Slutty Men Know They’re Hot, Slutty Women Think They Are

June 3, 2011

From How Hot Are You? Promiscuous Men and Warm Women Know Best

A new study using speed dating data shows the following:

  • Men who hew closest to stereotypically male patterns of dating — a desire to play the field and have more no-strings-attached sex — are better at judging how attractive they are to potential dates than are men who prefer a quieter dating lifestyle.
  • Women who conform to the traditional female dating personality of warmth and trust are better at judging their own appeal than the less-stereotypical ladies, researchers report in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science.

Why?

  • Men who are  promiscuous get more practice putting themselves out there than shy men. They meet more women, and develop a better understanding of what women want.
  • Warm, trusting women attract more flirtation than aloof or promiscuous women, giving them more experience with cross-sex interactions.

 

“Knowing your own hotness is important in dating and mating, wrote study researcher Mitja Back of the University of Mainz in Germany. A schlub living in his mom’s basement may be wasting his time pursuing Angelina Jolie, while a smart, accomplished go-getter may sell himself short in the romantic realm by hooking up with a woman not his social equal. From an evolutionary perspective, the best way to pass your genes on is to reproduce with the highest-quality mate you can find without wasting your time chasing after people out of your league.”

Women who rated low on “agreeableness,” a trait comprising warmth, trust and cooperativeness…were “hopeless” at guessing how many dates they’d score.

The researchers are particularly interested in exploring the potential evolutionary link between gender and personality.

Here’s my contribution to the discussion – (I’m thinking out loud here):

  • We know that low agreeableness is linked to neuroticism, risk-seeking and novelty-seeking personality traits. People who exhibit these traits have highly developed (or possibly overdeveloped) limbic systems and are addicted to dopamine, the “reward” chemical. Risk-seeking is also linked to high testosterone.
  • Promiscuous women are risk-seeking by definition. There is some evidence that they are also higher in testosterone than non-promiscuous women, pointing to higher sex drive.
  • The traits of warmth, trust and cooperativeness are associated with femininity, which may explain why men ask out more women who exhibit this demeanor.
  • Observation of the sexual marketplace reveals that promiscuous women of average looks are hooking up with better looking males for short-term mating. In other words, they’re playing out of their league for long-term commitment. This may explain why promiscuous women are poor judges of their own attractiveness – they rely solely on the quality of short-term hookups as a proxy for their own worth.
  • The findings suggest that while sluts may get the lion’s share of male attention in college, feminine traits and judicious selection of sexual partners will attract more attention as men enter the realm of dating.
  • Promiscuous women no longer in demand as priorities shift toward long-term mating, may flock to the spinster lit genre of memoir writing. :)
  • The findings also suggest that man whores know they’re hot, but less slutty guys are not as confident. The key, then, is to identify a handsome guy who has not racked up too many notches. He is an undervalued asset. He will lack the douchebag dominance of the typical young stud, which is a good thing.
  • http://averagecohabitingchump.wordpress.com/ Workshy Joe

    I think this bullet point is the key one:

    Observation of the sexual marketplace reveals that promiscuous women of average looks are hooking up with better looking males for short-term mating. In other words, they’re playing out of their league for long-term commitment. This may explain why promiscuous women are poor judges of their own attractiveness – they rely solely on the quality of short-term hookups as a proxy for their own worth.

    The case of Adam Perry springs to mind here. Three thousand women can truthfully say “I slept with Adam Perry in the 1980s”.

    How many can truthfully say “I was his girlfriend”?

  • VI

    Excellent post. This really gets at the heart if why most women in the SMP have no idea how low they rate.

    The traits of warmth, trust and cooperativeness are associated with femininity, which may explain why men ask out more women who exhibit this demeanor.

    This is worth more to women than all “The Rules” type advice books out there.

  • Jen

    •The findings suggest that while sluts may get the lion’s share of male attention in college, feminine traits and judicious selection of sexual partners will attract more attention as men enter the realm of dating.
    •Promiscuous women no longer in demand as priorities shift toward long-term mating, may flock to the spinster lit genre of memoir writing.

    I am so glad to read this. I am sending this to my daughter :)

  • Rae

    “Hot” is being operationalized in a bizarre way here: appeal to an audience of speed-daters, in an artificial-sounding speed-dating setting. Insofar as I understand the result (there’s some lame attempt at reporting effect size, but since I don’t know what the scale for perceived attractiveness looked like, or how many callbacks there were on average, I’ve got no way of interpreting the little list of numbers) I’m not sure why it’s particularly interesting. If it’s not a statistical artefact, then what it shows is that people who conform to widely held gender stereotypes are good at predicting what others expect of them in the attractiveness department. It seems like there’s an obvious common cause explanation for that.

    The article is about par for the course, which is to say that it’s a shoddy POS that some illiterate reporter banged out at the last minute on a deadline. I hope the study is better than the article, but am not optimistic.

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

      @Rae

      I hope the study is better than the article, but am not optimistic.

      I always prefer reporting on a study where I can get the whole PDF and read it carefully. This one was not available, so I had only the science blog article to rely on. I view studies like this as interesting points of discussion. They don’t really prove very much, but a statistically significant pattern has emerged, and I find it enjoyable to puzzle it out. That’s why I specifically said I was thinking out loud – this post was more of an exploration of some ideas that seem to make sense on the surface. As always, more research is needed.

      I will say that many of the studies that test theories of evo psych are dismissed as shoddy, junk science, etc. by critics. But the researchers that conduct many of them are some of the most respected academics in the country – although this study was not U.S. based.

  • Rae

    Wow; “science” “journalism” makes me very disagreeable.

  • http://lgfonevolution.blogspot.com Mats

    This is so true. Sluts honestly think that by making their private parts more popular their market value is higher in men’s eyes, when in fact it’s the opposite.

    Slutty men thank!

  • Abbot

    The findings suggest that while sluts may get the lion’s share of male attention in college, feminine traits and judicious selection of sexual partners will attract more attention as men enter the realm of dating.
    .
    Well, these “findings” have been around for decades, but its really too mundane [and apparently very inflammatory to some] to write about. A woman is either one or the other. Men have no need to talk about the “two lists” that never mix. Its just a fact. Men decide who is worthy. Only men.

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

      @Abbot

      Men decide who is worthy. Only men.

      Yes, this is the rub. Feminists cannot control this no matter how many lawmakers or women they get behind the cause. We see that if men don’t deem women worthy, they opt out of marriage altogether. A woman who wants to marry must not only be worthy, she must go to extra pains to prove it – as many men are wary of all women as potential marriage partners.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    The key, then, is to identify a handsome guy who has not racked up too many notches. He is an undervalued asset. He will lack the douchebag dominance of the typical young stud, which is a good thing.

    Unless you are talking about seducing very youg boys, if he is handsome but lacks the dominance, you´re going to get bored, and he´s going to get played, used, dumped and heartbroken.

    Just sayin.

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

      @Yohami

      Unless you are talking about seducing very youg boys, if he is handsome but lacks the dominance, you´re going to get bored, and he´s going to get played, used, dumped and heartbroken.

      Well, I see dominance as being on a spectrum. It is not a yes or no. The most dominant males will have many sexual partners, generally avoid monogamy, and make poor long-term prospects in any case. At the other end of the spectrum we have the timid guy hiding from women. Many women like some dominance, along with some of the beta/comfort traits. Those guys are somewhere in the bell curve, and some of them are good-looking, fairly confident, but mild-mannered. Those guys do fine, and they generally don’t get with slutty, hard, cynical women, who would indeed play them.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    A girl self-esteem usually flows with the amount and quality of attention she receives. So its logical slut-promiscuous girls think highly of themselves because they get a lot of it, even if their behavior is really a cover / void filling.

  • Abbot

    their behavior is really a cover / void filling.
    .
    and commensurate with poor parenting, and coincidentally, both are manifestations of Western society. A higher than normal dose of testosterone, and you get some real service providers. Pimp-free to boot.

  • filrabat

    The findings also suggest that man whores know they’re hot, but less slutty guys are not as confident. The key, then, is to identify a handsome guy who has not racked up too many notches. He is an undervalued asset. He will lack the douchebag dominance of the typical young stud, which is a good thing.

    Further proof that initial sex appeal – the traits emphasized, glorified, and bragged about in the popular culture (both media and day-to-day interadctions) – no matter how appealing, say nothing about the long-term quality of a mate. Whether confidence and bravado in men or beauty and quick-to-the-flirtatious smiles in women. These things by themselves say not a single thing about their levels of trustworthiness and empathetic concern for others – even the “least of people” (two traits indispensable for communication – the essential ingredient of true sustainable love).

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    I’m guessing that “agreeable” women get more approaches from a wider variety of men (particularly beta-type men) for the simple reason that agreeableness neutralizes approach anxiety. Thus they have a large and varied data set from which to draw conclusions.

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

      @Badger

      agreeableness neutralizes approach anxiety

      This suggests that agreeableness in women is an evolutionary adaptation for successful mating. As fewer women strive to be agreeable, or even value that quality, those who are agreeable should clean up, at least in theory (and keeping in mind that men are visual, not just looking for “nice”).

  • Stephenie Rowling

    “This suggests that agreeableness in women is an evolutionary adaptation for successful mating. As fewer women strive to be agreeable, or even value that quality, those who are agreeable should clean up, at least in theory (and keeping in mind that men are visual, not just looking for “nice”).”

    I think you should have a post about the masculinization of women as well, related to this rejection of feminine traits. I was reading a young readers blog from Spain and it was amazing how this young girls rejected anything nice, feminine and specially emotional…guess what types of boys in fiction they do find hot? Bad boys, imperfect and misbehaved, good guys are considered boring. All this is connected, IMO.

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

      @Stephenie

      this young girls rejected anything nice, feminine and specially emotional…guess what types of boys in fiction they do find hot? Bad boys, imperfect and misbehaved, good guys are considered boring. All this is connected, IMO.

      That’s an interesting theory. Women definitely select more bad boys and fewer good guys than they once did, and they’re also less feminine. Both are the result of the Women’s Movement/Sexual Revolution, IMO. So yes, they are connected, but I am not sure the relationship is causal.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “A woman is either one or the other. Men have no need to talk about the “two lists” that never mix. ”
    .
    Shameless plug for my most recent Ladder Theory post which touches on this exact phenomenon.
    .
    Ladies, heed: once you get bumped off the “marriageable” list, it’s awfully hard to get back on without getting a new social group or moving cities.
    .
    Susan,
    .
    “This suggests that agreeableness in women is an evolutionary adaptation for successful mating.”
    .
    One possible interpretation is that agreeableness signals a man will be welcomed into the woman’s social group, and not punished or killed for hitting on the wrong tribe’s women.
    .
    “As fewer women strive to be agreeable, or even value that quality, those who are agreeable should clean up, at least in theory (and keeping in mind that men are visual, not just looking for “nice”).”
    .
    Again, the problem with today’s squishy feminism is that it teaches anti-masculine paranoia, aka “don’t take any shit from a man.” Most of these pissed-off women could get 90% of what they want if they smiled and asked nicely.

  • Rae

    They don’t really prove very much, but a statistically significant pattern has emerged, and I find it enjoyable to puzzle it out. That’s why I specifically said I was thinking out loud – this post was more of an exploration of some ideas that seem to make sense on the surface. As always, more research is needed.

    Thinking out loud is great, but I’m not sure why you believe there’s any any signal amid all that noise (excluding signal about the biases of reporters and researchers). What’s needed is not just more research, but decent research, and decent reporting on that research. Garbage in; garbage out. Quantity of garbage in doesn’t really change the basic equation.

    I have university library access, and could try to dig up the actual journal article and email it to you, if I could find anything resembling a citation. For all I can tell, though, there may not even be a journal article.

    Also: has a statistically significant pattern emerged? I don’t believe I’ve seen any p values, much less an argument that the pattern is meaningful as well as “significant” in the technical sense.

    I will say that many of the studies that test theories of evo psych are dismissed as shoddy, junk science, etc. by critics. But the researchers that conduct many of them are some of the most respected academics in the country – although this study was not U.S. based.

    I don’t care whether people respect them; I care whether their research is any good. Unfortunately, those things can and do come apart.

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

      @Rae
      Fair enough. This study was published in a journal in May, I believe, so I’ll keep an eye out for any further data. My being drawn to the study is undoubtedly due to my having arrived at similar conclusions via independent observation. Not statistically significant, just my impressions about the way women and men perceive their own sexual market value.

  • Roxanne

    I’ m a virgin because of religion and I prefer male virgins or low-partner count if he recently converted to the religion. I think the secular dating scene uses short-term vs long-term whereas the community I am it’s always long-term. I’m my opinion male sluts and promiscuous females deserve each other. I agree with Susan Walsh. Promiscuous men make bad bets for monogamy and usually tend to be liberal or libertarian in their ideological outlook so they make a perfect fit with female sluts.

  • Abbot

    Promiscuous men make bad bets for monogamy and usually tend to be liberal or libertarian in their ideological outlook so they make a perfect fit with female sluts.
    .
    Female sluts belong to a minority fringe group, as they always have, who enable men, liberal or otherwise, to have a blast until its time to marry. But promiscuous men have much greater options when it comes to marriage since all other women in the world are not sluts and nearly all will embrace a marriage-ready promiscuous man. That widely applied male-controlled phenomenon is another one of those feminists rubs. Oh well…

  • Abbot

    Feminists cannot control this no matter how many lawmakers or women they get behind the cause.
    .
    and the more they try, the less worthy they become. Its a vicious self defeating downward cycle. And a joy to observe.
    .
    A woman who wants to marry must not only be worthy, she must go to extra pains to prove it
    .
    Prove she did not prostitute herself on a slut walk of shame
    Prove she never drank herself into sex
    Prove her character is not a product of “expressing her sexuality” with multi men.
    Prove she never attended even one frat party
    Prove she never treated men as interactive sex toys
    Prove she never identified as a feminist
    Prove she never had anything to prove regarding so-called “equality” with men
    .
    many men are wary of all women as potential marriage partners.
    .
    If a man is stuck in the UK or US, it is a shame he must be so vigilant. No, that is not what feminists intended but they have made their beds and now they can lie in them, alone.

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

      Prove she never attended even one frat party

      Eh, this is harsh. That’s nearly all American women in college. No wonder you believe American women are unmarriageable.

  • Abbot

    Men decide who is worthy. Only men.
    .
    Yes, this is the rub. Feminists cannot control this no matter how many lawmakers or women they get behind the cause.

    .
    Could it be that feminists actually think the worthiness criteria men use transcends mate selection? Do they really believe, in their tortured trite minds, that the personal private quite decision making and choices men make leads to undesirable treatment of promiscuous women in general?

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    I agree with Rae’s doubts about the study. Also, the article explicitly says that promiscuous and non-promiscuous women are equally good at assessing their desirability.

    Also, I have a question about sluttiness. The primary reason that you contend (many? most?) men don’t like sluts is because they have poor impulse control. I’m fairly slutty, but I’m also a vegan. Let me tell you, nothing takes more impulse control than seeing your friends chow down on cheese sticks and milkshakes and hamburgers while you’re sitting there with a salad composed of lettuce, two onions and three tomatoes– and you know you are going to be doing this, every time you go to a restaurant, for the rest of your life. Especially since you get a major amount of social pressure (“come on, have a crab rangoon, you know you want one”) and mockery (“vegetarianism is like HIV, veganism is like AIDS”– yes, a friend said this to me). My point (other than how much being vegan sucks) is that that requires a hell of a lot more self-control than not fucking people.

    The same logic applies for Muslim women in headscarves, anyone majoring in science at a rigorous college, people who quit drugs or alcohol, fat women who are now skinny, etc., etc. And yet I do not see this blog discussing how men are more attracted to vegans, because of their impulse control, or to AA members, or to formerly fat women. It seems inconsistent. Is there something special about sluttiness?

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

      Also, the article explicitly says that promiscuous and non-promiscuous women are equally good at assessing their desirability.

      No, it says that warm, friendly women are better at assessing their desirability than promiscuous and aloof women.

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

      The primary reason that you contend (many? most?) men don’t like sluts is because they have poor impulse control.

      I didn’t mention impulse control. I simply stated that promiscuity is correlated with low agreeableness, high neuroticism, high risk-seeking and high novelty-seeking. This is also true of addicts of all kinds. But as OffTheCuff points out, not all people are addicted to all substances, obviously. PIck your poison. You may be addicted to the dopamine high of kinky sex, but don’t find that eating a burger is risky, a novelty or likely to flood your brain with dopamine for any other reason.

  • Brendan

    It seems inconsistent. Is there something special about sluttiness?

    Poor impulse control in the sexual area leads to cheating. All of the rest of those are red flags, too. That is, there are quite a few people who would not consider an LTR with a recovering alcoholic (relapse always possible) or an ex-fat person (relapse possible, too). But the sluttiness issue relates to the concern about being cheated on, which, for men, includes the risk of being cuckolded.

  • Abbot

    It seems inconsistent. Is there something special about sluttiness?
    .
    If involving multitudes of other men, as in other living breathing humans, in her deep personal self is not special to her, then, well, its not special [to her]. But to a man outside of her circle of get-offs and screw-arounds, a “special” woman, in his opinion [and only his opinion matters] is one who does not engage in these behaviors. A hamburger or a fifth of whiskey is not out there saying “yo, I hit on dat” and “look at the chump devoting his life that that one-night ho bag”
    .
    So, no there is nothing “special” about sluttiness. But its absolutely not the same as cutting back on food and booze. NO inconsistencies whatsoever. The slut carries the slut with her.

  • OffTheCuff

    Having good self-control in one self-chosen area doesn’t somehow cancel out the lack of it an another area. Your argument is bass-ackwards.

    A guy can be a fitness buff, but also have a serious gambling problem and gone bankrupt a few times. A woman is correct to disqualify him if she values financial stability, because he has demonstrated an inability to do so. A women might be a disciplined triathlete, but still a slut. A guy is correct to disqualify her if he values fidelity, because she has demonstrated an inability to do so.

  • Abbot

    A woman is correct to disqualify him
    .
    A woman can disqualify a man for ANY reason she personally determines. Do men complain? Any blogs, walks, spews, speeches, rants out there with men bitching and complaining about it? Oh, but disqualify a woman for being a slut…whoa, hold on! The blast of protest from women is deafening. WHY???? Why is this one single sole topic so front and center? Do they even know why? Does anyone?

  • http://averagecohabitingchump.wordpress.com/ Workshy Joe

    “many men are wary of all women as potential marriage partners.”

    I’m wary of the institution of marriage. Not the woman.

    Doug Stanhope put it best:

    If marriage didn’t exist, would you invent it? Would you go “Baby, this shit we got together, it’s so good we gotta get the government in on this shit. We can’t just share this commitment ‘tweenst us. We need judges and lawyers involved in this shit, baby. It’s hot!”

  • Michael of Charlotte

    The traits of warmth, trust and cooperativeness are associated with femininity, which may explain why men ask out more women who exhibit this demeanor.

    Completely agree with this. When I’m thinking of a girl long-term, this is where it begins.

  • MRKTGNS

    “Men decide who is worthy”

    Abbot is correct, just as men need not reward woman for their slutty behavior and men not seek approval from woman, but reinforce what is desirable and disqualify those who do not meet the requirements. This is empowering for the male on two fronts. He will leave the interaction with dignity and strength, he will not feel rejected because she did not meet his expectations.

    It also says to the woman, “You need to step your game up!”

    The gentlemen’s way to neg-hitting a female!

    “Further proof that initial sex appeal – the traits emphasized, glorified, and bragged about in the popular culture (both media and day-to-day interadctions) – no matter how appealing, say nothing about the long-term quality of a mate.”

    Filrabat is absolutely correct, just as youth and fertility displayed by a woman in her prime express very little about the quality of her genes. Bravo!
    Genetic fitness is age independent and why woman are less discriminating with respect to a man’s age.

    @Roxanne

    I am going to take a leap here and say without knowing your age, weight, or physical attributes, that you are 6.5-7.5 conservatively on your worst day. I will also go further and bet that you have had the opportunity to have at least 7 sexual partners up this point in your life, despite how you view your attractiveness to the opposite sex.
    I am pleased to inform you that you can easily become a 10 because you have the prerequisites and the potential to land a quality male that most slut’s would dream to have all to themselves. The above traits of warmth, trust, agreeableness, are feminine attributes that a natural, healthy, and happy female express which in and of itself is very attractive, but the majority of female lawyers happen to be deficient in. (I dated a lawyer, and our disagreements always turned into episodes of Law and Order) I mean who want’s to date a judge, juror, and executioner, ouch!!

    Your attitude with regard to man-whores and chastity is a positive one.
    Your decision to remain a virgin should not be a choice made by religion, but influenced by your desire to believe it is the best choice for you. These benefits outweigh the perception unsuitable males may have of you, which allow you to be more discrimitive, which in turn give you the strength to be more selective, and gives you the self-esteem to be more confident, irrespective of the attention and sexual overtures you recieve from men.

    Across all cultures, a woman’s hip-to-waist ratio that adheres to the golden mean or Fibbinacci’s ratio of 1.61 is subconciously calculated and extremely attractive to men regardless of height or weight and why full-bodied woman of previous generations unlike the tooth-pick generation of young females today were still found to be beautiful and sexy.

    I would also add that this display is a combination of fertility advertising good genes.

    Unlike the warped society we have today, in previous generations, chastity was the #1 most valuable quality a woman could possess. You clearly have this attribute and it makes you that much more desirable to a quality male.

    Further more, married Christian woman report having the most satisfactory and fulfilling sex lives!

    Religion does not devolve the chemistry of why an ideal relationship involves commitment and exclusivity, biochemistry on the other hand, explains this. Your faith in one and the understanding of the other will overlap constructively.
    It is those who choose otherwise which face peril, and the wise who are rewarded.

    Woman are social creatures; it requires a particular and unique, feminine woman, who is mentally strong and emotionally disciplined, to restrain herself from the social pressure and conflicting messages advertised in our culture about sexual freedom/feminism/liberation.
    With that said, I feel that you have made this choice as a testament to your deserving of the most sexual fulfilling experience you will be able to experience that very few woman will. (But you have to promise me that you will be a dirty slut in bed, no exceptions! and why married christian woman are most satisfied, with one partner!)

    It is not only a gift you will share with a deserving high-status man who will feel incredibly fortunate, but a gift that rewards you for your commitment to this ideal.

    An 8 woman with character trumps a 10 without, an 8 woman with no sexual experience, trumps an 8 woman with 10!

    Which one are you?

  • Mike C

    Also, I have a question about sluttiness. The primary reason that you contend (many? most?) men don’t like sluts is because they have poor impulse control.
    ……….
    It seems inconsistent. Is there something special about sluttiness?

    .
    Here is the thing. I think the male aversion to “sluttiness” for LTRs/marriage is NOT just a rational/logical conclusion although that is part of it (Brendan’s point). I think part of it, maybe even most of it is visceral, instinctual, and emotional so it really doesn’t matter if you display impulse control/self-discipline in other facets of your life.
    .
    For every 1 “guy” lke a “Tom” who can “rise above” the emotions a slutty woman tends to trigger in the context of long-term commitment to her, the 9 other guys aren’t going to able to, don’t want to, and see no need to. They’ll gladly fuck the slut and be on their merry way. Badger really nailed it with his Ladder theory post.
    .
    Awhile back, there was a post that quoted a letter a guy wrote in to an advice columnist regarding his fiancee’s (I think) high sex partner count. The gist was “I know I shouldn’t feel this way as an enlightened man, but I do” because it bothered him. Again, I think the feeling isn’t totally rational, but instinctual.
    .
    Bottom line though, many aspects of sexuality are not rational/logical. If it was rational/logical, then in a modern highly advanced society, women would be attracted to the beta traits that made that possible, and not the alpha traits which are actually counterproductive. But they aren’t, and won’t be, so no amount of gnashing of teeth is going to change that.
    .
    I’ve tried to repeatedly point that out to certain guys, and they never get it, and just keep bitching and moaning about how it is. Same thing applies here. No feminist “reeducation” is going to change how most guys feel about this, so just deal with it.

  • Jason

    For every 1 “guy” lke a “Tom” who can “rise above” the emotions a slutty woman tends to trigger in the context of long-term commitment to her, the 9 other guys aren’t going to able to, don’t want to, and see no need to. They’ll gladly fuck the slut and be on their merry way. Badger really nailed it with his Ladder theory post.

    Tom’s a woman though.

  • Mike C

    @Jason,
    .
    LOL, hence the quotes.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    That’s an interesting theory. Women definitely select more bad boys and fewer good guys than they once did, and they’re also less feminine. Both are the result of the Women’s Movement/Sexual Revolution, IMO. So yes, they are connected, but I am not sure the relationship is causal.

    Well hipergamy is regulated by what a certain society in a specific time and place considers desirable and successfull, does modern society find niceness a good trait? I doubt it.
    Many of the traditional Beta traits were associated with femininity, thus rejecting them may make many hipergamic women to seek out the opposite, given the aversion to it, YMMV

    For every 1 “guy” lke a “Tom”
    LOL! touché

  • Anonymous

    By suggesting that only men can decide who is worthy, then that insinuates women are lesser human beings. Wow.

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

    @Anonymous
    Not at all – you misunderstand. Only a man can decide what woman is worthy for the long-term investment of marriage. The point that is being made is that feminists can’t shame men into accepting a woman for marriage with a promiscuous history. The man can and does say, “No thanks.” He will also have other standards.

    The exact same principle applies for women. A woman gets to decide what qualities she must have in a mate, and what the dealbreakers are. Incidentally, many women are rejecting men with a high number as well. There’s a boomerang effect – too much admiration from and sex with other women makes Johnny’s penis “dirty.”

  • Anonymous

    Susan – Oh okay, well yes, that makes sense. :) That’s a grander scale version of “dress for men, not women.”

  • Stephenie Rowling

    “Incidentally, many women are rejecting men with a high number as well.”

    Heh this reminds me that I love James Bond movies but every time he beds a new woman all I can think of is: Ewww I hope the jacuzzi is full of bleach, who knows what diseases he might be carrying…is really distracting. :)

  • Blues

    By suggesting that only men can decide who is worthy, then that insinuates women are lesser human beings. Wow.

    By suggesting men have no voice in who they will spend the rest of their lives with you suggest women are superior beings that know what’s best and their decisions are not to be argued.

  • Blues

    Heh this reminds me that I love James Bond movies but every time he beds a new woman all I can think of is: Ewww I hope the jacuzzi is full of bleach, who knows what diseases he might be carrying…is really distracting. :)

    I take it you’ve never seen this SNL ep?

    Him calling Batman and Robin just cracked me up.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I take it you’ve never seen this SNL ep?

    I totally saw that! I was thinking they read my mind indeed. So Funny! And the Batman and Robin joke was all sorts of wrong…in a funny way of course :)

  • VI

    Incidentally, many women are rejecting men with a high number as well.

    Notch count is a good proxy for male quality. Despite hypergamy, girls will quit chasing a man who is too far out of their league. Girls who are hot AND feminine will still try to win over players, even if these same girls tell their friends they won’t.

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

      Notch count is a good proxy for male quality.

      The boomerang, which is too much of a good thing, i.e. social proof, happens when women perceive that men have no standards. They’ll have sex with anyone who offers it up, no questions asked. This works as a DLV because it demonstrates that the men cannot afford to be selective, but rather have a sort of “starvation” mentality about sex. That signals desperation. I suspect this is directly related to the stigma of STDs.

  • filrabat

    This thread about slutty behavior (male and female) and the prevailing contemporary attitudes about sex, dating, settling down, setting in general

    vs. other notions

    who is the best long-term mate, who you’re most compatible with and who is more likely to be the kind of parent who will shape your children into productive, civilized, humane members of society, etc.

    All this reminds me of a radio interview on the local NPR station just a week short of a year ago. The host interviewed Spencer Wells (should ring a bell For NatGeo and Genetics/Anthropology/Evolution fans) just after his then-new book came out:Pandora’s Seed: The Hidden Costs of Civilization. One theme he brought up in the interview was that in Stone Age societies, few to none of our behaviors had real consequences 30, 40, 50, etc years down the road. However, in this day and age, many of our behaviors DO have long-term consequences. Yet, we still have the same old base impulses we did back in 10,000 BC! Therefore, our brains and especially our instincts simply aren’t equipped to decide matters based on potential long-term consequences.

    This has to have some bearing on our youthful mating choices, especially given the post 1965 “if it feels good, do it” mentality – which further devolved (in most circles) to “if it feels good and you don’t want to do it, you’re a chump”.

    link to record of the interview (sorry, can’t find the podcast).

    The Unforeseen Cost of Civilization
    June 10, 2010

    How did the Neolithic transition from a hunter-gatherer to agrarian society lead to modern human cultural, health and social troubles? We’ll spend this hour with Spencer Wells, National Geographic Society Explorer-In-Residence and author of the new book “Pandora’s Seed: The Unforeseen Cost of Civilization” (Random House, 2010).

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

      @filrabat
      We bump against the reality you speak of all the time – our brains haven’t changed much in 100,000 years. Evo adaptation takes a very long time. But why? Shouldn’t it be most effective to keep up in some way with societal trends? I understand that you’d want to let enough time pass to identify which adaptations truly make sense, but it does seem as if the process is inefficient. Some think we’ve stopped evolving. Sorry for the stupid question, I am just a bit confused about the glaring gap between our evo programming and contemporary society. We’re still rewarding alpha male behaviors that are detrimental today, even if they helped bring home the bacon in 10,000 BC.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “I suspect this is directly related to the stigma of STDs.”
    .
    I doubt it – we know that the visceral power of the tingle is strong, so to not sleep with a sexually capable man, the tingle must be being countermanded by another visceral hindbrain force. I’m guessing the hindbrain has a stop-order (so to speak) in for ridiculously promiscuous men, possibly because it signals lack of selectivity and thus poor investment on the man’s part, or because by simple math he must be doing some low-SMV women in that batch and that’s a DLV/anti-preselection.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “We bump against the reality you speak of all the time – our brains haven’t changed much in 100,000 years. Evo adaptation takes a very long time. But why? ”
    .
    I’m not sure I entirely buy your premise. I believe I read that we have undergone tremendous genetic evolution since we moved into cities about 50,000 years ago. Human and natural events further influence subpopulations. For example, destructive wars of the last 300 years have put huge selections pressures on the Russian population.

  • filrabat

    @Susan and Badger

    Our first permanent settlement with a major agricultural basis only came about around 10,000 years ago – or about 500 generations ago (assuming a 10,000 yr average age of childbirth of about 20 yrs old), which in evolutionary terms is pretty recent. In dog terms (say avg of a dog’s first litter being about.. 2 yrs old, perhaps?). That means 500 generations of dogs is only about 1,000 years.

    I don’t think anybody on this board would $100 that dogs of 1,000 yrs ago are psychologically/behaviorally different from today’s dogs – and this despite conscious and deliberate intervention by humans to select for personality/temperament characteristic! Who or what breeds even a substantial fraction of the human population for certain traits?

    Of course, we transcend animals even we remain animals. We have a unique combination of traits that give us much greater abilities to overrule our DNA and R(eptilian) Complex of our brain than even chimpanzees ever could. That means that while evo psych can explain why we have the impulses and sexual turn-ons we do, it should not be the end-all, be-all answer for excusing these things.

  • filrabat

    Addendum: Even ‘bringing home the bacon’ isn’t enough. We’ve all heard stories of people great at bringing home the bacon, but lousy at teaching their kids values that enable society to bring home more and better bacon – especially that help future generations do so. In short, a lot of evo psych’s and especially Social Darwinism’s weakness is that it defines species success in very narrow terms – mostly those having to do with short-term reproductive success for the animal or person itself, regardless of the consequences of perpetuating that behavior in future generations. Put more simply, there’s a big difference between behaviors (some at least partially genetic in origin) that ensure the next generation of kids will be strong, smart, healthy, and good at social dominance and bringing home bacon , and long-term traits that ensure that people four and five or more generations afterwards will be able to bring home the same quality bacon and have the same level of strength, intelligence, and health. Our government’s consistent practice of huge deficit spending is proof of this — eventually, we and even our grandchildren will have to pay for it (which lessens the gap between them and starvation).

    So yeah, giving into the raw animal attraction without regard to other critically necessary traits that go into child-rearing may be rewarding in the short run — but you’re flirting with long-term disaster for your society (with your great and great-great-grandchildren picking up any tab for the party).

  • VI

    The boomerang, which is too much of a good thing, i.e. social proof, happens when women perceive that men have no standards. They’ll have sex with anyone who offers it up, no questions asked. This works as a DLV because it demonstrates that the men cannot afford to be selective, but rather have a sort of “starvation” mentality about sex. That signals desperation. I suspect this is directly related to the stigma of STDs.

    I’ve seen this happen to men who get most of their notches from overweight and/or less attractive girls. Certainly, I can see how people assume this man is more likely to have STDs, even if he’s no more likely than the man who only dates cute girls.
    As long as a man is known for dating cute girls, his high notch count won’t hurt him with the high quality girls.

  • Michael of Charlotte

    @Susan

    We’re still rewarding alpha male behaviors that are detrimental today, even if they helped bring home the bacon in 10,000 BC.

    I think it is because we know we may need Alpha behavior in the near future in the US. In many places around the world they need it now. Women only enjoy a significant amount of safety in a country like the US. One of the many things we learned about the Peace Corp rape scandal was that, in many places, alpha behavior is certainly needed (to protect women).

    So, I’d argue that even though it might not seem like it, alpha male behavior is rewarded because it’s needed.

  • VD

    The boomerang, which is too much of a good thing, i.e. social proof, happens when women perceive that men have no standards. They’ll have sex with anyone who offers it up, no questions asked.

    True, which is why the antidote to that is to have a high notch count that primarily consists of very attractive women with the occasional slum into mere cuteness. While some women will still find the sheer number to be alarming, the preselection value will more than compensate. In other words, men of sufficiently high market value should always hold off for the hot ones.

    In sex as with economics, delayed time preferences tend to pay off. Besides, there are few ironic joys more amusing than being asked to explain your lack of interest in her to a pretty woman upset that you don’t deign to hit on her. Especially if she knows you tend to be generous with your attention.

  • Renee

    Roxanne,
    I’m in the same boat as you. Christian, virgin, and one who doesn’t devalue male virgins. I do believe a guy can be a virgin and be able to attract women. It’s not like women upfront asks a guy how many sexual partners he had (or do they). Of course I’m sure the guy would eventually tell her, and if she’s turned off by that despite his other positive attributes (appearance, intelligence, humour, athleticism – to some, etc), then it’s her lost.

    Now to be honest I won’t right out disqualify a man with a promiscous past. It all depends on the “package”. But trust-wise, I have to say that I would be a little wary.

    Another thing. If I liked a guy but he wasn’t interested and wanted to sleep around, then once he had his fill shows interest in me, I would be a little….I don’t know….bothered by that. I see that alot of men are peeved off when women do it, but I was wondering if there are women who are also bothered when men do it (or is it just me).

    Abbot,

    Prove she never attended even one frat party

    Oh come on! I’m sure some women go there to have fun without any intention to have sex just like some guys.

    A woman is either one or the other. Men have no need to talk about the “two lists” that never mix.

    You mean the Virgin list and Whore list? If that’s the case, if a girl sleeps with only 3 guys out of all the years being single, would that put her on the “whore list”? To me, it shouldn’t. That’s just my personal opinion.

    And so there won’t be any confusion, while I believe that ideally everyone should practice abstience until marriage (males AND females), or at the least not sleep around, if you do or plan to, then fine, you do you.

  • http://averagecohabitingchump.wordpress.com/ Workshy Joe

    Yohami wrote:

    …if he is handsome but lacks the dominance, you´re going to get bored, and he´s going to get played, used, dumped and heartbroken.

    This is true.

    If he’s handsome and socially dominant he WILL be sexually experienced. Guaranteed.

    If he’s handsome but not socially dominant, women will be turned off by his lack of dominance.

    So the handsome-dominant-guy-with-limited-notches is like the proverbial hen’s tooth. Very rare.

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

      So the handsome-dominant-guy-with-limited-notches is like the proverbial hen’s tooth. Very rare.

      One of the reasons I am so pro-Game. Take a handsome beta guy, add in some Game, and you’ve got your unicorn.

  • mel

    The boomerang, which is too much of a good thing, i.e. social proof, happens when women perceive that men have no standards.

    From what I’ve seen, this is the defining trait of men who sleep with a lot of women – rock stars and billionaires aside. They have very low standards and a 6th sense for exploitable vulnerabilities.

  • karen

    What do you guys mean by social dominance? As a female, I like guys who won’t be my personal doormat but are the dignified types in social gatherings. I don’t like the loud obnoxious types who have to be the center of attention. But I also don’t want a guy who isn’t respected by his friends and peers. To me that is social dominance. Do you males think of social dominance as something different?

    As to sluts, I think that quite a few women believe that you have to go out with many frogs before you meet your prince. One such female is currently trying to set me up with a guy that we both know I have no future with because there is no attraction. Yet this female believes that he is one frog I have to date before I can meet Mr. Right. I personally don’t see the point in dating a guy I am not interested in but she believes that it is better to be with someone rather than alone as this somehow increases the chances of meeting Mr. Right. How does one argue with this logic?

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    karen,
    .
    I’ll let someone else (a woman hopefully) handle social dominance.
    .
    As to your impending setup, don’t go out with a bona fide red-light candidate.
    .
    http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/girl-guide-red-yellow-green/
    .
    If you were ambivalent, it might be worth a try – give him a date or two as a chance, and build some dating skills (the “date frogs” thing). But if you know you’re not interested, like the Police said, you don’t have to turn on the red light.

  • karen

    @Badger,

    The guy is by all accounts a good guy but I am just not physically attracted to him. He would make a good friend and I would like that. I just am not into the idea of dating for the sake of dating. When I date, I actually date guys that I am interested in the possibility of maybe having a long term relationship. I am okay with being single while I wait for a guy that I AM INTERESTED IN to appear. But like I said, for some females, dating lots of frogs (her words, not mine) is the only way to meet Mr. Right.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “for some females, dating lots of frogs (her words, not mine) is the only way to meet Mr. Right.”
    .
    I’ve noticed this to be a stylistic difference in people. Some (I am one, you too apparently) would rather be single than in a suboptimal relationship. Others “have to have someone” whether it’s the right thing or not. Dating these people is stressful, because you don’t know if they are really into it, or you are just “good for the money” until they get a better offer.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Paging Mike C – as a former bouncer you might be interested in Athol’s week of threads about Girls’ Nights Out. A nightclub owner has recently commented here:
    .
    http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2011/06/why-men-are-so-paranoid-about-girls.html

  • Mike C

    Paging Mike C – as a former bouncer you might be interested in Athol’s week of threads about Girls’ Nights Out. A nightclub owner has recently commented here:
    .
    Yeah, read that post, and circled back to read that comment, and pretty much agree. The 1-year I spent bouncing was an eye-opening experience, and I saw some disturbing stuff in terms of female fidelity/loyalty. It is just so easy for stuff “to just happen”. Still, I actually do believe NAWALT, so “remaining forever single” because of what you see in the nightclub business is too cynical.
    .
    I’d point toward your post on Ladder Theory and Dalrock’s recent post on Lay down your Arms, and just say the default position is Ladder 2 with no trust. The mistake too many guys make is they put girls on Ladder 1 who should remain on Ladder 2.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Dating these people is stressful, because you don’t know if they are really into it, or you are just “good for the money” until they get a better offer.

    Yeah also this is a dangerous move dating someone that might not be a god match can lead to fall in love and then a few years down the line when the chemistry wears off you find out that you married or invested many years of your life on a person that you cannot grow old with, bad all around.
    I also rather be alone that with someone I didn’t see a future, also I had too many things better to do that invest on that person, no to mention that you don’t need a date to have fun. I did a lot of fun stuff with my friends so aside from the lack of physical contact it was better than dating someone meh, IME.

  • http://averagecohabitingchump.wordpress.com/ Workshy Joe

    Karen wrote:

    What do you guys mean by social dominance? As a female, I like guys who won’t be my personal doormat but are the dignified types in social gatherings. I don’t like the loud obnoxious types who have to be the center of attention. But I also don’t want a guy who isn’t respected by his friends and peers. To me that is social dominance. Do you males think of social dominance as something different?

    There are two types of guy. The non-dominant ones would basically be invisible to you. They wouldn’t even register on your romantic radar as men. You wouldn’t even notice them. They might as well not exist.

    The point is that guys usually have to re-interpret women’s statements about men for them to make any sense. We have to substitute “man” with “alpha male” to understand what women are really saying.

  • OffTheCuff

    You mean the Virgin list and Whore list?

    What is it with the strawman arguments here??

    It’s not a virgin and whore list. It’s a relationship-worthy list, and a not-relationship-worthy list. A really uptight, mean, hot virgin could be on the sex-only list. A promiscuous woman with the right personality can easily be on the relationship list.

    Granted it’s more *likely* that a virgin would be one side, and slut would be on the other, but it’s silly to think so binary. Most people are really in beteween.

    I’m getting tired of the “I have to be a virgin to be dateable” strawman. Most guys definitely do not care about this.

    If that’s the case, if a girl sleeps with only 3 guys out of all the years being single, would that put her on the “whore list”? To me, it shouldn’t. That’s just my personal opinion.

    I agree that it probably shouldn’t, and it’s not a “whore list” as above.

    But it depends. You can’t just tell from the number. In most real circumstances, no. If she’s 16 years old, had three concurrent FWBs, had no interest in any relationship, and invited them all over for a foursome a few times, then maybe she’d be on the second list. There is a point where the number is high enough that the explanation doesn’t matter, but otherwise, context usually matters.

    Also, that number will be different for different guys. A conservative church boy might be find the 3 revolting, but a player might not care about 30. To each his own.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    What is it with the strawman arguments here??

    I wonder about that too.
    Is probably projecting most women that have sex with a partner have him on the same list for a relationship, so they assume that is unfair for them to be having sex and be disqualified for something else. I think women’s list is probably more binary: Men for sex and relationships and men for nothing at all, maybe friendship if you are lucky.
    So it stings to know that no matter how much they are fantasizing about that guy they hooked up last week, that guy will very likely not be calling anytime soon, unless is a booty call.

  • http://jbro1@aol.com Abbot

    I’m getting tired of the “I have to be a virgin to be dateable” strawman.
    .
    Its a desperate defensive tactic; therefore, it will keep being used in an attempt to RECAST and dismiss the argument as a mythical virgin-whore insecurity

  • http://alpharivelino.wordpress.com/ Rivelino

    Take a handsome beta guy, add in some Game, and you’ve got your unicorn.

    but then he sees how other handsome, alpha men have screwed 200+ girls, and he doesn’t want to settle down with just one girl

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

      @Rivelino

      but then he sees how other handsome, alpha men have screwed 200+ girls, and he doesn’t want to settle down with just one girl

      I don’t think so. I think most beta guys are relationship-oriented. Yes, there will be some who want to go crazy and get a harem, ahem. But the vast majority of guys use Game to attract a woman of their choice and sustain that attraction. Very, very few would want to open up a relationship – I think you are highly unusual in that respect.

  • Renee

    OffTheCuff,

    It’s not a virgin and whore list. It’s a relationship-worthy list, and a not-relationship-worthy list. A really uptight, mean, hot virgin could be on the sex-only list. A promiscuous woman with the right personality can easily be on the relationship list.

    Granted it’s more *likely* that a virgin would be one side, and slut would be on the other, but it’s silly to think so binary. Most people are really in beteween.

    The thing is, I completely agree with this (which is why I have a problem with the idea of guys automatically writing off girls with promiscuous past).

    I wasn’t trying to make a strawman arguement (nor am I defensive Abbot). I was just trying to get an understanding of what “lists” Abbot was referring to. Because, as I have seen, there are guys who do think that binary.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    I think in most cases the only way that “unicorn” will develop is if the alpha is added after the guy’s already committed. A guy with options is a guy who’s loathe to commit.

    Statistically speaking, a guy who’s attractive and socially dominant will be out of most girls’ league, from a relationship standpoint. That dude’s basically the equivalent of a female model who’s low maintenance, happens to be an A+ cook and wants sex every day.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    FWIW, I have very high standards when it comes to relationships, but I think some of the criteria on here are a little harsh. Frat parties? No problem. Frat groupie? No thanks.

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

      @Jimmy Hendricks

      Frat parties? No problem. Frat groupie? No thanks.

      Very reasonable.

      A guy with options is a guy who’s loathe to commit.

      This is certainly true at younger ages. However, the beta guys who get Game and wind up with options are mostly not looking to turn into Roosh. These men are more likely to value companionship, want to marry and have children, etc. Basically, you’re making the claim that a beta turned alpha is identical to a natural alpha. That is not true, though they can look alike from the outside. Inside, genes rule.

  • Abbot

    The thing is, I completely agree with this (which is why I have a problem with the idea of guys automatically writing off girls with promiscuous past).
    .
    Then you agree that it is normal and typical for a man to consider her promiscuity as part of an evaluation. That is a clear departure from the feminists camp where a sexual past is consideration meaningless and not up for consideration whatsoever. And even if a guy does automatically write off certain girls, why is that a problem for a woman? Such women have boldly stated that a man who thinks that way is not a man they would want anyway.

  • filrabat

    @ Jimmy

    I think in most cases the only way that “unicorn” will develop is if the alpha is added after the guy’s already committed. A guy with options is a guy who’s loathe to commit.

    +1. The last sentence in particular is simple economics. Most men are hardwired to simply have sex with as many disease-free women that are attractive enough to turn them on. The only guys who would be anxious to commit would be either

    1. an “Upper Beta” at highest (and usually she’d have to go even lower)

    2. an Alpha who found a woman in the top 1-2% regarding the matrix of factors of facial beauty, body shape, low drama, kindness, brains, perkiness, charm, and social skills (cross yourself off if you think you’d NOT – in a room of 50 randomly selected women of your socio-economic class or lower – Be the TOP scorer in that overall matrix of traits).

    3. an Alpha who got sick and tired of “playing the field” (don’t dare to even dream of this of an alpha age 25 or younger…minimum realistic age would be 30, and most likely 35).

    Statistically speaking, a guy who’s attractive and socially dominant will be out of most girls’ league, from a relationship standpoint. That dude’s basically the equivalent of a female model who’s low maintenance, happens to be an A+ cook and wants sex every day.

    Yep. See point 2 on the above list.

  • Lavazza

    I agree that if a woman wants a “find” she should stay with a guy without social dominance and hope that he will become socially dominant or behave submittingly in a way that he gets the confidence to be socially dominant. That or getting a guy who has learned game but not long ago to having been transformed, so to speak. A guy with a low count but who has a had a (0.5-1.0) hotter girl than you recently breaking up with him is a good find, for example. He will be confident because of his success with a top tier woman, but still not sure of him making it as a player.

  • Jason

    I don’t think so. I think most beta guys are relationship-oriented. Yes, there will be some who want to go crazy and get a harem, ahem. But the vast majority of guys use Game to attract a woman of their choice and sustain that attraction. Very, very few would want to open up a relationship – I think you are highly unusual in that respect.

    Hardly. This is another case of you projecting, Susan.

    Men want strange. If they have the ability to bag it, they will, until they can’t any longer.

    If they don’t think they can, they’ll settle down with what the best they think they can get.

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

      Hardly. This is another case of you projecting, Susan.

      Men want strange. If they have the ability to bag it, they will, until they can’t any longer.

      If they don’t think they can, they’ll settle down with what the best they think they can get.

      Another case? I don’t think I’m guilty of projecting much, to be honest. If all men wanted strange, no handsome, self-confident man would be happily married. I know quite a few of those. I believe they want strange but not as much as love, companionship, sharing a life. They accept monogamy as the price of avoiding cynicism and utter loneliness. Mike C is a perfect example of this. He settled for a very special woman just when he got really good at Game.

      I have no dog in the fight – men should do whatever they like. But I’ll never be worried that Game is going to make a dent in the number of eligible men. It’s more likely to turn virgins into boyfriends, and diffident single men into dominant partners.

  • OffTheCuff

    I have to agree that frat parties are not dealbreakers, usually. At my school (which had a very heavy Greek social scene) I used to go to plenty of open frat parties with mixed sex groups, and the women were not all “frat groupies”. It was just a place to get cheap beer, be loud, with a low bust probability.

    The NY alcohol laws changed in 1990 so that large on-campus parties gone for good. They either moved off-campus entirely, or became small quiet/closed-door things where it was hard to meet lots of new people. It was mandatory to get off-campus to socialize effectively. That meant bars (for men it was very expensive, and comes along with the whole fake ID issue and bust risk), GDI house-parties or frats.

  • Lavazza

    Jason: I would agree. If a beta for some reason would learn and successfully apply game in a way that he becomes close to a natural alpha, he will make the same choices as a natural alpha. A woman looking for a find should get him long before that point. I can’t find any reasons but level of game/success that will change his behaviour. But even for naturals there comes a time when they think that in 1-5 years they will get women of sufficient quality anymore, and they might settle down at that point, but propably cheat, if the woman does not successfully betaize him (which might be easier with a reformed beta).

  • Stephenie Rowling

    “If they don’t think they can, they’ll settle down with what the best they think they can get.”

    You forget the part where Gaming is time consuming and extenuating and guys that are not natural at it, won’t want to do it forever. I mean there is a lot of acting aloof and uninterested if a guy is naturally at his core person that likes affection and real companionship, game various women can be less attractive than finding the right girl and doing the minimum to keep her around.Unless of course they do a major rewriting of their core personality to actually be the the type of guy that never connects with a woman and that is also a major personal reengineering project that take years and a lot of pain. Most men just want to live a simple satisfied life so chances are they won’t get to that point specially if gaming they find a worth it woman, YMMV.

  • http://averagecohabitingchump.wordpress.com/ Workshy Joe

    Take a handsome beta guy, add in some Game, and you’ve got your unicorn.

    Rivelino learned Game, but he’s not really into the idea of playing house is he?

    I’m starting to think that a man’s willingness to be “tied down” has more to do with economics and the practicalities of life than sex or love.

    So, for example, if Jane threw me out tommorow, what would my options be?

    Move in with mum? – Not a long-term solution!

    Shared house with other people? – I did that in my 20s. I had free time and a social life but not much rest, space or privacy.

    One person household? – I’ve done that before but working in a low-paid sector life seemed to one relentless effing drudge of paid work and household chores.

    Athol Kay is selling men on the idea that marriage could mean lots of sex. I would sell LTRs to men on the basis of economic reality and free time.

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

      Rivelino learned Game, but he’s not really into the idea of playing house is he?

      Rivelino’s blog is unique, and so is his perspective, as far as I can tell. He learned Game but has considerable difficulty deploying it. That’s why Becoming Alpha is a roller-coaster ride and soap opera. Many, many false starts, angry outbursts, mea culpas, rinse, wash, repeat. I hope he gets everything he wants, but what he wants is probably experienced by no more than 1-3% of the male population, at least in the U.S. Can’t speak to other cultures.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Mike C is a perfect example of this. He settled for a very special woman just when he got really good at Game.

    Add Badger to that list too. He just hasn’t found the one. :)

  • Mike C

    Athol Kay is selling men on the idea that marriage could mean lots of sex. I would sell LTRs to men on the basis of economic reality and free time.
    .
    I think Athol’s “sales pitch” makes sense. IMO, most women are not going to be content with permanent FB status or being part of a harem. Some period of time….yes….very long-term….no. From a purely “sexual economics” view, if you have one woman you are committed too and you keep high attraction, you should have it pretty much whenever you want. Athol is probably an outlier in terms of frequency, but still a monogamous, committed guy maintaining high attraction should be in good shape. Now the guy doing the FB/harem/rotation is going to be losing girls when they tire of that status, and he has to go find replacements. A higher level of effort/work is going to be required although you’ll have the benefit of variety.
    .
    There is definitely something to be said for the economic benefit if you “hitch your wagon” to a decent to high income earner who also is fiscally prudent. In my situation, we split rent, cable, electric, all other joint expenses right down the middle which frees up additional cash for me for wealth-building purposes If I were single living alone, I’d have about $800 in extra fixed expenses per month.
    .
    Last, but perhaps most important, there is something to be said for having someone you truly love and you know really loves you and has your back. I could be wrong, but I would think at some point the endless variety becomes less compelling for something more real.
    .
    The caveat with all of that is that you actually land a high-quality woman for a LTR/marriage, and I’m inclined to agree with VI’s rough percentage estimate.

  • Tom

    Hardly. This is another case of you projecting, Susan.

    Men want strange. If they have the ability to bag it, they will, until they can’t any longer.

    If they don’t think they can, they’ll settle down with what the best they think they can get.

    _____________________________
    This is so much bullchit…….Lots of men fall in love right in the middle of their best years… They did not settle, they could have “bagged many more, but found the one they had to have…..
    Comments like those of the poster above helps me to understand, there really ARE men who only think with their dicks.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Agreeing with Tom for once. I still think Tom is a girl though.

  • Mike C

    Another case? I don’t think I’m guilty of projecting much, to be honest. If all men wanted strange, no handsome, self-confident man would be happily married. I know quite a few of those. I believe they want strange but not as much as love, companionship, sharing a life. They accept monogamy as the price of avoiding cynicism and utter loneliness.
    .
    Yes. Here is the thing. There is more to life and especially true contentment and happiness than just an endless variety of different pussy. I truly believe that, but I am convinced that is something that comes with age. A 22-year old guy is going to be like “WTF are you talking about”. I think it depends on the person as well in terms of that “future time orientation” thing.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    There is more to life and especially true contentment and happiness than just an endless variety of different pussy.

    absolutely

  • jess

    “Its a vicious self defeating downward cycle. And a joy to observe.”
    .
    A nice comment about modern women from one of our more charming male residents.
    .
    ladies, form an orderly queue………

  • VI

    1. an “Upper Beta” at highest (and usually she’d have to go even lower)

    Realistically, this is what most girls should be aiming for, but girls come up with all sorts of trivial reasons to reject men like this.

    2. an Alpha who found a woman in the top 1-2% regarding the matrix of factors of facial beauty, body shape, low drama, kindness, brains, perkiness, charm, and social skills (cross yourself off if you think you’d NOT – in a room of 50 randomly selected women of your socio-economic class or lower – Be the TOP scorer in that overall matrix of traits).

    As Susan pointed out in this post, many women who are 5s in all these categories, will think they’re actually 9s.

    3. an Alpha who got sick and tired of “playing the field” (don’t dare to even dream of this of an alpha age 25 or younger…minimum realistic age would be 30, and most likely 35).

    The point at which a man gets sick of playing the field comes well before the time he actually stops doing it. Before I met my girlfriend, I was bored and genuinely turned off by interacting with most girls found in bars, but my dick wasn’t going to suck itself, so I kept at the game. The main thing that changed was the patience I had for girls. If a girl was too annoying or seemed like she wasn’t going to put out without playing tons of games, I would just next her.

    Read Roosh’s blog. He’s obviously sick and tired of the game, but he keeps at it, even when he’s in DC.

  • OffTheCuff

    A 22-year old guy is going to be like “WTF are you talking about”. I think it depends on the person as well in terms of that “future time orientation” thing.

    It certainly does depend. At 22 my then-GF was still in college and I was working full-time, 8 hours away, and had lots of business trips to various liberal European. countries. So was my buddy, same situation. We both had no interest in cheating, never even crossed my mind. I guess I’m a rare person, though. Too green to realize otherwise.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    At 22 my then-GF was still in college and I was working full-time, 8 hours away, and had lots of business trips to various liberal European. countries. So was my buddy, same situation. We both had no interest in cheating, never even crossed my mind. I guess I’m a rare person, though. Too green to realize otherwise.

    Actually the age of getting tired depends on the women you are surrounded with, IMO, like sex. If you are surrounded by sluts and party girls chances are none of them are going to show long term advantages so is very unlikely you are going to pick one permanently where all they can offer is sex, but in a different environment with more long term girls around showing wifely skills a man can choose and settled down faster, YMMV.

  • Lavazza

    SR: Well of course. If the environment is totally made up of long term girls even a super alpha will only get one woman, albeit the hottest of them.

  • Kurt

    It is amazing to me that promiscuous women who spend much of their 20s slutting it up with people they meet at bars or wherever assume that they must be very attractive/desirable because they can easily have sex with very attractive men. Those women may date a bunch of men, one after the other, for periods of 1-3 months at most during that time. Many women spend their 20s “having their fun” without an eye on marriage, and only start looking seriously for a husband when they hit their 30s. Unfortunately, those women don’t take the time to learn/acquire the skills necessary to actually hold onto a man and are in for a rude awakening when they discover just how little pull they have over the type of men looking for a wife. Few men (except for the truly desperate) are going to seriously consider a woman for marriage if she is flaky, opinionated, or just a plain-old whiny bitch. Men in it for the short haul might tolerate that behavior for a couple months just to get sex, but even those men will get sick of a foul attitude from an attractive woman after awhile.

  • Anonymous

    “Feminists cannot control this no matter how many lawmakers or women they get behind the cause.”
    .
    So ladies, form an utterly useless queue…

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    I think I miscommunicated my thoughts a little bit. I probably shouldn’t have said a beta with newly found game would be loathe to commit, but instead that his standards for commitment significantly increase.
    .
    What I was getting at is that it’s a bad strategy for either gender to wait for someone of the opposite sex to have an attraction bump, and hope to cash in on it. It can work, but the odds of success take a huge hit from the introduction of new competition.
    .
    A beta with game might not be looking for an endless train of poon, but he’s suddenly going to have a lot more options. If a girl’s interested in that guy, she’s better off locking down commitment while he’s attractive to 5% of attractive girls, instead of 50% of attractive girls (I’m just making up numbers to illustrate my point here, but I think they’re probably fairly close to reality).
    .
    If she waits till the guy has game, she’ll not only be competing with a larger number of girls, but also hotter girls than she would have before.
    .
    .
    The reason I say this, is because it is my personal experience. If I had to classify myself as anything, it would be “beta who recently learned game.” I can think of a several girls I would have given anything to date back in my beta days, who I wouldn’t give any serious consideration to now.
    .
    And it’s not because I’m angry, or because I think they’re sluts, or because I’m looking to ride the poon train as much as possible… It’s because now I know I can do better than them, and have done better than them.
    .
    If any of them had been waiting for me to alpha up before being receptive to me (FWIW, I HIGHLY doubt this was the case. I cringe when I think of my old beta self), then they picked a losing strategy.

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

      @Jimmy Hendricks
      I understand the point you’re making. You have a lot to offer, and if women had seen that before you got Game, they could have locked down a great guy who would treat them well and be faithful. The problem is, you were not dominant then – whether it be cocky funny, brooding, whatever. Perhaps you’re a better flirt now. So you made yourself attractive, and those women may regret their short-sightedness. But the truth is that if any of them had dated you pre-Game, you probably couldn’t have sustained the attraction. Now you’ve risen to your true potential, and you are out of their league. Good for you.

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    All right, I’m back and ready to argue. :)

    On sluthood: I don’t think I made my point particularly clear. There are some promiscuous women with poor impulse control and/or who don’t value sexual fidelity, and some things ought to be serious red flags for a person who values sexual faithfulness (history of involvement in cheating, willingness to help a married person cheat, etc.). But there are also promiscuous women who have high sex drives and dislike being celibate in between relationships, or who have very demanding majors and don’t have time for a relationship, or who recognized that they fucked up all their relationships and had casual sex so they wouldn’t get other people involved in the up-fucking until they could get some therapy and sort their brains out (which is actually pretty mature, it seems to me). It seems more sensible to me to look for a pattern of dishonesty and poor impulse control across the person’s personality instead of in a single meter. However, if this is as Mike C says an irrational preference, then of course everyone has a right to as many irrational preferences as they wish (although it will make it harder to get dates…).

    On sluts’ judgement: It says in the article:

    for women who were either restrained or promiscuous, the expected number of dates showed no correlation with how many people actually wanted to go out for drinks.

    Which suggests that sluts are actually equally good at deciding whether men desire them.

    On frats: Even I’ve been to a frat party. Most boring two hours of my life and reinforced my decision to go to a school with no frats, but I went to one. I’d recommend looking for dates in small liberal arts colleges, if you dislike girls-who-go-to-frat-parties; however, they’re very likely to be feminists, so that may not help you. Female engineers, maybe? Anime conventions? (Cons are actually very underrated as a pick-up area. I’d be willing to write up some tips if someone wants help…)

    On whether men with options can be monogamous: Billie Joe Armstrong. Johnny Depp. Gerard Way. All three of these had a period of slutting it up (with the exception of Gerard Way, who thinks that groupies are immoral. D’awwww, so earnest).

    On LTRs: At least in my experience, LTRs get you laid much more than casual sex for two reasons: (a) the LTR is less likely to dump you on a whim and (b) the LTR will value sex with you over LoL (although D&D always wins out over sex). The second one might be more a me thing. :) Still, the general principle applies: although I am told there are a lot of exceptions in marriages, your LTR has a certain moral obligation to fuck you on a regular basis that a fuckbuddy just does not.

    On casual sex proving hotness: “Let’s have casual sex” means, to me, “I would kill you with a meat cleaver if we dated.”

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    Ugh! Stop teaching all the betas game, or whom will I get to fuck? My self-interest is clearly not valued here.

  • OffTheCuff

    Ugh! Stop teaching all the betas game, or whom will I get to fuck? My self-interest is clearly not valued here.

    Yeah, all the millions betas who sat around waiting for the untold *tens* of people like Ozy in the entire world to seduce us… they should obviously stay beta, wait another 50 years and fervents for her to perhaps maybe show up, but probably not. They should die virgins– nay, die without getting to first base– just so you’re happy.

    But wait… Ozy has a boyfriend, so there’s nine left.

    Betas, learn game. Ozy is a unicorn.

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

      Yeah, all the millions betas who sat around waiting for the untold *tens* of people like Ozy in the entire world to seduce us

      There is a disproportionate number of beta male fans here at HUS. I guess they figured out this is where the cute betas hang out. But I will say again, for the gazillionth time, that women like beta traits, just not alone. Beta traits + dominance = Win. So betas, learn Game, yes!

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    OTC: This is what is technically referred to as a joke. :) Although it’s kind of cool that I personally know every beta-lover on the entire planet.

    I think that the problem with the alpha/beta/omega system is that people keep using different definitions for the words. For instance, “beta” has been used to mean “socially awkward, passive-aggressive pedestalizer”, which many women are quite naturally unattracted to and which I am only attracted to because of weird personality things; and it has also been used to mean “kind but basically ordinary guy who’s not good at teasing, isn’t dominant and isn’t super-popular, but may have other strengths.”

    To be clear: I think that men should stop being #1, and should consider their life situation and overall sexual goals before they transform themselves from #2.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Which suggests that sluts are actually equally good at deciding whether men desire them.

    Again all men desire sex with any willing woman, It doesn’t mean they are pretty or funny, or smart , or smell good just that they are easy…the only requirement for any man to want to bang you, capisce?
    Is the equivalent of your mother calling you pretty, meaningless unless a casting agency or a painter agrees with her. Casting agency = a man willing to buy you a house and make you the mother of your kids.

    But there are also promiscuous women who have high sex drives and dislike being celibate in between relationships, or who have very demanding majors and don’t have time for a relationship, or who recognized that they fucked up all their relationships and had casual sex so they wouldn’t get other people involved in the up-fucking until they could get some therapy and sort their brains out (which is actually pretty mature, it seems to me).

    All this was fine and dandy when men could break up with a woman or get a divorce without losing half their lives, reputations and friends and them some or when female cheating was low, statistically speaking is higher and unrepentant, check the GNO post on Athol and cuckoldry was also considered less widespread. The stakes are too high hence the slutty behavior is even more screened it out for. You need to remember that as a woman if you decided to break up society has aton of alibi’s for you, you always know that your children are yours and in the case of cheating you can wipe your tears with all the money your ex-husband will pay you in alimony and child support till you feel like getting married again, something that again is not socially required.
    Things are harder for guys, hence promiscuous behavior is even more grating,YMMV.

    your LTR has a certain moral obligation to fuck you on a regular basis that a fuckbuddy just does not.

    That is only men Ozy, feminist bible says that a guy that insists on sex is raping you.

  • OffTheCuff

    Ozy: OK, so you’ve made that joke so many times it seems to be more true than not.

    To be clear: I think that men should stop being #1, and should consider their life situation and overall sexual goals before they transform themselves from #2.

    Completely disagree from the guys’s POV. Having personally been both #1 and #2, I can unreservedly add that *every* guy can gain from social improvement, without assessing our goals first. If we assessed our goals before improvement, then those goals would be easily be set too low, as they are too often made from a scarcity mindset.

    The key to self-improvement is embracing outcome independence, an abundance mindset, and shooting for what you really want, with nobody telling you otherwise. When you transform yourself, you can see what new possibilities open up to you, that were previously invisible.

    The only other option is a slow death via stagnation.

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    Susan: Your list is suffering from a tragic drummer deficiency. Tell it to take two Andy Hurleys and a Spencer Smith and call me in the morning. :)

    Steph: The sex-positive position is complicated about this issue. However, the people whose ideas I tend to follow on the matter (Dan Savage, Greta Christina) say that while it is wrong to pressure your partner into sex on any specific instance, overall, in the relationship, there is an expectation of regular sex (whatever that means for the partners involved) and should be worked on in good faith through open communication (whether that means scheduling, incorporating more of one partners’ turnons, redefining sex, opening the relationship or defining the relationship as platonic); if one partner clearly won’t cooperate with this, they suggest breakup.

    God, whenever people say “all men want sex with any willing woman” and I remember that I’ve had my offers of casual sex rejected, I feel so ugly. :(

    Anyway, if you accept that slutty men are better at determining their level of hotness, you must accept that slutty women and non-slutty women are equally good at it; the same methodology was used to figure out both.

    I think a lot of will-she-cheat analysis depends on context: a woman who says “I had a lot of casual sex in college because I was an engineering-physics double major” is probably less likely to cheat on you than Ms. “One time I cheated on my boyfriend. Or two times. Or three. Eh, whatever, who knows, I was drunk.” Of course, nothing stops a woman with a high number from lying, which kind of fucks the whole thing. Personally I’d argue for the benefits of a responsible, valuing-marriage woman who’s honest about her sexual past, but that’s probably just because I am one. :)

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

      Anyway, if you accept that slutty men are better at determining their level of hotness, you must accept that slutty women and non-slutty women are equally good at it; the same methodology was used to figure out both.

      Huh? This makes no sense. The difference is not in the methodology, but the biology and cultural incentives for slutty women to overvalue themselves.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Susan

    But the truth is that if any of them had dated you pre-Game, you probably couldn’t have sustained the attraction. Now you’ve risen to your true potential, and you are out of their league. Good for you.

    Couldn’t agree more. Like I said earlier, I kind of cringe when I picture my old beta self.

    But now that I think about it , I really don’t even like to think of it as me being out of their league. That kind of has a twinge of entitlement and bitterness to it, which is a far cry from where I’m at in my life.

    FWIW, I’m thankful every second that I didn’t get locked down back in those days. If I would have, I’m certain I would have taken the safe route in life with a boring, stable job and boring life aspirations. I’d be a shell of my true self, and would have seen it as the “mature” and “responsible” thing to do. Yohami has talked about it as a “zombie state”… now instead I’m heading back to grad school to switch my career and pursue my true passion. Wish it would’ve happened earlier in life, but glad I’m finally heading in the direction I want to.

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

      I’m heading back to grad school to switch my career and pursue my true passion. Wish it would’ve happened earlier in life, but glad I’m finally heading in the direction I want to.

      Pssshh. It’s still early in life. Dude, you’re going to live to 100. I give you tons of credit for making a big change. That’s not easy to do. But it’s exhilarating – heck I started a blog at age 52, never dreaming it would get big and be a passion. It’s good to shake things up and take risks.

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    No, that’s mostly because I keep forgetting that I’ve already made jokes and make them again. Poor social skills, remember?

    The key to self-improvement is embracing outcome independence, an abundance mindset, and shooting for what you really want, with nobody telling you otherwise. When you transform yourself, you can see what new possibilities open up to you, that were previously invisible.

    Yes, that is what I mean. If a man really wants casual sex with a lot of party girls, then the PUA method will get him what he wants (I mean, of course it will, that’s what it was originally designed for). However, if a man honestly wants a loving marriage with a devout Christian woman, well, my sample size of exactly one (so scientific! :) ) got it through Internet dating and being very upfront about his desires (abstinence until marriage and lots of kinky sex afterwards, basically). For him, becoming a PUA would have been ultimately counterproductive.

    I’m not specifically stating which sets of women would be attracted by PUA and which wouldn’t, as I don’t know enough to say that. But there are certainly some overall groups for which it works, and some for which it doesn’t.

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

      @Ozy
      From my perspective Game /= PUA. Obviously, PUAs employ Game, but Game is so much bigger than that. Athol’s riffed on it, so have many others. Game is a present with a big bow for males – it’s the manual to understanding female sexuality. PUAs are not necessarily bad or dishonest – at all – but the focus on bedding a high number of women is not conducive to relationships, so naturally it’s not my favorite.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Steph: The sex-positive position is complicated about this issue. However, the people whose ideas I tend to follow on the matter (Dan Savage, Greta Christina) say that while it is wrong to pressure your partner into sex on any specific instance, overall, in the relationship, there is an expectation of regular sex (whatever that means for the partners involved) and should be worked on in good faith through open communication (whether that means scheduling, incorporating more of one partners’ turnons, redefining sex, opening the relationship or defining the relationship as platonic); if one partner clearly won’t cooperate with this, they suggest breakup.

    Still mainstream society has laws to protect wives so any wife that decides to use sex as a weapon all she needs to do is close her legs and hang a “out of business” sign on her and the guy has no alternatives, divorce means alimony and no kids, cheating divorce and social ostracism, a decent man has few ways to be protected against a manipulative woman so the results from this is the fear of the slut and marriage and the blogs of women telling their cheat adventures don’t help at all. I only see the fear of the slut increasing and the rate of marriage and LTR that last over 5 years decreasing as child bearing is as well.

    God, whenever people say “all men want sex with any willing woman” and I remember that I’ve had my offers of casual sex rejected, I feel so ugly.

    Well not necessarily, it could be that at time there was something on the way, whether a girlfriend or someone they though they could had have that very same night also if you target were Beta types they probably got fear of performance or fear that you were just joking and just wanted to mess with their heads. Didn’t you say that you were a terrible flirt? Maybe it was not the package but the jingle what made it ineffective. Guys here can probably explain it better.

    your LTR has a certain moral obligation to fuck you on a regular basis that a fuckbuddy just does not.

    You know this is an interesting phrase as the resident sex posi feminist does feminism advocate for women to have any moral responsibility? and specifically towards males?

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

      also if you target were Beta types they probably got fear of performance or fear that you were just joking and just wanted to mess with their heads.

      I have heard from some disappointed females who write and say, “I took your advice, I went for a nice guy beta and he didn’t take the bait!” Dilithium, who hasn’t commented in a while, wrote about this. Guys may be overwhelmed, unsure how to respond, and anxious about performing. He said that it’s a terrible idea to come on strong physically to such a guy. He’ll need some TLC and to take it slow at first. I don’t know what percentage of men this describes…

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    Steph: The one I’m specifically thinking of is a dude who has never been kissed, knows I don’t fuck around with asking people for casual sex and informed me I wasn’t his type when I was like “hey, you’re cute, let’s fuck.” Which is fine! He likes quiet, feminine girls who want LTRs, and I am none of the above.

    Yes, everyone has moral responsibilities in sex– the kink community usually defines it as “safe, sane and consensual.” Safe means that you have to use safer sex techniques and in the case of kinky sex make sure you know what you’re doing. Sane means emotionally healthy for everyone: as far as you can (there are obvious limits in the case of sex-with-acquaintances), you should make sure everyone is happy afterward. Consensual means that everyone’s saying “yes” at the time. I would personally add “honest” to the list: you shouldn’t lie to any of your sex partners about relevant information (“yeah, I totally got tested”) and you shouldn’t violate the agreements of your relationship, explicit or not, which usually in American culture involve some expectation of regular sex.

    I agree that men should get equal custody in the case of a divorce, which is unfair. Alimony is only awarded in ~14% of cases, which is still unfair, but hardly a universal deterrant to marriage. Some of the marriage decline is because of rise in age of first marriage, which actually causes more stable marriages in the long term (in particular, those who marry before 23 are overwhelmingly more likely to divorce). Also, it sucks to be a woman whose boyfriend stops putting out too, which also happens (read any couple of dozen columns of Dan Savage and you’ll discover the percentage of people bitching about same is about equal).

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    Susan: The article claims that slutty men value themselves correctly. The article claims– IN THE NEXT SENTENCE, WHICH I QUOTED– that both slutty and non-slutty women value themselves with equal skill; the only difference happens with agreeableness/non-agreeableness. The experimenters used the same tests of sociosexuality to determine sluttiness, and the same tests in speed dating to determine dating market value. So either you claim the methodology is flawed in both, or you provisionally accept the conclusions of both.

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    Fair enough, Susan. I maintain that PUA techniques will work for a certain segment of women, and Game techniques (getting social dominance, etc.) will work for a certain larger segment of women. Both will not work on a different segment of women. Therefore, a man should assess what sort of relationships he wants and with whom before he decides whether to invest the time in developing Game.

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

      @Ozy
      Which women are immune to male dominance? How large a group is that?

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Crap, this is simple.

    For a guy to engage in lots of sex and become a manwhore he has to be hot AND skilled and good at understanding women. Read: skills / hotness / measurable stuff.

    For a girl to engage in lots of sex and become a slut she has to be easy to approach, have free time, and say yes more often than not. Read: easy.

    A guy needs a higher SMP value than a girl to achieve the same notches than a girl. But both guy and girl will have the a similar self esteem, but the guy´s will be closer to his actual SMP value.

    In my experience the hotter and the uglier girls are the sluttier, the hotter being more drama / materialistic and manipulative. The uglier use the sex approval to boost for their lack of self esteem which lets them project they are +4 points up in the SMP or so. The prettier have plenty of self esteem problems since they compete directly for the top alphas and the other one million girls that are prettier (top models etc), so they use sex and the beta orbiters to fill the same void.

    Back to the point, the girl doesnt have to do much and dont need a specially high value to become a slut. So the self esteem she gains, she uses to confirmation bias herself that she is attractive.

    Guys are usually not interested on the self esteem aspect but actually interested on the sex, and the SMP value they will report is more likely to be based on the results they get = measurable stuff.

    If it was up to the girls, they would all say they are special and a perfect 10 in their own right. Guys are not as interested on being a “perfect 10″ so no need to boast than number into delusion.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Steph: The one I’m specifically thinking of is a dude who has never been kissed, knows I don’t fuck around with asking people for casual sex and informed me I wasn’t his type when I was like “hey, you’re cute, let’s fuck.” Which is fine! He likes quiet, feminine girls who want LTRs, and I am none of the above.

    Well then you don’t need to feel ugly there is a perfectly reason for him to no accept :)

    Yes, everyone has moral responsibilities in sex

    I asked about feminism. Do they have any directives telling women that denying sex in a committed relationship for long periods of times without a good reason (medical health for example) is morally irresponsible?

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Which women are immune to male dominance? How large a group is that?

    – Dominant masculine women who want a girly attentive beta partner
    – Asexual a-gendered women who want an a-gendered partner (unstable stuff!)
    – Menhating women who still want dick but cant stand men
    – Lesbians who like cute, girly boys just slightly more masculine than her
    – Non fully developed women (teenagers)
    – Pansexuals
    – Freaks?

    So, its a market. 15-20% of population? excluding teenagers

  • Stephenie Rowling

    He’ll need some TLC and to take it slow at first. I don’t know what percentage of men this describes…

    How many male virgins did the study of sex in college reported? ;)
    I do agree men are creature of habits a man not used to being approached will have his own hamster rationalizing every possible reason this woman is paying attention to him for the first time in a while, so the more there is at stake (sex vs a cup of coffee) the more anxious he will get, hence Beta lovers need to be subtle but clear and give time for he to overcome certain things.

  • Abbot

    Have fun with this.
    .
    In Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel: Confessions of a Conservative College Professor, Adams lampooned liberals, campus radicalism and the academic left. At the outset of his second jaunt across the campus, the highly opinionated professor of criminal justice at the University of North Carolina–Wilmington explains his reason for targeting feminists: I want to find out why they hate us. Unleashing salvos of sarcasm, he collects his correspondence addressed to feminist students, professors, activists and administrators, including some letters never mailed (probably for the best). Claiming that feminist scholar is an oxymoron, Adams asserts that feminists have no sense of humor, are the biggest censors on college campuses, lack the courage to act as individuals, engage in widespread academic and personal dishonesty and attempt to solve problems by changing society rather than their own behavior. Ridiculing feminist-sponsored masturbation workshops, he notes, Men are fully capable of masturbating without taking a seminar…. For campus feminists, it’s another excuse to seek funding from the university administration. Adams’s caustic survey of the feminist worldview is certain to stir up controversy when his conservative radio promotional campaign gets underway. (Feb. 14)
    .
    In FEMINISTS SAY THE DARNDEST THINGS, Mike Adams, a tenured professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, takes a satirical poke at feminists, a collective that he sees as totally lacking in even an iota of humor. And that, Adams urges, is precisely the point. Feminists are seen as locked into a bear hugging mindest that has little to do with equal pay for equal work and everything to do with issues that are the sole preserve of the liberal left. His book is a collection of articles that he had published for the campus newspaper and their brevity cuts both ways. On the plus side, Adams can draw an indelible portrait of a campus feminist who can literally not see one micrometer beyond the range of her limited logic. On the down side, such brevity appeals more to those who delight in such Swiftian jabs but less to those who prefer more sobering and detailed examination of an issue that simply cries out for extensive analysis.
    .
    It is hard for many readers to accept that a long time ago, Adams himself was once part of the very tribe that he now punctures with his dry wit. When he was originally hired as a non-tenured professor, he was both a leftist and an atheist. As the years passed, he changed incrementally, but until he was granted tenure, he dared not speak out. But now he dares, and in books like this one, he sees feminists as the antithesis of what higher education should be. The problem with devoted feminists is not that they are sometimes wrong or even perpetually wrong, but their wrongness lies in their willingness and eagerness to go on the attack even against all logic or fairness. Adams fills his book with dozens of first hand experiences with feminist colleagues who do not shrink from the most baseless accusations against him merely out of pique. Part of the attraction of FSDT lies in his even handed replies. He emails his response to the accuser, asking her for further clarification of her charges, all the while assuring her that both the original charge and the clarification will be included in future chapters of his next book. It is no surprise, then, that he rarely now receives any follow up. But we who read his books do not need them. His point that feminist scholarship is an oxymoron is well taken, especially after more than a few feminists asked him an oxy-what?

  • Abbot

    Ah, the future of feminism. Not plausible you say? Wrong! Because here it is:
    .
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/slutwalks-and-the-future-of-feminism/2011/06/01/AGjB9LIH_story_1.html
    .

    In a feminist movement that is often fighting simply to hold ground, SlutWalks stand out as a reminder of feminism’s more grass-roots past and point to what the future could look like.

    .
    Meaning slut walks are ALL about releasing pent up emotional frustration caused solely by years of being ignored. A group tantrum and nothing more.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Meaning slut walks are ALL about releasing pent up emotional frustration caused solely by years of being ignored. A group tantrum and nothing more.”
    .
    One of the things game has taught me is that the most hurtful thing you can do to a woman is to ignore her.

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

      One of the things game has taught me is that the most hurtful thing you can do to a woman is to ignore her.

      Which will cause her to madly try to qualify herself to you even if she isn’t the least bit attracted!

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Pssshh. It’s still early in life. Dude, you’re going to live to 100. I give you tons of credit for making a big change. That’s not easy to do. But it’s exhilarating – heck I started a blog at age 52, never dreaming it would get big and be a passion. It’s good to shake things up and take risks.”
    .
    It is NEVER too late to do what you want to do. Look at Private Man, learning game in his 40’s for a better life. You won’t regret it. The feeling of doing what you really believe is your calling, instead of just getting by punching the clock at whatever job you have, is so liberating it’s impossible to describe.
    .
    Or even Athol, who after 15+ years of domestic marriage is putting his bible school training to work not as a preacher but as a marriage writer.
    .
    Trouble with our world is, most guys (women too) don’t figure out what they really want to do until they’re hitched to a totally different life, or hide it inside them all their lives for fear of embarrassment, as if they were in the closet or something.
    .
    *ahem* Susan, you might want to do a post on the twists and turns of life.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Ugh! Stop teaching all the betas game, or whom will I get to fuck? My self-interest is clearly not valued here.”
    .
    I wouldn’t worry…Game or no, I think there will always be men down for a woman who openly wants to F them.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    VI,
    .
    “I was bored and genuinely turned off by interacting with most girls found in bars, but my dick wasn’t going to suck itself”
    .
    I lol’d.

  • Renee

    Abbot,

    Then you agree that it is normal and typical for a man to consider her promiscuity as part of an evaluation. That is a clear departure from the feminists camp where a sexual past is consideration meaningless and not up for consideration whatsoever. And even if a guy does automatically write off certain girls, why is that a problem for a woman? Such women have boldly stated that a man who thinks that way is not a man they would want anyway.

    I think it’s because lots of women think that when it comes to sex, they don’t understand why promiscuity is looked at differently for women. It’s like, ‘Hey everyone, regardless of gender enjoys sex, and men and women should be able to enjoy casual sex without being stigmatized depending on your gender’. They don’t see sex itself as something that should be looked at differently depending on whether you’re a male or female for the most part.

    So while many women wouldn’t want a man who looks at female promiscuity as a judgment of worth, many think that the idea is rooted in society and culture itself and should be done away with.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Trouble with our world is, most guys (women too) don’t figure out what they really want to do until they’re hitched to a totally different life, or hide it inside them all their lives for fear of embarrassment, as if they were in the closet or something.

    In my dreamland when I reform education among the many things I will do is add silent retires: at least once a year for a whole month kids over 12 will spent it going to a place with no TV, no peers, no facebook, no cellphones completely isolated with healthy organic food and just…think.
    Talk to themselves, cultivate awareness and deep thinking without outside influences, maybe keeping a diary if they feel like it or daydreaming. To find that inner voice that will tell them who they are and what they want and what will make them happy, not what will bring money or what their family or friends expect but themselves.
    I think that one of the things that helped me a lot was that I spent a lot of time just thinking alone, sometimes watching the sky my mind wandering… that helped to really place in perspective a lot of the things I was experiencing growing up, of course I always asked and looked for advice, when available, but after having the info making sense of all was something I did in solitude and I wanted and I think kids (and many adults) could benefit for some solitude and deep thinking, YMMV.

  • Lavazza

    SR: It’s a part of most religious traditions, but is of course of use to anyone.

  • Jason

    Anyone know why Rivelino’s blog went private?

  • Abbot

    they don’t understand why promiscuity is looked at differently for women
    .
    The attainment of promiscuous sex is VERY different for women. But does that really matter? Women have the CHOICE to view promiscuous men anyway they want. The fact that they are less concerned about it is their CHOICE. What do women consistently have a hard time understanding that? or not denying it?
    .
    women should be able to enjoy casual sex without being stigmatized
    .
    A Woman NEVER claims she is being stigmatized when a very willing easy to convince always ready and available man accommodates her impulsive need [demand, want] for casual sex. So when does this feeling of being stigmatized kick in?
    .
    They don’t see sex itself as something that should be looked at differently
    .
    Actually, they don’t see sex itself as something that should be looked at AT ALL when it comes to evaluating a woman. Now why is that?
    .
    many women wouldn’t want a man who looks at female promiscuity as a judgment of worth
    .
    Then she has the choice to find another who does not. Men never have a problem with a woman who goes off to find another. But for some yet unexplained reason, women are infuriated that men even have this criteria, even if she has the choice to move on. Now why is that?
    .
    many think that the idea is rooted in society and culture itself and should be done away with
    .
    Why does it matter what it is “rooted” in. Why would a woman want to do away with how men [men they claim they would reject anyway] determine their criteria for selecting a woman beyond casual sex? Are men out there on walks, making rants, spews, speeches, tirades trying to get women to think this way or that way about men?

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    Steph: Dan Savage, who’s probably the most famous sex-positive feminist right now. That said, that is a fairly controversial issue in feminism.

    Yeah, I didn’t feel ugly really. More annoyed that the universe’s most convenient fuckbuddy (never leaves the house! never gets laid!) wasn’t available.

    Yohami: All your groups (although I don’t know any literal man-haters and you should probably run from them ASAP). Also, the for the kink/steampunk/RenFaire/semigoth/Rocky Horror/fandom/miscellaneous weirdo axis, you’d be far better advised to develop costuming skills and a willingness to make out with boys than Game.

    Abbot: Not what I’ve noticed at my school (in which the Gender Studies majors are a bunch of short-haired lesbians who try to be more-feminist-than-thou as a means of getting pussy and are really great at playing politics to get more funding than the real majors :) ). But you haven’t actually given me any facts/data, sir.

    What slutwalks are about, by a slutwalker. (Please comment over here, not on her blog, so Holly won’t be pissed at me. :) )

    Renee: Yes, that is basically my position.

    Abbot again: I would say the feeling of stigmatization kicks in when people start calling you a slut over it.

    Listen, dude. No one is trying to get you to fuck sluts. We’re happy the slut-shaming bastard is not fucking sluts! You can do whatever you like with your own damn penis. We want you to stop saying that “men” don’t like sluts (there are some men who like sluts just fine) and to stop saying that sluts are inherently worth less than non-sluts and, in the general sense, we want people to stop, you know, blaming women who dress slutty for their own rapes. Capiche?

  • Lavazza

    Ozymandias: “We want you to stop saying that “men” don’t like sluts (there are some men who like sluts just fine) and to stop saying that sluts are inherently worth less than non-sluts and, in the general sense, we want people to stop, you know, blaming women who dress slutty for their own rapes.”

    In this society all men and women are bearing the costs of sluts’ behaviour. The men who get something out if of course like them better. Non-sluts are lower cost for all men and women. Men don’t *want* slutty dressed women to be raped and of course put the blame for the act itself on the rapist, they just don’t want to pick up the costs for somebody else’s unwillingness to lower their risks (which only the risk taker can gain from, when the risk is not realized). In this aspect sluts are like the financial elites (Socialize risk, privatize gain.).

    Read up on “underwriting” or “moral hazard”.

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    I have to say, Lavazza, I am slightly confused what the costs of sluts’ behavior is. STD spread, maybe, but in that case we would be condemning sluts of both genders. Could you elaborate?

    Also, the data are unclear about whether scantily clad women are actually more likely to be raped; I am not aware of any reliable studies on the matter. Are you? Anecdotally, a whole lot of people get raped in blue jeans or sweatpants. (Or little footie pajamas with Elmo on them.)

    I know what moral hazard and underwriting are. I’m a feminist, not a moron. :)

  • Mike C

    @ Renee,

    I’m not sure if you are asking genuine questions or making a rhetorical point? I guess I’ll assume fhe former
    .
    I think it’s because lots of women think that when it comes to sex, they don’t understand why promiscuity is looked at differently for women.
    .
    This is easy and has been discussed before. Getting casual sex for a guy irrespective of one’s morals or ethics is something of an achievement. There is approach, pursuit, attraction, etc. For the most part, it just isn’t sitting their on the table for the taking. For a woman, getting casual sex is simply being willing. If someone eats 20 pieces of cake, but they have to navigate a minefield/maze to get each piece of cake, that is going to be viewed differently than someone who just pigs out on 20 pieces of cake sitting on the buffet table for the easy taking.
    .
    It’s like, ‘Hey everyone, regardless of gender enjoys sex, and men and women should be able to enjoy casual sex without being stigmatized depending on your gender’.
    .
    The interesting thing with this is for all the talk about this, the fact of the matter is promiscuous women are still more stigmatized by OTHER WOMEN than men, and it is women who are more likely to toss around the term slut than men and probably 100x more likely to actually call a girl a slut to her face. If even on only a subconscious level, many women are aware that promiscuous women throw off the equilibrium of the SMP by making easy, no strings sex available to higher status men. That said, at the end of the day, given the current environment for issues like marriage, divorce, paternity, any guy has the right to exclude any woman from the “marriage material” category for whatever reason he wants.
    .
    Abbott discusses this quite frequently :) but he is right. In the U.S. women are free to pursue whatever sexual lifestyle they want. Nobody is burning sluts at the stake. I’d say 95% of guys are going to be totally cool to promiscuous women because no point in alienating an easy supply of poon, and women are the first to say they wouldn’t want a guy who “judged them” anyways. SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM??? This has perplexed for me some time, and I think Dalrock perhaps has nailed the crux of the issue, that despite the words to the contrary, women do in fact respond to and are affected by male judgement hence the time and energy spent discussing this and attempting to “reeducate” men.
    .
    Not sure what you mean by “done away with”. That is one one of those throwaway expressions that doesn’t really mean anything specific. What exactly are you proposing? Some type of legislation? Perhaps invention of a thought control device? I’ve often sarcastically joked that teenage boys should be removed from their homes and sent to feminist reeducation camps to learn the “correct” views about women and female sexuality.
    .
    Your comments overall are interesting because they illustrate something else that Dalrock was talking about (I’m not quite the astute observer he is) which is that even non-promiscuous women want to lump themselves in with and identify with promiscuous women (Doomed Harlot) even though ultimately that sort of “we are on the same team approach” is actually counterproductive to your long-term interests if one of your objectives is to get a high-quality guy to commit for marriage and fatherhood. The more the behavior is normalized and supported by Team Women, the more the default position of all guys is to put ALL women on Ladder 2 (see Badger’s post) with the burden of proof being on you to demonstrate you belong on Ladder 1.

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

      even non-promiscuous women want to lump themselves in with and identify with promiscuous women (Doomed Harlot) even though ultimately that sort of “we are on the same team approach” is actually counterproductive to your long-term interests if one of your objectives is to get a high-quality guy to commit for marriage and fatherhood

      I disagree with this. I don’t know what Doomed Harlot’s deal is, but in my experience the women who are strong sex-positive feminists and chaste are involuntarily so. Just looking at the marchers at the slut walks makes it pretty clear that there are quite a few queer, extremely unattractive women participating. Feminism is well-stocked with these types.

      Attractive chaste women resent sluts, because “they are talking all the menz” as the sex pozzies like to say.

  • Lavazza

    Ozymandias: Well, the society’s costs of single mothers and children having too little contact with their biological father comes to mind. You will find a lot of stuff in Mike C:s comment above. I have discussed with feminists before, and I am not interested in playing their games answering their questions.

  • Lavazza

    Mike C: Nothing of this would be a problem if women would not still want men to commit and committment would not come at such a price for men. If women do not want to foot up the bill somebody else will have to, and what women fear is men not wanting to foot the bill anymore, which is slowly happening, when, as you say, the default position of all guys is to put ALL women on Ladder 2 with the burden of proof being on the woman to demonstrate that she belongs on Ladder 1.

  • OffTheCuff

    If a man really wants casual sex with a lot of party girls, then the PUA method will get him what he wants (I mean, of course it will, that’s what it was originally designed for). However, if a man honestly wants a loving marriage with a devout Christian woman, well, my sample size of exactly one (so scientific! :) ) got it through Internet dating and being very upfront about his desires (abstinence until marriage and lots of kinky sex afterwards, basically). For him, becoming a PUA would have been ultimately counterproductive.

    You’re still 100% wrong. In my book, PUA is Game is Yohami is Athol, and are just different applications of the same theory and frame of mind.

    In your example, if that guy learns Game, he can then actually *choose* whether to have lots of casual sex (because the possibility is now open) or go for the conservative marriage and make it even better. Without it, he is almost certainly making the faux-choice out of necessity. Beggars can’t be choosers.

    I maintain that PUA techniques will work for a certain segment of women, and Game techniques (getting social dominance, etc.) will work for a certain larger segment of women. Both will not work on a different segment of women. Therefore, a man should assess what sort of relationships he wants and with whom before he decides whether to invest the time in developing Game.

    Still totally wrong. See above. 95% of game is just having the guts to approach women, good frame, and dumping fear. As long as most women don’t take the risk to approach men (and remember, you’re a unicorn) it’s going to work well enough to be ridiculously useful.

  • VI

    Ditto OffTheCuff

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Ozy,

    Yes on the costuming skills for the “weirdo” group. I dont mean it in a pejorative way btw. Went to a couple of those parties. Lots of clothing.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    OffTheCuff

    You’re still 100% wrong. In my book, PUA is Game is Yohami is Athol, and are just different applications of the same theory and frame of mind.

    I see that with different semantics. Game as the theory or set of knowledge, and PUA (Pick Up Artist) the guys to use game for the “art” of “picking up” girls for one night stands. So, Im all for game but dislike PUA for a lot of reasons

  • Liza207

    Susan, I just want to chime in and say that I am often seen as being aloof. I believe aloofness is a defense machanism used by beautiful women to ward off or control the constant unwanted attention from jerks, a-holes and players which seem to be drawn to you like flies. Can you imagine a 10 being agreeable all of the time? My god, she would never get anything done and she won’t get asked out a lot either. It’s a double edge sword.

    I believe hot women are less promiscuous because they don’t need to slut it up to get constant male attention.

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    Lavazza: Then I shall acknowledge your stated desires and not respond to your comments. Sound good? :)

    OffTheCuff: The guy in question, an online friend, actually received several proposals of sex, which he turned down because he didn’t want sex. The option was there, but it didn’t fit his ethical beliefs.

    I agree that approaching-people will get you more laid than not-approaching-people and I highly recommend it as a course of action for guys who want sex. I’m not sure what you mean by “maintaining frame”– is that the abundance mindset, or something different? I was talking about specifically Roosh/Roissy spectrum pick-up techniques, which work well on some women (I mean, duh, or they wouldn’t keep doing it) and not so well on others.

    Yohami: There’s going to be a steampunk party for Halloween. I am already behind on my costume-making. Costumes are serius biznezz.

    For men who want to pick up women in the “weirdo” axis, as I defined above: social circles are basically your only in, except for cons and maybe OKCupid depending on your age, so start going to your local munch/Rocky Horror cast/RenFaire/LARPing event/whatever. Try to become popular within the scene: people who have a lot of friends and are generally well-liked do better than people who don’t. Costume skills are a must: learn to sew, weld metal, find good costume items at Goodwill, do carpentry, etc.; buying costumes at a store is a major DLV. Also, ORGANIZE SHIT. The dudes who organize Zombies! or the steampunk party or a play party always end up getting laid; the guys who just kind of go don’t.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    cmon ozy. The guy “organizing” the event is by definition the alpha / more dominant male of the event. Organizing events, throwing parties, assuming dominant centric roles is one of my first advices for guys who want to become alpha

    The guy at the center of the social circle is the one the girls check out first. Now you and me are giving the same advice. Wasnt this about how NOT to care about being the man and having fun with the makeup?

  • OffTheCuff

    I see that with different semantics. Game as the theory or set of knowledge, and PUA (Pick Up Artist) the guys to use game for the “art” of “picking up” girls for one night stands. So, Im all for game but dislike PUA for a lot of reasons.

    I agree with this in sentiment… but I honestly don’t understand how you don’t categorize yourself as a PUA under that criteria. Anyone who hits 200 has to be “picking up” girls for one-night stands. Or do you bang them twice , so it doesn’t count?

    The guy in question, an online friend, actually received several proposals of sex, which he turned down because he didn’t want sex. The option was there, but it didn’t fit his ethical beliefs.

    You’re simply not buying the fact that I’ve been there, have you? Game/red-pilling allows you to re-examine such ethical beliefs, which were most likely drilled into your head by someone else. I’ve had women outright proposition me when I was young, and I’ve turned them down based on what I thought were “ethical beliefs” at the time, but most of them really were either rationalizations of fear, or worse, pedestailzation (“I can’t do that to her, I would be hurting her”).

    Let me repeat that last one there. I turned down women because I thought I HAD TO, not because I wanted to.

    I agree that approaching-people will get you more laid than not-approaching-people and I highly recommend it as a course of action for guys who want sex.

    You’re missing something important here in your zeal to paint Game as only a tool for casual sex with a tiny fraction of women (where have I seen this argument before?) If a guy wants a girlfriend, he will need to approach. If he just wants sex, he will need to approach. Therefore, if you want to have anything to with women at all.. you need to approach.

    The guy “organizing” the event is by definition the alpha / more dominant male of the event. Organizing events, throwing parties, assuming dominant centric roles is one of my first advices for guys who want to become alpha

    Absolutely. My senior year, I moved off-campus, and threw weekly keg parties. Mrs. Cuff met me at… my own party, only a few weeks into the semester. Game explains why this worked so well. I wasn’t aware of it at the time.

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    The problem, of course, is that the woman who organize shit also get massively laid too. :) Actually, the only bit of my advice that doesn’t apply to all gender combinations is that women have a cheat code with the costuming (Princess Leia bikini). My pet theory as regards the organizers-getting-laid is that organizing things makes people like you more (because they didn’t have to make the ten kajillion phone calls and build the working robot spider) and expands your social circle (because everyone has to talk to the host).

    Oh! And one I forgot. Being good at things will get you laid more, whether it’s things relevant to the relationship (“five years experience in shibari bondage”) or not (“I know poi”).

    I’d never recommend dudes to wear makeup unless they (a) want to date me (b) are really, really sure of what they’re doing in terms of turning off 99% of women in order to be insanely attractive to the underserved 1%.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    OffTheCuff

    I honestly don’t understand how you don’t categorize yourself as a PUA under that criteria. Anyone who hits 200 has to be “picking up” girls for one-night stands. Or do you bang them twice , so it doesn’t count?

    A PUA is a guy sarging venues, doing cold approaches, taking notes, dressing in peacock, trying lines, comparing approaches, taking count of the notches, and getting his core validation from the girls approval

    An alpha is a guy in the middle of his life doing his mission and having fun, 100% self gratifying and leading / commanding a bunch of other people, and this guy happens to be approached and chased by a lot of women because of his personality traits and social value

    I took the latter route. Most of the girls I had sex with, they came looking for me because they knew me or heard of me and had to compete for attention with other girls who wanted the same. In other words, too easy. I only had to say yes more often than not. Its sort of like being a woman.

    Game for dealing with women and not betatize myself, yes. Game to “the art of picking up a woman and turning her into you” too twisted.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Ozy

    The problem, of course, is that the woman who organize shit also get massively laid too.

    How is that a “problem”?

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    Yohami, it’s a problem with the general girls-like-dominance-boys-like-hotness theory, as it suggests that dominance (or, by my reckoning, popularity) is actually attractive to large segments of both genders.

    Yohami fell victim to Good References Syndrome. :)

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Ozy, its not a “theory”, its an observation. Go observe the world yourself. The theory is the attempt to explain WHY it happens, not IF it happens.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Feminism theory is that it happens because patriarchy forcing people into roles. Evolutionary psychology theory is that it happens because we are wired to do so.

    In one extreme one theory says its all a lie and in the other another theory says its all biological.

    Any “preferences” to these theories is bias. When someone is biased, his/her voice is irrelevant, popular or not.

    I see we are animals. The answer are in the animal kingdom.

  • Tom

    The traits of warmth, trust and cooperativeness are associated with femininity, which may explain why men ask out more women who exhibit this demeanor.

    This is worth more to women than all “The Rules” type advice books out there.

    _______________________
    I know sluts who exibit those behaviors. Lots of sluts are warm, trustworthy, and cooperative, and VERY femine. Thats what cracks m up. People think they can easily spot a slut… Some yes, all, no way.

  • Tom

    http://www.yourtango.com/experts/psych-central-s-dr-john-grohol/casual-sex-harmful

    This says having casual sex does not cause harm to young women as some people believe. Several people here believe a woman just HAS to be damaged if she has had lots of casual sex. not true in most cases…

  • Abbot

    Why does it matter if promiscuity “damages” or “harms” a woman? Only a man gets to determine if it works for him or not and that is all that matters.

  • jess

    to susan,
    to be fair there are plenty of straight, gay, bisexual and transgender people that possess the full spectrum of body types and perceived degrees of conventional attractiveness.
    .
    if you look at any march, on any topic, in any country, you could make a bunch of generalisations.
    .
    I find that chaste people, of whatever build, often resent sexually active people because they are having fun. Pure and simple.

  • Mike C

    @Ozy
    Which women are immune to male dominance? How large a group is that?

    .
    Just theorizing here, but I’d bet I am right, I think women who are very male-brained, perhaps even Asperbergy or somewhere on the autism spectrum don’t respond with sexual attraction to displays of male dominance/status, and other Game type stuff.

  • Esau

    Being good at things will get you laid more, whether it’s things relevant to the relationship (“five years experience in shibari bondage”) or not (“I know poi”).

    One word: calculus. (Old-timers may remember this one first-hand from the National Lampoon: http://avconline.avc.edu/jdisbrow/whymath.html )

    So, no, “being good at things” (or as Susan likes to put it “displaying mastery”) will most emphatically not help a man get laid in all cases: some masteries help, others hurt, and recognizing the difference is important. (And, no, the oddball preferences of Ozy and the other nine nerdosexuals in the country are quite irrelevant, obviously, in discussing the general population.)

  • SayWhaat

    One word: calculus.

    Two words: Asian women.

  • Mike C

    So, no, “being good at things” (or as Susan likes to put it “displaying mastery”) will most emphatically not help a man get laid in all cases: some masteries help, others hurt, and recognizing the difference is important. (And, no, the oddball preferences of Ozy and the other nine nerdosexuals in the country are quite irrelevant, obviously, in discussing the general population.)
    .
    Yup. Guitar. Yes. Chess. Generally, No. Motorcycle stunts. Yes. Building a mockup of the U.S. railway system in your basement with toy trains. No.
    .
    The key question is it cool? Or geeky/quirky? Of course, some nerdosexuals (I like that term) might like a guy with mastery in some off the wall thing.

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

      Why use four words when I can use one? Mastery is only helpful in attracting women if it can be demonstrated and displayed. It could be the rapid-fire chopping of an onion, but not the growing of one. It could be fly fishing, but not making lures. I’ve seen women gather round young guys playing chess in Harvard Square just to watch. Women loved Will Hunting, because the film allowed us to see him do his proofs in a way that would be impossible IRL. I’ve seen women flirt with jugglers on street corners. If there’s an element of performance/display possible, it can attract women. No matter what it is.

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    Now I guess I have to expound on Ozy’s Theory Of Talents. :)

    There is a groupie for every area of endeavor (yes, including calculus). That said, there are three techniques for maximizing the pussy-getting ability of any talent:

    1) It must be performable. Juggling is good. Poi is fucking awesome. Writing is not, unless you do slam poetry or have published books (in which case the performance is “I wrote this shit”).
    2) It must be sexy. A good litmus test for this is how easy it is to imagine a Grand Romantic Gesture involving it. Guitar? You can write a song. Art? You can paint her. Calculus? You can… name a proof… after her?
    3) It must be something you actually like. Nothing more pathetic than a guy who picks up guitar to get girls. And passion is generally sexy regardless of the source of the passion.

  • Esau

    Last I recall — this is going a few years back — there were plenty of open seats at the Math League meets, with the contestants performing and on well-scrubbed display. Free admission, too.

    What performance/display is possible is limited by what the audience is willing to pay attention to. So, it still comes down to women’s tastes as the main factor, and not mastery itself. As for Will Hunting, I don’t suppose that being played by Matt Damon might have had anything to do with it….

    BTW, the artificial insects used in fly-fishing are not usually called “lures,” even though that’s technically correct, but rather “flies”; usually “lures” is reserved for things that imitate under-water prey, particularly small fish. And, tying flies can be very artistic and fun! (Anyone turned on yet?)

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “in which case the performance is “I wrote this shit””
    .
    Or “I blogged this shit”

  • SayWhaat

    Last I recall — this is going a few years back — there were plenty of open seats at the Math League meets, with the contestants performing and on well-scrubbed display. Free admission, too.

    When I was in high school, the math league meets were PACKED. I’m being completely serious.

  • Esau

    Ozy, not sure I go with your theory of talents at all.

    1. Writing is often said to be sexy; creativity, artistic tortured souls, and all that. The performance itself can very well be entirely offstage, or even entirely in the past. So being “peformable” doesn’t really seem necessary, and runs the risk of looking attention-hungry in some cases (e.g. jugglers, magicians).

    2. The performances that create the most tingle, generally speaking, are probably when men are battling other men for glory and spoils, such as in sports, war, or high-stakes business. There are talents for all of these, and they could all be considered sexy; but I don’t think they tend to lend themselves to romantic gestures. So I’m not really goin’ with this one either.

    3. Being “something you actually like” doesn’t discriminate very well for what is and is not sexy. Trust me, no one works to master calculus unless they enjoy it for its own sake. (Funny you should mention it, I actually did name a proof after a girl once. But she was just a good friend, and it made a great joke.)

    So, sorry, you seem kind of 0 for 3 just on casual observation.

    There is a groupie for every area of endeavor (yes, including calculus).

    Regarding calculus, yes, there was one; and I even met her.

  • Esau

    When I was in high school, the math league meets were PACKED. I’m being completely serious.

    Things may have changed over the years. (But, aren’t you from the culture where spelling bee champs are national heroes? or did I get that wrong?)

  • Abbot

    What slutwalks are about, by a slutwalker.
    .
    slut walkers can define it any way that makes them happy. What they are about, if any men really care at all, is up to men. Only men.
    .
    the feeling of stigmatization kicks in when people start calling you a slut over it.
    .
    Now, what men “call” you a slut over having sex with them? If that is actually happening, then you are sexually satisfying your oppressors. Seems to be a common theme throughout this site.
    .
    No one is trying to get you to fuck sluts.
    .
    Like all guys who do, no amount of egging on is required.
    .
    We’re happy the slut-shaming bastard is not fucking sluts!
    .
    What exactly is slut shaming and why would anyone not fuck sluts? They do provide a great service prior to finding a wife.
    .
    We want you to stop saying that “men” don’t like sluts
    .
    Since when do men not like sluts? Makes no sense at all.
    .
    there are some men who like sluts just fine
    .
    Way more than some. Lucky you.
    .
    stop saying that sluts are inherently worth less than non-sluts
    .
    In what context?
    .

  • filrabat

    All this back and forthing tells me that what’s “cool” or not is inherently arbitrary – basically “cool activity” is whatever popular opinion says it is. The only consistent theme I see in “cool” activity is that it has to look great on TV, YouTube, or other video file share. Never mind that the activity has more to do with entertainment than with actual societally redeeming value.

  • filrabat

    @Jess

    I find that chaste people, of whatever build, often resent sexually active people because they are having fun. Pure and simple.

    Not quite so pure and simple. Frankly, most chaste people don’t care if sexually active people are getting action. Another problem is that the media and the culture tend to take a very arrogant attitude toward people “not getting any”, even if by choice. This is just a reverse of the 1940s & 50s – instead of sex shaming, it’s now chaste shaming. Chances are any resentment they may feel about not getting action is actually haughty judgmentalism.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    SR: It’s a part of most religious traditions, but is of course of use to anyone.

    Yeah there are many things that religious traditions had that we should had kept around for the benefits, again the problem with modern culture is that they decided to take everything out instead of trying to keep the things that worked and discards the ones that didn’t, YMMV

    Steph: Dan Savage, who’s probably the most famous sex-positive feminist right now. That said, that is a fairly controversial issue in feminism.

    But why is controversial? Equal pay is not, right to vote is not…really hadn’t you noticed that feminists agree on everything that benefits women but is there is a chance to be fair or have a moral responsibility with a man it becomes controversial? That is the problem with feminism is not about equality is about women getting all fun and no responsibilities at all.

    I find that chaste people, of whatever build, often resent sexually active people because they are having fun. Pure and simple.

    In the same vein that there are fake sluts (women that have sex to get validation or attention and not for sex itself) there are fake chaste people those are the ones that envy sluts, I never, I really don’t care about sluts having sex.

    I do resent lying sluts that try to pass themselves as blushing brides after they are done with the “fun” because they make men distrust us, real blushing brides, when they are discovered (and trust me eventually the man in question will find out), so they create the idea that real virgins don’t exist and we just are lying sluts like they were. Like Mike and the other guys say lumping us all in the same category hurt our chances of getting guys to commit because we will need more than our word to proof or sexual prudence.
    To put on of femispeak, is like when feminists complain about a clear man hater woman becoming a speaker for the movement, it hurts their goals to be associated with undesirables. Capisce?

  • Abbot

    lying sluts that try to pass themselves as blushing brides
    .
    Men see slut….walks as a way to ID them off the bride list. Nothing more. The sluts do not care if they are outed and then later left alone because of it. Its a stated goal. A real win win. Go sluts!

  • commenter99

    Wow. some of you commentators are so puritanical. Men with an active social life like women who are into sex and fun. Such bitterness from the men here about “sluts” who never sleep with them but are seemingly giving everyone else a piece. These guys who think you can divide women into whore/madonna categories are fooling themselves.

    Another thing, I rarely meet any men who are looking to get married. Don’t know if any exist who are not total desperate losers. No reason to get married. If you want kids marriage is not necessary. Dont let society shame you into marriage. It is an archaic institution for an agrarian society, completely incompatible with a modern urban lifestyle and career women.

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

      @commenter99

      Are you a woman or a man? I’m guessing promiscuous woman.

  • Renee

    Mike C,
    I was actually answering a few questions of Abbots as to why women have such a problem with what has been known as the “double standard”. My answers were simply what I thought the general woman thought about this lol. I wasn’t trying to propose anything. But thanks for your answers :)

    This is easy and has been discussed before. Getting casual sex for a guy irrespective of one’s morals or ethics is something of an achievement. There is approach, pursuit, attraction, etc. For the most part, it just isn’t sitting their on the table for the taking. For a woman, getting casual sex is simply being willing. If someone eats 20 pieces of cake, but they have to navigate a minefield/maze to get each piece of cake, that is going to be viewed differently than someone who just pigs out on 20 pieces of cake sitting on the buffet table for the easy taking.

    Yeah, I’m aware of this. I think in general, women either aren’t aware of this, or don’t think that it (or maybe even should) matters. I could be wrong though.

    And yeah, I’m aware that women more than men are more likely to call other women sluts and stigmatize them (although from reading blogs like these and others, I sometimes question that assessment lol).

    I think the problem for women is, they don’t like the fact that promiscuous women are put on different “lists” I guess than those who aren’t promiscuous, while women don’t do this with promiscuous men. They don’t think it’s fair or want to be judged for their sexual habits differently than men in the first place.

    And I don’t identify myself with promiscuous women. The thing is, for me, promiscuity is bad regardless of whether you’re a man or a woman. There’s no excuse for it, none at all. (With that being said, you do you, it’s your life. I’m not going to treat you negatively or look down on you because of your personal decisions.)

    So when I see men who enagae in casual sex who speak negatively about women who engage in casual sex – also stating to never give them a chance – I’m like “hmmmmm”. Everyone has a right to have preferences, but expect people to ask questions about certain ones.

  • Renee

    Abbot,

    Why does it matter if promiscuity “damages” or “harms” a woman? Only a man gets to determine if it works for him or not and that is all that matters.

    No it’s not. If there are indeed emotional/psychological/etc consequences for women who have casual sex, then women need to be made aware of that. We all need to be aware of the consequences of our actions and are.

    The attainment of promiscuous sex is VERY different for women. But does that really matter? Women have the CHOICE to view promiscuous men anyway they want. The fact that they are less concerned about it is their CHOICE. What do women consistently have a hard time understanding that? or not denying it?

    .
    Oh I agree. I was just giving my reasons and thoughts as to why women have such a problem with topics like this.

    A Woman NEVER claims she is being stigmatized when a very willing easy to convince always ready and available man accommodates her impulsive need [demand, want] for casual sex. So when does this feeling of being stigmatized kick in?

    .
    Lol, I guess when they’re looking for LTRs and guys are skeeved at how many men they slept with.

    Actually, they don’t see sex itself as something that should be looked at AT ALL when it comes to evaluating a woman. Now why is that?

    .
    Beats me…..

    Then she has the choice to find another who does not. Men never have a problem with a woman who goes off to find another. But for some yet unexplained reason, women are infuriated that men even have this criteria, even if she has the choice to move on. Now why is that?

    .
    Again, no clue. Maybe because they don’t have that criteria for men (which goes back to the previous point), or maybe because some women see sex as just…sex. Something that doesn’t have any implications on character (especially since the implications are different for men – again related in part an earlier point). I could be wrong of course.

    Why does it matter what it is “rooted” in. Why would a woman want to do away with how men [men they claim they would reject anyway] determine their criteria for selecting a woman beyond casual sex? Are men out there on walks, making rants, spews, speeches, tirades trying to get women to think this way or that way about men?

    Nope, they’re not. I also think that all of this is related to the belief that women’s sexuality was ~repressed~ and that any indication of ~controlling~ or hindering said sexuality is bad. Again, I could be wrong.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Nope, they’re not. I also think that all of this is related to the belief that women’s sexuality was ~repressed~ and that any indication of ~controlling~ or hindering said sexuality is bad. Again, I could be wrong.

    You are probably right about this. I had a discussion with Jess saying that female promiscuity and women’s rights are related. Meaning that a woman that is no promiscuous wouldn’t be able to defend/understand women’s right. Also that women that remain chaste are wasting their youth.
    If you look at the way modern women talk about sex and their promiscuity they usually use attributes to sex that I have no idea where they come from “I felt like a sexual goddess” “I’m empowered by sex” I think part of the reason is that feminism had sold promiscuity as having power over men and if men consider this “power” a disqualifier then they are not agreeing with feminism and not agreeing with any feminist guideline is a capital sin, because it threatens the fundamentals of the movement.
    Is amazing how the last 20 years or so feminism has been behaving exactly like religious fundamentalists. “My way or the highway” and silencing and mocking and dismissing anything that questions the movement goals and procedures, because is for the “greater good”. Is indeed fascinating. I’m guessing given that only few feminists are religious this parallels escape to them, YMMV.

  • Mike

    Yeah, I’m aware of this. I think in general, women either aren’t aware of this, or don’t think that it (or maybe even should) matters. I could be wrong though.
    .
    I think it is that women aren’t aware of what I am describing. I think most women, especially a younger one who is at least decent looking realizes she can go out any night of the week, and have sex that night with basically no effort. She doesn’t realize AT ALL that for her average counterpart guy we are talking orders of magnitude more difficult. Most younger women, especially if in college, have at least some guy friends…possibly orbiters… who they have no attraction to yet simultaneously think he is a “good catch for some other girl” not realizing that just as she isn’t attracted to him, neither is 99% of the rest of the female population.
    .
    I think the problem for women is, they don’t like the fact that promiscuous women are put on different “lists” I guess than those who aren’t promiscuous, while women don’t do this with promiscuous men.  
    .
    Alot of things alot of people don’t like in life that most likely won’t change. It is what it is. At least if you know how it is, you can make life decisions not being ignorant of ramifications. I get a kick out of junk reality TV, especially the MTV stuff like Jersey Shore and Real World. Anyway, I was watching the reunion show last night, and they asked Leroy something he said about Naomi in an interview. Leroy had been banging Naomi during the entire show while simultaneously banging a bunch of other girls. Leroy was definitely a straight up pimp. I don’t recall the exact question, but his statement was “Naomi isn’t the type of girl I WOULD WIFE UP”. She got all offended and indignant that he was “implying she was a whore or something”. Well, duhh. You are letting him tap it while he brings back other girls to the place you guys are living it. What was funny is she referred to the other girls as “garbage” without even the slightest clue of the irony of calling other girls “garbage” who were banging Leroy. Leroy was actually a garbage man and he came back with a quick retort about doing his job.
    .
    So when I see men who enagae in casual sex who speak negatively about women who engage in casual sex – also stating to never give them a chance – I’m like “hmmmmm”. Everyone has a right to have preferences, but expect people to ask questions about certain ones.
    .
    Hopefully your questions were answered? :)

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Mike
    I despise reality TV, but hopefully some of it will open the eyes of the tons of people watching. Also LOL at the double standard, I wonder why she though that made her different…that she lived on the same place, perhaps?

  • SayWhaat

    I despise reality TV, but hopefully some of it will open the eyes of the tons of people watching.

    Honestly, after reading these blogs for all this time, when I watch reality television now I have a lens to see how interactions are going to play out. I started watching The Bachelorette this season (Ashley is a friend of a friend) and the moves Bentley pulled were classic Cad. I can see what other moves are going to doom the other Bachelors and at the same time, which Bachelors are doing things right. It’s so fascinating to watch these things play out in front of my eyes and being able to understand exactly WHY it happens.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Honestly, after reading these blogs for all this time, when I watch reality television now I have a lens to see how interactions are going to play out. I started watching The Bachelorette this season (Ashley is a friend of a friend) and the moves Bentley pulled were classic Cad. I can see what other moves are going to doom the other Bachelors and at the same time, which Bachelors are doing things right. It’s so fascinating to watch these things play out in front of my eyes and being able to understand exactly WHY it happens.

    Sounds very interesting,I’m glad it opens your eyes, hopefully you can avoid cads like hell. :). I personally because of my friendships I’m bored of the cads moves, I had been living in that reality for almost 20 years. I think I need a break or two, no to mention that I still keep some friendships that sent me mails that really sometimes it makes feel like crying, doing the same thing for almost a decade and not seeing the new one coming…is heartbreaking.

  • http://lafemmeroar.wordpress.com/ lafemmeroar

    Your article is very interesting and it’s opened up a few questions. The statement “man whores know they’re hot” suggests that all man whores are hot. Is it their self-confidence? Is it their pocketbook? How does it explain Gene Simmons and Bobby Brown? (I guess hotness is in the eye of the beholder.)

    I knew this guy who for some unknown malfunction of the universe always got the hot girls. I couldn’t figure out why considering he couldn’t hold a steady job; he had a pot belly; and, he was shorter than Prince in flats. Then one of his ex-girlfriends told me that he did the one thing other men didn’t do well–cunnilingus. I believed her, but after reading this article it’s made me think that perhaps the women this guy dated were past the slutty stage and into the I want to get married stage only these women miscalculated in thinking that an ugly guy would be open to marrying a hot chick (past her prime).

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

      @lafemmeroar

      The statement “man whores know they’re hot” suggests that all man whores are hot. Is it their self-confidence? Is it their pocketbook?

      By virtue of their ability to score sex, man whores are hot, at least as defined by a large pool of women. Not all women will choose to get with a man whore, but most will admit he’s attractive. What is that attraction made of? Social dominance. Looks are way down on the list. Self-confidence is part of it, perhaps the key part. His status vis a vis other males also offers clues. Preselection – the fact that other women are interested – is huge, and of course becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Wealth can play a role in status, certainly, which is a key component of social dominance, but again, YMMV. Very rich unattractive men with trophy wives is common, but there’s more being bartered there than pure attraction, obvs.

      I don’t believe cunnilingus ability explains anything – the guy has to be attractive to even get that far. And if he’s too eager for it, it can even seem pedestalizing or supplicating.

      You may be right about women compromising to get married, but it’s also possibly that for whatever reason, this guy thinks he’s just a total catch. He’s selling that, and women are buying.

  • http://lafemmeroar.wordpress.com/ lafemmeroar

    Thanks for the clarification :) The cunnilingus issue was my friend’s response and in that instance it EXPLAINED why she found him attractive. I read the post twice as I’m intrigued with the issue, but I didn’t find how the study qualified the assumption that man whores are hot as defined by a large pool of women.

    You’re right about money being a factor in hotness. Jabba the Hutt sporting a fat wallet can start looking like a man whore in the eyes of a gold digger.

  • Whitney

    before i get into my feelings about the comments made on this article, i would first like to point out my distaste for the slutwalk tag on this article, and the use of a picture from one of the events to emphasize its points.

    there is absolutely NO mention of the slutwalk is, and its usage here seems to imply that it is an event geared to defending promiscuity, when, in fact, its original goal was to renounce the victim-blaming mentality that our culture presents to rape victims.

    sure, it eventually grew to encompass the various forms of slutshaming performed by society, but i find it insulting to the victims it was meant to defend to overlook that.

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

      @Whitney
      I’m very familiar with the slutwalk agenda, and the feminist desire to reclaim the word slut. Jaclyn Friedman spoke in Boston specifically about the power of sluthood, and lambasted me personally for objecting to it as a detrimental influence on young people and relationships.

      Do you believe that any of the marchers in any of the slutwalks are not sluts? There’s a lot more here going on that victim-blaming. By the way, I wrote another post about that – and women should dress prudently to avoid being raped. Amanda Marcotte agrees:

      Shocker! Slutty Behavior is Ineffective in Preventing Rape

  • http://lessonsinopenspace.wordpress.com/ TaraPowers

    I know I am a little late on this hot topic, but I just wanted to point something out that you got wrong.
    “For more-restrained men and for women who were either restrained or promiscuous, the expected number of dates showed no correlation with how many people actually wanted to go out for drinks.”

    so promiscuous women did no better or worse than restrained women, however:

    Women who rated low on “agreeableness,” a trait comprising warmth, trust and cooperativeness, and both agreeable and disagreeable men were hopeless at guessing how many dates they’d score.

    There was no reported correlation between promiscuity and agreeableness. I think the whole blog post basically got that wrong.

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

      @Tara Powers

      There was no reported correlation between promiscuity and agreeableness. I think the whole blog post basically got that wrong.

      Not in this study. That information is well documented in other studies. Promiscuity is correlated with low agreeableness, high risk-seeking, high novelty-seeking and high neuroticism. It’s also one of the 20 items on the widely used psychopathy diagnostic checklist. All of these characteristics are most likely caused by an especially active need for dopamine, and higher than average levels of testosterone.

  • http://lessonsinopenspace.wordpress.com/ TaraPowers

    Do you have links to those studies?

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