Ogi Ogas, a computational neuroscientist, and author of A Billion Wicked Thoughts infuriated the feminist community recently when he described feminism as toxic to sexual arousal. A predictable and natural enough response, I must admit.
Over the weekend, he penned The Online World of Female Desire at the Wall St. Journal, which is more closely aligned with the material in his upcoming book. Ogas and a colleague analyzed a billion web searches for sexual content.
Because this online activity leaves behind a trail of digital crumbs, for the first time we can gather reliable data on the erotic interests of a broad swath of humanity.
Looking at online activity has the advantage of examining the use of a precious resource: time. Whether someone ultimately pays for content, there’s little doubt that both men and women are investing significant time on arousal, though in very different ways.
“All across the planet, what most women seek out, in growing numbers, are not explicit scenes of sexual activity but character-driven stories of romantic relationships.”
This isn’t news, exactly. Everyone knows that women are the consumers of rom coms, chick flicks, chick lit, and romance novels. Ogas goes into the science, i.e., “the unconscious evaluation” of how attraction and arousal work in women, calling it “the source of feminine intuition.”
“Using investigative skills, the female brain evaluates all available evidence regarding a potential mate’s social, emotional and physical qualities to make an all-important decision: Is he Mr. Right or Mr. Wrong?…Though the female brain carefully processes many stimuli simultaneously, it is experienced only as a general feeling of favorability or suspicion toward a potential partner. This feminine intuition is designed to solve a woman’s unique challenge of determining whether a man is committed, kind and capable of protecting a family.”
Ogas examines female erotica to understand how the female brain differs in this respect from “the much simpler male brain.” For example, women account for 2% of online porn subscriptions, but 90% of romance novel purchases. He points out that in all romance novels, a “gradual elucidation of the hero’s inner character leads to an emotional epiphany between the hero and heroine.” Sex never is gratuitous or merely pleasurable – it always leads to long-term commitment, even when, in this modern age, it occurs beforehand.
Recently, female fan fiction as exploded on the internet, where women write their own stories about beloved franchises: Harry Potter and Twilight, for example. The most popular site is FanFiction.net, which gets more than 1.5 million visitors a month.
Ogas boils down the differences between the online sexytime of men and women:
1. They search for different things.
- Men search primarily for racy pictures of famous women they find attractive.
- Women search for details on celebrities’ personal lives. If they search for sexual content, it is more likely to be erotica in which their favorite character stars.
2. They consume pornography differently.
- Men almost always consume pornography alone.
- Women prefer to discuss stories in “probing detail,” exploring the emotional arc, the characters, and the “nuances of the relationships.”
Our data suggest that these women probably have a higher sex drive than other women and that they are more socially aggressive and more comfortable taking risks.
For most women, the evaluation of a mate’s social, emotional and physical qualities “must be completed before mind and body are united in sexual harmony.”
It follows, therefore, that a woman who is not high testosterone but attempts to “have sex like a man” anyway is living in a state of disharmony, one where her mind and her body are at war with one another. This is characterized by doubts, feelings of guilt, rejection or loneliness after casual sex.
Anne Campbell, a researcher at Durham University in England, conducted a One-Night Stand study with 1743 subjects. Although she found that the many of women were regretful immediately afterwards, and reported feeling used (46%), the real eye opener was the motives of the women engaging in no-strings sex:
“Women were not hooking up in an effort to secure a long-term beau, but because they felt flattered by the overnight proposition.
They were mistaken…men lower their standards when it comes to one-night stands, so the presumed flattery is a fantasy or close to it.
Often [women] said things like, ‘I felt so flattered, so happy that he found me attractive. It was so nice to be wanted. What women don’t seem to see is that men drop their standards massively for a one-night stand. No woman should be flattered because a man wants to have sex with her once.”
Every woman comes equipped to deduce a great deal of information about a man to determine whether she is attracted to him. For her intuition to give her the green light, she must like his smell and the taste of his saliva, both of which clue her in to his level of DNA dissimilarity, an essential component of successful mating. She must also like his demeanor, his emotional affect and his social persona. For most women, one-night stands short-circuit the process.
This is the checklist that matters. Women must respect and heed their intuition in mating. And men should understand that there is much to the process that is truly not personal. If your DNA resembles her own family’s, you’re not going to give her butterflies. As an acting coach once said to me, “You are not for all markets.”
Ultimately, sex and even love are pure science. We cannot control it, but we can find greater satisfaction, even peace, by embracing it. We certainly can’t cheat it.
{ 511 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 4 »
High testosterone women……hmmmm. (lightbulb goes off in head). Sounds like me. Could be the main difference between women who enjoy casual sex and women who don’t. Need to research this more.
Many men and women get the most nervous around the opposite sex that they find the most attractive. Stupid learned behaviour!
When I get that good feeling I know it’s my body’s way of letting me know that she is a good match for me.
But it’s no fun to think about all those yummy feelings as nothing more than a surge of brain chemicals.
^^^ that was me.
STOP THE PRESSES!
“most women seek out…character-driven stories of romantic relationships.”
first:
“For example, women account for 2% of online porn subscriptions,..”
then:
“Ogas estimates that between 25-33% of the visitors to pornography sites are women.”
My wee little brain can’t get around this.
Hi Susan,
I’ve been reading here for months but never commented before. I wish I’d known about your blog a few years ago when I still felt “flattered by the overnight proposition”. It would have saved me a lot of misery!
I love this post. The part about preferring slow character build-up describes me to a T. I think another problem with one night stands for women is that we tend to assume that the guy we’ve intuitively decided would be the perfect father to our children has the same kind of intuition about us. Or maybe that was just me
With all due respect to your acting coach, “You are not for all markets” is from Shakespeare:
But, mistress, know yourself: down on your knees,
And thank heaven, fasting, for a good man’s love:
For I must tell you friendly in your ear,
Sell when you can: you are not for all markets:
Cry the man mercy; love him; take his offer:
Foul is most foul, being foul to be a scoffer.
So take her to thee, shepherd: fare you well.
Aldonza:
Can’t we enjoy the butterflies without calling them fairies?
jlw:
Women are cheap.
Jk, the real answer probably has to do with the bell curve. Women represent 25-33% of those who want porn enough to watch it free, but only 2% of those who want it enough to pay. Sort of like how 50% of people who are 170 cm are women, but only about 5% of those who are 180 cm are women.
This is funny. Apparently women have evolved to judge a man in the most intricate details for suitability, but they can’t tell that a guy just wants to bang them for a night and leave them. Some science.
“But it’s no fun to think about all those yummy feelings as nothing more than a surge of brain chemicals.”
Mm why not? Seeing how a real heart looks doesn’t make the valentine stilized figure any less romantic, IMO.
High testosterone women……hmmmm. (lightbulb goes off in head). Sounds like me. Could be the main difference between women who enjoy casual sex and women who don’t. Need to research this more.
That is an interesting idea.
I may be an oddity. Because is true that adore Romance novels but I also love porn and erotica. According to my fingers measure I was exposed to a lot of testosterone in the womb and I’m always be super horny so in theory I should be able to have sex like man but I never even tried because unless the guy passed my evaluation process I wasn’t feeling like having sex with him no matter how horny he made me, it was like there was a bottom on my head that it didn’t connected the desire with the action till the guy in question was deemed worth it, so is probably that I have high testosterone combined with high selectiveness. But is that even possible? Need to investigate further indeed.
I don’t normally agree with modernguy but he has a point here:
Evolution just hasn’t kept up with developments in human society.
We still desire salty, fatty, sugary foods because our hunter-gatherer ancestors evolved in a time when they would frequently go without food for several days at a time.
Our genes did not prepare us for Wal-Mart.
Likewise, the female preference for alpha males originated when humans lived in small, close-knit tribal bands when “good provider” meant “brave leader of men” and not “cubicle drone working for the government or a multi-national corporation”.
Approach anxiety evolved in men because a failed approach wouldn’t just mean having a woman laugh at you or throw a drink at you. In tribal society, approaching the wrong woman could mean ostracism or death.
This strikes me as wrong headed and as some have noted self contradictory.
I like well written romances but find most banal and obvious.
I dont like porn but regard myself as quite sexual- and have a highish sex drive.
.
But I know loads of women that love porn and romance together.
I understand that female porn is the fastest growing sector in that industry and most sex aids are bought by women.
.
Somthing is worng with this research somewhere.
Does anyone remember the 80′s research that said that put monitors on the eyeballs of female subjects the first thing they looked at when a new guy walked in was the crotch.
.
they also put monitors in the ‘nether regions’ of female subjects and showed them varying degrees of porn. Most women said they were not turned on but the monitors said they were ALL turned on.
Some more fun quotes:
The supply of good women far exceeds that of the men who deserve them. ~Robert Graves
There are certainly not so many men of large fortune in the world, as there are pretty women to deserve them.
~Jane Austen
There are only two types of women – goddesses and doormats.
~Pablo Picasso
What men desire is a virgin who is a whore.
~Edward Dahlber
Men always want to be a woman’s first love – women like to be a man’s last romance.
~Oscar Wilde
Plain women know more about men than beautiful women do.
~Katharine Hepburn
He’s the kind of man a woman would have to marry to get rid of.
~Mae West
And just for Susan:
The people I’m furious with are the women’s liberationists. They keep getting up on soapboxes and proclaiming women are brighter than men. That’s true, but it should be kept quiet or it ruins the whole racket.
~Anita Loos, New York Times, 10 February 1974
“According to a recent survey, men say the first thing they notice about a woman is their eyes, and women say the first thing they notice about men is they’re a bunch of liars”
~Anonymous
This was when they moved from “self-reported” measures to actual devices that measured a woman’s arousal. Yes, women are visual too.
Good one Aldonza, you give a snarky quote that says men are liars, then in the following sentence you give an example where most of the women in a study lied, and probably lied really to themselves, since these studies don’t have any personal consequences. I wonder who lies more.
@NomadicNeill
Yes, pheromones are important to men too – they cue fertility, for one thing. That’s why strippers who ovulate get twice the tips of those who take the Pill. Obviously, men are very visual, and the process is perhaps less complex, as it is in their best interest to be less selective. However, there has to be some individual variation – a man might have a decided preference for one of two “10s,” and this can be put down to chemistry.
@Aldonza
Oh, I don’t know. I think it is fun to think about letting one’s body give us all the information we need, if we’re willing to listen. In any case, it’s decidedly more fun than getting pumped and dumped.
On a related note, I read an article that said that brain activity in dogs when they are being given attention by their masters looks nearly identical to brain activity in humans who are deeply in love. If love turns out to be a series of neurochemical processes and signals, then we cannot say that only humans feel it. We may get to legitimately anthropomorphise all our favorite animals after all!
@jlw
Haha, yes I see the difficulty. Here is how I interpreted the apparent contradiction:
There is a big difference between visiting a site, once or on occasion, and subscribing for a fee. I’m not surprised that female subscribers to porn are more “hard core” and only 2% of that group. One key factor has to be that there is very little porn for straight women, although I have read that some straight women enjoy gay male porn.
Ogas’ estimate of a quarter to a third of porn visitors being female on all sites, including the many free ones, refers to the women that he believes do have higher testosterone. Again, I think you’d have to pull the novelty seekers or experimenters out, as well as the women watching porn with a partner. What’s left are the women who stand up and proclaim they love casual sex, without any particular interest in a LTR.
Susan: Well, just the web-tracking data is mildly interesting, but if you want to understand women’s relationships with fandom, you really need to ask them about their experiences with fandom. You’ll quickly discover that some women are quite visual and fond of porn-just-porn.
I’m not saying that there aren’t systematic differences between girlporn and boyporn– there clearly are. Just that the situation is more complicated than it initially seems.
@Wild Cougar
Ha, I give you a lot of credit for honesty there! You are open minded, and that is always welcome in a debate.
@BSD
I’m afraid I’ll have to take the blame for that one. Embarrassing! No doubt my acting coach was just quoting Shakepeare and assumed I would get it. Nearly 20 years later, having seen all of the plays, I’ve just now put it together thanks to you.
Oops, just saw that GudEnuf made the point about $ and porn already.
@modernguy
No, you’ve got it wrong. They can tell that a guy just wants to bang them – they don’t expect a relationship out of it. They admit that they’re just going with it to enjoy the validation of their attractiveness. In other words, if they took more time and did not short-circuit the process, they would reach a different conclusion.
Basically, women who have ONSs are following a short-term mating strategy, never considering other important factors re long-term suitability. This will be effective if the goal is no-strings sex, as in the women with high T. But it’s an extremely ineffective strategy for selecting a long-term partner.
Women were not hooking up in an effort to secure a long-term beau, but because they felt flattered by the overnight proposition.
They were mistaken…men lower their standards when it comes to one-night stands, so the presumed flattery is a fantasy or close to it.
.
What boggles my mind, is that this is actually surprising to anyone in the least. I would think most women have at least one male friend or a brother who somewhere along the lines would have clued them in to this aspect of male sexuality.
Ogi Ogas is really not a good source for information about fanfic. Most of fandom hates his guts and has refused to cooperate with his research. Unfortunately, I don’t know a better source for more unbiased information and all I can provide is anecdotal (pretty good anecdotal– I was in fandom for eight years– but still).
Once again, the data supports my position that the vast majority of people have no business having casual sex.
@Jess
One person had a question about the percentages of women enjoying porn, and two of us have addressed it.
I’ve read that too, and yet I never have seen any. I’ve written a couple of posts on porn, and came up empty. That’s why I believe many women enjoy gay male porn – there are some blogs dedicated to this. As for sex aids, what does that have to do with anything? Women use them specifically for clitoral stimulation, while men have little need for that
Perhaps it’s the sample size. Only 1 billion.
What boggles my mind, is that this is actually surprising to anyone in the least. I would think most women have at least one male friend or a brother who somewhere along the lines would have clued them in to this aspect of male sexuality.
Well how many Rom-Coms have the lead pumping and dumping sluts and marrying the woman with low numbers? And don’t be silly feminist women only see men as overrated sex toys at best so of course they won’t listen to them or ask for advice. They listen to “empowered women” and Oprah :p
@modernguy
First of all, that quote was a joke. Second of all, both sexes lie…all the time…to themselves and others…knowingly and unconsciously.
Secondly, is it a lie if you don’t know it’s a lie? If you read the report, many of the women in the second studies were astonished when later told that what they were feeling was actually sexual excitement. They just reported feeling a little “warm” or “moist”. And lest you not believe that they didn’t know their own feelings, it’s a well-known phenomenon (utilized by Game) that people frequently mistake feelings for something else. Want her to think she’s attracted? Take her on a roller coaster.
A major part of my own belief system is that there is on one “truth”. We all process everything through our own filter of perception, understanding and ultimately how well it fits into our own framework of beliefs. Don’t believe me? Just ask any cop who interviews multiple witnesses to the same event. 5 people see it…5 truths reported, rarely if ever the same.
No. And I don’t believe it. I’d love a link. Even if women were interested in scoping out penii, they’d get little detail from a glance at a clothed flaccid one.
The point is not that women don’t find graphic sexual pictures arousing. Rather, the study looks at how people are spending their time. Women are more likely to fantasize about sex with Legolas than watch porn. Personally, I find straight porn anything but arousing, mostly because the women enact terrible fake orgasms, with high-pitched squawking and squealing, and the men grunt like animals and do things that actually feel terrible. It’s all for the camera angles, and it’s all for male consumption.
I didn’t hang out with guys. I didn’t have guy friends and my brothers certainly never talked to me about sex. Certainly none of my girlfriends had any concept…or at least that they were willing to share.
The whole point of this research is that it was done following the crumbs on the internet. We don’t need to ask people where they go online or whether they find porn arousing. Their web searches and viewing habits tell the story. That data is readily available. Ogas cited his sources as: AOL, Excite, adult web site data, and addtl. data gathered using web-analysis techniques.
susan,
yes but such research can be strongly effected by the type and order of questions, anonymity, self selection of those joining the club that offered the survey.
.
I will look for the female porn thing- I saw this really recently.
The sex toy thing I mentioned because its a specially sexual item not romantic.
The uk has lots of male stripper shows- I think they would be astonished by this data.
Speak for yourself.
I’ve admitted here that especially during ovulation, I walk around vaguely speculating about just that, and trying to confirm my speculations discreetly as possible. It also makes evolutionary sense. If a man is becoming aroused at the sight of a woman…that’s helpful information for her…no?
@Mike C
Surprisingly, I think most women either don’t have that or have refused to hear it. When I say this directly to women, they stare back at me with a blank look. I can see the ONS Rolodex spinning as they think back and try to determine whether such a disturbing claim could be true in their case.
Just ask any cop who interviews multiple witnesses to the same event. 5 people see it…5 truths reported, rarely if ever the same.
The movie Rashomon is a good depiction of that.
But still perception is subjective but it doesn’t mean that the event didn’t happened on certain way. Just that is hard to determine the truth by witness accounts without actual facts or data backing them up.
I agree. Porn is mostly a caricature of sexuality. But there is some out there that is better. Some of the amateur stuff is downright hot. Real people doing real things.
But I’m also not surprised at the “viewers” vs “paid viewers” discrepancy about porn viewing by gender. It helps to understand the web world’s definition of “visitor”. This is a single entity. A user. A person. This is very different from “visits”. A single visitor may visit multiple times a month/week/day/hour…you get the point. So they might have 30% woman…who visit once or twice a month (near ovulation) and 70% men (who live on the site.) Presumably men who probably consume more porn would also be more willing to pay for it. There is also more stigma for a woman purchasing porn. A few quick searches and views on free sites can be written off as “curiosity” but paying for it is a whole ‘nuther deal.
Just to keep in mind, there’s no rule that says X mg of testosterone in a woman’s body will make her a slut. Hormonal interplay is complicated, especially in females, who have all sorts of them flowing through the bloodstream. Estrogen, for example, also affects sex drive, and the dwindling amounts of it partly explain lower sex drive after menopause. I would imagine a woman with high T but low E would have an average sex drive. Then again, maybe not. Sex drive is affected by a million factors really, both social and biological.
.
That’s why these kind of articles aren’t really that helpful. They use sciency language that makes it sound like they’ve *pinpointed* the *cause,* and the layman is quick to believe it because it sounds so convincing.
.
But actually this article doesn’t really say anything at all if you look closely. I mean, it’s not like women are gonna read this, run out and get hormone tests just to see if their T level makes them a slut.
.
We can’t control what we’re made of, just what we do about. So let’s move on to that.
«Women are more likely to fantasize about sex with Legolas than watch porn»
Sure, girls consume a lot of emotional porn instead of physical porn, but from a very practical perspective the big question with the big consequences is what gets them to have sex with a man.
That is the core question for very many men and girls.
Not what girls fantasize about or what they think they want or what they look for online or what they read about; those are all about self-medication. They are sort of amusing curiosities.
Ha! That’s a completely different story. If one has reason to believe an erection might be forthcoming, yes, all eyes to the fly! I have to shift in my seat just thinking about it.
I was merely remarking that a flaccid, clothed penis is a poor predictor of a sexual experience. By the way, this is the same mistake men invariably make when they compare one another in a locker room setting.
@jess
Again, there was no survey. No questions. Just poring over a billion pieces of data, correlating gender to searches and activity. One would have to assume that the number of people pretending to be another gender would be very small, as there is no obvious incentive to do so.
@Susan Walsh
Hehe, the well-known difference between “show-ers” and “grow-ers”. Most men aren’t even aware of it, having seen plenty of flaccid penises (in locker rooms), and plenty of hard ones (in porn) but rarely the process in between.
I was merely remarking that a flaccid, clothed penis is a poor predictor of a sexual experience. By the way, this is the same mistake men invariably make when they compare one another in a locker room setting.
.
Grower vs shower
@Aldonza
Good point about the definition of visitor online. Here at HUS, the number of “hits” is fairly meaningless. I track the number of unique visitors per day. It’s a much more reliable indicator. So yes, a woman peeking or watching one video is going to count the same as a guy who stays on the site for a longer period of time.
Also, I thought the point about women wanting to share erotica was quite interesting. Often when I’m with a group of women discussing movies or books, someone will remark on an especially hot sex scene, and we’ll giggle and share our responses to a whole series of cues leading up to the climax of that one scene.
Damn…posted that before I was done.
I meant to follow-up with:
Heck, even without clothes, I don’t think looking at (the relative size of) his crotch is going to provide helpful information is sexual performance. But it would tell her if he is aroused, and along with other clues it would tell her whether or not it was because of her. Women go to great lengths to elicit a sexual response in men. I’m not surprised that we’d also be curious about the possible responses to that effort.
I’m also not surprised that a long-time married woman has sort of “taken it off the table” as one of her conscious and even un-conscious thoughts. When I was a long-time married I was blind to a lot of things, including men showing signs of interest and even flirting with me. It always surprised me when someone pointed it out. It just wasn’t on my radar screen. Once I was single again…it was like the blinders were off…because they were.
@Blissex
I don’t think I agree with this. If we want to understand female sexuality, then fantasies are an important source of information. And a phenomenon where women are writing Twilight fan fiction, then discussing it for hours on end, says something very clear about what women want.
Heck, even without clothes, I don’t think looking at (the relative size of) his crotch is going to provide helpful information is sexual performance.
.
I would think not. In my opinion, size beyond a certain amount either way isn’t going to matter much to performance. Based on my experience and what I’ve studied on the matter, size can have a psychological effect and some women do get turned on by size or the thought of being filled up. Some women really aren’t that big internally, and even if one isn’t that big hitting the cervix is possible, and definitely not pleasurable. That said, most women seem to get off on clitoral stimulation (which does vary from woman to woman in my experience) and for that size really isn’t important. In terms of performance, usually the best bet is just have the woman on top. She’ll find the groove/motion that she needs to get off.
I agree with Mike CI , penis size is a male’s obsession not women. Some women do attach a psychological value to penis size, but some other women focus on things like shape and color, is hairy or not as well. But anatomically speaking the average penis is totally able to satisfy the average women. Usually the piece of skin that surrounds the penis (I think is called man) has more to do with sexually satisfying a woman than the penis along no matter how big or beautiful is. I’m sure that many betas and omegas are well endowed and that doesn’t make them any more successful with the ladies.
IME only gay men (and of course a couple of size queen enthusiastic women) evaluate penis size as he best predictor of sexual pleasure, YMMV.
@Stephenie, @Mike
I agree 100% about the size issue. The young women I have known who focus on this are also the most promiscuous women I have known, FWIW. As sex becomes decoupled from emotional intimacy, I guess it’s not surprising that women would focus more on the appearance and characteristics of the equipment as the source of pleasure. In any case, many men are extremely insecure about this, often without cause. My penis size post is the most viewed in the history of HUS – it still gets hundreds of readers every single day. It breaks my heart, actually.
«as sex becomes decoupled from emotional intimacy,»
That «becomes» is very very optimistic — as a rule it was decoupled from emotional intimacy.
It has become decoupled in the past few decades from involuntary pregnancy, and this is the the very big change (and consequently sex has become decoupled from marriage, which has never been the same as «emotional intimacy»).
@Stephenie
I can vouch for that.
“a man might have a decided preference for one of two “10s,” and this can be put down to chemistry”…certainly part of it is chemistry, in the sense of pheromones, etc, but much of it is also appearance–two different guys may have very different visual reactions to the same woman…see Social Pathologist’s post on beauty and what he calls “unique markers of identity.” And emotional interaction at the verbal and body-language levels is also very important, of course. The idea that there is a single ladder of female desirability, on which almost all guys agree, has limits even at the level of raw physical attraction, and lots more limits when you talk about LTR potential. The “sexual marketplace” is really to a large extent an aggregate of niche markets.
@Blissex
Not for women. We evolved precisely to associate the two.
«That «becomes» is very very optimistic — as a rule it was decoupled from emotional intimacy.
Not for women. We evolved precisely to associate the two.»
I think that you are really confusing “emotional intimacy” with “male parental investment”. otherwise the enormous change in behaviour by women (95% virgin at marriage before contraception, 95% not virgin at marriage afterwards) is puzzling, because they would still be looking for “emotional intimacy” instead of just having stopped looking for “male parental investment”.
All the hooking-up girls are just looking to get laid without the risk of involuntary pregnancy, not looking to get “emotional intimacy”.
Note that I think that many men look for “emotional intimacy” because this probably makes girls less likely to cheat. Even Roissy who calls that “bonding”.
For her intuition to give her the green light, she must like his smell and the taste of his saliva, both of which clue her in to his level of DNA dissimilarity, an essential component of successful mating.
I never mentioned this before but men’s sweat smell bad to me more often than not. In fact one of the first things I asked my now husband after a few months of talking over the internet was to sent me a sweated T-shirt to make sure he didn’t had something I call “uncle smell” because the first time I smell it was on my uncle when I was 12. Of course he does smell fantastic (he smells like angel’s wings) but indeed our first kiss was a really overwhelming moment would had I felt the same way if he had been a stranger that just kiss me on the spur of a moment?…I really doubt it, the reason the button went off is because I had talked to him for months on the net and he already passed my evaluation process on the personality, sense of humor, intelligence and values level, then the chemistry was amazing so we practically started planning the wedding right after his first trip, but then it took me a long time to find my match and there were days when I just though it was stupid of me to be so picky and “everybody is taking the selection process less seriously so why did I had to be so selective about it…e
That «becomes» is very very optimistic — as a rule it was decoupled from emotional intimacy.
Culturally speaking monogamy/marriage was designed on a way that when a man evaluated a woman he found atractive he couldn’t just think of her as a sexual entity but also as mother and partner. Her family was not going to let him “taste” her and there was a series of rituals and procedures well stablished, for him to have access to that woman and no man will do that just for someone that makes him hard, specially men that knew that pretty much every women make them hard, and who also had access to a few prostitutes (or fertility priestesses depending on how far can we go) so was a more complex process likewise for women, that needed to evaluate man in different context, specially when you take in account how dangerous was birthing and pregnancy back then, thinking “this is the kind of man I will risk my life for?” was part of the selection process.
Only slaves and royalty were engaged and given in marriage without many qualms for political reasons. It was a perfect arrangement? Not at all, there were many mismatched couples but people that weren’t that disimilar than ambitious and with less choices more often than not managed to fall in love on their own way or even in ways that astonish us still nowadays. Read the Song of songs, look at the Taj Mahal, see the statues of men did for their wives that is a big proof of love and intimacy,YMMV.
The penis-size thing makes me so sad. It’s bad enough when people are insecure about something that matters, but with something that has absolutely no relevance in reality it’s just awful.
David Foster: Word on the aggregate of niche markets. The “cute curvy chick in glasses” does very well in its own demographic, as does “tanned-orange fake-boob lady” and “tattooed hipster” and everything else.
Susan,
I’m not going to post the link (as I got told off in the past for doing that kinda thing) but if you go to babeland.com homepage they say they have gone from selling 500 to 94,000 toys in the last 17 years. So the toy industry is expanding a tad. Delete the site name if you want- no need to give them free advertising)
.
They say 70% of buyers are women but men are able to use vibrating toys for stimulating themselves or can use a vibe or dildo on their female/male partner.
.
I will post other stuff as I find it
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?pagewanted=all
.
stuff on female response to porn
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/04/21/breaking-news-study-shows-women-are-worse/
.
this one is about the eye tracking thing.
.
finally, if you type ‘male escort increasing’ into google you will get loads of sites talking about the increased demand for straight/gay men in this sector. Again, I dont want to provide a link.
@jess
Babeland is the largest online seller of sex toys, I believe. It is hardly surprising that sales have been increasing, and I don’t see anything wrong with that. If it’s safe, legal and doesn’t scare the horses it’s fine by me. I just don’t think it says anything about female sexuality. Perhaps women use a vibrator from Babeland to get off while they read Edward Cullen fan fic.
@Jess
Re the NYXs article, I didn’t read the whole thing, but the take-away seems to be that the women’s minds and bodies reported different rates of arousal. In some cases, the body responded when the mind didn’t – e.g. watching gay men, watching bonobo sex, and in others the body remained far less aroused that the subjects claimed mentally, i.e. heterosexual sex. If anything, that backs up Ogas’ point.
@jess
So it turns out that women looks at genitals first when shown sexually explicit photographs of men. I don’t see what this has to do with the post. This isn’t about showing women porn and gauging their reaction. It’s about observing where women go and what they do in their free time. It’s a massive amount of data, and it isn’t offset in any way by anecdotal evidence that male hookers are now being used by .05% of the female population, up from .03%.
You’re trying to disprove something the post doesn’t say, or trying to prove something the post does say. No one has said that women are not as sexual as men. The point is that by and large, women express their sexuality differently than men do. Ogas acknowledges that a minority of women with high testosterone exhibit male-like sexuality.
“a high testosterone woman can have sex like a man because she is more like a man.”
.
As suspected. Is there a tell or a marker for that in women? That would be very useful. Something I read way back stated that balding men have higher levels.
They say 70% of buyers are women but men are able to use vibrating toys for stimulating themselves or can use a vibe or dildo on their female/male partner.
Not much of a value add for men here. For personal arousal (which is the vast, vast, vast majority of the toys bought by women), toys are not really adding much for men. Sure, some guys use them, but it’s a very small number — the old tried and true way of jerking off works for almost all men, and costs nothing.
It’s true that some men will buy and use sex toys with their female partners, but again that’s not a big number. Most men would prefer to use their hands, lips and mouth for that, and I think many women would prefer that men do as well — or, if they don’t, there’s potentially a problem, I think, in the sexual performance area (unless the toys are truly a very occasional thing). A woman who is dependent on a vibrator for orgasm and can’t orgasm organically is kind of depressing, really.
Well to be fair Susan, you said you’d love a link regarding the crotch thing and I expended time and energy doing that for you.
.
For the porn thing you may have misread the article or not finished the latter half as it said all the women showed arousal when shown regular porn despite their denial.
My pov on all sex stuff here is that although there are differences between the genders sexually they are also very simlar in many ways.
They both orgasm. They both are visual. They both check out people in public. They both have the capacity to be promiscuous. They both have the capacity to be monogamous in the right circumstances. They both harbour sexual urges that may not be in their direct control. They both masturbate and are both aroused by explicit pornographic images.
.
It’s true porn use and even prostitute use might be higher for men than women.
You may say that’s biological but I say it’s cultural conditioning and IMO the science is currently on my side.
.
You may also say that it’s crucial for society that we maintain these gender roles but I think that’s bordering on sexism and I think we dont need it. People used to argue against homosexual in much the same way. It’s a real pity people can’t just be what they want to be.
.
I would say, as a partial disclaimer, that I would never recommend unsafe sex. So however unnatural it might be condoms are a must. It’s not like I’m saying we are just animals and should give in to every whim. I certainly don’t agree with the appalling sexualisation of children which is an even worse form of cultural conditiong. I guess I want something in the middle. Maybe something between Walsh and marcotte?
.
something between Walsh and marcotte
.
In the West, Walsh is centrist. Men are comfortable with Walsh. Men are grossed out by Marcotte but hardly any men have know about her. Since supposedly men and women are very similar, then women are similarly disgusted by Marcotte. Walsh seeks to help people. Marcotte is self serving as are her ilk who take walks, rant, carry placards. If she was well known, and thankfully she is not, that would be one more social national embarrassment. The country is not going toward Marcotte especially since those who would like that are barely replacing themselves with children and those who do not want that are more than replacing themselves. Self genocide is a bitch.
Jess: I think your opinion… sounds like Marcotte’s, actually. Admittedly I don’t read Pandagon, but I’m a regular follower of Feministe and Shakesville (aka feminist cult land) and what you said does seem to be the general consensus.
That’s certainly not the case in my experience – my gay best friend had to clue me in on that. I agree with everyone else’s response to this. The topic only came up last year after I had graduated high school, when were looking through our yearbook picking out guys we would sleep with. I only said yes to like 5% of them, and he said he’d tap almost 90% of the guys at our school, haha.
FYI I have no guy friends (that are not gay). The only guy friends I’ve ever had wanted to date me.
(I hate to drop in and just post anecdotal evidence, but it’s all I’ve got. I’m not very intellectual and I have little to say so I just read all the comments on this blog and absorb them. I’m a big bad lurkaaa.)
The topic only came up last year after I had graduated high school, when were looking through our yearbook picking out guys we would sleep with. I only said yes to like 5% of them, and he said he’d tap almost 90% of the guys at our school, haha.
.
Just curious, objectively speaking, would you rank yourself in the top 5% of girls in terms of looks and attractiveness? If not, what is the implication of your preference?
.
Susan, in a previous thread I kind of alluded to this, but maybe I wasn’t clear enough in citing the Casey thread. I really think the main dynamic with younger women not getting boyfriends or relationships in college is they are just too picky for the value they are bringing to the table. Collegeslacker seemed to clearly point out PLENTY of guys are available. I suppose the college version of Roissy’s rule is 5 minutes of alpha is better than 5 months or 5 years of beta.
“Collegeslacker seemed to clearly point out PLENTY of guys are available. I suppose the college version of Roissy’s rule is 5 minutes of alpha is better than 5 months or 5 years of beta.”
.
Well, if someone dislikes corn flakes, then they won’t get too excited if someone offers them a lifetime supply of it. No, they’d probably much rather have just one bowl of raisin bran… even though they’d soon be hungry again.
@Aldonza
I think women have very different perspective on the utility of speaking the “truth” than men do. Men are generally plain spoken and straight forward, or at least we try to be as much as possible. Women see communication in much broader terms, speaking the plain truth not a particularly interesting part of it.
@Susan
My point is that the study takes it for granted (seemingly) that commitment is something women screen for. Any man who’s lived a day in this world knows that women are the first ones to break things off when their whims change about someone, and even more tellingly are awfully eager to chase after guys who anyone with half a brain can tell would be a terrible long term mate – often the worse one around. These are just some more of those “pretty lies”.
Actually, this need not be an evolutionary flaw at all.
It is conceivable that a certain type of alpha player may carry genes whose value outweighs the fact that he does not provide any parental investment. Either because the children she has by him are more fit, or because the sons she has be him tend to spread their genes likewise (and therefore spread her genes as well).
If this is true, there could be an evolutionary advantage to women making exceptions to their mating strategy for certain men, to leap at the opportunity against their better judgement, as’t were.
And remember, evolution cares not one whit whether women as individuals are conciously aware of, or happy with, this.
Come to think of it, if this were the case, it would be the female equivalent of the male dichotomy between the “sow your seeds” or “invest” strategies. Except in the female case it would be more like “allow the seeds to be sown upon you”.
Here’s something that may be of interest, Susan—today’s WSJ: Under the Influence–how the group changes what we think.
@Jess
I do appreciate the time and effort you expended in getting the link. I just thought it disproved, or at least failed to prove, the point you’d been making.
@Butts
Welcome, and thanks for de-lurking! I think it’s helpful for women to share that indeed, they are not aware of this key element of male sexuality. It may be mind-boggling for the men, and there are plenty of women who are amazed by some of the things the men share. Overall, I’d have to say that the sexes have a very, very poor understanding of one another’s sexuality. Perhaps this is because the Sexual Revolution/Feminism blurred the lines, and made those differences un-PC.
I love this analogy.
Women were not hooking up in an effort to secure a long-term beau, but because they felt flattered by the overnight proposition.
They were mistaken…men lower their standards when it comes to one-night stands, so the presumed flattery is a fantasy or close to it.
.
What boggles my mind, is that this is actually surprising to anyone in the least. I would think most women have at least one male friend or a brother who somewhere along the lines would have clued them in to this aspect of male sexuality.
___________________________
Lets not forget, men too have sex for the validation. “He`s a MAN he picked up a chick.” ” another notch in the ole bed post.” He`s a stud.” etc…. In reality, for any decent looking guy, it isnt that diffucult to pick up a woman if he has half a brain and a little common sense.
Now I`m sure staunch “men libbers” here will disagree. A guy HAS to be an alpha, or HAS to have game to pick up a woman. I say BS, Ive seen average guys sit down and actually hold a conversation with a decent looking woman and either land a date with her, or leave for sex with her. Ive seen it MANY times, so it can not be that unusual.
I cant believe people still believe women only go for alphas….There are millions of betas who married women of little “experience.” I do not think those women settled either. Most of the time one can not help who they fall in love with. The world is FULL of non alphas in loving relationships.
Y`all need to get your noses out of the studies and think and observe for yourselves.
As a matter of fact, most of the men I know who had really high numbers, were they, themselves very insecure, and needed constant validation by bedding women. They also needed constant reassurance from their women about their manliness…….lol
@ modernguy
My point is that the study takes it for granted (seemingly) that commitment is something women screen for. Any man who’s lived a day in this world knows that women are the first ones to break things off when their whims change about someone, and even more tellingly are awfully eager to chase after guys who anyone with half a brain can tell would be a terrible long term mate – often the worse one around. These are just some more of those “pretty lies”.
___________________________
Its been my experience women normally break things off when they have been mistreated or disrepected.
Maybe running off with a bad boy for a short time fling is a better alternative than what they have now. A woman scorned…….an emotionally injured woman may not do what is right in some peoples eyes, but she will do the best she can to stop the hurting at the time. Guys do the same thing.
When a female admits that she is inferior (claims to want a muscular, handsome, rich, loving man, yet turns him down for the opposite) or feels unsuitable for a LTR relationship with a superior, high-quality male, how do you correlate this with higher status-seeking?
Whereas the posts based on observation seem to indicate that females choose assholes when they claim to want nice guys.
Inferior females choose males more inferior than themselves so they can feel better about themselves.
If she is intimidated or feels inadequate around a male that is above her in attractiveness, intelligence, and financial achievement, how is it that ‘theory’ explains the opposite?
Since most females are insecure about their appearance, how is that they apparently have a higher perception of themselves on the 1-10 rating scale than is actually true?
My theory, is that people seek their own level, but attempt to settle with their desired complimentary.
It is a myth that High T for males, and youth, high E for females = Good Genes
Or that reproductive fitness and what is attractive, is heavily dependent and determined our endrocrine system.
I would argue that a Miss Universe with a family history of degenerative diseases is not a suitable mate for reproduction.
Despite the fact she has no problems providing the average male with an arousing, testosterone-induced boner.
Good Genes are independent of age.
Cleary synonymous with attraction by both sexes.
The female, however is the depreciating reproductive asset of the sexes.
The male with accurate and precise replicating enzymes, a balanced and efficient metabolism, and a strong immune system throughout life is more genetically valuable and can reproduce longer throughout his lifespan.
This high quality male needs this advantage because there are so few quality females he will interact with over the course of his life.
A females eggs are produced in the early stage of life and stored for the remainder. These eggs (and DNA) are subject to higher levels of oxidation and damage as time progresses. The female has a short-shelf life.
The male produces sperm throughout his lifetime. The amount of oxidative stress is managed through highly efficient enzymes that ensure minimal transcriptional mutations promoting the valuable genes intact upon their arrival.
At any age.
The superior male was given this by his ancestors, not in any book titled ‘The Game’ or “How to pick up chicks”.
Good Genes are Valuable and not available to sluts, or the average masses.
If reproduction in and of itself is enough to determine fitness, the lower-class poverty reproduce the most, and in my opinion are the one’s losing in life.
The Lamborghini is desired, even when most are not driving one.
Yet most will settle for the car with the key’s left in it.
Do you think you are really getting quality if the sex is so available?
THis is perhaps not the ideal thread to post this in but since it is the thread currently active and it fits with the mission of this blog I`ll post it here.
I believe that there is a huge amount of men that are very confident, often dominant, good looking, socially intelligent, know how to flirt and get a woman into bed quite fast and still can be had at “bargain prices”. The reason for this is that unlike most alphas they don`t normally approach women in bars and clubs but meet women only through social circle/parties.
If you have two identical twins and one day one of them musters up the courage to start approaching women in clubs his life will be forever changed. If he keeps up with trying to approach and is an attractive guy pretty soon he can get over his approach anxiety entirely and so go talk to tons of new hot women every time he goes out. The twin that does not start approaching might only meet the women he gets introduced to by friends or maybe gets a lucky oportunity to talk to one girl standing behind him trying to get in and another one when at smoking or something like that but as long as he does not approach women he will never talk to the 10 women he finds the most attractive that night and which looks the most down to fuck. The consequence is that the exact same person might get laid five times as much just by starting to approach.
THe type of success you get by being an attractive guy that approaches WILL influence you. You need not but can easily develop some narcisistic personality traits. YOur demands for a girlfriend will increase a lot because of what you are now able to get. Having a small harem of women will also easily løead you to naturally develop some asshole game. Additionaly teh advantages of this lifestyle, especially for a young man, is so great that he is unlikely to commit and if he does single life will always have a much larger pull because it is so attractive for him so he is much less likely to stick arround for the long term.
COmparatively an attractive, confident guy that does not normally approach will have much less of these bad traits as he has much less success with women. He will still be successfull through the women he meets through friends and those women he accidentally comes into conversation with at clubs or bars but he won`t be spectacularily successfull. THis means such a guy will come at a bargain price compared to his approaching twin.
I think it is a mistake to believe all alphas approach. Approaching is a real bitch for a lot of people and I know plenty of guys who are very attractive and successfull with women that don`t normally approach.
HOw can a woman utilize this to hook up smart? One obvious answer is to always prioritieze house parties and any sort of social circle event were you can meet guys or any other sort of context that makes it easy for a guy to talk to you. Choose these contexts over clubs whenever you can.
In the club there is a \ strategy that a friend of mine uses which has given here a lot of success in meeting men with higher relationship quality. It is to spend more time in the less central and less high energy parts of aclub. Arround the middle of the dance floor and arround the bar and, depending on the individual structure of the particular place certain other areas, will be much more full of high intensity pickup attempts. THe most dominant and appraoching alphas tend to gravitate towards this type of space and so do often the hottest and most confident girls and those most intereseted in hooking up. If you spend more time in a corner or at a table ina more calm part or at the perifphery of the dancefloor you will be approach by a much larger percentage of guys that are relatively confident but are not the guys that are the most dominant in a club environement. THis guys are still quite alpha normally but there is something about the reduced pressure and increased possibility of talking in these areas that makes guys below superalpha approach more.
THen there are several strategies you can use in order to attract guys that approach even less than the guys that approach in the peripheries. One is to use eye contact a LOT and give more obvious signals of interest through eyes and smiles. It is a good idea to make these signals SWEET rather than sexy in order to coomunicate more potential girlfirend than potential hookup potential. If you want to hookup then give a look Angelina Jolie might give. If you want a boyfriend give the warm smile Jessica Alba would give. Giving such sigals will give the men that are normally not confident enopugh to approach teh confidence to approach because they now feel asured that appraoching will be well received and you won`t be a bitch to them. You can experiment witht he level of interest you need to show to get the attention of the type of guy you want to come talk to you. Some need more than others. As you go more towards beta territory you might need to give very clear signals. Giving too strong signals isen`t an issue from teh point of view of seeming to easy or not playing hard to get. You can do that after you have started talking as much as you want.
ONe thing I have noticed women doing to me all the time is to stand very close kinda sideways and sometimes looking slightly over to me or just somehow giving me a feeling they are very open to me talking to them. THey do this alone and in pairs of two. It usually works very well when women do this. Often they ask for a cigarette first and then do it. i think most women will understand what I talk about and most women that go out have done it to some degree. Just starting doing it MORE because it works.
Also when you buma cigerette or a light from someone try to give him a little bit of help to start a conversation. You don`t have to make it into an approach just try to say something that gives him a chance to start a conversation with you. Give him a bone.
You can also loose stuff infront of or next to the boy you want to talk to. He will pick it up and you can come of as whimsical which can be very charming. It gives him an easy way to start a conversation. A more drastic version of this is to spill something on him. Ultimately he won`t care as long as it helps him talk to a hot woman as long as he isenT`drenched in cuba libre or beer.
Another thing to think about is that you should consider starting to test men or otherwise be difficult when they are starting a conversation with you. At least as long as he seems like he might be worthwile. INstead what you do is wait one or two minutes untill he has established himsel finto a normal conversation with you THEN you can test as much as you won`t. THe reason for this is that psuhing through the testing and bitchyness women often give right at the approach more or less only measures the degree to which a guy is a seasoned player. Most normal confident guys would have a problem with this exact phaze but will often pass most or all of the tests you give him after this point. Just give him the same chance you give a guy at a party in someones appartment. This levels the playing field between players and confident guys.
You can use the first part of the evening to observe which guys are approaching several other women and then blow them out of they come talking to you and talk to only those who approach few or only you or only if you give them a bit of help.
All these tips does really is to take the club element out of the club. This way you get lesser alphas for the price of beta and avoid the cads that will give you an inflated sense of market value.
Susan: I have notcied a lot of people have a link to their blogs/latest blog post at the ends of all their posts. Is it ok if I do the same with this thread at fastseduction about karezza:
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/fs?action=9&boardid=2&read=108513&fid=105&FirstTopic=30&LastTopic=59
What I have written in it is an attempt to explain how exactly karezza/tantra works and why it is the ultimate tool for maintaining attraction and love beyond the honeymoon phase. If I had a blog I would have written that there and linked to it.
>>The topic only came up last year after I had graduated high school, when were looking through our yearbook picking out guys we would sleep with. I only said yes to like 5% of them, and he said he’d tap almost 90% of the guys at our school, haha.
>Just curious, objectively speaking, would you rank yourself in the top 5% of girls in terms of looks and attractiveness? If not, what is the implication of your preference?
———–
Mike C
Doesn’t her response fall in line with the studies because presumably she’d need more than just photos to feel attraction? It’s not like all of these guys asked her out and she rejected 95% of them.
Also, you’re assuming that this 5% are the most attractive and not the most attractive to her (could differ).
Now, to turn the tables just a bit, according to the study …
Men spend lots of time online looking at photos of attractive females (usually celebrities who rate as 8s, 9s, and 10s).
It’s pretty common for men to discuss on forums which ones they would and wouldn’t sleep with.
Guys will claim that they don’t find some of the women attractive enough but they wouldn’t kick them out of their beds while other times they’ll state that they’ll pass up on the opportunity altogether because they don’t find them attractive enough for their tastes. (Even with the top 5% of women)
Are the men the creme de la creme in attractiveness or are they more likely to rate average or lower in attractiveness but are just stating a preference that’s not based on reality- but only fantasy?
So, just out of curiosity…
Women are supposed to be the selective ones. Right?
Guys are only supposed to be concerned with “spreading their seed” with as many as possible, so what’s up with guys when they’re picky?
Both men and woman are selector’s.
Both, if superior, discriminate.
“Guys are supposed to be concerned with spreading their seed with as many as possible”
Are the men the creme de la creme in attractiveness or are they more likely to rate average or lower in attractiveness but are just stating a preference that’s not based on reality- but only fantasy?
Susan,
I appreciate your reply. I would invite you to a have a fuller read of the links.
Some posts here had suggested that women weren’t as visually sexual as men and weren’t affect by porn.
The links suggest that women look at the crotch whilst men look at the eyes on 1st impressions.
Also that all women are aroused by porn. Note the researchers reported this rule is almost immutable ie all as opposed to some.
There may be research that contradicts all this but I could only find scientific data suggesting one view only.
ozy:
.
When I was at college I gradually turned from an innocemt catholic girl into a fairly firebrand feminist. Grunge clothes, boots, the whole mile.
.
It was a fairly common look/style in 80′s Britain.
.
I have calmed down a lot since then. I still identify as feminist now but with kids, a partner and general life experience you change over time.
.
I dont often visit the usa feminist sites, I tend towards the third world womens rights campaigns or those in london.
.
When I have read the odd Pandagon thread I often feel its just a little too radical for my tastes. Also I find I agree with Susan Walsh on a range of issues.
.
In the uk Susan would be to the right and ‘retro-traditional’. So if shes centrist in the usa I could beleive that. I only deal with usa cities and companies so I know I get a false, one sided impression about american attitudes sometimes.
.
So I would maintain I’m between Marcotte and Walsh. I think Marcotte would pick more ‘fights’ with me actually.
Hello Ms. Jess,
I’ve been reading your comments for some time and decided that it was finally time to respond to you today! Replies below…
“My pov on all sex stuff here is that although there are differences between the genders sexually they are also very simlar in many ways.”
O: NO, they’re NOT.
“They both orgasm.”
O: The rates of orgasm for Men and Women are NOT the same. Look. It. Up.
“They both are visual.”
O: Men are much more visually stimulated sexually than Women. Again, look. It. Up.
“They both check out people in public.”
O: But they look for vastly different things.
“They both have the capacity to be promiscuous.”
O: Studies have shown that most Women do NOT prefer hooking up.
“They both have the capacity to be monogamous in the right circumstances.”
O: Women are more relationship inclined than are Men.
“They both harbour sexual urges that may not be in their direct control.”
O: True. But according to the very NYT study you linked to above (and which I have featured on my own blog several times previously), it is clear that this tends to happen a bit more with Women than Men.
“They both masturbate and are both aroused by explicit pornographic images.”
O: Men have been observed to wank off much more than Women, AND enjoy explicit, graphic porn than do Women.
“It’s true porn use and even prostitute use might be higher for men than women.”
O: It is. Much, much higher. Especially in the latter category.
“You may say that’s biological but I say it’s cultural conditioning and IMO the science is currently on my side.”
O: That’s correct – IN YOUR OPINION. However, Ms. Walsh isn’t rolling on her “opinion” she is rolling on what the FACTS – in this case BILLIONS of bits of data of Internet-usage WORLDWIDE – says. You are free to believe whatever you like Ms. Jess, but you are not free to makeup any facts you want to satiate your particular worldview.
.
“You may also say that it’s crucial for society that we maintain these gender roles but I think that’s bordering on sexism and I think we dont need it. People used to argue against homosexual in much the same way. It’s a real pity people can’t just be what they want to be.”
O: Since when did being a Ho qualified for being a disorder in the DSM-IV? Please get me a source for that one. Youre arguing a red herring. Ms. Walsh has consistently, since her blog’s inception more than two years ago, shown that hooking up is NOT in a Woman’s best interest IF she’s looking for a LTR – which study after study after study, shows the vast majority of them ARE. Moreover, neither is Ms. Walsh or any of her readers/commenters, suggesting that Women like yourself can’t “do whatever it is you want to do” – quite a opposite in fact. What she and her readers ARE saying, is that with actions, come consequences – in this case, that being seen as a Ho, can and will pull down a Woman’s relationship “rating” in the eyes of potential suitors. You, and Ms. Walsh’s sex-positive feminist interlocutors, keep trying to say that this is due to some kind of patriarchal sexist plot to keep Women down; Ms. Walsh dispassionately looks at the evidence, based on rigorous scientific studies, surveys and the like, and comes away with the view that this practice on the part of Men in determining which Woman is fit for LTR material, is largely genetic, ie, hardwired. But in any event, so what? Again, you have the right to sleep with as many Men as you like, and so does every Woman reading this. What is it to you if Men have their own relationship criteria? So what?
.
“I would say, as a partial disclaimer, that I would never recommend unsafe sex. So however unnatural it might be condoms are a must. It’s not like I’m saying we are just animals and should give in to every whim. I certainly don’t agree with the appalling sexualisation of children which is an even worse form of cultural conditiong. I guess I want something in the middle. Maybe something between Walsh and marcotte?”
O: No; in my view – and I’ve been reading your comments here for at least six months or so – you’re a lot closer to the Marcotte side of things than you are to Ms. Walsh. what bothers you and the Ozymandias chick, is that Ms. Walsh’s facts are getting in the way of your minds being made up. Again: you are more than free to think whatever you like, to do whatever you like – but neither of you, nor any other “sex-pos” type is free to make up your own facts. Which is this: Men and Women approach sex and relationships differently, due as a direct result to how they evolved differently over the years in the ancestral environment. Really is as simple as that.
Read it and weep…
O.
.
Ozymandias,
I took a quick peek at your blog, and while looking over the posts on the frontpage noticed that you mentioned “PUAs” and not in a particularly good light. I’d just like to ask – what beef do you have with PUAs and/or Game? Please explain? Thanks.
O.
to obsidian,
.
well you asked me to ‘look it up’- but I did just that and the evidence supports all my assertions.
.
I dont think susan has demanded women do anything- she has provided advice out of altruistic intent I am quite sure- never said otherwise.
.
In fact, some of her posts I think highly sensible.
.
Look, there is data every where and not all surveys agree and survey design and execution can effect data.
.
But scientific experiments that can be replicated are more reliable. A digital sensor inside or attached to the genitals doesn’t lie even if the human subject can.
.
These studies back up my opinions, which are just as valid as yours or Susan’s opinions.
.
Hey if you get data that shows vaginas do not engorge and lubricate when their owners are exposed to porn then I would either have to alter my views or reappraise the original data.
.
If you dont subscribe to the cultural conditioning argument on female sexual behaviour the thats fine, but some scientists fully endorse that. I find their arguments compelling. Certainly you look at the mammal kingdom its very persuasive.
.
In terms of HUS Susan has suggested that ‘slutting it up’ dramatically reduces your pool of potential husbands.
My alternate suggestion would be:
1. Avoid unsafe, dangerous or excessively promiscuous behaviour full stop
2. Having a few ‘safe’ flings during your life can be rewarding and enriching.
3. Having those flings may ALTER your pool of possible husbands/LTRs as opposed to simply shrinking it.
“What is it to you if Men have their own relationship criteria? So what?”
.
Oh, its not “so what” at all. And you will never get a straight answer out of a spozer as to why this fact about men just gnaws at them. The closest you’ll come is some lame “that’s not what its about” or “if he believes sluts are bad for having sex, then he is shaming.” What you will not see stated is “a man who dismisses a woman for what he considers to be over indulgence in multi-man sex is a meanie and his unwillingness to accept her is bad for women’s sexual autonomy and more importantly, it will make women blame feminism for making them believe they can and should have it all from men at any stage of their lives.”
.
You see, its the one topic in the desperate quest for “equality” that women cannot legislate into their favor. Men can hold that over women and it throws them into a tailspin. In addition, they were unprepared for the recent and strong questioning of sexual history. Thats why the feminists launched this knee jerk not-thought-out-well spozy nonsense with the hope that it would trickle up to men so that a woman who presents with an arm-long wrap sheet seems normal enough. The goal is to salvage certain women by normalizing certain behaviors.
@Jess
The link says that when shown sexually explicit photos of males, women’s eyes are drawn to the penis. Duh! Most of us don’t get to see very many, why bother with his eyes? This is not a “first impression.” It’s not someone a woman is meeting. Your claim that women go straight for the crotch when men walk into a room is false. Perhaps you do this, and would like some company.
In any case, I will say it again – there is significant data here that says the sexuality of males and females is extremely dissimilar. A few tangential links and your description of “loads of people” you know doesn’t change that. I guess you’ll need to take this up with the internet.
@Wudang
Thanks, that is a great comment, I’ve clipped it for future reference. Re linking to your blog, you can sign up for Comment Luv once, and then it will always link to your most recent blog posts.
@Obsidian
Great comment there, and not just because you agree with me
Jess can be tricky to debate – she is all over the place sometimes, but your big paw has pinned her to the spot, lol.
Hello Ms. Jess,
More replies below:
“to obsidian,
.
well you asked me to ‘look it up’- but I did just that and the evidence supports all my assertions.”
O: And exactly what did you find? May I see the links you looked at?
.
“I dont think susan has demanded women do anything- she has provided advice out of altruistic intent I am quite sure- never said otherwise.”
O: Neither did I.
.
“In fact, some of her posts I think highly sensible.”
O: Such as…?
.
“Look, there is data every where and not all surveys agree and survey design and execution can effect data.”
O: This is true; the problem here though, and Ms. Walsh has already noted this to you, is that Mr. Ogas’ researches wasn’t a “survey”. Please explain to us how his findings per Ms. Walsh’s post based on the same is so grossly inaccurate?
.
“But scientific experiments that can be replicated are more reliable. A digital sensor inside or attached to the genitals doesn’t lie even if the human subject can.”
O: I don’t disagree, but that isn’t the topic of Ms. Walsh’s post today. Mr. Ogas’ researches focused on what Men and Women actually search for online as it relates to sex, porn and erotica. If you want to debunk Mr. Ogas’ work and/or Ms. Walsh’s take on the same, you would need to explain how and why Mr. Ogas’ researches are booty. Thus far, you have failed to make a fact-based counter-argument.
.
“These studies back up my opinions, which are just as valid as yours or Susan’s opinions.”
O: No, they are not, because your opinions do not address Mr. Ogas’ researches nor Ms. Walsh’s post based on them. Nor have you presented any countervailing Internet studies which refute what Mr. Ogas has presented.
.
“Hey if you get data that shows vaginas do not engorge and lubricate when their owners are exposed to porn then I would either have to alter my views or reappraise the original data.”
O: I agree; but that’s not what we are discussing. Please stay op-topic?
.
“If you dont subscribe to the cultural conditioning argument on female sexual behaviour the thats fine, but some scientists fully endorse that.”
O: Like who? Names please? Links to their statements along these lines, please? I’ll wait…
“I find their arguments compelling. Certainly you look at the mammal kingdom its very persuasive.”
O: I look at the evidence, which more and more, just happens to coincide with the received wisdom of the Ages (read your Kama Sutra, for example).
.
“In terms of HUS Susan has suggested that ‘slutting it up’ dramatically reduces your pool of potential husbands.”
O: That’s because – it does.
“My alternate suggestion would be:
1. Avoid unsafe, dangerous or excessively promiscuous behaviour full stop”
O: This is definitely a good idea for Women in general, yes
“2. Having a few ‘safe’ flings during your life can be rewarding and enriching.”
O: Keyword being “can” – but as we both know, Women just can’t have “flings” the way Men do, because of a pesky little thing called OXYTOCIN, ie, the “Catchin’ Feelings hormone”
“3. Having those flings may ALTER your pool of possible husbands/LTRs as opposed to simply shrinking it.”
O: Yes and no. It definitely DOES “alter” your pool of mates, which almost always winds up REDUCING it in terms of getting the kinds of guys Women actually want for the longhaul.
Try again.
O.
Hi Ms. Walsh,
Thanks. Oh, I wouldn’t be too concerned about Ms. Jess – I got her right where I want her… *Chesire Cat grin*
And I’ve decided what tomorrow’s post at my blog is going to be, and your name will be all up in it! Really like this post and Mr. Ogas’ work, and will be addressing his other very interesting points, and yours too, on the morrow. Until then…
O.
Abbott,
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Many of these “sex pos” types really don’t want Men to be self-determining – that’s why they got their knickers in a wedgie over Game, because at bottom, it gives Men options to determine, on their own criteria, which Women they deem worthy of their time. It’s all about POWER. And Sex, is Power. Always has been, always will be.
O.
Why is it so important for some women to prove or at least convince others that women and men are similar? If not for some bizarre agenda, why would anybody be so obsessed with such a goal? I think if you asked women and men if they even desire to be like the other they would look at you like you’re crazy or just a troublemaker. Assuming that both were very similar, or could be made that way, what positive change would that bring to society?
Obsidian: My beefs with PUAs are the following:
a) Pressuring women into sex, often recommended in anti-LMR advice, is a really, really, really bad idea; at best it leads to bad sex, at worst it leads to rape.
b) They keep saying “woman” when they mean “hot outgoing middle-class white twentysomething straight woman who likes nightclubs (club game) or is willing to talk to strangers in public (day game).” Some women like alpha males, don’t get me wrong. But I don’t, most of my friends don’t, and it irritates me to no end to have our existence ignored.
c) They regard their sexual desires as What All Men Everywhere Want, despite the clear existence of BBW porn, cuckold porn, men who care about women’s personalities more than their looks, etc.
c1) They date women for their looks and bitch when the women have sucky personalities. Uh, duh.
d) Socially awkward nerdboys are going to find this shit and believe this is How Women Work and turn into PUAs, which seriously reduces my dating pool.
e) They take advantage of some– I guess the best word for it is “creepy”, but without the judgment– men who would be more helped by therapy, or at least SucceedSocially.com
f) They have no idea what feminism means, to the point of saying things that could be easily disproven by half an hour on major feminist blogs (specific examples off the top of my head: that feminists support Roman Polanski, think men should be passive-aggressive Nice Guys, or liked that damn Dear Women video).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article1151613.ece
.
Susan,
The earlier link does indeed talk about women responding to sexual pics but my earlier point about how women ‘crotch watched’ in a documentary years ago you disbelieved. The link above refers to the very same documentary which basically showed party girls crotch watch and party boys breast watch
Ms. Jess,
Assuming for the moment that the link you posted above is true and accurate, how does this discredit Mr. Ogas’ work? Especially as it relates to how Women view and approach erotica? Please explain?
O.
It’s all about POWER. And Sex, is Power.
.
It seems that its nasty little cousin, matrimony, and the ability to achieve it, is about power too. It was not that way decades ago as most people achieved it early on so it was much less of a commodity. Power in the marriage commodity market may be as strong or stronger than power in the sex market. Thats because the end game is a concrete goal and holds more importance than character pummels, self discovery pounders, boundary limit trains, empowerment slams and the like. Therefore, women must really hate selective men, aka womb or ring teasers.
I must confess I also found data that said these men also croch watch at other men! Wasn’t expecting that…
.
I’m surprised you think me under obsidians clums paw?
.
I find his paw rather diffuse.
.
He failed to present a single point of argument of fact.
What part of the argument does he wish to refute?
That both genders masturbate?
That both genders are stimulated by porn?
.
All his other questions have been covered by myself and others in previous threads and i have provided many links in this blog. If he wishes to look them up he may do so.
.
As to porn Internet searches by males or females, it’s currently 25% of females and the question is why isn’t it 50%?.
And for the 100!th time it would be down to cultural conditioning from birth to grave. That does not mean to say there NO differences. Testosterone levels for a start impact behaviour. But you are arguing that men and women are chalk and cheese. I say no and that its cheese and a different brand of cheese.
So try again obsidian- not doing so well thus far.
Just to spell out one example.
Jess says women are visually sexually stimulated.
HUS says no they aren’t, only men are.
jess posts science link showing they are. Just scroll up a bit.
.
No, HUS says men seek out visual stimulation, women much less so. Jess says that when men and women are forced to see visual stimulation, they respond the same way. One of these things is not like the other.
“Just to spell out one example.
Jess says women are visually sexually stimulated.
HUS says no they aren’t, only men are.
jess posts science link showing they are. Just scroll up a bit.”
.
O: Yes, but Mr. Ogas’ researches say something completely different; moreover, just about ALL of Ms. Walsh’s previous posts are right in line with Mr. Ogas’ findings. How then do you explain this in the light of the one link you have prodived? Please explain?
O.
I must confess I also found data that said these men also croch watch at other men! Wasn’t expecting that…
.
“I’m surprised you think me under obsidians clums paw?
.
I find his paw rather diffuse.”
O: Thank you.
.
“He failed to present a single point of argument of fact.”
O: I don’t have to; they’re all over the place right on this very blog, written by Ms. Walsh’s able hands…
“What part of the argument does he wish to refute?”
O: You assertion that Men and Women are largely alike. They are not.
“That both genders masturbate?”
O: No.
“That both genders are stimulated by porn?”
O: Not necessarily, although we have enough evidence to say that they are not stimulated by porn to the same degree; nothing even close.
.
“All his other questions have been covered by myself and others in previous threads and i have provided many links in this blog. If he wishes to look them up he may do so.”
O: Perhaps you can help me here. You were saying?
.
“As to porn Internet searches by males or females, it’s currently 25% of females and the question is why isn’t it 50%?.”
O: Who has posed this question? I don’t recall Ms. Walsh posing it or anyone else thus far in the discussion. Indeed, the only person who seems quite interested in debating this point is you.
“And for the 100!th time it would be down to cultural conditioning from birth to grave. That does not mean to say there NO differences. Testosterone levels for a start impact behaviour. But you are arguing that men and women are chalk and cheese. I say no and that its cheese and a different brand of cheese.
So try again obsidian- not doing so well thus far.”
O: Funny, I was about to say the same to you. Men and Women are different. They. Just. Are.
And there is nothing wrong with that. Why does that bother you so, Jess? Care to discuss it?
O.
Both men and woman are selector’s.
Both, if superior, discriminate.
“Guys are supposed to be concerned with spreading their seed with as many as possible”
Only if you feel you are inferior.
Are the men the creme de la creme in attractiveness or are they more likely to rate average or lower in attractiveness but are just stating a preference that’s not based on reality- but only fantasy?
A 10 male views a 5 female like a 7 male views a 2.
Orders of magnitude lower.
However, this same male views a 7 with character as a 10.
And the 10 female lacking anything useful, disappears from mind faster than her beauty flees.———
MRKTGNS
I’m sorry that I wasn’t clearer before.
My point was that one can’t conclude this:
the main dynamic with younger women not getting boyfriends or relationships in college is they are just too picky for the value they are bringing to the table
for the young woman who wrote this:
when were looking through our yearbook picking out guys we would sleep with. I only said yes to like 5% of them
She’s only making a call from looking at photos which has nothing to do with whether IRL she would have rejected 95% of the guys, assuming that they all asked her out.
Yeah, I’m surprised Mike posted this. We know that women rate most men as “unattractive”, but will lower their standards in real life a tiny bit, and respond to some of those ugly losers anyway.
I think this means that only 5% of men are so physically attractive that don’t really need dominance. Makes sense to me. They are just “freebies” in the sense that he doesn’t need game for a pickup, he just needs to approach, escalate, not do anything overly stupid, and he’s in.
My point was that one can’t conclude this:
the main dynamic with younger women not getting boyfriends or relationships in college is they are just too picky for the value they are bringing to the table
for the young woman who wrote this:
when were looking through our yearbook picking out guys we would sleep with. I only said yes to like 5% of them
She’s only making a call from looking at photos which has nothing to do with whether IRL she would have rejected 95% of the guys, assuming that they all asked her out.
.
Well…conclude is a strong word so you are probably right on that although we can speculate. Still, presumably a woman wouldn’t for the most part date a guy that she would automatically reject from the photo. Now we know “attraction” for women is more then just visual, although you’ve got Jess swearing up and down women are just as visual as men so a guy with an appearance that gets him in the 95% ruled out might still have a chance if they interact. Still, at this point in the game we should all know female hypergamy is very real so I’m not really sure what is the debate. I think the question isn’t whether it exists, but the magnitude. I guess I’m surprised at just ruling 95% of guys out right off the bat based on a picture. The reverse certainly wouldn’t be true.
.
To the other point, clearly there is some sort of conundrum/contradiction. You’ve got collegeslacker who was JUST on the college scene saying there are PLENTY of guys willing to get involved in a relationship with one girl, and then you’ve got PLENTY of girls complaining guys only want to hook up/keep it casual. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out something there doesn’t add up.
The link says that when shown sexually explicit photos of males, women’s eyes are drawn to the penis. Duh! Most of us don’t get to see very many, why bother with his eyes? This is not a “first impression.” It’s not someone a woman is meeting.
You know this was the explanation the Jezzies had about this same experiment that women can’t see the penis during sex so they are curious about how it looks most of the time, specially while performing. Men can see their member pumping and dumping but unless you have strategically placed mirrors, you can’t see them working out, thus why women look at it with much attention.Like you said is one of the few chances we get to see them.
It looks like the woman named “Tom” is back.
@Jess
I’m with Obsidian here. How do the eye movements of partygoers have anything to do with this post?
@Jess
Nonsense. Please quote me where I say that women are not visually stimulated.
Ms. Walsh,
It seems that, after reading Ms. Jess as I have over say, roughly the past six months or so, that she has the following bones of contention with your particular stance here at HUS:
1. She seems to vehemently disagree with you that not only are Men and Women drastically different, but the source of those differences are much more genetic/hardwired than cultural or social
and
2. She seems to vociferously disagree with you that there is a discernable downside(s) to Women “hooking up”
The problem with all this is, while you have repeatedly – like, on a daily basis – offered reams of scientific evidence to back up your claims, Ms. Jess hasn’t offered anything near as much evidence to back up hers; what it really all comes down to is, that she simply doesn’t like what you have to say and the message of your blog, which is simply this: ladies, the dating/mating/marriage market ain’t your nana’s. If you want to be successful in it, here’s your best bet in doing so. You give the ladies reading your blog actual evidence culled from myriad studies and yes in some instances, surveys. You share with them the latest in researches along human sexuality lines. And you never once preach to any of them – you make it clear that they and they alone, must ultimately decide what they wish to do with their bodies and lives. What you do, however, is make it clear that all choices and paths have consequences – and you show them incontrovertible proof that for most Women most of the time, hooking up is NOT a good thing.
I think this is what bothers Ms. Jess above all else – and it really pours salt in the wound when your Male readers – of which there are quite a few – repeatedly confirm the findings of the many and numerous studies you take the time out to feature on your blog. Simply put, no Man if he can choose it, wants a LTR with a Woman who has a “history” – call it whatever you will, the product of the patriarchy, or tens of thousands of years of evolutionary hardwiring, none of the guys here (with the possible exception of Tom) wants to sign to a LTR with a Woman who has aped Debbie Does Dallas. I know for a fact I certainly am NOT doing it, period, end of story, and I couldn’t possibly care less what Ms. Jess or any other “sex positive feminist” type thinks of it either.
Which brings me to my next point – if the sex positive feminsts are so into exploring their sexuality and destroying old world conventions, why do they care about old sticks in the mud like me or presumably, you? LOL I mean, none of us are preventing them from whoring it up if they choose. That recent “Slut Walk” up in Canada – nobody prevented those Women from doing that, right? I mean, I could get behind them if there were real barriers to them living the kind of life they desire, but that’s not the case – not here in the USA, not in Ms. Jess’ homeland of the UK, and not in Canada either – so what’s the problem? Why can’t they simply go on with their lives and do them?
Well, my question is rhetorical of course. By now, regular readers know very well why the Sex Pozzies went ballistic on you last year – it’s because you, as a Woman, had the gall to go off the reservation, go off the script, and tell young Women the truth about the modern day SMP. You told the ladies that the world in which they live has brought them unprecendent opportunities – but that it has all come at a very real, and in some cases, very high cost. You don’t preach to the girls, but you do make it clear what the stakes are when they choose to hookup; that their chances of landing a LTR going that route is significantly lower; that there are all manner of physical, emotional and even psychological risks in doing so; and that yes, their chances of landing the kind of guy they really want for a relationship further down the line, is much reduced as well – if for no other reason than the simple fact that we now live in a Facebook Age. Men know more, not just about Women in general, thanks to the spread of Game, but Men can find out more about individual Women, too – and Men DO want to know a Woman’s “number”, and if they can find out any information leading to such a thing, they will. They don’t need “hard proof” – “slut markers” will do just fine. And in an age where Men as a group, have nowhere near the kinds of social, legal or political protections Women as a group have enjoyed for easily a generation (concerns about the state of marriage/divorce, the infamous Duke Lacrosse scandal, and the even more infamous case of Mary Winkler, all instantly come to mind), they have every right to try to protect themselves.
I said to Abbott yesterday, that I think the reason why Sex Pozzies are so down on Game, is because it gives Men real options to choose, on their own criteria, who they will or won’t be with. At bottom, they’re concerned that Game will give Men POWER in the sexual marketplace. They argue that all these Men want from Women is sex, when it is these very Women who fight tooth and nail for the right to be Sluts; they make the charge that PUAs prey on weak and unsuspecting Women, using all manner of Jedi Mindtrickery to get them into bed, de facto raping them in the process – yet, six years on from the publication of the NYT bestseller “The Game”, the best the anti-Game Sex Pozzies can come up with, is a whacked out nutjob in George Sodini, and a marginal figure in the Seduction community in Gunwitch – neither of whom was actually charged with rape, I might add. Given that there are PUAs and thriving lairs worldwide at this point, one would think that the Sex Pozzies could offer reams of rape charges and convinctions of said PUAs. Perhaps I missed something. Perhaps you, Ms. Walsh, or anyone else reading this, can inform me of all those cases?
The Sex Pozzies like Ms. Jess are hopping mad at you Ms. Walsh, and at Game in general, because both stand on actual evidence – and because the evidence, actually WORKS. Unlike the Ms. Jess’ of the world, neither you, nor those who wield Game, have much time for ideological cant – the must live in the realworld and deal with real people in real time. There, under those conditions, you find out very quickly what works and what’s BS. Feminism is an ideology – a religion of sorts at this point – which explains why, for example, when the Sex Pozzies are pressed to present an alternative to Game, the best they can come up with is a warmed over version of “just be yourself” (*cough, Amanda Marcotte, cough*). They are devoted to ideology. You, Ms. Walsh, are devoted to the facts – even if you personally may not like what those facts are.
If Ms. Jess and those who think like her are really interested in doing some good in the world, they can take the ladies who wish to slut it up and pair them off with the legions of Men who are willing to date and marry them. In fact, they can even start up an online dating service that specializes in the serious dating of Sluts – a kind of Bizarro eHarmony, if you will. After all, you can argue ideology, but you can’t argue numbers, and if Ms, Jess and those of her ilk can prove, with hard numbers, that Men are indeed willing to seriously date Sluts, well, I for one can and will shut up and sitdown.
Until that great gettin’ up morning comes though, I’m on the side of those who’ve actually done and continue to do their homework. Ms. Walsh, without question, has done hers.
O.
they can even start up an online dating service that specializes in the serious dating of Sluts – a kind of Bizarro eHarmony
.
That is bound to happen soon if someone can make money running it. Lets see, eHo?
.
“I think this is what bothers Ms. Jess above all else…no Man if he can choose it, wants a LTR with a Woman who has a “history”
.
There are two parts this:
.
1] A concerted and elaborate effort to not acknowledge that men do this as a matter of course
.
2] A concerted and elaborate effort to prevent men from doing this
.
Confused? but surprised, no. Feminists are masters at tripping over their always tied shoes
.
What are the wide implications if 1 is acknowledged?
.
What are the even wider implications if 2 is not accomplished?
Just so Ms. Walsh & Co. knows, my newest/latest blog post is here!
“A Billion Wicked Thoughts” Destroys A Billion Pretty Lies About Human Sexuality
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/66474
Check it out
O.
@Abbott
“eHo”? I love it! LOL!!!
O.
Obs,
Thanks for that analysis – I hope I do live up to the standard of siding with the facts. I’m ready to alter my beliefs at any time when the evidence warrants it. As for Bizarro EHarmony, LOL, I don’t think there’s a viable business idea there, because if Jaclyn Friedman is typical, these women are using Craigslist Encounters.
Still, at this point in the game we should all know female hypergamy is very real so I’m not really sure what is the debate. I think the question isn’t whether it exists, but the magnitude. I guess I’m surprised at just ruling 95% of guys out right off the bat based on a picture. The reverse certainly wouldn’t be true.
Mike C
Not debating. But I’d be more inclined to call her picky if she were rejecting them from a video clip.
Her gay male friend said he’d tap 90% of the guys. So yeah, not surprisingly, there’s a difference.
What I find funny is when the men on forums harshly critique attractive female celebrities, although most agree that they wouldn’t kick them out of their beds. I chalk it up to them playing some kind of social proofing game amongst each other and not that they’d reject the women if the opportunity actually presented.
To the other point, clearly there is some sort of conundrum/contradiction. You’ve got collegeslacker who was JUST on the college scene saying there are PLENTY of guys willing to get involved in a relationship with one girl, and then you’ve got PLENTY of girls complaining guys only want to hook up/keep it casual. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out something there doesn’t add up.
Do you think perhaps it has to do with the guys not approaching them?
Aren’t guys who just want casual hookups more likely to approach?
To the other point, clearly there is some sort of conundrum/contradiction. You’ve got collegeslacker who was JUST on the college scene saying there are PLENTY of guys willing to get involved in a relationship with one girl, and then you’ve got PLENTY of girls complaining guys only want to hook up/keep it casual. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out something there doesn’t add up.
I missed this.
Is it that all the guys want to get involved with ONE particular girl? Or are they being turned down by several girls?
hey can even start up an online dating service that specializes in the serious dating of Sluts – a kind of Bizarro eHarmony
That is a wonderful idea. They can market it for “secure men” that want to date experienced women for marriage…It would be interesting to see if all the men that told Jess that they don’t care about numbers will be willing to put a ring on it as soon as there is a chance.
@david foster
Thanks to that link to the WSJ. An interesting article – and I think I can use it in a post I’ve been developing about self-control.
@Ms. Walsh,
Well, I call em like I see em, and I can say that while we’ve had our share of disagreements over the years, you’re one of the most level headed and reasonable Women I personally know, who tries very hard to deal with actual facts and evidence over your own personal views and feelings on a matter. I think I can speak for all the other Men here when I say, that such a Woman is RARE to find. The only other Woman I personally know like that is Ms. Brown Sugah – and no, I’m not saying that because she’s with me, LOL. I’m saying it because it’s true, and one of the things that immediately drew me to her.
I’m just sayin’. By all means, keep on keepin’ on…
O.
If we men lower our standards to have a one night stand, it’s news to me. If we’re talking strictly looks, mind you. I suppose I wouldn’t care if she’s a bitch for a ONS, where I obviously won’t put up with that in an LTR.
Schmoe, I agree, most of my ONS were pretty hot!
Obsidiun,
.
Putting. Full. Stops. In. Sentences. Does. Not. Make. You. Superior.
.
1. Porn stimulation. There are 100′s of links, including the one used, that show women get highly aroused by porn and in fact get aroused by a wider variety of porn than men. This is what the evidence says. Its not that its even my personal vice as I dont like porn at all (or maybe a probe would prove me a liar!) but the data says what it says.
Genrally speaking the enforce dismantling of a patriarchal society (divorce, vote, pay, anti- rape etc) has allow the slow emergence of womens real sexuality.
Thus there is an increase in male strippers, women using computer porn, women buying snd reading erotic literature, male escorts, promisiocus teenagers, promiscuous cougars etc.
People ar ehinting that th e2 sexes are worlds apart- but whilst the science shows there are some differences, it also shows many similarities that would never have been believed in previous generations.
.
2. on line porn usage. Well one of the figures in the opening thread was about Ogis 25-33%. I am indeed the one asking, as is my right, why that might they be. Wouldnt you/I expect it to be 50%? And I think that is due to artificial conditioning.
I should say one might actually expect it to be above mens- its not unusual for a women’s libido to outstrip her partners. Especially in their 30′s and beyond.
.
3. Difference? Viva la difference I say. But if someone indulges in hypocritical and nasty insulting behaviour (and in this blog we have it a plenty) and then uses the ‘biological double standard’ to justify such unpleasantness, I kinda feel its my duty to piss on their parade with cold hard facts.
“Sw: How do the eye movements of partygoers have anything to do with this post?
Me: Cos it illustrates how genders respond to visual stimuli including clothed humans. If people are turned on or at least interested in visuals in real life then porn may seem a natural extension to that.
………….
Susan Walsh says: “Nonsense. Please quote me where I say that women are not visually stimulated”
SW : “Obviously, men are very visual” is one example- perhaps I mistakenly took this to mean that men very very visual but women werent particulalry.
.
also Susan- a thought occured to me- this data he compiled- does this mean if I or my partner visit a porn site the main server can detect the users gender? Or does it depond upon the name of the ownder of the account? I thought all this stuff was private and protected? Is this what phishing is? (sorry Im an ict dumbass)
dismantling of a patriarchal society
.
Would this 99-year plan move along quicker if men suppressed their natural tendency to shun sluts for marriage? If yes, then we will all know the reason this topic is so fiery. If no, then no problem, right?
on line porn usage. Well one of the figures in the opening thread was about Ogis 25-33%. I am indeed the one asking, as is my right, why that might they be. Wouldnt you/I expect it to be 50%? And I think that is due to artificial conditioning.
You are making a mess again. You stated several times that most women are engaging on sexual behavior akin to men’s due to feminism liberating them. So feminism is strong enough to destroy the conditioning on real life with witnesses and friends but on the anonymity of their homes they feel inhibited to purchase and pay for porn as much as men? ????!!!
This experiments show that women get aroused by porn, but Ogas show that when women select the ways to get sexual fantasies is true Erotica. You are confusing the results, I’m pretty sure a straight man can get an erection from a man’s hand touching his dick, if you cover his eyes, it doesn’t mean that he will choose a man to touch him this way at any point of his life. Capisce?
Steph,
Im afraid the mess is coming from you.
I have said many women are embracing their sexuality and generally the trend is increasing world wide.
Some are still hindered by slut shaming, religion, families, etc
.
These conditioning traits can control people, even when alone.
There are other factors:
1. Women might be worried about their internet history being exposed to heir partners
2. They may not be too keen on male perspective porn
3. They may not have the time: kids/partners/tea time/etc
4. They may prefer their porn in written format because then you can lie in bed with one hand holding the book and the other…….
5. Blokes are more computer savvy from a young age cos of gaming and so on but I expect that to change gradually.
.
Look, loads of friends and aquaintences rave about porn and the new brand of female porn which is out there (dont ask-I have no idea what they mean). I myself am ‘meh’ about written or computer porn.
I suppose I am saying that as as patriachy is further eroded and women orientated porn becomes more avaialble, then women will eventually increase porn usage both in visitation and subscription.
Abbot- you and I both know that there are plenty of guys who dont agree with you on that. I have mentioned my expereinced freinds who found it EASIER to find hubby and have kiddies. No anger on their part.
.
I know you love to goad- just try and make it a bit more stylish sir.
ps, I forget your answer to my earlier question… are you married? single? have kids?
Some are still hindered by slut shaming, religion, families, etc
And some choose to remain chaste for personal and logical reasons. It might be hard to believe but a person can choose abstinence freely, no hindering involved.
1. Women might be worried about their internet history being exposed to heir partners
First a Liberated honest woman that already had many partners doesn’t need to be afraid of that why would she?
Second Erotica also shows on internet history
And third, when I used to share my computer with my parents and family I erased the history after watching my favorite porn sites. So unless you think all women are computer illiterate that point makes little sense.
3. They may not have the time: kids/partners/tea time/etc
Lol Had you meet a man with no time for porn? And this women have plenty of time to seek out Romance.
4. They may prefer their porn in written format because then you can lie in bed with one hand holding the book and the other…….
Playgirl is also easy for this maneuver. Want to know how many women buy playgirl in contrast with men buying playboy?
5. Blokes are more computer savvy from a young age cos of gaming and so on but I expect that to change gradually.
This is raw data on women that are computer savvy already.
Look, loads of friends and aquaintences rave about porn and the new brand of female porn which is out there (dont ask-I have no idea what they mean). I myself am ‘meh’ about written or computer porn.
Female friendly porn has been around for a while, if this was the reason women didn’t watched porn they would had over saturated the market years ago and it would had shown on the data. You are attempting to rationalize it with your personal anecdote, but you don’t have data. Unless you have a study were women explain why they rather look at romance that porn with all the reasons you state, the cold hard facts are there.
@Jess
Not hormonally.
I don’t know the specifics on the methodology. Certainly AOL for example, knows the names associated with its accounts, and probably the gender as well from the original signup. Additionally, there is significant data associated with any IP address – many registrations online, etc. that would specify gender. I believe many porn sites also ask gender, they certainly do for subscribers. In fact, the article stated that porn sites are wary of female subscriber names, suspecting spam/scams. I think you’d be surprised to learn how much Google knows about you, though.
Yes you were mistaken. Men are far more visually stimulated than women, but women are not blind. However, female sexuality is most responsive to a “favored male.” Male sexuality doesn’t need to know your name.
@Jess
Please stop offering this as evidence. It is worth even less than your own anecdotal experience.
SW
1. Scary
2. ok, Kind of agree, up to a point. Some women are picky about who to lust after but there have been documentaries about the conduct of women during male strip shows- they were ready to rape any oiled male within 10 yards!
Steph,
0. Yep- agree
1. Many women are still not liberated alas. And I wouldnt have the 1st idea how to clear history- I thought I did but it keeps popping up in these little menu windows on the top bar
3. If my friends experiences are to go by, becuase of child care, the women go to bed exhausted by 11pm. The hubboes can last watching tv or surfing till past midnight.
4. I think porn mags are dying out? and many women would be ashamed of buying porn mags from a shop cos of shaming stigma
5. I bet there are loads of women in their 30′s who have very iffy ICT skills. When I was a school girl only boys did computer science. they would be in their 40′s now.
6. My understanding is that female porn is dramatically increasing. So that 33% will rise soon enough I’m sure.
.
A final pint about books…
a. Jackie Collins. Trashy with lots of hard willies and abundant sex. Dire
b. Airport Chick Porn. Novels that are adult, less cheesy and very pornographic. Not as bad as J Collins- if i was despeate these are what I would put up with.
c. Adult romance. Character based with stories and themes but still full of ‘strong jawlines’ and ‘breathtaking manhoods’ (meh)
d. Classic romance Novel. Kissing and swooning- no sex refs
.
I would say c is the most popular option. Pretty explicit and graphic though. Plenty of deep plunderings and ravishings. Dull as dishwater in my view but take away the sex and the girls wouldnt buy the books.
,
So again, whilst there may be, on average, some diferences, surely one can see the clear parrallels with guys sexual interests.
.
ps Im sure guys read erotica too from time to time
women are embracing their sexuality
What does that mean? For hetero women, does that require that men cooperate? Is the assumption that men will because they will take sex when offered as they do not know when the next offer will come along? Does the man know that the woman he is fucking is off somewhere embracing her sexuality? Since it is challenge-less for a woman, therefore cheap, does “embracing sexuality” have any value? And most importantly:
.
DO MEN EVER EMBRACE THEIR SEXUALITY or do they just fuck like always? And if they did, would they know the difference? Do the fell all embraced and what not?
.
em·brace1
[em-breys]
verb, -braced, -brac·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
to take or clasp in the arms; press to the bosom; hug.
.
Yep, feelin it now
@wudang
“ONe thing I have noticed women doing to me all the time is to stand very close kinda sideways and sometimes looking slightly over to me or just somehow giving me a feeling they are very open to me talking to them. THey do this alone and in pairs of two. It usually works very well when women do this.”
*
Girl: Guys are so weird.
BFF: Totally. Tell me all about what happened.
Girl: Well, I went to this club on Saturday, and there was this cute guy..
BFF: Did you do all the right things to make him hit on you?
Girl: Yeah.
BFF: You stood several feet away from him?
Girl: Yeah.
BFF: And you turned your body away from him?
Girl: Yeah.
BFF: And you didn’t look at him, or make eye contact for more than .0001 second, and didn’t smile at him, or do anything to let him know you were attracted to him and wanted him to come over and talk to you?
Girl: Yeah.
BFF: And he still didn’t hit on you?
Girl: No, not at all.
BFF: Guys are so weird.
Girl: I think I will go post on Susan’s blog about how easy guys have it in the current SMP.
Many women are still not liberated alas.
Do you have any data about how many women are not liberated?
3. If my friends experiences are to go by, becuase of child care, the women go to bed exhausted by 11pm. The hubboes can last watching tv or surfing till past midnight.
The data shows women using their spare time. They choose to search for erotica. That is the data. The can’t be too tired for porn and not tired for erotica can they?
I think porn mags are dying out? and many women would be ashamed of buying porn mags from a shop cos of shaming stigma
First again you said that the men’s attitude here about sluts is a minority so surely all those liberated men out there wouldn’t mind seeing a woman buying a magazine and second I know you have no experience with porn but many sites and magazines allow for people to be anonymous so no.
5. I bet there are loads of women in their 30′s who have very iffy ICT skills. When I was a school girl only boys did computer science. they would be in their 40′s now.
Data please, my mother in law is 75 and she actually teached me to download movies. All her female family members know how to use computers,have facebook accounts, blogs and webpages all of them over 60 so again an study that shows that women have less computer skills than me is a most.
soon enough I’m sure.
All your arguments here are based on personal anecdote, self selection and personal perception, one day you say that women are embracing their sexuality and men are marrying them, so our views are minority and the other day you say they are still shamed and repressed.
You cannot claim that the same woman that is brave enough to defy social conventions (and common sense if you ask me) by having sex with as many men as she wants to is incapable of defying social conventions on the anonymity of her home and buying porn for herself and rather buy romance because she feels shamed…with herself! Does not compute.
im not replying to anyone as such but a couple of interesting links:
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/apr/07/women-addicted-internet-pornography
.
http://www.oprah.com/community/thread/120803
.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/article2355510.ece
.
@ The Complex Algorithm of Female Attraction
*
I’ve been thinking lately that the scenario most women would find most appealing is:
1/ know the man for a while (weeks -> months)
2/ he shows little to no interest in her (she desires him in secret)
3/ they “end up getting together”
*
So, the take-away for men: forget “the 3-second rule”; let her embers smolder.
[This assumes continued/repeated social exposure; i.e., not Club Game.]
@Jeffrey of Troy
Haha, that’s perfect! Seriously, we are guilty as charged. A woman who is willing to risk signaling her interest will clean up if she is realistic about her market value.
As for your strategy for LJBF’ing a woman, sounds reasonable to me. I imagine it would work a fair percentage of the time. It requires patience though – probably good to have other projects going on the side
Steph,
I’m not sure if you are willfully trying to misunderstand me or if you are just off form.
Im off to bed now but will explain the points in a day or two.
J
Hah! No. I’m like an omega girl or something. According to digit ratio, I have lots o’ T. I’d call myself a 4. But mind you, I’d be much more lenient about dating a guy. I feel really bad about saying that because my history suggests otherwise – most of the guys who have “asked” me out (i.e. not face-to-face) were not the best at socializing, I guess. Make of that What you will, whatever that says about my dating / SMP value.
I rejected them because I didn’t feel potential future chemistry with them (or I would have given them a chance), but also because they were sooo unassertive. That’s kind of a hamstery rationalization but ok.
tl;dr The yearbook thing was sort of like: “would you bone this guy if he dropped out of the sky? (and propositioned you for sex).” And apparently, guys are not very selective about that.
And on the women’s-standards-are-too-high thing, I completely agree – I’ve been trying to de-learn such a sense of entitlement. I consider it a good thing when I fancy a guy and a girl looks at me funny and says “you can do better than that.”
@ Auntie Suuuueeee
Thanks for the warm welcome! You’re definitely right about the PC thing.
Give Jess a break, lots of us thought exactly like her before taking the Red Pill. I know I did, for nearly 40 years. Thank God that nightmare is over! Reality makes so much more sense.
as patriachy is further eroded
.
can only mean that men are unilaterally and voluntarily throwing in the towel in the UK…an island
I just encountered Dalrock’s law, and I instantly thought of a number of comments on this thread:
“It also appears to be closely related to Dalrock’s Law:
The more obvious the fact one is in denial of, the more ridiculous the counterexample (or counterargument) will be.”
This seems particularly applicable to the entire men-women-porn discussion.
@Mike C
Most threads where Jess is prominent take on a quality all their own
OTC-
Your augment for tolerance for Jess is laudable, but for lurkers like me, inadvertently getting caught up in her patent-pending “Non-Sequitur Phrase Splicer and Logical Construct Replacement Generator(tm)” is anything but pleasant.
.
Off Topic Rant (TL;DR material to follow): And I dearly wish that it could be taught that mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times, the Guardian, network news, and similar ilk are *NOT* *sources* of scientific proof. Though a “science news” article might on occasion give the reference to the study in question, and may even give a link back to the original source journal, the average journalist routinely demonstrates he/she/it is grimly ignorant of Science in the main and what it can actually say, as well as the limits of its predictive capability. Anything stated in such a piece needs to be treated with skepticism and be weighed critically against the original study. [Market position: experimental physicist, w/ 20+ years in field]
1 2 3 4 »
{ 3 trackbacks }