Is Slut Shaming Making a Comeback?

March 23, 2012

Katie Roiphe has published an article at Slate: It’s Not Just Rush: Liberals slut-shame just as much, in which she decries the pervasive slut shaming in our society:

These judgments, about women who sleep around or sleep with the wrong people or fail to settle down, these vicious or catty bursts of rage, or calm-holier-than-thou reflections on other people’s sluttiness or condescending screeds about how pathetic or sad or distasteful or lonely or sleazy it is to live so outside of conventional life, persist through all age groups and social strata, in big cities and small towns, on television news programs watched by millions, and on liberal blogs. 

What can I say? I find this development encouraging. I’m never quite sure what to make of Katie Roiphe. She’s the daughter of an ardent and famous feminist, but in 1994 she burst on the scene with The Morning After: Fear, Sex and Feminism, a book that held women accountable for choices that served to put them in danger of sexual assault. From an article at the New York Times:

One of the questions used to define rape was: ‘Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?’ The phrasing raises the issue of agency. Why aren’t college women responsible for their own intake of alcohol or drugs? A man may give her drugs, but she herself decides to take them. If we assume that women are not all helpless and naive, then they should be responsible for their choice to drink or take drugs. “If a woman’s ‘judgment is impaired’ and she has sex, it isn’t always the man’s fault; it isn’t necessarily always rape.

Obviously, this view put her squarely at odds with sex-positive feminists, infuriating Katha Pollitt and other prominent feminists of the time. One imagines she wouldn’t be welcome, or interested in attending a local Slut Walk.

In a 1997 book review a writer for the LA Times criticized Roiphe for not embracing the Sex as Empowerment Scam:

For Roiphe, who is 28, the sexual revolution of the ’60s had nothing to do with a desire to create a more erotic and more egalitarian society. Instead, Roiphe focuses on “bikinis from France, and the Pill, and nudity in movies, and honest and open marriages, and no-fault divorces” and then notes that “paradise” mysteriously failed to materialize. She is like the theatergoer who takes her seat during the second act and then loudly whispers to everyone around her that the plot makes no sense.

Mistakenly, Roiphe believes that the sexual revolution consisted simply of “having sex with as many people as you could.” She is oblivious to the fact that the sexual revolution–at least for many women–was less about mindless promiscuity than about finding newer, truer, less sexist and more ecstatic ways of being sexual. It was about the experience, not just the numbers; about creating something, not just getting lucky.

Fifteen years later, we all know that few found “newer, truer, less sexist and more ecstatic ways of being sexual.” They found ways of being sexual that were risky, superficial, awkward and unsatisfying. The sexual double standard is as prominent as ever, being biologically determined and therefore immutable. If anything, men have become hypersensitive to female promiscuity, warily inquiring about a woman’s number before investing one ounce of emotional energy.

So why is Katie Roiphe suddenly writing in defense of sluts?

In fact the trope of “sluts” is perpetuated in liberal circles as well as conservative ones, and there is a much more widespread tendency to judge women for their sex lives than we like to admit. There is a great deal of unacknowledged, uninterrogated contempt for women who are perceived as promiscuous, floating around even in right-thinking, fashionable, urban, blue-state pockets of the world.

…The slut is not a mythical creature on college campuses, a unicorn or dodo bird, vanished from the vernacular, in other words. The girls talk about being sluts or feeling like sluts or other girls being sluts, and if this seems exotic or surprising to us, we can think back to our own college lives, or to yesterday, when we heard someone expressing something very much like that over coffee about someone else for a sexual encounter, or sexual style or sexual existence they don’t approve of for one reason or another.

I can’t explain Roiphe’s mysterious mid-life conversion to sympathy for sluthood at the age of 44, but I can note that female promiscuity is not a problem “for one reason or another.” It is directly responsible for the near disappearance of fulfilling and intimate cross-sex relationships among young people in college, the mistaken and tragic sense that most college students have of themselves as sexual “losers,” the rapid rise of sexually transmitted diseases in the U.S., and the creation of a “spinster class” of women now in their 30s and 40s. 

If liberals are willing to shame promiscuity, that’s a good thing, a rare example of people working effectively across the aisle. Let’s not forget the manwhores while we’re at it, OK? The sooner the casual sex culture gasps its last breath, the sooner we can begin to repair the harm to our young women and men, as well as the most important societal institutions of marriage and family.

  • Senior Beta

    “The sexual double standard…. is immutable.” Truer words were never spoken. Should be the logo for this blog.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Would be interesting to know if the women Roiphe says are talking disparagingly or in some other way negatively about sluttishness were themselves part of the high-count scene. Or, presumably some of them were, so it would be nice to know the proportion.
    IOW, how many people are learning from others’ mistakes? College is an age and setting where your lying eyes are always at fault, and what the Kewl Kids say is always right, notwithstanding its appearance in the real world. For that matter, at that age it’s not solely about doing whatever, but about admitting your view of whatever even if you’re not doing it, should that view conflict with the CW. If Roiphe is correct in saying she’s seeing more of this, enough to generate a book or article, that’s a Big Deal.

  • Days of Broken Arrows

    1). She’s not so much seeing a problem with slut shaming per se as she is with the left’s hypocrisy regarding the Rush Limbaugh flap.

    2). She’s a single mother by choice twice over. From her articles in Slate, she’s pretty defensive about this. Could be her views on slut shaming changed as her own number count rose.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    Slut shaming is good but one minor quibble:

    the creation of a “spinster class” of women now in their 30s and 40s.

    There are now more and more men falling into that class.

    It’s pedantic but last thread there was a bit of a kerfuffle about men’s feelings not being real/mattering. That is the kind of thing more and more men are reading in that way.

    @Day of Broken Arrows

    She’s not so much seeing a problem with slut shaming per se as she is with the left’s hypocrisy regarding the Rush Limbaugh flap.

    I’m still trying to figure out why we can have slut walks and encourage women to sexual explore and then calling a woman a slut is a bad thing.

    Either it’s an insult or it’s not…

    • @Herb

      the creation of a “spinster class” of women now in their 30s and 40s.

      There are now more and more men falling into that class.

      It’s pedantic but last thread there was a bit of a kerfuffle about men’s feelings not being real/mattering. That is the kind of thing more and more men are reading in that way.

      I was specifically referring there to women who spent their 20s riding the carousel or making otherwise bad choices. And it’s my understanding that the decline in the marriage rate is being driven largely by men, so I didn’t perceive them as victims on this particular issue.

  • Joe

    I’m under the impression that Ms. Roiphe’s feeling now like her particular ox has been gore. Before this, not so much. It sounds like, at age 44, it’s become very personal to her.

    It’s easy to point to some “intrasexual competition” as the reason she’s taken her stance, but the truth is that guys do this too. That sullen, moping teenage boy is the archtype. He’s projecting the same sort of shaming that Roiphe is, except that it’s turned more inward.

  • Days of Broken Arrows

    @Herb: Because “slut” is the n-word for women. They can call each other it, but no one else can. Same goes for bitch.

  • Escoffier

    “I can’t explain Roiphe’s mysterious mid-life conversion to sympathy for sluthood at the age of 44”

    I can.

    She initiated a frivilous divorce and is now raising her kid alone while she sleeps around Manhattan like an alley cat. All of which she’s written about enthusiastically. She’s also written about how much she admires, envies and wishes to emulate her mother’s promiscuous 20s, which Katie missed out on during her own 20s when she was writing that sexually “neo-conservative” book.

  • Underdog

    “She’s a single mother by choice twice over. From her articles in Slate, she’s pretty defensive about this. Could be her views on slut shaming changed as her own number count rose.”

    I did a quick search on her to satiate my curiosity and came to the same conclusion.

  • Mike M.

    Shaming is a good start…but only a start.

    And it applies to both sides of the sexual divide.

  • Richard Aubrey

    So she’s made this up and is putting the words and sentiments in other women’s mouths?
    Not implausible.

  • Fingenieur

    No.

    Calling people sluts is still mean and though it might be accurate, it’s still not something I’d like to infuse society with. The problem ain’t with female promiscuity itself. The problem is with the culture of promiscuity combined with unrealistic view of relationships and human interaction. There’s without a doubt a huge number of people for whom the lifestyle suits well and who can be comfortable with the consequences it creates to your odds of finding lifelong partners. I don’t think it would do any good to make them feel bad for expressing their sexuality in a way they feel comfortable with.

    Other group would be the 30-40’s who’ve fallen for the illusion of enduring choice and low-costs of strategy change (“I’ll settle when _I_ choose…” -myth) The reality hits them hard enough as it is. More constructive approach would be to provide sympathy and support for these people, who are increasingly coming to terms with the consequences of their choices. I don’t see what good the slut-shaming would do here. Sluts are people too.

    The only group who would somewhat benefit from mild “slut-scaring”, would be the younger people playing and entering the SMP. But still, it’d be more constructive and morally tolerable to educate objectively, not condemningly of the choices and consequences they might face. How everything they do might not be “empowering” and how Karma can kick back at the most unexpected places. Just burst the poisonous soap-bubble we are wrapping our kids in and let them face the ugly truth as soon as possible. No need to make it any harder for them (by bullying) than it already is…

    • @Fingenieur

      First, will all due respect, I’d like to point out that as a Scandinavian, your outlook and experience on the question of promiscuity in the U.S. is bound to be somewhat less relevant. While we might agree wholeheartedly on matters of biological realities, evolution, etc., the post is really about the effect of promiscuity on American society, which has been disastrous.

      There’s without a doubt a huge number of people for whom the lifestyle suits well and who can be comfortable with the consequences it creates to your odds of finding lifelong partners. I don’t think it would do any good to make them feel bad for expressing their sexuality in a way they feel comfortable with.

      After three years of research, I can only find a minority of people whom the lifestyle suits well. One group is made up of extreme outliers, like poly folk and women who embrace the identity of sluthood – which I would place below 5% of women. The other, much larger group of beneficiaries are the dominant males who rack up sexual partners like billiard balls on a pool table. This group represents roughly 20% (or less) of young American males. Their partners in casual sex are often abjectly miserable, seeking love in the soiled sheets.

      Also, a quibble. Slut shaming is not the same as slut scaring. While slutty women do potentially serve as cautionary tales for young women, there is no real way to expose these truths to young people, as the media romanticizes promiscuity and the education system is heavily influenced by sex-positive feminism.

      Shame is a valuable tool for maintaining civilization. It always has been. Without shame we’d still be rutting on the savannah, as we would have had no motivation or time to ask questions or study the world around us.

  • purplesneakers

    Fingenieur +1

    I’ve been thinking about this. “Slut” is such a loaded term. I think talking to women instead about being honest about whether they really want to have NSA sex for the sake of the sex itself, or whether they are doing it with the hope of landing a relationship, is a place to start. Also about how, even though it doesn’t seem fair, men will judge women who have a lot of partners and not see her as relationship material. Framing it more as a strategy rather than just shaming them morally.

    Then again, it seems most women act on feelings rather than logic? I can’t relate to that since even though I can get very emotional, I’m extremely risk-averse.

  • Richard Aubrey

    fingenieur
    I was pretty much on your side until “bullying”. That’s the Swiss Army Knife of arguments with the added benefit that it doesn’t have to be relevant.
    Explaining that something is shameful to somebody who hasn’t started it, or who is doing it, is not bullying.
    Bullying is taking advantage of a position of power to humiliate somebody who is not in a position to defend.
    Fact is, the idea of shame, guilt, manners, duties are what keep society as copacetic as it is. One old SCOTUS justice remarked that, as manners go out, law must come in and…others have noted that law, compared to manners and a shared social code, is hamfisted and clumsy.
    Of course, the question might be whether the results of sluttish behavior on the slut are anything society has to worry about except for concern for the slut, which is probably more charity than most of us can find. Is there a larger social issue?
    Years back, somebody wrote, about illegitimate births, a book entitled, “This Is Going To Hurt”, explaining that only shame would cut down on the epidemic. Laws won’t, and paying for it, oddly, has not, either. Might be true. Legitimizing it hasn’t slowed it down, either. Funny, that. And society has an interest in this issue, as opposed, probably, to the slut issue.

  • Underdog

    Speaking of sluts, does anyone know what happened to Karen Owen? Is she still in hiding or what?

    • Speaking of sluts, does anyone know what happened to Karen Owen? Is she still in hiding or what?

      I heard that she got a job as a management consultant with a prestigious firm. I cannot imagine how. Maybe her Power Point skills?

  • Okay, so the liberal/conservative confusion boils down to this: there are multiple dimensions of liberalism/conservatism.

    – Religious social conservative (abstinence, no sex before marriage, no evolution in schools, no birth control or abortion)

    – Secular social conservative (prudish, old-fashioned sexual morality, pro traditional marriage; think most of Asia)

    – Secular social liberal/libertarian (feminist, sexual revolution, pro birth control and abortion)

    – Fiscal conservative (large corporations in conjunction with government sponsorship, trickle-down Reaganomics, military intervention to control key resources such as oil)

    – Fiscal libertarian (small government, local, small, competitive, free market, non-military intervention)

    – Fiscal liberal (government controlling corporations, regulated markets, anti-trust laws, military for defense)

    These are simplified definitions and perhpas a bit off, but it’s about the gist of it. You can also throw in moderate in there. These can all be separated out by each category, so a person can be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, or a fiscal liberal and a social moderate, etc.

    So there is really no inherent reason why someone who is considered “liberal” in economics cannot be on the same side as “conservatives” when it comes to the social issues.

  • GudEnuf

    Can we start shaming people who have unsafe sex?

    • @GudEnuf

      Can we start shaming people who have unsafe sex?

      Sure, but how would you identify them?

  • – Religious social conservative (abstinence, no sex before marriage, no evolution in schools, no birth control or abortion)

    Funny comment about that, in my very catholic country evolution is taught since fifth grade, FYI.

  • Fingenieur

    @Richard:
    “Explaining that something is shameful to somebody who hasn’t started it, or who is doing it, is not bullying.”

    That’s why I tried to separate it with the term “slut scaring”. And I see benefits in it. But what this thread is doing for Ms. Roiphe and “the spinsters”… I don’t see it as most constructive behaviour.

    “Of course, the question might be whether the results of sluttish behavior on the slut are anything society has to worry about except for concern for the slut, which is probably more charity than most of us can find. Is there a larger social issue?”

    And if there is, would the end result be beneficial or destructive? For example, I could see much benefit in more tolerable attitudes towards prostitution where I live. I can see there’s a place in society for promiscuity and fighting that kind of sexual expression instead of tolerating and seeking deeper understanding might end up hurting more than it would help. Status quo of conscious and unconscious double standards and fear of evaluating consequences clearly ain’t the way to go, but it was not that good in the 50’s either… We need more evolution instead of revolution…

    • Status quo of conscious and unconscious double standards and fear of evaluating consequences clearly ain’t the way to go, but it was not that good in the 50′s either

      Why do feminists always jump to assuming that rejecting promiscuity in society entails a trip back in time to the 1950s? It’s the go-to tactic for trying to shut down debate. Implying the other person wants to see society devolve and regress.

      I believe in the ideal of a society where people are free to make their own choices, prepared with a realistic understanding of the likely consequences of those choices, and an awareness that other members of society will have opinions about those choices if they are affected by them.

  • GudEnuf

    Hope: Even more confusing is that the lables are switched in different countries. In Australia, the Liberal Party is known for being anti-gay.

  • GudEnuf

    Anacaona: Funny comment about that, in my very catholic country evolution is taught since fifth grade, FYI.

    Whereas in America, Catholic schools teach evolution and liberal arts colleges teach evolution denialism.

  • Emily

    >> “Funny comment about that, in my very catholic country evolution is taught since fifth grade, FYI.”

    Yeah, it makes me mad when people assume that Catholics don’t believe in evolution. 🙁

  • Cooper

    @#11
    “Sluts are people too.”
    So are douchebags, assholes, and murderers. (the list could go on)
    What’s your point?

    “The only group who would somewhat benefit from mild “slut-scaring”, would be the younger people playing and entering the SMP.”
    Well, I guess that’s me then. 😉

    @purpplesneakers
    “Framing it more as a strategy rather than just shaming them morally.”
    +1

    • “Framing it more as a strategy rather than just shaming them morally.”

      For the record, and the benefit of new readers, let me state that my objection to female promiscuity has nothing to do with morality. I am entirely preoccupied with strategy, individual success in finding relationships, and what I believe to be helpful to society (like fewer single mothers with children by numerous men and an increasing marriage rate). Though I have some religious readers here, I do not come at this topic from a religious orientation.

  • purplesneakers

    Oh and to add to my previous comment- for the ‘strategy change’ to work, young men also have to play a certain role. They have to stop rewarding the girls who dress and comport themselves only as ‘hot’ and sexually available–no matter what character flaws they might have–with their attention and gushing (even if they don’t get laid with these girls) over the simply ‘pretty’ and easy-going girls who may not show as much skin/make out with other girls for attention/get on top of the bar and dance. The whole culture is immature. If young men are truly disgusted with girls who sleep around (especially with cads), then show that disgust. Don’t try to get into those girls’ pants (or microminis).

  • Fingenieur

    @Cooper:
    “So are douchebags, assholes, and murderers. ”

    Maybe I shouldn’t take the bait to parallel murderers to people with bad judgement of their sexual choice, but I’ll go anyway.

    Here in Scandinavia, we have this idea of treating even our scumbags with dignity and respect. (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01mTKDaKa6Q) It works out pretty well.

    Yeah, promiscuity is a darned addiction if it hits the wrong person. But kicking the victims very rarely work. Whether it has been drug addicts, murderers or rapists… unemployed and the outcasts. I’ve _always_ witnessed much better results with approaches aiming to help the victims instead of punishing them.

    • @Fingenieur

      First, I can’t believe you lured me to a video by Michael Moore. Ugh! Any chance you’d take him? We hate him here.

      Second, I can’t believe you’d try to sell prison as a place where a chain-saw murderer gets to play volleyball and go to summer camp. I can just imagine how the neighbors feel about that prison. In any case, that will never happen in the U.S. Treating a perpetrator of a chain saw massacre as a man worthy of respect is just wrong, IMO. Maybe it works for Norway, I dunno.

  • Cooper

    “In Australia, the Liberal Party is known for being anti-gay.”

    And where I’m from the Liberal Party is technically the Conversative party. (as in it’s more aligned with the federal Conservatives)

  • someINTP

    I consider myself quite liberal and I am against “slut shaming”. Tolerance and fairness is an important aspect of liberalism. I believe that promiscuous women are as necessary (or inescapable) as prostitution. To the Babylonians, they fulfilled the role of “public wife”, offering companionship to men who could not afford families or were in a profession that did not accommodate families (soldier of arms). These women should be open and proud about their lifestyle as they are in other cultures. They deserve tolerance and respect.

    That said, promiscuous women should not expect to be treated like maidens or conventional wives. This would be unrealistic on their part. Their role is different, as are their goals, which reveal themselves through behavior. People should be respected equally, but they should not be treated as if they are all the same. This is a frequent contention in modern liberalism: How do we treat people equally while respecting their individuality? This is the same calculation for race, religion, and ethnicity.

    Respect versus acceptance can be a difficult distinction to make for a society with few formal boundaries. The best way to explain would be to think of a person’s lifestyle as if it were a career. It is great that they fulfilling that role in society (someone has to do that job), but everyone has different idea on what they want to do.

    • @someINTP

      Respect versus acceptance can be a difficult distinction to make for a society with few formal boundaries. The best way to explain would be to think of a person’s lifestyle as if it were a career. It is great that they fulfilling that role in society (someone has to do that job), but everyone has different idea on what they want to do.

      One problem with the view that sluts can do their own thing like it’s their job is that there’s a strong missionary element to sluthood. Sex-positive feminism is proselytizing in nature. Women’s Studies programs on college campuses participate in Freshmen Orientation with “You go girl” presentations and sponsor Sex Week, where things like live BDSM demonstrations are provided, complete with nipple clamps and whipping, e.g. Yale Sex Week.

      Another problem is that promiscuous women often learn in time that men will still apply the sexual double standard. They feel duped and resentful about this. Their only solution is to get more women to rack up high numbers, and eliminate any chaste competition. Here’s an example, left by a woman named Joy Brondite at feministing after she found HUS:

      “There is this notion of slut shaming in the media and it happens on a more personal level among people who shame one another. There is also something that is discussed on other websites but never in the wider media – something called slut rejection. The latter is what heterosexual men who seek a life partner supposedly engage in. I have personal experience with this. My ex did not try to shame me but upon knowing more about me, he just sort of faded away. Its so wrong that women may have to lie or not say anything and either strategy is prone to backfire. I believe that if men had less [sic] alternatives, that is if most or many women had a fruitful sexual history, then that would become the norm and therefore acceptable.”

  • Cooper

    @Fingenieur
    Ok. It was a very poor parallel, I’ll admit that.

    The point I was trying to make was, everyone of varying degrees of bad judgement “are people too.”
    Where would we draw the line to be judgemental?

  • M3

    “Let’s not forget the manwhores while we’re at it, OK?”

    I agree, tho am reticent to reiterate that one can only be a manwhore if gates continue open for him.

  • Frank

    I have to disagree a bit with you. The problem is feminism – not sluts. Feminism has stacked the economic deck in favor of women, so that upper and middle class women are increasingly fighting over the relatively few men in their economic classes. Because women are almost incapable of marrying down financially – and men are – these upper and middle class women are trying to prevent or inhibit (by ‘slut shaming’) relations between ‘their’ men and lower class women (i.e. ‘sluts’).

    Your point about a ‘spinster class’ is spot on!

    • @Frank

      Because women are almost incapable of marrying down financially – and men are – these upper and middle class women are trying to prevent or inhibit (by ‘slut shaming’) relations between ‘their’ men and lower class women (i.e. ‘sluts’).

      The spinsters are sluts, or were, for the most part. That will change as the number of college educated men continues to shrink, and many women who were not promiscuous will be unable to marry.

      Slut shaming happens between women. It is ineffective for women to attempt to shame men, since the men have strong incentives to continue to spend time with sluts. It is politically incorrect (and also contrary to those incentives) for men to shame sluts.

  • Rum

    Remember the old joke about being already 50% in agreement just by wanting what another can offer you? Slut affirming women are in 50% agreement with the men they would have commit to them.

  • Extragiraffe

    I think your addition of “let’s not forget the manwhores” at the end of your post is disingenuous. I’ve noticed for a while now a disturbing current of anti-feminist woman-blaming in your writing and it’s pretty gross. And this post takes the cake:

    “FEMALE PROMISCUITY…is directly responsible for the near disappearance of fulfilling and intimate cross-sex relationships among young people in college, the mistaken and tragic sense that most college students have of themselves as sexual ‘losers,’ the rapid rise of sexually transmitted diseases in the U.S., and the creation of a “spinster class” of women now in their 30s and 40s.” [emphasis mine]

    Nice one, Susan. As if young women aren’t still forced to shoulder a disproportionate share of society’s neuroses. Let’s take shit back a few decades! Oh and let’s give men, especially the MRAs and the player assholes like Vox/Roissy/etc. , a pass (well, except for maybe a little offhanded slap on the wrist)!

    • @Extragiraffe

      I must confess, your picture offers an interesting insight into your comment. With your backwards baseball cap, Ray Bans and arm extended while you snap your own photo, you look like some frat star douchebag who’s got a personal stake in the argument. Just saying.

    • @Extragiraffe

      I must say, your picture provides an interesting insight into your argument. With your backwards baseball cap, your fakey Ray Bans and your arm extended while you snap your own photo, you look like a frat star douchebag who has a personal stake in the debate. Just saying.

  • @ Senior Beta
    Good point.

    @ Everyone

    I think much of this discussion is premised upon an intuitive, and probably accurate, perception that women can obtain sex easily. Consider the following statement: “I met someone last night and we had sex and then I had sex with all of the roommates.” You must admit (most of you; I’ve learned there are people on blogs who DISPUTE EVERYTHING; tell them shit stinks and they’ll swear they had one in 2011 that did’nt) that your perception is quite different depending on whether the speaker is male or female. If the speaker is male telling it to his cohorts he’s a stud. If it’s a female telling it to her girlfriends, well-I daresay all of them will think it, and a few might even say it to her face-“You slut?!!?” Ok now you one or 2 disputants tell me “Oh no, it’s her right to dispose of her body as she chooses blah blah blah” fucking bullshit don’t try selling those shit stamps to Uncle Tom he ain’t buyin’ ’em.

    But it’s tedious and endless to go on about one half of the equation. I’d rather go on to the larger issue. Which is thus. There is a prominent place within our spirit that contains our sexuality. It goes so far beyond need, ego satisfaction, craving-the sex itself is only a pebble tossed into an immense lake; the ripples extend from here to eternity. Deny it and ultimately you will feel bereft. Deny it long enough and you will lose forever the capacity to know it. It’s called consequences. Every moment of your life and every act you do or forbear carries them.

    I will be dead in a year and I would not trade places with any one of you. I would not bet that I could find again the love I found, lived, have and will have to my last dying breath. My regimen has nearly destroyed my body; I look like ET or the first pregnant man you ever saw. I am swollen, distended, irritable-yeah, pregnant except women don’t lose their hair. And when my Susan looks at me I KNOW she sees none of that, she sees the man she loves and wants to keep, as long as she can, and I her, whatever the cost , however the losses mount up.

    And I will tell you this. You will never find that, or even come remotely close to it, none of you, in gratuitous anonymous hookups, narcissistic meaningless seminal discharges, or whatever the hell else you want to call these vulgar bestial couplings that are even worse than the meanderings of barnyard animals. It doesn’t even rise to the level of disgusting.

    So keep at it. Keep at this long enough and you will leave this world never knowing what I’ve known. Forget what I’ve written here; it will be a blessing that you do not know what you’ve missed.

    But I can’t resist. Look on the end of that hook you’re using to “hook up” with; what’s on it?

    If you cannot answer that, even Uncle tom cannot help you.

    • @Munson

      Your brilliance lights up the sky and the conversation. Keep that in the back of your mind if you can as you struggle through the weekend. xoxo

  • M3

    i see a white knight has arrived.

    atop a giraffe.

  • M3

    Munchy

    I have immense respect for you and what you’re going through. I lived it first hand with my brother.

    But the sad reality is even tho everyone wants to experience what it is you have, attaining it is not as easy because too many variables have changed.

    You can’t expect a better future without correcting the conditions that conspire today. No matter how acidic and toxic these debates (or yelling matches) become, they are necessary.

    Everything has to be put out on the table to be scrutinized under the light.

    (i hope i read your comment correctly and that you weren’t inferring that anyone here was engaging in bestiality? lol )

  • Jim

    Sexual liberation created the spinsters and nothing else. You have one hell of a vapid and shallow population of women. Period. Too bad a lot of them are employed in jobs with government subsidies yet no one ask this simple question. If you got a government check for a million dollars, would you be a millionaire?

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    Once that goes and the long process of cuts before which includes many jobs filled by women, spinsterhood is going to turn into chaos. Nor will many women survive it. You folks better start thinking in terms that go outside of the BS because women have simply dug themselves into their own graves. And merely because of how they used not only their sexuality, but abused their gains in the job market coupled with insane laws that still looks at women as some kind of moral super being to burn men left and right. MRA’s and PUA’s didn’t cause women to end up that way. Women did because they took their gains and just like little tyrants and sociopaths, destroyed whatever their enablers allowed them to.

  • Anonymous

    I do not like the idea of enforcing the term slut, rather I do not like the idea of using a term to make others feel bad about themselves. Like others have states, this has always turned sour for society in the past. From this, I am taking that you think that women are to blame for the commotion that the hook up scene has caused, oh, and manwhores. Being a woman I am offended because I know women on both sides of this spectrum who would disagree. Now that we have someone to blame, and we have a finger to point at for the reason why dating is uncommon on college campuses and marriage is so unstable, we have fixed the problem! The meaning of the word slut is hard to define, and it is thrown around like nothing. But doing so will help the problems girls who are considered sluts and others considered good girls find boyfriends…

    Not.
    Ridiculous.
    I disagree.

    • Now that we have someone to blame, and we have a finger to point at for the reason why dating is uncommon on college campuses and marriage is so unstable, we have fixed the problem!

      Promiscuity is the problem, sluts are the product. Women must reject the former en masse to greatly decrease the number of the latter. It is in women’s best interest to stamp out sluttiness. (Not a realistic goal, but something to aim for nonetheless.) Without sluts in every campus quad, relationships would once again become the norm. The highest ranking men don’t commit because they enjoy every advantage in this SMP. The other 80% of men are left with nothing. Promiscuity benefits no one but the top men.

  • Jhane Sez

    I’m always amazed by the willingness to “slut” shame in an environment where the men expect sex by the 3rd date and freely express a distrust or an uncertainty when it comes to committing.

    This isn’t about alpha carousel riding either because this type of thinking is setting up a dynamic that just makes a bad situation worse, by trying to influence behavior through negative as opposed to positive behavior.

    If a young woman enters into a relationship with a guy and starts giving him sex before commitment how long does she continue to sleep with him sans commitment before she is justified in moving on because he is uncertain about what being committed means beyond not sleeping with anyone else… today.

    I think this sets girls up for the nice guy better deal… he sleeps with her exclusively until he can do better or the relationship just follows the short term mating strategies most young people employ, where they sleep together, then get to know each other well enough to decide to commit… only to agree that there is no long term potential there.

    This seems azz backwards at best.

    I’ve always wondered how the number thing works in the real world without commitment… if we are encouraging boys not to get too serious too fast because she maybe a slut… but go after early sex with non “slutty” women because she has to prove interest… I wonder how long is it before a young woman looking for a “real” boyfriend who is committed becomes a “slut” via kissing frogs, even if that is sleeping with betas, until one commits.

    Is the real end game to shame women into continuing to provide sex without commitment out of fear of being labeled a slut… because she really has no other options if she is concerned about adding to her number using such a poor selection criteria.

    Remember just because a guy is good, doesn’t make him good for you ~JS

    • @Jhane Sez

      I’ve always wondered how the number thing works in the real world without commitment… if we are encouraging boys not to get too serious too fast because she maybe a slut… but go after early sex with non “slutty” women because she has to prove interest… I wonder how long is it before a young woman looking for a “real” boyfriend who is committed becomes a “slut” via kissing frogs, even if that is sleeping with betas, until one commits.

      This is why I said that I urge women to reject both Assholes and Impostor Assholes. Women must take men at face value. Hoping you’ve snagged a nice guy pretending to be a jerk to keep you interested….it makes my head hurt just thinking about it. I understand why nice guys might want to employ these tactics, but it’s just more mind games, akin to dread. I’ve concluded that it is in women’s best interests to provide negative reinforcement for such behavior. Otherwise she’s risking her health (both emotional and physical) and her reputation with every roll of the dice. It’s not surprising that some male Game bloggers would try to shift the risk to women, but women should refuse to play.

  • M3

    Hehehe. You know, i’m a couple beers into a relaxing friday and i see the comment above and the only thing that jumped into my head was…

    How do you a stop a manwhore in his tracks?

    Keep yer legs shut.

    Wow.. epic.

    fuck the rulebook.

    – wait 3 dates minimum. guy loses interest, he’s a manwhore. your rep intact. personally, i say claw it back to 5. any manwhore worth his salt wont last that long.
    – escalate slowly, a la Lockland method.
    – if on campus, talk to other girls who know him, if he’s dogged them all, steer clear
    – meet other people in his life (and not just his guy buddies) to confirm he’s a decent fucking human being and not a pumpndump scam. you research you employment opportunities dontcha?

    Carry on.

    ps-just caught Jane’s comment in my guhmail. no, feel free to encourage any woman to retain the right to slut around. just dont feed her bullshit into thinking all men will just accept it when the time comes to ‘settle’ down.

  • Charm

    promiscuous women should not expect to be treated like maidens or conventional wives.

    This. This is the only problem I have with the whole thing. If we can clear this up then I’d be good. Its the fact that a lot of them want to be promiscuous and THEN enjoy their cake (higher marriage value) too. I’ve never had a problem with people liking casual sex per se. I don’t agree with it, wont pat you on the for it, but I think that if it genuinely makes a person happy they should do it…..but I don’t want to date you. Its a values thing.

    @TVM

    I know we’ve never exchanged words, but that comment really warmed my heart. Thank you so much for saying that.

  • Jhane Sez

    “ps-just caught Jane’s comment in my guhmail. no, feel free to encourage any woman to retain the right to slut around. just dont feed her bullshit into thinking all men will just accept it when the time comes to ‘settle’ down.”

    Wrong… I am not pro-slut… I am saying that if you sleep with guys on the 3rd date without a commitment, regardless of how good the guy was eventually you will end up in the slut pile being judged by guys who demanded sex early and now deem you unfit to settle down with ~JS

  • Dogsquat

    *I wrote this before I finished reading all the comments. You’ll see someone has already done what I predicted.

    Susan said in the post:

    “I can’t explain Roiphe’s mysterious mid-life conversion to sympathy for sluthood at the age of 44, but I can note that female promiscuity is not a problem “for one reason or another.”

    _____________________________

    Susan, this sentence and where it is placed in your article may be a tactical error.

    I know you’re fair and egalitarian. Your regular readers know that, as well. Anything more than a casual glance through HUS will show the same thing.

    However, he said, furrowing his low, sloping brow…

    That quoted sentence is going to be a cognitive killswitch for many. Saying anything negative about female promiscuity will be perceived as wishing for Sharia-like control of all bajingos in the Western world.

    You do make your (evenhanded, equal WRT gender) view known, but it’s two or three sentences down.

    It is my opinion that this space between ideas makes it extremely easy to take your statements out of context. Someone with an opposing view could take control of an argument this way. They’d be all

    “She is sexist because she harps on female promiscuity!”

    and you’d be all

    “Well, if you look at the rest of the article, and at many other pieces I’ve written, you’ll find that I have a balanced and nuanced view of the current situation yadda yadda…”

    If you rearranged that paragraph a bit you could just drop

    “Read the next sentence, asshole.”

    Rounds complete, target destroyed, continuing mission.

    Nitpicky, to be sure – but it did stick out at me.

    • @Dogsquat

      Thanks, that’s good advice, I’ll edit the post today. As someone who does all my own editing and proofreading, it’s helpful to have a critical eye.

  • Charm

    If a young woman enters into a relationship with a guy and starts giving him sex before commitment how long does she continue to sleep with him sans commitment before she is justified in moving on because he is uncertain about what being committed means beyond not sleeping with anyone else… today.

    This is simple. Since the woman holds the key to her gate (read: vagina) she simply does not sleep with a guy who doesn’t know what commitment is, who doesn’t know how he feels about her, who doesn’t know if she will be the only woman he is sleeping with….today.

    Why the hell is this confusing for people?

    Its not that hard. If women looked for men that had character instead of guys that “just seem fun”, they would have an easier go at it. Guess what?Learning who someone really is takes time, which is why its best to take your time courting and not rush the damn process. As I’ve said before, I take my goddamn time. If someone is courting me, then they are courting me and Im allowing only them to do so. So no one is getting screwed over here.

    I don’t believe in striking up relationships just to have them and would only get exclusive with someone I like a lot and what compatible with in the long term. So yes, if a girl wants a quick and easy relationship build out of paper plates and elmers glue, then she should throw caution to the wind and put out early. But when that “relationship” (which has no strong foundation) falls apart, Im going to have to ask her not to be surprised.

    Lets stop playing the “how are women supposed to know” game. Use your damn head, that how.

  • Charm

    was compatible with*

  • Jhane Sez

    “Why the hell is this confusing for people?

    Its not that hard. If women looked for men that had character instead of guys that “just seem fun”, they would have an easier go at it. ”

    Because we won’t tell the truth…

    A man with character doesn’t expect sex on the 3rd date. ~JS

  • Charm

    @Jhane

    Im confused? Who wont tell the truth? Women, men? People?

    But yes, a man of character would hope the woman sitting across from him would respect herself and be selective enough to not put out early.

  • Dogsquat

    @Mr. Munson:

    “You must admit (most of you; I’ve learned there are people on blogs who DISPUTE EVERYTHING”
    _______________________

    I totally disagree with you.

    I read a blog in 2009 where nobody disputed anything. I walked outside to reflect, to Bask in The Moment, to mark that Magic Moment in Time.

    I faced the gentle breeze, and gazed into the crisp azure sky. A vee formation of pigs flew over and blotted out the sun.

    But seriously:

    I just want to let you know that you are sharp as a fucking tack, and you haven’t lost a cognitive step. Strong work, that.

    Stay up, friend.

    • I just want to let you know that you are sharp as a fucking tack, and you haven’t lost a cognitive step. Strong work, that.

      Isn’t he though? Munson is like our own personal John the Baptist. I’ve got a Munson notebook, and every comment goes in there. When I’ve amassed enough, I’m going to offer Munson’s wisdom as a free download. Or maybe charge with proceeds going to the cause of Munson’s choice.

  • Dogsquat

    Footwear of An Amaranthine Hue wisely stated:

    “young men also have to play a certain role. They have to stop rewarding the girls who dress and comport themselves only as ‘hot’ and sexually available–no matter what character flaws they might have–with their attention and gushing (even if they don’t get laid with these girls) over the simply ‘pretty’ and easy-going girls who may not show as much skin/make out with other girls for attention/get on top of the bar and dance.”
    _______________________

    If you change the “young men have to” to “young men should”, then I am with you 100%. This issue is not a one-way street.

    You and I being correct and in agreement on this doesn’t. matter. a. bit.

    We might as well demand that all hills transform into valleys.

    Ain’t gonna happen.

    Part of the reason is this:

    “If young men are truly disgusted with girls who sleep around (especially with cads), then show that disgust. Don’t try to get into those girls’ pants (or microminis).”
    ___________________

    It’s not as black and white as this.

    Plenty (most, maybe?) of guys will date/screw/go after promiscuous women. The aversion to those gals only arises when an intimate relationship is considered.

    There is a place for promiscuous gals in most guys’ lives. That place ain’t called marriage.

    • Re the responsibility of men on the issue of promiscuity:

      I agree with Munson’s view of sex, and I respect any individual who lives that credo, male or female. This is why I have no use for manwhores – I understand the market forces at work, but I don’t respect their view of sex.

      However, make no mistake. Women are the gatekeepers. Most guys, especially while young, are not going to turn away hot girls climbing onto their laps in bars. It’s just not realistic to expect men to police promiscuity in any way when it’s offered without strings. (As we know, men are less likely to commit to promiscuous women.)

      Women need to learn that casual sex usually causes regret, as Emileigh did. They also need to learn that men will enforce a standard of chastity on them to some degree for commitment.

  • deti

    In the name of all that is good and holy:

    Everyone: read Munson 32 above.

    Please, someone, collect and preserve Munson’s writings for posterity before this shining beacon of light is snuffed out and we are forever deprived of its illumination.

    I want a SW post: “The Wisdom of Munson.” Please, SW, get on it posthaste.

    • @deti

      Ah, I see you already anticipated me! (I’m catching up on the thread this morning, one by one.)

      I’ve asked Private Man to also collect Munson’s wisdom there. I have a record of everything Munson has said here. A post would be good, but an ebook would be better. I want to get this out there, far and wide.

  • Underdog

    Susan:

    “I heard that she got a job as a management consultant with a prestigious firm. I cannot imagine how. Maybe her Power Point skills?”

    LOL. If only I could be a fly on the wall during that job interview.

  • Jhane Sez

    “Im confused? Who wont tell the truth? Women, men? People?”

    Anyone who would advise or encourage you that its okay to put out by the 3rd date… or any other strategy that is the slippery slope of upping your body because you hope the guy is sincere… but you can’t know because you don’t know him

    I find it interesting that very little of the advice being put out there for today’s SMP involves getting to know the person first.

    A simple vetting process would put an end to a lot of the problems in the SMP ~JS

  • Charm

    There is a place for promiscuous gals in most guys’ lives. That place ain’t called marriage.

    Lol.

  • Charm

    @Jhane

    Well, yes I agree. I think the problem is that people want a prescription that fits everyone. Thats not going to happen. If you have 4 girls, 3 of which are comfortable with the person sitting across from them to put out after say 4 dates, I don’t think the 4th girl should feel that she has to do the same. I think people need to learn to do what works for them and stop comparing their comfort levels with others. There is a social pressure/expectation surrounding the issue. I think we should being saying:

    “Put out when you are ready, and not a second before. BUT don’t waste the guys time by leading him on. If you’re not into him, end it early. AND I don’t put out for other guys in the mean time while making this one wait.”

    If we all subscribed to this, I think the SMP would improve immensely.

    • @Charm

      “Put out when you are ready, and not a second before. BUT don’t waste the guys time by leading him on. If you’re not into him, end it early. AND I don’t put out for other guys in the mean time while making this one wait.”

      If we all subscribed to this, I think the SMP would improve immensely.

      Well said, I endorse that. The woman who follows that advice is a woman of good character. Unfortunately, there are so many women of poor character, they’ve kind of effed it up for the rest of you.

  • Tony Stark

    @ Jhane Sez

    “A man with character doesn’t expect sex on the 3rd date.”

    Wrong. Men, of good and bad character alike, expect sex as quickly as they can get it. How quickly that will be is determined by the suppliers (read: women), who in turn base their timetables on prevailing social customs. Hence the utility of slut-shaming.

    If you want a culture in which men don’t expect sex by the third date, women need to stop providing sex by the third date. The best way to get them to do so in numbers large enough to affect the broader culture is by exerting external pressure (i.e. slut-shaming).

  • purplesneakers

    Dogsquat,

    Yeah I figured that kind of change would be unlikely (or impossible). It’s one of the most depressing parts of the “female red pill”- that most men, especially young guys, would sleep with a woman even if they thought very little of her as a person. “Hate fucking” and all that.

    But the corollary is- then why bother advising young women to select relationship-quality men and not just the ones more suitable to short-term mating that give them more ‘tingles’, if even the “men of good character” would rather try to have easy sex with a ‘hot’ girl instead of a relationship with a not-“hot”*-but-still-attractive girl who doesn’t sleep around (and yes, they actually exist).

    This could go in circles forever. Principl e of Least Interest, indeed.

    *I read this article recently about how “pretty” is no longer in anymore. Now it’s all about being a ‘hot’ girl, meaning more overtly sexual, more aggressive, less innocent. Physically this translates into tighter and more revealing clothing, heavier make-up, etc. Whereas ‘pretty’ is feminine in a more flowing way, and more natural-looking.

    • @purplesneakers

      *I read this article recently about how “pretty” is no longer in anymore. Now it’s all about being a ‘hot’ girl, meaning more overtly sexual, more aggressive, less innocent. Physically this translates into tighter and more revealing clothing, heavier make-up, etc. Whereas ‘pretty’ is feminine in a more flowing way, and more natural-looking.

      I heard a convo among some guys in their 20s. They were talking about various attractive women, and opining on who was “hot but not pretty” and who was “pretty but not hot.” Guess which women the guys were trying to text for plans 🙁

  • @T. Stark
    “Men, of good and bad character alike, expect sex as quickly as they can get it.”

    Generalization, much?

    Something I’ve quoted a couple of times in other discussions, from a 2002 Gallup survey: “74% of single men agreed that if you meet someone with whom you think you could have a long-term relationship, you will try to postpone sex until you know each other.”

    Whether this is displaying good character or just being smart, it is what it is.

  • M

    Lurked for awhile, first post…

    Women are the stoplights, pure and simple. If the light is out and the police officer is waving them on thru, 99% of men are going to drive thru the intersection.

    • @M

      Welcome to HUS, thanks for de-lurking. Agree with you.

  • Charm

    @purpleSneaks

    I’d call them a hypocrite and refuse to date them. thats another thing Ive never liked about the whole issue. You’ll sleep with a whole slew of them, but the aren’t marriage worthy because you think they are low, loose, whores, slut etc? Yea I’ve got a fucking problem with that. I judge men the same. Though, a fair portion of women do not. Thats why they get away with the shit.

  • Jhane Sez

    “Wrong. Men, of good and bad character alike, expect sex as quickly as they can get it. How quickly that will be is determined by the suppliers (read: women), who in turn base their timetables on prevailing social customs. Hence the utility of slut-shaming.”

    See the glory of the royal scam.

    What’s next… it’s okay baby I love you and everyone is doing it and if it doesn’t work out what we had was special.

    And then she washes, rinses and repeats the above scenario until she is a defacto slut.

    Real talk… I can’t knock the hustle but the truth in your statement is that this only serves the male best interest… there is nothing in it that will actually help women secure LTR and/or marriage.

    Because the male can normalize early sex and eschew commitment via slut shaming that they contributed to… saying that they can and will take the sex but shames a body count he considers high…

    And the gotcha gotcha is that he doesn’t actually have to offer commitment he just has to allude to the possibility.

    It’s a scam ~JS

  • Dogsquat

    Susan pursed her lips and pondered sexually transmitted infections, and the identification of their hosts:

    “Sure, but how would you identify them?”
    ____________________

    I have found not answers, but some small solace in an ancient Book.

    Ahem.

    I will now read a passage from First Gonorrheites, starting at Chapter 24:

    1 This is the book of the Gonorrheites. In that day, the Trichomonites and the Pustulicians lived in far Crotcholia. In the likeness of a jestful punishment did GOD create them. Male and Female did He create them, and bless them, and call them by their confusing slang Names.

    2 And The Clap was known by Man, begat in drunkeness. Unto Man was bequeathed a Painful urinary Discharge, and it did burn. Unto Woman was put a Scarring of Tubes, and a distinct unpleasant Odor.

    3 And GOD looked upon The Clap. HE declared,”Sometimes you will be asymptomatic in Woman.”

    4 GOD is a Merciful GOD. Unto Man and Woman alike He bequeathed a bounty of Prescribing Physicians, ELISA Tests, Aptima Gen-Probes, and Third Generation Cephalosporins. In His Infinite Wisdom, He granted also unto Them Legions of Lesions, Ulcers both Painful and Painless, and Smears of Limburger Cheese Scented Sludge that oozeth from The Foreskin of Man.

    5 And in this Time was Labratorus Technicianus born as King of Crotcholia.

    6 Labratorus Technicianus looked upon the Work of GOD and Men, and Despaired. He smeared his face with ash and donned a garment of coarse burlap-cloth.

    7 With much gnashing of teeth and smiting of his brow, Labratorus Technicianus climbed unto the highest Mountain in the Land. “Why, GOD of my People, don’t you make these idiots wear Con-Doms and read their Fucking test Results? Don’t they know you can’t tell just by looking?”

    Page after page like this. It weighs heavy on my heart it does. There’s just no way to tell. When I was dating, I sort of looked forward to national computerized healthcare records. Bet your ass I’d look up a girl I was considering sleeping with.

    Who wouldn’t?

    • Page after page like this. It weighs heavy on my heart it does. There’s just no way to tell. When I was dating, I sort of looked forward to national computerized healthcare records. Bet your ass I’d look up a girl I was considering sleeping with.

      Heh, you could sell your services on the down low if you had a way to get past HIPA.

  • Megaman “Generalization, much?”

    Pretty sure Tony Stark is in NYC or some other big city. It’s probably a true generalization for those guys. SayWhaat had a really hard time with dating in NYC.

    I would advise women to avoid those places like the plague. Go go small towns and non-famous cities!

    Oh and here in Utah… check out the dress code at BYU (this is for Continuing Education not just for undergrad):

    http://ce.byu.edu/yp/efy/dressAppear.cfm

  • M

    @Jhane

    As the first comment succinctly states, there is a sexual double standard. It’s tough, but it exists.

    On the flip side to women being the sexual gatekeepers, men are the commitment gatekeepers. Most women have a natural endgame to their search (relationship/marriage), while a fair share of men don’t have anything specific in mind to dating, and most likely wouldn’t even call it a search.

    While there are men out there who naturally want to be married and be a father, there is no true ‘biological clock’ ticking in the back of their heads, so even then, even their ‘search’ probably resembles a leisurely stroll more than anything else.

  • According to the BYU dress code, this (the dress on the left with black leggings) was too risque:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105657/Brittany-Molina-BYU-student-chastised-dressing-provocatively-lands-modelling-gig.html

    This story was quite the scandal here in Utah. 😛

  • purplesneakers

    Charm,

    I dunno. I don’t think it’s that simple for most of the guys I know. I have male friends who are attractive, funny, and likeable. They’re not assholes, and they don’t hate women. But they want to sex up a lot of women they see on a daily basis. The male sex drive is something I don’t understand. But when I’m with them, I notice girls giving them looks, even coming up to them and starting conversation, and well, I don’t exactly begrudge them for not turning away these obvious signs of interest, even if they know it probably won’t lead to anything serious. The girls, also, just want to “have some fun.” So much of the time I feel like the way the SMP is described in the red pill sphere isn’t actually how it’s played out in reality. A lot of the times the girls stop calling these guys back because they’re “not looking for anything serious.” These are not cads or players I’m talking about. They’re just young guys exploring their options.

    I don’t know where I’m going with this. Basically just saying, I don’t think it’s that simple.

  • Charm

    Jhane,

    I think you’re projecting a bit. You’re projecting how women see the issue of “first sex” onto how men see it. We’ve determined that women hold the keys to the gate, but with that being said, men don’t just sit idly by twiddling their thumbs waiting for her to feel up to opening. Hell no. They are going to try to get it open. They are both testing you and hoping like hell that you open it. Sure, some guys will tell a woman what she wants to hear (and if shes dumb enough) and she will open the gate early just to get screwed over in the end. Thing is, women want men to escalate (I do), but only when the go ahead has be given to do so. Surely no one wants their boundaries crossed.

    The situation is ambiguous (to some) but you just have to feel it out. Hopefully, if a woman gets screwed over once, she’ll take it as a learning experience and won’t repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

    You know, “fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…and well, its my own damn fault.”

  • purplesneakers

    Pretty sure Tony Stark is in NYC or some other big city. It’s probably a true generalization for those guys. SayWhaat had a really hard time with dating in NYC.

    Yeah but otoh I think the sex ratio and general liberal, cavalier attitude that a lot of the women have makes it such that there is not such a great alpha/beta divide as there might be in other places. It’s not 80/20… maybe 20/80.

  • @Ms. Hope

    That dress code could apply at my place of work : )

    I believe SayWhaat admitted that NYC wasn’t conducive to finding a decent guy, but she beat the odds. The stats on Big Cities speak for themselves: higher rates of crime, infidelity, STDs, etc. It’s no wonder quality relationships are scarce in that environment. I know for a fact that this same thing goes on in SF and LA.

    Guys who expect sex quickly, without commitment or anything else, I guess they have different priorities. They’re not in the majority, though. And if they don’t get the sex they want up front, what does that say about their expectations?

  • purplesneakers

    So basically meant to agree and say… yup, that’s exactly why it’s harder for both men and women who want serious relationships in a big city. But not because the alphas are hogging the sex, but because everyone is just sleeping around so much.

    OTOH I actually prefer big city dating to small town dating, having done both in the past few years, because there are more young people (who are not college students) and more options.

  • Charm

    @Purplesneaks

    Yes, I admit I looked at it in very simplistic terms. It really is not that simple. Its quite hazy. I think a lot of young guys simply don’t put too much thought in to it. They just want to get laid. Im not trying to absolve them of responsibility or anything, but I think thats what it is. I still don’t agree with it, but I also wouldn’t ride someone off for having had casual sex a few times and then determining it was empty and not for them. The men that are very pro-casual sex and slutty women and scream it from the rooftops, only to judge them for it later, are the ones Im wary of. The men who go out of their way to hook up with slutty women and bang as many as possible “for fun” are the ones Im wary of. I’d be wary of say, a PUA, but a 22 year old thats only had the opportunity to have casual sex like once or twice aren’t that bad. But I’d still let them know I did not approve of it. I think its a case by case thing. JM did it for a while and decided against it. I respected that and could accept it.

  • @purplesneakers
    I think looking at dating as Amsterdam vs. Mayberry is kind of a false dilemma. Most of the U.S. population by far lives in small(er) cities and suburbs that are outside the large metropolitan areas. One need not move to a tiny rural community to get married and raise a family.

    There’s a measurable pattern WRT young people in the Big Cities. If and when they do meet, date, and get married, they usually move out of the city to raise kids somewhere else…

  • Charm

    Re BYU dress scandal

    STONE HER!

    I kid, I kid.

  • purplesneakers

    The men who go out of their way to hook up with slutty women and bang as many as possible “for fun” are the ones Im wary of.

    Yeah, definitely. My nightmare is running into the type of guy that would post on the roosh forum on topics like “how to bang 16 yr olds” and reducing women to their rating on a 1-10 scale. Spending too much time in the “manosphere” is seriously depressing.

  • Charm

    @Purplesneaks

    Hell yea. I can’t read the RooshV forum. Its too disgusting. I think those guys have went over to the dark side. There is one blog (the university of man) where he asks that guys leave the “good girls” alone when they are looking to bang a bunch of broads using online dating services. Lol, we need the Gamer/PUA with a heart of gold meme to leave girls like me and you the hell alone.

  • Mike M.,
    Shaming is a good start…but only a start. And it applies to both sides of the sexual divide.

    If you mean both men and women I agree. I myself can’t really get behind outright slut-shaming (I’m not the shaming type of person), though I’ve been known to give the “side-eye” to a person I’m with when we both see an extremely slutty outfit or article of clothing, once the girl/woman walks past.

  • purplesneakers

    I think looking at dating as Amsterdam vs. Mayberry is kind of a false dilemma. Most of the U.S. population by far lives in small(er) cities and suburbs that are outside the large metropolitan areas. One need not move to a tiny rural community to get married and raise a family.

    There’s a measurable pattern WRT young people in the Big Cities. If and when they do meet, date, and get married, they usually move out of the city to raise kids somewhere else…

    You’re right, that is a false dilemma. But there are also personal reasons keeping me here, and I guess I also feel like moving to find a relationship more easily would be….. desperate of me? Especially when I couldn’t do it anyway in a small town (not quite rural).

    Also… and this is just totally personal experience, but I’ve noticed that in other places, the tall bleached blonde look is most popular. Being a short dark girl, there’s no way I could ever be that. There are simply more people here who like my look.

  • purplesneakers

    Hell yea. I can’t read the RooshV forum. Its too disgusting. I think those guys have went over to the dark side. There is one blog (the university of man) where he asks that guys leave the “good girls” alone when they are looking to bang a bunch of broads using online dating services. Lol, we need the Gamer/PUA with a heart of gold meme to leave girls like me and you the hell alone.

    The other thing is, after knowing that this is how the PUA types think, they become less attractive anyway (if I were to ever find them attractive in the first place). I’m not saying that game (in the sense of being dominant) doesn’t work. It does. But guys whose sole purpose in life is to fuck as many girls as possible are seriously gross.

  • @Charm
    “But I’d still let them know I did not approve of it. I think its a case by case thing. JM did it for a while and decided against it. I respected that and could accept it.”

    Yeah, sorry to see him go. I don’t recall the exact details of his metamorphosis, but I believe he hooked up with something like 8 women in the span of 2 months. Would that fit in your comfort zone?

    IMO whether you approve of someone’s past behavior or not, once you choose to commit to him or her, you’re basically validating all that stuff. So I guess the lesson is, choose very carefully who you fall in love with.

  • Charm

    @Purplesneaks

    I couldn’t agree more. If its being used for good, I’m all for it.

    @Megaman

    I definitely am absolute opposed to it. In a perfect world, it would be something I’d never have to even come up against, but the world aint perfect. Im not saying I approve of what JM did. I don’t. I wasn’t here for the whole transformation, so I don’t know the full story, but I spent a lot of time reading what he wrote, so I began to respect who he was as a person. He didn’t beat his chest over it like he was a “man” for pulling those women. He did the opposite. He tried it, didn’t like it, so he stopped. Maybe through that experience he learned something. Maybe he grew from it.

    Im the kind of person where I don’t need to do something in order to learn a lesson. I can run the scenarios through my head and come to the conclusion that its a very bad idea. As much as I wish other people to be like that, they simply aren’t. Some people need to put their hand on the stove. I stand pretty firmly against casual sex and I wont be swayed easily, but Im still a very practical and I realize that attitude matters. It was his attitude that I respected. It wasn’t like he banged 50 women and then flipped the script (if he had, Id be wary). It was only 8 (i believe). 8 really ain’t that bad.

    I think his attitude about it outweighed those 8 women. Like you guys keep saying “You can’t get everything you want in a man”. You have to compromise somewhere. Previous sex history/behavior is only 1 of the things considered when choosing a long term mate.

    So I guess the lesson is, choose very carefully who you fall in love with.

    This is very true. With all things being equal, if I had to choose between a guy who was always against casual sex and never cared to do it, and a guy like JM who had done it and opted out of it, I’d choose the former every time.

  • @Charm
    Interesting perspective. FWIW, you probably won’t have to make a choice between hookup guy vs. no-hookup guy. Median for guys is only 5 partners (most of which aren’t NSA). Guys looking for LTRs that could lead to marriage tend of keep their numbers down, too. Funny, that’s what women are told the should do : )

    I’m just kind of chuckling at the SDS in action. I doubt very much a woman who went through 8 guys in 60 days would get much respect or admiration, even if she did have an ephipany afterwards.

    • . I doubt very much a woman who went through 8 guys in 60 days would get much respect or admiration, even if she did have an ephipany afterwards.

      I thought Munson’s example was brilliant – the story of a person who had sex with a student, and then all their roommates. How differently that comes across depending on the sex of the storyteller!

  • Dogsquat

    Plum Colored Kicks said:

    “why bother advising young women to select relationship-quality men and not just the ones more suitable to short-term mating that give them more ‘tingles’, if even the “men of good character” would rather try to have easy sex with a ‘hot’ girl instead of a relationship with a not-”hot”*-but-still-attractive girl who doesn’t sleep around (and yes, they actually exist).”
    __________________

    Why bother?

    That’s a complicated question.

    I understand that personal anecdotes are sometimes frowned upon, but they are the filter through which we process the world. It’s impossible to answer such a subjective question objectively anyway, so I’m not even going to pretend.

    I’m a sort-of desirable guy. I’m tall, in good shape, and kind to children and animals. I have a decent gig. I’ve been a few places, and achieved some stuff. I’m on track to do more of the same. Susan and some regular readers have even seen a picture of me, and I doubt many would say I got beat with the ugly stick. Since I choked down a fat Red Pill, I haven’t had many problems with women.

    I’m in a relationship now. I love my girlfriend, and she loves me. We are great together. I’d rather eat my fucking large intestine than cause her a moment’s doubt or pain. I would never, ever knowingly do something she considers “a dealbreaker”.

    I’ve dated/had relationships with several woman – almost got married once , even. This girl is the first woman I’ve been with that I have no reservations or doubt about since I Red-Pilled myself.

    With every one of those other girls, there was something that stuck in my craw. Several times (granted – not always!), it was related to past promiscuity. One woman had kids from a “cad” type. One tearfully disclosed an STD I wasn’t interested in contracting. One had a jilted ex that tried to stab me in a parking lot after work. With one girl I dated, I had several guys tap me on the shoulder at different times and say stuff like,”Uhh…dude, you know your girl used to hook up with Tom/Dick/Harry, right? He still likes her, so be careful ’cause he’s really sitting over there really drunk right now.” See what I mean?

    These were all attractive, interesting, smart women. They had enough going for them to overcome my natural distaste for promiscuity in a partner. I gave them a shot, but ultimately chose not to stay around. Some of them probably didn’t care much, but for others getting dumped by my goofy ass was painful.

    I don’t have those issues in my relationship now. My girl is smart, attractive, fun, and easy to be around. She also has very little baggage from her past. I don’t worry about some video of her blowing an ex popping up on the internet. She doesn’t get drunken texts/phone calls at 0200. There aren’t 15 former fuckbuddies on her Facebook. I am confident she values me a lot, in part because I’m one of the few guys she’s chosen to have sex with.

    It feels pretty goddamn good when she puts her arm in mine and calls me her man. It’s a big deal to her, and that makes it mean a lot to me.

    To summarize/attempt a generalization:

    Most guys are not going to rule out a serious relationship/dump a woman because she’s choosy about who she sleeps with. Matter of fact, a choosy woman choosing a particular guy is a very positive thing from the guy’s point of view.

    On the other hand, many guys will not start/stay in a relationship with someone they deem too promiscuous. Most dudes have a limit for that. When their girl is close to that limit, it causes a lot of soul-searching, doubt, pain, and anguish in the guy. The girl who’s up against that “limit” has to compensate for it in other ways, or she’ll get dumped. Her guy will go find someone else equally as cool/attractive, but with a past that’s easier to tolerate.

    Perhaps, Mauve Nike Person, the better question to ask is – Is It Worth It?

    Girls do give up something by not being promiscuous. Sex is fun. Hanging around naked with attractive people is a pretty goddamned good way to pass the day. Instant gratification is easy, while keeping your eye on a prize that may never come is difficult.

    So:

    Q. Why Bother?

    A. It might matter someday.

    _________________________________

    Just a note to the younger gents reading:

    If you want a girl who is fucking awesome in every way, you’re gonna have to work for it. They aren’t all that common – but they’re out there. Their standards are just as high as yours.

    Showing up to the dance stupid, fat, and boring isn’t going to net very good results. It is unproductive, unfair, and flat-out wrong to bitch about the girls you can pull when you haven’t given maximum effort to improve yourself, to become a respectable and desirable man.

    You don’t rate an awesome woman any more than Miss Frat Fellatio deserves to be swept off to Happilyeverafterland by Prince Charming.

    Do the fucking work. It is hard. You will sacrifice some things for other, more valuable things. It can take a long time. There is an element of luck involved.

    I think it’s worth it. Your mileage, as always, will vary.

  • Charm

    @Megaman

    1. Thats good. But I also don’t want to end up with someone that felt like they “missed out” on the hook up/casual scene. We all know that a count of 5 isn’t always by choice.

    2. Well it depends on why the woman slept with 8 men. I don’t know that back story for Jesus. Maybe he said “Fuck it, Im banging mass bitches” and then flipped the script afterward. If so, my opinion would obviously change, but then again maybe something bad happened to him and it drove him to learn game and use it to get casual sex, initially. I don’t know. I’d need to know why a woman slept with that many men in 60 days. She could have went through some sort of trauma and/or loss and used sex as a way to deal (WarmWoman brought this up before she left last thread). Again, I don’t know. If that was the case, then I could understand.

    Still, at the end of the day, I’d prefer not to deal with the situation at all. A person who turns to sex to deal with their problems seems reckless to me. Risking an STI ain’t worth it.

    In cases like Emileigh, she tried to use her body as a bargaining chip and I thought that was rather cheap. To me it was almost as if saying: “I banged all those guys, and all Im left with is a lack of commitment.” She seemed more upset at her lack of a BF then she did at her behavior. Thats what I couldn’t get behind.To her “slut box”= smaller dating pool.

    So I think the motivations behind the behavior need to be taken into account as well. Lol, I know Im quick to judge people, but it does sink in after a while and only then will I be able to sympathize with the situation.

    • @Charm

      In cases like Emileigh, she tried to use her body as a bargaining chip and I thought that was rather cheap. To me it was almost as if saying: “I banged all those guys, and all Im left with is a lack of commitment.” She seemed more upset at her lack of a BF then she did at her behavior. Thats what I couldn’t get behind.To her “slut box”= smaller dating pool.

      That’s not true – at least not in the cynical way I think you mean it. The fact is, most couples in college (not BYU) experienced physical intimacy before emotional intimacy. Most of the time, people have been having sex for a while before they even have “the talk.” I was discussing this with a young woman yesterday. She described the normal college process of becoming a couple like this:

      1. Girl and guy hook up, probably just making out the first time.
      2. Over the next couple of weekends, Rounds 2 and 3, with sex usually happening at Round 3. Note – this is all going home together at the end of the night. No dates, meeting for coffee, or anything like that.
      3. Day texting may start. How was your day? That kind of thing.
      4. Prior to the weekend, some attempt to meet up may occur. Hey, you going to the Kappa Sig party tonight? Cool, see ya then.
      5. More sex.
      6. Hand holding while out at night may begin. People now notice this may have gone beyond the purely physical, and that these two make actually like each other.
      7. More sex.
      8. After a month or so, guy says to girl, “Are you hooking up with anyone else right now?” Girl says no. Guy says, “Good, me neither.” Exclusivity is established.
      9. More sex.
      10. Peers begin referring to the pair as “together” or “sort of together.”
      11. More sex.
      12. After 2-4 months, guy says “So do you want to be my girlfriend?” Girl says “Yes.”
      13. Couple is now dating.

      YMMV.

      Emileigh, like other women in college who hook up to get a boyfriend, was acknowledging the reality of this script. The alternative is to sit out the hookup scene altogether, and acknowledge that you will graduate from college at 21 without having had a boyfriend.

      I remain surprised that more women don’t follow the script.

  • @Charm
    “Thats good. But I also don’t want to end up with someone that felt like they ‘missed out’ on the hook up/casual scene. We all know that a count of 5 isn’t always by choice.”

    Well, a guy can always choose to up his number by paying for company : |

    To some guys, sleeping with X number of women is important enough, that if they don’t achieve it they feel inferior in some way. I can’t relate to that at all. To other guys, their number (and by extension their options) don’t matter because they’re only looking for one particular girl to be with. I can definitely relate to that feeling.

  • Charm

    @Megaman

    Im big on quality over quantity and I appreciate other people who feel the same way. I don’t get that “must bang X number of women” either. Seems like people who pursue that strategy are already lacking in something anyway. I feel like this also applies to women as well though. It seems a lot of women are concerned with getting the attention and/or validation from certain types of men (men that don’t treat them that well) while ignoring the attention/commitment/affection of men who would give their arm to be with them. Its a crappy situation.

  • Dogsquat

    Susan, if you want to make your forum pop a little bit, please consider the following:

    Create a thread in the forum for each of your posts, and have the comment/read comments button link there instead of here.

    Pow. Buncha readers there, and a buncha people poking around the forum who never have before.

    • @Dogsquat

      Susan, if you want to make your forum pop a little bit, please consider the following:

      Create a thread in the forum for each of your posts, and have the comment/read comments button link there instead of here.

      I’ve considered it, but here are two things I’m worried about:

      1. The format/software for the forum is less user friendly. (Don’t know if this is true or not from a reader’s perspective.)
      2. I’m afraid of losing the promotional value of having a high comment count visible on the post.

      I’ll have to investigate whether these could be addressed. Do you think it would grow the forum without harming the home page?

  • @Charm
    Quality is definitely important in a mate. When I was single and admittedly lonely at times, I used to think “anything” was better than nothing. I came to realize that wasn’t true. I suppose if you polled women about which kind of guy they’d prefer: one who’s had one or two serious girlfriends vs. one who’s slept with several ditzy barflies, I’m pretty sure which guy they’d pick.

    Even though virgins aren’t that common anymore after college, I don’t think many people looking for a serious relationship would turn one down (up to a certain age). Though my SO didn’t have her V card when we met (it’s the 21st century after all), I was glad she’d only had a couple of BFs. One of whom was an idiot. That made me look good right off the bat : )

  • Charm

    @Megaman

    Oh yea. The last relationship I had (my second one) it was a bit of a comfort relationship. He was a good person, but I miscalculated our compatibility and it burned out pretty quickly. I knew him for over a year before we dated, and on the surface, he seemed one way, but after getting to know him intimately I realized how insecure and self-deprecating he was (turn-off). Now that I think back about it, the signs were there. So, I too agree that a couple of relationships are good for a person. It definitely helped me to realize what I needed in a relationship. I absolutely am not compatible with someone I don’t have an intellectual connection with. Sure, I can shoot shit with the best of ’em, but if I can’t talk to someone about more complex topics, its not gonna work out for me, Lol. He was also irresponsible with money, smoked, and wasn’t very future oriented. Yea, a lot from that relationship got added to the deal-breakers list when I decide to look for another mate.

  • @ M3 #34

    My philippic was directed at those to whom it applies. But I would not trade places with any of you. I know full well I pulled the stuff animal out of the 50 cent arcade “crane” game, and luck played a factor. I used this analogy before; you are hustling to see if you can make the last sitting in the greatest Italian restaurant in the world, whilst I emerge, full and satisfied, with my lovely wife at my side.

    @ Charm #42
    Hugs through the ether.

    @ Dogsquat #49

    I’ve been waiting to see you post so I could thank you for offering to dedicate a statue to me. But I’d prefer a drinking fountain, with my name in the bowl. That way I’d live with the city. When the parched denizens refreshed themselves, they’d ask “Who the fuck was that guy?” And they may never know, but they’d sure appreciate it. Statues just collect pidgeon shit.

    @ Deti #51

    And don’t forget OBNUG.com, where I wrote around 250 articles about the Boise State Broncos with my own inimitable metaphysical bent. And theblueturf.com-these have embedded videos.And theprivateman.com; he DOES have an old article called “The Wisdom of Munson” where he pasted a long comment I made. ‘Tis all there for you my beloved readers that I cherish because you give me the only thing that matters against this annihilating universe-your attention.

    MMWHHAAAH! (hugs and kisses through the ether (latter only for the ladies))

  • BTW if I can write that many articles about Boise State football (and I’m still adding) think how many I can do about sex, love , relationships and existence.

    • BTW if I can write that many articles about Boise State football (and I’m still adding) think how many I can do about sex, love , relationships and existence.

      Well get cracking then! Just kidding. But do write as much as you feel up to. You have a ready and waiting audience.

  • “They are both testing you and hoping like hell that you open it. Sure, some guys will tell a woman what she wants to hear (and if shes dumb enough) and she will open the gate early just to get screwed over in the end. Thing is, women want men to escalate (I do), but only when the go ahead has be given to do so. Surely no one wants their boundaries crossed.”

    So you want him to be assertive, masculine, push for sex, yet not cross/should respect boundaries until you’ve approved his crossing them? That’s contradictory and won’t happen.

    Also, JM’s story was that he broke up with his fiance when he found out she was a slut and had lied to him about it. He spent the summer learning game, sleeping around, and beginning to digest the red pill.

  • @ Munson
    Thanks for the wisdom man. Hopefully we can all find ways to use it and fix the problems we face in this cluster fuck in our own ways to find happiness.

  • @ Leap
    You will; with or without my “wisdom”. You are all braver and better than you realize. You are the next in line in a steady process on improvement in the human race and while not always consistent, 2 steps forward , one back, it is ALWAYS forward. We would never have descended from the tree were it not thus.

    HEY EVERYONE!
    Those of you interested in seeing how I write in the narrative style should skip over to theprivateman.com and look at the top of the link for “Living Like Tom”. Scroll down a ways and you’ll see the beginning of my serialization “THE SUMMER I WAS JESUS CHRIST”. It is an account of my battle with bipolar illness, my institutionalizations for same, illicit drug use, paranormal activity with a certain 1970’s bent including some Carlos Castaneda and of course sociological observations from moi. I’d be interested in your critiques. Susan, forgive me for the plug!

    • Susan, forgive me for the plug!

      Munson, you can pimp your writing any time you like. I’m almost caught up over there. Will probably finish reading with a glass of white wine this evening. 🙂

  • SayWhaat

    @ Dogsquat:

    Most guys are not going to rule out a serious relationship/dump a woman because she’s choosy about who she sleeps with.

    But you would have when you were younger.

  • SayWhaat

    The meaning of the word slut is hard to define, and it is thrown around like nothing.

    I actually agree with this. I think when a lot of women protest against “slut-shaming”, they are in fact protesting against the idea that women can’t be sexual. A woman being sexual and a woman being promiscuous are two very distinct issues that have somehow become conflated.

    On top of that you have men who are angry at women who won’t have sex with them, and call them “sluts”. Then the women who don’t have sex with any of them are denigrated as “prudes” or “friend-zoning bitches”. There’s no room for middle ground, and as such women have a knee-jerk reaction to both terms. Which is why so many are reluctant to slut-shame.

    • On top of that you have men who are angry at women who won’t have sex with them, and call them “sluts”. Then the women who don’t have sex with any of them are denigrated as “prudes” or “friend-zoning bitches”. There’s no room for middle ground, and as such women have a knee-jerk reaction to both terms. Which is why so many are reluctant to slut-shame.

      Further confusing the issue is the enthusiastic effort of sex-positive feminists to reclaim and proudly wear the slut label.

  • SayWhaat

    Pretty sure Tony Stark is in NYC or some other big city. It’s probably a true generalization for those guys. SayWhaat had a really hard time with dating in NYC.

    Yeah but otoh I think the sex ratio and general liberal, cavalier attitude that a lot of the women have makes it such that there is not such a great alpha/beta divide as there might be in other places. It’s not 80/20… maybe 20/80.

    +1. Even omegas get laid like tile in big cities.

  • SayWhaat

    EDIT:

    A woman being sexual and a woman being promiscuous are two very distinct THINGS that have somehow become conflated.

    Not trying to imply that a woman being sexual is an issue. 🙂

  • VD

    As if young women aren’t still forced to shoulder a disproportionate share of society’s neuroses. Let’s take shit back a few decades! Oh and let’s give men, especially the MRAs and the player assholes like Vox/Roissy/etc. , a pass (well, except for maybe a little offhanded slap on the wrist)!

    They have to shoulder the blame for a disproportionate share because they contribute a disproportionate share, just as men rightly shoulder the blame for a disproportionate share of society’s pychoses. The shit, it will be taken back more than a few decades, in fact, we will be fortunate indeed if we only lose a few societies and not all of Western civilization thanks to our collective decision to unchain the demon of female sexuality. I’m reading Boorstin’s The Discoverers right now, and while it is a biased and occasionally outdated work, it does nicely underline the incredible fragility and improbability of the civilization we presently possess. A few wrong turns and we’re back to what he calls The Again and Again.

    The other thing is, after knowing that this is how the PUA types think, they become less attractive anyway (if I were to ever find them attractive in the first place). I’m not saying that game (in the sense of being dominant) doesn’t work. It does. But guys whose sole purpose in life is to fuck as many girls as possible are seriously gross.

    They may sound seriously gross to you in theory. In practice, you are almost guaranteed to find them charming and highly attractive. Women tend to highly overrate their defenses, and remember, the darker the player, the more skilled he is at presenting himself as whatever you want him to be. They not only improvise and adapt much better than you can probably imagine, they very much enjoy the process. Sometimes, they’ll even put on an act simply for its own sake. My friends once challenged me to pick up a woman with a fake Japanese accent, so the next thing I know I’m explaining to a group of fascinated women that the reason for my unusual accent is that I was a Vietnam War orphan raised by missionaries in Sagamihara. The level of bullshit that men can sell, especially smart and well-traveled men, tends to significantly exceed female imaginations, mostly because we find great amusement in the selling and throw ourselves into it with enthusiasm. You might think “I would never buy that”, but I would estimate that less than 5 percent of women ever saw through even the most ludicrously absurd BS.

    Anyhow, I suggest that the “I wouldn’t be attracted to pick-up artists” attitude is foolish because it puts women at risk in the following manner: if she is attracted to a man, he cannot be a pick-up artist because you know you are not attracted to pick-up artists. Of course, it’s entirely possible you ignore your own professed logic and are merely posturing here, in which case, do carry on.

    • @VD

      They may sound seriously gross to you in theory. In practice, you are almost guaranteed to find them charming and highly attractive.

      This is why, when Little Miss HUS went to DC for a summer internship, I sat her down and showed her pics of Roissy and Roosh, along with examples of some of their writings. I warned her to avoid conversing with them even for a moment if she should be approached in a bar, and to treat them as if they were radioactive waste. Why? Because there’s no doubt in my mind that despite having me for a mother, and having basically read every word I’ve ever written, she’d be tingling for either one in no time.

      Such is the power of Game in the hands of a master.

      And by the way, I feel fortunate that she never met either one. I have no confidence whatsoever that she would have heeded my advice in the heat of the moment.

  • VJ

    No, it’s not. And it’s now a ‘cute’ sci-chic movie, soon to be playing Boston! http://www.losingcontrolmovie.com/

    Still with the ‘newer, truer, less sexist and more [Experimentally!] ecstatic ways of being sexual’ this time from an actual Harvard PhD. gal writer. Take that you ‘retrograde’ slut shammers! They’ve got More movies about this exciting journey of self discovery. Award winning and even NPR interviewed & all!

    http://www.losingcontrolmovie.com/www.losingcontrolmovie.com/Press.html

    So no, it’s just a blip. Sort of like the Pre-Raphaelite w/o the great production of good & useful art & all that. Cheers, ‘VJ’

    • @VJ

      OMG, if that guy marries her after her series of ONSs I’ll shoot myself.

      P.S. Good to see you!

  • Emily

    >> “I was specifically referring there to women who spent their 20s riding the carousel or making otherwise bad choices”

    I’m curious. The assumption that the more promiscuous women won’t get married often gets repeated here. But are there any stats that actually back it up? I know they’re more likely to get divorced, but are they actually less likely to get married in the first place? Or is this just how we all wish that the world worked?

    Maybe the tables will turn as more of my peers start to get married, but so far I’ve known a lot of “sluts” who don’t seem to have any problem getting boyfriends who, as far as I can tell, are completely devoted to them.

    • @Emily

      I know they’re more likely to get divorced, but are they actually less likely to get married in the first place? Or is this just how we all wish that the world worked?

      Maybe the tables will turn as more of my peers start to get married, but so far I’ve known a lot of “sluts” who don’t seem to have any problem getting boyfriends who, as far as I can tell, are completely devoted to them.

      Excellent question – hell if I know. I’m going by what guys say. I do think there’s a big difference between dating and getting married. I also have always maintained that the promiscuous generally pair up with one another, and I suspect that will hold true for marriage as well.

  • To some guys, sleeping with X number of women is important enough, that if they don’t achieve it they feel inferior in some way. I can’t relate to that at all. To other guys, their number (and by extension their options) don’t matter because they’re only looking for one particular girl to be with. I can definitely relate to that feeling.

    I think this is an important distinction many men do have certain sexual goals but I don’t think all men do and there are many that upon reaching that goal decide to challenge themselves and up it more. Of course men are more practical if after certain age their goal is not met and not even close some of them will recalibrate and adapt to just finding a couple of decent gals of course some of them will resent having to recalibrate if there are men that they can see can pull the numbers easier and they have no idea why, because objectively speaking he doesn’t seem that different to him. There is another aspect of rampant sluthood that is often missed in this discussion having the sluts rubbing in men’s faces that they can sleep around all they want and they just had to suck it up. Is like a rich person prancing their riches in a poor neighborhood all the time, that got to hurt…a lot.

    I’m reading Boorstin’s The Discoverers right now, and while it is a biased and occasionally outdated work, it does nicely underline the incredible fragility and improbability of the civilization we presently possess. A few wrong turns and we’re back to what he calls The Again and Again.

    Oh I freaking love that book. Totally worth read for anyone paying attention, very good easy read about history I haven’t read the whole series but this one was reaaaally good.

  • Dogsquat

    @SayWhaat:
    “But you would have when you were younger.”
    ___________

    I used to think drinking bourbon and fighting people in bars was the most fun it was possible to have, too.

    To clarify:
    When I was younger, I would have been less likely to try a relationship with a woman who was pining over a lost love.

    Pining is unattractive.

    Only I am allowed to do that.

    My suffering is unique and special.

    I…..

    am……..

    A SNOWFLAKE

  • Dogsquat

    Emily said:
    “Maybe the tables will turn as more of my peers start to get married, but so far I’ve known a lot of “sluts” who don’t seem to have any problem getting boyfriends who, as far as I can tell, are completely devoted to them.”
    __________________________

    Some guys genuinely don’t care.

    Some guys go through recurring periods of grotesque and hellish introspection, whereupon they stuff their feelings of revulsion down into the pit of their stomach. Episodic brutal repression of deep-seated feelings is habitual for them. These guys are either afraid of appearing judgmental, or are convinced there’s no one out there for them who’s “better”/different.

    Some guys leave the relationship long before they could be considered “devoted”.

    Some guys are ignorant, possibly willfully.

    People are funny creatures.

  • VD

    I know they’re more likely to get divorced, but are they actually less likely to get married in the first place? Or is this just how we all wish that the world worked?

    According to my recent survey on female fidelity and ignoring divorces, the female results were as followed.

    Virgin = 0% ever-married
    1-3 partners = 79% ever-married
    4-9 partners = 83% ever-married
    10-19 partners = 67% ever-married
    20+ partners = 43% ever-married

    The sample set was small, with 59 female respondents. But they are largely in line with what Game predicts. The main point isn’t that sluts can’t ever get married, only that they’ll tend to have to marry down from what the status otherwise would tend to indicate. Their lower rates of marriage is therefore likely indicative of a) a lesser interest in marriage and b) a disinclination to accept the reality of the need to settle for a lower-rank male.

  • Lokland

    @VD

    Do you have an age breakdown for the virgin category?
    I suspect that its more an age thing then virgins not getting married.

  • Jhane Sez

    “I think you’re projecting a bit. You’re projecting how women see the issue of “first sex” onto how men see it. We’ve determined that women hold the keys to the gate, but with that being said, men don’t just sit idly by twiddling their thumbs waiting for her to feel up to opening. Hell no. They are going to try to get it open. They are both testing you and hoping like hell that you open it. Sure, some guys will tell a woman what she wants to hear (and if shes dumb enough) and she will open the gate early just to get screwed over in the end. Thing is, women want men to escalate (I do), but only when the go ahead has be given to do so. Surely no one wants their boundaries crossed.”

    Nope not projecting… I’m advising.

    You are a classic example of wanting to tread on the slippery slope of getting it in because you are feeling a guy and still wanting to believe that the slut shaming is only going to apply to the dumb chicks got gamed, pumped and then dumped.

    I’m not saying that your instincts are wrong but even under your smart girl scenario you too could end up… after a couple of relationships that didn’t work out, being considered a slut, and unsuitable for relationships…

    Because the slut standard is arbitrary and the best most women can do in a slut shaming culture is to try to draw the circle past their own behavior and hope that they meet the standard of still being viable for LTR and marriage.

    Honestly there are guys that would consider it slutty to want to have or act on the desire to escalate sexually even if there isn’t intercourse and once you have escalated enough times you might be considered a slut as well

    And this is how most chicks get swindled because they are encouraged to behave in ways that aren’t conducive to securing a relationship

    Because its never about your current behavior, but only your past… as most guys here will tell you that ideally they would like their ideal woman to be hot for them and only them and are distrustful if she has been with another guy in similar circumstances

    And most girls engage in this way of thinking and behaving with men who don’t even have any skin in the game… i.e. commitment

    My point is when you put the focus on slut shaming, you actually take the focus off commitment and that is detrimental to most women’s end game ~JS

  • this is Jen

    Tony Stark March 23, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    @ Jhane Sez

    “A man with character doesn’t expect sex on the 3rd date.”

    Wrong. Men, of good and bad character alike, expect sex as quickly as they can get it. How quickly that will be is determined by the suppliers (read: women), who in turn base their timetables on prevailing social customs. Hence the utility of slut-shaming.

    ———————————————————

    I dont know about that, Tony. I was reminscing with anold college friend, and it occured to me that he slept with 3 of my closest friends. So I asked him ” why did you never pull that crap with me?” He said “I respected you too much”

    Guys can differentiate between the sluts and the respectable women, but women are the ones that need to decide which one they are going to be!

  • Charm

    @Leap

    Oh no. Maybe I worded it weird. What I meant was that I don’t expect a man to not want to have sex with me (if were dating). I don’t expect him to apologize for wanting to have sex with me. Its normal. It seems like Jhane wanted him to “take the high road” and act like he was above wanting sex or something. Even if a woman isn’t ready to sleep with someone, I don’t think a guy expressing his desire to sleep with her when she is ready is bad at all.

  • Gorbachev

    The problem is, a lot of men love this situation.

    Frankly, feminism delivered men unlimited amounts of free sex without the slightest need to invest energy, emotion or resources in a woman, and allowed us to discard them more or less freely whenever we want under the rubrik of resisting patriarchy.

    What man who’s getting laid is *ever* going to give up feminism?

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “Some guys go through recurring periods of grotesque and hellish introspection, whereupon they stuff their feelings of revulsion down into the pit of their stomach. Episodic brutal repression of deep-seated feelings is habitual for them. These guys are either afraid of appearing judgmental, or are convinced there’s no one out there for them who’s “better”/different.”

    Yep. Just because they aren’t openly expressing a feeling, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

    What’s really annoying is feeling like second best. Current GF…thinking about dumping her. She thought it was about the number. Told her I honestly didn’t care if it was 6 or 6,000. She smiled at that. And it’s true, for me anyways.

    She didn’t like when I started questioning her about why she felt the need to “almost have a threesome” with a random fling and one of his other harem whores and then a few months later decide I had to wait months on end to have sex with her.

    She also didn’t like that I hated her explanation of “I have two personalities, a wild side and a mature side and you get the mature side.”

    By hated, I mean I turned away from her because I almost vomited. And I’ll admit that I wanted to cry, but after years of untreated clinical depression I just don’t see the point in crying anymore. Who the fuck wants to make a lifelong commitment to that kind of situation? How can you NOT feel used after that a statement like that?

    • @A Definite Beta Guy

      She also didn’t like that I hated her explanation of “I have two personalities, a wild side and a mature side and you get the mature side.”

      By hated, I mean I turned away from her because I almost vomited. And I’ll admit that I wanted to cry, but after years of untreated clinical depression I just don’t see the point in crying anymore. Who the fuck wants to make a lifelong commitment to that kind of situation? How can you NOT feel used after that a statement like that?

      OMG, I almost vomited at that. Dump that bitch!

      And get that depression treated! You don’t have to feel like crying all the time.

  • Gorbachev

    “A Definite Beta Guy”

    Exactly: What man wouldn’t hate that? My reaction to a woman who is interested in me long-term and therefore withholds sex:

    Sure, and you were getting drunk last week with guys whose name you barely remember.

    So you’re giving *me* the raw deal, right?

    Not a chance. With sluts, you need to be in the “I’ll fuck you” zone. Being in the “I’ll be the guy who picks up the pieces later” zone is utter bullshit.

    Happily, sluts are in no short supply.

    I actually have huge respect for sluts. They are decent, completely licentious people. With no sense of shame and a usual tendency to seek out the baddest asses in a group, or vocally profess their indiscriminate choice preferences.

    And if other women don’t want to play:

    Too bad. Your sisters ruined it for you. NO reason to stay with a slut who isn’t banging you or a woman who won’t sleep with you because she wants something serious.

    Wait until she’s 29 or 30 and then see if she’s managed to keep the count to less than, say, 10.

    Until then, the optimal strategy for you is:

    Learn Game and fuck the way you like. As man, as few as you want. On your terms.

    Consider a woman’s terms more or less irrelevant to your own motivations.

    • Until then, the optimal strategy for you is:

      Learn Game and fuck the way you like. As man, as few as you want. On your terms.

      Consider a woman’s terms more or less irrelevant to your own motivations.

      Slut shaming is the answer to this.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @Gorbachev

    “Until then, the optimal strategy for you is:

    Learn Game and fuck the way you like. As man, as few as you want. On your terms.”

    The way I would like to fuck, is with my current girlfriend, as my wife. That may be impossible, but meh. I can overlook the number. Hell, I can even overlook the waiting to some extent, because we were still rounding 3rd Base regularly, and the option was open even on the first date. Which is unusual, even for her.

    The question is whether she is fully sexually invested in me now, and more than any other guy. The answer to that may be a Yes. If it is, I would never forgive myself for letting go of a girl who other-than-a-number is near-perfect.

  • M

    @purple/Susan

    My personal standard for attractiveness among the women I encounter has always been ‘will they look good even without makeup?’ Not that I endorse a woman to go new-age and reject it (I don’t), but if you realistically pursue anything beyond a few dates with her, you’re going to start seeing a much less composed side of her. Maybe it’s just I’m at more of a LT stage in life (27, in school for a grad degree), but I can even appreciate a woman’s tasteful modesty in dress.

    I think that should be the overall goal of women; make it to the 25-27 age range having self-preservation on their minds. Very few (one) of my friends got married before that, but it seems like all of a sudden I’m getting invites left and right. Have fun, enjoy life, discover yourself in the midst of a relationship, but be jealously mindful of some of those aspects of yourself that only degrade with exposure/use.

  • But Tia….I love sluts. Guess what I did last night? Lol. Never mind I’ll just send you the pics.

    • @Danny

      Haha, I know you do. No worries, I don’t think my strategy is going to cut into your supply any time soon.

  • SayWhaat

    I heard a convo among some guys in their 20s. They were talking about various attractive women, and opining on who was “hot but not pretty” and who was “pretty but not hot.” Guess which women the guys were trying to text for plans

    I think that there has been a small resurgence against this by women, though. Stars like Zooey Deschanel, Christina Hendricks…they specialize in the power of their femininity. They aren’t “slutty hot sex-bombs” like Megan Fox, but they are celebrated in their own way, and they are especially admired by women. I wonder if this will start to become a trend…

  • Gorbachev

    Definitely a beta guy,

    It sucks being the guy who doesn’t get any from the slut or the girl who gives it out to some guys and yet she still wants to drain your time.

    This is exactly what it is: A drain on your time.

    Susan’s advice is good for women. Her perspective is transparently about giving women both more power (sexually and in the SMV) and more satisfaction in romance.

    She states repeatedly that there’s no way to corral men: that men are more or less just responding opportunistically to the signals that women give out. She points out how feminism has created this situation largely on its own, with the addition of technology.

    She tells women how unfortunately bad this is, because men react as they do based on male interests and are not just ciphers on which feminists can paint whatever picture they want. Men are actors, too, and how men respond may not be as feminists assumed they would.

    So the slutty girl who won’t go to bed with you but will with lots of other guys: I know this will sound unlike her advice, but it’s unlike hers because it comes from a man.

    Ditch the woman. Seriously. Don’t stop to consider her feelings for one bald second.

    1) You’re her beta orbiter and nice guy to help ring in her new-found chastity and seriousness. In all seriousness, great for her. Absolute dog shit for you. Vote in your own interests.

    2) There are, literally, an unlimited supply (at least in relative terms) of other women. There is a) nothing particularly special about this one, b) other women are just as unique in different ways, and c) you are more valuable to you than any non-related woman should be, unless she’s already mothered your own children, in which case she has some value, though less than your actual children.

    These are cold calculations, but they’re calculations in *your* interest. *Your* interest, not the general social good you do by being The Man Who Sacrifices His Interests or The Interest Of Women or A Woman or anything else, is the most important thing for *you*.

    Let Susan educate other women. That’s hers and their business. Her advice is almost always good and at least relevant.

    You don’t have to give a rat’s ass about any of it. It’s merely interesting to you. I cannot tell you this enough.

    *DO NOT* seek advice from women who are counseling other women. When you step back and thoroughly examine Susan’s positions, they make for superb advice for dating for *women*. She has a solid understanding of male psychology and needs, but she self-avowedly advocates for maximizing female interests in the dating game.

    Her objection is to the more or less pack of misapprehensions and lies feminism as it is has sold women. She’s just straightening them out by giving them a dose of reality, not reeking idealism. She reminds women that men don’t just do whatever women want, that if you do X, men will respond with Y, and you can’t shame them into being X.
    Most feminists who give such bad advice are not even particularly straight, or are the 5-8% that are “poly”, bisexual, asexual or otherwise non-standard. Their advice for “standard-issue” human females is disastrous, something they find almost impossible to admit.

    All of this is great.

    I cannot stress this enough, sir.

    *None of this applies to you.*

    You should seek out your own interests and answers. I repeat these things, which some women will object to but which are hard-core male facts and interests. You might resist them. But you need to absorb this early.

    1) Roissy principle: Pussy is fungible. Less directly, you can change a GF and have an equally good experience. No woman is so valuable to a man that he can’t get better or at least different.
    1a) Don’t get one-itis until a woman has devoted herself to you and will make and help raise your offspring. This is the bulk of a value of a woman to you.
    You can go traveling, hang out with and do most non-sexual things with any male or female buddy. You can see sex from female fuck buddies and those sluts that are so derided. Some of those sluts are awesome, and so long as you’re not stupid enough to expect them to be consistently with you, on a long-term basis, and actually treat you well long-term, then they’re fantastic. Enjoy it.
    When some girl comes along who ACTIVELY PROVES HER EXCEPTIONAL VALUE TO YOU, on your terms, then bag and pay for it. And make no mistake: You will pay. One way or another. If she’s not a slut, you will have to pony up something, so you also need to be worthy of her.

    Which brings me to
    2) Be the man who can get the kind of woman you want. You can be other men, too. You don’t need to tell her you went through the entire sorority. You’ll be fighting off one-itis your whole life; you’re a man. Women are usually functionally loyal. Men have this retarded tendency to be loyal to individuals, for obviously good reasons, even when pushed. Some women are, but this is often a function of his perceived value. It’s a tendency, not a rule. Some women follow losers to the bottom: Welcome to the human race.

    But you need to pony up to get the woman you want. In the meantime, there are the sluts and the other women and the women who are biding their own time. You can have actual relationships with them, too. Just don’t expect too much. The relationships may actually be better for expecting nothing.

    3) Never take advice from women. I cannot stress this enough. Listen to it. Filter it. Consider it. But their advice will always and ever be poisoned with their own interests, which, while similar to, are not the same as yours.

    Most men can give you more even-handed advice, so long as they haven’t bought into mindless chivalry or feminist guilt.

    4) Women don’t like to fuck feminist men.

    5) Women say they like lots of stuff, and the women are almost always wrong. Watch behavior, and ignore words.

    Hence: GF who won’t bed you but will talk about threesomes with bad boy exes? In all seriousness, screw her. Walk away or make it clear you’re done. When she calls you a cad, call her this:

    Amoral emotional manipulator.

    You will be correct.

    Susan will back up some women playing these games, because men are difficult and we play games with women to get sex. Sure. But this doesn’t make women more moral or give them moral high ground.

    Both sexes play games. Don’t hate women for it. This is the nature of the species. There’s much to have contempt for in men, too.

    But you DO need to calculate your own interest and act accordingly. Use this calculation with monogamy, who to date, when to do it, when to marry (never out of any obligation: It’s YOUR decision, on your side, and you owe a woman who hasn’t spawned kids for you NOTHING).

    Two things you need to watch out for in this jungle:

    1) White-knight chivalry types. With all due respect, tell them where to stuff it. The religious are exceptionally blind to this. Danger #1 for nice guys.

    2) Feminists who say one thing and then fuck all kinds of bad boys. They’re the easiest to get into bed, and the first to abuse you. They will do whatever is in their power to deny you the same power of choice they assume.

    and for additional consideration,

    3) Equality.

    Ram this baby down the throats of every woman you ever date. This is the color of the sky now. Do what women do, and keep a mental tally of the amount of time, energy and resources you invest in a woman, and how she treats you. Many women will take you for everything you’re worth, and leave your husk by the side of the road. They’re mercenary and merciless this way. You will get no sympathy from other women or men. Women may decry this statement, but virtually every man alive will echo it.

    You make sure women don’t walk all over you. Never let them claim special status because they’re female. Make them work for it. You don’t need to be a beast of burden.

    Hold doors open for men and women. Carry bags for people, not for women. Let her chase the spiders out 50% of the time.

    You calculate it in your terms, not hers. You can negotiate in the middle.

    Make no mistake: This *is* a negotiation. It goes on forever.

    When it comes to advice, Susan is almost always on point.

    For women.

    Please take this advice. Don’t fear being a cad. Don’t worry about becoming a “bad boy” or being a “god boy”.

    You think *only* about getting the results *you* want. Society can burn to the ground for all it matters: the birth rate can drop to 0%: every woman you date can love you and be baffled as to why you won’t marry her and give her the huge house and three cars and a new handbag every week.

    It matters none at all.

    If you want the family, with the picket fence, you have one thing to consider.

    Add up what you offer. Be generous, but not unrealistic. Value yourself.

    Find an appropriate mate you can 1) trust, 2) sleep with, 3) have conversations with, because this is vital, and 4) be friends with, because you’ll spend more time as friends than fuck buddies, no matter what players may tell you.

    Additionally, make sure she’s 5) An excellent choice for mother for your children, 6) Loyal and 7) useful in other ways. Can she fix a car? Do accounts? Balance her budgets? Is she fun to travel with? Reliable?

    Bring what you have to the table, but you make absolutely sure a woman brings what you want to the table. if she doesn’t–

    Ditch her.

    Other women are good for sex. Movies. Travel. Whatever.

    Dude, value yourself.

    • @Gorbachev

      How amusing to see you warning Beta Guy to ignore my advice which was:

      OMG, I almost vomited at that. Dump that bitch!

      I don’t really have any problem with your own advice to him, here at my blog, except this:

      Hence: GF who won’t bed you but will talk about threesomes with bad boy exes? In all seriousness, screw her. Walk away or make it clear you’re done. When she calls you a cad, call her this:

      Amoral emotional manipulator.

      You will be correct.

      Susan will back up some women playing these games, because men are difficult and we play games with women to get sex.

      I have never backed up any woman playing those games. I’ve been as critical of women like that as I am of cads.

      When we approach other human beings as immoral or amoral emotional manipulators, we debase them and ourselves too. (Cads are immoral because they actively engage in dishonesty.) I would advise any person, regardless of sex, to run away from such a person as fast as their legs can carry them and never look back. That way lies heartache and degradation, for both men and women.

  • Gorbachev

    PS,

    I think slut shaming is awesome.

    For other women.

    Me, I think sluts are eminently useful.

    • I think slut shaming is awesome.

      For other women.

      Me, I think sluts are eminently useful.

      Of course you do. I think I’ve made it pretty clear throughout this thread that it’s a woman’s job to shame another woman for promiscuous behavior.

  • Tony Stark

    @ this is Jen

    “Guys can differentiate between the sluts and the respectable women, but women are the ones that need to decide which one they are going to be!”

    True. Guys can and do differentiate. Guys looking for easy sex will purposefully target sluts, while guys looking for relationships will do the opposite. My point was not about individuals, but about the broader culture. Jhane Sez complained that guys expect sex after three dates. My response was that if guys expect sex after three dates, it’s because they look around and see plenty of women putting out after three dates. If guys go out to the bar expecting to find a woman for same night sex, it’s because they look around and see plenty of women putting out the first night.

    If you want to change the culture (and as a non-slutty woman you probably should because the culture works directly against your interests) the only way to do it is to change the behavior of other women. Women, not men, are the drivers of sexual mores.

    @ SayWhaat

    “Even omegas get laid like tile in big cities.”

    Wrong. Omegas never get laid. That’s what makes them omegas. But there definitely is easier sex in the big blue cities. The combination of a permissive, liberal culture, highly competitive atmosphere, and relative anonymity due to numbers = a player’s dream. But this brings us back to my original point. In this environment, it’s not just the players expecting quick sex. When quick sex is the norm, even nice, relationship oriented guys will expect it. Hence the utility of slut-shaming (if the easy sex culture is something that bothers you).

  • Gorbachev

    PS,

    Have sex with her if you can. Then slow fade out.

    This will manage it all on your terms and you can walk away. It does wonders for your damaged ego.

    Trust me on that.

  • purplesneakers

    For the record, and the benefit of new readers, let me state that my objection to female promiscuity has nothing to do with morality. I am entirely preoccupied with strategy, individual success in finding relationships, and what I believe to be helpful to society (like fewer single mothers with children by numerous men and an increasing marriage rate). Though I have some religious readers here, I do not come at this topic from a religious orientation.

    Oops, didn’t mean to imply that your blog is coming at it from the ‘moral shaming’ aspect. I meant something more along the lines of what SayWhaat said above- a lot of young women will take any encouragement to introspect about their sexual activity as an attack on being sexual itself, rather than a strategic way of getting what they actually want. As far as I’m concerned this blog is the rulebook for getting in line with that ‘strategy.’

  • Susan, wow the sex by date 3 dating script that Emileigh described is awful. Please, any girl reading this, DO NOT follow it!

    A woman can have sex hundreds of times without falling in love. But a woman can only fall in love a few times in her lifetime. Don’t have sex without love. It’s not worth it!

    By the way, Bb reposted this on her blog:

    https://mashable.com/2012/03/22/world-of-warcraft-dating-infographic/

  • purplesneakers

    VD @ 98

    No, I’m aware that–sadly enough–I probably would find some of the guys that post online on threads like “how to bang 16 yr olds” attractive and charming if I were to meet them. I didn’t say that I would never find them attractive, just “if I were to find them attractive to begin with.” (Not all PUAs are attractive just because they are PUAs). If I did, and I then found out that their mission in life was to fuck as many girls as possible, I would find it gross and run far away. Hopefully avoiding one-night stands and fucking on the first date will help keep away the men who see women as playthings to sell their bullshit acts to.

  • Tony Stark

    If you want to change the culture (and as a non-slutty woman you probably should because the culture works directly against your interests) the only way to do it is to change the behavior of other women. Women, not men, are the drivers of sexual mores.

    You know, as much as we’d all love to be influential culturally, a lot of us here are outliers to begin with, don’t have a big social group, and don’t have much influence among acquaintances. If we started “slut shaming” on social media under our own names, it would go over like a lead brick balloon.

    So, what I would advise women who are “against the grain” is to change her own behavior. Like attracts like, and she won’t attract the men who are chasing after easy and casual sex, but she will attract the men who want a real connection, genuine emotions from a woman and an actually loving relationship that will lead to a good marriage and family.

    No offense to you or the other men who consider yourselves “good,” but I don’t consider you marriage material either. If a woman is going to get choosy and close her legs, she’s going to be an outlier already, and she’s not going to choose one of you mainstream men demanding sex after 3 dates. She just isn’t. Like attracts like.

  • Lokland

    @ Susan

    “Such is the power of Game in the hands of a master.

    And by the way, I feel fortunate that she never met either one. I have no confidence whatsoever that she would have heeded my advice in the heat of the moment.”

    I know this wasn’t your intention but this confirms(suggests?) two things that come out of the manosphere,

    i) theres no such thing as a bar slut
    ii) a women will cheat given the right circumstances (I’ll admit this one is far weaker)

    Thats not what you said but it was where my thought process first went.

    • @Lokland

      I know this wasn’t your intention but this confirms(suggests?) two things that come out of the manosphere,

      i) theres no such thing as a bar slut
      ii) a women will cheat given the right circumstances (I’ll admit this one is far weaker)

      I’ll ignore the second, as I believe cheating involves a very different set of impulses, thoughts and actions.

      I’ll disagree on the first. First, I think there are probably a handful of men in any city who have game that tight. Roissy and Roosh and the masters of the universe in this regard, and they happen to live in the same city. It’s like the movie Les Liasons Dangereuses – John Malcovich seduces and destroys the Michelle Pfeiffer character, a woman of the highest innocence and moral standing. She’s quite different than all the women he’s had before her (bar sluts) – she’s the ultimate challenge – and she takes a lot more work.

      I’ve often said that all women are susceptible to Game. But some go down fast, and some take work.

  • @Hope
    Mainstream guys aren’t demanding sex by date 3. Mainstream guys have a partner count of ~5 and are married by age 28. No sense feeling like you’re in a minority when you’re not.

    The whole “shaming” discussion seems a little problematic. Particularly when people, could be guys or girls, are capable of lying to get what they want, even if that’s commitment. Chameleon effect so to speak. What used to work in the old days, before birth control and safe sex, was ostracization. That tended to keep people in line because there were real consequences to “wild” behavior.

    But you’re right on choosing a partner. For the most part, men and women who have some standard they expect in a partner also apply that same standard to themselves. I guess that’s how you can protect yourself from the chameleons out there. Live the way you’d like your future parter to live, and hope you meet them eventually.

  • Lokland “Thats not what you said but it was where my thought process first went.”

    I think a parent’s thought process is usually “think of the worst, plan for the worst, and pray you’re pleasantly surprised.”

    Megaman “Mainstream guys aren’t demanding sex by date 3.”

    I hadn’t done a lot of “dating” to know what most guys are up to, really. He did say that when enough number of women do put out quickly, that will dictate how quickly most men expect women to put out as a collective. It sounds plausible, but it doesn’t mean all women should or would follow those same expectations.

    And it doesn’t mean I find men with those expectations to be… good for me and other women who want different expectations.

  • Tony Stark

    @ Hope

    “If we started ‘slut shaming’ on social media under our own names, it would go over like a lead brick balloon.”

    I’m not saying every time you encounter a slut to make a capital case out of it. What I am saying is that the culture will only change when a critical mass of women adopts an intolerant attitude towards slutty behavior. As far as I can tell, you individually have already done your part.

    “So, what I would advise women who are ‘against the grain’ is to change her own behavior.”

    Agreed. And this is in no way mutually exclusive with the above.

    “No offense to you or the other men who consider yourselves ‘good,’ but I don’t consider you marriage material either.”

    Please don’t personalize this. NOTHING I’ve said here or in any other thread is based on my own personal life or behavior. Everything I’ve said is based on my observations of the social milieu in which I reside.

  • @Hope
    This is what happens when guys generalize from the worst examples of female behavior onto the whole female population. They’ll be disappointed often, because most relationship-type women aren’t going to put out on the 3rd date. They’re going to wait for exclusivity, however long that takes.

    FWIW, I’ve never believed a guy who A) wanted sex with a girl as quickly as possible, and B) also said he wanted a serious relationship with said girl. Guys intereste in relationships tend to act very differently from guys who looking to use you and lose you.

  • Tony Stark, I really didn’t mean any offense by the statement. I simply think if you sanction the attitude of other men having expectation of sex by 3rd date, that reflects your own attitudes, which are not compatible with a woman who is seeking true love and marriage.

    Megaman, I don’t believe that either, which is why I said they wouldn’t be good marriage material. It doesn’t mean they aren’t good men in other regards, just that in all likelihood, they don’t even have marriage in mind.

  • SayWhaat

    Gorbachev # 150: pretty sure that’s Dark Game being advised here at HUS.

  • Lokland

    @ Hope

    “I think a parent’s thought process is usually “think of the worst, plan for the worst, and pray you’re pleasantly surprised.”

    I think an INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUALS thought process is usually “think of the worst, plan for the worst, and pray you’re pleasantly surprised.”

    @ MM

    “No sense feeling like you’re in a minority when you’re not.”

    And therein lies the problem.

    “Guys intereste in relationships tend to act very differently from guys who looking to use you and lose you.”

    I cosign this.

    Fixed it for you. I was just pointing out conclusions that could be drawn from her statement that are counter to her typical opinions.
    I don’t believe them myself.

    @ Saywhaat

    “Gorbachev # 150: pretty sure that’s Dark Game being advised here at HUS.”

    You actually read that whole thing? 😛

  • SayWhaat

    You actually read that whole thing?

    I did. I didn’t have a problem with most of it. But it was comment #150 particularly that struck me as Dark Game.

  • Cooper

    @Susan #134
    Exclusivity after a month?
    There would be numerous parties and hookup opporunites in that time.

    If I find out a girls hook up with someone else, since me, I’m over it. I’ll purged all feeling, and be done.
    To me, her hooking up with someone else speaks a thousand words.
    I’ve always been told women know what they want, and so I’ve always let their actions speak for them.
    If she’s hooked up me, once to three time in that first month, and also gone to another guy, I’d take it as a sign of comtempt.

    Most importantly, that I wasn’t enough to conjure any desire for a relationship.
    Am I not entitled to feel so strongly this early?

    • @Cooper

      Am I not entitled to feel so strongly this early?

      You are entitled to feel any way you want to. It just means filtering out women who would do this. Not all would – I’m talking about people active in the hookup scene here.

  • @SW
    “She described the normal college process of becoming a couple like this…”

    And you say this convulted process only leads to a relationship 12% of the time? Not surprising. The guy and girl in that generic example seemed genuinely afraid of displaying actual emotion. People have to be getting together in other ways, even in college. A relationship is only successful if it lasts, after all.

  • purplesneakers

    Definitely A Beta Guy, if the gf who almost had a threesome with her ex-hookup buddy is your current gf, you need to dump her now. You don’t deserve that bullshit.

    Dogsquat,

    To summarize/attempt a generalization:

    Most guys are not going to rule out a serious relationship/dump a woman because she’s choosy about who she sleeps with. Matter of fact, a choosy woman choosing a particular guy is a very positive thing from the guy’s point of view.

    On the other hand, many guys will not start/stay in a relationship with someone they deem too promiscuous. Most dudes have a limit for that. When their girl is close to that limit, it causes a lot of soul-searching, doubt, pain, and anguish in the guy. The girl who’s up against that “limit” has to compensate for it in other ways, or she’ll get dumped. Her guy will go find someone else equally as cool/attractive, but with a past that’s easier to tolerate.

    Perhaps, Mauve Nike Person, the better question to ask is – Is It Worth It?

    Girls do give up something by not being promiscuous. Sex is fun. Hanging around naked with attractive people is a pretty goddamned good way to pass the day. Instant gratification is easy, while keeping your eye on a prize that may never come is difficult.

    So:

    Q. Why Bother?

    A. It might matter someday.

    I don’t feel like I’m giving up anything by not having casual sex. Ok, sure, maybe some great sex (assuming it’s not a typical situation where we’re both drunk and he doesn’t care about my pleasure at all)… but only to be followed by an empty, hollow feeling that too many “sex-positive feminists” describe in their stories about “reclaiming sluthood.” I have hooked up in the sense of making out, etc. before, and only felt gross and devalued when the guy literally up and left because he realized he wasn’t going to be getting any, and I realized he didn’t care about me beyond wanting sex.

    Also, my own personal situation (to put it simply, what I was like during the formative years vs. what I’m like now) is such that I will admit that I have some sexual hang-ups, mostly where it comes to body image. I could try to ‘exorcise these demons’ by sleeping around for male validation like so many girls seem to do, but I’m also extremely risk-averse. It takes a lot of trust for me to take my clothes off in front of someone. (No wonder I just got dumped for not feeling comfortable having sex in less than three weeks of knowing someone. And this person knew I have never done the whole ‘sleep with some guys immediately while LJBF’ing other guys and using them’ thing before).

    But at the same time, especially after taking the ‘female red pill,’ I’m perfectly aware that I’m not getting any more attractive to men as I get older. Ugh.. forgot where I was trying to go with this train of thought.

    Just out of curiosity Dogsquat- how old are you, and how old is your gf?

  • Cooper

    @megaman
    I’d say that, what Susan described, was a normal college process.

    Usually the first hookup with at the end of a particular night. And each of them would probably not initiate daily contact until maybe a second hookup. (with the exception of coordinating plans) And they probably would continue aloof to avoid seeming over eager.

  • purplesneakers, I think you have to adopt a more hardened attitude toward men who want to use you solely for sex. Basically, screen them as much as you can before doing anything physical.

    Kissing frogs is kind of gross if you think about it… 😛

    I think you should try to befriend guys, get to know them and have them get to know you. If they don’t respect your boundaries, forget about them and move on. There are plenty more men to get to know.

    Also, you’re still young. I thought I was getting “old” at 23. It was totally dumb. You don’t have to worry, take your time, and don’t rush. Guys can smell desperation and use it, too.

  • @Cooper
    If by normal you mean it happens to the average college student at least once during 4+ years, then I can see that. But I wouldn’t call the process normal in any real sense of the word. The whole 13 steps read as pretty dysfunctional. Assuming they actually stay together long-term, wouldn’t they be somewhat embarrassed to admit that’s how they got together? Sleeping with a stranger, rolling the dice, etc.

    12% is a pretty low chance of a relationship. And what’s the failure rate of those relationships? I get the feeling there’s a large chunk of young college students who are smarter than this and find ways to start relationships in healthier ways.

    • @Megaman

      12% is a pretty low chance of a relationship. And what’s the failure rate of those relationships? I get the feeling there’s a large chunk of young college students who are smarter than this and find ways to start relationships in healthier ways.

      First, I think the quality of many, if not most, of these relationships is pretty poor. In a lot of them the emotional intimacy never grows. The woman who shared this with me (it wasn’t Emileigh, by the way – new weekend, new stories!) also said that she has never known a couple where cheating did not become an issue. She said she doesn’t know a single person of either sex who hasn’t either cheated or been cheated on.

      This whole process is highly dysfunctional as you say, and the relationships are bound to be low quality and short-lived.

      There are undoubtedly some students who get together in other ways – there’s the group that researchers call “college marrieds” who typically are in the same year and get together within weeks of arriving at school, staying together for four years. These relationships are characterized by intense symbiosis. Never a meal eaten apart or a night not spent in one twin bed together.

      I do not believe there is a large chunk of college students successfully navigating an alternative approach, though I do think many would welcome the opportunity to be in relationships.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Nothing wrong with Dark Game when a guy, especially a good guy, is getting screwed over. I don’t disagree with anything Gorbachev says, I just don’t want to follow through on losing a girl that might be valuable.

    No need to make a decision right now. I can sit on it for a few weeks and think this through.

    For the record, Susan: thank you for your concern. I am not depressed anymore. I have also lost 25 pounds in the last few months, should be starting a decent paying job soon, etc. Things have been good.

    But for 2 of those years…and I don’t know why I said 7, it was more like 12…I commuted by train to college, alone. And almost every day, I cried on that train. Alone. Because no one, not once, not in a city of millions of people, offered to help me.

    After forgiving humanity for that, forgiving my parents for making it worse, forgiving certain friends for not trying harder, forgiving culture for creating a society where I pretty much had to exist online because no where else would have me, forgiving myself for not getting help and pushing people away and aiding the process along instead of fixing myself….

    Well, a number just doesn’t mean anything. I’ve slayed dragons and I did it by myself: girls are just trivial by comparison. That’s why I said I wanted to cry but really couldn’t. What’s the big deal about some girl that’s not fully invested in me? I can always dump her and get another. Dealing with depression, though, that’s some serious shit.

    • @Beta Guy

      I truly wish you all the best. I’m glad you’re feeling better. No one should suffer tears every day.

  • Mike C

    This will be interesting to watch in the coming years as to what the dominant social trend is amongst women. In terms of “slut shaming”, you’ve got two diametrically opposed forces.

    Force 1 is intrasexual competition amongst women and either women who really intellectually understand “sluts” cheapen the value of sexual access or at least intuitively “get it”. Force 2 is female “empowerment” and everything that goes along with that such as the perceived injustice of the double standard.

    I really have no idea where most women will eventually land in terms of balancing those two forces in their own views and actions. To some extent, where you stand depends on where you sit so I think many women will have views aligned with their own self-interest.

    From a guy’s perspective, anyone with even an iota of brain cells knows to keep any “slut shaming” to online blogosphere discussions. Never, ever slut shame in real life. Appearing non-judgemental is just one more aspect of good Game.

  • Mike C

    Cooper,

    I had been meaning to make this comment for you, and don’t take it as patronizing. In another comment somewhere, you had indicated you had been doing a lot of “thinking”. That is good. Keep that up. Think and reflect and don’t take anyone’s word on anything as gospel, and don’t put boxes around yourself on what thinking is allowed. Allow your thinking to take you wherever it goes.

  • Cooper, that’s what ignorant college students think is “normal.” Like college students thinking a diet consisting solely of fast food is “normal.”

    Here’s what’s actually healthy. Guy and girl meet, get to know each other over a period of time, become closer emotionally without getting physical, form a friendship bond tinged with attraction, then one or both escalate verbally and mutually confess their feelings. They talk a lot, fall in love, and then finally have sex, their feelings get even stronger, and they continue to have lots of hot sex.

    Of course, it’s going to take longer and be more complicated. It’s like going to the grocery store, picking out fresh meat and vegetables, getting good nutritious ingredients, going home, cutting up the food, firing up the stove, cooking the food, serving the food in a real plate with metal utensils, and eating it. Then washing the pans and dishes, and cleaning up the area when you’re done.

    Does it sound like a hassle? It’s better, healthier, and lots of “normal” people do it all the time.

    College is not forever. It’s a blip in the scheme of your adult life. Get real life skills, romantic and practical, to prepare for the real world.

  • Mike C

    On the other hand, many guys will not start/stay in a relationship with someone they deem too promiscuous. Most dudes have a limit for that. When their girl is close to that limit, it causes a lot of soul-searching, doubt, pain, and anguish in the guy. The girl who’s up against that “limit” has to compensate for it in other ways, or she’ll get dumped. Her guy will go find someone else equally as cool/attractive, but with a past that’s easier to tolerate.

    Perfect description of what takes place in most male psyches when confronted with this issue.

  • Just1X

    @Mike C

    “the perceived injustice of the double standard”

    Depends on how people respond to “It’s not faaaaiiiir”

    To me this is the argument of a five year old throwing a tantrum and stamping their feet. When I tried it at that age, I was told that life isn’t fair, deal with it.

    Is it even legal to say that now, especially to feminists? :0

  • Then again, plenty of young people in their 20s who graduated from college still eat fast food all the time and don’t take the time to cook. I guess it’s no surprise that the hook up thing is happening more and more even after people graduate.

  • SayWhaat

    Force 1 is intrasexual competition amongst women and either women who really intellectually understand “sluts” cheapen the value of sexual access or at least intuitively “get it”.

    One of my girlfriends is a virgin. One day when we were talking about boyfriends and sex, she suddenly said, “you know, we wouldn’t have such a hard time of it if only other girls would stop putting out so much!” This was something she arrived at completely independently. I hadn’t even mentioned HUS to her at that point.

    She’s a smart cookie. I bet other girls like her are completely aware of how the market is acting against their best interests and are figuring it out earlier. The only problem is that women en masse don’t know what to do about it.

    • @SayWhaat

      She’s a smart cookie. I bet other girls like her are completely aware of how the market is acting against their best interests and are figuring it out earlier. The only problem is that women en masse don’t know what to do about it.

      We’ve made shame a dirty word, a way of suppressing human freedom, and the refuge of the illiberal and small minded. You can see some of that in this thread. I’ve always maintained that shame is not only valuable but invaluable to civilization.

      I would also point out that slut shaming may be as simple as selecting friends differently, or withholding approval rather than granting it. It doesn’t mean putting women in the stocks in front of the library.

  • SayWhaat

    Then again, plenty of young people in their 20s who graduated from college still eat fast food all the time and don’t take the time to cook. I guess it’s no surprise that the hook up thing is happening more and more even after people graduate

    I made this same observation to Ozy over at the forum. 🙂

  • @Hope
    The hookup scene actually happens more outside of the college environment, adding more fuel to the fire of pluralistic ignorance. People who only have a high school education report more partners (?). You may interpret that any way you like : )

  • purplesneakers

    purplesneakers, I think you have to adopt a more hardened attitude toward men who want to use you solely for sex. Basically, screen them as much as you can before doing anything physical.

    Kissing frogs is kind of gross if you think about it… 😛

    The thing is, I am actually attracted, and I want to show that attraction. I don’t want them to think I would be frigid when the time comes, or that I am just using them for an ego boost or to buy me stuff. I remember reading a comment from a guy here about going on a date with a Spaniard and how free she was with touching him (like hand on the shoulder, hugs, etc.) and how that made him like her more, and more willing to wait. I dunno, maybe I’m trying to be something I’m not here though. But non-verbal contact has actually (magically) become easier for me (the most introverted girl in the whole freaking world, it seems sometimes) than saying ‘I think you’re really hot and really want to have sex with you’ (which I’ve forced myself to say–in less dorky terms–but it felt so unnatural).

    The story about guys getting up and leaving once they realized they weren’t getting any was more from college. It’s hard to recreate that in the real world because of the lack of dorm rooms, haha.

  • Mike C

    Depends on how people respond to “It’s not faaaaiiiir”

    To me this is the argument of a five year old throwing a tantrum and stamping their feet. When I tried it at that age, I was told that life isn’t fair, deal with it.

    Ha….yeah…whenever I hear someone proclaim “That’s not fair” on anything, I know I am dealing with someone with a child-like mentality and view of the world. The world is literally riddled with “unfairness” from SMP stuff to economic stuff like wealth and income to stuff about navigating the corporate environment and career. At some point, someone with sense stops whining about unfairness and gets on to business of playing by the rules of the game.

    • @Mike C, @Just1X

      When my daughter was young, she had a hard time accepting disappointment. Ultimately I would say, “I’m sorry, but that’s just the way it is. Life is not fair sometimes.” She would inevitably respond, “But I don’t want that. I want it to be different.” We could go around and around like this for hours. And of course, she remained very agitated. Acceptance is the key to emotional stability and sanity. Change what you can and let the rest go. (I learned this from reading Zen stuff, and have not yet learned to put it into practice. But at least I understand the concept.)

  • deti

    Gorb 147:

    Tour. de. Force. Absolutely superb.

    This is some of the best advice I have ever seen written anywhere.

    I am going to print this for my son.

  • Just1X

    @purplesneakers

    non-verbal contact ? yeah, I think that as long as you have some feelings, that this will be taken as an acceptable sign of interest, short of sex.

    if he’s young and inexperienced please give him something waist height to stand behind when you do this for the first few times, hormones aren’t just for women, you know. Show some mercy

  • @ Cheerful

    Your words have buoyed me it’s a little difficult this meaning. Been meaning to tell you how touched my wife and I were when you said you were worried about me driving home to Boston one Sunday a while ago. Putting such a reference to it made it so real to us. I am reminded of a verse from “Sweet Baby James” (from the same titled album):”Now the first of December was covered with snow/ and so was the turnpike from Stockbridge to Boston.” When I hear or think of that verse from now on I’ll picture you, driving, wondering how I’m doing-like James says, “sweet”.

    My example is sort of a take on an old joke that starts the movie “The Verdict”. Stop me if you’ve heard it. Guy’a talking to his pals and says “Hey, there’s this great new place where for $50 you can get a meal, all the beer you want, and then they’ll take you in the back and get you laid.”

    Pal: “You’re telling me there’s a place where for $50 you can get a meal, all the beer you want, and then they’ll take you in the back and get you laid?”

    “Yeah.”
    “When did you go there?”
    “Haven’t, but my sister went there last night.”

    • @Munson

      How funny. My drive that day was from Stockbridge to Boston. Sweet Baby James is the album I came of age with. That and Carole King’s Tapestry.

      Anyway, you’re on my mind, and on lots of other folks’ minds too.

  • purplesneakers

    Just1x-

    non-verbal contact ? yeah, I think that as long as you have some feelings, that this will be taken as an acceptable sign of interest, short of sex.

    if he’s young and inexperienced please give him something waist height to stand behind when you do this for the first few times, hormones aren’t just for women, you know. Show some mercy

    hahaha. (oops, the word I meant non-verbal *communication). I’m not saying I’m being a tease… I’m not sticking my chest in their faces or grabbing their junk. Just light touches, meaningfully long hugs and kisses. I also don’t dress ‘hot’ so that already turns away a large % of guys already only interested in casual sex.

  • deti

    Cooper:

    Hope’s viewpoint at her comment 173 is “healthy” and advantageous from a female standpoint.

    My wrinkle on it is this: There has to be some attraction there. She has to be physically and sexually attracted to you from the get go. She has to tingle for you from the get go.

    If the tingle’s not there, you’re a beta orbiter and you’re wasting your time and money.

  • Just1X

    Thanks for the laugh Mr Munson, hope your come down wasn’t too bad

  • “This is some of the best advice I have ever seen written anywhere.”

    Why did I have the opposite reaction? It just seemed like cliched training for wannabe players…

    Discouraging women from sleeping around is a worthwhile goal. Encouraging men to sleep around at the same time seems schizophrenic. If I had a son and daughter, the thought of giving them contradictory advice like this… blech. I wouldn’t be able to look at myself in the mirror.

    • If I had a son and daughter, the thought of giving them contradictory advice like this… blech. I wouldn’t be able to look at myself in the mirror.

      I’ve often wondered about this. Dads encouraging their sons to be cads, while warning their daughters about the dangers of cads. I don’t think it’s possible. You’re a liar in one case or the other.

  • deti

    Actually, the more I consider Hope’s advice — that’s great advice for a young woman.

    It’s poor advice for a young man.

  • Mike C

    3) Never take advice from women. I cannot stress this enough. Listen to it. Filter it. Consider it. But their advice will always and ever be poisoned with their own interests, which, while similar to, are not the same as yours.

    Most men can give you more even-handed advice, so long as they haven’t bought into mindless chivalry or feminist guilt.

    I cannot emphasize this point more strongly for any guy. No matter how logical and rational any woman or her advice seems, or how “fair and balanced” she seems, any advice she gives to a man is being filtered through the prism of eollective female interest and her own persona interest as a woman. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT AT ALL. But less perceptive guys might mistake the advice for being analytically sound and in their interest as a guy.

    • No matter how logical and rational any woman or her advice seems, or how “fair and balanced” she seems, any advice she gives to a man is being filtered through the prism of eollective female interest and her own persona interest as a woman.

      No matter how logical and rational any player or his advice seems, or how “fair and balanced” he seems, any advice he gives to a man is being filtered through the prism of collective male interest and his own personal interest as a player.

      I would argue the second does far more damage, as morality is rarely a concern, and emotional manipulation is his most used tool. The player always seeks to steal something via deception and illusion.

  • As an aside, there is no one promiscuous among the female friends I have. They’re all married or in LTRs. They talk about calligraphy, crafts, book clubs, dinner clubs and school for their kids. They go to parks, skiing, hiking and plan girls’ camping trips. The kind of woman who are going to be in this social circle has never gone out and slept with a ton of random guys. Like is attracted to like, so how would slut shaming really happen among these kinds of groups?

    • @Hope

      Like is attracted to like, so how would slut shaming really happen among these kinds of groups?

      It wouldn’t need to. But it’s clear that in college there is some mixing of promiscuous and non-promiscuous women in friend groups. I’ve seen it in my focus groups, and in my observations of various college social scenes. And of course, randomly assigned roommates are often different. Even the non-promiscuous girls wind up lending a supportive ear to the disappointed dumpee after a “one and done” hookup.

  • purplesneakers

    One of my girlfriends is a virgin. One day when we were talking about boyfriends and sex, she suddenly said, “you know, we wouldn’t have such a hard time of it if only other girls would stop putting out so much!” This was something she arrived at completely independently. I hadn’t even mentioned HUS to her at that point.

    She’s a smart cookie. I bet other girls like her are completely aware of how the market is acting against their best interests and are figuring it out earlier. The only problem is that women en masse don’t know what to do about it.

    Funny story… after relaying to my friend–who was moderately promiscuous in college and is now in a LTR–the story of how I got dumped by the most recent guy I dated basically because his former hookup buddy from college came to town and made herself very sexually available, she said, ‘Man, what a slut.’ And this coming from someone who even had a little bit of a reputation in college. Of course part of it is trying to make her friend feel better, but yeah, intrasexual competition is alive and thriving.

  • Gorbachev

    Look, I’m not saying be a dick.

    I’m just saying:

    Get what you want. If what you want is a wife and a normal life, know how to get that and to maintain it.

    Or sleep with every woman you meet.

    Ironically, the skills and knowledge are actually much the same.

    • @Gorbachev

      Look, I’m not saying be a dick.

      I’m just saying:

      Get what you want. If what you want is a wife and a normal life, know how to get that and to maintain it.

      I didn’t think you were. Your advice to Beta Guy passed my test, I had no problem with it. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to hear that I won’t allow HUS to be used as a platform for Dark Game in any way.

      And I’m probably not inclined to tolerate much more of this “Don’t listen to Susan” stuff. I get more requests for advice from men than I do from women at this point, and that’s been true for a while. At this point, I refer everyone to the forum, and if I do put up a post here, I give men every opportunity to disagree in the comment section.

      For the last two guy letters I put up, both guys left the comment thread because of the things the men were saying. Including advice like “get her drunk at the bar and bang her” and “be banging another chick at the same time so she hears about it and wants you more.” The fact is, many men don’t want to hear it because they don’t want to be that kind of man. They’re unwilling to compromise their own moral standards for “fungible pussy.”

  • deti

    Megaman:

    Maybe it’s the pendulum swinging, IDK. Maybe it’s pushback.

    All I know is that men need something better than the toxic and false BS “just be nice and be yourself, and the girls will flock to you and want to be your GFs.” Men have been colossally lied to and defrauded. Many women — not all, but many women — are playing men for losers and chumps and fools.

    Men need to know about the real rules of the real game they’re in. They don’t need to be given rules that applied to the game which existed circa 1955.

    • @deti

      Many women — not all, but many women — are playing men for losers and chumps and fools.

      Can you put a percentage on that and explain how?