329»

Which Personalities Are Best For Relationships?

Just because things have been a little dull around here, and I figured we could use a good debate, I decided to find out what I could about the link between sexual behavior and personality traits. Many questions have been raised at HUS about the uniformity of inclinations towards certain behaviors, or whether they exist on a spectrum of some sort. Specifically, I wondered what kinds of men want “one and done,” and what kinds of women embrace their inner slut.

Prominent evolutionary psychologist David Schmitt is the founder of the International Sexuality Description Project. The ISDP was an anonymous self-report survey of more than 16,000 subjects in 52 countries, studying the link between personality, infidelity and promiscuity.

Short-term mating is likely to have been a recurrent feature of human evolutionary history, occasionally generating substantial reproductive benefits for ancestral members of both sexes. But there are reproductively-relevant costs to short-term mating as well, for ancestral humans as assuredly as for modern humans. For example, short-term mating behaviors—including variants such as promiscuity, infidelity, and the poaching of other people’s long-term partners—represent significant health concerns to individuals, relationships, and societies throughout the world. Short-term mating can lead to relationship dissolution, sexual jealousy and violent retribution by aggrieved partners, and the contraction of sexually-transmitted diseases and infections. 

An important task for personality psychologists is to identify those individual differences most closely associated with short-term mating. Doing so would give scientists a better framework for understanding the etiology of permissive sexual attitudes and risky sexual practices.

First, a definition of the Big 5 personality traits, the model widely used in contemporary psychology to understand the link between personality and behavior:

Extraversion: Energy, positive emotions, approach behavior, impulsivity and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others.

Agreeableness:  A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.

Conscientiousness: A tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behavior.

Neuroticism:  A tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability.

Openness: Appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, curiosity, and variety of experience. (Sometimes also referred to as intellect.)

Schmitt was not the first to study these links; there was already a robust body of scholarship looking at specific correlations, but Schmitt’s study was on a scale not attempted before. There were 2,766 Americans in the survey, and 3,976 North Americans in total. A follow-up study was done by Todd Shackleford and published in a 2008 edition of Evolutionary Psychology. It looked at the relationship between personality traits and the tendency toward short-term mating.

Here are the highlights of the findings for North America:

I. Extraversion is a strong predictor of short-term mating behaviors, including promiscuity and infidelity, though results vary slightly by sex.  

Note: Interest in short-term mating looks at the total number of sex partners desired, the willingness to have sex after various time intervals, and whether the subject is currently seeking a short-term mate.

  Males Females
Interest in s.t. mating* X X
Willingness to have sex without commitment X X
Mate poaching attempts X X
Succumbed to poaching   X
Infidelity X  

 

II, III. Low agreeableness and low conscientiousness both predict all forms of short-term mating behavior for both sexes. The strongest link is to infidelity for both traits.  

The strongest personality predictor of short-term mating is impulsive sensation-seeking. Studies have consistently linked sensation-seeking to short-term mating, including men’s patronage of prostitutes. Impulsive sensation seeking is closely associated with the Big Five dimensions of low agreeableness and low conscientiousness.

  Males Females
Interest in s.t. mating X X
Willingness to have sex without commitment X X
Mate poaching attempts X X
Succumbed to poaching  X X
Infidelity X  X

 

IV. Among North American men, neuroticism was not associated with short-term mating orientation. However, the correlation was significant for females.

  Males Females
Interest in s.t. mating   X
Willingness to have sex without commitment   X
Mate poaching attempts   X
Succumbed to poaching   X
Infidelity    X

 

V. In men, openness predicted lower interest in short-term mating overall. Low levels of openness were correlated with increased infidelity and succumbing to mate poaches.

In women, high openness predicted interest in short-term mating and willingness to have sex without commitment.

What are the implications of these findings?

First, a disclaimer from the researchers:

In this research we have assumed that personality traits lead to short-term mating. An equally plausible alternative is that the causal links between personality and sexuality flow in the opposite direction. That is, short-term mating interests and behaviors may lead to the development of particular personality traits. Engaging in mate poaching, for example, could lead people to become disagreeable just as much as disagreeableness could lead to mate poaching. 

Personality and sexuality also could reinforce one another, serving as a feedback loop that once initiated becomes difficult to disengage. Such could be the origin of adult romantic attachment styles, love styles, and other psychological constructs that involve the confluence of personality traits and romantic relationships.

There were also a couple of findings that were common to all countries studied:

“People who describe themselves as more unfaithful tend to have personality traits linked to a lack of trust and empathy (i.e. low agreeableness; Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997), and they tend to be disorganized and unreliable (i.e. low conscientiousness; Hogan & Ones, 1997).” 

“The personality psychology of adultery is not the same as the personality psychology of more generalized sexual promiscuity. Sexual promiscuity does relate to personality traits, but it most strongly relates to the Big Five personality trait of extraversion. This is true across many world regions of the ISDP.”

Finally, we do not know what percentage of the population displays each of these personality traits, much less the various particular clusters of traits. The cluster most strongly correlated to short-term mating behavior is the personality that is highly extraverted, disagreeable and not conscientious. In short, a person who:

  • is gregarious and highly social, and…
  • lacks concern for others, and…
  • loves to be impulsive and spontaneous, and…
  • isn’t striving to achieve…
IS BAD NEWS! ABORT! ABORT!
 
Additionally, men should avoid psycho chicks at all costs – they’re promiscuous and they also cheat.
 
Ladies, here’s a description of the ideal long-term partner:
  1. Introverted
  2. Empathic
  3. Cooperative
  4. Self-disciplined
  5. Organized
  6. Achievement-oriented
  7. Intellectual
  8. Open to new experiences
What’s that? You don’t think that’s exciting enough? Well, don’t say I didn’t warn you. This is a pretty good description of Mr. HUS and I have found him to be an excellent catch. He makes my life interesting. And he doesn’t cheat. I highly recommend this profile. 
  • Passer_by

    I’m not sure I understand the difference between “succumbed to mate poaching” and “infidelity”. Aren’t you engaging in infidelity when you succumb to mate poaching?

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

      @Passer By

      I’m not sure I understand the difference between “succumbed to mate poaching” and “infidelity”. Aren’t you engaging in infidelity when you succumb to mate poaching?

      I believe that succumbing to mate poaching means ditching the person you’re with for a new partner. Whether it’s trading up or going for variety it indicates a desire to switch partners more often.

  • Sassy6519

    Ladies, here’s a description of the ideal long-term partner:

    Introverted
    Empathic
    Cooperative
    Self-disciplined
    Organized
    Achievement-oriented
    Intellectual
    Open to new experiences

    I’m okay with this list, for the most part. The only trait I have a qualm about is the introversion. If I could keep the rest of the traits, but substitute introverted with extroverted, I think that would be optimal for me.

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

      @Sassy

      Extraversion is the personality trait with the strongest correlation to promiscuity and cheating. I say this as a highly extraverted person myself. Speaking strictly in terms of the odds, I say go for the strong and silent type.

      We’ve put extraverts on a pedestal in our culture. Introverted individuals make a very nice complement to an extravert, I have found. YMMV of course.

  • http://aplace-formythoughts.blogspot.com/ Renee

    Introverted, Empathic, Cooperative, Self-disciplined, Organized, Achievement-oriented, Intellectual, Open to new experiences

    Yep, sounds about right :)…although me being more on the introverted side myself, I wouldn’t mind being with someone who was a little more extroverted.

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

      @Renee

      Yep, sounds about right …although me being more on the introverted side myself, I wouldn’t mind being with someone who was a little more extroverted.

      Well of course there is a spectrum. You probably don’t want to be with the guy who’s the lead guitarist in a rock band, or the one who loves to soak up attention in the middle of a crowd. I thought it was interesting that one component of extraversion is “approach behavior.” If a person – male or female – is willing and eager to open a lot of strangers in any setting, they’re more likely to have short-term relationships, and to stray. Perhaps they meet more people and have more options – as the researchers said, it’s hard to determine cause and effect. Personally, I like the idea of a partner who is not constantly being offered and considering new options.

  • Chris_in_CA

    Interesting findings. I’m not sure I go along with all the definitions (for one, it appears that ‘positive emotions’ is associated with extraversion only, and thereby subsequently linked to preference for short-term mating).

    This finding also caught my eye:

    IV. Among North American men, neuroticism was not associated with short-term mating orientation. However, the correlation was significant for females.

    Neuroticism here is defined as “a tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability.” A man who does not restrain his anger is usually regarded as exciting/alpha/bad boy, which encourages short-term mating. But showing anxiety, depression or vulnerability are seen as beta, which discourage short-term mating. So, bit of a paradox in the definitions. (I don’t know if this was accounted for in the study’s variables.)

    Weirder still, the same kinds of behavior would seem to work differently for women. Showing anger tends to drive men away, discouraging the potential for short-term mating (even if the woman is willing).

    Whereas being depressed or vulnerable may compel (some) men to help the woman, leading toward the formation of relationships – inadvertently discouraging short-term mating as well (in favor of long-term).

    Perhaps I’m missing something. But the finding doesn’t seem to match the definitions.

    When I read your ‘ideal long-term partner’ description I immediately thought, “Wow, beta/omega traits. Girls don’t run TO that, they run AWAY from it.”

    Then you said, “What’s that? You don’t think that’s exciting enough?”

    Bravo, you anticipated the thought.

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

      @Chris in CA

      Some interesting thoughts there.

      Whereas being depressed or vulnerable may compel (some) men to help the woman, leading toward the formation of relationships – inadvertently discouraging short-term mating as well (in favor of long-term).

      You’re speaking to the man’s role – which in this case might be a savior role. What the research is suggesting is that depressed women, along with other kinds of neurotic women, are the ones who pursue STRs. She’s likely to switch partners on a dime, having sex without commitment, have a larger number of partners, etc. This makes sense to me, as I have seen young women try to bolster their mood or self-esteem with casual sex. One of my focus groups has an expression – “fuck away the pain.” That is an acknowledged form of self-medication in hookup culture. Unfortunately, it comes with some side effects.

      I don’t think my description of the ideal partner is at all omega. I see no reason why a man with those traits couldn’t be alpha. What’s missing, as you point out, is the “bad boy” quality. Heaven help us if those are the only alphas.

  • Emily

    >> “In men, openness predicted lower interest in short-term mating overall. Low levels of openness were correlated with increased infidelity and succumbing to mate poaches.”

    I’m pleasantly surprised by this. This is a trait that I’ve always found particularly attractive.

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

      “In men, openness predicted lower interest in short-term mating overall. Low levels of openness were correlated with increased infidelity and succumbing to mate poaches.”

      I’m pleasantly surprised by this. This is a trait that I’ve always found particularly attractive.

      Me too! Openness would include Renaissance man types, really smart guys with varied interests, etc. I have truly never understood how women can want to be with some dumb guy. I dated one in college – he was high status – and that cured me. He was not a cad, though he might have been if he’d been born 20 years later. But he had so little going on in his head – he was a bear of little brain. I think my parents were petrified that I would marry him and have his children.

  • Chris_in_CA

    And in the time it took to write my comment, two women commented that they wanted extraversion over introversion. I’ll just sit back and chuckle now.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Perhaps I’m missing something. But the finding doesn’t seem to match the definitions.

    I think is because many women use sex as a way to deal with their emotional issues. So depressed, vulnerable or angry women might be more likely to go to a bar to pick a man to have a short high from the validation. Susan once posted a testimonial of how a woman felt like a sex goddess after bedding an attractive man, YMMV.

  • SayWhaat

    Hm, while I definitely have crushed on a couple extroverts, I think the majority of guys I’ve dated have tended more towards introversion.

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

      Hm, while I definitely have crushed on a couple extroverts, I think the majority of guys I’ve dated have tended more towards introversion.

      In my ahem, not insubstantial experience, I have found introverted men to be more emotionally intense, and more sexually intense. I feel like they bottle up their emotion, and when they express it, they do so very strongly. Also, in my experience, they don’t BS nearly as much. What you see is what you get.

      I think introverted men are undervalued. My mother always said still waters run deep, and I have found that to be true.

      By the way, my introverted husband is as talkative as can be around home. He’s not the least bit reserved with me or the family. It’s in social situations, and also probably at work, that he tends to be more reserved. He’s been accused of aloofness before, but nothing could be further from the truth.

      Badger had a good post about caring for your introvert:

      http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/caring-for-your-introvert/

  • Chris_in_CA

    @Ana

    That’s a very good point. Emotional validation via short-term mating. Ultimately self-sabotaging I think, but thinking isn’t foremost in such decisions.

    I didn’t consider that before (very analytical – and male – mind).

    It plugs into a couple Game concepts too, including the ‘five minutes of alpha’ one Rollo wrote on.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Ultimately self-sabotaging I think, but thinking isn’t foremost in such decisions.

    Specially if you are prone to short term thinking and thrill seeking. I know a couple of those types and for them the level of release from the five seconds encounters triumphs the level of anxiety caused by waiting for longer than their personal limit allows.

  • Tom.s

    I would like to add, according to wikipedia, 68% of us fall into the category of ambiversion. This is in the middle of the extraversion – introversion spectrum.

    With that in mind, it my be possible to date someone who has qualities of an introvert that discourage infidelity, but also someone who enjoys social interaction.

    I’d like to think I fit into that category…

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

      @Tom.s

      With that in mind, it my be possible to date someone who has qualities of an introvert that discourage infidelity, but also someone who enjoys social interaction.

      I agree, I think that what people need to watch out for is the kind of behavior that is about seeking external validation – caring deeply what others think, and making their choices on that basis. And of course, highly charismatic people are going to get more attention and have more opportunities to switch partners. I don’t think we need to counsel women to go after guys who don’t want to leave home. Like everything else, it’s on a spectrum.

  • Robber

    Susan, your ideal long-term partner list describes me to a tee. Too bad that most women I’ve met want something more – dare I say, more Alpha? The classic paradox – they want the guy who is alpha enough to get all the girls he wants, but he only wants you…

    Anyway thanks for your articles, I’m working my way through them. Have just struck a deal with my US counterparts, so Robber Jr and I are moving to San Francisco in a few weeks! Now to get all these belongings sold/stored/given away before the big trip across the equator, Pacific and International Date Line. I’m looking forward to meeting many new Americans in the near future. We’ll see if SF women are into single Dads soon enough.

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

      @Robber

      I hear you, but hey, didn’t you say you were approached outright by a woman in SF? Heh, maybe she’s an HUS reader. You’re right about the paradox, but there are plenty of women who want a good, attractive man. Keep looking.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue, I love this post. I was thinking about it today, and one of the things I like about your site is that you really do talk a lot about “mate selection.” Most of the manosphere sites avoid that topic. Probably because guys are either a. PUAs looking for short term fun, so selection isn’t important; or b. guys looking for advice can’t find anyone, so aren’t being very choosy.

    Whatever the case, I think the whole idea of mate selection is an important one, for both men and women. And this post clearly outlines some key traits to look out for when screening potential partners. I like… :P

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

      Thanks, JM, I thought it might be a good way to move on from the kerfuffle.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Chris,

    And in the time it took to write my comment, two women commented that they wanted extraversion over introversion. I’ll just sit back and chuckle now.

    Why chuckle? Not all extroverts are bad. And not all women want one. It’s okay if you’re not everybody’s cup of tea. Life goes on.

  • Mike M.

    You may think that the list Susan put together isn’t Alpha – but what is Alpha?

    There was a comment made in http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/28/relationshipstrategies/why-stem-majors-are-unhappy-in-the-sexual-marketplace/ that piqued my interest. Basically, the definition of Alpha has changed. The old model was exemplified by the Western heroes – quiet men of strong character. The new model is what used to be considered the hallmarks of the villain – loud, strutting, dishonest, and full of boasting.

    Until the hero shot him.

    It seems to me that women might want to start using their brains and look at who turns out well in the long run. Susan’s list of what makes a good mate sounds close to Classical Alpha to me.

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

      @Mike M.

      I’d forgotten about that comment, but you’re right. The alphas in the Greatest Generation (and there were many) were 180 degrees from how a PUA site would define alpha.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Mike M.

    Yea, I was going to mention the classic “strong and silent” type. That would seem to describe an introverted “alpha” to me.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    V. In men, openness predicted lower interest in short-term mating overall. Low levels of openness were correlated with increased infidelity and succumbing to mate poaches.

    In women, high openness predicted interest in short-term mating and willingness to have sex without commitment.

    That difference strikes me as interesting and curious. I wonder why the openness works differently for men and women.

    I could see how neurotic men would repel women and neurotic women would cling to men, who wouldn’t be repelled, but compelled to use them. I don’t get how the openness affects men and women differently though.

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

      That difference strikes me as interesting and curious. I wonder why the openness works differently for men and women.

      I could see how neurotic men would repel women and neurotic women would cling to men, who wouldn’t be repelled, but compelled to use them. I don’t get how the openness affects men and women differently though.

      The researchers didn’t get it either. Their hypothesis was that openness would correlate with an aversion to short-term mating for both sexes. I think further research will be needed. I also found it surprising that neuroticism had such different results.

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

    It’s probably easier to get to know people (or at least *think* you’re getting to know them) if they’re extroverted and/or somewhat neurotic, ie they talk about themselves a lot. If a person is introverted and not neurotic, it takes more work to figure out what they’re all about; hence, it’s not usually as easy to get to that magical “I feel like I’ve known you all my life” moment.

    Although in the case of the extrovert/neurotic, the sense of closeness may be largely imaginary.

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

      Although in the case of the extrovert/neurotic, the sense of closeness may be largely imaginary.

      And just think about when you’re dealing with a full-blown narcissist! The sense of closeness with the psychopath will be something you live to regret.

  • WarmWoman

    @Susan

    “This makes sense to me, as I have seen young women try to bolster their mood or self-esteem with casual sex. One of my focus groups has an expression – “fuck away the pain.” ”

    +1. I agree with Ana as well. I’ve said it time and time again: The more your mood and self-esteem improves, the less you crave meaningless sex.

    I tend to get really aroused when I’m stressed or angry. It’s weird.

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

    Mike M….”The old model was exemplified by the Western heroes – quiet men of strong character. The new model is what used to be considered the hallmarks of the villain – loud, strutting, dishonest, and full of boasting.”

    Yeah, this is really interesting, and is something I’ve thought about a bit. One possible reason is that when most work was pretty *physical*…herding cattle, building fences, shooting the occasional rustler…verbal ability wasn’t seen as important. But when people live in urban areas and work tends to be group work, verbal skills become much more important.

    Moving up from cowboy to trail boss or ranch owner could probably often be done without being really quick on one’s feet verbally; less true in most of today’s career paths. Maybe this has set the tone for the entire society, including people (like professional athletes) in careers that are *not* primarily verbal.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    +1. I agree with Ana as well. I’ve said it time and time again: The more your mood and self-esteem improves, the less you crave meaningless sex.

    Maybe that could a post here how to improve self steem and mood for women. I’m getting the feeling that is women themselves that torture each other. The amount of cattiness in Jezebel were the slightest deviation from the norm got you name calling was a lot higher than in mixed places. I also been lurking in other gender and culture places and women bitch about other women constantly for everything. I know men can be hurtful but I do wonder how is carrying the messages that you are never good enough for anything for real,if they are so busy mingling with other women? And coming from patriarchy I had found a lot less self steem issues with my ridden with real problems friends than in here…I need to do more research…

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

      @Anacaona

      I recall when you first came here you described yourself as a former Jezebel regular. I’d forgotten that, it seems so hard to believe now!

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Warm Woman,

    I tend to get really aroused when I’m stressed or angry. It’s weird.

    Doesn’t contradict what you said a few days ago about needing to be relaxed to get aroused enough?

  • Jesus Mahoney

    I feel like they bottle up their emotion, and when they express it, they do so very strongly. Also, in my experience, they don’t BS nearly as much. What you see is what you get.

    Yea, I’d say this is true.

  • SayWhaat

    I think introverted men are undervalued.

    I agree, and I’ve definitely been guilty of doing so as well. Way ahead of you on Badger’s post, btw. ;) It was very helpful in reminding me that introverts think before talking, whereas extroverts think *by* talking. What I used to think were awkward silences are now comfortable silences while he gathers his thoughts together.

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

      @SayWhaat

      What I used to think were awkward silences are now comfortable silences while he gathers his thoughts together.

      I still do this after 27 years! My husband and I take a lot of long walks together. Sometimes we’re chatty, other times we walk almost the whole way in silence. I’m aware of the silence, and feel like I want to fill it. My husband is completely untroubled by it. I’ve learned from him that it’s best to speak when you have something to say, and to enjoy the silence, thought, and taking in surroundings when you don’t. I think extraverts find silence scary, but it’s really powerful and peaceful at the same time.

  • SayWhaat

    didn’t you say you were approached outright by a woman in SF?

    I think women in the SF and NYC regions might be more approachable and do more approaching than the average woman outside a major metropolitan area. Market conditions dictate that they do so, or get left in the dust.

  • SayWhaat

    Thanks, JM, I thought it might be a good way to move on from the kerfuffle.

    -1.

    (I kid.) :P

  • J

    This is a pretty good description of Mr. HUS and I have found him to be an excellent catch. He makes my life interesting. And he doesn’t cheat. I highly recommend this profile.

    Sounds a lot like my DH as well.

  • WarmWoman

    @Jesus

    Yes, that does contradict itself. I’m not sure how to explain what I just meant.

    When it comes to strictly P in V, my body has to be relaxed to allow something to enter into it.

    When it comes to craving any sexual act (like oral), I could definitely do those acts when stressed. This is going to sound weird, but performing oral sex on someone can soothe my anger/stress like a baby sticking a pacifier in their mouth.

  • WarmWoman

    @Jesus again-

    I’m not sure if this makes sense either, but I think some of us can be mentally in the mood…but our bodies need to catch up. There are different levels of arousal, and some women need to be REALLY TINGLY before having P in V.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    When it comes to craving any sexual act (like oral), I could definitely do those acts when stressed. This is going to sound weird, but performing oral sex on someone can soothe my anger/stress like a baby sticking a pacifier in their mouth.

    *getting up, drinking a tall glass of cold water, returning to seat.* Hm, interesting….

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

      @WW

      When it comes to craving any sexual act (like oral), I could definitely do those acts when stressed. This is going to sound weird, but performing oral sex on someone can soothe my anger/stress like a baby sticking a pacifier in their mouth.

      So what a guy needs to do is convince you to take some super stressful job and live with him :)

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW (both)
    “I think introverted men are undervalued.”

    As a mostly-introverted person, I’m aware of a number of misconceptions floating around. This one is especially true IMO, and relates directly to the issue of relationship suitability:

    “Myth: Introverts always want to be alone.
    Reality: Introverts are perfectly comfortable with their own thoughts. They think a lot. They daydream. They like to have problems to work on, puzzles to solve. But they can also get incredibly lonely if they don’t have anyone to share their discoveries with. They crave an authentic and sincere connection with ONE PERSON at a time.”

    Credit goes to musician Carl King (carlkingdom.com) for phrasing it this way. It’s how I often felt while single.

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

      @Megaman

      Yeah, the notion that introverts always want to be alone is false. My husband needs less solitude than I do – he likes just hanging out together, even if we’re doing our own thing. Sometimes I want real solitude, I want to go into my own head. I think I’m becoming more introverted as I age. Or maybe it’s the blog, IDK.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    I think introverted men are undervalued.

    I think introverted people in general are undervalued in our flashy times and I think introverted women are labelled bitch more often than not by other women.

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

      @Anacaona

      I think introverted people in general are undervalued in our flashy times and I think introverted women are labelled bitch more often than not by other women.

      That’s a good point, I think that’s true. When women, whether because of introversion or just disinterest, refuse to act outgoing and aggressive with men, other women call them prudes, bitches, etc. It’s really virgin shaming, or prude shaming.

  • M3

    The introvert curse.

    We don’t really show up on the radar.

    Add to that scarcity complex and shit really hits the fan. I’m an introvert and when i was married and at a social function i had no issue being social or interactive. The pressure was off.

    Trying to reclaim that when your single and under the gun is hard, especially when you envision all the women are looking for the guy who is the life of the party.

    Wish i had a transponder so i could show up on the radar with both airspeed and altitude :)

    Warmwoman’s oral comment has caused a stir…

    down below.

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

      @M3

      Warmwoman’s oral comment has caused a stir…

      down below.

      LOL! We remember what you said about your happy place!

  • WarmWoman

    Guys, that wasn’t my intention. =/

    Ana-Didn’t you write up a post on hypergamy telling women to control their sexual impulses? That would be a start to developing self-esteem. A person with higher self-esteem probably thinks about the long-term consequences first. “Fucking away the pain” is a quick fix, but it doesn’t have a positive effect on your future.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Warm Woman,

    I was teasing you. I think I got what you were trying to say.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    I recall when you first came here you described yourself as a former Jezebel regular. I’d forgotten that, it seems so hard to believe now!

    Well I used to be a regular because I wanted to learn about feminism. I must say I learned enough that explains everything ;)

  • Robber

    @saywhaat (34)
    I’ve read the “market” favours single men in SF but its still a surprise to be approached on the street with a toddler and asked on a date! I think I am going to like San Francisco… I was a bit concerned my son would be a hinderence to me getting back on the market but perhaps not.

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

      I was a bit concerned my son would be a hinderence to me getting back on the market but perhaps not.

      Robber, I can’t help but think of Sleepless in Seattle. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be insensitive – but you’re a young widower with a little boy. I think you’ll be beating them off with a stick.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Ana-Didn’t you write up a post on hypergamy telling women to control their sexual impulses? That would be a start to developing self-esteem. A person with higher self-esteem probably thinks about the long-term consequences first. “Fucking away the pain” is a quick fix, but it doesn’t have a positive effect on your future.

    Even though I agree that people with high self stem are not slave of their bodies I don’t think you can have the opposite effect. I think it will take a lot more and frankly when I question myself were my self stem comes from I really don’t know. I’m content with myself but is not related to how much I make, how do I look. So I have no idea what is that thing that makes me feel content. It might be telling stories but then I’m not sure. So I rather have someone that can point out how to gain self stem to post about it, Susan probably can.

  • purplesneakers

    I think introverted people in general are undervalued in our flashy times and I think introverted women are labelled bitch more often than not by other women.

    Yup. I am an introvert AND shy (used to be very shy, but now I push myself out of my comfort zone more). One of my friends told me that when she first met me (almost five years ago now) , that I seemed like a “stone cold bitch.” I’ve had issues with female roomies thinking I was antisocial and didn’t like them. (After that came out I didn’t like them very much tbh, haha).

    But yeah, the curse of the female introvert. I know your recs are about what women should look for in a man, but I feel like men don’t really like introverted women, and maybe it would be better for them to stay away. I have trouble being emotionally open, when that’s a large part of what men want from women in relationships, right?

  • purplesneakers

    I still do this after 27 years! My husband and I take a lot of long walks together. Sometimes we’re chatty, other times we walk almost the whole way in silence. I’m aware of the silence, and feel like I want to fill it. My husband is completely untroubled by it. I’ve learned from him that it’s best to speak when you have something to say, and to enjoy the silence, thought, and taking in surroundings when you don’t. I think extraverts find silence scary, but it’s really powerful and peaceful at the same time.

    And there’s the corollary where the introvert feels like they have nothing to say but should be saying something (mostly in conversation with new people. it makes dating exhausting).

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    In general, this is a good list of desirable guy traits. I’m personally working on improving #2 and #8. I can honestly say I’ve never had any interest in short-term mating (i.e. hooking up, sleeping around). What about short-term love affairs? Back when I was single, I probably wouldn’t have turned down such an opportunity. But I would’ve had to feel very strongly for the girl in question.

  • Eric

    So, just to review, what is the ideal trait list for men to look for in women?

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

      @Eric

      The same list of traits is recommended for a woman. Being an extravert myself, I find it hard to tell guys to stay away from women like me. And the “opposites attract” part can work quite well sometimes. I would say that you should steer clear of any woman who seeks the limelight and loves being the center of attention. Especially if she has a flirty vibe with guys in general. But there’s nothing wrong with a woman who’s open and friendly, especially since she’s more likely to be open about her interest in you.

      And the neuroticism piece should be a dealbreaker – avoid women who tend toward emotional drama of any kind. That’s a lot of women, unfortunately. Those women are not in control of their emotions, so they’re much more likely to go for that impulsive sensation-seeking when they need an emotional boost. I would imagine they’re also just unpleasant to be around.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “It’s really virgin shaming, or prude shaming.”

    Now you sound like Wendy Shalit : )

    The SMP needs more prudes. They even things out, and make better mates anyway…

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

      Now you sound like Wendy Shalit : )

      I have a lot of respect for her.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    The SMP needs more prudes. They even things out, and make better mates anyway…

    I’m all for a woman who avoids casual sex, but I’ll pass on the prudes, thanks. :P

  • Robber

    @susan I had to google that. I’ve never seen Sleepless in Seattle. Not keen on Meg Ryan films. Big difference is my son is still little. If I stay in the US I may be a little perplexed to hear him gain an American accent and follow American sports (i like baseball but i love cricket) but my lifetime opportunity is in SF so I’m giving it a shot. If the right woman comes along, great.

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

      @Robber

      I bet there are cricket teams in SF if you play, but barring that you could do worse than root for the Giants. They have a great stadium! I imagine it would be very odd to have kids grow up with a different accent. Then again, that’s the history of the U.S. in the last 100 years.

  • Strauss

    What are some of the recomendations for introvert males then?

    Keep in mind that introversion, doesn’t imply social retardation, it just means that you value your own company more, and that you need time alone, but you can also be good at socializing. Although in my case, the introversion does come with being somewhat awkward and not very good in social situations :P.

    I think i do score high on your ideal list, but none of the girls still interested. One of my problems is that my “social circle” is 100% male (i am in a STEM field), so my lack of exposure to the ladies may be the greatest problem.

    Where do i meet members of the opposite sex? I have tried to become more social, but is a lot of hard work, and the introversion part doesn’t help also. The past month i entered to some dancing classes and everytime i have to go it feels like hell, the torture is mostly with the thoughts of going to the class, because actually when i enter the class i don’t feel so awkward, is just the anxiety to go to a social place. Is this the best way to meet girls (joining groups, doing activities)?

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

      @Strauss

      Yes, you are definitely on the right track. You mention that it’s the anticipation of the social outing rather than the class itself that feels like torture. That just means that you have to keep doing it. A lot. You need to desensitize yourself to the anxiety by getting out there and practicing. You will gradually get better at it, and ultimately will enjoy it if you are interested in the activity.

      Also, I would encourage you to get in the habit of putting yourself out there as you go through your day. Smile and offer a friendly remark to the barista. Make eye contact and smile with someone on the sidewalk. When you see something ridiculous or humorous make eye contact with another bystander and smile. It doesn’t have to be women. Just try making brief connections with people of all ages and both sexes. Again, you just want to desensitize yourself to the approach anxiety. This is CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) in a nutshell, and it’s extremely effective. I’m not saying it will be fun, but if you work at it you should see great improvement. Just take it a bit at a time. Actually, there are CBT experts who work with people who have social anxiety – my son went to one as a college freshman to overcome shyness, and it was extremely helpful. Good luck.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Strauss,

    Yea, you need social circles that include members of the opposite sex, so taking classes could be a good idea. Yoga’s a good one, too. My gf teaches some yoga and it’s pretty much all women in the classes, with one or two guys who show up now and then. Yoga’s not only a great way to meet women, but the meditative aspects give you a good way to learn to ease your anxiety. Whatever the case, yea, you need low-pressure ways to connect with women if you’re really that introverted.

    Also, rob your friends’ sisters. That’s what I did.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “I have a lot of respect for her.”

    I read her first book, along with Jean Twenge’s on narcissism. They were eye-openers. The wife and I obviously broke her rule of “no sex before marriage”, which I don’t think is realistic to most couples anyway, but a lot of her points were pretty good.

    Is there a phrase to describe the opposite of shiksa appeal? As a gentile, I found her to be very appealing : )

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

      Is there a phrase to describe the opposite of shiksa appeal? As a gentile, I found her to be very appealing : )

      Haha! My mother, who always went to Catholic school, told me that they were always envious of the Jewish girls – so sexy! I don’t know the term for it though.

      The Twenge book is excellent. I’ve referred to it often here.

  • SayWhaat

    Also, rob your friends’ sisters. That’s what I did.

    One more reason to be jealous of girls with older brothers. :(

  • J

    “Now you sound like Wendy Shalit : ) …..I have a lot of respect for her.”

    I’ve met her; I was very impressed.

  • J

    I think introverted women are labelled bitch more often than not by other women.

    As an INTP, that is certainly my experience. The T added to the I is a double whammy.

  • J

    I also found it surprising that neuroticism had such different
    results.

    I did too at first, but upon reflection, I think that neuroticism makes women unhaaappppyyyy in the ‘sphere’s sense of the word and more likely to blame their unhappiness on their mates. That would lead to more feeling that cheating is justified or that a new mate might make a person happier.

    I can also see how neuroticism might make a man more dependent on his spouse.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    As an INTP, that is certainly my experience. The T added to the I is a double whammy.

    Being attracted to introverted people both sexually and not sexually I often ended up having to do some PR for the introverted girls “No she is really great and she watches the same Telenovela we do” of course if you are pretty and introverted the amount of good word doesn’t help a lot. Women’s intrasexual competition radars are merciless 9 times out of 10, YMMV.

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

      of course if you are pretty and introverted the amount of good word doesn’t help a lot.

      Agreed, those women are often accused of being snobs or having an air of superiority. I’m not sure how they can fight that, aside from making real connections with other women wherever they can.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    One more reason to be jealous of girls with older brothers.

    The brother who was two years younger than me used to punch me and steal my toys just to sell them or destroy them. Growing up I never envied the girls with older brothers I was sure if he was a tiny bit stronger he would had killed me dead.

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

      @Anacaona

      The brother who was two years younger than me used to punch me and steal my toys just to sell them or destroy them.

      Wow, that sounds like the classic definition of a psychopath. How on earth did the same gene pool produce the two of you?

  • Robber

    @Susan LOLing at “root for the Giants”. In Aus the word “root” has a very different meaning. This link will give you an idea ;-)
    http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html#R

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

      @Robber

      Haha, that list makes me want to go to Australia so badly!

      So now you know that here it means to be supportive. If a woman tells you on a date that she is rooting for you (to be successful with the new business) you’ll know not to grab her!

      By the way, American women have a thing for Australian (and British) accents. Play that up as much as you can, and use as much slang as you can. It’s going to be catnip for the ladies.

  • Ken_Galbraith

    Good. Another win for introverts. However, based on my experiences, extroverts always prevail in social situations.

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

      @Ken Galbraith

      However, based on my experiences, extroverts always prevail in social situations.

      Indeed. You’re not going to clean up at a party. We pretty much idolize extraverts in our culture, so you’re better off getting to know women one-on-one rather than trying to score at a big social gathering.

  • Emily

    >> “One more reason to be jealous of girls with older brothers.”

    You can always rob your friend’s brother. That’s what I did. ;)

  • Emily

    @ Chris

    FWIW, I don’t mind a certain amount of introversion in a partner.

    I’m an introvert myself, although many people don’t know that about me. I’ll go out and be the life of the party, but then I’ll want to spend the rest of the week hiding in my cave. (I describe it as my “people limit”.) At times, I can be a total recluse.

    There was one guy who liked me who is pretty much the opposite. (Quiet, but very much an extrovert in the Myers-Briggs sense. He’s somebody who needs to be around people at all times). He’s awesome, but a relationship with him would have been a terrible idea because of our completely incompatible emotional needs. He now has a (very pretty) girlfriend who’s as clingy as he is, and they spend all of their time together, and when they’re not together then they’re constantly texting back and forth. I would find that kind of relationship incredibly irritating, but they’re obviously very happy together.

    Extroverts aren’t for everybody.

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

      @Emily

      Excellent point about what extraversion and introversion often look like – they’re not the same as shyness or lack thereof. Although there are fewer relationships in college, there is a phenomenon known as the “college marriage.” Perhaps you’ve seen couples like this. They often meet early freshman year, and wind up attached at the hip for four years. They share all their meals, do all their studying together and even share a twin bed 7 nights a week. (It must be a total drag for their roommates.) That didn’t really exist when I was in college – it has to be some sort of response to hookup culture.

  • Emily

    @ Strauss

    I imagine that “joining groups, doing activities” is a great way to meet girls (or guys!), but maybe you’d be happier pursuing an activity that you actually enjoy?

    I’d give the same advice to the ladies. Everybody has some hobby/extra-curricular activity that they’ve always wanted to try but never got around to doing. Go do that. That way even if you don’t meet somebody, it’s still a success. I imagine that would take off a lot of the pressure.

  • M3
  • Tom

    Warm Woman
    I’m not sure if this makes sense either, but I think some of us can be mentally in the mood…but our bodies need to catch up. There are different levels of arousal, and some women need to be REALLY TINGLY before having P in V.
    _________________
    A good dose of oral sex on a woman as foreplay should get her nice and “tingly” “She Comes First” is normally a good idea.
    Unbelievable the selfish male lovers Ive heard about.

  • Jason

    Susan,

    Ladies, here’s a description of the ideal long-term partner:
    1.Introverted
    2.Empathic
    3.Cooperative
    4.Self-disciplined
    5.Organized
    6.Achievement-oriented
    7.Intellectual
    8.Open to new experiences

    I had a similar thought as you when reading this list: women probably would find these guys boring! There has to be some medium there, but it’s hard to tell where the cutoff is.

    I’m definitely the opposite of 1 and 2, 3 is mostly used by me when I see personal gain in my actions, but 4 through 8 fit me fairly well. I was a bit surprised to read that openness predicted a lower short-term mating strategy in men.

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

      @Jason

      2, 3 is mostly used by me when I see personal gain in my actions,

      Uh oh, I’m pretty sure that means they don’t count. When empathy and cooperation are a means to an end, they’re situational tools rather than traits. (We have a word for that.)

      I was a bit surprised to read that openness predicted a lower short-term mating strategy in men.

      Me too! I want to look into that more. I think I have read that high IQ in men is correlated with a preference for long-term mating. I don’t know the cause and effect – could be that a lot of high IQ men have lower social intelligence and have fewer opportunities. I wondered if this was relevant because openness is sometimes described by psychologists as intellect.

  • http://deleted Jason

    I still do this after 27 years! My husband and I take a lot of long walks together. Sometimes we’re chatty, other times we walk almost the whole way in silence. I’m aware of the silence, and feel like I want to fill it. My husband is completely untroubled by it. I’ve learned from him that it’s best to speak when you have something to say, and to enjoy the silence, thought, and taking in surroundings when you don’t. I think extraverts find silence scary, but it’s really powerful and peaceful at the same time.

    Interesting, I’ve had this exact same conversation with my current gf a couple times. The first time was in a 2 hour car ride, where I was fairly silent the whole time. She figured I was upset about something, and that she needed to fill the silence, while in reality I was just comfortable with being quiet and driving. She is now much more comfortable in silence with me, which I can tell she had to work on. In general, I think men are much better than women when it comes to being comfortable in silence.

    With that, I guess I should clarify my last post saying I was an extravert. There has to be some sliding scale I assume? I am extraverted with people I am close with, and when a social occassion calls for it, but a lot of the time I don’t want to interact with others that I don’t know well, not out of shyness or fear, but out of a disdain for the mundane. I find many people dull and conversations uninteresting, and decide to just keep quiet.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    It amazes me that so many people talk so damn much, that they don’t know what to do with five minutes of silence. I dislike being alone to be honest, but just because I am enjoying someone’s company, doesn’t mean I want to talk to them. Some of the most relaxing evenings at my house are spent lounging on the couch, reading HUS, surfing the web, doing work, etc. while my SO lays on me and does something else. We have spent multiple-hour car rides in almost complete silence and we both made it to our destination intact. :P

    I’ve never thought about WHY extroverts talk so much, but it makes sense that they think BY talking. I’ve often told me SO she needs a filter so the things she THINKS don’t become the things she SAYS every time. LOL

    Oh, INTJ here. I’ve read it suggested elsewhere that introverts make better mates, but I believe that mostly goes unnoticed because, well, the introverts go unnoticed.

  • Escoffier

    Susan’s list fits me pretty well, but I am also pretty boring so …

    Though as I posted in another thread, one way to make yourself “interesting” to a wife is to make her start to worry that you are going to quit your job and switch careers to something that will double your hours and cut your pay by 90%. That will give them a truly interesting white-knuckle sort of feeling.

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

      @Escoffier

      Susan’s list fits me pretty well, but I am also pretty boring so …

      Though as I posted in another thread, one way to make yourself “interesting” to a wife is to make her start to worry that you are going to quit your job and switch careers to something that will double your hours and cut your pay by 90%. That will give them a truly interesting white-knuckle sort of feeling.

      I think you’re one of the more interesting people here. I have no idea why you would say that about yourself. I’ve been thinking about your story of threatening to become a full-time cook, it makes me laugh. Escoffier, what you are is too self-effacing. You’ve got it going on, and you don’t even realize it.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Escoffier,

    I’d say I fit that list fairly well also, but I wouldn’t characterize myself as boring at all. I think you can fit the bill and still be a fun, interesting person to be around.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    Escoffier – “Susan’s list fits me pretty well, but I am also pretty boring so …

    Though as I posted in another thread, one way to make yourself “interesting” to a wife is to make her start to worry that you are going to quit your job and switch careers to something that will double your hours and cut your pay by 90%. That will give them a truly interesting white-knuckle sort of feeling.”

    Me too. I imagine most people simply looking at me from the outside figure I’m massively lame and no fun to hang out with. That is absolutely false. I’m hella fun, but ONLY around the people I love and trust.

    I am still bothered by the idea that a woman needs to be “excited” by something the man does. Why can’t she find her own excitement? (that doesn’t involve an affair…) I agree that your suggestion would indeed cause some excitement, but don’t you think its nuts to have to do stuff like this? I still feel like *I* am being asked to entertain a child. I don’t mean to sound condescending, but I was an only child and learned to entertain myself. Surely a man can’t neglect to engage his wife/GF, and he can’t expect her to want to be a recluse, but Athol’s model of “relationship destabilization” just strikes me as false goods. I mean, if it occurs because a man is actually improving, bravo. But, to simply act to get a specific reaction? Still just seems lame to me.

    Perhaps the best bet is not to start a relationship with a woman that looks for that kind of excitement in the first place. My SO is an extrovert, but her sliding scale puts her more toward the middle than the extreme. It works for us, but only because she is OK with silence, and the fact that she may have to coax me out of the house to a social event. But, for my part, when I do go out, I do my best to be ‘social’, regardless of how much I may dislike it. And because she is so social, it takes some of the pressure off of me as she tends to drive the conversation, and I just toss in the occasional off-hand remark or sarcastic jab. We make a good comedy team. In fact, we went out over the weekend with two other couples. My SO told me one of the women mentioned to her at work Monday morning that she was bummed there were so many people talking, because I was keeping quiet, and apparently she thinks I’m funny as hell.

    I think I might have gotten a preselection buff from that too… ;)

  • Escoffier

    I think I am pretty interesting, at least on paper, but interesting in a way that interests women? Not really. I married a girl in my same graduate program so that worked out because we have so many of the same interests but to 99% of females I am just a GEEK!!! Aside from being reasonably physically fit, something I have only achieved in the last few years after a lifetime of being an out-of-shape twig, I really have no alpha characteristics whatsoever. Except, I guess, a somewhat iracsible temper.

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

      @Escoffier

      I think I am pretty interesting, at least on paper, but interesting in a way that interests women? Not really. I married a girl in my same graduate program so that worked out because we have so many of the same interests but to 99% of females I am just a GEEK!!!

      You are crazy! Your cooking skills (which you developed by pursuing a passion) and encyclopedic knowledge of Tom Wolfe’s writings alone give you high status in my book. Passion and mastery turn women on. I think you’ve lost sight of your SMV, frankly. If your wife has, she needs a wake up call.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    “I think I am pretty interesting, at least on paper, but interesting in a way that interests women? Not really.”

    Yep. This is probably the biggest problem introverted men face. It isn’t lack of interesting things, it is lack of interesting things TO WOMEN that kill their chances most of the time.

    My SO turned out to be a nerd lover of a sort. She was very surprised by it it seems, but looking at her interests I don’t find it surprising at all. She just never spent any time around introverted techie men before. I think many women would feel the same, but most don’t have the opportunity, or simply don’t even see those men as an option.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Escoffier,

    Idk. I don’t really consider myself a geek. Bookish, yes, but not really geeky. That said, I think there’s a pretty good market for good looking, physically fit geeks. I don’t think it’s as bad as all that.

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

    Strauss….”The past month i entered to some dancing classes and everytime i have to go it feels like hell, the torture is mostly with the thoughts of going to the class, because actually when i enter the class i don’t feel so awkward, is just the anxiety to go to a social place.”

    A couple of years ago I read about a soldier who was awarded a medal for extreme courage under fire in Afghanistan or Iraq. He said he was much more nervous about the presentation ceremony than he had been during the actual combat in which he earned the medal.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    You can always rob your friend’s brother. That’s what I did. ;)

    Awesome. Score two for “theft of siblings.”

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Saywhaat,

    One more reason to be jealous of girls with older brothers. :(

    What are the other reasons?

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Kenneth,

    Good. Another win for introverts. However, based on my experiences, extroverts always prevail in social situations.

    Extroverts prevail. Introverts preside.

  • Escoffier

    In social situations, if I know a sufficient number of people at a given gathering, I can work a room like a real pro. If I don’t, then I shut up like a clam.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    “In social situations, if I know a sufficient number of people at a given gathering, I can work a room like a real pro. If I don’t, then I shut up like a clam”

    Ditto, although a bit of alcohol seems to loosen me up enough to manage in the worst scenarios. But really, I do my best to avoid being places with lots of strangers. At least without a sizable posse of my own. ;)

  • http://deleted Jason

    It amazes me that so many people talk so damn much, that they don’t know what to do with five minutes of silence. I dislike being alone to be honest, but just because I am enjoying someone’s company, doesn’t mean I want to talk to them. Some of the most relaxing evenings at my house are spent lounging on the couch, reading HUS, surfing the web, doing work, etc. while my SO lays on me and does something else.

    I can relate to a lot of this. I don’t like being alone most of the time either, but that doesn’t mean that I just want to go around engaging with everyone. It can be great to enjoy someones company without the ‘need’ to always be interacting.

  • Escoffier

    Well, maybe. But I know as an absolute fact that I do not have an “alpha” or extroverted personality. Now, in certain situations where I know a lot people I can certainly seem like a smooth operator. My wife almost never goes with me to those, however, so she doesn’t get to see it in action.

    Girls really don’t care about Tom Wolfe (except you, Sue). Cooking is cool but also perceived as a little “girly,” which is actually hilarious, because professional kitchens are as testosterone soaked as varisity high school locker rooms …

  • http://deleted Jason

    Susan,

    Uh oh, I’m pretty sure that means they don’t count. When empathy and cooperation are a means to an end, they’re situational tools rather than traits. (We have a word for that.)

    Yea, they definitely don’t count for me. Of the Dark Triad traits, I can safely say that Machiavellianism is my most prominent one. Having a high IQ and a very good understanding of social dynamics makes manipulation readily available to me.

    This is actually one area where game had a profound effect on me, not that I’m necessarily proud of it. Before looking into game I’m sure that I had manipulative tendencies, but when I actually learned WHY and HOW things work, my ability to get what I what increased dramatically. But I should also say, I don’t always use this trait to the detriment of someone else, but generally to foster something that is symbitotic.

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

      @Jason

      But I should also say, I don’t always use this trait to the detriment of someone else, but generally to foster something that is symbitotic.

      Then you’re using your abilities for good, and I respect that.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    Susan – I think Escoffier is fine. I know a good number of introverted guys working in IT, and one of the things I see consistently is that they all feel like others think they are boring, especially women. Of course, it may be that they are all IT guys…

    I for one tend to view my accomplishments as minor most of the time. Perhaps because as an introvert I don’t get much feedback from others? I also don’t really like to be praised, which seems to be a related issue.

    Escoffier – How are you at receiving praise? Does it embarrass you when someone tells you how great you did something? Do you like to “toot your own horn”? Just asking because I’m wondering about how much this correlates to personality type.

    I tend to be super critical of everything I do. Sometimes so much that when others tell me its great, I’m actually a bit surprised. For instance, every time I listen to one of the songs I’ve recorded, I hear all the things I messed up. When other people listen and tell me it sounds great, I often find it hard to believe.

  • Escoffier

    Thankfully I have a rather laconic boss who never praises any of us for anything so I never have to face it. :-D

  • Emily

    Nerd attraction is something that I can’t completely figure out. There are different “brands” of geekiness I think. Some geeks I’ll find completely adorable, whereas other geeks are just …geeky.

    I think this is one area that has less to do with alpha/beta/whatever and more to do with random personal preferences.

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

      I think this is one area that has less to do with alpha/beta/whatever and more to do with random personal preferences.

      Yeah, I was thinking more about mate selection. I think the key is to find someone who resides about the same place you do on various spectrums (spectra?). When you’ve got that on the important stuff, that’s compatibility. There’s a market for all but extremely unattractive people – and you can define that however you like. Mostly everyone can find a partner, providing they know where to look and how to become acquainted. I think that’s the tough part.

  • J

    However, based on my experiences, extroverts always prevail in social situations.

    I think it appears that way because extraverts tend to be more visible. The victories of introverts tend to be more private.

  • J

    That didn’t really exist when I was in college – it has to be some sort of response to hookup culture.

    We are of an age. My college actually had married student housing for students who were legally married. I don’t think it’s that odd that people in college commit monogamously. The odd part to me is the pretend element.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Agreed, those women are often accused of being snobs or having an air of superiority. I’m not sure how they can fight that, aside from making real connections with other women wherever they can.

    Yes so very yes. I was lucky in that aspect but it was very hard for me when the other girls wanted me to pick sides. If it wasn’t because I helped them with their homework and tests they might stop talking to me for being friends with the “snob”. This girls really grow very lonely and have to side with other pretty ones in order to have meaningful relationships. Very sad they all could had have great connections.

    Wow, that sounds like the classic definition of a psychopath. How on earth did the same gene pool produce the two of you?

    You have no idea. He grew up to be a total sociopath, genes are random I know he got his evilness from my grandfather but then my parents didn’t knew how to deal with this poor country not a lot of psychological help or understanding. No one in the family except for my mother and my little brother talk to him anymore and my little brother (who is a great smart good man I adore to bits) pretty much tells me that he keeps certain level of contact because he thinks he would be worst if he didn’t had any connection with us. Is one of those strange puzzles of biology that I can’t understand, yet.

  • J

    I’m hella fun, but ONLY around the people I love and trust.

    That’s typical of Is; I too am hella fun with close friends and family, but I can come off as severe and cold. About four years ago I really cut loose at a party–laughing, dancing, telling funny stories. People still talk about the night my “evil twin” showed up, but few have seen her since.

    I am still bothered by the idea that a woman needs to be “excited” by something the man does. Why can’t she find her own excitement? (that doesn’t involve an affair…)

    I think most of us can. The idea is not that you are responsible to keep us entertained, but that it builds attraction if some of that happens with you. For example, I like to be on my own or have fun with other women, but it doesn’t help my marriage. Quality time with DH does–and it doesn’t have to be wildly exciting stuff.

  • J

    Extroverts prevail. Introverts preside.

    LMFAO

  • J

    @Esco

    Girls really don’t care about Tom Wolfe (except you, Sue).

    I was a huge fan of Wolf’s early stuff, but he lost me at the Bauhaus book.

    Cooking is cool but also perceived as a little “girly,”

    By idiots. My DH is a fantastic cook. If opening a restaurant weren’t such a great way to go broke, I’d encourage him to that. As it is, he cooks on the weekend, and his annual b’day dinner for me is legendary.

    My dear departed alpha thug daddy was also an amazing cook.

  • SayWhaat

    That said, I think there’s a pretty good market for good looking, physically fit geeks.

    AKA hipsters. :P

    One more reason to be jealous of girls with older brothers.

    What are the other reasons?

    Haha, I dunno. I’ve always wanted an older brother. I didn’t like being the eldest in my family, and it didn’t even matter because my parents held my younger sister up as the standard anyway. I always wanted an older brother who would understand our generation and be protective of me.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    @Escoffier, I once met Tom Wolfe in person because a high school English teacher got him to come to our class. He was very much the stereotypical southern gentleman type in demeanor. At the time, I was too young and ignorant to realize what a big-name author he was.

  • J

    If it wasn’t because I helped them with their homework and tests they might stop talking to me for being friends with the “snob”.

    Wow. I’d have told them to go fvck themselves.

    Hmmmm. Maybe that’s why a lot of other women don’t like me. Ah, well.

  • J

    Lucky you, Hope. I had to pay to hear him speak.

    BTW, Kaspersky is blocking my access to your blog. It says you have a Trojan.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    J – “I think most of us can. The idea is not that you are responsible to keep us entertained, but that it builds attraction if some of that happens with you”

    This makes perfect sense to me, but my view of “game” isn’t this at all. Like I said before, it is completely normal for a woman to want her husband/BF to engage with her in a variety of ways. But that isn’t the same as saying a man should do things to destabilize a relationship to “keep her interested”. It isn’t the same as purposely “flirting” with other women to get a preselection buff. No one wants to be ignored and/or taken for granted, but to me there is a huge difference between doing things together to strengthen a relationship, and doing things against each other to “keep it interesting”. To me, using most game techniques to keep a LTR partner involved is mental manipulation, plain and simple. If I am naturally funny and cocky, and that turns my SO on, then all is good. But if I’m not, and I learn to be funny and cocky to turn her on, its a farce. It doesn’t matter to me that it works, the fact is, I changed my behavior for HER benefit.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Wow. I’d have told them to go fvck themselves.

    Hmmmm. Maybe that’s why a lot of other women don’t like me. Ah, well.

    Heh being tolerant means that you are tolerant of everyone not just the tolerant people. So for me it was as bad to exclude them for being catty as they excluding the pretty one for being a “snob”. They were good friends of mine aside from this so why would I reject them? I mean I reject people for criminal things, like my sociopath of a brother, or if they deliberately hurt everyone to propel themselves but I’m good at connecting with people in their own capacity. So yeah…

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    J, that’s weird. Not sure what’s wrong with my blog. o.O

    My English teacher was a really wonderful old lady, and undoubtedly it was partly her charm that got Tom Wolfe to come sit with our class and talk to us snot-nosed teenagers like we’re actually interesting.

    Though this was around the time just before he published Charlotte Simmons, so maybe he wanted to see what the youngin’s were up to. Except we were extremely preppy academic-oriented kids who just wanted to get in good colleges.

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

      . Except we were extremely preppy academic-oriented kids who just wanted to get in good colleges.

      But so were his kids! Also, he modeled Dupont after Duke where his son went, so it was exactly kids like you that he was interested in.

  • J
  • J

    Ted–

    Those are all valid criticisms of game. To me, the most important take-away from game is “Don’t be a pushover.” After that, the parts that aren’t simply common sense are less impressive to me.

  • J

    Ana,

    Idk, the using people for help with school really makes me see red. I got a lot of that in high school; it still pisses me off.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Idk, the using people for help with school really makes me see red. I got a lot of that in high school; it still pisses me off.

    They weren’t using me I enjoyed helping them and they needed the help they also bonded with me for some other reasons, the helping was just part of it. Or you never help a friend when you can? don’t they do the same? I know when I’m being used and trust me no one makes that mistake twice with me.

  • J

    Ana–

    If it wasn’t use, it’s fine. I try to help friends all the time. Sorry if I misunderstood the situation.

  • J

    Rollo–

    See what you did there with connotations. Clever. Not necessarily accurate, but clever.

  • http://Dannyfrom504.wordpress.com Dannyfrom504

    Sorry rollo, agree to disagree. You can make te argument that those are beta traits, and I can argue they are HUMAN traits.Anyone considering me a hardwired beta would get a dose of some alpha real quick.

    Or you can ask one of girls.

    Nice post Tia.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Ah okay Susan. That makes some sense.

    On Rollo’s comment, saying “light” traits are beta and “dark” traits are alpha is like saying angels are beta and demons are alpha. It is a misapplication of one’s own preferences.

  • http://aplace-formythoughts.blogspot.com/ Renee

    Speaking in terms of odds myself, since I’m more of an introvert, I would prefer someone slightly opposite of me, a little more extrovert, instead of it being two introverted people. Of course I say this now being single (with a severely limited relationship experience).

    Not to mention that a few of you had a good point when you mentioned the “strong and silent” type of introvert, a “quiet man of strong character”.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    Rollo – I want to ask you something, and I’m not trying to bait you or start some massive debate. and I’m asking because at this point I’m a bit on the fence with this.

    Do you really see all of this in such black and white terms? To be honest, that appeals to me on some level. It would be so much easier if I could just pick out who the bad guys are, and who the good guys are. I’ve even been lurking at your blog for a few weeks (since it was suggested I needed a “man’s perspective”) and I can’t fault your logic. But I’ve been arguing a bit here lately in generalities, and to be honest I kinda got my ass handed to me, respectfully.

    If this is indeed a war of the sexes based on ideals and agenda, then it makes sense to pick a side and hunker down. But, you are a married man, and I’m in a relationship as well. So my quandary is: how do I choose a side that actually paints my SO in a bad light?

    I read your latest post this morning, and I can’t say you are wrong in the least. It makes perfect sense. But if that is entirely true, then you and I are sleeping with the enemy, every night of our lives.

    I hope you don’t take this as a challenge of sorts, I honestly want to know. Because if I could figure out how to fix that dissonance, I think I would be inclined to put my feet down on your side of the fence. But I can’t do that if it means thinking less of the woman I love, plain and simple.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Rollo,

    Wait a second, alpha? beta? Compelling. I’m sure I’ve never heard anything about these theories before. So…. insightful.

    Thing is, you’re just so simplistic it’s crazy, bro. Listen to this analogy:

    Sugar is sweet.
    Humans evolved to have taste buds that recognize sweetness.
    Therefore all humans like sweets.
    Conclusion: Everybody likes their coffee with 20 teaspoons of sugar.

    You’re making the same stupid mistake with “dominance” as an attraction trigger in women.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    @Ted, my husband taught me a very important thing, which he mentioned to me again last night as I was struggling to forgive my mother. The light side is about integration, unity, and accepting the other as part of the whole, while the dark side is about separation, pursuit of selfishness, and seeing others as the enemy.

    Many in the manosphere are on the path of separation. In saying this very thing I have casted them as “the other.” However, I do share some of the same sentiments and have learned a great deal through reflecting upon those words. I strive for understanding and empathy of all viewpoints, and I have always been drawn to the side of unity.

    You can choose whether or not to see a woman, any woman, as an adversarial “other,” or to understand her as another human being. It’s not always easy to love and empathize with people who are arguing with you or insulting you, but in the end, doing so is good for mental health. I tend to avoid or sidestep people who are this way toward me. For my husband I have nothing but tremendous love and respect, and we both would never see the other as an enemy.

    So if you want think of her as the “enemy,” do so. If not, then don’t. The choice is entirely yours. Your thoughts, emotions and actions send out a vibration and energy into the world, and they ripple out like a pebble on water, interacting with other ripples and reflecting back onto yourself. Love, light, joy, beauty, positivity, empathy, kindness, compassion, health and spirituality are very real and powerful. You can choose to experience these, or you can choose to experience their polar opposites.

    The choice, as always, is yours.

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

      @Hope

      Ted, my husband taught me a very important thing, which he mentioned to me again last night as I was struggling to forgive my mother.

      I confess I was um, alarmed to read that your mother is coming to stay for a whole month, after what you’ve said about her here. Anytime you need a break, tell her you have “work to do” and come chat with us.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    So if Rollo’s right, then the only two options for men are:

    1. Become “alpha” and after you knock a girl up, watch her leave you and have someone else take care of the kids. Or,

    2. Becomes “beta” and commit to a woman who’s going to have children with other men.

    Of course, I think Rollo’s a raving lunatic, but if he were right, that’s how the world would look.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, it’s a bit of an oversimplification to say that Dupont = Duke. Certainly, it resembles Duke. But in fact Wolfe did research at a dozen or so campuses before creating the fictional “Dupont.” He actually drew from a lot of places. E.g., the “Buster Bowl” in the novel was inspired by the “Dean Dome” at UNC Chapel Hill.

    Wolfe has said that he had two crieteria for a school to interest him: it had to be top-notch academically and also have a big-time, TV-covered, alumni-crazed, revenue-generating athletic program that was nationally ranked in a top sport (really, in college, that means football or basketball).

    The problem as I saw it was that hardly any schools fit this bill. Duke, sort of, though its academics are not that hot. Stanford is really the closest model (much as it pains me to say that) but I don’t think Stanford is quite as wild party-wise (or sexually) as Dupont, though the Duke scene certainly is. So, “Dupont” to me always rang a tad false, as if it were supposed to be Harvard or UofChicago in terms of academic reputation and Notre Dame or UCLA in the Wooden era in terms of athletics. Really, there has never been such a school in this country, at least not in the modern era when college athletics became big business.

    I actually think the book would have been stronger if Wolfe had set the novel on a real campus. That would have allowed so many avenues for his reportorial talent. Instead I think he had to make stuff up that sounded kinda canned, like borrowed from Animal House and such. I say this, as you know, as a huge Wolfe admirer.

    One of my early ambitions, almost certain at this point never to be realized, was to write a realistic Wolfean novel about Berkeley. No shortage of material there, I can assure you …

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

      @Escoffier

      I stand corrected. No way it is too late for you to write a novel! A friend’s husband just wrote his first novel and got it published last week (The Variations, John Donatich). He’s older than you. Psshh, I’m starting to think you’re gifted and lazy.

  • Passer_By

    Take away “organized”, and I guess I fit Susan’s list. And, yes, I’m a little boring, though I’m a pretty good lay, so that offsets it. :)

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

      @Passer By

      And, yes, I’m a little boring, though I’m a pretty good lay, so that offsets it.

      As I said, still waters run deep and in my experience, sex with introverts is more emotionally intense and rewarding. Also, they try harder. In fact, my three bad sex partners were all alpha guys – confident, witty, charming, and none of them knew how to have sex with their brains (the most important sex organ). The worst sex I ever had was with my alpha college boyfriend for three years. Dominant, dumb, athletic, but loyal and true. Of course, men had fewer options in those days. :)

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    Hope – “So if you want think of her as the “enemy,” do so. If not, then don’t. The choice is entirely yours. ”

    I really appreciate your post, and I get where you are coming from. I know my SO is not the enemy. If she where I wouldn’t be with her. But, when I attempt to view the entirety of what Rollo and others from the ‘sphere present, I can’t understand how they can believe it, internalize it, and not allow it to poison their relationships with women. Now, I know many of the ‘sphere writers are players, cads, and generally single. But Rollo is married, so that puts him in a position similar to mine. I truly want to know how he can view “women” in general so negatively, and yet see his wife as a woman deserving of his love and respect.

    I agree with much of what he says, although I also agree that it is a very black and white outlook. I tend to think the same way, black and white, win or lose, dark or light. So, I want to know how HE sees this dissonance.

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    Regarding Shalit, have you read Devlin’s critique of her work? Pretty funny stuff.

  • Escoffier

    Re: Devlin on Shalit, funny but basically unfair. I generally like Devlin, too.

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

      Re: Devlin on Shalit, funny but basically unfair.

      That was my take on it as well. It’s been awhile.

  • Escoffier

    “If it had been sodium that gave us that species-preserving energy rush I’m sure we’d have a similar affinity for salt.”

    Actually, we do. Sugar, salt and fat all fit the above analysis to a T.

    Carry on.

  • Escoffier

    Oh, also it was Wolfe’s daughter who went to Duke, not his son.

  • Tom

    Seems Rollo likes women but will never let his ego respect them. Yeah men are stronger than women, that has always been an advantage. But men like Rollo have kept women in their “place” I wonder how many female Albert Einstein `s there might have been if not for our suppression over women.
    His ego has insecurities. “you can deny the reality of it and do the ‘safe’ intuitive thing, which really amounts to going back to chasing your own tail while women ‘tell’ you what they want you to do.”
    Heaven forbid a mere woman would suggest her opinon and actually expect him to go with it.
    I`d love to see him in the batters box trying to hit a rise ball from an accomplished fastpitch softball pitcher. His ego would be severely brused.

  • ozymandias

    Highly neurotic, low-conscientiousness, and open-to-new-experiences slut here. :) I have to say, from personal experience, the extraversion thing is just that it’s a lot easier to have casual sex if you want to leave your room. Me, I’m always like “well, I could go seduce that one really cute lesbian” and then I’m like “meh, rather read.” If I were an extrovert God alone knows how many partners I’d have racked up. *g*

    I have to say, as an introvert, other introverts are so nice. Some of my happiest memories with my partners are of reading a book or doing homework while they watch a movie or play video games or watch a Let’s Play; we don’t HAVE to talk, their presence is enough. And my girlfriend and I are known, when apart, to sit on the phone for hours separately going on Tumblr. :)

    Also I think that high-functioning high-neuroticism people should date other high-functioning high-neuroticism people. You want someone who reacts well to you sobbing on the floor for no reason, you know? And normies very rarely can.

  • Tom

    @ Rollo yawnnnnnn
    Another macho man wanna be who has mastered his dominance over the weaker sex. Not really a mans man but a gamer who thinks he has it all figured out. The ultimate computer tough guy

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “Although there are fewer relationships in college, there is a phenomenon known as the ‘college marriage.’ Perhaps you’ve seen couples like this.”

    I knew a number of couples like this. Would have enjoyed trying it out myself. I also knew a bunch of HS sweethearts who went to the same university and stayed together through graduation. Then there were couples who started out by meeting in the dorms, making out (safe hookup, I guess), and escalating to regular dating. So I’m still scratching my head at the often-cited figure of 1% (college students are in a relationship). Something’s missing, because I knew plenty of girls who had steady BFs. I know it’s lower than it used to be, but it’s still got to be 1/3 to 1/2 at any one time.

    However, I only met one couple that started a relationship after sleeping together as strangers. They got married after college, then divorced about a year later…

  • Escoffier

    This is a major difference between my time and the current day. In my time, college pseudo-marriages were quite common. The did not always lead to actual marriage but some large % did, I don’t know if it was 50% or 30% or what. Another big difference was the, when they didn’t, it was almost always the guy who bolted. Not every single time but the overwhelming majority. I may have done something along those lines myself … ahem …

  • Tasmin

    @Susan
    I don’t usually drop books I haven’t read, but I saw this book by Susan Cain in a bookshop the other day and almost bought it.
    http://www.thepowerofintroverts.com/about-the-book/

    In my experience as an introvert (INFP) I have seen first hand how society favors extrovert-friendly behaviors. But I also believe that there really is a continuum and while we may be limited to (or more dominant in) one or the other, the reality is that most people are somewhere in the middle. I also think that age and our position in life (including thought patterns – like in cognitive behavioral therapy) can both move us across the continuum at different points in our lives.

    One of the most important things I have learned as an introvert operating in extrovert-dominant environments is that I must not feel as if my introversion is a deficiency or flaw (something that our ‘culture’ has been hard at work doing), but rather work toward developing my own take on extroversion.

    As an introvert I am naturally more introspective and contemplative than someone who expresses thoughts and feelings with immediacy, but because I am often not speaking, I am listening and thinking, and organizing my thoughts. And being that most extroverts – at least in the situations I was in, enjoying speaking, they feel less in competition if I am primarily the listener. But the challenge is then to not only engage them enough to keep the conversation going but also to strategically make my mark, to take all of the information that I have been hearing or seeing or feeling and be able to craft it in a way to make an impact. I do give much credit for the success of my ‘style’ to the fact that I am a dominant intuitive and perhaps a little comes from being underestimated; introverts never have all of their cards on the table. But if all of this listening, reading people, thinking, crafting responses stuff sounds exhausting, it is.

    I will say this: it is much easier for an introvert to develop situational or learned behaviors fitting of extroversion than it is for an extrovert to develop the thought patterns and corresponding internalized orientation to that of an introvert. It may be an extroverts world, but introverts are more adaptable.

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

      @Tasmin

      while we may be limited to (or more dominant in) one or the other, the reality is that most people are somewhere in the middle. I also think that age and our position in life (including thought patterns – like in cognitive behavioral therapy) can both move us across the continuum at different points in our lives.

      I agree. I feel like I’m becoming more introverted as I age. I think some of it is situational. I spend most of my day in the virtual company of other people, so in the evenings, and even on weekends sometimes, I don’t want to socialize. I want to batten down the hatches and read a book sprawled out next to my husband while he does the same. Although I recently took MB again and I’m still ENFJ.

      I like what you say about introverts being adaptable. I have definitely watched my son learn to communicate in an extraverted world during the last few years. I’m going to order the Cain book – I’ve seen reviews of it as well. We need a massive correction in society re these traits. I also happen to believe that a lot of innovation in the economy is going to come from introverts – we should be nurturing them, not requiring them to spend unnecessary energy adapting to cultural norms.

  • Tom

    Rollo
    I went to your site and read your history.

    There you seemed like a pretty decent guy, family man and all.
    You seem like two totally different men. One with your wife and one for your “fans”
    Im not of the same opinion as I was before reading about your past and your marriage. Not sure what to think now.
    FYI I was married for 24 years…

  • Escoffier

    I am definitely lazy. But to do a Wolfean novel right requires much on-site research, which is akin to quitting to take a job on the line, only instead of getting paid minimum wage I would get paid … nothing … not really very realistic.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Rollo,

    Yea, I said the same thing as you except you went to wikipedia.

    My point, in case you couldn’t understand, was that just because we evolved a taste for sugar, that doesn’t mean we all want to gorge ourselves on sweets.

    It’s the same with dominance. Sure, women evolved to seek it out, but that doesn’t mean they’re all hot for a high degree of dominance. And the level of dominance that some women have a taste for doesn’t necessarily preclude the so-called “beta” traits.

    That was my point. I thought it was obvious.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Susan, yeah it’s been rough… and it’s only been two days. Pregnancy hormones/discomforts and the mother unit don’t mix well. I’m just lucky to have such an awesome husband.

  • Proud Introvert XP
  • WarmWoman

    I used to be introverted, but I’m now willing to go out there and meet new people/strike up conversations. If my partner was an introvert, I would at least like him to respect my wants to socialize. What I wouldn’t click with is someone that wants me to give up my social life.

    @Susan
    “A man needs to convince you to get a super stressful job and live with him.”

    I’m strange where stress and fatigue has also ironically killed my sex drive on occasions, like an argument during my last relationship or wandering downtown with the ex-boyfriend all day (feeling tired afterwards). I guess I’m unpredictable and contradictory when it comes to what turns me on and can turn me off. =/

  • Zach

    Not sure where to start here. Lots to type but on an ipad in the HK airport, so will try to keep it short. First, and I hate to say it, but Rollo does have one very valid point. Women have evolved to chase alpha, and fighting against that urge is generally a losing battle. So the traits Susan described as ideal at the end of the post may be nice, that guy is unlikely to find a long term mate in real life. He’ll be the virgin chump on the sidelines. However, I strongly disagree that there is a black and white divider between alpha and beta. Its a continuum. I’ve seen plenty of alpha guys who willingly enter into relationships for any number of reasons. Personally, I’ve been in one now for 5 months, by choice. In the 3 years since i graduated college, my longest dry spell was 3 weeks, and previously the longest I’d ever been with a girl was 6 weeks. I had no trouble getting laid, and im very extroverted. But that doesnt mean I dont also want other things too. The two guys i know who are the absolute best at picking up women both habitually enter relationships. In between those, theyre quite promiscuous, but its not one or the other. After 2.5 years of one night stands and booty calls, which, dont get me wrong, were a lot of fun, i wanted the things you can get from a relationship. I didnt settle for one, as my gf is smoking hot, smart, and fun, and i held out through months of dating to make sure i had a girl worth committing to.

    In sum, its not always promiscuous cad or chump dad. Theres a lot of people that fall between those extremes.

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

      @Zach

      Good to see you! I agree, and FWIW my comment was not meant to suggest that women reject alpha traits. It’s the balance between alpha and beta that women seek. You clearly have the capacity and desire for long-term mating, so you do possess some traits that would qualify as beta. That’s a good thing, IMO, and you’re going to get (have already gotten) a higher value female to be in a relationship with you than you would get for a ONS. Your getting together represents careful selection by both parties.

  • WarmWoman

    “I didnt settle for one, as my gf is smoking hot, smart, and fun, and i held out through months of dating to make sure i had a girl worth committing to. ”

    You mean you held out before you decided to commit to her, or you held out in terms of having sex?

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    If it wasn’t use, it’s fine. I try to help friends all the time. Sorry if I misunderstood the situation.

    Is my fault I phrased it poorly. I meant that if we were in a study group upsetting me by badtalking my new friend could easily end up in me leaving so they kept it to a minimum for the sake of the activity we were engaging. Is that a bit clearer?

    Conclusion: Everybody likes their coffee with 20 teaspoons of sugar.

    Had you been stalking me? :p

  • Mike M.

    I maintain that modern culture promotes faux Alphas over the real thing.

    A significant number of modern “Alphas” are either glib talkers with no substance, or thugs using the general restrictions on violence to shield them. Real Alphas are frequently more inclined to let their actions and achievements do the talking – and may be making a point of being unobtrusive and humble in order to control the potential for overweening arrogance.

    Part of this may be a shift in popular culture. Prior to World War II, and even more prior to the First World War, the heroes of the western world were soldiers, scientists, explorers, businessmen, and statesmen. People who frequently displayed virtue in the face of popular disapproval. Today, our heroes are frequently actors and singers, people who rely on pleasing others – and who are very good at being very manipulative to accomplish that end. That shift has migrated into the culture, with unfortunate consequences.

    It’s why the Red Pill for Women is desperately needed. One of the effects is to turn on the Glib Cad Detector.

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

      @Mike M.

      It’s why the Red Pill for Women is desperately needed. One of the effects is to turn on the Glib Cad Detector.

      I’m right there with you on the faux alphas. The way Rollo or Roissy describe alpha males you’re a couple of steps away from a thug. No thanks.

      I like your comparison to an earlier age – it’s a useful thing to think about as I work on a post about filters.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    It’s the balance between alpha and beta that women seek.

    This. Game bloggers would have us think just because women evolved to select for dominance, they all want the alpha male of the group. But that’s as silly as saying that because we all evolved to crave sugar, we want to pour a bottle of maple syrup down our throats. Each person has a “taste” for a certain amount of sweetness, and each woman has a “taste” for a certain amount of dominance.

    Also, as we evolved as “pack hunters” back in the day, the AMOG was probably a very subtle distinction. Cooperation was as important–and probably even more important–than aggression for pack hunters. My guess is that if there were any stand-out “alphas” of the bunch, the pack probably would’ve hung back and allowed ole Saber Tooth to munch on his viscera for a while before making the kill. But that’s just speculation on my part.

    The point is, any man who had the ability to run with the pack, probably had enough dominance and “desirable genes” to attract a woman.

    Which sounds in keeping with Sue’s idea that most women only require a “baseline” level of dominance.

    Of course, I’m no expert on evo psych, so maybe I’m off on some stuff. Feel free to correct….

  • Jesus Mahoney

    *Not that I’m down on the so-called alpha traits. They’re just as important as all the beta ones. Most sane women want a composite, a 3 dimensional person, and not some caricature of a mafia don or a pimp.

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

      @Jesus

      We’re obvs on the same page, but I’m frankly just flummoxed that we even have to have this debate. I feel like I’ve entered a 2D cardboard cutout world when this kind of thing comes up. The study showed statistically significant correlations between short-term mating and personality traits. I can’t for the life of me figure out why that’s even controversial or considered “femcentric.” Before Rollo showed up we were mostly discussing extraversion, which is pretty much what I anticipated when I wrote the post. Obviously, Rollo felt the need to defend short-term mating guys, saying they’re dominant rather than disagreeable. OK, call it what you like. My objective is to tell people what the red flags are – don’t go looking for an LTR from cads.

  • Rum

    Mike M
    The location of the substance of ” real alphaness” is to be found in the female hind-brain. It is just confusion to look for it the the places where men spend their time. If a bangable woman feels strong tingles for a certain kind of male display, that is the real reality. The display may be contrived and involve smoke and mirrors from a mechanistic point of view but that has no bearing on whether or not the right neurons in her hindbrain start to discharge.
    When guys respond to porn, a purest of some kind might say to them, “Why is your penis growing just because you are looking at a two dimensional photograph printed on a piece of paper ? – there is no real vagina anywhere nearby in which to place it.”
    There is some point to such a statement but the penis is not likely to understand that kind of argument because it uses lizard brain for analyzing a situation. Alas, women also have a lizard brain dictating their desires. The difference is that men have always consciously noticed this about themselves whereas women seem to struggle with the being conscious part. After all, it has been the advent of Roissy-ite game-theory that has allowed females to begin to talk coherently about their own sexual nature.

  • ozymandias

    I think another important factor in the “disagreeable = short-term mating” thing is the risk that people will dump you once they discover how much of an asshole you are.

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

      @Ozy

      I think another important factor in the “disagreeable = short-term mating” thing is the risk that people will dump you once they discover how much of an asshole you are.

      You know, it’s funny. A lot of guys who are convinced of the appeal of Dark Triad traits point to the fact that these types get ONSs. In fact, the literature describes the traits as being effective and even necessary for short-term mating only, because men with these characteristics get dumped very quickly. By acting this way, they can get a quick lay, nothing more. So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    For what it’s worth, I like a certain amount of extroversion in a woman. For the same reason that the introverted girls like the extroverted guys, I’d expect.

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

      For what it’s worth, I like a certain amount of extroversion in a woman. For the same reason that the introverted girls like the extroverted guys, I’d expect.

      I’ve seen men here say before that they are dubious a pairing of opposites would work. I won’t deny that you’re unlikely to find compatibility between a Buddhist monk and a Las Vegas showgirl. I think it’s about where people fall on the spectrum. In general though, I feel that my husband’s introversion complements my personality very well. The recent story I shared about learning to be comfortable in silence is a good example. He tempers my natural inclinations in a good way. Similarly, my extroversion benefits him, I think. He often seeks my advice on issues relating to politics, dealing with people, etc.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    We’re obvs on the same page, but I’m frankly just flummoxed that we even have to have this debate. I feel like I’ve entered a 2D cardboard cutout world when this kind of thing comes up.

    Rollo would be laughable if not for the fact that a lot of men who are confused and anxious about women are buying into what he says. At least someone like Roosh is making some money off of the whole manipulation. Rollo seems to be playing on the insecurities of men just to boost his ego.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Rum,

    The location of the substance of ” real alphaness” is to be found in the female hind-brain. It is just confusion to look for it the the places where men spend their time. If a bangable woman feels strong tingles for a certain kind of male display, that is the real reality. The display may be contrived and involve smoke and mirrors from a mechanistic point of view but that has no bearing on whether or not the right neurons in her hindbrain start to discharge.

    If we’re judging “alpha” in terms of who gets the girl, then obviously “alpha” only exists in the female brain. And, you know, if that’s how women want to define it (that which makes them tingle), then that’s fine. But as men, I think we give up a lot of our power if we simply evaluate ourselves in terms of what women want. And, ultimately, we become chumps in our own eyes, because if we just do what we do to curry favor with women, we’re not being true to ourselves.

    The good news is that I think we’re built to be attractive to each other, so men don’t really need to worry about what women want. If men just work on being their personal best, the odds are that they’ll end up attracting women in the process. The same for women. That may be naive, but I’m convinced of it.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    And my gf’s here, so with that, I’m out, folks. Read you all tomorrow.

  • J

    Sugar, salt and fat all fit the above analysis to a T.

    Mmmmm. Add caffeine and you have my fave food groups….

  • Charm

    I scored pretty low on the agreeableness on that SLOAN test.

    Shouldn’t be a surprise though I was typed as either SCOEI or SLOEI.

    But, I think it’s because I value my autonomy the most. That, or I’m just a naturally disagreeable person.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Mmmmm. Add caffeine and you have my fave food groups….

    Like I keep telling my husband Caffeine is not food! :p

  • Rum

    Jesus
    If what you say is true then there nothing to worry about.

  • J

    Is my fault I phrased it poorly. … Is that a bit clearer?

    Yes, Ana. But I was a little too quick on the draw. Again, sorry.

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    Yes, Ana. But I was a little too quick on the draw. Again, sorry.

    Is okay I’m not offended in fact I’m very hard to get offended both online and in real life so who knows maybe they did deserved to be kicked to the curb we will never know…

  • J

    Ana, caffeine is better than food–all that energy and no calories!

  • J

    Good. I’m glad you’re not offended.

  • 108spirits

    “Ladies, here’s a description of the ideal long-term partner:
    Introverted
    Empathic
    Cooperative
    Self-disciplined
    Organized
    Achievement-oriented
    Intellectual
    Open to new experiences”

    Seems like a guy who would make a great boyfriend/husband to some lucky woman one day.

    Sounds familiar. I wonder where I’ve heard that from.

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

      Seems like a guy who would make a great boyfriend/husband to some lucky woman one day.

      Sounds familiar. I wonder where I’ve heard that from.

      Here.

  • Candide

    Bah that was me, logged in on an old computer.

  • OffTheCuff

    JM: “But that’s as silly as saying that because we all evolved to crave sugar, we want to pour a bottle of maple syrup down our throats.”

    Given the obseity epidemic, this actually isn’t that far from the truth.

    Replace the maple sugar with a few boxes of Girl Scout cookies, a few pints of Ben and Jerry’s, or even just too much bread.

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

      @OTC

      Given the obseity epidemic, this actually isn’t that far from the truth.

      Replace the maple sugar with a few boxes of Girl Scout cookies, a few pints of Ben and Jerry’s, or even just too much bread.

      This cracked me up, but OTC has an excellent point. We’ve become a very hedonistic society with zero appreciation for old-fashioned virtues like duty and honor. There is no question that the “faux alpha asshats” are cleaning up – a guy like Tucker Max would have been reviled in the first half of the 20th c. That means more opportunity for women who aren’t attracted to those guys – and there are some.

  • someINTP

    This is an interesting topic for me. How do we link personality typology to evolutionary psychology? Why do we select for certain personality traits? Is its mode of transmission genetic or cultural? Extraversion/Introversion is a heritable trait, but what of the others?

    The reproductive success of human species may depend on a range of archetypes, stock personalities that function much like gene banks. I do believe that every once in while a new winner is chosen (like a gene expression). Those who assert that one personality type is better than others fail to take into account changing social conditions. The western mind is so focused purity, not balance, on objects, not context. I do believe that some characteristics or personalities must go dormant so that other personalities may fulfill their role, which may very well be the “highly extraverted, disagreeable and not conscientious” male — his social and reproductive success being a form of gene expression for our species.

    Of course, modern humans are quite capable of maladaptive behavior, but we have survived up to now — though not so long as previous hominids.

  • someINTP

    Another survey on the topic of personality and reproductive success. Personality was also evaluated using the Big 5 inventory.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100608101023.htm

    Personality Can Predict Fertility

    [i]ScienceDaily (June 8, 2010) — The reproductive success of both men and women is influenced by our personality traits, according to new research from the University of Sheffield.

    The study, which was published June 7 2010 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that women with higher levels of neuroticism and more extravert men, are likely to give birth to a larger number of children in societies with traditionally high birth rates.[/i]

  • Michael

    A very interesting article. This really made me think of previous relationships and what made us click or not.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    OTC,

    Given the obseity epidemic, this actually isn’t that far from the truth.

    Replace the maple sugar with a few boxes of Girl Scout cookies, a few pints of Ben and Jerry’s, or even just too much bread.

    No, I think replacing the syrup with the other stuff obscures the analogy. I wasn’t arguing that people don’t like sweets (or that women don’t like dominance), only that they like a mix (the cookies and ice cream also contain a lot of fat, for example). Also, the “few boxes” might work as an analogy for promiscuity, but are irrelevant to the point that I was making.

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    @ JM
    “So if Rollo’s right, then the only two options for men are:

    1. Become “alpha” and after you knock a girl up, watch her leave you and have someone else take care of the kids. Or,

    2. Becomes “beta” and commit to a woman who’s going to have children with other men.

    Of course, I think Rollo’s a raving lunatic, but if he were right, that’s how the world would look.”

    Actually, I’m pretty sure he’d say that being Alpha simply lets you get what you want. If you’re Alpha you can attract the short term relationships and then choose if you want to turn one of them into a committed relationship if she proves she’s worth it. Its the statistical chances for a women entering into that situation that are poor, unless she’s the quality that can lock down an Alpha in her Alpha chasing ways.

    Obviously thats a poor idea for most women and unattainable for most men unless they find it within them to Alpha Up, which I think is unrealistic for most personality types. There’s a big difference between learning to play your strengths, be the best man you can be, and becoming all that women want.

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

      @Leap

      If you’re Alpha you can attract the short term relationships and then choose if you want to turn one of them into a committed relationship if she proves she’s worth it.

      The biggest problem with this strategy – for men – is that they may have some resentment of the woman’s other STR experiences. Usually women who pursue short-term mating – those pesky personality traits again – do so with some regularity. We saw this play out recently with Jason.

      So we’re back to the Catch 22. If you press for sex early, and monogamy is not on the table as a prerequisite for it, then you’ve fallen for a chick who has casual sex. From the female POV, even if you liked the guy a ton from the start, you’ve acted slutty and now you’re on the slut ladder while he works through whatever torturous thought processes are required to move you to the girlfriend ladder.

      It’s a high risk strategy, and best suited for men who don’t really care about being in LTRs. Or: extraverted, disagreeable men who are not conscientious.

  • VD

    “men like Rollo have kept women in their “place” I wonder how many female Albert Einstein `s there might have been if not for our suppression over women.”

    None. Women are far more handicapped by their inclinations and instincts than any historical male oppression. Women have been theoretically equal for more than 40 years in a time of unprecedented global wealth and they now are more educated than men. And what have they produced in that time? Womyns Studies, which is an educated veneer for structural solipsism. Furthermore, there are fewer women at the far ends of the bell curve. That is why it is highly improbable that there will ever be a female Newton, Einstein, or Shakespeare.

    A significant number of modern “Alphas” are either glib talkers with no substance, or thugs using the general restrictions on violence to shield them. Real Alphas are frequently more inclined to let their actions and achievements do the talking – and may be making a point of being unobtrusive and humble in order to control the potential for overweening arrogance.

    First, you’re wrong. You’re discounting extroverted social Alphas in favor of introverted social Alphas, probably because you are an introvert. Second, you’re confusing social Alphas and sexual Alphas. A socially dominant man is an Alpha, a sexually dominant man is also an Alpha, but the contexts are different. The difference between these two things is precisely why I developed the concept of the socio-sexual hierarchy, because human beings are always operating in both contexts simultaneously. An Alpha who is both socially and sexually dominant will tend to trump a man who is only dominant in one category or the other.

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

      Women are far more handicapped by their inclinations and instincts than any historical male oppression. Women have been theoretically equal for more than 40 years in a time of unprecedented global wealth and they now are more educated than men. And what have they produced in that time? Womyns Studies, which is an educated veneer for structural solipsism. Furthermore, there are fewer women at the far ends of the bell curve. That is why it is highly improbable that there will ever be a female Newton, Einstein, or Shakespeare.

      I agree that women have inclinations and instincts that differ from men’s.

      40 years is nothing in the timeline of homo sapiens. I’m not suggesting things will be different in 400 years, I have no idea. But by any measures women are outperforming men in many areas, including school and the workplace, earning 117% what men earn in their 20s. Female advancement is dramatically affected (and interrupted) by the biological reality of reproduction, which is why you don’t (and won’t) see many women at the highest levels of government and business. (That bio reality cuts both ways – women want career success less than men do in the first place, and they must compromise career goals to parent effectively.)

      There are fewer women in the long tails, but I’m not so sure that IQ tells the whole story of human advancement. See the autism spectrum. I do think that future breakthroughs are likely to require the kind of aptitudes and interests that are more often found in males than females (calling Larry Summers).

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Leap,

    Blockquote fail. I’ll try it again.

    Actually, I’m pretty sure he’d say that being Alpha simply lets you get what you want. If you’re Alpha you can attract the short term relationships and then choose if you want to turn one of them into a committed relationship if she proves she’s worth it. Its the statistical chances for a women entering into that situation that are poor, unless she’s the quality that can lock down an Alpha in her Alpha chasing ways.

    Obviously thats a poor idea for most women and unattainable for most men unless they find it within them to Alpha Up, which I think is unrealistic for most personality types. There’s a big difference between learning to play your strengths, be the best man you can be, and becoming all that women want.

    If you’re Alpha you can attract the short term relationships and then choose if you want to turn one of them into a committed relationship if she proves she’s worth it.

    I’m sure that you’re right: this is what Rollo would have us believe. And yet, this is what he says of women’s “innate sexual pluralism”:

    So, archetypal Alpha traits, got it. Great to breed with, not so great for parental investment…..

    So, archetypically beta traits… Not the Alpha that will leave a lasting sexual mental impression, but a great guy to convince to help raise his offspring….

    So, according to Rollo, while women want alpha seed, they want beta to help her raise her children. Obviously, any woman who would actually want this is a bit oddity. About as odd as any man who goes out banging strippers only to come home to spoon with the Virgin Mary. Men want Madonna and whore wrapped up into one: a faithful partner, a nurturing mother, and a dirty little girl in the bedroom. Women want the same, of course–they want a composite.

    If Rollo’s buying into the dual mating strategy theory, then he’d have to admit that the only way Alpha can get a woman to commit is by doing a bit of beta. Of course, he says no such thing.

    And this isn’t the only–or even biggest–problem with Rollo’s theory. The biggest problem is that by being the pure embodiment of “Alpha” traits, a man is attracting women who are only screening for short term sex (i.e. promiscuous women who don’t make good long term prospects). In other words, “Alpha” is unlikely to ever find a “commitment worthy” gal.

    Not to mention that any actual flesh and blood man attempting to be pure “alpha” instead of embracing the whole of who he is, is being untrue to himself.

    I’m pretty sure he’d say that being Alpha simply lets you get what you want.

    Right. And this is precisely what makes Rollo the resident snake oil salesman of the manosphere.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Leap,

    Also,

    Obviously thats a poor idea for most women and unattainable for most men unless they find it within them to Alpha Up, which I think is unrealistic for most personality types.

    I’d say that the majority of guys for whom it’s unattainable are fortunate. But if they buy into Rollo’s theory of women, it means that they’ll be unable to develop healthy relationships with women, because they’re always going to believe that their women “really” want that 5 minutes of alpha.

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

      But if they buy into Rollo’s theory of women, it means that they’ll be unable to develop healthy relationships with women, because they’re always going to believe that their women “really” want that 5 minutes of alpha.

      Speaking of which, Roissy is clearly back at the wheel at Heartiste. Check out this post:

      http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/the-menstrual-shift-to-beta-males/

      The sheer lack of understanding is mind-boggling. Men here have claimed that while Roissy is over the top and no one really believes what he says – that they just take 10% of it to get better with women, I’m not so sure. The thinking in that post is so dystopian, so nihilistic I think if I were male it would make me want to slit my wrists:

      “during the three weeks a woman is not ovulating (and especially during her menstruation) her desire is shifted toward beta provider males, I don’t mean she is suddenly going to be attracted to the opposite of the alpha males she craves when egging out. Instead, I mean she will become more indulgent of men who are somewhat more beta than the last alpha male she banged, or wished to bang, when she was ovulating.”

      Rollo has said similar things – the alpha she will never get out of her mind. If it describes any women, it describes a tiny fraction. I’m not interested in the debate. Caveat emptor to the guys who take this stuff to heart.

      Interestingly, I’ve heard that Rollo is one of the writers at Heartiste, or was until Roissy came back.

      It’s also time to concede that my fantasy about Roissy becoming a new, hopeful and loving male in the arms of a good woman obviously did not pan out. Not that I ever thought it would.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    There is no question that the “faux alpha asshats” are cleaning up – a guy like Tucker Max would have been reviled in the first half of the 20th c. That means more opportunity for women who aren’t attracted to those guys – and there are some.

    Sure, but cleaning up with busted women. Gamers like Mystery and Neil Strauss advocate displaying the “comfort traits” early on to seduce a woman. I’m not saying that women who sleep around with nice dominant guys are worthy of a relationship, but even among the hedonistic, “dominance” alone simply doesn’t cut it much of the time.

  • Jason

    JM,

    Also, as we evolved as “pack hunters” back in the day, the AMOG was probably a very subtle distinction. Cooperation was as important–and probably even more important–than aggression for pack hunters. My guess is that if there were any stand-out “alphas” of the bunch, the pack probably would’ve hung back and allowed ole Saber Tooth to munch on his viscera for a while before making the kill. But that’s just speculation on my part.

    Regarding the phrase ‘very subtle distinction’, are we looking from the persepctive of an outsider? IME, it is generally quite easy to pick out an AMOG in just about any group. Men like order and tend to fall in line easily when they are grouped together. There may be some head butting when two AMOGs from seperate groups get together, but one tends to win out in some form. And being an AMOG doesn’t mean 100% agression all the time. Cooperation is a very important trait when keeping followers in line, and discretion needs to be used between the two extremes.

    Take a look at any group, from a pack of douchey bros to computer geeks. After a little observance you’ll see who the group follows, looks to for decisions and is deferential to. Most of the time people aren’t even aware of these dynamics because it is so natural.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    Rollo – “The bigger question you need to ask yourself is WHY you interpret what I offer to be negative?”

    For one, a lot of what you write about comes off as conspiracy theory. Now, I’m not saying I don’t agree with some of it, but if indeed it is some dark and nefarious plot against men, it does tend to paint woman in general as oppressors. And it seems to me that men complained of that up until feminism blew it all away. If men are the victims, women are the villains.

    “Personally I don’t believe I have a negative perspective with regards to women. In fact I think it’s overwhelmingly positive because I better understand the feminne social framework, the latent purposes motivating it and no longer subscribe to the misdirection it uses to allay its own insecurities about men.”

    That to me is a fine line though. You say it isn’t a negative view because you simply understand female nature. I can buy that. But, it doesn’t speak to morality at all. Are you, like Susan, trying to keep morality out of the picture? If so, then I understand where you are coming from, and it isn’t for me. I care less about “human nature” and more about what we can do to BE BETTER than our nature. If you are simply working with female “human nature” as it exists, then we have a different idea of where we should be heading. Basing what to expect from people on their natural tendacies would create chaos. Human animals are rather horrible creatures viewed naturally through the lens of morality. We murder, steal, abuse, destroy, corrupt, and that is while some form of control is in place. If all we ever expect from our sons and daughters is for them to be “true to their nature”, they will be savages. I want to know about feminine social frameworks to help them become MORE than they are now. Hell, in some ways I think woman are generally LESS than they used to be in many respects. Sure, they are now lawyers, doctors, and scientists, and that’s fine. But, they are also more promiscuous, demanding, and entitled more as well. I don’t see that as a good trade, do you?

    I appreciate your answer, but with all you wrote, I really didn’t see the answer to my question. That’s fine. It may be that I’m asking some really personal stuff you would rather not discuss on the ‘net. That’s fine too. But as far as it goes, I’m not interested in working with your framework, or anyone else’s framework. I’m trying to build my own. I’ve been here at HUS for some time now, and I’ve learned a lot. But, I also feel like there is more to this than Susan is willing to delve into, and I can see that it wouldn’t help her mission if she did. I went out to the ‘sphere once before looking for a place I felt I could contribute, but honestly most of the men there just seem pissed off. I get that, but I’m not pissed. In fact, I’m in a pretty good place right now, and as a happily married man, I thought perhaps you are as well. I still don’t know, but if it is that difficult for me to find out, then perhaps you side of the fence isn’t any greener, and I should be looking for a new field.

    Susan- “We’re obvs on the same page, but I’m frankly just flummoxed that we even have to have this debate. I feel like I’ve entered a 2D cardboard cutout world when this kind of thing comes up. “

    For me it’s because it is VERY difficult to talk in generalities when we are discussing things that are very individual. On one side, you have the folks that say things like “generally, all woman are entitlement princesses”. Then, on the other side, you have individual woman saying “NAWALT”. We can throw stats around all day, but that doesn’t change individual perception a whole lot. I said in another thread last night, that if I tried, I could probably find a woman that gets “tingly” over a man’s mad basket weaving skills. Of course I was exaggerating, but who the hell knows, one might be out there! Does that mean that “most” woman want a basket weaving husband? Of course not. I’m not sure how to fix this, but that is why these conversations get so “2D” and polarized. I for one am looking at the big picture. I’m not looking to fix any single individual’s issue. I would like to figure out how to fix the whole damn thing. I don’t have any reason to worry about the individual, because I’m not on the market looking. I realized that the more happy and content I am in MY relationship, the more I seem to be concerned about other men finding theirs. Perhaps that is where Rollo is coming from, but I honestly don’t know because as much as he says a lot, I have a difficult time finding the point sometimes. It may be a difference in writing style. *shrug*

    “ He tempers my natural inclinations in a good way. Similarly, my extroversion benefits him, I think. He often seeks my advice on issues relating to politics, dealing with people, etc.”

    Cosign. My SO is a “social butterfly” in public settings. (her words, I tease her endlessly on it). I am not nearly that. :P But, she drags my ass out of the house, and I keep her calm and get her to think instead of simply acting sometimes. We balance each other out very nicely. It is something that has been lacking in my previous relationships, and to be honest it does seem to make things go smoother, with less actual “work” to keep it so.

    Jesus M – “Rollo would be laughable if not for the fact that a lot of men who are confused and anxious about women are buying into what he says. At least someone like Roosh is making some money off of the whole manipulation. Rollo seems to be playing on the insecurities of men just to boost his ego.”

    I don’t know man. I can see that perspective, but after spending a week or so reading his stuff, there are some kernels of truth I believe. What I can’t figure out is: what is Rollo’s agenda. Because, I can’t possibly throw my lot in with someone if I don’t know EXACTLY where they stand, and where they are going. I’m down with men gathering to discuss the issues, and talk about resolution. But to me, Rollo is more about telling men how awful woman’s nature us, and how to learn to deal with it and/or take advantage of it. Why is that that the most vocal people of any movement seem to be so preoccupied with bringing others down? Why does it have to be that female nature sucks? Why can’t it be, female nature is what it is, but here is how they (and we) can make it better? I’m not interested in living in “the now” if the now sucks. If the now sucks, let’s fix it and quit complaining.

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

    About as odd as any man who goes out banging strippers only to come home to spoon with the Virgin Mary. Men want Madonna and whore wrapped up into one: a faithful partner, a nurturing mother, and a dirty little girl in the bedroom. Women want the same, of course–they want a composite.

    I just did a cartwheel and scared the dog.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Jason,

    Take a look at any group, from a pack of douchey bros to computer geeks. After a little observance you’ll see who the group follows, looks to for decisions and is deferential to. Most of the time people aren’t even aware of these dynamics because it is so natural.

    I get what you’re saying here. I guess I don’t know where I fit into that, tbh. In certain situations, I’d say I’m the AMOG. In others, while it’s clear that someone else is, I’m not one to defer to that person. Usually, the AMOG buddies up to me, trying to make me a confidante. That’s turned out both good and bad, depending on whether or not the guy was a douche bag. Sometimes the AMOG will try to chump me, of course, since I’m never one to fall in line, but he usually reverts to the whole confidante routine once he finds that chumping me doesn’t work.

    IDK…

    But I still think it’s a subtle distinction in most of the groups I’ve been a part of. Though that may just be because of my refusal to play that game. Like I said, IDK…

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    Susan – “We’ve become a very hedonistic society with zero appreciation for old-fashioned virtues like duty and honor. There is no question that the “faux alpha asshats” are cleaning up – a guy like Tucker Max would have been reviled in the first half of the 20th c. That means more opportunity for women who aren’t attracted to those guys – and there are some.”

    I agree. For awhile there, I wasn’t sure you really had your eye on the big picture, but last night I realized you do, and you feel like you can better help by not focusing there, and instead focus on individual women that you can help. That is probably true, and I’ll do my best to keep that focus while posting here.

    But, for me, the issue is that I can’t stand how bad things are now. I don’t see any way to fix it by counselling individual people. But I swear everywhere I go to discuss men’s rights, there is no one there but angry men, and a few bloggers stoking the fire. I may have to give that up and simply be happy with what I have. Because trying to be a part of a group that is filled with anger makes you an angry person. I am all for supporting change to make things more equal between the sexes, but not if I have to hate women to do it. Anger is the wrong reason to fix anything, although as I said before, it is one hell of a motivator.

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

      @Ted D

      But, for me, the issue is that I can’t stand how bad things are now. I don’t see any way to fix it by counselling individual people.

      My strategy is to win over one woman at a time by educating them about what works long-term, and by supporting them while they swim against the tide. I realize that’s a potentially small number of women. My thinking is that they have friends who may watch and learn – that’s how I became Aunt Sue in the first place. They will have daughters of their own. If they read here they are more likely to see feminism as a destructive force, which is important. So it’s bit by bit, over time.

      I confess I have no solution for fixing the big picture in one fell swoop. As I’ve said in the past, it would take some sort of catastrophic event, and I think the odds of that are low. So I just keep working at the margins.

  • M3

    Ted

    But I swear everywhere I go to discuss men’s rights, there is no one there but angry men, and a few bloggers stoking the fire. I may have to give that up and simply be happy with what I have. Because trying to be a part of a group that is filled with anger makes you an angry person. I am all for supporting change to make things more equal between the sexes, but not if I have to hate women to do it. Anger is the wrong reason to fix anything, although as I said before, it is one hell of a motivator.

    Dude, i hear you. Bouncing from Spearhead to InMalaFide to Dalrock to FRS to AVfM to etc… it can REALLY sow the seeds of anger.

    I take long breaks away from them because as Yoda once said

    “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

    But i’m not going to throw MRA’s under a bus. They DO provide an invaluable service. I wouldn’t know 1/1000th of what i know now if it wasn’t for them and how twisted things have got. You can’t blame MRA’s for actually pulling the wool from your eyes and showing you all girls really aren’t all sugar n spice all the time and that hey, they CAN be just as bad as any man ever could be, ONLY BETTER!

    I applaud their mission to educate men, reveal the injustices men go through, the inequality men now face, and the depths to which they’ve uncovered how much of a psychological component there is in both attraction and the natural solipsism of the young female mind not yet aware of mans red pill awakening or her own innate hypergamous instincts.

    But everything has it’s limits. Stay in the manosphere too long, and you’re the proverbial frog in the pot unawares the water is coming to a boil.

  • http://deleted Jason

    Susan,

    Rollo has said similar things – the alpha she will never get out of her mind. If it describes any women, it describes a tiny fraction. I’m not interested in the debate. Caveat emptor to the guys who take this stuff to heart.

    You are not interested in a debate, but let me indulge for a minute. We are in agreement that a vast majority of men care about a potential LTR partner’s number. I know I do, as do most men here. So, where did this concern (feminists would call it ‘insecurity’) manifest itself?

    My theory would be that guys subconciously realize that with a higher N for their partner, that they may never live up to some (alpha) standard that the woman has put her threshold at. Not living up to that standard leads to inadequecy on the males part, which can lead to an unfulfilling realtionship, possible cuckolding, etc. I really do think this is a valid concern for a lot of men out there.

    Personally, I know I have the capability to be that best or ‘alpha’ guy for a large subset of women, and I would never settle for second place to some memory or fantasy. I think this settling for second place is more prevalent than ever with guys, especially with articles essentially telling older women to settle for good provider types, and this wreaks havoc on a male’s psyche.

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

      @Jason

      I didn’t mean to deny that this is a real concern for men. But I would point out some realities that too often get glossed over.

      First, hookup sex tends to suck. Guys only get off 44% of the time – I suspect whiskey dick is the most common problem – and women 18% of the time. That matches pretty well the reports I’ve heard re the quality of the experience for most women. It’s not surprising, as intoxication is estimated to be a factor in 85% of hookups.

      So…if it’s alpha males having these hookups, then…alpha males are not bringing the Os. Which tends to make them less than memorable. Karen Owens’ presentation was interesting in this regard. The sex sounded abysmal, with zero effort on the part of the players, and the only time she got turned on was when her partner left her black and blue. I think that a woman’s having been promiscuous says more about her desire or need for male attention and sexual variety than about her having fixated on some mythical alpha.

      Second, when a woman falls in love, she does not linger over thoughts of previous lovers. Bam – gone. The threat you speak of is very real when a woman is settling, or on the rebound, for example. A man should be able to judge whether a woman is truly in love with him. It’s obvious when it’s real. I would obviously never advise a man to commit to a woman when he is not 100% certain about this, particularly in this legal climate. In my entire lifetime, I have heard happily married women mention exes many times, but never wistfully and never in a sexual way.

      I’m guessing that where this “A” guy, mythical alpha stuff comes from is the idea that you can promise guys they can be that unforgettable if they learn Game properly. I don’t think so. No woman remembers ONSs, and if she was in a relationship with some super stud and he dumped her, you’d better make sure she’s even capable of loving a guy like you.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ Cheerful # 18 (just for fun)

    I’ll take any opportunity to talk about Keith Richards. I think he is rather introverted. I remember a clip from the 60s shows Keith being mobbed by some girls and he’s clearly pissed at them. In his book he explains he resented them, because they knew nothing at all about him, he could have been anybody, and they’d have still reacted the same. He had no need to prove himself banging a bunch of chicks, and his estrangement form Mick circa 1988 was prompted by his disgust at the latter’s star tripping at the expense of the music. I do not think he is intellectual per se (I define that in 2 ways; intellectual by achievement a la Christopher Hitchings, and intellectual by temperament (like me)); I see Keith more emotionally based, but definitely comfortable in his own skin.

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

      @Munson

      The more I learn about Keith Richards, the more I respect him. Not the snorting his father’s ashes stuff, or the drug addiction, but the way he has dealt honorably with people. My son actually hung out with his daughters one weekend in Turks and Caicos – slow season I guess – and they raved about Keith as a dad. By all accounts, he is a good man.

  • http://deleted Jason

    I dare to say that the ‘tiny fraction’ that you alluded to is actually bigger than you realize.

  • Charm

    @Ted D

    I agree. I’ve been reading manosphere blogs for about 5 months and after a while it does start to bring you down. I’m merely an observer, a student. I don’t really experience any of these things, though I do not deny them to be true. Regardless of how women paint the picture of men, or men paint the picture of women, I will continue to judge people on an individual basis.

    I am starting to burn out though. I’ve quit reading Roissy and Roosh completely. I’ve also stopped reading the garbage thats all about how to get “mass pussy” as it gets old, and like Susan mentioned, 100 years ago, most of these guys would have been looked down upon for this ridiculous bravado. A lot of these men lack character, which is the most unattractive part about it.

    No matter how bitter a lot of these people are, I can’t become like that. I never have been able to be the victim of anything. But, you can’t tell people anything either. Let them do what they do.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    I just learned how to do a cartwheel a couple of weeks ago.

    Oh, and that post from Heartiste was noxious. I really don’t think that Roissy and Rollo believe that they’re serving their readers’ best interests.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    M3,

    But i’m not going to throw MRA’s under a bus.

    +1 on this. I don’t think we should throw MRA’s under the bus, either. Just1x is MRA and I think he brings a lot of valuable ideas and experiences to the discussion here.

    But I will throw toxic people under the bus.

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

      For the record, I support a lot of the Men’s Rights movement, so I have no problem with MRAs on that score. I even understand that many men have full justification for being extremely angry. It’s good that they can support one another in trying to bring about change. But I have found that I’m either natural prey for them or a natural predator, I’m not sure which. In any case, we don’t get along too well. I feel that I can be most useful by being supportive of men here in my own way.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Jason,

    My theory would be that guys subconciously realize that with a higher N for their partner, that they may never live up to some (alpha) standard that the woman has put her threshold at.

    That’s Tom’s theory, basically. I would say that a high partner count signifies that a woman is habituated to short-term mating.

  • http://deleted Jason

    JM,

    That post from Roissy was farfetched, as women can and do control their physical actions, but there is a mental and emotional part to the ‘5 minutes of alpha’ that I believe has some relevancy.

  • M3

    @ Jesus

    But I will throw toxic people under the bus.

    Close enough?
    http://www.greatestmoviedeaths.com/2007/07/robocop-toxic-waste-guy.html

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Jason,

    Yea, I don’t buy it. I think it’s true that women are looking for more dominance when they’re ovulating, but my guess would be that most of them want more dominance from their man and not some random, 2-dimensional alpha.

  • Wudang

    When considering womens strategies you have to take into acount the tribal structures that have often laid the basis for their strategies. In many tribes the tribe as a whole provides equally for everyone. What women gather is shared and what men hunt is shared. Also protection of women will often, usually I would think, be done by the men as a whole for the women as a whole. Protection would be more of a requirement against other men in the tribe and wether those are much or any sort of threat would be determined by the way the tribe regulates such things. In those types of tribes it makes perfect sense to go for top genes more than long term support from one man since that support is not very relevant for her basic security in terms of food and often only marginally in terms of physical protection. These tribes tend to have some combination of serial relationships and very short term and multiple relationships going on.

    Then you have the tribes where it is the brothers and possibly cousins as well that provide for and protect the woman and all of her children. These tribes tend to have some combination of serial relationships and very short term and multiple relationships going on as well. The beta qualites are considred important in the brothers.

    There are also tribes like the Masai where they tend to have one partner for life but it is normal for both the man and wife to have sex with others. In some cases it is more or less totally open and in others it follows the swinger structure of you borrow my wife I borow your wife. In some tribes there are strict rules that one can only have sex with others arround the same age to avoid incest in others there are not.

    There are also tribes where EVERY man that has had sex with the woman roughly arround the time for each pregnancy is considered a sort of dad. Women will often have many partners and having a bunch of “dads” for each kid is normal.

    There are also some tribes (few but still) that are not aware that sex leads to babies. Sex starts so early it is not so easy to see the link and babies are just considered something that women make.

    There are tribes that practice various forms of public and group sex. I recently saw a program on tv about a tribe where when women married a man she would be taken out in the forrest by the man and his closest male relatives and he would watch them all have sex with her to learn to share his wife with his male family members without becoming jelous. The tribesmenn said this made him a real man.

    Other tribes practice strict lifelong monogamy and others various forms of polygamy.

    When you consider the fact that all sorts of SMP structures like those I have mentioned are today and most likely always have been practised (they are not at all uncommon) it should be obvious that there is ample room for women to have the developed the genes for following other strategies than just serial monogamy or serial monogamy with cheating.

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

      @Wudang

      I would just point out that pair-bonded mating, or monogamy is practiced by all cultures with robust economies. We might argue about what a civilized society is, but the behavior of isolated tribal societies must be recognized to be a very small percentage of human actions, and therefore not informative perhaps except as a curiosity.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    Jason – “My theory would be that guys subconciously realize that with a higher N for their partner, that they may never live up to some (alpha) standard that the woman has put her threshold at.”

    I’m on board with this. And, as far as it goes, I don’t feel insecure about it at all. I’m fully aware that there are much more “manly” men out there than me, because I don’t even try to be “manly” at all. I’m me. But, if my SO was with a “manly” guy and found it to be exciting, but just couldn’t get him to be more like, well ME, then that means she likes many of my traits, but still wants some of that “manliness” that I don’t offer. And, frankly don’t WANT to offer. Because it isn’t me. And, “game” is telling me, to not be me. See? :P

  • Kirk

    “The thinking in that post is so dystopian, so nihilistic I think if I were male it would make me want to slit my wrists”

    @Susan
    The brutality of our current smp has caused me to slit my wrists (and vandalise my university, and take anabolic steroids, and distrust women, etc.) But I digress… Though Roissy’s post is a little over the top, it is grounded in actual science. Studies have indicated that womens’ mate preferences change throughout the ovulatory cycle.
    See:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17201549

    I understand why many of you resent the toxicity that comes from Roissy and his ilk. However, I truly believe that these guys are saving lives. I was literally two days away from downing a box of ambien before I found the Gameosphere.

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

      @Kirk

      Studies have indicated that womens’ mate preferences change throughout the ovulatory cycle.
      See:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17201549

      From that study (not found in entirety at your link)http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/good%20genes%20hypothesis.pdf:

      The results of this study support the good genes hypothesis. When women are fertile and rating men’s attractiveness as short-term partners, they are particularly attracted to traits that tend to be valued in short-term mates.

      Women are attracted to features attractive in short-term mates (but not long-term mates) when fertile and, when their partners do not possess these features, they are particularly drawn to men other than their partners. As most of these studies do not find changes in sexual desire across the cycle, sexual desire per se is probably not responsible for these effects.

      What constrains most women from obtaining mates who are high on both desired short-term (e.g., Intrasexual Competitiveness) and desired long-term (e.g., Good Investing Mate Qualities) traitsis that most men who are high on both dimensions should be highly valued by most women and have many options, making them very difficult to attract and retain (Simpson & Gangestad,1992). Nevertheless, women should still be strongly attracted to such men, which is exactly what we found. Men in our study who were perceived as being higher on the Good Investing Mate Qualities factor and the Intrasexual Competitiveness factor were especially attractive to women as long-term mates, above and beyond the main effects of each factor. In short-term mating contexts, women appear to be less focused on “having it all”; in that context, women strongly prefer traits associated with intrasexual competitiveness.

      One point worth emphasizing is that, even though this framework assumes that female extrapair mating most likely occurred in ancestral environments, it does not assume that women engaged in extrapair mating frequently. Extrapair mating has clear costs as well as potential benefits, partly because of the fact that mates often leave unfaithful partners. Indeed, men appear to be particularly vigilant of their partners’ whereabouts when their partners are fertile (Gangestad et al., 2002; Haselton & Gangestad, 2006). Although women may be most attracted to men other than their primary partners particularly when fertile, they may act on that attraction only on rare occasions.

      We may conclude the following:

      1. If your long-term partner is not sexually attracted to you, she will desire other men during ovulation.

      2. Good Investing Mate Qualities make men sexually attractive to women for long-term mating.

      3. Women may employ short-term mating strategies (casual sex) or long-term mating strategies at different times and for different reasons, but do not swing in and out of each mode based on their ovulatory cycle.

      4. Having sex outside one’s primary relationship during ovulation is rare.

      Kirk, I’m sorry you were so discouraged and am glad that you are feeling better. But what Roissy is writing is simply not true. You may choose to believe it if it makes you happier for some reason, but he’s either ill-informed or intent on deceiving men.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    And, I think the problem is: how am *I* as a non-manly man supposed to know if the woman in front of me that has had “manly” men before is really interested in something different, meaning ME, or that she simply can’t get those “manly” men to settle with her, so she came looking for one that would?

    It all comes back to “settling” for me.

  • Wudang

    “I dare to say that the ‘tiny fraction’ that you alluded to is actually bigger than you realize.”

    It is also scalled down in size massively not only by the genuine desires of women who follow different strategies but often more so by what they realisticly think they can have. I do recognize that women almost certainly come with different genetic dispositions when it comes to alpha/beta and long term/short term preferences. However, when talking about what women really want you have to look at those who can, or at least strongly enough think they can, get it. I am guessing Jason and I and a lot of the guys have similar opinion on what those women go for/require.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    M3,

    lmao. The way way the car’s impact completely liquefies the toxic man and sends the sludge of his remains splattering across the windshield… The moment is so stunningly gruesome and absurdly campy that it’s classic.

  • Wudang

    “Yea, I don’t buy it. I think it’s true that women are looking for more dominance when they’re ovulating, but my guess would be that most of them want more dominance from their man and not some random, 2-dimensional alpha.”

    On the surface of her mind perhaps but remember that the whole point in the variation of prefernce during ovulation is to get the seed of the most alpha guy and to some extent avoid the seed of the beta provider to save room for alpha impregnations. The mechanism isen`t there to provide for variety in her sex life with whoever she is with, it is there to cuckold men.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Ted D

    And, I think the problem is: how am *I* as a non-manly man supposed to know if the woman in front of me that has had “manly” men before is really interested in something different, meaning ME, or that she simply can’t get those “manly” men to settle with her, so she came looking for one that would?

    It all comes back to “settling” for me.

    I think this is why assortative mating is so important. Dating a woman who is near or equal to your level of physical attractiveness limits, but does not totally eradicate, the possibility of her having experiences with men higher than you on the totem pole.

    This brings me to one thing I have wanted to say for awhile. I know it’s commonly accepted that high SMV men (8-10) slum it with lower SMV women (5-7), but that hasn’t been what I have seen out in the world. As I have stated before, one of the reasons I like going to bars is that it gives me an opportunity to watch how men and women interact with each other in the dating world/SMP. Usually, the best looking men have the best looking women on their arms, or are chasing the best looking women at the establishment. It’s pretty rare to see an attractive guy spending time with a woman who isn’t at their level.

    I have seen numerous instances where very attractive men have been approached by women lower than themselves on the totem pole, and those men typically only acted polite in order to not be seen as rude or they would laugh/joke when those women left their sight.

    Most men of high attractiveness do not like to associate with women that they deem unattractive or lower than they are, in that regard. There is no status, for them, in screwing those women. The words “DUFF”, “grenade”, “double-bagger”, and “butterface” have often come about due to men knowingly disqualifying women of lower attractiveness.

    The only reason a guy will admit that he slept with an unattractive woman is out of desperation, but that reason is counter intuitive. Very attractive men typically never are wanting nor desperate for women/sex. Why would he waste his time on an unattractive woman if he could easily pull attractive women? This is what leads me to believe that men willingly sleeping with women they consider unattractive, or less attractive than they are, is an overall infrequent occurrence.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    Rollo – “It is as equally unhealthy to convince oneself that self-repressions are virtues as it is to think that unfettered indulgences are freedoms. There is a balance.”

    Fair enough. Thanks much for the reply. I’m unwilling to drop morality for my own personal reasons. And I agree that there should be a balance, but I also feel like we are VERY low on the morality side of the teeter-totter right now, so I feel like what we need is MORE morality, not less. To get things to a BETTER balance than there are now.

    What I’m finding very difficult, is that the only people that seem to be interested in this are the highly religious, and I can’t hitch my truck to that trailer. I left “the Church” years ago because it is nothing more than another system of control and political agenda, not something truly based in faith and belief. I am based in faith and belief, and that is why I cannot leave morality out of the picture.

    And that’s OK. I can still read your posts, and glean from them those kernels of truth. The difference is: you are content with men simply knowing and making their own decisions on how to use that information. I want them to use it morally, for better or worse. In the end, I want men to take the higher ground. Not because we should, but because we can.

  • Wudang

    Ted D:

    In terms of gender war I think of it like this. Men and women have different strategies and are programmed to think and feel and behave in ways that promote not just our survival but push for a preference for the sexual strategy that serves our interest best. We don`t conciously realize it most of the time it is just instinct. It`s not just men and women who push for different strategies but men and women with different strengths and possiblities push for strategies that er helpfull to themselves but not so much for the rest of the gender. Also these are base instincts and rules of thumb not clearly thouhgt out plans for how it will all play out in a particular context. Now if for some reason one gender strongly gets the upper hand for a while you get an imbalcne such as you have today. On the other hand if there is a resonable balance of power you get more harmony. I tend to think ot it has yin and yang which are oposing but complimentary forces and when they are in balance and pushing and pulling on each other with equal strength you get harmony. An analogy is the way in a relationship women have unconcious instincts to push for betaization and it is when the man mostly but not fully resists this you get the result that both the man and the woman is most happy with. If the man is very or completely betaized the woman has a lot of power but little use for the man and so is miserable lathough in some sense has won. If the man resists totally he will remain a cad with a harem. If he resists most but not all he enters a relationship and remains in charge of it. So both genders have their instinctual strategies and society and individuals get fucked up and miserable if one wins out too much but we still need the instincts to be there. On a societal level you could say that if women win out too much you have serial mongamy but if their strength is balanced by enough male force in the relationship and in society you get LASTING monogamy which seems to be mens preference if they do enter mongamous relationships as oposed to stay cads and if they can`t have lasting LTR where they can have extra women on the side.

    So, while I am not quite sure how Rollo sees a fair balance and the male agenda i see him as at leas having a somewhat similar view about balance of power and I think what he is doing is exposing the massive dominance of views that stem from womens instincs to promote their agenda. I don`t see that as more adversarial than the description the rest of the manopshere has of society today or than evolbiology has of our UNDERLYING agendas (whihc will be different from our felt emotions).

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Wudang,

    On the surface of her mind perhaps but remember that the whole point in the variation of prefernce during ovulation is to get the seed of the most alpha guy and to some extent avoid the seed of the beta provider to save room for alpha impregnations. The mechanism isen`t there to provide for variety in her sex life with whoever she is with, it is there to cuckold men.

    I think your confusion (and many others’ btw) is that you’re interpreting evolution incorrectly. You say that the “point” in the variation. I would argue that there is no “point” as such. What happened was that women who selected for a certain level of dominance bore children who were more likely to survive. It’s not as if women reasoned this out back in the day. “I’m gonna fuck this guy so my kids survive past infancy.” That’s not how it was at all. Women weren’t “trying” to secure “alpha seed.” It’s simply what happened. And the DNA of those women got passed down. But again, the DNA isn’t telling the woman that she has to select an “alpha” when she’s ovulating–it’s just setting the female body up so that it responds to certain dominance cues. And a “baseline” amount of dominance would suffice to allow the offspring to survive. So females haven’t been bred to find the “most” dominant man, but rather a man with “enough” dominance.

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

      So females haven’t been bred to find the “most” dominant man, but rather a man with “enough” dominance.

      Exactly, and this is precisely what the study Kirk linked to states, very clearly. There really is some other agenda at work here – I might not go so far as to say snake oil, but this misunderstanding is pervasive in the ‘sphere.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Wudang,

    So… A woman’s body isn’t telling her to go out and find another man, it’s simply responding to dominance more when she’s ovulating. And if the man she’s with can bring it on enough to arouse her, then it’s all good.

  • Wudang

    “I’m guessing that where this “A” guy, mythical alpha stuff comes from is the idea that you can promise guys they can be that unforgettable if they learn Game properly. I don’t think so. No woman remembers ONSs, and if she was in a relationship with some super stud and he dumped her, you’d better make sure she’s even capable of loving a guy like you.”

    I never gave this so much thought untill some years ago I was shocked to read in webforums how many women had some guys in their past they had hooked up with or had been in the start of a realtionship with (seldom ons I think more like long term pump and dump) and still longed for many years after while they were in a LTR/marriage with some guy they also liked or had settled for. I agree that if the new guy she falls for gives similar or at least close to as strong feelings she will probably forget the old A guy fast but I think even when she finds a new guys she likes a lot that is often the case. For example, one of my female friends who had the crush of her life on a guys she had sex with over a month or two has since had boyfriends she has had strong feelings for but not as strong and she does not really respect it or require it. It can work out fine between her and a new guy like that but the odds are less and nobody really wants to be a good number two.

    I do agree with you that a lot of ons are quite meaningless in terms of being some sort of past competition. Not only for the quality (lack of) of the sex but because so many of the women I talk to seem to have very little emotions/desires caught up with past ons even if the guy was very attractive. It is more the fuckbuddy/longer term pump and dumps that seem to stick with them.

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

      how many women had some guys in their past they had hooked up with or had been in the start of a realtionship with (seldom ons I think more like long term pump and dump) and still longed for many years after while they were in a LTR/marriage with some guy they also liked or had settled for.

      I would be the first to tell guys to stay the hell away from women who had long-term pump and dumps instead of committed relationships. That is a serious indicator of lack of relationship fitness.

      And again, I would advise any guy to test a woman’s love for him over time. If they’re having sex and he has to wonder if she’s head over heels, she isn’t. And he should not settle for anything less if he is emotionally invested himself.

      The best way for men to avoid being the chump provider is to understand what a woman in love looks like – that she just cannot get enough of you – and settle for nothing less.

  • Philip M.

    I take issue with the “succumbed to poaching” category. Succumbing to poaching is the same as infidelity, but the wording of it seems to absolve guilty party of the responsibility of being faithful. Infidelity is infidelity, there shouldn’t be a distinction.

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

      @Philip M.

      I think that succumbing to poaching means dumping your partner for someone new. There may be no infidelity involved, it’s a measure of a person’s tendency to move on to a new partner easily and frequently. I think it’s good that they distinguish the two, and measure both.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    Susan – “I think that a woman’s having been promiscuous says more about her desire or need for male attention and sexual variety than about her having fixated on some mythical alpha”

    It sure does, and to me that may be a far worse issue that simply craving a specific alpha. I think a small “craving” is far easier to control than real emotional issues are to resolve.

    That being said, I wouldn’t be interested in putting my time and effort into a woman with either issue. If she longs for some alpha she banged on spring break, she doesn’t want me fully. If she craves male validation, she wants that from me, but she doesn’t necessarily want ME. If she craves variety, well, my opinion? Don’t get married or commit to a LTR. But, if she can find a man that wants the same, more power to them.

  • Mike C

    Wudang #250,

    Great high-level 30,000 foot summary there. Mosf of the most intense disagreements arise out of understanding exactly where that optimal balance resides between the adversarial instincts of the two sexes. EVERY SINGLE intense point of disagreement here from the truth of male sexuality to defining sexy to what is women’s role comes down to where is the optimal balance between the instincts and drives of the two sexes and who is going to move closer to the other in terms of accomodation. When Rollo talks about fem-centric what he means is that the default assumption of all mainstream conversation is always to assume that the woman’s POV is correct.. What confuses the issue in most mainstream discussions is the apex fallacy, and realizing that the rules and options that exist for the top 10-20% of men don’t exist at all for the bottom 80%.

  • Charm

    Women are far more handicapped by their inclinations and instincts than any historical male oppression. Women have been theoretically equal for more than 40 years in a time of unprecedented global wealth and they now are more educated than men. And what have they produced in that time? Womyns Studies, which is an educated veneer for structural solipsism. Furthermore, there are fewer women at the far ends of the bell curve. That is why it is highly improbable that there will ever be a female Newton, Einstein, or Shakespeare.

    Maybe I can shed some light on this. In one of my classes my prof asked why there is a division of sexes between certain major choices. I posed the question that it was simply a choice. That people choose to major in Engineering as opposed to English, or Medicine as opposed to Education. Then he brought up the idea of visibility. Most majors as well as most fields of work tend to be heavily dominated by either men or women. When a person chooses to enter into a field that is dominated by the opposite sex, they become very visible. They stand out, people pay more attention to them. If they fail at something they are judged more harshly than their fellow (majority) counter parts. That person will be put under a lot of pressure to succeed because they not viewed as an individual but are representing their entire group. This also works with gender, sexual orientation, race, class. People in the “minority” or “out group” stand out and they don’t like the pressure.

    Also, to say that 40 years is enough time to achieve what (very few) men did in centuries is fucking ridiculous. As its already been pointed out, more women than men are going to college. Yes, more men are still in STEM fields, but if you look at the numbers most people don’t go into these fields regardless of sex.

    I also dislike how said there will probably not female Newtons, Einsteins, or Shakespeare. This is based on what? 40 years of YOUR observation? Call me crazy but MOST men will never gain the status of these men. MOST men will never be great philosophers that will be quotes and referenced centuries after their death. MOST men will never write great plays or epics or sonnets. MOST men will not rally the masses together to effect change or to lead countries to victories in war. MOST men will not cure diseases like Polio. MOST men will not invent tools that aid in the advancement of the human race. MOST men and MOST women will never be famous or remembered for anything. To cherry pick a hand full of names of men who were brilliant and rare for their time and say that this some how makes all men (including yourself) better than women is rather arrogant.

    I really hate when people choose the bask in reflective glory. Its not your doing so get the hell out of the lime light. You just so happened to receive a Y chromosome as opposed to and X. Just because you and [insert famous male name] have a cock in common doesn’t make you better than women by comparison. To think that over the hundreds or even thousands of years that no one woman has ever been able to achieve the same as a man boggles my mind. There has to be tons of history that never made it into the books, that people never wrote about. Maybe because they didn’t know about it or didn’t care about it.

    I’m not saying there is not difference between most men and most women. There are large differences, but the fact is only a very small fraction of us will every do anything important in the world. I have a lot of respect for all those philosopher, writers, poets, leaders, who impacted the world in a positive light, male or female, but I will probably never achieve what they did.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    Susan – “The best way for men to avoid being the chump provider is to understand what a woman in love looks like – that she just cannot get enough of you – and settle for nothing less.”

    Here is the problem what that advice: many, many men HAVE been with women they “thought” were in love with them, only to have them walk out months or even years later. So, I for one will admit I probably don’t know what a women REALLY in love looks like. Or more specifically, I can’t tell her apart from one that is faking it, because it seems to me that even most of the fakers even convince themselves they are “in love”, until they aren’t anymore.

  • Escoffier

    I believe that there never have been any “other” Roissys but the same person has been writing it all along.

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

      I believe that there never have been any “other” Roissys but the same person has been writing it all along.

      If that’s true, he was hiding his light under a bushel for a year or two. The writing quality is all over the place.

  • Escoffier

    The writing quality seems consistent to me and the style has always been similar, there are various tells that I have found.

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

      The writing quality seems consistent to me and the style has always been similar, there are various tells that I have found.

      That is very intriguing.

  • Escoffier

    You know, I don’t think I know what a woman in love looks like either. Maybe I used to but I’ve forgotten. My STEM wife is so “all business”, Spock-like you might say, that very little perturbs her spirit. She is damned capable I can tell you that. I was going to say “efficient” but that’s not quite right because she is so absurdly thorough that she takes forever to do anything. But nothing ever falls through the cracks.

  • http://deleted Jason

    Susan,

    And again, I would advise any guy to test a woman’s love for him over time. If they’re having sex and he has to wonder if she’s head over heels, she isn’t. And he should not settle for anything less if he is emotionally invested himself.

    The best way for men to avoid being the chump provider is to understand what a woman in love looks like – that she just cannot get enough of you – and settle for nothing less.

    That all sounds great, and I completely agree, but you are talking to guys here who are ‘in the know’ and understand these concepts. A lot of guys will get duped by women who are simply ‘settling’ and not even understand this. This is why this concept does have a relevant aspect to it.

    Most guys, let alone beta provider types go through the simplistic thought process of: she hangs out with me —> she is willing to have sex with me —> she said yes when I asked her to marry me —> she must be crazy about me. They never delve into the intricicies of each step and really break them down. It’s just sad that this happens, but it should be a real fear for guys out there.

  • http://deleted Jason

    You know, I don’t think I know what a woman in love looks like either

    Exactly. Susan thinks it should be easy for a guy to tell, but most guys can’t and never will understand what this ‘look’ is really like. Women can be duplicitous in this aspect and the man will only realize after it’s too late.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    “Exactly. Susan thinks it should be easy for a guy to tell, but most guys can’t and never will understand what this ‘look’ is really like. Women can be duplicitous in this aspect and the man will only realize after it’s too late.”

    Cosign! Susan – is this something you think you could put into a post? Because frankly, I can’t think of one man that feels like he can tell for sure when a woman is in love with him. I’ve been asking around the office (the few guys I get personal with at all…) and they all looked at me like a deer in the headlights. We are, it seems, completely clueless…

  • M3

    I do know what a woman in love looks like. I had it.

    If she was acting.. give her an oscar.

    But i firmly believe when we courted right up to the proposal she was truly in love with me. And i ‘felt’ it. Not in me, but coming from her.

    My issue is what Rollo brought up, the War Wife syndrome. How easily she withdrew that love. It happened over a short period of time but my beta eyes wouldn’t let me see it and my beta brain kept thinking of supplicating ways to fix it.

    If a man is on firm ground and sure of himself, he can spot the duplicitous ones more easily. Guys in a weak frame, not so much.

    Men know what a woman in love looks like. They don’t know how to spot one falling out of love until the train hits them.

  • Tom

    This is sensible, as a woman wants the strength of alpha genes to insure her fetus goes to term and survives infancy.
    _____________
    See this is why I discount lots of peoples theories about the way it was prehistorically.
    Obviously, no one now or in prehistoric times thought like that, consciencely or unconsciencely (pardon my spelling)
    The fact is there are far more betas, so if anything beta people would prove to inspire more live births. I might see a woman wanting an Alpha for protection purposes, but to increase birth rate?. Doent make sense. I dont buy the whole alpha having better genitics corner. Bigger stronger, faster, I buy that .Smarter, better looking Not necessarily …Better genitics, I dont buy it.

  • Mike C

    Men know what a woman in love looks like. They don’t know how to spot one falling out of love until the train hits them.

    Yup. To this day, I still believe there was a time my ex-wife really loved me. Then one day I came home from work, and she said “this (the marriage) wasn’t working for her and I’m leaving tonight” That was one hell of a train. I later found out she was having an affair and we had only been married about 4 months. Not sure when exactly she fell out of love.

    I’m 99.999% convinced my current SO loves me intensely. I think there is a look she gets in her eye when she looks at you with a certain kind of girlish smile. Of course, she doesn’t look at me that way 24/7, but when I see it I see deep love, loyalty, and devotion. I’d have to say that if I turned out wrong on this, I would be absolutely crushed and have no confidence in recognizing the genuine thing, and probably go back to the plan I had right after the ex-wife which was just casual sex with no relationships or deep emotions.

    I think if a guy has never had a woman look at him this way, then he has nothing to judge against.

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

      @Mike C

      It’s clear that you have experienced that knowing with your gf. Just curious, did you ever have that same sense with your ex?

  • Tom

    @ VD
    None. Women are far more handicapped by their inclinations and instincts than any historical male oppression. Women have been theoretically equal for more than 40 years in a time of unprecedented global wealth and they now are more educated than men. And what have they produced in that time? Womyns Studies, which is an educated veneer for structural solipsism. Furthermore, there are fewer women at the far ends of the bell curve. That is why it is highly improbable that there will ever be a female Newton, Einstein, or Shakespeare.

    __________________
    LOL Just google famous female sicientist.
    If you think women have not been suppressed in history, then I guess there is no hope for you. Women were not even allowed to go to college until about 100 years ago.

  • Tom

    @ Jason
    My theory would be that guys subconciously realize that with a higher N for their partner, that they may never live up to some (alpha) standard that the woman has put her threshold at. Not living up to that standard leads to inadequecy on the males part, which can lead to an unfulfilling realtionship, possible cuckolding, etc. I really do think this is a valid concern for a lot of men out there.

    Personally, I know I have the capability to be that best or ‘alpha’ guy for a large subset of women, and I would never settle for second place to some memory or fantasy. I think this settling for second place is more prevalent than ever with guys, especially with articles essentially telling older women to settle for good provider types, and this wreaks havoc on a male’s psyche.

    __________________
    Bingo!
    When a guy understands it is only his thoughts that are getting in his way, he can easily put those types of insecure thoughts out of his head. Besides, I really do not think most women are that impressed by their casual sex partners, and men who are afraid of being her number two are really worried about nothing

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    Tom – “Besides, I really do not think most women are that impressed by their casual sex partners, and men who are afraid of being her number two are really worried about nothing”

    With all due respect, I’m sure there are plenty of divorced guys that would beg to differ.

  • Tom

    mike C
    I’d have to say that if I turned out wrong on this, I would be absolutely crushed and have no confidence in recognizing the genuine thing, and probably go back to the plan I had right after the ex-wife which was just casual sex with no relationships or deep emotions.
    _______________
    Lots of promiscuous people, male and female are thinking the exact same thing. They like sex, but have no intentions of a relationship anytime soon.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    Tom – “Lots of promiscuous people, male and female are thinking the exact same thing. They like sex, but have no intentions of a relationship anytime soon.”

    And I simply don’t get it. If I go without a relationship, I go without sex. If I ever went single for so long that I just couldn’t stand it any longer (and my max has been about 10 months since I first had sex), I would probably consider hiring a prostitute before engaging in free casual sex. I’m sure that seems completely bizarre to you, but I could at least see it strictly as a business transaction and *might* be OK with the pure shallowness of it all then. I’m not sure, because I’ve never been that hard up to a piece of ass i guess.

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    “Socially we can make workarounds that will turn all of these stats into virtues, but underneath all that is the fact that women will do whatever their hard-coded psychologies necessitate to ensure their survival. Hypergamy is a selected-for survival mechanism.”

    Honestly this makes sense to me. Sexuality for the most recent and briefest of time periods in human history was turned into a morality and stifled through social stigmas and laws. Call me jaded, but I think its realistic to say that if most people think they can get away with something they are driven to do through self gain, they will do it.

    Otherwise, as the research linked earlier in the comment thread, there’s no explanation for why pair-bonding didn’t overtake short term mating in the 1.5 million years the studies claim and that scientists are baffled as to why it is still around. The only explanation is that it never left, but instead women hid it behind pair-bonding.

    Otherwise how could this brief flash of human history, a mere 40 years compared to millions, be able to bring these behaviors to the forefront of behavior and social expectations? Even if they’re not actually practiced by the majority and invoke the 20/80 rule, 20% is still a VERY HIGH number after 1.5 million years for that number to go to zero.

    Not that I think this outlook is bleak. To me its simply reality that I will always have to be the best man which ever woman I do decide to commit to can get – but I’ll be the best man for myself, not for her. I’m not entitled to her just as she’s not entitled to me. You just have to face the realities instead of deluding yourself of what obstacles you face in this SMP.

  • Tom

    Ted
    With all due respect, I’m sure there are plenty of divorced guys that would beg to differ.
    ____________
    Ted, seriously? you actually think a lot of divorces are the result of a woman still pining for some dude she fucked in her past, and because the current guy didnt measure up?? Relationships, and particularly failed relationships are way more complex than that. Resentment is one of ther killers of relationship. He resents she only wants sex once a month, she resents he never helps around the house, helps with the kids, helps with the finances etc. If a man is worried that she may have had a better lover then he MUST educate himself as to how to become HER best lover,sexually. Tons of great info out there for the man who wants to know how to treat a woman right in bed.

  • http://deleted Jason

    @Mike_C

    Are you a regular contributor to the forums over on T-nation?

  • Tom

    Leap of beta and Rollo.
    What both of you are describing is the fact that women are just as promiscuous as men are, “given the oppertunity”…the pill unleashed it @ 1970. I lived it so I can speak from experience.
    My mother was open and frank with me on all topics. She once said to me,”it wasnt called the roaring twenties for nothing”…sexually speaking.
    however I do not believe past performance is a good predictor of future proformance. Not in the stock market and not in people. especially when you mix in an emotion such as love.
    Most people never kill, until the do.. Most killers never do again. Even so you are talking about a person with a severe emotional problem, be it a mental illness, severe jealously, vendetta etc.

  • Tom

    @Ted
    And I simply don’t get it.
    ______________
    And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, Ted. However it makes perfect sense to a lot of other people. Some people can compartmentalize sex into casual sex or “just sex” and then there is the all important and cherished relationship sex, most of us desire. Ive had both. I prefer relationship sex, by far, but I do not think the casual sex I have experienced diminished one bit what I now have with my fiance. I dont compare and I dont even think of the other women from my past. My fiance says the same thing. Of course we are both very giving people sexually, and what we have together is totally unique compared to other experiences.

  • Cooper

    Well…. It’s great to know my personality is perfect for LTR, but as Zach stated (#180) these traits get you nowhere except becoming a “virgin chump on the sidelines.”

    Which has extrapolate two things: women at my age (22) aren’t interested in committing to a LTR. And their inherently attracted to the Alpha traits.

    Both of which I believe to be true, at this point in time.

  • Ted D

    Tom – “Ted, seriously? you actually think a lot of divorces are the result of a woman still pining for some dude she fucked in her past, and because the current guy didnt measure up??”

    If a woman will leave what appears to be a completely stable relationship for nothing other than being unhappy, I’m pretty damn sure plenty will leave because their husband doesn’t meet the standards of her former alpha lovers.

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

      @Ted D

      I wish I hadn’t gone over to Dalrock’s to read that post. I went over in good faith to find deti mocking me. Sigh. Bye deti. They’re dropping like flies and good riddance.

      I edited your comment to remove the link.

  • Tom

    @ Sue
    The biggest problem with this strategy – for men – is that they may have some resentment of the woman’s other STR experiences. Usually women who pursue short-term mating – those pesky personality traits again – do so with some regularity. We saw this play out recently with Jason.
    _________
    with some regularity

    While I do agree with you, are we talking about the superslut here who runs up some pretty impressive numbers or the 30 year old who has a number @ 20 because her “pesky personality traits” led her astray 2 times a year for 10 years. I have a hard time finding fault or calling a woman a slut who has around 180 days in between new sex partners. Hardly notable slut activity there. Hardly qualifies as a personality trait disfunction.

  • Tom

    Ted
    I read your link.

    “It wasn’t the perfect relationship. It just looked that way on paper. There’s a yin and yang to every “successful” relationship. You can’t fake that.”
    I would love to ask this question to Dalrock. “would YOU stay in an unhappy marriage?”
    Life is too short to be truely unhappy. A marriage should add to your life, not take away from it.
    True, there are marriage bandits who got married for gold digger reasons, but we are not talking about them
    More often than not most people get married for the wrong reasons. They marry while confusing lust for love. Once the newness of the lust wears off, if there is not a deep emotional connection,ie love, reasentment and the resulting unhappiness sets in.
    Why would a man OR a woman want to keep living with a person they are stuck with who makes them THAT unhappy?. I wouldnt and probably YOU wouldnt.
    I am a believer that it is ok to stay married for the kids, as long as the relationship is healthy enough to fake it. Even then it may or may not be a good environment to raise kids in and set a good example of what a healthy relationship should be. Anything beat a marriage where there is constant fighting going on, that is brutal for the kids.

  • SayWhaat

    Cooper,

    I know MANY 22yo girls who are interested in LTRs. And you are correct that they are attracted to alpha traits.

    What you need to realize is:

    Alpha + Beta = Boyfriend.

  • OffTheCuff

    I think some women seek men for LTRs and some women seek out men for sexual flings. And women know which is which. Ask any woman if she wants a boyfriend right now and she’ll know the answer.

    And you might get a different answer for “right now”, should you ask the next day.

    I really don’t think women are separable in binary groups like that. Why can’t they want both? Or change their mind? Ask those same women if they refuse to have uncommitted sex on principle, and I suspect you’ll get a very different answer. “Yeah, I do want a boyfriend, but I reserve the right to have flings. A girl’s got needs!”.

  • Escoffier

    “Hypergamy states that a woman seeks a man of higher status than herself for marriage. Nothing less, nothing more.”

    I don’t think that’s right.

    The theory is more like this, from what I have read. Hypergamy is a woman’s natural (which is to say, genetically wired) preference for a higher status male–that is, higher status than herself and also higher status than the other men in her field of vision and also perhaps higher status than men she has known in the past and even (at the extremes) higher status than most men she can personally imagine meeting. That cuts across a range of possible relationships, all the way from a ONS to marriage. In all cases, women naturally prefer the highest status man they can get. And sometimes they want so much status that they won’t settle on ANY man they could actually get.

    “Status” has a varied meaning in this definition. Certain things correllate with high status, for intance money, prestige, social standing, etc. However a man can have all of that and still be low status because of low status intrapersonal behavior (i.e., needy schlumpitude). The highest possible status male would be rich, good looking, fit, well dressed, high social cache, high prestige job (preferably one which involves risk, physical risk being better than mere monetary risk), and also extroverted, dominant, the leader of his group of friends, able to command any social situation, and so on. However, women are wired to be turned on more by the latter BEHAVORIAL traits than by be the former SUBSTANTIVE traits. So, if you have have to choose one or the other, to get women, be socially dominant and a broke societal loser rather than socially awkward and a rich societal winner. But best to be both, if possible.

    As to marriage, sure women want to marry up. But this does not exhaust the effects of hypergamy. Women can marry up–both intrinsically and in their own mind–and still ditch their catch because someone “better” comes along. That is hypergamy at work.

    Also, when women are pursuing short and medium term mating, hypergamy has no less force. They always prefer the most socially dominant male they can get. This is often relative (A&B are both a little dweeby but A is more alpha than B and since I want someone NOW I choose A) but sometimes it is more intrinsic (A&B are both a little dweeby and even though A is a little more alpha, since I don’t have to have someone NOW, I am going to hold out for the Real Deal).

    It’s not all about marriage. It’s about mate selection accross the range of circumstances.

    That, at any rate, is how I believe the manosphere understands “hypergamy.”

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

      @Escoffier

      That, at any rate, is how I believe the manosphere understands “hypergamy.”

      Yes, because they made it up. Researchers do not recognize that definition. It’s pure Game.

  • Cooper

    Well, I’ve recently had a girl, whom I was interested in, out of the blue feel compelled to end our conversation by explicitly telling me “she’s no-where near wanting a relationship” (this was after getting to know each other, and I thought there was a mutual attraction)
    I, of course, took it as a “Woah! I just realized I’m in no way attracted to you.”

    I also had a girlfriend (of a good friend of mine) confess that she only considered starting to date him after she found out his job is having him move to L.A. in 6-8months.

    Riddle me that..

  • SayWhaat

    Cooper,

    The girl you were interested in is not attracted to you. Without more information, I think you may be right on that one.

    As for the second girl…what’s your friend doing in LA? Pursuing acting, screenwriting, what? Because if he makes it, those are high-status “cool” careers. Does she have an interest in moving to LA as well?

  • SayWhaat

    “Yeah, I do want a boyfriend, but I reserve the right to have flings. A girl’s got needs!”

    If that fling is continuous, she will want that fling to become a boyfriend.

    In all of the cases I have known where a girlfriend of mine said she didn’t want a relationship, 100% of the time that girl ended up with a boyfriend almost like a month later. That’s why if any guy tells me that the girl he’s fucking doesn’t want a relationship, my response is just “yeah yeah, just wait a couple months”. She’ll come round — IME, they always do.

  • Cooper

    @SayWhaat
    To answer your question, no she said had no intension of following him (she had stong opinions on disliking L.A.)

    I believe part of my problem is that most of those I hang out with are all recently getting their bachelor’s degree, or applying to grad-school.

    Where as I left school midway through my second year of Engineering.

    Most of them have spent 4-years+ obtaining a, arguably worthless degree, in Arts, or Philosophy. (the most notable being my friend who chose fashion design)
    Mainwhile, I’ve been earning decently money being in the workforce for 3~years.

    Perhaps this had cause a rift of ‘status’ between me and the friends I associate with.

    Most of them are still completely subsidized by their parents, and I’ve become completely indepentent.
    This could also explain why I appear to be seek more LTR than them, because once I was working I quickly realized how much more common LTR are among those working. (and not with students, especailly ones considering graduate-school)

  • Passer_By

    @VD

    “And what have they produced in that time? Womyns Studies, which is an educated veneer for structural solipsism. ”

    Don’t forget Spanx

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/spanx_craze_squeezes_founder_into_rJqVNPMl29pxb6sLmzn8gN

    @Susan

    It may also be that Roissy accepted material from other writers, and then edited it to fit his own style, which would explain why the quality was not the same but the overall style was similar.

  • Passer_By

    @Sassy

    “I have seen numerous instances where very attractive men have been approached by women lower than themselves on the totem pole, and those men typically only acted polite in order to not be seen as rude or they would laugh/joke when those women left their sight. ”

    Did you stay until closing time and observe men who were not with their friends? :)

  • Passer_By

    As to the manosphere sites, you need to be on guard not leave angry at individual people in your life. Don’t leave there angry at or suspicious toward your spouse or SO for something she hasn’t even done (or events that predated your relationship) – and that is possible at the Spearhead or Dalrock’s (not so much with Roissy). I don’t go to Ferd’s site since he started letting certifiably crazy people write the content.

    By contrast, I usually leave this site feeling pretty good about my wife and often with the intention to go home and shag her silly, so Susan’s go that going for her.

  • M3

    Passer By

    By contrast, I usually leave this site feeling pretty good about my wife and often with the intention to go home and shag her silly, so Susan’s go that going for her.

    Agreed. Tho i’ve had one or two very awful days here at HUS, majority of the time i feel i’ve left with a better understanding and learned something, maybe even a twinge of feeling ‘hope’? for the future of humanity? maybe it was just gas.. who knows.

    But i’m actually going to start dropping the acronym HUS into conversations with random women. If i ever run into one that picks up on it, tells me she reads here and ‘gets it’… well, who knows… maybe i might retry that marriage thing after all?

    Maybe…

    with a prenup…

    i’d have to be seriously shitfaced drunk first.

  • Mike C

    @Mike_C

    Are you a regular contributor to the forums over on T-nation?

    Jason,

    No, not anymore, but I used to spend a ton of time there when I was thinking about doing some amateur competitions and trying different routines. Couldn’t muster the discipline to diet down to 5-6% bodyfat over 12-16 weeks, and life priorities changed. These days weight training is a distant second to trading. Kinda funny, you motivated me to go back to one of my very first posts when I discovered the whole Game/Red Pill concept. Funny to read what a dipshit/know-nothing I was (I’m Mike47 on there).

  • Mike C

    @Mike C

    It’s clear that you have experienced that knowing with your gf. Just curious, did you ever have that same sense with your ex?

    Good question, and actually a difficult one. You know, it’s strange and I’ve told this to my GF, its like I have exorcised alot of my history with her in my mind. We married, we were together for a long time, but in some ways it is like it was a dream that didn’t really happen. That must sound bizarre…but I have a hard time recollecting specifics of being together with her.

    That said, I am not really sure…I don’t think so. I was a different person then, much more naive and probably less attuned to someone’s emotional state. Looking back, I think she was more in love with the “idea of me” than me as a human being. She was a high school graduate and had snagged this smart, highly educated guy. I think in a sense I was a trophy to her. Maybe it was the same for me partially. Here i was this guy who never got the girls, and I had the girl who turned heads, and was the life of the party. I am relatively convinced she was a narcissist with BPD. I guess I can recall instances of warmth and affection, but it always seemed in response to something I did for her rather then just me being me.

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

      @Mike C

      Thanks for answering. Your answer doesn’t surprise me, I’m not sure why. I guess the fact that she cheated like that made me think she was incapable of real love and commitment, so that affection from her must have felt different than it does with your current gf.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    I wish I hadn’t gone over to Dalrock’s to read that post. I went over in good faith to find deti mocking me. Sigh. Bye deti. They’re dropping like flies and good riddance.

    It’s difficult seeing former friends turn on you, but for what it’s worth, this site has helped at least one man overcome his bitterness and move on to better things.

    Thanks

  • OffTheCuff

    SW: “In all of the cases I have known where a girlfriend of mine said she didn’t want a relationship, 100% of the time that girl ended up with a boyfriend almost like a month later. That’s why if any guy tells me that the girl he’s fucking doesn’t want a relationship, my response is just “yeah yeah, just wait a couple months”. She’ll come round — IME, they always do.”

    You know some seriously dysfunctional people. Card-carrying crazy. How did you turn out normal?

  • Ted D

    Susan – “I wish I hadn’t gone over to Dalrock’s to read that post. I went over in good faith to find deti mocking me. Sigh. Bye deti. They’re dropping like flies and good riddance.”

    For real? Damn I’m sorry. I get Dalrock on my google reader. I never read the comments because I didn’t actually hit the site. I just don’t want to see the commentary most of the time, so I only read the few ‘sphere sites I can tolerate at all on reader sans the comments.

    And the worst part is I very rarely link to anyone here. :-(

  • http://4stargazer.wordpress.com/ Anacaona

    You know some seriously dysfunctional people. Card-carrying crazy. How did you turn out normal?

    I wouldn’t be so sure. Hubby recalls similar experiences with friends and sort of himself. Let me remind you that as a general rule women don’t have ladders.

  • Sassy6519

    Did you stay until closing time and observe men who were not with their friends? :)

    Yes, and those instances have been somewhat scary a few times. “Last call” is typically akin to watching a lion pick off the weakest gazelle in a group.

    Having said that, the men I have seen employ this tactic are often in or around the middle of the attractiveness scale (5-7). Men who are in the higher range (8-10) don’t typically want for female attention. They figured out who they were taking home to bang within 15 minutes of setting foot in the bar. Their options were that plentiful.

  • Wudang

    “I would just point out that pair-bonded mating, or monogamy is practiced by all cultures with robust economies. We might argue about what a civilized society is, but the behavior of isolated tribal societies must be recognized to be a very small percentage of human actions, and therefore not informative perhaps except as a curiosity.”

    I agree that it is not very functional but it is not a curiosity in the sense that it sheds an awfull lot of light on the conditions that in large part have shaped our genes and the spectrum of behavior we have a potential for. So I find it highly relevant although not in the sense of something to strive for.

  • Jason

    Yes, and those instances have been somewhat scary a few times. “Last call” is typically akin to watching a lion pick off the weakest gazelle in a group.

    Having said that, the men I have seen employ this tactic are often in or around the middle of the attractiveness scale (5-7). Men who are in the higher range (8-10) don’t typically want for female attention. They figured out who they were taking home to bang within 15 minutes of setting foot in the bar. Their options were that plentiful.

    That first line cracked me up, but I think you are pretty spot on here. If I didnt click with anyone early or in the middle of the night I was just going home by myself, not looking for a straggler.

  • http://deleted Jason

    Mike_C

    No, not anymore, but I used to spend a ton of time there when I was thinking about doing some amateur competitions and trying different routines. Couldn’t muster the discipline to diet down to 5-6% bodyfat over 12-16 weeks, and life priorities changed. These days weight training is a distant second to trading. Kinda funny, you motivated me to go back to one of my very first posts when I discovered the whole Game/Red Pill concept. Funny to read what a dipshit/know-nothing I was (I’m Mike47 on there).

    That’s pretty funny, I looked up a couple posts of yours in SAMA. I’ve never been a huge poster on any forums, but still chime in there every now and again. Most of the time the conversation gets too idiotic and pissy for my tastes, but that’s what you get when you put that much testosterone in one forum. I still read most of the daily articles though, and I’m thinking about doing a show or two within the next 5 years. I feel like I’d have to get on gear though, which I’m not totally opposed to, but want to push back as long as I can if I ever do go that route.

    It’s a great site though for guys going through some type of ‘game’ transformation. My first two pieces of advice for any guy looking to do better with women would be to lift heavy 3-4x a week and dress better. It’s pretty amazing that within a year a guy can raise his value 1-2 points by doing those two simple things.

  • Ted D

    Jason – hell, just dropping a few pounds if you have them and wearing flattering clothes can easily add a point, depending on howmbadmyour wardrobe is and how big the beer belly got. Especially older and terribly out of shape guys like me. I’ll never be buff, but all I need to do is compare favorably to the 40-something men around me, and generally speaking that bar isn’t so high that I can’t hit it.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    My last comment reminded me of a joke that kinda applies.

    Two guys are in Africa on safari. While walking through the jungle, they come upon a cheetah sitting in a tree. When it sees them, it stands up and glares at them ready to pounce. Immediately one of the men grabs his backpack and begins changing from his boots to a pair of tennis shoes. The other man looks and say “dude! You can’t outrun a cheetah!” the other man says, “I don’t have to outrun a cheetah, I have to outrun you…”

  • SayWhaat

    Most of them have spent 4-years+ obtaining a, arguably worthless degree, in Arts, or Philosophy. (the most notable being my friend who chose fashion design)
Mainwhile, I’ve been earning decently money being in the workforce for 3~years.
    Perhaps this had cause a rift of ‘status’ between me and the friends I associate with.

    Ah. That’s definitely going to be a huge issue with girls, especially college-educated girls (and non-college-educated girls competing for college-educated boys?). Not saying you’re not as smart as those who do get their college degrees (I think you’re being very prudent by recognizing you could earn more without one), but I’ll just be blunt — that’s probably going to be an uphill battle in terms of finding an LTR in this market. :/

  • SayWhaat

    “In all of the cases I have known where a girlfriend of mine said she didn’t want a relationship, 100% of the time that girl ended up with a boyfriend almost like a month later. That’s why if any guy tells me that the girl he’s fucking doesn’t want a relationship, my response is just “yeah yeah, just wait a couple months”. She’ll come round — IME, they always do.”
    You know some seriously dysfunctional people. Card-carrying crazy. How did you turn out normal?

    First of all…how do you know that I’m normal? o__O

    Bahaha. Seriously, you’ve got that “I don’t need a man!” nonsense into pumped into college-aged women, by the time the hookup turns into a guy who actually wants to stick around, she’ll make a play of “oh I don’t knoowww just yet…why don’t we cuddle?” Eventually the sex bonds her to him and she agrees to a relationship. That’s why FwB will 99% of the time work in the man’s favor, regardless of whether or not he’s the one who initially catches feelings.

  • troppo

    Slashdot tag quote 8 March 2012:

    Yeah, there are more important things in life than money, but they won’t go out with you if you don’t have any.

    DHV!
    Discuss.

  • Lokland

    @ Susan

    “While a small percentage of females are unfaithful during ovulation with high T men, those couplings represent a small fraction of pregnancies. Of course, there are women who pursue short-term mating strategies, and they are very likely to select for alpha traits.”

    I want to explore this more.

    The cuckold rate is 10%.
    The chance of pregnancy on a single sexual encounter is 30%ish.

    Lets do some math. (Someone correct em if I’m wrong.)

    We have 100 hypothetical women who are all gonna ovulate at the same time. Ten of them will have children who do not belong to the supposed father. (BTW if you consider this low you’re frickin nuts).

    However, we know that those ten only represent 30% of the total attempted cuckolds. Therefore the number of women who were cheatng on their husbands at that time was actually 3 1/3 x 10 = 33 (rounded).

    Therefore the number of women who attempted to cuckold their husband and failed was 33 or 1/3 of the female population. Minority yes but not by much.

    Now to get the whole picture, its true some of those women could have gone back for seconds which lowers the number. However some also could have gone and fucked their husbands as well for the sperm compeition.

    Lets lower it to 25 for shits and giggles. Thats still 1/4 of all women employing a dual-mating strategy.

    I don’t care if you call that a minority its a very large minority.

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

      @Lokland

      Damn, somewhere, on some comment thread, I did the math on fertility, and I can’t find it now. So first:

      “In an average 28 day cycle, a woman is fertile for about two days. Sperm generally survive inside of the woman’s body for about 48 hours. They CAN live up to 5 days, but very few make it that long, and the odds of pregnancy from those few remaining sperm are virtually nil, so we’ll use the 48 hour life-span as our estimate, since it’s more reasonable. Now, this gives the average woman about a three day window period every month for pregnancy to occur. From this alone, the odds of getting pregnant from a one-time sexual encounter are about 11%.

      Now, it’s estimated that pregnancy only occurs (according to medical websites) about 1/4 to 1/2 of the time that sperm and the egg are present together, due to a variety of reasons. This lowers the odds of pregnancy from a single sexual encounter to about 3-5%. This is why there are so many women who are frusturated because, as hard as they try, they just seem to be unable to conceive.”

      Re the cuckoldry rate:
      “Roughly 20 years into the DNA-test era, better paternity data are available, and scholars have devised better ways of breaking them down. For a 2006 survey, anthropologist Kermyt Anderson took 67 studies that estimated nonpaternity rates and sorted them according to “paternity confidence.” Categories included the high-confidence group, e.g. nonrandom genetics studies of parents and children who, Anderson reasoned, would be unlikely to volunteer if someone suspected the results might show that Dad wasn’t really the kids’ father; in the low-confidence group were straight-up paternity-dispute test data; and a third category contained studies from which one couldn’t conclude anything about fathers’ confidence.

      Seen this way, the numbers yield a pretty convincing pattern. The median nonpaternity rate for the high-confidence group was a not-too-scandalous 1.7 percent, whereas the low-confidence group showed an unsurprisingly high rate of 29.8 percent—about what one might guess from watching a few weeks of Maury Povich. If you combine the first group with the can’t-conclude group, which showed a rate of 16.7 percent, you get a rate of just 3.3 percent for cases that aren’t plainly sketchy enough to inspire a family trip to the DNA lab. While Anderson cautions that there’s currently no way to judge what percentage of total births are low- or high-confidence, and thus what an overall nonpaternity rate might be, he does use figures from a confidence study he conducted in Albuquerque, N.M., to guess that the rate for that city as a whole would be safely under 4 percent.

      Such a figure squares a lot better with other recent surveys than those double-digit rates do. In a 2005 paper, Australian sociologist Michael Gilding reads available evidence as suggesting a nonpaternity rate for Western countries of between 1 and 3 percent; another comprehensive study of international data agrees we can’t yet draw any conclusions about across-the-board rates but says that minus paternity-dispute cases, the overall rate looks to be about 3.7 percent.”

      http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/8308/to-have-and-to-cuckold

  • Lokland

    @ Passery By

    “By contrast, I usually leave this site feeling pretty good about my wife and often with the intention to go home and shag her silly, so Susan’s go that going for her.”

    Strange, the longer I read here the lower my opinion of women tends to dip.

  • Escoffier

    The highest number for an overall cuckold rate I have ever seen reported with some kind of research behind it is 4%. Susan has some data there that suggests the true rate is even lower than that. 10% is way high in any case.

  • OffTheCuff

    4% is still disturbingly high. Enough so that every man should insist on a paternity test, no matter what.

    If you had a 4% chance of losing your life savings, and, could buy insurance that guaranteed against that loss for $200, you’d be blithering idiot not to buy it.

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

      4% is still disturbingly high. Enough so that every man should insist on a paternity test, no matter what.

      My guy says 1-3%, but regardless, any man who does not feel 100% confident should definitely get one. It is my belief that a woman cuckolding a man will behave very differently toward him than a woman in love with him would. I’m certain it never occurred to my husband to request one, nor was one necessary.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    “Strange, the longer I read here the lower my opinion of women tends to dip.”

    Meh, I flip flop on this. Some days I read here and thank my lucky stars that my SO isn’t batshit crazy, and other days I read here and think all women are indeed batshit crazy.

    I’m 100% positive many of the female regulars think I’m batshit crazy, so I figure it’s all a wash. :P

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

      “Strange, the longer I read here the lower my opinion of women tends to dip.”

      I don’t know if that’s my posts, the female commenters, or the male commenters, but if I were your fiancee I wouldn’t want you reading here in that case.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Strange, the longer I read here the lower my opinion of women tends to dip.

    For what it’s worth, I went through a short period like that over the summer, where coming here depressed the hell out of me. I was in a bad place Spring/Summer. In my case, I think it had to do with some unhealthy personal beliefs. I just saw myself in everything women described as unattractive. I just had to unlearn that view of myself and see myself in a new light.

  • Lokland

    @ Susan, OTC

    “My guy says 1-3%, but regardless, any man who does not feel 100% confident should definitely get one. It is my belief that a woman cuckolding a man will behave very differently toward him than a woman in love with him would. I’m certain it never occurred to my husband to request one, nor was one necessary.”

    This will probably be a nonissue before 2020.

    We can currently sequence an enitre persons genome in 8 hours for 1 grand (came out in Jan). If you look at the trend by the end of next year-ish (2013) it should be about a hundred bucks and 15 minutes.
    Me and some buds made a few bets I chose the end of 2015 for genome sequencing being routine at birth and in hospitals.

    Anyway an entire genome sequence is an overkill paternity test. So yeah, nonissue from a scientific and monetary standpoint within the next few years. Socially, prolly not so much.

    I’m with OTC though, 100% guarantee is the only acceptable method. Trust isn’t good enough when it comes to the propagation of my y chromasome. And yes, my fiance knows, understand and supports this. She just wants me to do it privately and I fully understand why.

    @ Susan

    Cognitive dissonance, my fiance isn’t ALL woman. She is one woman, very unique and lovely. She also has all those drives that other woman have therefore I watch out and plan accordingly.

    All other woman, assume the worst until proven otherwise. And I don’t expect to be wrong.

    Anyway, I don’t dispute the 4% number. (Still to high to leave it to trust, even .01% probably wouldn’t be good enough for me though.)

    I do disagree with some of the methodology of the post you left but I’m in a rush I’ll kill it later.

  • Warm woman

    Lokland-what has been said here that made your opinion of women decrease? I think the online world can create a false sense of reality, but there can be nuggets of truth.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    Okay

    On Why Your Cuckolding Article is Wrong.
    Printed By Lokalnd Publishing Co.

    The entire first paragraph is fucking retarded. You can’t get pregnant when your not ovulating (or slightly before).

    So saying, “I had sex one day after my period” and then concluding theres an 11% chance of getting pregnant is, as I said, fucking retarded. The only days that matter are the days shes ovulating and the two days prior.

    Therefore the only number that matters is the chance of pregnancy from a single sexual encounter (you say 25-50%, I went with 30%). For there to be a cuckold the women HAD TO have sex when there was potential to get pregnant. Otherwise it doesn’t really count.

    So yeah if you wanted to determine the probability that on any random day of the month having a single sexual encounter would lead to pregnancy is 11%. But we are not concerned with one random day of the month. We are quire concerned about four very specific days of the month.

    So for a man to be cuckolded his wife/SO/girlfriend HAD TO have sex with another man on one of those four days. And again when looking at the CUCKOLD NUMBERS it can be assumed that his wife was ovulating.

    That might be unclear but thats why the intial paragraph is about as useless red sour puss on St. Patties day.

    So, I’m going to take your 4% cuckold figure and use a 25% chance and 50% chance of pregnancy.

    Assuming 4 in 100 men were cuckolded with a 25% chance of pregnancy we can assume 16 of their wives cheated on them WHILE THEY WERE OVULATING. If we use 50% then the number is 8 in 100.

    Lets split the difference and call it 12 in 100. Therefore 12 in 100 women are CHEATING ON THEIR SO when they are ovulating assuming a 1/3 chance to become pregnant off of a single sexual encounter.

    So 12% of women have attempted to cuckold their husband but only 1/3 (4%) have suceeded.

    That is still stupendously frickin’ high.

    This does not account for infidelity outside of the ovulatory window. Only that 12% of women cheat on their husbands atleast once when they are ovulating.

  • Lokland

    @ Susan

    “what has been said here that made your opinion of women decrease? I think the online world can create a false sense of reality, but there can be nuggets of truth.”

    I agree, the fact that its online makes every example used become an extreme simply for simplicities sake. Not good if you tend to read literally like I do.

    However general things I read and dislike,

    Women only want the top man.
    Hypergamy (not as Susan describes it, which I think her version is incorrect because it is incomplete)
    Serial monogamy
    etc.

    All add up to one thing.

    If your are not THE BEST MAN IN THE ENTIRE WORLD she will be tempted to cheat, leave, cuckold you etc.

    I am not the best man in the entire world. I have no intention of even trying nor do I particularly want to lead armies or conquer the evil beast that is feminism or kill the big bad terrorists or change the world in any large noticeable way.

    I’d rather work in my lab dicking around with rats, injecting chemicals into them all the while laughing manically.

    So that leaves me, one man, with a very bad set of options. I can either become the best man in the world or I can do what I want. One involves woma(e)n the other involves dying alone and never having children. However in the first I get fame and glory I dislike in the second I get to laugh manically which will make me ohh so happy.

    In the end, its been reiterated many times here. Woman want the top man. That is not me nor do I have any intention of becoming the next great conqueror of the world. However that means that in the end the only reason she doesn’t leave is by luck and chance that something more “top” doesn’t come along.

    I’ve been reading/studying/practicing game for 8-9 years now (I found it young). I consider myself a jedi master. I do not want to be an apha male. I’d rather just let people do what they want, leading armies is not my thing.

    Unlike JM or Y. I don’t live the alpha frame, its very light-switch like for me. On-off when necessary, living it stopped mattering when I met my fiance.

    Then we come to my main problem. I care about other guys like an older brother. Not your average prick but your shy beta guy, I want to help him and protect him because that was me. Hell, that still is me.

    How do I prepare them for this?
    The simple facts,

    your not the best, therefore woman won’t find you attractive;
    your not the hottest, therefore woman won’t find you attractive;
    your not the best, she doesn’t want to raise your children.

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

      @Lokland

      Then we come to my main problem. I care about other guys like an older brother. Not your average prick but your shy beta guy, I want to help him and protect him because that was me. Hell, that still is me.

      How do I prepare them for this?
      The simple facts,

      your not the best, therefore woman won’t find you attractive;
      your not the hottest, therefore woman won’t find you attractive;
      your not the best, she doesn’t want to raise your children.

      You found a woman who doesn’t feel that way. She adores you. Other men can too, and I think it’s incredibly generous of you to want to help out younger guys. That is also why Mike C comments here, even though he has a great relationship. I respect that very much, and I’m grateful, because you can help guys in a way that I never could.

  • WarmWoman

    @Lokland

    The best man to one woman might not be the best to another. It’s easy to feel insecure on blogs like these, but most of the people that come here have had some sort of relationship or self-image problem. It’s not a bad thing, because most of us want to improve ourselves and attract better relationships.

    Like Susan says, it sounds like your fiance adores you. You’re her top man…and it doesn’t matter if you don’t fit the criteria of someone else.

    That’s probably something I need to remind myself in the future. It doesn’t matter if the women around don’t like my man or find faults in him. It’s how I view him.

  • http://areallthegoodnamesgone.blogspot.com Ted D

    WW – “Like Susan says, it sounds like your fiance adores you. You’re her top man…and it doesn’t matter if you don’t fit the criteria of someone else.”

    For now. But, and this is where *I* am still struggling: What if next week she meets a guy that is better/stronger/faster/whatever she thinks is top? As I see hypergamy, that is a constant threat to my relationship. The only thing I have going for me is that as we both get older, she will be less likely to be able to leave me for another guy successfully because of her declining “market” value. That pretty much sucks. That the only way a guy can expect a woman to stay with him for the long haul is because once she gets older, she simply can’t do any better?

    So, men are told to “game” their wives to keep them interested, so that their wives/GF’s don’t get that urge to “trade up”, which to me means that I always have to act and pretend like I believe I am indeed the top man. Which I don’t.

    I love my SO a great deal, and I know that as an individual she is unique to the world. But, she is also a woman, and women in general have a set of behaviors that are shared and deeply rooted, one of which is hypergamy, and as Lokland said, I believe that Susan’s version isn’t correct. Hypergamy is the woman’s desire to always have the best man she can get. Period. Marriage doesn’t come into it at all.

    So, will her “uniqueness” be enough for her to overcome her natural female instincts to trade up from me if/when the opportunity presents itself, or is she more likely to succumb to her baser instincts? I hope you and the other ladies here realize, this is EXACTLY the question I try to answer by looking at a woman’s past sexual history. Because, if she has a good bit of casual sex under her belt, my guess is that she is more likely to succumb than to stay the course with me. What other reason is there for casual sex than to satisfy basic needs/urges without the entanglements of a relationship?

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

    Rollo,

    That’s a pretty serious mischaracterization of the largest study of sexuality ever undertaken. It might help to recall the motives for studying short-term mating alpha behavior:

    There are reproductively-relevant costs to short-term mating as well, for ancestral humans as assuredly as for modern humans. For example, short-term mating behaviors—including variants such as promiscuity, infidelity, and the poaching of other people’s long-term partners—represent significant health concerns to individuals, relationships, and societies throughout the world. Short-term mating can lead to relationship dissolution, sexual jealousy and violent retribution by aggrieved partners, and the contraction of sexually-transmitted diseases and infections.

    Pair-bonding evolved and trumped short-term mating. Vestiges of short-term mating strategy still exist, obviously, and Dark Triad alpha traits are thought to be the mechanism by which that occurs. As the authors of the study so aptly phrased it, these alpha men threaten individuals, relationships and societies.

    The good news is, people with heritable traits for short-term mating are much less likely to reproduce.

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

    @Rollo

    They’re ALL human traits. It’s casting them in a particular narrative that exposes the interest-bias of the one doing it.

    I don’t understand the point you’re making. The study, and the post I wrote, lays out the statistical correlation between personality traits and a preference for short-term mating. The conclusions hardly seem surprising – why do you claim there’s a bias?

    For the record, I don’t agree with your redefining the 5 personality traits. That’s a model for understanding human behavior that’s been widely tested and accepted.

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

    @JM, I understand you have a limited attention span, and higher-order critical thought is an exercise for you, but I’ll try slow it down for you here:

    Play nice, Rollo, I’ve had about as much conflict and confrontation as I can stand for one week. I’m exercising my feminine blogging imperative to set the tone here. By the way, JM just sold his first novel, no shortage of brain matter there.

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

    @Rollo

    Genomic diversity studies have proven this, yet without an emphasis on pair-bonding the offspring of those breeding men would have a lower instance of survival. Solution? Women evolved a dualistic sexual strategy.

    You are not understanding dual mating strategies correctly. They are not employed concurrently. From David Buss, The Evolution of Desire:

    Our forebears learned that a mate who provided abundant resources, who protected us and our children, and who devoted time, energy and effort to our family would be a great asset. Powerful survival and reproductive advantages were reaped by those ancestors who chose a mate wisely, so clear desires in a mate evolved. Women prefer men with desirable “nests.”

    The key problem women have always had to face is selecting a man who would be willing to commit to a long-term relationship. A woman who mated with a reliable man who was more likely to commit to her was more likely to have children that survived and thrived. A mate who was flighty, impulsive, and philandering meant a woman had to raise her children alone, without benefit of the resources, protection and aid that a man might have offered. So, over thousands of generations, a preference for men who showed signs of being willing and able to commit evolved in women.

    A crucial decision in selecting a mate is whether one is seeking a short-term mate or a long-term partner.

    Women seeking short-term partners select for a different set of attributes than women pursuing a long-term mating strategy.

    Buss again:

    Evolution favored women who were highly selective about their mates. If a woman walked away from a casual encounter pregnant, she bore the costs of that decision for decades afterward. Today, the pill alters that cost. But sexual psychology evolved over millions of years. We still possess this underlying sexual psychology even tho our environment has changed. Evolution has favored women who prefer men with attributes that confer benefits and who dislike men who possess attributes that impose costs.

    On why men embraced pair bonding:

    Why men marry poses a puzzle. Casual sex without commitment would have sufficed if all he needed was to reproduce. So there must have been powerful adaptive advantages to committing years of investment to a woman. One possibility is that men who refused to commit would have had trouble attracting the most desirable mating partners. Women did not consent to sex without the commitment. Most men can obtain a much more desirable mate if they are willing to commit. The reason is that women desire a lasting commitment, and the most desirable women are in the best position to get what they want.

    Another possibility is that infants and young were more likely to die w/o the prolonged investment from two parents or related kin. Even children who survived w/o a father would have suffered from the absence of his teaching and political alliances. Fathers often have a strong hand in arranging beneficial marriages for offspring – so children w/o fathers would be hurt. This gave an advantage to men who married.

    Pair-bonding doesn’t mutually exclude short-term mating.

    I didn’t claim otherwise. I said it trumped it, meaning that 1.5 million years ago, mating shifted dramatically and permanently away from short-term and toward pair-bonded long-term mating. Not all humans transitioned to pair bonding, were perhaps genetically incapable of doing so, and those short-term maters developed traits, e.g. narcissism, exploitativeness and psycopathy, that helped them secure short-term partners as a means of reproducing.

    See: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/01/23/relationshipstrategies/how-narcissism-evolved/

    Who is James Bond?: The Dark Triad as an Agentic Social Style.

    The researchers identify two distinctly different and mutually exclusive social strategies:

    Prosocial: Characterized by agreeableness, conscientiousness and cooperative behavior. Successful for long-term mating (LTM).
    Agentic: Characterized by selfishness, exploitativeness and manipulativeness. Successful for short-term mating (STM).
    Here are the traits associated with the agentic style, reflecting the Dark Triad trio of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy:

    Disagreeableness
    Extraversion
    Openness
    High self-esteem
    Low neuroticism
    Low conscientiousness
    Individualistic
    Highly competitive
    Low altruism
    Low empathy
    Low anxiety

    In summary, these individuals “pursue a highly selfish agenda that is exploitative.” These traits “enable an exploiter to persist in the face of potential social rejection and retaliation.” Jonason calls this the formula for getting what you want without arousing suspicion, since people guard against exploitation and also retaliate when taken advantage of.

    Having a propensity for fewer, more distant relationships could be adaptive in a number of ways. If an individual is born into a dangerous and insecure world, it makes sense to be cautious about trusting others and investing resources in them through pro-social behaviours that are unlikely to be reciprocated (Trivers, 1971). Equally, if an individual does not really care about other‟s feelings, it is possible to form short-term pseudo friendships to one‟s own advantage. These “hit and run” relationships have significant adaptive value, particularly for males in the context of fathering offspring (Jonason et al., 2009).

    In The Handbook of Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (2011), a chapter on the link between NPD and short-term mating, The Intertwined Evolution of Narcissism and Short-Term Mating by Holtzman and Strube, explores the latest thinking on this relationship.

    The authors point out that it’s hard to understand how such socially aversive traits could have been adaptive after humans underwent natural positive selection for pair-bonding 1.5 million years ago. It was at this time that the benefits of parental investment (LTM) began to outweigh the advantages of STM. So how did narcissism persist in the population?

    Up until the occurrence of long-term pair-bonding, the two most important traits for mating were attractiveness and competitiveness. These two traits encouraged dominance. According to fossil remains, however, selection traits began to change around 1.5 million years ago to accompany LTM. Mating males became less symmetrical (a proxy for attractiveness) and smaller, reflecting “decreased selection for intrasexual competitive advantages.”

    After this time, it is therefore argued (Eastwick, 2009) that a primary trait under positive selection was cooperativeness – facilitating bi-parental care, attachment and pair-bonds. This was a key turning point in human evolution. When cooperativeness began to be positively selected, contentiousness and attractiveness no longer held a monopoly on reproductive success.

    In light of the available phylogenetic evidence, therefore, we hypothesize that narcissism emerged as a unique variant of dominance.

    The importance and influence of learning mechanisms in the development of mating strategies cannot be downplayed; the development of narcissistic promiscuity is likely partially due to learning and the contextual effects of rearing environments or cultures. Nevertheless…the behavior genetic evidence clearly indicates a nontrivial degree of heritability…the underlying biological machinery that was shaped by evolution has reciprocally interacted with the learning mechanisms that have shaped narcissistic and STM behavior.

    Furthermore, men who prefer short-term mating are:

    1. Exhibitionist: preoccupied with their appearance and grooming.

    2. Coercive:
    – Narcissists have more fantasies about coercion and sadism during sex, and self-report more coercion and sadism during sex.
    – They construe sexual behavior as involving manipulation and power.
    – They punish, i.e., have less empathy for, women who withhold sex.

    3. Adolescent: Poor attachment in childhood, combined with STM approaches during adolescence may set the stage for a lifetime of STM.

    The female mating strategy does not alternate mating with alphas and betas – it consists of selecting men with the best possible combination and balance of alpha and beta traits. This is sensible, as a woman wants the strength of alpha genes to insure her fetus goes to term and survives infancy. Once her child is born, she prioritizes the beta traits of long-term companionship and collaboration, as human young take 18 years to raise.

    In short, you can spin it any way you like, but the fact is that what you deem alpha traits have been a suboptimal means of reproducing for over a million years, from a male POV.

    While a small percentage of females are unfaithful during ovulation with high T men, those couplings represent a small fraction of pregnancies. Of course, there are women who pursue short-term mating strategies, and they are very likely to select for alpha traits.

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

    Oh brother that’s a massive comment. Maybe I should make it a regular post, though I posted some of it in January. Read the whole thing to find out why Rollo is wrong. (Not that he’ll ever admit it.)

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

    @Rollo

    I don’t see any contradiction in the excerpt of the Gangestad study that you quoted. I believe that is referenced in the study that Kirk provided as well. The truth is, we could volley this stuff back and forth for days. In fact, my guess is that if you got Buss and Schmitt et al in a room and let them go at it, they would argue for days. Your excerpt explains Strategic Pluralism Theory, while Kirk’s study explains Good Genes Sexual Selection Theory.

    However, as I noted yesterday in the link I provided re the evolution of narcissism, narcissists are thought to be more attractive than average in the population. This is not surprising, as their mating strategy necessitates a quick in and out before their true nature is discovered, and being attractive helps a great deal. The study did mention that it is not clear whether the attractiveness is nature – that these men are born attractive – or nurture – they are so preoccupied with their appearance that they successfully boost otherwise average looks. This is compatible with the Game idea that any many can boost his SMV two points by working out, dressing well, get a great haircut, etc.

    You see the problem with your conclusions is that you presume that women consciously seek out men with a long-term plan in mind from the outset. If you want to ignore the biometric HBD studies that’s your choice, but just the endemic of single motherhood and proactive cuckolding should be enough to illustrate that there’s a hard-wired subconscious element at work in women’s sexual selectivity.

    I didn’t say that. I think some women seek men for LTRs and some women seek out men for sexual flings. And women know which is which. Ask any woman if she wants a boyfriend right now and she’ll know the answer. There are some women – many women perhaps, who would like to secure a long-term match with a short-term kinda guy, and that’s problematic. But I know, for example, that among pregnant teens in some communities, the bio dad is discarded immediately and the pregnant girl reigns as a sort of high status queen bee among her peers for the duration of her pregnancy. I’ve had first-hand reports of that behavior from readers doing Teach for America.

    In any case, a woman who has pair-bonded with a man, will not crave more dominant men during ovulation. Only the dissatisfied woman does that.

    As for wartime promiscuity, that is hardly surprising. Apparently, Costello’s books are out of print, but I did find this:

    Abetted by the entertainment industry, sex and romance flourished perhaps as never beforethough not always togetherduring WW II as men and women, separated from their loved ones, found new companions with whom to assuage loneliness and find distraction or commitment before facing possible death… Sexual restraint seemed suspended for the duration and hasty marriages were common, asserts the author, evoking Freud to the effect that the urge to kill and the urge to procreate are subconsciously related. (Publishers Weekly)

    Unfortunately, the material is not synthesized thoroughly, nor are the first-person accounts sufficiently interpreted. The conclusions require more substantiation. (Library Journal)

    So it would appear that you may have tinted lenses of your own :) In any case, the study of human behavior during wartime is both fascinating and alarming, generally speaking. Based on the behavior of Russian soldiers as they raped women in Berlin at the end of the war, I would not conclude that all men are would-be rapists, for example.

    Hypergamy is a selected-for survival mechanism.

    Hypergamy states that a woman seeks a man of higher status than herself for marriage. Nothing less, nothing more.