suicideandsappiness.wordpress.com
In my recent post What a Slut Is, there were several commenters who stated that there is no such thing as a male slut. I offer the popular terms manwhore and manslut as evidence to the contrary. Unquestionably, some women are rejecting previously highly promiscuous men for relationships. I’ve called this the Boomerang Effect of Social Proof. According to one study, 70% of women lose respect for men who hook up frequently. This may have little effect on short-term mating strategies, but is likely to have a profound effect on long-term mating strategies.
A man’s success in obtaining sexual partners increases his value in the eyes of women. However, there is some point at which he is viewed negatively for having excessive sexual experience. This has become evident only recently as increased female promiscuity has enabled a minority of men to have 100, even 200+, sexual partners while still under 30. Commenters have floated the following theories about mansluts:
- He can avoid this judgment if all of his sexual conquests are attractive.
- Women seek men with compatible views of sex. A woman who believes sex should be meaningful, for example, may reject a man with a history of casual hookups as incompatible.
- A high number of sexual partners signals more than the attractiveness of the male – it signifies impulsivity, and a high priority on sexual conquest.
- Less experienced women are nervous about “measuring up” in the bedroom when the guy has had a great deal of experience with many women.
- Women seeking “true love” question the likelihood of ever being truly special to a man with a very high number.
- Women reason that men who have had mostly casual sex have been primarily with sluts, and will have a tainted, cynical view of female nature.
A 2004 study on premarital sexual promiscuity looked at the effect of promiscuity on later degrees of marital sexual satisfaction. The sample was national and random, from the National Health and Social Life Survey. It included 313 married men and women, aged 18-40, all with their first spouse.
| Male | Female | |
| Extremely satisfied with sex life | 88% | 85% |
| Moderately satisfied with sex life | 12% | 15% |
| Range # of partners | 1-191 | 1-66 |
| Mean # of partners | 11.35 | 4.25 |
Interestingly, respondents were allowed five choices to describe their level of sexual satisfaction, and the researchers were surprised that nearly everyone indicated that they were extremely or moderately satisfied.
The most significant finding of the study, in my view, is that for every premarital sexual partner, a man’s likelihood of being extremely sexually satisfied in marriage falls 5.3%. This means that a man with a number of 10 before marriage is 53% less likely to be describe himself as extremely satisfied in marriage. By implication, all men with 20 previous partners will feel moderately sexually satisfied in marriage at best.
Women’s partner count had a lesser effect, with the likelihood of being extremely satisfied decreasing 4.6% for each partner. The females’ result did not meet the criteria for statistical significance, while the males’ did. From the study:
There were significant gender differences between men and women but the significant effects were much stronger for males, not females. The gender variable in the full model was not significant but in running different models for males and females, the male model was significant while female model only approached significance. Therefore, while males’ marital sexual satisfaction is affected by premarital sexual promiscuity, these results indicate that the relationship is not significant among females.
While men report a lower age at first intercourse, higher number of sexual partners, a higher frequency of intercourse, and tend to report more permissive sexual attitudes (Oliver & Hyde, 1993), it appears that their marital sexual satisfaction is still affected more by premarital sexual partners than females’ marital sexual satisfaction.
This may be due to the evolutionary biological theory that males tend to be more invested in or notice more the physical aspects of the sexual relationship, while women tend to be more invested in or notice more the emotional aspects of the sexual relationship (Buunk, Angleitner, & Buss, 1996). Due to this difference, premarital sexual promiscuity may not influence females as much because the past emotional connections are no longer salient and the focus is on meeting the needs of the current relationship.
Further, women tend to be aroused more and are more likely than men to report attraction increasing in long-term relationships, indicating that having previous sexual experiences may in fact lower the overall comparison levels and comparison level for alternatives for women in a marital sexual relationship (Knoth, Boyd, & Singer, 1988).
This finding that past emotional connections are no longer salient for females flies in the face of the whole pair-bonding theory. It may be that females with a high number of sexual partners are more risk- and novelty-seeking, making them more likely to cheat. They may be a poor marriage risk for that reason. But the number of previous sexual partners in and of itself does not have as large a negative effect on sexual satisfaction as for men.
The study provided an illustration of how this works:
If Tom and Mary were sleeping around a lot before they got married, once they are married they will not be as happy with each other sexually. There are several reasons why, which may vary between people. One reason is because they may think they are a know-it-all when it comes to sex and will not be as likely to listen to what their partner wants.
Another reason is because they can become more selfish, wanting to be satisfied themselves more than wanting to satisfy their partner even to the point where they may view their partner as a sex object.
A third reason is that they will not be as committed to each other because they have more experience to be able to think about how past relationships, or future relationships, could fulfill them better sexually than the one they are in.
Finally, if they are not as committed to each other they will not want to invest as much time and energy into the relationship.
Clearly, marriage-minded women should be concerned about a man’s sexual experience prior to monogamous commitment.
Even if you get a manwhore to settle down, you are very unlikely to rock his world.
Related posts:
{ 777 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 … 6 »
Maybe this video has been here before? Sluts vs. studs by Skyyjohn.
He explains fynny way, why sluts and studs are different thing.
Traditional conservative Christian here and I believe that both men and women should be chaste and virgins until marriage in the eyes of God (not talking about legal marriages though since I completely eschew them since liberalism is amok in law). Don’t know who created the “double-standard” at liberals love throwing out but it sure wasn’t religious conservatives.
Note: I’m so far-right that I get banned at some “Christian” websites (typically liberal-leaning or full of libertarians). My views are below:
- Against equality
- Against individualism, autonomy and individual rights
- Against democracy
- Against diversity
- Against human rights
- Non-belief in secularism as the structure for society (I tolerate secularism but disagree that it should be the main groundwork)
- Non-belief in sexual/moral liberalism in general
Don’t know who created the “double-standard” at liberals love throwing out but it sure wasn’t religious conservatives.
Sorry I meant that liberals love throwing out
While men report a lower age at first intercourse, higher number of sexual partners, a higher frequency of intercourse, and tend to report more permissive sexual attitudes…
Don’t you think this could be because the study was conducted on Married people, and slutty women are less likely to be married in the first place? Men however are not judged as harshly (by women) for their past sex lives.
This is slightly inconsistent with Roissy’s preaching. He suggests:
1. women are never truly attracted to any man less alpha than their most alpha partner.
2. each subsequent partner reduces a woman’s ability to form an attachment to a husband.
It seems like what are you saying is women want a passive alpha, a guy that can sleep with a lot of women but chooses not too.
@Spank
It is true that men are judged by the opposite sex less harshly than women are for promiscuity. However, the point of this post is not about women judging men. It’s about players not feeling sexually fulfilled in marriage. That’s a risk women need to be aware of.
Isabella, even though I’m not far-right, you’re the first person I’ve met online (that I remember) that has the exact same views of sex and promiscuity that I do
OhioStater,
I can see this happening, although it depends on if a woman doesn’t want to take a risk with a past promiscuous alpha, doesn’t alphaness mainly on sexual conquests, or if she’s been with a lot of guys. So in that regard, it’s not really inconsistent with Roissy’s views. Or rather, they’re completely different.
Honestly, I can see this happening with both sexes to some degree.
Susan, you are providing a situation where men cannot possibly win.
If he goes out and becomes more successful with women, he IS going to become more promiscuous because that is the nature of man. Now you are going to judge him for seeking out sex from multiple women. You are going to judge him for following his own biological call. It’s bullshit.
It seems men have two paths now:
1. Spend the years from 16-35ish alone masturbating. Hope to God a women will eventually see what a great guy he is. Possibly gets married to a women who “settles” or spends the rest of his life alone because no women wants him.
2. Works on getting better with women. Has some promiscuous sex. Then gets judged for having promiscuous sex and cannot find a woman to have his children.
If you have other options, let me know because all you are doing with this is pigeonholing men into some impossible to fill role.
Oh Boy, lots of speculation there. Could be if a man is not satisfied with wifey at home, (he is experienced, she has little experience) maybe he was used to doing other experienced women who were very good in bed and more adventurous. Hard to say
I`d say that, in todays society, if nearly 100% of sexually experienced people are at least moderately satified with their sex life in marriage (88% are extremely satisfied) then that is pretty good.
Your chart doesnt show how long the moderately satisfied have been married. Could be they were in a marriage the longest catagory, I dont know.
It has been my personal experience, when two sexually experienced people get together, the sex is normally pretty damn good. The longer they are together the better it gets.. I dont know, maybe that is just me.
We have a chicken and the egg problem here. Do men who derive less satisfaction from sex seek out more partners, or does having many partners cause a man to derive less pleasure from each additional partner? The former explanation makes sense if promiscuity is innate. The latter fits in nicely with economic theory i.e. marginal value.
I’d like to see if the promiscuous pair up with the promiscuous. I scanned through the thesis, but couldn’t find any information on that.
Yeah, and we all know how often the words coming out of a girl’s mouth say the exact opposite of what the tingle between her legs is saying.
@Matt
Women will continue to reward lotharios and players with sex. The most attractive girls will even be open to LTRs with these men. Only men who bang uglies, men who are manwhores, need to worry about being severely penalized. A man with seduction skills cannot properly be called a whore or a slut.
Matt,
I am spending my years masturbating.
I have no choice.
1. women are never truly attracted to any man less alpha than their most alpha partner.
________________
I cant speak for women, but I dont think men and women are THAT different. I may have slept with Camron Diez, but that doesnt mean I wouldnt find someone “not as hot” very attractive. I would venture to say most women feel that way too…..I guess there are different degrees of what someone might call attractive. People here lose sight of that old saying, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”… I know for a fact I have had friends who thought a woman was smokin hot, but I did not, and visa versa…
Rossie is a jerk with a couple good views.. For the most part he doesnt live in reality.
2. each subsequent partner reduces a woman’s ability to form an attachment to a husband.
Honestly, I can see this happening with both sexes to some degree.
___________________
Maybe that is true for some people, but for most people there is a difference between the single self and the attatched self. Most people know the difference.
Note: I’m so far-right that I get banned at some “Christian” websites (typically liberal-leaning or full of libertarians). My views are below:
- Against equality
- Against individualism, autonomy and individual rights
- Against democracy
- Against diversity
- Against human rights
_______________________
Against HUMAN rights?..Against INDIVIDUAL rights?
No doubt you are banned from christian sites, probably you adhere to Christian values….. you reap what you so, right out of the bible goes against your beliefs.
There’s only one thing I’m a “good provider” of. Cock.
What an absolute heap of bullshit.
VI
“A man with seduction skills cannot properly be called a whore or a slut.”
________________
Oh yes he can be and is.
Just because a guy is a successful PUA doesnt mean he HAS TO BE ONE. Both men and women can be classified as promiscuous, ie; slut, manwhore.
The “quality” of his pick up has nothing to do with his promiscuity. Fugly or hot he is still having sex with a human being, that is the bottom line.
VI that fact there are a lot of women who might take the hot guy who “could” have slept around a lot, but didnt, over the hot guy who had 100 is enough evidence you are wrong.
Matt, you have to understand here that Susan has absolutely no consideration whatsoever for the average man’s mental health, or even the male etiology. She’ll do everything in her power to justify her cosmopolitan belief that women are entitled to early promiscuous sex (without any adverse effects), that marriage isn’t a total joke in the modern world and so on. If some percentage of men spend their lives in desperate solitude while young so women can cavort off with the freshness of youth and innocence, what in the world does she care? It’s only meaningful insofar as they remember to marry the ex-sluts at an appropriate time.
The woman always reminds me of this:
ANON
“Due to this difference, premarital sexual promiscuity may not influence females as much because the past emotional connections are no longer salient and the focus is on meeting the needs of the current relationship.”
What an absolute heap of bullshit.
_____________________
I do agree somewhat with you, however I think men and women both are capable of leaving their own past behind and focusing on the present relationship.
“70% of women lose respect for men who hook up frequently.”
ha! yeah right. in theory.
“This may have little effect on short-term mating strategies, but is likely to have a profound effect on long-term mating strategies.”
the short-term is what damages the long term baby. you play you pay.
ANON
“Matt, you have to understand here that Susan has absolutely no consideration whatsoever for the average man’s mental health, or even the male etiology. She’ll do everything in her power to justify her cosmopolitan belief that women are entitled to early promiscuous sex (without any adverse effects), that marriage isn’t a total joke in the modern world and so on.”
_________________________
Dude you must be new here or something. That is NOT what Susan believes or preaches…Susan is trying to tell young women that if they slut it up while young, when they want to settle down a lot of men will not want them for a long term relationship. Susan totally believes in marriage. Get your story straight before you jump on someone
“VI that fact there are a lot of women who might take the hot guy who “could” have slept around a lot, but didnt, over the hot guy who had 100 is enough evidence you are wrong.”
ha! i was that guy. it didn’t change a thing.
@Matt I don’t think the conclusion is that men have to be celibate or virginal, just selective. I’m in the minority, but if I’m interested in marriage, and meet a man who’s a straight up player, he’s not going to be a choice for me.
He’s clearly someone that doesn’t seek commitment, doesn’t want anything more from me than a minimal investment (or a P&D) and can have as many women as he wants. Why settle down with one? Why should either of us waste our time?
For a marriage, I’m looking for a man that has a low sexual partner #, and has had quality relationships with other women. Just like I have had, with other men. He’s going to be more attractive to me than a player. Every time.
I don’t begrudge a man having casual sex into the triple digits, but that doesn’t mean I want to marry one.
I think some of this is way too oversimplified.
Good in bed? What does that mean, exactly?
Is it openness to new things, confidence in your body, attractiveness, perceptiveness, experience, communication skill, raw athletic ability, or some combination? Does prior partner count affect those things much at all when viewed purely through the lens of “sexual satisfaction”? Note – I’m just talking about how much fun people are to fuck – not the unsettling feeling in your stomach when you love someone who has to know advanced calculus to figure out how much strange they’ve had.
Thinking back on my relationships, two virgins definitely leap out at me as far as sexual satisfaction goes. Both are really attractive, perceptive, and in good shape. After a few weeks of sex, it quickly became mind-blowing. Although everybody’s different in bed, these two girls compare very favorably to others I’ve had sex with. Ids it different with men? I have no interest in fucking dudes to find out, so what to you girls think?
I guess what I’m saying is that more partners does not always equal better in bed. It’s not even very closely correlated in my experience.
Also, how many of you actually tell your partners how many folks you’ve boned? I admit to not being a virgin, but that’s about it. I’ve never had an STD and will furnish test results on demand. I’ve also never been married and have no children. The rest is purely my business, I think.
Attractive men, men without one-itis, rarely form a strong attraction. It’s called emotionally distant. It’s part of the appeal. Male attachment is called one-itis and women don’t like it.
Please review this blog post about the Bachelorette:
http://glpiggy.net/2011/06/28/gold-medal-hamsterization/
Especially, this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jKn0uub4HU
I’m 99% sure Bentley is the most alpha guy she’s been involved with. There is no way under the sun she’ll form a similar bond with a normal guy.
@ randy
“VI that fact there are a lot or women who might take the hot guy who “could” have slept around a lot, but didn’t, over the hot guy who had 100 is enough evidence you are wrong ”
ha! i was that guy. it didn’t change a thing.
I think it’d be helpful to the discussion if you can elaborate on this a bit.
Like “I was a hot guy who turned down sex with some women and…….. ???
- those women didn’t want a relationship with me.
- other women didn’t want to sleep with me
What exactly is it that didn’t change?
@ Ohio State
Women don’t like a guy who has oneitis for them if they don’t like HIM in return.
Would you like it if some unattractive chick kept chasing YOU around and couldn’t take “no” for an answer?
dogsquat
Good in bed? What does that mean, exactly?
________________
I take it that you are attentive to the needs of your partner. You have the skill and knowledge to pleasure them , and do so with enthusiasm. Willingness to do what pleases them. Of course what pleases some people is a turn off for others. So find someone who is either adventurous or likes the same things as you do. Example… a man or woman who loves to give and receive oral would not be happy with someone who does not. A man who loves anal would soon get frustrated with a woman who dispises it. A skilful lover knows there is more than one way to have sex, to assist in the others orgasm, to extend the others pleasure, to give and receive pleasure. In short a man who thinks missionary position and 3 minutes of thrusting is making him a good lover is sadly mistaken.
It’s fairly obvious that such men are generally unwilling to sign up for an LTR, let alone Marriage 2.0. It seems to me you’re basically debating a non-issue.
“Women reason that men who have had
mostly casual sex have been primarily with
sluts, and will have a tainted, cynical view of
female nature.”
If your attraction is based on how attractive he is to other women, which is true for almost all women, then cynicism is warranted.
Women reason that men who have had mostly casual sex have been primarily with sluts, and will have a tainted, cynical view of female nature.
I will say that there is also the eww factor of him having a higher risk of having gotten an STD from a slut than from any other type of woman. Also if the woman per se has a low opinion of sluts, is very unlikely that she finds a man that like sluts attractive she probably will see him as low as his choice of sex partners had been.
Further, women tend to be aroused more and are more likely than men to report attraction increasing in long-term relationships,
This was one of the things I was told by my already married friends, but had to experience before understanding it and is true every time it gets better and better, very interesting indeed.
I guess what I’m saying is that more partners does not always equal better in bed. It’s not even very closely correlated in my experience.
You know I asked this to my slut male friends and they told me that good lovers are born not made. And that they had have lousy experienced partners and amazing in bed virgins, so they just have sex because they like it, not because they think it will improve them in any way,YMMV.
Women seeking “true love” question the likelihood of ever being truly special to a man with a very high number.
Is the fourth wedding syndrome if you have a friend that has gotten married more than 3 times telling all the words and vows and failing again and again, by the time you arrive to wedding fourth is just empty words.
I will say to the guys that you are thinking extremely. There is moderation in everything. You can learn game and also be selective, many women just want to believe you when you say “I love you” but after certain number you start wondering how many of this women heard the same words and you didn’t kept around for enough time to show that you meant it.
I will also say that if the high number is far enough in the past. Like 5 years ago and after that you had only had relationship sex with a couple of women certainly some women will consider this a sign of real commitment not just another “notch in your belt”, context is important in this too.
Hi anonymous.
What I’m saying is women won’t like it if a man is unusually interested in her, even if she likes him. She’ll eventually slip out of attraction no matter how strong it was to begin with.
As a general rule, a man should never exhibit too much attachment to any woman, other than his mother and daughters.
Steph,
There is moderation in everything. You can learn game and also be selective
____________________
Very well stated.
I`d like to say that goes for women too. Even I would not be attracted to a woman who does any man who would do her. For me it goes beyond the EWW factor, it starts to smell of emotional problems.
Ohio Stater…
As a general rule, a man should never exhibit too much attachment to any woman, other than his mother and daughters.
_____________________
Not even his wife? I dont know if game needs to go that far. Women do need to know they are yours, that you are a devoted husband.
@ Tom
No one should show feelings of clingyness it is one of the most unattractive traits
@Susan
Do think people who have alot of casual sex can redeem themselves and settle down in the future
@ Ohio
Oh! I see.
I would think that’s logical.
Do guys like it if a girl texts him every 3 mins. ’round the clock, wants him to do EVERY. SINGLE. activity with her and wants for him to wear matching colors to every outfit she wears?
That just shows mental illness, no?
Tom, if it were any more obvious that you’re a woman, your tits would be showing.
anonymous,
That’s called being clingy. A man showing interest is called being nice.
Responding to a call or a text too soon (WTF, it’s being prompt), saying “I like you,” being considerate, etc.
This is slightly inconsistent with Roissy’s preaching. He suggests:
1. women are never truly attracted to any man less alpha than their most alpha partner.
2. each subsequent partner reduces a woman’s ability to form an attachment to a husband.
It seems like what are you saying is women want a passive alpha, a guy that can sleep with a lot of women but chooses not too.
Roissy has a nasty habit of projecting his own personal issues onto women in general. I don’t think I would be wrong to say that he has an attachment disorder and justifies his sexual behavior in that the women he sleeps with are “sluts.” His blog used to make me angry, now I think it’s just sad.
I like what Stephanie Rowling said about extremes. Some women, perhaps a certain type, pursue Alphas, but that is certainly not true of all women. On more than one occasion I have avoided being picked up by an “alpha” because (a.) it was known that he slept with a lot of women and that grossed me out and (b.) I suspected that his interests weren’t really in me, but in my orifices. (this is a big part of female sexuality, to work around it requires a certain amount of delusion or liquor or both. It’s why women don’t usually respond to random dudes who try to pick them up at bus stops.)
To further illustrate the point, I have a girl friend who has what we call a “jesus fetish”. That is, she has a thing for penniless hippies who sleep on the sand in Venice Beach when they can’t secure a couch for the night. I don’t get it. These guys have a certain vulnerability that prevents them from being alphas, IMO.
I don’t think women rate men as to who is the most alpha, second, third, beta, etc. Confidence, physical attraction (different for everyone) and a way with women are all things you can get from PUA training if you didn’t have it to begin with, but a world full of Alpha-and aspiring Alpha-males sounds like my own personal hell.
@OhioStater
Ha! Wouldn’t be the first time.
I don’t have rock solid science on this, and I don’t think Roissy does either. If so, I’d like to see a link. This study directly contradicts that claim. But more importantly, it says that each subsequent premarital partner reduces a man’s ability to be sexually satisfied by his wife.
I’m not saying that, but it does sound pretty wonderful. Of course, women aren’t going to get that, especially in an era of unleashed female sexuality. I’ve said many times that beta guys with Game are the best possible mates. Or to put it in Athol’s terms, women want a combo of alpha dominance traits and beta comfort traits. A lot of guys with some beta traits are really not looking to become players. As Keoni Galt says, during the last 50 years we’ve feminized our males and masculinized our females. A de-feminized male is not necessarily someone who can and will sleep with a lot of women.
Mmmm, I dispute this as well. HIgh alpha means high testosterone. That’s where you find society’s thugs, abusers, and men with anger management problems. Those are also the cads, and men with very low emotional intelligence. Some women probably do repeat the same damaging pattern over and over, but others who have the misfortune to partner with one of these men will welcome a man with less “alpha” in him.
Let’s also not forget the essential problem of gathering statistics through surveys and questionnaires. Women tend to respond with answers that are expected of them not necessarily the truth.
One of the most important axioms in the Manosphere is the “actions over words” approach.
I would much rather observe women’s actions than read their responses to questions.
The Private Man´s last [type] ..He’s About To Take The Red Pill
@Matt
I’m not telling men to abstain from sex. I’m reporting that men with a high number of partners tend to be less sexually satisfied in marriage. Don’t shoot the messenger. To be honest, I think we’ll continue to see increased rates of infidelity, divorce and general dissatisfaction in marriage. One solution might be marrying earlier. With both sexes currently spending 17 years between puberty and marriage, most people are bound to rack up a few partners.
I see no problem with men having some promiscuous sex, though I think it’s a better call for men to use Game to get into an LTR. Honestly, I would rather be with a man who had had a few years of good sex with a few women, than a guy who had had dozens of random hookups. Men say this all the time – they’d rather be with a woman who had sex 500 times with one man than one time with 500 men. The feeling is not as strong for women – not at all. But it’s there, and it’s a byproduct of today’s SMP.
@VI
Fair enough, but keep in mind I’m talking about marriage here. Your claim applies to short-term mating, which Game was written for. This is a different question – do women want to marry men with a very high notch count? This study suggests they should be wary. For guys who have no intention of marrying, it’s a moot point.
@Anonymous
Why are people who use the Anonymous handle so damn charming? Take it up with the researchers buddy, that’s not my opinion, it’s a quote from the literature.
@Anonymous
Another Johnny Come Lately talking out of his ass. Read the blog or STFU.
Mine isn’t. Newsflash: Lots and lots of marriages actually work quite well. This study suggests that virtually all married people are extremely satisfied or moderately satisfied with their sex lives. Research shows clearly that marrieds have more sex than singles.
@Susan
“’m not telling men to abstain from sex. I’m reporting that men with a high number of partners tend to be less sexually satisfied in marriage. Don’t shoot the messenger. To be honest, I think we’ll continue to see increased rates of infidelity, divorce and general dissatisfaction in marriage. One solution might be marrying earlier. With both sexes currently spending 17 years between puberty and marriage, most people are bound to rack up a few partners.”
this is a very well made point. congratulations Susan. i like you when you’re like this;)
@tito
Agree 100%.
“VI that fact there are a lot or women who might take the hot guy who “could” have slept around a lot, but didn’t, over the hot guy who had 100 is enough evidence you are wrong ”
ha! i was that guy. it didn’t change a thing.
I think it’d be helpful to the discussion if you can elaborate on this a bit.
Like “I was a hot guy who turned down sex with some women and…….. ???
- those women didn’t want a relationship with me.
- other women didn’t want to sleep with me
What exactly is it that didn’t change?”
hey dude. yeah, what i meant was that i sort of took the high road a bit way back. like this commenter meant. it did not do me all that well with women. sure i got laid off and on. but overall it did not cause women to see me as valuable. and yes, this means the “quality” and “good” ones as well. is that enough or do you want a further elaboration?
Susan, I personally agree with what you’re saying here, but I just don’t see it playing out that way in real life.
I tend to agree with The Private Man:
Note: I’m so far-right that I get banned at some “Christian” websites (typically liberal-leaning or full of libertarians). My views are below:
- Against equality
- Against individualism, autonomy and individual rights
- Against democracy
- Against diversity
- Against human rights
- Non-belief in secularism as the structure for society (I tolerate secularism but disagree that it should be the main groundwork)
- Non-belief in sexual/moral liberalism in general
@ Isabella,
I disagree with you as at my core I am an individualist although over time I’ve begun to appreciate how our individual choices do shape the overall society we live in. Anyways, if you are not familar with him, you might find some of the writing of Julius Evola interesting. I disagree strenuously with most of it, but it is very thought-provoking stuff.
@AnonGal
Welcome, and don’t ever leave. Seriously, I appreciate your voice of reason and honesty.
Ohiostater said: “It seems like what are you saying is women want a passive alpha, a guy that can sleep with a lot of women but chooses not too.”
Yes. Vox Day (at Alpha Game) had a post about this a few days ago. He says it thusly:
“Women aren’t attracted to a man who is a gentleman, they are attracted to an Alpha and they would like him to behave like a gentleman.”
I think that sums up what most women are looking for very nicely.
@Dogsquat
I agree – in fact, most of the casual sex in college is orgasm-starved, what with whiskey dick and the woman rarely getting off in casual encounters. Still, I’ve heard many players speak nostalgically about the best BJ they ever had, or that woman who was just a wildcat in bed, though too crazy to put up with out of bed. I find it credible that those experiences stay with a man, and become a source of comparison, whether intentional or not, when he settles with a life partner.
Alphas suffer more after marriage? Kinda seems obvious to me. It’s the curse of knowing what you are missing. If I’ve only had vanilla ice cream my entire life, and I believe all other flavors are beyond my reach, I’m going to enjoy vanilla ice cream a lot. It’s still ice cream, after all.
However, if I’m aware of 30 other flavors of ice cream, and have tried them all, I’m unlikely to respond that I’m “extremely satisfied” when I’m forced to eat vanilla ice cream only for the rest of my miserable life.
Of course a beta male with few options is happy to be getting sex on the regular after marriage. He wasn’t getting laid much before, and certainly not with a variety of hot women. Life is better! On the other hand, the alpha male’s sex life has changed for the worse after marriage — having experienced the pleasures of variety, he actually knows what he is missing, unlike the blissfully ignorant beta male.
The beta was already in a cage of his own making. The alpha knew sweet, sweet freedom. When enclosed in the prison of marriage, obviously one man is going to react more negatively than the other.
If you want to have a sexually happy husband, choose a man for whom monotonous sex with the same person over and over and over again with no hope of escape is actually an improvement over what he’s doing now.
And doesn’t that strike you as odd? Granted married people are self selecting, and those who aren’t happy with their sex lives are probably more likely to divorce, and so de-select themselves from this group, but such high rates of positive reporting go against a lot of other research concerning sexual behavior in marriage. For instance, the percentages of couples not having sex (est. 15-20%), infrequent sex, or unsatisfying sex don’t seem to be reflected in this research. Perhaps they’re ‘extremely satisfied’ to not have sex ?!?
I have the suspicion that some factor of the selection a/o methodology skewed the results.
We may, but divorce is currently going down, w/ per capita divorce the lowest since 1970. IMO the problem w/ marriage is structural rather than some residual effect of promiscuity. The current model sets people up to fail.
@OhioStater
No, this isn’t right. Male attachment, when earned from a man who has options, is the brass ring on the mating carousel. One-itis is a form of “unearned” affection. It’s a guy being super eager before he even really knows us – we understand that he’s projecting, and that it’s about having the pussy on a pedestal. It also is a form of capitulation – the male gives up all “hand.” Women don’t like that.
However, if I’m aware of 30 other flavors of ice cream, and have tried them all, I’m unlikely to respond that I’m “extremely satisfied” when I’m forced to eat vanilla ice cream only for the rest of my miserable life.
Of course a beta male with few options is happy to be getting sex on the regular after marriage. He wasn’t getting laid much before, and certainly not with a variety of hot women. Life is better! On the other hand, the alpha male’s sex life has changed for the worse after marriage — having experienced the pleasures of variety, he actually knows what he is missing, unlike the blissfully ignorant beta male.
The beta was already in a cage of his own making. The alpha knew sweet, sweet freedom. When enclosed in the prison of marriage, obviously one man is going to react more negatively than the other.
.
There is a large element of truth to all of this but there is another side to this. There are things a man can get from a LTR/marriage that he can’t get from any random piece of ass even if it is astounding. The corollary to that from the woman’s perspective is to bring alot more to the marriage/committment table than just sex or even really good sex.
.
I don’t know….there is more to life than sex, and at least to me there are very good reasons to live a life of 6-7 on a scale of 1-10 with sexual satisfaction if you are getting alot of other things that more then make up for not living a life of 9 with sexual satisfaction.
@Hollenhund
The key is that it is a small minority of men who can rack up those numbers. Indeed, some of the players who blog in these parts have spoken of hitting 40-50. That’s still a large number of sexual partners. Women will vary somewhat in how they define manwhore. For some it will be 200, others 50, some 20. This is, of course, exactly the way it works when men debate what number makes a woman a slut. Many, if not most of the men in the 20-100 range will indeed sign up for marriage 2.0. They’ll hit the age of 28-30 and decide the time is right for a high SMV mate to mother their children. Women need to understand that those men may be less than thrilled with monogamous marital sex. Which I would imagine dramatically increases the odds of infidelity.
@modernguy
Perhaps. But I’m talking about a whole other level of cynicism here. The kind where men say they are disgusted by the women they sleep with, view all women as whores, etc. It’s common among mansluts.
@Chris b
Yes, I think so too. But they won’t erase the experiences they’ve already had. And that history will inform their present experience. Life is cumulative, we cannot escape our pasts, though we can shift course.
@Jamie
Well said. I appreciate the female perspective here too.
Economists talk about the difference between stated and revealed preferences.
If I were starting out in the social sciences I would find ways to test the validity of the anonymous questionaire. Researchers use it because it’s relatively easy and cheap.
Reminds me of the guy hunting for his keys under the street lamp instead of where he dropped the, because the light was better.
@Jimmy Hendricks
I have no problem with your skepticism. Every one of these studies should be viewed with a skeptical eye. I consider them points of data, that’s all. Worth discussing, but never the be all and end all. I have to say, though, this particular finding strikes me as common sense. Women are indeed afraid of not “measuring up” with experienced men, and they probably have good reason to be.
I’ve heard women speak about boyfriends they love, even though his penis is smaller than Ex #1. Or wistfully recall the way Ex #2 did something with his mouth during oral. It’s only natural that some of this comparing goes on. This study suggests it’s more dramatic for men, but the female percentage was 4.6. So it is happening with women too.
I see no problem with men having some promiscuous sex, though I think it’s a better call for men to use Game to get into an LTR. Honestly, I would rather be with a man who had had a few years of good sex with a few women, than a guy who had had dozens of random hookups. Men say this all the time – they’d rather be with a woman who had sex 500 times with one man than one time with 500 men. The feeling is not as strong for women – not at all. But it’s there, and it’s a byproduct of today’s SMP.
But here’s the problem with your argument. “Game” doesn’t work that way. You don’t become good with women by learning a couple lines and a couple “negs”. It’s one of the main reasons Mystery is considered a joke by pretty much every other dating website for men. Men become better with women through experience and by moving their belief system in a positive direction. “Game” is something that comes through failing over and over and over again, then looking in the metaphorical mirror and seeing what you did wrong.
“Game” is not a magic pill. A guy does not read Mystery Method and then starts fucking supermodels. In fact, it can make him start doing worse with women, like me.
I don’t think you have gone to this website: http://www.practicalpickup.com/. This site is definitely more realistic about how “Game” works.
Also, if men sought out women for relationships, he would have zero success. I have never seen it work that way.
@Rake
Ignorance is indeed bliss. We shouldn’t ask questions we don’t want to know the answers to. Perhaps we shouldn’t choose men who are bound to disappoint if they are honest. This is really about the nature of monogamy. For those of us who want it, and want it to succeed, less experience is more.
@Starvin Marvin
I share your view that the reported level of satisfaction is odd. I combed through the study in hopes of finding some explanation but couldn’t other than that the level of satisfaction was very high. However, the data source is solid, frequently used in research.
LOL at the idea they are extremely satisfied to have a celibate marriage. Anything is possible! I will say that married men generally report much higher sexual satisfaction than single men – because they have more sex. Is it true that 15-20% of married couples have no sex? What is the source for that?
How does the current model of marriage set people up to fail? I’m curious to know your views on this.
*groan*
Gonna sound like a hater but maybe HUS should stick to the female side of things here, i don’t want to be a cynic or Debbie Downer but do you have any idea how preachy this sounds to those of us making the effort of learning LTR aimed Game instead of PUA Game? every experience i’ve had as well as everyday life tells me i’m taking the hardest road and though yes, the rewards ARE good at the end i also have to acknowledge someone cutting corners with asshole game can squash all my work of 1 month or more in 1 week (if that).
IMO this is little more than a chicken and the egg problem, “manwhores” or players or whatever are not created by sluts alone as some women would hope, a lot of good women go through their hands (only to bitch or drop the baggage on the good men later) and i’ll never get tired to say that if women really are tired of being treated like toilet paper maybe they should start by staying away from assholes.
Also, what Matt, The Private Man said.
God bless you VI, i really needed that chuckle right now.
This of course assumes betas get sex.
For a man who rarely gets laid, getting married for regular access to sex sounds like a good deal. For a man with options, the girl better be bringing something else to the table. FEMININITY
I wonder how overall relationship satisfaction compares between the promiscuous and non-promiscuous. I know average men who would be happy getting frequent sex from average American women, but these men would also have to deal with being emasculated and having wives with masculine personalities.
A former player is unlikely to settle down unless his girl can keep him happy in places other than the bedroom.
@Blues
If he can pull your girl that easy, then she isn’t good enough for you.
Susan,
Bullshit.
The Unfortunate Rake has it right, as usual
This is only “natural” when there’s some body of data to compare: if women are not only permitted but encouraged to swap partners often and to make love solely for fun, as an adjunct to their careers, then yes, this phenomenon will become common. How you don’t see this as deeply sad or a detriment to the prospect of lasting love I’ll never know.
As for women and statistics, consider Esther Vilar’s poignant description:
Attractive quality no. 1 in a man is confidence.
Confidence comes from experience. If you want a guy who can stand women, without pedestalizing nor patronizing, a guy who doesnt throw tantrums when you throw tantrums (and you will), a guy who GETS women, you need a guy who has EXPERIENCE with women.
Game is a joke. Experience is everything. You cant pimp a beta with some lines and make him attractive because you´ll dump him quickly when he starts failing the shit tests and is unable to handle your misbehavior and hormonal instability.
You need a guy who is like a rock, firm, with purpose, who is not chasing you with your drama plots but is there when you need him, etc. THE MAN.
A man aint born, its made.
I get women screen guys and think they are testing the substance of the guy or something. But its all behavior. Behavior and swagger and experience and confidence.
Of course women will say they dont want an alpha they want a cute beta. Always the same charade. Alphas bad they make me suffer, betas good they buy me gifts! way to go beta! but you will keep fucking the alpha and dumping the beta. Or staying with the beta and resenting it. Or wishing he would man up or something. Its always the same.
Whenever I see this “testosterone is bad” “men are bad” etc. I flip. This is so dumb.
Not for long though.
Again, i’d say it depends on the individual personality, can you say Roosh and Yohami are the same? didn’t think so.
@YOHAMI
“Game is a joke.”
I don’t think you understand what Game is since you described exactly it in your post.
Commissar,
I understand Game
I agree that it’s all about experience, but they don’t sell pills for those at the drug store, sure i get your POV, game is a joke for you because you already have a deeper level of understanding acquired and reinforced through experience, but for those that don’t Game is a start, a set of guidelines to follow in order to minimize failure while you actually build that experience, this is specially important for those over a certain age where women actually expect you to have that experience and consciously or not discard you for not having it. Maybe you don’t need game, but that doesn’t make it a joke.
I didn’t mean it after being in an LTR, but during competition, if i’ve been slowly seducing a girl for a while and she falls for a guy with asshole game i agree she’s dead to me, but that still doesn’t make me feel the time spent there any less wasted.
Blues,
Its the same Im always saying. Game is invaluable because right now its the ONLY recopilation of manly behavior and explains the theory behind women being batshit crazy and rejecting stuff when it should work. Red pill = glory.
But Game is also PUA, and when guys start getting Game also start doing PUA shit, and thats when it goes offrails, pretty quickly. The goal should be become alpha / become the alpha version of you. Not the PUA version of you.
So I embrace or hate game for convenience, mostly. The same word has several meanings. In this case, when women start the alpha-hating and go with the (clueless) assumption that a beta can “Game” his way up without changing his whole persona… or when a beta think he just need some “Game” to catch a special lady… or when a guy becomes a PUA with a thousand tricks and fake layers of fake… thats when I hate “Game”
Co-signing the Rake.
Nothing more to add to his post, other than to offer pithiness:
Options=Instability
@Yohami:
maybe it’s the only one, but i haven’t found any others either and i don’t think there will be in a while, so do i choose to fly solo and crash or use Game and slowly find my own maleness? sure, you’ll probably say “find your own maleness? you don’t find it you just be it” and yes, you’d be right, it should be that way, it should but a lifetime of programming isn’t overcome just like that, it takes time, believe me that if they sold betadeprogrammingzil i’d be OD’ing on that shit.
Outer game alone is PUA, inner game is alpha and as everything in life the best is to go for a balance of inner and outer game and use it your way, hence your way of the alpha.
Agreed, fake is useless but again whether if someone goes PUA or Alpha it’s up to the individual even if from 2 men with the same starting point and with the same basic guidelines.
Even a guy who I think has slept with a lot of women is a turn off to me. it’s hard to remain confident when I’d be left thinking “how the hell am i going to live up to those other ladies?”
Plus as silly as it sounds, I kind like sex to remain a fairly special thing that’s shared with someone you care about, and if they guy I am seeing doesn’t see it that way, chances are I am not going to sleep with him (Hello, Mr. Slurpeee!).
Deidre´s last [type] ..Signed, Sealed, Delivered…I’m yours. And I am sorry.
Blues,
Learn / read everything written about game first, and everything written and said against game too. And to find your maleness play the game, but mainly play the life game while being a man – not a “person”
@SW
I’ve known a lot of girls who *say* they want dudes who haven’t slept around, who act disgusted at high numbers, and so on, only to start kicking it with said dudes.
Seriously, “if I had a nickel…” and all that.
As long as the dude has a nice, mostly mistake free high hit list, a vast majority of girls conveniently forget all of those promiscuity preconditions they were previously mouthing. Because it really doesn’t matter to them if the dude has proven he’s got taste (and skill).
Adding on to ^
This causes me to question your “two sides of the SMP” assertion.
These girls that magically “end up” with the high notch (yet discerning) dudes, the girls I’m referring to, most of them could be described as goody-good, traditional, and so on.
Women reason that men who have had mostly casual sex have been primarily with sluts, and will have a tainted, cynical view of female nature.
I think this aspect of manwhores is underestimated. Heck, they don’t even have to be manwhores…just ODing on “red pill” meme’s that get repeated ad nauseum without any verification.
@Matt
Game is a tool to inspire and sustain attraction. Nothing more or less. It can be used to pump and dump sluts, virgins, or to find a bride. The process is the same regardless of the application. This research suggests that some applications are more useful than others for the man who hopes to marry and have a family.
@VI
This is a very important point. Marriage is about a lot more than sex. And marital sex life inevitably reflects what’s going on in the marriage, outside the bedroom. Both parties should aim to be “the whole package.” Women should be feminine, agreeable and low-maintenance. Men should be dominant yet demonstrative.
@Anonymous
Ah, you still haven’t read the blog! If you had, you’d know that I regularly admonish women that this is indeed a detriment to the prospect of lasting love. However, you’ve missed the point of the post, which is that it’s males comparing sexual partners that leads to dissatisfaction in marriage.
@Anonymous
Nice. A woman hater in the comment thread.
Gee, I don’t think the word “frigid” has been used since the 60s. A frigid woman is simply a woman you don’t know how to bring to climax.
You’re trolling. Go away.
@Yohami
I’m curious to know what you think of the research referenced here. With 200+ notches on your belt, do you think you could ever be “extremely satisfied” in a sexual relationship with one woman for the long-term?
Priceless.
Guys, Deidre is the third or fourth woman to weigh in here on this issue. We don’t want manwhores. Sluts want manwhores. If you want sluts, become a manwhore. Game provides the treasure map. Quality women want quality men who want quality women. The SMP is divided into two groups: the promiscuous, and the non-promiscuous. Every one of us must choose a team. Once you play for that team, crossing over becomes difficult.
WE DON”T WANT MANWHORES! You are as undesirable as a used tissue. Used, used and used again. It is disgusting to think I may follow one of those fuglies or fat chicks because you need a hole. Especially guys over 30. Pleeeease. I don’t care if mansluts value my morals. I am the one who matters and I choose to be selective. I enjoy sex with a man I respect. I am worth a selective partner.
@Blues
Preachy? Geez, that’s the last thing I want to be. OK, here’s my advice to beta guys, FWIW:
You have a lot of positive traits that women desire and select for in marriage. These traits will not be appreciated by women seeking ONSs or FWB. Avoid high testosterone women at all costs – you are not what they want.
Instead, target women in the same boat you are in – there are many attractive women not engaging in casual sex. They’re embarrassed to be virgins at 21, they may have tried a hookup or two, but they are not cut out for casual sex. Same as you. I know, you think hot women have a ton of sex. Wrong. I know quite a few who refuse to sell themselves cheaply and are looking for a good man. A good, dominant man.
However, you cannot get these women with supplicating behavior or pedestalizing, eager moves. All women require and appreciate dominance in males. The good news is, non-promiscuous women do not require the kind of dominance that sluts do – you don’t need to be a varsity athlete or a player. You just need to communicate comfort in your own skin and a genuine interest in getting to know a woman in order to qualify her. Make every woman work hard for your good opinion.
You should be relieved – you don’t need to bag dozens of chicks to be in the running. Figure out which women you want to target, and focus on those. If you select women who share your values and personality traits, you’re halfway there. Make it easier on yourself.
Ladies: Defining marriage as prison is a major red flag. Abort! Abort! Avoid any man who holds this view at all costs.
Susan,
I like studies like that. The data looks fine. However it doesnt say anything about if their sex life is actually good. What do they do? what kind of life do they share? are they overly happy? are the promiscuous matched with each other? etc. How many years have these marriages?
I think Rake had the best approach reading the alpha / beta here btw.
Sexually? sure. What Im having hard time finding for long term (having kids) is a woman of character
@whiteboykrispy
Sure, and let’s just say those girls might not exactly be marriage material. They’ve been “kicking it” with dudes throughout college and they’ve disqualified themselves. They’re in the “fuck” pile.
If you don’t intend to marry, no problem. You can continue to bang these girls – lord knows they’ll be available for the next 20 years. If, however, you might want to marry a girl who hasn’t been kicking it, you’re not such a great bet. You’re unlikely to be happy in a monogamous relationship. Being a manwhore will do that. You’ll never forget the women you bedded, and your wife will be competing every night. Eventually, you’ll grow bored and look elsewhere. That’s what promiscuity does to people.
“Sexually? sure. What Im having hard time finding for long term (having kids) is a woman of character.”
ha! good luck with that one! if you can’t find that in argentina or venezuela just imagine how bad the usa is. buena suerte.
“I’ve known a lot of girls who *say* they want dudes who haven’t slept around, who act disgusted at high numbers, and so on, only to start kicking it with said dudes.”
this level of either disconnect or lying is why the concept of their ‘rights’ must be called into question.
Yeah, maybe. The point of the post, though, is that they should be warned. These high notch, discerning dudes are not going to be satisfied. And where dissatisfaction grows, infidelity takes root. Personally, I would caution my daughter against any man with a number higher than 25 or so. Why take the risk, when there are so many good men who have far less experience? I know, you will say, “but women aren’t attracted to those men.” Eh, I don’t know. I see lots of good boyfriends from that cohort, and girls who appreciate them.
I dont see these couples around
Sue (only sluts like manwhores) and WBK (good girls like manwhores too!) seem to be at odds here. Here’s my take:
* Sluts like manwhores – true.
* Only sluts like manwhores (Sue’s point) – I think is dangerously false.
* LOTS of “Quality women” (WBK’s point) will gladly partake of manwhores on the sly while loudly proclaiming otherwise – oh so true. Red pill. Wish it weren’t so.
* A few “quality women” will stay away from manwhores completely (MY point).
Comments?
Do you mean a quality woman will turn down a famous athlete, actor, rockstar, musician, tv personality, etc, because he´s been with many other women?
I understand the claim but it doesnt match my reality
When a man is satisfied, you can see it. Literally. It’s kinda gross and its kinda hard to fake that. As for women, well refer to Meg Ryan in When Harry Met Sally.
We don’t need to worry about satisfying men. The proof is in the, ahem, pudding.
As for women, I read women orgasm in response to men that subconsciously meet her primal requirements. She may logically think she likes the guy with the Porsche, but her reptilian brain is the final judge.
A documentary on the learning channel said during orgasm the structure of the female reproductive system changes in ways that increase the likelihood of conception. If she only orgasms with acceptable men, then she is more likely to get pregnant by an acceptable man.
It’s great for the guy if she orgasms, but how do we know?!
@ Susan Walsh
You want it, you got it!
Here’s the study:
http://old.ncfr.org/pdf/press_releases/PRESS%20RELEAS2.pdf
Here’s the sober analysis at Social Pathologist:
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html
Here’s the Roissy treatment:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/why-sluts-make-bad-wives/
The most important thing to remember is the study finds pre-marital sex and co-habitation does not increase divorce risk if it’s with her eventual husband.
It’s a chicken or the egg dilemma: are fast women less likely to commit, or does fast living erode her ability to commit?
This is what I get for making such an absolute statement
I’m not sure that I’ve got a good comprehensive analysis of the situation. My opinion is based on observations of married couples, and those who have broken up. But if I were to hazard a guess, I think that it’s rooted in expectations and the balance of obligations that has emerged between husbands and wives.
Despite the social changes that have occurred over the past several decades, husbands are still expected to engage in the marriage as they have traditionally – provide money and stability, a lifestyle. But women are bombarded with all sorts of contradictory imperatives. They should be good mothers, and also be ‘independent’ and have a vibrant and fulfilling career. Their husbands should contribute equally in domestic duties, yet also provide the lions share of income to the family. This while they ( the wife ) are exhorted to devote themselves to their own happiness and never lose their identity to a man. But that’s exactly what happens when you get married. Your ‘identity’ becomes fused with another person, and this entails obligations to that person, and compromises.
That’s the set-up, and I think that it causes women to resent their husbands for performing the exact roles that are expected of them. While they seek the comfort and security that marriage provides, they’re made to feel that the reciprocal obligations that arise in this arrangement belittle them. So you end up with a very one sided view of what marriage should be. It’s the what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is mine attitude that men often complain about.
And keep in mind that this is coming from a male perspective. One of the most consistent sentiments that I’ve heard from male friends who’ve divorced, where there wasn’t some dramatic external cause to the divorce, is that they’ve felt that their ex’s had become childish or adolescent. I’ve taken this as an expression of their frustration in trying to deal with, what they perceived to be, unrealistic attitudes and demands of the ex. Basically they’ve felt that they were backed into a corner and set-up to fail by their wives. None of their efforts were good enough and only confirmed their wife’s conviction that she was being victimized, either by action or omission.
@OffTheCuff
“A few “quality women” will stay away from manwhores completely (MY point)”
Agreed.
I was just trying to point out that it’s important not to take too much stock into girl’s promiscuity preconditions, they are often worthless. I wanted to put an early stop to any “all quality girls will only go after chaste/low-count men” arguments that might come up, because that’s just not true.
It’s important to point out that a lot of these quality girls, though, were able to get some of these promiscuous dudes to commit, and I have little doubt it was because of their quality. One of my good friends, a player of tremendous skill, just got locked up by a quality hottie- she’s extremely feminine and has only been with one other dude, a very LTR. Heck, late February one just about got me until I messed it up. But that’s a whole ‘nother story.
Regardless of how you may say you prefer your dudes, your attraction centers don’t care, and being a quality girl will help you get what you want tremendously.
@tito
“this level of either disconnect or lying is why the concept of their ‘rights’ must be called into question.”
Girl’s often don’t understand what attracts them, inviting disconnect. Nothing criminal or subhuman about it.
+1, If i see this it’s quiiiiiiiiiiiiite rare, last time i saw one was 4 years ago and they were both good friends of mine but they broke up cause she’s the workaholic type, she kinda seems aware of the missed opportunity now that she’s reaching 30 but she hasn’t slowed down.
It’s as if WBK’s and your accounts are the norm and what SW speaks of the exceptions that confirm the rule :-/ .
This is what i heard but when she does there’s involuntary gina spams that as another guy put it “not even Meryl Streep can fake”.
Cosign this
@ OhioStater:
Interesting that you bring up the Bachelorette example. (God, is it any more obvious that I’m slowly becoming a reality TV slave? Egagks.) I just want to point out one thing — Bentley, the cad, was a Mormon who graduated from BYU.
For anyone unfamiliar, Mormonism requires virginity before marriage. Students at BYU are bound by honor-code to not drink alcohol, coffee, do drugs, or have premarital sex. This is highly supported by the campus culture.
And yet you will still find that the “alphas” of the bunch have several orbiters, whom they will tease and lead on until they pick the hottest/most feminine/whatever trait is a la mode to commit to. They’re not having sex — far from it. But you still see alpha behavior with plenty of traditional Mormon women paying attention.
Take from that what you will. The point I am trying to make is that you don’t need to have sexual experience to be attractive to women — you need to have experience with female behavior. There’s a difference.
Also, I’ve mentioned this anecdote here before, but when I was in undergrad (gawd that makes me sound so old now) one of my friends (a virgin) wouldn’t have sex with her boyfriend after she found out he’d slept with 8 different girls before her and never got tested for STDs.
And do I really have to be the 6th or so woman here to pipe up and say that I absolutely will not go near a trash dick? Seriously, men here are so eager to relay just exactly how they feel about female sluts and LTRs, why can’t you extend the same courtesy? There is most definitely a boomerang effect. Add that to your red pill.
Ladies: Defining marriage as prison is a major red flag. Abort! Abort! Avoid any man who holds this view at all costs.
One of the advices I consider the dumbest is not to mention the M word ever so you don’t scare a guy. I will say that if you are looking for marriage dating a guy that can’t even heard the word without panicking is stupid. My husband and I started to talk marriage very early on, of course given that I was 3000 miles way there had to be a commitment for him to go and visit me, but still I always find a way to determine the attitude about marriage (and fidelity) of a guy as soon as it was wise and before I invested emotionally on him.
Sexually? sure. What Im having hard time finding for long term (having kids) is a woman of character
Do you look for diamonds in a trash can? I think the venues and the places you meet women are usually avoided by women of character. No to mention that if your rep is out chances are you are already disqualified and they don’t even want you as a friend, YMMV.
Stephie,
How would you know?
How would you know?
I’m a woman of character, remember and I know quite a few, they avoid musicians and avoid the bohemian type that wants to have a good time and they don’t make a habit of visiting bars, didn’t you advice a married woman in MMSL about not going to a girls night out because is dangerous for her to keep herself faithful? You think no woman of character knows that?
Stephie,
Hooke me up with an artsy type with a smart logical brain, a sensitive side and hot femininity, well read, cultured, ambitious, nurturish, well tempered, who cares about other than herself and isnt a drama queen.
If you know that one, she´s been looking for me.
I’m a woman of character, remember and I know quite a few, they avoid musicians and avoid the bohemian type that wants to have a good time and they don’t make a habit of visiting bars, didn’t you advice a married woman in MMSL about not going to a girls night out because is dangerous for her to keep herself faithful? You think no woman of character knows that?
Instead of calling you a delusional narcissist, I’ll just ask. Where do you find a good-looking woman of character?
Instead of calling you a delusional narcissist, I’ll just ask. Where do you find a good-looking woman of character?
Well I never said I am good looking so…Also why delusional or narcissistic? being of character is not an unattainable goal you know, neither is recognizing ones good traits being narcissistic. Also you need to be a man of character to get one, are you?
Hooke me up with an artsy type with a smart logical brain, a sensitive side and hot femininity, well read, cultured, ambitious, nurturish, well tempered, who cares about other than herself and isnt a drama queen.
If you know that one, she´s been looking for me.
Sorry I don’t play match maker with trovadours only princes and princesses.
I agree with everything Stephanie Rowling said.
It’s not narcissistic for a good girl to want to date a good boy. Manwhores are damaged goods; good girls deserve better.
I’m a virgin and my boyfriend is also a virgin [he's an Alpha - yes, Alpha virgins exist]. My boyfriend appreciates my virginity. He doesn’t treat me with suspicion or think “all women are like that.” I appreciate how my boyfriend has the self-control to not slut around in college.
I turned down offers from manwhores until I met my boyfriend. I want a LTR, not a ONS. Good girls view manwhores as a lost cause.
Off Topic: Stephanie, are you still going to start a blog? I was looking forward to it. I always agree with your comments.
What exactly makes him an Alpha?
Non-Anglo women are overrated. Yes, they act more feminine, and consequently, they will activate more of your masculine protector impulses. However, there is nothing innately better about them than Anglo women. Put them in DC, and they will start to degrade, to reveal their true character.
Foreign women are not of better character than Anglo women, they just appear to be.
Ohio Stater said:
“Attractive men, men without one-itis, rarely form a strong attraction. It’s called emotionally distant. It’s part of the appeal. Male attachment is called one-itis and women don’t like it.”
Dude –
Be careful about this line of reasoning.
It is totally possible, as an attractive man, to fall in love with a woman. Women will even love you back. Don’t forgo the tremendous pleasure of a passionate, head-over-heels, whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-it’s-parts relationship. Relationships like that are one of the best parts of being human.
Don’t get too focused on the manosphere and what some of the stricter Game type people say. I worry that if you (and others reading, obviously) think too much like that, you’re going to shoot yourself in the foot instead of allowing a great girl to love you, and love her in turn.
Go read about the girl that broke Sinn’s (the PUA with a strange but good blog) heart if you don’t believe me. Check out Athol Kay’s stuff, too, for a glimpse at a positive story.
Don’t get me wrong – you’ve still got to put some work in, and a little Game goes a long way. I sometimes think of an old David D’Angelo line that goes “A little unavailability is a fundamental part of attraction.” That’s probably a better way to think of it, rather than likening love/strong attachment to being immediately friend-zoned.
There is something amazing about still being in love, and having the love of, a really hot, awesome girl after a year or two or five. There’s no bullshit between you and the level of trust is very high. It’s a totally different feeling than casually dating, or even a good, short relationship. There’s nothing better than a lazy Sunday morning at home with a woman who’s loved you for years and still does, and you’ve passionately loved for just as long. Shit, if I could bottle that feeling, I’d sell it and build a moon base or something.
Not trying to lecture you or anything – merely offering a word of caution.
@Tom –
I can’t respond to you because I think you’re a woman with a man’s name. Just feels wrong, kind of. It’s like when you pay all kinds of money for a really hot Thai hooker, then all “she” wants to do is fuck you in the ass while singing Julie Andrews songs or showtunes, and “her” dick is bigger than yours anyway. Plus, maybe the hooker’s pitch is off and “Doe, a deer” is maybe a half-step flat, and the heavy Thai accent makes the lyrics sound all fucked up. Know whamsayin’?
Shit sucks, dude.
Quoth The Susan:
“Still, I’ve heard many players speak nostalgically about the best BJ they ever had, or that woman who was just a wildcat in bed, though too crazy to put up with out of bed. I find it credible that those experiences stay with a man, and become a source of comparison, whether intentional or not, when he settles with a life partner.”
I had a girlfriend like that. She was bipolar (found out after we started dating and she trusted me a bit) and hated taking meds. When she was on the upward slope of Mt. Hypomania, the sex was nuts. Upon reflection a few years later, the sex was the only good part of the relationship.
I might be old fashioned or anachronistic or whatever, but I’d rather have sex with a girl I love and trust. It’s just more satisfying, somehow. Hard to put into words. There is more to sex than the mechanical part.
Sometimes I feel like re-writing Shakespeare’s Henry V St. Crispin’s Day speech to inspire the dwindling numbers of romantic-type guys out there:
“we few, we happy few, we band of romantics;
For he to-day that sheds his trousers, socks and shoes with the girl he loves
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This manner of relating to women shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed with bar sluts
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their notches cheap whiles any speaks
Of actually enjoying monogamy.”
Kind of peters out there at the end, but I’m still in re-writes with the production staff.
YOHAMI fountained:
“So I embrace or hate game for convenience, mostly. The same word has several meanings. In this case, when women start the alpha-hating and go with the (clueless) assumption that a beta can “Game” his way up without changing his whole persona… or when a beta think he just need some “Game” to catch a special lady… or when a guy becomes a PUA with a thousand tricks and fake layers of fake… thats when I hate “Game”
That is steel on target, dude.
The kind of “Game” you get from memorizing acronyms and watching five minute “infield” videos on Youtube, then nervously sarging drunk club girls is about as strong as an eggshell and half as deep.
Now, actually being able to treat women as fellow humans, understanding a little about evo-psych, arriving at a workable theory on attraction between the sexes, and having an unflappable belief in your own undeniable awesomeness – that is Game worth learning/becoming.
@OhioStater
Re your study on the sluts and marriage, does it show what impact the man’s past partners had? I looked and looked and can’t find it. Please could you point out?
Because on first look my thoughts are it is unusual in this day and age for virgin brides, and that they are most likely to be married another virgin (or other very low count man). Like Mormons? So there are other factors at play.
Put it another way, if a regular woman marries as a virgin and she marries a man who has had over 200 partners, is it less likely she will divorce just because she had married as a virgin and no other factors, e.g. very religious. And does anyone have any examples of a relationship like this and the man hasn’t cheated?
@some of the guys here
Per the titles ‘ Manwhores: For Casual Sex Only’
Get it? It doesn’t matter what your experiences in the casual sex market are. It doesn’t matter if girls say they don’t want to hook up with you (maybe this is ASD amongst those girls) and then do hook up. This post is about marriage not casual sex. It raises some interesting points. It may also cross over into women’s dual mating strategies. You don’t have to agree with the post (I don’t) but these anecdotes of casual sex in college etc are irrelevant.
@Yohami
Your list makes you sound as entitled as American men. It is not very likely in one person. Come on, you’re clever than that. You need to prioritise. And women of character, especially the ones who are looking to get married tend not to hang around bars, clubs or at musicians appartment parties. Or around musicians.
@VI
Tom, if it were any more obvious that you’re a woman, your tits would be showing.
__________
You make me laugh..
You`d shit yourself if you said that in front of me..I could squash you like a bug
( But I probably wouldnt)
Rake
If you want to have a sexually happy husband, choose a man for whom monotonous sex with the same person over and over and over again with no hope of escape is actually an improvement over what he’s doing now.
________________
What makes you think that sex with the same person has to be monotonous?
If you are with the right sexually charged woman, who does it all, it is never boring.
@ Mike
There is a large element of truth to all of this but there is another side to this. There are things a man can get from a LTR/marriage that he can’t get from any random piece of ass even if it is astounding. The corollary to that from the woman’s perspective is to bring alot more to the marriage/committment table than just sex or even really good sex.
.
I don’t know….there is more to life than sex, and at least to me there are very good reasons to live a life of 6-7 on a scale of 1-10 with sexual satisfaction if you are getting alot of other things that more then make up for not living a life of 9 with sexual satisfaction.
__________________
Bingo Mike great answer.
You don’t see any couples around where both partners have banged fewer than 25 people? Only a small fraction of the male population is over that – and yet, despite declining rates of marriage and birth, the vast majority of people are getting busy.
Perhaps this is a function of where you hang out.
@OffTheCuff
This is not my point. Lots of women find manwhores physically attractive. Even as women deride a guy for being a manwhore, they’ll acknowledge how hot he is. It’s what he does with his natural appeal that women find repellent. Sluts are more impulsive, and have less future time orientation. “What the hell, he’s hot, I’m horny.” Less promiscuous women are more likely to be wary, “Man, he’s dicked over so many women. He’s such a douchebag. Nothing good can come of that.”
I disagree. As WBK has said, cads pump up their numbers by preying on “quality girls” who are naive, often freshmen. Many girls get burned by a cad or two before they figure out the deal. So yes, there’s always a fresh crop of Red Riding Hoods, but women take a red pill of their own. Stay away from wolves.
“Famous” is a whole other ball game. That man offers fame by association, a powerful lure. Even banging an ugly musician as a groupie gives a girl stories to tell for the rest of her life. However, a quality woman is not a groupie. Matt Damon courted a cocktail waitress and married her. She appears to be a high quality woman. Of course she wouldn’t turn him down, but that’s different than orbiting famous men hoping to hitch a ride.
Sorry, any woman can fake an orgasm. She can even fake those spasms by doing Kegels. I’ll give you the secret: if she orgasms her heart will pound. It tells the truth every single time.
BTW, don’t be too hard on women faking orgasms. I advise against it, because it gives positive reinforcement for something that isn’t getting her off. But in truth, many women fake to gratify the men they care about. Sometimes we just can’t come, and we don’t want men to take it personally. And we can enjoy sex very much without orgasming, which is something that I think is hard for guys to comprehend. We value the emotional experience with a man we love, and sometimes that is enough.
@ Dog
I can’t respond to you because I think you’re a woman with a man’s name. Just feels wrong, kind of. It’s like when you pay all kinds of money for a really hot Thai hooker, then all “she” wants to do is fuck you in the ass while singing Julie Andrews songs or showtunes, and “her” dick is bigger than yours anyway. Plus, maybe the hooker’s pitch is off and “Doe, a deer” is maybe a half-step flat, and the heavy Thai accent makes the lyrics sound all fucked up. Know whamsayin’?
Shit sucks, dude.
____________________
Lmaoooo
Now THAT made me laugh….
@Starvin Marvin
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree with everything you’ve said. This is precisely the argument Andrew Hacker makes in his book Mismatch.
@Doqsquat
I love how I saieth and quoth.
God, I love your riff on St. Crispin. Coincidentally, I looked up and read that speech yesterday. It’s one of the best examples of peer pressure ever written. Men die for their comrades, not the cause.
I’m sorry but this just isn’t remotely the case. I wouldn’t discount the odd duckling here or there but there sure as hell aren’t “many” of them. Basically every girl I know both in and out of college started having sex around fourteen or fifteen and has at the very least one or two quote unquote “relationships” to her name. Even if I were “marriage-minded” or whatever, I’m also apparently far more interested in commitment than most of these girls, definitely the ones who’ve been in my life. I don’t know which statistics you’ve been reading but they don’t bear any reality whatsoever to my campus.
@ Anonymousey
Nope, that study focuses on female promiscuity. Why? 70% of divorces are initiated by women. To curtail the majority of divorces, aka female marriage dis-satisfaction, we need to better understand female attraction and where men fall short.
The other 30% of divorces are alpha males trading in their first wife for a newer model. What’s wrong with that? If a 45 or 50 yr old CEO wants more kids, can his high school sweetheart make that happen?
So if marriage is predicated on pleasure…the proof is in the pudding. If the husband wants a fetish or variety, run to your divorce lawyer now! If the husband wants more kids, adopt?
We can’t forget marriage is an institution designed to conceive and raise legitimate kids. If there are no kids, then you’ve removed one leg of the stool.
When marriage was codified, people didn’t live to 50, 60, 70 years of age. If they did, each had several partners; the men all died at sea, in war or in duels; many women didn’t survive childbirth.
Maybe we should accept short-term marriage is normal, especially in a culture with weak values and no moral pressure.
Say Whaat:
There appears to be an interesting dichotomy here. All the women who have posted in this thread insist that they – and most “quality women” – have no interest in manwhores. Men have replied that in their experience manwhores have no difficulty whatsoever in attracting quality women for either casual hookups or long term relationships, including marriage. They are not achieving their high numbers solely by focusing on sluts. This suggests that either the female posters are an unusual group or there is a difference between women’s stated and revealed preferences. The latter is, of course, one of the cardinal tenets of game.
Thought experiment – imagine Warren Beatty at the time he made Shampoo, 35 years or so ago. He was in his late thirties then and his number count had already reached four figures. How many women then or now would have turned him down solely because he had been too promiscuous?
Yohami and Dogsquat are quickly becoming my two favorite new posters here.
+1 for experience trumping all…if you’re depressed or unhappy with your sex/personal life, just find a way to get out of your comfort zone and DO something. I don’t care how simplistic it sounds.
I have to echo others’ skepticism here. I reckon a hot, feminine girl with only a hookup or two is pretty damned rare nowadays. Even rarer is a girl like the above who doesn’t look down her nose at 90% of the guys she interacts with.
Susan, I also disagree with your assessment of high T = alpha = cad. If it were that simple, you’d see men supplementing their T levels en masse. (PS thanks for the welcome back!)
What someone else said – how do you know he’s an alpha?
“Clearly, marriage-minded women should be concerned about a man’s sexual experience prior to monogamous commitment.
Even if you get a manwhore to settle down, you are very unlikely to rock his world.”
Finally, some common sense from a very smart and switched on Lady. Thankyou for this Susan.
Puts paid to the myth spread around by promiscuous men that women want a man with experience.. (hey maybe a slut does..) I have never known a woman who wanted to marry such a man.
That men can sleep with a slew of women and still bond with a woman when they marry.. is also another furphy… Of course that woman must be virginal or have a very low partner count.. else she won’t be able to bond, with her man
I think the word “manwhore” is generally used to mean, “A man of experience who I personally think is a sleazy douchebag and regard with disgust.”
But a man of equal or greater experience whom the woman finds attractive will be magically hamstered out of the category “manwhore.”
George Clooney leaps to mind. Despite his exceptionally high notch count, few single women offered the opportunity to get to know him better would decline on the basis that he is a “manwhore” or “trash dick.”
I don’t believe that a high notch count is the primary criterion for placing a man in the “manwhore” category. It’s a necessary condition, but other factors must be present for a man to go from “attractively preselected” to “undesirable manwhore.”
I don’t think a man having had *some* frivolous sexual experience is so bad, but 100 count is pretty ridiculous and I’d be very wary of that – don’t forget the likelihood of undetected STDs too – condoms are next to useless against HPV and herpes. It does get to a point where it’s just gross. :-& Humans are not meant to be that promiscuous and the rampant STD problem is evidence of that.
And we can enjoy sex very much without orgasming, which is something that I think is hard for guys to comprehend.
Yeah this like penis size is one of the things many men need to take their red pill, men and women are different and sex can be enjoyable in many levels with or without orgasms.
his suggests that either the female posters are an unusual group or there is a difference between women’s stated and revealed preferences.
I think this is your answer. To be frank women are not encouraged to try and see things from men’s POV in our modern times and you don’t need to understand men to get sex from them and women are taugh that men are passive about relationships and the moment they demand it they can get LTR from them, again without trying to get to see their POV. So really the fact that we are commenting here and not in Jezebel or Feministing is a good indication that we are an unusual group.
How many women then or now would have turned him down solely because he had been too promiscuous?
I think you are a bit confused about this, status is a turn on for many women, promiscuity can be or not be a turn off, it depends in the woman. Warren Beatty could probably get away with a higher number than the average guy. Is like a hot slut getting a marriage proposal the hotter she is the more likely a guy will look the other way if that gets him unlimited access to her. So that is pretty much the issue. Unless you are willing to gain so much status that promiscuity doesn’t affect you (and I mean depending on the woman again) then is not such a good idea to keep acumulating notches in your belt thinking that the moment you want a quality woman will just be waiting for you to get her a ring. There is a point in which a woman will lose status for pairing up with a man with a really bad reputation of womanizer.
To use an example Panty’s guy (Mike C’s friend) will have a hard time to get any real relationship with a quality woman if he ever wanted one, if he were an actor or a millionaire maybe that would be a different question,YMMV.
Interesting.
manwhore (noun): a male of low status who is perceived to have had sex with many women
Any problems with this definition?
1 2 3 … 6 »
{ 4 trackbacks }