heart sitdown with our Men and inform them that many of them will not be having wives, girlfriends, or any meaningful contact with the opposite sex (read: ongoing sexual relationships) for much of their lives, and how to cope with this. Our society has made marriage and by extension fatherhood itself, purely optional. In addition, Men are no longer needed, at least as much, to fight wars or build skyscrapers. In essence, we have a massive sausage party on our hands, and we need to come to grips with the fact that quite a few of them WILL be left standing when the reproductive music stops. I know this rubs up against everything we’ve been taught as Americans, most notably the idea that we all can be winners if we just work hard enough and play by the rules. But the era we are in, indeed have been in for sometime now, and the times ahead, simply don’t support such a view, especially along SMP lines. We need to have that earnest, albeit painful, conversation. Somebody’s gotta do it.

    And soon.

    Holla back

    O.

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

      @Obsidian, @Badger

      Obs, you grabbed the words right out of my mouth re mothers and sisters. Your observations about the black community are interesting and I’m curious to see how the guys promoting this idea respond to it. I have asked before on this blog about the role of dads, and been told that divorce since the Women’s Movement made them largely unavailable to their sons. That explanation seems insufficient at best, and as you say that did not produce an overabundance of beta guys in the black community.

      There’s no doubt in my mind that feminism dramatically altered, and confused, male roles in society. This is true both in the workplace and in the SMP. I’ve written about this extensively so won’t go into it here. However, the implementation of feminist goals and indoctrination of two generations of young men required compliance, even enthusiasm, from American men. Male politicians, husbands, and fathers all had a role in ushering in the new era. If sisters and mothers lied to young men, they were not alone.

      Furthermore, I have troubling with the wording here – LIED TO. Many of the male commenters that I respect enormously feel this way, and I understand, even empathize with this view. However, this statement is problematic:

      The issue, as has been alluded to, is that boys and men are lied to by their mothers and sisters as to what women want and how to attract them. In many cases the women themselves don’t understand their own desires (a sign of solipsism), and even when they do the truth about women’s preferences are rationalized away, as has been done in this very discussion.

      On a very basic level, if women don’t understand their own sexuality, then it’s not possible for them to willingly deceive others in speaking earnestly about it. There’s a question of intent here, and I reject the idea that women en masse have knowingly deceived or misled our sons. Rather, I believe that as a society we bought into feminism for some very good reasons, and it produced some benefits. However, there were also many unintended consequences, and we are all equally culpable in their effect, and equally responsible for implementing future change, or corrections.

      Of course, there is no consensus about what is desirable and what is undesirable. Hence, the gender wars.

      One final thought. The problem is not that women do not want good men. It’s understandable why men resent women wanting good alpha men, and the general view of this is “good luck with that!” However, what women want is not some conspiracy – it’s genetic. Women’s desires today may be running amok due to zero restraint on hypergamy, but women haven’t changed. What’s changed is what passes for “fitness” in males. And even that is not entirely new. As you say, it has always been a reality that many men did not have access to women. Today that reality has been exacerbated by the politics of our era, and the relative safety men enjoy compared to previous periods in history.

  • http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/ The Private Man

    I just like a confident, protective man.”

    This.

    I quite often see this kind of line in the online dating profiles. I’ve also learned to completely ignore what women say and focus on what they actually do.

    NiceGuys(tm) are the fellows exploited like slaves for their strong backs and emotional support and then cast aside as potential intimate partners because of no “chemistry”.

    This is why I urge all men to learn and apply Game.

    If the ‘gina don’t tingle, Nice Guys(tm) don’t mingle.

  • Höllenhund

    Off-topic: an MRA endorses Game, although definitely not for reasons you did, Ms. Walsh.

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/18/mens-liberation-through-game/

    This is exactly the reason why I said “careful what you wish for” when you advocated for the spread of Game.

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

      @Hollenhund
      I have no problem at all with the Spearhead writer’s endorsement of Game, nor with men having more options, even if those options mean excluding marriage. I’ve always acknowledged that Game is a powerful tool that can cause great harm to women when practiced by a man of low character. In comparison, men who choose to use Game to get sex without commitment is totally fair if they do not deceive women about their intentions.

      Of course, all of my advice about avoiding players still applies. The women who will succeed in marrying in the near future are those who bring value to a man’s life, and who employ a long-term orientation when selecting a partner.

  • Höllenhund

    “I think we are coming to a point in our national life where we are going to have to have a heart to heart sitdown with our Men and inform them that many of them will not be having wives, girlfriends, or any meaningful contact with the opposite sex (read: ongoing sexual relationships) for much of their lives, and how to cope with this.”

    Exactly. The flipside, of course, is that many young women will never find an attractive man that commits to them, and they should be informed of this as well.

  • Höllenhund

    “I have asked before on this blog about the role of dads, and been told that divorce since the Women’s Movement made them largely unavailable to their sons.”

    You’ve been given a bit more elaborate answers:

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/01/25/hookinguprealities/the-new-sex-math-probabilities-and-opportunities/

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

      @Hollenhund
      That post has 600 comments – can you specify what you’re referring to? I’m happy to reprint it here for discussion.

  • http://www.2centtab.blogspot.com Samson

    Great points Obsidian. “Manhood” is stressed in the black community, sometimes to a fault, so this type of thing seems to be less prevalent.

  • GudEnuf

    Children get 10 times as much Dad-time as they did 25 years ago. You want to blame feminism for that?

  • Höllenhund
  • blogster

    I stumbled across this 2 yo post of Amanda Marcotte’s:

    http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/02/07/the-guide-to-nice-guys-in-comic-form/

    The comics in this article were a disgrace, but typical. As usual the nice guy is deliberately perceived as simply a bitter loser with a sex-entitlement complex (never mind that you could make a plausible argument along those lines for the alpha/jerk/frat boy). While I don’t doubt there are guys like this, as most posters have pointed it out, the resentment ‘nice guys’ feel is ultimately not with the women who are not interested in them – it’s the frustration that what they were taught RARELY works and that they are banging their heads against a brick wall.

    For the less experienced, it is easy to see why they would be frustrated with women, when they’ve been taught that’s what women will respond to. When I see articles like Marcotte’s, my perception is that either a) women are oblivious and don’t realise guys have been taught this nice guy behaviour (ironically, in most cases, through mediums strongly influenced by the feminist movement) b) they’re (feminists) trying to defend their behaviour and true preferences by transferring the fault for the confusion onto men.

  • dream puppy

    @O said: “I know your blog isn’t setup to address per se, but I’m just gonna put it out there: I think we are coming to a point in our national life where we are going to have to have a heart to heart sitdown with our Men and inform them that many of them will not be having wives, girlfriends, or any meaningful contact with the opposite sex.”

    This is not supported by evidence. Age of first marriage has gone up, but people are still getting married at about the same rate.

    Further, the opposite is true in case of blacks. So many men are in jail or in an early grave that black women are facing a shortage of men. This seems to have encouraged soft polygamy- with one man having many girlfriends (or hook ups) and children by different women- who are more than happy to “have a piece of a man, than none at all.” I don’t see any evidence of shame about this either- the rate of marriage went from 70% in the 60s to 47% in the 2000s.

    In my hipster little city, I have noticed a few more black women/white men couples but this does not seem to be the norm. The women were also very above average in terms of looks and seem to be a part of white (hipster) culture. I really don’t see this as a solution to the gap in black men and women and their lack of marriage prospects.

    I think black women deserve the same heart to heart you are proposing with omega males. What do you propose be done?

  • dream puppy

    @Susan

    I had no idea about Planned Parenthood. Their big line was always that only 6% of their funding went towards abortions. I am betting now that they don’t include operating costs on that number, nor do they state how profitable they are. I don’t like it when human lives are used to further an agenda…its highly immoral.

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

    “Nice guys”…I may have commented on this before, but there’s a difference between “nice” (as this term is commonly used) and “good.” In Narnia tales, when Susan meets Aslan the Lion, the following dialog ensures:

    Susan: “Is he – quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion”

    Mr Beaver: “Safe? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good”

    Colonel Dave Grossman has distinguished among three classes of men: sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. Sheepdogs resemble wolves in many ways, and a sheep with little experience with canines might either (a)be afraid of sheepdogs, or (b)befriend a wolf on the belief that it has the same protective instincts as the sheepdog.

  • Höllenhund

    “I have no problem at all with the Spearhead writer’s endorsement of Game, nor with men having more options, even if those options mean excluding marriage.”

    Don’t you think that the spread of Game will depress the marriage rate, Ms. Walsh? Will women welcome that?

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

      @Hollenhund
      Sorry to delay in responding – I was ill yesterday. The spread of Game may depress the marriage rate, and of course women will not welcome that. However, it strikes me as a reasonable, perhaps even inevitable response to the SMP. We’ll just have to manage as best we can. I still believe strongly that women who are proactive in seeking a quality mate will fare much better than those who party through their 20s. Also, tbh, a lot of the men who learn Game will use it to find a mate. Yes, there are bloggers who clearly have made the switch from hapless beta to player (and practitioner of Dark Game), but I think this is unusual in the population.

  • Passer_By

    @scipio

    “This is why so many feminists despise and hate Game. They think alpha-betaness is immutable, and that something like Game only conceals a man’s true betaness, which is the type of covering-over no woman would ever want to be folled by. ”

    I really don’t think that’s it. The problem is that the effectiveness of Game rests largely upon assumptions and observations about the nature of the sexes (and in particular about female sexuality) that directly contradict much current feminist dogma. So, for Game to work, either (i) their entire view of gender relations would need to be reworked, at great pain to their self esteem for being so wrong or (ii) Game is simply some evil form of manipulation bordering on rape (whatever that would mean). So, they oscillate between saying “It’s a joke that would never work, especially on intelligent women with self esteem” and “it’s a form of manipulation bordering on rape.” Otherwise, they’d have to reexamine and revise their pseudo-religious beliefs about the nature of the sexes, which is simply out of the question.

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

      @Passer By

      The problem is that the effectiveness of Game rests largely upon assumptions and observations about the nature of the sexes (and in particular about female sexuality) that directly contradict much current feminist dogma.

      This is my own view. Feminism makes no sense if gender isn’t a social construct. Biological sex differences are extremely threatening to feminists for this reason. However, there is a great deal of neuroscientific research occurring that identifies bio sex differences and their effects. Larry Summers was right, and there are many genetic differences between us. The feminists won’t be able to hide from this forever, but they’re trying as best they can, fighting back with claims that oxytocin is a myth, for example.

  • Scipio Africanus

    “In many cases the women themselves don’t understand their own desires”

    This seems to grow out of Female Passivity Privilege. The only reason the PUA/Game community has developed it’s field-affirmed principles about women’s behavior is because men had to – they had no choice, if they wanted to escape their beta hell.
    Why would women need to understand their own desires if such knowledge is not necessary to get consistent attention from men? (rhetorical question)

  • Aldonza

    @Stephenie Rowling
    The funny thing here is that men are focusing on the Nice Guy feelings mostly out of projection….

    .
    Two points to Stephenie. It’s funny because I was just rolling an idea around in my head that part of the revulsion that women have to clingy good guys is that they recognize the clinginess in themselves and hate that.
    .
    “We disdain in others what we hate in ourselves.”
    .
    Further, I’m wondering how much of the “bad boy” appeal is actually hard-wired in women. Attraction to masculine men, yes. Even to the point of preferring just pictures of more masculine features, at least during ovulation. But continued attraction to men who play or are hard to get doesn’t make as much sense. Could it be fear of intimacy in the woman that chooses guys she sub-consciously knows will never bond with her?

  • Aldonza

    Fixing my closing tag error above.

  • Scipio Africanus

    “Brothas, compared to White guys, are most definitely Alphas, there is no getting around that fact.”

    Sorry Obsidian, I have to call bs on your spinning this into a racial thing. You’re pointing to the stereotype of Black men as uber-Alpha sex machines but claiming it as fact. In general, I’m not an enemy of generalizations – generalizations are necessary to make any society function properly. But this generalization/stereotype isn’t even a good one.

    I am/was the Black mama’s boy beta that you’re saying is so rare, and I am absolutely not alone. I think it’s precisely *because* of the racial stereotype I mention above that guys like me, especially when growing up in the hood, tend to keep silent and out of sight. The perception that the sterotype is real becomes the reality, and then shame builds up over time. Black folks have glorified the notion of Game for generations, not just since the 80′s. But “Beta Recognize Beta”, to flip our old addage. Most of my best friends since middle school, all black, have been lower to middle betas. What we all had in common was a fear of alerting anyone in the community to our betaness. This creates a silence and invisibility, not just from women, but from *everyone*.

    I’ve started rambling, so I’ll just end it here.

  • filrabat

    Steve Moxon pointed out in one of his books that the truly discriminated against class in human society has always been the lowest (sexual) caste men, who are well and truly despised and reviled by almost everyone.

    There’s a large part of your answer to “which opposite sex people it’s good to be friends with” – those that are the least contemptuous of those with the lowest sexual rank. The long and short is “If he/she treats them as an equal, then they’re more likely to treat ME as an equal even when they know about my own faults” (whether they’d date them or not is a different matter, but that’s beside the point here). Such people are pretty good bets for long-term friendships or the LTR department, given that openness and trust are an indespensible part of a relationship. It’s what I call “Waitress Test 2.0″, which I would call the Omega/1 Test but that obviously doesn’t roll off the tongue well, nor does the phrase have “personal, catchy” quality that lends itself to turn into a “wildfire meme”.

  • filrabat

    P.S.: I just recalled (and fortunately found easily) Homophobia Scale developed by Dr Henry Adams at the University of Georgia. It has 25 questions, whose possible answers are answersable in five degrees of “yes” and “no”. Just substitute the term “gay”, “homosexual” with [most despised type today] and you’ll have a pretty good idea of your friend’s potential openness toward difference.

  • Scipio Africanus

    In terms of the greater community, Dad isn’t mentioned as much because women take the lead in imbuing their sons with emotional lessons, not fathers. Father is backup for that stuff when things are really rough and mom’s words just won’t do.

    Plus, most of our fathers didn’t grow up in a seriously feminized era, so they really haven’t thought deeply about any of this. Honestly, their “help” probably wouldn’t be all that helpful, so it’s probably for the best that dad stay out of this (Assuming Dad was born before about 1960 or so.)

  • filrabat

    I disagree Scipio,

    Fathers have tremendous wisdom and practical life lessons to share with their children, a critical resource when it comes to raising children to be healthy, well-adjusted, contributing members of society. To say what you did frankly insults the potential of fathers to be a positive force in their childrens’ lives

  • Mike C

    @ Obsidian & Susan (the Dad question)
    .
    Firstly, God bless ya, you can find a way to bring race into just about every discussion topic :)
    .
    I’ve had the opportunity to be around, interact with a lot of young black men over the years (I used to be a regular on numerous pick-up ball courts). Let me concede your point, because no doubt generally speaking black men tend to be more alpha then white men, especially middle to upper-middle class white men versus urban black males. That said, there a lot of “fake alphas” amongst black men as well. The swagger is there until the shit hits the fan. I’ve got some direct experience with that. I think it was Ricky Raw who had an EPIC post about the fake alphaness/bravado/masculinity of a lot of urban black males.
    .
    To your point, and I’ll admit I’m simply speculating/theorizing here about the difference in the “Mom” effect between black and white males, but my sense would be that maybe in the urban black male community Mom is Mom in name only. In other words, she really isn’t raising/influencing her son. The son is raising himself along with the rest of his peers. In contrast, in the white community, especially the further up the income spectrum you go, my sense is you are more likely to have a Mom who is a combination of domineering and coddling and micromanaging every aspect of her little boy’s life. The young black male with just the Mom develops some alpha/strong male qualities out of necessity of the environment whereas the white male stays a supplicating, deferential boy taking this as his model for dealing with women in the outside world.
    .
    So, what’s up with dad?
    .
    NOWHERE in this entire discussion, have I heard “dad” mentioned. Which I find quite odd, to be frank. The whole thing just doesn’t pass the smell test.
    .
    Any thoughts on this?

    .
    Maybe hard to generalize on this, but my thought is you have a lot of beta provider types who do not know how to raise, strong masculine sons, and largely abdicate the child-rearing role to the mother.
    .
    My Dad is the quintessential beta provider, and my Mom is the classic domineering, overinvolved Mom. Now there were some benefits to that model. I was a high achiever in school, always on the honor roll, graduated near the top of my class, was always the “Good Nice” boy other parents and teachers liked, etc. But I was supplicating and deferential and an absolute loser with women for many years, and I am convinced that is directly attributable to how I was raised.
    .
    My Dad grew up without a father (he was killed during WW2 when my Dad was a young child) and my Dad grew up with a domineering mother. He never learned to be a strong masculine man. He learned to be a deferential good provider with a passive-aggressive streak. That was my model, and I believe the model of many boys the last 20-30 years. Beta provider Dad married to a dominating, liberated woman who does not understand how to raise a strong, masculine boy. I’ve spend the last several years deprogamming myself. Almost feels like exorcising a demon that you can never quite totally exorcise.
    .
    Now interestingly, my Uncle (Dad’s brother) is quite alpha so there is probably some natural genetic personality component, but I still believe nurture plays a huge role in what type of “man” a boy becomes.
    .
    My Mom disapproved and basically never let me play football. Mom’s teach their sons to avoid physical conflict/confrotation when sometimes a physical altercation is the only way (for example with bullies). You don’t verbally negotiate with a bully. You fight it out, and either deliver a beatdown or take a beatdown, but either way establish you are not going to just take it (thinking about the move A Christmas Story). Now you’ve got Moms’ putting body armor on their boys to ride a bicycle (recent Modern Life episode mocked this). The cumulative effect of all this is to produce weak pansies. I could go on an on an on and on with example after example of how fucked up I think SWPL boys are raised which produces supplicating betas. Just for the sake of contrast, look at an ancient culture like Sparta. You think Sparta produced pussy beta boys? So where are the Dads? They are there, paying the mortgage, paying the school tuition, but not making an influential impact on their sons’ lives. That has become strictly the Moms’ job, and they have raised feminized boys.
    .
    I could really go on an on here because I’ve thought a lot about this because I had to examine how I got to where I was and basically go back through my teenage years and childhood to Day 1 I could remember. I’m short on time right now, but maybe I’ll try to expand on this later.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hi Dream Puppy,
    Replies below:

    DP: @O said: “I know your blog isn’t setup to address per se, but I’m just gonna put it out there: I think we are coming to a point in our national life where we are going to have to have a heart to heart sitdown with our Men and inform them that many of them will not be having wives, girlfriends, or any meaningful contact with the opposite sex.”

    This is not supported by evidence. Age of first marriage has gone up, but people are still getting married at about the same rate.

    O: Negative; it has been documented that marital rates have been going DOWN in recent years, in addition to the age of first marriage going UP for both Men and Women. The up side of this is that of those who do get married, tend to stay married longer; but the overall number of people getting married, is indeed shrinking. Ms. Walsh has indeed discussed these facts on several occasions here at HUS; perhaps she can speak to this?

    Moreover, even if what you said were true, the issue is about future projections, which is something a number of writers and bloggers have been doing, Ms. Walsh among them; and based on all available data, the marital rate is projected to continue to decline, if for no other reason than because of the lopsided gender ratios wrt college and university. Interesting enough, before its all said and done, we may see the White Folk Who Matter community not that far off from the Black one along marital lines – something else that has been written quite extensively about, across the sociopolitical aisle. See Hacker and Hymowitz for more on this point. Speaking of Black America…

    DP: Further, the opposite is true in case of blacks. So many men are in jail or in an early grave that black women are facing a shortage of men.

    O: There is a good degree of truth in this, but it is important not to hyperbolize the matter. If you read blogs like Very Smart Brothas, you will note that the very same issues that plague the kinds of White Men who frequent blogs like these, plague their Black counterparts – many of them are “Nice Guy/Black Nerd” types who don’t make the Sistas’ nether regions tingle. That NYT story about UNC Chapel Hill that went viral throughout the Manosphere last year? Well, it’s like that on the Blackhand side, too. The Sistas say the exact same things, even when there are plenty of Brothas in school. The “erotic field of view” is at work, it just is a bit more skewed in light of what you said about more Black Men being out of the “game” due to long prison terms and/or early death.

    DP: This seems to have encouraged soft polygamy- with one man having many girlfriends (or hook ups) and children by different women- who are more than happy to “have a piece of a man, than none at all.” I don’t see any evidence of shame about this either- the rate of marriage went from 70% in the 60s to 47% in the 2000s.

    O: Why should there be? I don’t recall any law that calls for the regulation of private behavior. If Gay folk don’t have to be ashamed for what they do on their dime and their time, I don’t see why Black folk have to be either.

    DP: In my hipster little city, I have noticed a few more black women/white men couples but this does not seem to be the norm.

    O: I’d be very interested in knowing exactly what that “hipster littel city” that is; in the meantime, what you have seen is in line with the documented uptick in marriages between Black Women and White Men. Still, as you’ve noted, it is not the norm, indeed far from it; BM/WW couples still out pace the aforementioned 2 to 1.

    DP: The women were also very above average in terms of looks and seem to be a part of white (hipster) culture.

    O: Hmm. For some reason when anyone White discusses IR pairings involving Black folks, I notice they often cite what you do -that if it involves Black Women, suddenly they aren’t “ugly” anymore, they’re really only slightly darker hued White Women; and if the discussion is about Black Men, all of their girlfriends and wives are fat ugly walruses who no self-respecting White guy would even considering getting with if his life depended on it. Come on. For what it’s worth – and I’ve lived in big towns like Philly and NYC – just about every Black Woman/White Man couple I’ve found seems to pair up a quirky, geeky looking Sista with a similarly disposed White guy, and was nothing most Brothas would lament as any great loss. Their attractivenesss usually comes in at about 5-6.5 at best – I mean, they’re not into Beyonce territory, that’s for sure – so again, it’s hard to find many Brothas lamenting such a “loss”.

    DP: I really don’t see this as a solution to the gap in black men and women and their lack of marriage prospects.

    O: You don’t see what, exactly, as a solution here? I don’t follow what you’re saying here, and I need clarification. Thanks!

    DP: I think black women deserve the same heart to heart you are proposing with omega males. What do you propose be done?

    O: First things first – it is clear to me that there WILL be a not insignificant sector of White Folk Who Matter’s sons, who CAN’T get er done insofar as the SMP is concerned; I say that they be sat down and told the real deal, so we can get about the business of helping them learn how to cope. This is will be especially hard to do, if for no other reason than the fact that most of their Baby Boomer parents refuse to believe that their kids, in this case sons, will have proven to be, in many ways, failures. But false pride won’t be any good here. Simply put, there is a very real phallic surplus going on, and all the aforementioned information and data points to things getting a heck of a lot worse before they get better.

    As for Sistas, There has already been a goodly amount of discussion and handwringing along these lines; see Jimi Izrael’s book The Denzel Principle, for example. He’s all over YouTube as well. Of course it should come as no surprise that his words were not necessarily welcomed by the Sistarati; no one wants to be told that they are losers. Especially in the game of love.

    But if it means anything to you, millions of Black Women already live lives without Men in them, having come to that conclusion on their own a good ways back. I think Black Women, in comparison to White and Asian ones, are much more matter of fact and real about these kinds of things.

    Holla back

    O.

  • JLW

    I’ve always been interested in the sociological/psychological/physiological factors that determine what men remain alone forever. I opine that are roughly ten major factors that could lead a man to being unable to meet a compatible woman.

    The Physical Factors:

    1) Disability (Fairly obvious. For example, over 80% of spinal cord injury victims never marry.)

    2) Height (Study after study has determined shorter men are less likely to marry, date, etc. Women care about height. Deal with it.)

    3) Unattractiveness (Rarely studied outside of empirical observations, but I think we can all agree that an attractive man/boy will have an easier time meeting an acceptable partner. Age goes here, especially when wooing someone much younger. Women care about looks. Deal with it.)

    The Mental Factors:

    4) Mental illness or retardation (Again, fairly obvious.)

    5) Shyness (Dr. Gilmartin was the first to really examine the small but definitely present group of “loveshy” men. Nobody to my knowledge had hitherto considered these cast offs because, I suspect, no one really cared. They were, and remain, essentially well-behaved surplus men.)

    6) Social Awkwardness: represents any off-putting behavior that would drive women away.

    7) High Standards: being unable to be attracted to the women in your “league”

    The Lifestyle Factors:

    8) Geography (Fairly obvious: a man who lives in West Texas, or in the Outback, or the Highlands, is just not going to run into many women. This was common in the wild west days.)

    9) Income (Women like the well-heeled supporters. This is common knowledge.)

    10) Socialization/Hobbies (This problem would include males who, while not being necessarily misogynistic or shy, spend their time working in an all male-environment and who have “male” hobbies: hiking, camping, wargaming, reading military history, playing computer games.)

    What I’ve seen is that those men who remain alone can cite multiple numbers above as being applicable, whereas a short man or a poor man without some of the other problems is much more likely to connect eventually. For example: I could never have connected with a suitable MOTOS because of: 1, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 10.

    Also, notice that some of these can be fixed, while some cannot. The normal man can fix 8, 9 and 10 with varying degrees of effort. 1, 2 and 3 are fairly constant, with 3 being the most variable of the group. 4 through 7 are more nebulous.

  • Mike C

    see Jimi Izrael’s book The Denzel Principle, for example.
    .
    Speaking of Denzel who I think is one of the best actors out there (the diversity of roles played convincingly), if you want to see good archetypes of alpha men, watch a bunch of his movies. Interestingly, he can very effectively play the “good man” alpha and the “sociopathic” alpha.
    .
    Forget the name of the movie, but the one with him and Gene Hackman on the nuclear sub is just great. Their confrontation is just phenonemal to watch.
    .
    On the flip side, he plays a great alpha in Training Day although that is a good example of an evil, sociopathic one.

  • Scipio Africanus

    Filrabat,
    In terms of what we’re talking about here, the only fathers I’d suggest get heavily involved teaching their sons about the SMP (subtly and tactfully, of course) are natural alphas and reformed betas who came of age since the Rise Of Feminism. But most of those men are well under 50 in 2011, probably under 40, so they’re children are still mostly quite young.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Two points to Stephenie. It’s funny because I was just rolling an idea around in my head that part of the revulsion that women have to clingy good guys is that they recognize the clinginess in themselves and hate that.
    .
    “We disdain in others what we hate in ourselves.”

    I really don’t think that is the case, at least with me. I never dated a jerk and I consider that a man that makes clear his intentions from the get go can be a Nice Guy. I kind of see honesty as a Nice Guy trait. Obviously I was wrong about that.

    But continued attraction to men who play or are hard to get doesn’t make as much sense. Could it be fear of intimacy in the woman that chooses guys she sub-consciously knows will never bond with her?

    I already mentioned on another post that I think women (in general) act with two impulses. Feeling safe and feeling special. The bad boy fulfill these two needs because he looks like he can make you feel safe somehow (physically, economically and even if is hard to believe the bad boy usually detects an emotional need and fulfill it too) and special because of all the women he could have the one they pick most have something that the others didn’t. Though they chase the bad boy because on their tiny brains they think that they can make him commit thus be declared the Big Vag. Sadly another lesson that no one teaches to women is that people only change when they feel like it, the few reformed bad boys out there (the very few) change because they feel like it for whatever reason no because the women they pick had some magical special quality and in the process they left a ton of women crying tears of blood. A red pill hard to swallow.
    One of the things many of my players friends told me is that once a woman falls for them, they know they can get away with anything, she will seek their destructive company like a drug, till she sobers up out of sheer pain or he gets tired and cuts whatever ties he needs to get the next punani.

  • dream puppy

    “You may see the White Folk Who Matter community not that far off from the Black one along marital lines – something else that has been written quite extensively about, across the sociopolitical aisle”

    @O

    Not a chance. The marriage rate for blacks is under 50%, yet they are the most likely to divorce. Marriage a benchmark of Western Society. I am unsure if it was part of Sub-Saharan African Society or if it was something imposed by colonialism. The only information I could find was about South Africa which stated polygamy and bridewealth as the common forms of pre-colonial pairing. Maybe Western marriage isn’t the most appropriate arrangement for some African people.

    @O said: Why should there be [any shame in polygamous arrangements]? I don’t recall any law that calls for the regulation of private behavior.

    You’re right. We should not judge blacks for not behaving like whites. I don’t see why we need to impose our own societal norms on them.

    @O: You don’t see what, exactly, as a solution here? I don’t follow what you’re saying here, and I need clarification. Thanks!

    Black women pairing up with white men. Maybe Asian men and black women? They both seem to be on the losing end of mixed race pairings.

    Anyway, going back to what you were saying- This is not going to end well. Our society is mean to men (and especially white men). They are ridiculed in the media, all their jobs have been shipped to China, they are last in line for employment, and the legal system is pitted against them…and now, to top it off, women won’t touch them- not when there are hot alphas’s to fuck. It just doesn’t seem like there is a good outcome to this type of societal structure…..

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Dream Puppy,
    Replies below:

    DP: Not a chance. The marriage rate for blacks is under 50%, yet they are the most likely to divorce. Marriage a benchmark of Western Society. I am unsure if it was part of Sub-Saharan African Society or if it was something imposed by colonialism. The only information I could find was about South Africa which stated polygamy and bridewealth as the common forms of pre-colonial pairing. Maybe Western marriage isn’t the most appropriate arrangement for some African people.

    O: Maybe Western marriage isn’t the most appropriate arrangement for many WHITE people, if all the stats and data we have is any indication, LOL. People like you crack me up when you go into Rudyard Kipling mode, and conveniently forget the messes right in your own backyard. Get your own house in order before you set out trying to right everyone else’s.

    Let’s try this again: marriage, AMONG WHITES, is on the decline. Fact. Don’t take my word for it, take it up with Ms. Walsh, she’ll tell you. White Folk Who Matter are indeed getting married later than ever in recorded history, and are getting married less to boot. This trend WILL continue, if for no other reason than the fact that the lopsided college gender ratios point to it. Again: both Hacker and Hymowitz have spilled considerable amounts of ink along these lines, and again, Ms. Walsh herself has written quite a bit about this. This is a clear mirroring of Black American society, which calls into question the whole “Sub-Saharan Africans aren’t wired for Western marriage” crap that HBD (or HBD friendly) types, like yourself, like to peddle in. Polygamy isn’t an “African” thing by a longshot, Asian societies had it, of course Arab societies had it, and if the Mormons in our time are any indication, it ain’t alien to White folks either. So, please come correct, DP. I ain’t one of your hipster buddies back home.

    @O said: Why should there be [any shame in polygamous arrangements]? I don’t recall any law that calls for the regulation of private behavior.

    DP: You’re right. We should not judge blacks for not behaving like whites. I don’t see why we need to impose our own societal norms on them.

    O: So if you agree with me, why’d you bring it up in the first place – and what did it have to to with my initial point? Why is it so very hard for to simply recognize the handwriting on the wall – that there will be a sizable amount of White guys, since that’s what we’re talking about here, who will be reproductive losers, and how are we gonna deal with that? Why the need to shift the conversation onto what you deem to be problematic aspects of Black American life? Last time I checked, there wasn’t an entire sector of the Internet made up of disgruntled Black guys, bemoaning their lot in sexual/relationship life, like the virtually all White Manosphere is and does. Perhaps it’s a good idea for Whites to concentrate imposing their own societal norms on themselves? See previous comment response above…

    @O: You don’t see what, exactly, as a solution here? I don’t follow what you’re saying here, and I need clarification. Thanks!

    DP: Black women pairing up with white men. Maybe Asian men and black women? They both seem to be on the losing end of mixed race pairings.

    O: Black Women and Asian Women aren’t likely to pair up for the same reason that Nery gals and guys in the main don’t pair up, because they sexually repulse each other. Chalk it up to nature or nuture, but there it is. It’s DOA and a nonstarter trying to go that route, so there’s no use. As for the “Something New” notion, as the name suggests, there have been Hollywood movies and tv shows, articles and blogs and the like built around this “campaign” – which, when you think about it, tells you all you need to know about it’s “success”. I mean, think about it – White Men and Asian Women didn’t need a PR campaign in order to get them together; Black Men risked life and limb to be with White Women over the course of this country’s history; even “anti-miscegenation” laws and the Mann Act couldn’t keep them apart from (willing) White Women. So it seems very odd that we need a PR campaign to convince Black Women and White Men to get together; and if you need something like that to make a go of the thing in the first place, it likely won’t work in the longrun, on a widescale. My guess is that we won’t see more than 20% of such marriages in the future, if that. Most Black Women won’t want to go that route, and most White Men? The feeling is mutual.

    DP: Anyway, going back to what you were saying- This is not going to end well. Our society is mean to men (and especially white men). They are ridiculed in the media, all their jobs have been shipped to China, they are last in line for employment, and the legal system is pitted against them…and now, to top it off, women won’t touch them- not when there are hot alphas’s to fuck. It just doesn’t seem like there is a good outcome to this type of societal structure…..

    O: Oh, please. White Men still very much run EVERYTHING worth having in American life. The problem isn’t that, but rather, it’s the Marginal White Male, that gets clowned, and he either should do what is necessary to change himself into a better Man, or he should STFU and get on the business of living out the rest of his life. There ain’t gonna be any spate of George Sodinis, Al Qaeda memberships aren’t gonna shoot up amongst the MWM crowd or anything like that; what’s more likely to happen is more such guys crying into their beer in the form of Manosphere sites and blogs, a “going postal” episode here and there, and the band will play on. This is the new normal – either these guys adapt, or die.

    The. End.

    Holla back

    O.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Scipio Africanus

    I believe the influence of the father is usually so subtle that many people don’t appreciate it till they are adults themselves. That is why the feminism movement managed to create the illusion that fathers were not needed. The mother is such an overwhelming force that the father contributions paled on comparison, is only decades later that you can see how screw up a kid (I will say I wouldn’t be surprised if many of this women jerk chasers are father starved themselves) is when his father is not around.

    @Mike C
    I think you should take in account other things like position on sibling hierarchy. One of the things that many people are new are dealing with is the two kids home model. The sibling competition used to be a good training field to learn to negotiate and hone skills to compete for attention and resources so when they went to real life they had an idea of an strategy to use to gain whatever they needed. Friends, love and so on. On a home with two kids there are barely any competition and the kids have their parents love an attention for no good reason even if in real life people won’t be love you just because you exist, you need to have some good qualities and social skills to earn respect, love and affection. I think there should be a balance on “I love you because of you and you should earn others people attention by developing a trait or skill that helps you stand out” helicoptering parents (specially helicoptering mothers) do not help on this instance.

    wargaming, reading military history, playing computer games I resent that one! My husband and his married friends play all this, I think the trick is to not let it overwhelm your life and save time for more “female friendly activity” once they got the female, this actually can show some social dominance, we usually place small bets among ourselves to see which one of our husbands will win when they organize game nights, so there is some sort of social perks on taking the crown home once in a while :) as long as there is some sort of balance and it doesn’t make then into emotional shut downs or “women have cooties” clubs I don’t think guys should let go of something they enjoy.

  • Mike C

    Furthermore, I have troubling with the wording here – LIED TO. Many of the male commenters that I respect enormously feel this way, and I understand, even empathize with this view. However, this statement is problematic:
    The issue, as has been alluded to, is that boys and men are lied to by their mothers and sisters as to what women want and how to attract them. In many cases the women themselves don’t understand their own desires (a sign of solipsism), and even when they do the truth about women’s preferences are rationalized away, as has been done in this very discussion.

    On a very basic level, if women don’t understand their own sexuality, then it’s not possible for them to willingly deceive others in speaking earnestly about it. There’s a question of intent here, and I reject the idea that women en masse have knowingly deceived or misled our sons.
    .
    You are right of course on this point. It isn’t an issue of malicious intent. That said, malicious intent or not, many guys have spent many years working under false ideas of “how things work” spinning their wheels as the frustration level grows higher and higher. You see that in discussion threads like that. I think the reaction you are seeing here in this comment thread is that it almost adds insult to injury to then cast this “nice guy” as the “manipulative guy”. As I’ve stated though on numerous occasions in this day and age the information on “how it really works” is very easy to access although very young guys might not have the ability to even know they need to figure out what isn’t working. But the first line in this really is for Moms not to fill their sons with sorts of misinformation such as “just be yourself” or “be sweet and nice and she’ll come around” or “offer to do her a favor” and all sorts of other well meaning but highly incorrect stuff.
    .
    One final thought. The problem is not that women do not want good men. It’s understandable why men resent women wanting good alpha men, and the general view of this is “good luck with that!”
    .
    I’m oversimplifying but in terms of a 2×2 matrix with the characteristics of good and bad (character) and strong and weak (alpha versus beta), then the ideal is strong and good. Obviously. I think where it gets tricky and the whole “women go for jerks” comes from is that if it is choice between weak and good (some “nice” guys) and strong and bad, most women most of the time go for strong and bad over weak and good. And where most guys go wrong is they focus on doing even more good (I’ll buy her flowers every week to show my interest and affection) rather than develop strength.

  • Timothy Webster

    We men are taking back our power. Polygamy is a far better option for you women than the current culture of hookups and promiscuity, ending up as cat ladies.

  • Scipio Africanus

    Obsidian,
    As you not again and again, the Afrosphere tends to be behind the greater blogosphere as far as dealing with and openly chewing over alot of social issues. I think the PUA/Game culture is only just recently starting to penetrate the Black world. If Feminists generally hate and are shocked to find out about PUA/Game, I know a grip of probably-not-feminist black women whose minds would be utterly blown by finding out about the principles of this. Again, I distinguish this from the “game” that we always heard about growing up in the black community, which, imo, was more about being slick, super clever, and above all, smooth.

    I think this explains why the PUA community is mostly white, apart from the fact that whites are the majority in this country – this stuff just hasn’t reached us yet in large numbers, plus there’s a level of shame in the black community if a man is open about not being good with women.

  • http://www.alifeofthemind.com Walenty Lisek

    @Susan Have you seen this study?

    As it turns out, humans possess the ability to tell who’s a criminal and who’s not simply by looking at them because criminals look different from noncriminals.

    So, contrary to popular belief, you can assess people’s character and personality by simply looking at them. Nice people look nice, and nasty people look nasty, and it appears that humans have innate psychological mechanisms to tell them apart. Now, in a truly groundbreaking study, recently published in the Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, Jeffrey M. Valla, Stephen J. Ceci, and Wendy M. Williams of Cornell University show that people can tell criminals and noncriminals apart simply by looking at their still photos. Criminals, it appears, look different from noncriminals.

    In both experiments, women are unable to spot rapists. Women consistently rate convicted rapists to be less likely to be criminal than not only other types of criminals but noncriminals as well!

    This explains a lot.

  • filrabat

    @Stephanie, @Badger

    This one applies to both women going for jerks AND Nice Guys TM with

    “one-itis” and “protection”

    As I said before, Nice Guys TM can save a lot of one-itis anguish by known which kinds of women generate that oneitis and avoiding them like a venomous snake (and instead look to the “just attractive enough” types). In the same way, women need to realize that THEY THEMSELVES are their own best protector – specifically by figuring out which situations she is most likely to need “protection” and not put herself in those kinds of positions in the first place. For men, that involves knowning which social settings are likely to attract such women who are likely to give them one-itis. For women, that includes avoiding crowds and settings that are likely to involve fisticuffs (closely correlated with social settings where alcohol plays a central role, one of the key reasons I harp on “alcohol-positive” social gatherings). It also involves both realizing that their intense initial attraction is NOT a product of careful rational thought but neurochemical intoxication that clouds their judgement.

    “girls wanting to feel special because she got chosen by a bad boy when he could have chosen anyone else” (also, similar motivations for men wanting to feel special for their own self-esteem or self-aggrandizement)

    Special to whom? Special in what way? If special in the sense of increased social status of their peers – then this is ultimately egotism. As far as I’m concerned, any action motivated ultimately on “what do I get out of it status-wise” is, by definition, doing it more for their own self-promotion and glory than out of concern for others. In fact, such women, as far as LTR quality goes, are more like 0-3s than true 8-10s. If they seek glory, status, and ego-gratification in relationships, they’ll seek glory status and ego-gratification in other ways too (consumerism, “full social schedules”, etc). Clearly not a woman any man “in the know” will take seriously. Beyond this, who is truly the weaker person – one who can’t be happy without other’s explicit approval or people who are still happy with themselves even if others revile them?

    “emotional needs”

    People need to realize that nobody except themselves can ultimately meet their emotional needs. That ultimately means pursuing lifestyle interests that have nothing to do with romance, general socializing, or even friendships. IMO, anyone who starts with romance, general socializing, and friendships as the goal has the proverbial cart before the horse – friendships, socializing, and romance are the result – NOT the cause of happiness (that’s not to say people without those things are unhappy. That’s just to say social relationships are a nice option to have, but not necessary for your happiness. IOW, don’t put a whole lot of emotional investment in them, especially if those people are not really your type)

  • Keoni Galt

    OMG! That video was fascinating and horrible, like a 20 car pile up. That guy had the lowest emotional intelligence of any human being I’ve ever witnessed. He is very handsome, in the classic alpha way, yet he was totally repellent.

    I hope that served as a useful reminder that while looks are important to women, it’s not nearly as much as it is for men.

    I am aware that I was projecting – which is why I said it was scary. I consider myself pretty well educated re the nice guy dilemma at this point, yet I saw this comic and found myself rooting for a happy ending between nice guy and girl.

    That’s because your substituting your idea of a “nice guy” for this “nice” guy in the cartoon and his actual behavior. I would guess that your husband is an alpha who is nice. I’ll bet he didn’t feign friendship with you to avoid his fear of rejection.

    There’s a huge difference in being friendly but unambiguous or deceitful about your true intentions, and becoming a “friend” with ulterior motives.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @filrabat

    Hey I’m just analyzing. I don’t even like alcohol that much the only places I used to drink were on social gatherings (book releases, parties on “friends” houses) and just a glass or two I enjoy having my big brain in control, lizard brain is only good for chocolate cravings and sex…with a person selected by the big brain of course.
    I think you are referring to vaginas/dicks with legs on your post. Maybe we should develop a Am I a Dick/Vagina with legs test or something like it. Some people might not be aware were their choices are coming from.

  • SayWhaat

    We men are taking back our power. Polygamy is a far better option for you women than the current culture of hookups and promiscuity, ending up as cat ladies.

    Hahahahahahahahahaha

  • SayWhaat

    I’m oversimplifying but in terms of a 2×2 matrix with the characteristics of good and bad (character) and strong and weak (alpha versus beta), then the ideal is strong and good. Obviously. I think where it gets tricky and the whole “women go for jerks” comes from is that if it is choice between weak and good (some “nice” guys) and strong and bad, most women most of the time go for strong and bad over weak and good. And where most guys go wrong is they focus on doing even more good (I’ll buy her flowers every week to show my interest and affection) rather than develop strength.

    Bingo.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I hope that served as a useful reminder that while looks are important to women, it’s not nearly as much as it is for men.

    I will say women have the “trait” to identify two type of looks, it makes me horny look and the is aesthetically pleasant look. That is why you can see women talking about other women being hot or not, but you rarely ever see guys doing the same cold observations about other guys, because for guys hot=makes me horny.
    Also a guy can lose “the makes me horny” looks with off putting traits. Of course that depends on the woman, there are women that will get to make me horny and stay there no matter if the guy turns out to be a serial killer. Is indeed complex.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    @filrabat, it is not as easy as avoiding the ultra beautiful girls for many men. Most men don’t get oneitis for those kinds of girls, and it wasn’t the case for my husband either. He went after the “just attractive enough” girls like you said, and there wasn’t any booze involved in the scenarios that unfolded over months. That doesn’t make the oneitis any less painful, as he got rejected by women “in his own league” and allowed these women to get emotionally close then shoot him down as he was showing vulnerability. Of course now he says that those girls were not good matches and that things worked out for the best. But it can be very confusing for young men to do all the things that they were “supposed” to do and still not win a single woman’s heart.

  • http://www.alifeofthemind.com Walenty Lisek

    If she is not interested, his feelings are an overshare, because they put her in the awkward position of rejecting him, and forfeiting the friendship. SayWhaat is right about that – women hate letting guys down. That’s not necessarily a matter of empathy, though it may be. It’s often a sense of resentment that you’ve been forced to even deal with the guy’s feelings. Ugly truth.

    This is something which I’ve noticed and has bothered me for quite some time. If a man has feelings that are inconvenient for a woman, the woman will get angry. Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot the man must be completely understanding. If the man and the woman have feelings that are in conflict the woman will howl to the high moon that the man is being bad. If a man has to respect a woman’s feelings then women must respect a man’s feelings — but that’ll never happen.

    I have no idea how women cannot know how selfish and toxic this kind of behavior is.

  • http://www.alifeofthemind.com Walenty Lisek

    I think we are coming to a point in our national life where we are going to have to have a heart to heart sitdown with our Men and inform them that many of them will not be having wives, girlfriends, or any meaningful contact with the opposite sex (read: ongoing sexual relationships) for much of their lives, and how to cope with this.

    We cope with it by turn this place into Egypt.

  • filrabat

    This discussion further reinforces my idea that I was fortunate to not “chase women” to any extent worth mentioning in my early to mid 20s (due to being a strong Evangelical Christian at the time and having about 80% of my acquaintances and friends as such people). Anyway, I’m now more convinced than ever that I did the right thing by going (sort-of) the childfree bachelor route (actually antinatalist bachelor route, if you want the precise truth, but that’s another topic).

  • SayWhaat

    If a man has feelings that are inconvenient for a woman, the woman will get angry.

    The woman won’t get angry. She’ll feel awful that she can’t reciprocate – suddenly, she has to think about every move she makes, and whether it will give him the wrong impression. She worries about leading him on unintentionally. The most obvious solution is to distance herself, which is honestly is best for both her and the boy involved.

  • http://www.alifeofthemind.com Walenty Lisek
    If a man has feelings that are inconvenient for a woman, the woman will get angry.

    The woman won’t get angry. She’ll feel awful that she can’t reciprocate

    Oh I wasn’t just talking about that situation, I was talking about in general also.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @filrabat
    I’m curious about something. Are you single now or on a relationship or just hooking up now?

  • SayWhaat

    If a man has feelings that are inconvenient for a woman, the woman will get angry.
    The woman won’t get angry. She’ll feel awful that she can’t reciprocate
    Oh I wasn’t just talking about that situation, I was talking about in general also.

    Funny, so was I.
    .
    Look, rejecting a guy is not the carnival you all seem to think it is. It’s actually emotionally taxing for women, ESPECIALLY if he’s a good friend. Women won’t feel angry, they’ll feel uncomfortable, and then they’ll try to keep treating him as a friend, except he’ll start reading into her actions, and get angry with her for leading him on – and THEN she’ll get angry with him for forcing this drama on her in the first place.

  • andros

    Dumb femme-worshipping bullshit (xkcd has a huge female ‘nerd’ fan base).

  • andros

    Interesting that you think that the ‘nice guy’ is intentionally being manipulative.

    .
    This is a woman’s “prettyfied” rationalization of her behavior. In truth, there isn’t any explanation that isn’t rooted in biology; women are not turned on by displays of respect, being treated like equals, friends or whatever. The archetypical ‘nice guy’ either a) refuses to believe this (sympathetic) or b) is afraid of conflict (not so sympathetic) so he tries to tame his animal ego, laboring under the rational impression that no woman would want to be treated like crap. There isn’t anything more to this. The woman is “manipulated” either way: the alpha just says “you can entertain the delusion that I love you if you give me your sex”.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    If a man has to respect a woman’s feelings then women must respect a man’s feelings — but that’ll never happen.

    Who is to say that you owe to nasty women that treat you bad to be understanding? If certain woman doesn’t respect your feelings you have all the right to pay her with the same coin. However make sure you are measuring the woman in question. Don’t make the mistake to get ahead of yourself and think that because is a woman she will act like Mary did 3 years ago. Do it on a individual basis. A nice women deserves nice treatment (those exist I swear) a nasty woman deserves nasty back. You need to remember that rewarding bad behavior is part of the reason we are in this mess.

  • andros

    And for women who think “confidence” is some kind of harmless PC shibboleth (“he just needs confidence!” “He’s so confident!”) one only has to remember that male behavior and its corresponding social arrangement works on a grading scale, not a qualitatively different one: an asshole in the First World might rough a few runts lower down on the totem pole up and bust a nut onto his girl’s face without asking, but an “asshole” in Liberia will cut your arm off or blow your brains out for looking at him the wrong way. Neither is want for women; both are the sexually victorious males in their respective societies.

  • andros

    In regard to motives, I don’t necessarily go in knowing what the motive is. It’s simple exploration. It’s usually not a crush, but more of a “hey, let’s see where this goes”. If I don’t like her, I’ll jet. If I like her, I like her. But by the time I know I like her, she sees me as a ‘buddy buddy’ guy. See the predicament? It’s almost as if you need to be overtly sexual right off the bat.

    .
    I would say that bar very few exceptional circumstances (really conservative girl with close relatives, church maybe) you always must be sexual off the bat, and more and more so as our world keeps coarsening. The “friend zone” is a euphemism for the social limbo a woman places a man under if he fails to be ‘confident’ enough to make known his sexual desire. It really is that simple.

  • andros

    We could be loverrrrrrrrrrrrrssssss~~~

  • filrabat

    @Stephanie

    I’m single in the absolute sense of the word – nobody! Last time I was with somebody (even then I use the term loosely), we’re looking at the latter part of Clinton’s 2nd term. She wanted to get more serious but she wanted to stay in a small town, I wanted to get out of that town (which I did soon afterward – to Dallas, if you’re curious). Also, she seemed to want children, and even by that time I definitely did not.

    Besides, I found out a long time ago (even before she came into my life) that I’m just happier alone anyway (I don’t even want a household pet!). In fact, I wouldn’t have gotten involved with her at all if I thought she’d start actually falling for me. Give me a job paying a good self-supporting income, plus quick access to amenities and a good DSL connection system – and I’m happy.

  • andros

    Do men want to bang all women including their female friends or do men can have platonic love for their female friends?

    .
    http://thepaincomics.com/Things%20I%20Should%20Not%20Be%20Attracted%20To.gif

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @filrabat
    Okay. The thing is that your advice is good and sound, but most people worried about the hook up culture want to have a relationship (sex) and most of them will, eventually, like to have a kid or two, maybe household pets and more importantly the intimate companionship of a member of the opposite sex and that is on the long run the best for all of us as species. So self control is important but I don’t really believe on extremes. A person doesn’t need to be a Horny dog/Slut, but neither needs to be a Hermit/Frigid. Moderation in all things, including moderation, YMMV.

  • filrabat

    I’m not a hermit, given I do socialize at work, calm and civilized parties, and a frequently go to the local astronomical society’s “star parties” (you’ll also meet lots of good people there). Plus I do go to a rather liberal church these days (certainly not the strongly Evangelical ones like I did in my younger days). So while I may not have an “active” social life, I think I have a good healthy balance.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @filrabat
    Sorry I didn’t meant on the sense that you don’t socialize you obviously have more than enough social skills, but about romantic relationships.

  • SayWhaat

    but an “asshole” in Liberia will cut your arm off or blow your brains out for looking at him the wrong way.

    both are the sexually victorious males in their respective societies.

    Probably because the Liberian gunslinging asshole is most likely also a rapist.

  • Nama-stan

    “No More Mr. Nice Guy” by Robert Glover is very relevant to this topic. Glover’s typical Nice Guy, like the man in the stick figure comic strip, will say and do things to curry favor and build up quid pro quos rather than declare (clearly but respectfully) his desires and intentions. Even getting what he wants (sex and commitment) will not resolve the insecurities of the Nice Guy. Such simmering insecurities will keep his woman from totally falling and staying in love with him, and will occasionally erupt in passive-aggressiveness. The “Yeah Let’s Be Friends (for Now)” guy is insecure and off-putting, but in a different way than the initially seductive Jerk.

  • Chico

    Well, comparitively speaking (in relation to White folks, I mean), we know this not to be the case, if anything it’s the exact opposite. Brothas, compared to White guys, are most definitely Alphas, there is no getting around that fact. And they come from a part of society where it is definitely a Matriarchy.

    Obsidian, I’m just theorizing here, but do you think natural testosterone levels may have something to do with it? I know it’s not PC to leave the door open to the possibility of average genetic differences, but the nurture argument doesn’t seem to work in this case.

    Similarly, a lot of Asian men fit into the low-testosterone caricature, which could explain why so many Asian women go for white men. And generally Asian immigrant households tend to be more stable (parents remaining together) than either white or black (North American).

  • andros

    Probably because the Liberian gunslinging asshole is most likely also a rapist.

    .
    This is the get-out-of-jail-free card for women everywhere, men. Pay attention. “I was tricked into loving him!”

  • Stephenie Rowling

    And generally Asian immigrant households tend to be more stable (parents remaining together) than either white or black (North American).

    Hope will probably be better at explaining that, but I think they have strong cultural traditions that make very difficult for the marriage to break up. I do believe there are biological forces at work on our selection indeed, I mean how many white women are attracted to Asian guys in comparison to white men to Asian men? I doubt is because is taboo or lack of chances so there most be something more to it.

    I think the same happens with American men and Black women, but I think is different out there in Europe and Latin America there are many more pairings like that so it might be a mix here of tradition and taboo and possibly the story of slavery different. In my country and most Spain conquered territories and Brazil slavery was less…segregationist. Spaniards usually treated their black mistresses with privileges and recognized their sons and daughters as part of the family, so many black and brown women encouraged relationships with white men because that will guarantee freedom and access to wealth, and their kids could get education and jobs as free men and women, they encouraged their girls to seek this kind of pairings so we ended up very mixed and you can find many light skinned men with dark skinned women, almost as much if not much than light skinned women with black men. And Portuguese were even more fond of their mullato and dark ladies than Spaniards: In fact if you check Chica da Silva story is very different to what happened on USA in similar situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chica_da_Silva.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh, everyone,
    In light of my recent comments wrt how to deal with the Male losers of the SMP, I would like to post a few comments along these lines in another forum I regularly frequent, a blog by a Woman named Alte, which she calls Traditional Catholicism. The discussion can be seen in full here: http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/why-young-men-dont-marry-why-should-we-care/#comment-7502
    .
    Here’s my comments:
    .
    Alte, Black Rose,
    Replies below:
    .
    Editor: Maybe monks or some other religious order. Priests need to be fatherly, which is hard when you aren’t very patriarchal.
    .
    O: Good point about the religious orders, I hadn’t considered those, and again goes to show the many “slots” open and available to these Men. But even if they don’t “make the team”, the RCC has many, many other areas that need to be staffed, even at the volunteer levels, given all the events of recent years and as well, simple attrition of their ranks due to age and so forth. I’m not a Catholic of course, but it just seems to me that it’s a more productive use of those who are to promote the involvement of those Men who won’t be able to compete in the SMP in the RCC. It’s a noble and meaningful option that can make a difference in their own and other people’s lives. It’s also practical and pragmatic.
    .
    Take Dave Alex for example – he can do meaningful work for the RCC, even if he never becomes a priest or a monk. He likes to travel, and the RCC can easily arrange that, and they don’t even have to reinvent the wheel – we all know that the Mormons have vigorous missionary type programs for its young Men in particular. DA could be sent to places like Germany, or South America, to help in various projects. It wouldn’t hard to do since he already lives frugally and has few major needs, and what needs he does have (sans the porn) the Church can readily provide, so it isn’t even that expensive. I’m just saying that this is a much better and practical alternative than what he’s facing right now and is likely to face in the coming years.
    .
    Editor: Women will give up feminism if they see that women who have given it up have a better life than those who haven’t. Or they will have to give it up in order to eat. Either one.
    .
    O: As I’m sure you know Alte, the GOP has more married Women and Women who would be considered traditional in its ranks than the Dems. Yet that doesn’t seem to be a huge selling point. Simply put, when Women are given the choice, they choose things other than food, clothing and shelter, LOL. The GOP simply hasn’t figured out how to appeal to potential single Women voters, which is a considerable block of the Dems nationally. Until they do, they will continue to lose.
    .
    BLACK ROSE: Yes, that is what I am interested in Obsidian. I am interested in who would the traditionalist anti-feminist movement align themselves with; I feel that such a movement would be a political failure because it is not ecumenical enough, does not offer powerful economic incentives, and it does not have greater political capital than the cultural Marxists.
    .
    O: Right – although, we can leave out the arcane and esoteric language and references to “Marxism” and “globalization” and the like, and simply focus on the “what’s in it for me?” aspects of things here, and clearly the answer is, if you’re a modern day Woman, “nothing”. Clearly such a program would benefit, first and foremost, Men, particularly (but not necessarily limited to) White Men. Well, that’s a nonstarter for most Black Women, Hispanic Women and yes, even a sizable chunk of White Women themselves. There’s no carrot and all stick. Like I said, marriage ain’t about three hots and a cot anymore, LOL. It’s about companionate pairings among equals, about romantic ideals of love and compatibility, and it’s about assortative arrangements. On the latter point, given the way the current college campus is arranged, that alone will continue to drag down marriage rates here in the USA, and will have an impact on on the other aspects of modern day marriage as we know it in the other areas listed. Bringing back Ozzie and Harriet really won’t address this.
    .
    BR: Perhaps a good question for the conservatives would be: What is the greater evil, economic Marxism (socialism/welfare state) or cultural Marxism (feminism and multiculturalism)? Perhaps one can ask themselves if conservatives who are against the welfare state but complicit with the institutions of cultural Marxism are really their allies.
    .
    O: Again, with all due respect, part of crafting public policy is keeping in line with the KISS rule, Black Rose. Arcane and esoteric language, laced with all manner of hot button terms is a surefire way to make sure your ideas never see the light of day. Aside from that, the whole “welfare state” argument is a nonstarter, since Welfare Reform itself has been deemed a huge success on both sides of aisle, and is now viewed as a bunch of disgruntled White Men being meanspirited because they don’t have as many goodies as they used to. Just doesn’t work. As for the whole “multiculturalism” canard, the problem there is folks in the conservatives’ own camp WANT Mexican illegals here because they provide cheap labor – to wit, Meg Whitman and Lou Dobbs, just for starters. Moreover, there is no “multiculturalism” there is only one American culture – for the most part, we speak the same language, pray to the same God, eat the same food, suffer from the same maladies.
    .
    The main reason why conservatives continue to shrink and lose, for decades now when you sit back and think about it, is because they refuse to get with the times. They have nothing to offer in place of what they rail against, they are seen as angry, bitter, sexist and racist, as well as old and White. Not a very good winning combination given the projected “face” of our society in the coming years. At best, and given its current configuration, the best the GOP can hope for is a kind of circling the wagons, which won’t last for long, if for no other reason than the simple fact that THEY aren’t reproducing enough to hold their own center. None of this means that the Dems are so much better, but given the choices so many face, they ARE better than what the GOP is offering.
    .
    The vote tallies, continue to prove this.
    .
    I’m jus’ sayin’.
    .
    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Stephanie, Chico,
    My bad for not replying sooner, so here we go…
    .
    Stephanie makes a very powerful point as to how the Spanish and Portuguese handles issues surrounding Race in comparison to the Anglosphere, which includes locales such as the USA and many Caribbean islands like Jamaica and so forth. In the former, as she rightly notes, Black people, in this case Women, were treated a heck of a lot better than their counterparts in the States and elsewhere. For example, Sally Hemmings would have been freed had she been in Brazil.
    .
    And of course, there’s a good reason as to why Asian Males, in aggregate, are among the biggest losers in the American SMP, and have been for a very long time now, going all the way back to the great railroads being built and the like – it’s because of the view of them not being “Manly” and so forth. For whatever reason, be it genetic, cultural, a combination of the two or none of the above, this view of them persists, and it really hurts their chances out there on the dating market. The same can be said of Black Women in aggregate (in their case, being seen as too “Mannish”, aggressive, argumentative, Drama Queens, “Ghetto”, etc, et al). Of course, there are always notable exceptions in both cases, but what I’ve said is something you all have at the very least heard about these two groups. It is, what it is.
    .
    Chico, I am definitely a believer in genetic differences among and between the races, and I think it’s silly for anyone with any modicum of commonsense to attempt to deny otherwise; the problem isn’t that, but what those who attempt to use this as a basis with which to formulate public policy, on a very narrow range of differences, most notably IQ. I suspect this is because those who proffer this the most like to see themselves as having higher IQs, and even if that is true, the problem with that is that they offer nothing else, nor does any successful society function on IQ alone. If that were the case, by their own reasoning the Pacific Rim would be running the world and for a very long time at that, but they don’t, not even close. None of the Asian Tigers are serious world powers when you think about it, and it doesn’t take an expert in geo-politics to see that it will be quite some time off into the future before they do become close to serious players on the world stage, due in the main, to all manner of very stubborn and persistent social problems on their own backyards.
    .
    Scipio Africanus spoke to this, and so have I over on my own blog, about the reputation of Black Men as lovers and the like; clearly, when you get into the weeds with it, this isn’t true for every Black Man out there. Indeed, there are quite a few Black Nerds, who, by dint of their ability to get their message out and being heard, have taken in more recent years, to seize on this notion of “Acting White” – they rail against this canard by saying that they are or were assailed with such labels when younger by more hip, but lesser academically inclined Blacks and were ridiculed and so forth. As I point out in my recent article on the Jalen Rose/Grant Hill controversey, the only Blacks who make a big deal out of “Acting White” are Buppies themselves – Pookie and Ray Ray in the hood don’t spend their days hatin’ on uppity Black folk out in the county. For what it’s worth, they’re busy doing other stuff, some of it productive, others not so productive, but it almost always is centered on themselves and their world, which for the most part is inner city America. The “Acting White” deal is something largely created and maintained by Buppies, to justify why they are who they are, a kind of tilting at windmill defense for why they’re in many ways, Brothas and Sistas without a country. The real deal with these folks is their deep anxiety, which always is a feature of being middle class no matter who you are, along with the extra added overlay of Race, of not truly belonging in either world, the White or the Black. There’s more I can say about this, so checkout my blog. But insofar as it relates to what SA and you and DP are saying, those Brothas in the hood who didn’t have natural swag, yea, they’re suffering in a big way. I’ve always maintained, that the worst kind of Nerd to be, was a Black one.
    .
    Holla back
    .
    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh, in responding to Hollenhund’s comments/questions concerning Game, said:
    “@Hollenhund
    Sorry to delay in responding – I was ill yesterday. The spread of Game may depress the marriage rate, and of course women will not welcome that. However, it strikes me as a reasonable, perhaps even inevitable response to the SMP. We’ll just have to manage as best we can. I still believe strongly that women who are proactive in seeking a quality mate will fare much better than those who party through their 20s. Also, tbh, a lot of the men who learn Game will use it to find a mate. Yes, there are bloggers who clearly have made the switch from hapless beta to player (and practitioner of Dark Game), but I think this is unusual in the population.”
    .
    O: Excellent points, and since Hollenhund’s been banging this drum for a while, let me say directly to him that he couldn’t be more wrong. Read The Game, most guys learning Game are just trying to find a girlfriend, not become the next Mack. I’ve seen it myself firsthand so I know it to be true. The Roissys of the world are few and far between, as Sith Lords should be. What is far more likely to depress the marital rate, is Men NOT having Game – in fact, even Roissy has said that a Man having Game ups his chances of having a successful marriage, and if a Man’s looking to get married, he better get Game first. I’ve been giving this matter a bit of thought myself, and should like to write more in detail on this in the coming days over at my own blog, so stay tuned.
    .
    And Ms. Walsh, get better! We need you.
    .
    O.

  • Chico

    I think it’s silly for anyone with any modicum of commonsense to attempt to deny otherwise; the problem isn’t that, but what those who attempt to use this as a basis with which to formulate public policy, on a very narrow range of differences, most notably IQ.

    Agreed. We are most certainly on the same page here, particularly considering the variation between the means for a wide variety of traits (not just IQ, but physical strength, personality, height, etc).

    No doubt Bruce Lee will be able to pull off more chicks, and hotter chicks, than Steve Urkle. I don’t think anyone’s debating that.

  • Chico

    I’m not a Catholic of course, but it just seems to me that it’s a more productive use of those who are to promote the involvement of those Men who won’t be able to compete in the SMP in the RCC. It’s a noble and meaningful option that can make a difference in their own and other people’s lives.

    I don’t like the idea of giving up if it can be avoided. The problem with a lot of omega guys is that they don’t admit to having a problem and they don’t have the motivation to change themselves.

    I think you’re going to see the DMV of males in the SMP split even further as more men start figuring out what is really at play. On one side of the camp, many omegas will drift into an abyss of depression, video games, porn, and online scapegoating/manosphere. Rather than do anything about their situation it is easier to give up and/or blame others.

    Then there are the betas and omegas who take the red pill, and don’t like the way it tastes, but realize it’s in their best interest to make some changes to their lives to improve their dating market value. I would like to consider myself (as someone who got “classic beta” recently on Roissy’s DMV quiz) part of the latter group. I believe the following series of goals could significantly improve the chances of many beta/omega males and it’s something I’m working on myself at the moment.

    1) Get in great shape. On it’s own, this may only increase your DMV by a few points, but it does wonders for self-confidence and energy levels. Personally, I feel more confident about approaches and am better receieved when in good shape. The multiplier effect of this shouldn’t be underestimated.

    2) Figure out who you are and figure out a life purpose. Know what makes you passionate and run with it. This, admittedly, is much harder than #1 in a world where young men are worried about getting their next credential, never stopping to smell the flowers.

    3) Career. Always find a way to advance yourself and become more financial grounded. Nuff’ said.

    4) Practice extraversion. Practice it with everyone, but especially women. It’s a skill that requires practice, like any other.

    5) Become more adventurous. Personally, I think I’ve wasted my 20s on education so far, to the detriment of other kinds of personal development. I know I’m nowhere near alone in this. It really kills me in terms of having DHV stories to tell. I would love to go backpacking or on a serious road trip sometime in the next few years. The guys who never went to university/college seem to have a lot more women interested in them. So don’t become one of those 9-5 guys who just comes home and loafs in his apartment after graduation.

  • http://www.alifeofthemind.com/ Walenty Lisek

    No doubt Bruce Lee will be able to pull off more chicks, and hotter chicks, than Steve Urkle. I don’t think anyone’s debating that.

    The mistake you’re making is that high IQ = Steve Urkle. This is a cultural meme and has nothing to do with the reality of genius level IQ. High IQ requires are larger, more efficient brain the what normal humans have. There is also a longer development time for this kind of brain. All of these factors require that someone with a high IQ must also be healthy for a very long time to develop that kind of brain.

    This physical health required to build the high IQ brain translates into the practical consequences of beautiful people having higher IQ’s. Good health is required for both beauty and high IQ and good health produces both.

    Part of the problem with the perception of high IQ = Urkle is that a lot of people can’t seem to tell the difference between someone who is a nerd and someone who is smart. Ever see that show Big Bang Theory? Those tards may be nerds but they are not intelligent. They may even have domain specific knowledge that makes them look smart because they do physics or whatever, but again this does not put them in the genius category.

    One of the best fictional portrayals on TV of (an admittedly dysfunctional) genius is Dr. House. His introversion, his intuitive insights, good memory, obsessive need to solve the puzzle is closer to how actual high IQ people behave. Look at him socially as well, he does understand people even if he doesn’t get along with them. The tards on BBT don’t get along with people because they don’t understand them.

    A good example of a non-dysfunctional portrayal of a gifted teen can be seen in the Nancy Drew movie with Emma Roberts from a few years ago. If you watch that movie you can see she actually has a similar personality to House but without being nasty. She is introverted, has intuitive insights, a good memory, and obsessive need to solve the puzzle. Again, she also understands the world around her even if she is not a part of it. She also displays a complex concern for morality that House doesn’t really display.

    If you get nothing else out of this then at least get this: nerd does not equal smart.

  • Chico

    Walenty Lisek,

    I will certainly admit that there are many different types of intelligence out there. Some people may be mathetmatical/physics geniuses, but socially inept. Intelligence on its own may not be a trait that repels women, but social awkwardness is. Urkle is extremely awkward and nerdy, which is more to the point of what I was trying to get at.

    Funny you mention Dr. House. When I try and picture what Roissy looks like, I come up with a character very similar to him.

  • Höllenhund

    „The spread of Game may depress the marriage rate, and of course women will not welcome that. However, it strikes me as a reasonable, perhaps even inevitable response to the SMP.”

    Ms. Walsh, you said that women should embrace Game, hand out fliers about PUA boot camps to men on the street, then you concede that women won’t welcome the probable repercussions of the spread of Game. Well, what gives? How do you expect them to advocate for Game then?

    „Also, tbh, a lot of the men who learn Game will use it to find a mate.”

    Indeed. But the problem from women’s POV is this: all men desire female companionship, but their most immediate interest in the realm of male-female interaction is sex, preferably casual sex. After all, even betas would welcome a roll in the hay now and then.

    You have correctly observed that young men have greater aversion towards a committed relationship than before and having a steady girlfriend doesn’t actually bring the same status as before. A young man has a higher chance of earning status among his peers by casually hooking up than by having a girlfriend, which usually has a betaizing effect on men.

    Add to this that casual sex is the easiest form of successful interaction a man can have with a woman. It requires no sense of responsibility, emotional intelligence, fortitude, free time, accommodation or LTR Game – no big investment of any sort.

    Based on all this it’s reasonable to assume that if a large number of betas learn Game, they will mainly deploy it try get casual sex from the slutty girls now and then, because that’s their strongest short-term interest. This doesn’t mean they will practice „Dark Game” or that they plan to become lotharios, just that only a minority of them is likely to invest in LTR Game, because that requires more investment and fortitude on their part.

    Obs,

    „What is far more likely to depress the marital rate, is Men NOT having Game – in fact, even Roissy has said that a Man having Game ups his chances of having a successful marriage, and if a Man’s looking to get married, he better get Game first.”

    Deploying Game to preserve your existing marriage is one thing. Deploying it to keep a girlfriend and then marry her is another. My point is that the latter is less likely to happen than the former. As Ms. Walsh correctly noted recently, young men are more averse to the idea of marriage than ever before. If a man deploys Game, he increases his chances of getting what he wants from a woman OUTSIDE marriage, which in turn will mean he will have even less incentives to sign up for Marriage 2.0.

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

      @Hollenhund

      Ms. Walsh, you said that women should embrace Game, hand out fliers about PUA boot camps to men on the street, then you concede that women won’t welcome the probable repercussions of the spread of Game. Well, what gives? How do you expect them to advocate for Game then?

      I’ve said that I endorse Game because I believe it increases the pool of eligible men. I also believe that it’s in the best interest of many men to learn it, as it accurately reflects female sexual psychology. All men are better off with this knowledge. Now, it’s true that sometimes the male’s gain is the female’s loss. However, we’ve currently got an SMP that most women would describe as hostile. I regularly encourage women to select men for long-term fitness, not short-term gratification. This is easier to do if the number of fit men is increasing. Right now we’ve got large numbers of dissatisfied men and women, and the opportunity lies in getting them together. If all those men learned Game, many happy couples would be the result. Of course, this is all theoretical – undoubtedly there would be consequences I’ve not foreseen or anticipated. Still, if men are currently locked out of the SMP, any kind of self-development that gains them access can only be good for women. And of course, a real flood of men would change the supply and demand ratio. But it seems unlikely that that many men will ever learn Game.

      Based on all this it’s reasonable to assume that if a large number of betas learn Game, they will mainly deploy it try get casual sex from the slutty girls now and then, because that’s their strongest short-term interest. This doesn’t mean they will practice „Dark Game” or that they plan to become lotharios, just that only a minority of them is likely to invest in LTR Game, because that requires more investment and fortitude on their part.

      I don’t disagree with you in the short-term, or while guys are young. But I believe that beta guys are far more likely to pair-bond than alphas are. A beta with game is a superior partner to an alpha, largely because he enjoys the emotional intimacy.

  • GudEnuf

    Susan:

    Feminism makes no sense if gender isn’t a social construct. Biological sex differences are extremely threatening to feminists for this reason.

    Scarecrow. The fact that gender is a social construct doesn’t mean there aren’t any biological sex differences. Feminists aren’t saying all differences can be explained by social construct, just a lot.

    Take the most obvious example: women wear skirts and men do not. Evo-psych can’t explain that; it’s an arbitrary distinction made by our culture.

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

    Take the most obvious example: women wear skirts and men do not. Evo-psych can’t explain that; it’s an arbitrary distinction made by our culture.

    Evo psych says that women display their legs to men because lithe legs with good skin tone are a fertility cue. We know that men seek information about fertility in women’s appearance – hair, skin, eyes, fitness, symmetry. We also know that men are particularly aroused by breasts, legs and posteriors. Women are endlessly creative in finding ways to display these assets.

    Conversely, women do not seek information about a man’s legs in determining his level of attractiveness, so it makes practical sense for a man to wear whatever suits his lifestyle and is comfortable.

  • SayWhaat

    Hope will probably be better at explaining that, but I think they have strong cultural traditions that make very difficult for the marriage to break up.

    Not Hope, but I’ll co-sign this. There is a huge cultural taboo on divorce in the South Asian community. They may not all be happy marriages, but they’re happy to look down on the “Westernized 50% divorce rate”, lol.

  • Good Man

    Amanda Marcotte takes on the Mens Rights Activists and I have to agree with her.

    Follow the links

    http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/solution-mra-problems-more-feminism/

  • OffTheCuff

    GM, it’s very easy to denounce your opposition when you exaggerate their position to the point of absurdity. Surely, some of the issues have more nuanced solutions than “more feminism”, which basically says “fuck you, men”.

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

    Good Man, are you serious? To quote Pauli in a paraphrasing sense, she’s so far from the truth she’s not even wrong.

    I can’t get past enough of her animosity to care.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Hope will probably be better at explaining that, but I think they have strong cultural traditions that make very difficult for the marriage to break up.

    My parents got divorced in the late 80s, and it was a HUGE taboo. None of my elementary school classmates had their parents get divorced as far as I know. All of my relatives’ marriages stayed together, including aunts and uncles.

    Take the most obvious example: women wear skirts and men do not.

    Kilts and robes would say they were pretty manly back in the day. So yes, this one is probably a social construct. But the idea that, say, women are just as strong and capable as men for frontline combat duty, is both foolish and dangerous. Just about any guy can easily pick up a person weighing 100lbs. I would probably just collapse.

    There’s an expression: “Exceptions to the rule prove the rule.”

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hollenhund,
    We can go back and forth about Game and its effects, desired or unintended, on larger society, or for that matter whether Men who learn it would be more or less inclined to marry (despite the fact that most guys looking to learn Game are really looking for a girlfriend, if not a wife), but I thought the following quote by you, which Ms. Walsh herself picked up on, was quite interesting:
    .
    “Based on all this it’s reasonable to assume that if a large number of betas learn Game, they will mainly deploy it try get casual sex from the slutty girls now and then, because that’s their strongest short-term interest. This doesn’t mean they will practice „Dark Game” or that they plan to become lotharios, just that only a minority of them is likely to invest in LTR Game, because that requires more investment and fortitude on their part.”
    .
    O: I find the above by you fascinating, because it would go to prove something I and others have said all along – that, again if what you say above holds any water, that Beta “nice guys” aren’t actually “nice” but rather are, because they have nothing else to bank on; and having acquired Game, are merely doing what their more Alpha counterparts are presumably doing. Assuming this is so, what are your reactions in response?

    O.

  • Lavazza

    Susan: “I don’t disagree with you in the short-term, or while guys are young. But I believe that beta guys are far more likely to pair-bond than alphas are. A beta with game is a superior partner to an alpha, largely because he enjoys the emotional intimacy.”

    As I wrote in another thread I think there is a tipping point around the dozen when men start to prefer the life style of casual sex with women of average attractiveness, and some very attractive ones when they get lucky, to a committed monogamous LTR with just one attractive woman.

    I do not think that betas with game are different from alphas in this area. Anyway we will never know, if nothing else because betas with game is both a small and hard to identify group.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    No doubt Bruce Lee will be able to pull off more chicks, and hotter chicks, than Steve Urkle.

    Hey I never liked Bruce Lee (Jackie Chan girl here) and I had a huge crush on Steve Urkel so again NAWALT :p

    I don’t like the idea of giving up if it can be avoided. The problem with a lot of omega guys is that they don’t admit to having a problem and they don’t have the motivation to change themselves.

    I’m with you in this. I think the MRA is actually on the right path by fighting back, the thing is that all changes are happening slowly individually and disorganized which will take forever for mainstream to realize how screwed up things are, you (men in general) need to unite because the feminism movement is huge, active and always on top of things, brainwashing American constantly. If you started to fight back on huge numbers (and really men are 50% of America population) you could make enough change that will make some women realize the truth behind the programing they had been told, in my box explanation most women in this country had placed American men on their collective “abuser,creep” box, and nothing you do will change that till you force them to look into their boxes and realize that they are wrong, to get you out of there. The thing is that you are not being strategically about it, you are accommodating to what women need instead: learn Game, when in fact what you need is to bring the status of the nice hard working guy back on top, so you can fulfill hypergamy without having to turn to a complete change of values, behaviors and societal rules. There can be hope but you (all of you) need to get into war mentality with feminism as a culture but not women as individual, YMMV.

    For example, Sally Hemmings would have been freed had she been in Brazil.

    Heh I hope neither of you take it as an insult but outside on the rest of the world there are cultures that adore you and worship you, there are cultures that hate you and want you down and there are cultures that laugh at you. When the Sally Hemmings “scandal” was made public in my country what every one said was: so Americans are surprised that a white man with a pretty dark lady close by had sex and fathered children with he? Americans are insane!

    Feminists aren’t saying all differences can be explained by social construct, just a lot.

    Heh at this point I expect some study that says that pregnancy is a social construct and that a real feminist man can get pregnant…

    Not Hope, but I’ll co-sign this. There is a huge cultural taboo on divorce in the South Asian community. They may not all be happy marriages, but they’re happy to look down on the “Westernized 50% divorce rate”, lol.

    But you know I think the problem with marriage here is that people assume that marriage is a constant state of blissfulness when marriage is like life/work/school, it has bad moments, has great moments and have boring moments. Excepting big things like abuse or cheating, I will consider that most marriages are basically happy in average, if you talk about moments of great joy and moments of crisis and boringness. So yeah they do well by mocking this side of the world that doesn’t understand that you have the take the good with the bad with every choice you make, to prevent they having their women developing the “looking for perpetual happiness syndrome”, YMMV.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “5) Become more adventurous. Personally, I think I’ve wasted my 20s on education so far, to the detriment of other kinds of personal development.”
    .
    I know what that feels like. It doesn’t help to realize that a lot of people in graduate school are there because they are afraid of the real world, so one’s opportunities to mingle with active, alpha-type people are diminished.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “I had a huge crush on Steve Urkel ”
    .
    If there’s such a thing as psychological pornography this is it

  • Stephenie Rowling

    If there’s such a thing as psychological pornography this is it

    Oh come on don’t tell me you never had a crush on a fictional character? Half my nerdy boys forum friends are panting over Summer Glau and back in the day Lara Croft was the “perfect woman” so yeah this is perfectly normal for most people.

  • Chico

    Re: Stephanie,

    I’ve thought about it, but it is ultimately pointless fighting against cultural marxism. You have far more to lose from it than gain. Your (chance at a) job, for example. Many employers google an applicants name before deciding to hire them. If your name comes up with a picture of you and a whole bunch of “anti-feminist propaganda” attached to it, they may think twice about hiring you.

    Instead, I’m just going to do what it takes to win in this SMP. Selfish? Maybe. But if you spend your whole time thinking about others, you’ll get walked on in this cold world. I think most guys (including GENUINELY nice guys) really do want to do good. But not as much as they want a woman’s love and sex. When your reward for treating people how you want to be treated is a feminist boot stomping on your face and a lack of ability to move forward in the world, a good person can become dark through his environment influencing him. This is the world we men must live in every day. Time to nut up.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Oh come on don’t tell me you never had a crush on a fictional character?”
    .
    I thought about putting the wink emoticon in, but figured you’d get it without me saying so. I’m sure you understand that crushing on Urkel is a charming way to be an outlier ;)

  • Chico

    I know what that feels like. It doesn’t help to realize that a lot of people in graduate school are there because they are afraid of the real world, so one’s opportunities to mingle with active, alpha-type people are diminished.

    Well, I’m in a post-grad technical diploma right now. I’m not there for a fear of the real world. I’m there to become employable. I applied to 80-100 jobs last year with meagre results. Problem is, a lot of people come out of their undergrad with their ability to write essays about their professional field. But they have no saleable job skills beyond their literacy or ability to crunch numbers.

    I would never go back for a Masters. It’s a waste of time and money that could be better spent.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Chico
    And that is exactly that attitude that will keep things getting worse. Do you think feminism would be this huge influence if every women though: Oh I won’t get married and have babies if I become more “empowered”? Nope. With enough numbers of men you could do the same, in fact I think you could probably do it faster. Heterosexual ladies that are already looking for commitment are not blind to the lack of males, with enough incentive many others will wake up to what is happening. The thing is that you (generally speaking) think that you will lose even more so try to play by the new unfair rules and get the best you can, meaning social crumbs, and that probably have to do with the fact that women sex drive is more complex while men sex drive is waay to simple (boobs, buttocks, legs) I want some of that if there is a chance no matter how minimal or how much abuse I have to endure for it.
    Oh well I guess you (men) will need to feel like there is nothing left to lose to try to join forces and do something, sadly that will mean that we will need something big and tragic happening to group of men for it to happen.I guess the more the things change the more they remain the same…

    I thought about putting the wink emoticon in, but figured you’d get it without me saying so. I’m sure you understand that crushing on Urkel is a charming way to be an outlier ;)

    Awww thanks :)

  • Chico

    Stephanie,

    Social crumbs? I don’t know what you’re talking about. Men at the top of this SMP are rolling in the poontang. It may not be as fulfilling as a relationship with a soulmate you truly care about, but it’s a hell of a lot better than celibacy. Frankly, I don’t want power struggles in a relationship, but if women are that big of shit testers…

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “In both experiments, women are unable to spot rapists. Women consistently rate convicted rapists to be less likely to be criminal than not only other types of criminals but noncriminals as well!”
    .
    The first thing I’d like to know is what kind of rape convicts they were looking at – real forcibles or guys who had drunk sex and got hit with “date rape” charges? If, as certain elements in the manosphere allege, a significant number of rape claims are bogus or exaggerated, of course the criminal-detection hardware is going to throw erroneous results when presented with such “convicts.”
    .
    Even if rape prosecution is on the up and up, the expanding definition of rape is going to change the profile of convicts towards those who didn’t intend any harm but got snared by witch-hunt laws or hustle plea bargains.
    .
    The second thing is what are the impacts on jury selection? If social science reasonably proves that certain groups cannot properly evaluate a suspected criminal for his/her guilt, how can you put members of that group on a jury for those cases? You wouldn’t have a bunch of blind people judge a beauty contest (although I do wonder about the taste of those who select who we’re supposed to think is beautiful). We already select out jurors for various conflicting factors.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Social crumbs? I don’t know what you’re talking about. Men at the top of this SMP are rolling in the poontang. It may not be as fulfilling as a relationship with a soulmate you truly care about, but it’s a hell of a lot better than celibacy. Frankly, I don’t want power struggles in a relationship, but if women are that big of shit testers…

    I mean things like being getting charged as stalkers or sexual harrasers or rapists for daring to even try and talk to a woman that felt like accusing you that day, and getting the whole weight of the law with little evidence and even if you are considered non-guilty still somehow you deserve it by the virtue of having a penis…that social crumbs.
    Also you are assuming that you are going to end , for sure, on the top of the SMP, what makes you think that?

  • Brendan

    Oh well I guess you (men) will need to feel like there is nothing left to lose to try to join forces and do something, sadly that will mean that we will need something big and tragic happening to group of men for it to happen.

    Never happen.

    Why? Because men are wired to throw each other under the bus when it comes to pussy access. We’re competitive with each other in general, but the crux, the pinnacle, of intra-male competition concerns access to women, and it has always been like this. A man will metaphorically slit another man’s throat with ease, wash off his metaphorical hands and walk off to breakfast with the guy’s gf/wife without any problem whatsoever. “All’s fair in love and war” is a good way of understanding where the boundaries of morality as *between* males lies. When it comes to women, men will never join forces against organized womanhood, because all the women have to do to drive a wedge among the men is wave some pussy around, and the wedges will be well and truly driven and the men will start undermining each other and fighting amongst themselves.

    Men who care about the future do best by working, even subtly, to undermine the current order, whilst navigating it to their own benefit at the same time in whatever way makes sense for them. There will be no massive male rebellion. There will likely be, however, a gradual worsening of conditions that will cause some changes to be made somewhere down the line, and that gradual worsening can be egged along by some strategic thinking by men, coupled with a long-term perspective (e.g., spreading the use of Game so that the current SMP becomes even more intolerable for many people).

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

      @Brendan

      men are wired to throw each other under the bus when it comes to pussy access. We’re competitive with each other in general, but the crux, the pinnacle, of intra-male competition concerns access to women, and it has always been like this.

      This is increasingly the model that women follow as well. If women would join forces against casual sex – the Lysistrata strategy – they could change the SMP overnight. But of course it will never happen. Nor will women police within their own groups for aberrant sexual behavior – that only worked when “bad girls” were the exception. Now we have social cliques of promiscuous girls, separate from groups of girls who don’t “do casual.” This is true even within highly social groups like sororities.

      Men who care about the future do best by working, even subtly, to undermine the current order, whilst navigating it to their own benefit at the same time in whatever way makes sense for them

      That’s the premise of HUS. Individuals can find sanity amidst the chaos, but it requires considerable strength of mind and purpose. I don’t believe that many people will “luck into” happily ever after.

      @Mike C

      The intelligent guy who wants a good life says fuck the system, fuck the overall macro environment, and how do I get what I want until the rest of these dipshits figure out what is going on.

      At least Game cracks the code and provides a blueprint. For women, it’s simple but far more difficult to pull off – be really good looking. Of course, many women could improve their looks with effort, but there is already a huge problem, i.e. eating disorders, related to that. In addition, there’s a lot we need to figure out about timing – Is he ready for a relationship? What if I really like someone who’s 22? or 20? Where do I meet guys who are 25? etc. etc.

  • Mike C

    And that is exactly that attitude that will keep things getting worse. Do you think feminism would be this huge influence if every women though: Oh I won’t get married and have babies if I become more “empowered”? Nope.
    .
    Stephenie,

    In my view, things will have to get worse, much worse, before any sort of major change takes place. Most people still have their heads up their asses regarding what variables are the drivers of what behaviors and end effects. Look at the idiotic article Mr. “Good man” linked to from Amanda Marcotte. The intelligent guy who wants a good life says fuck the system, fuck the overall macro environment, and how do I get what I want until the rest of these dipshits figure out what is going on. The time a guy wastes on making big changes could be spent in the gym changing his body or self-development.
    .
    Heterosexual ladies that are already looking for commitment are not blind to the lack of males, with enough incentive many others will wake up to what is happening.
    .
    I don’t know about this. For every enlightened thoughtful woman like you or Susan, there are 99 clueless as best as I can tell.
    .
    You can try to swim against the tide of the ocean or catch a wave and surf.

  • Mike C

    When it comes to women, men will never join forces against organized womanhood, because all the women have to do to drive a wedge among the men is wave some pussy around, and the wedges will be well and truly driven and the men will start undermining each other and fighting amongst themselves.
    .
    Word.

  • Mike C

    Men who care about the future do best by working, even subtly, to undermine the current order, whilst navigating it to their own benefit at the same time in whatever way makes sense for them. There will be no massive male rebellion. There will likely be, however, a gradual worsening of conditions that will cause some changes to be made somewhere down the line, and that gradual worsening can be egged along by some strategic thinking by men, coupled with a long-term perspective (e.g., spreading the use of Game so that the current SMP becomes even more intolerable for many people).
    .
    I could be completely wrong, but I think we are nearing some sort of major inflection point where some of these ideas go viral (sort of a business technology adoption S curve). I read guys like Badger, collegeslacker, and Athlone and I’m amazed how perceptive and tuned in some of these younger guys are. I was a fucking ignorant idiot at 22, 25, even late 20s. And you’ve got a guy like Athlone barely out of high school writing a PhD level thesis on how the entire worker bee feminized beta system is held together. I’m just not sure how many younger guys are as perceptive as these guys.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Brendan

    I don’t know both genders can be strong sexual competitors. The difference is that women fight merciless for commitment no sex ,while men do for sex no commitment. A woman won’t fight a girlfriend or another woman for a one night stand. But had you seen how often a man ends up cheating with a friend of his wife or girlfriend or is poached by then? Many women will forsake a good friendship over a ring.
    So given that sex is more immediate women can organize faster and more effectively than men, they can wait years before they “need men”.
    I guess you are right then, Game will undermine commitment and when a whole generation of women that wants it start to see they are not getting it them probably mainstream will have to change by force.
    I still personally think that men are wired to follow a leader and do great change of their own (see the history of war, revolution and hunt for example) if Alphas weren’t this benefited by the crazy SMP they would probably could organize all the rest to follow and change.
    If Betas could use Game to gain Alpha status and still be sympathetic enough to other 80% of their brothers that were the way they were, and try and help them then we will have a good environment for a massive uprising of men’s rights advocates. No to mention that is my perception that men are the ones that truly hate Betas, and men that think they are Betas, hate themselves so of course the moment they move out of it for whatever reason they will not feel any sympathy for the ones left behind.
    But given that Alphas are the one winning their sea of punani they are the most interested on keeping things getting worse till the last moment. Sad but true.

  • Brendan

    I think you’re going to see the DMV of males in the SMP split even further as more men start figuring out what is really at play. On one side of the camp, many omegas will drift into an abyss of depression, video games, porn, and online scapegoating/manosphere. Rather than do anything about their situation it is easier to give up and/or blame others.
    Then there are the betas and omegas who take the red pill, and don’t like the way it tastes, but realize it’s in their best interest to make some changes to their lives to improve their dating market value.

    I agree with this in substance, but I differ in my characterization of each “camp”.

    The key with omegas is understanding that, for the most part, no matter what they do, they’re screwed. Game is not going to help them that much, to be frank, and it’s also going to be much, much harder for them to pick it up than it is for a solid mid-beta. I think the key for omegas is to accept their position and make the most of it. That is — don’t get depressed and bitter, because that will screw up your enjoyment of your life in every case. The key to that is acceptance of the reality that you are not going to be successful in that area of life, and building a life which is satisfying without including that element of sex/relationships with women. That can be done, I think, with some self-awareness and maturity. And if/when an omega does that, the pathway to a really quite not bad life opens up — certainly a life characterized by more personal freedom than men have enjoyed for millennia. I think that’s a more productive pathway for omegas.

    For betas, I think it’s up to them as to what to do. Most of them are at least capable of learning some Game and attracting some woman. Whether it’s whom they want to attract depends on where they are starting from and how good they are at learning and deploying Game. Some may decide it’s not worth it, given what they are capable of attracting, while others will decide it’s well worth it, and so on. These guys have options to consider in terms of how to conceive of the rest of their lives, really, but they do need to assess these options in a realistic way both in terms of what they bring to the table and what they are capable of changing and, frankly, whether that gets them what they want.

    It’s not a one-size-fits-all situation for men today, I think. The best thing men can do for each other is help each other see the options and choices that are open to them, given where they are starting from, and take things from there. And also help each other to get past the bitterness — not by chiding (doesn’t work for jack all, really) but by listening for a while and then redirecting.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Mike C
    I don’t know about this. For every enlightened thoughtful woman like you or Susan, there are 99 clueless as best as I can tell.

    The thing is that given that feminism has been selling the marriage is not needed for so long it takes longer for their biological clock to be loud enough to make them take a good look at the world around them, also they also sell the idea that having a baby at 25 is the same that having a baby at 35 or even 45. So again the commitment urge start late enough that they won’t see it till is too late and for the ones socialized not to like babies at all, it probably won’t came till they heat 60 or so and find out that there is no more sexual male around and they don’t have anyone to grow old with.

    I’m actually think that my biggest contribution to the good fight might be opening some sort of dating agency from girls in my country or something like it. If men can find punani overseas they might be able to take this boycott to American system faster and stronger, no wedge to open if they are having their sexual needs meet. The thing is that sadly many of my girlfriends are too family orientated to make the leap to come here and some of them will settle for a cheating, abusive man on my country, than leave their family, friends, careers and way of life to come here and start over again. I guess is the same situation Betas here, is better to have some happiness than none at all.

  • Mike C

    I still personally think that men are wired to follow a leader and do great change of their own (see the history of war, revolution and hunt for example) if Alphas weren’t this benefited by the crazy SMP they would probably could organize all the rest to follow and change.

    Yes, this is true. Men are wired to follow a leader. In any pack, you’ll see a strict hierarchy where one guy calls the shots.
    .
    If Betas could use Game to gain Alpha status and still be sympathetic enough to other 80% of their brothers that were the way they were, and try and help them then we will have a good environment for a massive uprising of men’s rights advocates
    .
    But the help isn’t about some “massive political uprising”. The help is about advice on how to change yourself. I have tried consistently to give back and help guys out. Do A, do B, do C. I do this because a guy on another forum helped me out tremendously back in late 2004/2005. We exchanged numerous e-mails for months. Some guys are receptive to the message and some are not. I refuse to feel any sympathy for those who hear the message and are too lazy/obstinate to make personal changes.
    .
    No to mention that is my perception that men are the ones that truly hate Betas, and men that think they are Betas, hate themselves
    .
    This is not true…My experience is that alphas do not hate betas and I am relying on personal experience here. High school…maybe but older alphas seem willing to lend a helping hand to betas as long as it isn’t going to impact their pussy parade. Again though, this is more one on one personal interaction, not some political alliance of alphas and betas.

  • Brendan

    I still personally think that men are wired to follow a leader and do great change of their own (see the history of war, revolution and hunt for example) if Alphas weren’t this benefited by the crazy SMP they would probably could organize all the rest to follow and change.
    If Betas could use Game to gain Alpha status and still be sympathetic enough to other 80% of their brothers that were the way they were, and try and help them then we will have a good environment for a massive uprising of men’s rights advocates. No to mention that is my perception that men are the ones that truly hate Betas, and men that think they are Betas, hate themselves so of course the moment they move out of it for whatever reason they will not feel any sympathy for the ones left behind.
    But given that Alphas are the one winning their sea of punani they are the most interested on keeping things getting worse till the last moment. Sad but true.

    Yes, but not vis-a-vis women.

    Men will band together to fight and kill another group of banded together men to take their women (consider the Iliad — the foundational classic of Western literature is a tale of a bunch of guys going to war with a bunch of other guys over … a woman). Men will not band together to confront women as a group — it’s just way too easy for women to get men to break the ranks there, and men are also wired to throw each other under the bus for the sake of sex access. Women do this too, I get that, but it’s a bit different from men, because since time immemorial, men have viewed sexual access to women *in general* as a scarce resource (whereas women view only *certain* men as a scarce resource worth backstabbing over).

    It’s true that men despise betas. Feminism would have gotten precisely nowhere if it didn’t benefit the men in power. No-fault divorce was passed through by powerful men who wanted to ditch their wives with no muss and fuss to upgrade to younger, hotter women. They probably didn’t foresee that it would end up backfiring against many of the men below them at the time, but even if they did, they wouldn’t have cared at all, because they view those men as “losers” anyway. Men are wildly, viscerally cruel with each other when the male hierarchy becomes more animal and is not channeled into productive areas (like military, church hierarchies, work hierarchies prior to feminism and so on). Men will always array themselves in a hierarchy, and if the main hierarchy is the sexual access one, oh boy, does it get nasty fast, because that’s the main axis of intra-male competition to begin with.

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

      Feminism would have gotten precisely nowhere if it didn’t benefit the men in power. No-fault divorce was passed through by powerful men who wanted to ditch their wives with no muss and fuss to upgrade to younger, hotter women. They probably didn’t foresee that it would end up backfiring against many of the men below them at the time, but even if they did, they wouldn’t have cared at all, because they view those men as “losers” anyway.

      Here’s a very rational explanation of how men helped usher in feminism, something we were debating a few days ago. This is too often skimmed over or not even addressed by MRAs. This is separate from the influence of individual men on their own sons, but must be related in the sense that this was a time of great change, and the whole nation was swept up in it. I believe it became taboo very quickly for men to voice objection to the Women’s Movement – even in their own homes. Archie Bunker was the kind of guy who talked such heresy.

  • Brendan

    I should say “it’s true that men despise omegas”. It’s not true that men despise betas. At least not most men, even alphas.

  • Mike C

    It’s true that men despise betas. Feminism would have gotten precisely nowhere if it didn’t benefit the men in power. No-fault divorce was passed through by powerful men who wanted to ditch their wives with no muss and fuss to upgrade to younger, hotter women.
    .
    I don’t know about this thesis. Just not sure. It doesn’t jibe with my personal experience although my personal experience might not be representative of broader dynamics. I just know I’ve had two separate occasions in my life development where alphas literally extended their hand in friendship to help me out. Maybe they saw me as some sort of project, maybe I got their respect in some other way…I don’t know, but I know they invited me into their lives and really tried to help me out with women.
    .
    You may be right though and I just need to think more about this point. I’m just not sure feminism was some conspiracy to advance alpha male interests. I think like many things in world development and an injustice was seen by many (the treatment and position of women in society) and no one could possibly have anticipated just how ridiculously far the pendulum would swing the other way nor the Pandora’s box of unintended consequences that was opened.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Yes, this is true. Men are wired to follow a leader. In any pack, you’ll see a strict hierarchy where one guy calls the shots.

    Oh totally. My husband is second in command on his pack, in here is more obvious though. My country has so many Alpha males that they barely pack for long, because of Punani competition, at best they form pairs or triads and this are usually not stable or gregarious.

    maybe but older alphas seem willing to lend a helping hand to betas as long as it isn’t going to impact their pussy parade

    The thing is that is very possible than an Alpha could think long term and know that if he helps Betas on huge numbers he will face punani competition and given that an Alpha might be expecting to get punani for as long as he lives he might just decide is better to keep the status quo.

    Also a new Alpha (reformed Beta) can totally get “new rich syndrome” and decide to forget he was ever a Beta on the first place. Is really complex interaction. I guess one on one is the most we could ask for them because one guy its no competition but a group? Thanks but no thanks.

  • Brendan

    You may be right though and I just need to think more about this point. I’m just not sure feminism was some conspiracy to advance alpha male interests. I think like many things in world development and an injustice was seen by many (the treatment and position of women in society) and no one could possibly have anticipated just how ridiculously far the pendulum would swing the other way nor the Pandora’s box of unintended consequences that was opened.

    Yeah as I corrected myself, its the omegas, not the betas, that are despised. Alpha men rely on betas and don’t despise them, generally.

    I do think, though, that no-fault was passed through because the men thought it would be advantageous to themselves. I don’t think it was done to screw lower men, but it was more unintended consequences. Although my hunch is that even if they had known about that, they probably would have done it anyway, but that’s just a hunch.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Men will not band together to confront women as a group — it’s just way too easy for women to get men to break the ranks there, and men are also wired to throw each other under the bus for the sake of sex access.

    Totally true the white-knighting is indeed wired.Even the guys here that are bitter are not hateful of women just angry at then. I’m pretty sure they will melt under a woman that pays attention to them.

    Men will always array themselves in a hierarchy, and if the main hierarchy is the sexual access one, oh boy, does it get nasty fast, because that’s the main axis of intra-male competition to begin with.

    You can see it on the animal kingdom and other primates. The men at the lowest social caste have no access to sex and they are expendable. The point was the the invention of monogamy was to assure that the highest numbers of men even the one with low sexual IQ could pair up. Again we decided we knew better and destroyed that, very smart of us, indeed.
    One thing about the race discussion we were having that helped that Portuguese and Spaniards mixed so fast is that IME a men that is on a long dry spell (like spending months surrounded by sweaty men on a dirty ship) will be very grateful and bond very fast with whoever women breaks the spell. So is not hard to see why they treated their slave women like wives and their kids as their offspring, while in here the Pilgrims came with their wives and other females so they didn’t had a lot of reasons to bond and probably their wives made sure to use their feminine wiles to keep competition at arms length.

    I think like many things in world development and an injustice was seen by many (the treatment and position of women in society) and no one could possibly have anticipated just how ridiculously far the pendulum would swing the other way nor the Pandora’s box of unintended consequences that was opened.

    The thing is that feminism make two huge mistakes. 1) it modeled itself over what men had the women didn’t, instead of recognizing both roles as important and worth it and 2) started to play the “moving target” with what was fair or not, the growing definitions of rape that no a days goes from forced sex to sex I regretted after the fact, for example 3) and biggest one they gained money and power with it, which inevitably has corrupted it, thus they keep spreading lies that keep the movement profitable.
    So even though it might be natural still there should had been someone watching the watchmen to make sure this wouldn’t become a nasty gender war.

    Although on my most paranoid days I think aliens/Chinese government are controlling everything behind curtains so when our species/Western civilization go extinct they can just come and take it over.;)

  • Brendan

    The point was the the invention of monogamy was to assure that the highest numbers of men even the one with low sexual IQ could pair up. Again we decided we knew better and destroyed that, very smart of us, indeed.

    My own impression is that monogamy *must* have been forced on the women when we invented it as a species (in certain tribes which later came to dominate). Likely, there were tribes that practiced monogamy, and ones that practiced polygamy, and even some that practiced matrilocality. In the end, the patrilocal, monogamous ones came to dominate virtually everywhere. They outcompeted the other models.

    But I do think that this was imposed by the men in the patrilocal/monogamous tribal groups as a measure of group solidarity among the males. One of the distinctive characteristics of humans as compared with other primates is that we have, until about twenty seconds ago, generally been a patrilocal species. What that means is that the tribes had men who were kin-bonded, and the women joined these male kin-bond groups, therefore having weaker bonds with each other than the men had with each other. In such a situation of male kin-bonded tribes, it’s fairly easy to see that monogamy would have been a more acceptable, egalitarian arrangement among the kin-bonded men when it comes to sexual access. There were, of course, lots of tensions among the men about this when it came to women, despite the kin-bonds (and in some cases because of them!), but still very different from non-kin-bond men, whose women were simply to be taken from them as “spoils”.

    This became the norm, even as h-g groups got bigger, until the stratification and scaling that happened with the coming of agriculture. With this, even though the men were (loosely) kin-bonded, there developed a real stratification among them due to the agricultural system (meaning some could afford more than one woman) while at the same time the increased scale in terms of population meant that bonds between men were loosened. Polygyny ensued. This was subsequently put back in the box by various social systems in various parts of the world (and frankly, even at its height always co-existed with monogamy), but that “putting back in the box” came at the expense of mid-range women, many of whom were “better off” being wife 2, 3 or 4 to the high-status rich man than the only wife to one of her also-ran peer males.

    So, the reincarnation of polygyny (in its current form of serial monogamy) is really something that “benefits” the mid-pack women at the expense of their peer men, and also benefits the high value men at the expense of their peer women. It wasn’t a conspiracy, but it seems that the current system is very, very comfortable to a large number of women at least while their own mate value is high enough for them to benefit from this system, and that should come as no surprise really. The “catch” is that the current version — serial monogamy — really plays to the interests of the high value men over *all* women, because of the timing factor, and the imbalanced way that impacts the value of men and women in the marketplace. Sadly, many women don’t realize this until they are aging out of the “hot” spot of their own value, hence they support the system enthusiastically in their youth.

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

      So, the reincarnation of polygyny (in its current form of serial monogamy) is really something that “benefits” the mid-pack women at the expense of their peer men, and also benefits the high value men at the expense of their peer women. It wasn’t a conspiracy, but it seems that the current system is very, very comfortable to a large number of women at least while their own mate value is high enough for them to benefit from this system, and that should come as no surprise really. The “catch” is that the current version — serial monogamy — really plays to the interests of the high value men over *all* women, because of the timing factor, and the imbalanced way that impacts the value of men and women in the marketplace. Sadly, many women don’t realize this until they are aging out of the “hot” spot of their own value, hence they support the system enthusiastically in their youth.

      The SMP in a nutshell. Therefore, it seems to me that strategies to bring together those underserved constituenceis has merit. Now, that’s tricky because female 9s and 10s are not going to go for guys a couple of steps below them in general. However, even this is not straightforward – there are plenty of handsome betas who can bump themselves from a 6 to an 8, say, or a 7 to a 9 (I’m using a scale from the female perspective here, including dominance). The only solution is Game. That means the onus is entirely on the beta males. I can write forever about women making good choices, and I will, but if the guys don’t bring the dominance, the attraction is not going to last. We’ll just have even more women divorcing because they’re bored or “not feeling it.”

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Brendan

    I always heard this theories that women do not benefit from monogamy as much as men, but you forget that the high ranking men will choose only the top women as part of the harem so the mid rank women and lower ranking wouldn’t benefit so much for the Alpha having them as wife number 5 or 6 if that. Also she will have to share the resources and probably receive less gifts than the top ones and compete with every single new addition that will be younger and hotter. Mid ranking women will benefit with one partner even on her own league or a little lower because all the resources are for her and her offspring and she will have control of the household and she will not have competition with the top ones because they are already be selected by the Alpha men. No to mention that an Alpha is only good for the genes, even if he has a lot of resources he won’t have to invest as much on taking care of the offspring because he will have to spare, and like it happened historically most of the time the first born son of the first-wife is the heir and only with a lot of strategy and luck they could aspire to have more power by the means of their son. And let’s not even mention how much sex she will have when the Alpha will be more attracted to his prettier wives than her. And I could think of many other benefits women of mid and lower rank could benefit. So I really doubt women went into monogamy kicking and screaming,YMMV.

  • Brendan

    The thing that makes me doubt that is how easily young women adapt to what amounts to de facto polygyny when their own mate value is high. I understand that the “dream” is to snag one of these high value guys for an exclusive commitment, but it still seems to me that a significant number of women are quite content with serial monogamy while their mate value is high enough for them to be attractive enough for the harem. Also, when we’re speaking of today, the “harem” isn’t an exclusive club of high value women, because a woman’s *sex* value rises for a high value man if she is at least of mid-value as a base and is making herself available for sex — again, this isn’t commitment value, and for the woman it may be a lunge at trying to “snag” the guy, but it’s also not the case that the high value men in our own culture are limiting themselves to high value women.

    In the past, in “hard” polygamy societies, my best guess is that the high value men ended up divvying up the high value women among themselves as wife 1s, and then wife 2s and 3s ended up being lower value women. Also, the not peak but still kinda rich guys were still practicing polygyny, and didn’t have access to the peak women, but they could — and likely did — still take over their share of the mid-pack women.

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

      @Brendan

      The thing that makes me doubt that is how easily young women adapt to what amounts to de facto polygyny when their own mate value is high. I understand that the “dream” is to snag one of these high value guys for an exclusive commitment, but it still seems to me that a significant number of women are quite content with serial monogamy while their mate value is high enough for them to be attractive enough for the harem.

      I believe that women do it for the status – to gain entry to the group of women selected by alphas. In serial monogamy, the odds of openly sharing a guy simultaneously with another woman are greatly reduced. Cheating does occur, but it’s often of the variety that “what happens in Cabo stays in Cabo.” Once a woman has been linked to an alpha, even as a regular hookup, she enters the rotation within that peer group. This is true sluthood – and she will be considered a “slampiece,” but in a warped way she has also reached the top rung. She’ll be invited to all the best parties, receiving a lot of male attention, while her more discriminating female peers twiddle their thumbs and watch the show.

  • Höllenhund

    Obs,

    „that, again if what you say above holds any water, that Beta “nice guys” aren’t actually “nice” but rather are, because they have nothing else to bank on; and having acquired Game, are merely doing what their more Alpha counterparts are presumably doing. Assuming this is so, what are your reactions in response?”

    I agree with Ms. Walsh on this: with or without Game, beta guys are far more likely to pair-bond than alphas are i.e. they have a higher willingness to commit and they enjoy emotional intimacy more as well. They separate women into sluts and potential girlfriends just like alphas do, but in their case the latter group is bigger. And their willingness to commit is higher not only due to their fewer options but probably also their lowel testosterone levels as well. They are also less likely to willingly treat women like shit.

    I’ve addressed above that the incentives to engage in casual sex are higher than ever. I’d add that when learning Game, they will have to approach and face rejection numerous times. And the current SMP is such that when they are successful, casual sex will be offered. Even Game teaches that they should take it (preselection effect).

    Lavazza:

    „As I wrote in another thread I think there is a tipping point around the dozen when men start to prefer the life style of casual sex with women of average attractiveness, and some very attractive ones when they get lucky, to a committed monogamous LTR with just one attractive woman.”

    I think the options of a beta with Game are rather like this: casual sex with women of average or below-average attractiveness vs. LTR with a below-average woman or maybe a woman as attractive as he is.

    Mike C,

    „I don’t know about this. For every enlightened thoughtful woman like you or Susan, there are 99 clueless as best as I can tell.”

    Exactly. Ms. Walsh stated numerous times that women are way too solipsistic to understand the basis of their own rules of hypergamous attraction, like preselection, negging and DHV. Virtually all women believe in the „apex fallacy” as well.

    And even if things get much worse, women will probably blame men for it. Buying into the feminist agitrop will always be easier and more attractive than facing the truth. This is why I believe the MRM will never be as accepted among women as feminism even if it tries its best to attract them.

    „I read guys like Badger, collegeslacker, and Athlone and I’m amazed how perceptive and tuned in some of these younger guys are. I was a fucking ignorant idiot at 22, 25, even late 20s. And you’ve got a guy like Athlone barely out of high school writing a PhD level thesis on how the entire worker bee feminized beta system is held together. I’m just not sure how many younger guys are as perceptive as these guys.”

    Indeed, I’ve noticed that as well. The basic concepts of Game have been popular on the Net for many years without necessarily being called „Game”. Years ago I used to hang out on the forum of a local well-known porn site which all sorts of men (and some women) visited: porn directors, actresses, single men, married men. None of them ever heard about the MRM or knew about Game as such but they discussed its basic concepts they have learned through their own experiences: preselection, DHV, negging, the cock carousel, alpha chasing etc. The knowledge has been out there for long and now with the Internet anyone can reach it.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Brendan
    But you are forgetting two things.
    First women on the past started to breed really young. Pregnant by a high value men but without any means to get access to resources will very likely end up with her dying on childbirth or losing the baby in question. No good strategy to pass on her genes, imagine a group of 100 people of each gender were 20 men being top Alphas and 20 women are 10′s. And do the math of how many mid rank women are left, lets say that 40 mid rank women, and 40 mind rank men and the rest are bottom ranks.The mid rank men won’t have access to the top 20 so is only fair they will try and get the mid rank women and not being able to do so will end in bloodshed. Is like the current SMP, except that without pregnancy the women don’t have their survival instinct in line, thus mess.

    One of the things that tips me off that monogamy is indeed the original model is the fact that our species is pretty balanced with more or less 50% of females. If polygamy was the ideal model we will probably have a ton more women than men. No to mention that in true polygamous species the males are hugely larger than the females, men are only a bit larger than women, with variations, so again my guess is that the Alphas got a bit more of their share and men could get extra women on special circumstances but that overall arrangement should had worked on a way that allowed everyone except the real bottoms to get paired up and even so they probably paired themselves among each other to ensure genetic variety, and stability. I always advocate that our most ancient model probably was imperfect monogamy with some cheating done by the minority of the genders that could get away with it, and probably new pairings when the men that lost their wives on childbirth had to get marry again and the women that lost their husbands on wars and hunt had to do the same, but that once we started to get on bigger groups we establish stables as possible pair bonds that were accepted out of the multiple benefits for the whole community.

    And second you are also forget that this women are unhappy with this arrangements on the long run, Jezebel doesn’t do this articles often but I read plenty of women feel empty and devastated after their ONS and their Alpha chasing, so this is not a behavior that is rewarded with peace and happy thoughts like in the case of men that had a sea of punani, in most cases they are doing out of peer pressure and outranking other women but at the end their bodies are rejecting their behavior. Why do you think they had to hammer themselves drunk in order to do this? They are shutting down their big brain to allow the lizard one to take control but when sobering up their functioning brain need to help them to cope with what they did. Unless ancient societies had a large supply of booze for their women is very unlikely the natural impulses were to Alpha chasing to their hearts content, we have had this big brains around for at least a million years.
    I mean some women are born sluts but the majority are wired to try and connect emotionally with their lovers,they are overriding this by artificial means and feminist indoctrination. Do you think is a coincidence that western women are the ones that report the highers numbers of depression on the whole world? I don’t.

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

      @Stephenie

      And second you are also forget that this women are unhappy with this arrangements on the long run, Jezebel doesn’t do this articles often but I read plenty of women feel empty and devastated after their ONS and their Alpha chasing, so this is not a behavior that is rewarded with peace and happy thoughts like in the case of men that had a sea of punani, in most cases they are doing out of peer pressure and outranking other women but at the end their bodies are rejecting their behavior.

      Just for fun I wrote a post a while back about sex-positive feminists coming to this realization. In the months since I wrote this there have been even more examples, most notably at The Frisky, a dating blog for women that has actively promoted promiscuity.

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/08/23/politics-and-feminism/the-cracking-foundation-of-sex-positive-feminism/

  • Brendan

    Stephanie –

    Your post is very thoughtful.

    A few responses.

    First, the roughly equal number of male and female births doesn’t seem meaningful to me. Geneticists tell us, by contrast, that the number of men who passed on their genes successfully is about half that of women. What that means is that women have been, historically, hogged up by a relatively small (in proportion to the total male population) of men. Whether the women were at that time content with that is open to question of course. I can only base my conclusions on an observation of how women are behaving today.

    Second, the way the math of polygyny works (as demonstrated by Robert Wright in his book “The Moral Animal”) is that in a system where you have 1000 men and women arrayed by sex rank, if you allow men to marry more than one woman, either at the same time or in series, what you see is women floating up the male food chain when they marry. Woman 550 will prefer to be wife 2 to man 100 than wife 1 to man 550. So she is depleted from the peer ranks, leaving man 550 with a woman of “lower” value. And so it goes down the pole such that more men are left bereft of peer value male women, especially in the mid ranks.

    I agree that women strongly *prefer* a one-man bond — at least for a time before the bonding hormones wear off. But many women will forego that, at least for a time, for the chance of snagging a one-man bond with a higher value man, if they can do so economically, biologically, and socially — which they can today.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Brendan
    I will like to check my sources but I do remember that one of the theories about the genetic make up with so many women is that another factor is the fact that during wars men are killed or imprisoned while women are part of the war goods and ended up breeding later in life till they died on childbirth or old age, that without counting the hunting accidents so even if there is a component of poliginy and hypergamy you need to remember that men had less chances to pass their genes than women.

    I never deny Hipergamy impulse but there is a point when biologically speaking is no advantageous I mean she will prefer be wife 2, but after wife 3 or 4 things start to get even so Hipergamy used to have a natural top. In which the female question will need to readjust, in that time people lived less time so she had just small window of opportunity so it makes sense that she could go for second best very fast after her top choice was already on wife 3. So still I doubt she will end up picking only the top 20% like they do now, it must had been flexible if women were so successful at it and probably only 20% men ended up unpairable, the true omegas, but then we shouldn’t have many of those if they never passed their genes right?
    So if only the most successful ones passed their genes we only should have Alphas around and we don’t. So again Hipergamy should have a natural top to allow the existence of so many Betas and Omegas around and my theory is that sexual revolution, birth control pills, booze and so on are tweaking the system for it to cause women’s hipergamy inflation, to stops more men from passing their genes, YMMV.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Also forgot to add that Alphatude and Betatude are relative. On the past on a small group women picked the best candidate of a limited group of available men but that group as a whole could be less strong than another one on another region. Another part of the issue is that the selection is bigger nowadays our cities are huge, so having a bigger pool of selection mean that women don’t really have a second best, there is always supply of Alphas so all they need to do is keep trying. But again the lack of time for her to settle or/and the lack of offspring doesn’t let her natural top to be reached fast enough before her value depresses on the market and ends up with a lot of cock carousel, but is not designed to have no stop or not to be re adjustable according to the circumstances, the thing is that the SMP is affecting the system, YMMV.

  • Brendan

    Another part of the issue is that the selection is bigger nowadays our cities are huge, so having a bigger pool of selection mean that women don’t really have a second best, there is always supply of Alphas so all they need to do is keep trying. But again the lack of time for her to settle or/and the lack of offspring doesn’t let her natural top to be reached fast enough before her value depresses on the market and ends up with a lot of cock carousel, but is not designed to have no stop or not to be re adjustable according to the circumstances, the thing is that the SMP is affecting the system

    Yes this is true.

    Just to clarify … I don’t see the current system as being “natural”. I see it as being what happens when you take away the consequences of female sexuality (i.e., pregnancy) by reliable, cheap, legal and artificial means (contraception and abortion). When you do that, the calculus for women’s sexuality changes, and it is “free”. Free from its naturally occurring restraint. But free nonetheless. I think most women would choose this freedom, especially under our current liberal/progressive/neo-liberal ideologies, than choosing restraint.

    So, yes, I agree that in the past women (and their families) picked the biggest fish in a small pool who was available, but today, as you say, it’s a cornucopia. For desirable men and women alike, it’s a feast day. For the less desirable, it’s a disaster. Many will say to the less desirable that they should make themselves more desirable, but there’s a cap on that.

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

      @Stephenie

      Another part of the issue is that the selection is bigger nowadays our cities are huge, so having a bigger pool of selection mean that women don’t really have a second best, there is always supply of Alphas so all they need to do is keep trying.

      The other day in my post on “familiarity game” I mentioned how it is easier to find a mate in a small town than NYC. Part of the reason is that it’s hard to establish micro-communities in NYC – there are so many “regulars” at Starbucks, and so many Starbucks, you just don’t see the same people every morning. But the other piece of the puzzle is our getting paralyzed by choice. The more choices we have, the more we delay a decision.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Just to clarify … I don’t see the current system as being “natural”. I see it as being what happens when you take away the consequences of female sexuality (i.e., pregnancy) by reliable, cheap, legal and artificial means (contraception and abortion). When you do that, the calculus for women’s sexuality changes, and it is “free”. Free from its naturally occurring restraint. But free nonetheless. I think most women would choose this freedom, especially under our current liberal/progressive/neo-liberal ideologies, than choosing restraint.

    I will add no time limits as well, but indeed I totally agree with your take, this is a natural system on unnatural circunmstances.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Many will say to the less desirable that they should make themselves more desirable, but there’s a cap on that.

    And I will say men have it harder than women. In Roissy’s scale a woman can gain points but letting her hair grow, lose pounds, wearing flattering clothing. Simple things I think a woman could probably raise herself one or two levels by just taking better care of herself. Men on the other hand have to work on the same test look like they have to work a whole personality traits and people skills definitely harder, there is a reason why men barely ever consume self help books. Is harder for them to change once they got used to certain way of thinking and certain habits. So yeah hard times this ones.

  • Chico

    I don’t know about this thesis. Just not sure. It doesn’t jibe with my personal experience although my personal experience might not be representative of broader dynamics. I just know I’ve had two separate occasions in my life development where alphas literally extended their hand in friendship to help me out.

    Same here. I have a good friend who’s an alpha. He has so much pussy falling off of him, that half of what I got was the scraps that fell off of him. He loves to hook a beta brother up. He even gave a lecture to me and another (at the time) beta friend of mine on communication and body language. He absolutely grilled me on the latter.

    I see the prototype “nice guys” all over the place. While my successes aren’t numerous, some of these guys are in their 20s and haven’t even been kissed by any women except their own mothers. Knowing that I’ve been in their position of naivity before, I feel nothing less than obligated to steer them in the right direction.

    Also, if alphas wanted to see their “lesser” brethren suffer, David D’Angelo and Mystery would’ve never written any books.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Also, if alphas wanted to see their “lesser” brethren suffer, David D’Angelo and Mystery would’ve never written any books.

    Or they could just try to make money out of them. Do you think everyone that writes dating advice for women is thinking only on helping them?

    I concede that on a one on one basis,seems to be different but maybe they do hate the Betas that don’t listen and Omegas that can’t do much. I know MRA hate Manginas and the term pussywhiped is used a lot, so I would think men hate traitors and weak men, I guess it depends what they think it means at the moment.

  • Chico

    Also you are assuming that you are going to end , for sure, on the top of the SMP, what makes you think that?

    I’m not saying my destiny is to be Genghis Khan by any means, but the top 20% of the SMP is a respectable position, no? If I can get in a position where women of over ’6′ attractiveness are fighting over me, I will breate a sigh of relief.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I’m not saying my destiny is to be Genghis Khan by any means, but the top 20% of the SMP is a respectable position, no? If I can get in a position where women of over ’6′ attractiveness are fighting over me, I will breate a sigh of relief.

    No I meant what makes you think you will even get there. Of course I didn’t knew you had a plan with that Alpha friend of yours. I guess you are soon going to benefit for the state of things so that is why it doesn’t matter how long it last. You will be swimming on punani for a while, good for you I suppose. But I don’t get why are you here then, obviously this site has nothing to teach you or does it?

  • Chico

    Ahhhhh Stephanie. I’m still very much learning! And this site is one of my favourites for socio-political discussion.

    Of course, I cannot guarantee anything, but I do have a game plan and am actively working on those goals. Game-wise, I’m already eons ahead of where I was a couple years ago.

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

      @Chico

      Ahhhhh Stephanie. I’m still very much learning! And this site is one of my favourites for socio-political discussion.

      Of course, I cannot guarantee anything, but I do have a game plan and am actively working on those goals. Game-wise, I’m already eons ahead of where I was a couple years ago.

      I’ve noticed a huge change in your commentary, Chico, since you recently popped up again in the Comments section. You write with much more assurance and understanding, and no resentment. Well done.

  • Raddark

    In response to Susan’s question about “creeps” and “sociopaths”:

    The commonality between creeps and sociopaths is they both refuse to accept the social rules that everybody else accept and live by.

    The difference between them is creeps don’t understand the social rules while sociopaths understand them very well.

    Creeps don’t understand the social rules either because they rejected them at a very early age (they may have been very smart kids and figured out early how filled with bullshit the social rules are) and from that point on no longer put any effort into staying within the boundaries of social acceptability, or they may have some real physical brain difference that doesn’t allow them to understand. Women hate them because there’s just no advantage to be found in having a partner that just doesn’t fit well with everybody else.

    Sociopaths on the other hand understand the social rules very well, but like creeps disagree with them, and so they “play” around with them to suit their own ends. Women love this because it shows a mastery of social relations and the potential of riding to the very top (kingship in old days) with them.

    Personally I don’t like words like “creep” and “sociopath”. They’re value-laden words devised by average people to denigrate other types of people that fall outside of their comfort zone. So-called creeps are almost always harmless. Usually they’re just stubborn and naive young men who don’t like the bullshit that social rules are built on and rebel against them by ignoring them. Sociopaths too are not the evil assholes they’re made out to be by average folk. They’re usually just smart men that have figured out how to give the finger to society at large while smiling at them. Of course, women are going to love them. They do the same thing themselves all the time.

  • Chico

    Stephanie,
    Of course, if you were reading more attentively, you’d notice I stated I wanted a *good* relationship with someone I really like, and if I can employ game to get that…great. But as I also said, hookup sex is still better than celibacy. And hookup sex is still far superior to staying in a relationship with a woman I don’t love. Remember, pretty women are a dime a dozen, but not every woman is relationship material. Many are batshit crazy.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Many are batshit crazy.

    Heh Can’t argue with that. Glad that you are learning game with a noble goal in sight. I really wish you luck. BTW I’m moderately crazy just make sure the woman is crazy in the right way ;)

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Sociopaths too are not the evil assholes they’re made out to be by average folk.

    Mmm is my understanding that sociopaths are the ones that commit crimes and harm people to get their goals with no remorse. I wouldn’t call this guys non-evil. Please elaborate.

  • http://www.alifeofthemind.com Walenty Lisek

    Orson Scott Card (Ender’s Game) has a piece up about the broken SMP. I didn’t know he was a Mormon.

    A community has to provide reproductive opportunity for the maximum number of its members. In other words, the sex drive of the individual must have a reasonable chance of being satisfied as long as it persists. Reproductive opportunity requires large numbers of people of mating age made available to each other. Governments ignore this at their peril.

  • Rum

    Ms. Rawlings. Let me explain. A blood-soaked sociopathic guy is precisely the sort of guy that you would leave your husband for; that you would leave your children for; that you would kill your own children and your own mother for – just to get another dose of high grade vagina-tingles.
    Your gender is finally getting an honest assessment.

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

      A blood-soaked sociopathic guy is precisely the sort of guy that you would leave your husband for; that you would leave your children for; that you would kill your own children and your own mother for – just to get another dose of high grade vagina-tingles.

      NAWALT. I have never in my life felt remotely attracted to a man with sociopathic tendencies. A man with social confidence who refuses to pedestalize me has always been more than enough for generating tingles. The women who would truly go for a blood-soaked sociopath are……sociopaths.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Walenty Lisek
    Wow that was very insightful. Totally spot on and Mormons might be smarter than people thinks they are I did an analysis on Twilight and I found many subtle info between the lines that make think that Smeyer did her homework waay too well.

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    Thanks Walenty, I just loaded a few of his books onto my android.

    He certainly doesn’t pull any punches, and I can’t disagree with him.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    What is missing in the analysis is the why. If the culture of the 50′s was so strong and good why the feminist movement and sexual revolution was so successful on destroying it? I mean wouldn’t the strong citizens reject the new stories? Or they were having what I like to kill Eve’s illness? The very female tendency that things can always be improved, which is a great trait unless you happen to live on the Garden of Eden, YMMV.

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    Because as he points out, the Culture Good and Strong is a fiction, but it is a fiction that is made real by the people who believe its story.
    Change the story, get people who don’t believe in the Culture into places where they can spread their own story, and the Culture fails.

  • Lavazza

    “I think the options of a beta with Game are rather like this: casual sex with women of average or below-average attractiveness vs. LTR with a below-average woman or maybe a woman as attractive as he is.”

    I don’t know. We don’t seem to have the same definitions of “beta” and “with game”. As a young man I was a shy, good looking beta, without game, and I had the same success as your “beta with game” had in your best case scenario. My idea of having game is easily scoring with women at a maximum of one or two points below your own level of physical attractiveness and quite often scoring with women who are above you in physical attractiveness.

  • 108spirits

    A direct effect of men learning Game is that they’ll start asking the hard questions about dating, relationship and marriage that women have no good answer for. This blog thread is an example of it. Whether that’s good for Susan’s HUS strategy or not, I don’t know.

    Back on the original Nice Guy topic for a second, it appears to me that the women here aren’t going to give up on admitting that those nice guys had no malice, simply because those guys made them feel bad (or inconvenient).

    I still don’t get why it’s popular knowledge that women are better than men at empathy. I’ve rarely seen any empathy from women for those nice guys they collectively gutted.

    On the alpha beta cooperation topic, the existence of seduction community forums will prove that indeed alphas and greater betas do contribute back to the community to help the lesser experienced betas or even omegas (although they often give up on the latter after much effort). Very few percentage of said contribution involves financial transactions. Most are out of generosity, the desire to contribute or to pay back / pay forward, or simple evangelism (betas who’ve learned Game and gained much from it are most prone to this).

    Strategically though, to the guys with Game, while it appears that the more clueless betas around the better, it’s actually a fine balancing act. You want a high percentage of clueless guys so that you have little competition, but you also want enough of guys with some sort of Game around so that the women don’t get pedetalised too much and have their bad behaviours tolerated / rewarded. Women with sky high expectations (spoiled by feminism and pedetalising betas) are unpleasant to Game and are poor rewards for the Gamesmen, as they’re ticking timebombs in relationships, regardless of how serious.

    At the moment, there are way too many clueless guys, but the tide is changing. In various places I hang out, from my own social circles to corners of the Internet (many have nothing to do with seduction or MRA), I’ve seen & heard guys saying very Red-Pill things about women & the SMP.

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

      A direct effect of men learning Game is that they’ll start asking the hard questions about dating, relationship and marriage that women have no good answer for. This blog thread is an example of it. Whether that’s good for Susan’s HUS strategy or not, I don’t know.

      The HUS strategy depends on a thorough and realistic assessment of the sociosexual environment. Without that, you’re just throwing darts in the dark. If it’s bad, we need to know how bad. Asking hard questions serves several purposes:
      1. It provides a window into what men want, something women don’t really understand.
      2. It holds people accountable for their actions.
      3. It reveals where an individual stands.
      4. It clarifies expectations.

  • Lavazza

    Stephenie: My guess is that the abundance of cheap oil plays a big part in the explanation. World oil production went from 7 to 65 in 30 years starting 1950. We have now hit a plateau at 80 and abundantly available cheap oil is a thing of the past. This will affect mankind strongly, also when it comes to society and morality.

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

    Stephanie asks…”If the culture of the 50′s was so strong and good why the feminist movement and sexual revolution was so successful on destroying it?”

    It was inevitable that reliable contraception, coupled with technological changes in the workplace, were going to have an effect on the relationship between the sexes. It was not inevitable, though, that these changes would be accompanied by so much rage and irrationality.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “If the culture of the 50′s was so strong and good why the feminist movement and sexual revolution was so successful on destroying it?”
    .
    The cultural trope of the merry and idyllic 50′s was a bunch of commercialized bullshit. A lot of those 50′s households broke up in the divorce wave of the 60′s and 70′s.
    .
    As to career-oriented feminism breaking the mold, I think the movement of women into the newly-evolved white collar workplace was inevitable, whether it was done by feminism or a more moderated social movement. There was just too much economic growth available, corporations saw the value of flooding the labor market to reduce salaries, and the war veteran patriarchy that the 50′s was built on was inherently unstable. Not to mention that postwar technology made the role of the middle-class housewife far less than a 40-hour/week job.
    .
    We also can’t discount the role of increasing numbers of college students (the GI bill and the boomer children both created big college boosts) in herding men and women into academic indoctrination posing as college education, of which feminism was an early adoptee.

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

      The cultural trope of the merry and idyllic 50′s was a bunch of commercialized bullshit. A lot of those 50′s households broke up in the divorce wave of the 60′s and 70′s.

      Agreed. The culture of the 50s was not strong and good. The fact is, there were lots of women going to college and marrying immediately afterwards during the 50s. This was the case with my own mother – my childhood is punctuated with memories of smart, educated women sitting around the kitchen table drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes while we kids played outside. Their lives were defined by how to get the dirt ring off a man’s collar, which vacuum did the best job, serving dinner for $.60 per serving. There was a lot of underachieving, and those women grew resentful at their circumscribed lives.

      There was also a great deal of drinking. Mad Men exaggerates this slightly, but not much. My father routinely had at least two martinis before dinner, which was common. Alcohol-induced arguments occurred in many homes on a regular basis. Once the Sexual Revolution happened, married couples started acting out like crazy, swapping keys, etc. like in The Ice Storm.

      Society in the 50s looked highly functional, but it was a powder keg, and it blew.

  • Höllenhund

    “I don’t see the current system as being “natural”. I see it as being what happens when you take away the consequences of female sexuality (i.e., pregnancy) by reliable, cheap, legal and artificial means (contraception and abortion).”

    A relevant old comment by finsalscollons on The Spearhead:

    The madonna-whore dichotomy could not have been maintained with the Pill.

    With the Pill, discreet women can hide their sexual escapades and appear as a madonnas, although they have had sex. So an age of discreet sex affairs ensues. This was not possible before the Pill, because some women got pregnant and start being shamed with social stigma. The Pill allows careful women to have sex without fearing social stigma and, as a result, not harming their possibilities of marrying.

    (This was the first generation of feminism. This first generation managed to sow their wild oats while ending up married. Men had not adjusted to the new scenario. The second generation assumed that, like their mothers, they would also have their fun and, afterwards, the white-picket fence. When these hopes failed to materialize, they became angry and started insulting men: commitment-phobics, Peter Pan, where have all the men gone)

    So the first generation of Pill without feminism would have probably been one of discreet affairs followed by marriage. But throwing casual sex into the mix changes the whole scenario, not immediately, but slowly.

    The more women discreetly have affairs, the more the truth is slipping through the cracks. Women try to save face telling that they only slept with the guy “because they loved him and assumed he was their future husband but he dumped her”. This echoes a very powerful patriarchal mythology about the damsel-in-distress, who is only looking for love, but who is victim of sex-obsessed selfish men who pump her and dump her.

    Once men assume that a women doesn’t have to wait until marriage, they start pressuring for sex early in the relationship. Girls who prefer to wait are discarded in favor of other who are willing to put out. An arms race to out-slut one each other develops between women who are trying to land an alpha . This raises the acceptance of premarital sex.

    In the end, you end up with a situation very much similar to the current one but it takes more time and the rationalizations are different. Now the rationalizations are something like “I am a liberated woman and I own my own body”. In this hypothetical scenario the rationalizations would be something like “I loved him so much that I couldn’t resist when he asked me to have sex with him. I assumed that we would always be together”.

    In addition, the man-bashing would have been different. More similar to the man-bashing of socons. Less about sexual harassment and extending rape to cover all the sexual male behavior. More about pure women who are looking for love and are deceived by cruel men. More about men needing women in order to get civilized.

    Not that the women’s entrance to the workplace would have not been different. This entrance was produced by technologies who made the full-time homemaker not necessary. Feminists want to take credit about that, but women were progressively entering the workforce since the 20′s and the wide acceptance of feminism didn’t speed up the process.

    In my humble opinion, feminism is not the disease but the symptom. The ideology that speeds the changes up. But once you separate sex from reproduction and make the housewife obsolete, the course is very predictable.

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/01/30/life-without-feminism/#comment-26577

  • Höllenhund

    “If the culture of the 50′s was so strong and good”

    I suppose it wasn’t. The cultural underpinning and political legitimacy of the patriarchy had already been largely eroded by then due to the two World Wars, the Korean War, the Roaring Twenties and the Depression. There was a growing acceptance of promiscuity as well (the launch of Playboy etc). What the ’60s brought were the last cracks in the dam, and the deluge followed, so to speak.

    Roissy also theorized that Western women in the ’50s grew resentful of beta males getting too much power due to the economic upturn, and thus feminism happened. Some food for thought.

  • Wayfinder

    “If the culture of the 50′s was so strong and good…”

    .
    It wasn’t. It was composed of a generation of young men who went from massive unemployment to growing up on the battlefield and consequently had a hard time figuring out how to act in a domestic setting. Plus a media fixated on stability and appearances of proprietary that held up an impossible ideal even as the foundations of that ideal were eroding.
    .
    The problem with the image of the ’50s housewife was that she was superfluous. Her mother and grandmother had been forced to work hard in and out of the home just to survive, and did it quite successfully. Post-war, domestic appliances and a rising economy turned the middle-class ideal from a working woman to a socialite hostess, without any of the upper-class patronage/alliance reasons for being a hostess.
    .
    The pre-war neighborhood tended to be a village, where the unifying principles were working together and celebrating together. Post-war suburbs aped the luxury of the upper class without confronting the contradiction of the unworking gentleman squire that infects English-descended aristocracies.
    .
    So the ’50s look moral on TV, but they were desperately trying to pretend that nothing would ever go wrong.

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

      Ah, crossed with Wayfinder above, but I’d say his 9:32 post is complementary to mine.

  • Wayfinder

    1. It provides a window into what men want, something women don’t really understand.
    2. It holds people accountable for their actions.
    3. It reveals where an individual stands.
    4. It clarifies expectations.

    It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Lots of grist in Susan’s responses.
    .
    “This is increasingly the model that women follow as well. If women would join forces against casual sex – the Lysistrata strategy – they could change the SMP overnight. But of course it will never happen.”
    .
    One reason is because Lysistrata goes against what women want, deep down. Lysistrata was about getting men to do what women wanted (in that case, end war). But it’s clear that a large contingent of the female sexual supply doesn’t want men to do their bidding – they want men to lead them, or at least have enough social dominance to not present as a follower. Game tries to address this paradox – to get what we want from women (attention and sex) we need to act in ways that, superficially, appear to go against what they want, but in reality is what they want. Only extreme gamers like Roissy and MGTOWs say “don’t care about what women want.” The answer for most guys is “care less about what she wants, in favor of what you want, and she will appreciate you for your manly leadership.”
    .
    “I don’t believe that many people will “luck into” happily ever after.”
    .
    Part of the anxiety in the SMP is the realization (or lack of acceptance) of the fact that we’ve torn down lots of social structures in the name of individualism, and the consequence of that is that everyone has to take control of their own future. In the earlier days people who don’t know what they want, or don’t know what’s good for them, used to be “insured” by the community who would look out for them. It’s one of the benefits of tribalism. We’ve gotten rid of that, for good reason, and to the benefit of a lot of people, but it’s left drifters out in the cold.
    .
    “I believe it became taboo very quickly for men to voice objection to the Women’s Movement – even in their own homes. Archie Bunker was the kind of guy who talked such heresy.”
    .
    My perception as a guy who wasn’t alive at the time is that a lot of beta guys took the nice-guy “if that’s going to make you happy, honey” outlook towards feminism – they gave in to what women asked because they thought it would make their women happy, partially because they didn’t have enough spine to make them happy the Athol Kay way.
    .
    “The only solution is Game. That means the onus is entirely on the beta males.”
    .
    At first this sounds like more obligation masculinity, and guys will respond with “why should I sing and dance for these stuck-up bitches?” But it’s more subtle than that. Just as many betas are just a seminar away from being attractive whole-package men, many women are not far from good relationship material if they ditch the sisterhood groupthink, misandry and bitchiness. Ergo, a full generation of betas going Game will change the SMP so that mid-pack females will want to be with them instead of becoming harem sluts. It will no longer look like a rush to the bottom to get in the alpha’s pants, you can have a good imitation of an alpha by grabbing a well-gamed beta. At some point, that option will be “good enough” for women who can’t handle the stress of constant alpha-chasing.
    .
    “In the months since I wrote this there have been even more examples, most notably at The Frisky, a dating blog for women that has actively promoted promiscuity.”
    .
    The Frisky appears to be going through a massive collective post-coital hangover, de-discovering provider males and chilvarous dating codes. I could write an entire blog simply re-posting their stories with snark and “I told you so’s.”
    .
    “The other day in my post on “familiarity game” I mentioned how it is easier to find a mate in a small town than NYC. Part of the reason is that it’s hard to establish micro-communities in NYC – there are so many “regulars” at Starbucks, and so many Starbucks, you just don’t see the same people every morning. But the other piece of the puzzle is our getting paralyzed by choice. The more choices we have, the more we delay a decision.”
    .
    It’s still touched on but this was a major theme for a time at Roissy – urban atomization leading to both low social consequences and the appearance of choice addiction since you can always find a new alpha in a big city (and you can pretend to not know he’s taken/a player/whatever).
    .
    “A man with social confidence who refuses to pedestalize me has always been more than enough for generating tingles. The women who would truly go for a blood-soaked sociopath are……sociopaths.”
    .
    Several points: first Susan is quite intellectual so an educated man who can banter is probably going to be a big turn-on – it’s the intellectual’s way of not pedestalizing (and hot educated women get tons of nods in agreement from suckups who are smart enough to know better, and meet lots of other intellectuals who can’t work a room to save their tenure). Second, lots of women have sociopath friends, who will push them into dating/fucking a sociopathic man for cred in their sistercircle.
    .
    “The problem with the image of the ’50s housewife was that she was superfluous. Her mother and grandmother had been forced to work hard in and out of the home just to survive, and did it quite successfully.”
    .
    This is an angle I had never thought about – housewife angst as impostor syndrome, the fear of not living up to the strength of mom and grandma, which was forged through struggles the 50′s housewife didn’t have.

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

      Ergo, a full generation of betas going Game will change the SMP so that mid-pack females will want to be with them instead of becoming harem sluts.

      And what of the females at the top of the pack? Many of them are resentful of alphas – their old natural mates – turning into players and choosing mid-pack women solely for sex. A perhaps surprising number of highly attractive women have very limited sexual experience, precisely because they have an intuitive sense of their own worth, and will not go the soft harem route. Most of them have been burned once or twice by alphas, but the truth is that the Karen Owens of the world are never the best looking women. Obviously, it’s a different story in the porn industry – I’m not sure what the dynamic is there.

      Since being alpha is a consequence of dominance, it seems to me that betas acquiring dominance should have a fair shot at these women, especially if they are willing to embrace monogamy, which provides these women with the same mating result as in the SMP their mothers experienced.

  • Chico

    the existence of seduction community forums will prove that indeed alphas and greater betas do contribute back to the community to help the lesser experienced betas or even omegas (although they often give up on the latter after much effort).

    The distinction between betas and omegas is a matter of how deep in the rabbit hole the guy is.

    Most beta males don’t have a ton that is wrong with them. Many are doing well in their education/careers, have goals, and masculine physiques. But for a lot of guys in the beta majority, they just don’t know how to apply themselves when relating to women. When you act around women the same way you act around your male peers, you get friendzoned. When you act supplicating around women, you get crushed. For guys like these, taking the red pill and learning game is the solution.

    Omega males are beyond the point of learning game. It’s like taking a baby that can’t even walk yet and throwing him into a pool so he can learn how to swim. This is not to say that they can’t learn game, but it’s pointless to do so without a rigourous program of personal development.

    As a girl, imagine some unkempt, poorly-dressed guy with a pear-shaped body and a nervous twitch, coming up to you and working Roissy/Mystery style lines on you at a bar. He could follow the motions of the textbook perfectly, but he probably won’t score. This is a classic mistake that proponents of game make. “Follow these instructions and it’ll work for you too!”

    Teaching these guys game right off the bat is nothing but a let-down for them. Allow them to develop in other ways first, and they can gain REAL confidence by the time they’re ready to hit the field.

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

    @Susan:

    [T]here are plenty of handsome betas who can bump themselves from a 6 to an 8, say, or a 7 to a 9 (I’m using a scale from the female perspective here, including dominance).

    .
    I always find this fascinating. There seems to be an unstated assumption that a man has much more flexibility this way. He *can* do something to raise his value in the SMP, if only by being more socially dominant. It’s a learned skill with few evident limits.
    .
    Women are assumed to be more limited by what they can do with makeup and a good diet.
    .
    Still, I wonder about this. Looking back at the characteristics of betas listed in this thread, it’s the immutable ones that get you labeled “beta” or even “omega” the quickest, even within seconds. Have a physical deformity or be short; you’re outta there.
    .
    And still for women, even in an SMP that says you *must* be good looking (read ‘hot’, in today’s parlance), most (more than 50%) qualify, and really, 80% make the grade for somebody, easily.
    .
    IOW, it ain’t so bad as it seems.

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

      @Joe
      That’s something I’ve learned from the men here – women don’t have to be a 10 to be hot. This is very confusing, and there’s a lot of contradiction about this on various blogs. You can find guys arguing on one thread about whether Megan Fox is a 10, and on another whether Kirsten Dunst is a 5. That’s pretty intimidating for most women. However, standards for movie stars must be calibrated differently than IRL. I’ve noticed that when I post pics here of female authors for example, that I expect guys to call ugly, some men will assess her at a 7 or so. That’s really not bad!

  • Chico

    For women, it’s simple but far more difficult to pull off – be really good looking. Of course, many women could improve their looks with effort, but there is already a huge problem, i.e. eating disorders, related to that.

    Eating disorders aren’t necessary.

    A healthy diet and exercise are than enough to maintain a sexy figure, as evidenced by the women below, in the 15-25% body fat category (definitely hot enough!).

    http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages

    Just be careful not to bulk up too much, or you’ll start only attracting fetishists!

    Of course, if your strategy is the bar-slut strategy, you’ll be putting on weight from all that binge-drinking. Yet another consequence to this aspect of hook-up culture.

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

      Eating disorders aren’t necessary

      Of course they’re not necessary – that’s why they’re a disorder. They are a very real byproduct of women’s attempts to be stylishly thin at all costs. They quickly become the way for women to exercise self-control in a way that they literally feed on themselves.

  • Chico

    And still for women, even in an SMP that says you *must* be good looking (read ‘hot’, in today’s parlance), most (more than 50%) qualify, and really, 80% make the grade for somebody, easily.

    I’m sure even most beta guys can find someone if they lower their standards enough. Usually someone who is at least 4 numbers below them on the looks scale.

  • SayWhaat

    And still for women, even in an SMP that says you *must* be good looking (read ‘hot’, in today’s parlance), most (more than 50%) qualify, and really, 80% make the grade for somebody, easily.
    .
    IOW, it ain’t so bad as it seems

    .
    Women are the fairer sex for a reason. The attractiveness scale for the average woman usually ranges from “pretty/cute” to “HOT”. The average male’s baseline is, well, “average”.
    .
    I’ve read studies that say beautiful couples are significantly more likely to give birth to girls than to boys, because passing on beautiful characteristics is more beneficial to female progeny than it is for males. Couples of average or plain features, however, are more likely to pass their more masculine characteristics down the gene pool.
    .
    Women are pegged by their natural attractiveness; there’s little more we can do or hope for, aside from getting a haircut, losing weight, wearing makeup, and dressing with style. Even with all these “alterations” to our physical appearance, we may only bump up a point. Our perception of men, however, is not just looks-based, it’s attitude-based, and attitude is a much more malleable trait than physical appearance. As such, men have more leeway in making gains with the female sex than vice versa.

  • SayWhaat
  • Chico

    and attitude is a much more malleable trait than physical appearance.

    I disagree. Physical traits like body fat % and muscle mass are measurable and the ways in which they’re improved on is very methodical.

    Game is far more abstract and the results aren’t so easily measured. You may be improving, but you still see zero results. Or you might be getting rid of one problem in your approach, but creating a new one that you didn’t even know existed. It can be a really big issue where every single rejection just piles up more jabs at your self-esteem. Changing your personality is far more difficult than changing your personal appearance, although both are possible.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Society in the 50s looked highly functional, but it was a powder keg, and it blew.

    I can see that. There was ever a moment when there was a strong good culture?
    The 30′s? The 1900′s?

    Our perception of men, however, is not just looks-based, it’s attitude-based, and attitude is a much more malleable trait than physical appearance. As such, men have more leeway in making gains with the female sex than vice versa.

    I disagree with this. Cosmetic changes is a billionaire industry for a reason and men here had commented that if a woman has other desirable traits they can grow into their looks, but is harder for a man to go out of the friendzone without drastic changes and large absence according to the experts and I notice that a is easier for woman might take a hard look at the mirror and realize she is not attractive enough and make changes, that is if she is surrounded by conscious girls that actually know the rules of the game, if she is surrounded by fat and unfeminine women she will only hear: you are perfect the way you are men are shallow and some other feel nice BS.

    How many times had you heard a guy saying I did some soul searching and I found out I need to make changes? I got the theory that testosterone make harder for men to be able to recognize deep problems within themselves unless they have another high ranking man to point it out. Again look at the self help books market. Men don’t go and think: What is wrong with me and I want to feel more empowered, really they don’t.

  • Anonymous

    Men should not accept being friend-zoned. If you have no other choice but to stay friends with some girl due to a lack of chemistry on her part, then accept the relationships for what it is – friendship and look for another other girl or just don’t accept the friendship at. Go your own way. There are plenty of other hot girls out there! Don’t stay in the friends zone while harboring unrealistic hopes. That’s not the winner’s approach, anyway.

    -Florence

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

    Stephanie…self-help books and men…there are quite a few books to be found in the “business” section of the bookstore which are basically self-help books in that they focus on attitudes, personality traits, emotional intelligence, etc rather than skills such as finance or programming or distribution.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    david foster
    Mmm interesting. Any titles worth mentioning? I would like to know how do they approach the male mind and how do they sell.

  • Matt T

    I think it’s easy for men to resent women for their sexual preferences, but you have to remember that men also vilify fatties even more than women vilify betas. I mean, if you’re with a group of young males in a hookah bar or whatever, there is almost guaranteed to be a few jokes denigrating fatties by the end of the night. Somehow, even though women enjoy taking advantage of betas, I doubt they joke about it behind their backs.

  • OffTheCuff

    The attractiveness scale for the average woman usually ranges from “pretty/cute” to “HOT”. The average male’s baseline is, well, “average”.

    .
    Close, but no cigar. The typical woman is average-looking to men. The typical man is well below-average.
    .
    If you have guys rate a group of women, it will be perfect bell curve – most women will be a 5, with less and less outliers the farther you go in each direction. But it’s balanced, there equal numbers of 1s and 10s.
    .
    Women have different curve. Most men will be more like a 2.5. The entire curve is shifted to the left quite a bit. The are WAY more many 1s than 10s.
    .
    In a woman’s world, everyone is just butt-ugly, it seems.

  • SayWhaat

    In a woman’s world, everyone is just butt-ugly, it seems.

    .
    Well, if the typical man is well below-average….

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    The average man being rated as below average suggests that women lack in the judgement stakes. :)

  • SayWhaat

    And the average man pursuing a woman far beyond his attractiveness level suggests a similar lack of judgment. ;)

  • Nerdy Bachelor

    Wow! I’m surprised at how long this conversation has gone on. Back to the original comic, I have a few thoughts:
    .
    1.) The female “friend” complaining about the guys she’s dating to the “nice guy” that’s secretly in love with her… I think that’s just an urban myth or rhetorical trope. When I was younger, I could identify emotionally with that story, but it never actually happened to me. And the guys who said that it happened to them did not strike me as the most reliable narrators. When I think a woman friend has feelings for me that are not reciprocated, I avoid certain topics when in her presence just out of good manners. I suspect that most women do the same in the reverse situation.
    .
    2.) So, I doubt that these situations where a friendship seems to abruptly end after a man has his romantic overtures rebuffed are deliberately plotted in either direction. It’s a sad fact of life that sometimes the people you like won’t like you the same way, and most of us will find ourselves as both the implicit rejecter and rejectee at different points in our lives. (For all we know, the “nice guy” could be complaining about the woman he’s crushing on to another woman who’s thinking to herself “What am I? Chopped liver.”)
    .
    3.) When these unfortunate events occur, it is fundamentally a he said/she said situation. Nevertheless, I think it is reasonable to assume that sometimes the man is more at fault and other times the woman is more at fault. I’m surprised to read such vigorous arguments trying to categorically pin the blame on one gender regardless of the circumstances.
    .
    4.) A lot of young men, like my former self and the cartoonist of xkcd, could avoid unnecessary frustration and heartache if they would communicate their intentions in a clear and timely manner. Again, I’m surprised to hear people seeming to make excuses for guys on this score.
    .
    5.) A lot of young women could avoid unnecessary drama and heartache if they would communicate their rejections in a clear and timely manner. I can think of two female friends that I developed feelings for who told me they weren’t interested or weren’t available as soon as I communicated my feelings to them. It did not cause any problems for our friendships. (One of those friendships has continued for 15 years now.) I can think of another woman who spent four months “thinking about it.” I naively took this as a sign of hope, so when the rejection finally came it felt like a kidney punch. At this point, neither me nor that woman wants to see or speak to each other ever again. (But I wish her well, and I’m sure she would say the same about me.)
    .
    6.) What causes the delay in communicating these important feelings? Sometimes fear, but more often ambivalence. The rejecter is not ready to say, “Yes” but is also not ready to say “No, never.” The rejectee may be thinking, “I never liked a woman this much, but is it a good idea for me to date a Scientologist?” (or something like that). So, we hesitate and make ourselves and eventually the other person feel worse than we would have if we’d been less confused about these things.
    .
    7.) An added dilemma is when the rejecter suspects that the other person has feelings but the rejectee hasn’t clearly communicated these feelings. There have been times when I tried to clear the air by saying, “I just want to be friends,” and had it turn out well. Other times, I’ve been accused of being pompous and delusional. There were other times where I just tried not to lead the other person on, maybe raise the subject indirectly or wait for them to find the courage to broach the subject. That doesn’t necessarily turn out any better.
    .
    8.) My own feeling is that most of the people who have trouble finding relationships are either shy or narcissistic. Some of us shy people are honest with ourselves about it. (When I finally overcame my shyness, my love life and relationships in general magically became a lot more satisfying.) Others construct elaborate ideological explanations for why life is unfair to us.
    .
    9.) I thought this comic strip was funny, with a wistful, self-deprecating irony, and genuine empathy and humanity toward both parties in these situations. I don’t get that same feeling from a lot of the responses I’ve read here. This was at least an interesting way to procrastinate on my dissertation the past few days.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    This is increasingly the model that women follow as well. If women would join forces against casual sex – the Lysistrata strategy – they could change the SMP overnight. But of course it will never happen. Nor will women police within their own groups for aberrant sexual behavior – that only worked when “bad girls” were the exception. Now we have social cliques of promiscuous girls, separate from groups of girls who don’t “do casual.” This is true even within highly social groups like sororities.

    Mmm but wasn’t this the case during the roaring 20′s as well? Anyone here that knows history can tell how the sluthood culture was changed back then?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Well, if the typical man is well below-average….

    I think the problem is that many people (women specially) take the media as their meassure of average. Even the ugliest hollywood actor is probably better looking than the average man. The thing is that men need sex so they can readjust their expectations if the opportunity arise easier than women IME.
    My players friends used to say that they could think the women is the most ugly they had seen but if she showed willingness they started to try and find “beauty” “she has really nice hair though, and she has pretty hands”…anything to be able to take the chance for the sex.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Women have different curve. Most men will be more like a 2.5. The entire curve is shifted to the left quite a bit. The are WAY more many 1s than 10s.

    Go to Asia and ask a sample of women what the average white man looks like to them. Most will be like a 6 at least, even the shorter ones in 5’8 range (partially because average male height in most parts of Asia is 5’8, not 5’10 like America). The grotesquely fat guys might still be like a 3.

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    @SayWhaat

    And the average man pursuing a woman far beyond his attractiveness level suggests a similar lack of judgment.

    If the average man is rated (by women at 2.5) while the average woman is rated (by men) at 5.0 then there’s going to be a butt load of men who either have to aim higher than their SMP value, or go without. (or engage in non-consensual relationships, but let’s not go there)
    @Stephenie Rowling

    I think the problem is that many people (women specially) take the media as their meassure of average. Even the ugliest hollywood actor is probably better looking than the average man.

    Women with unrealistic expectations fuelled by fictional characters… that’s almost a stereotype now. :)

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    @Hope

    Go to Asia and ask a sample of women what the average white man looks like to them. Most will be like a 6 at least, even the shorter ones in 5’8 range (partially because average male height in most parts of Asia is 5’8, not 5’10 like America). The grotesquely fat guys might still be like a 3.

    But how do they rate Asian men?
    The novelty of the white man might give him a few points, but then you could say the same about the western man’s interest in Asian women. Someone quite average in her own society goes up to a 7 or 8 in a culture where her looks are a novelty.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Women with unrealistic expectations fuelled by fictional characters… that’s almost a stereotype now.

    I really believe Hollywood actors are more the problem than fictional characters nowadays. I mean you can draw and describe the perfect man on comic books and books but if there is no one on real life like that you can more or less keep the perspective. Now given that Hollywood and TV are swimming on this types I would guess many women really think that there is an abundance of those and they all will fall in love with them because they are so “empowered”.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Someone quite average in her own society goes up to a 7 or 8 in a culture where her looks are a novelty.

    Personal anecdote: My girlfriends (Dominican dark ladies mostly) used to say that my kids will be pretty because of my husband’s look, my husband friends (white men mostly) said the same because of my looks. I seriously think that the exotic gives extra points to everyone, no matter how average or ugly they were on their own environments.

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    @Stephenie Rowling

    I really believe Hollywood actors are more the problem than fictional characters nowadays.

    I don’t regard Hollywood inhabitants as real people. Fake names, fake tans, fake bodies and faces. Yes to your other points though.

  • Mike C

    I disagree. Physical traits like body fat % and muscle mass are measurable and the ways in which they’re improved on is very methodical.
    Game is far more abstract and the results aren’t so easily measured. You may be improving, but you still see zero results.
    Or you might be getting rid of one problem in your approach, but creating a new one that you didn’t even know existed. It can be a really big issue where every single rejection just piles up more jabs at your self-esteem. Changing your personality is far more difficult than changing your personal appearance, although both are possible.

    .
    Absolutely right Chico. I know because I’ve done BOTH. The physical transformation and learning and applying Game theory.
    .
    You should see a picture of me at 20-21 versus 26. But you are right. Changing your appearance is very formulaic and methodical. And you can always find someone to teach you better clothes, better haircut, better make-up technique. Its really just a question of discipline and motivation.
    .
    In contrast, learning Game is very much a feedback loop of trial and error, calibration of techniques, and it is very easy to mess things up. I remember one instance where I think I was nailing the interaction with this one girl, and then I think towards the really end I switched into overeager mode and really fucked it up.

  • Rum

    I cannot speak for all guys but I am pretty sure I am right in saying that, when it comes too attractiveness, there really is “good enough”. Guys can fall in love with, stay horning for, etc. a woman just fine even if there are hotter women around. Without having to make an effort. Guys value decent sex with a decently attractive woman WAY too much to devalue it in their minds because something “hotter” might exist. Even if he gets a taste of something else on the sly and learns that it is indeed hotter he will still highly value what he has on the steady. In this sense, men are not hypergamous. For women, there is an upside to us being prone to mere promiscuity and not hypergamy. The message is, put out and make the effort to stay reasonably fuckable and your guy is not going to be wandering off just because hotter women are available. He will honesty like what he has. Unless, of course, he is a player that you never had anyway.
    Women too often assume, wrongfully, that men are strongly turned off by less -than-the-best when it comes to sex partnering. They assume this because they feel that way so much more themselves.
    Another, nastier, way of saying this is,”Guys can cheerfully overlook just about anything in a woman in a LTR if she reliably puts out and does not get fat.” Lots of women seem to hate hearing that. Apparently, it makes men seem simple-minded in their eyes. Maybe so. But would you rather be lied to?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Apparently, it makes men seem simple-minded in their eyes. Maybe so. But would you rather be lied to?

    This is actually another Red Pill that women should hear daily. If you notice women are usually a lot less forgiving to other women that snag men they desire: But she is not ambitious enough, she doesn’t have X degrees, she is not that funny, blah blah blah (and you can see that fictional female characters or/and famous women’s worst critiques are women) when in reality all a woman needs to do is look good enough, be nice and be willing and if the guy likes her he won’t need a list of “traits” to be into her.

    Is indeed simpler but women are told all their lives that if they are accomplished, rich and successful they can pick any guy they want to commit when they feel like it, that is another “bad advice” women give and get about dating.

  • Namastan

    @Stepanie
    The most masculine true self-help book for men has to be “No More Mr. Nice Guy” by Robert Glover. All about how and why a man can gain from growing towards true Alpha mindset.
    Other man-friendly resources include “Art of Manliness” by Brett McKay, and “Hold on to Your NUTS” by Wayne Levine.
    Finally. I recommend “Change or Die” by Alan Deutschman. Difficult for me to adequately summarize, but it bridges the gap between touchy-feely self help and business self-help quite well.

  • Höllenhund

    he only solution is Game. That means the onus is entirely on the beta males.

    In other words, the SMP will remain royally screwed.

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

      The only solution is Game. That means the onus is entirely on the beta males.

      In other words, the SMP will remain royally screwed.

      But you were just saying that Game is spreading far and wide!

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

    Stephenie…the business books of a “self-help” nature that I had in mind aren’t specifically targeted to men, although that’s probably the majority of readers..and example would be “How Smart Executives Fail,” by Sydney Finkelstein. Another, which is very good although a bit long in the tooth, is “Wareham’s Way: The Judas Trap” by executive recruiter John Wareham.

    A “self-help” book not specifically business-oriented but more about life in general, and which probably has a largely male readership, is “Bunkhouse Logic” by Ben Stein (yes, *that* Ben Stein)

  • Chico

    The message is, put out and make the effort to stay reasonably fuckable and your guy is not going to be wandering off just because hotter women are available.

    The exception being if he finds out later on that he doesn’t like her personality, then the commitment may end. In a sense, there is “girl game” for scoring commitment, but it’s really as simple as being a nice, considerate person. A woman doesn’t need status and she definitely doesn’t need to play head games to keep a man. In fact, it is detrimental for her to do the latter.

    Disclaimer for the ladies: Some guys will cheat. But don’t assume you caused it, because some guys are players and will cheat no matter how good a catch you are. There is nothing you can do about this except develop a better filter for douchebags.

  • Chico

    Even the ugliest hollywood actor is probably better looking than the average man. The thing is that men need sex so they can readjust their expectations if the opportunity arise easier than women IME.

    I wonder if some women feel this way simply because actors have status. I mean, you have actors like Seth Rogen, that fat guy from Superbad, and even Will Farrell. They look pretty below average to me. But do they already get high ratings just for their money and their status as actors? Conversely, while most would agree that Brad Pitt is conventionally very handsome, I’m sure we could all cite other examples in our daily lives of people we know are just as good looking. But Brad Pitt has shit-tons of status and he’s a household name to boot.

  • SayWhaat

    In a sense, there is “girl game” for scoring commitment, but it’s really as simple as being a nice, considerate person. A woman doesn’t need status and she definitely doesn’t need to play head games to keep a man. In fact, it is detrimental for her to do the latter.

    I disagree.
    .
    Fact: being “nice” and considerate is something that most people will take advantage of, period. Displaying these traits up front heedlessly at the beginning of the dating phase is going to get you shot down, regardless of your sex. A woman doesn’t need status, but she will definitely need to play “head games”, i.e. know how to flirt successfully to maintain the intrigue of a man long enough to get him to commit. There is an art to keeping a man in orbit long enough to get him to finally be exclusive.

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

      There is an art to keeping a man in orbit long enough to get him to finally be exclusive.

      There is a great book called The Technique of the Love Affair: By a Gentlewoman, 1928. It’s excellent and gives an overview of all the best “head game” techniques for women. It was written during a period of relative promiscuity in the U.S., so it’s more germane than you might expect.

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

    @Stephenie

    Even the ugliest hollywood actor is probably better looking than the average man.

    Hummm… Heh! Are you sure? It’s just coincidental that I happen to run across this today, but you may enjoy it!

    http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1949627

  • Mike C

    A woman doesn’t need status, but she will definitely need to play “head games”, i.e. know how to flirt successfully to maintain the intrigue of a man long enough to get him to commit. There is an art to keeping a man in orbit long enough to get him to finally be exclusive.
    .
    For the most part, this is false. Flirt yes…head games no, and this is really a case of female projection. “Head games” tend to keep many women “hooked” whereas for many guys it is going to send the girl right into the the pump and dump category and/or not worth the bother. One of the reasons I was willing to be exclusive with my GF was because she was NOT the type to play head games and I knew that was a rarity.

  • Chico

    being “nice” and considerate is something that most people will take advantage of, period. Displaying these traits up front heedlessly at the beginning of the dating phase is going to get you shot down, regardless of your sex.

    You might be getting this confused. Sometimes I’ve had girls be “nice” and very forward towards me and offer me sex/other action very quickly, without me initiating. I didn’t turn them down because they were being too generous. I turned them down due to lack of physical attraction. But, out of projection, some women may interpret this as “damn, maybe I was too forward/nice”.

    Also, there are certain guys who will seriously take advantage of nice girls. They are in the minority, but women may also encounter them at a rate that is higher than their actual % of the population. These guys are called players and misogynists. NAMALT.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Hummm… Heh! Are you sure? It’s just coincidental that I happen to run across this today, but you may enjoy it!

    That is so funny, MTV should give him an award!

    I wonder if some women feel this way simply because actors have status.

    Sorry I wasn’t clear, there is huge upgrade once the man become famous. That is when the women start their “Oh he looks so cute on that shirt and he looks so sweet”, check Tobey Macguire before and after Spiderman. Although I think men also have their share of glamour effect. I did my thesis on celebrities and their effects on adds, specifically Pepsi, and it was amazing the amount of good will a celebrity earns and is something psychological ancient societies adored their warriors and gladiators and notable person and even though they were celebrities for actual feats the Hollywood effect makes them look like they do something important and meaningful when is far from the reality in most cases. I suspect that part of the reason why many celebrities do charity work is because it keeps them relevant and adds to the glamour (which is an ancient term for spell or magic). No to demerit I’m sure many of them do it out of real concern for the world, but I wouldn’t be surprised if people at the top encourage this for the glamorizing effect.

    Also even if Seth Rogen might have his fan girls I’m pretty sure is not as big as Robert Pattinson and never will be, so there are limits to this effect.

    Also about Brad Pitt I know I’m weird but I only crushed on him when he play whether sweet or tortured (Interview with the vampire and Meet Joe Black) while when he played dirty, bad and rogues I was very much turn off (in the fight club I preferred Edward Norton, except when he was spitting blood :)), so looks only work withing context for women, YMMV.

    And I want to mention that when we were discussing Troy in here once and I was amazed how no one mentioned that the hottest guy on that movie was Eric Bana as Hector, IMO. He was a wonderful brother to his good for nothing whiny idiot brother and he was a formidable warrior as obviously devoted husband and good looking too. And I think many female movie goers agreed with me.

  • Höllenhund

    “But you were just saying that Game is spreading far and wide!”

    Didn’t you say betas and non-sluts have to meet each other halfway? Doesn’t that contradict the idea that the onus is entirely on one sex? Besides, Game is spreading, but it’s a stretch to say that the majority or even a significant minority of betas will internalize it.

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

      @Hollenhund

      Didn’t you say betas and non-sluts have to meet each other halfway? Doesn’t that contradict the idea that the onus is entirely on one sex?

      Even if women meet men halfway, and I do believe they should, it will be a wasted effort if the male cannot sustain the attraction. Lots of good-looking beta guys get the girls initially, but have trouble holding on. They may go up the learning curve relatively quickly if they study Game. Other guys have a much longer row to hoe. I do agree that it’s unlikely to ever be widely internalized. There’s enormous awareness of Game now, but few have gone through the process in a way that will produce real and lasting change.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    (For all we know, the “nice guy” could be complaining about the woman he’s crushing on to another woman who’s thinking to herself “What am I? Chopped liver.”)
    Do you know about a webcomic called Platinum Grit? There is a similar dynamic with Niels/Jeremy/Kate where Nils is a flirty, megahot, Nympho that knows very well that Jeremy “wants” her and makes a point to sleep with everyone but him, while her less attractive friend Kate is indeed attracted to Jeremy, (she even took him on a date!) and with who Jeremy have erotic dreams? Nils of course It’s like the solution to your virginity is right in front of you, baby. Of course if you are going to read it I caution you Trudy seems to get a sick pleasure of having cute Beta guys longing for sex unable to get it (she is also the author/illustrator of Oglaf), something is not working right on her mind, she is like the Joss Whedon of virgins.

  • SayWhaat

    Flirt yes…head games no, and this is really a case of female projection.

    Cali Bradshaw had a good post on what I meant by head games: http://sexandthetwenties.com/playing-the-game/

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Cali Bradshaw had a good post on what I meant by head games: http://sexandthetwenties.com/playing-the-game/

    I went through that link, and with all due respect to the author, I think it’s very wrong. With my husband, as well as all the other guys who had told me they had fallen in love with me, I was 1) very available, 2) did not strategize contact and 3) took the conversation very fast and definitely over-shared.

    Most men don’t work like most women. Playing these games on men just prolongs the game, which might be interesting and fun for women, and which might be why a lot of women do them. But I’ve had guys tell me they were in love with me after a week of intense talking, during which I was available every moment and shared my entire life story and then some. My husband was one of those guys. So, I disagree.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I think the lesson to learn here is that not all strategies work for everyone. Hope obviously would be a very good target for the best friend strategy while I’m not, and some guys probably respond to girl game while others hate it (and I must say my husband would had run for the hills if I would had dared to try and play this games as well) so, whoever strategy anyone pick, be ready to evaluate how good is working, and make sure its not a turn off for the person and be ready to cutting it as soon as the object of your affections start to show signs of “Are you f*cking kidding me?” and whether change strategy or if is too late change person but always be ready to implement and change never “marry” just one approach, and pay attention to what works or not, in fact I will say if you can use whatever strategy in groups of many persons you are interested in, it might be more productive, statistically speaking one of them has to respond positively, YMMV.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    and I must say my husband would had run for the hills if I would had dared to try and play this games as well

    Yep my husband said the same thing. And lots of guys on this thread are saying they don’t care for that kind of game. So I still think that strategy is not the winning type, especially if the girl wants a long-term commitment. Maybe if the girl is going after a different type of man (the type to play cat-and-mouse and is in it for the chase) it would work. Those guys tend to get bored once you stop playing the game though, and that gets exhausting.

  • SayWhaat

    Sometimes I’ve had girls be “nice” and very forward towards me and offer me sex/other action very quickly, without me initiating.

    This is not what I mean by “nice”. Nice girls are not necessarily easy. Nice girls just tend to get passed over and ignored.

  • SayWhaat

    So I still think that strategy is not the winning type, especially if the girl wants a long-term commitment.

    Personally, I try to cut through all the BS and get straight to what it is that I’m looking for. I’ve just noticed that the girls who seem to play games, are the ones who appear to be the most successful. I’m probably confusing successful flirts with playing games, though.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    I’ve just noticed that the girls who seem to play games, are the ones who appear to be the most successful.

    They “appear” to be successful — that’s the keyword. Basically, nobody in my high school knew that I had five guys tell me they were in love with me (not at the same time). During those years I was a quiet little nerdy girl whom all the teachers thought was a hard-working student, and outside of the guys I was seeing no one knew any of this. They probably all thought I was a failure romantically speaking.

    But being open, honest and not afraid of sharing your emotional self with guys in addition to being a sympathetic and supportive ear makes a girl very attractive as a long-term commitment option. The girls who play games and think they can manipulate guys, maybe they’ll get commitment, too, but I don’t think they are seen as attractive for LTRs. Manipulation is a MAJOR turn-off for men. Trust me on this one.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Manipulation is a MAJOR turn-off for men. Trust me on this one.

    Cosigning this. Men hate that, they really really do.

  • andros

    Nerdy Bachelor, boy in public schools – at least in North America and West Europe – are strenuously trained not to express the “wrong” kind of sexual overtures. It’s this bizarre mix of degraded libertinism (sex ed, sex on TV) where “consent” is constantly intoned and chaste courtship (think Valentine’s Day) which – surprise surprise – does not get girls wet. Because most boys don’t have T-levels high enough to overcome their fear of getting into trouble, their education leaves them schizophrenically-minded about what they’re supposed to do with their romantic feelings.
    .
    To some extent, it seems almost like a conspiracy on the part of women to select for higher-T boys (the ones with the cojones to ignore establishment teachings and laugh at women’s attempts to train them in the proper ways of getting consent), but that’s pretty ludicrous. In the end, it’s just that the majority of boys are being pulled two ways by their teachers and their parents, leaving them incapable of following either.

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

    Andros..boys in public schools.

    The public schools in the US are now largely controlled by people who are atypical of the population as a whole: the system selects for those who have a strong need for security and avoidance of personal accountability coupled with high tolerance for bureaucracy and meaningless verbiage, and an orientation toward enforcing conformity on others. Hence, people who do not share these attributes are likely to find the school climate a very alien one.

  • Scipio Africanus

    Stephanie,

    “anything to be able to take the chance for the sex.”

    I’ve always said to my freinds that men always search for reasons to say “yes” to any given women showing interest in him, and women always search for reasons to say “no.” If a guy is with a girl, he was able to find enough good reasons to say yes, and she wasn’t able to find enough good reasons to say no to him.

    This can get obscured when a woman falls for a guy at first sight. I think that sort of instant attraction from a woman towards a man is because she can tell off the bat that her drive toward hypergamy will be abudnantly satisfied by being with him. The evidence, to her, is obvious and overwhelming (he’s super good looking; he’s dripping with dominance; he’s extremely smooth; his posture and body-language maek him look like the Lion King, etc – any one of these will do).

  • Stephenie Rowling

    If a guy is with a girl, he was able to find enough good reasons to say yes, and she wasn’t able to find enough good reasons to say no to him.

    Can’t argue with that reasoning. Our genders checklist are completely opposite.

  • Anonymous

    @ Susan
    “That’s something I’ve learned from the men here – women don’t have to be a 10 to be hot. This is very confusing, and there’s a lot of contradiction about this on various blogs. You can find guys arguing on one thread about whether Megan Fox is a 10, and on another whether Kirsten Dunst is a 5. That’s pretty intimidating for most women. However, standards for movie stars must be calibrated differently than IRL. I’ve noticed that when I post pics here of female authors for example, that I expect guys to call ugly, some men will assess her at a 7 or so. That’s really not bad!
    ________________
    I am one of those guys. I dated absolutely beautiful women in my past. Looks , for me, are only the first test. For a short, sexual affair,great looks are fairly important to “me.” But for a LTR she better have a great personality, a great sense of humor,be intelligent, and be an active type. Looks are secondary. I am not saying I would be attracted to a butt ugly woman, but a 7 who has all the other requirements is VERYattractive to me. I have had 9/10`s want me, but I didn`t feel anything towards them, other than physical. I wanted a couple beautiful women, but it was them who didnt feel the connection. Funny, the more you love someone the more attractive they become.

  • Tom

    @ Rum
    “I cannot speak for all guys but I am pretty sure I am right in saying that, when it comes too attractiveness, there really is “good enough”. Guys can fall in love with, stay horning for, etc. a woman just fine even if there are hotter women around. Without having to make an effort. Guys value decent sex with a decently attractive woman WAY too much to devalue it in their minds because something “hotter” might exist. Even if he gets a taste of something else on the sly and learns that it is indeed hotter he will still highly value what he has on the steady. In this sense, men are not hypergamous. For women, there is an upside to us being prone to mere promiscuity and not hypergamy. The message is, put out and make the effort to stay reasonably fuckable and your guy is not going to be wandering off just because hotter women are available. He will honesty like what he has. Unless, of course, he is a player that you never had anyway.
    Women too often assume, wrongfully, that men are strongly turned off by less -than-the-best when it comes to sex partnering. They assume this because they feel that way so much more themselves.
    Another, nastier, way of saying this is,”Guys can cheerfully overlook just about anything in a woman in a LTR if she reliably puts out and does not get fat.” Lots of women seem to hate hearing that. Apparently, it makes men seem simple-minded in their eyes. Maybe so. But would you rather be lied to?
    _________________________
    great post Rum

    Are people really THAT shallow that they make their mate selection based mostly on looks? That has not been my lifes experience. Most of the people I have known who coupled up, did so because they fell for the other person, and not just their body. Seems like a lot of shallow thinkers here. Sure attraction is important, but it`s only a fraction. What ever happened to the belief, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Inner beauty is just as important. Cant always get both. By the way, great looking people are NOT necessarly better genitics as some have said in other posts. Look genitics, well, yes, but better genitics? um no

  • http://attractionreaction.wordpress.com/ Jeffrey of Troy

    @Susan
    “I am aware that I was projecting – which is why I said it was scary. I consider myself pretty well educated re the nice guy dilemma at this point, yet I saw this comic and found myself rooting for a happy ending between nice guy and girl. At the time I had no idea I would be in a minority – or maybe even the only woman? – who felt this way.”
    *
    Very NF of you. Reminds me of a comment I saw once (don’t remember where) that NF’s favorite stories are when even the villain realizes the error of his ways at the end and becomes good.
    *
    “That video was fascinating and horrible, like a 20 car pile up. That guy had the lowest emotional intelligence of any human being I’ve ever witnessed. He is very handsome, in the classic alpha way, yet he was totally repellent.”
    *
    Were you able to discover whether he was single or not? I wish he’d been more clear on that point.

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

      @Jeffrey of Troy
      Hey, good to see you. What is NF? As for the guy on American Idol, I’d bet my 401K that he’s single, though he didn’t respond to the question about whether he had a gf.

  • http://attractionreaction.wordpress.com/ Jeffrey of Troy

    @Brendan
    “Feminism would have gotten precisely nowhere if it didn’t benefit the men in power. No-fault divorce was passed through by powerful men who wanted to ditch their wives with no muss and fuss to upgrade to younger, hotter women. They probably didn’t foresee that it would end up backfiring against many of the men below them at the time, but even if they did, they wouldn’t have cared at all, because they view those men as “losers” anyway.”
    *
    Feminism is inevitable under Capitalism; flood the job-market with millions more job-seekers, drives wages down, gives the Capitalists even more power (same reason U.S. gov won’t enforce national borders – got to have constant supply of cheap labor to maintain imbalance).
    Capitalism is NOT “a network of enlightened people co-ordinating their activities to make the world the best it can be for as many humans as possible.” Capitalism IS “each individual doing whatever is best for hizzown goddamn self, and screw everyone else.”
    *
    Our society is grinding to a halt. The slaves don’t believe the lies anymore.

  • Scipio Africanus

    “Feminism is inevitable under Capitalism;”

    Sort of the slightly divergent way of restating Marx (that Capitalism would imminently and necessarily lead to rule by the proletariat). The connection between Marxist and Feminist philosphy becomes clearer all the time.

  • http://attractionreaction.wordpress.com/ Jeffrey of Troy
  • http://attractionreaction.wordpress.com/ Jeffrey of Troy

    @Scipio
    “The connection between Marxist and Feminist philosphy becomes clearer all the time.”
    *
    Karl was very intelligent and prescient, but he made a significant mistake, which we have to correct. I explain it here:
    http://jeffreybrauer.blogspot.com/2010/10/socialism-definition-essay-in-two-parts.html

  • Poester99

    SayWhaat says:
    March 17, 2011 at 10:13 am

    @ VD:

    Just nail her most attractive girlfriend who she considers to be less attractive than she is while simultaneously maintaining your friendship with her.

    Ha. Good luck. She’ll just be happy that her less attractive girlfriend has finally found someone to love.

    Ha.. he specifically didn’t say her “fugly” girlfriend. So if you’re a male slut, it’s a win-win, and you haven’t burned any bridges.

  • SayWhaat

    Ha.. he specifically didn’t say her “fugly” girlfriend.

    He didn’t have to. Point is that the girl he’s really shooting for won’t give two shits about whether he’s dating her friend or not.

  • Poester99

    SayWhaat says:
    March 24, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    Ha.. he specifically didn’t say her “fugly” girlfriend.

    He didn’t have to. Point is that the girl he’s really shooting for won’t give two shits about whether he’s dating her friend or not.

    If he’s working on his outer game then the tentative one-itis for a fwb is a bad thing anyways, so now that he’s on the way to curing it, it’s win-win-win.

  • Jonathan Manor

    OMG! I seriously deleting every girl I thought I should stay friends with on Facebook right now simply after reading this!

  • Richard Posey

    HOWL! I just went through this particular behavior and wasted 3 months of emotional investment. I am WAY past your target demographic, age-wise. Guilty as charged. Glad I found this. Thank you, Susan!

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

      Hey Richard, good to see you!