We talk an awful lot here about numbers. How many women are promiscuous, what percentage of women go for jerks, and whether there is a significant percentage of women exercising impulse control on college campuses, or even just avoiding the hookup scene altogether.
What percentage of guys get laid in college? Are 20% of them getting all the spoils, while 80% starve? How many man whores are there, really? Are all guys are only interested in casual sex? Or do some prefer relationship sex?
I’ve long hypothesized that there’s a group of highly promiscuous males roughly the same size as the group of highly promiscuous females. They represent a highly visible and socially active minority, and are considered to be “successful” with the opposite sex. A large majority of males and females has a much lower number of sexual partners, though not necessarily much less sex, and almost certainly not worse sex (if we define bad sex as excluding orgasm).
Gucci Little Piggy has a post up revealing data I haven’t seen before, taken from a 2007 study on sexual assault commissioned by the Justice Department. The study randomly selected students at two large state universities – one in the south, and one in the midwest. It was a web-based survey that subjects accessed with a link, but it was anonymous and the students were guaranteed total privacy. The survey collected data about all aspects of college life, but for our purposes the data about socializing and sexual behavior is what’s really interesting.
| Female % | Male % | |
| Heterosexual | 95.6 | 94.5 |
| Athlete | 16.0 | 21.4 |
| Greek membership | 14.7 | 15.8 |
| Attend 1+ frat parties/month | 26.3 | 28.1 |
| Visit bars 1+ times/month | 44.4 | 44.7 |
| Drunk/high 1+ times/month | 44.0 | 54.1 |
| Drunk/high during sex 1+ times/month | 20.7 | 21.5 |
| Female % | Male % | |
| 0 | 37.2 | 42.8 |
| 1-5 | 54.1 | 49.4 |
| 6-10 | 5.7 | 5.6 |
| 11-25 | 2.0 | 0.9 |
| 26+ | 1.1 | 1.3 |
| Female % | Male % | |
| 0 | 22.6 | 23.8 |
| 1-5 | 69.2 | 68.4 |
| 6-10 | 5.6 | 5.9 |
| 11-25 | 2.3 | 1.2 |
| 26+ | 0.3 | 0.7 |
Note:
- The researchers felt that a limitation of the study was a low response rate among males. N = 6,800; 5,466F, 1,375M
- They cited the anonymity of the survey as a strength which provided more accurate reporting of sensitive behavior.
- The subjects were distributed roughly equally across grades, with slightly higher representation among freshmen and seniors.
What does the data reveal about social habits?
1. Half the students drink to intoxication on a regular basis. Bars are the most popular venue, followed by frat parties, which are attended frequently by non-Greeks.
I am surprised that half of all students drink little or not at all.
2. Only a fifth of students habitually have sex while drunk.
This calls into question that claim that students drink primarily in order to lose enough inhibition to hook up.
3. While slightly more males than females get drunk, the social habits of men and women are very similar.
What does the data reveal about sexual partners?
1. There are more male virgins than female virgins in college. The number of virgins in this study was higher than is normally estimated for college populations, which is 33% at freshman year, 12% by senior year.
The number of male virgins is actually proportionally higher due to the disproportionate enrollment of females (55% and 58% at the subject schools).
Recent research indicates that the number of virgins in college is rising, though that does not explain this 2007 finding.
2. The pattern of women having slightly more sexual partners than men is consistent throughout.
3. Approximately 92% of both men and women have had five partners or less in college.
The vast majority of college students are not promiscuous, and there is no difference between the sexes.
4. Only 3% of women and 2% of men have had eleven or more sexual partners.
This implies that the number of true “players” in college is extremely small, as is the number of highly promiscuous women.
5. Overall, the sexes show very little difference in the number of sexual partners. This would seem to confirm the hypothesis that a small percentage of promiscuous students are engaging in casual sex with one another, while a much larger group has a few partners during college, and well over a third of students have no sex at all.
What does the data reveal about dating partners?
1. Approximately 15% of females and 19% of males have had a dating relationship that did not include sexual intercourse.
2. More than two-thirds of both sexes have had 1-5 relationships in college. Again, 15-20% of these relationships appear to exclude sexual intercourse.
3. Three percent of women and two percent of men have had 11 or more dating relationships.
This takes serial monogamy to an extreme. (See Haley’s excellent graphic depiction of one of these women.)
In short, this is a very different story than college students often informally report here and on other blogs. Why is that? Some possible explanations:
- The grass is always greener. College students regularly assume that others have it way better than they do.
- The culture rewards casual sex, so that the most promiscuous students have outsized visibility in the population.
- Popularity and peer approval rest on tales of exploits, which may lead students to fabricate or exaggerate sexual conquests.
I’m certain that some of you will immediately point out that in sex surveys women underreport and men overreport. Of course, that is always possible, but I doubt that explains this data for several reasons:
- That trope goes back to the Kinsey research, when women were shamed for premarital sex. If anything, that trend has been reversed.
- The setup of this experiment provided observable, complete anonymity.
- The subjects were open about participating in social behaviors frequently looked down upon among undergraduates, including illegal underage drinking and drug use.
What does this mean for the SMP?
If this data is accurate, there are a lot of people in college in exactly the same boat. They are not having rampant casual sex. A small minority of promiscuous men and women are “servicing” each other while most limit their sexual activity to committed relationships. This means that there is an enormous untapped reservoir of relationship-oriented people.
This is only one study. We need more information about the sexual habits of students to draw any real conclusions. It would appear, though, that there is very little evidence that 80% of college women are chasing 20% of college men for no-strings sex. Perhaps today’s Indexed cartoon will resonate:
You Can’t Use Logic Against Belief
{ 453 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 4 »
I still say most US women will never be fully honest about their sexual experiences. It doesn’t matter if promiscuity seems to be the norm. Slut shaming is still on volume 11, not in society at large, but on a personal, one-on-one level where it makes the most impact. Women have no incentive to be honest and too many disincentives. I cannot trust any study that involves women self reporting on sexual behavior.
And here we have an example of how research can fly in the face of personal experience. I try to keep an open mind about such things and would very much like to see more studies on this matter.
@Private Man
Me too. We need much more data to understand what’s really going on. TBH, I am surprised by how clearcut this data is, which is why I thought it worth sharing. This isn’t the be-all and end-all, but it’s another point of reference as we try to decipher the ever-changing SMP.
Hi Ms. Walsh,
I kinda figured you’d pick up on Chuck’s recent post; and since you have, please allow me to present to you and your readers, my take on same:
Era Of The De Facto Eunuch
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/66130
A brief excerpt:
“As I am sure you are aware, quite a few Game writers have suggested, that while Game itself presents tremendous opportunities for change and growth on the individual (and some even argue on the wider societal – that remains to be seen, though certainly not implausible) level for Men, the actual likelihood of this happening in a broad based way is low. Commonly held reasons for this seem to center on Mens’ refusal to take the socalled “red pill” of Reality, or of being lax and lazy with regard to making the requisite changes to their personality and habits that Game so often calls for. And to be sure, these are legitimate theories. Of course, by now you know that I have a differing – and for this audience, a much more controversial – reason as to why most of the 60% won’t “get” Game:
And that’s because, by and large, they CAN’T.”
Of course, Chuck and his readers really couldn’t deal with what I actually said, and so had to resort to all manner of diversionary tactics, with Chuck in particular stooping to personally attacking me and Ms. Brown Sugah, LOL. All of which only confirms the validity of my argument(s) made therein.
Perhaps you and/or readers can do better!
Holla back
O.
Thanks for the link, Susan.
I always thought in college that both more people were having sex than assumed and fewer people were having sex than people assumed.
My comments:
http://glpiggy.net/2011/04/26/is-college-a-sexual-utopia-for-young-men/#comment-14211
http://glpiggy.net/2011/04/26/is-college-a-sexual-utopia-for-young-men/#comment-14212
Commenters flipping their shit on 3…2…1
42.8 % of male college students have NO SEXUAL PARTNERS. Ouch!
Is that three years of college in the USA?
Wow. Talk about a dry spell. That’s actually worse than I thought. I thought the “no sex at all” constituency would be ALOT smaller than that. America has a very sexualised culture so I am shocked at these statistics.
Hollenhund,
Just saw your comments, and have to say that I don’t necessarily disagree with them; indeed, they align quite a bit with what I’ve been saying in my post referenced above, and previous writings by me on the topic. Would like very much to get your opinion and feedback on all of that. Holla back.
O.
This is largely a non-issue, Obsidian. The commonly accepted wisdom on Roissy’s blog and other similar websites is that most betas won’t be able to master Game.
Hollenhund,
Please read the whole post/comment I made. I am making a much broader (and admittedly, provocative) argument than what you summarised above. And get back to me.
O.
It should also be noted as well Hollehund, that Chuck vehemently disagrees with Roissy on a number of points: one being the above that you spoke to, and secondly Roissy’s assertion(s) that Single White Females had sociosexual attraction towards Barak Obama in the last presidential elections.
Comments?
O.
I also think it totally depends on the college we’re talking about- this study represents one school with a certain population. I’m sure the percentages of promiscuity would greatly increase for a larger or more stereotypically known “party school”. The typical student population of a given college greatly varies due to its location and tuition- I’d like to see the numbers for Arizona State and UC Santa Barbara versus SUNY Purchase or MIT
and by one school, I meant two. Although this study was taken from large universities in the south and midwest, there are definitely a distinct group of schools that would be linked to more partying and promiscuity
This post isn’t about GLP or Roissy. Maybe I’ll respond on your blog after others have chimed in as well.
Hollenhund,
True, Ms. Walsh’s post isn’t about Roissy, but her post IS about a post done up by Chuck, and MY post is a reaction to Chuck’s post, therefore it’s fair game, and I’m really interested in pushing the idea that my post centers in on into a wider, read, Whiter, sphere. So if you don’t mind, come on with what you have to say – after all, you’ve never been bashful before. Why start now?
O.
Christin,
As I recall, studies taken at schools like MIT and Princeton and so forth, had results showing high numbers of White Male virgins nerd types. I think the percentage was higher than the White Female students at these schools. Now keep in mind that I saw these studies online some years back – but if they are anywhere near accurate, it points emphatically to my post referenced above, and the period of reckoning we as a society will have to grapple with along these lines: what are we gonna do with a bunch of de facto eunuchs?
O.
I’m busy these days, Obs.
O- I totally agree and I can attest that from what I’ve seen, most stereotypes are still true. I teach dance classes at MIT and the majority of my students are extremely awkward males and have trouble even asking me questions. Same goes for other schools- I hear stories upon stories of slut-town USA over at Arizona State. Not to say I have anything against either of these schools, but it’s just from my personal experience.
Wild Cougar- I agree with you. What I consider typical college female behavior shocks my boyfriend’s view. Many women hide their sexual excursions (or only speak to their close girlfriends about it) in order to still gain appeal towards potential boyfriends.
It’s about the data in a study cited by GLP.
Hollenhund,
I am sure you are.
Ms. Walsh was impressed not only with the data that formed the backbone of Chuck’s post but also with the post – Chuck’s actual writing – itself. We’re still on track here.
Rest assured.
O.
WC,
Ms. Walsh has written quite a bit about the notion of “slut shaming” and we’ve come to the conclusion that there is no such thing obtaining in our time now. If anything, and indeed, Women on a whole are decidedly LESS discreet than they are now, and in fact – again, Ms. Walsh can attest to this given her many previous postings on the topic – Women are penalized by both her peers and the general society for NOT being a slut. So, I think that the old timey studies of the past, like Masters and Johnson etc, might have fallen under the rubric you speak of in your comment, I think such surveys today are much more likely to be accurate. At least insofar as Women are concerned.
Men now, that’s another matter…
O.
Christin,
As you can see in my article that I referenced above, we as a society are fast coming to a point where, as a result of technologically and sociologically-assisted hypergamy insofar as Women are concerned, we are going to have to grapple with a sizable portion of Men who are de facto eunuchs – and that to date, there is no discourse dealing with any of that.
What’s your thoughts?
O.
Many women hide their sexual excursions (or only speak to their close girlfriends about it) in order to still gain appeal towards potential boyfriends.
.
Meaning women are fully aware of the nature of men and pander to their needs. As “slut profiling” increases on social media, lots of jaws will drop and even more panties will stay on.
I don’t think this is a valid conclusion. Women generally have one or two more sexual partners than men, and there are a small number of men who have had lots and lots of partners. This seems to imply that a small number of men are a lot of non-promiscuous women’s “one mistake.”
This is compatible with a group of highly promiscuous males and females all making the in-group rounds, and better explains why females manage to have a couple more partners across the board.
WC and Obsidian
I think both are right to a point women will lie about their sexual history, but no all the time only when they have something to gain. Most sluts are not stupid they know very well that when they decide to “settle” displaying pride on a promiscuous past will decrease their pool of males interested on settling and have them expose to the “pump and dump” types that could pretend to be willing to settle just to have her and leave her, thus wasting their time, so the lie like a cheap rug.
But in an anonymous pool on college, they had nothing to lose or gain and they are not on settling mode so I think this is probably very accurate and no have the undereport issues other types of studies will get, YMMV.
O- Although I agree with you that there isn’t really slut-shaming anymore, and that girls are praised for hooking up with randoms between their friends, I disagree with your statement that they aren’t penalized. Men will hook up with whoever- slut or not, but it is rare that a man will want a relationship with someone that exhibits slut behavior. In the relationship world, I still think the same standard stands true- women will not necessarily turn a man away from relationship potential if he’s slept with girls (because that’s standard) but men absolutely turn a woman away from relationship potential if she’s slept with a lot of guys. This is not to say that a woman who has slept around will not get a relationship- but a woman that frequently sleeps around probably sleeps with a man the first night she meets him. I don’t know anyone that has turned a first-night-hook-up into a relationship (unless it’s fuck-buddies).
What’s your thoughts?
.
http://aforeignaffair.com/
Susan,
Thanks for the link.
I too want to reiterate your point that we are still a long way from having enough data to fully understand the SMP. But you’re also right that this data provides a pretty clear-cut snapshot of the actual sexual habits of college students.
Definitely not the end all and be all of it.
But part of the reason that the stats drew my attention is because, when I thought about it, I realized that a lot of the college men that I know actually aren’t having as much sex as we’ve been taught to think that they are getting. As I wrote, we’ve come to think that guys are getting laid left and right. And it would make intuitive sense that they were given that the sex ratio on college campuses is so low.
But for all of the hard-partying alphas that you think about when you think of college, there are the guys in the library or lining the walls of those same parties that you easily forget about.
Maybe this isn’t new; it just ran counter to what I thought were the prevailing ideas pertaining to college life today.
To sum it up: sometimes I find myself thinking that young people today are having a lot of sex and that the girls are really slutty, but sometimes I think to myself that young people today aren’t having sex at all and that they are all prude.
@Abbott,
LOL! Yea, that’s kinda become the pat answer in the Manosphere. Problem is this, there’s IMBRA to contend with, and for my part I’m not sold entirely on this strategy. Not for anything personal on my part – personally I could care less as to how Man and Woman come together. Rather, my thinking is this: if you were lame in your home country, you’re gonna be lame wherever you go. And I get this sense that a portion of guys DON’T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TOWARDS SELF-IMPROVEMENT, and so try to go the route of least resistence, ie, mail order brides and the like. Of course, life for these Women is often rough and desperate, and I can’t speak for anyone else, but I take great pride in the fact that I can do very well for myself in the heart of the world’s Feminist Citadel, armed only with GAME. And there’s a part of me that says that guys going the mail order bride route are tacitly admitting defeat, much like the single ladies who avail themselves of the turkey baster – I mean, if you couldn’t get a Man to tap it for free, that really says something about YOU, ultimately.
O.
Also,
I don’t think that men and women so much multiply or divide, respectively, their notch counts by 3 or some figure that is often cited by movies like American Pie, but something similar occurs.
When a sexual encounter involves grey area – where the woman made the man stop a few seconds into the encounter etc. – a woman is more likely to not add that to her number compared to the guy.
I’ll give a personal example from a girl I know. She had sex with a guy and made him stop 3 pumps in. He was the fourth person that she technically had sex with, but she either doesn’t count him or she considers him #3.5. But rest assured that he counts her in his lay number.
So it may not be that these types of studies are worrisome because the participants are flat-out lying about their numbers – it’s just that, just as the consideration of when a rape actually occurred is sometimes hazy, both sides have different definitions of when sex occurred. This would be reflected in the statistics.
O- I like the article/video clip. Susan has tapped into something similar before- men and women look for very different things in their potential significant other. Men first look to beauty and then later intelligence, etc. Women on the other hand, look for their ideal supporter/protector with a laundry list of qualities that they started at age 8. I am a huge fan of “He’s Just Not That Into You” (book and movie)- and one major problem I have is that I still make up excuses for my friends as to why their situations didn’t work out. I asked my boyfriend to give my friend advice one day on finding a guy, and he just plain out said “FIND A NICE GUY, THAT’S IT.”
I think some women realize this after striving for the perfect guy (probably because the man they drew out on paper doesn’t exist or they end up changing their view of the “perfect” guy).
I also think there’s a substantial population of women who could be categorized in the same social circle as your de facto eunichs- they tend to hide and get lost in the cracks.
5. Overall, the sexes show very little difference in the number of sexual partners. This would seem to confirm the hypothesis that a small percentage of promiscuous students are engaging in casual sex with one another,
.
The data is the data is the data is the data. I’d be irrational if I didn’t follow through to the conclusion the data supports. That said:
.
1. I’d echo Hollenhund’s comments on the other thread. We know women underreport. Susan, you yourself once commented about the young woman who subtracted out all those that “didn’t count” like sex with a gay guy. I don’t think it takes a conspiracy nut to be skeptical about the integrity/accuracy of the data.
.
2. Based on #1 above, we really would need to see this study replicated across a number of universities to see the consistency and dispersion of results. Not that that is probably going to happen.
.
3. 3 points on the numbers
.
91% of men are below 5. If this is correct, this completely supports the idea there is a very small minority of alpha men attractive enough to get women for casual sex. It appears to be even more skewed than I thought…not being 80/20 but 90/10. All other guys are either getting no sex or only relationship sex. It also confirms that highly promiscuous women are still highly selective
.
Only 3% of women are above 11. Susan, seriously, does this really ring true based on your college age focus groups. Really? I could be misremembering here, but I do recall a number of occasions where the implication or statement was that many of your focus group members were at 20+. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I am not, how would you explain the discrepancy? Is the 3% over 11 a garbage number, or are your focus groups just much more promiscuous than the average college girl. I’m sure you’ve discussed this subject with your daughter. Does 3% at 11+ ring true with her friends and girls she knew? I’m just really skeptical of this number. I acknowledge I might be biased but it doesn’t pass the smell test.
.
The 11-25 group is 2% women versus 1% men. Two different ways to look at that. As only a 1% difference, or as the only subgroup where the percentage is radicallly different (100% difference). I’m reaching here, but this could support my basic idea that there is a segment of women who I wouldn’t characterize as “slutty” but who take advantage of and experiment a little with the fact that they have sexual access to higher status men (but nothing more). They engage a bit in it, realize they are being used as pieces of meat, and settle down which is why they don’t make it to the 25+ group. Whether that activity affects their ability to bond and form a quality relationship with a lesser status man is something we could debate until the cows come home.
.
One point of optimism on the data. There are PLENTY of non-promiscuous girls available for relationships who haven’t ridden the “cock carousel” even if you bump up the 11and up percentage by 10-20%.
.
Amusing observation on my part. The data says 91% are 5 or under. Yet, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read something from a FEMALE commenter acting INCREDULOUS that a 22, 24, 25-year old could have only a handful of partners. How does one square that circle, and what does that say about these commenters versus the average woman (if the data is correct)?
Hi Chuck,
Glad to see you here! OK, let’s have at it:
I don’t think we NEED all manner of peer reviewed longitudinal studies to see what’s going on here, and in fact there have been quite a few writers who have more or less predicted all of this, Tiger among them in his The Decline of Males. Again: human history has always recorded more Male sexual losers than Women; the two big differences in our time is that said losers are living longer and safer than at any other point in history; and that said losers are able to be heard and to link up together with like minds. Hence to (virtually all White) Manosphere.
What’s missing from all of this is the “now what?” conversation that needs to be had at5 this point. Admittedly this is difficult to do, in part because of the way we human beings are wired, but also because of the American ethos to not only exalt the winners, but to believe that we all can be one. And there is perhaps nothing lower, than a Male sexual loser. Even Women who make use of the turkey baster, are seen as such.
Holla back
O.
“IMBRA also requires background checks before communication is permitted between United States clients and foreign national clients of dating services deemed to be marriage brokers.”
.
Seems like the iron curtain of communication set up by feminists. For feminists.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Marriage_Broker_Regulation_Act
Obsidian,
“And I get this sense that a portion of guys DON’T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TOWARDS SELF-IMPROVEMENT”
This is one of the few points that you and I can agree on.
Mike C- you make a good point. My comments are based solely on personal experience. I was/am in Susan’s focus group- recently graduated from BU, mid-20s. It is possible that my friends, and people I meet associated with my friends, would not necessarily produce results of that similar to the “average woman.” This very well may be why the numbers seem skewed.
Many women hide their sexual excursions (or only speak to their close girlfriends about it) in order to still gain appeal towards potential boyfriends.
.
Here’s the part I don’t get about that. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read a comment where a woman says she wouldn’t want a guy who judges her sexual past anyways. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?
.
And I’ll admit, to me, this is the crux of the issue. BOTH parties are entitled to know any information they think is relevant. I’m not a theologian but I believe many religions actually allow for annulment in the case of deception going into the marriage. And to me this goes both ways. I watch Real World, and one of the guys did gay porn, and the girl was like when would he have told me, after getting married, after kids. She had a right to know..
.
And ultimately that is the bottom line. I am NOT an advocate of slut “shaming” and if a woman wants to be highly promiscuous I fully support that lifestyle choice. But I think it is morally repugnant to deceive someone who is entering into a committed relationship with you. Ultimately, I think it comes down to the fact that most women know in the recesses of their mind even if they vocally disagree, that they are SUBSTANTIALLY reducing the pool of guys who would voluntarily make a serious committment. You see it the comments on these threads. You’ve got 2 guys saying it doesn’t matter, Tom and GudEnuf, and I’m not sure either is really a guy, versus all the other guys who would pass.
Male expatriation from the US seems to be a win-win for all involved. The expats will find more potential mates, foreign women in poorer lands get access to relatively higher-status mates who can satisfy their hypergamy, and there will be fewer men in the US whom the local women dismiss as bothersome beta chumps.
Mike C-
Many women hide their sexual excursions (or only speak to their close girlfriends about it) in order to still gain appeal towards potential boyfriends.
I originally referred to this in the sense that many men openly talk about their random sexual encounters with a co-ed crowd, whereas women tend to only speak about this with their girlfriends. I don’t think it’s right to lie about the number of people you have slept with. I also don’t think it’s necessary to talk about your sexual past in a new relationship. However, if the relationship lasts, it’s bound to come out and be talked about at some point or another. Honesty is always the best policy if you want a legitimate relationship.
“Male expatriation from the US seems to be a win-win for all involved. The expats will find more potential mates, foreign women in poorer lands get access to relatively higher-status mates who can satisfy their hypergamy, and there will be fewer men in the US whom the local women dismiss as bothersome beta chumps.”
As a foreign bride I most admit that I won a lot of catty remarks for country women when I got married to my American husband, women with money,cars and no lack of male attention. They actually accused me of using vudu magic or something like that because they couldn’t see “what my husband saw on me”. Is contrasting to when my husband tells me that in here was invisible to many women.
“This is one of the few points that you and I can agree on.”
O: And to be sure, I am most pleased that we do agree on something, LOL. But now, let me press my luck a bit:
Would you agree with me, that this view, is pervasive throughout the (virtually all White) Manosphere, Chuck – including Roissy’s forum? If so/not, why?
Your response?
O.
“Here’s the part I don’t get about that. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read a comment where a woman says she wouldn’t want a guy who judges her sexual past anyways. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?”
I agree with that. True sluts don’t care and don’t lie about things they did proudly and with total knowledge of the consequences.
Stephenie-
Because you can’t be a slut when you’re in a relationship. The game changes when you’re trying to settle down.
Moreover let me add, that while it is viewed as something like the Hoy Grail in the (virutally 100% all-White) Manosphere, in truth I think most guys won’t expat or otherwise go overseas to get themselves a mail order bride. My guess is that we might not see much higher than 10% of Men doing this overall. For the rest of the guys, they’re gonna be screwed if they can’t do something to change their situation. I think a particular cohort in that population CAN’T LEARN GAME. HBD is quite consistent on this note. And, it is my opinion that we need to have an honest discussion about this. My personal recommendation, among many, is that we should be steering these Men towards the preisthood and being monks.
O.
It’s useful to cite Brendan here:
http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/why-young-men-dont-marry-climbing-out-of-poverty/#comment-6933
“My personal recommendation, among many, is that we should be steering these Men towards the preisthood and being monks.”
You keep saying that and I would agree on my country or any other place with strong religious tradition. But this is godless land. Only people with strong religious families truly have faith and they will more likely find wives (unless they are part of those extreme Mormons groups that expel the boys) because that is part of the church’s job and this women’s hipergamy is regulated by a lot of different social triggers and part of the doctrine is that the man is the head of the house so they are already solving a lot of the issue the current SMP has. So most average men won’t see this is a valid way of life or are you planning a religion that can accommodate the unbelievers somehow?
@Christin
You’ve made a lot of good points.
I recently graduated from one of the top party schools in the nation, and that obviously affects how I view the college experience. Maybe it’s part of the reason Susan & I have different views on this topic. And re: Arizona State… that place is as good as advertised.
You also share my view on the hookup/relationship dichotomy. I don’t really get all the slut hatred. Most of the sluts I’ve known have been generally fun people that really know how to party. But would I ever seriously date any of them them? HELL NO.
“Would you agree with me, that this view, is pervasive throughout the (virtually all White) Manosphere, Chuck – including Roissy’s forum? If so/not, why?”
I think it is pervasive. You have to demarcate between the Roissy set and the MRA set. There is overlap between, but on the issue of Game and the SMP they are worlds apart.
Roissy and Roosh are about men taking the initiative to do for themselves. So I think that the pervasive attitude, at least among the bloggers and the more noteworthy commenters is that Game is good and that men should take it upon themselves to improve their lot. I rarely, rarely see men around here adopt an entitlement attitude towards sex. You might disagree on that, and you may even think that I do that – but I don’t think that I do and I don’t think that men around here do either to any large degree.
But that’s far and away different also than saying that guys in the Sphere *can’t* learn Game even if they tried. The two things that are holding white guys back from being successful is a.) fear of judgment – by their friends or by the women they approach and b.) an ingrained pedestalization of women. If white guys got over those two hurdles (I’m not saying they should demean women; just not regard them all as goddesses a propos of nothing) they’d do a lot to improve their so-called Game deficiency.
Actually, it’s not terribly clear. Let’s describe two college people, OTC (moi) and my friend T:
- We both have a partner count of 2. Me, I had an ONS, and then my senior found a girlfriend. That’s 3 lonely years.
- T, a muscular hockey player, had a girlfriend and a mistress all four years.
Lo and behold, we’re both not “promiscuous” but I can tell you the girls were ALL over T (“chasing”, if not having) and he resisted them, well most of the time. Seriously. He could snap his finger and the girls were there.
The whole 20% thing isn’t partner count, it’s a rough estimation of how many of the guys you know have female company at any point.
Postscript: I met up with him a few months back. He was complaining about how little his wife wants sex. He’s still in great shape, too. I told him I don’t have that problem. Maybe I’m in the 20% now…
“Because you can’t be a slut when you’re in a relationship. The game changes when you’re trying to settle down.”
Well I would think that a slut that is trying to settle down can be honest about her past and wait for a guy that accepts it, even if they are on the minority they obviously exist, all rules have exception. Or they can be slut wives with hubbies that get off on that. Look at Jenna Jameson, Deep Sabrina and the likes they are married and their husbands adore their sluttiness and film it so honestly can indeed work better than plain lies, YMMV.
1-5 is a pretty wide range. 5 may not be a “big” number, to somebody at 0 or 1 it sure is. its too bad the numbers aren’t broken down any further.
“Here’s the part I don’t get about that. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read a comment where a woman says she wouldn’t want a guy who judges her sexual past anyways. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?”
.
Why take a chance with honesty if she does not have to. Not like he can run her name through a public database anyway [YET]. Typical American women defining her morality by whatever puts her in the best light. She hid her behavior from daddy. Certainly, she can hide it from a potential life mate.
Chuck,
I think it’s fair to say that the numbers of guys who visit Roissy’s NOT to self-improve, but to rail against the world about how said world did them wrong, is much higher. The Manosphere isn’t much different in this regard, if the Spearhead and In Mala Fide are anything to go by. And that’s just for starters.
And I think part of the reason why there’s so much gnashing of teeth, is because a goodly portion of these guys know and understand that in the Brave New World that is the SMP, they CAN’T compete in it. Sure, what you said is certainly in play, and I freely admit that. But there’s also a portion that I am talking about; guys that might have been able to play in the CBA or the ABA, but not today’s NBA, if you will. And instead of looking at these things rationally, of course we have all this squawking about it.
O.
Some people here seem to think that this situation where men can live minimally satisfying lives with their low wage jobs and porn is somehow sustainable. Or that otherwise they can all just join the priesthood. If we aren’t forming resilient families and producing the next generation everything will take care of itself and there won’t be any self righteous women around to be empowered. Women have a choice to make: if you want grandchildren you can either forget about busting balls in the corporate rate race and form a traditional family with a bread winning husband, or you can ignore attractiveness and marry what in your eyes would be a limp dicked corporate drone.
I should also add another point… while I and most guys I know don’t share the slut hatred that I see from a lot of posters online, I can’t think of a guy I know (including me) that doesn’t have genuine contempt and hatred for the sluts that present themselves as relationship-quality good girls.
Personally, I think the most important part of learning “game” or “taking the red pill” for guys is learning how to identify these kinds of girls.
genuine contempt and hatred for the sluts that present themselves as relationship-quality good girls.
.
Some girls are really in trouble for impersonating wife material. They should know about this. Its akin to fraud and should be treated as such.
.
learning how to identify these kinds of girls.
.
Demand for an online identification manual and slut tracking system is increasing
@Obsidian, @Chuck
First, I don’t think the data points to men being eunuchs, or failures, at all. Or at least it suggests that’s true for both sexes. That’s really the point of the post – in general we are probably overestimating the amount of sex that’s happening on campus. That is at odds with portrayals in the popular culture, the media, etc. And of course, I too am guilty of often featuring the sensational stories, the Karen Owens’ of the college world. I agree with Chuck that the years after college are a critical time when many start really dating, and perhaps it will help if we let kids know that while lack of sex in college may suck, at least it’s the common condition for most people.
There’s something else that occurs to me – one reason I often see cited for the popularity of hookups is that kids today are under so much stress re academics, career prep, finding jobs, applying to grad school, etc. I wonder if this data doesn’t hint at the same thing – maybe a significant population is holed up in the library. Still, I find interesting that the number of virgins is so high in a population getting hammered on a regular basis. Frankly, I’m not sure what to make of it.
@Christin
Hey, girl, good to see you on this thread! You may be right about these schools not being representative, I can’t say. They’re not identified, though all but one of the study authors are at University of North Carolina – Chapel HIll, so I’m betting that is the large state school in the south. That’s a hard school, so even if kids there work hard and play hard, it’s not going to be a constant party scene across the board, and the population is self-selected in that way.
I guess what struck me was that the percentage of kids having sex as a percentage of kids getting drunk was very low. Also the percentage of kids having sex while drunk. I recall that Keith Richards said in his biography that he didn’t have sober sex for the first 15 years, and that’s sort of the way I’ve always viewed college guys.
@Hambydammit
Good catch, I think that makes total sense, and it also rings true based on what I’ve heard from women. Many have been burned by a cad or two.
@Hollenhund
As you will recall, after I looked at the 80/20 idea in detail, I too suspected that talking about sexual frequency was more accurate than talking about the number of partners. It’s entirely possible that this data shows that very, very few men have the options allowing them to reject dating in favor of frequent sex with a variety of partners.
Thinking about it 2% sounds like a very low number of men who might be real players, but if you take a school with 5,000 undergrads, that is 100 guys. And that’s not a large school. So on a mid-size campus you’ve got 100 guys who have 11+ partners halfway through college, on average. Those guys are obviously going to be very high profile at their school – that’s the social proof that got them into that group in the first place. I would think that 100 players active in the social scene would get the attention of the corresponding 150 girls, making it seem as if a much larger percentage of guys is getting the attention of all the hot girls. When you break it down, you see that it’s only 2-3% overall.
A couple of years ago, someone gathered data on the number of sexual partners at MIT, Harvard, Yale and Princeton. This data had all been collected independently by the schools for various reasons, so it wasn’t entirely compatible. However, I recall that MIT actually had the highest number of sexual partners (1-2) and that Princeton accused Yale of inflating their numbers, just like they do their grades, lol.
As for white nerds, all the best schools have lots of very smart guys, many of whom are white. Since high T is associated negatively to intelligence, it makes sense that the numbers would be smaller at the Ivies than say, Shitkicker U.
I remember feeling miserable in college based on the countless nights I went home without sex while *someone else* went home and had sex. Only in retrospect did I realize that “someone else” was rarely the same person more than once.
This fear of being duped comes up again and again. It is very understandable in light of the importance men attach to this issue. FWIW, it’s also very frustrating for the relationship-quality girls, because a slutty girl pretending to be inexperienced is probably going to know how to push a guy’s buttons just the right way to get him interested. As long as she feigns inexperience during sex, he can be fooled for a while, at least.
Mike C-
I originally referred to this in the sense that many men openly talk about their random sexual encounters with a co-ed crowd, whereas women tend to only speak about this with their girlfriends. I don’t think it’s right to lie about the number of people you have slept with. I also don’t think it’s necessary to talk about your sexual past in a new relationship. However, if the relationship lasts, it’s bound to come out and be talked about at some point or another. Honesty is always the best policy if you want a legitimate relationship.
Christin,
First, welcome…always good to get another female perspective.
I absolutely agree with you here. It is really refreshing to hear what you are saying here, especially the part about it being wrong to lie. Your point about honesty being the best policy for a legitimate relationship is right on target. I wonder how many women share your view on this. In my opinion, intentional deception calls into question whether someone really loves and respects the person they are with.
Just curious, as a woman who believes in being honest and not lying if and when it comes up, what are your thoughts on women who deceive their boyfriends on their sexual histories? I’ll add that you are right that I don’t think it is necessary to ask although one person might bring it up. Definitely not date 1, 2, or 3 material…but something further down the road before the relationship gets “serious”.
.
You sort of mentioned it, but do you think this data is correct? I’m guessing not from this statement:
What I consider typical college female behavior shocks my boyfriend’s view.
intentional deception calls into question whether someone really loves and respects the person they are with.
.
But does not call into question whether someone is desperate.
.
The deception is popular in certain circles because she herself cannot believe the number and feels self deprecation NOT empowerment. Empowerment is akin to taking control of your life and then accomplishing something that boost self worth. What she did represents a loss of control, no accomplishment and zero contribution to self worth. To make matters worse, now she is faced with coming up with an explanation script as to why she did it with full awareness that a good man is going to wretch with deep disappointment. All this is a lot for a woman to have to reckon with so most feel its best to avoid the whole thing. Cant blame them. Dont marry them either.
Ms. Walsh,
From my post which also concerns itself with Chuck’s post, I quote the following for your reaction and comment:
“Of course, no discussion along these lines, is complete without the following observation: that the photo that accompanies your post today, had no Black Males in it, and only one Asian Male, a rather out of the ordinary looking one at that. Of course, on the former point, it could be argued that the pic is only “keepin’ it real” – after all, it is well known that Black Male attendance and participation in education is spotty at best, at all levels of the US educational system, so them not being in the frame makes sense. And as for the Asian guy, sure he’s a heck of a lot more buff than the norm for such guys, but at least he’s more representative of what you’re likely to find on campus these days, right? The White guys in the pic speak for itself. No explanation needed.
The problem with this whole thing is that we know, from CDC and NIH data, that comparitively speaking, Black Males get sex far and away more than do White and Asian Males, quite possibly combined.”Well Obsidian, Black guys will screw anything that moves!”, may be your reply, and to be sure, one can and will always be able to find anecdotal evidence to backup the point, so no argument there. But even in acknowledging this (supposedly apparent) fact, the fact remains that it is the Women who are still choosing, regardless as to their own looks. Sure, it’s one thing for a guy to say who he would or wouldn’t shag, but that’s only one part – a rather small one at that, if you have any understanding of Game – of the story. At least as equally, and I’d say much more important, is whether the Women in question are choosing said dude for a roll in the hay to begin with. As you said yourself Chuck in your college “study”, the data seems fairly clear that Women seem to prefer sleeping with Men from the upper classes – say, juniors and above, on average. And as Satoshi Kanazawaa points out in his writings for Psychology Today, the vast majority of guys don’t turn down offers for sex, no matter how much smack they may talk online (after all, even Tucker Max smashed a chubby gal).”
Your response?
O.
Also, Ms. Walsh,
HBD blogger Half Sigma has discovered, that the demographic most likely to make use of hookers and the like, are the White Nerdy Male cohort.
O.
I think you’ve done enough blog-pimping in this thread, Obs.
dear Susan,
Interesting research.
It kinda squares with what I was told recently by younger colleagues that said college is roughly divided into 3 thirds of players, daters and the celibate.
.
Your study agrees on the number of celibates but expands the daters and reduces the players.
.
Me, I have no idea. Its 20 years since I started college and I had only one partner throughout. I would have thought anonymous reporting would be accurate but I suppose one never knows for sure.
Let’s go easy on nerdy white males. Everyone here knows I married one and have a soft spot for them
Stop trying to hijack the thread Obsidian.
Anyway, this data is pretty on par with what I’ve observed. Hell, with these numbers it coulda been my school for all I know.
One thing to keep in mind, however, is that it’s not the same 3% of girls that are hooking up with the same 3% of dudes. There isn’t some exclusive slut group out there that is only girls who hook up while every other girl doesn’t. Me and the crew pull ONS from the whole spectrum of girls, from the near virgins to the hardcore cock eaters. It all depends on how tight your game is.
And yeah, there are tons and tons of dudes who rarely, if ever, go home with girls at all. College isn’t a bonanza for you unless you got looks, greek letters on your shirt, a jersey, or game. A lot of dudes around here get a girl, if they can, and hang onto her for as long as possible.
One thing to keep in mind, however, is that it’s not the same 3% of girls that are hooking up with the same 3% of dudes. There isn’t some exclusive slut group out there that is only girls who hook up while every other girl doesn’t. Me and the crew pull ONS from the whole spectrum of girls, from the near virgins to the hardcore cock eaters. It all depends on how tight your game is.
.
“Hardcore cock eaters”. That had me burst out into laughter. Good thing no one still here in the office. In terms of that say 5-10 number there is more going on there I think then just matching up guys and girls 1 for 1. As you allude to here, I think the majority of college girls have at least 1-2 or a few casual encounters with alpha types along with boyfriend sex. That isn’t going to put them into that 11+ group. In contrast, the average, typical beta guy probably has 0 casual sex encounters. It just makes sense. Men pursue, women choose. Guys with looks, tight game, status are going to be able to get a few typical girls to spreadem right away even if they aren’t normally promiscuous. The guy without those won’t. Now probably a good chunk of those girls realize they were used as a semen receptacle and don’t keep repeating that over and over again, and then as the data suggests a small minority go down that path.
Collegeslacker says:
“Stop trying to hijack the thread Obsidian.”
O: Backoff, bucky, you get in where you fit in. If what you’re bringing is compelling, people can and will vibe to that; if not, they won’t. Stop hatin’.
Now, where were we? Ah yes, we were talking about the growing cohort of Male sexual losers in our modern SMP.
Comments?
O.
“I think you’ve done enough blog-pimping in this thread, Obs.”
O: Wait, I thought you were so terribly busy, Hollenhund? LOL
You were saying in response to my earlier questions?
O.
“It kinda squares with what I was told recently by younger colleagues that said college is roughly divided into 3 thirds of players, daters and the celibate.”
O: Yea, but here’s the thing: how many among the “celibate” are in fact choosing that? I say they’re there because they have no other choice but to be there, for the most part and insofar as the Men are concerned. Involuntary celibacy is a fate worse than death for most Men.
O.
“Let’s go easy on nerdy white males. Everyone here knows I married one and have a soft spot for them”
O: Nothing personal here, Ms. Walsh, just laying all the cards on the table. It is, what it is, and by all accounts things look to intensify along these lines in the coming years. We need to be talking about ways to help this cohort cope.
O.
We need to be talking about ways to help this cohort cope.
.
You’ve repeatedly said this now. Why is that so important to you?
@Mike C
Agreed, the data is surprising. Definitely not something to take to the bank, but still, conducted by highly reputable academics who found the results publishable. So it cannot be dismissed out of hand.
There’s no question that women try to downplay their number, we have seen examples of it here and elsewhere. But, as I said in another comment, 3% of college women is actually a large number. And those very promiscuous women will be front and center on every campus. They’re the ones who dance on top of tables at parties or bars, so it makes sense to me that their influence might be “larger than life.”
Your 10% alpha number seems valid, but it means we have to redefine alpha. Would you say that a guy who’s had 6 partners in college is in the top 10% of guys? That is not the impression I’ve had based on the reports of people like college slacker, Athlone, Vincent I, for example. I would have guessed that the top 10% of college males would have an average of 25 partners, at least. So I’m surprised that it may be more like less than 1%.
OK, re my focus groups:
They’re all over the place. Of the 20 or so, 2 are virgins. After that, I’d say about 5 have a partner count of 2. Quite a few in the 5-10 range. And definitely some in the 20+ range. The funny thing is, they’re all friends, it’s a real mix. Two best friends have a count of 3 and 25, respectively. The girl with 3 laughs and teases about how slutty her BFF is. And the other one calls her a prude. This is further proof that there is no slut shaming, btw.
That’s a good question. I think one thing we need to do is ask “who comments on blogs?” SayWhaat is a virgin and there have been others before her (remember Verie44?) There are also women who stop by and argue that having a high number is not a problem, or shouldn’t be. Tom is on here constantly promoting promiscuous women because he has fallen in love with one. We all have our reasons.
BTW, the sex-pos feminists that I’ve written about? The ones who troll for partners on Craigslist? I think we’re talking .01% there – hundreds of partners, most likely. No wonder they don’t want to talk about STDs beforehand.
@collegeslacker
Interesting! I thought for sure you’d say “no way this data is terrible.” I guess I should congratulate you on being top 2%. Is it too much to hope that your GPA is up there as well?
You pulling ONS from the near virgins would confirm hambydammit’s observation, I guess – that the extra 1% for the women may be explained by inexperienced women who got pumped and dumped by a cad.
Thankfully. I’m pretty sure that good chunk is my readership, btw.
OMG, that sends chills down my spine. I’ve actually read that a lot of the actors in gay porn are straight, doing it for the $. Well, obviously they must be bi if they get it up for a dude. Some say that we are all bisexual to some degree, it’s a spectrum. Haha, way OT here.
@OTC
T needs to buy Athol’s book.
Obs, I think the whole nerdy thing is a red herring for this post. If the data showed that 20% of guys were white virgins in the hard sciences, I’d say OK, you have a point. Instead, the data shows that most guys don’t have too many partners. And most guys are willing to commit to get sex. A surprising number date without getting sex! 98% of the men in college are not players, Obs.
I have to admit, this is some tingly dominant stuff. I love watching the guys establish the pecking order.
So it cannot be dismissed out of hand.
.
Agreed. I just wouldn’t take it as gospel unless there were a number of confirming studies all showing the same results, and as I think I’ve pointed out, and Hamby pointed out and a few others, I think there can be more to the numbers then just matching up partner counts with the percentages.
.
Your 10% alpha number seems valid, but it means we have to redefine alpha. Would you say that a guy who’s had 6 partners in college is in the top 10% of guys? That is not the impression I’ve had based on the reports of people like college slacker, Athlone, Vincent I, for example. I would have guessed that the top 10% of college males would have an average of 25 partners, at least. So I’m surprised that it may be more like less than 1%.
.
I’m not sure I’m following you here. I guess what the data shows is it is even more skewed then we ever imagined with really only a super small minority of guys having the attraction level to get the girls who are easy. I’m actually very surprised that only 2% are at 11+.
They’re all over the place. Of the 20 or so, 2 are virgins. After that, I’d say about 5 have a partner count of 2. Quite a few in the 5-10 range. And definitely some in the 20+ range.
.
I would simply note this isn’t consistent with the data above. The data above says 6% for 6-10 while “quite a few” would imply significantly more then 6% of the sample size. Only 1% at 26+ in the data. Not sure how big your focus group sample is, but at that percentage, your sample probably should only have 1 or even 0. Which is why those numbers didn’t ring accurate to me.
Of course, a sample isn’t necessarily representative of the population, but if they are way apart then you have to wonder what is up. Presumably, you know your sample data is 100% correct.
.
The girl with 3 laughs and teases about how slutty her BFF is. And the other one calls her a prude. This is further proof that there is no slut shaming, btw.
.
Yes, which is why in the past I’ve said any calls for “slut shaming” is a lost cause and makes no sense. Friendship trumps any abstract principle.
.
At the end of the day, I really believe a woman should pursue whatever sexual lifestyle she desires. Its a free country, and thank God for that. I think to hate a promiscuous women is just utterly stupid. She’s not hurting your life. The only place I sort of draw the line is that I think any guy who is considering making the ultimate commitment in this day and age under this system is entitled to know a woman’s true sexual history before making that decision. If you are woman, and you are concerned about the repercussions of that down the road, then don’t live a promiscuous lifestyle. It really is that simple. I agree with Jimmy that there is something contemptible about trying to pass yourself off as having limited sexual partners when that is completely false. And I’m glad that one of the women who commented agreed with that (Christin).
“You’ve repeatedly said this now. Why is that so important to you?”
O: Because no one else does. That’s why. You could say that I specialize in the road less traveled. Makes life that much more interesting. Besides, it’s what amateur social scientist rabble rousers do!
O.
And most guys are willing to commit to get sex. A surprising number date without getting sex! 98% of the men in college are not players,
.
This would seem to call into question though the thesis that college age women can’t get boyfriends because guys only want casual hook-up sex.
“Obs, I think the whole nerdy thing is a red herring for this post. If the data showed that 20% of guys were white virgins in the hard sciences, I’d say OK, you have a point. Instead, the data shows that most guys don’t have too many partners. And most guys are willing to commit to get sex. A surprising number date without getting sex! 98% of the men in college are not players, Obs.”
O: Agreed, but then I don’t think I ever made such a case; red herrings, anyone?
What is important here, is that Chuck/your post shows, that Women are indeed outclassing Men in more ways than just one. The growing cohort of what I call de facto eunuchs is just that – a growing one. And no amount of sticking our heads into the sand is gonna change or alleviate that. China may be forced to deal with its de facto eunuch situation soon enough; we here in the States should be much more forward leaning in the effort.
Back to you…
O.
Susan, you’ve described your husband as sort of a nerdy beta. You’ve also said you had 10+ partners before him. So, ironically, aren’t you the kind of girl that guys gripe about in the current SMP? I’m not talking about being an all out slut and riding the “carousel”, but the other kind of girl that’s more common, and in a way more insidious because it’s much more accepted. I mean the kind of girl Haley just posted about and you linked to. The kind of girl who goes through serial “monogamy”. Having relationships of convenience and moving on when you’re done having fun, and when you’re “ready” (meaning getting old) you settle down with a guy who’s maybe not all that objectively attractive but a good provider. His numbers probably aren’t up to yours, how do you think he would feel about it?
O: Because no one else does. That’s why. You could say that I specialize in the road less traveled. Makes life that much more interesting.
.
Well…I guess my thought is who cares. I see no major problem. They’ll play video games, jack-off to porn, or go to hookers. Every once in a really long time, maybe you get a George Sodini type who loses it, but that would be a extreme rarity. There is no “problem” to “solve”.
.
My belief is most people are lazy and undisciplined. That’s why most people fail diets, can’t quit smoking, don’t save money, etc. Learning Game/attracting women is no different. A small minority of guys will be committed enough to really learn and practice. Most will give up. It is what it is.
The growing cohort of what I call de facto eunuchs is just that – a growing one. And no amount of sticking our heads into the sand is gonna change or alleviate that. China may be forced to deal with its de facto eunuch situation soon enough; we here in the States should be much more forward leaning in the effort.
.
Are they going to riot in the streets, hold marches with protest signs demanding pussy? Should I be afraid in my apartment of the omega/lower beta who isn’t getting laid?
still sounding like the victorian grandma
.
“you will get a reputation m dear- no white wedding dress for you- you will besmirch your reputation Moll”
.
Again, we wind up with ‘how many makes a slut?’
.
And who decides upon level of information release? Does a women have to list age of virginity loss on the first date, a rape event?, her 1st kiss?, does she own a sex aid?, does she read racy novels?
.
And of the man? Does he have to disclose masturbation frequency? Perhaps a list of all the websites hes visited in the last 12 months? make that 36 months? Every used a prostitute? How about an STD free certificate?
.
When I last circulated a similar thread on this topic from this blog to bunch of my work friends they all thought you guys were bonkers- or from another era.
That’s kind of sick. This “tingly dominant stuff” is probably the biggest cause of male suffering today. It would be like me saying I like watching anorexic women starve themselves.
@Mike C
Admittedly, my sample is anything but random. The first group, my daughter and her classmates, all attended an all-girls high school, class size 60. From there they went to a variety of colleges – some went crazy, others did not. My daughter’s college friends are all in her sorority – and similarly, all over the map. That might surprise some people, but it’s one of the reasons I know that you can’t judge people by their appearance or friends. This group has some very hot blondes who are chaste, or nearly so.
The BU crew is a bit different – it includes the daughter of my oldest friend in the world, and her friends. They are very attractive, urban, worldly. Some of them are in serious relationships, others not. This alone accounts for considerable variation in the number, as might be expected.
@Mike C
Yes it sure does! And I have a very keen interest in understanding that. I know that this blog is needed, b/c it has grown steadily these last two years. But it’s really important that I understand what is needed.
That’s kind of sick. This “tingly dominant stuff” is probably the biggest cause of male suffering today. It would be like me saying I like watching anorexic women starve themselves.
Jeez…relax. Don’t take shit so seriously. A little bantering with humor isn’t the cause of suffering.
Yes it sure does! And I have a very keen interest in understanding that.
.
I think we sort of know the answer to that already though, don’t we?
.
Do we need to dig up that Casey thread?
.
I wonder if Florence ditched that good guy engineer after a few dates?
modern guy,
Whilst susan is more than capable of standing up for herself, I hope she will forgive me if I suggest you are making uncalled for assumptions- which in fact, if you read the blog fuller, simply are not true.
.
Apart from the fact that sometimes you have to kiss a few frogs to get a prince there is nothing wrong in enjoying life whilst you can.
.
A few parties, a bit of flirtation, the odd slow dance is not soddom and gomorrahh.
.
Susan is arguing for females to curb casual sex for long term benefit to themselves and society. I dont agree particularly but she not being hypocritical.
.
As for numbers the chances of a couple having identical numbers is a long shot. People have to adult about these things. Not cry into their soup cos ‘he/she had more sex than me before we met.
.
Most women do factor in status/wealth/health etc but you what… attraction, kindness and sense of humour are what women like in a LTR. And if 10 yrs earlier she had a fling with a tall ‘player’ as a life experience so the hell what? She will barely even remember the experience.
What matters is sexual, emotional and intellectual cmpatitibiltiy.
Numbers, skin colour, age, background or religion shouldn’t matter one jot.
Quite probably. That was about a year ago, which is well before my intro to the manosphere, but after I discovered some truths myself and amped up the sex from biweeky to daily. At the time I thought to myself “dude, what’s wrong, you were THE man in college”, but I didn’t as had no explanation why — I just had a wife who is up for anything. Maybe now I can.
Of course, part of me just wants to keep this secret to myself.
Wow, so hostile. For us, the topic naturally came up at some point early in the relationship, where we both briefly described our pasts, and that was about it for years. You make it sound like a hostile interrogation. Neither of us had anything to hide. Eventually, months later, she described some abuse she had as a kid, as her depression episodes from it become apparent. Other details fill in randomly over the years, as we recount past experiences in other contexts. One ex-boyfriend tried to pursue her after marriage, and I stomped on it hard. Another time we talk about our first kiss. And so on. These open, incidental exchanges of history are a big part of having a loving relationship. I find it honestly ridiculous that you’d lock part of yourself up in a box, never to talk about it again with your spouse… unless its something emotionally scarring.
I’m probably an idiot for even responding to you
.
Again, we wind up with ‘how many makes a slut?’
.
Who cares? Why do we have to have number X = slut. It is up to each individual guy to determine what he considers slutty for his own personal relationships. But yes, I know, that is the part you don’t like. You don’t want guys having passive veto power by being able to take a pass on someone they deem slutty. I don’t think any guy out there except for a few kooks is looking to brand women with a scarlet S for public consumption.
.
And who decides upon level of information release?
.
Seriously, this is such a stupid f*cking response. What do you mean “who decides”. I ask you a question. You answer it honestly. If you don’t want to answer, then you say “That is none of your damn business”. If you don’t like that the question was asked, you don’t have to interact with that person again.
.
And of the man? Does he have to disclose masturbation frequency?
.
I guess if the woman wants to disclose her mastubation frequency. Why would you care what the masturbation frequency is? But if you asked, sure I’ll respond I rub one out X times.
When people say that there’s nothing wrong with promiscuity and sex is just for fun, I feel like they’re talking out of one side of their mouth. There’s something that keeps forming and breaking inside us with relationships that sex consummates, and promiscuity breaks that sensitivity. Girls break it more easily because their pre-existing state is one of hope and possibility while men have to create the possibility, so losing it can be dreadful.
I really am an idiot as I am breaking my commitment not to engage you:
Most women do factor in status/wealth/health etc but you what… attraction, kindness and sense of humour are what women like in a LTR. And if 10 yrs earlier she had a fling with a tall ‘player’ as a life experience so the hell what? She will barely even remember the experience.
What matters is sexual, emotional and intellectual cmpatitibiltiy.
Numbers, skin colour, age, background or religion shouldn’t matter one jot.
.
Here is the thing which you don’t or cannot seem to understand. You get to decide FOR YOU what matters. You completely 100% have that right to prioritize whatever you think. What you don’t get to do is decide for another human being WHAT MATTERS TO THEM. They get to decide that for themself. If I only want to marry a woman who is a PhD astrophysicist and speaks 20 languages that is my prerogative. That is stupid, and I will probably never get married but that is my right.
.
Seriously, what I really find disgusting is the clear implication that you are entitled to lie or hide information because you deem that it doesn’t matter.
Jess your opinions are not only typically female (“I can do whatever I want!) but also typically oblivious of the male point of view. From the male point of view you absolutely can’t do whatever you want, and life is not just about having fun.
Jess,
Here is your homework assignment. Go back to several posts and read all of the comments by Stephenie Rowling. She is a stellar example of how you build rational, cogent arguments point by point instead of inane snark like this:
“And who decides upon level of information release? Does a women have to list age of virginity loss on the first date, a rape event?, her 1st kiss?, does she own a sex aid?, does she read racy novels?”
You don’t want guys having passive veto power by being able to take a pass on someone they deem slutty.
.
They would not mind so much if few men exercised that veto power. The fact that they do mind is a clear indication that most guys do. But suggest that fewer men would do that if women would change their behavior and their little brains fry.
,
promiscuity breaks that sensitivity
.
Is that why its so much easier to fall hard for girls who are not promiscuous?
Numbers, skin colour, age, background or religion shouldn’t matter one jot.
.
So, if that were true, how would that change things for the better for men and women?
to mike c,
the bit you keep forgetting is that you are telling women in general to limit their sexual experiences before an LTR.
.
If so, then isnt it a fair question to ask “ok, what am I allowed to have?”
.
We all get that it might vary from guy to guy and context. But a ball park figure at least?
.
I would have hoped you would have realised my made up ‘disclosure’ conversations were designed to illustrate how silly this all is.
.
I should mention that with the exception of some odd balls (ie no friends and disliked by colleagues/peers) all the people, of both genders, just dont go along with this purity nonsense.
.
No women or man wants their significant other to have had 100′s of partners.
But 10?, 20? 30 even? Certainly cant be an issue if you are in your 30′s or 40′s?
.
It shouldnt be as important as a whole bunch of other issues.
If a daughter of mine, in the future, had say, 6 flings at uni and them got engaged I would be astonished if she was jilted by a fiance on discovering her terrible ‘secret’. If he did, then better now than later she should discover he was a jerk.
.
And the ‘lie’ thing- mmmm- I wonder how honest people are in relationships sometimes. I know a few guys (good guys) who had a quick drunken mini snog at the Xmas party. Im guessing they havent felt the need to share that with their wives.
.
Oh wait- hang on- its ok isnt it? – they have to spread their seed dont they- sorry- forgot that
if 10 yrs earlier she had a fling with a tall ‘player’ as a life experience so the hell what? She will barely even remember the experience.
.
She should of at least remembered his name and especially his number. Could give her that chance to get married.
.
my work friends they all thought you guys were bonkers- or from another era.
.
Oh, its this era alright. The feminists aren’t all on the defensive for no reason.
I disagree that nerds have less or less satisfactory sex than non-nerds.
Or that high intelligence is linked to misunderstanding and failure with the opposite sex.
The high T aggressive male attempts to achieve sexual access via multiple interactions using physical dominance and displays of selected.
Meanwhile, his nerd male counterpart is fondling and making-out with the key club president under an oak tree next to a flowing river.
After the aggressive male has exhausted his non-verbal mating strategy in the presence of an intelligent female, with limited success, he reveals his IQ by opening his mouth and losing her.
And the nerd is successfully seducing his girlfriend, serenading her with his intellectual prowess and captivating demeanor, arousing her passions through physical and mental stimulation.
The female audience is not aware of the power the disciplined and intelligent male has over himself and her when she enthralled and sustained in arousal, primed for multiple orgasms.
Of course, sluts are not familiar with this by definition and/or because they ignore the nice guy/nerd.
It just so happens that intelligent guys appear to suck in bed, just don’t get him alone with you, or your perception of him will remain that way.
MRKTGNS, your comment reminded me strongly of this post, written (supposedly) by a young woman:
http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com/2011/04/once-you-go-gamer-you-never-go-back.html
Money quote: ” If sense ran the world, a guy with a six-year-long Mage: The Ascension campaign would have groupies and have to hire a service to clean all the pussy juice off his lawn.” Really, how can you top that?
did you mean ‘perception WONT remain that way’?
Are they going to riot in the streets, hold marches with protest signs demanding pussy? Should I be afraid in my apartment of the omega/lower beta who isn’t getting laid?
You are being a little small picture on this. A society with a huge amount of member apathetic about it, no reproducing and not adding a meaningful part of the culture is not a functional society. Not sure if you plan to breed with your beloved, but if you do, your kids and grandchildren will need suitable partners, willingly to commit and marriage will become a luxury on a couple of generations and passing the grandfather test is the key to a society that will progress and flourish. And even though it sounds cliche the next Einstein might no be born. That is why we are should participate on correcting the current issues with the SMP, and not just assume we are free of the consequences, just because we managed one way or the other to escape it, YMMV as usual.
I would say nerds (defined as intellectual types with an obsessive habit of learning what they can) have a good chance of being good lovers. They’ll probably know as much about a woman as her gynaecologist after all.
That said, without some ability to stand out from the herd they may not get the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge.
I don’t think that the average man (especially based on these statistics) needs to know enough Game to keep an 8 strong harem. They just need enough to engage one woman, and avoid the pitfalls of becoming too beta for her.
“Here is your homework assignment. Go back to several posts and read all of the comments by Stephenie Rowling. She is a stellar example of how you build rational, cogent arguments point by point instead of inane snark like this”
Thank you, I’m really speechless. More often than not I feel I’m talking to much…but then I’m a chatter box on real life is not like we can change our persona too much *virtual kiss on the cheek’
Women shame men for lack of attractiveness, men shame women for lack of character. They are equivalent.
MRKTGNS,
I happen to agree with you, intelligence has always been a big turn on for me, and the few guys that I had been attracted to, usually screw it with one word or two.
But then I really think that women are not gamed on the sense of tricked into it, but responding to some sort of mating dance they recognize, so a very drama filled woman will respond to the dark gamers and a less filled drama one probably can be satisfied with less game. But again I had said that American society despise good character traits: politeness and niceness or feminine traits and exalts the bad ones: rudeness and angriness. If you check the feminist icons more often than not are career women (like Scully) and/or kick ass women (like Xena) but you rarely see mothers or housewives respected or supported by this women (and although I love Xena and Scully I also love Mary Poppins and nice girls and housewives), so when a man display the “cool” traits many women respond to that and despise the others, add to that the entitlement complex, they are not getting anything special out of being treated nice you are just recognizing their superiority so the gesture is lost, YMMV.
@Esau
Err does she knows that Asian Nerds have groupies? Sense might no reign on her world but they do on other cultures were intelligence is appreciated.
For modernguy, a modern beta love story:
I’ll tell you how it was. At 25, I had been with 6 guys. Two guys in college, three men I dated in my 20s, and a reunion with a high school boy I’d never had sex with during our relationship. (I should mention that I started college at 16.) Honestly, all of that sex was meaningful to me, none of it was casual. I then went to grad school, and had 3-4 flings my first semester. Just kind of went crazy as an “empowered and independent woman” – it was a cliche, the way I went for the alphas in the bunch. A former Israeli air pilot, the son of a Mexican tycoon, a French banker, an Australian student from the dental school who crashed the MBA Happy Hour. The guys were hot, and the sex was bad. I knew I’d gone seriously awry, and I decided to stop. I didn’t care one bit about any one of those guys, I was just trying to act like a dude.
In truth, I had seen and been attracted to my husband the first day, but he barely knew I existed. We ran in the same crowd, and I had a serious crush on him. Eventually, we became friends and I hid my real feelings.
He went to an engineering college, and was 27 when he went to business school. I don’t know his number, I think it was about the same as mine at that point. As an MBA student, and an attractive guy, he did pretty well with the local undergrads, something I found very annoying. My roommate and I once ran into him doing the walk of shame on a Sunday morning – so he had come into his own by then, as many betas do after college. I was very attracted to him.
One night we were hanging out, listening to music and he kissed me, out of the blue. I was stunned, and my stomach flipped over in a roller coaster way. That was a ONS. Of course, I was totally in love with him at that point. We had great pillow talk in the morning, that was a Friday. I waited to hear from him all weekend, but not a word. The next Tuesday, I saw him walking towards me on campus. It was inevitable that we would stop and chat. He was very awkward. My heart was pounding but I told him that I wanted to spend time with him, that I wanted to be together again. He looked incredibly pained, but he looked me in the eye and said, “I don’t think so.” I swallowed, said, “OK, I understand” and walked calmly away. When I got back to my room I wept.
Soon we were in midterms, and then we had spring break. I was stressed and strung out, so I went to a B&B in Maine by myself. I brought good books and loved the solitude and did a bit of wallowing in self-pity. When I returned, I saw him at a party, and he greeted me with, “How was your sad and lonely vacation?” So I guess that was a neg! What an asshole, negging the girl he’d rejected!
I resolved to be a big girl and move on with my life. I didn’t hook up with anyone else, and I knew he didn’t like me. Summer came, and I headed to NYC where I had a sweet banking internship. He stayed in Philly to work for the mayor. In July I received a typed postcard in the mail (who does that?). He wrote, “I’ve been trying to reach you and you’re never there. It’s driving me crazy. What would you think if I came to NY for a weekend?” And the rest is history.
Epilogue: It wasn’t easy starting a relationship this way. In particular, I wanted an explanation for why he had not been attracted to me, then kissed me, then not liked me, then changed his mind. At the time he said, “It was pretty clear to me you weren’t looking for a relationship. You really dug those foreign guys.” Of course, now I know that he was freaked out by my slutty behavior that first semester. I’ve never learned what made him change his mind. He missed me, I guess, and he decided to take a chance. Once we were together, he was HOH (head over heels) and I never had reason to doubt his affection. And I never gave him reason to doubt either. That was the summer of 82. We married in 84. And I still have the hots for him!
modernguy,
you jest yes?
you dont really suggest that men dont judge women on their attractiveness do you?
.
and quality of character means different things to different people-
there is nothing ethically wrong in responsible casual sex imo
.
and i know of a few chaste people that are of ‘poor’ character imo.
@Mike C
Since Florence has been MIA, I suspect that she ditched him. Re Casey, I’ve never heard from her again, and who could blame her? Man, that thread lives on in infamy!
@Susan
That is a very nice story.
You should totally add it as part of the books. It reads like a rom-com. But just don’t make it into a full motion picture. Sluts around the country will think that their true love will get over their first impression and they will hamsterwheel a full sped till they reach 50. Is like Jezebel you find 10 or 20 commenter that said that they found their love that didn’t judged their slutty ways and it does gives the appearance that it doesn’t matter till you read about 2000 commenters that can’t get laid are unmarried/separated/single/divorced or sharing a guy on an open relationship…Sadly feminists only hear the success stories not the other ones.
@OTC
I agree, part of loving someone is learning their history and how they feel about it. Some of that information may be difficult to hear, or even dampen attraction temporarily, but it’s inevitably part of the deal in a loving relationship. There is something wonderful about knowing that you aren’t fooling your partner – they know it all, and they still love you. That’s a huge relief.
@Mike C
Haha, low impulse control!
Stephenie: Err does she knows that Asian Nerds have groupies?
I recommend the Ozymandias blog. She wouldn’t be my type (!) but it’s a great read, and I think you in particular would appreciate that post, among others.
Females disqualify in attempt to quantify.
A 6’3” mesomorphic UFC champion athelete will be able to physically defend his female companion under the threat of attack or confrontation, he may even deter the event from his presence alone.
However, a woman will underestimate the ‘power’ of the intellect with regard to his negotiating skill that may lead the release of hostages or psychologically disarming an assailant in close proximity.
Both are effective. Both can build their physical strength.
But who holds the power?
Forget the relationship/sex blogs, where the heck does common sense come into play? Let’s get the view of the young person on the street, and stop wishing the world shared our individual (or even groupthink) opinion. See thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/pubs/ThatsWhatHeSaid.pdf
“Similarly, 53% of all guys surveyed (ages 15-22) say having lots of hook-ups makes them more popular while just one in four (24%) believe that lots of hook-ups make girls popular.”
Is this survey of teenagers in the USA clear enough for you? Men are studs and women are duds when participating in the hookup culture.
Also, the study which forms the basis for this blog post is, unsurprisingly for social science research, fundamentally flawed. Lack of honesty by respondents is just the start of the problems – the bias of the study’s authors, four female academicians and a lone male, also must be taken into account. How would the authors expect the government funded gravy train to continue running if they failed to support the victim/perpetrator, “woman good, man bad” world view to which acadmia is slavishly devoted? Just one example: the authors claim that 1% to 5% of rapes result in pregnancy, for a total of approximately 32,000 annual pregnancies. At a 1% “success” rate the total number of rapes is 3.2 million. At a 5% “success” rate the total number of rapes is 640,000. For the year 1996, which is the year of the study referenced by the authors in support of these numbers, the Department of Justice reports (rounded to the nearest thousand) 96,000 rapes, and for the publication year of their study, 2007, 90,000 rapes were reported. The authors wish us to believe that between 1 in 33 (3.2 million/96,00) or 1 in 7 rapes (640,000/96,000) goes unreported. Underreporting of actual rape versus women’s regret surrounding one or more dimensions of an unsatisfactory sexual experience will never be definitively resolved. The lack of definitive rape in comparison with substance abuse and regret issues regarding “unwanted” sex on college campuses drives these useful tools of the nonmeritocracy absolutely crazy. “It was crowded at the party and he rubbed against me on the way to the keg, so yeah, I’ve experienced sexual assault because I didn’t consent for him to touch me!” The authors and their colleagues massage the definition of sexual assault/rape until the results they desire are achieved, and yet actual criminal charges of rape are rare.
The real data on hookup frequency in college is not going to be found as a tangential element of an academic study focusing on sexual assault. For something entirely more believable on hookup frequencies by gender see cambridgetab.co.uk/features/cambridges-love-survey, which states: “When it comes to sex, Cambridge’s girls are getting way more action than the boys. 32% of women claim to be having sex more than once a week, whereas 36% of men are having sex less than monthly.” The author of this column didn’t deliver her message very clearly, but I trust her overall conclusion that the girls are getting way more action than the boys – afterall, she saw the original survey data.
@Jason
I think that’s a good example of the Pareto Principle. Learning 20% of Game can probably get you 80% of the results. Most guys really don’t even want to get to total player status, so why train for that?
“I recommend the Ozymandias blog. She wouldn’t be my type (!) but it’s a great read, and I think you in particular would appreciate that post, among others.”
I read it! Totally agree with her
, but then again I’m a nerd myself I married a WOW player and now I have a paladin and a blood elf and we do all the valentines day quests together. And of course we game on the bed a lot too. Perfect marriage IMO. 
.
@Stephenie
After I wrote I Married a One-Night Stand, I had a loyal reader angrily tell me I was offering false hope to women and leave, never to be heard from again. Believe me, it’s not a strategy I recommend. My husband saw my good qualities and somehow knew that I was a good bet. I think if I had stumbled in the early days, or given any cause for doubt, he would have walked immediately. Fortunately, I was already in love with him, so that didn’t happen.
@Susan
Good I didn’t knew you had already a book out *bad guest*.
Maybe mention this that you got lucky but that also the image of the slut on your days was not the same.
I really think part of the revulsion of sluts is that the images on the internet of women getting cum shots, half naked, half passed out between 4 or 5 frat boys that are taking turns at her, is the first thing a modern guy thinks once he finds out that a girl has a “slut phase” and that is hard to get over with. I mean Mike C tale of the women his friends beds are probably enough for any sensible guy to just stop dating altogether.
I also think SadistfortheStupid, has a point you mentioned that the levels of drinking don’t match the hook up numbers and that is really an odd fact when we know how much alcohol is involved on hooking up, they might be indeed altering something or just counting P and V sex, and anything else: anal, blowjobs, no recalling the whole night so no admitting if it was consensual… could be counted out the question. Do we know the details of the survey?
Most of the females in the campus want to bang these 1.3% dudes
Great post, Susan! Always nice to see real statistical data instead of anecdotes and exaggerations getting passed around like a game of telephone.
This…
In short, this is a very different story than college students often informally report here and on other blogs. Why is that? Some possible explanations:
•The grass is always greener. College students regularly assume that others have it way better than they do.
•The culture rewards casual sex, so that the most promiscuous students have outsized visibility in the population.
•Popularity and peer approval rest on tales of exploits, which may lead students to fabricate or exaggerate sexual conquests.
…is great
Especially the middle point. When you have movies like American Pie and the 40 Year Old Virgin, it’s easy to feel like a loser if you have few or no tales of conquest. After all, shouldn’t 90% of our value as human beings be based on how often we’re getting laid? *sarcasm*
Now that I think about it, quite a large percentage of the people I knew in college were virgins or generally lacking in experience. Those that weren’t were in monogamous relationships for the most part. Then again, I went to a pretty STEM and foreign school, so the inexperience factor is probably even higher.
I wonder how different this study’s results would look if the survey included young 20 somethings who didn’t pursue any post-secondary. All of the alpha/player types I know personally are part of this category.
Susan:
Please remind me. What was the Casey thread?
once he finds out that a girl has a “slut phase” and that is hard to get over with
.
American women: you must consider it a favor that guys are doing their best to find a way to consider you for commitment. Given your behaviors, you understand that this is mighty hard. So, if they employ their option to pull the plug on the whole idea, know they tried and don’t hold it against them.
I just got home and read a lot of the comments so I will try to respond efficiently and succinctly…
- There is a difference between lying about yourself and placing yourself in the best possible light when you’re getting to know someone. As Mike C described, date 1 2 or 3 is not necessarily the best time to say “Hey, wanna talk about how many penises have been in here?!??”
- We have also overused the term “slut”- for both male and females. There are some girls who actually are wife-material that have “slut” moments, or slip-ups. There are also the girls who have LTRS and in between each become sluts- some serial daters can fall in this category. There are girls who sleep around and love doing it, usually self-proclaimed sluts. What I hinted at before is that (from personal experience)- many guys are surprised at either a) how slutty a girl can actually be and b) how “normal” girls can have “slut” moments.
-There are so many occasion when sex doesn’t actually happen, but there has been promiscuous behavior. Story #1- (names have been changed). Rich is a friend of my boyfriend’s and Susan (haha) is a friend of mine. We’re all out at a bar. Susan tells me she finds Rich attracted. Rich grunts and humps his way around Lansdowne Pub. Susan and Rich ferociously make out. Boyfriend and I go home. We get a call from Rich in the morning.
“Yo”
“Hey Rich…how’d it go?”
“Yeah man, I don’t know, how do I get to your place?”
“Where are you?”
“Susan’s”
“AHHH!! What happened?”
“Nothing…we woke up fully clothed. I didn’t know where I was. How do I get home?”
True story…anyway…
@Mike C- Women who deceive their boyfriends- FAIL. It’ll come out eventually. As I’ve said, some men are unaware of how promiscuous females can be.
@Abbot- The circle doesn’t matter. Girls’ sexual behavior is judged differently between their girlfriends and potential male suitors. A woman who sleeps around freely and knowingly is someone who is getting their immediate wants filled. Therefore, they can obviously alter any male-encounter to their favor, whether it be their perceived wife-ability.
@collegeslacker
College isn’t a bonanza for you unless you got looks, greek letters on your shirt, a jersey, or game.
It’s true. Imagine this scenario of an alpha (I’m purposefully leaving out the gender):
A “person” walks into the room with a group of friends. They are attractive and gregarious. Someone bumps into them- they either brush it off and start talking to the person or try to start a fight. Either way, dominant personality.
This “person” approaches someone of the opposite sex.
Drinking ensues. Some talking. Maybe making out. etc.
AT THE END OF THE NIGHT:
MOST OF THE TIME:
If it’s a female that wants sex- she will have it. If it’s a male that wants sex, he still has a 50% chance of it not happening. It’s easier for females to be promiscuous because they are the choosier ones.
@modernguy
His numbers probably aren’t up to yours, how do you think he would feel about it?
I know a few have touched on this, but I would like to reiterate:
1. There is a difference in lifestyle change between being in college and out of college. 2. “Settling down” doesn’t mean settling for whatever’s left over. I am obviously female, but if I was a male that got around a bit in college, had no trouble getting girls, and then found a girl that made me want to settle down, I would think UPGRADE. Same goes for girls.
@Jess- I’m just going to say YES because I agree with so many of your statements.
-and lastly-
I think there is a time and a place to talk about sexual pasts etc. Definitely not on the first few dates. As many of you have pointed out, more experiences are shared within an honest relationship. The only problem is- do you really want to imagine the person you love boning someone else? I say, if you want to know numbers, find out early in the relationship (but once it is an actual relationship) and then freely talk about your experiences as they pertain to your present life. We all have some stories we’re not proud of- sexually or not, but live in the present and don’t let details about your past life bog down your current relationships.
It’s easier for females to be promiscuous because they are the choosier ones.
.
Not exactly. It’s easier for females to be promiscuous because all they have to say is “yes” and men rarely turn them down. Thus no effort, no accomplishment, not rare and therefore cheap and easy.
they can obviously alter any male-encounter to their favor, whether it be their perceived wife-ability.
.
Yes, temporarily. But only a stupid foolish woman would live that lie into a marriage. We all know that they are not so stupid or corrupt or desperate, right?
I find this very interesting considering that I’ve read studies claiming 60% of graduating high school seniors are virgins. Rather than half of those virgins getting it on in the summer before college, this suggests to me that these two schools, which are obviously not a random sample, are not really that representative of college populations.
@ Workshy Joe
You’d be surprised. I find (with guys at least) that it is always safer to assume that someone is not having sex, unless you know for sure that they are. That said, anyone who you know for sure is having sex is probably having as much as they can (and the type of person who can get any is often the type of person who can get a lot). Note that a lot does not necessarily mean > 11 partners they may have just a few, or just 1 (but be having sex with those partners very frequently).
@Mike C
11 is A LOT. Women generally considered open to sex or promiscuous probably have more like 5 or 6 partners, not 11. I only know one girl that I can say has for sure had more than 10 partners (she’s still far from the 25+ bracket). And she didn’t break even that high until last semester.
While I don’t disregard her partner count, I honestly believe that if you like her enough it doesn’t matter. At that point the only concern is whether she is capable of committing to you if she wanted to, to which I’m generally inclined to grant the benefit of the doubt.
@Susan
I would say you’re likely on to something, workdeath seriously limits the time a lot of us have to deal with this stuff. That said, getting drunk once a month is not the same as getting hammered on a regular basis (the latter is both more extreme and more frequent consumption of alcohol than the study suggests is common), on top of which I suspect drunk virgins don’t actually know how to turn their temporary confidence into actually getting laid. Hell, those of us who are sober have a hard enough time keeping bringing girl back to room with expectation on both sides that something is going to happen from turning into movie night where girl gets tired and goes home early.
I find it weird that anyone would think Suzanne’s story is a a good example of how hooking up can lead to marriage. It sounds to me like her brief period of sluttiness was almost a deal-breaker for the husband. Him deciding to send the postcard seemed like a lucky break which frankly, wouldn’t happen today.
.
“I wonder how different this study’s results would look if the survey included young 20 somethings who didn’t pursue any post-secondary. All of the alpha/player types I know personally are part of this category.”
.
True. There are tons of bouncer/bartender/drug-dealer/gym-nut type guys who never went to post-secondary who get laid FAR more than college “alphas”
Susan writes:
If women got wet for guys with good grades instead of good game then we’d all be academic geniuses.
Its the same principle out in the world of work. If I was career-oriented, I might get to live like…my late father. God bless him. If I was lucky.
No thanks!
It’s nice to see you acknowledge this.
True, Obs. However, whe definitely shouldn’t seriously entertain the notion that such a honest discussion about the growing % of sexual and economic male losers, even if it actually takes place and gets attention from the MSM (not much of a chance of that happening IMO), will be followed by any sort of wide-range remedy that is politically/legally possible and feasible in the current political and cultural environment in the US or any other Western country. In other words, I don’t think that any of the potential social and political problems directly or indirectly stemming from increasing male sexual and economic underperformance will be pre-empted, so to speak.
@Stephenie
No that wasn’t a book, it was just one post, haha!
The study report just says that they asked about sexual intercourse partners. For their purposes, they did ask re consensual and non-consensual sex. I assume they were looking for straight P in V data. It is possible, or course, that people have more hookup partners than sexual intercourse partners.
I don’t think you can judge any blog’s readership by its commenters. One general rule of blogging seems to be that the vast majority of readers never bother to comment. I’m sure Ms. Walsh agrees. The commenters are usually the shrill, outspoken ones who want to challenge others or simply vent or troll, or have time on their hands and thus don’t want to miss any opportunity to correct someone who they think is wrong on the Internet. I’m sure there are many, many guys who read Roissy, use his advice but never comment.
IMO the palpable anger of some commenters of the Manosphere rather seems to be directed at a) all the people and media who lied and spread BS to them about female sexuality and the current SMP (this violates the value men attach to justice and clarity) b) women who used their legal entitlements to screw them over.
Ms. Walsh, I wonder if you encountered “everything but” virgins in your focus group. This seems to be a relatively new phenomenon I am hearing about. Women who do everything but intercourse. And a whole lot of it. They believe they are saving themselves and don’t think they will be judged the same as “sluts”. One young woman commented on another site “it doesn’t matter how many dicks I suck, I am still a virgin”.
My 20 something guy friends have run into several “everything but” virgins who are willing to service them, and don’t know that my guy friends see them as lower than the regular sluts.
“You want to believe that sluts all end up unhappy and alone with their cats? You’ll cling to every anecdote you can find of that and ignore blatant examples of sluts marrying quite well (some of them even remaining married and faithful.)”
Ditto. Cosign. Well Said.
(standing ovation)
Here’s the thing…when people believe something, they automatically look for evidence to support that believe and will literally not see anything that refutes it. This is normal human nature and is well-known as Confirmation Bias.
We need a certain amount of stability in our own minds to remain sane. But, the flipside of that, is when we believe something to be true, we automatically notice things that support that believe. You believe that frat rats get all the women? You’ll only notice guys at frat parties with a new girl every night. You won’t even see the women hanging out elsewhere on campus who’ve never even been to a frat party. (I went to a southern school with almost 50% greek participation and I’d never even been to a frat party.) You want to believe that sluts all end up unhappy and alone with their cats? You’ll cling to every anecdote you can find of that and ignore blatant examples of sluts marrying quite well (some of them even remaining married and faithful.)
I know there are things I believe, things I want to believe, and things that make me squirm with discomfort when I’m forced to evaluate them against my belief matrix.
Sue, that’s a great story.
That’s exactly how I read it. Well, except for the last part. Breaks can and do happen, today. It’s just smart not to expect it.
Sadly it’s not weird at all, and I can easily see how it could be spun in the exact opposite direction: “This is proof a liberated woman can have a character-building experience exploring her sexuality unrestrained, and can still get married to a great guy in the end! So delay marriage! Have more casual sex so you know what you really want! Mrs. HUS was clearly weak, and intimidated by Sue’s experience, and over time he realize how wrong he was, Manned Up, and did the right thing.”
Totally incorrect, but not unexpected or weird. This perspective fails to recognize Mr. H as a human being who has his own needs and desires on par with a hers. This explanation reduces him to a robot, only good for servicing women.
I’d put Mr. H at a greater beta, if he was good with women and stood up for himself. Well done. No wonder why your kids are so well-adjusted.
I think sw’s story is perfectly usual and can indeed be intrepereted many ways. For me, if the post card had not been sent, she still would have found happiness with someone else.
.
People meet in all sorts of ways.
1 2 3 4 »
{ 4 trackbacks }