Timothy Wilson’s review of THE POWER OF HABIT: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business by Charles Duhigg, begins with this quote:
Human consciousness, that wonderful ability to reflect, ponder and choose, is our greatest evolutionary achievement.
It’s something we tend to forget when we talk about sexual imperatives and the competing mating strategies of the sexes. Regardless of your genetic predispositions, your life experiences, or even the culture you live in, you have the freedom to consider your options in nearly every aspect of behavior.
Recently, I was talking with Emileigh, a female college student who’s gotten into the habit of hooking up at school. Freshman year she had a regular hookup that eventually turned into an official relationship, though it was fraught with drama and suspicion of his cheating. Looking back on it, she said, “I know he didn’t love me.”
When that relationship burned and crashed over the summer, she returned to school figuring she’d follow the same path. This wasn’t entirely insensible – hooking up is the pathway to relationships in college, though it happens only 12% of the time. (Hayes, Allison, McManus, Brian and Paul, 2000). Two and a half years later, she’s had many hookups, none of which made it to the relationship stage this time around. She’s a senior now and feels miserable about it. I asked her why she kept doing it. Her answer had several elements.
- Guys give her attention knowing she hooks up on the reg.
- The girls who don’t hook up get zero attention from guys, which she fears would be even worse.
- Her number has gotten so high she doesn’t see why it matters anymore.
- It’s awkward to say no.
Back to Duhigg’s book, Wilson continues:
This is not a self-help book conveying one author’s homespun remedies, but a serious look at the science of habit formation and change.
One way behavior can become habitual is through repetition. If we acquire a bad habit this way it is very hard to change, because its grooves are so well worn in our minds. We have to painstakingly practice a better response that wears a new groove.
Duhigg is optimistic about how we can put the science to use. “Once you understand that habits can change,” he concludes, “you have the freedom — and the responsibility — to remake them. Once you understand that habits can be rebuilt, the power becomes easier to grasp, and the only option left is to get to work.” He also suggests that by understanding the nature of habits we can influence group behavior, turning companies into profit makers and ensuring the success of social movements.
As you can imagine, that last sentence really caught my eye – if we think about hooking up as a habit, and we understand how that habit gets formed and how it can be broken, then perhaps we really can influence the culture for young people.
Social psychologists have shown that an effective way of changing many habitual behaviors is to change people’s perceptions of the norms that govern them, resulting in reduced drinking on college campuses, for instance.
…Other behaviors are habitual because they obey social norms — norms that we rarely question or think about. We shake hands when we greet people, wear socks of the same color and eat with a fork because these are the customs we have learned. Such behaviors are not well-worn grooves in our minds, but actions we could easily alter if the laws or customs that governed them should change.
Wilson refers here to the success colleges have had in curbing binge drinking by exposing pluralistic ignorance: not nearly as many kids are getting wasted as you think, and not nearly as many kids want to get wasted as you think. We know that pluralistic ignorance plays a role in hookup culture as well, so it stands to reason that exposing it might prove beneficial to the majority of students.
Finally, Wilson addresses what I believe is going on with Emileigh, and certainly with many more young women like her:
There is another type of habitual behavior that involves more cognitive activity, namely people’s interpretation of a situation according to what it means for them and how it fits into the narratives they tell themselves. These behaviors are habitual in the sense that people have chronic ways of interpreting the world.
We need to decouple self-esteem and validation from casual sex. Emileigh has a narrative that she replays in her head whenever she goes out. Because her experience rarely departs from the narrative, it’s worn a very deep groove in her mind. She is stuck in a rut, literally. Perhaps if we can decipher what stories people tell themselves, and explore where the narrative reinforces behavior, we can interrupt the chronic cycle of choosing without reflecting or pondering.
{ 1014 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
Esc – “There seems to be a meme here, from JM and others, that to have to fall back on character is itself a sign of failure of character, since a truly “good” or at least “in love” person would never feel the slightest temptation in the first place. That strikes me as a pretty lie, to coin a phrase.”
Ouch. Yep that about sums it up. It seems like a desire for the Madonna type of woman. Which is fine, except every Madonna has a little bit of whore in her somewhere. The amount and mix varies, and I’m sure there are a few women out there WAY on the Madonna side. I imagine it is a very small group though.
I think the “newly in love” have this immunity for sure. When all that newness is still causing hearts to flutter and chemicals to flow through the blood. During that time, she is probably only barely aware that other guys exist, sexually speaking. But, after the rush is gone, whats left? Hopefully a solid emotional bond, and a woman of good character. Because at the end of the day, it may be only her character that keeps her faithful when temptation strikes.
Of course, the exact same thing can be said for men.
People are confusing socio-economic status with mate status. Mr. Burns on the Simpsons has high socio-economic status, but no woman wants to fuck him – especially if she ever saw the episode that showed him naked for a brief instant.
Status here is the perceived quality of his sperm by her hindbrain. This will be affected by social status and socio-economic status, but will not be determined by it. Good lucks and sufficiently alpha behavior can trump it, especially for sex. In most cases, it’s not like she wants to marry the instructor. She gets hot from his physical attributes and his alpha position over her.
Hypergamy in the classic sense of “marrying up in social status” is only a subset of hypergamy for game purposes.
You didn’t coin the phrase ‘pretty lie.’ ”
No, really? :rolleyes:
OTC,
I would say that most guys are B. And I would add that most guys probably don’t go out looking for women to ogle. If I see a pretty woman, I look. I admire. I move on. If I’m out with my gf, pretty women barely register. Mostly because my attention is focused on us.
I’m sure I’d get an erection at a strip club despite myself, but I also think I’d leave depressed. A bunch of naked unaroused women dancing for men they don’t like or respect in hopes of monetary reward… sounds sad and pathetic to me.
Susan:
Tennis instructor/personal trainer: Low social status but high sexual status. She already has social status. Why is she in an affair with him, then? The instructor/trainer obviously had something she wanted but her high status husband could not give her.
Maybe she won’t leave her husband for the flavor of the month. And do all women do this? Of course not. If they do it is because they experience nothing constraining them, which is the entire problem.
Hypergamy is never going away. It can only be contained and restrained, not eliminated or even reduced.
Again, you’re applying hypergamy simply to LTRs and marriage, when I think it also applies to pure sexual response and behavior.
Do I have a study to back this up? No. Just anecdote…after anecdote….after anecdote… ad nauseam.
And I don’t understand why Devlin “doesn’t count.” So much of what we talk about here has to do with personal experience and what we see,d what we hear others talk about, and facts on the ground as reported by those in the trenches living them. Are we to conclude that has no validity at all? I can’t agree that the mountains of anecdotal evidence discussed here and over at AlphaGame are to be so easily dismissed.
Sue: “Surely sex drive is a factor? We know that high T predicts both cheating and divorce, and also influences sex drive. So base male impulses are probably hormonally determined, at least in part.”
There is an video from NPR about a trans woman who took T therapy, (linked from Roissy comment) who described being an “A”, involuntarily due to the T. Towards women! She described it as someone playing projecting X-rated movies inside her mind, starring her and the woman she was looking at, beyond her control.
She tasted a bit of what it’s like to be a teenage boy.
Escoffier,
Really, I swear.
Ah, but Smithers wants to fuck Mr. Burns!
@Sassy
Im in agreement with Susan. You’re a rare breed indeed.
@Ted
Everything you said translates as someone who knows who he is. I too agree with not wanting other people to submit to you. I don’t get that. I dont like to be dominated nor do I aim to dominate. Im a very autonomous person and I only desire control over myself. Social proofs is very real, but I don’t much agree with it, nor do I identify with it. Seems silly from my POV, but apparently works wonders with other women. I too compartmentalize very well with other people. I hate hate hate the social game. I hate it (this is why I think I might be introverted), but its not socializing that drains me, its having to play nice that gets to me. I can’t stand it, but I feign it very well too. I don’t like having to bullshit people, but if people knew who I really was (mask removed) they’d be a little surprised.
Its a very frustrating way to live. Either you get with the program, and follow behind everyone else and play the game (no matter how fake you feel doing so) or you get left behind. Though, I don’t exactly expect any sympathy because whenever I find myself in a situation that caters heavily to me I abuse the hell out of it. I’d rather go without then get with any program, but that’s how I’ve always been.
I think the reason why most people control their base instincts is because of religion, the concept of morality, and the socially sanctioned control of human behavior.
I’m almost 100% positive that the behavior you described above happened amongst our primitive ancestors. Sex wasn’t moral or immoral. Having sex with the alpha males wasn’t moral or immoral. Men chasing after women with the most fertility cues wasn’t moral or immoral. It just was.
I’ll be honest in saying that if there were no social ramifications, no chance of pregnancy, and no chance of catching a STD, I would be out banging a slew of men. Why? Sex feels good. Without the social dams in place, there really wouldn’t be an incentive to not sleep around.
Oh, teenage boy? Yes. Mindfucked at least 1/3 of every girl I went to school with. And all the pretty teachers. I think the majority of teenage boys are in Group A.
JM, yes, when you stuff a strawman full of shit, the shit does tend to fall out, I agree.
“I’ll be honest in saying that if there were no social ramifications, no chance of pregnancy, and no chance of catching a STD, I would be out banging a slew of men. Why? Sex feels good. Without the social dams in place, there really wouldn’t be an incentive to not sleep around.”
Hypergamy at work. Witness what would occur without restraints. The difference between Sassy and a sizable contingent of women in today’s society is that they have no restraints.
SayWhaat:
” What I was trying to say was that there are more guys than you would think who would be willing to overlook that kind of indiscriminate behavior — especially if pluralistic ignorance has everyone convinced that kind of behavior is the norm.”
—————
Susan Walsh:
“Great point about PI – I didn’t think of that, but you’re right, people are likely to judge less if they perceive the behavior as common. They might even judge themselves as losers, and the promiscuous girl as successful – kind of upside down social proof. ”
————–
> I believe that PI is the reason many women don’t ask men about their number of sex partners.
After hearing that “all men are pigs” “boys will be boys” “men only want one thing”, most women think that most men will have high numbers and so they don’t bother asking, especially if they feel it’s better to remain in the dark.
You see this same attitude being adopted by men, as Saywhat points out, now who assume that most women will have had several sex partners, so they even advise each other not to ask women about their sexual history.
I don’t feel that way. I think character is critical. I also suspect that it becomes linked with one’s impulses over time. Maybe it’s a form of cognitive dissonance, I don’t know. The personal trainer is very good looking, don’t ask me why he came sniffing at my door. I suspect it was his way of “trading up” – not re looks, obvs, but in SES terms. He has something the successful husbands don’t have, that sort of thing. Who knows.
Anyway, I didn’t feel attracted. I confess I felt a little flattered, and quite embarrassed. And I knew it would make a good story for my gf’s. Now I’m pissed because I have to skulk around the gym. I think that in all my years of marriage, feeling fully committed, I’ve probably reached a point where I’m just not vulnerable to intruders. I think it’s possible. There are men here who wouldn’t choose to practice polygamy even if given the option. JM is one, Ted too, Joe, and Megaman for starters. And they’re all in committed relationships.
Different strokes for different folks I guess. That’s why it’s really very difficult to generalize.
@ted
“I’m honestly trying to think of an example of a man I consider dominant that isn’t an asshole. I know a few that aren’t an asshole to me, but to most people they are total jerks. ”
That’s because you have to be an Ahole to dominate people who don’t want or need to be dominated. You can be benignly dominant with someone who takes great comfort in it. Think of it as being paternal, only not that extreme. When you’re around your kids, you’re in charge, and you’re not doing things obsequiously to please them. Doesn’t mean you have to mean or an asshole about it – in fact you shouldn’t be, and you would carefully take into account what they say much of the time. But, ultimately, they understand that you are in charge and presumably have their best interests at heart, and they take comfort in that. I don’t mean to offend any women by suggesting they are children or that this is exactly like a parent child relationship, because it’s obviously not nearly that extreme. I’m just trying to help Ted understand the concept of benign dominance vs assaholic dominance.
“I think my real issue is: I don’t WANT anyone to submit to me.”
Get over it. We’re not talking about submission on some grand or degrading scale. It’s mostly just attitudinal.
And there really are no restraints on any woman except the ones she imposes upon herself, and those she allows others (a husband, e.g.) to impose upon her.
There really are no customs or traditions which restrain hypergamy.
There are no laws which restrain it.
STDs can be guarded against cheaply, safely and effectively, and if contracted, can be cured outright or medically managed.
Pregnancy can be avoided with cheap, safe and effective contraceptives; or aborted in the case of unplanned pregnancy.
Sure, to an extent. Certainly that’s how we learn some of our values. Some people internalize those values, though. They’ve integrated those values into their psyches, they’ve become a part of who they are.
But you also realize they probably took shits out in the open as well. I don’t imagine a lot of people walk around with the desire to poop on sidewalks like dogs. I don’t, but I may just be an outlier.
Pregnancy and disease aren’t social ramifications–they’re biological ramifications. Also, most people have a biological desire to bond with someone else. Fucking around sort of precludes that. So I think there are things other than social dams that keep people from slutting about town. But whatever,that’s fine that you’re like that (and tbh, though I’d never thought I’d say this to a woman, I actually think you should just go and sleep around), but you’re definitely not representative of most women, Sassy. Which is neither bad or good, of course. It just is.
I would not practice polygamy, even if given the option. I don’t doubt that some huge % of men feel the same way. Though I have no idea what that % is.
But I do know this. The % of men who nonetheless feel viscerally attracted to women they have no intention of hitting on overlaps substantially with the % of men who would not practice polygamy even if given the option.
And the only part of hypergamy that has been rigorously studied and reported. Game purposes tend in another direction.
@deti
“I’ll be honest in saying that if there were no social ramifications, no chance of pregnancy, and no chance of catching a STD, I would be out banging a slew of men. Why? Sex feels good. Without the social dams in place, there really wouldn’t be an incentive to not sleep around.”
Hypergamy at work. Witness what would occur without restraints. ”
How is that hypergamy? It just says she would like to fuck a lot – doesn’t say anything about her mate choices – and, more specifically, it doesn’t in and of itself a desire to ONLY do that with men of relatively higher mate status than herself. In fact, I’m not convinced that Sassy is particularly hypergamous – just that she has strong sex drive and, MAYBE, more urge for variety than the average woman. Both of these are more male qualities that could be a result of higher T.
Is this witty repartee that’s going over my head or are you losing your marbles?
JM, you’re taking this all far too personally, it’s just an honest disagreement.
So you’re saying that monogamous people see other attractive human beings throughout the course of a day? Shocking.
@ Jesus Mahoney
I know that the risk of pregnancy and STDs are biological ramifications. That’s why I wrote them out separately from social ramifications. Thanks for your input though.
Anyway, why do you think I should just sleep around? What would that get me? The risks obviously outweigh the pros, in that situation. Why do you feel that I should engage in the risks anyway?
Huh? What have I taken personally? I’m genuinely confused.
@susan
“And the only part of hypergamy that has been rigorously studied and reported. ”
Maybe, but i’m not sure how one would really study it because first you would have to be able to quantify relative mate value. But, I think the OK cupid study that showed that women rate a subtantial majority of men as “less than average in attractiveness” is a pretty good start.
Kinda O/T, but I thought the crew at HUS really needed to see this bizarre story.
Because what the rational part of you says it wants is not what the subrational part of you desires. The guys you want are unlikely to want a relationship with you. You don’t seem to value a strong bond with someone. You once described your perfect relationship and you do your thing and he does his and you come together now and then. Also, you don’t want children.
Laid.
Practice safe sex. Find a regular partner. Use condoms. Get on the pill. Have him get tested. There are ways to be safe.
Passer By:
“How is that hypergamy? It just says she would like to fuck a lot – doesn’t say anything about her mate choices – and, more specifically, it doesn’t in and of itself a desire to ONLY do that with men of relatively higher mate status than herself.”
There is no way in hell a self-described 8 (as Sassy has described herself) is going to bang fuglies because she needs to have sex. I don’t believe that for one single solitary second. She’d be banging men she finds attractive and therefore above her in some way. Women don’t go out seeking fuglies just to scratch an itch. Women have sex with men they find attractive, who tingle them, who are above them in status. She’s not talking about pity sex. She’s talking about going out and rutting just to rut.
I just don’t believe that women will do this with average joe men. They do it with cads, players, douchebags and athletes. They do it with men who display and peacock. They do it with alphas. THey don’t seek out betas and omegas just for servicing. The reason they do it with alphas is because there is a cadre of top 20% men who stand (heh) ready, willing and able to service Sassy any time, anywhere, any day she needs that void filled. She has a choice, and given a choice, I venture to say she’ll select the hot alpha with even more T than she has, every time.
@ Jesus Mahoney
You may think that I’m not representative of women, but I think I’m not representative of the women on this site on this topic. Most other women aren’t as introspective as we are here. Most are also the products of broken homes and weakened social ramifications. What makes you think that other women are so much different than me?
I have a feeling that the current problems in today’s SMP are only going to get worse, exactly for the reasons I have mentioned above. Without restraint, without ramifications, without religion, without morality, what stops humans from acting on their base instincts?
@deti
Vox himself would say that is massive confirmation bias. Who are you hanging out with and swapping stories with? How many of them come from real life? I know exactly one woman who had an affair with her tennis instructor. She came home and tearfully told her husband. Who confessed, truthfully, that he was also having sex with the same tennis instructor.
Big scandal! And this is a family whose name adorns wings of hospitals in Boston.
But then, I’m not gathering these tales of woe in forums for cuckolded men.
I don’t dismiss anecdotal evidence, but it is never sufficient to make broad claims about any aspect of human behavior. Can you imagine the state of science if it were? No doubt there was a great deal of anecdotal evidence that sailing ships reached the edge of the sea and fell off.
We discussed Devlin yesterday. He has zero credentials in this area, other than as a writer of editorials. That’s fine, as far as it goes, but that’s not very far.
I’m as subject to bias as anyone else, no doubt I cherry pick the studies I wish to write about. But I won’t let myself read some piece and exclaim it to be Truth because it confirms my world view and makes me feel better in some way. I think there’s a lot of that going on in the manosphere.
Honestly, I feel like the Game bloggers and their readers are getting more and more strident, more and more negative about women. The animus has skyrocketed in the last year or so. I am not sure why. Roissy used to be the most cynical, and he’s a pussycat compared to Rollo or Dalrock. I’m trying not to let HUS get caught up in all that hate. It bums me out.
Their higher instincts.
So now you are advocating that I get a FWB, despite the fact that it would hurt my value socially in the eyes of men?
That’s just hilarious.
@deti
Ok, now you’ve gone off the deep end
“There is no way in hell a self-described 8 (as Sassy has described herself) is going to bang fuglies because she needs to have sex. ”
That may very well be true, but all her statement above said is that she would fuck a lot. Find another statement to prove your point.
Here is a summary of your argument
“All women are hypergamous all the time
Proof: Sassy says that without social restraints and consequences, she would fuck a lot more guys”
“PB: How is that proof? It just says she wants to fuck”
“Yes, but because she is by definition hypergamous, she would only do so hypergamously, and therefore she is obviously proof of hypergamy”
Also, not banging fuglies is not the same the same as being hypergamous. From what I’ve gathered, her recent boyfriends have not been of high mate value (by other womens’ standards), and that caused instability in their relationship due to guys’ insecurities. I’ll allow for the possibility that she’s full of shit, but I’ll allow for the possibility that she is telling the truth.
@deti
Why did you ignore my claim and Sassy’s admission that she is a highly sexed and unusual woman? We’ve already established she’s not representative. The different between Sassy and a sizable contingent of women is that her testosterone is very high.
@ Jesus Mahoney
This begs the question of whether or not our higher instincts are a product of restraint, social ramifications, religion, and morality or vice versa.
Not like you want that strong bond and a family and all that…. So who cares?
You might. And that’s fine. I’m not actually advocating for you to do anything. Do whatever makes you happy.
Well, if you have a pessimistic view of humankind, then you’d believe the former.
@deti
False. Incurable STDs like genital herpes and HPV compromise women’s fertility. Genital herpes dramatically reduces SMV. Condoms don’t prevent all STDs. Women get more than men, but throat cancer from HPV is on the rise in young men. If by medically manage, you mean take a pill to heal sores faster, or have one’s cervix scraped of cancer cells after each abnormal pap smear, then I guess you’re right as long as the woman doesn’t want children.
I will agree that many people are not properly alarmed by this. Only a third of college hookups include the use of a condom.
Susan:
“Honestly, I feel like the Game bloggers and their readers are getting more and more strident, more and more negative about women. The animus has skyrocketed in the last year or so. I am not sure why. Roissy used to be the most cynical, and he’s a pussycat compared to Rollo or Dalrock. I’m trying not to let HUS get caught up in all that hate. It bums me out.”
Who’s hating on anyone? We’ve been in here talking about hypergamy and whether it has broader applications beyond marriage. I have my views, you have yours. All well and good.
Strong disagreement, even vehement disagreement, isn’t hate. I’ve had JM throw my personal relationship in my face just a few minutes ago. And I know very well why he did it — to discredit me and my views. That’s more hateful than anything I’ve done or said today.
You know, I think I’ve made my points. I’d just better bow out. This is just degenerating now.
@susan
Also, I get your desire for studies, and unbiased studies can be helpful. But, keep in mind, I’m sure feminists could come her armed with a gaggle of studies by the properly credentialed that contradict pretty much everything said here. Doesn’t make them right.
*vomits*
WTF? I just asked if you experienced what you were describing with anyone close to you.
deti:
“Finally, I’ve seen Obsidian riff on this, and Malia too in some other threads. The dynamic she’s talking about with sluts and “good girls” both ending up as spinsters has already played out en masse in the African American community at large”
———–
In the Latin-American community also and not caused by feminism but by other factors that weakened the traditional family structure.
You forgot to add that more people jumping onto the carousel doesn’t correct it as some people are hoping for.
When not marrying, cohabitation, children OOW are more commonplace- no one group decides to “straighten themselves out”, quite the contrary, it becomes “just the way things are.”
Only a small percentage of people find their way out of the cesspool and children end up paying the price (along with society, taxpayers).
It’s not sustainable en masse.
I don’t dispute that women seek to land the highest value mate they can, and that value is determined largely by dominance rather than looks. Though looks obviously play a role as well. I suspect that some men with very tight Game and bragging rights would rank well below average in attractiveness. Actually, I know they would. That’s why online dating doesn’t serve men as well as women. They can’t strut their best stuff with that format.
“Incurable STDs like genital herpes and HPV compromise women’s fertility. Genital herpes dramatically reduces SMV. Condoms don’t prevent all STDs. Women get more than men, but throat cancer from HPV is on the rise in young men. If by medically manage, you mean take a pill to heal sores faster, or have one’s cervix scraped of cancer cells after each abnormal pap smear, then I guess you’re right as long as the woman doesn’t want children.
I will agree that many people are not properly alarmed by this. Only a third of college hookups include the use of a condom.”
Everything you say here is true. Herpes and HPV are medically managed through medications and are not curable. Of course that’s true. Never said it wasn’t. The point is that condom use can prevent transmission of STDs. Nothing is perfect.
A few of them have been average, and a few of them have been very high value/alpha. The last ex nearly left me in a crumpled heap of anger and utter devotion.
Here’s the thing. I want a strong bond with my man, just not in the way you define it. Your definition of love and my definition of love are about as far apart as Pluto and the sun.
Also, just because I don’t want kids doesn’t mean that I don’t value monogamy/marriage. It’s one of the reasons why I give a rat’s ass not to hookup with random men in the first place. I know doing so would damage my value. Does the base urge to sleep around go away despite that? No. I restrain myself because I know that it will be better for me in the long run.
It’s also why I don’t go on a daily food binge, despite the fact that I’d love to eat all the food I want without gaining any weight. I know it’s better for me in the long run.
Exactly. I don’t want to take the risk of catching something, regardless of whether or not I can cure it. I’d rather be safe than sorry.
Sassy,
That’s cool. Wasn’t trying to criticize you. I’d say that a lot of people wouldn’t binge on food all day even if they could get away with it. A lot of people wouldn’t have random sex even if they thought they could get away with it, too. You’re hemmed in purely by social and biological constraints. That must feel terrible.
I still think that you’re an outlier, though. Not saying that’s bad, but you know, NAWALT.
@deti
I’m sorry, I wasn’t directing that specifically at you. It was more of a big picture comment that I vented at the end of that post to you. Bad placement, I should have made it a separate statement.
Disagreement and debate is all good. I get really frustrated when the logic is a circle. If you’re honest, I think you’ll agree that there’s a lot of stuff peddled on blogs, probably including this one, that we read, we think that sounds fairly reasonable, we may even think it’s good news because it means someone else is to blame instead of us, and bam, it’s gospel truth.
It’s all so adversarial. Here’s a post – a young woman acknowledges her poor choices, reflects on her behavior, and seeks my counsel. The same weekend I read a review of a book about the science of habit. The ideas connect in my mind, and I decide to riff on that – approaching hookup culture in a new way – exposing the Pluralistic Ignorance and providing support for people who want to change their behavior.
And here we are, arguing about what hypergamy means. To what end? How would any reader make sense of this comment thread? This isn’t an accusation against you, it’s just an observation about what’s on people’s minds and what’s bugging them, as evidenced here.
I find it discouraging, that’s all.
@Susan
1. It used to be “where have all the good men” articles were a Valentines Day think and were more lament. Now they’re “grow the fuck up and serve my needs” and they’re monthly.
2. The Secretary of State of the US can say “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” and even a decade later I had to explain to a woman why a man might find it offensive.
3. Mass (your state) tries to reform alimony laws and NOW is on the rampage about how it harms women.
4. SPLC classifies game bloggers as the equivalent of the Klan.
5. Slut-walks
From the male side it looks like women are escalating…are you surprised they are too…remember our conversation about everybody weaponizing back on the dread thread. It’s all of a piece.
@Charm
I kept reading about this, and one day I asked an oncologist from Children’s Hospital in Boston how many cases of this they see in a week. He said a handful. I expected him to say zero. So a dozen a month or so, 20 year old boys with throat cancer. I think it’s a pretty serious situation, too. I think HPV may be a very, very serious health problem moving forward.
Charming.
Tell me, what other constraints are there besides biological and social constraints?
Don’t bother saying spiritual, because spiritual constraints are a product of social constraints.
@Susan
That it’s the Internet…I mean, seriously, this isn’t even bad drift compared to some forums I read.
Psychological, why?
@david Foster
Interesting video there! I read that a young college student, tired of picking up her roommate at various boys’ apartments in the morning, has started a Shuttle of Shame service. She charges $5 to pick girls up in the morning and take them home. No word on how many takers she’s had.
“But, I think the OK cupid study that showed that women rate a subtantial majority of men as “less than average in attractiveness” is a pretty good start.”
Was this study based on photos alone or on videos?
I think it makes a difference because of the fact that women’s attraction is based on several factors (like behavioral), so a photo alone isn’t going to generate attraction for many women.
Herb:
“From the male side it looks like women are escalating…are you surprised they are too…remember our conversation about everybody weaponizing back on the dread thread. It’s all of a piece.”
And it’s been like this ever since I can remember, since I was in high school in the mid-1980s. It’s been escalating for at least 30 years.
.
And this I don’t get. How are spiritual constraints necessarily the product of social constraints.
Seems to me that Jesus, the Buddha, Muhammad, Moses… all those guys had to get away from society in order to awaken their perception of spiritual values. They fled to the desert, the forest, caves, mountaintops…
@ Jesus Mahoney
Psychological is a product of biological, not to mention social. Thanks for trying though.
On another note, why do humans do anything that they do?
I think humans have the tendency/instinct to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Biological and social constraints afford humans that luxury.
” I know exactly one woman who had an affair with her tennis instructor. She came home and tearfully told her husband. Who confessed, truthfully, that he was also having sex with the same tennis instructor. ”
Now, that’s funny. Sad, too, but the element of comedy is inescapable. There’s a movie in that.
Sassy,
lol, For that matter the social is the product of biological, since there’s no society w/o biological beings to populate it.
@ Jesus Mahoney
Yes, all of those men did flee society for a time. Eventually, they came back to society in order to spread a message, their message. If they didn’t care to have an effect on society or social morals, they would have stayed isolated forever and not tried to spread a message.
It’s not a bad thing to want to affect society, but it is a social effect and constraint.
Okay, and in that case, the spiritual affected the social and not the other way around.
“Was this study based on photos alone or on videos?
I think it makes a difference because of the fact that women’s attraction is based on several factors (like behavioral), so a photo alone isn’t going to generate attraction for many women.”
Right, I get that. It’s just that they were rating their physical attractiveness, in and of itself, as either above or below average, or perhaps it was more precise and they were supposed to rate it from 1 to 10 or some such thing. They weren’t rating them as to whether they want to date them – just an appraisal of their relative physical appearance. Men, instinctively, produced a set of ratings for women that averaged out to what you would expect – a balanced curve centered at 50%. Women instinctively rated the physical appearance of men in a way that left a substantial majority of them below the 50% line.
I don’t know if they saw videos. I suspect they saw profiles, but I’m not sure.
@deti, @Herb
You guys are right, I’m just getting emotional. You know that as a woman I take this stuff to heart. I can stew over these threads for hours, and that’s my fault, not anyone else’s. I need to get better perspective. For an online site with men and women, many of whom have been disappointed in one way or another, we do a decent job of keeping things civil, I think.
Honestly, I don’t know how anyone runs for public office. It must take an ego of steel.
@deti
Oh, I remember…if we’re talking specifically this year the one that has really hit me is the “where are all the good men” articles.
2011 is the first year I remember a large number not in late January or February. Also, while I first saw “why are all men losers” versions, the man-up aspect seems to have significantly ramped up in the past 18 months or so.
Why now? Economy, critical mass of Gen X women hitting 40 alone? Who knows, but that does seem to be the biggest change. It was that change (how often they were occurring) that lead me to the manosphere and HUS. I suspect that may be another issue. More and more men aren’t arriving for game to get women but are, as was put above, damaged and out to fight back.
Perhaps the number of men who would rather shoot back than game sluts has hit critical mass?
Then again I don’t know why I’ve stuck around the handful of places I have (mostly here and the Captain’s blog with side trips to Dalrock and Grerp)…relationship wise I’m so out of the mainstream most of the rules don’t apply plus the lifestyle I’m in spends so much stuff on relationship talk (six out of seven classes at my last conference to one degree or another) it’s not really necessary.
Maybe I’m just worried about my nephew and my niecphew.
@sassy
“Psychological is a product of biological, not to mention social. Thanks for trying though. On another note, why do humans do anything that they do?”
Man, this thread is getting heavy.
I agree. They divorced, he moved to a gay bachelor pad. It’s her family with the money, and her husband worked for her father, so he’s SOL. Haha, he acted like the hypergamous female.
Sassy,
And the biological is the product of the physical and the physical is the product of the spiritual and the knee bone is connected to the thigh bone. Where are we going with all of this?
@Susan
If Boston netgoth was still around I’d sign you up. After that, you learn not to get upset at the Internet…that list was so rough I rejoined (and I wasn’t the only one) to flame a newbie who had flamed a long time (and well loved) member.
Said newbie survived and became quite popular…it was just a rough crowd.
Which is the long way of saying, if that’s your idea of having a emotional moment about an Internet thread, keep the day job
Sassy,
Let me ask you this: if a man risks his life to save another person or if a parent lays down his or life for the life of a child, is that person seeking pleasure, avoiding pain, or acting on some other impulse entirely?
Escoffier:
“Women are attracted to stereotypical “alpha” traits they way men are attracted to pretty faces, big boob and pert asses. However, what a woman REALLY wants is an alpha “who will treat her right,” i.e., the right mix of alpha and beta.
The problem is, these don’t often go together. ”
To me, it’s no different than men wanting a hot looking slut for short-term and then a feminine nice looking chaste woman for a wife.
For women- the hot looking dominant alpha for short-term.
Good looking mixed alpha/beta as a husband.
Individual people fall on different sections of the spectrum regarding how much they get involved in the short-term strategy (if at all) and the degrees of what they’re satisfied with for LTRs.
A cad being satisfied with that sweet chaste girl nextdoor is just as weird as a woman marrying the nice guy and wanting him to act like a cad.
Not necessarily. A person can believe anything that they want. I could believe that my lava lamp is a deity. That’s spiritual. It is a purely individual desire to connect with something else. The desire to connect with something, deity or not, is social in nature.
Enjoy the ride JM. This is where we are going.
You seem to believe that there are more constraints than biological and social constraints, as expressed in this comment:
It’s the smug, patronizing attitude you have about the idea of people limiting their own behavior due to risks or constraints that bothers me. You seem to think that people act the way they do for other reasons besides that, which is fine in and of itself. The judgement and the holier than thou attitude is what is off putting. You seem to think that you are above your base instincts for nobler reasons, but you are not. That fact does not make you a damaged person. It makes you human.
Unless you fancy yourself a deity. By all means, do so. Just don’t be surprised when other people find it hard to worship your line of thinking.
@ Jesus Mahoney
It is in my opinion that altruism is a product of both seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.
If I saved a person from a burning building, I would feel pleasure from feeling like a hero. I would be avoiding pain by doing the socially accepted thing, which is to help others.
If I didn’t attempt to save a person that I was capable of saving, people would think poorly of me. Think of how the men were scorned for pushing women out of the way and jumping on the life boats themselves. They went against the socially sanctioned/accepted behavior, and they caught flack for it.
Sassy,
I don’t feel hemmed in by many constraints. I act out of my volition. I fancy us all deities (Namaste).
Calling the desire to connect with your conception of the divine “social” is a major stretch. It’s absurd, actually.
That’s nice. But I would be acting on a different impulse entirely.
Passer By, that article did say women rated most men below average, but they also messaged those men:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/
“the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.”
It supports the idea that female mechanisms of attraction are not purely visual. Most men aren’t attractive to most women by sole virtue of their looks.
How so? Think about it.
Why does the concept of a deity or higher being exist anyway? People want to have something to believe in to explain why we exist in the first place. Our desire to find answers to questions is biological, created by mutations in our brains over thousands of years.
Next, people simply don’t designate a deity for themselves and call it a day. They interact with it. They talk with it. They socialize with it. It’s all social.
What impulse is that?
Um, no it’s not. Ever heard of Durkheim?
Herb 517:
I’m not in the manosphere to fight. I’m here to gain understanding and insight. I’m here to help my son avoid the mistakes I made. I’m here to find out the truth.
I’m here because I stumbled onto Roissy in March 2011 and found out that what I’d been told and taught, had drilled into my head about women and intergender relationships was out and out fraudulent.
I’m here because my readings in the manosphere make more sense than the bill of goods I’d been handed by my parents, pastors, teachers, Scout leaders, and even other girls. I realized they had no f*cking idea what they were talking about. I realized just about everything I had been doing wrong in my marriage and my previous relationships.
As for “man up”, I think that meme is ramping up and you’ll see it ramped up even more. And I don’t think the male response is going to be “fighting back”. The male response will be “meh”. They’re becoming increasingly impervious to the shaming. Men who can’t win at the game (omegas and gammas) will simply refuse to play. The men who can win will take what they can and give as little as possible. The superalphas will make a killing with soft harems and ONSs. The divides will probably become even starker. But this will all happen slowly as the marriage rate continues creeping downward and average ages of first marriages continues to inch upwards.
Mind you, I’m not advocating this necessarily. I think this is the most likely scenario.
What impulse is that?
I’m sure it’s just the impulse to save other human beings, completely of his own volition, of course.
You’re coming at it with a Western bias. In many non-Western cultures, the concept of a deity is impersonal. And in Buddhism, of course, there is no deity, only the experience of divinity, which it is quite possible to experience in solitude.
It would have nothing to do with wanting to play hero. And it would have nothing to do with the pain I would feel for having done the cowardly thing. It would be a response to the pain of another. If I see a child in a busy road about to be hit, I’m only thinking of the survival and/or pain of that child. If I run into the street to help it, it’s because the child’s pain/pleasure has suddenly become more important than my own. It’s a selfless act. You could call it empathy, but I think it’s more than that. I believe it’s rooted in a realization of interconnectedness.
Yea, ever heard of someone calling Durkheim absurd?
@ purplesneakers
I agree with you. I have the impulse to save other human beings of my own volition, but it’s based on social ideas and constraints, not to mention my desire to avoid the feeling of guilt (which is a manifestation of pain avoidance).
You would be surprised what people are capable of doing due to social conditioning and ideas. I have my bachelor’s degree in psychology, and I’m pursuing my master’s in psychology.
There are too many tests, too many examples of bad behavior, and too many examples throughout history of bad behavior that are the direct result of social ideas and conditioning.
Slavery, the Holocaust, hazing, warfare, you name it.
That’s not passive-aggressive at all.
@deti
“I’m here because I stumbled onto Roissy in March 2011 and found out that what I’d been told and taught, had drilled into my head about women and intergender relationships was out and out fraudulent. ”
Can you provide a link, so I can understand what you’ve learned since then?
@ Jesus Mahoney
You are correct in thinking that I would consider what you described empathy. As a result, your behavior would be a form of pain avoidance because you would be trying to limit or stop the pain you feel on their behalf.
One of the worst things I have ever experienced is feeling humiliated and embarrassed for another person. It’s a feeling that I don’t tolerate very well, and I typically walk away from the situation when it arises. I had a love hate relationship with American Idol auditions for the longest time. I liked watching the show, but I felt physical pain watching some people sing poorly. I felt embarrassed for them, and it was overpowering.
@ Escoffier @ 450,
Great comment.
All VERY true.
Cooper:
Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not. If you are, heh. You’re a funny guy.
If you’re not, there aren’t enough links to give you and SW would never let me post them all.
Lol. This thread is getting out of hand.
@hope
Yes, I realize that the messaging of the women was also skewed such that it was only a little to the right of that curve, but it was to the right.
My theory as to why they didn’t message the most attractive guys largely to the exclusion of the others is a a desire not to get used for sex through an online dating service.
“It supports the idea that female mechanisms of attraction are not purely visual. ”
Again, they were simply asked to rate them on a scale of below average, average, above average, etc. They were asked if they were willing to date them. They just seem to instinctively rate 80% them as below average looking.
Also, looking back at the article, I think it’s implicit that, for purposes of the ratings, they were only shown the pictures – because they wanted to see to what extent the rating level of the picture in and of itself influenced the numbers of messages received.
Conversely, in the messaging, the men shoot for the moon alot, since there is no real harm or cost to them in trying, but they ultimately message the others too.
@deti
I knew my sincerity would be in question. I was being serious. I’m not familar with the likes of Roissy, Rollo or Dalrock. (those are the ones you mentioned)
I googled what I could about Roissy’s post. Honestly, what I’ve read so far has made be kinda sick. This shit actually works?
I’m not better off without it, so I’m all ears.
Susan, don’t take it to heart. People are always ruder/more honest/speak their minds more online than in real life.
If you can imagine someone speaking 1/1000th of what I usually say online, with more polite language and a meek little smile, that’s me.
+1
I generally don’t mind laughing at people and often times its probably not nice, but when someone is embarrassing themselves I can’t stand to watch it. I don’t find it funny at all. My ex used to get off on watching someone humiliate themselves but I hate it. It evokes a very powerful response in me as well. Watching people find amusement in others humiliation infuriates me. Sometimes, when a poster makes a stupid claim on this site, I don’t even want to refresh the browser to see the responses. I feel so embarrassed for them and often times just want them to go away. In real life however, I’ll try to either take the attention off them, stop them from doing it in the first place, or just walk away.
@Cooper
yea, Roissy will do that to you. He has a few posts that aren’t so bad, but getting through the bad ones is the tough part. He represents the very things I don’t want to believe exist within the human mind.
“Watching people find amusement in others humiliation infuriates me.”
*raises hand* Guilty.
My best friend begged, and begged for me to drive him 5 blocks. I finally gave in, and when he was getting out of the car, his phone (which was on his lap) fell into a puddle.
I laughed, and said “that probably wouldn’t of happened had you chosen to walk” lol
Am I bad person?
@cooper
“I googled what I could about Roissy’s post.”
Which post? You mean his blog? Or a particular post?
I would recommend taking a week or so and, in your spare time, reading his blog from beginning to end chronologically (i.e. start with the oldest posts). It will be an interesting read, and the more you look at stuff like that the more you get. But, also understand, a lot of writes is a bit hyperbolic, for lack of a better word, to drive home a point to guys to snap out of it. And, well, sometimes he just seems flat ass wrong. Other times, he seems to draw conclusions that are too absolutist from data that suggest only statistical tendencies (which is true of much of the manosphere). But it’s still valuable, and, when he’s on, he’s a hell of a writer.
@Charm
If Roissy (and ect) is what everyone refers to as the “red pill,” I think I’m going to slide that pill back to the other side of the table.
Passer By, I think most women’s reactions to most men’s appearance is “meh.”
I met my husband in an online video game, and we saw each other’s pictures before we started really talking. My thoughts on his picture: “whatever.” His reaction to my picture: “hot/cute.”
I think my husband is super handsome now, but that only happened after I fell in love. I think feelings dictate how many women judge male appearances. In a totally neutral scenario, probably the vast majority of men would not be on a woman’s radar.
Sometimes I say to my husband, “You’re so handsome and sexy. I don’t know why tons of girls aren’t throwing themselves at you.” And he will roll his eyes and chuckle.
@charm
“I generally don’t mind laughing at people and often times its probably not nice, but when someone is embarrassing themselves I can’t stand to watch it. I don’t find it funny at all. My ex used to get off on watching someone humiliate themselves but I hate it. It evokes a very powerful response in me as well. ”
Count me in for that too. I just get physically uncomfortable. If the person is A-hole, that helps a little, but most of the time I just want it to stop.
@Cooper
Your friend just experienced minor inconvenience or loss. It’s not the same as extreme humiliation.
@passer_by
I don’t think I found his actual blog, just another re-posting his posts.
It was something like The 16 Commandments of Poon.
Like I said, it made me sick – to even consider adopting such mentality.
@Cooper
No, not that. I would have laughed and said I told you so too.
Im talking more along the lines of dealing with people who have no idea they are embarassing/humiliating themselves. Like on American Idol when they actually believe that can truly sing….and they can’t. I don’t find it funny at all. The few times when this has played out is dealing with people with higher functioning autism. One of the guys I worked with was a high functioning but it was obvious that something was a bit off. Anyway, he didn’t up cues and behavior from his surrounding so if you didn’t point it out, he’d continue doing whatever awkward or inappropriate thing he was doing. One day he was mopping the floor is this god awful manner and everyone stood around whispering and laughing at him and no one would correct him. I got pissed off and walked over him and showed him how to mop the floor. Once I did he got it and did it correctly. The fact that no one saw that he was a bit autistic and stood there and laughed at it infuriated me. I’d correct him all the time and people thought I was being rude, but he appreciated it because he said other people would just sit by and watch. Thats how we became friends.
*didn’t pick up one cues
@hope
“Passer By, I think most women’s reactions to most men’s appearance is “meh.””
I know, but you would think they could at least rate their degrees of “meh”, such that they perceived some as more “meh” than others in a way that balanced out around the middle. That’s my only point. The fact that they didn’t supports the notion that, as they go through regular life, most men are invisible to them such that they don’t have an intrinsic sense of how many men they find unnattractive. Then, when presented with pictures of actual men, they all look less than average to a degree they never realized.
Hope: “Passer By, that article did say women rated most men below average, but they also messaged those men”
That’s about as comforting as a man saying “you’re kind of ugly, but hey, I’d bang you anyway”.
@passer_by
If the persons an asshole and they deserve it, its always funny. But I find that when it comes to people who have a mental disability, or low IQ or grew up in a impoverished environment and don’t know any better I simply can’t find the humor in it. Its cruel. I hate it.
Cooper:
“This shit actually works?”
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer:
I don’t remember mentioning Rollo or Dalrock although I respect their work. I do remember mentioning Roissy. It shouldn’t make you sick, necessarily; but remember that Roissy’s early writings describe the DC hookup club scene, which to my understanding is one of the most brutal dating scenes in the entire country.
For married game, no one beats MarriedManSexLife and the Dave from Hawaii posts at Roissy (now Heartiste). I’m 43 years old, married nearly 16 years.
I’m not going to post any links here. Suffice it to say I’ve learned the following:
1. Be your own man. Develop your own interests, hobbies and activities.
2. Work on “inner game”: Improve your physical fitness. Approach women.
3. For young single men, approaching is a numbers game. Your sexual market value tends to go up as you get older, peaks in your mid 30s or so, and then starts a slow decline.
4. The best mix for long relationships is a mix of alpha and beta traits, with more alpha than beta.
5. Stand up for yourself and what you want. If you’re not getting what you want from your relationship, End. It. Now.
6. As a general rule, women with high partner counts present a host of issues in relationships, some of which can be surmounted if you — and she — are willing to be honest about them and are willing to do the work.
7. Men and women are very different in their attraction triggers, methods of processing information, and ways of seeing and reacting to the world.
8. These are the things women find attractive in men: Confidence. Dominance. Displays of power and authority. These are the things women find desirable: Honor. Fidelity. Loyalty. Dignity. Industriousness. Stoicism.
9. Your maleness is a good thing. It should not be suppressed, hidden or apologized for.
10. Lead her. Show dominance. Insist on her respect for you, publicly and privately.
@deti
You’re 43, and only started reading Roissy since March 2011?
FYI, CNTR+F and you can find any word on the page (ie. Dalrock)
and btw, I’m only 23.
Sassy,
I don’t think this does my example justice, but I’ll wait to comment until the end.
I feel the same way (not about American Idol necessarily, but in general). Yet, empathy like that doesn’t fit neatly into the standard pain avoidance/pleasure indulgence schema. Presumably, according to that theory, we would make connections with others because it’s a pleasurable. And yet, empathy arises in the face of another’s pain, not pleasure. If everything boiled down to the pain and pleasure of the individual, then empathy would be a very rare experience indeed.
Further, the example of the person running into the street to save the child goes beyond mere empathy. Empathy might describe (though not necessarily explain) the sense of pain we feel on behalf of another, but it doesn’t describe the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the sake of another. Sacrifice, the willingness to allow yourself get run over by a car in order to save the life of a child, is not pain avoidant behavior. It looks more like pain indulgence, though I don’t know for sure that that explains the phenomenon.
With empathy, we experience another’s pain along with them. With sacrifice, we shoulder the pain for another.
@Cooper
“It was something like The 16 Commandments of Poon.”
Well, looking back at it, I would prefer to ignore some of the more manipulative aspects (Items II (as it pertains to openly flirting), V, and VII) and I think he takes some of them too far (Items VI, VIII and X). But there are also useful thoughts there. But, again, you have to read it as something designed to provoke a reaction, and intentionally over the top a bit, to drive home a point.
I still would advise reading it all. Ignore those points that don’t suit you.
Ignorance is not bliss.
Passer By, yes, a lot of the guys considered “below average” on OKCupid are just “invisible.” I have gotten attracted to guys who were like that, after getting to know them.
OffTheCuff, women are less superficial than men about looks. It’s not supposed to be insulting. I mean really it’s like saying to a guy, “you’re not girly looking.” Not an insult. Then again, I personally think most of the so-called “good looking” men look a bit girly.
purple
Anyway, this isn’t what I’m getting at. What I’m really getting at is that individual volition can’t explain all phenomena. I said I act of my own volition, but I can’t say for certain that “my” volition is my own or a part of a “volition” greater than me of which I merely play a part.
@charm
When I was in my first year of high school, there were a few mentally retarded kids who had their own class, but they would use the same lunch area. One of them really liked Elvis, apparently, and he could be egged on to do his Elvis impersonation. For amusement, a lot of jerks would start chanting “Elvis, Elvis, Elvis”, until he got up and starting doing it – at he wasn’t trying to be funy. This would result in a free for all in the lunch area, whereby the mentally retarded kid would ultimately get scolded and taken away.
I guess, in retrospect, I only saw it a couple times in my first year, and I think he moved on after that, but my understanding was that it had been going on for a few years.
I found it appalling and incredibly uncomfortable, but was simply powerless to do anything.
@ Jesus Mahoney
I never said that the two desires (pleasure seeking and pain avoidance) didn’t coexist at times. That’s life. Typically, one effect outweighs the other in those instances.
In regards to your idea of “sacrifice”, refer to my post about altruism.
Sassy,
You misunderstand. I’m not saying that they coexist at times. I’m sure they do, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that they’re inadequate to describe all phenomena.
Also,
I don’t agree with your views on altruism.
@Hope
When my husband got home from work tonight, I noticed he had gotten a haircut. I took a play from your book and said, “You are the handsomest man in the whole world.” He chuckled, shook his head and said, “I’m so glad you’re delusional.”
That’s about as comforting as a man saying “you’re kind of ugly, but hey, I’d bang you anyway”.
You mean that doesn’t work?
Now someone tells me.
On a more serious note, yes that isn’t very helpful. I think it’s a mild example of the “men don’t have feelings anyway” which is funny given how often women advise us to get in touch with them then act like they aren’t there.
*shrugs*
The more I learn the more I conclude peoples is just whacked.
No worries man. Think what you want to think. I don’t have a problem with it.
I always do.
@Cooper
I’m 45, divorced a decade last July 31, and married a shade over 11 years when it happened and only started reading out this way since about the same time (that WSJ man-up article triggered it). I had heard of Roissy from the cover story on dating in the Weekly Standard from a while back.
My take-away has been a bit different from deti’s take, but yeah…lots of men hit middle age before getting to it.
Susan, that’s really awesome. See, men secretly love it!
My husband says, “Everybody else tries to deflate my ego. I’m glad you pump mine up.”
See, I’m not such an outlier. I just don’t make a secret of it.
@cooper
“@deti
You’re 43, and only started reading Roissy since March 2011?”
I don’t understand the comment. People find a blog when they find it. That has nothing to do with their age. I found it in mid 2009. I think it started in 2007, but only had slight readership for a while.
@passer_by
Yeah, I didn’t mean anything about mentioning his age. I just surprised that he’d started reading that blog so recently. I was under an impression that the blog had been around much longer.
He said he’d been married for 16years, which means I only started reading it after being married for 15.
JM, I see your point. I don’t have much invested in this debate, honestly. I come here to read about gender dynamics and dating/relationship advice.
Like Hope’s “girl game” advice. It is awesome. Hope- did you ever write at the “Girl Game” blog? (with Bhetti et al)
Hope: “It’s not supposed to be insulting. I mean really it’s like saying to a guy, “you’re not girly looking.” Not an insult. Then again, I personally think most of the so-called “good looking” men look a bit girly.”
I think you mean “I didn’t mean it as an insult”… But that’s irrelevant if people take it to be one.
If there’s one thing I learned, it’s that I could be insulting without intending it, and whether it was, isn’t really up to me, and when i was unintetntionally it was a failure of my social/empathy skills.
Did you really just tell me I shouldn’t be insulted?
This is a huge stretch and i dont buy it, not to mention not all women think good-looking is girly.
The men here are projecting the male way of being onto what Hope is saying. For men, attraction is primarily physical. Attraction for women is different–it is partly visual, but also depends much more on personality and lots of social cues. This is exactly why “game” works–although the better-looking guy is better off at a baseline, an average-looking guy who is socially and sexually dominant will find lots of women attracted to him. It doesn’t work the same way for women- being super nice (and definitely not super bitchy) isn’t going to make men want to have sex with us if we don’t meet their physical standards.
purple
It’s cool. I don’t want to drag everyone into a metaphysical debate. The reason I took the time to explore it is that I think it’s extremely relevant to the issues on this blog.
For example, if you believe, as Escoffier and Sassy seem to believe, that freed from biological and social constraints, humans would revert to their base instincts, indulging every pleasure and avoiding every pain, then your view of relationships is going to differ from someone with a more optimistic view of human nature. If you believe, as deti and Escoffier believe, that hypergamy is an instinct that makes every woman desire the “most alpha” man, regardless of her current relationship status, it’s going to color all of your other views about relationships.
And honestly, I think the beliefs that I mentioned in the previous paragraph are anathema to the mission of this blog. It doesn’t seem possible to foster a loving, intimate bond with a person you believe is hard-wired to want to trade up for a more dominant man. And it doesn’t seem possible to foster that type of bond with a person if you believe that the only things keeping them from indulging “base” desires are various “constraints” upon behavior.
I’m not saying that these beliefs make a person “bad” or even inferior, but I do believe that they’re impossible to reconcile with the stated purpose of Sue’s blog.
@drg
She wouldn’t have to do anything. As long as she is intelligent, attractive and has a compatible personality, I’d give her a chance.
I wouldn’t marry her though, but that’s not her fault; I learned my lesson the first time.
If you believe, as deti and Escoffier believe, that hypergamy is an instinct that makes every woman desire the “most alpha” man, regardless of her current relationship status”
That’s not entirely accurate.
I believe that hypergamy operates all the time, in all women, everywhere, regardless of her relationship status. I believe that hypergamy is hardwired and innate, and causes women to want the best man they can get. I believe a woman constantly evaluates, assesses and reassesses her man to determine whether he is higher status than she is and whether he is “the best man she can get”.
JM…spiritual constraints & social constraints. ” Seems to me that Jesus, the Buddha, Muhammad, Moses… all those guys had to get away from society in order to awaken their perception of spiritual values. They fled to the desert, the forest, caves, mountaintops…”
Indeed. I guess one could say that they set themselves apart from society temporarily in order to develop a new set of archtypal beliefs which later–once they returned and communicated these beliefs–became part of a *new* set of social constraints.
Arthur Koestler has written of The Night Journey, which involves things like fleeing to the desert, Jonah and the Whale, etc. This is part of his model of the Tragic and the Trivial Planes of life, explained as follows by his friend Richard Hillary, a writer and fighter pilot:
“K has a theory for this. He believes there are two planes of existence which he calls vie tragique and vie triviale. Usually we move on the trivial plane, but occasionally in moments of elation or danger, we find ourselves transferred to the plane of the vie tragique, with its non-commonsense, cosmic perspective. When we are on the trivial plane, the realities of the other appear as nonsense–as overstrung nerves and so on. When we live on the tragic plane, the realities of the other are shallow, frivolous, frivolous, trifling. But in exceptional circumstances, for instance if someone has to live through a long stretch of time in physical danger, one is placed, as it were, on the intersection line of the two planes; a curious situation which is a kind of tightrope-walking on one’s nerves…I think he is right.”
@Passer_by
Yea, stuff like that. Disgusting.
Ok, if it’s not insulting, then this should be OK: most women have below average intelligence. Didn’t Larry summers get canned for saying much less than that?
Ignore me, mixing beer and muscle relaxants is not my usual mode of operation.
@JM
I wasn’t exactly following your, and Sassys’, metaphysical debate.
Which makes me completely qualified to chim in now! /sarcasm
I, personally, have always believed in love. So I think puts me on Mahoneys’ side of it.
Right. That’s pretty much what I was getting at, bro.
Jon 581:
+1.
The more attractive she is, the better her chances at an LTR or marriage. But she will have to adjust her views. Many men will happily have sex with her. But these men are probably not the same as the pool of men who would be willing to marry her. The pool of men willing to marry her will be very small.
OffTheCuff, I was speaking generally and hypothetically about other women, not at you specifically.
Personally, I have the “I only have eyes for one man” syndrome. In my binary system, all other men = 0 and my husband = 1.
Meh, I think her past is going to be a big stumbling block, but if she changes her ways now, proves through her actions that her views have changed, then the pool of men willing to marry will be bigger than you believe.
I’d be wary of that past, too. But as I’ve said before, if I can recognize real change in a person, I can overlook past mistakes. I think there are guys like that around.
Not that I’d criticize the men unwilling to take the chance. I just don’t think the pool is as small as you all hope.
Thanks, Cooper
That’s good because I was speaking about men generally, and not me specifically! Or something!
Jesus Mahoney, accept that you’re an NF trying to debate with a bunch of NT’s. Especially dangerous territory is talking about spirituality/morality/philosophy with NTs! No fun zone. Stay away! The sooner you realize that it’s futile, the better for your nerves.
More than anything else, my real concern would be who she was hooking up with. That would give a clue as to what she finds attractive. But if she’s ultimately going to be going for a relationship with the same type of guy she’s been sleeping around with, then I don’t think she’ll have much trouble.
OffTheCuff, if I wanted to insult you specifically, I wouldn’t have said the words “women” and “men.” I’d say “you.”
Deti -”I believe that hypergamy operates all the time, in all women, everywhere, regardless of her relationship status. I believe that hypergamy is hardwired and innate, and causes women to want the best man they can get. I believe a woman constantly evaluates, assesses and reassesses her man to determine whether he is higher status than she is and whether he is “the best man she can get”.”
Yes this. Which means a man must always be the best she can get. Or put another way, he must ensure that his market value declines slower than hers. I hope this isn’t true, but I just can’t shake e feeling that on some level it is.
“I just don’t think the pool is as small as you all hope.”
Easy on the accusatory finger, JM. Nobody wishes ill on Emileigh. Nobody wishes spinsterhood for her. I certainly don’t. I don’t “hope” the pool of marriageable men for Emileigh is small. I just said I think it will be very small.
Them’s the facts. A woman drives her partner count up, she drives her MMV down. That shrinks the marriage pool.
I don’t “hope” these are facts. They just are. My “hoping” or “wishing” that they are or are not facts does not alter what is a fact.
But who knows. Maybe you’re right. Maybe there will be men beating down her door. It will depend on her physical attractiveness. I do know she’ll have to be honest about that partner count with the right guy.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think what Larry Summers said was offensive. He said “whatever the set of attributes… that are precisely defined to correlate with being an aeronautical engineer at MIT or being a chemist at Berkeley… are probably different in their standard deviations as well.” I know that I ain’t far enough into the tail end of the standard deviation curve to make it as an engineer at MIT.
In fact, I got a big fat rejection letter from MIT.
@deti
“I believe that hypergamy is hardwired and innate, and causes women to want the best man they can get.”
Last I check, men want the best woman they can get. So you aren’t really describing hypergamy there.
“I believe a woman constantly evaluates, assesses and reassesses her man to determine whether he is higher status than she is and whether he is “the best man she can get”.”
Maybe, more at a subconscious level. But, again, that’s not really hypergamy in and of itself. Men have been known sometimes to trade their older wives in for younger hotter models. I think the frequency of this was widely overblown, but no doubt it happened and still does. But we don’t call this “hypergamy”. It may be exacerbated by hypergamy, but, to me, the desire to improve or the desire for serial monagamy is a separate issue altogether.
I also think you are taking this too far to suggest that the level of “background” hum is on par with the male urge to spread seed. First of all, even at a most cynical level, it would not be in her reproductive interests to do this – certainly not if she was pregnant or had young children by an attentive husband. In the EEA, this would have put her young at huge disadvantage. Also, even absent that, it would not be in her advantage to risk a committed relationship for the mere possibility of a neww one, unless her relative status to her mate changed significantly. So, this constant battle doesn’t ring true to me.
What I do agree about is that her attraction switches must at some level periodically assess his status to make sure that she isn’t grossly violating her hypergamic instinct, because it will be harder for a woman to maintain some level of attraction to a man whose perceived relative mate status has fallen than it would be for a man to maintain some level of attraction for a woman whose relative mate status has fallen (whether by his increase in status or her decrease).
I also think you need to acknowledge that, like most human tendencies, this one probably exists on some sort of bell shaped curve, so ascribing the most extreme examples of this to all women is likely a mistake.
Long ago, I made a comment here as to what I think is really the essence of hypergamy. At the time, Susan agreed, though now she seems back on the social status aspect. At the risk of further debating the meaning of hypergamy in a thread where Susan thought such a debate silly, I’ll try to dig it up, but that might be hard.
Lol. Im inclined to agree with Hope. Though as an NT I agreed with Jesus. I too believe in the same type of love, and since thats apparently too idealistic, I’m thinking of opting out.
« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
{ 1 trackback }