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…
- Introverted
- Empathic
- Cooperative
- Self-disciplined
- Organized
- Achievement-oriented
- Intellectual
- Open to new experiences
{ 338 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 »
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.
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.
@susan
Regarding Shalit, have you read Devlin’s critique of her work? Pretty funny stuff.
Re: Devlin on Shalit, funny but basically unfair. I generally like Devlin, too.
@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:
Glucose is an energy rich food for human beings and other animals. In eating glucose (sugar) humans were given an evolutionary advantage in that the burst of energy which resulted from metabolizing it aided them in their survival as a species. It’s much easier to kill or evade a predator when you’ve just eaten a prehistoric Twix bar.
However, in our evolutionary past simple sugars were a rare commodity, thus any time some became available we opted for the higher efficiency energy food. We developed a preference for sweet things that amped us up and kept us alive. So, yes, “human like sweet fruit.” If it had been sodium that gave us that species-preserving energy rush I’m sure we’d have a similar affinity for salt.
Unfortunately for us today, what was a necessity to our survival in the past has become a liability for us in the present. We have a psychologically evolved propensity to overeat now because in our evolutionary past we couldn’t be sure what or when our next meal was going to be. We psychologically prefer sweet foods because the energy exchange necessary for survival in our past was different than it is today. Got it? Good.
Now, if something as simple as contemporary food preferences is influenced by our evolved psychological past, why is it so difficult to accept that our breeding methodologies wouldn’t be exempt from it?
“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.
Oh, also it was Wolfe’s daughter who went to Duke, not his son.
@Ted,
The bigger question you need to ask yourself is WHY you interpret what I offer to be negative? For men unplugging from their life-long feminine social conditioning, anything counter to the feminine imperative is going to seem negative. It’s scary to force yourself to do what seems counterintuitive, but it’s even scarier to come to the conclusions about why they work.
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. It is what it is; you can choose to operate within that framework for your own (and your SO’s) benefit, or 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.
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.
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, yawwwnnn,..
More platitudes from the femoverse.
@ 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
@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…
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 …
@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.
@Hope
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
@Passer By
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.
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.
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.
TED says introverts rock!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yyeJ1jaGDU
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. =/
@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:
Women seeking short-term partners select for a different set of attributes than women pursuing a long-term mating strategy.
Buss again:
On why men embraced pair bonding:
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/
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.
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.)
That was my take on it as well. It’s been awhile.
@Tasmin
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.
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.
@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.
“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?
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
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.
@Mike M.
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.
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….
*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.
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.
@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.
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.
@Ozy
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.
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.
Sue,
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.
Rum,
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.
And my gf’s here, so with that, I’m out, folks. Read you all tomorrow.
Sugar, salt and fat all fit the above analysis to a T.
Mmmmm. Add caffeine and you have my fave food groups….
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.
Mmmmm. Add caffeine and you have my fave food groups….
Like I keep telling my husband Caffeine is not food! :p
Jesus
If what you say is true then there nothing to worry about.
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.
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…
Ana, caffeine is better than food–all that energy and no calories!
Good. I’m glad you’re not offended.
“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.
Bah that was me, logged in on an old computer.
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.
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.
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]
A very interesting article. This really made me think of previous relationships and what made us click or not.
OTC,
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.
@ 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.
“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.
Leap,
Blockquote fail. I’ll try it again.
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, 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.
Right. And this is precisely what makes Rollo the resident snake oil salesman of the manosphere.
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.
Leap,
Also,
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.
@OTC
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.
@Leap
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.
Sue,
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.
JM,
Here.
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.
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.
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).
I just did a cartwheel and scared the dog.
Jason,
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…
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.
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:
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.
@Ted D
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.
Ted
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.
Susan,
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.
@ 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.
I dare to say that the ‘tiny fraction’ that you alluded to is actually bigger than you realize.
@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.
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.
M3,
+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.
Jason,
That’s Tom’s theory, basically. I would say that a high partner count signifies that a woman is habituated to short-term mating.
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.
@ Jesus
Close enough?
http://www.greatestmoviedeaths.com/2007/07/robocop-toxic-waste-guy.html
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
Flattering, but incorrect. I’ve never written anything for CH.
@Ted, putting angel’s or devil’s wings on observations hinders real understanding. I say that not because I don’t think morality is important in the human experience, but because our interpretations of morality and justice are influenced by the animal sides of our natures. In fact I make a conscious effort not to draw moralistic conclusions in any analysis because it adds bias where none is necessary. The problem is that what I propose is so raw it offends ego-invested sensibilities in people.
Let that sink in for a moment; the reason what a propose seems nihilistic, cynical and conspiratory to you is because it’s analytical without the varnish of morality. For example, when I wrote War Brides, it was in response to men’s common complaint of how deftly and relatively unemotionally women could transition into a new relationship after they’d been dumped by a GF or wife. I wanted to explore the reasons how and why this functioned, but from a moralistic perspective it’s pretty fucked up that women seem to have little compunction about divesting themselves emotionally from one man and move on to another more easily than men. If I approach the topic from the “isn’t it very unjust and or fucked up that women can move on more easily than men?” angle, not only is my premise biased, but I’d be analyzing the moral implications of the dynamic and not the dynamic itself.
I always run the risk of coming off as an asshole because in analyzing things I also strip away that moral veneer. It challenges ego-investments, and when that happens people interpret it as a personal attack because those ego-investments are uniquely attached to our personalities. Don’t think that iconoclasm is limited to the HUS side of the field either – I catch as much or more vitriol from the manosphere when I post something like Looks Count or Women’s Physical Standards and the importance women actually do place on a man’s physique. But you wont read that from my absolutist critics here.
If you choose to derive your personal value from some esoteric sense of what sex ‘should’ mean, more power to you, but I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s OK to want to fuck just for the sake of fucking – it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
@ Ted D
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.
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.
@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.
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).
@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.
Wudang,
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.
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.
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.
“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.
@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 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.
@Kirk
From that study (not found in entirety at your link)http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/good%20genes%20hypothesis.pdf:
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
The writing quality seems consistent to me and the style has always been similar, there are various tells that I have found.
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.
That is very intriguing.
Susan,
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.
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.
“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…
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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
Sorry Suz, but all you’re doing is writing your own ending to the study here. You’re looking at this through LTR colored glasses. From Mrs. Hyde:
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/mrs-hyde/
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 think it’s a popular delusion of this era to think that the generations before were somehow more moral, upstanding and concerned with the ‘proper conduct’ that this generation lacks. As if they were somehow immune to the influence of their own biologies.
From ‘Virtue Under Fire’ and ‘Love, Sex, and War’ by John Costello in which all too much of the above female psychology manifested itself
So much for the Greatest Generation. 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.
@ 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
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
@Mike_C
Are you a regular contributor to the forums over on T-nation?
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
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.
@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.
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:
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 states that a woman seeks a man of higher status than herself for marriage. Nothing less, nothing more.
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.
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!”.
“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.”
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..
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?
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.
@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)
@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?
« 1 2 3 »