275»

It’s a Small, Hypergamous World

It’s been less than two years since I was first introduced to the concept of female hypergamy – the desire for a woman to be with a mate of the highest possible status. This desire will drive women to “trade up” when given the opportunity. For that reason, it profits men to maintain as high a level of status as possible. Though prestige and affluence clearly play a role, women often prioritize a man’s level of social dominance as the most telling predictor of mate fitness.

For obvious reasons, this “instinct” often malfunctions in contemporary terms. The thug who may provide strong physical genes that will enable your offspring to survive infancy is also an unpleasant individual, lacking partnership skills. Yet the thug, and the many variations on that “bad boy,” will often attract more women than stable, attractive, productive men without the dangerous edge.

The Sexual Revolution, ushered in by the Pill and the Women’s Movement, unleashed female sexuality in an unprecedented way. The result has been a hypergamous free-for-all, with women demanding increasingly long checklists of features from men as qualifications for dating.  No one wants to “settle,” so we’ve created a sociosexual environment where a brilliant and attractive professional may go without a date if he isn’t the male that all other males turn to for guidance on what’s cool. Never mind that he’s doing brilliant research – it will count for less than the ability to walk off a rugby field battered and bloody but still smiling.

I believe that this sorry state of affairs is worst in the U.S., since feminism is more entrenched here than anywhere else, and most contemporary cultural trends (including hookup culture), originate here. This weekend, though, I encountered thought-provoking examples demonstrating that hypergamy is thriving around the world.

My husband and I watched the film Leaving (Partir) starring Kristin Scott Thomas, who seems to have made something of a career of acting bilingually in French films. She plays a wife and mother living a gracious and comfortable life. Her husband, a successful doctor, is guilty of having fallen into the routine of taking her for granted, but so has she – they’re a typical affluent couple approaching middle age, and their marriage is boring.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BO3ddnTgF8

As you can see, she throws it all away for an ex-con who roams from short-term gig to gig, and she destroys numerous lives in the process, including her own. My husband was surprised (and reassured) by the strength of my reaction to the total selfishness of Scott Thomas’ character. My impression was that the female director sympathized with her more than I did. The film received critical praise, and I recommend it highly. No effort required – we streamed it from Netflix.

I then spent much of Sunday with my nose buried in a book I simply can’t put down: To the End of the Land, by David Grossman. From Amazon:

To the End of the Land is a book of mourning for those not dead, a mother’s lament for life during a wartime that has no end in sight. At the same time, it’s joyously and almost painfully alive, full to the point of rupture with the emotions and the endless quotidian details of a few deeply imagined lives. Ora, the Israeli mother in Grossman’s story, is surrounded by men: Ilan and Avram, friends and lovers who form with her a love triangle whose intimacies and alliances fit no familiar shape, and their sons Adam and Ofer, one for each father, from whom Ora feels her separation like a wound. When Ofer, freshly released from his army service, volunteers for an action in the West Bank instead of going on a planned hike with his mother in the north of Israel, she goes instead with Avram, who fathered Ofer but has never met him and has lived in near-seclusion since being tortured as a prisoner in the Yom Kippur war three decades before. As they walk and carefully reveal themselves to each other again, Grossman builds an overwhelming portrait of, as one character says, the “thousands of moments and hours and days” that make “one person in the world,” and of the power of war to destroy such a person, even–or especially–when they survive its cruel demands.

Grossman, whose own son was killed during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, writes directly from the heart in this scorching antiwar novel.

 

Ora, Ilan and Avram meet in a hospital in 1967 when all three are recovering from serious hepatitis, and forge a lifelong bond. Ilan is emotionally distant, but intimidating, and on one occasion he kisses Ora in a feverish state that makes her weak in the knees. In contrast, Avram is smart and funny and incredibly present emotionally. Here is the text of a telegram he later sent Ora, after they’d been released:

“It was not love at first sight because I loved you long before that stop before I met you stop I love you backwards too stop even before I existed stop because I only became me when I met you stop.”

I guess you know who got the girl.

Avram, a prolific writer, continues to share his thoughts in letters to Ora, who pulls back after receiving his telegram. He shows amazing insight, and no resentment whatsoever, in this excerpt:

“Last night I was at a jazz show with Ilan (who keeps trying to peek over my arm at what I’m writing, even though he continues to insist that he’s not interested in you!). Anyway…I was able to pull together some of the opinions I’ve been gathering about girls lately, and I came up with some well-founded and interesting theories about them, and mainly about you. I believe that, ultimately, you will not tie your fate with mine but with some other dude, Ilan or someone of his ilk, the point is, a guy who will definitely not tickle your navel with giggles like I do, and won’t drive your mind wild with sharp obsrevations like I do, and make every organ of your body tremble with pleasure like I do. But the thing is, he’ll be hunkier, much hunkier, and calmer and more solid, and mainly more understandable to you than I am. Yes: that in the end you’ll mate for life with some gorgeous, grave-looking, silver-haired alpha male.

…For I suspect, my duplicitous Ora, that deep in the depths of your light-filled and beautiful soul (which, I do not need to tell you, I love very much) lies a minuscule recess (like the ones in some corner stores, where they keep the old preserves?) that is, forgive me, slightly narrow-minded in matters of love. Of true love, I mean.

..I can only eat my heart out over the fact that it didn’t happen to you with me, that revelation of love (because love is a revelation!!), because I was so close (fuckit, hissed the defeated Avram as he poured out his wrath), and that’s also something I feel quite a lot in my life, the almost-happened, and I only hope it won’t be the guiding principle of my life, the main tenet of all the guiding principles of my life.”

“Yours, Dispirited by Torments.”

 

I’m honestly not sure what to make of these inter-cultural confirmations of unchecked hypergamy. Game is a response that turns Avrams into Ilans. But it turns out, of course, that Ilan wasn’t such a great catch – he remained remote, and selfish as well.

Forgive the cliche, but all I can think of is Fitzgerald’s immortal closing sentence:

“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • Höllenhund

    Well, it’s a given that hypergamy exists everywhere. Whiskey just had a great post about the implications of unrestrained hypergamy:

    http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-women-hate-nice-guys-and.html

    This recent comment from Novaseeker is also good:

    http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/2011/03/rich-lowry-alpha-girls-and-child-men.html?showComment=1299697935434#c5720129891060180138

  • SayWhaat

    and that’s also something I feel quite a lot in my life, the almost-happened, and I only hope it won’t be the guiding principle of my life, the main tenet of all the guiding principles of my life.”
    “Yours, Dispirited by Torments.”

    .
    Amen.

  • Höllenhund

    No one wants to “settle,”

    Mark Richardson posted about a great example of that:

    http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-would-someone-like-sami-lukis-need.html

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

      @Hollenhund
      Excellent piece by Mark Richardson there – it’s almost becoming a stock post in the blogosphere, as more and more celebrities go the sperm bank route, and other women who rode the carousel for a decade or two get book deals to share their tragic, entirely preventable histories.

  • MW

    Partir isn’t much different from Eat, Pray Love apart from the sad ending. Most French men have at least one tolerated mistress, though. Doesn’t sound like hubby has one in the film. If so, his wife would not have left him. Preselection and all that ya know……. Must say that for her age, KST still has it in spades. Mmmm.

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

      @MW

      Partir isn’t much different from Eat, Pray Love apart from the sad ending.

      I disagree – the main character in Partir, Suzanne, is not on any mission of self-actualization, or even simple self-indulgence, i.e. good food, good yoga, good sex. She runs headlong into the arms of a complete and total loser, sacrificing everything in her path, including others and even the thug himself! She seems possessed by a kind of insanity – she keeps claiming she was “hit by it.” This is just abdication of personal responsibility, but it’s more extreme than Elizabeth Gilbert, who mostly was just an opportunist and narcissist.

      I do agree that KST looks incredible. She’s a very beautiful woman, and is aging gracefully. She also does a great job acting in this role.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Hipergamy is not the enemy, neither is unrestrained Hipergamy. Is when the bad features are glorified that Hipergamy causes problem, IMO.
    Look at Asian cultures where girls throw themselves at the stable Beta serious hard working and nerdy man. Because on their culture that is what is desirable, the problem with western world is that the player, the alpha, the bully are the ones glorified, the ones that get jobs and hand outs and friends and status and celebrity deals. That is why Kirk is the captain of the Enterprise and no Spock or why Tiger Woods was all over the place instead of Mark Zuckerberg.
    Really I think aside from Bill Gates there is no such a thing as the nerd is successful and has high status, if anything only comic books depict nerdy types as the heroes and jerks as the villains but mainstream western culture sells the image of the bad boy as the hero, the one that is protector and that “the one” will turn him monogamous and supportive.
    That is the real problem there that Hipergamy has been herded to the worst possible type of guy. Why do you think feminism sells self sacrifice, morality and niceness as weak? and that is why they prefer the angry female to the easy going one? Is because they are also identifying rudeness and selfishness as the traits of the winners, no wonder a guy that demonstrate that is so attractive, YMMV.

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

      @Stephenie
      Good point there about cultures. In the west we romanticize traits that are in fact bad, or at least unproductive, for society. I’m no expert on Asian culture, but I wonder – how do drug lords and other bad characters fare in Southeast Asia? Certainly speaking historically, alpha males/warriors enjoyed very high status in China and Japan. If it’s true that Asian women can’t get enough of the nerdy astrophysicist, I’d be interested to know what has caused this shift. I also suspect that the explanations would differ dramatically between China (post-Mao) and Japan (post WWII).

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

    Hipergamy is not the enemy, neither is unrestrained Hipergamy. Is when the bad features are glorified that Hipergamy causes problem, IMO.

    Most definitely.

  • blogster

    women often prioritize a man’s level of social dominance as the most telling predictor of mate fitness

    I know I might be a bit late on this one, but can someone (Susan?) articulate what is meant by the concept of social dominance and how it may differ from something such as social prestige? Still trying to get my head around it.

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

      @Blogster
      The guys will be better at defining this than I am, but I’ll give you my sense of it.

      Prestige is status that generally reflects wealth or position in society, either via birth or career success. An ugly man with zero alpha traits can get whoever he wants if he has enough of these. We might question the qualities of the women most susceptible to his “charms,” but that’s another discussion.

      Social dominance is displayed by the guy with leadership, who serves as the alpha male of the group (AMOG). Those in his inner circle will benefit from his dominance, and get some of their own via association. The outcast or brooding loner may also have enormous social dominance if he is good looking. Generally, most women find these guys hot because they don’t defer to anyone. Being handsome helps, but it not necessary for social dominance. Women often are drawn to men they call “sexy ugly.”

  • Confidunce

    @blogster:

    Prestige is a subset of — a way of dispalying — dominance. Think of the lead singer of Coldplay. “Dominance” isn’t the first word to spring to mind when a generic pouty Englishman walks by. But because of his social prestige / celebrity, he marries Gwyneth Paltrow.

    Other forms of social dominance are more commonplace. E.g., the leader of the pack, the wealthy guy, the boss, etc.

  • Confidunce

    By the way: Eric Barker at Barking Up The Wrong Tree has a great study showing that some measures of attraction are indeed universal.

  • Hope

    Here’s some real practical advice for men who want an “edge” but don’t want to be a criminal thug — be a gun owner. It’s perfectly legal, a good way to defend yourself, and it is incredibly manly. Knowing how to safely handle a gun, fire one and store one is a good life skill to have for anyone, much like driving a car.

    My husband is a STEM nerd who plays video games and models advanced math stuff. But he is a hell of a manly man, partially because of this. He would not brag about it or play with a gun, but he knows what to do and has been around them since he was a boy (his stepdad is a Vietnam vet). That’s quite sexy.

    When the law-abiding men have lost all their masculine edge, the only thing for women left is to turn to criminals. Back in the day men would have swords and knives, and they gained this access when they passed into manhood. These days there is no similar rite of passage. But good men should and can reclaim their masculinity.

  • Passer_By

    “I was first introduced to the concept of female hypergamy — the desire for a woman to be with a mate of the highest possible status. ”

    I’m not sure this does it justice, and it also seems to conflate two concepts.

    1. The first concept is that status and social dominance play heavily into female attraction – more so than man. I don’t consider this a function of hypergamy, it’s just one of the traits women (consciously or subconsciously) weigh heavily when getting the tingle.

    2. But as to wanting the most attractive possible partner, that could be said of men too. Men by and large are more attracted to the hottest woman than a plainer woman. What seems different in women is the degree of separation. In other words, take a male who is judged a 6 (weighing all the relevant factors, including looks, social dominance, status, etc., as the average woman weighs them), on the one hand, and take a female 6 (weighing all the relevant factors – mostly looks – as males judge them), on the other hand. The male 6 is much more likely to get a boner for the female 6 than the female 6 is likely to get the tingle for him. But as these 6s start to look at 8s, 9s and 10s of the opposite sex, their attraction levels start to equalize, and hers might even exceed his at the upper end. Think of a graph, where you plot the attraction of a the male 6 to women of different attraction levels ranging from, say, 3 to 10. He would have some tepid attraction to the 3, and the curve would gradually rise as it the number moved from 3 to 10. But the difference between his attraction to the 8 and 10 would not be all that huge. Now lay on top of that the attraction curve for the female 6. She would likely show almost zero attraction for levels up through 5, then some tepid attraction for her own level (6), but still far below his, then her curve would jump up drastically as we approach 8, 9 and 10 (probably even exceeding his as we get to 10). Her curve is much more heavily weighted on (i.e., almost exclusive to) the high end.

    3. I think there is a 3rd factor at play in post in that, putting hypergamy aside completely, some of the characterics that women find attractive (the dark triad qualities) are often affirmatively negative social/mate characteristics in the modern world (i.e., the bad boy thing). But, again, I don’t consider that a hypergamy thing.

    So, Stephane is correct that it might be worse in the west because of the greater attraction to the dark triad types, but hypergamy is still an issue regardless of what characteristics women in any culture happen to weigh.

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

      @Passer By
      I think your second point comparing the attraction curves of each sex is right on. That’s my sense of it as well, from observation. I do want to clarify a couple of points. I refer in the original quote to women wanting to be with someone of the highest possible status. This implies a willingness to jump ship for a man with more status. I’m not sure whether women are more inclined to do this than men are, but the fact that 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women suggests that they might be.
      .
      Second, there’s the effect of hypergamy being unrestrained that we often discuss here. A female 6, as you point out, will very likely want to take her shot at the male 8-10. She can’t get a commitment from him, but she can get short-term sex from him. Many women in this range of attractiveness consider themselves “the hottest,” because they bang hot guys. This is hypergamy at its most efficient, which is why the SMP has rewarded it. A female 8-10, meanwhile, demands more than the ONS, so she prices herself out of the market.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Susan

    This plot actually reminds me of The Turkish Passion a stupid crazy selfish woman if I ever seen one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turkish_Passion

    I mean I had seen men abandoning their family over a new lover one too many times and I don’t see any reason to sympathize with them on anyway. I wonder what would happen if this type of movies were done the other way around with men leaving their wives for younger and prettier women. I doubt they will be getting any Oscars over them that is for sure.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Susan
    One of the things that few Game proposals acknowledge that the women they are falling themselves over assholes are more often than not assholes themselves. You surely can’t find attractive nice traits if you goal in life is to be mean and bitchy and earn tons of money, right?

    I believe Asian women (and Hope or any other correct me if I’m wrong) didn’t had the feminism trend of glorifying negative traits to the extent western world did, so even if you had some of them falling for their warriors their warriors also had good traits like loyalty and integrity thus when the warrior’s way was not longer useful it was easy for them to make the transference to loyalty and smartness because that was what men did to make their country prosper. Which I believe is another part of the issue, Asian know that they are part of larger purpose and they can think on long term consequences of their actions, most Americans live on the moment and consider themselves island no part of a society so whatever they do is meaningless whether for good or bad. Is the same situation that makes many people no to vote: it won’t change anything.
    The problem and the virtue of American way (as off now) is that people don’t grasp the concept that we are all society and that our individual actions matter, so is some sort of pseudo anarchy that gives them free reign over making mistakes because after all is all about ME. I’m the only one that get hurt if my selection of mate is wrong, when in reality is another stone on the grave of the society.

    Asian cultures culturally are pressured to see the world as the sum of the individual actions, thus their attraction to bad traits never developed independently of the attraction to good traits, add a culture that actually thinks that nice good and considerate men (and at least on Japan their religion is one of the few ones that has a goddess so feminine traditional traits are not considered a weakness) and chances are that nerdy types will do very well with women, in fact more than well.

  • Chico

    Never mind that he’s doing brilliant research — it will count for less than the ability to walk off a rugby field battered and bloody but still smiling.

    Are we conflating athletes with “bad boy” behaviour here?

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

      @Chico
      Who are the big men on campus? Athletes reign, and the rougher the sport the better. Football trumps tennis, lacrosse trumps fencing. As far as I can tell, the qualities that women consider dominant amount to at least the potential for physical domination – of other men, and possibly of themselves. Of course, not all athletes are bad boys, and Mike C is a very manly looking guy who considers himself “beta” inside (or did, before Game).

      I think what social dominance really boils down to is the potential to lead other men – and that rewards supreme confidence, even cockiness, physical strength and size, and other high testosterone features. Not all dominant men will have all of these, but those who are small in stature, for example, will make up for it with extremely high amounts of the other dominant characteristics.

      Of course, these men may not exhibit any of the traits necessary for long-term bonding, like ability to collaborate, willingness to demonstrate affection, loyalty, strong work ethic, etc. In fact, few very dominant men do have these other necessary and attractive qualities in large amounts. Our current SMP rewards short-term gratification, however, so extremely dominant men are never disqualified based on traits that are not immediately apparent. And the inverse is also true – men who are naturally less dominant never get to the plate to demonstrate their long-term strengths.

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

    @Hope

    That’s a great idea. Legal, possibly beneficial to the family’s safety and most definitely manly.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    So, Stephane is correct that it might be worse in the west because of the greater attraction to the dark triad types, but hypergamy is still an issue regardless of what characteristics women in any culture happen to weigh.

    True I never denied Hypergamy that would be silly, but in here things are worse for the Nice Guy because the “status” traits are the dark triad. My guess is a combination, the feminist movement needed women to be angry at men at some point to fuel itself so painting all of you as selfish bastards was what worked and then decided to pick this traits as the reasons you oppressed poor women and copy cat them because that is how you won the supremacy, why they didn’t picked Ghandi strategy is beyond me, and I usually say that if feminism was a bit more honest it will call itself masculinism and the other part is because you are a warrior nation and you need to make sure the men that can defend it (or make excuses to attack other nations :p) are the ones that reproduce on majority. Of course I would like to know how many bad boys (and their offspring) are actually brave and patriotic and will go and fight. I would believe few bullies are really willing to go and fight a bigger and meaner enemy and the nice guys are the ones that will actually love their country enough to die for it if needed it too. But that is just me.

  • http://pops3284@twitter.com pops3284

    Anther thing we need to talk about in terms of hypergamy that people dont really speak on is a lot of guys keep settling below their rungs just to get laid. The fact that there are so many men who would sleep with anything(see Duke F list) just to get laid is crazy. If guys would raise their behavioral and physical standards for sticking it in a woman, maybe women would have more realistic standards. Look I watch Jersey Shore, the fact that a girl like Snooki or the Duke Chick who are at best 5s had to beat dudes who wanted to have sex with them with a stick, thats a big problem.

  • blogster

    @ Susan, confudence, thanks for detailing it – pretty close to what i imagined and interesting to learn the distinction that sometimes occurs between prestige and dominance.

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

    Hipergamy is not the enemy, neither is unrestrained Hipergamy. Is when the bad features are glorified that Hipergamy causes problem, IMO.

    I have to agree with this. I just can’t imagine that throughout all of history women as a group consistently picked sexy men over reliable men. If they had, then how did civilization ever get built?

    To put it another way, imagine we were living in ancient times. Imagine you had two tribes of men, Team Alpha and Team Beta. Team Alpha is composed of men who are wild, un-tamable, take what they want, dark triad types. Team beta is composed of men who are civilized, agreeable, team players who work for the common good of the city.

    Team Alpha is doing their wild “woo hoo” thing through the countryside. Team Beta sees this and does not approve. So the two tribes go to war. Team Beta, being cooperative and civilized, have built a small city where they can smelt metal for weapons and have trained as a team for warfare. Team Alpha takes what it finds and learns by experience. When Team Alpha and Team Beta meet up on the battlefield, Team Beta will be armed with superior weapons because of their city activities and have trained as a team for warfare.

    On the ancient battlefield it wasn’t the wild barbarians who mostly won the day, rather it was the hoplite citizen-soldier of the ancient Greek city-states who fought as a united phalanx that steam rolled across the ancient world.

    Sure, my portrayal of the two groups may be a bit extreme but I’m hoping you can see my point here. In the long run it just doesn’t make sense for women to not pick cooperative responsible men.

    Do we really need groups of nice guy-hoplites roaming the American wasteland and cracking skulls before women buy a clue?

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

      @Walenty
      I like your portrayal of Teams Alpha and Beta. You have hit upon the negative, undesirable traits of alphas and the civilizing, cooperative traits of betas that I have so often “peddled” on this blog. I agree with you that women’s choosing alpha types does not make sense in the long run, but it may be an effective short-term strategy. We are living in a time where the SMP rewards short-term, self-indulgence over the building of relationships, families, or communities.

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

    Who are the big men on campus? Athletes reign, and the rougher the sport the better. Football trumps tennis, lacrosse trumps fencing. As far as I can tell, the qualities that women consider dominant amount to at least the potential for physical domination – of other men, and possibly of themselves.

    This doesn’t make sense to me. Why doesn’t boxing dominate? A big football player may be good at playing a child’s game where he moves a ball around a field, but that doesn’t translate into anything when it comes to a dangerous physical encounter.
    .
    Take a footballer who trained for some years in his sport and a boxer who also trained for same number of years, do you honestly think the footballer stands a chance? Here’s a clue: he doesn’t.
    .
    If women were really into rough dominant men then Army Rangers, Navy SEALS, or military men in general would have cheerleaders and a train of tail following them around instead of following the NFL around.
    .
    What this tells us is that women are actually selecting for entertainers. Women are not picking the men who do the serious business of civilization.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    What this tells us is that women are actually selecting for entertainers. Women are not picking the men who do the serious business of civilization.

    I think you are both right and wrong.
    Even if traditional manly sports are more admired this sports are also displayed on places were all welcome to attend and watch and select, if you remember the Romans didn’t allowed married women to watch the gladiators but single women were one of their biggest audiences, they know very well that women get turn off by men competing in groups on places they can see and have other women admiring and selecting, the problem with many Nice Guys activities is that the places they have to display become boys clubs (or are men’s clubs by definition like the army). I will say that for example warhammer games are a very good displaying manly traits but there is no way women see men doing this, I went to the store with my husband and the guys stared at me on disbelief being probably the only female that had entered the store on a while. If there were big championships on places where female audience was invited and welcomed it I wouldn’t be surprise if they could pick a couple of groupies that will be turn on by their displays of competence and confidence, but again is the football, baseball,basketball players and lately golf that get the perks of this competitive trait, YMMV.

  • Chico

    Susan,

    While I accept your point about athletic positions of leadership, wouldn’t that only qualify the quarterback?

    As someone alluded to earlier, NFL players have more status than professional boxers. My assumption is that this is true because of how popular football is in the states, and this blog has a primarily American commenter base. Up here in Canada, the same can be said about professional hockey players.

    I used to speed skate at quite the competitive level. But I often have to explain to people what speed skating actually is, so it’s an awkward sort of DHV. You definitely have to be strong and in amazing shape to excel in that. Aggression is also more of a pre-requisite than you’d think, especially in short track. But… we wear tights, so I guess that’s a loss of man points. :P

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

      @Chico, @Walenty, @Hope

      There’s no question that culture plays a huge role in determining the popularity of a sport, and therefore its ability to crown its best athletes with dominance. There was a time when boxing was a popular American pastime, and boxers got all the women they could handle. Today NFL and NBA players rule. Speed skaters in countries that promote it (Scandinavia?) are no doubt considered total jocks. I have to say, Chico, I’ve never seen more amazing quads than on speed skaters, though I’ve only ever seen them in the Olympics. They are incredibly strong and fit athletes.

      The men with the most dominance in just about any society will be the top athletes in the sport that society deems most valuable. In the U.S. that’s Tom Brady, the Mannings, etc. And the NBA and MLB stars do fine too.

  • Hope

    Sport value is culturally relative. Soccer (the “real” football in other countries) is absolutely HUGE throughout most of the world. But it’s tiny in America, ranking behind football, baseball and basketball by a long shot. On the other hand, David Beckham, a famous British soccer star, is a household name in the US thanks to popular mass media.

    Here’s anther example that will turn your world view of sport status upside down. In South Korea video game leagues have huge prestige, with players getting corporate sponsors, tournaments that are nationally televised, and female groupies who swoon over skilled video game players. They are famous celebrities and appear in commercials. If you want to bring race into it, there are enough white girls who do the groupie thing in video games to debunk the idea that only Asian girls would go for this.

    So the definition of female “hypergamy” is culturally relative, although the phenomenon itself is universal. It’s all a fitness test of complete and utter… nothingness. We are such status-influenced creatures, and actions that are completely devoid of actual genetic value (like feathers on a hat) can impress us, as long as they seem “high status.”

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

      It’s all a fitness test of complete and utter… nothingness. We are such status-influenced creatures, and actions that are completely devoid of actual genetic value (like feathers on a hat) can impress us, as long as they seem “high status.”

      Well said, Hope! This is why I encourage women to look beyond the surface impression. Of the two men in the novel I’m reading, the greater human being is the man with less “dominance” – and the man with dominance has little else to show for his life.
      .
      If women want to partner for life – we’re talking 50+ years, doesn’t it make sense to select a person who has the constitution for the long haul? Why are women so shortsighted as to think only about today? I knew better than that, and I can’t believe I was all that unusual. I think many women still have a strong future time orientation (though fewer than a generation ago), but the logistics of dating, of “getting together” have gotten less user-friendly.

  • Sorer Bveito

    I just can’t imagine that throughout all of history women as a group consistently picked sexy men over reliable men. If they had, then how did civilization ever get built?

    In many cultures women did not do the picking – rather their parents did.

    Moreover, in just about all cultures “decent” women would not sleep with men they were not married to, and the pool of potential marriage partners in a particular place and socioeconomic grouping would be small. Not much waiting for Prince Charming in such circumstances.

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

      @Sorer Bveito
      Good point. Until recently, marriage was an economic partnership, a strategic alliance. We’ll never go back to that, of course, but it does seem that there was real value in de-emphasizing romantic love in matchmaking.

  • Jess

    A sad poem but a tad self serving perhaps. Most humans experience rejection in life on some level.
    One has to resist feeling sorry for oneself in such situations.
    this guy is suggesting that that deep down she doesn’t get turned on by him an dis secretly lusting after some stud.
    He may be bang on the money perhaps but if you use susans market place scoring system we all have to compromise. Somewhere down the line. I have always had a genuine attraction to people i have had gone to bed with but I would imagine if I was less conventionally attractive i would have to alter my expectations to some extent.
    .
    In terms of the unchecked female sexuality- I think that’s true. A lot of USA commentators like Fisher, Langley, Dobson and Townsend are now talking about this rise. financically independent women are now following their genuine sexual interests rather than doing things to impress their parents or society.
    .
    some will recall the Karen Owen expose from last year. that’s your unchecked female sexuality for you. Not always so dignified i guess.

  • http://collegeslacker.wordpress.com collegeslacker

    @Stephenie Rowling

    Re: Asian culture & betas

    I think you’ve got it a bit backwards. It’s not that Asian cultures don’t glorify asshole traits, it’s that Asian cultures still have massive amounts of shame reserved for sluts so betas still have good standing. It’s not that hypergamy doesn’t exist over there, it’s that any girl caught slutting around is in for a big dose of “get the hell outta my house” by her father. It used to be that way in the U.S., too. Hypergamy will always exist, women will always tingle for the bad boys. It’s what society does about hypergamy that makes a difference.

  • Hope

    @Walenty, there is something to what you are saying. Sometimes a lot of what makes civilization seem “civilized” such as art, music, cinema, literature, and fine dining are basically aspects of entertainment. None of these things has ever been essential to basic human survival. But somehow we do “select” for these traits, because creativity has been passed down successfully.

    All animals live just fine without needing such extras as clothing, bedsheets, or furnishings. Yet we find that for as long as humans have lived we have used tools and fashioned objects of one form or anothers. There are ancient potteries, statues and ancient drawings in caves. One could argue that dwellings such as houses are more of a basic human necessity, but we never really truly “needed” to create electronic devices such as computers in order to survive.

    It may be that women are just simple creatures who want men to entertain them, but how many women actually watch sports and enjoy the sport for the sport? The actual selection mechanism is more subtle than mere entertainment or rough dominance. It’s a mixed bag. A talented musician, playwright, athlete and five-star general can each receive a lot of female attention, and it can certainly be argued that these have different raw survival values, but in the end, the common root is more or less the female’s propensity to adore that which is superior to herself. That’s hypergamy in a nutshell.

    Men also adore women who are skilled — only as a bonus to looks. Female dancers, singers and artists get plenty of attention, but raw skills are not worth much if she’s not physically attractive. Women are not rewarded in the evolutionary scheme of things for excellence, but for their looks. It’s men who stand to gain more by doing and succeeding. The female entertainers’ primary job is to be outstandingly attractive. Male entertainers? Be outstanding.

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

      @Hope

      Sometimes a lot of what makes civilization seem “civilized” such as art, music, cinema, literature, and fine dining are basically aspects of entertainment. None of these things has ever been essential to basic human survival. But somehow we do “select” for these traits, because creativity has been passed down successfully.

      There’s been a lot of work done on the nature of creativity, which might make an interesting post. We do highly value the creative spirit. You’re right that women view it as sexy in men, while many of history’s most creative women have been considered anything but sexy.

  • Höllenhund

    I have to agree with this. I just can’t imagine that throughout all of history women as a group consistently picked sexy men over reliable men. If they had, then how did civilization ever get built?

    Men forced monogamy on women.

  • Höllenhund

    He wrote this in response to Tyler Cowen, who linked to an essay by F. Roger Devlin, whom he called evil.

    The link is dead, but here’s another one to it:

    http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/sexualutopia.pdf

    It explains hypergamy very well.

  • Passer_By

    @hollendhund

    “Men forced monogamy on women.”

    Not to mention that reliable birth control was not available, and single mothers faced a miserable life (as did their children).

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

      @Passer By
      It’s hard to overestimate the effect the Pill has had on society. It’s very un-PC to suggest that it’s not “all good,” but removing the threat of pregnancy (though not STDs) changed the SMP in ways that we’re just coming to grips with. We’re also learning that preventing ovulation in women may affect not only their sex drives, but who they choose to mate with. And there are quite a few doctors who question its long-term effects on health.

  • raliv

    @Susan

    Who are the big men on campus? Athletes reign, and the rougher the sport the better.

    True, but more importantly, the more popular the sport, the more “alpha” the athletes. For example, at my school, UGA, football is the sport that reigns supreme above all others. I wrote a post addressing the the “Alpha Male College Athlete” and his status above all other lesser alphas.

    http://raliv.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/the-alpha-male-college-athlete/

    Females on campus are more than willing to be part of athlete harems in college in an attempt to snatch up an Alpha Athlete. The fact that the Athlete Alphas are on TV and worshiped by the entire state and the students gives the football teams their status here. It is for this reason that I advocate removing NCAA scholarships as it creates an unnatural social hierarchy.

    I have little to no respect for Athletes who run harems rather than other alphas who use social dominance and build up their personality and popularity to attract friends and women.

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

      @raliv
      Welcome, nice job on the blog. It’s good to see another POV, another voice from the college scene. I see you’ve caught the attention of Ferdinand Bardamu, the benefactor who brings much good traffic…congrats.

  • Höllenhund

    These are book reviews by Devlin also addressing the consequences of hypergamy:

    http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/rotating.pdf

    http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/fscr.pdf

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

    Men forced monogamy on women.

    So then for me to picture a functional civilization with most men enfranchised to the sexual marketplace I should imagine a boot stamping on a woman’s face— forever?

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

    Walenty…on the question of why more women aren’t chasing Rangers, SEALs, attack pilots, etc….the dominant culture of the upper-middle-class and above, especially among the highly educated, has become pretty isolated from the military (viz, ROTC thrown off campus) and has also been extensively inculcated with anti-military prejudices. I think it’s fair to say that in most previous societies, including the US until fairly recently, elite military service *was* attractive to most women. But today, a woman would in many cases have to get beyond the reactions of her friends and possibly also her parents.

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

      @david foster
      There’s no question that the military has taken a beating in terms of status in the U.S. Whenever I encounter someone in the military, I make a point of thanking them for their service, in part because I feel they get very little love. Did this originate with the Vietnam War, do you think? After the shameful treatment that returning vets received, it seems that the military has never really recovered. Of course, we haven’t been involved in any popular wars since then.
      .
      That said, a guy in dress blues looks hot. I think that men in uniform convey something that gets the tingles going – authority = dominance?

  • http://collegeslacker.wordpress.com collegeslacker

    @Walenty Lisek

    If you want to argue reducto ad absurdum, then try to imagine our dysfunctional hypergamy driven society as a boot stamping on the beta male’s face.

  • Hope

    How did civilization get built? A lot of it was forced slave labor. See: the great pyramids, the great wall of China, etc. Not everything should be seen through the lens of females oppressing the poor men.

  • Chico

    I have little to no respect for Athletes who run harems rather than other alphas who use social dominance and build up their personality and popularity to attract friends and women.

    Why not? Both take a great deal of work and dedication to achieve the same result.

  • Chico

    David Foster, are you kidding me? Women LOVE the military guys.

  • Höllenhund

    Walenty,

    basically, yes – although I should point out that monogamy suppressed both male and female sexuality and I imagine most women wouldn’t consciously want to give up the benefits of monogamous civilization, like running toilets, heating etc. But the evidence indeed seems to suggest that lifelong monogamy – NOT serial monogamy, which was standard human behavior in the Stone Age – was a system that was forced by men, on the command of their male leaders, onto all women at the dawn of civilization (after the invention of agriculture) as an attempt to maximize male cooperation.

    The accumulation of wealth makes civilization possible, and that’s only possible if men cooperate, and they cooperate only if they don’t have to continuously fight over access to women. Secured paternity is the greatest incentive a man can be given to work. Only monogamy facilitates that, which constitutes a strict limitation on female sexual choices.

    At the end of the day, male and female reproductive strategies are at odds, and social peace is only possible if the two are reconciled and both men and women make concessions. Monogamy is an attempt at that.

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

    Hope said: Here’s some real practical advice for men who want an “edge” but don’t want to be a criminal thug…
    .
    There’s been a lot of advice out there, especially in the manosphere, that seems to urge “nice guys” to be a little less nice and a little more thuggish. But I’m not sure you can have it both ways.
    .
    My self-image is and always has been the nice-guy beta. And hey, I’m short too. What goes with that is being seen routinely as a doormat, relatively weak and even cowardly. “Nice” is often the cowards way out of a conflict, right?
    .
    Well, I’m also a 2nd dan black belt and (former) rock-band member. Married two beautiful women in my life and got rather involved with a knockout between marriages. Never cheated, never hit (even when tempted) and steadily employed. So am I a doormat?
    .
    What I’ve come to understand is that I am not a good bad-guy. I don’t like that persona and it’s not me. There was never a point in my life where I could pull it off.
    .
    I may very well have been that doormat as I was commonly perceived back then. But it nothing to do with a lack of aggressiveness or social dominance or anything like that. It was youth. It was immaturity.
    .
    I could not ever pull off being a bad guy. But there came a point when I didn’t have to.

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

      @Joe
      I thoroughly respect your decision to stay “nice” rather than “bad.” You obviously found the sweet spot of being a good man with a strong dose of dominance, regardless of physical size. This is what I was getting at when I ended the post by observing that Game can turn “Avrams into Ilans” – but (and this may not make sense if you haven’t read the book) – I want a world with more Avrams and fewer Ilans. I strongly encourage men who learn Game to hang on to their humanity, and the traits they have perhaps found disadvantageous while young.

  • Benjamin Fox

    Susan, did you get my missive through the contact section?

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

      @Benjamin Fox
      No! I didn’t get it! Sorry about that. Can you resend? I’m at walsh.susan1@gmail.com. You’re the second person to ask me this – sounds like the contact from plugin is not working.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    collegeslacker
    Is the other way around, IME. Women don’t go for assholes if assholes are depicted as a low status undesirable trait. The reason why Beta men are sought after on cultures where there is a ton of Alpha males is because those traits are undesirable and is the reliable Beta man that is the luxury that few women can get. I really think that many Beta men thing they are low status just because is mostly the culture that places the assholes traits as the traits of a leader that make Betas look low status. Read Hope comments about video games superstars to use an example. Those women are willing to slut it up for a man that women here won’t piss on to get them out of fire is all a matter of context.

    the common root is more or less the female’s propensity to adore that which is superior to herself. That’s hypergamy in a nutshell.

    Here is the key to all this mess. In cultures that celebrate Beta traits snagging a Beta is what gives women the hipergamy fix, what is wrong here is that Betas are mocked, ridiculed and seen as boring. While assholes get all the attention heck look at the coverage of megamurderers and serial killers compared to doctors that go to serve on poor countries and tell me what this cultures encourage on women to look as better.

    Men forced monogamy on women.

    Wrong again. First monogamy was beneficial to women, that have to make sure someone is there for them when they are 9 months pregnant and can;t run from predators or gather their own food (for men here woman’s changes make them picky on things they eat when they are pregnant so they need help to gather the nutrients) so an Alpha that won’t have any pressure to commit will be too busy impregnating women after women to provide for all of them when they need it. Thus securing a man is beneficial for her.

    Second you are falling into the feminist trap that women didn’t had any agency on the past. Nothing further from the truth many women earned a lot of power if they wanted to, we have had women priestesses, powerful queens, Egyptian women could inherit land and have their own business and divorce men (in fact many ancient cultures had ways for the wife to get out of a bad marriage) and the expression the power behind the throne wasn’t born out of men. Heck even the bible specify things as a man only taking a second wife or a slave if the wife allowed him and in Islamic cultures women could demand things like their husband not taking another wife if they were the first. So really women might not be stronger than men but we had been clever long before feminism was invented.
    And third why Alphas will force women to be monogamous? They would be having an endless supply of pussy and the few Betas won’t have any. Why they will short their own supply of poliginy? Out of the goodness of their hearts? I think the Mormons that still practice poliginy and make sure to get rid of the boys as soon as posible show me that Alphas don’t want competition not even from their own offspring.
    So for your model of forced monogamy to work there should be more Betas than Alphas to be able to overcome the Alphas attractiveness and strength and if that were the case how unforced women gave birth to so many Betas on the first place? So unless you tell me that there was a meteor rock that mutated half the male population into Betas a million years ago and they had to fix this by inventing monogamy that models makes no sense at all.

    How did civilization get built? A lot of it was forced slave labor. See: the great pyramids

    Actually the pyramids were built by Egiptian paid workers. The other ones I agree.

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

      How did civilization get built? A lot of it was forced slave labor. See: the great pyramids

      Actually the pyramids were built by Egiptian paid workers. The other ones I agree.

      With Passover approaching, I must point out that Jewish slaves helped build the pyramids.

  • Zen

    @Stephanie – Just to clarify, the Mormons do NOT practice polygamy (plural marriage). That is a few nutjobs in very rural south Utah who get a disproportionate amount of attention. Yes, they do force boys out and are generally quite noxious – there is not much love for those kind in Utah. They are no more Mormon than Lutherans are still Catholics. Just so you know.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Zen

    Oh I know that. I have a couple of friends that are Mormons and hate those guys I was referring to that group specifically for the purpose of the argument.

  • Aldonza

    Women in some cultures favor betas because they require a man to survive and a beta is a much better bet than an alpha. Those women are more pragmatic about marrying a provider because they have to be. Bring them to the city, let them earn their own money and they aren’t so different.
    .
    I don’t think women are any different than men in wanting the best possible mate they can get. (The qualities of “best” might differ a bit between the genders, but for LTRs, the differences are not as much as people might think.) The real danger of “hypergamy” is when it causes women to believe that because a significantly more attractive man will fuck them, that he will also want a relationship with them.

  • Passer_By

    @walenty

    “I should imagine a boot stamping on a woman’s face— forever?”

    Sounds like someone visits too many fetish sites. :)

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Bring them to the city, let them earn their own money and they aren’t so different.

    Disagree with this but so much. If that were true rich women wouldn’t be attracted to Betas at all. I think Hope mentioned not being poor when she meet her now husband and I must say that even though I was not rich I earned eight times the minimum wage on my country and I was at the top of my career. And one of the many married older men that usually chase me offered me a car and an apartment plus showed me his house that was six times the size of mine, with maid room included, again no interested at all, in fact I felt that he called me a whore (a expensive one) but trust me if I before was no attracted I was completely repelled by this display of resources. So I really don’t think money makes the women rejects Betas, YMMV.

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

    Chico…”women LOVE the military guys”…I was responding to Walenty’s comment of 4:29, asking why women more often prefer athletes to soldiers.

    Obviously, it depends on the woman and her social milieu…but I’d bet if she’s a Harvard Law student, or even a Duke Law student, any natural attraction is likely to get suppressed, especially for LTR/marriage.

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

      @david foster

      Obviously, it depends on the woman and her social milieu…but I’d bet if she’s a Harvard Law student, or even a Duke Law student, any natural attraction is likely to get suppressed, especially for LTR/marriage.

      This is true, no question. If the guy is educated, especially at one of the military academies, a family will be delighted. As a parent, I would also be totally cool with a ROTC guy. I am speaking about status here. Parents are wary of military men for their daughters because of the built-in absences and dangers. My sense is that guys who go into the military without a college degree will have little interaction with educated women – their socioeconomic status is different.

  • SayWhaat

    Obviously, it depends on the woman and her social milieu…but I’d bet if she’s a Harvard Law student, or even a Duke Law student, any natural attraction is likely to get suppressed, especially for LTR/marriage.

    .
    Quite simply, I think military men are bad bets for LTR/marriage. Their profession requires that they spend months away from family, leaving the woman to fend for herself and the kids while he’s gone. She’s in only a slightly better position than a single mother – a decidedly unenviable role. Furthermore, my impression is that military salaries and benefits are a pittance and therefore unsuitable to raise a family in the comfortable upper-middle class lifestyle we’ve been raised in.
    .
    Facing the prospect of singlehandedly raising children while constantly worrying for my husband’s life while he’s deployed, trying to make ends meet on his meager salary (since it’s damn near impossible to be the primary caretaker and sole breadwinner of the household), being forcibly uprooted from every town we get accustomed to every time he gets posted to a new assignment….all of that is enough to make me feel absolutely nothing every time I see a man in uniform. He is a poor prospect, and one that would force me to give up on my own success, to boot.

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

      .all of that is enough to make me feel absolutely nothing every time I see a man in uniform. He is a poor prospect, and one that would force me to give up on my own success, to boot.

      Good point. Women are not as free to move about as they were when they didn’t have careers of their own.

  • http://attractionreaction.wordpress.com/ Jeffrey of Troy

    @Hope
    “Sometimes a lot of what makes civilization seem “civilized” such as art, music, cinema, literature, and fine dining are basically aspects of entertainment. None of these things has ever been essential to basic human survival. But somehow we do “select” for these traits, because creativity has been passed down successfully.”
    *
    Those are all things humans do that sub-human animals don’t. So, doing them is not mere “entertainment” – in the sense of distraction from humdrum life; by doing them, a man demonstrates that he is more HUMAN than someone who cannot do them. (Which can actually be a trap. E.g., a pretty robot person who is really good at ACTING human, like Tom Cruise.)
    *
    Because we have consciousness, culture became part of the environment that naturally selects inherited qualities in the human species a long time ago.

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

    Re the attraction of Asian women toward nerdy guys…perhaps when a country has not yet become wealthy, occupations that have obvious direct economic value tend to get higher prestige, while in an already-wealthy country, non-economic occupations rise in status. (I’ve been told that traditional types of engineers–civil engineers, power EEs, etc, have high status in Hispanic countries–any comments on this from the resident Latinas?)

    In the specific case of Chinese culture, my understanding is that the legacy of mandarinism has led to high respect for scholarly activities, somewhat in the same manner that study of Torah and Talmud led to high respect for scholarship among Jews. So if you combine these factors: economic value plus scholarly orientation–maybe high prestige for nerdy occupations isn’t surprising??

  • Aldonza

    @Stephenie Rowling

    Disagree with this but so much. If that were true rich women wouldn’t be attracted to Betas at all.

    .
    For us, chasing alphas (or not) is a choice. But for most women in non-western countries, it’s a luxury they simply cannot afford. It’s one thing for a western woman to make a mistake (or 20) chasing alphas, it’s another for an uneducated woman in a developing nation where her family approval or a good marriage is the only thing between her and real poverty.

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

    If you want to argue reducto ad absurdum, then try to imagine our dysfunctional hypergamy driven society as a boot stamping on the beta male’s face.

    I was making an allusion to 1984. Being clever didn’t work out for me this time.

  • http://collegeslacker.wordpress.com collegeslacker

    @Stephenie Rowling

    I think we are in agreement about a lot of this but we are getting caught up in using slightly different definitions. I think you’re getting too hung up on assholeness as status in the U.S. and not thinking enough about status on its own, regardless of culture. If asshole behavior is shamed in a culture, then for the sake of argument its a low status trait. But in that culture, regardless of how relevant video gaming is or being a dick is to acquiring status, the Alpha will still be the high status dude- whatever the status comes from- who can get most any girl he wants. Traditional cultures, in great acknowledgment of hypergamy, have always attempted to shame women away from leaving their lesser status mates for higher status mates.

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

      @collegeslacker
      Just spend about half an hour on your blog, with a note to return tomorrow and comb through your archives. Great stuff there, and a male voice from the college trenches is always a great addition.

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

    So for your model of forced monogamy to work there should be more Betas than Alphas to be able to overcome the Alphas attractiveness and strength and if that were the case how unforced women gave birth to so many Betas on the first place?

    .
    No reason Alpha’s can have male babies that are Beta. Just like two genius parents can have dumbass kids.
    .

    somewhat in the same manner that study of Torah and Talmud led to high respect for scholarship among Jews

    .
    Mental note, try to pick up Jewish women.

  • http://collegeslacker.wordpress.com collegeslacker

    @Aldonza

    Well put. Cities like Shanghai are seeing an explosion in cads and sluts because these young people are free from the poverty of their forefathers, while those in rural China still practice the social shaming of hypergamous behavior due to the economic benefits of marriage and unmarketability of a slut. As has been said by many before me, prosperity + women’s equality aka no shaming slut behavior= the reemergence of hypergamy. Not that I’m arguing against women’s equality at all, this is just what happens afterwards.

  • GudEnuf

    Susan:

    With Passover approaching, I must point out that Jewish slaves helped build the pyramids.

    Another religious lie.

    It wasn’t until almost 2,000 years after the Great Pyramid received its capstone that the earliest known record shows evidence of Jews in Egypt, and they were neither Hebrews nor Israelites.

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

      @GudEnuf
      What???? This is a key part of the seder – bad pharaoh. 12 plagues and all. Are you saying none of that is true, or that enslaved Jews came after the pyramids were built?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    For us, chasing alphas (or not) is a choice. But for most women in non-western countries, it’s a luxury they simply cannot afford. It’s one thing for a western woman to make a mistake (or 20) chasing alphas, it’s another for an uneducated woman in a developing nation where her family approval or a good marriage is the only thing between her and real poverty.

    It doesn’t work like that at all.
    For some reason Americans sell the idea that other cultures women have no choices at all. We all do, always do, I never met a woman that didn’t had choices, the thing is that some choices are harder than others.
    The choices in my country were: chasing after Alphas consequences be damned (25% of women are like this they will get pregnant from every single loser and they will whether rely on their relatives or just live on poverty as hard is that to believe poverty is a way of life for many people so no everyone cringes at the horror of having just one meal at day or a daily beating or cheating with your own mother I think this is what is called here White Trash)
    Trying to pick the best possible out of the Alphas I would say 65% of women try to discriminate and pick the ones that will cheat on them but as long as they don’t beat them and they keep the mistresses away they try to make a life with them hoping that if they hold long enough their penises will stop working when they reach old age and they could finally have a normal family life, of course this strategy is faulty because the man can leave for a new hotter mistress, he can father kids outside the marriage that will cut his supply of affection and money and sometimes you have to raise them to make sure the other woman doesn’t have power to lure him with a younger kid and you need to be on constant vigilance of female relatives and friends never trusting anyone because a more or less decent Alpha is an step up from the other ones)
    And the rest are divided between women that decide no to marry at all and pursue other things: careers, convent and the ones like me that decide to outsource and find a good husband outside, but again this is probably the hardest choice. So no they have a choice but some women do so even to their own demise I seen poor women becoming prostitutes to keep their man with them,its amazing to see it happen, but then a very poor but pretty girl got killed by a rich baseball player because she didn’t wanted to have anything to do with him.
    That is one of the reasons I highly doubt there is no a biological component to both tendencies. Most of single friends have had the chance to be with an Alpha that promises that they are reformed (and it might be truth) it just doesn’t happen, they can’t bring themselves to feel anything for them. So yeah there is a mix of choice and social pressure but also there are women that won’t be attracted to an asshole no matter how many tricks or social dominance he exudes. They are just not wired that way, YMMV.

  • Abbot

    “It’s what society does about hypergamy that makes a difference.”
    .
    At this time, few societies are not keeping hypergamy in check. The other wifely societies offer American men enticing options.
    .
    “The real danger of “hypergamy” is when it causes women to believe that because a significantly more attractive man will fuck them, that he will also want a relationship with them.”
    .
    …and that real danger kicks in upon realization that equally attractive men will also reject her for a relationship due to such behavior.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Traditional cultures, in great acknowledgment of hypergamy, have always attempted to shame women away from leaving their lesser status mates for higher status mates.

    I will say traditional cultures promoted character and good traits as the marks of Alphas. That is the opposite of what is happening as of now where selfishness and materialism are the marks of high status. And this is the point we disagree.

    No reason Alpha’s can have male babies that are Beta. Just like two genius parents can have dumbass kids.

    But to what rate? I mean it had to be a fairly top rate for them to be able to need monogamy to assure the Betas could get laid and father kids as well, and if Alphas genes can be beaten by Beta genes then the point still stand, there is no reason to prefer them if there is a big enough chance Betas are going to be born anyway and supposedly the Betas are no desirable. So still doesn’t make a lot of sense.

  • DF

    Mrs. Walsh, Some post back I left a comment regarding the knowledge of hyper gamy in the western classics, (the cartoon one I think). In summary, It was known about then, but suppressed by the philosophers and the church. Madame Bovary, Anna Karenina.

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

      @DF
      Yup, found it:

      There are many cryptic comments referring to female hyper-gamy, in the past right into the ancient past. The philosophers and theologians knew but were very esoteric about the whole subject. (This is my particular area of fascination). One day you’ll be reading Socrates, and BAM! he slyly mentions in a sentence or two on women nature something that could have come straight from roissy or Mystery. Most men throughout the ages were fairly ignorant except for a very few, I’m guessing that the knowledge was suppressed. However the more you read the more famous writers and thinkers mentions these things but never directly. It was there all along just covered up, until 15 years ago with the PUA and MRA scene. Ferdinand Bardamu has a thread on exactly that.
      http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/12/mr-bardamus-bookshelf-the-wandering-eyes-of-unsatisfied-women/

      Also;
      The Art of Seduction by Robert Greene. Has a host of sources. Lord Byron, Keirkgarrd.

      It’s funny you should mention Madame Bovary and Anna K. As my husband and I were watching the film, we wondered whether it was a remake of one of those stories. We’d settled on Mdm Bovary, actually, until the last scene, which has a twist. Salon called the film a cross between MB and Lady Chatterley’s Lover.

      The point that I’m getting at is that I believe women are doing something through their sexuality to make themselves feel more alive…It’s Kierkegaard’s passion applied to female sexuality.

      I think you might be onto something here. The only contemporary female philosopher worth reading, IMO, is Camille Paglia:

      “There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.”

      …and even she is all about sexuality.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    What???? This is a key part of the seder – bad pharaoh. 12 plagues and all. Are you saying none of that is true, or that enslaved Jews came after the pyramids were built?

    I think the new studies say that the Hebrews (or first Cananites, depends on the scholar) were a small group that probably helped other constructions before they “left” Egypt. I don’t think it denies the biblical accounting just that from the slaves POV things looked a lot different and were recorded as such.

  • DF

    Dealing with Hyper-gamy, requires cultural solutions.

    In my recent stammtich, this is difficult to articulate so bare with me I have a point, I noted that women tend to authenticate themselves existentially differently than men. As a general observation women don’t do philosophy, its sort of an inside joke. I don’t doubt their are female philosophers, its just a rarity and appears to be a very male discipline. The point that I’m getting at is that I believe women are doing something through their sexuality to make themselves feel more alive more so than men. Men assert their existence by other means i.e. philosophy, religion. In generally, a transcendent Idea that is their guiding goal. With little religion or culture for women these days, they are making there experience/existence authenticate by chasing the tingle, by their passion trampling everything underfoot. It’s Kierkegaard’s passion applied to female sexuality.
    .
    In sum, for women at least when it comes to these situational relationships you have described above and that we all know come to know. Its, to change the phrase slightly, “I feel There for I am”

  • DF

    It’s the Drama that is the pinch to see if she really is alive in this sterile modern world

  • Stephenie Rowling

    With little religion or culture for women these days, they are making there experience/existence authenticate by chasing the tingle, by their passion trampling everything underfoot. It’s Kierkegaard’s passion applied to female sexuality.

    You need to take in account that Feminism is a religion/philosophy as off now. Part of the feminist efforts had been to undermine all religions as patriarchal and oppressive and I must say organized religions had been failing to people on modern times by preaching morality and then you find things like priests abusing kids and is easy for the media to run with it and paint all religious people as hateful hypocrites, I know is not the truth (my father is a very devout catholic and my aunt is a very devout evangelical plus some of my friends are mormons, muslims…) but must religions don’t try and mend this image so feminism looks like answer to humanities owes. So women are indeed following a philosophy is just a destructive one.

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

    But to what rate? I mean it had to be a fairly top rate for them to be able to need monogamy to assure the Betas could get laid and father kids as well, and if Alphas genes can be beaten by Beta genes then the point still stand

    .
    Alpha genes don’t beat Beta genes when the Betas outnumber the Alphas 3 to 1 or more. Add to that the force multiplier that military training can bring and even a 1 to 1 match of Betas vs Alphas and the Alphas will lose because the Betas will work as a team.
    .
    Did you see the move 300? The Spartans were Team Beta. How did the Spartans act? They worked as a team, listened to orders, and put group above self. Leonidas the Spartan king commanded the respect of his men. That’s not what Alpha’s do. Persian king Xerxes was the Alpha because because of his size, status, disagreeableness, and rule of his people through fear.
    .
    Another Team Alpha society would be the one Alexander the Great built. Once he was dead there was no cooperation between his subordinates and they fell into civil war on each other. A society run by Team Beta would have been agreeable enough to stay together.
    .
    Team Alpha v Team Beta is the Tortoise and the Hare writ large.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Alpha genes don’t beat Beta genes when the Betas outnumber the Alphas 3 to 1 or more. Add to that the force multiplier that military training can bring and even a 1 to 1 match of Betas vs Alphas and the Alphas will lose because the Betas will work as a team.

    I get this on human terms but the Betas genes should had been born from someone before we started to think on civilization terms. The argument here is that women unleash will never pick the Beta guys and that the only reason Beta reproduced was because women were forced to mate with them.
    But before civilization existed there shouldn’t had been enough Betas for women to pass their genes so how is possible that no woman willingly mated with Betas at enough rate to create them on the first time? That is the problem. For Betas to benefit from monogamy there should had been enough Betas to need monogamy.
    How that happened if women have all the Alphas they could to have sex with?

  • http://collegeslacker.wordpress.com collegeslacker

    @Susan

    Thanks. Good to see you’re open to new voices at HUS, I like what you got going on here. Enjoy!

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

    DF, Stephenie, & others re philosophy, religion, and sex….Arthur Koestler wrote a very interesting novel titled “The Age of Longing” (published in 1950) about a young American woman living in France–a previously-devout Catholic who has lost her faith–who falls *hard* for a very committed Russian Communist. In a broader sense, the novel is about the loss of religious faith and civilizational self-confidence in the West, and is both disturbing and thought-provoking. My review is here: sleeping with the enemy.

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

      @david foster
      I believe you may have mentioned Age of Longing before, but I let that slip through the cracks. I’m requesting it right now – will report back once I’ve read it. It really does sound very compelling.

  • The Deuce

    @Susan

    I’m honestly not sure what to make of these inter-cultural confirmations of unchecked hypergamy. Game is a response that turns Avrams into Ilans. But it turns out, of course, that Ilan wasn’t such a great catch — he remained remote, and selfish as well.

    True, but that is only a consideration for the ladies. For guys, there’s only one takeaway in all this: Do Not Be Avram!

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

      @The Deuce

      True, but that is only a consideration for the ladies. For guys, there’s only one takeaway in all this: Do Not Be Avram!

      Haha, seriously. It’s funny – I came across an online debate about whether David D”Angelo (who writes for men) and Christian Carter (who writes for women) might be the same person. They’re not, although DD may be writing stuff for CC – they’re in the same company. In any case, lots of people objected to the idea that one person could write advice to both women and men. I understand where this comes from – how can one write for two opposing mating strategies? And yet it seems to me that both sexes benefit if both sexes get better at mating. That means knowing one’s own sexuality, and also knowing something about the sexuality of the opposite sex. Increasingly, I’m straddling that fence, but so far have had no crises of conscience on this score.

      Women don’t want Avrams, they want Ilans. The reason I am pro-Game is because an Avram who becomes an Ilan is a better catch than a natural Ilan (channeling Athol Kay).

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    I concur with SayWhaat in that an educated woman who wants to forge a career is poorly matched with a serviceman. (Chuck Pelto coming in here to tell us how the Airborne made a man out of him in 3…2…1…)
    .
    For a woman without a lot of earning potential, who lacks the egoistic ambition to “own” her own achievement, and who would take a lot of pride in an alpha-headed family arrangement, a military marriage is a much better bet.
    .
    I tried to find divorce stats for military marriages and came up empty. Lots of married enlistees marry young because they can live off base and get a big pay raise (~10%), but obviously that plus young age are going to make those marriages poorly formed. I do know that the successful military couples really have it together, especially the officers, because the stresses are enormous.

  • DF

    Sorry above should be “Pinch”

    @Mrs. Rowling
    Sorry, I should have made my self more clear. Feminism is really a type of Gnosticism, an outer layer of philosophy and systems but at it’s core, feminism is an impulse of what women want it to be at any one time. That was the cleverness of Devlin, he was able to see it for what is actually was, not what it said it was. This is also why I refuse to play feminist word shell games, empowerment is whatever she wants it to be.
    .
    Women benefit enormously from feminism but very few women could articulate it or care less. Most women don’t pour over feminist theories or deconstructing patriarchy etc. Except for a demented few, feminism is not what women live for. However they do live for, wage their lives on, priorities for, suffer for – the tingle. The tingle( I actually dislike this word), the hypergamous impulse, redeems them of the boring existential dilemma of modern life.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @david foster
    Great book. I will totally add it to my pile of books. Very insightful I believe the 50′s generation probably saw a lot of this coming. I will recommend you Doris Lessing the golden notebook. Is also another book about disappointment just a lot subtle and using the term “free women” in a very clever way.

  • filrabat

    I think half the issue is what kind of people the girl hangs around. Just as in certain social groups guys tend toward certain kinds of girls (i.e. you won’t see a born again christian guy actually hit on a party girl, even if she is a 10), I think who she goes for is heavily influenced by her peers. Girls who fall all over “alpha assholes” are, as Stephanie said, likely to be bitches themselves.

    This seems locked up in the “excitement” issue. One possible answer is to find women with a rather low desire for excitement in their lives (i.e. satisfied with their thrill level the way it is). That pretty much leaves out the charismatic personalities, as addicted as they are to excitement. Fortunately, it’s fairly easy to pick those girls out, so that’ll make the job a lot easier for guys. In fact, I’d make this, along with my “no alcohol-oriented scenes” rule, another prime rule to go by: Never go for a girl with a strong love of excitement. In fact, the more intelligent, sober-minded women are likely to see excitement as more style than substance; just as guys see women too flashy in their dress, persona, looks, etc as more style than substance. If serious-minded, excitement-eschewing beta can find venues his female counterparts are likely to frequent, then that could do a lot to solve the problem.

    This may or may not be realistic, but even if it is, it still helps to go for women who have a low desire for thrills and excitement, even better, a rather strong disdain of the same.

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

      @filrabat

      Never go for a girl with a strong love of excitement.

      I don’t know if I agree with never, but I do believe this is largely true wrt both sexes. A strong love of excitement means that the person has a highly developed (perhaps too highly developed) dopamine reward system and prizes novelty and risk-seeking. This is directly opposed to long-term relationship success.

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

    filrabat….I think it depends *what kind* of excitement. Some people seek excitement (drama, chaos) in their relationships because they are too uncreative or too unmotivated to find it elsewhere in life.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @The Deuce

    That is what you think. I never mentioned why I think friendships with my male friends were usually long and stable with other women they were not attracted to. Most players know that no matter how much game one has women get tired of it, get tired of the neglect the cheating the abuse and leave the relationship bitter and hating them forever, their kids see what they did to their mothers and hate them too, they can’t make male friends for a long time because they know sooner or later they will want to game the same woman to see who wins. They know in the long run that they are not doing anything but seeding pain but they can’t stop, so having a couple of female friends that are not going to sleep with you so you can destroy them is the only real human connection they can get. Dark Game is addictive once the punani stars to fall there is nothing to stop you and you end up lonely because all you have to offer is Game or doing something really stupid I remember one that ended up fired because he started to Game his boss’s wife almost unconsciously and that is not the worst I seen on Dark Game. So yeah Dark Game ends up becoming your boss. Roissy and their group might have had all the sex they want now, but nothing in this life is free. They will be rethinking all this when their dicks stop working. I seen it happen before and it will happen again, is just a matter of time.

  • filrabat

    @David

    A+ right there!

    When I spoke of excitement, I meant in the conventional common everyday sense of the term (i.e. what would look good on TV, YouTube, or even a cell phone camera). IOW excitement coming from adrenaline rushes, rushes from (oxycotin?) or ….whatever “natural drug” gives the ‘gina tingle.

    Which adds another trait to look for in women – women who get their thrills from mental activity rather than photo(video)genic ones. They’re more likely to be interesting conversationalists anyway (what smart and serious guy really wants to listen to gossip, drama, etc. anyway?)

  • Stephenie Rowling

    filrabat….I think it depends *what kind* of excitement. Some people seek excitement (drama, chaos) in their relationships because they are too uncreative or too unmotivated to find it elsewhere in life.

    Or just plain dumb. Most of my chasing Alpha friends are so dumb, they don’t grasp the concept of actions lead to consequences or obvious lies men they just meet tell them and some of them are educated and all that, it doesn’t seem to help. And they don’t have a rich inner life, don’t read, don’t have hobbies can’t even make a decent conversation over a movie they just watched is amazing. They live on the here and now, nothing beyond that.

  • filrabat

    @Stephenie

    But that’s not important!!! It FEEEELLLLLS good. Natural mind-altering drugs that inhibit your judgment legally IS the most important thing in life.

  • Pingback: Social Prestige Versus Social Dominance | The Badger Hut

  • Stephenie Rowling

    But that’s not important!!! It FEEEELLLLLS good. Natural mind-altering drugs that inhibit your judgment legally IS the most important thing in life.

    Heh you know very well that I don’t believe on denying the lizard brain their tingle, but letting the big brain to choose what the lizard brain gets that is beneficial on the long run, moderating it to achieve maximum efficiency. I don’t believe is impossible feminism convinced women of many crappy ideas on mere decades, deprogramming should take about the same, of course we will need an intense effort and possibly enough respected people to go behind it, and critical conditions which is probably what the manosphere is betting on with Game.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    hypergamy isnt new. men are hungry for status, women are hungry for high status men. thats how it works in nature too.

    feminism unleashed the women from their beta hubbys and lower-status-men-dependence so they are go ride the alpha cock. and no problem with that

    the thug isnt the only one who can be manly. a lot of men would develop manly attributes, along with the funny emotionally present and other qualities, if media stopped selling the beta model and started selling the alpha male role

    being a man is natural – the pressure to stop being a man is whats hurting most men, its not the liberated women

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

      @Yohami
      Dude, I gotta tell you, I just spent about two hours reading stuff you’ve written, courtesy of Rivelino, mostly. It’s pure gold, and I’m going to put together a post of highlights. I’ve clipped like crazy, but let me know if there’s anything in particular you’d like me to link to, e.g. Yohami.com? I think I may have to lead with the beta poetry…

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    subscribed

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Most of my chasing Alpha friends are so dumb, they don’t grasp the concept of actions lead to consequences or obvious lies men they just meet tell them and some of them are educated and all that, it doesn’t seem to help. And they don’t have a rich inner life, don’t read, don’t have hobbies can’t even make a decent conversation over a movie they just watched is amazing.”
    .
    If I may ask, why are you friends with these folks? It doesn’t sound like they bring much to your life in your own words.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    If I may ask, why are you friends with these folks? It doesn’t sound like they bring much to your life in your own words

    I always do everything for many reasons so in no particular order… Many of them are good on other things (you need to remember that intelligences are different for everyone) so they are more like romantically dumb I try to accept friends the way they are, discriminating people just because they are dumb is elitist IMO no one asked to be born dumb some people are luckier than others and no one is so dumb that you cannot learn something from them, for example one of my dumb friends taught me mix drinks (something I sucked at) or how to drink without getting completely wasted with just one glass like I used to do and another one taught me Crochet, cooking tricks and how to curl my hair… so there is no such a thing as an useless human being everyone has a part (except you know assholes or serial killers). Also some of my dumb friends that actually accept there are things they are just no good at seek my help so I also help them (like I learned English practically on my own, reading comics and watching Dawson’s creek so I showed them more natural ways to learn a new language to some of them in cheap ways instead of spending money on schools that teach little of practical English) and finally I used to be a writer and part of the passion is observing people and see what makes them tick and what consequences of their actions are best or worst on the long run that help you write but also helps you to guide other people when they enter a route that you had seen many times other people take and end up badly, it helps to create characters but also I must say most of the time people don’t listen to advices that are against what they want to believe (regardless if their method is working or not), but once in a while some one will say ” Oh yeah I see that if I keep seeing that guy I will end up in a bad relationship like the last 2 ones” so for that one everything else is worth it .. as rare as this instances are.

  • testify222

    Re the sociosexual market place/value, getting a better understanding of…
    .
    For the purpose of game – it’s important for us (men) to discard our own understanding/perceptions of status and try to see it how women see it.
    .
    Women have their own collective perception of the SMP and the men within it who possess value at any given time. Fame, popularity, cool, trendiness – whatever type of guy seems to be socially desirable to other women – seems to be what most of the women flock to. Women are not directly attracted to the actual man (as men see themselves) but to his persona and it’s perceived social value.
    .
    Although the archetypical high-T alpha male who is obviously “dominant” is what we tend to focus on – social status as women perceive it is determined by many factors. There are countless ways for a male persona in any given society to achieve value – not simply via overt and physical displays of dominance. Remember that even the “sensitive” low-T artist/musician types often have as many women chasing them as do the archetypical high-T guy does.
    .
    This doesn’t mean that women are attracted to betas – it simply means that there are various ways for a male persona to attain alpha-level SMV – even if he has a softer or less dominating personality. This is why I tend to separate personality from persona in my analysis of SMP. Ultimately women flock to high status male personas – even if the man has a submissive personality. The two (personality and persona) are different things, even though they are often conflated in these discussions.

  • Workshy Joe

    Two words: Josh Camacho

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    What???? This is a key part of the seder – bad pharaoh. 12 plagues and all. Are you saying none of that is true, or that enslaved Jews came after the pyramids were built?

    I think the new studies say that the Hebrews (or first Cananites, depends on the scholar) were a small group that probably helped other constructions before they “left” Egypt. I don’t think it denies the biblical accounting just that from the slaves POV things looked a lot different and were recorded as such.

    It’s the whole minimalist versus maximalist scholarly arguments. I side with the maximalists myself. However the Hebrews weren’t involved with the building of the pyramids, they were building with mud bricks, not limestone. The city they were working on was probably mistranslated as Rameses, leading to people thinking that Rameses 2 was Pharaoh during the Exodus.

  • VI

    The fact that men do the vast majority of approaching helps enable female hypergamy. Even a female 5 gets hit on far more than a male 9.
    A girl thinks that because all these men hit on her, she must be hot stuff. She’s probably not. Men with game are hitting on chicks ALL THE TIME. All it means is that they want to bang her, nothing else. And just because they want to bang her, that doesn’t mean they consider her to be on the same level as them. A man will bang a chick far below him in quality. The counterpart to female hypergamy is male polygamy, and for those two things to coexist, men have to get most of their notches from girls who are not good enough for their commitment.

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

      @VI

      The counterpart to female hypergamy is male polygamy, and for those two things to coexist, men have to get most of their notches from girls who are not good enough for their commitment.

      Excellent observation. And yet women willingly signing up for harem membership deny this reality.

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

    One more comment on the Koestler book I mentioned earlier–in addition to its perspective on overall socio-political trends, the book is interesting in terms of SMP theory. Fedya, the Communist who beds the heroine, is an Alpha in that he is self-confident, aggressive, dominating, and attractive to women although not good-looking. (He is the only man who has ever satisfied Hydie sexually despite his complete lack of interest in foreplay.) OTOH, he is Beta in that he is a completely obedient member of the Party, to the point of being willing to return to Russia as a prisoner in a labor camp, if that is what the Party requires of him.

    Julien, who wants Hydie but has been relegated to the friend zone, is also pretty self-confident, plus he has demonstrated his courage as a member of the Resistance and is a successful poet. What appears to turn Hydie off is his lack of hope about the future and his self-pity (“what I most dislike about you is your attitude of arrogant broken-heartedness”)

  • Hope

    @Joe,

    There’s been a lot of advice out there, especially in the manosphere, that seems to urge “nice guys” to be a little less nice and a little more thuggish. But I’m not sure you can have it both ways.

    You can’t have nice and thuggish, but you CAN have nice and manly. There’s a big difference. I’m not saying for men to be thugs, but for men to be men. Men want to protect their families, to fight for honorable causes, and to play with weapons (like little boys play with fake guns, swords and lasers?). What’s wrong with that?

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

    Hope…”Men want to protect their families, to fight for honorable causes, and to play with weapons (like little boys play with fake guns, swords and lasers?). What’s wrong with that?”

    There is presently an anti-toy-gun movement which has reached genuinely insane levels.

  • GudEnuf

    The only contemporary female philosopher worth reading, IMO, is Camille Paglia:

    I hope you’re just ignorant about contemporary philosophy because the alternative would be too much for me to bear.

    Although most philosophers are male, women do make significant contributions to contemporary philosophy. Here is a list of great female philosophers written by the very woman you claim to respect. IMHO, no list of contemporary female philosophers is incomplete without Martha Nussbaum, who deserves half the credit for reviving contemporary virtue ethics.

    If you’d prefer some lighter reading in philosophy, you might want to check out Ask Philosophers. It’s a great site, I’ve asked them 100 questions and I always get intelligent responses. Do you see any difference in quality between the answers written by female panelists rather than male? Isn’t amazing how a woman can write quality philosophical literature?

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    @Susan, sure, link to yohami.com what did you read?

  • demirogue

    Here’s what’s wrong with women; when they dissolve an engagement to a man because their “highly” attractive boss makes a move, proceed to have sex then get dumped because said boss meets someone else, then where do you put faith in one? On top of it, when the rationalization that the ex-fiancee is a boring, dependable guy and not what’s wanted, even though she went through the process of agreeing to marry him, at 23 but will be someone to latch onto at 33. I told her point blank good luck and let me know how that turns out for you.

    It’s not hypergamy gals that’s enabling you to live like complete dumbasses dear ladies. It’s the un-natural outcome of using birth control that is. There is noting inherently natural happening in today’s society with its use.

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

    First I read everything that Rivelino has linked to or quoted. Then I found your conversation with White and Nerdy – which I thought you handled very well. He can be difficult to communicate with. Finally, googled your name, checked out your blog, twitter, fb page etc.

    The bottom line is that you are not only a model of successful self-development, but are also a gifted communicator and teacher. And your laid-back demeanor helps in keeping the tone even and rational. All of this is much needed in our corner of the web, IMO.

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

    @demirogue
    That’s harsh – and your disgust with women is understandable. I’ll stand by my claim that unrestrained hypergamy is problematic, but I won’t quibble about your claim that the Pill is screwing with the SMP as well – it undoubtedly is. Though it’s generally thought to make more feminized men attractive to women, because it suppresses ovulation/monthly testosterone surge.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    @Susan, awesome

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

    @GudEnuf
    Rest assured, it’s entirely a matter of ignorance on my part. Which means that I shouldn’t have made a statement about no one else being worth reading. Sorry.
    .
    Philosophy is a real hole in my education. I have heard of Martha Nussbaum – in fact, I think CP has written about her. Will check out the links you provided.
    .
    Thank you for putting up with my shortcomings ;)

  • Stephenie Rowling

    (like little boys play with fake guns, swords and lasers?). What’s wrong with that?

    Nope they don’t there is a lot of anti-violence movement for kids that is taking away that part as well. So yeah the lack of male manliness is taking over a whole new generation

  • Hope

    @david foster, that’s sad. It’s partially female ignorance of violence that leads to this sad state. We do great violence to the world in being alive, our bodies destroy countless bacteria, our food including eating of plants destroy living beings, and our lifestyles trample upon nature. That is not to say we should all be ruthless and tyrannical, but these same women who want to keep men tamed are also losing attraction to men who are no longer men.

    Even in countries without citizen rights to own guns, little boys play with toy guns and play rough with each other. This is another reason why boys and girls do not play together in more traditional countries. The genders are not the same. In the positive light, women use their emotions to nurture and men use their strength to protect. In the negative sense, women use their emotions to manipulate and men use their strength to brutalize.

    @Joe, my husband also took years of martial arts, and again those skills can be used in different ways. Little boys from a young age choose a side, and most of them choose to side with the good guys. Unfortunately when women de-masculinize all the violence out of men, they have to break the rules and be bad guys in order to be manly at all. You see this sad state of affairs where guys call those being on the good side in video games “pansies,” “softies” and “goodie two shoes.”

    The evil / bad / dark side is more powerful today thanks to feminizing the rule-following boys. That is a grave blow and a danger to civilization, which was built on the concept of order triumphing over chaos, rules and regulations being superior to lawlessness, and the good guys who are brave heroes and protectors banding together to overpower the bad guys who are villains and thugs.

    Being capable of violence is a fundamentally manly thing. It is NOT evil in and of itself. Don’t succumb to the popular lies, and reclaim your masculinity without needing to be “bad.” That is an essential part of what makes my husband so sexy and manly. He is strongly polarized toward the good, and he can and will fight for the good, the righteous and the just.

  • blogster

    this for me raises an interesting issue when you consider the relatively rare breed of society alpha females. Look at Madonna for example. I imagine there is a huge internal conflict for her. A high level of social dominance, sexual attractiveness (at least 15 years ago, although not everyone’s taste), social prestige and financial resources.

    You get the impression no man has ever been quite ‘man’ enough – how could you compete with her clout? I imagine a huge conflict between her need to dominate and be in control (witness loads of toy boys) and an internal desire to be dominated?

  • GudEnuf

    Pop quiz: Who is more likely to break up because the relationship lacks “magic”?

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

    @GudEnuf
    Good catch! I can’t find a copy of the whole study online – surprising, because it dates to 1986. Very interesting – I want to know more!

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

    VI hit it on the head. Many women get an inflated sense of value since men do virtually all the approaching.
    .
    Susan, I appreciate how often you bring up the female causality in the current SMP. Here’s a great example of how women cause their own problems with men: The net result of female hypergamy is a large pool of reasonably attractive yet celibate males. Keenly aware of their lower value and celibacy, some of these men realize (correctly) that for them to get laid, they have to cast their net wide. So they start hitting on every woman who looks even remotely single. Every once in a while, one of them is in just the right mood and puts out.
    .
    What does this mean for women? It means that male approaches give them no useful information. In order for a male’s approach to convey value information, the guy can’t be desperate for sex. At the very least, he needs to believe that he can get laid if he wants to. (Is this an argument for legalized prostitution? It might be…).
    .
    So it’s a catch-22 for women. For them to know anything about their value, most men around them need to be NOT DESPERATE for sex. But women are only interested in sex with the highest possible males, so most males remain celibate. And desperate.
    .
    I don’t know if there’s an easy solution. You can’t very well tell women to begin implementing sympathy screws so they’ll get a better idea of which guys are genuinely on their level. But it appears that you can’t talk them out of hypergamy, either. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle of ignorance (of “real” sex rank) and male frustration.

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

      @hamby

      It’s a self-perpetuating cycle of ignorance (of “real” sex rank) and male frustration.

      That’s what reminded me of the final sentence of Gatsby. It’s a vicious cycle, made worse in recent decades.

      So… if most guys are 6s or 7s, and most girls are 6s or 7s… then most guys ought to be getting laid by most girls, right? But they’re not, which means that the females are over-valuing themselves, even if only by a little bit.

      I can’t imagine any reason why good looks would be distributed differently between the sexes. There has to be a roughly equal number of 1s thru 10s in the population. Obviously, when you add in social dominance, the male scale shifts, and that shift can be dramatic. However, this reliance on dominance is exaggerated due to conditions in the SMP. Plenty of girls married nice beta guys in previous eras, and they didn’t walk up the aisle saying “meh.” Actually, plenty of nice girls still marry betas, but the relationships are more likely to run into trouble.
      .
      I have to agree with Hope that a guy is not automatically a six if he’s not overweight. Most women don’t like skinny guys either. The gangly geek is a frequent object of scorn. Only the hipsters in their skinny jeans can pull it off. It occurs to me that unless more women than men are obese, then we’ve got fat guys claiming that chubby women don’t trip their attraction triggers. Seems hypocritical.

  • VI

    Judging each other by our own gender’s standards, men and women will disgust each other. It’s a natural reaction. A women doesn’t want to think of her man’s polyamorous thoughts, and a man doesn’t want to think of his girl as a hypergamous id monster.
    We can accept the reality, but whether we do so or not, it will continue to be true. If a man can’t overcome the disgust, he will either be celibate or a player for life. If he can, he might be able to become monogamous, if that’s what he wants.

  • Hope

    @hambydammit, I think most women know the ballpark of their physical attractiveness. Most non-fat women with no obvious deformations in their 20s are at a minimum rated 6 in the overall market.

    The big (no pun intended) issue affecting female hypergamy is that an otherwise average female some years ago is now much rarer due to the epidemic of weight gain. There are lots of men who would have gone for the average girl years ago, but now something like half the female population is overweight, so the pool of women who meet the “minimal attractive threshold” has decreased for the same pool of men.

    The single, non-fat 6 is now as scarce as a 7 or 8 when it comes to the overall market. Some have ventured as far to say any skinny woman is an automatic 7 (!). Scarcity increases the value and price. That’s why you now see so many men hitting on the same group of women. Even “chubby” girls are getting more attention as there are women who are obviously obese.

    Incidentally, a smart, educated woman of higher socioeconomic status is more likely to keep in shape, hence a double choosiness. The twin influences of obesity rising in women and feminized traits in men keep the market conditions rather terrible.

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

    Hope wrote:

    I think most women know the ballpark of their physical attractiveness. Most non-fat women with no obvious deformations in their 20s are at a minimum rated 6 in the overall market.

    .
    Well, yes. Most non-fat women are at least a six. But I think most women would be shocked to know that they’re probably not much over a six. Genuine 9s and 10s are extremely rare, and there really aren’t a lot of women who are hot enough to get by on looks alone. My informal observation is that most 6s and 7s act as if they are 8s or 9s. And that’s enough to throw a gear in the works, since most of those girls want to get an 8 or 9 guy.
    .
    Conversely, most non-fat guys are also at least a 6. (For any women reading this and disagreeing, it’s the hypergamy talking.) So… if most guys are 6s or 7s, and most girls are 6s or 7s… then most guys ought to be getting laid by most girls, right? But they’re not, which means that the females are over-valuing themselves, even if only by a little bit.
    .

    The big (no pun intended) issue affecting female hypergamy is that an otherwise average female some years ago is now much rarer due to the epidemic of weight gain. There are lots of men who would have gone for the average girl years ago, but now something like half the female population is overweight, so the pool of women who meet the “minimal attractive threshold” has decreased for the same pool of men.

    Also true. And unfortunately, this exaggerates the over-valuation of the reasonably attractive non-fat females. Since most of the guys are passing over up to half of the single girls because they’re fat, all of the guys are hitting on half of the women. Even the ones they’d pass over if there were more options.
    .

    The single, non-fat 6 is now as scarce as a 7 or 8 when it comes to the overall market. Some have ventured as far to say any skinny woman is an automatic 7 (!).

    .
    I agree.
    .

    Scarcity increases the value and price. That’s why you now see so many men hitting on the same group of women. Even “chubby” girls are getting more attention as there are women who are obviously obese.

    .
    Yep. However, and this is the crux of my position, the “genuine” 8 and 9 guys are STILL going to get the genuine 8 and 9 girls for the relationships, and they’re still going to pump and dump the automatic 7s and chubby girls. And those girls will still wonder why they keep getting used by the guys they’re choosing to have sex with. And the answer is STILL that they’re not saying yes to the 6 and 7 guys who would be likely to believe they had hit the peak of their sexual value and stay in a relationship.

  • Hope

    @hambydammit, non-fatness in a man does not grant automatic 6 or 7 status. I have been in relationships with men who were overweight. My husband is sporting a bit of a chubby gut, but it matters not one bit to me. Men and women have different attraction triggers. You ought to know that after reading the manosphere.

    I do agree that the 9-10 men would only commit to hard (not adjusted) 9-10 women, the kind that would turn heads anywhere, the kind that every woman in the room knows is hotter than her. But for us mere mortals in the 6-7 range, a 6-7 guy is still not every non-fat guy who just shows up.

    5 is average. A 20-something woman who’s not fat is a 6 because she’s above average in attractiveness. A 6-7 man by definition must also be above average. He would possess above average intellect, above average strength, above average manliness and above average dominance. The “average” man who has none of these qualities is not a 6 or 7.

    I may have slightly different criteria for increasing a man’s score, such as weighing raw intelligence higher. But the point remains that it might seem like the 6 and 7 girls are ignoring the 6 and 7 guys (in your eyes), yet in the girls’ eyes those guys are more like 4 and 5s.

    I have been guilty of this myself, as I only wanted men who can carry on a deep conversation and have IQ at least one standard deviation above the mean. That’s less than 10% of the population. I was more than willing to compromise on wealth rank to get a “9.5″ in smarts, and I got it in my husband.

  • http://attractionreaction.wordpress.com/ Jeffrey of Troy

    re: Hebrews and Egypt
    “Hebrew” evolved from ancient Egyptian word “Habiru”, and they were not slaves in Egypt. During the Babylonian Captivity (ca. 500 BC), their history was re-written to turn them against Egypt, and they were returned to Israel to serve as a buffer protecting Babylon from Egypt. Leaders of empires think geo-strategically. (on a related note, “Is Ra El” is three Egyptian words meaning “throne of the sun god”.)

  • http://attractionreaction.wordpress.com/ Jeffrey of Troy

    re: female philosophers
    *
    Let’s not forget Ayn Rand. But ignore everything everyone says ABOUT her – both supporters and detractors – until you read her yourself. The Fountainhead is greatness (and an advocacy of greatness) but it’s huge.
    *
    I recommend starting with Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology (the study of “how do you know what the truth is”); it’s a small non-fiction work, and one of the best things I have ever read.

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

      @Jeffrey of Troy
      Thanks for the pointers re philosophy! I actually just downloaded The Fountainhead onto my iphone – I read it as a teen, and have never forgotten the Ellsworth Toohey character. I’ve seen him many times IRL.

  • http://attractionreaction.wordpress.com/ Jeffrey of Troy
    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jeffrey
      Fascinating article on narcissism there, with lots of things I haven’t read before. Like this:

      This may explain why narcissists behave in arrogant ways. Instead of compensating for some deep-seated insecurity, bragging may be their way of demanding the recognition they truly believe they deserve.

      The old school causes of narcissism – insecurity, childhood trauma or lack of parental love – don’t seem to hold much validity anymore. Scott Barry Kaufman is one of the better bloggers on Psych Today, IMO.

  • GudEnuf

    I can’t imagine any reason why good looks would be distributed differently between the sexes. There has to be a roughly equal number of 1s thru 10s in the population.

    Imagine the hottest man that could theoretically exist. Don’t hold back, you’re allowed to imagine whatever you want! Now imagine the ugliest man that could possibly exist (remember, use your imagination!)

    If you’re anything like me, your hottest man imaginable doesn’t look too different that the men we already see on magazine covers. Personally, I don’t think it would be possible to improve much on Katy Perry, even I had God’s paintbrush.

    On the other hand, when I think of the ugliest woman imaginable, she barely looks human. Multiple heads, gigantic teeth, oozing skin—stuff that you wouldn’t ever see expect in a horror movie. She is far, far uglier than Katy Perry is hot.

    Compare your hottest man theoretical man to your ugliest theoretical man. Which looks more like your average man?

    My guess is that the average person is far closer the upper limit of human attractiveness than the lower limit.

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

    @Hope:

    non-fatness in a man does not grant automatic 6 or 7 status.

    That’s not what I said. I said most non-fat men are 6s or 7s. Yes, women view fatness in men less harshly than men do women. But fatness is still a negative for guys, and a guy who would be a 6 or 7 generally moves to a 4 or 5 if he’s fat. And I mean fat by guy standards, not girl standards. So chubbiness does not count as fat in men.
    .
    But… (check your hypergamy meter)… assuming symmetry — that is, the distance from a 2 to a 3 is the same as the distance from an 8 to a 9 — there will be a basic bell curve for both men and women. Not many true stinkers, not many true babes, lots of folks in the middle. If you’re a woman, and you think most men are NOT at least average, you are judging men more harshly than women. And that’s hypergamy.
    .
    Look at it another way. Again, we have to maintain symmetry or the scale is meaningless, so we’re assuming that a male 5 is equivalent to a female 5. That is, by the appropriate standards of attractiveness, a male 5 has as many desirable qualities for females as a female 5 has for males. That means that in a perfectly equal SMP, the female 5s would have to settle for male 5s.
    .

    A 6-7 man by definition must also be above average. He would possess above average intellect, above average strength, above average manliness and above average dominance.

    .
    I’m sorry in advance for this, Hope, but…. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I Give you Female Hypergamy in Action.
    .
    No. A 6 or a 7 would have above average Intellect OR strength OR manliness OR dominance. He would be A LITTLE above average. A man who has five or six above average traits is WAY above average.
    .

  • GudEnuf

    I’m sorry in advance for this, Hope, but…. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I Give you Female Hypergamy in Action.

    No. A 6 or a 7 would have above average Intellect OR strength OR manliness OR dominance. He would be A LITTLE above average. A man who has five or six above average traits is WAY above average.

    You’re presuming that the traits are distributed independently. Intelligence, looks, wealth, and personality are all positively correlated; find one of them and you’ll likely find another.

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

    Susan wrote:

    I have to agree with Hope that a guy is not automatically a six if he’s not overweight. Most women don’t like skinny guys either. The gangly geek is a frequent object of scorn. Only the hipsters in their skinny jeans can pull it off. It occurs to me that unless more women than men are obese, then we’ve got fat guys claiming that chubby women don’t trip their attraction triggers. Seems hypocritical.

    I also agree with you and Hope that being non-fat isn’t an automatic 6 or 7. And if you look back, you’ll see that isn’t what I said in the first place. I said most guys who aren’t fat are 6s or 7s. I’ll refine that and say they’re probably 6s. But one of the things women DO LIKE in men is decent proportion. As you say, over-skinny isn’t much better than over-fat. So the 1-4s are generally going to be either fat or too skinny IN ADDITION to lacking other desirable qualities. They aren’t 1-4s just because they’re fat or skinny.
    .
    In contrast, most guys who take care of themselves to any reasonable degree are going to have decent bodies, which will — as with women — generally make them at least average IF they don’t have any hideous deformities. And if you read my comment to Hope above, you’ll see that — as with women — a man who possesses one or two “pluses” and is otherwise average is above average. Which means a 6 or 7.
    .
    The point I’m making is that for scales to have any meaning, they must be comparable. And that means that women who are 6s have one or two features that are above average. And that’s MOST women who aren’t fat. To be an 8, a woman must have SEVERAL above average qualities.
    .
    And this is part of the over-valuation women routinely fall victim to. It’s safe to say that all other things being equal, fat puts a girl on the <5 side of the scale. (Sorry. It's true.) So we can say that if all we know about a girl is that she's not fat, we can say she's a baseline 5. If she has one or two other good qualities — great hair and perky breasts, for instance — that means shes probably a 6. And most guys will bone a 6. But that doesn't mean they think she's equal to them. Which brings us back to hypergamy.
    .
    Maybe this will make things clearer: Men, being prone to easier casual sex than women, will typically hook up with any girl 6 or above. Women, being prone to reticence, will NOT typically hook up with any guy just for being 6 or above. That DOES NOT mean that the guys aren't 6s. They are 6s, but the women are choosing not to have sex with them. And that's kind of the whole point, right?

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

    You’re presuming that the traits are distributed independently. Intelligence, looks, wealth, and personality are all positively correlated; find one of them and you’ll likely find another.

    I’ve never seen any scientific correlation between intelligence and looks. Half of the problem with great looking people is that they are often dickbags. Wealth can buy enhancement, so yes, wealth and good looks are somewhat correlated. But beyond that, I’m not buying it.

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

    Bleh… sorry for comment spamming, but I just thought of a better way to explain this. In rating themselves, women think a nice rack, flat belly, and good hair make them a 7 or 8. But look around — most women have nice enough breasts, and if they’re not fat, they probably have a reasonably flat belly, and most women take care of their hair.
    .
    That means that a nice rack, flat belly, and good hair are AVERAGE. To be a 8 or 9, you must have more than that.

  • GudEnuf

    You’re presuming that the traits are distributed independently. Intelligence, looks, wealth, and personality are all positively correlated; find one of them and you’ll likely find another.

    I mean think about it: what does it take to look good? You’ve got to be smart to know how to dress in a way that compliments your looks. You’ve got to be rich enough to afford the good makeup and clothes. You’ve got to have the self-discipline to eat right and exercise. And you’ve got to have good genetics (due to assortative mating, good genetics in one area is correlated with good genetics in another area). So if you see someone who looks physically attractive, there’s a good chance they’ve got something else going for them too.

  • Hope

    @hambydammit, most desirable traits in men are clustered together. That is, a man who is above average in manliness is also likely to be physically stronger and more dominant. Granted, intelligence might be unlinked from this, but out of the 4 traits I listed 3 of them are closely related, so it’s in reality only 2 traits.

    Now take the female analogy. Physical attractiveness is obviously first, but niceness, agreeableness and sweetness are also closely linked. Would you say that a man who wants a woman who is slightly above average in those 4 traits is asking too much? I bet not. So why do you hate on women who are asking for above average on 4 traits?

    To put it another way. Can you think of a man who is too weak to pick up a 100lb waif of a woman as masculine or dominant? Can you think of a woman who is always frowning and bitchy as also sweet? I have no issues with a female 5 getting together with a male 5, or a female 7 with a male 7, but you define my version of a male 7 as male 9 it seems. If that’s the case, then I should not have been able to get my husband, who is a male 9 according to your definition.

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

    I’ve never seen any scientific correlation between intelligence and looks.

    Here ya go.

    This brief research note aims to estimate the magnitude of the association between general intelligence and physical attractiveness with large nationally representative samples from two nations. In the United Kingdom, attractive children are more intelligent by 12.4 IQ points (r = .381), whereas in the United States, the correlation between intelligence and physical attractiveness is somewhat smaller (r = .126). The association between intelligence and physical attractiveness is stronger among men than among women in both nations. The association remains significant net of a large number of control variables for social class, body size, and health.

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

    @GudEnuf: I stand corrected. Thank you.
    .
    Ok… so we have to refine our scale a little bit, but it’s not going to help. If it is true that intelligence and beauty tend to go hand in hand, and MOST PEOPLE who are beautiful are also intelligent, then people who are a little beautiful AND a little intelligent are a LITTLE above average.
    .
    I get what various folks are saying — good qualities come in bunches. And if that’s true, then fine. But all this does is shift our scale a little bit. If a person has nothing above or below average, they’re a 5. If they’re a little intelligent (and also a little pretty, since the two come as a matched set), then we can effectively say that they have one above average quality, and call it intellibeauty.
    .
    Which means they’re a 6. For this scale to have any meaning, different attractive qualities must be independent. So for the sake of argument, we could even just lump good qualities together. Make it one variable, and say that a person is varying degrees of smart/funny/pretty/fit/secure/etc. But that’s getting a little ridiculous.
    .
    The point is that MOST women don’t get to be above average while MOST men don’t get to be above average. For this to have meaning, there must be an equivalent number of males and females at each rank.

  • Hope

    As far as looks are concerned, I dated a guy that was so ugly the other people I knew (including my mother) made fun of me. He was bone skinny, had really bad skin and was the opposite of a looker. But he had a hell of an intellect and was dominant. I fell for him rather hard and ultimately he rejected me (which was a good thing, because that indirectly led to being with my husband).

    To be completely biased for a second, I think of my husband as my perfect 10. He is everything I’ve ever wanted and then some, and no prince or celebrity or any other man in the world can top him. But other women don’t have that same reaction to him. At some point the purely numerical market analogy breaks down as you get into the individual level.

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

    Hope wrote:

    Now take the female analogy. Physical attractiveness is obviously first, but niceness, agreeableness and sweetness are also closely linked. Would you say that a man who wants a woman who is slightly above average in those 4 traits is asking too much? I bet not. So why do you hate on women who are asking for above average on 4 traits?

    .
    Not at all. No hate coming from this corner. Just the observation that if a woman is slightly above average, she only gets to ask for slightly above average. And women seem to think that slightly above average is significantly above average.
    .
    Yes, physical attractiveness is the number one thing guys look for, but take an average bar crowd in a college town. Look around at the women there. Are most of them reasonably fit, well groomed, and wearing nice clothes? Then THAT’s the baseline. If you’re not above that baseline, you’re not above average. If you’re below it, then you’re below average.

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

    Hope…”no prince or celebrity or any other man in the world can top him. But other women don’t have that same reaction to him. At some point the purely numerical market analogy breaks down as you get into the individual level”

    Yes. While there’s no question that physical appearance is important, personality match is also critical–the spark that ignites the fuel, so to speak. And by “personality match” I don’t mean simple compatibility–the mix of personality characteristics that attracts someone by be quite different from his/her own.

    There may be a whole batch of women or men who would be judged by an average set of opposite-sex judges as a “7″, let’s say, based on appearance, status, whatever….but a specific individual who meets them all is not going to fall in love with all of them equally.

  • Hope

    @hambydammit, college aged women vs. college aged men is a special case. That is an age when most women know they have the highest SMV, because every man from 14 up to 60+ is salivating over them. An average college girl might be average compared to other college girls, but compared to the rest of the population? You get the idea. My husband got basically no female attention when he was in college. These days he gets IOIs from girls in classes he TAs for as a grad student. Men gain points as they get older.

    A woman’s looks in the long term fade and decline, and she loses points. On some level most women know this even if they won’t overtly admit it. So they leverage the value they have in their youth to try to get the best mate possible, and therefore they tend to be very choosy at that age. Unfortunately due to the later age of marriage, women are staying choosy even as they approach 40, which is why men are (rightfully) upset.

    Notice in my earlier post to you, I said a woman in her 20s who’s a 6. She can actually get a man who’s a 7 or 8 in his 30s or 40s. This is the truth. A woman in her 40s might look similar to the 6 in her 20s, in hair, clothes, body type and everything, but her actual value will have drastically decreased because she won’t have 20 reproductively fertile years ahead of her.

    Dennis Kucinich in his 60s married a beautiful young woman in her 20s after divorcing twice. If you want to look at it like this, that’s a young man in his 20s who didn’t get her.

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

    Hope, I agree with everything you’ve said. Which makes it very puzzling to me that we seem to be disagreeing.
    .
    Sex ranks are appropriate to the people who we might mate with. Discussing a college girl’s rank relative to that of a 45 year old plumber with four kids and a kick in the teeth alimony payment isn’t worth doing. So college girls’ sex rank is properly compared with college guys.
    .
    Sex rank is also compared to our peers. We don’t hold 40 year old women to the standard of beauty for 21 year olds. So we compare a 21 year old with a 21 year old. If you’re 21, in college, and you are relatively fit, good hair, nice smile, etc, YOU ARE AVERAGE for your peer group. If you’re trying to attract a college age boy, you must realize that for him, someone like you is the baseline, even if you could land any old 35 year old by just flipping your hair a couple of times.
    .
    If you take the same 21 year old girl and move her to a coal mining town in the rust belt where most everybody is poor, unkempt, and generally uneducated, she will probably be a ten within her peer group. But there won’t be any hotsy-totsy lettermen with trust funds and perfect teeth running around, so her ten status isn’t worth as much as her 7 status at school.
    .
    The point is that women think of themselves as automatic 7s or 8s because they’re thin and have boobs. But if every girl around them is thin and has boobs, she’s not a 7 or an 8. She’s average. And the girls with much better smiles, brilliant blue eyes, perfect ivory skin, and asses to bounce quarters off of are the 8s and 9s. And they’ll get whatever the best choices are in men. And those same men will sport fuck our poor 5 or 6 because she overshot her reach in thinking she was good enough for them.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @blogster
    It really depends on what you consider an Alpha Female. I don’t think Madonna is an Alpha myself. Hillary Clinton, Margaret Tatcher on pretty much all ancient queens are what I would consider Alpha females) Women are harder to classify as dominant or not because this are aspect that don’t show unless required. I mean how many times did you know that your mother had the last word at the home even if she didn’t needed to raise her voice to make it so?). Do I believe she was choosy? Possibly but then the only time she married up was when she was starting to get famous and married Sean Penn and that didn’t worked out, she didn’t hooked up below with a dancer and then with someone a little bit up but still below her Guy Ritchie (and I’m talking about things we know as fame I have no idea how this people is on the intimacy so it might be she is an Alpha or maybe she is just emotionally unstable. Hard to tell.

    Some have ventured as far to say any skinny woman is an automatic 7 (!).

    The problem with fatness is that is socially flexible. I always was skinny and I was always ignored to favor women with more meat and I was 5’7” on a country where the average female is 5’1” so I was also too damn tall (Olive Oil and Sstick-bugs were some of the monikers a couple of mean kids used for me) but like ten years ago I started to get a lot of male attention (and I mean a whole lot more than my meaty friendes) because skinny=hot from American culture had been already implanted on the psique. So if you guys are not getting boners from fat chicks is because you had been indoctrinated to think they are not hot, not because actual fatness (of course I mean within reason if she is so heavy that she can’t move she can’t have sex with you obviously)is a biological turn off.

    I’ve never seen any scientific correlation between intelligence and looks. Half of the problem with great looking people is that they are often dickbags.

    I will say that pretty people are as smart as average ones at least. The issue is that they have to work less hard so they don’t have to use their smartness as much as us average mortals. Pretty girls always have guys willing to help them with anything they need, homework,in the job place and teachers are usually biased and give them better grades or are more generous and forgiving when they fail. Survival of the prettiest.

    My guess is that the average person is far closer the upper limit of human attractiveness than the lower limit.

    According to many scientist we had been selecting beauty for quite sometime now so we are probably prettier than our ancestors ever were. Take that Nefertiti! ;)

    To be completely biased for a second, I think of my husband as my perfect 10. He is everything I’ve ever wanted and then some, and no prince or celebrity or any other man in the world can top him. But other women don’t have that same reaction to him. At some point the purely numerical market analogy breaks down as you get into the individual level.

    Again I ask are you sure we are not accidentally married to the same man? :) My husband is my Edward…Of course I don’t tell him this to his face often, given that he hates the books ;)

  • Stephenie Rowling

    The point is that women think of themselves as automatic 7s or 8s because they’re thin and have boobs.

    I will add that women over value themselves because they have a whole support system telling them how beautiful an amazing they are for just having a vagina in the likes of self help books, and internet devoted sites to “empower” women but also their girlfriends gushing about all they do like is some big accomplishment, specially banging certain guys. Women are hard pressed to call each other on their crap if they are friends and if they are no friends then the other woman is jealous of their security or some other validation stock phrase they have available for situations like this.

  • Passer_By

    @Susan

    “This implies a willingness to jump ship for a man with more status. I’m not sure whether women are more inclined to do this than men are, but the fact that 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women suggests that they might be.”

    Yes, this is the “trading up” fantasy/impulse for women to which some bloggers (Dalrock, perhaps? Badger?) have referred, as an analogy to the hareming/seed spreading impulse for men. It’s stands to reason that women are more likely to want to do it, although it may be exacerbated by a popular culture/media that shames men for dumping the wife for a hotter younger model but celebrates equivalent female activity as empowering, soul saving, etc., and a legal system that sometimes provide economic and other cover for it.

  • Passer_By

    @hamby

    I think you’re a bit off in your reply to Hope. What she is saying is that college aged women are at their absolute SMV peak. That’s not true of college age men, as their SMV peak will not occur for a few years. Also, the difference in SMV between a woman at her absolute peak and one 10 years old is much greater than the difference for men (their curve is a little flatter). I thought the guy who does the stage two blog mapped it pretty well here, for the most part. I think he could have moved the female peak over to the left just a smidge and not had it drop off quite so quickly, but the basic concept seems about right.

    http://stagetwo.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/sexual-attractiveness-as-a-function-of-age/

  • Passer_By

    “and one 10 years old ”

    Umm, make that “10 years older”. lol

  • Abbot

    There should be a version for women to create a boyfriend as that would really prove how rampant hypergamy is. Once this up an running, and if statistics are revealed by the company, I bet it shows most men opting for female traits from forty years ago or present day foreign female traits, as they are both highly sought after norms.
    .
    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/cloud-girlfriend-start-offers-fake-relationship-facebookers/story?id=13241621
    .
    …and here is the expected and typical American female commentary -
    .
    http://www.dailytargum.com/opinions/digital-girlfriends-degrading-to-all-1.2525524
    .
    This statement is from a woman who does not like having female nature revealed:
    ,
    “Some argue that having a fake girlfriend plowing around your social media accounts will spark other women to talk to you. This argument is invalid, because it operates on the backwards assumption that “women always want what they can’t have.”

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

    @Hope

    Unfortunately when women de-masculinize all the violence out of men, they have to break the rules and be bad guys in order to be manly at all. You see this sad state of affairs where guys call those being on the good side in video games “pansies,” “softies” and “goodie two shoes.”

    .
    I’m as willing as the next guy to blame feminism for a lot of things. But really, this is something we all have a part in. It’s society that tries to de-masculinize the violence out of men, and it’s done poorly.
    .
    First we teach boys that the good-guys win, and they want to be good-guys. Then we take that away and pound it into them that they are being cowards and wimps. “Real men fight.” Worse, we tell them from teenage years that being “a nice guy” ™ is the easy way, not viable and not masculine.
    .
    Bigger lies are seldom told.
    .
    The truth that we too often fail to tell our children is that doing the right thing is not the easy way at all (and it certainly isn’t the coward’s way). In the long run it’s the hard path, but it’s the surest path to success and commensurate rewards. Those who seem the bravest and most daring by stepping over that line often become Senators and Congressmen … uh… get to the place where they no longer cheat with impunity.
    .
    And when the jig is up, it’s hard on everyone around them.

  • Abbot

    “And those same men will sport fuck our poor 7 because she overshot her reach in thinking she was good enough for them.”
    .
    But who will sport marry Miss 7?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Susan
    I’ve been thinking what would you think of having a humor label on the blog, so we can post some jokes regarding dating/hipergamy/sexist/mysoginist? I think that some levity would be good IMO (sense of humor is a sign of Alphas *wink*) and I’m sure some guys here probably have jokes or personal anecdotes to share as well.
    I just though of suggesting that.

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

      @Stephenie
      I love that idea! How do you picture it? I come across humorous tidbits all the time, but they may not merit a post. It would be fun to just slap them up here. And I love the idea of readers submitting stuff directly.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Susan
    I mostly see it as a new label (if there is space of course) like Home, Best Posts, About…or if you want to we could pick a day (of the week or month) with a post for just humor where we all can add stuff. I would prefer the label because newbies could see it and post and we all have the chance to check it out regularly and enrich it, but again your are the dungeon’s masters so is your call.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    I like the humor idea

  • ExNewYorker

    @Susan

    “Philosophy is a real hole in my education. I have heard of Martha Nussbaum – in fact, I think CP has written about her. Will check out the links you provided.”

    .
    I’d heard of several of those, but I got a laugh out the description:
    Mary Wollstonecraft: 1759-1797

    English feminist and egalitarian, associated with Thomas Paine and William Godwin (her husband). A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790) argued against the slave trade; A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) did what it said on the jacket. Described marriage as “legal prostitution”. Opposed monarchy, church and military. Died after giving birth to the future Mary Shelley.
    .
    Wow, they got started early on trying to dismantle marriage :-)

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    @hambydammit, Passer_By already mentioned what I was getting at about college aged men and women, so I won’t rehash it.

    The point is that women think of themselves as automatic 7s or 8s because they’re thin and have boobs. But if every girl around them is thin and has boobs, she’s not a 7 or an 8. She’s average. And the girls with much better smiles, brilliant blue eyes, perfect ivory skin, and asses to bounce quarters off of are the 8s and 9s. And they’ll get whatever the best choices are in men. And those same men will sport fuck our poor 5 or 6 because she overshot her reach in thinking she was good enough for them.

    Okay, I think I know what you’re trying to say. The girl who is thin, young and has boobs still must have facial beauty to be a “true” 7 or 8. This is a much more complicated topic, but suffice it to say that a more feminine face is generally more attractive. See following articles:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091020153100.htm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4396230.stm

    Also, a 7 or 8 in the general population can be seen as a 3 or 4 in a modeling agency. Does that mean the normal 7 or 8 guy wouldn’t be thrilled to have that “ugly” girl who is rather un-photogenic when compared to the super incredibly beautiful models? Nope.

    You’re looking in too small of a pool. When that “6″ college girl walks out into the general population, she is treated in every way as a 7 or 8, by every straight guy she comes across who sees her in a cute outfit on her way to the bar. Even though at the college bar she doesn’t stand out, she certainly will stand out the rest of the time, at the grocery store or walking down the street.

    By the way I didn’t date any college guys at all while I was in college, so I can’t really speak to how guys slept with girls whom they considered “plain” and then dumped them. Maybe the competition was fierce for the top college guys with lots of status, and the incredibly gorgeous girls in college went for that. But I avoided that altogether.

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

      @Hope

      Also, a 7 or 8 in the general population can be seen as a 3 or 4 in a modeling agency. Does that mean the normal 7 or 8 guy wouldn’t be thrilled to have that “ugly” girl who is rather un-photogenic when compared to the super incredibly beautiful models? Nope.

      I’ve got this theory that the standards of beauty have shifted pretty dramatically. That is not a new insight – celebrated beauties are far more masculine than in previous generations. However, my hypothesis is that a culture of casual sex further rewards masculinized women, to the point that they are now becoming the “10s” for alpha males. Giselle Bundchen is an obvious example – she looks like a tranny, has a WHR of about .9, and fake boobs. Yet Tom Brady threw over a much more feminine looking woman for her.

  • Höllenhund
  • SayWhaat

    If you’re trying to attract a college age boy, you must realize that for him, someone like you is the baseline, even if you could land any old 35 year old by just flipping your hair a couple of times.

    .
    You’re overestimating the power of a young college girl. Even if older men do find her insanely attractive simply due to the nature of her youth, that doesn’t mean that she would instantly be able to “land” him as a boyfriend. Many older men are wary of jailbait. I dated a 27yo man when I was just a few months shy of 21, and he was really awkward about my age. I dated a 29yo, and he was obviously not serious about it at all. Youth may be an invaluable asset, but that doesn’t mean that it serves as a guarantee of commitment from mature men, which is what girls want.

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

      @SayWhaat

      Youth may be an invaluable asset, but that doesn’t mean that it serves as a guarantee of commitment from mature men, which is what girls want.

      FWIW, guys have said here and elsewhere that if they’re in their late 20s, bringing around a 21 yo girl is embarrassing, especially if she’s still in college. Obviously, there’s no bio basis in this, so there must be a social taboo of some kind around men going too young when dating. I know several women of this age who found dating older guys (25-30) awkward for this reason. Part of it was that the two groups of friends are not easy to mix, and one is bound to feel either very old or very young when hanging out with the other’s crowd.

  • Dilithium

    dear, sweet, Stephenie: “the problem with many Nice Guys activities is that the places they have to display become boys clubs (or are men’s clubs by definition like the army). I will say that for example warhammer games are a very good displaying manly traits but there is no way women see men doing this”

    .
    The Warhammer player in this video appears to agree with you; watch especially at the 0:48–1:03 mark. Behold, the new, undiscovered sexy!:

    .
    http://vimeo.com/2958560

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

      Dilithium couldn’t stay away! Welcome back, we missed you!

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Dilithium
    Heh and we don’t even have the humor section yet!
    Showing this one to the hubby…thanks :)

  • Benjamin Fox

    @Susan
    Message sent.

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

      @Benjamin
      Got it yesterday. Will respond today or tomorrow.

  • testify222

    Hope, Passer_by et al present much more accurate picture of the SMP than Hambydammit, Saywhaat and others.

    In a highly competitive, modern day, high-tech (internet – which allows people to search the globe for attractive mates) SMP women compete not only against their same age/race/region cohorts but against all other women. As do men against all other men. IOW, all women are in the same pool, and all men are in the same pool. It was only social convention which forced people to look to mates of their own age, class, religion, race, etc. Now women can look for alphas wherever, and men can look for beauties wherever.

    What all of this really demonstrates is that women and men have vastly different interpretations of what constitutes value within the SMP. Women see the world in terms of relationship/status objects, and men see the world in terms of sex/beauty objects. So a woman of average status (even if she’s ugly) feels entitled to a man of average or higher status, and a man of average youth/looks (even if he’s beta) feels entitled to a woman of average or greater youth/looks.

    This is why we get the “women don’t like betas” angst parallel to the “men don’t like accomplished women” angst.

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

      @testify222
      That’s a good insight.

      In a highly competitive, modern day, high-tech (internet – which allows people to search the globe for attractive mates) SMP women compete not only against their same age/race/region cohorts but against all other women. As do men against all other men.

      Diversity is also having a dramatic effect on our definition of what’s desirable. For example, as the US becomes more Hispanic, the Latina beauty becomes more highly represented in the cultural values. This is already happening – the US has totally embraced the booty in recent years, with JLo, Beyonce and many other women of color proudly strutting their stuff. We are currently transitioning from a standard of big boobs with tiny hips (Victoria’s Secret Model) to a more curvaceous ideal. This is a good development, IMO!

  • SayWhaat

    It was only social convention which forced people to look to mates of their own age, class, religion, race, etc. Now women can look for alphas wherever, and men can look for beauties wherever.

    .
    This is going to sound un-PC to you, but people still mate according to social convention. We still seek mates close to our own ages, class, race, etc. and these preferences are emphasized even in our globalized SMP. Even in online dating, where users of various backgrounds have direct access to one another, these preferences are still prevalent: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/what-if-there-were-not-so-many-white-people/

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    “Hebrew” evolved from ancient Egyptian word “Habiru”, and they were not slaves in Egypt. During the Babylonian Captivity (ca. 500 BC), their history was re-written to turn them against Egypt, and they were returned to Israel to serve as a buffer protecting Babylon from Egypt. Leaders of empires think geo-strategically. (on a related note, “Is Ra El” is three Egyptian words meaning “throne of the sun god”.)

    Israel is a Hebrew word meaning “he strives with God”. El comes from the Hebrew word Elohim, and does not mean god in Egyptian. Your evidence for the claim about the Hebrew origin story is non-existent, and as we push backwards via the use of archaeology we do find information that supports the traditional account as for the house of David.

    Admittedly finding much after 3500 years in a country that experiences regular rebuilding may be expecting too much.

  • Abbot

    “This is going to sound un-PC to you, but people still mate according to social convention.”
    .
    Yet, it is primarily men, especially American men, who defiantly detour around “their own kind” when considering a life mate from an extensive global female menu. This phenomenon is fueled by the Internet and and competitively eliminates modern [read: for-fun-only] women perceived to be comparatively void of centuries-established wifely qualities. American men revel in their dual status as local empowerment service providers and global hypergamy beneficiaries.

  • testify222

    For marriage and serious ltr’s (which I think is what the big dating sites are mainly about) convention still plays a big role, especially for men, who tend to view marriage as being more about social respectability and passing on one’s wealth and lineage than raw attraction.
    .
    But for short term relationships, casual sex, hookups, affairs, flings, and other pairings that are not as well defined – which comprise the bulk of the activity in our modern SMP – convention increasingly plays a much smaller role and people are simply looking to satisfy their raw desires. Men want beauty and youth in women and care much less about other factors and women want status/cool/dominance in men and care much less about other factors. And since there’s so much choice and variety out there, which technology and mobility makes accessible – it really shakes things up in a way that we are just begining to come to grips with.
    .
    If people can’t get a good enough “deal” within their own sphere they will simply look outside of it. For example, we see lots of beta white guys with asian females, white girls with alpha black and hispanic guys, younger women (of varying socioeconomic backgrounds) with older men, people of different religions and backgrounds finding each other attractive, etc. It’s enough unconventional activity to shake up society’s previous understanding of the SMP and of what people find attractive.

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

      If people can’t get a good enough “deal” within their own sphere they will simply look outside of it. For example, we see lots of beta white guys with asian females, white girls with alpha black and hispanic guys, younger women (of varying socioeconomic backgrounds) with older men, people of different religions and backgrounds finding each other attractive, etc. It’s enough unconventional activity to shake up society’s previous understanding of the SMP and of what people find attractive.

      I agree with this, but it’s not just about trading up by going to a different race. At least in the US, we are intermarrying like crazy in terms of religion. The taboos against, say, Irish marrying Italian were real 75 years ago, but are hard to fathom today. There will be a steady increase in heterogeneous mating of all kinds – it’s inevitable. Through exposure to a wider variety of people, we are learning that our attraction triggers are far more flexible than we might have thought.

  • Benjamin Fox

    “It was only social convention which forced people to look to mates of their own age, class, religion, race, etc.”

    Maybe I want a woman with similar values. Crazy, I know.

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

      Maybe I want a woman with similar values. Crazy, I know.

      Ah, this is a very different question. I agree with you – where values are vastly different, you won’t see mating occur. An extreme example might be a secular American woman marrying a religious Muslim. But there are a whole host of more subtle differences that are also important to people – I would argue that values are good criteria for selecting a mate.

  • Abbot

    “I would argue that values are good criteria for selecting a mate.”
    .
    Thus the low and declining rate of marriage in the US between white men and white women.

  • tito

    @blogster

    you said:
    “I know I might be a bit late on this one, but can someone (Susan?) articulate what is meant by the concept of social dominance and how it may differ from something such as social prestige? Still trying to get my head around it.”

    in practice it means that you’re rad bro, raaad! it means you are permanently juvenile. not in theory but in practice. you spit, say f@#%, where what mtv said to and basically be a top consumer. f@#% yeah dude, dominance. chicks dig it. that’s why they are downbreeding us and are discouraging normal folks from breeding. it’s an entertainment culture. just think, all of this was supposed to end war or something, lol.

    the ladies make the case against their ‘freedom’ once again. if you can’t handle it, it will eventually get taken away. matter of time. you go girl, lol!

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    @Anonymous 10:13am, “I broke up with a girl I was with long term after finding out she’d had hook ups at a few frat parties before we were dating.”

    That’s all you really had to say. That one statement summarizes lots of the discussions we’ve had on here.

    @Susan, “Part of it was that the two groups of friends are not easy to mix, and one is bound to feel either very old or very young when hanging out with the other’s crowd.”

    After school and still in school are indeed different. I grew a marked amount in “maturity” after college even though I was working throughout those years. Lots of people don’t think of college students as fully adult yet, but as still “kids.” When my husband was supervising some guys in the 18-23ish range, only 2-5 years younger than him, he called them “Job Corps kids.”

  • Anonymous

    This is my first time visiting, but I have to ask, is hooking up all that prevalent, really? I ask because I’m 23, and I have to say that I would never be in a relationship with a girl that has hooked up with guys she didn’t know. And I’m especially confused about the whole concept of alpha and beta males. If a girl is in a relationship with me because she thinks I’m a good beta male, and in the past she’d hooked up with guys because she thought they were good alpha males…. I’d tell her to go to hell and to find of of her alpha jerks to take care of her.

    What I don’t get is why we’re making more of these issues than they deserve. If a girl is out getting it on casually with a guy, she’s a bit easy, and that’s distasteful to some and not to others. If she’s hot for guys that are adventurous, but want’s a stable guy in a relationship, what it means is that she’s a. a boring person who can’t be her own source of fun and adventure, and a. that she’s a weak person who can’t depend on herself to create stability.

    I just don’t get what man would be comfortable thinking of himself as beta, and, more to the point, marrying a woman who thinks of him that way.

    Instead of teaching young women how to have their cake and eat it too, shouldn’t we be teaching young people on both sides of the gender divide to have self-respect?

    Don’t get me wrong… I’m not a conservative. I have nothing against sex. I think sex is amazing. Nor do I think that couples should necessarily wait to have sex until they know each other very well. I think sex is an acceptable way to get to know one another. And an enjoyable way, too. But to get busy with people you neither know nor care to know in any sort of meaningful way is shallow and pathetic.

    At least this is the way I see it. I’m trying to understand it differently, to be honest. I broke up with a girl I was with long term after finding out she’d had hook ups at a few frat parties before we were dating. People are telling me I’m naive if I let that get in the way, but I tend to think that they’ve just lowered their expectations too much. I don’t know. Insight would be welcome.

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

      @Anonymous

      Welcome, you’ve made a very insightful and self-aware comment there. I encourage you to stick around – we debate these topics at great length around here! Just so you know, I am not in the business of teaching anyone how to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to casual sex. The title of the blog refers to any kind of hookup – including making out. I don’t know what kind of hooking up your ex was doing, but there’s quite a bit of variation. The fact that she was hooking up with frat guys leads me to believe she was doing more than making out :-/ Frat guys aren’t known for their meaningful sexual experiences.

      P.S. You’ll like my next post – it’s about this very topic. Going up in an hour or two.

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    “FWIW, guys have said here and elsewhere that if they’re in their late 20s, bringing around a 21 yo girl is embarrassing, especially if she’s still in college. Obviously, there’s no bio basis in this, so there must be a social taboo of some kind around men going too young when dating. ”

    Yeah, I think it’s simply social convention, as you say. And the mixing of groups of friends would be awkward, especially if all of your friends wives or girlfriends found it distasteful (or the older guy finds it awkward to be around her friends). If more people were doing it, I think you’d see a real shift that way in terms of say 29/22 pairings. It will always be a little hard for people out of college for a few years to connect with and relate to people in college -their worlds are so different. Just after my first year of grad school, I met a girl during the summer who was between her freshman and soph year. Everything was pretty great, but then when I visited her at school in the fall, even that age difference felt really awkward. It ended soon thereafter.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Anonymous:

    I broke up with a girl I was with long term after finding out she’d had hook ups at a few frat parties before we were dating.

    .
    Hookups are very, very prevalent in college, and even after college, it seems. It depends on the context of your girl’s hookups. Were they just for fun, or did she feel like they were mistakes? I wouldn’t write her off if it was the latter. Plenty of girls think that hooking up leads to a relationship and end up getting seriously burned in the process, which today is pretty much the only way to get one in college.

  • Anonymous

    Hope… Summarizes those discussions in what way?

  • Anonymous

    SayWhaat: That’s not exactly true, since I’ve had a few relationships, yet I’ve never hooked up with someone. Sex on a first date once, but that was after meeting the girl at a party and exchanging numbers. And with a girl I knew I would be seeing again. For me, if I don’t have some sort of a connection with a girl beyond an appreciation of her bazoombas or something, then it’s just glorified masturbation.

  • Anonymous

    I do get your point, though, about a girl sleeping with a guy she likes only to get burned. I think that’s different. But that wasn’t my situation. And plus, if someone continually gets “burned” then they’re either slow or else not being honest.

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

    testing for paragraph

    breaks

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

    “This is going to sound un-PC to you, but people still mate according to social convention. We still seek mates close to our own ages, class, race, etc. and these preferences are emphasized even in our globalized SMP. Even in online dating, where users of various backgrounds have direct access to one another, these preferences are still prevalent:”

    Very, very true. PC thoughts and notions get in the way of true understanding sometimes. And it makes perfect sense because the way we’re socialized makes us who we are.

    I’m a black man, and chose to marry a black woman largely because deep down there’s a comfort level of having someone who understands the “struggle” or the issues we face just looking the way we look and our history in this country. Even the less complex things like understanding the way our hair behaves is something that brings us together.

    With that said, I’m wildly attracted to women of every race and enjoy our differences. Culture and social dynamics just happen to play a big role in choosing partners, because they really make us who we are.

  • Hope

    @Anonymous, perhaps summarize was the incorrect word to use, but the discussions here often deal with the fact that men generally do not want to be in long-term relationships with women who have had lots of casual sex. What you said about forgiving the one time mistake has also been mentioned.

  • OffTheCuff

    Yes, physical attractiveness is the number one thing guys look for, but take an average bar crowd in a college town. Look around at the women there. Are most of them reasonably fit, well groomed, and wearing nice clothes? Then THAT’s the baseline. If you’re not above that baseline, you’re not above average. If you’re below it, then you’re below average.

    This is why I am starting to think of using a 1-10 scale for both sexes is just misleading. Here’s why:
    .
    For guys, a 5 is average. There’s a perfect bell curve of how attractive a women is, which correlates directly with her incidence in the population. Put bluntly, this means typical woman == average boner. And by typical, I really mean mean — there are just as many women higher as lower.
    .
    Visual: http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/your_looks_and_inbox/Male-Attractiveness-Ratings.png
    .
    This just doesn’t happen for women, the numbers simply do not add up. Women think of men more like a school grades: A-F. There is NO bell curve here, it’s heavily weighted to the bottom. Put bluntly, this means a typical man == below-average tingle. He’s a D-minus. And by typical, I mean mean — there are just as many men higher as lower.
    .
    Visual: http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/your_looks_and_inbox/Female-Messaging-Curve.png
    .
    It’s worth reviewing the difference between “typical” vs. “average”, and how that plays out across a large population of people. I’m not a statistics expert, so someone else may be able to explain better. It’s just a lot of words to say that typical woman is attractive and the typical man isn’t, and we have to deal with it.
    .
    So, using 1-10 for both sexes implies that we both judge each other similarly, and now we have to draw comparsions how female 6′s don’t like male 6′s. It’s true, but the numbers in my mind encourage us to make false assumptions. I think it’s more help to say here that a female 6 doesn’t like a male C-minus. This separates out the “tingle/boner” grade from the idea of distribution, at least in my mind.
    .
    Maybe it’s just me, but when I see “male 5″ it makes me want to think “typical male” not “average tingle”. A typical male does NOT produce average tingle.

  • Anonymous

    Hope, I don’t mean to imply that a girl who has casual sex would be good for the short term either. I’m not a hypocrite.

  • VI

    @Anonymous
    I broke up with a girl I was with long term after finding out she’d had hook ups at a few frat parties before we were dating.

    Every man has a certain level of prior experience he’s willing to accept from a girl. Don’t compromise on that. If she lied about it, then get rid of her, whether the relationship is 6 weeks or 6 months old. But if the topic was never even brought up, don’t be a dick about dumping her when you do.

    @OffTheCuff
    That’s another manifestion of female hypergamy and male polyamory.

  • ExNewYorker

    @OffTheCuff

    Statistically, what seems to be the case is that the attraction curves might have the same average (mean), but they have a different variance.

    So, 5 women getting rated by a bunch of guys might have these ratings:
    2, 3, 5, 7, 8 -> average of 5
    .
    For 5 guys getting rated by a bunch of women, you might get these ratings:
    3, 4, 4, 4, 10 -> average of 5
    .
    Note that in the first case, more than half the women were average or better while the second case, most of the guys are “below average”. The okcupid results seems to suggest this type of thing is the case.
    .
    Unfortunately, it does mean that simple one-to-one connection (a male 6 vs. female 6) doesn’t really work. More men will be “below average” in the female mind than the other way around. Female hypergamy in action…

  • Anonymous

    No, I was honest, but I wasn’t rude about it. I just said I’m not comfortable with that. It wasn’t easy, and she was insulted, I’m sure. But I was as gentle as I could be about it.

  • OffTheCuff

    VI: Indeed. My point is not to show hypergamy/polyamory exists, I think we all know that here. Rather that using the same 1-10 scale causes us (myself included!) repeatedly confuse attraction level, with the scale of how often it shows up in the population.
    .
    It seems we use vague terms like “average guy” to mean very different things. I most often mean it as “typical guy” meaning there’s lots of us in the middle of the pack — most guys are like him. To women, it seems to be “average tingle-level”, but that means there are very few men who make the cut.
    .
    BTW, the comment quality has gone up quite significantly lately, and I’m once again learning new things rather than just becoming pissed off. It seems our favorite troll is on vacation.

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

      @OffTheCuff

      First things first.

      BTW, the comment quality has gone up quite significantly lately, and I’m once again learning new things rather than just becoming pissed off. It seems our favorite troll is on vacation.

      Hmm, if you mean Plain Jane, she’s gone for good. She did try to sneak in recently as “Hypergamouse” but I know the IP address by heart. (I have to admit she can be clever.) I haven’t banned anyone else, though – so your nemesis may be back.

      To women, it seems to be “average tingle-level”, but that means there are very few men who make the cut.

      Well, that makes sense from an evo POV. We all know that guys want to get it in, and they can turn out the light if necessary. We also know that women aren’t built that way – the tingle either goes or it doesn’t. It’s totally a binary operation.

      I do think that women’s attraction triggers have been warped by the culture – specifically they’ve got unrealistic expectations, which amounts to a sense of entitlement.

  • OffTheCuff

    XNY: Heck, I goofed that long comment. I typed “mean” but had “median” firmly in my mind.

  • Hope

    @OffTheCuff, I’d like that analogy more if it wasn’t for grade inflation. Most kids are getting A’s and B’s no matter what these days. Also it’s worth noting that while the rating curve is more to the left for female opinion of male attractiveness, women are messaging men at a higher rate than the attraction level would suggest. In fact at the very top levels, women don’t bother responding to the most attractive men. The trend is opposite for men (I saw the stats from that same article), with most of the messages going to the top most attractive women. That would suggest men are hypergamous on the physical attraction dimension and compete fiercely for the super hot women, while most women know they can’t get the super hunky men and don’t even bother messaging them.

  • Hope

    For reference, here’s the article:

    http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/

    Men might rate women on a normal distribution curve, but wow do they flock to the top women when it comes to taking action! Those hottest women receive 5 times as many messages as the average woman, and 28 times more as the least attractive woman. Meanwhile, women message the least attractive man at a rather decent rate. Hmmm…

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @ExNewYorker
    Had you checked out Roissy’s scale for both men and women? What do you (generally you) think of it? Its accurate or there are things that you find…odd. Just curious

  • OffTheCuff

    Ah, I knew someone would try to change the subject based on messaging rates and spin it differently. I’m talking solely about how women see men.
    .
    However, the asymmetric messaging rates are a clear manifestation of risk. Men have to go out and ask someone. If we don’t ask, we’re finished. Also, note the graphs are in percentages, not actual numbers. You can be sure that a female 5 gets tons more messages than a male C in absolute terms. The face that the 10 gets 19x the amount of messages means the 10 is living in unfathomable abundance, not that the 5 is in poverty.
    .
    Finally, note this is email. You can spam a hundred people with little effort. There’s no opportunity cost here, if you send a message to the 10, it’s not a lost approach to the 5. So, that high rate you see is simply the net result of (smart) guys sending messages to EVERYONE above his attraction baseline. It makes perfect economic sense. In real life, approaching a 10 with low a chance success, mean you can’t approach a 5 with a higher chance: you can’t do both at once. The costs in real life are very different.

  • paige

    A woman leaving her husband for a “bad boy” is very similar to the man in a mid-life crisis who leaves his devoted wife for a 20 year old. It is perfectly natural and perfectly stupid.

    I am trying to formulate a better understanding of how men manage to fight the instincts to mate with 20 year olds when their wife is aging because I think the same tactics can be used for women who start to lose the tingles for their husbands. I imagine that the key is in projecting the qualities you want to see so that your perception better reflects what you actually desire.

    Athol Kay has been very helpful in this pursuit.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Stephanie
    I’ve seen the “Dating Market Value” posts, but I don’t recall seeing the scales themselves, at least for men. I do recall seeing some posts where he had his readers rate the women, but that’s all I recall. Do you have a specific link in mind?

  • Stephenie Rowling
  • Hope

    @OffTheCuff, what do you mean approaching a 10 means you can’t approach a 5 in real life? In most situations like at a coffee shop or library, people aren’t keeping track of who you’re talking to, and even in bars I don’t think it matters that much (though I’ve never been in the bar/club scene so I could be wrong on this one). The only cost is the guy’s own “nerves” causing him not to go for the super hot girl.

    Also, emails are a reflection of what the guys actually want to pursue in earnest, and we see this in the fact that the hottest girls have guys willing to do all kinds of stuff for them. If it really was a minimum attractive threshold thing and messaging takes 0 effort, then the average girl (whom lots of guys say is good enough) should be getting just as many emails, which is not the case. Men will put in effort in proportion to the girl’s attractive rating. That’s fairly obvious and self-evident, I would think.

  • OffTheCuff

    OffTheCuff, what do you mean approaching a 10 means you can’t approach a 5 in real life?

    .
    Spoken like someone who’s never had to make an approach in her life.
    .
    Do I have to explain this, really? It’s basic physics. Every person you approach, means you didn’t approach everyone else. Unless you’re Charlie Sheen asking for a threesome, you can’t approach two people at once. You have finite time in which to approach people, so you have to choose.
    .
    In email, you can simply approach them all at the same time, since they can’t see you approaching other people.
    .
    There’s a big downside to approaching a 10 in real life, and nearly zero on a dating site. Worst case IRL is she pyro-rejects you, her boyfriend beats you up, you go home alone, and you never go that venue again.
    .
    Online? You simply don’t hear back.

  • OffTheCuff

    I’ve totally veered off point here… all this was in response to Hamby’s set of posts of comparing a male 6 to a female 6, and how the attraction differs. The matching “6″ implies they are equal in some way, and all I’m trying to say is we (well, me) often mix attraction-level vs. distribution.
    .
    Hope, you can try continue to project hypergamy onto men, but we don’t operate that way. Men may want to, but reality constrains them.

  • Hope

    @OffTheCuff, have you ever emailed on a dating site? Unless you’re gathering someone’s personal email address off Facebook or something and spamming them all at once, you can’t email multiple people at the same time. The messaging system doesn’t let you. You also should write a customized message for each person you message, otherwise you’re just copy-n-pasting which sounds super generic.

    Approaching a girl in person usually doesn’t lead to being beat up by a boyfriend unless he’s right there. Even if he’s nearby, how often does that really happen? Anyway, you can approach the 10, get shot down in 2 seconds and still have time to approach the 5. I imagine if the 10 is talking to the guy for half an hour and “wasting” his time, the guy would still prefer that to talking to the 5 for an hour.

    And if there’s zero downside and nearly zero effort to messaging someone online, then there would be zero downside to messaging the less attractive woman. Men are polygamous right? So why don’t they cast an ever wider net and go for the not-so-super-hot girls in addition to the hot girls? Zero downside, remember? Yet the hottest girl receives 5 times as many messages. It makes no sense given what you have just said about the zero risk and what others said about men liking average women.

  • Hope

    By definition, men are not technically hypergamous because hypergamy is marrying “up” in socioeconomic status, which does not take into account physical appearance. Maybe it can be called hyperlooky?

    Besides, reality constrains everybody. Above we’ve already mentioned that the female 6 can’t get the male 10 in a relationship. But it doesn’t mean she doesn’t want to try for it. Likewise the male 6, given less downsides, prefers to try for the female 10 over the 6.

  • OffTheCuff

    Hope, regular guys don’t approach a woman every five minutes. There’s just no way to keep that rate up, until the room figures out you’re the creep who’s hitting on everything that moves. Saying you can “move on” in two seconds is not possible as a strategy.
    .
    Perhaps guys with excellent Game can both operate at that speed and tolerate that level of rejection. But most guys don’t. In my younger days, it was probably more like one person every few months… Sad, but true.
    .
    You’re veering off into totally uncharted waters here about what it’s like to make approaches, the risk/reward calculation men make, likelihood of rejection and recovery time, and how that greatly differs online vs. IRL.

  • Hope

    @OffTheCuff, I’m not saying men are approaching a lot at all. In real real life, not bar/club life which I never participated, I got approached maybe once a year. More like once every few years. It’s just not done very often, so all this theorizing about whether most guy would approach the 5 or 10 is basically moot. However, you brought it up in order to try to refute my original point, that men would rather go for the 10 than the 5.

    You said that the different message rates are a manifestation of “risk,” and that people avoid doing “risky” things hence they don’t approach the 10 in real life (to avoid a beat down by the boyfriend), but how is messaging a 5 any riskier than messaging a 10? You and I both know it’s not, yet 10s are being messaged more than 5s. If it’s a time cost, then men have collectively decided that they’d rather spend their time messaging 10s than 5s.

    I don’t have much experience in real life approaches or being approached, so yeah you can bash me there. Still, you haven’t provided compelling evidence contradicting my “hyperlooking” theory. :P

  • OffTheCuff

    OK, Hope, you got me thinking on the drive home. It’s a good conversation when I can’t put it down!

    For refernce, you’re asking about this graph: http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/your_looks_and_inbox/Message-Multiple.png

    So, hot women receive a lot more messages than average women, right? And you think that, the explanation is because men are sending messages to the 10, but not the 5. I think that’s not the case, based on my experience as a regular guy, and regular guys I know.

    First, let’s get something straight. This is aggregate number of messages, not unique pairings. If each guy sends 22 messages to the hottest girl, and sends 1 message to the average girl, then he is not ignoring the average girl. Maybe he’s obssessed. Maybe she’s leading him on, just chatty, who knows. We don’t have is unique pairings in this data, which would be very interesting indeed. Or, rather, who gets ZERO messages?

    So what’s the explanation? A few things come to mind.

    I think what you see is top guys harem-building, or attempted harem-building. They are sending lots of messages to lots of women, and it’s working. The message rate is not correlated against the men’s rating.
    .
    Or, what you might see is attention-whoring. Or they just like to talk more.
    .
    I think without pairing information — how many pairs of people actually have a two-sided conversation, regardless of message count — we can’t reasonably conclude that men are spurning women their own level.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I’m with @Hope of the fact that Men will feel more atraction to a 10 than to a 5. Even Roissy had a coment that practically says that the hotter the woman the easy for the guy to get it up regarding the age (meaning Viagra was invented for guys that married average women and can’t get it up after they lost the few extra points youth and weight gave her) and I must say that I knew a man on his 70′s and in his 8th marriage that said that the best Viagra is a young girl so who knows, maybe there is some truth to it.
    In any case I think the difference is that many women will be satisfied with a high enough status Alpha and be focused on it, without desiring other man (at least till he keeps the status and/or no other higher status man makes a clear better offer), while the man will have the hottest woman without losing the desire to bang any other woman around even if she is less hot.

  • SayWhaat

    I think the difference is that many women will be satisfied with a high enough status Alpha and be focused on it, without desiring other man (at least till he keeps the status and/or no other higher status man makes a clear better offer), while the man will have the hottest woman without losing the desire to bang any other woman around even if she is less hot.

    .
    I think this is wrong, at least from what we’ve heard from some of the male commenters here. The woman will be satisfied with the high-status Alpha, but the guy with the bangin’ 9 girlfriend will get bored after some time and have the desire to bang other (less hot) women around.

  • Hope

    @OffTheCuff, I have actually been on okcupid for a small time. You raise a good point about not knowing the content of the messages, but from experience I know there is a large number guys messaging girls that they like the looks of and would like to get with, not harem building. Okcupid has a lot of “nerdy” and “alternative” types, and the kind of guys like top athletes and alphas would be out in bars and clubs not on dating sites. Likewise, the model-esque girls wouldn’t usually be posting their profiles on a dating site. They can land men left and right with ease.

    Believe it or not dating sites take some effort. It takes a lot of time to go through other people’s profiles, to read and write messages, and to do the back-and-forth to get to know someone. All the while there is this feeling like “I’m a loser for doing this.” I got tired of it after a short while and went back to spending my time playing World of Warcraft, which ironically is where I met my husband.

    The photograph is really key. I have put up profiles with well-written messages without photos and received literally zero messages. Most guys really don’t care much about a girl’s brains, and I couldn’t really use the dating sites to find such guys either, because even if they do care, looks come first and they message girls with photos first. Sadly after I put up some photos, I received messages that were rather poor in quality, like “hi how r u pritty grrl.” Yet more reason I stopped checking the messages and closed down my okcupid account after a little over a month.

  • Extinguish

    I should think it obvious that an alpha exists *in relation* to the other men of society. In general, the ratio of alpha to beta should be more dependent upon the organization of society (how many leaders per X population to manage things, how many sports team per capita, etc.) rather than the innate qualities of the males themselves.

    I imagine the average Spartan ‘beta’ if dropped into modern society would be quite successful at pillaging the ladies’ squishy bits.

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

      @Extinguish

      I imagine the average Spartan ‘beta’ if dropped into modern society would be quite successful at pillaging the ladies’ squishy bits.

      No doubt! I agree with you that these definitions are relative. Squishy bits – love that. Can we assume that you’re a Brit?

  • The Deuce

    @Susan

    I understand where this comes from – how can one write for two opposing mating strategies? And yet it seems to me that both sexes benefit if both sexes get better at mating. That means knowing one’s own sexuality, and also knowing something about the sexuality of the opposite sex. Increasingly, I’m straddling that fence, but so far have had no crises of conscience on this score.

    I don’t believe there’s any contradiction there. Just because a guy isn’t an Avramian puss doesn’t mean he’s got to be a bad person. I wouldn’t advise a girl to go after a creep, but I wouldn’t advise her to go after a wimp who doesn’t turn her on either. I don’t think either are good LTR material, personally, for a woman who wants to have a happy and fulfilled life.

  • Extinguish

    No, sorry to dissapoint! It is simply that I was raised on BBC programming (by way of PBS) and british novels (such as Arthur Conan Doyle & HG Wells), so sometimes it unconciously creeps out.

  • Höllenhund

    Brendan/Novaseeker explains the probable origins of enforced lifelong monogamy:

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/03/16/tidbits/we-could-be-friends/#comment-34534

  • testify222

    -Hope is right about the SMP, and that men are hypergamous when it comes to looks, just as women are hypergamous when it comes to status.

    -Women are more sexually attractive to men than men are sexually attractive to women. This is a fact of evo-bio due to the relative scarcity of eggs to sperm. Therefore the average man is not equal in attractiveness to the average woman, but is well below it.

    -Both genders tend to have a blindspot when it concerns the unattractive members of the opposite gender. Women do this with betas, and when they say “average male” or “beta” they really mean “man of average attractiveness” – which is not the same thing as “average or beta male” Men also do this wrt to female beauty. A female “5″ is NOT in the middle of the pool of all women, but only of attractive women (a significantly smaller group, since only women of reproductive age are attractive, and then only those who are pretty).

    -I never implied that the SMP was politically correct nor should be, just that there are enough unconventional pairings out there to shake up the mainstream understanding of the SMP and of human attraction, and that this phenomena is consistent with evo-bio and game theories. Society tends to believe that there’s one male for each female, and that similar attracts similar, etc. This leads feminists and conservatives to always thinking its the guy (whether he’s a different age, race, class, etc) who has harassed or manipulated some poor young woman into sleeping with him. It also causes society to think that women who step out of the typical choices are whores. IOW, a false narrative harms us all.

    -As a PUA/Game adherent I disagree with Anonymous breaking up with his girlfriend just because he found out she hooked up with some guys in the past. What matters is her personality and character aside from this. ALL women (including our mothers, sisters and daughters) want to bang alphas – even if they don’t actually do it. And all women can (if they wanted to) have higher notch counts than all men (including alphas). IOW, there really is not much difference between the so-called good girls and bad girls. So what? And guys want hot girls, right? You like porn-stars and strippers, right? How do you think women get to be so hot – because they compete against other women to attract the attention of the alpha males. Would you rather the girl be plain and boring? I wouldn’t – I like sociable, sexy women who are exciting in bed and otherwise. I guess it all depends upon if she was a cheater or not, or if she’s just a status junkie, materialistic, sexually compulsive, etc. But to me, punishing a woman for being a “bad girl” (when men tend to beg women to be slutty) is just as bad as women punishing the good guys for being good (when women tend to beg men to be good guys). It creates a vicious cycle where each gender punishes the other and actually works against getting what each actually wants. The solution for you is to learn Game, so you don’t have to feel insecure about female sluttiness or hypergamy – which as I stated – is innate to all females.

  • tito

    all that comes from this thomas woman’s behavior in real life is forced societal inferiority.

  • Abbot
  • Chico

    I have to say, Chico, I’ve never seen more amazing quads than on speed skaters, though I’ve only ever seen them in the Olympics. They are incredibly strong and fit athletes.

    Ha, you should see my quads! They’re just crazy and a little out of proportion with the rest of my body. They’re not as defined with the post-grad weight gain (15-20 pounds in 6 months, ick), but I’m back in the game now and working out hard. 10% body fat target and Boston Marathon next year!!

    I think another issue with individual sports like speed skating is that you’re not physically attacking anyone like you are in football or UFC. An offensive lineman can be obese and have little finesse, but get by in their sport through sheer mass. Women will still adore them too, for their status and dominance. Top notch speed skaters/figure skaters/swimmers will have less status, even though they often fit the “underwear model” profile a lot better.

  • Chico

    If it really was a minimum attractive threshold thing and messaging takes 0 effort, then the average girl (whom lots of guys say is good enough) should be getting just as many emails, which is not the case. Men will put in effort in proportion to the girl’s attractive rating. That’s fairly obvious and self-evident, I would think.

    Not if they know game on the theoretical level (which most men don’t). Originally, I used to read girls’ profiles and start up a genuine conversation with them based on what their profile said. No more.

    I used to be opposed to the idea of mass messaging girls with a pre-packaged neg. I A friend who was into game recommended me to do it, so I decided to do it as an experiment. Boy, how illuminating that was!! Half the girls responded to me, up from 0%. Even pulled off a few dates using it. So in short, game works…”being yourself” doesn’t. Logic be damned.

    The hottest girls are the ones who need to be negged the hardest, since they’re so used to swimming in a sea of generic compliments.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    speed skaters/figure skaters/swimmers

    I will add dancers, Male dancers usually have a killer very toned body IMO. But I think only a few had managed to become ladie’s man. Joaquin Cortes and Baryshnikov are the most famous exceptions I think.

  • Abbot

    At least we can salvage some humor from the present situation that seems to be consistent as this clip is about twenty years old. Where did women begin to go wrong?
    .

  • Stephenie Rowling

    At least we can salvage some humor from the present situation that seems to be consistent as this clip is about twenty years old. Where did women begin to go wrong?

    The Epic poem of Gilgamesh. In it Enkidu is a savage man surrounded by animals. How did he became civilized, rejected his wild ways and made friends with Gil? When he is bedded by Shamhat. Even though this was a more honest about men needing sex than love it was the first time I had seen the meme of the “savage men changed by a woman’s “love” and is over 4000 years old. But then essentially women had usually played important change for our species on legends and myths, from Eve eating the fruit, to Isis making the journey to save her brother/husband that created Egyptian civilization.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    @Chico

    Half the girls responded to me, up from 0%. Even pulled off a few dates using it. So in short, game works…”being yourself” doesn’t. Logic be damned.

    Yep game “works” just like a girl being hot “works.” I never said game didn’t work. But guys only really bother using game on the attractive girls, which is an “effort” in and of itself, because you did have to go out and learn game, then implement it. That in itself confirms that “Men will put in effort in proportion to the girl’s attractive rating.” I didn’t say that men should compliment a girl in proportion to her attractive rating.

    Negging takes effort. ;)

  • OffTheCuff

    Men will put in effort in proportion to the girl’s attractive rating. That’s fairly obvious and self-evident, I would think.

    .
    Eh. Maybe from her perspective she’ll get more attention from men in general, sure, but not from A man. If she’s too hot, it doesn’t follow I’m going to expend an infinite amount of effort on pursuing her… there’s a cutoff limit where you know that no amount of extra effort won’t help:
    .
    Say I’m a 5. I’m not going even approach an 8, 9, 10. Why bother?
    I might take a pot-shot with a 7, and walk away quickly if it doesn’t work. That’s the shit-ton of email you see — pot-shots.
    I’ll put in the good college try with a 4-6 in my range, all the same effort, really. Why try to fail?
    I’ll probably ignore anyone below a 4.
    .
    This is how average guys think. Men with good game won’t set such a low ceiling but then again, they’re not typical guys, right?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Say I’m a 5. I’m not going even approach an 8, 9, 10. Why bother?

    Then Susan is right about the really pretty girls having it harder isn’t she? If most men are averages they won’t try and get the real hotties thus means that only Alphas will be confident enough to try and then if the girl also have one or two brain cells she will probably realize soon that they are not relationship material and Alphas nowadays don’t need to get into a relationship no matter how hot the girl is. So they will also have to wait till they meet an Alpha that is done and that could take enough time to lower their own market value (late 20′s) so is a bad situation for then as well.

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

      If most men are averages they won’t try and get the real hotties thus means that only Alphas will be confident enough to try and then if the girl also have one or two brain cells she will probably realize soon that they are not relationship material and Alphas nowadays don’t need to get into a relationship no matter how hot the girl is. So they will also have to wait till they meet an Alpha that is done and that could take enough time to lower their own market value (late 20′s) so is a bad situation for then as well.

      Precisely. Ironically, I find that the women I think are the most beautiful have low sexual experience relative to their female peers. Granted, I’m not a guy, but it’s not hard to see who’s gorgeous.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    This is how average guys think.

    Nowadays, it is not how the average guys think anymore. Lots of young men are growing up on a steady diet of photoshopped girls, media-prepped celebrities and porn actresses. They may be average but they would not settle for a mere “4.” They’d rather play their video games and watch their porn.

    Then Susan is right about the really pretty girls having it harder isn’t she?

    Not really. The really pretty girls have a lot of things just handed to them. Jobs, grades, little favors, etc. People treat them well due to their appearance. They often get noticed by agencies or get promoted quickly. The super beautiful live a different life than the rest of us mere mortals. So even if there are fewer “alphas” that commit to them, they don’t have it “hard” at all. They also still have a gazillion average to above average guys who compete fiercely for them.

  • OffTheCuff

    Nowadays, it is not how the average guys think anymore. Lots of young men are growing up on a steady diet of photoshopped girls, media-prepped celebrities and porn actresses. They may be average but they would not settle for a mere “4.” They’d rather play their video games and watch their porn.

    .
    This has to be one of the most entirely wrong comments I’ve ever read here. First, you’re not average, and you’re not a guy. Second, you must be smoking some really good stuff if you don’t think celebrities were picked and “prepped” 30 years ago as today — the only difference is that we can do it a whole lot faster now.
    .
    And finally, for the real meat of the argument:
    .
    Guys don’t grow up awash in hot images, look around at the normal women, and then decide that they “won’t settle for a mere 4″. A guy who is a 4 would most certainly rather been paired off with a live, female 4 than being alone in the basement with 10.
    .
    Guys who get to this omega-ish stage of “dropping out” get to it because they didn’t have SUCCESS with the 4′s. Maybe the 4′s had big heads and thought they were all 8s, but it’s just as likely the men just grew up with weak-male role models, no Game, and feminist lies about how to approach them, and thus no clue how to successfully approach those 4′s. But come on, he does not prefer the porn to the 4′s at his level.
    .
    It might be better to say, he accepts the porn over because the EFFORT required to attract real women at his level seems too high — and to a 15-year old, that can seem like climbing Mt. Everest. He would certainly prefer a real-live women if only he knew how.
    .
    And now the 180:
    .

    Not really. The really pretty girls have a lot of things just handed to them. Jobs, grades, little favors, etc. People treat them well due to their appearance. They often get noticed by agencies or get promoted quickly. The super beautiful live a different life than the rest of us mere mortals. So even if there are fewer “alphas” that commit to them, they don’t have it “hard” at all. They also still have a gazillion average to above average guys who compete fiercely for them.

    Exactly. I had a housemate was slightly above-average looking, but very charming. It just boggled my mind how much easier her life was, and how much leeway she got because she had a little bit of looks and charm. I mean, she would write bad checks all over town… she could talk law enforcement out of arresting her, get local merchants to “forgive” her, talk higher grades out of her professors. It stunned me at the time she wasn’t expelled or arrested. Now I know better.

    Then Susan is right about the really pretty girls having it harder isn’t she?

    Hardly. In my example, the 5 knows his place, but for sure, the 8-10 men are going try like gangbusters to hit on this 10. Those guys, by virtue of being in the top range, aren’t going to ask one girl out every few months when the stars align and it seems right, like your typical AFC. They’re going to approach all day, every day, and make their destiny happen.

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

      Hardly. In my example, the 5 knows his place, but for sure, the 8-10 men are going try like gangbusters to hit on this 10. Those guys, by virtue of being in the top range, aren’t going to ask one girl out every few months when the stars align and it seems right, like your typical AFC. They’re going to approach all day, every day, and make their destiny happen.

      Yes, but those 8-10 men refuse to commit, even to a 10. They get more mileage and social proof out of banging different 7s every weekend, than having the same 10 on their arm at all times, and diverting resources, including time away from the guys, to a relationship. As you and Hope say, beautiful women know the value of their looks, and benefit from them every day. This leads them to be unwilling to settle for no-strings – they know their worth, but can’t find a buyer in this market. There are very few beautiful sluts in college. In essence, the hottest girls price themselves out of the market.

  • Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: The Last Edition?

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Guys who get to this omega-ish stage of “dropping out” get to it because they didn’t have SUCCESS with the 4′s. Maybe the 4′s had big heads and thought they were all 8s, but it’s just as likely the men just grew up with weak-male role models, no Game, and feminist lies about how to approach them, and thus no clue how to successfully approach those 4′s. But come on, he does not prefer the porn to the 4′s at his level.

    I may not have been a “4″ myself, but I grew up being close friends with a physical “4.” She’s been overweight all her life and has been considered a nerdy freak for all that time as well. She is sandy-haired and blue-eyed, but below average in looks and above average in height for a female. I was an outcast along with her in high school, and we hung out together a lot. She would literally PURSUE guys at her own level, to get rejected.

    That’s how I know about the plight of below average girls, despite being “above average.” When she was younger she even went all the way to Canada to get with this nerdy looking black guy several inches shorter than her. Let me tell ya, she wasn’t the one who dumped him. She is incredibly bright and has a great personality, and she was even nerdy (we were both on the Internet in the late 1990s before the “cool” kids discovered the Internet). And even back then all the guys online preferred the pretty girls.

    I knew other overweight girls who struggle to get any kind of relationship out of guys. I had a coworker who remained perpetually single. And even my husband, who hadn’t had a relationship in years, turned down a real woman who was too overweight. This girl literally threw herself at him and got nothing but a hook up (he had to get drunk to do it). No relationship came out of it. She even played the same video game as him, something that nerdy guys say they adore. But he would rather remain celibate than be with a girl he wasn’t in love with, and didn’t feel much attraction for.

    If guys really go for the girl they can get over the hotter girls and girls in porn, the these girls I just mentioned would have no problems whatsoever. And when I say girls in porn, I don’t just mean the typical made-up porn actresses. I also mean gorgeous looking girls who are just posing for a still picture in the nude. I can’t even compete with that, because I’m not photoshopped and never wear makeup. A lot of younger guys basically trained themselves to respond to porn by masturbation and no longer really respond to real women. Here are some articles:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/married-and-still-doing-it/201006/porn-not-warm

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201001/was-the-cowardly-lion-just-masturbating-too-much

    http://nymag.com/news/features/70976/

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: hot women have orbiters they aren’t aware of.

    Hope: there’s so much wrong there, I don’t know where to start. First, I don’t buy the sob story, sorry, an ugly girl has the problems as a typical man (OMG! she had to actually ASK and BE REJECTED! The horror!)… cry me a river. Second, if your husband didn’t pursue that girl, it’s because he was 6 and she was a 3 and below his attraction threshold. Classic beer goggle syndrome, not because they were both 4′s and he had unrealistic expectations due to porn.
    .
    Let me say it more clearly… guys *do* have an attraction threshold. It’s way lower than yours, but we do have it. It can be lowered temporarily with booze. This whole thread started when we were talking about SayWhaat’s hookups turning her down for relationships. The only reason a guy does this, is if he has other options. Now, the other reason would be that she’s just below his attraction threshold, but this is unlikely, since they got together in the first place. In your husband’s case, it certainly was this.
    .
    Lastly, I don’t doubt people can get addicted to porn, but that’s the symptom, not the disease. Like I said, maybe they think the risk/reward for porn is better than real women. It doesn’t mean that if a real woman dropped in his lap, he would reject her and “prefer” the porn. Finally, I’m talking about when people initially meet — the use of porn in an LTR is a totally different issue I think.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    First, I don’t buy the sob story, sorry, an ugly girl has the problems as a typical man (OMG! she had to actually ASK and BE REJECTED! The horror!)… cry me a river.

    Well, seeing as how men are collectively whining over the fact that they have problems, it seems rather interesting you find my friends’ problems to be somehow less. For what it’s worth, I don’t deliberately belittle men’s issues.

    This whole thread started when we were talking about SayWhaat’s hookups turning her down for relationships. The only reason a guy does this, is if he has other options.

    It’s not the only reason. There are some guys simply don’t want to be in relationships without love. If my husband had been a different guy who valued sex more, he wouldn’t have been single for many years and would have just gone into a steady relationship with a girl he found acceptable. But he was waiting for love, which sounds cheesy, but many men are quite romantic creatures.

    It doesn’t mean that if a real woman dropped in his lap, he would reject her and “prefer” the porn. Finally, I’m talking about when people initially meet — the use of porn in an LTR is a totally different issue I think.

    Be careful when speaking for all men. I don’t know if you remember, but David Alexander, who used to post a lot around the manosphere, was infamous for being the guy who “prefers” porn.

  • OffTheCuff

    Well, seeing as how men are collectively whining over the fact that they have problems, it seems rather interesting you find my friends’ problems to be somehow less. For what it’s worth, I don’t deliberately belittle men’s issues.
    .
    It was just a weird tangent. I was saying you weren’t an “average guy” and can’t speak for us… and you respond with an irrelevant story about a below-average girl. Actually, I *can* relate to the her, because I’m an average guy. I do have a soft spot for below-average women and try to always be nice since I can relate. The sarcasm was reserved for *you* who seemed to imply that it’s horrible and awful that she had to actually experience rejection. Maybe I got that wrong, apologies.
    .

    It’s not the only reason. There are some guys simply don’t want to be in relationships without love. If my husband had been a different guy who valued sex more, he wouldn’t have been single for many years and would have just gone into a steady relationship with a girl he found acceptable. But he was waiting for love, which sounds cheesy, but many men are quite romantic creatures.

    .
    Violently agreeing here, as I was the same way. But by options, I don’t mean “a black book of FWBs”… options also includes the ability or confidence of getting a girlfriend soon.

    Be careful when speaking for all men. I don’t know if you remember, but David Alexander, who used to post a lot around the manosphere, was infamous for being the guy who “prefers” porn.

    Oh, that dude? All I saw was an omega who’s rationalizing like crazy. If you took 100 single guys who were a 5, put a hot-enough 6 right next to him willing to get physical, and a Playboy magazine… almost nobody going to “choose” the magazine. It’s just too ridiculous to think.

  • Aldonza

    @OffTheCuff

    The sarcasm was reserved for *you* who seemed to imply that it’s horrible and awful that she had to actually experience rejection.

    .
    Guess what, rejection isn’t any easier for women, especially when they see their hotter friends doing nothing and turning away men they’d kill to have. When a women steps out and pursues, she’s fighting nature, culture, and herself to do it. (Speaking as a woman who was that nerdy, overweight, below average girl.)
    .
    I have a great deal of empathy for men who have to do it all the time. But I also know that when they don’t have to do it, they don’t seem to appreciate it as much.

  • Hope

    David Alexander was not a bad looking guy, and not really an omega. I think people throw around the word omega way too much. He was probably a 5, but he rejected other female 5′s. My thought is that he fell in love once with a 7 and never found it again, so he uses porn as a substitute for relationships.

    I have a lot of sympathy for both men and women who have trouble. I had been an outcast ever since I moved to the US and would have loved for the nerdy girls and nerdy guys to get together. They were my friends and people I could relate to. But instead they don’t connect. I even tried playing matchmaker a few times to no avail.

    Below the “top” of the sexual market there are lots of lonely girls and boys who, instead of turning toward each other, remain alone.

    OffTheCuff, your playboy vs. live woman example is not one that happens in reality over a long period. The 5 girl is asking the 5 guy for a committed relationship. If she gives up the sex, he’ll take it over the porn momentarily, but he’s going to go right back to being single and looking at 7+ girls. That’s not going to lead to happy, unlonely people who start families. It’s just more of the same.

  • SayWhaat

    This whole thread started when we were talking about SayWhaat’s hookups turning her down for relationships. The only reason a guy does this, is if he has other options.

    Out of all the guys I’ve hooked up with, I can say with certainty that only 3 of them had other “options”, one of whom was an ex-girlfriend. The rest didn’t develop into relationships simply due to poor timing.

  • SayWhaat

    Also, this thread did not start wrt my failed hookups. Did I just become the HUS postergirl or something? Fuck.

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

      Also, this thread did not start wrt my failed hookups. Did I just become the HUS postergirl or something? Fuck.

      Seriously, guys, let’s cut SayWhaat some slack! I would not describe her as a “survivor of failed hookups.” Sheesh, she’s one of the sensible ones! She’s good enough to come on here and share real life details from a real college experience. We should hang onto every college student we can get – they’re the ones who really know what’s going on in the trenches. Let’s not toss their names (and reputations) around while they’re not even actively engaged in the discussion!

      Those of us who have been out of school several years, or in my case, ahem, many, don’t really have a grasp on it. Not really. My own sense is that lots of guys who are not natural alphas do get some hookups, and some are scooped up as boyfriends as well, following the logic of supply and demand. There are also many women on college campuses who are not promiscuous. Is everyone getting what they want? No, not by a long shot. But I truly don’t believe that college is feast or famine. There’s a spectrum.

      Hookup culture is a huge factor for young people today, and pretty much all are affected, even if they don’t participate. The stories that hit the media tend to be rather sensational, and they’re fun to discuss and debate. But we shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that rooftop sex is happening regularly on college campuses, or that 75% of the new female freshman are racing over to frat row to look for alphas to bang.

  • OffTheCuff

    The 5 girl is asking the 5 guy for a committed relationship. If she gives up the sex, he’ll take it over the porn momentarily, but he’s going to go right back to being single and looking at 7+ girls.

    .
    This sounds pretty pessimistic. I really would like to hear this from a man’s mouth, or more precisely, more than one. The “I-heard-a-guy-say-it-on-the-internet” doesn’t make a trend in my book. Even “this-is-what-he-said-when-he-broke-up” can be wrong since, well, people lie. I can buy that it sometimes happens, but I don’t think it happens enough to have any real effect.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Precisely. Ironically, I find that the women I think are the most beautiful have low sexual experience relative to their female peers. Granted, I’m not a guy, but it’s not hard to see who’s gorgeous.

    I agree, what people don’t get is that really gorgeous women might have a lot of attention and social perks but that doesn’t mean all men pursuing will want a relationship and their own attraction threshold is pretty high just out of being very hot. So even they are not necessarily more successful they need to find a way to attract a guy that will commit and that is not only pursuing her just to have a hottie as part of their notch bell and that is not as easy. When you are really hot the players use the best weapons and many times are willing to lie about their intentions. I never was a hottie but I made friends with many and even though they got all the help and could sweet talk their way out of many hairy situations, they didn’t had any easier time finding a guy to commit than I did. In my country we had a very old saying: La suerte de la fea la bonita la desea (The girl with the good looks wants the ugly girls good luck).

    I even tried playing matchmaker a few times to no avail.
    Me too. I do wonder where is the disconnect. One will think that people with few options and something in common like nerd hobbies would be easier to pair up. But it doesn’t happen that way…weird little phenomena.

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

    The problem is not hypergamy. The problem is contemporary culture.

    Complaining about hypergamy is like complaining about gravity; it’s a natural fact of life. The fact that women are attracted to alpha males seems to be something that’s wired into their genetic material. The “tingles” are not a character trait but a physical response, in the same way that pain is in response to harming stimuli. How a woman (or man) responds to the “tingles” is a function of character and intelligence.

    Lot’s of Asian girls choose beta husbands because they evaluate their prospective partner as a whole person rather than by their superficial qualities only. In most traditional cultures (including traditional western ones) marital partners were evaluate on more than just superficial features. People were expected to be a bit “hard nosed” about their prospective partner. Prospective partners may have been attractive, but if they had other serious character flaws they were passed over.

    The Romantic Movement in the West lopped at the traditional intelligence and attraction approach to marriage to a simple attraction based one. Having “noble” feelings is all the matters, love (frequently the mask of lust) was justified as the sole motive for a good marriage. Executive summary: if it feels good do it. The traditional approach on the other hand said it might feel good but if the person is a bad long term bet, skip over them. The Asian approach to marriage is more a more mature looking at the person as a long term investment rather than the western evaluation based upon the feeling of the moment.

    The person to avoid being is not Avram of Ilan but Ora. Two kids, two fathers, it’s all about her. The doctor’s wife is also loathsome, her justification for leaving her husband being “boredom”. She made a promise on the altar (an oath) that she refuses to keep. People who can’t keep their promises are people of poor character. It doesn’t surprise me that the French, with their “romantic values” treat the doctor’s wife sympathetically.

    Commentator Paige made the following comment:

    I am trying to formulate a better understanding of how men manage to fight the instincts to mate with 20 year olds when their wife is aging because I think the same tactics can be used for women who start to lose the tingles for their husbands.

    It’s easy if you live your life governed by your mind instead of your dick(or your pussy) and you’re not superficial. Whilst attraction is not a choice, love is. You can choose to stick with your partner but you can’t choose who you are attracted to.

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

      @slumlord
      I’ll agree – that was a great comment.

      Lot’s of Asian girls choose beta husbands because they evaluate their prospective partner as a whole person rather than by their superficial qualities only. In most traditional cultures (including traditional western ones) marital partners were evaluate on more than just superficial features. People were expected to be a bit “hard nosed” about their prospective partner. Prospective partners may have been attractive, but if they had other serious character flaws they were passed over.

      One of the things I always struggle to get across is how I fell for my beta husband. Many men here believe that if he’s beta, sexual attraction is not possible, period. I just have never felt that way. I value his traits that would disparagingly be called beta by some. I think perhaps I am like the Asian women you mention -evaluating a man as a whole person. I was attracted to him physically, and his character and personality did not kill that attraction because he wasn’t dominant enough. On the other hand, he’s not a pushover either – so I don’t mean to imply that women don’t feel attracted to strong men.

      Women with this “whole person” view may be far less common than they once were, but they’re still out there, somehow managing to wade through the terrible cultural messages and hang on to a more traditional value system. I believe this has to be the result of strong parental influence, plus intelligence, as you say.

  • OffTheCuff

    Nicely said, slumlord.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    The Romantic Movement in the West lopped at the traditional intelligence and attraction approach to marriage to a simple attraction based one.

    I will also add that the Western has this fantasy that is even worst than the original prince charming one. In the past if the guy was responsible, made good money and didn’t mistreat the wife/girlfriend the marriage/the relationship was considered ideal and he was close enough to prince charming to keep the woman attracted, but nowadays the man has to fulfill ever single need the woman has, do it fast and be always on the job so to speak to be considered worth it. Too much pressure, too little time, too irrealistic expectation, IMO. Thus is easier on western countries for the man to lose status in the new fantasy that it was on the past, YMMV.

    Many men here believe that if he’s beta, sexual attraction is not possible, period. I just have never felt that way.

    I must say that I totally support your idea that the pill is doing a lot of damage to natural desires (not sure if you are on the pill tough), I had been out of the pill for a few weeks (do to my stupidity) and we are using condoms and I’m totally more attracted to my husband that I had ever been. I mean before I was attracted but I was happy with 2-3 times a week now is almost painful to wait for more than a day, I believe that interruption the normal cycles must be having an effect on the attraction triggers somehow. After all if the primary function of sex is reproducing how the body sex drive works if there is no ovulation anymore? Maybe that is way hook up or slut culture had it so easy to recruit women, they needed to create an artificial way for it to work and hooking up under the influence of tons of booze might be doing the job, YMMV.

  • Augen

    In much the same way one might “enjoy” the extraction of a painful, foreign body that has long been the source of great torment, I have very much enjoyed this article and reading the comments discussing it. Much truth, much pain.

    A few comments of my own:

    @Susan:

    You write, “Women with this ‘whole person’ view may be far less common than they once were, but they’re still out there, somehow managing to wade through the terrible cultural messages and hang on to a more traditional value system.”

    You know, my whole life I have consciously bet on this statement of yours being true – and by conscious, I mean: no one needed to teach me about “alpha” and “beta”, … but it was clear enough that so many “alpha” behaviors that would have resulted in immediate noteriety and therefore success with the opposite sex also came at a long term cost. Believing that investing in my “whole person” for the time to come when that right, “whole person” woman would find me and we’d have this incredible, rewarding relationship, I consciously eschewed decisions that took me towards “alpha”. Occasionally I deviated when the cost/benefit made sense, and they were very enjoyable deviations that have profited me much, but they were, on the whole, deviations.

    I also literally made the judgment that “alpha” success more often – is success at the easy stuff. The things that take time, persistance, commitment and faith to self … that do not display “irrational self confidence” and “expendability” that would lend to alpha, but which generate solid value as a long-term human product, those are also the hardest. And, I routinely observe that observed closely, so called “alphas” are professionals at avoiding the kinds of challenges that would expose their very real vulnerabilities and the irrationality of their self confidence.

    What comes to mind is one of the quotes about the uber-alpha Dos Equis “most interesting man in the world” guy:

    “…he considers practice to be cheating”.

    That says most of it right there.

    So, having made that call, at the age of 39, to read your statement, that such women “may be far less common than they once were, but they’re still out there”, it sounds to me like you have a subtext wrapped up in the statement that needs to be called out and unwound, because I spent years listening to such things and fairly well bet the farm on the trust I placed in them.

    The subtext seems to be, “they are hard to find, but out there, … keep looking, you’ll find one”, a sort of encouragement to young men to keep up the good fight, even as we watch our inferiors score much better with the ladies. i.e.: they are getting hamburgers, but you will eat steak.

    If I’ve read the subtext rightly, I have to challenge it.

    Of course you are right to say that such women exist, but they exist in the same way that lottery winners exist. And we can say this even if you don’t just include jackpot winners, but you include all lottery winners, even those who win $2 or $3, then there are tens of thousands of lottery winners out there.

    Sounds like a lot – tens of thousands of lottery winners.

    But as to what that tells us about the wisdom of “investing” in the lottery … charitably we can say it tells us nothing at all. The lottery is simply no place to invest, not matter how many winners there are.

    In sites like this one what you really get a sense of from the comments is the dis-equality that is emerging between men and women – the previous 266 comments are entirely exemplary of this. Men are increasingly convinced that as 6s and 7s themselves (where, by the way, you would expect average to be, by the way … 5 is NOT average), and here I mean “as a whole person” 6s and 7s … they sense that they are being expected to settle for 4s and 5s, while women 6s and 7s write books like EPL, watch SITC or when they aren’t authors and actresses they wax philosophical about both, lamenting how they just can’t keep a good man down as they grow single into their 40s, these are women who are going from one 8-10 to another, never understanding why he won’t “commit”.

    They will not “settle”, but damnit, the bastards just won’t “commit”.

    Men, 6s and 7s, these women’s equals – they are “settle” material, the stuff of a boring and unfulfilled life.

    So – I respect what you’ve done with this site and your mission and I wish you well with it and I support and hope for your success – but spade-called-spade: if that needle in the haystack of a woman is a needle in the haystack – is she really worth sifting through every strand of hay to find, and if she is so rare, won’t she be taken when we find her? And if that much is true, isn’t the subtext really a way of telling young men: settle for 4s and 5s? And if it is: I don’t really think that’s your message, but the subtext is there starring at us just the same.

  • Augen

    @Paige,
    You write,

    “A woman leaving her husband for a ‘bad boy’ is very similar to the man in a mid-life crisis who leaves his devoted wife for a 20 year old. It is perfectly natural and perfectly stupid.

    “I am trying to formulate a better understanding of how men manage to fight the instincts to mate with 20 year olds when their wife is aging because I think the same tactics can be used for women who start to lose the tingles for their husbands. I imagine that the key is in projecting the qualities you want to see so that your perception better reflects what you actually desire.”

    Yours is a fair line of inquiry, but I think the more important line of inquiry is:
    how do we extend the same standard to men as to women?

    In other words, @slumlord has succinctly answered, “It’s easy if you live your life governed by your mind instead of your dick(or your pussy) and you’re not superficial.”

    Simply put:
    1) We expect men in their 30s, 40s and 50s, as they enter into their highest SMV, peak, then ebb – to think with their minds and not with their penises

    We are let down by them when they succumb to thinking with their genitals.

    2) How can we expect of women in their 20s and early 30s, at their peak of SMV, that they too think with their minds, and not their genitals?

    And, until we find out the answer to this question, why shouldn’t men in their 30s and 40s, peaking in SMV, why shouldn’t they be disgusted with women their own age and older who have squandored their own?

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

    1) We expect men in their 30s, 40s and 50s, as they enter into their highest SMV, peak, then ebb – to think with their minds and not with their penises

    What!? I’m within my highest SMV? Time to go pick up a 20 year old!

  • Abbot

    Well this is rich. Amanda Marcotte, yep Jaclyn Friedman’s BFF, is now offering dating advice for men.
    .
    http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/nice-guys-finish-first-without-pickup-gimmickry/
    .
    Oh, and this rounds out Marcott’s fantasy:
    .
    http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/solution-mra-problems-more-feminism/

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

      @Abbot
      Yeah, Amanda Marcotte has her head up her butt, as usual. Rachel Kramer Bussell has written a post calling me out. I may just have to smack down those feminists again.

  • Abbot

    You mean this from Bussel?:
    .
    http://www.alternet.org/story/150473/slut_shame:_why_do_we_still_attack_women_for_having_sex
    .
    Ah, but once again, what is identified as “slut shaming” never includes the real concern: men who will screw the very same women they will reject for marriage. Denial will not change what men think. Only women changing their behavior will change the perception men have. And make no mistake – these feminists are very very concerned about what men think. Men DO NOT attack women for having sex. That would but just plain stupid. But men DO detour around certain *types* of women when its time to settle down and that, to feminists, is an attack on women. Well, too bad.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    I followed the link. That article is mixing issues for convenience.

    Sluts dont fuck jerks because they are looking to marry. So what is this really about? You cant have one gender shame-free while still shaming the other

    Easy: Men are pushers and women are gatekeepers. Anyone who gets out of balance gets shamed.

    If the man is overpusher he is a rapist, an evil patriarch.
    If the man doesnt push he´s a mangina, a creepy.

    If the woman opens too eagerly she´s a slut, a whore.
    If the woman doesnt open she´s a frigid, a bitch.

    If you try to bring both genders to uniformity, it means putting the man down and pushing the woman up, like pairing a flaccid penis and a voracious vagina. Good luck with that.

  • Abbot

    “That article is mixing issues for convenience”
    .
    Well of course. It is after all a feminist diatribe. And on top of that, the subject is about being “sex positive,” a euphemism for the act of screwing [expressing sexuality] 15% of the single male population and then demanding [begging, hoping, wanting] accolades from the other 85% of men for having done so.

  • Steve

    Hypergamy leads to Donald Trump and his current wife. I don’t really see the thug as the ultimate goal unless you’re referring to the DJ trend. I think of the Italian modelizer –a fat billionaire that’s been with all the top models. That’s the hypergamous dream. Or perhaps an ugly, bald Prince. Women don’t crave a “nice guy” until they are older. Then they appreciate sweetness and kindness. An ugly woman will learn to settle at around age 30.