761»

Is the End of Hypergamy Near?

A new book on the increasing earning power of women in America provides a rather startling statistic.  The Richer Sex: How the New Majority of Female Breadwinners is Transforming Sex, Love, and Family by Washington Post writer Liza Mundy promises:

Within a generation, more households will be supported by women than by men. In The Richer Sex, Liza Mundy takes us to the exciting frontier of this new economic order: she shows us why this flip is inevitable, what painful adjustments will have to be made along the way, and how both men and women will feel surprisingly liberated in the end.

According to the 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, nearly 40% of working wives outearn their husbands. That figure has been rising one percentage point every year since 1987. Mundy predicts that by 2025, more than half the primary breadwinners in America will be female. Here’s how Mundy believes that will look:

Women will have the bargaining power they need to usher in a new age of fairness, complete the revolution, and push us past the unhappy days of the so-called second shift, when so many men and women were mired in arguments over equity that always seemed to boil down to laundry and dishes. 

[Men] will craft a broader definition of masculinity, one that includes domestication but also more time spent on manly pursuits: hunting, fishing, and extreme fitness. Women will come to accept the “breadwoman role” and choose spouses who exhibit “supportiveness (a glass of wine waiting at the end of the day, a chance to unburden), parenting skills, and domestic achievements.

Apparently, Mundy describes the cheerful male helpmeet greeting his frazzled wife with a glass of wine at the end of the day at least half a dozen times in the book. It sounds more like Mad Men in reverse than a plausible scenario for American married couples. I also find the reference to manly pursuits extremely patronizing and hypocritical – is this the enlightened version of the 1950s sewing circle?

For some time I’ve been writing about the ascent of the American female. 20-something women earn 117% what their male peers earn. 60% of college students are female. We finally have no choice but to confront the reality that has been decades in the making:

Feminism ushered in new opportunities for women at the expense of men. 

That’s not a judgment, just a simple statement of fact. The pie didn’t get bigger, we’re just divvying it up differently, and women are getting the biggest share. In my view this reflects several key influences during the past 40 years:

  • Affirmative Action programs for women in education and the workplace.
  • Education reforms that favor female learning styles and behavior.
  • A shaming of masculinity, forcing men to examine their changing role in society.
  • The economy’s move away from sectors that primarily employ males, towards sectors that either favor females or are indifferent to gender.

A shift in power was inevitable. The economy did not expand as much as the size of the workforce did. I distinctly recall hearing an episode of Talk of the Nation on NPR back in September of 2010. The guests were Hanna Rosin, who had written The End of Men for Atlantic Magazine, and Guy Garcia, author of The Decline of Men

Rosin’s position was clear. Her position was essentially that men are going to have to suck it up and get used to being the lesser sex. 

The economy is becoming more amenable to women than it is to men, mostly because women are better educated and because the jobs that are growing are jobs that women tend to do…Another recent interesting study showed that women under 30 are – in 147 out of 150 cities – making more money than men under 30, and that is really amazing.

It does not seem like there’s any way back. Statistics about men doing more housework, doing more childcare – they still don’t do nearly as much as women – but that really is the plus side.

…I mean, the darker side is the kind of frustrated masculinity and men who end up in a situation with no outlet, no job, no identity to cling to. The positive way out, and I think the Time magazine story talked about this a little bit, is if you can somehow embrace the new role, which is slightly more equal, and not be threatened by it, then that’s the best possible solution.

Garcia accurately realized that men were not about to enthusiastically embrace opportunities as nursery school teachers:

So these trends are accelerating very quickly, and definitely what we’re seeing is what I call a fragmentation of male identity. Guys are not really sure who they’re supposed to be…Men’s incomes have been shrinking while women’s and other groups’ have been growing.

And meanwhile…the fact is, guys are still expected in some way to be the patriarch. They still feel bad if they can’t support a family.

…I don’t think society has even come close to saying, well, gee, if women are going to take over the roles that men used to have, now guys are free to be flight attendants and nurses and housewives – isn’t that great, guys? Well, you know, nine out of 10 guys are not so thrilled about that.

And I’ve talked to women who said, well, of course, why would they be happy? Those are the jobs we’re happy to escape now. So it’s not like, you know, trading apples for apples here. It’s really kind of a switching of roles, and nobody knows where it’s going.

Today, Mundy is predicting a new era of undisputed female supremacy, but I think she’s wrong about what women want, and what they’ll be willing to settle for in marriage. Generation Y women show no enthusiasm for embracing the “breadwoman” role:

Research by the Families and Work Institute found that 50% of Gen Y (men and women) place higher priority on family than work, 37% place the same priority on their work and family, and only 13% place higher priority on work than their family.

Writing last month in the Wall St. Journal, James Taranto called out Stephanie Coontz for similarly denying the very real factor of female hypergamy:

Most important, the problem that female education poses to marriage is a product of female, not male, mate preference–of what Coontz calls “the cultural ideal of hypergamy–that women must marry up.”

That is where Coontz goes badly wrong. Any evolutionary psychologist will tell you that female hypergamy–more broadly defined as the drive to mate with dominant males–is an animal instinct, not a product of human culture, which can only restrain or direct it.

Yesterday popular blogger and economist Tyler Cowen linked to the book and cited a European study that declares “the end of hypergamy is near.” It should be noted that the study looked at the willingness of women to marry men with less education than themselves, reflecting the usual academic definition of hypergamy. Cowen acknowledges this won’t satisfy “extreme hypergamy theorists” (heh). 

According to our results, if current trends in education are to continue the end of hypergamy is near. This unprecedented scenario demonstrates the important implications that women’s education may have for the erosion of traditional patterns in assortative mating.

A second hypergamy study conducted by an economist at the University of Washington in 2006 also predicted that women are becoming more hypogamous, i.e. willing to “marry down,” at least when it comes to education. 

It is commonly believed that women tend to marry more successful men, i.e., that there is “hypergamy” with respect to success, and that success hampers women’s marriage prospects. Using education as a proxy for success, I test these two hypotheses. 

I find little evidence that the increased concentration of women at the top of the education distribution has led to a worsening of the marriage market prospects of more educated women. The marriage market accommodated the shift in part through a decline in hypergamy at the upper end of the education distribution.

On the other hand, it appears that the declining economic prospects of men at the bottom of the education distribution have rendered many below the threshold of marriageability. The likelihood of marriage for less educated men fell more than the likelihood of marriage for less educated women. There was no decline in hypergamy at this end of the spectrum; in fact, some measures indicate an increase in hypergamy for this group, as less educated women have increasingly been reaching upward in the education distribution for husbands, or opting out of marriage entirely.

How this plays out in the U.S. remains to be seen. Even Mundy has nagging doubts. Profiling Juan, a man who quit his job to care for kids while his wife Jessica works as a paralegal, Juan has taken to selling Avon to bring in extra money. ”They see me as the father,” Jessica told Mundy. ”Sometimes I fantasize about, like, leaving her,” Juan confesses, “because I want to feel more masculine again.”

Mundy also is disappointed in women, who she believes are lagging in adopting new gender roles. “Sometimes, if women have a husband who is lower key and happy at home, they feel like they haven’t landed the marriage partner they were supposed to land.” Mundy was amazed to hear how many “breadwomen” worried that their husbands felt emasculated by having to ask them for money. Mundy believes that men can’t just give up and opt out. “Nobody gets hot for a stay at home schlub.”

Mundy has little patience for naysayers:

I mean, how could it not be good for women to have more financial resources and to be more empowered? I mean, how could that be a bad thing?

Women, hang on to your fedoras. Men, don’t let go of your pillbox hats. It’s going to be a wild ride.

2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • Anonymous

    Long time reader, first time poster here. It seems that if hypergamy is truly an evolved animal instinct, the only way it will truly end is for evolution to slowly flush it out of the system over the course of thousands of years. Changing societal norms may suppress the outward expressions of hypergamy, if women decide that some kind of husband is better than no husband at all – indeed, this may be the evolutionary selection pressure that could wipe hypergamy off the map – but I don’t see the hindbrain reprogramming itself in a handful of generations.

  • GudEnuf

    I think more earning power for women is a good for men:

    1. Men are attracted to high-income women.

    http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/15/why-men-are-attracted-to-high-earning-women/?iid=ec-article-mostpop2

    It’s funny because we tend to think of male sexuality as hardwired, when in fact it is molded by society. Men today place far more value in a woman’s earning power than they did thirty years ago.

    2. As masculinity becomes detached from breadwinning, men will be free to take the lower paying jobs they always wanted:

    http://www.bakadesuyo.com/what-would-men-do-if-they-didnt-have-to-impre

  • Juiced

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

    Welcome to indentured servitude, ladies. You will hate it as much as men. “I’m not haaaaapy” will take on a whole new world of meaning to you. Men at least are capable of handling the sacrifice it takes to get the job done.

    But hey, if you need us to stay at home, do a couple piles of laundry, load the dishwasher, grocery shop and cook a few meals, schlep the kids around on beautiful days and help them with their homework, I think we’ll be able to manage. Oh, and once those divorce laws start favoring men (because we’ll be the primary caretakers), our older age will actually make us MORE attractive to the younger crowd of women just starting up the corporate ladder. Especially since we’ll already be ‘experienced’ at taking care of the homestead. You know, maybe Feminism isn’t so bad after all.

    All kidding aside, staying at home and raising your kids is THE BEST JOB IN THE WORLD. STOP. PERIOD. END OF STORY. Making decisions for the benefit of your family infinitely beats making decisions for the good of a company. The reason women can’t appreciate it and envy men for their jobs is because “the grass is greener on the other side” and they felt that they were missing something. Well, now you got it. Enjoy it.

    Foolish, but you reap what you sow.

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

      @Juiced

      The data demonstrates clearly that women have become less happy since 1970, while men’s happiness has stayed about the same. Gen Y women are saying up front they have no intention of “having it all.” There may be more women who choose career without kids in future, but the young women I know are getting great jobs that they fully plan to excel in until they have children. One girl in my focus group recently decided, after doing very well in pre-med as un undergrad, to become a nurse practitioner instead, because she doesn’t want to delay marriage and childbirth until her 30s.

      I will say one thing though. Working crazy hours as a consultant was much easier than being a SAHM with two little kids. Every single night I fell into bed feeling like it had been moving day. It was physically and emotionally exhausting. I was 32 when I started, which was undoubtedly a factor.

  • Just1X

    @Susan, I’m not so sure either

    In the UK, last I heard, 2 out of 3 employees of the state were female. This caused bleating that women were / would be made redundant faster than men. Well…duh! Sack 50% of the people, where 2/3 are female, you’re going to lose females 2 x faster than men (q.f. 80mph woman). That’s if the jobs are of equal worth, but they are not.

    The reason I mention that is, when the state goes broke and large parts of the shirkforce are laid off…where’s the hammer going to hit hardest? Also it’s the men emptying the bins and doing the hard labour whilst the women do the paperwork – who would you lay off more of?

    The UK has piled in middle managers / paper-pushers by the million under the last spendaholic government (majority of those new jobs given to women), just who gets the push first when you are forced to downsize? The people doing stuff (digging the coal / shovelling the gravel / driving the trucks)? The top management (choosing the redundancies)? or the paper pushing middle (yes, the office staff and who are they – no clues)?

    This is going to be a wild ride. Fasten your seat-belts peoples…

    Also, just what is a women’s studies degree ACTUALLY worth? Captain Capitalism isn’t impressed. So when the churnalists talk about the better qualified sex, just what qualifications do they really think matter?

    I’d rather be a competent plumber than a master’s in women’s studies diversity coordinator (yes, these exist in the UK; people paid to make sure that the demographics are filled in the workforce – really).

    In software engineering (OO – object oriented), when you break up an problem into roles (for the parts of the system to carry out), any role that involves the word ‘manager’ in its name invites deep scrutiny – what does it actually do for us? Let’s improve the design and lose that role.

    I suggest that the same goes for ‘coordinator’ in human organisations, middle management etc – be nervous, be very, very nervous if this describes your job…

    anyway, have a nice night, cheers

  • Juiced

    “I will say one thing though. Working crazy hours as a consultant was much easier than being a SAHM with two little kids. Every single night I fell into bed feeling like it had been moving day. It was physically and emotionally exhausting.”

    My wife couldn’t keep up with the laundry, so I took responsibility of it. Dishes, too. This on top of a full time job. So believe me when I say that for a man, pounding out the laundry, hauling some groceries, and taking care of the dishes is a trivial matter.

    Disciplining kids is also easy for men. Men are more physically imposing, so kids will tend to fall in line with a stern word. And since we all know men are typically more detached, the emotional exhaustion will not be there either. Office politics is significantly more draining.

  • Just1X

    Also, some linky goodness

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larissafaw/2011/11/11/why-millennial-women-are-burning-out-at-work-by-30/

    http://www.the33tv.com/about/station/newsteam/kdaf-millennial-women-burning-out-by-age-30-some-experts-say-yes-20120110,0,2816372.story

    How anybody takes till their mid twenties to leave academia and gets burned out by they turn 30 is a bit beyond me…but hey, if Forbes (that beacon of truth) says so(?)

    A recession is when all the BS gets swept away, I wonder what will be left? If anything much is left…

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

      @Just1X

      Thanks for those links, they look very useful.

      What galls me most is that these women think this is a good development. This is insane! We’re ignoring the fact that women are the ones who give birth. Many women doing super well in their 20s step right off the track when they have a kid. I only know a couple of women who have been happy doing the high flying career thing. I know several doing it and miserable. And I know a bunch of women who decided to spend some time at home. The only househusband I know is a real estate developer, and always worked from home while the kids were in school. I’m sure he made more than his wife, even though she had the 9 to 5.

      I just don’t think women are going to want to sign up for this, even if they have the chance. Since they’re getting more education, we’ll have a deficit of qualified professionals over the age of 30.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Hypergamy doesn’t necessarily march with education. I used to live in a GM/UAW area. It was not uncommon for women with higher education; teachers, nurses, bookkeepers, to marry HS grads who “worked in the shop”. Because those guys made, relatively speaking, good money with fantastic benefits. Once the retirement hit “thirty and out”, you could look forward to a second, less onerous career beginning in your fifties. Do the math and come up with a current value for all that. Huge. Even more so for the skilled trades guys.
    Additionally, these women would have pretty good benefits themselves if they worked for, say, the county or the schools, or a larger firm, and that allowed hubby to run his own (very) small business without needing health insurance.
    Of course, the mismatch between education and income is not unknown, but when you have a market distortion by near monopolies–the Big Three and the UAW–it can get to be substantial.

  • Tony Stark

    Hypergamy isn’t going anywhere. Women will just evaluate their prospective mates on criteria other than earning prospects, criteria like, I dunno, game proficiency.

    An entire generation of young boys is about to grow up (i) without masculine role models in the home, and (ii) convinced that the only way to attract women is to behave like a little sociopath.

    Somehow I don’t see this ending well…

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    When Rosin describes a man with “no outlet, no job, no identity”, is she describing a husband? The context suggests she is. That man will never marry. Despite all this glib bullshit ( ie social “science” prattle which is simply someone one’s instinct/prejudice propped up with meaningless statistics and “Looney Tunes” graphs), I do not think we’ll make this shift of role reversal in a generation. Listen to Juan; he tells it from the heart. One thing women never get is their attempts to ameliorate how a guy feels in this situation comes off a condescending, patronizing and, in its worse manifestation, emasculating. Plus work roles are much much more than that. If she’s a professional and he isn’t, he’s going to feel it every time he’s around her peers trust me to God on that one. This heretofore has been so rare that I’ve never given it much thought, but men play the sort of head games women do. “Oh, you’re a stay at home mom; how nice? (This said by a she-devil litigator and translates as “You lazy torpid cow; I change the world while you sat at home with a baby sucking on each tit, shoving bon bons down your gullett and watching mindless tv in bovine-like detachment”). “Oh, you do finish carpentry work( when you can find it); interesting.” (This said by a balls-on-his-forehead stock broker and translates as “Why don’t you go out and check my tires if you can read the pressure tabs correctly; maybe I’ll tip you a 5 spot and it will spare me having to say anything more to you beyond ‘No, I don’t think we have Keystone Light here tonight.’”) Ok, we could make it to the Shangri-la; but let’s remember though this template was set in the Stone Age.

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

      @Munson

      +1

      We need more males chiming in on this. James Taranto can’t do it alone. William Bennet is an oaf. Can we at least get David Brooks on board?

  • Just1X

    BTW ‘shirkforce’ is my intellect-you-all property. License fees can be arranged.

  • Charm

    Im very career minded, but from what Ive observed, a lot of women dont seem to be. Even in college, it seems like a lot of girls are going through the motions because they feel like they have to or that its supposed to be fuflilling. It seems like a lot of girls, even in their early 20s are thinking about settlin down and having kids. I dont think they realize that there arent enough higher earning men to go around. Im with gudenuf, its gonna be a lot of very unhappy women in the future and I quite honestly wouldnt be surprised if in the next couple of generations things start to go back to how they were before. I dont think women will even need to be forced into either. I think theyll choose it. This is why I love feminists. They lack long term thinking. Heres to empowerment!

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ Stark

    You said a mouthful O My Brother! (ref “A Clockwork Orange”)

  • Just1X

    @Tony

    well hopefully they’ll just turn herbivore / grass-eater like in Japan (as opposed to thug). They look at the deal offered to them by society and say “no thanks” and go their own way. You can’t shame people that don’t care what you think of them*…Japanese demographics are horrible.

    “Where have all the good men gone? We need their taxes”.

    *in case there is any doubt – I don’t blame them at all. MGTOW

  • Giraffe

    You can throw a ball up in the air, it will come down. You can’t defy the law of gravity forever. I think hypergamy is a little more flexible, but in the end, there’s always gonna be a pull.

    As far as women running the economy, women can be in charge till the oil needs to be changed. Or a war needs to be fought. Or something. There is a lot going on in the world that doesn’t bode well for women. (Economic collapse, muslim demographics, men deciding that getting married is a suckers game). They can do this while there is peace and prosperity, but once the barbarians are at the gate, they will need men again, and then its back in the kitchen.

    There’s a lot of things we do today because we have it too easy.

  • Zorro

    1. Men don’t have babies.
    2. Women are hypergamous (and I’m talking about actual, biological hypergamy…you know, the kind female giraffes, bonobos and squirrels are equally subject to). Marrying for financial prospect is NOT hypergamy.

    Get used to a continuous, downward economic spiral. Women are taking over the ship, and it’s name is The Titanic.

    Welcome to The Suck, girrrrrls.

  • Petruchio

    Fighting the last war.

  • Giraffe

    @ Susan
    Can we at least get David Brooks on board?

    I thought you said male.

  • Just1X

    @Charm,

    a lot of men have found out that (child care matters aside), cooking and cleaning isn’t a full time job any more (maybe it was 70+ years ago). Automation makes it a cinch, assuming they value a spotless home all that much anyway.

    So now when snookums wants to get married and stay home…are you sure that men are willing to go back to the 50s with them?

    Marriage 1.0 (up to the 50s. Man works till he dies, woman stays home and keeps home) was replaced by the current no fault divorce marriage 2.0 (I really hope that this is dying off – opinions vary). I don’t think that we’ll be going back to v1.0, and I don’t know what marriage 3.0 might look like. Shacking up (LTR) vs hooking up?

    All kinds of stuff is going to be shaken up, we are leaving Kansas…

  • El Marqués

    So, while the assorted freaks of the MSM have to grudgingly integrate the word “hypergamy” in their vocabulary, they go right ahead and try to twist it into some laughable “cultural ideal”?

    Calling a pragmatic choice between being a cat spinster and marrying some chump without a college degree “hypogamy” is just women arguing in endless denial about the reality of their reptilian instincts.

    Hint: Your reptilian brain is all about genetics and not really that much about college degrees…

    It’s becoming rather comical. Reminds me of Eddie Izzard’s sketch of “cake or death”. Just replace “death” with “introspection”, and you can have a good laugh at all those hamsters on speed.

  • Just1X

    Now, now Petruchio, I saw saw the Desi gravatar. I also saw you on Dalrock today.

    I thought that you’d gone?

    What gives?

  • Giraffe

    @ Just1x
    and I don’t know what marriage 3.0 might look like.

    I would guess it will just be permanent shack ups. If one is religious, one needs to get married. The Bible does not require the state to be a party, so smart believers will eventually learn to forgo the marriage license. She is less likely to leave when the cash and prizes are gone. There is that pesky common law marriage though.

    For non-religious, why the hell do they need to get married?

  • Just1X

    You’re looking better though, you’re now so last century as opposed to 16th-17th century?

  • Charm

    @just1X

    Oh I know. This is why I hate when SAHMs lament how hard it is. Ugh….until recently women did the shit everyday witn zero modern appliances. I also dont undersan how you can be a SAHM and not be homeschooling as well. I dont get it. Just not enough time in their busy days I guess. Oh the plight of the modern SAHM. I dont think Its for me, but if I did it, Id be a SAH God. Lol. Im very all or nothing and Id strive to do the best job possible.

  • Just1X

    “There is that pesky common law marriage though.”

    oh yes, indeed.

    “For non-religious, why the hell do they need to get married?”

    You’re preaching to the choir.

    Not sure where that leaves society?

    Somebody needs to:
    Give the grass-eaters a deal that they want to take, and I said ‘want’, no shaming with BS like man-boys – it won’t work anyway. The current deal is clearly not good enough.
    Remove the penalties for commitment (the male penalties, not sure if there are any female ones).
    Get women to reward good behaviour in beta men, stop encouraging bad-boy behaviour which encourages Game.

  • Brendan

    Hypergamy is wired, but the studies are only measuring it by “traditional” factors, like income, education, career status and so on. This misunderstands hypergamy. Hypergamy is simply women being attracted to the best men they can get as a means of uplifting their own status. In a world where men outearn women, this will mean, to some degree, men who earn the most. In a world where women outearn men, this will mean, to some degree, men who are the best looking/buffest and who have the best Game — boytoys akin to the wives of mad men, being judged by their looks and penises and sex appeal through Game. It’s still hypergamy, because in that system a woman’s status will still be raised by marrying a hot boytoy, just like a man’s status was raised by marrying a trophy wife.

    I am not convinced that women will, in fact, mate this way, however. Of course, on the “margins”, they will — nurses with firefighters or contractors is not an uncommon match today — as was noted rightly above, hypergamy isn’t always about education levels. But at the *highest* levels, where women are professional careerists, like lawyers, business execs, and the like, you will probably see more women opting out of marrying firemen and policemen, and opting for single motherhood. Some in this crowd will opt to marry the “educated, artsy underachiever”, like men who are artists and writers and so on (unsuccessful, mind you … successful male artists and writers are swimming in women), but a goodly number will want a male peer (or near peer) or will, themselves, opt out.

  • Days of Broken Arrows

    Rosin is missing a much larger point. One of the reasons men married to begin with is it gave them a purpose to take care of a female. It fulfilled a psychological need I think is built into the male psyche.

    Take away the “caring for” aspect and men will cease to marry at all — as they’re starting to do now. Or they’ll find an end-run around this, and marry the cleaning lady.

  • Just1X

    @Charm

    “homeschooling”

    ah, now you’re raising a good point. If ‘I’ wanted kids, that issue might change things (if finances allowed).

  • MNL

    It remains to be seen whether female marital satisfaction won’t suffer as a result of this trend in “marrying down.” Sadly, I’m not optimistic. Susan, in the above you reference an article by Stephanie Coontz. In that article hides this little gem:

    When the journalist Liza Mundy interviewed young women for her forthcoming book on female breadwinners, she found that most wanted a mate they could “look up to” or “admire”–and didn’t think they could admire a man who was less educated than they were.

    Bingo. This will yet become a more widespread problem. (And declines in female happiness like those we’ve seen over the last 40 years as per the GSS will likely yet continue). Put simply: a culture can legislate “equalism” through such mechanisms as, say, affirmative action in education. However, it can’t legislate away millions of years of female psychological evolution.

    No. Instead, we’ll see this lowered level of female happiness and lower satisfaction with the mate-worthiness of men manifest itself in other ways. For example, I suspect we’ll begin to hear calls in books and opinion pieces. These opinions–from both men and women–will recognize the declining mate prospects for educated women, the lower numbers of similarly ambitious or educated, mate-worthy males. However, the prescription will be for such men to simply “man up”, become more educated (in spite of biases in affirmative action admissions) and magically become more mate-worthy. …Oh wait! Have these “man-up” articles and books already come out? Ooops! My bad.

  • Juiced

    “I also find the reference to manly pursuits extremely patronizing and hypocritical…”
    I believe you are projecting. I would welcome the opportunity to pursue activities like hunting and fishing, as I believe many men would. Learning survival skills is a reward unto itself. And out beats video games.

    Staying at home sounds better and better every day.

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

      @Juiced

      I’m not saying men wouldn’t enjoy manly pursuits. What I’m saying is that pursuing female interests while at home full-time was something the feminists denigrated. The domestic arts became shameful. Now those same women want to turn around and suggest that men take up hobbies to keep life interesting while they’re caring for kids. When are they supposed to go hunting and fishing? While the kids are napping?

  • Just1X

    “Staying at home sounds better and better every day.”

    I’ll say, just how many of these sugar-mommies are available?

    I could just ‘lay back and think of England’

    A question arises; What do Americans think of when they ‘lay back’?

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

      A question arises; What do Americans think of when they ‘lay back’?

      England.

  • Just1X

    Where did the women go?

    Story of my life – FML

    good night all

  • GudEnuf

    There’s a middle ground between working sixty-hour weeks at a high status corporate job and staying at home to raise children full time. Two adults at a moderately paced job can still have enough time to raise children, particularly if they use their extra cash to outsource some domestic work. Plus, parents spend too much time with their kids anyways. Read Bryan Caplan for details.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Maybe not quite on topic, but when Brendan talked about “men who are the best looking” and “hot boytoy,” and I saw these images, I had to share:

    http://i.imgur.com/Q5U1L.jpg

    http://i.imgur.com/xClq4.jpg

  • Michael of Charlotte

    Actually, what’s really going to happen is guys like Don from Mad Men will have a soft harem going at work. It’s not even a question as to how women will react to that attractive alpha at work. All it’s going to take it having her shlub of a husband as her for money on the wrong day and the thought will be, “I wonder what Don is doing for lunch today?”

    Not even in my blue pill days would I believe that crap Mundy is shoveling.

  • MNL

    @Days of Broken Arrows: Great point. …Or such men may just “check out” and become less productive overall. As F. Roger Devlin put it in a recent book review,

    …men are programmed by evolution to be providers. If you deliberately rearrange society to render this function superfluous, do you have any right to complain when men stop knocking themselves out to perform it?

    The thing is, what Mundy, Rosin and others fail to grasp is that such changes on the part of women won’t occur in a vacuum. The assumption seems to be that in the face of the changing roles of women, men will either remain content, men will highly value such female accomplishments, or if and when men must undergo “painful adjustments” [Rosin], they’ll do so in ways that are entirely pleasing and supportive of women. Nothing could be further from the truth.

  • Just1X

    @Susan #38

    how depressing!

    I always loved the coast south of Monterey (the SF one), I drove it once – gorgeous. If I were American, there’d be lots of patriotic places to perambulate mentally, whilst in the sack.

    BTW did you see that Petruchio and ‘good old’ Desididlisilli are one and the same? His gravatar came up as Desi’s sour old puss then changed and went up market after the next refresh. Paul ‘Newman’ I believe.

    I thought that we’d all let him down and he gave his regrets and goodbyes? (not to me personally though – I cried myself to sleep that night, my security blankie was all damp.)

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

      @Just1X

      I thought that we’d all let him down and he gave his regrets and goodbyes? (not to me personally though – I cried myself to sleep that night, my security blankie was all damp.)

      This seems to be a recurring theme. People make a dramatic exit than come back around for some HUS lovin.

  • Stargate Girl

    ” I dont think Its for me, but if I did it, Id be a SAH God. Lol. Im very all or nothing and Id strive to do the best job possible.”
    Jaz71
    I don’t know whether to laugh hysterically or cry at that. being a SAHM is certainly not for everyone, but that one statement tells me you would be miserable beyond belief. Appears you would expect yourself to maintain a pristine home, perfectly home cooked meals, laundry always done, and perfectly happy kids.

    I generally find your comments pretty well thought out, but that one was just plain judgemental and ignorant. Walk a few miles in a sahm’s shoes, you will find it’s not all loungeing on couches and bon-bons.

  • Robber

    Two words – Blue Valentine

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

      Two words – Blue Valentine

      UGH! I had a movie hangover for weeks after seeing that. Whenever a girl starts telling me about the crush she has on a ne’er do well pretty boy, I utter those two words.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “When are they supposed to go hunting and fishing? While the kids are napping?”

    Strap little fucker to back, hunt big furry thing with spear. Rah, rah me caveman.

    I hate fishing, most boring thing I’ve ever done.

    —————————————————————-

    Now as for this SAHD nonsense. FUCK THAT. Hell I’m not even letting my fiance be a SAHM. Absolute nonsense. If you can’t throw the laundry in, load the dishwasher and then sweep-mop in under 2 hours at least two major organs better be ruptured, damaged or in advanced stages of decomposition. (And yes, I’ve done it. While single-ish and working. Not fun but far from impossible.)

    We made a deal, when they start school she either works or comes to be my secretary (as she does now). But theres no way shes staying at home and fucking off all day.

    However, I could also find myself a breadwinner so that I can get superjacked and feed her grapes and write odes to her never-ending generosity.

    Yah, No, not happening.

    Last,

    lets remember ladies in gentleman. This is something I learned in undergrad,

    Social Studies.

    Lets all say it together,

    Social Studies.

    Lets leave science to the big kids shall we.

    P.S If biology is under control I’m gonna start liking fat chicks now.

  • OffTheCuff

    Will men quietly become submissive married helpmeets to women? Probably not.

    When I look back on my desire to get married, it was entwined with children and providing. Marriage meant children at some point, and to me, that meant having a stable job somewhere with a future to provide for them. FIRST. Without tangible job prospects, I highly doubt I would have been interested in marriage.

    I think our incentives here in the USA mean that men are going to drop out. Further, women really wont like us as Tsing Loh-style “kitchen bitches”.

    I’m really glad I can provide for my family of 5 on one income.

  • Greg

    I dont believe for a moment that hypergamy is an instinct – it is merely a rational strategy that women have had to adopt in response to specific social and economic conditions.

    People need to remember that Evolutionary Psychology is an attempt to explain observed phenomena with reference to our evolutionary past. In other words, it proves nothing, nor is it meant to, it is merely meant to provide plausible explanations for what we observe humans doing.

    Now, it makes perfect sense to explain the observed fact of female hypergamy by saying it is a response to female social inequality, and not an *instinct*.

    Our culture is rife with anecdotes of women marrying the rich, high status guy, but hooking up with the good looking, studly, low status menial – clear examples that marrying *up* is a rational calculation, and has nothing to do with sexual preference. This is an implicit cultural recognition that hypergamy is a strategy, and not an *instinct*.

    I have too many male friends who are poor and low-status, but good looking and charming, and who get sex with the hottest women on a regular basis, to believe that hypergamy is anything but a rational strategy that women have pursued in the past, and the furthest thing possible from a timeless sexual preference of women.

    The truth is that as longer as lingering cultural stereotypes make women feel faintly ashamed at marrying *below* them, they wont be entirely comfortable doing so, even though they could care less themselves and certainly dont feel any sexual imperative to marry *up*. Cultural norms change slowly, but they are changing, and very soon women wont feel the slightest twinge of shame at marrying the studly, good-looking guy who earns less than them and has no particular status.

    And I think this is great. I am male and have absolutely no desire or motivation to bust my ass to win some kind of pointless and illusory social status that men in the past thought was essential to their ability to get a girl.

    Hey, if women want to bust ass and work really hard for some imagined gain in *status*, more power to them – I will be hiking, camping, reading, and snowboarding while they work, and will be waiting with that glass of wine – quite cheerfully – when they get back ;)

    Seems to me this is not exactly female *emancipation*, but what do I know.

  • beta_plus

    These studies on hypergamy intentionally ignore two very important aspects of men that impact hypergamy:

    1) Male Height -easily quantifiable – everyone hates hearing this but every other date I go the girl says “I don’t date guys under x’x” (changes from city to city)” Yes, game can help one overcome this, but it’s a steep slope one must always climb and always be on guard.
    2) Male Social Dominance – maybe quantifiable through facebook, but even that is a big if

    There are cities like Toronto and Copenhagen where some combination of height and social dominance is simply required for men to find mates.

  • Rum

    Some of us have read thru the comments from the original posting. There are some good ones about the difference between the sexual market place and the marriage market place.
    It is the size of that difference that may prove most problematic. Here is the reason I question the pairing of career moms and SAH herbiverous kitchen-bitchs . She cannot sustain any sexual desire for that kind of guy and men in general will become all too aware of this. Hence, the male inclination to committ to such a marriage evaporates (unless he just needs the money.)

  • Rum

    The sexual market place is a different place than the marriage market place.
    !

  • Escoffier

    Two possibilities here:

    1) Human nature rewires itself overnight;

    2) The rest of society starts to look more and more like the college/blue city <35 SMP.

    I know which outcome I'm betting on.

    As this trend continues, I wish I could buy stock on companies that sold "Where are all the decent men?????" screeds. Demand for that product is going to skyrocket.

  • Johnno

    Suggesting something so unlikely such as the “End of hypergamy” sounds more like a social construct that favours the feminine imperative. It’s more like saying: Hey guys, the girls will soon start noticing you instead of those bad boys. The effect? Beta males start to worry less giving way to alphas, who are truly the ones women want. The changes in the job market don’t imply an imminent change in such hard-wired evolutionary strategy in females. Women starting settling for less? Would men settle for older fat irritating bad-behavioured women given that an hypothetical scarcity of hot young babes?

  • jennister

    I don’t know where this comment will fit in but reading all this stuff is depressing when I’m living it and pretty happy. I’m 39 divorced with a 2.5 yr old. I have a doctorate my own business work from home and do everything, my boy goes to “school” a few hours a week while I do some jogging but never in day care. My ex did not finish college and never made as much as I did but I honestly did not care about that. The problem was him feeling bad about it ect. Now I know I wouldn’t be happy with someone that had no interests outside the marriage ie a job or career but the amount of money was never an issue and I was always happy that my income would cover everything and he could get a job he liked ect that didn’t keep him away from home all the time. My job averages 20 hours a week so I have plenty of time for hobbies with and without my son and clean the house ect. housework is not a big deal if it is you need to declutter or something. But him feeling not good enough and me saying the money didn’t matter was not helpful. Maybe I failed in my ability to make him feel like “the man” but I got divorced and now have more money but no man…. I really like a man for all the normal day to day things and nothing to do with money so people need to prioritize. Women value a sense of safety and security… that’s why they are making more because they can and they can take care of these themselves but you need a man to really feel cared for and cherished. A man needs to be successful in something or else he just won’t have the self esteem needed for a strong woman or the woman will feel taken advantage of. I can’t say I’m lonely but I do miss having a man around and I’m not into the whole casual sex thing before relationship so I will probably be manless for awhile but I wouldn’t change how I did things and I’m glad I can spend as much time with my son as I do which would not have been possible 10 years ago. Women have more power now and men should not be scared by it. Its to be shared in the family not used to belittle anyone.

  • sweetsue

    @Charm
    “This is why I love feminists. Spot on!
    They lack long term thinking. Heres to empowerment!” It’s not long term thinking so much as critical thinking and independent thinking. Those women who are going through the motions doing what they have been told is what they need to do or should be doing. They drank the cool aid without thinking does this work for me. Essentially feminism replaced the perceived tyranny of the past with it’s own tyranny and thought police and the sheeple followed without question. Then the sunk cost i.e. too invested to quit fallacy urges them forward like lemmings off the cliff until it is too late or they make a desperate move and retreat.

    Hypergamy is not dead yet there are far too many women over invested in the sunk cost fallacy who are too afraid to think for themselves. Men are benefiting from the women desperate to express their “freedom and feminist empowerment.

  • Mike C

    Hypergamy is wired, but the studies are only

    measuring it by “traditional” factors, like

    income, education, career status and so on.

    This misunderstands hypergamy.

    Hypergamy is simply women being attracted

    to the best men they can get as a means of

    uplifting their own status. In a world where

    men outearn women, this will mean, to some

    degree, men who earn the most. In a world

    where women outearn men, this will mean,

    to some degree, men who are the best

    looking/buffest and who have the best Game

    —boytoys akin to the wives of mad men,

    being judged by their looks and penises and

    sex appeal through Game.

    Brendan,

    Absolutely!!!!

    To focus on educational status, career, and earnings level as the only or even main focal point of female hypergamy is so off the mark to be laughable. Not to mention that looking at marriage to evaluate female hypergamy blurs the line between the lover/provider dichotomy

    I’m a textbook example. I’ve got a MBA in finance. I was actually making 40K= as an engineer back in the late 90s. Anyways, through the winds of fate I found myself in 2005 at the age of 31 unemployed from professional work, living with my parents, and working as a bouncer. It left A LOT of time for the gym so I literally was in perfect physical shape, plus i had plenty of free time to study Game. I was never more successful or attractive to women than that window of time in my life. Ironically, bouncing at what was a hot club at the time actually gave me a weird sort of status since I worked the door so I was perceived as connected. If I were single, I actually think I’d be more successful under that set of conditions compared to now where I work at a Fortune 500 company in a professional analyst position making top quartile income. Female hypergamy is extremely complex and nuanced and comes in a variety of preferences. But to focus it on career and earnings misses the mark. The woman married to the surgeon might be the samw woman fucking her sculpted personal trainer making $15 a session. Which one really satisfies her hypergamy?

  • Maggie

    When I was pregnant with my first child my husband lost his job so I was the sole wage earner. For the first few months he took care of the baby while I worked.

    He found taking care of a baby so demanding and draining he couldn’t get anything else done around the house. When he finally got a job I became a SAHM. He’s always had great appreciation for what I do and never considers my job easy or slacking off but he’s so much happier with our roles now.

  • Charm

    @Stargate Girl

    So wait, youre judge me for being judgemental? Okay. I think we just detrrmined that with all the modern conveniences, being a SAHM is quite a bit easier than it used to be. With that being said, its much easier especially if the kids are schooled outside the home. And I dont need to walk in anyones shoes since I spent a few years in my early teenage years caring for my younger cousins and siblings while our parent did drugs and neglected us. So being a SAHM is a luxury plain and simple since reproducing is a choice while working to earn a living isnt. So I have a hard time seeing how staying at home with kids you chose to have in first world america is this amazingly difficult task. So if I did choose to have children and decided to stay at home with them Id dominate it. Its in my nature to master everything I do since I believe that having and caring for kids is a big deal and Id give it everything I had.

  • Mike C

    Our culture is rife with anecdotes of women marrying the rich, high status guy, ***but hooking up with the good looking, studly, low status menial**** – clear examples that marrying *up* is a rational calculation, and has nothing to do with sexual preference. This is an implicit cultural recognition that hypergamy is a strategy, and not an *instinct*. ***I have too many male friends who are poor and low-status, but good looking and charming, and who get sex with the hottest women on a regular basis****, to believe that hypergamy is anything but a rational strategy that women have pursued in the past, and the furthest thing possible from a timeless sexual preference of women.

    Greg, what you are describing here is in fact hypergamy in action. See my previous comment. The key takeaway is that “status” is subjective and contextual. Again, I’d argue amongst certain crowds I was actually higher status as the bouncer working the door than I am not as the senior level analyst with his very own cubicle and stapler. The problem is the “professionals” withe “credentials” who conduct “academic” studies start with flawed assumptions.

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

      @Mike C

      Again, I’d argue amongst certain crowds I was actually higher status as the bouncer working the door than I am not as the senior level analyst with his very own cubicle and stapler.

      Socioeconomic status is a huge factor. And there is a provider attraction cue – it’s a definite part of the weighted formula of female sexual attraction. Bucks matter, as do ambition, drive, etc.. Not for a ONS, but for dating it’s a definite consideration. It all depends on how you define “success with women.”

      The problem is the “professionals” withe “credentials” who conduct “academic” studies start with flawed assumptions.

      So we should go with unqualified amateurs instead? Tyler Cowen’s “extreme hypergamy theorists” reference was to Roissy, btw.

      Look, I obviously don’t subscribe to the hypergamy denial view. But the term was actually invented, I believe, by academics, and co-opted by Gamers. They might just as easily have said, “Chicks digging jerks.”

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

      I think it will also be interesting to see what women choose to do in the next generation. Today, as Mike C notes, a woman can be married to a surgeon and have an affair with her trainer. Moving forward, there will be fewer male surgeons. The female surgeon may choose to have sex with her trainer, but she’s unlikely to marry him.

      All of this suggests a sharply declining marriage rate, even for the folks who still marry in big numbers.

  • Lokland

    @Mike C

    Its not their fault. They took social studies, without bias they wouldn’t have a field to work in.

  • Rum

    jennister
    Roissy could not have said it better.

  • http://theprivateman.wordpress.com The Private Man

    Articles on women angry about men opting out in 5…4…3…2…

    And right on time, here comes the Huffington Post:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-belkin/men-opting-out_b_1375355.html

    There won’t be a man shortage because the “soft harem” will become socially acceptable. Hell, it already is on college campuses.

    Because of hypergamy, there will be a provider shortage. Birthrates? Down, way down. Down so much that governments will start paying couples to have kids. It’s already happening in towns in Italy (one of the lowest birthrates in Europe) while Japan is desperate to address this demographic calamity.

    Watch for this social trend: stories and news coverage championing the benefits of marrying a man who is not as educated.

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

      @Private Man

      Because of hypergamy, there will be a provider shortage.

      Yeah, you could say hypergamy is a problem coming and going. Hypergamy led to the loss of assortative mating and the SMP we see today, after the Sexual Revolution. That produced decreasing numbers of men who are effectively marriageable. So there is a provider shortage now. Whether women continue to choose marriage, including to men who earn less and have fewer credentials, remains to be seen.

      Agree totally on birthrates, they’re going way down. Italy and Japan are the canaries.

      Watch for this social trend: stories and news coverage championing the benefits of marrying a man who is not as educated.

      IDK, I’m getting the sense that feminists are viewing men as entirely disposable. I honestly never thought it would come to this, but Mundy sounds like men should just shut up and become house slaves. All the while singing (still!) about female empowerment.

      No matter how much feminists try to sell this, it’s not going to work, because women don’t want it. The question is, will women rise up and refuse to go along? I think it’s possible many will step off the career track and let their husbands take the lead. Of course, this applies to the most educated in our society – they’re the ones who continue to marry in big numbers.

  • Brendan

    True, Mike, but I find that very unappealing.

    I don’t want to be a boytoy (well I am out of that demo anyway), but I think it is demeaning for men to do that.

    Feminists hated that role for women. Men should not accept this role for ourselves. Buffing and sexing up ourselves to be sexy for women demeans our entire sex. It is a role reversal to becoming Stepford Husbands. A very bad path.

  • Mike C

    True, Mike, but I find that very unappealing.

    I hear ya. Here’s the thing…do you

    1. Adapt yourself to the system or 2. Try to change the system

    And I think that comes down to whether one leans more toward pragmatism or idealism. And this question reaches far beyond the SMP. Its the question a person has to face in career and other areas of life. When I was a teenager and college aged I was a big video gamer, and one of the things about video games is EVERY ONE had that cheat/glitch. It was just a matter of finding it, and you were unstoppable. In Madden 92, you could play the with the 49ers, take control of Charles Haley and literally sack the quarterback every time. It worked great. I wasn’t going to reprogram the game to fix that “cheat”. Of course, one has to overlay that thinking with a sense of morality, ethics, and personal mission/priorities.

  • Ramble

    What galls me most is that these women think this is a good development.

    What is the point of drinking the Kool-Aid if you aren’t going to say that it tastes good.

    I also dont undersan how you can be a SAHM and not be homeschooling as well.

    Charm, you are looking very pretty tonight.

  • John

    The end of hypergamy won’t really occur because there is too much at stake for the beautiful and hot women. A lot (not all) hot or beautiful women have nothing going for them besides their looks. Why? Because they don’t need to, they can stand and look pretty and they could have some guys buying them dinner, taking them places, another to have sex with, another to bawl emotions.

    What the increasing wage and breadwinning statistics show is that more of the less desirable women making an impact of on the marketplace…(of course you will find exceptions but look at most women who are either feminists or in a typically “men’s career ladder”. They don’t look pretty). The ones who will marry these women will be betas (and as you already showed us they are really emasculated).

    So a huge sexual marketplace shift is not going to happen. We are going to have more uglier women marrying beta men become more commonplace. The alpha men will still get the hot girls and the hot girls will still get the alpha men. It’s just going to make the market even tighter for men AND women. The greater beta men won’t be able to game a hot girl like he can now and the more homely girls won’t be able to get an alpha to commit and will have to settle for the betas. And Hypergamy won’t end.

    I could be wrong but I don’t see any super long term consequences occurring. Whenever the pendelum swings one direction from equilibrium it will always swing back with full force… Just make sure you are on the uptick.

  • Mike C

    Socioeconomic status is a huge factor. And there is a provider attraction cue – it’s a definite part of the weighted formula of female sexual attraction.

    I’m not sure on this. I’d really like to see some concrete evidence that the provider cue is part of instinctual attraction instead of just a component of rational self-interest. There is nothing wrong with the latter at all, but there is a big difference between the pussy getting wet versus a logical, thought process “He has qualities that would make a good lifelong mate”.

    It all depends on how to define “success with women.”

    This is easy. Being the guy the woman WANTS to fuck. Just as “success with men” would be being the woman men WANT to commit to.

    So we should go with unqualified amateurs instead?

    Not saying that, but my experience in the financial markets has led me to be skeptical of academic studies. The entire University of Chicago business school finance is basically founded on a steaming pile of total horseshit (efficient markets and rational expectations). A bunch of guys won prizes for papers that really are only useful for toilet paper in describing the ***REAL-WORLD*** functioning of economies and financial markets. My only point is one should never instinctually give higher credibility to a study based solely on pedigree.

    But the term was actually invented, I believe, by academics, and co-opted by Gamers.

    Perhaps, but the term hypergamy has picked up a colloquial meaning in the “Game” community. I suppose one could call it something else. The observable phenonemon would not change whatever you call it.

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

      @Mike C

      there is a big difference between the pussy getting wet versus a logical, thought process “He has qualities that would make a good lifelong mate”.

      Yes, it’s the difference between short- and long-term mating. The post is about assessing the future of long-term mating, which is what supports and maintains society.

      It all depends on how to define “success with women.”

      This is easy. Being the guy the woman WANTS to fuck.

      But for the purposes of this discussion that’s not relevant. Unless women will marry the men they want to fuck in the short-term. For long-term mating, there are indeed many considerations that don’t necessarily soak the panties, though they might.

      Just like men want to have sex with sluts but don’t marry them, women may want to fuck bouncers but don’t marry them. The fact that they’ll even get with the bouncer for a ONS is a direct result of women “having sex like men.”

  • Lokland

    @ Susan

    “So we should go with unqualified amateurs instead? Tyler Cowen’s “extreme hypergamy theorists” reference was to Roissy, btw.”

    Thats not the point. The problem is that social scientists start with the perception that “education is better”. Why? Because their educated, its human nature to assume we’re the shit.

    But, is their any observable evidence that this is the case.

    Yes their is. Fat rich dude with arm candy exists.

    However lets look at stud vs. rich and see whats more effective.

    Personal experience says stud > rich. However thats my personal experience. Yours differs. Mike C’s is in line with mine.

    No one has presented anything more than anecdotal evidence at this point to sugest educated men are more likely to be both a) married, b) their wife lights shit on fire shes so hot.

    I’d argue theirs far more important things for a man than provider ability in terms of getting (and if he wants to, maintaining) relationships with women.

    To list a few:

    Height

    “The greater reproductive success of taller men is attested to by studies indicating that taller men are more likely to be married and to have more children”

    Looks (not including height)

    Social dominance (its possible to be a rich panzy)

    etc.

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

      @Lokland

      To list a few:

      Height

      “The greater reproductive success of taller men is attested to by studies indicating that taller men are more likely to be married and to have more children”

      Looks (not including height)

      Social dominance (its possible to be a rich panzy)

      And if a lawyer and a bartender both have those qualities, which guy will the educated woman marry? That’s the question. If there are no lawyers available who meet these criteria, will she stay single? Marry a less attractive lawyer? Marry the hot bartender? I’d say the odds of the first two are up for grabs – the third is a remote possibility.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “IDK, I’m getting the sense that feminists are viewing men as entirely disposable. I honestly never thought it would come to this, but Mundy sounds like men should just shut up and become house slaves. All the while singing (still!) about female empowerment. ”

    Don’t worry not possible.

    Even if they eliminated men and tried to combine human genes it wouldn’t work.

    Egg + Egg = embryo, no placenta
    Sperm + Sperm = placenta, no embryo

    (In mice if I remember correctly.)

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

      @Lokland

      I know it’s not possible on a bio level, but they’ve been pretty successful in marginalizing men, and instead of saying, “Oops, we went too far, our men are not thriving” they’re saying, “We’re almost there ladies!”

  • Mike M.

    I’ve got to say it…the whole notion that women will have greater earning power because they have “college degrees” is absolute nonsense.

    There are “degrees”, and there are “professional degrees”. The former gets you a bushel of debt and a job at Starbucks. The latter gets you a starting salary north of $60k/year, with the potential to go to $90K+ within five or six years.

    Guess which kind of degree the feminists get?

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

      @Mike M

      There are “degrees”, and there are “professional degrees”. The former gets you a bushel of debt and a job at Starbucks. The latter gets you a starting salary north of $60k/year, with the potential to go to $90K+ within five or six years.

      I’ve read that the lopsided ratio on college campuses reflects a steady number of male STEM majors – no decrease – and an increased number of female humanities majors.

      I’m not sure how to square that with the data that women are outearning men, and that 40% of wives make more than their husbands. I would like to see this data broken out by education level. We don’t know that 40% of college educated wives are making more than their college educated husbands for example – I doubt they are. There may be enormous discrepancies re employment and earnings for those with less education. That’s the population with sky high OOW births and low marriage rates.

  • Brendan

    I hear ya. Here’s the thing…do you

    1. Adapt yourself to the system or 2. Try to change the system

    The third choice is opting out of the system.
    The system is a dominatrix currently. A small percent of men can successfully best the femDOM. But otherwise they/we are fucked.
    Opting out is a great choice if you are older,like me (mid 40s). That is the point.

  • Sassy6519

    But for the purposes of this discussion that’s not relevant. Unless women will marry the men they want to fuck in the short-term. For long-term mating, there are indeed many considerations that don’t necessarily soak the panties, though they might.

    Just like men want to have sex with sluts but don’t marry them, women may want to fuck bouncers but don’t marry them. The fact that they’ll even get with the bouncer for a ONS is a direct result of women “having sex like men.”

    Therein lies the problem. Most women want to sleep with the bouncers and marry them, but the bouncers don’t want to marry them.

    By bouncers, I mean alpha males. Most women want an alpha male that is also nice and caring to them. Those characteristics often don’t coincide with one another. At that point, women usually decide to either marry a beta male, operate in a soft harem for an alpha male, or remain alone.

    One thing I know is that this situation is going to become worse before it gets any better.

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

      Most women want to sleep with the bouncers and marry them, but the bouncers don’t want to marry them.

      By bouncers, I mean alpha males.

      Oh boy, I strongly disagree. Status does include social dominance, but has always included the prospect of upward mobility and earnings potential. Women are attracted to dominance because it implies the man has access to vital resources and a strong network of allies. Dominance without resources is strictly for “fun.”

  • Greg

    Mike C, this sounds like when a certain someone says *alpha is whatever a woman likes*, except with you it is *hypergamy is whatever a woman does*.

    In a word, no. Both the word alpha and the word hypergamy must have clear meanings if we can talk about them at all and measure if they are important to women. And in fact hypergamy has a very clear and precise definition, which does not include good looks or charm. Its not the researchers who got it wrong, but you who does not understand what the term means. Hint – hypergamy is not *anything* women prefer in a man. So sorry, but a woman preferring good looks and charm to wealth, access to resources, or social position is a very clear indication that hypergamy is not a primary motivation for women.

    Now, obviously women desire positive qualities in their men, but not all positive qualities qualify as hypergamy. So you cannot take just any positive male quality – like good looks – and claim that women liking it is a sign of hypergamy. Hypergamy refers specifically to social status – i.e., narrowly defined as access to resources plus power over other people. It seems to me that you are defining hypergamy as women wanting ANY good quality in a man, which is absurd. If hypergamy means everything then it means nothing.

    Moreover, this article is quite explicit that it is referring to social status in terms of wealth and jobs.

    I really do not understand the desire of some people to take words with well defined, clear meanings like alpha and hypergamy – which exist to make make clear separations between classes of phenomena for the purposes of discussion – and use these words as an inclusive label for all classes of phenomena! Or rather, I understand only too well, sadly, why some people wish to obliterate important distinctions that are vital to having a productive discussion, but I do not approve of it.

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

      Hypergamy refers specifically to social status – i.e., narrowly defined as access to resources plus power over other people.

      Precisely. Most men who possess these will be dominant in their demeanor. Dominance is just a proxy for what is signals. Dominance is not the objective, it’s the means.

  • Ramble

    Socioeconomic status is a huge factor. And there is a provider attraction cue – it’s a definite part of the weighted formula of female sexual attraction. Bucks matter…

    Susan, I don’t disagree, but parameters matter.

    Which guy is more attractive to the 20 year old girl: Bouncer or Cubicle-and-Stapler?

    Which guy is more attractive to the 30 year old girl: Bouncer or Cubicle-and-Stapler?

    Which girl is more likely to be hot/fertile/not-overweight, 20 year old girl or 30 year old girl?

    All of those authors and economists who think that the issue will be convincing “successful” girls to marry under-educated guys is approaching the problem from the wrong direction.

    They have approach anxiety.

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

      @Ramble

      I think some women are Bouncer Girls, and others are Cubicle ——> Corner Office Girls, and it has little to do with age. It has everything to do with SES and background.

      Similarly, I have never seen a single slim 20 yo become a fat 30 yo. The vast majority of people keep the same body type over time. This is probably also related to SES.

  • OffTheCuff

    Jennister: “I have a doctorate my own business work from home and do everything, my boy goes to “school” a few hours a week while I do some jogging but never in day care.”

    I’m a nice guy, generally, but cannot let this one stand unchallenged.

    You have a Ph.D., but can barely string together a coherent sentence with correct grammar.

    What is this doctorate in, and where did you get it?

  • Greg

    There are no circles in which a bouncer is a socially dominant male. He has very little power and little access to resources. You got to be kidding me if you think the power to let people into clubs is seen as a massive amount of power by women, even club rats, more important than the power wielded by say, a high powered attorney, politician, or banker. THAT is social dominance.

    Sure, the slut may want entry to the club, but she is not confusing that temporary and very minor power with real social dominance and power. The slut may even give the bouncer a blow job to secure regular entry to the club, but again, that is just another form of prostitution. It is amazing to me that people think evolution designed women to be such poor custodians of their own self-interest as to not be able to understand what real social power is.

    That bankers, politicians, and other men with genuine, real, and massive social dominance are not conspicuous for being most desired by the ladies, it is pretty clear evidence that women are not sexually turned on by social dominance.

    And why would they be? Evolution took place well before there was a modern capitalist society where an assertive personality could win you access to resources. It is very difficult for most people to understand, but we evolved to thrive in conditions very unlike what exist today. The qualities needed for success in a modern capitalistic society would have been utterly irrelevant in our ancestral past. In our evolutionary past, pretty much the ONLY thing that would win you access to resources were physical qualities, like athleticism, height, etc – so it should not be at all surprising that a steadily mounting stack of studies is showing that the ONLY factors that affect female sexual arousal are physical, and that personality only plays a role in non-sexual long term mating strategies.

    So even if it were true that women get wet for bouncers, which I doubt, it would be evidence that women are NOT primarily motivated by social dominance or power, as bouncers have VERY little of both.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    Oh boy, I strongly disagree. Status does include social dominance, but has always included the prospect of upward mobility and earnings potential. Women are attracted to dominance because it implies the man has access to vital resources and a strong network of allies. Dominance without resources is strictly for “fun.”

    I know it has always included the prospect of upward mobility and earnings potential, but I feel like there has been a shift in the importance for those things in the most recent decades.

    Most women no longer need men to provide for them financially. How valued can something be if what is offered is no longer necessary? Most women have the financial aspect of their lives covered. What can men offer that she cannot readily provide for herself? Those are the things that will be valued.

    Dominance
    Brute strength and protection
    Sex
    Affection
    Masculinity

    I feel like a good chunk of today’s up and coming women place more value on the aforementioned traits than provider traits. It makes the most sense. If I am making my own money, why would I need or value a man who can only offer me more money above anything else? For me, I’d rather date an intelligent masculine male who will throw me over his shoulder and lead me to the bedroom than a man who can only offer me his wallet.

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

      @Sassy

      For me, I’d rather date an intelligent masculine male who will throw me over his shoulder and lead me to the bedroom than a man who can only offer me his wallet.

      You just contradicted yourself there. Intelligence is a cue for provider. The qualities you described above can all be found in a man with severe cognitive deficits. Or a thug. There are women who seek those men as partners, but they’re low status themselves.

      I will agree that very few women will go for a man who has only a wallet to offer, though their numbers increase with the size of the wallet, e.g. Ellen Barkin and Ron Perelman.

  • Greg

    Precisely. Most men who possess these will be dominant in their demeanor. Dominance is just a proxy for what is signals. Dominance is not the objective, it’s the means.

    Yes, but in my experience, good looking guys with charm (not especially dominant in demeanor) who have zero status get tons of hot girls, so women cant be all that turned on by access to resources and power.

    Plus, why would women have evolved to rely on easily faked proxies when it would be relatively easy to check and see if the real thing is there? Women who would have relied on proxies would probably have been weeded out of the gene pool as women with much more stringent screening mechanisms would have had a survival advantage. Which is consonant with my personal experience – when a woman is after your social status and wealth, she does not sleep with you until she is damn sure you have them. She is not actually attracted to you and will make sure she is not making a sacrifice for nothing.

    And men with genuine dominance often do very poorly with the ladies. No, I am afraid the notion that women are sexually attracted to dominant men does not hold up very well. Moreover, researchers have been searching for such a link for some time now, and have been unable to find it. Only physical attributes seem to matter.

    Further, it is a bit of a myth that men with genuine power and wealth are dominant in demeanor – if you have ever met large numbers of such men, in social life unrelated to their work they are often quite gentle and humble. Often they will go out of their way to underplay their high social status and seem kind, humble, and ordinary. Most often their ruthless, dominant side is only apparent in their work, not their social relations.

    Guys who are noticeably *dominant* in demeanor are more often than not indicating a lack of social status and position – i.e they have something to PROVE. Guys who have nothing to prove – because they HAVE it – are rarely conspicuously *dominant*.

  • Greg

    What everything I am saying amounts to is essentially that the well-observed phenomenon of women preferring dominant and socially powerful men has nothing to do with sexual attraction – but has been, up till now, a rational strategic calculation of women in response to social conditions. Women have always gotten their sexual gratification elsewhere, not from the powerful, dominant men, but from the men with the best genetic stock (i.e best physical attributes).

    Now that is society is changing, women will be freed to pursue sexual bliss unhampered by strategic social considerations. I think that is a win for everyone and a much more rational way to order a society.

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

      @Greg

      Now that is society is changing, women will be freed to pursue sexual bliss unhampered by strategic social considerations. I think that is a win for everyone and a much more rational way to order a society.

      We already have that, and it’s only been a win for the men with the best genetic stock. When women pursue sexual bliss they’re targeting men who will not offer commitment. Regardless of changes in society, most women still want that.

      Your approach would eliminate marriage and family in time.

  • GudEnuf

    “You just contradicted yourself there. Intelligence is a cue for provider.”

    Not true. Robert Downey Jr (or his characters, at least) is an example of an intelligent, suave jerk.

    When I was at a friend’s birthday party, I overheard a woman talking about how she was such a sucker for smart jerks. But just one or the other wouldn’t do, the man had to be both. I thought she was kind of cute and I asked my friend about her. She thought we would make a good match. So I asked her out on FB (she had already left and I didn’t have any other contact info).

    She didn’t respond for a week. So I wrote back to her saying that I was appalled at how rude she would be to leave me hanging for a week. She wrote back immediately saying sorry. Then I slipped into beta mode and said it was okay. That’s when she stopped talking to me, again.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    I’m not attracted to intelligence because it signals a man’s ability to provide. Intelligence in a man is an added bonus, for me. It’s not because I think he can provide for me better. It’s simply because I’m usually not bored to tears talking with intelligent men.

    I really could care less if a man was able to provide for me financially. I already do that myself. I place more value on the other aforementioned traits. Being the “provider” doesn’t cut the mustard for most women these days. I’m not surprised by it. It’s simple supply and demand. Offering financial support doesn’t sway women nearly as much as it used to. Since the demand for it has gone down, the value for other things has gone up in its place.

  • Ramble

    I think some women are Bouncer Girls, and others are Cubicle ——> Corner Office Girls, and it has little to do with age. It has everything to do with SES and background.

    I dunno. Sure, some girls in the upper class will completely avoid the bouncer, but he will, in general, do much better with the 20 year olds than the 30 year olds.

    Similarly, I have never seen a single slim 20 yo become a fat 30 yo. The vast majority of people keep the same body type over time. This is probably also related to SES.

    You also live in Brookline where the percentage of overweight people is considerable lower than average (and the per capita income and education levels are considerable higher…and the divorce rate lower and the …you get the idea)

    I have seen plenty of girls gain, about, 2-5 lbs per year throughout their late 20′s and early 30s.

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

      @Ramble

      the bouncer, but he will, in general, do much better with the 20 year olds than the 30 year olds.

      I’m sure that’s true. He is definitely not going to be viewed as marriage material.

      I have seen plenty of girls gain, about, 2-5 lbs per year throughout their late 20′s and early 30s.

      20 – 50 pounds! I may live in Brookline, but it borders on the city. Obviously, I have no way of tracking the weight gain of strangers, but it’s not like I would say 20 year olds are slim, and 30 year olds are fat.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Intelligence is a cue for provider.”

    No its not stop being ridculous.

    Smart and small didn’t take down the mammoth. And if it did it was because whatever he built was handed to the obscenely large guy.

    And taking down the mammoth was the only provider cue, that and sharing with her. Being a banker in primordial Earth was not symbolic of the ability to provide. If anything all the other cavemen would think you were nuts for trying to store their twigs and sea-shells and then charge interest.

    Greg,
    its a loss for the other 3.5 billion guys on the planet. Duh.
    As for effectiveness, good luck. The organization of society required dropping what your prescribing.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “I know it’s not possible on a bio level, but they’ve been pretty successful in marginalizing men, and instead of saying, “Oops, we went too far, our men are not thriving” they’re saying, “We’re almost there ladies!”

    Yup. No argument,

    However they have yet to launch a full scale invasion into the STEM field. Thats where most of the money is now anyway, mostly the T portion. When 9 in 10 engineers have a vagina then the fems can think their almost there.

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

      @Lokland

      However they have yet to launch a full scale invasion into the STEM field. Thats where most of the money is now anyway, mostly the T portion. When 9 in 10 engineers have a vagina then the fems can think their almost there.

      This is why I believe that STEM guys (especially T as you said) are going to enjoy a boost in status in the next generation. Obviously, for this to be true, women have to value what successful T guys have – and I believe they do.

  • Sassy6519

    Smart and small didn’t take down the mammoth. And if it did it was because whatever he built was handed to the obscenely large guy.

    And taking down the mammoth was the only provider cue, that and sharing with her. Being a banker in primordial Earth was not symbolic of the ability to provide. If anything all the other cavemen would think you were nuts for trying to store their twigs and sea-shells and then charge interest.

    This was my thought process on the intelligence issue. Intelligence did help people to stay alive in ancient times, but it had to be coupled with brute masculine strength. Without the balance of those two things, the odds of survival were pretty slim.

    Intelligence, in and of itself, is not a provider cue, in my opinion. It might help, but it doesn’t guarantee that a man is capable of providing for me. I’d rather have a mix of brawn and brain instead of just intelligence.

  • SayWhaat

    Smart and small didn’t take down the mammoth. And if it did it was because whatever he built was handed to the obscenely large guy.

    Lokland, you underestimate human potential.

    Why is mankind the most dominant mammal on the planet? We can be easily outrun by cheetahs, devoured by lions, hunted by sharks, alligators, etc. In nearly every environment we are subject to prey. So why is it that the human race has exploded and brought the world to submission?

    Because we learned to manipulate our environment. Instead of being subject to the harsh whims of Nature, we devised tools and methods to manipulate our environment to acquiesce to our own imperatives. That is why today, children can laugh and point at a fearsome polar bear behind a glass wall, instead of treating it as a threat.

    So, the large guy may be able to take down the mammoth by sheer brute force. But it’s probably the smaller smart guy who was able to continue to take down a whole pack of woolly mammoths over the years, through clever hunting. All of that is just speculation though. Because regardless of individual strengths of Big Brutus and Small Sam, it was the huge, smart guy who was the tribe’s resident Sex God.

  • Greg

    Lokland, its just a rearangement.

    In the past, the best women went to the men with the most wealth and social power. Today, the best women choose across a much wider field based on looks and genetic compatibility.

    So the best women still go to a small percentage of men, just different men. Who knows, it might lead to a revitalization of our species.

    But it is just a rearrangement. As for the rest of the women and the rest of the men, they will always have each other. It is a complete myth that most women only go for the tope 20 percent or so of best men. I personally know men in that top 20%, and let me tell you, they are extremely selective and would not themselves be caught dead with anything less than the best women- EVEN for one night stands. The idea that the best men will lower standards for one night stands is based on a complete logical error – by definition, the top man has tons of access to top shelf women, he simply does not NEED to settle. Ever. It is the LESS attractive man who needs to lower his standards for a ONS, not a man from the top 20%.

    It is a complete myth and misunderstanding of the reality of a top 20% man to think that he needs to occasionally settle for lesser women, which women then refuse to settle for anything less than a top man, having once tasted it accidentally. In reality most women never have a chance at a top man even for a ONS (nor are women so absurdly irrational as have no conception of their own mate value. It almost amuses how willing some men are to believe that evolution designed women to be such horrible custodians of their own genetic self-interest) This idea is just an elaborate rationalization used by some men to explain their own lack of success.

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

      @Greg

      I’m curious about how you developed your views. Obviously, you know they’re heretical from a Game perspective.

  • SayWhaat

    Intelligence, in and of itself, is not a provider cue, in my opinion. It might help, but it doesn’t guarantee that a man is capable of providing for me.

    It’s definitely not a guarantee, but it is a big marker of potential.

  • Dogsquat

    @Brenden and Mike C –

    Steel on target.

    @Greg:

    You brought up instinct vs. strategy a lot in your post.

    Why is the distinction so important?

    I submit to you that it’s practically impossible to differentiate the two in the present context. I don’t think it matters much, either.

    Tortuous Analogy*:

    Say you’re sitting in a windowless room in a 1 gravity field. There are no experiments you can perform that would tell you conclusively if the room was on Earth, or actually on a spaceship accelerating at 1g. Falling down is gonna hurt in both cases.

    I’m not being snarky or anything here, I genuinely seek knowledge. Why does it matter, especially in the context we’re talking about?

    *Please don’t call effing Amnesty International on me again.

  • Jim

    Right, so if women are choosing the best men to mate with is that why Autism is the highest ever? Seems to me they are choosing the poorest men to mate with. Or are they of poor breeding stock themselves? Could it be years of BC and hormones has not only made them genetic nightmares to their offspring, but also rapidly becoming mentally unstable as well?

    http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2012-03-29/CDC-Autism-is-more-common-than-previously-thought/53856542/1

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

      @Jim

      I don’t know why autism has increased so much, but Simon Baron-Cohen, an expert on the subject calls it “extreme male brain” and believes it has to do with prenatal exposure to testosterone. Which may very well speak to the genetic characteristics of either parent.

  • Jim

    SayWhaat March 29, 2012 at 11:15 pm

    Intelligence, in and of itself, is not a provider cue, in my opinion. It might help, but it doesn’t guarantee that a man is capable of providing for me.

    It’s definitely not a guarantee, but it is a big marker of potential.

    But she herself shows how low her own intelligence is with that remark. Women by and far are becoming stupid because their monetary status has replaced their ability to seek out qualities which should be on top of theior list. Intelligence is one. Those who have it might not have the brute strength to overcome Goliath but if he breaks into my house, my little friends will greet him with a bang. Over and over again until he comes crumbling down. Is that my own strength at play or the intelligence to think ahead and protect myself?

  • SayWhaat

    Jim, did you even see my comment at 97?

    I say intelligence is not a guarantee because I once dated a guy who, despite being very intelligent, seems to have started a descent into drugs and other hedonistic pleasures.

    Intelligence is only as valuable as what you do with it. The same can be said for strength, character, or any other skill you choose to hone.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ Jennister #52 and Cheerful #17

    Jennister, everything you wrote is exactly why this whole role-reversal thing will take a long time. You told him the “money didn’t matter”; adding feminine solace, even innocently, made him feel worse, as it would any man(your guy was a real man; I think in the circumstances he was confused, which prevented him from becoming a better one). Men don’t want succor; they want success (as you put it “men need to be successful”). There will NOT be any rewriting of these rules. A man MUST feel like a man; that was built into our DNA when we were just a theoretical construct of pre-amphibian molecular juices swimming in the primordial ooze. The discussion here treats “education”, and by that I mean college education, as if it was a series of classes at Vic’s Auto Repair. It is not. If you have an education, and your husband does not, the difference shows up in a million ineffable ways. I have been around very very intelligent people, exceptional at their jobs, but without post secondary education, and they were limited, they did not have the exposure that allowed them to expand beyond the specific intellectual requirements of their job. Your issues seem to be more about money; note I haven’t even mentioned it.I am addressing this fantasy that a woman with a B.A. (or higher)can marry a high school graduate plumber. Yeah, it happens. Men bite dogs too.

    All this crap I read above, and hear, about these professional women (your generation and the next) settling in with men of substantially less academic achievement is nothing more than feminists and crypto-feminists relishing the final touches of Western Male Comeuppance, where men trade in their balls and accept their status as vassals to their female superiors. Listen to your dear old Uncle Tom now-no, move closer-closer-there-AIN’T GONNA’ FUCKING HAPPEN NO FUCK IN WAY COPULATING PIGS WILL FLY OUT OF THE ORIFICES OF EVERY SINGLE FUCKING MAN ALIVE BEFORE IT FUCKING DOES!!!!!!!!!

    In case I was too delicate, allow me to be more precise. Men are described as less emotional as women. That is not true. We may lack the full array of emotional responses women have, but ours, while fewer, are very intense. Sort of like in grade school when you girls show up with the 182 assorted crayons, shade after shade, each one pencil perfect tipped and stayed that way all year, while us boys had the pathetic 9 pack, each one instantly worn round, the paper then pealed back, as we listlessly attempted to draw something cognizable. Well, one of our few colors (emotions) is black. We do not play games we can’t win, and we don’t make a fuss about it. In all the articles about high educated women “settling” for lower educated men, have you read one word coming from the male perspective? No, and you won’t. The phrase “taking your marbles and going home” didn’t originate with girls. Guys see the implications inherent in the situation and move on. The last thing they’ll ever do is breathe a word of it,touching as it does on the essential core of their manhood. This 60/40 college split is just the beginning.

    You hear that rattling sound ladies? That’s what marbles sound like, in a bag , tucked away by a guy who’s given up.

    Uncle Tom told ya’.

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

      @Munson

      In all the articles about high educated women “settling” for lower educated men, have you read one word coming from the male perspective? No, and you won’t. The phrase “taking your marbles and going home” didn’t originate with girls. Guys see the implications inherent in the situation and move on. The last thing they’ll ever do is breathe a word of it,touching as it does on the essential core of their manhood.

      Agreed. That one quote from Juan, who fantasizes about leaving his provider wife, was the most important quote in the whole post.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Jim

    But she herself shows how low her own intelligence is with that remark. Women by and far are becoming stupid because their monetary status has replaced their ability to seek out qualities which should be on top of theior list. Intelligence is one.

    You must be new here.

    When did I say that I don’t seek intelligence in a man? Wasn’t I the one who wrote this:

    For me, I’d rather date an intelligent masculine male who will throw me over his shoulder and lead me to the bedroom than a man who can only offer me his wallet.

    What I’m saying is that women today don’t value the title of “provider” nearly as much as we did in the past. We like traits for a whole slew of reasons other than that they may signal the ability to provide. I like intelligent men because they are the most interesting to talk to, not because they may be able to provide me with more resources.

    @ SayWhaat

    Do you know if Jim was referring to you or me with his asinine comment?

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

      @Sassy

      What I’m saying is that women today don’t value the title of “provider” nearly as much as we did in the past. We like traits for a whole slew of reasons other than that they may signal the ability to provide. I like intelligent men because they are the most interesting to talk to, not because they may be able to provide me with more resources.

      Our brains, including our sexual attraction triggers, have not changed in 100,000 years. At all. So while women may make decisions about marriage based on contemporary societal trends, that does not translate into who they find “hot.”

      This is all covered in The Evolution of Desire. I’ll dig up the relevant passages.

  • Kirk

    “It is a complete myth and misunderstanding of the reality of a top 20% man to think that he needs to occasionally settle for lesser women, which women then refuse to settle for anything less than a top man, having once tasted it accidentally. In reality most women never have a chance at a top man even for a ONS (nor are women so absurdly irrational as have no conception of their own mate value.”

    @Greg
    I have to disagree. Though it’s true that most women will not be able to attract the top dogs, that doesn’t mean they will settle for betas. As one HUS commenter duly noted, such women become “carousal watchers”, sitting celibately on the sidelines with the hope that an alpha will one day sweep them off their feet. Beta males lose (unless they have cash).

  • Jim

    I say intelligence is not a guarantee because I once dated a guy who, despite being very intelligent, seems to have started a descent into drugs and other hedonistic pleasures.

    He wasn’t intelligent.

    What I’m saying is that women today don’t value the title of “provider” nearly as much as we did in the past.

    Sure you do but his name is Uncle Sam and all the goodies he PROVIDES for you.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Jim

    Sure you do but his name is Uncle Sam and all the goodies he PROVIDES for you.

    Um, how is Uncle Sam providing for me?

    If you think I’m on government programs, for whatever reason that may be, the answer is no.

  • Mike C

    The problem is that social scientists start with the perception that “education is better”. Why? Because their educated, its human nature to assume we’re the shit.

    Exactly, it is pure projection. They consider themselves higher status because of their education, so the default assumption is education must be a component of status. The hindbrain might not give two shits about educational achievement. Now maybe it is some component, but you are exactly right to note it is an example of a biased premise.

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

      @Mike C

      . They consider themselves higher status because of their education, so the default assumption is education must be a component of status.

      I’m sorry, but that’s a ludicrous statement. The concept of hypergamy, often defined as “marrying up” came about through an enormous body of research observing and studying assortative mating. Women tend to marry men with more education than themselves and men do the reverse. The only time this doesn’t happen is when the gender education gap disappears. Then women will marry men of equal education (as they largely do now). Ultimately, the question is whether they will marry men of less education, and whether men of less education will want to marry them.

      The idea of the world’s largest government funding studies to reward the projection of academic elites is silly.

  • Jim

    Let me add stuff like quotas, grants, free contraception, abortion, health care, Planned Parenthood, WIC, EBT, student loans, free housing, free tuition, jobs in non-profits, all this is being PROVIDED to you. Oh you value providers but you just don’t value that in individuals because the collective is there to provide for you. But for how long? Hypergamy is gone in a sense because the government stepped in and ensured that women aren’t relying upon it. Yet their jobs, their health, and their well being is by are far being subsidized and therefore provided to them.

  • Jim

    Sassy I didn’t say you were on government programs but without them around to PROVIDE ASSISTANCE in all areas for a lot of women, then this conversation would not even be taking place.

  • Mike C

    There are no circles in which a bouncer is a socially dominant male. He has very little power and little access to resources. You got to be kidding me if you think the power to let people into clubs is seen as a massive amount of power by women, even club rats, more important than the power wielded by say, a high powered attorney, politician, or banker. THAT is social dominance.

    Greg, I bounced with a guy who was the #1 guy in a bunch of social circles. Sure, if I took him to an upscale art gallery show, he wouldn’t have any social dominance,but I would go out with the guy and just observe the social dominance. Truth is, alot of this quickly gets into just a bunch of theoretical postulating from people who never been outside their SES. Sure, someone of lower SES might not have status in higher SES circles, but they can still be numero uno in their particular segment. I could tell you about the “high status” guys with the cash that some girls see as “tools” to get a bunch of free drinks while they end up fucking the “low status” guys instead of the guy that is “socially dominant” in your eyes. I’ll say it again, STATUS AND DOMINANCE is contextual.

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

      I’ll say it again, STATUS AND DOMINANCE is contextual.

      It clearly is, and by definition it depends on the audience. You seem to be assuming that every AMOG will do equally well with every woman. There’s an AMOG among the Theoretical Physics PhD candidates at MIT. Obviously, relative status and dominance is not the whole story.

  • Sassy6519

    Let me add stuff like quotas, grants, free contraception, abortion, health care, Planned Parenthood, WIC, EBT, student loans, free housing, free tuition, jobs in non-profits, all this is being PROVIDED to you. Oh you value providers but you just don’t value that in individuals because the collective is there to provide for you. But for how long? Hypergamy is gone in a sense because the government stepped in and ensured that women aren’t relying upon it. Yet their jobs, their health, and their well being is by are far being subsidized and therefore provided to them.

    Uh……okay. If you think so, so be it.

    Sassy I didn’t say you were on government programs but without them around to PROVIDE ASSISTANCE in all areas for a lot of women, then this conversation would not even be taking place.

    At this point, I honestly have no clue what stance you are even arguing for.

  • Dogsquat

    Greg said:

    There are no circles in which a bouncer is a socially dominant male. He has very little power and little access to resources. You got to be kidding me if you think the power to let people into clubs is seen as a massive amount of power by women, even club rats, more important than the power wielded by say, a high powered attorney, politician, or banker. THAT is social dominance.
    ______________________

    You are very, very wrong here. Dangerously wrong, if you act on this hypothesis in certain ways.

    I, too, was a bouncer for several years. I finished that “career” at a high-end hot spot, one where yuppies (and even a few politicians) liked to be seen.

    The bouncer is the guy all the lawyers want to be “in” with. He’s the guy who knows where the after parties are, the names of the girls, and the guy who can keep the lawyer from being embarrassed/getting his ass kicked.

    The bouncer knows all the regulars, and a good one will get to be buddies with each. After they get their first drink, all the regulars will wander over to catch up with the bouncer, and see what’s cracka-lackin’ this weekend. Even the lawyers and bankers.

    Social proof is easier for the bouncer in his bar than for almost anyone.

    As for dominance – in that bar/club, what the bouncer says, goes. Smart yuppies know this, or they learn the painful way. If I didn’t want you in my bar, your ass was out. If you argue too much, I’d put my hands on you.

    Go ahead, call the cops. I see them every weekend and I never press charges unless they want me to. Most of them are former military, just like me. I let them in to my bar when they’re off, and I make sure they drink for free. Those cops are my buddies – they owe me and they know it.

    Sue me, and I’ll swear on the Holy Bible I saw you doing a line of blow off an erect cock in the Men’s Room, and removed you in accordance with club policy.

    That is a tremendous amount of power. It’s very situational, granted, but it does make the ladies tingle – even some nice ones.

  • Greg

    @Dogsquate, the point I am making is do women pursue socially powerful men for purposes of sexual satisfaction or material benefit? All the evidence points towards material benefit, and the question is quite relevant to whether the social changes we are seeing – of women earning more and rising socially – will result in massive female sexual dissatisfaction, or merely the withering away of the age-old female practice of hypergamy, which is in fact what seems to be happening.

    Social changes in the past 100 years have led to the fading away of many social practices once thought to be timeless, and female hypergamy seems to be one of them.

    That is why it is very hard to decide if something you observe about human behavior is something timeless, or just a strategy – for instance, is violence an instinct, or just a strategy some people adopt in response to specific conditions? I have my opinion, but debate rages on this issue, and it is vitally important.

    @Kirk – The concept of beta as applied to humans does not seem to me to have much meaning or content, nor am I aware of any studies that show women to be sexually aroused by personality traits. In fact all the studies I know show women to be aroused by non-fakeable physical traits like athelticism, facial symmetry, etc.

    But to address your larger point. Since most women will never actually get *swept off their feet* by an alpha, then those genes which would have made women wait for such a non-event would have been weeded out of the population, as such women would fail to reproduce. So it makes little sense that evolution would have selected for genes that made women remain celibate unless an extremely rare and unlikely event would take place. Women who would have been much better at balancing the available men against their desire for superior genetic stock with the males ability and desire to invest in his offspring, would have been most likely to reproduce.

    What you are positing is a situation where women pursuing an extremely bad reproductive strategy become the dominant type – unlikely, to put it mildly.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Mike C and Dogsquat

    RE: Bouncers

    I agree with you both 100%. Status and dominance are in the eyes of the beholder. It is also situational/locational. A bouncer is one of the top dogs at a night spot. A lawyer is a top dog in its own respective environment. Just because someone has high occupational status or money does not mean that person will be the top dog in all situations/locations.

  • Geg

    So bouncers have the power to let ppl in a (single) club or kick them out.

    Yet women are supposed to be such terrible guardians of their own genetic interest that this is supposed to be more important to them than having real access to large amounts of resources and the type of power that will really help her and her offspring be protected and succeed in society. And a race of such retarded women is supposed to have been able to successfully pass on its genes throughout the generations.

    I dont know where you guys have studied evolution – maybe at a Christian college in the South? And I really want some of what you are smoking – sounds like some real quality stuff.

  • Dogsquat

    @Sassy –

    The average bouncer also gets more phone numbers from attractive women every weekend than Samuel A. Alito, Jr. gets in a year.

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

      The average bouncer also gets more phone numbers from attractive women every weekend than Samuel A. Alito, Jr. gets in a year.

      Funny true story. A girl in one of my focus groups had a bouncer confiscate her fake ID when she was 20. He was a real hardass about it – she begged him to no avail. He then quietly said, “Meet me at the back door in 20 minutes.” She showed up and he pulled a stack of IDs out of his pocket larger than a deck of cards. He found hers. He held it up and said “Write your real number on my hand and I’ll give it back.” She thought it was a super sexy move, but screened his calls until they stopped. Was she, a teacher, really going to start dating a guy who works every night? How was she going to incorporate him into her crowd? He would have been a good fling, but she wasn’t looking for a casual sex experience.

  • Greg

    Mike C,

    The kind of social status where hypergamy comes into play is the kind where the male has power and access to resources that can help a female and her offspring survive and succeed. The fact that a bouncer is held in high regard by a small group of peers means nothing in terms of female hypergamy. Even women in his small social circle live in a wider society where they know this bouncer does not have the kind of social status that would help her genetic interests, when compared with other men in the wider community.

    Local status is nothing if that community is part of a larger community. It only matters if that community is isolated and the woman has no access to other men from the wider community.

    Now, I am not disagreeing with you that some women are hot for bouncers – sure they are. But it is in SPITE of their extremely low social status. Which is partly my point – social status does NOT make women hot for men. Its irrelevant. I agree many women view genuinely powerful and wealthy men as suckers they will lead on while banging bouncer types on the side – sure, for some women, this is what they do. But this also supports my point that what turns women on is NOT genuine power and genuine high status.

  • Sassy6519

    So bouncers have the power to let ppl in a (single) club or kick them out.

    Yet women are supposed to be such terrible guardians of their own genetic interest that this is supposed to be more important to them than having real access to large amounts of resources and the type of power that will really help her and her offspring be protected and succeed in society. And a race of such retarded women is supposed to have been able to successfully pass on its genes throughout the generations.

    I dont know where you guys have studied evolution – maybe at a Christian college in the South? And I really want some of what you are smoking – sounds like some real quality stuff.

    Have you ever heard of cuckoldry?

    The best circumstances for producing children, in the ancient past, was to have sufficient tangible resources and superior genetic quality. If a woman was able to sequester a man to provide resources for her, but wanted better gene quality, she would cuckold him with a man who had a better genetic makeup. It satisfied both criteria, which was to acquire resources and to get high quality sperm.

    Women of the past weren’t retarded. They were opportunistic. They got the resources and the genetic quality that they desired.

    How does the concept of cuckoldry tie into your beliefs about evolutionary biology?

  • Dogsquat

    Greg said:

    the point I am making is do women pursue socially powerful men for purposes of sexual satisfaction or material benefit?
    ____________________________

    You’re painting with an awfully broad brush.

    Can’t you imagine that the group “Women” has individuals that do both, either, neither, or other?

  • Geg

    Sassy, you are exactly right. But that is exactly my point. Women pursue social status as a strategy to gain resources, not because they are attracted to these men sexually. Then they bang studly guys on the side (maybe even bouncers, for some women, at any rate). But today, this kind of two-pronged path is no longer needed for women. They can get their own resources and make choices in men based wholly on non-hypergamous considerations.

    @Doughsquat, the thing about evolution is that it tends to weed out the genes that lead one to unsuccessful mating strategies. Those genes simply dont get passed on.

  • Sassy6519

    Sassy, you are exactly right. But that is exactly my point. Women pursue social status as a strategy to gain resources, not because they are attracted to these men sexually. Then they bang studly guys on the side (maybe even bouncers, for some women, at any rate). But today, this kind of two-pronged path is no longer needed for women. They can get their own resources and make choices in men based wholly on non-hypergamous considerations.

    Okay. I see where you are coming from now.

    We are basically in agreement, but we differ in our definitions of hypergamy considerably. I don’t think hypergamy only deals with resources. I believe it is far more complex than that.

    I do believe that hypergamy manifests itself in a woman’s desire to have a mate who is of high status. The environments, locations, and criteria of which each woman wants their man to have high status differs from woman to woman. I also believe hypergamy manifests itself in the tendency for women to judge the comparative hierarchical standings of men against other males on desired traits.

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

      I do believe that hypergamy manifests itself in a woman’s desire to have a mate who is of high status. The environments, locations, and criteria of which each woman wants their man to have high status differs from woman to woman.

      Definitely.

      I also believe hypergamy manifests itself in the tendency for women to judge the comparative hierarchical standings of men against other males on desired traits.

      She may observe them but male hierarchy is determined by males. Women simply observe and respond to that.

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

    “educated, artsy underachiever”,

    You forgot misunderstood, that is the excuse for his lack of success

    As this trend continues, I wish I could buy stock on companies that sold “Where are all the decent men?????” screeds. Demand for that product is going to skyrocket.

    I will be investing in cat food, single mother products and services and empowered women that need not men fiction books.

    Because of hypergamy, there will be a provider shortage. Birthrates? Down, way down. Down so much that governments will start paying couples to have kids. It’s already happening in towns in Italy (one of the lowest birthrates in Europe) while Japan is desperate to address this demographic calamity.

    Yes I read that certain towns had to close their schools because they didn’t have enough children to educate. But again I think this will be localized conservative states seem to be surviving this very well Hope and BB swear for this places being more male and family friendly. So my guess is that we will have NYC and big urban places falling for this while Utah and the likes will be steadily growing. Now will men emigrate in mass to this states living the feminists in their “utopia” time will tell.

    So even if it were true that women get wet for bouncers, which I doubt, it would be evidence that women are NOT primarily motivated by social dominance or power, as bouncers have VERY little of both.

    As the guys had been explaining to you hypergamy is the cue of dominance in an specific environment. So for the party girl and the people that likes clubs the bouncer looks like an earthly God. But for the ones that don’t care he is just a guy, you need to remember that women are a mobile gender being given away in marriage, or taken as spoils of war since ancient times they needed to adapt quickly to get the best mate they could get in any context so it makes sense that their hypergamy is influenced by environment.

    If I am making my own money, why would I need or value a man who can only offer me more money above anything else?

    Would you pick a man as a boyfriend that you know will spent your money to be able to keep with your tastes in restaurants and entertainment?

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

      So for the party girl and the people that likes clubs the bouncer looks like an earthly God.

      Yup. The context is key.

  • Days of Broken Arrows

    What Sassy6519 is saying is that what’s happened in the African-American community will now happen in the white community.

    Because African-American women were able to “marry” the state and receive additional benefits (education, training) they stopped looking to men as providers. Instead, they chose based on some of the characteristics sassy mentions — like “brute strength and protection.”

    Viola! We got thug culture, since men found style, not substance, was the way to snare these women. This is already developing in the white community with the PUAs as the white (and lite) version of thugs.

    It’s funny such women are mentioning “bouncers” as the ideal of today’s man when their moms were looking to marry doctors or accountants. That says something — females, despite their education — are devolving and will devolve the species in much the way African-American women and their choices caused their community to degenerate in just a few generations.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Anacaona

    Would you pick a man as a boyfriend that you know will spent your money to be able to keep with your tastes in restaurants and entertainment?

    No, but I don’t need a Rockefeller either. What I’m saying is that I don’t need a guy who makes more money than I do. He doesn’t have to support me, but he should be able to support himself. Making an exorbitant amount of money would be a bonus, but it’s not a necessity.

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

    No, but I don’t need a Rockefeller either.

    Didn’t you said that you saw a guy swiping a Centurion card and your panties literately exploded?

    What I’m saying is that I don’t need a guy who makes more money than I do. He doesn’t have to support me, but he should be able to support himself. Making an exorbitant amount of money would be a bonus, but it’s not a necessity.

    Well that is the difference many men don’t mind having a woman to share their money with as long as she is feminine, loyal and reasonable (not a spent drift). That is a provider’s cue.

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

      No, but I don’t need a Rockefeller either.

      Didn’t you said that you saw a guy swiping a Centurion card and your panties literately exploded?

      That was my thought exactly!

  • Jonny

    It seems like women have all the support groups. Now, they have another notch on their belt. I bet it makes them feel good to know there are men available to eat their scraps. You came a long way baby.

    Hypergamy will not end. The decline of marriage continues. Women are getting more desperate with their spinster status. Yet we are telling now to try to date lesser men as if these arrangements will work. Maybe it will convince some women to change their ways, but not all. The hard sell is the men who might try out the arrangement and leave it out of frustration and suffocation. No man wants to marry his mother. He wants to be the head of his household.

    What I see happening is the marriage minded men will date continue to date lower status women. There is strong evidence that men will seek out these women far and wide. The marriageable men will have jobs to support their wife and children. This won’t change.

    I do see that women’s education will be downplayed in society. More women graduates doesn’t mean they are necessarily intelligent. It means they got a piece a paper. They are lacking in the hard sciences and math. What’s the value of women who can’t confidently do a spreadsheet or understand technical information? Soon, there will be a new category of unemployable graduates… lawyers, teachers, and liberal arts majors. People will hire based on experience rather than a piece of paper.

    I wish this social engineering will stop. It is pure delusion to suggest society will continue to advance to the benefit of women. Men are not such amenable creatures who will fall in line when commanded. They will go elsewhere to get their needs met.

  • Jonny

    “What I’m saying is that I don’t need a guy who makes more money than I do. He doesn’t have to support me, but he should be able to support himself. ”

    How does this work in real life? I have no clue.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Anacaona

    Didn’t you said that you saw a guy swiping a Centurion card and your panties literately exploded?

    Yes, I did. There are two key things that you should know about that.

    1. I said I don’t need a Rockefeller. I never said I didn’t want or wouldn’t mind having one. If a man makes a lot of money, it’s an added bonus, but it’s not a necessity.

    2. The guy who paid for dinner with his Centurion card was very good looking. When he whipped the card out, the added bonus effect kicked in and my loins did burst into flames. I liked him because he was physically attractive and he seemed like a nice guy. Once I found out that he was loaded, it was the icing on the cake. Had he not been attractive from the get go, I wouldn’t have been enthused about the money. I once had this old male lawyer attempt to make me his sugar baby, and I couldn’t run away from that guy fast enough.

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

      @Sassy

      Would you seriously date a bouncer with an eye toward marriage? If not, then I’m not sure what you’re arguing here.

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

    @Sassy
    The added bonus is the cue. Ask any man if he sees a hottie that seems nice if she having a big card makes any difference in the boner.
    The older man was probably more unattractive that he was rich, we are not saying that an ugly man with money will make any woman wet but that a man that shows economic independence is more attractive to a woman all things being equal than a man that doesn’t even the bouncer boy doesn’t dress in rags to keep the image, peacocking is an important part of game for a reason. This doesn’t happen the other way around with men.

  • Jamie

    I can’t speak for all millennial girls, but I’ve never considered being a SAHM an option. It sounds nice. On nice days I look outside my office window and think, “just another 40 years and I can go out and enjoy that sunshine and the museum on a Tuesday and late breakfasts with good coffee instead of breakroom mudwater.”. Aah someday. Keeping house is a piece of cake if you don’t have to work 40 hours a week on top of it.

    Seriously though, I think you’re confusing higher education with making money. There are baristas with multiple degrees but Bill Gates is a college drop out. My generation was encouraged to go to college just for the sake of going while the school system scrapped all the useful electives like wood shop. It’s just a matter of time before that shit hits the fan. I predict that in 20 years, it’s the plumbers that will be bringing in the most cash.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Jonny

    How does this work in real life? I have no clue.

    Picture this.

    If I hypothetically made $40,000 a year, people who believe that hypergamy relates to monetary resources would say that I would only be attracted to men who make more than that. Personally, I don’t find this to be true. In that situation, I would be happy dating a man who made equal or less than that, to a certain extent (anywhere below $30,000 would be iffy). What matters most to me is that he is able to responsibly take care of himself on whatever income he has. It all depends on the woman, of course.

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

      @Sassy

      What matters most to me is that he is able to responsibly take care of himself on whatever income he has. It all depends on the woman, of course.

      Hmmm, I wonder if the fact you know you don’t want a family is material here. Is marriage a goal for you? If so, I’m curious to know why.

  • GudEnuf

    Anacaona: “Ask any man if he sees a hottie that seems nice if she having a big card makes any difference in the boner. [...] This doesn’t happen the other way around with men.”

    Have you tried it?

    I once had a woman buy me a $45 meal at a restaurant. (A king’s ransom when you’re making $6/hr in college.) On another occasion she took me to a club and bought me shots all night. As a man, I can say that having a woman spoil you feels amazing.

  • FeralEmployee

    @Lokland

    However they have yet to launch a full scale invasion into the STEM field. Thats where most of the money is now anyway, mostly the T portion. When 9 in 10 engineers have a vagina then the fems can think their almost there.

    I can already hear my professors weep, for having to lower standards so dramatically in order to allow in “common people”.

  • Just1X

    @Tom / Mr Munson

    “The phrase “taking your marbles and going home” didn’t originate with girls. Guys see the implications inherent in the situation and move on.”

    YES

    This is the herbivore / grass-eater thing.

    Society says to many non-alpha men (1-3 mandatory, 4+ it’s up to her, not you):
    1) go get educated / trained
    2) work your arse off to get a house / car / money in the bank
    3) when you get to 30-40 you get to be picked by a fugly who has spent 10-15 years on the carousel. She finally realises that she can’t get an alpha, so she’s ready to settle – you lucky beta, you.
    4) 5-10 years, a few kids (hopefully yours) and it’s time to cash in the marriage for cash and prizes
    5) you get to spend the next 15-20 years working your arse of to pay chilimony. Maybe you get to see the kids, maybe not. Maybe you get gaoled for failure to pay when you lose your job => on release can’t get a new job => gaol (rinse and repeat).

    SO…when young guys look at this deal that they’re offered and say “Hell NO, I’ll be in the basement with my mates, x-box, beer etc.”

    They are making a rational decision; they don’t like the deal, they don’t do the deal.

    “Where have all the good men gone?” LMAO
    calling them man-boys etc is not going to work (nor should it).

  • Just1X

    @Sassy

    All well and good (I believe you), but if/when the baby rabies cuts in?

    That’s when his on-going ability to support you and the kidz becomes more important.

    It’s also when daddy-state can step in with healthcare, social security etc.

    A lot of women can only choose to be single moms because they effectively marry daddy-state, the ultimate provider. The fact that daddy-state exists by taxing the hell out of everyone else, a detail, mere detail.

    But if the tax base drops in a recession, or because men drop out, what then?

    This is the other reason that the tard-cons are upset with man-boiz (beyond princesses asking where all the good men are), they need the tax base of beta-herbs.

    The herbivore thing may sound amusing, but it has massive implications if it becomes widespread in society.

    hxxp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japans-generation-xx-1704155.html
    “About one third of the Japanese workforce is now casual or part-time, and confidence in the future is at rock bottom. For many young men, the post-war dream of lifetime employment, home and family, with all the sacrifices it entailed, is fading. In response, some have turned their energies elsewhere, toward the once feminised sphere of consumption – or away from life altogether.”

    hxxp://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/the-zeta-contract/
    “According to reporting from macleans.ca: “Just as they {“…soushoku dansi—translated to “grass-eating boys” or, more commonly, “herbivores.”} disdain old-fashioned alpha males, they scoff at the status-conscious consumerism of their parents’ generation. Grass-eating boys aren’t big spenders and they don’t take flashy vacations. They are close to their mothers, prefer platonic relationships with female friends, are attentive to their appearance and have fewer career ambitions. A subsidiary of Dentsu, Japan’s largest advertising agency, estimates that 60 per cent of men in their 20s consider themselves grass-eaters.” [1]

    A facile reading of this phenomenon might conclude that these are feminized men, but this would be to entirely miss the point. Japan’s grass eaters have evaluated the traditionally allowed male role of worker drone, and disposable human, and rejected it entirely to pursue their own quality of life.

    The grass eaters are effectively tanking Japan’s economy, which, like all nation states, runs on the burned out corpses of “real men”.”
    (hxxp://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/09/the-grass-eating-boys-of-japan/)

  • Jesus Mahoney

    It’s stunning how intelligent, well-educated people can be capable of such naive and ignorant ideas. It reminds me of a story I wrote as a teenager–one of my only forays into sci-fi. A species of plant mutates and develops the ability to think and reason. The plants become so smart that they figure out how to become mobile. They pull themselves out of the ground and go running to take over the world. Soon enough, all but one die–none of them realized that their lives were sustained by being rooted in the ground.

    Sometimes I feel like intelligent people uproot themselves like that. I feel like that’s the case here.

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

      @Jesus

      Sometimes I feel like intelligent people uproot themselves like that. I feel like that’s the case here.

      Do you mean Liza Mundy, Hanna Rosin et al?

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

        THE EVOLUTION OF DESIRE: Strategies of Human Mating
        David Buss, 1994

        This is the bible of evolutionary psychology, and David Buss is the god. There would be no Game without this book. Here are several direct quotes from the book, applicable to this discussion.

        On female mating preferences:

        “Our forebears learned that a mate who provided abundant resources, who protected us and our children, and who devoted time, energy and effort to our family would be a great asset. Powerful survival and reproductive advantages were reaped by those ancestors who chose a mate wisely, so clear desires in a mate evolved.

        Women prefer men with desirable “nests.” The key problem women have always had to face is selecting a man who would be willing to commit to a long-term relationship. A woman who mated with a reliable man who was more likely to commit to her was more likely to have children that survived and thrived. A mate who was flighty, impulsive, philandering meant a woman had to raise her children alone, without benefit of the resources, protection and aid that another man might have offered. So, over thousands of generations, a preference for men who showed signs of being willing and able to commit evolved in women.”

        IOW Women don’t settle for men with desirable nests, they prefer them. It’s an attraction cue, i.e. panty wetter.

        On what women want:

        “Evolution favored women who were highly selective about their mates. If a woman walked away from a casual encounter pregnant, she bore the costs of that decision for decades afterward. Today, the pill alters that cost. But sexual psychology evolved over millions of years. We still possess this underlying sexual psychology even though our environment has changed.

        Evolution has favored women who prefer men who possess attributes that confer benefits and who dislike men who possess attributes that impose costs. The attributes women prioritize:

        1. ECONOMIC CAPACITY

        Females prefer males who offer resources. Resources have to be accruable, defensible and controllable by men.

        2. SOCIAL STATUS

        3. AGE

        4. AMBITION AND INDUSTRIOUSNESS

        5. DEPENDABILITY AND STABILITY

        6. INTELLIGENCE

        7. COMPATIBILITY

        8. SIZE AND STRENGTH

        9. GOOD HEALTH

        10. LOVE AND COMMITMENT

        Given the tremendous costs women incur because of sex, pregnancy and childbirth, it is reasonable for them to require commitment from a man in return. Resources can be directly observed, but commitment cannot be. Gauging it requires looking for cues that signal the likelihood of fidelity in channeling resources. Love is one of the important cues to commitment.”

        On The Hidden Side of Women’s Short-Term Sexuality

        “Women can gain advantages from casual sex as one strategy within a flexible sexual repertoire. There must always have been willing women, or men could not have pursued their own interest in brief affairs. Women have never needed casual sex to reproduce. Sperm have never been scarce. But it could provide immediate access to resources, e.g. food shortage. Sex for resources, and resources for sex have always been exchanged in human existence.”

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Disciplining kids is also easy for men. Men are more physically imposing, so kids will tend to fall in line with a stern word. And since we all know men are typically more detached, the emotional exhaustion will not be there either. Office politics is significantly more draining.

    Idk. I think this is a bit naive. Small children probably need nurturing more than discipline. I don’t foresee myself as a “detached” father (I can’t wait to have kids, actually), but I definitely see my gf as more capable of giving small children the care they would need.

    Of course, I think men provide children with many things that women aren’t typically as adept at giving.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    Yes, Mundy and Rosin.

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

    Jamie…”Seriously though, I think you’re confusing higher education with making money. …My generation was encouraged to go to college just for the sake of going while the school system scrapped all the useful electives like wood shop…I predict that in 20 years, it’s the plumbers that will be bringing in the most cash.”

    Much has been written lately about the collapse of the higher-education bubble…like stocks in a bad but transiently-popular company, degrees were too often being valued for the circular reason that they were valued. This is beginning to unwind now, and the magical effect of simply having a degree, irrespective of its substance, is going to dissipate.

    Meanwhile, with the shale gas/oil boom, if you have good trade skills..electrician or welder, say…you can go to the Dakotas or to the NY/PA shale area and make very good money.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ Cheerful
    Your eye for the essential is unerring. Juan says it all.

    @Just1

    I’m Tom to you my good friend. Perhaps a song?

    (to the tune of Pete Seeger’s “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?”)

    “Where Have All the Children Gone?”

    Where have all the young girls gone
    Long time passing
    Where have all the young girls gone
    Long time ago
    Where have all the young girls gone
    Gone to grad schools everyone
    Oh, when will they ever learn
    When will they ever learn?

    Where have all the young guys gone
    Long time passing
    Where have all the young guys gone
    Long time ago
    Where have all the young guys gone
    Gone to trade schools everyone
    Oh, when will they ever learn
    When will they ever learn?

    Where have all the children gone
    Long time passing
    Where have all the children gone
    Long time ago
    Where have all the children gone
    Societal expectations prevented their being born
    Oh, when will we ever learn
    When will we ever learn?

    (c) TVM 2012

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ Cheerful # 151

    You illustrate the difference between men and women right there. Centurion card? Assume it means big bucks. Your “panties explode”(anytime panties are mentioned in a sentence it’s a good one). Man sees a woman with that, he thinks high maintenance, probably by someone else, and focuses on the hot cashier.

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

      Keep the comments coming, Munson. I’m capturing them all.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ “Literally” exploded; let’s be careful with language. I am on a one man crusade to stomp out the use of “literally” as an intensive. It deprives us of a method of communication, forcing us to say “no I mean really really”. If your boss came in and “literally” tore someone’s head off, it should mean decapitation. Of course I wasn’t there; did they explode? (pause while I conjure the image)

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

      Hey Munson, you’re chatty today. I hope this means you’re feeling well!

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    RE: DISCIPLINING CHILDREN

    An engaged parent does not have to resort to physical acts or even verbal intimidation. An engaged parent is providing so many good interactions that the withdrawal of these will serve its purpose. “Because you acted up, we’re leaving the (mall, playground etc.)” Children see consequences in the withholding of good things just as readily as “punishment”. The more engaged the parent, the more quickly the association is made. The physical/verbal imposition of discipline is an expedient short cut, with damning results, and in no way a proper substitute.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ Cheerful

    I go for chemo in about 2 hours. I need to get my strikes in. Bless you.

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

      @Munson

      OK, sounds like Friday is chemo day. I know the next 48 could be rough. We’ll be thinking of you.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ Cheerful # 161

    Very cogent. I remember an experiment years ago (I know, I hate social science experiments, but this one was plausible). They handed men and women photos of the opposite sex and asked them to pick who’d they most likely want to “be” with. The men took 5 seconds; they picked the prettiest ones. Women took much much longer, and they really studied the photos. The experimenter concluded they were trying to divine character traits, just as described above, from looking at the pics. Fits in with what Buss says.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ Cheerful #166

    Actually, those hours aren’t hard. I’m still on IV medicine. The rent is due Sunday.

    Thank you for thinking of me.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    More on discipline

    One of my favorite cartoons out of the old “National Lampoon” was about this little boy, around 7. The artist drew him with huge, lugubrious eyes, and the series was about how hard it was being a kid. In one, his mother is really pissed off at him, sends him to bed with no supper, and tells him “Wait ’til your father gets home you’re really going to get it!” The little boy’s eyes are wide with terror, tears forming, and he pleads “God, help me! !”
    We see him still in bed; downstairs the door opens, and his Mom yells “You’re drunk!DRUNK!!!! How could you come home drunk tonight of all nights!!!!”
    Dad (slurring):”It wasshs jus’one wid’ da’ boys ”

    Little boy (looking up) “Thanks God!”
    God: “It’s ok kid!”

  • Ramble

    20 – 50 pounds! I may live in Brookline, but it borders on the city. Obviously, I have no way of tracking the weight gain of strangers, but it’s not like I would say 20 year olds are slim, and 30 year olds are fat.

    Susan, what I am saying, is, I have seen plenty of girls gain 20-40 lbs between their mid 20s and mid 30s.

    And, considering the overweight and obesity stats in America (and throughout the West), this should not be too hard to believe.

    Also, you made a reference to Brookline bordering on the city. But that city is Boston, one of the most educated and wealthiest places in blue state America (i.e. generally thinner than, say, Kansas City).

  • http://becomingtrappy.wordpress.com/ Chrysalis Gurl

    Just1X wrote:

    “In the UK, last I heard, 2 out of 3 employees of the state were female. This caused bleating that women were / would be made redundant faster than men. Well…duh! Sack 50% of the people, where 2/3 are female, you’re going to lose females 2 x faster than men (q.f. 80mph woman). That’s if the jobs are of equal worth, but they are not.”

    Yes. I’m already seeing this taking place!

    “The UK has piled in middle managers / paper-pushers by the million under the last spendaholic government (majority of those new jobs given to women), just who gets the push first when you are forced to downsize? The people doing stuff (digging the coal / shovelling the gravel / driving the trucks)? The top management (choosing the redundancies)? or the paper pushing middle (yes, the office staff and who are they – no clues)?”

    Bingo. Too many Chiefs. Not enough Indians. You don’t need a PhD to fix a leaky pipe, drive a van, stack a shelf, answer the telephone or flip burgers.

    Recessions serve a purpose. To puncture bubbles of economic and social absurdity such as those that exist in higher education, real estate and the parasitic “public” sector. To trim the fat. To restore sanity.

    I can’t say how long it will take for the social pendulum to swing back in favour of traditional gender roles, but until it does the deck is effectively stacked against stable relationships, marriage and the nuclear family.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, honestly, the quotes from the OP sound like wishful thinking. What is likely to really happen, however, is that the marriage rate will continue to decline, marriages will continue to get later and later, more women will waste their 20s on the carousel, and the few(er) that do get married will end up despising their husbands. It’s good that the divorce rate in the UMC is so (relatively) low but we should not assume all those marriages are happy. At Slate, Rosin has written quite openly and insultingly of her husband’s beta traits in ways that, if a woman wrote that about me, I would leave her. The idiot feminists are not going to be happy with the men they say they want. In fact, they are already unhappy. Their unhappiness is only going to deepen.

    Also, the pool of men who seem “marriagable” to this class of women will continue to get smaller. There won’t be enough high-achieving, rich-enough, social-enough alphas and pseudo alphas to go around. So, beyond the carousel, when it comes time to try to nail one down for marriage, the competition will be very nasty and bitter. Expect a lot of sorocidal infighting over these prize men in the years to come.

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

    This entire post is simply depressing. I really worry what my boys will be wading into when they graduate from HS in 5 years. It’s bad enough that the economy sucks, and I’m not sure if they should go “education” or “vocation” at this point to secure some kind of financial assets (gainful employment). This article has me thinking that in addition to concerns over simply making enough to survive, they may be facing the fact that the women they want to marry are making more, and simply working hard for a successful career won’t give them an advantage at all. So, all the time and effort they put into working hard early on to get ahead will mean squat.

    On one hand, it may be a good thing since it will probably drive women to seek men they actually want and like instead of one that has extra cash, but it also means that men in general cannot simply focus on a successful career with the intention of using it as an attraction asset. And, it also means that all the work and time put into a career better be for themselves, because no one else will appreciate it. That would really piss someone like me off, because I’ve put decades into a career I really don’t want or like because it was a necessity for my family. I’d quit in a heartbeat if I had some other means of supporting us.

    Ya know, maybe I just tell the boys to go after what they enjoy and screw what women think. In the end, they need to be happy with themselves regardless. I think a solid MGTOW mentality with some game knowledge may be the best combination for them. If it really comes down to needing sex, there are plenty of ways to take care of that without a relationship.

    I’m thinking that my views on sexuality have gone the way of the dinosaur, and trying to put those moral values in them will only hinder any chance they have at happiness and success. If so, then I’ll raise good soldiers in the battle against feminism. If you are surrounded by sheep to the point of overpopulation, all it takes is a few wolves to clear the herd. Perhaps I should be raising wolves…

  • tom

    There is nothing new about the “respectable” woman marrying a nerdy doctor or lawyer for the security he can provide but having affairs with a more attractive studly guy who can make her tingle. Happens a lot.
    Maybe in the new society of richer women they will go straight for the sexy guy?

  • Wudang

    “Watch for this social trend: stories and news coverage championing the benefits of marrying a man who is not as educated.”

    I have been reading those for years. Even way before the red pill I could see that those articles were hamsterspinning that didn`t really work.

    Of the many developments we will se in the future one will be this. Stay at home dad after years of emasculation and ridicule from his wife leaves divorces her and becomes PUA artist of the harsh bitter and vengefull type.

    THe development described in this post must mean that those men who do have an education, and especially one that is prestigous and if he manages to get a high paying job, will become extremely sought after. Being a successfull doctor with an Ivy education today gives good market power but in the future the market power it gives will be way higher than today.

  • Mike C

    I’m sorry, but that’s a ludicrous statement. The concept of hypergamy, often defined as “marrying up” came about through an enormous body of research observing and studying assortative mating. Women tend to marry men with more education than themselves and men do the reverse.

    You misinterpreted the point I was making. I wasn’t questioning that. I was simply making a point about how bias could come into play. In any case, we are talking about two different things here which are hypergamy as it relates to long-term mate selection and hypergamy as it relates to short-term sex selection. I”m trying to separate out the two while you are trying to mix them which leads to this…

    Women don’t settle for men with desirable nests, they prefer them. It’s an attraction cue, i.e. panty wetter.

    I haven’t read the Buss book, but the brief excerpt you provided does NOT say this. You are overlaying an extra interpretation by saying “nests” are “panty wetters”. The simple reality is if this were true, than guys would get laid left and right running beta provider game and they unequivocally do not. Sassy mentioned her loins exploding at the Centurion? card, but expanded that the man was already good looking. She also mentioned no attraction at a old man lawyer doing the same thing. Clearly, purely in isolation provisioning capacity really isn’t a strong sexual attraction cue. Perhaps there are some synergistic effects when combined with other more primal attraction cues.

    I’ve got to imagine Dogsquat reading a few of these comments about the status of bouncers and just laughing as he read them, but he is very diplomatic and always finds a nice way to tell someone they are full of shit.. He and I both lived it, we saw what we saw and observed what we observed, so it is amusing to read a keyboard jockey muse about the status and dominance or lack thereof.

    Carry on.

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

      @Mike C

      Powerful survival and reproductive advantages were reaped by those ancestors who chose a mate wisely, so clear desires in a mate evolved.

      The point is, Buss is talking about desire. He clearly states that preference for men with good nests is a trigger for desire. This is where a lot of game theorists go off track, IMO. The idea that dominance is the only attraction cue. It’s not, and I have frequently provided evidence from evolutionary psychology and biology sources to confirm it. I’m sure you’ve seen the passage I often cite from Ogi Ogas, author of A Billion Wicked Thoughts. Women may become aroused from one massive trigger, e.g. dominance, several moderate triggers, or many weak triggers. All can lead to attraction and arousal. There are undoubtedly women who will be attracted at the sight of a bouncer. What you appear to reject is the idea that there are also women who will require more items from Buss’ list of priorities to feel attracted, and some who may require everything on that list. Of course, working as a bouncer, you encountered many women in the first group. That’s not to say your experience is invalid, but to extrapolate it to describe the big picture is not justified.

      I can tell you one thing. As a woman in my early 20s, I would find the same man infinitely more attractive in a navy suit in downtown Manhattan than I would if he were guarding the door to a bar. My list of attraction triggers was (and is) such that I would judge the latter as a dead end meathead (even though it was not true in your case). I actively looked for signs of good “nest” potential. This was so true, in fact, that even when I had ONSs, my attraction triggers were the same.

      Buss says that as well. Women’s triggers for ST and LT mating are often identical.

  • Herb

    @Tony Stark

    An entire generation of young boys is about to grow up (i) without masculine role models in the home, and (ii) convinced that the only way to attract women is to behave like a little sociopath.

    Somehow I don’t see this ending well…

    I don’t know…I’m old enough that the collapse will probably happen about my natural lifespan and the time between will be comedy gold.

  • Lokland

    @Saywhaat

    “Why is mankind the most dominant mammal on the planet?”
    “So why is it that the human race has exploded and brought the world to submission?”

    Intelligence. Yes. However we are not talking about species dominance. We are talking about who gets to fuck the most INDIVIDUALLY. What we do as a group with our intelligence is totally irrelevant to what intelliegence grants the individual.

    @Greg

    Your theory makes way more sense now. It jives with reality better.
    Thanks for the explanation.

    @Feral Employee

    “I can already hear my professors weep, for having to lower standards so dramatically in order to allow in “common people”.”

    Thats why they have first and second year. Money please, now please GTFO your such an idiot.

    (Bio. at my uni starts with 2500, graduates 500.)

  • Wudang

    “I don’t know why autism has increased so much, but Simon Baron-Cohen, an expert on the subject calls it “extreme male brain” and believes it has to do with prenatal exposure to testosterone. Which may very well speak to the genetic characteristics of either parent.”

    I have a theory on this and it is scary. In a society that is both very large so you meet a lot of people and you have few restraints on marriage chocie (not arranged and not just pragmatic provider choosing) people will choose mates that are too similar to them in certain regards. I know that we go for oposite imune systems and all that sort of stuff but we also go for similarities. I see so many couples that are extremely similar in certain peculiar ways. For example my third cousin who is quite smart, feminine, extremely rigid and controling, arrogant and a bit socially of, has married a guy who is very smart, masculine, extremely rigid and contrling, arrogant and a bit socially of. And their way of being socially of is exactly similar. They related very well to each other in their alternate socially unintelligent universe and relate not so well with others. In the same way by snowboarding, base jumping, pot smoking, chill, thrill seeker friends have married others more similar to themselves than they could have ever hoped for had htey not lived in cities with hundreds of thousands of people to meet and access to contexts that draw in extremely similar people. This means that we are quickly breeding ourselves into specialists. We are making babies with double sets of accounting genes, double sets of hacker genes, double sets of liberal arts genes, doulbe sets of party people genes and so we all become more extreme. Someone who had read a lot of systems theory told me that this is inevitable in all large systems because a large system thrives on specializing the functions of its many component parts as much as possible. So the system will get what it wants, we have no choice. A side effect is that we will get more children that are so extreme they are sometimes dysfunctional such as autism. Of course two sets of close to aspie genes from two computer programers in Silicon Valey is going to have a much larger chance of producing an autist than the genes of the boy and girl who lived on near by farms did.

  • Herb

    @Just1X

    Marriage 1.0 (up to the 50s. Man works till he dies, woman stays home and keeps home) was replaced by the current no fault divorce marriage 2.0 (I really hope that this is dying off – opinions vary). I don’t think that we’ll be going back to v1.0, and I don’t know what marriage 3.0 might look like. Shacking up (LTR) vs hooking up?

    Very much this.

    My father, who 30 years ago explained dating with the phrase “keep your pecker in your pants” and who was a virgin at marriage, recently said if he was a young man today he wouldn’t bother getting married just find a woman to shack up with. Watching my divorce and the world around him taught him marriage today is for suckers.

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

    Mike C – “I’ve got to imagine Dogsquat reading a few of these comments about the status of bouncers and just laughing as he read them, but he is very diplomatic and always finds a nice way to tell someone they are full of shit.”

    I know a guy that is a friend of a friend. He is around 43, and still bounces as one of his “jobs” (read into that he never got an education, never had a “career”, and still does extra jobs on the side to make ends meet) and he has at least three kids to three different women. He still to this day has NO lack of woman wanting to jump his bones, and many of them are pretty damn hot. (and mostly young…) He’s a big dude, big muscles, big shoes, and I assume big other stuff, but he really doesn’t have much going on upstairs. I will admit that these women are NOT highly educated for the most part, but that doesn’t matter when all he wants from them is a piece of ass.

    Sure, no woman is beating down his door to get married, but I don’t think he cares. He gets laid, gets variety, and has enough money to live comfortably by his standards.

    I don’t care how many people want to say it isn’t true, but the reality is guys like this get laid, and I don’t think many of them mind the lack of marriage proposals at all. The guys that actually want to marry are the exact ones most women don’t naturally find attractive for the most part. And, I don’t think any amount of “social change” is going to fix this.

    That is the problem: the men that WANT to marry are simply NOT the most attractive (not just in looks, but in general). As more men are pushed into a subdued masculine model (IE pussy whipped by feminism), women will find less and less men attractive for marriage. For sure, they will still have sex, and probably still have babies, but we can kiss the institution of marriage goodbye at that point.

    I certainly hope women pick up the slack, because beta men across the Western World are going to just stop giving a shit about working hard and getting ahead, and will enjoy living like the guy I used as an example above. Shit, if I didn’t have kids and so much time invested in a career, I’d do the exact same thing. Life is much less stressful when all you need for money is enough to pay the rent (which is cheap because as a single guy, a “bad” area isn’t so bad.) a few bucks for utilities, and enough spare change to have fun. As long as I could get past wanting a LTR and all that comes with it, I don’t think getting laid would be all that difficult. Worst case? Hire a “professional” on occasion to scratch the itch. But, I bet I’d have no problems finding willing women, and as long as I didn’t set my standards too high, it probably wouldn’t even take much effort.

  • Wudang

    Ted D

    “I don’t care how many people want to say it isn’t true, but the reality is guys like this get laid”

    Very much so. I have always gone out a lot to clubs and bars and bouncers get laid a lot because of their situational dominance and perceived masculinity (being buff and being seen as unafraid of other violent men and able and willing to kick their ass).

  • deti

    @ Brendan:

    “Hypergamy is simply women being attracted to the best men they can get as a means of uplifting their own status. In a world where men outearn women, this will mean, to some degree, men who earn the most. In a world where women outearn men, this will mean, to some degree, men who are the best looking/buffest and who have the best Game — boytoys akin to the wives of mad men, being judged by their looks and penises and sex appeal through Game. It’s still hypergamy, because in that system a woman’s status will still be raised by marrying a hot boytoy, just like a man’s status was raised by marrying a trophy wife.

    I am not convinced that women will, in fact, mate this way, however.”

    Agree, but I question whether the “boytoys”, the hot alpha men, will marry. They won’t marry because it won’t be necessary to get sex. They’ll have soft harems and serve as sperm donors for the female lawyers, bankers and doctors who want children.

    The only reason some of the hot alpha men might marry would be as “kept men”, for her financial support. A few might also need to marry, their wives being their sole support. But I would bet a sizable number of those hot alpha men who marry will cheat, simply because opportunities will present themselves. (And I’m saying so in a purely nonjudgmental, matter of fact way, of course.)

  • Sassy6519

    Whoops. Blockquote fail.

    @ Just1X

    All well and good (I believe you), but if/when the baby rabies cuts in?

    That’s when his on-going ability to support you and the kidz becomes more important.

    I’m hoping they never do kick in. I see no point in having children, for myself.

    @ Susan Walsh

    Hmmm, I wonder if the fact you know you don’t want a family is material here. Is marriage a goal for you? If so, I’m curious to know why.

    I don’t want children, but I would like to get married. I’d like to marry a man I truly love for the companionship and gratuitous sex.

    Would you seriously date a bouncer with an eye toward marriage? If not, then I’m not sure what you’re arguing here.

    Sure. I wouldn’t see a problem with it. Some bouncers make decent money. If I loved him as a person, his title wouldn’t matter that much.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Susan

    Women’s triggers for ST and LT mating are often identical.

    I believe this part. I have only ever had crushes on nerdy guys, and I only ever had LTRs with the same types of guys.

    I think attraction triggers are molded culturally, at least partially. There’s a stereotype that Asian women go for nerdy/STEM white men, and I suspect there’s something going on with the culture and upbringing that makes this the case.

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

    Susan – “This is where a lot of game theorists go off track, IMO. The idea that dominance is the only attraction cue. It’s not, and I have frequently provided evidence from evolutionary psychology and biology sources to confirm it.”

    I think you are looking at this incorrectly. It isn’t so much that PUA and game theory insists that ONLY dominance is the attraction trigger, but that dominance is the easiest for ANY man to emulate and use to his advantage. And, that is probably very true for most beta guys. They probably already have great “nesting” abilities, and many probably are already on the track of some career. Beta guys have no shortage of quality attraction triggers as you describe them, yet they end up mostly invisible and without mates.

    The problem isn’t so much that beta traits don’t attract women, but there are just too many men with beta traits to offer. Same problem with careers as we are discussing now. When women couldn’t make enough to survive alone, a promising career was a “turn on” of sorts for many women. That same man today is alone, because women simply don’t need him, and they aren’t turned on by his offers of financial security.

    Game is simply telling men: don’t bother learning beta stuff if your goal is to get laid. They may be attractive to some women, but not enough to get them in the sack quickly. And, sites like MMSL also warn beta guys that even though they may have snagged a mate, there is a damn good chance she won’t stay attracted to you long term, if she was ever really attracted to YOU at all. (meaning many of these men married women that were “attracted” to the lifestyle these men could provide, not so much that they were attracted to the men themselves.) And not just high earning guys. A woman with a low SES might marry another low SES guys just to increase her access to money. If that poor sucker ever makes something of himself, he can expect her to leave with half of it not long after.

    So, what are all the guys out there with great beta traits and no “game” supposed to do? “Man Up” seems to be the call, but I think less men are answering, and nothing I see coming leads me to believe that will change. To me, I’d rather be alone and miserable than with someone and miserable. At least when I’m alone, I can choose my own brand of misery.

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

      @Ted D

      It isn’t so much that PUA and game theory insists that ONLY dominance is the attraction trigger, but that dominance is the easiest for ANY man to emulate and use to his advantage. And, that is probably very true for most beta guys.

      I agree, dominance serves as a proxy for the things that women really want, which is resources and access to power over other men. However, this focus on dominance has eclipsed everything else, in my view, so that beta = bad, women don’t want providers anymore, intelligence is not an attraction trigger, etc. These claims are frequent, even here, and are echoes from the more extreme Game blogs.

      Game is simply telling men: don’t bother learning beta stuff if your goal is to get laid. They may be attractive to some women, but not enough to get them in the sack quickly.

      Right, but that doesn’t interest me because I don’t write a blog that focuses on getting laid. That’s why defining attraction triggers as “who women want to fuck” isn’t going to make much sense at HUS. That’s a short-term focus.

      I’ve also argued many times that there are indeed women who are wired for short-term sex with extremely dominant males. There are certain places where women like this tend to congregate – the same places these males tend to congregate.

      I frequently tell women to figure out what kind of guys they like and go there. There are women who go crazy for the sullen hipster in the corner. There are women who go for Wall St. types, duh. I know women who hang out in bars near the Boston hospitals in hopes of meeting a cute intern or resident. The dominance is entirely situational depending on the woman’s personal attraction cues.

  • Just1X

    @Susan

    http://www.businessinsider.com/theres-a-female-burnout-syndrome-emerging-and-its-happening-by-age-30-2012-3

    Specifically
    ny_entrepreneur on Mar 29, 8:21 PM

    he gives an interesting theory for the burnout. I’m not saying that it’s true, or not, but I do think that it will start your little grey cells a-whirling (like Hercule Poirot) and we might get a post from you…which would be nice. Whether it’s before, or after, the personality type post (hint) I have no preference *looks down at shoes nonchalently, quick surreptitious glance up at teacher Susan*

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

      @Just1X

      Whether it’s before, or after, the personality type post (hint)

      I’m feeling slow today – can you be a bit more specific?

  • Herb

    @Off the Cuff

    When I look back on my desire to get married, it was entwined with children and providing. Marriage meant children at some point, and to me, that meant having a stable job somewhere with a future to provide for them. FIRST. Without tangible job prospects, I highly doubt I would have been interested in marriage.

    Very much…at 45 and knowing kids are out (who wants someone on SS as a dad in HS) I have little interest in marriage any more. I used to think I’d want it if I found someone for financial protection but then I look at my divorce and realize shacking up is the financial protection.

    Especially if I use my higher income to make sure only my name is on the house.

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

    Actually, the only thing (other than the family I already have) that keeps me from living EXACTLY like that guy is my moral values. I would feel pointless and useless without a family and some kind of gainful employment, but that is only because I was raised to see those goals as signals of my success. If I never cared what my family thought of me, I would have hit the road with some metal band when I turned 18 and never looked back. (and probably be dead from a drug overdoes or ruined liver by now, but I digress) I probably would have had no shortage of willing women to sex up, and may have never “made” something of myself. But, the lack of stress and the sense of adventure would have likely made up for it.

    If it’s a losing battle before a guy even starts, why bother trying to secure a relationship at all? Seems to me it might be better to get a tight knit group of like-minded guys together for a little group security and friendship, and simply use women to satisfy sexual needs. Find ways to fulfill the needs a LTR would meet other ways, and never bother being tied down.

    I believe this is often called the Men Going Their Own Way movement. I simply see it as the smart way to avoid being eaten alive.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, in your post above replace “ONLY attraction cue” with “STRONGEST attraction cue.” None of us is saying the former. Several of us are saying the latter.

    You often seem to want to cite research articles to close of further debate on this point. I am all for citing and reading research but when the research seems not to comport, entirely, with observable reality then maybe we should look past it. I have a bias here, I guess, in that I did graduate studies that went into detail about the limits of “scientific” social and political science and the relative strengths of a more philosophic approach.

    But to stick to the matter at hand, if “nesting” “providing” and other “beta” traits are such powerful natural “hindbrain” (as opposed to rational) attraction triggers for women to find in men, then why in 2012 is there a hook-up culture? Why are betas so often left out completely? Why is the marriage rate dropping? Why are alpha ass-hats (your phrase) getting so much pussy? Why are so many women, even in their 30s, refusing to “settle” for perfectly decent and stable betas? Why are many of those who do settle finding that they hold their husbands in contempt just like Hannah Rosin? Why EPL divorces, or if you want to dispute that as a widespread phenomenon, why was EPL itself such a massive best-seller?

    All this suggests that there are in fact more powerful attraction triggers than these beta traits. The culture used to steer women in a certain direction, I would say, away from what base nature drives them to want and toward what their brains tell them they SHOULD want (and what is in fact better for them and for society over the long term). It doesn’t do that any more so they are now free(er) to just go for what their hindbrains want.

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

      @Escoffier

      You often seem to want to cite research articles to close of further debate on this point. I am all for citing and reading research but when the research seems not to comport, entirely, with observable reality then maybe we should look past it.

      First, I resent the accusation that I am trying to close off debate. Frankly, I don’t know why the hell we’re arguing about whether bouncers are sexy in a post about the future of marriage, but whatever. Just mention the word hypergamy and down the rabbit hole we go. I’m not going to take the word of amateur bloggers with a vested interest in the outcome. Nor should anyone take my word for anything. There are indeed experts who have studied these phenomena, and ignoring that is just putting your head in the sand.

      In any case, Greg is (was) arguing that the research does comport with reality. I think he makes a good point – if selecting for dominance were so key, many more men would be dominant. Since the most dominant men often impose costs rather than benefits on women, women should have evolved to stop selecting them. I’m all for having a debate, but what are you saying, exactly? On what basis?

      Here’s the thing – we can’t determine reality solely by listening to stories of bouncers. Nor can we determine reality solely by reading studies. Nor can the CDC data tell the whole story. I see something in my community that you may not see in yours. The best we can do is view all the sources, and come to an approximation of what’s true for most of the people most of the time. There’s a tendency on the part of men here, I find, to want to view only their experience as it conforms to Game. And I’m not even talking about Mystery here – he never said most of the stuff Roissy has claimed.

      My life experience and observations are in direct opposition to Mike C’s. That means we either inhabit different worlds (definitely true at the micro level) or one of us is lying or insane.

      But to stick to the matter at hand, if “nesting” “providing” and other “beta” traits are such powerful natural “hindbrain” (as opposed to rational) attraction triggers for women to find in men, then why in 2012 is there a hook-up culture?

      But we know that participation in hookup culture is low – around 10 – 20% at most. Either very few women have hindbrains like you describe, or most women are able to control themselves and not indulge their appetites.

      Why are betas so often left out completely?

      Why are 80% of females left out of what they want? 90% of women in college won’t have a boyfriend. The answer is a complex one – a mixture of pluralistic ignorance, loss of social intercourse between sexes, e.g. dating, and a culture that skews expectations for both sexes from an early age.
      What you see in college is sexually aggressive women having sex with sexually aggressive males – the promiscuous mating with one another.

      Why is the marriage rate dropping?

      That’s abundantly clear from the post. Fewer men are marriageable. Marriageable men have more options than ever before. The decline in marriage rate is ascribed almost entirely to men. Women are waiting longer, but the percentage of women who wish to marry and have children is still very high.

      Why are so many women, even in their 30s, refusing to “settle” for perfectly decent and stable betas?

      I don’t think they are. I think most women getting married in their 20s and 30s are marrying decent and stable betas without any idea of having settled.

      Again, I’ll cite pluralistic ignorance. A few Kate Bolicks write about friend families and staying single by choice, and you see it as a new norm. It’s not. She’s an outlier.

      Why are many of those who do settle finding that they hold their husbands in contempt just like Hannah Rosin?

      They’re feminists. They’ve squeezed their husbands into feminist roles and then find them unsexy.

      Why EPL divorces, or if you want to dispute that as a widespread phenomenon, why was EPL itself such a massive best-seller?

      Nearly all the readers were women, and very few saw it as a novel about divorce. I certainly didn’t. I read it as a round-the-world tale of self-actualization and spiritual growth.

      Marriage experts agree that women no longer need to stay in marriages they do not find fulfilling. They’re free to leave, and many are able to support themselves, so they do.

  • GudEnuf

    THE EVOLUTION OF DESIRE: Strategies of Human Mating
    David Buss, 1994

    This is the bible of evolutionary psychology,

    Yeah, it’s an ancient book that has been rendered obsolete by modern science. Oh, and people love to quote it out of context.

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

      @GudEnuf

      Yeah, it’s an ancient book that has been rendered obsolete by modern science. Oh, and people love to quote it out of context.

      How so? What science has replaced it? And how have I taken it out of context?

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

    “Yeah, it’s an ancient book that has been rendered obsolete by modern science. Oh, and people love to quote it out of context.”

    Sounds like a similar book that used to be the guideline for a moral society…

  • John G

    Mr. Munson;

    The cartoon was “NUTS” drawn by Gahan Wilson. Good stuff…

    http://johnglenntaylor.blogspot.com/2009/04/gahan-wilsons-nuts.html

    You can get him on Amazon.

    Blessings to you and yours.

  • Just1X

    @Herb, we appear to have had several parallels in life and reached similar conclusions…we are da smartz (now) but the journey was somewhat painful.

  • Escoffier

    I disagree just a little with what Brendan wrote. I really don’t foresee a day when highly-paid, high-status career women will view it is a status point to have a hot dumb broke alpha on her arm. That may be or become true for the hard-core SATC crowd. It also might provide a temporary ego boost and shot of envy from the girlfriends. But in the end, most of these women are going to want a “well rounded” alpha, that is, the guy with the looks AND the money AND the job AND the social skills. There aren’t going to be nearly enough of them relative to demand, hence their value will continue to appreciate at a crazy rate.

    Sure, I guess a dumb hottie will do as a temporary substitute but given the nature of women, I don’t think we’ll ever see a day when “trophy husbands” are as widely desired and as socially prestigious ad trophy wives, or even close. Hot alphas will never have any trouble getting laid but I think they will have WAY more trouble keeping their career wench for the long term (assuming any of them even want to) than a beautiful bimbo has snaring a husband.

  • Brendan

    @Escoffier –

    You don’t even have to look to EPL. Today, there is a self-published bestseller making the rounds called “Fifty Shades of Grey”. It’s a trilogy and the three volumes are currently numbers 1,2 and 3 on the NYT bestseller list for combined print/e-book sales (it’s an e-book). The subject matter is of a woman who voluntarily submits herself to an older man, who dominates her sexually in a BDSM relationship. This book is moistening millions of vaginas from coast to coast at the moment, many of such vaginas belonging to married women.

    The dominance thing is real. It may be that it is getting exaggerated over other historical triggers due to the circumstances (fewer men displaying dominance, relative comfort and independence of women financially “freeing” them to favor dominance over all), but it’s very real.

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

      @Brendan

      50 Shades of Grey is being called mommy porn. It’s just a new wrinkle in the romance novel genre. Women enjoy many fantasies they do not attempt to mimic IRL, including rape. And the fantasies stimulate arousal for short-term gratification – they don’t necessarily say anything about women’s long-term mating strategies.

      I do agree that social status is an important attraction cue – Buss ranks it second – and dominance is a proxy for social status. Men with no dominance, or men who lose their dominance in marriage, will fail to sexually arouse women. But there are varying degrees of dominance, from academic lecturer to men on Death Row. If we think about dominance on a scale, I’d say that most women want a man who’s in the 5-7 range. Any lower and he’s too passive. Any higher and he is going to have trouble in other areas of his life that make him difficult to be in a relationship with. Just an estimate off the top of my head. I think the danger is in assuming that more dominance is always good.

  • Just1X

    @Sassy

    I wasn’t trying to make a personal point about you, merely point out that many ‘smart and independant women(tm)’ may not be quite as independant as they think. Especially any single moms relying on the state – that isn’t my idea of independant, it’s just marrying daddy-state rather than an individual man.

  • Wudang

    What PUAs I trust have told me is that if you differentiate between a beta provider strategy, an alpha provider strategy and an alpha lover strategy you get most sexual desire from a woman with the alpha lover strategy, second most with the alpha provider strategy and least with the beta provider strategy. This is based on how horny the women get for them how strongly and how many times they come etc. What they have also found is that the way they get most sexual and romantic attraction in a LTR is to come of as a strictly lover type alpha first where she sees you only as a sex provider and then over time shifting to being seen by her as a potential alpha prodivder by showing more comitment signs and more high quality provider signs such as her seing you pay with a pantie explodin card. This way you take the maximum raw breeding attraction and mix it with the highest possible provider attraction. They find this is the way they get most attraction and compliance in a LTR. So it is not that there are no provider clues that are tingle creating (although many overtly beta providing cues are, especially early on) , they just don`t create as much tingles as the raw alpha lover qualitites do.

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

      @Wudang

      I just want to point out that you get your info. from PUAs. They hunt mostly in bars. We know that men in bars admit to more lying and deception to get sex from women than men outside of bars. It’s a self-selected group of men with more sexually aggressive tactics. I imagine that’s even more true for PUAs. It also stands to reason that the women they’re hitting on is also a self-selected group. They’re women who are open to talking to PUAs in bars.

  • Brendan

    Sure, I guess a dumb hottie will do as a temporary substitute but given the nature of women, I don’t think we’ll ever see a day when “trophy husbands” are as widely desired and as socially prestigious ad trophy wives, or even close.

    Which is why I said I don’t think women will mate that way, either.

  • Kirk

    “In fact all the studies I know show women to be aroused by non-fakeable physical traits like athelticism, facial symmetry, etc. ”

    @Greg

    When I speak of “Alphas” I am referring to the the top 10% of men in terms of physical attractiveness. My point was that these are the only men that women can be aroused by and most women will hold out for such men. If a woman ever pairs with an average or below average male (in terms of looks) it’s not because she finds him sexually appealing.

  • Just1X

    @Tom

    So philoso-musification as another string to your bow?

    Whatever your marriage has been to date, I’m sure boredom didn’t get a look in.

  • Escoffier

    “these are the only men that women can be aroused by and most women will hold out for such men”

    too far

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Wait, people are now saying the strongest attraction cue is looks, for both men and women?

    I’m surprised at this given the prevalence of “game” in the manosphere.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    so what’s the way forward? if we take the economic situation as a given — i.e. that available jobs that men are adapted for are declining at a faster rate than those women are adapted for — and take as a given than men will not adapt to compete with women for those jobs — what are the choices? we can’t take the economy back 40 years, even if we wanted to. should women step back into the home so that men can do the jobs those women hold now less efficiently? genuinely confused.

  • Escoffier

    “Wait, people are now saying the strongest attraction cue is looks, for both men and women? ”

    No, I think we are saying that, in general, “alpha traits” are stronger attraction cues than “beta traits.” Susan seems to really want it to be true that stolidity, dependability, stability, decency, loyalty, etc., were strong attraction triggers for women. Certainly the world would be a better or at least more orderly place if that were true. But it doesn’t seem to be.

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

      No, I think we are saying that, in general, “alpha traits” are stronger attraction cues than “beta traits.” Susan seems to really want it to be true that stolidity, dependability, stability, decency, loyalty, etc., were strong attraction triggers for women.

      I see no reason to disbelieve the list I posted in the excerpt from The Evolution of Desire. That list includes both alpha and beta traits, and the mix of traits that stimulate arousal will vary quite a bit from woman to woman.

      Escoffier’s snark representation of the list:

      stolidity, dependability, stability, decency, loyalty

      The real list, posted above:

      1. ECONOMIC CAPACITY

      Females prefer males who offer resources. Resources have to be accruable, defensible and controllable by men.

      2. SOCIAL STATUS

      3. AGE

      4. AMBITION AND INDUSTRIOUSNESS

      5. DEPENDABILITY AND STABILITY

      6. INTELLIGENCE

      7. COMPATIBILITY

      8. SIZE AND STRENGTH

      9. GOOD HEALTH

      10. LOVE AND COMMITMENT

      Your list comprises only 10% of the traits I posted. I would argue that 1, 2, 4 and 8 are alpha traits. (Remember, with regard to economic capacity, Resources have to be accruable, defensible and controllable by men.)

      5 and 10 are beta traits. Age, compatibility and health are neutral. I believe intelligence may be higher in betas, so consider that beta or neutral.

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

    STP – “should women step back into the home so that men can do the jobs those women hold now less efficiently? genuinely confused.”

    Well you aren’t the only one that has no idea how this will play out, but I don’t think women will willingly give up the power they have accumulated since first wave feminism went mainstream.

    Side note: I’m going to have to put on some Stone Temple Pilots now. STP reminded me of them, and I used to like them a lot before Scott went to (and broke out of repeatedly) rehab. Why is it that some of the best music is created by people strung out on drugs? It stinks because they either die young, or sober up and suck. :(

  • deti

    Escoffier:

    stolidity, dependability, stability, decency, loyalty

    I don’t believe them to be attractive traits. They are desirable, but not really attractive, IMO.

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

    “stolidity, dependability, stability, decency, loyalty

    I don’t believe them to be attractive traits. They are desirable, but not really attractive, IMO.”

    Agreed. No matter how many women tell me that they are attracted to these, I’ll never believe it until Alpha’s are asking where all the slutty women went.

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

    @Mike C
    I think you are confusing conflicting attraction cues in Sassy’s case. The guy was unattractive =bad genes for someone as attractive as her (even though Sassy doesn’t want to reproduce her attraction triggers are wired for reproduction never the less) and older = more chances of birth defects or widowhood (as much as manosphere claims that in other cultures women like older men there is a limit to that few women will actually desire a man for real that is as old as her father and if she does she usually has more issues than Superman and we all know it). So his provider cues couldn’t match his breeding unfitness in her case. Hot and rich surely caused an effect on her did it?

    @Gud
    Did your trouses exploded when she feed you a fancy dinner? I of course have pampered my husband when we were dating any man worth his balls won’t marry a woman that shows selfishness with money but I’m sure he was getting it up for me before and after that, in men’s case this is a superior criteria for women is one of the attraction triggers, one not all but one.

    You don’t even have to look to EPL. Today, there is a self-published bestseller making the rounds called “Fifty Shades of Grey”.

    You forgot to mention that the leading man is loaded in shit tons of money as well as very educated…or so I heard not my cup of tea.

  • Kirk

    “Wait, people are now saying the strongest attraction cue is looks, for both men and women?
    I’m surprised at this given the prevalence of “game” in the manosphere.”

    @Hope
    I have recently moved away from the “game conquers all” mentality and adopted an outlook that stresses physical appearance and status.

    @20-something guys

    Put down the game books and hit the gym (steroids will help), buy a pair of elevator shoes (if you’re under 6’0), dress well, develop a cocky attitude, and start investing. Follow this advice and you will be plundering poon by your early thirties.

  • J

    I don’t know why autism has increased so much, but Simon Baron-Cohen, an expert on the subject calls it “extreme male brain” and believes it has to do with prenatal exposure to testosterone. Which may very well speak to the genetic characteristics of either parent

    Assortative mating plays a role. Autism rates in places like Silicon Valley are sky-high as a result of STEM-type people meeting/marrying each other.

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

    “Put down the game books and hit the gym (steroids will help), buy a pair of elevator shoes (if you’re under 6’0), dress well, develop a cocky attitude, and start investing. Follow this advice and you will be plundering poon by your early thirties.”

    Or put another way, don’t bother concentrating on building good character. Just make sure you look good and are as fit as possible since women don’t need anything from you but a hot bod and a penis. Don’t try to save money to impress her at all, do it so you can live the way YOU want, because she will have her “own” money and wont need yours.

    Basically you just need to make yourself a great “stud service”, since the other things men were traditionally good for to a woman are null and void.

    God I’m feeling overly pessimistic today. Between this thread and the new one with the young girl humping a tree, I have very little hope for our future.

  • Just1X

    “the jobs those women hold now less efficiently”

    no, those jobs probably aren’t worth doing; paper shuffling, HR makework, admin work. Get rid of those jobs and save taxes, lower companies’ costs.

    No more quotas by race or gender, those were luxuries that we couldn’t really afford in the good times. Promote the best, sack the worst regardless of who, or what, they are.

    Let the chips fall as they may, then we’ll see who is left laughing

  • J

    I just saw Wudang’s post #179. He said it much better than i did.

  • Kirk

    “God I’m feeling overly pessimistic today. Between this thread and the new one with the young girl humping a tree, I have very little hope for our future.”

    @Ted
    This is our America in the year 2012. Live with it.

  • Herb

    @Breden

    You don’t even have to look to EPL. Today, there is a self-published bestseller making the rounds called “Fifty Shades of Grey”. It’s a trilogy and the three volumes are currently numbers 1,2 and 3 on the NYT bestseller list for combined print/e-book sales (it’s an e-book). The subject matter is of a woman who voluntarily submits herself to an older man, who dominates her sexually in a BDSM relationship. This book is moistening millions of vaginas from coast to coast at the moment, many of such vaginas belonging to married women.

    Yet it has generated very mixed reactions in the S&M world…a lot of sub women like it but a lot don’t.

  • Ramble

    Autism rates in places like Silicon Valley are sky-high as a result of STEM-type people meeting/marrying each other.

    Is that true? I didn’t know that.

  • Herb

    @Brendan, my apologies for misspelling your name in the last reply.

  • Herb

    @Hope

    You forgot to mention that the leading man is loaded in shit tons of money as well as very educated…or so I heard not my cup of tea.

    So, just like Sir Stephen, Beauty’s Prince, the owners in the Marketplace, or even Mr. Benson (and that’s gay porn).

    People into Dominance and submission fantasies want rich Dominants. This is surprising how?

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    I’ve heard similar things. Here’s an article about autism among the STEM folks:

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html

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

    Kirk – “This is our America in the year 2012. Live with it.”

    It isn’t me I’m worried about. I have an 18yo daughter, and a 12yo son. My SO has a 13yo son and an 11yo daughter. I’m way past needing to care about any of this crap for myself, but all four of them will have to face the fallout of all this in their future. Hell, my daughter is finishing up her senior year in HS, and will be heading to college next year. Right into the vipers den.

    And it pisses me off to NO end that I have to be worried about all this because other people couldn’t be bothered to raise their children with some moral fiber and a sense of responsibility. I mean, after all, it would have made their kids feel bad to punish them for bad behavior.

    But, what can we expect from parent(s) with little sense of responsibility themselves?

  • Brendan

    Yet it has generated very mixed reactions in the S&M world…a lot of sub women like it but a lot don’t.

    @Herb –

    Yep, the interesting thing has been how “mainstream”/non-BDSM subculture women love the book. I mean anyone who has studied Game is not surprised by this, but it seems that the wider culture is.

  • Herb

    @Brendan

    Yep, the interesting thing has been how “mainstream”/non-BDSM subculture women love the book. I mean anyone who has studied Game is not surprised by this, but it seems that the wider culture is.

    What will be interesting is to see how many people find their way into the S&M subculture via these books like their predecessors did 30 years ago with the Beauty books.

  • Brendan
  • Just1X

    @Susan

    oh, nothing serious. Just the personality INTJ / INTP / EMU types thing that you thought about doing ‘at some point’. Basically I was teasing, my bad.

    Just off out of the night, have fun

  • Herb

    @Susan

    I know it’s not possible on a bio level, but they’ve been pretty successful in marginalizing men, and instead of saying, “Oops, we went too far, our men are not thriving” they’re saying, “We’re almost there ladies!”

    When I read that I immediately thought of the old knight in Indianna Jones and the Last Crusade saying, “He choose poorly”.

  • Lokland

    @Ana

    I’m curious why you think male age is an indicator of poor genetic quality?
    In nature older men were the ones with more successful genes.

    Women and men have totally different reproductive “cycles”. Time doesn’t have an effect on male sperm quality due to sperm competition.

    Same reason why down syndrome comes from Mom like 4.9/5 times.

  • Lokland

    @Saywhaat

    I have a better response to your “intelligence made us the masters of the world” nonsense.

    What makes you think we are the masters of the world?

    We are not the best at reproducing, individually or as a whole, we do not make-up the largest portion of biomass.

    If you look at the things that make life successful, we aren’t much more than average. Possibly below.

  • Lokland

    @ Kirk

    “these are the only men that women can be aroused by and most women will hold out for such men”

    The more life experience I gain the more this seems to be true. But not to the extent you suggest.
    However I think looks make-up 75-80% of a womans attraction triggers. The rest is chump change if you have that.

    To counter-act this, point me to a natural under 6′ and ugly as fuck. Then I could believe it but I’ve never seen it.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    That’s abundantly clear from the post. Fewer men are marriageable. Marriageable men have more options than ever before. The decline in marriage rate is ascribed almost entirely to men. Women are waiting longer, but the percentage of women who wish to marry and have children is still very high.

    Please define marriageable.

    I ask because I’m apparently not, nor are many men I know like me, but we all fulfil what our fathers (Silents, mostly, with some early Boomers) taught us marriageable was and it’s that’s whole provider (and I really have that one down now), defender, commitment complex described up thread.

    As I’ve pointed out, I’m in a poly relationship not because I’m poly but because I was down to no romantic attachment, poly, or paying for sex/masturbation (which I guess is a version of no attachment). I fell into a lot of reading what women claimed they wanted starting with Gottlieb’s Marry Him and have yet to figure what defines marriageable except “something most men aren’t any more”.

    So, what traits should a man cultivate to be marriageable instead of just to get laid?

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

      @Herb

      I took the term marriageable from the hypergamy studies cited in the post. In that context it referred to economic capacity. I didn’t mean to imply anything more than that.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Herb

    Wait, did I miss something? Poly, but not by choice? By which you mean your gf sleeps with other guys?

  • Herb

    @JM

    Wait, did I miss something? Poly, but not by choice? By which you mean your gf sleeps with other guys?

    Go back a couple of threads…current gf has a bf and a gf. Current gf had them when we met and I liked her and she actually pursued me (which happens…well, never).

    So, yeah, poly because that’s who I’ve actually been able to get dates with for…well, mid-aughts…actually longer because between 2002 and when I started be willing to date poly women (late 2005) I just didn’t date. My broader social circle (like the Boston Goth Scene) exposed me to drama (I mean poly, sorry) and here I am.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, whenever “hypergamy” has come over the last 30 days or so you have said the following. Hypergamy is the woman’s instinct/desire to MARRY above her soci0-economic status, full stop. It has no implications for hook-ups or short term mating or other sexual behavior. That’s what the academic literature says and the rest is nonsense peddled by game bloggers, many of whom are misogynist or close.

    Now, I actually disagree that this is what the acadmic literature says. Roissy for one has found no shortage of studies that apply the concept of hypergamy beyond marriage. But even if it were the case that this is what the academic literature says, that would only cause me to doubt the validity of the academic literature.

    Just stick for the moment with the commenters on your own blog. You have a small platoon of males here who attest in detail about their own lives, their friends’ lives, and their own obeservations, about what they have been through. These are not bouncers. They are guys who are on balance more beta than alpha and have gotten burned because of that. If women really got wet for the reasons you said (he’s a stable provider), none of these guys would ever have had a problem and indeed they’d have to fight ‘em off as the saying goes.

    All this is pretty strong anecdotal evidence that women are NOT strongly attracted to provider/nester traits or that, at the very least, whatever attraction they feel for those traits is naturally WEAKER than the pull of the alpha traits. Pretty much every sentient guy will tell you that he started noticing this in the 7th grade. I know I did. I didn’t have this terminology at my disposal but I knew alpha from beta intuitively.

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

      @Escoffier

      Susan, whenever “hypergamy” has come over the last 30 days or so you have said the following. Hypergamy is the woman’s instinct/desire to MARRY above her soci0-economic status, full stop. It has no implications for hook-ups or short term mating or other sexual behavior.

      False! How many times have I linked to the hypergamy chart I made, which depicts short-term mating in hookup culture? You obviously haven’t bothered to look at it. I have said that hypergamy is a phenomenon that was first observed by social scientists, defined as “marrying up.” I have always acknowledged that women seek to mate with men of higher status than themselves, from puberty on.

      Escoffier, I don’t know if you’re confused, lazy, or a trickster, but I wish you would at least bother to report my comments accurately. If there’s one comment that threw you off, OK, but I’ve talked about this again and again. I’ve written numerous posts on it. I don’t get why you are misrepresenting my comments.

      Pretty much every sentient guy will tell you that he started noticing this in the 7th grade. I know I did. I didn’t have this terminology at my disposal but I knew alpha from beta intuitively.

      Well most of the guys you’ve just referred to have said precisely the opposite. They believed beta was the way to go, even years into their marriages.

      They are guys who are on balance more beta than alpha and have gotten burned because of that. If women really got wet for the reasons you said (he’s a stable provider), none of these guys would ever have had a problem and indeed they’d have to fight ‘em off as the saying goes.

      First of all, I never said that a guy being a stable provider gets women wet. I said – actually Buss said – that women feel desire for men with nest potential, and that includes a variety of traits. Also, economic capacity /= “stable provider.” Please stop changing up the terminology, it’s a dishonest tactic.

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

        I’m headed out for the evening which is just as well. I can’t bear the thought of another thread dedicated to the base nature of the female hindbrain. I wrote the post to explore trends in mating and marriage, which are changing rather rapidly. I’m really not interested in how PUAs get fucked – at least not today.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Herb,

    Do you want to be in a poly-amorous relationship?

  • Escoffier

    1&2 can go either way. The term “beta provider” after all implies a man who makes a good living or is even very rich.

    Social status is a bit nebulous. A beta can have social status from a UMC/UC upbrining but still be a wimp. Similiary, plenty of men with prestigious jobs are socially passive in intra-personal relations. Social dominance in face-to-face encounters is a genuine alpha trait and that can exist independently of social status in the broader sense.

    4 also can cut either way. Nerds can be enormously ambitious and industrious.

    Of these, only 8 is a pure alpha trait.

    There are plenty of cases of women who marry men who are great “catches” on paper and seem “alpha” in that they have money, they have high-toned backgrounds, elite educations, prestigious jobs and so on. But they still don’t cut it in other measurs of masculinity and so they end up getting dumped and then they are bewildered. What did I do wrong? I never hit her, I never cheated, I don’t yell, I don’t drink, never been laid off, we live in Scarsdale, and so on. What happened? He had 1, 2, AND4 and still …

  • AndrewV

    @Greg March 29, 2012 at 8:18 pm

    “I dont believe for a moment that hypergamy is an instinct – it is merely a rational strategy that women have had to adopt in response to specific social and economic conditions.”

    Nice attempt but I really do not think it is going to get too much traction with this audience.

    “– and use these words as an inclusive label for all classes of phenomena! Or rather, I understand only too well, sadly, why some people wish to obliterate important distinctions that are vital to having a productive discussion, but I do not approve of it”.

    People here appear to be really too interested in “traditional theory” which is oriented to understanding or explaining society as a whole, rather than the “critical theory” approach to critiquing and changing society as a whole.

    “– for instance, is violence an instinct, or just a strategy some people adopt in response to specific conditions? I have my opinion, but debate rages on this issue, and it is vitally important”.

    Good luck in promoting Cultural Marxism with this lot!

    But I do hope you will hang around. I find you entertaining.

  • Herb

    @JM

    Do you want to be in a poly-amorous relationship?

    Not particularly, no…certainly I don’t avail myself of the openings it brings in theory, but what is want is often the most unimportant things in our lives.

    The options the world provides are we can choose from and we make a cost/benefit analysis among them.

    This is the first time the sharing has been very hard but it’s also the first time I’ve been open to being really attached to the person I was seeing instead of the “fun for now” aspect (which, despite what most poly people will claim is what it’s about for most of them).

  • Herb

    @Susan

    I would argue that 1, 2, 4 and 8 are alpha traits. (Remember, with regard to economic capacity, Resources have to be accruable, defensible and controllable by men.)

    Interesting…I’d assuming being in the top quintile on one income counts as #1 and you do not get there without #4.

    Yay, I’m alpha…where are the sluts ;)

  • Herb

    @Susan

    I wrote the post to explore trends in mating and marriage, which are changing rather rapidly. I’m really not interested in how PUAs get fucked – at least not today.

    I know why you wrote which is why I asked the marriageable question…it was an honest one.

    Clearly marriage is changing and women claim that there aren’t enough marriageable men and you claim the drop is marriage is driven by men which seems to contrition.

    Are the marriageable men dropping out of the marriage market leaving only the losers? Are women tightening the definition to the point no man qualifies (which I think has a lot of truth, especially women over 35) and so men drop out?

  • Herb

    which seems to be a contradiction

    Damn autospell.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    Escoffier, I don’t know if you’re confused, lazy, or a trickster, but I wish you would at least bother to report my comments accurately. If there’s one comment that threw you off, OK, but I’ve talked about this again and again. I’ve written numerous posts on it. I don’t get why you are misrepresenting my comments.

    It’s not worth the effort.

  • deti

    At the risk of being tedious (I know I can do that sometimes:

    1. The academics apparently describe hypergamy as female desire/imperative to “marry up”. They describe the attractive traits as the list of 10 traits in SW’s post at 242.

    2. Many of the men here, most prominently Mike C, Escoffier and Brendan, describe a female desire for the “best man she can get”, and that this desire operates at all times in all post-pubertal females. This group contends that women are attracted more to the suite of alpha traits than to the suite of beta traits. Also, this contingent contends, the majority of the “attractive traits” at 242 are actually beta traits as that phrase is used in the manosphere. Only “size and strength” are pure alpha traits. The remainder are beta traits.

    Susan, I don’t think you’re inaccurately stating the research, its methods or its conclusions. But the MikeC/Escoffier contingent is describing something that, as I hang out here more and more, seems nearly universal among men in the United States.

    It’s not BS. Esco’s post at 240 depicts a lot of young men’s experiences, myself included. I’m hearing more and more men describing this and they all describe it pretty much the same way. Call it confirmation bias if you want, but it definitely exists. Esco, Mike C and Brendan aren’t the only ones who have seen and experienced it. And whatever “it” is, it’s been going on for at least 30 years, and probably longer.

    If it’s not hypergamy as the academics term it, then what is it? The sordid remnants of what used to be assortative mating? The new well worn paradigm in which the 4 through 9 women all go for the 9 through 10 men, leaving all the rest of the men with little to nothing?

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Herb,

    If I were you, I’d gtfo of the relationship. Immediately.

  • http://dicipres.wordpress.com dicipres

    A look for the future might come from the black community. Black men are now making less than half of the college degrees compared to black women and are generally falling behind black women much more compared with white men falling behind white women.

    Hypergamy didn’t seem to stop in black america, marriage stopped. When 72% of black children are born out of wedlock, you know that a huge changes occurred in the family structure. (BTW, there were more marriages of blacks women compared with white women until 1960s, when feminism\welfare became more active.)

    Changes in the bond between men and women create huge changes for society as a whole.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    You just don’t get it.

    Your telling all of us that we didn’t have it that bad. That being the people we were we should have been beating women off with a stick. Any sucess we came by was due to our beta status.

    Thats not true.

    Betas are alone. One hundred percent and utterly alone.

    Its insulting to be told that:
    a) what you were was already the best,
    b) since you weren’t swimming in pussy you were a failure,
    c) after years of hardwork to be told by someone that we should have been able to suceed as we were.

    You’re giving more of the “just be yourself” advice. Frankly if I ever heard a person say that to a young man I’d probably spit on them.

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

      @Lokland

      You just don’t get it.

      Your telling all of us that we didn’t have it that bad.

      This is the real issue. Men who have had it really bad want women to be wholly responsible.

  • Herb

    @deti

    If it’s not hypergamy as the academics term it, then what is it? The sordid remnants of what used to be assortative mating? The new well worn paradigm in which the 4 through 9 women all go for the 9 through 10 men, leaving all the rest of the men with little to nothing?

    How about women trying to be exactly like men as feminists have been saying they should?

    All my life that I’ve been aware of sex I’ve been hearing the sex positives say women should have sex like men.

    Men tend to try to nail the hottest woman they can. PUAs who sell their programs don’t advertise “get women into bed” they advertise “get beautiful women into bed”. I don’t think anyone here thinks men don’t claim success (and status) by getting hot women into bed.

    So, if feminists are right and women should have sex like men and men try to bang hot chicks and get success and status for it then wouldn’t feminist influenced women (be they 5s or 9s) all try to nail 9s and 10s.

    Let’s be honest, most men regardless of how they rank start out in puberty only chasing 8+s. Men learn assortive dating by rejection. You know the 9s won’t say yes if you’re a 6 but the 5-7s will so you adjust.

    Women don’t have that issue on the sex side. Most men will take what’s offered so female 5s don’t learn via rejection until the marriage round. Then they try to marry 9s instead of 6s (because the 6 would still be marrying up) and then fail hits. But now it’s hitting after she’s built a lifetime of habits (that pattern you’re referring to and have a hard time adjusting).

    That theory explains what we see, why alpha slutting makes it hard for women to accept other men at marriage (it’s as much habits and preferences as biology), and why traditional female restratint, which Susan champions, helps avoid the marriage fail. Women learn the same lesson as men at the same time but via a different channel. That channel is gone for women and the male channel (learn via rejection) doesn’t come online until later in life.

  • Herb

    @JM

    If I were you, I’d gtfo of the relationship. Immediately.

    But you’re not.

    *shrugs*

    Life looks a lot different at my age and experience and I would point out they are actively poly which means a lot of the structure is different than people who are cheating.

    You plays the cards you got.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    deti,

    Susan, I don’t think you’re inaccurately stating the research, its methods or its conclusions. But the MikeC/Escoffier contingent is describing something that, as I hang out here more and more, seems nearly universal among men in the United States.

    It’s not BS. Esco’s post at 240 depicts a lot of young men’s experiences, myself included. I’m hearing more and more men describing this and they all describe it pretty much the same way. Call it confirmation bias if you want, but it definitely exists. Esco, Mike C and Brendan aren’t the only ones who have seen and experienced it. And whatever “it” is, it’s been going on for at least 30 years, and probably longer.

    Meh, I used to feel this way, too, but Idk. First, one of the best game books I read was “How to Succeed with Women” by Ron Louis and David Copeland. They say that even if a woman is looking for something casual, most are still sizing you up in terms of how you’d be as a provider.

    I’m no Roissy, of course. My “number” is only 11. That said, 8 of those 11 happened in a span of 3 months–my 1st and only 3 months practicing game. And with a couple of exceptions, none of them were gotten from being very “alpha.” Most of my “game” came from being confident, funny, interesting, and just dominant enough to escalate fairly quickly (2nd date, usually, following a sequence from that Louis and Copeland book). Most of them probably got some sense of my economic capacity from dress, car, etc… Some probably got a sense of my ambition if I told them about the work I was doing at the time.

    In terms of size and strength, I’m no great shakes. I’m pretty ordinary.

    I think I told this story once before: when I was in high school, a girl I worked with invited me over her house one day. There was some pretext, but I don’t remember exactly what it was. I was totally clueless. I could’ve banged this girl easily, and I did nothing. I had no idea that it was an option at the time.

    My gf, who went to the same high school as I, told me this story: When I was in my senior year, I was invited by the orchestra conductor to play piano for a performance of a Beethoven concerto for a performance they were doing for some contest or other at Lincoln Ctr. My gf was in the orchestra. Anyway, every day, after I left the orchestra rehearsal, two of the girls in the orchestra would argue over who would get to go to the prom with me. They started out in jest, but then it got nasty. I was clueless at the time. I was so clueless that I didn’t go to my prom because I didn’t think I’d be able to get a date.

    My point is, though I can’t speak for other guys, I know for a fact that many of my failures with girls were failures I brought on myself. I didn’t believe in myself and so I saw no options. I had a decent amount of options, apparently, but I never saw them. And I suspect that’s the case with many men. We tell ourselves we can’t have it like the popular guys because, while that feels bad, it’s less scary than taking chances and risking rejections.

  • http://dicipres.wordpress.com dicipres

    “You plays the cards you got.”

    Wow, you are so passive. (That’s probably repel women like crazy.)

  • Mike C

    My life experience and observations are in direct opposition to Mike C’s. That means we either inhabit different worlds (definitely true at the micro level) or one of us is lying or insane.

    I was going to try and bow out of this unproductive discussion but since you specifically mentioned me. I’m not sure what’s up with “lying or insane”. Seems like unnecessary hyperbole.

    But yes, we inhabit two different worlds or rather to be more precise I’ve had the rather unique opportunity to experience two different worlds. In terms of the experience/perspective provided by a year spent bouncing….Dogsquat pretty much said I am on target. Is he lying or insane? When I was bouncing, a lot of the interest I got was from low SES women, but I was actually surprised by the amount of professional women who would get involved with bouncers. That said, I’m sure it would be just for “short-term fun” and not long-term. I’ve got no disagreement with the thesis that women want to “marry up” and if we want to slap the hypergamy label/description that is perfectly fine with me. But any discussion is incomplete or just a partial picture without considering the very different traits that are more connected to sexual attraction versus marriage partner preference.

    I’m not really disagreeing with your observations about high SES women. You are probably right…but for the wrong reasons. There is no raw, primal attraction for providing and nesting, but women who grow up in high SES environment with 2 parents… and most importantly a good father figure value those other male traits. The women who grow up with single mothers in low SES and no responsible male father figure default to the “hindbrain” traits. Daughters of 2-parent UMC families will value those other traits…NOT because they are also part of the instinctual triggers, but because they were EFFECTIVELY SOCIALIZED FROM A YOUNG AGE to prioritize them

    Anyways, in terms of the original post and its usage of “hypergamy”, I don’t think the end is near. Women will want to continue to “marry up” or probably prefer to remain single.

    I’m going to try and bow out now….seriously. I have no desire to engage an emotional, heated discussion, and subsequent comments indicate that is the direction.

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

      @Mike C

      This is where the thread went off the rails:

      The woman married to the surgeon might be the samw woman fucking her sculpted personal trainer making $15 a session. Which one really satisfies her hypergamy?

      Completely off-topic from the post. I agree that much of what followed has been unproductive and aggravating.

      There is no raw, primal attraction for providing and nesting

      David Buss says otherwise. I’m going with him. To be clear, it’s not the idea of a guy stapling forms in a cubicle that’s a turnon. Economic capacity is the number one attraction cue for women, with social status next. Dominance is a component of social status.

      I have no desire to engage an emotional, heated discussion, and subsequent comments indicate that is the direction.

      Thanks, neither do I. I really am thoroughly fatigued by the debates about how women are wired. How about all the guys do what works for them in meeting their goals? I have zero problem with that. I don’t even care what you believe about women. It’s truly irrelevant to my mission. We both know there are blogs where your view of what women want will be applauded and endorsed. There’s no need to squabble here – as you say, it’s unproductive.

  • deti

    Herb:

    “How about women trying to be exactly like men as feminists have been saying they should?”

    That’s part of it. The rest of your comment describes what I believe is at the root of this, which is that because of

    1. No fault divorce
    2. cheap, safe and effective birth control
    3. female economic independence and increased female access to education/work opportunities

    women’s impulses for “the best man she can get” have been completely freed. There are literally no restraints on a woman. It is true that a lot of women cannot get relationships. But many women do not want the men who will offer relationships. It is true that a lot of men cannot get sex. But that’s because for these men, sex isn’t on offer.

    And it looks worse now than when I started at this 30 years ago. I had only sporadic luck in my day, and believe me, I was never anything special. But I know a lot of men who have good jobs, are fit, they’re at least not ugly, come from good families, have good educations and are well read and well traveled — and they can’t even get drinks with Jessica from accounting; or Katie who works one floor down, or Julie the Fifth Grade Teacher, or Allison the church choir alto.

    These are the kinds of men who should be absolutely prime dating and marriage material. They should have women dropping phone numbers and apartment keys in their hands. They aren’t looking for a pump and dump. They aren’t telling these girls to rent a movie and bring it over so they can hang out. They aren’t shooting “out of their leagues”.

    So something is going on, and has been for decades. It might not be hypergamy as the academics call it. But it is most definitely real. And I think it is simply because women don’t need beta providers.

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

      @Deti

      It is true that a lot of women cannot get relationships. But many women do not want the men who will offer relationships. It is true that a lot of men cannot get sex. But that’s because for these men, sex isn’t on offer.

      What we know is that promiscuous women don’t want sexually inexperienced men. Do you have information about what the other 80% of women want?

      We know that around 40% of college students are virgins. And the average number of sexual partners is <2, for both sexes. So it would seem that sex isn’t on offer to the vast majority of men, and dating isn’t on offer to the vast majority of women. Do you have information that beta males are asking women on dates and getting rejected?

      These are the kinds of men who should be absolutely prime dating and marriage material. They should have women dropping phone numbers and apartment keys in their hands. They aren’t looking for a pump and dump. They aren’t telling these girls to rent a movie and bring it over so they can hang out. They aren’t shooting “out of their leagues”.

      Dropping apartment keys in their hands? So you’re saying that the beta guys want the promiscuous women? That is definitely a no go.

      What I see is a near total disconnect between most males and most females.

  • Herb

    @dicipres

    Wow, you are so passive. (That’s probably repel women like crazy.)

    Yes, because passive people decide, after not getting a job they wanted, they spend a year fixing all the reasons they didn’t get so the next time they have a shot they do.

    Yes, because passive people decide to move to a given city and get a particular kind of job there and do it.

    Yes, because passive people decide to sign up for a multi-sport event, train for it, and finish it.

    Accepting the options you have and choosing among them isn’t inherently passive. After all, in the job case I didn’t decide to become a musician (which I would enjoy) but a particular kind of computer programmer (which I already was). I didn’t pick Helsinki even though in many ways I’d love to live there because options in the US were more realistic.

  • deti

    JM

    “I know for a fact that many of my failures with girls were failures I brought on myself. I didn’t believe in myself and so I saw no options. I had a decent amount of options, apparently, but I never saw them. And I suspect that’s the case with many men.”

    I’ll grant you all that since that is some of my experience too, looking back. But I can tell you that I got rejected a lot too, in addition to passing over good opportunities. A lot of men don’t figure out what their “league” is either. But even trying to punch within my weight class I still got shot down plenty.

    Oh well. I still stand by my 253 post.

  • Herb

    @deti

    women’s impulses for “the best man she can get” have been completely freed. There are literally no restraints on a woman. It is true that a lot of women cannot get relationships. But many women do not want the men who will offer relationships. It is true that a lot of men cannot get sex. But that’s because for these men, sex isn’t on offer.

    I don’t disagree with that. What I think is open to debate is the source. Is this purely the same instinctual behavior we see in other primates (and other mammals) that is hypergamy or is it something else.

    I’m more and more inclined to think it is more the later than the former (although it is probably a degree of both). I think it’s much closer to wanting a top line Rickenbacker but realizing you are much more likely to be able to afford an Epiphone midrange. If you make that jump in a sudden leap it’s settling. If you learn that lesson over time it’s adjusting your world view slowly and it’s not settling. It’s something you’re quite happy with, actually, as the time you spend playing the guitar and enjoying it outweigh the “lesser” nature of it.

    Men do that with dating. We’re all chasing top line Rickenbackers at 13 but by 18-20 we learned we weren’t going to afford them but have had a blast playing with low end Fenders and Epiphones. Then we get a job and start looking for “the last guitar we’re going to find” and a mid-range Epiphone is pretty sweet.

    Women were taught that in a different way before but not they get to play a bunch of Rickenbackers and Frankenstrats but when it comes time to get “the last guitar we’re going to find” that same mid-range Epiphone is settling and they are resentful and want to keep shopping knowing that they can afford the Rick because $500 is as good as $2500, damnit.

  • Rum

    I think Susan said more than she intended when she wrote that beta traits did not produce moist tingles but that women still “desired” them.
    Guys are listening very carefully.
    Sometime in the not too distant future the last guy still strive-ing to be beta will either either take the red pill or succeed at his latest suicide attempt…

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

      I think Susan said more than she intended when she wrote that beta traits did not produce moist tingles but that women still “desired” them.

      How so?

      I am in no way telling guys they don’t need any alpha traits. I’ve clearly laid out the traits women seek, and yes, each or any of them may produce attraction.

      For the record, there is no such thing as a tingle. Women don’t get wet looking at a bouncer. I never said that dependability makes women want to reach down and touch their clits. Sheesh.

      Buss is talking about attraction – what women seek in a mate. He names ten traits. I relate to the list – it’s certainly representative of what I experienced.

      It’s bogus to try to make this sound like women are on the brink of orgasm because a guy calls when he said he would.

      If guys are listening carefully to learn what a woman seeks in a life partner, they should read that list and see what tops it.

      If they want to fuck close with strangers, HUS is not the place to go for advice.

  • http://dicipres.wordpress.com dicipres

    Herb,

    I’m not going to judge your character/life/choices based on some comments.

    What I am saying is that there are allot of women and being in a certain situation because this is “the cards you got” is passive and frankly even pathetic. If you can write a post here you can go to cupid/harmony/etc and get other women.

  • Ted D

    Herb @ 257 – brilliant! That was a home run post!

  • deti

    Rum:

    Agreed.

    Those beta traits are desirable.

    They’re just not attractive.

    There’s a difference.

    Women WANT those beta traits in a man. But they are not what DRAWS HER TO or pulls her to him. The word “attract” is from Latin and translates as “pull to” or “pull toward”.

    She might want those beta traits. But what PULLS HER TO him? Confidence, dominance, size, strength, charisma, cocky-funny, interesting.

  • Herb

    @dicipres

    What I am saying is that there are allot of women and being in a certain situation because this is “the cards you got” is passive and frankly even pathetic. If you can write a post here you can go to cupid/harmony/etc and get other women.

    Really, wow, I thought my OkCupid, eHarmony, and Match.com accounts were for sports betting. You mean the money I spent on a dating coach to help re-write my profile and help me find women to contact wasn’t a final four bet? OkCupid netting one woman who wanted to meet…who was in an open marriage and looking for something on the side. Match and eHarmony were less effective. As was Plenty of Fish.

    I went speed dating once. Never again.

    The pool of women I’m attractive to appears to be limited to poly chicks, for whatever reason. I can play in that pool or not play. Either is a valid choice but right now playing in it is more attractive. The current circumstances may change that opinion.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ John G #194

    Just got back from chemo. Didn’t think I was going to smile the rest of the day.Those had me grinning ear to ear; thank you from the bottom of my heart.

    BTW I saw “Straight Jacket” when I was 10. Starts off with Joanne Crawford chopping heads of with an ax. A real scorcher of a movie for ’63. Guy gets his head lopped off and for a split second you see his headless neck. There’s a long scene involving a closet; Gahan’s closet cartoo captured me perfectly-I went home from the movie and stared at mine for an hour-it took me months to get over it.

    @ Tom # 174

    Looking for a lawyer for security? Keep looking. When I started practicing we were closer to doctors in status etc.; now, we’re closer to real estate agents. Coming up-cosmetologists.

  • Herb

    Okay, the model is off and I’m done for tonight. Play nice everyone.

  • Wudang

    “I just want to point out that you get your info. from PUAs. They hunt mostly in bars. We know that men in bars admit to more lying and deception to get sex from women than men outside of bars. It’s a self-selected group of men with more sexually aggressive tactics. I imagine that’s even more true for PUAs. It also stands to reason that the women they’re hitting on is also a self-selected group. They’re women who are open to talking to PUAs in bars.”

    They also practice day game and social circle game in a wide variety of social circles and online dating. Some exclusively practice day game or online dating precisely because they don`t like clubs or bars or they feel too old for it. They find the same pattern and it matches my experience and observations through life so I`m going to go with that. I do recognize that there likely are some exceptions to this but it is a very strong pattern and unless I go for a woman that has only had relationship sex and has waited a fairly long time to have sex with each boyfriend I think the women I will meet will strongly tend to function that way.

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

      @Wudang

      PUAs find the same pattern and it matches my experience and observations through life so I`m going to go with that.

      By all means, do what works for you. I am not trying to direct the mating strategies of any males here.

  • Wudang

    1. ECONOMIC CAPACITY

    Females prefer males who offer resources. Resources have to be accruable, defensible and controllable by men.

    2. SOCIAL STATUS

    3. AGE

    4. AMBITION AND INDUSTRIOUSNESS

    5. DEPENDABILITY AND STABILITY

    6. INTELLIGENCE

    7. COMPATIBILITY

    8. SIZE AND STRENGTH

    9. GOOD HEALTH

    10. LOVE AND COMMITMENT

    The fact that this least does not include confidence or personal dominance or extraversion or the ability to flirt/sexually escalate at all tells us the research is highly lacking and completely has ignored key areas of attraction. It is not that what they have found seems like unattractive or unimportant characteristics it is just that it completely and utterly ignores all aspects of game which makes its value very small.

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

      The fact that this least does not include confidence or personal dominance or extraversion or the ability to flirt/sexually escalate at all tells us the research is highly lacking and completely has ignored key areas of attraction.

      All of that is found under ‘social status.’ In fact, Game works as a proxy to imply several other traits are present.

      it is just that it completely and utterly ignores all aspects of game which makes its value very small.

      Game is based on evolutionary psychology, so to say that evo psych ignores Game is a tautology.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ Herb #265

    GUITARS!!! WE CAN TALK GUITARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Epiphone-none other than Keith Richards played one (their Les Paul knockoff) for years, both before and after they became stars. Many pics pre-stardom-classic shows mic slapping time on his knee while Keith, seated, works some licks in. I watched Keith play “The Last Time” on Shindig (or Hullabalooh?) with that same Epi, and I saw him live with it at the Long Beach Civic Auditorium in ’65 (each Stone has exactly ONE guitar, the one they played )(also saw Mick and Brian help load the stage amps I swear to God).

    Rickenbackers looked great and had the Lennon panache, but the neck was thick, and didn’t play fast. Can’t think of a lead player who played one.

    I lived in Fullerton California and had an original Mustang (Cobain’s fave he wanted to combine a Jaguar with it for a Jagstang, and came up with aworkable model). I traded it away (say fool Munson say fool!) Not only did I NOT know Fender was headquartered there, but Les Paul lived very close by (not bright this Munson). Mustang was considered somewhere between the professional (JazzMaster, Jaguar, Stratocaster, Telecaster) and student (Music Master). Low end Fender? Other than the Music Master and the Duo something, not aware of any. Mustangs weren’t cheap, but you didn’t see pros with them in the day. It would be decades before you did.

    By the way the flat tone intro and lead lick in the Fine Young Cannibals “You Drive Me Crazy” is achieved with a Mustang, which had these gut switches that allowed it. It is a unique sound to that specific guitar that can be achieved w/o a sound engineer.

  • Rum

    Taylor 12 string. Easy to sound good.

  • Wudang

    I certainly agree that ambition, intelligence and economic capacity and certainly social status of a wide variety in themselves create sexual attraction not just sensible attraction or whatever one should call it.

  • Egor

    > Smart and small didn’t take down the mammoth. And if it did it was because whatever he built was handed to the obscenely large guy.

    This is a terrible example – because man did not hunt mammoth by fighting them, but rather through clever tactics and teamwork. Smarts and leadership skills were what was required, not size or strength. Not that physical attributes aren’t helpful when it comes to leadership in a primitive environment, but it’s most definitely true that ‘large and dumb’ didn’t wipe out the wooly mammoth, ‘clever’ did.

  • Greg

    We already have that, and it’s only been a win for the men with the best genetic stock. When women pursue sexual bliss they’re targeting men who will not offer commitment. Regardless of changes in society, most women still want that.

    Your approach would eliminate marriage and family in time.

    I like it that women target men with the best genetic stock. I dont see a problem with that. It is better than targeting rich men. It is important for the future of the race that the best women get with the best men.

    I honestly dont see why men with the best genetic stock – defined by Evo-Psyche as decent but not too great muscularity, athleticism, facial and body symmetry, good skin and hair, good height, etc – should be any more averse to marriage or commitment than men of lesser genetic stock.

    Many men enjoy family life and have a very strong desire to have kids. The fact that a man has good muscularity and great facial symmetry and is tall does not change that.

    Perhaps you think it is because he has more choice than other men? But not really. He just chooses from a different strata. The best man will chose from the best women. The middle men will have just as much choice from middle women. As I said before, it is a myth that most women simply remain celibate unless they can bag a man from the top. Such women would have remained childless and been weeded out of the gene pool, as the top man simply has no reason to *settle* for mid-level women – he has a constant supply of top women. Women are good custodians of their genetic interest and will be quite realistic about who they can get. Women are not the idiots some people like to make them out to be.

  • Ted D

    Greg – “As I said before, it is a myth that most women simply remain celibate unless they can bag a man from the top”

    Your right. She will marry a beta provider type, start a family, stick around awhile while they save money and collect property, decide she is bored with her husband (because she never really wanted him anyway), file for divorce, split with half their property and the kids, and then pursue any man she wants (or no man at all if the ones she wants won’t have her) and enjoy years of money from her ex for child support.

    Sounds like a great deal. Where can I sign up?

  • Jon

    @Hope

    There’s a stereotype that Asian women go for nerdy/STEM white men, and I suspect there’s something going on with the culture and upbringing that makes this the case.

    My ex-wife is Chinese, and I’m a white STEM guy. I have some ideas about what that might be.

    1) Skin color: There seems to be a perception that light skin is attractive and an indication of wealth and status. The Chinese beauty product catalogs advertised a lot of skin whitening products, and her mom always used foundation that was a few shades too light for her natural complexion in order to look more pale than she really was. White people have a natural advantage in a culture that values pale skin.

    2) STEM: Chinese parents really stress the importance of finding a good provider for their daughters and they recognize the economic potential of those career fields (which is also why they encourage their kids to study those subjects). The first time I took the whole family out for dinner, they were more interested in how much I left as a tip than anything else because they were trying to gauge how generous I was as an indication of how well I’d take care of her. So basically their definition of a good husband was a generous guy with a good job.

    My wife was a hybrid of traditional Chinese values and western values, so I definitely think her parents’ biases played a role in her mate selection criteria.

  • SayWhaat

    Smarts and leadership skills were what was required, not size or strength. Not that physical attributes aren’t helpful when it comes to leadership in a primitive environment, but it’s most definitely true that ‘large and dumb’ didn’t wipe out the wooly mammoth, ‘clever’ did.

    Thank you Egor, that was exactly what I was trying to say.

    What makes you think we are the masters of the world?

    I don’t think we are “masters”, per se, I think that as humans we have successfully dominated the world more so than any other mammalian species.

    But this is going way off-topic now.

  • SayWhaat

    My wife was a hybrid of traditional Chinese values and western values, so I definitely think her parents’ biases played a role in her mate selection criteria.

    Yes, I agree with this entirely. My parents’ biases (those exact points you listed) definitely play a role in my mate selection criteria as well.

    I was thinking about the trend of marriage rates…I think that just as in the black community, we’re going to see a lot of women marrying “out”. On pace with globalization, they’ll travel to different countries and meet and settle down with a local, or another visitor. They don’t even have to travel; I see plenty of mixed-race couples here. Indian and Asian men with white chicks, asian chicks with non-asian guys — I even saw a Chinese guy and a black woman walking with their two children once. So maybe we’ll just see more interracial marriages.

  • Lokland

    @Egor

    “Smarts and leadership skills were what was required, not size or strength. Not that physical attributes aren’t helpful when it comes to leadership in a primitive environment”

    Pfff. Your kinda funny.

    Very rarely is the small intelligent guy incharge.
    Its that big lumbering mother fucker with or without brains.

    Leadership =/= intelligence.

    Hence why I said;

    “Smart and small didn’t take down the mammoth. And if it did it was because whatever he built was handed to the obscenely large guy.”

    As for teamwork.
    Yes, requires a leader which is the big guy. The small, intelligent guy could have played mad scientist role but thats it.

    The dumb giant could have lead if there wasn’t a smart giant around to tool him.

    Leadership: big > small, intelligence played no role.

    As for your epic and apparently firsthand expeirence with killing wooly mammoths, may I ask how you attained such credentials?

    If not your blowing smoke, it was an example not a picture of reality so settle down.

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

    This is the passage to which I was referring in this thread (on this page). There have been others but this is the one from today.

    “IOW Women don’t settle for men with desirable nests, they prefer them. It’s an attraction cue, i.e. panty wetter.”

    Reads like wishful thinking. Contradicted by lots of anecdotal evidence and direct experience. Yes, the world would work a lot better if this were true. And, it might have been true when the culture pushed women in this direction. But it doesn’t any more.

    This is all directly relevant to the original topic of this post. Higher female earnings and achievement mean that women need these nesting traits from men less than ever. Hence they are free to focus on other traits which trigger their attraction more strongly. Add to that the fact that fewer men than ever can actually provide because of the recession, outsourcing, etc. The candle is being nuked at both ends. Women don’t want it and men ain’t got it.

    There is still a smallish supply of men who “have it all”–alpha cred plus beta traits–and can truly satisfy most attraction triggers of the accomplished modern woman. But that supply keeps shrinking relative to the supply of interested women, hence the value of those men in both the SMP and the MMP goes ever upward. And the higher it goes, the less incentive those men have to marry at all. So the candle is now actually being nuked at three ends.

    PS, Wudang is absolutely right that the failure to include any notion of intra-personal social dominance is a fatal flaw in Buss’ list.

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

      This is all directly relevant to the original topic of this post. Higher female earnings and achievement mean that women need these nesting traits from men less than ever.

      They may need them less, but if our brains haven’t changed in 100,000 years, they’ll still want them just as much.

      Reads like wishful thinking. Contradicted by lots of anecdotal evidence and direct experience.

      I never said that beta traits alone get the job done. The list is a mix of alpha and beta traits. The anecdotal evidence I’ve heard here reflects one of two things, sometimes both:

      1. choice of poor character mate
      2. relaxing into total betatude during the relationship – the equivalent of the female gaining 50 lbs.

      Intra-personal social dominance is a key way that men acquire social status. Again, this is conferred by males to one another. It is not granted by women to men.

      Escoffier, you have made a habit of ignoring my replies to your arguments. I assume that’s because you have no rebuttal. I do feel like it’s a one-way conversation, though, and that you aren’t listening, you’re just waiting for your next opportunity to repeat the same arguments.

      Anecdotal evidence. That’s your thing. I get it. I have nothing more to add to the debate at this time.

  • Lokland

    @Ana

    Can’t argue with that.
    Its really cool, thx.

    @Susan

    “This is the real issue. Men who have had it really bad want women to be wholly responsible.”

    Not what I said.
    I’m pissed off cause your sitting here telling me that he 5 years no women spoke to me were
    a) my own fault (true to a partial degree, I think its a split between me and women and I fixed my half)
    b) not that bad because its all our own faults

    You completely ignore the bombs dropping around you and tell us women like men who make money and provide etc.

    I have NEVER seen this occur, at least not with a woman who was really into her man.

    And you seem to be comparing good looking providers vs. bad looking providers. In that case your right.

    How about good vs. bad looking crossed with provider vs. no provider.
    Obviously good looking + provider win, ugly + no provider loses.

    What about the middle two categories?

    We are all screaming that the hot dude wins but your totally ignoring us and saying a steady job is all it takes.

    No its not.

    I’m ugly, I own it.

    Stop telling people like me its all our fault and if only we could provide more women would flock to us.

    I got the message enough I almost threw up typing that. Its not true.
    Since >70% of men are ugly, yeah trying to compare the hot provider vs. hot nonprovider is a waste of time.

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

      @Lokland

      We are all screaming that the hot dude wins but your totally ignoring us and saying a steady job is all it takes.

      Of course I’m not saying that! Of course the hot dude wins – good looking people have the advantage in every single aspect of life. Having a steady job is not going to get you women, and I never said it would.

      Actually, I never said, period. This is not the Susan Walsh theory of mating and female attraction cues.

      Stop telling people like me its all our fault and if only we could provide more women would flock to us.

      Did you read that list? Economic capacity is one of ten traits women seek in a partner. Why are you ignoring 9 and lasering in on provider?

      I’m sorry, but women have sought men as providers from the dawn of time. If you think we’re over it, you’re kidding yourselves. It’s not the only thing – that would indeed be much easier for men. But it’s a real consideration.

      The ugly truth about female sexuality is that we do have a checklist, and it’s pretty long. We want the alpha traits, and also the beta comfort traits, including love and affection. We’ll make the best deal we can, and if we fall in love we’ll never feel like we’re settling.

      Ticking off the dominance box (or social status box) and calling it a day is not going to work for marriage. It’s a short-term strategy, or should be.

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

    Not that physical attributes aren’t helpful when it comes to leadership in a primitive environment, but it’s most definitely true that ‘large and dumb’ didn’t wipe out the wooly mammoth, ‘clever’ did.

    Heh totally I’m pretty sure any dumb big guy that charged the mammoth with all his strength all alone was out of the gene pool really fast.

  • Escoffier

    Well, there’s a couple of problems with the above.

    1) Women aren’t always looking for a life partner. Plus, these days they do so later and fewer of them look at all. They don’t NEED to look nearly as much as they used to because a strong element of necessity has been removed. So if you define these traits as things that women look for in a husband or life partner, then OK, but what if that’s not what they are looking for at that moment/during that decade?

    2) We can all have our very sensible criteria for what we want in a life partner and still have that all messed up by instinctual attraction triggers. Either the lack of one in an otherwise perfect mate or the presense of many in an otherwise unsuitable mate. Works for both sexes. A guy could find the perfect wife in every other way but just not find her pretty. Or he can find the most beautiful girl he’s ever seen but who is all wrong for him. Obviously the wise thing to do in the second instance is move on, but what about the first? Harder case. Well, same with a woman. Mr. Right in every other respect can, through no fault of his own, do nothing for her V. Then what? Mr. Wrong on the other hand can set it aflame. Again it’s wise for her to move on in the second case but it can be difficult.

    The point is, what are undoubtedly desireable traits in a life partner, and what might even be attraction triggers for someone actively looking for a life parter, are not visceral attraction triggers that work all the time on the subconcious the way that good looks work on men and psycho-sexual dominance works on women. Those are never turned off as triggers. They are merely controlled, or not, or to one degree or another.

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

      So if you define these traits as things that women look for in a husband or life partner, then OK, but what if that’s not what they are looking for at that moment/during that decade?

      If a woman is looking for casual sex, it goes without saying the man need only have perceived social status that night. In that case, dominant behavior, e.g. negging, take away is a way of creating that impression. Mystery Method was written to “get beautiful women into bed.” Period. If that’s the goal, you’re better off reading Roissy.

      visceral attraction triggers that work all the time on the subconcious the way that good looks work on men and psycho-sexual dominance works on women.

      I understand why you know that men focus on looks, but where do you get your knowledge about visceral female attraction triggers? I would argue that looks are the most visceral trigger – a handsome face, age, symmetry, the appearance of good health, size, strength. Dominance can create attraction, but it’s not visceral in the same way. It’s actually the work-around if looks are not sufficient. I know that sucks, but at least men have a way of compensating. Women don’t.

  • Kirk

    “As I said before, it is a myth that most women simply remain celibate unless they can bag a man from the top”

    @Greg
    I will concede that many women will settle for average or unnatractive men. However, I still hold that women can only be truly aroused by the top 10% of men (in terms of physical attractiveness) and most women are in relationships with guys that they are not hot for. They may deem their spouses “hot” on an intellectual level, but I guarantee you that they are not fantasizing about hubby when they are experimenting with the shower head settings. I have a feeling that the “lay back and think of England” meme wasn’t referring to the man’s lack of sexual reciprocity…

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

    @Herb
    I wanted to cosign your take on how women end up being the way they are. They don’t have incentives to learn that a man will have sex with almost any willing woman but that doesn’t mean he will commit to her. Is PC to say that out loud so they don’t know it till the wall hits and is too late. and wait till Ozy reads what you say about Poly people she will get her iron clad spiky panties in a poly bunch.

  • Kirk

    ^
    Unattractive men. Forgive me, I am stoned.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, do I have to go line by line every time? I am responding without re-litigating every word.

    What you have said that I specifically disagree with is that the beta traits themselves are attraction triggers, “panty wetters” in your exact phrase. That appears to be not true for the large mass of women, and also contradicted by lots of social science, and also contradicted by lots of anecdotal evidence, and also hotly disputed by most of your male commenters. I believe I am the rare beta on this blog who has not been burned (yet) in this way but I see what they are saying and it makes sense to me.

    Intra-personal social dominance is NOT limited to men interacting with men, but extends to how they interact with women. Indeed the two are seperable. It’s quite possible for a man to be dominant among males and a failure with women, or else highly successful with women and a flop among men. The two traits tend to correllate but they are not indentical and they don’t always go together.

    The intra-personal social dominance that attracts and keeps women is what matters here. Low status males in a male sphere can either have this innately or learn it. Roosh is extremely low status, I think we would both agree, yet unless he is totally dishonest he gets laid a lot. You yourself have more than once pointed out his “tight game.”

    Anecdotal evidence is nothing to sniff at. When you spend enough time in academia you run across lots of theories that have no bearing at all on the real world. The acid test of any science, including social science, is: Is it predictive? If some theory contradicts what you see all around you, chance is are it’s the theory, not your eyes, that has the problem.

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

      Susan, do I have to go line by line every time? I am responding without re-litigating every word.

      Of course not, but you ask questions, I answer them, then you ask the same questions again or repeat the same assertions. You don’t reply to what I’ve said. I find myself checking the times on the comments to see if we cross-posted.

      Intra-personal social dominance is NOT limited to men interacting with men, but extends to how they interact with women.

      I didn’t say it wasn’t used in interactions with women, I said it is conferred by men. Alpha males are created by men, not women. There are plenty of good looking betas. Women are drawn to the AMOG – it is his status relative to other males.

      Roosh is extremely low status, I think we would both agree, yet unless he is totally dishonest he gets laid a lot.

      All casual sex. He doesn’t have relationships. I never said social dominance won’t get women to have sex. It obviously does, that’s what Game is. It does so by adopting behaviors that signal several of the traits on Buss’ list – most notably that he has status conferred by other males, i.e. he establishes himself as the AMOG.

      Look, Escoffier, I’m not sure what you’re after. You said recently that if you divorce you want to be a player. Is that what this is about? I think Game, when used as self-development, is potentially enormously beneficial for mating and relationships. If men have lost the sense that women like dominance, it’s important they get it back. I’m all for it. I also know that dominance alone is no basis for a relationship longer than a night or two. If you just wanna get laid, it should get the job done. Marriage? No way. That doesn’t mean that marriages can’t be greatly improved by beta husbands adding dominance – that’s what Athol is all about, and he has created an impressive record of results.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Did you read that list? Economic capacity is one of ten traits women seek in a partner. Why are you ignoring 9 and lasering in on provider? ”

    Because its one of the few ANYONE can provide and since most men can provide at most 3-4 of those things.

    “1. ECONOMIC CAPACITY
    2. SOCIAL STATUS
    3. AGE
    4. AMBITION AND INDUSTRIOUSNESS
    5. DEPENDABILITY AND STABILITY
    6. INTELLIGENCE
    7. COMPATIBILITY
    8. SIZE AND STRENGTH
    9. GOOD HEALTH
    10. LOVE AND COMMITMENT”

    If this is the list, how is it possible for loving relationships to form?
    I got 1,2, 3(?), 4, 5, 6 and 10. That only took me the better part of 30 years.

    “The ugly truth about female sexuality is that we do have a checklist, and it’s pretty long.”

    Yes, so how do the majority of people form loving relationships?
    Most men are probably gonna top out at 5 on that list if not less unless they really work at it for years. Should they spend that time alone? I can tell you that personally doing that almost lead to the end of my existence. Others have said the same.

    “It’s actually the work-around if looks are not sufficient. I know that sucks, but at least men have a way of compensating. Women don’t.”

    They don’t need to.
    Yah, thats encouraging. “Babe, I really love you you’re just not hot enough to make me tingle”

    Last, no female tingle. Phhh, rofl.

    I tried counting the number I’ve heard, you/that made me so wet but I ran out of digits.

    No tingle, lol.

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

      @Lokland

      The list is what it is. No one said men can only get a partner if they’re 10 for 10. Just as women who are 5s can get a partner if they’re realistic about their SMV and MMV. It’s the same for both sexes.

      This is how we evolved. Don’t shoot the messenger.

      Dude, I can tell you that there is no tingle, which is defined as a sharp, prickling sensation. There is the clit twinge, accompanied by lubricant when arousal occurs, but that doesn’t happen just seeing some dude guarding the red velvet rope. For most women, arousal is a complex process that takes at least a bit of time. It doesn’t happen because a guy is cocky funny.

  • Wudang

    “All of that is found under ‘social status.’ In fact, Game works as a proxy to imply several other traits are present.”

    Is it really? I would presume social status meant all sorts of things like poppularity, being member of a prestigous club, having an upper class background or influencial friends and certainly would not include the ability to flirt and sexually escalate. Even if social status in the sense of being alpha in a group of men is included I highly doubt they have adequately inlcuded the ability to be dominate with her which is in fact a seperate category and absolutely crucial. Almost all research I have come across from eveolutinary biology overlook game factors but look only at muscularity, testosterone levels, income, looks, rank in social hierarchies etc. but rarely even something remotely similar to game which is for the most part just about the ability to be dominant with her. Evopsych authors and evopsych psychologists I have read tend to have an extremely naive view of the degree money creates attraction and just don`t get the personality/game aspect of it to any degree what so ever. So I find it highly dubious that any thing resembling the potential of game has been included, studied and adequately assesed for power in evoloutinary research, especially way back when this work was done. Evoloutinary researchers just don`t get game and its potential at all. Most people don´t either so probably no big surprise.

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

      @Wudang

      I would presume social status meant all sorts of things like poppularity, being member of a prestigous club, having an upper class background or influencial friends and certainly would not include the ability to flirt and sexually escalate.

      You’ve just described the alpha males on every college campus: fraternity guys and athletes. The ability to flirt and escalate are a byproduct of the confidence derived from high social status.

      Almost all research I have come across from eveolutinary biology overlook game factors but look only at muscularity, testosterone levels, income, looks, rank in social hierarchies etc. but rarely even something remotely similar to game which is for the most part just about the ability to be dominant with her.

      Again, you’ve just described the natural alpha. Dominance with her flows naturally from who he is. He is dominant with everyone, including females. I believe that muscularity, T levels and social rank are also correlated to alphaness, or dominance.

  • Lokland

    Note:

    “Better part of 30 years.”

    Not how I meant it. I’m not an old man.

  • Wudang

    And how exactly have they studied and measured game? I`d really like to know.

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

      And how exactly have they studied and measured game? I`d really like to know.

      Who? The evolutionary psychologists? Actually, I only know of a couple who are even aware of it. Mark Regnerus has written about PUAs, I think. And as I mentioned, Tyler Cowen is a prominent economist who has written about Roissy before (not in a positive light).

      Game is based on evo psych, but I don’t think evo psychologists have focused on Game, to my knowledge. I think Game is essentially a form of CBT – a lot of the methods for tackling social anxiety, for example, are very similar to Game.

  • Mike C

    This is where the thread went off the rails:

    I don’t think that is fair. Just for the record, Brendan put up the comment with the detailed alternative take on hypergamy, and I just affirmed that view. You can’t put up a post with the word hypergamy and seriously not expect some comments on how different people perceive that. There is some legitimate disagreement about what exactly that means.

    There’s no need to squabble here – as you say, it’s unproductive.

    Right. Which is why I wanted to make my single comment and point and call it a day, but I had to respond to a comment where you specifically cited me. I don’t want to go back and forth. I’m not going to change your mind, and you are not going to change mind. I’ve leave the tennis volleying to you and Escoffier. :)

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

      @Mike C

      You can’t put up a post with the word hypergamy and seriously not expect some comments on how different people perceive that. There is some legitimate disagreement about what exactly that means.

      OK, but I am so tired of getting bogged down in these discussions. I specifically defined how the term was being used in the press – I can’t just pretend it doesn’t exist when I want to respond to a Marginal Revolution post about it (defining it in the academic context).

      I’m writing about relationships, and I’m surrounded by men telling me women don’t want them, or they don’t want them with the right guys, or the minute they get one they’ll fuck the busboy. I’m tired of the attacks on female nature.

      You may disagree with my views, that’s fine. I think each of us has considered these questions carefully, and come to different conclusions. That’s settled. If you’re right, this blog will have no female audience. Certainly the aggressive peddling of these views by some men here suppresses the female commenters, which is a real concern.

  • Trish

    I wonder if anyone has mentioned that, due to the decline in value of college degrees, the definition of hypergamy is outdated.

    Having a higher education than your husband would have been weird in the 1930s, because only the very rich and the very smart went to college. But getting a college degree today is mostly based on how many loans you’re willing to take out to attend some watered down college courses. With graduate degrees now earning the same status as bachelors 20 years ago, the amount of status you can possibly gain from academia is probably tapering off.

    Not to mention that there is a history of status depreciation in careers as more and more women enter them. Being a school teacher used to be well-respected in the US, but as soon as women started taking over, it became an under appreciated, low-paying, low-status career. I see the same attitudes in medicine and science fields too. As soon as you see a woman in a lab coat, people tend to lose confidence in the importance of her job and her competence to perform in it.

    I think women will likely always be seen as weaker, in any field, and with only a slight regard to her (presumably easy and over priced) education. It’s not that hypergamy is ending. It’s more like society likes to redefine what constitutes high status and sexually appealing.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “The list is what it is.”

    I agree. I just wanted you to realize that it nullifies the point of your blog. The only people that can have fulfilling relationships are the male 8/9/10s and whichever women they choose.

    “No one said men can only get a partner if they’re 10 for 10.”

    Wasn’t my point. Its obviously not necessary to get a perfect score. I’m debating two things:
    i) that these things are not evenly weighted (alpha traits > beta traits by a lot)
    ii) the number required is beyond the reach of a majority of men
    Which leads to lots of unhappy single men and women.

    “Just as women who are 5s can get a partner if they’re realistic about their SMV and MMV. ”

    Yeah, thats why they’re all swimming in relationships all through college. (Note: Where I work everyone and their dog is in a relationship by the end of uni. And we drink too much here, just sayin.)

    As for hypergamy, its about status. Not socioeconomic status. Other primates don’t have money but the lady chimps are still hypergamous. Therefore hypergamy is just higher status not higher SES.

    What you need to realize then is that what is considered high status is malleable and entirely dependent on culture.

    For chimps, in a year when bannanas are low the dude with a bannana tree is high status. When theres a lion running around the dude who goes and kills it is high status.

    Status is dependent on need/rarity.

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

      Other primates don’t have money but the lady chimps are still hypergamous.

      Some beta primates get laid just as much as alpha, when he’s not looking. Other primates behave differently. Human behave more differently still.

      The only people that can have fulfilling relationships are the male 8/9/10s and whichever women they choose.

      That is absolutely not what I am saying. I don’t even understand where you’re getting that. I agree that alpha traits outweigh beta traits early on, then beta traits become paramount for long-term relationships. A female long-term mating strategy is not executed in one meeting. It involves a period of courtship, dating – whatever. I don’t think a woman falls in love with a man who has no beta traits, since love is itself a beta trait.

      I don’t think the expectations are beyond the reach of most men. I do agree that the SMP today reflects a short-term mindset, for all males and females, regardless of how much action they’re seeing. That makes things very difficult for the majority. I’ve often said that I’m writing for the 80% of both men and women who aren’t getting what they want. That’s the point of the blog – most people aren’t in relationships. Many of the relationships I do hear about are like Emileigh described – cheating, no love – basically a glorified booty call or dressed up FWB.

  • Rum

    Nothing in the last 10, million years has put wiring into the female mate-ing mind that would raise any concern about whether her kids are really hers or not.
    Saying that strong alpha is only relevant when a woman is “just” horny and seeks a one night stand, but for the long, often sexless, nesting process she desires beta is not, how shall I say it, a good advertizement.

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

      @Rum

      Saying that strong alpha is only relevant when a woman is “just” horny and seeks a one night stand, but for the long, often sexless, nesting process she desires beta is not, how shall I say it, a good advertizement.

      That’s the red pill on steroids. I guess that’s a pill squared.

      You’re making the mistake I so often see in these discussions – if the alpha switch is on, the beta switch is off. It doesn’t work that way. It’s a mixing process, and the same studies that show women go for alpha traits during ovulation also specify that women do not go outside their relationships unless their husbands lack alpha traits. That’s the gift of Game – every husband can be alpha to his wife.

  • deti

    “I’m surrounded by men telling me women don’t want [relationships], or they don’t want them with the right guys, or the minute they get one they’ll fuck the busboy”

    LOL

  • Rum

    “aggressive peddling of these views”.
    But Susan, this is just what guys do when they care about something. Maybe it is a blind, dumb expression of brute testosterone overflow; maybe it comes from learning that it works if anything will. Besides, the line where “over the top” begins seems to be set rather differently. For lots of guys, NOTHING is over the top. Especially after most of a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20..

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

      @Rum, @Ted D

      “aggressive peddling of these views”.

      But Susan, this is just what guys do when they care about something.

      We are simply behaving like men.

      We are showing true passion for something.

      We are holding our ground and pushing back on what we feel as continuing pressure.

      Focused on a goal.

      My willingness to entertain this tenor of conversation is compromised when our goals are not compatible.

      Also, please remember that you are in mixed company. Picture this thread as a roundtable with 40 or 50 people present. 75% of the people here are saying nothing, and I’m the only woman participating. Women are starting to pick up their bags and leave the room. And it’s not just women – Megaman has stopped commenting here due to what he calls the extreme negativity of the male commenters here.

      I’m not going to let this happen. There are blogs where you can go be as angry as you want. This isn’t one of them.

  • AndrewV

    @Susan,

    “I’m writing about relationships, and I’m surrounded by men telling me women don’t want them, or they don’t want them with the right guys, or the minute they get one they’ll fuck the busboy. I’m tired of the attacks on female nature”.

    I get the feeling you are a bit fustrated with how this is going. So I take it that the young women you know feel differently, the men feel differently, and no one is really helping the 80% chart a course.

    I am chewing over this post over by Dalrock. He basically is stating (at one point) that this is not our world, among other things, and has some charts up showing our “progress” from the 50s./

    If I understand it correctly, part of the problem is that the societal factors that helped to inform us have gone. You and I are stuck in the past (well I am anyway), because deep down we really do not believe what the current situation is, even if we are being told so by the people who are living in it.

    Anyway, here is the link:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/rules-of-the-road-for-fornication/

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

      @Andrew V

      Dalrock’s post is well done, but I differ with him on a few points:

      1. He considers LTRs a preferred form of female promiscuity, i.e. the college boyfriend script. To Dalrock n>1 = slut.

      2. He appears to assume that most women are actively participating in hookup culture. In fact, the stats appear to demonstrate that most women graduate from college with <2 partners. I realize that’s unacceptable to Dalrock, and I don’t agree. I do not consider those women promiscuous.
      The number of women “riding the carousel” is actually pretty small.

      On the other hand, I’m very pleased to see him call Fly Fresh and Young an immoral boy whom women should avoid.

  • AndrewV

    @Susan,

    Bah! Apologies. Just a sec, I am going to show my Gran how to suck eggs while I am on roll.

  • Ted D

    ““aggressive peddling of these views”

    We are simply behaving like men.

    We are showing true passion for something.

    We are holding our ground and pushing back on what we feel as continuing pressure.

    Focused on a goal.

    The thing is, what I saw when I read this post was the beginning of the end for marriage. You are saying that you want to discuss long term mating strategy and you are frustrated that the guys keep switching to short term, and you speculate it’s because some of us want to be gamers? Susan, we are already resolved in the knowledge that long term mating as we knew it is probably dead. The push back you are getting from us is our way of saying we don’t see this working. You are trying to talk women into relationships with men they don’t want. If these “beta” men are no longer necessary as a provider, and they have a serious lack of “alpha” traits to trigger attraction, what exactly will you advise these young woman to look for and bond to? What will they find attractive enough if these men have low financial means, low/no social dominance, low confidence due to the first two deficiencies?

    This is a very bleak picture. Making money was the one thing just about any guy could manage if he had half a brain and a good work ethic. If that is completely taken away, there will be a lot of men with absolutely nothing to offer a woman she would want.

  • Ken_Galbraith

    When I grow up, I’m gonna be the 1%.

    That’s surely enough to get a good woman… is it?

  • SayWhaat

    You’ve just described the alpha males on every college campus: fraternity guys and athletes.

    Not at NYU. If you’re an athlete or a frat boy at NYU you’re almost a guaranteed laughingstock. :P

  • SayWhaat

    When I grow up, I’m gonna be the 1%.

    That’s surely enough to get a good woman… is it?

    ….

    ……

    No, don’t bother SayWhaat, it’s midnight and you need to go to bed.

    -__-

  • Rum

    tie them tto sm their withers. two by two
    Keep yourself safe from their kicking; there is sr\tuff you gatta prtect.

  • Lokland

    @Ted

    Ty thats what I was trying to say.

    The end of hypergamy, no.
    End of beta men having any relationships, yes.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    This is all directly relevant to the original topic of this post. Higher female earnings and achievement mean that women need these nesting traits from men less than ever.

    They may need them less, but if our brains haven’t changed in 100,000 years, they’ll still want them just as much.

    I think the relevant follow-up question, especially in relation to the OP, is that need based on absolute or relative nesting traits? That is where I think hypergamy might be entering the picutre.

    If women’s instinctual sizing up of men on nesting traits is relative then women who make more than men will instinctually reject more and more men and not mate. If it is relative I think both the quoted authors in the OP and the posters arguing for the rise of the boytoy are both missing the boat.

    If there is a genetic component to women who are career oriented and nesting evaluation is relative we may find in 3-5 generations that generic careerism component is a dead end.

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

      @herb

      If women’s instinctual sizing up of men on nesting traits is relative then women who make more than men will instinctually reject more and more men and not mate. If it is relative I think both the quoted authors in the OP and the posters arguing for the rise of the boytoy are both missing the boat.

      Thank you! That is the point of the post!

      I think the sizing up of men is relative, and I predict that women will have a harder time finding mates that meet their criteria, which increase with their own achievements.

      The studies linked to by Tyler Cowen look at educational hypergamy as a proxy for “success.” The sample size for the U.S. was over 63,000, and they compared education levels for both married and unmarried couples. According to them, when there is a gender education gap favoring females (which is what we have today) female hypergamy declines. Women adapt and marry or mate with men who have equal education, or less. This doesn’t surprise me – a generation ago, many women opted not to go to college or dropped out in order to marry. Among the college educated today, I believe a very high percentage of couples have the same level of education, and many share equal professional status. A gap in the latter widens when and if women step off the fast track to parent.

      However, now we’re straining even that dynamic, producing a generation of young people where many more women than men are earning college degrees, and 40% of households have a female as the primary breadwinner.

      How flexible is female hypergamy? How far will women go in their willingness to adapt? 75% of Gen Y females are certain they want marriage and children (that’s for all levels of education).

      This is all up for debate and conjecture. Whatever happens, we will continue to witness unintended and surprising consequences, IME.

  • Herb

    @Anacaona

    I wanted to cosign your take on how women end up being the way they are. They don’t have incentives to learn that a man will have sex with almost any willing woman but that doesn’t mean he will commit to her. Is PC to say that out loud so they don’t know it till the wall hits and is too late.

    I was thinking about that post last night and I think we’re placing too much emphasis on sex qua sex. I think women get male attention, and above their paygrade so to speak, much easier than me. I’m not sure they even need to have sex more than once or twice for the lack of the fail lesson to occur (because we do need to track with the numbers on frequency of sex).

    The problem is by the time she’s had those one or two partners and still not gotten the fail lesson (men learn it on approach failure after what, fifty or sixty times) she still doesn’t actively engage the men in her paygrade.

    I think that’s the key problem nowdays. Women are still mostly passive engagers. By the time women have learned the lesson to punch their own weight in who to reject and who not to the men at that level have seen those women reject them in favor of the higher status men. They’ve seen them have sex with the higher status men even if only once per woman they see it over the group. So these men have learned the fail lesson with respect to these women long before the women are open to them.

    So, to all the HUS girls, if you want a boyfriend the reality of the modern market is you have to take the approach risk as much as men. Even if you aren’t alphaing up sexually or even merely attention wise your sisters have trained the men you want that approaching is useless. You need to be active seekers of men, not passive.

    and wait till Ozy reads what you say about Poly people she will get her iron clad spiky panties in a poly bunch.

    A lot of poly people needed bunched panties because a lot of people who claim to be poly are just swingers using the name for cover.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    I’m tired of the attacks on female nature.

    Is it on female nature or female actions? The actions of women in the SMP piss me off but I don’t assume there is a direct line from their nature to those actions and thus blame the nature for two reasons:

    1. It would indicate the nature of women in the Western world radically changed in the past 40-60 years.

    2. We are thinking beings. One of the evolutionary advantages of intelligence is the ability to override instinct to make situational specific choices which increases adaptability.

    I’m much more interested in what we are teaching both men and women across the entire spectrum of teaching. Today includes a huge amount of mass media indoctrination which I think both you and the PUA types don’t address enough, as I’ll get to below.

    I don’t think the expectations are beyond the reach of most men. I do agree that the SMP today reflects a short-term mindset, for all males and females, regardless of how much action they’re seeing. That makes things very difficult for the majority. I’ve often said that I’m writing for the 80% of both men and women who aren’t getting what they want. That’s the point of the blog – most people aren’t in relationships. Many of the relationships I do hear about are like Emileigh described – cheating, no love – basically a glorified booty call or dressed up FWB.

    Well, what does mass media portray relationships as? In a culture where more and more children experience being the child of a single parent, often as part of a divorce, the parents aren’t modeling a relationship as more than dressed up FWB. Mass media has replaced the extended family, and arguably the neighborhood (village if you want) as a model, and that is what mass media portrays relationships as.

    Long before we’re really ready to enter the SMP our social modeling has taught us short term strategy. I know that via late 70s TV, which was tame compared to the modern era, I “learned” that cool singles had ONS 3-4 times a week instead of dating. It hadn’t really penetrated music that much, with the only example that really jumps out being Escape (the pina colate song).

    That was 40 years ago. What are people 10-15 learning from TV and music today? What did people 18-22 learn? How many of them had the benefit of married parents like we did?

    As for the SMP not working for 80% I am really liking my mismatched lesson theory…that men are still learning to punch their weight early (if not earlier) but the lack of traditional channels for teaching women combined with women still being largely passive (ie, waiting for men to approach) means women learn later than the traditionally did. So, by the time most women are ready to punch their weight men have learned either that their weight isn’t even punchable or are learning their weight is much lower than it is leading them to reject the women they can get (because, perhaps, on some instinctual level they realize they should be doing better?).

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ted,

    The thing is, what I saw when I read this post was the beginning of the end for marriage. You are saying that you want to discuss long term mating strategy and you are frustrated that the guys keep switching to short term, and you speculate it’s because some of us want to be gamers? Susan, we are already resolved in the knowledge that long term mating as we knew it is probably dead. The push back you are getting from us is our way of saying we don’t see this working. You are trying to talk women into relationships with men they don’t want. If these “beta” men are no longer necessary as a provider, and they have a serious lack of “alpha” traits to trigger attraction, what exactly will you advise these young woman to look for and bond to? What will they find attractive enough if these men have low financial means, low/no social dominance, low confidence due to the first two deficiencies?

    There’s this feeling among the men that the only thing “desirable” to a woman about “beta” traits is that they signal a willingness on a man’s part to “provide.” And there’s a corresponding concern on their part due to the fact that they think that most men cannot evince the requisite amount of “alpha” in order to sustain attraction.

    I think both points of contention are unfounded.

    1. Women (most women, anyway) are attracted to a mix of alpha and beta traits. And, as I think we’ve come to realize in this thread, individual personality traits are usually a mix of alpha and beta. Or, at the very least, have the potential to be used aggressively or empathetically, as a competitive tool or a cooperative tool.

    What’s more, depending on context, a specific trait can be seen as alpha or beta. Any dingbat with size and strength can be a bouncer at a club. For people who frequent these clubs often, for people who see “club life” as central to their identities, the traits that make a bouncer effective may be sexy.

    But put a bouncer in a lecture hall, and he suddenly doesn’t seem so alpha. The brainy guy rules the roost there. Size and strength is not going to help a man in college. And if you take a woman who identifies as an academic and place her in a club, then chances are her immediate environment is not going to make her see the meat head at the door as “sexy.” Her “autocosm” (the world as she interprets it from her particular vantage point) doesn’t register muscle as a tool for success.

    This works in our favor. Ted the expert IT guy isn’t going to own the club, but he may own the office. Mike the finance guy isn’t going to clean up at a poetry reading, but he may with women who work in and around Wall St. He’ll also clean up at the gym since the dude works out.

    So there’s that. Alpha and Beta, while perhaps real, are very contextual. There’s also the fact that women actually do want some beta traits. Women whose hindbrains attracted them to beta dudes faired better–and their offspring faired better–than women whose hindbrains attracted them to “pure” alphas. The idea that women only want beta traits when they’re thinking sensibly is silly. Women on the Savanna weren’t thinking sensibly: they were acting on the dictates of their bodies.

    As far as the topic of this post (the notion of women and men exchanging relationship roles): I don’t think it needs to be so depressing. Most women I know want children and don’t want to leave the care of those kids to men. There may be a small minority of women who become execs, but the majority won’t be following suit. And men can (and should) indulge their own hypogamous nature and find women on an equal or lesser footing status-wise.

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

      @Jesus

      A thousand thanks for your take on the alpha/beta dichotomy. It matches my own understanding of female sexuality, something I’ve been living for decades and studying for about five years.

      Women whose hindbrains attracted them to beta dudes faired better–and their offspring faired better–than women whose hindbrains attracted them to “pure” alphas.

      This is Greg’s argument and it is totally valid. In fact, I don’t see how anyone could argue differently. Women evolved not to settle for some beta traits, but to prefer them and select for them. They’re not the only desirable traits, but they must be present for successful mating. That preference is not manifested in a cerebral cortex reasoning process. Like all mating preferences, it’s lodged firmly in the female hindbrain.

      It’s not that women are less base because we value character traits. We’ve evolved to select for them because men with beta traits are better for our babies. And that’s what the tingle is – the unconscious signal for making and raising babies.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Forgot #2

    2. Most men can bring the requisite amount of alpha. Some have been shamed into hiding that “alpha” side of themselves (reclaiming that side is part of what inner game is about), but it’s w/i their power to to display enough dominance, aggression, confidence, assertiveness, whatever… to attract a decent amount of women. And not only “attract” them, but “satisfy” them. The idea that women are always going to be searching for some “objective best” is not only incorrect, it’s a bit paranoid.

  • SayWhaat

    But put a bouncer in a lecture hall, and he suddenly doesn’t seem so alpha. The brainy guy rules the roost there. Size and strength is not going to help a man in college. And if you take a woman who identifies as an academic and place her in a club, then chances are her immediate environment is not going to make her see the meat head at the door as “sexy.” Her “autocosm” (the world as she interprets it from her particular vantage point) doesn’t register muscle as a tool for success.

    Yes. To illustrate this point further — I absolutely love going to clubs. I love partying. When I am on a dance-floor, I am in my fucking element. I am at the height of my feminine power.

    But I’ve never viewed bouncers as attractive; they don’t even register with me. They’re simply meatheads that have the mundane task of checking my ID before I can go in and have a blast (no offense to the guys here who were bouncers — I know you aren’t meatheads, lol).

    Of all the guys I’ve dated, only one was comfortable enough to go dancing with me. I’ve long since accepted that the guys I date won’t be comfortable in a club environment. Being able to dance with me isn’t a requirement for being my boyfriend. I can dance by myself, as long as he watches. ;)

  • Just1X

    @JM

    Any explanation for all the bleating of, “where have all the good guys gone?”?

    It’s seen often enough to be beyond a lone cry in the wilderness, rather more like a cultural phenomenum or meme.

    It’s not that I really disagree with what you say, but all the whiny articles seem to suggest that what you say doesn’t completely describe the reality. Women aren’t all that interested in the run of the mill Joe. There appears to be a reality short-fall in your description; it’s missing something, not necessarily broken per se . Which is a shame because what you write is okay by me.

    The divorce stats might suggest that by the time women decide to settle down, the scope to which a long term relationship can succeed seems to be taken a swift knee to the happy sac.

    Now whether you call that hypergamy, decreased ability to bond, EPL fantasy, modern culture, all the good guys (the ones women actually want) HAVE gone (MGTOW / PUA / given up / x-box / already married) or anything else…I have no strong opinion

  • Just1X

    sorry about the spelling error ‘Phenomenon’ and the uk-centric phraseology – just consider it to expand your cultural experience – enjoy

  • Dogsquat

    SayWhaat said:

    “They’re simply meatheads that have the mundane task of checking my ID before I can go in and have a blast (no offense to the guys here who were bouncers — I know you aren’t meatheads, lol).”
    ______________________

    Bless your heart

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “How flexible is female hypergamy? How far will women go in their willingness to adapt? 75% of Gen Y females are certain they want marriage and children (that’s for all levels of education). ”

    Which leaves us with three possibilities;
    1. Hypergamy stretches ndefinetly (not gonna happen)
    2. Hypergamy collapses in upon itself and no longer exists
    3. Hypergamy adapts.

    I (and I think others) are arguing for option 3. The authors argue for two.

    However 2 and 3 can produce the same result but for totally different reasons.
    If money no longer satisfies hypergamy then somethoing else will replace it (or as the authors seem to think, boy toys galore because women don’t need status).
    What will replace high status conferred via money?
    Likely high status conferred via looks only.

    You said game is for when looks aren’t enough. If the current trend continues, game won’t be enough. Therefore looks will be the only thing that matters.
    The same situation women are in but 80% of women are hot, 80% of men are ugly.
    Theres going to be a huge discrepancy there which as I said a few times equals lots of unhappy single people.

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

      @Lokland

      You said game is for when looks aren’t enough.

      That’s not what I meant to say. Game definitely helps guys bump their SMV up a point or two. So it can definitely compensate for looks by adding dominance. However, there are lots of attractive beta guys who do well initially, then lose ground via eagerness, supplication, etc. I’ve known several extremely handsome “nice guys” who attract a ton of girls but can’t keep any. They’re actually perpetually bummed that all they can get is ONSs.

      If the current trend continues, game won’t be enough. Therefore looks will be the only thing that matters.

      Perhaps, but there just aren’t very many Tom Bradys to go around. Will 90% of women opt for remaining single? Will the percentage of women having casual sex increase dramatically as women see it as the means to pregnancy? And what are the long-term consequences of producing offspring from only the most dominant, i.e. high testosterone, men?

  • Just1X

    @Susan

    Sorry if this has already answered / stated elsewhere, but
    “40% of households have a female as the primary breadwinner”

    Is this figure taken from the same study?

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

      @Just1X

      “40% of households have a female as the primary breadwinner”

      Is this figure taken from the same study?

      No, that figure is from the 2009 report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That data is rock solid, but only for the U.S.

  • Just1X

    @Lokland

    “There’s going to be a huge discrepancy there which as I said a few times equals lots of unhappy single people.”

    A lot of MGTOWish advice about doing what makes YOU happy and fulfilled rather than meeting society’s expectations, will also apply to women. Everyone Go Their Own Way – EGTOW

    Depends on how many women decide that kids as a single parent is happiness, and whether society is willing to pay for it. Single moms don’t have an easy time financially as it is – it’s a tough reality for most women.

    Also, society doesn’t seem to work too well with single-moms, the crime and employment stats for the resulting kids do not bode well for society.

    Frustrated hypergamy vs continued civilisation, now there’s a battle worth watching from a lounger (with beer and peanuts)

    As the ever wise Susan says ‘unintended and surprising consequences, IME’

  • Just1X

    “I’m not going to let this happen. There are blogs where you can go be as angry as you want. This isn’t one of them.”

    noted, sorry if I wandered over the line. such an interesting post, provocative

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

      @Just1X

      You have never stepped over the line once here. You are a model of empathic listening and dispassionate debate. I would love to have Just20x’s.

  • Escoffier

    “I’m tired of the attacks on female nature.”

    They’re not attacks; they’re descriptions. And not descriptions of the whole but of a part, the lower part. You seem to take it personally sometimes which you shouldn’t.

    Men have our pecadillos too. I don’t the following is particularly admirable for instance: to be aroused by a pretty face and nice body to the exclusion of intelligence, warmth, character, virtue, decency, etc. It’s actually pretty shallow. In addition, men are wired to want to screw as many pretty women as possible without regard for the consequences to their own souls, to the women, to society or anything else. None of this admirable in the least. In fact, it’s pretty lousy when you compare it all the higher things that men are capable of and that are more worthy of our attention and effort.

    Nothing above however is an attack on male nature. It’s just a description of the baser aspect of male sexual desire.

    As to whether men’s low nature is better or worse than women’s I am not prepared to say. Women are better than us in at least this respect. Men focus on looks above all with everthing else way down on the list. Women factor looks in with a lot of other traits that are more rationally valuable and one might even say admirable. So that’s one for the gals. When it comes to visceral attraction, your hindbrains are less shallow than ours.

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

      @Escoffier

      Ultimately I find that assigning values like “base” or “shallow” to human nature leads to finger pointing and a culture of blame. I’d rather accept sexuality for what it is. I certainly don’t wish to claim the high ground for either sex.

      We evolved. There is no “better” or “best” in that. We’re all products of the process, and the best thing any of us can do is to swallow that reality and go forth armed with that knowledge.

      Where we get into trouble is in specifying that reality in great detail. What you consider a red pill looks to me like a red planet. Ultimately, each individual has to navigate that process on their own. We’ll never see eye to eye on this, which is why I’d just as soon not discuss it. But as I said, there are several Red Planet blogs around, where you can get your views confirmed every day.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Just1x,

    Any explanation for all the bleating of, “where have all the good guys gone?”?

    Well, I’d say they’re just spoiled, entitlement bitches (and I’m sure that’s true of some), but I suspect that a significant portion of them are just the counterpart of some of the men here. Probably, they’ve been burned badly and have trust issues.

    Incidentally, I’d say to avoid pursuing a relationship with a woman who feels the need to ask, “where have all the good guys gone?”

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “He considers LTRs a preferred form of female promiscuity, i.e. the college boyfriend script. To Dalrock n>1 = slut.”

    I think that’s either an overstatement on his part, his tradcon commenters, or an overreading on your part.

    Here’s how I understand what that to mean: if a woman has the serial boyfriend attitude — in the sense that she’s only going to stay until someone better comes along, is mentally open to being courted by another before breaking up, plans it to only be temporary (“summer boyfriend”), or just grows bored after time — then that is pretty equivalent to a man who chooses to have an open rotation, because it’s both what they desire at a base level.

    This is why both my wife and I, when we got together, both put male players and the monkey-bar women on the same level of distaste. They could do what they want, but it wasn’t for us. Sluts (real ones) were also clearly the low self-esteem equivalent of omega guys, and got grouped similarly.

    I really don’t fault women for having relationships that don’t work out in the end, with honest effort.

    I remember my first encounter with this attitude as a kid. A girl in my class wrote on her notebook “Joanna loves X 4-Eva… Until someone better comes along!” I remember thinking how shocking that attitude was. Too bad I was the outlier, not her.

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

      @OTC

      I don’t think most women have the serial boyfriend attitude, at least not consciously. Even the female serial monogamists I know go all in when they’re dating someone, dream of marriage, etc. Every single relationship is super serious with them. When the relationship ends, they tend to look around, audition the men of their acquaintance, and get a new bf within weeks. But then they go all in with him too – despite the fact that they never noticed him before. It’s an interesting process to watch, I’m not sure what to make of it.

      In terms of LTRs – Dalrock is correct that they’re the result of a delayed age at first marriage, but I don’t know what his prescription is. If he would like to see a return to women marrying at 20, he hasn’t suggested how we get back there (to my knowledge, I confess I don’t read his blog).

      I’m more concerned about the people who get well into their 20s without any relationship experience. They’ve either been promiscuous or endured many years of relative chastity. They’re cynical and jaded, and pessimistic about their futures with the opposite sex.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    men are wired to want to screw as many pretty women as possible without regard for the consequences to their own souls, to the women, to society or anything else.

    Idk that this describes me. I’m quite satisfied with screwing one pretty woman as many times as possible. And not just satisfied–I’m absolutely thrilled with the prospect of it.

    All this stuff is just far too simplistic.

  • Escoffier

    “I think that’s either an overstatement on his part, his tradcon commenters, or an overreading on your part.”

    I went round after round with him on this point once and while he was reluctant to state baldly that this was his true opinion, he also would not dispute it and, in the end, admitted that this is in fact what he believes.

  • Sassy6519

    This is Greg’s argument and it is totally valid. In fact, I don’t see how anyone could argue differently. Women evolved not to settle for some beta traits, but to prefer them and select for them. They’re not the only desirable traits, but they must be present for successful mating. That preference is not manifested in a cerebral cortex reasoning process. Like all mating preferences, it’s lodged firmly in the female hindbrain.

    It’s not that women are less base because we value character traits. We’ve evolved to select for them because men with beta traits are better for our babies. And that’s what the tingle is – the unconscious signal for making and raising babies.

    My confusion lies with this.

    Did women in our ancient past select for beta traits because they preferred them over alpha traits, or for different reasons? Did the women choose the beta males because they couldn’t successfully acquire and keep the alpha males around to raise solid families with? My thoughts on the matter resonate with the second statement.

    This is how I feel women classify men, in descending order of what they prefer.

    1. Good Alpha male who picks you (AKA: The Alpha male who treats me well, The Alpha male who changes for me, etc)

    2. Good Beta male.

    3. Bad Alpha male.

    4. Bad Beta male.

    * 2 and 3 are interchangeable, for some women.

    My gut tells me that if women had their way, they would all have an alpha male who picks them specifically and who is genuinely monogamous. I think the reason why women, of the past and present, end up with beta males is because the odds of building a stable life and family with an alpha male are slim to none. True alpha males have little incentive to ever settle down or to be monogamous.

    Also, just because the women selected for beta males does not mean that their desire for alpha males has been eradicated over our evolutionary history. Women did, and still do today, practice various forms of the dual mating strategy. The very same women who pined after or chased the alpha males very well may have ended up in relationships with beta males. If those women successfully reproduced, it meant that the instinctive desire for alpha males was also passed on, whether or not they actually ended up with one.

    It seems rather odd to think that women prefer beta male traits over alpha traits. It seems much more realistic to say that women prefer a mix of alpha and beta traits, but that they would rather have an alpha with a sprinkle of beta than a beta with a sprinkle of alpha.

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

      @Sassy

      Did women in our ancient past select for beta traits because they preferred them over alpha traits, or for different reasons? Did the women choose the beta males because they couldn’t successfully acquire and keep the alpha males around to raise solid families with? My thoughts on the matter resonate with the second statement.

      What scientists know (or think they know) is that pair-bonding evolved 1.5 million years ago. From that point on, the remains of males who reproduced became smaller and less symmetrical. So women’s preferences – for having sex – changed. Whether they discussed this over coffee and urged one another to settle is anyone’s guess. We just know that the physical attributes of reproducing males changed around that time.

      The Dark Triad traits are thought to have evolved to accomodate men who were not suitable for pair-bonding (too alpha). Their traits were effective enough, apparently, in getting some women to engage in short-term sex that they survived in the population.

      It is important to remember that men were evolving as well – to prefer pair-bonding as a means of getting the most desirable women as mates in exchange for commitment and resources.

      My gut tells me that if women had their way, they would all have an alpha male who picks them specifically and who is genuinely monogamous.

      LOL, your gut? I think we need a more rigorous standard, as your own gut is part and parcel of you the individual, with your unique genetic traits and predispositions.

      In any case, a look at female fantasy, i.e. romance novels, reveals the ideal from the female perspective. He’s the alpha outside, beta inside. A strong, imposing, high testosterone male who is rendered a sensitive boy child by his undying love and devotion to one and only one woman.

      Yesterday Brendan mentioned 50 Shades of Grey, a mega hit book that grew out of Twilight fan fiction. He cited it as evidence of hardwired female hypergamy, but in reading a synopsis of it, it’s a psychopathically dominant male (based on Edward Cullen) who is transformed to a loving and gentle creature by a woman (based on Bella). The real female fantasy is that transition from pure alpha to alpha/beta mix.

      I just bought the book on Kindle, and plan to go read it now. I’ll write a review early next week. It’s quite the cultural phenom.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “This is Greg’s argument and it is totally valid. In fact, I don’t see how anyone could argue differently. Women evolved not to settle for some beta traits, but to prefer them and select for them. They’re not the only desirable traits, but they must be present for successful mating.”

    Evolutions pretty simple.

    Ask yourself whats the most effective strategy, examine the real world.

    If its the same you were right, if not then your either wrong or theres a tradeoff going on.

    In this case there is a better strategy straight from the get-go which is cuckolding.

    Its not necessarily good or bad but not acknowledging it doesn’t make it go away. For early women cuckolding was the most effective strategy not an alpha-beta mix.

    cuckold > alpha-beta > alpha > beta.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    A thousand thanks for your take on the alpha/beta dichotomy. It matches my own understanding of female sexuality, something I’ve been living for decades and studying for about five years.

    No problem. I don’t get what’s so difficult about all this, personally.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Did the women choose the beta males because they couldn’t successfully acquire and keep the alpha males around to raise solid families with? My thoughts on the matter resonate with the second statement.

    I’d say that this is your personal dilemma. And it’s also why you’re having difficulty finding a satisfying relationship.

  • Lokland

    @ Susan

    Its actually funny but you apex fallacied yourself in the same blurb.

    “However, there are lots of attractive beta guys who do well initially, then lose ground via eagerness, supplication, etc. I’ve known several extremely handsome “nice guys” who attract a ton of girls but can’t keep any.”

    “Perhaps, but there just aren’t very many Tom Bradys to go around.”

    You know lots of nice-handsome beta guys even though there aren’t enough of them to go around. Since a MAJORITY of men are ugly I don’t know how you know a large portion of attractive beta males.

    Anyway as I’ve said before. Most women won’t get monogamy and attractive male its simply not numerically possible.

    So, how does the girl date the ugly guy, where if shes an 8 or below, is what she will have to do?

    “Will 90% of women opt for remaining single? Will the percentage of women having casual sex increase dramatically as women see it as the means to pregnancy? And what are the long-term consequences of producing offspring from only the most dominant, i.e. high testosterone, men?”

    Well currently 80% are opting out entirely. My guess would be that this won’t change.

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

      @Lokland

      You misunderstood me.

      “Perhaps, but there just aren’t very many Tom Bradys to go around.”

      You know lots of nice-handsome beta guys even though there aren’t enough of them to go around. Since a MAJORITY of men are ugly I don’t know how you know a large portion of attractive beta males.

      I don’t agree that a majority of men are ugly. Not at all. I’d say that I see a handful of ugly people each day, of both sexes. I don’t think men are any uglier than women. Maybe I have a wider range than most women re what is attractive, IDK. So when I say I know handsome beta males, maybe other women would disagree. They all do OK though – they’re not incel. In fact, most of them opt to stay single and get sex occasionally from new women and hang out with their buddies rather than get into relationships. I’ve seen several of them cut girls off when things started getting relationshippy.

      The answer to the dilemma is a return to assortative mating. 10s marry 10s, 6s marry 6s and 3s marry 3s. That’s what used to happen, and still does in marriage, for the most part.

      How we’re going to get there? I have no idea. But the world must be peopled!

  • Sassy6519

    @ Jesus Mahoney

    I’d say that this is your personal dilemma. And it’s also why you’re having difficulty finding a satisfying relationship.

    Perhaps. It’s not that I can’t keep an alpha male. I’m just too picky for my own good. I’ve thrown a few alpha males back into the dating sea. If there were a time to test my luck in the dating world, it would be now before I’m too old to make a dent in anything.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Lokland,

    Cuckolding had to have been risky business. I don’t see that as being the “best bet” from an evolutionary stand-point. What would have happened when the cuckolded man discovered the deceit, for example?

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

      What would have happened when the cuckolded man discovered the deceit, for example?

      He killed his rival. Jealousy is believed to have evolved as an emotion to reduce cuckoldry, and therefore homicide.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    Let me rephrase my critque about your mission:

    You want women to be able to all have an awesome, attractive, alpha-beta boyfriend they can marry and make lots of babies with etc.

    I simply want to point out that its impossible because MOST men are not attractive. They can be awesome, alpha-beta mixes but most women cannot have an attractive boyfriend simply because of numbers.

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

      @Lokland

      I simply want to point out that its impossible because MOST men are not attractive.

      FWIW, I think you’re too hard on your own sex (or yourself, not sure which). And I know you’re too hard on yourself re height. Size and strength is just one of the traits on that list, and it’s not the most important one. I think anything under 5’7″ is a real challenge for guys, but personality compensates a heck of a lot. Danny from 504 is 5’4″ and he’s more successful getting laid that most other Game bloggers. No lie.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    I simply want to point out that its impossible because MOST men are not attractive.

    There are just as many ugly women as there are ugly men. I don’t think Sue is trying to encourage female 4′s to shoot for male 9′s.

  • Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    “In fact, I don’t see how anyone could argue differently. Women evolved not to settle for some beta traits, but to prefer them and select for them. They’re not the only desirable traits, but they must be present for successful mating. That preference is not manifested in a cerebral cortex reasoning process. Like all mating preferences, it’s lodged firmly in the female hindbrain. ”
    _____________________________

    Here’s where I sit:

    My girlfriend makes way more money than I do (waaaayyyy more money), and is much more educated than I am. She’s objectively better looking than I am, too.

    Poor benighted creature does my laundry sometimes.

    The greater part of what you’re saying has to be true, or she’d never have bothered to learn my name.

    Where I stand:

    I don’t think the dynamic you’re explaining so accurately is going to exist for very much longer. I think it’s semi-crumbled now.

    Economics and/or politics is removing the pressure that makes desiring beta traits a more successful strategy. Single motherhood is the norm by far in some cultures, enabled by social programs. As more goods and services become provided by the government, the man as nest-provider becomes less important.

    There’s also the endless bleating of “you go, Gurl!” emanating from the peanut gallery as balm for any twinge of reproach experienced by women who aren’t attracted primarily to beta traits.

    This means a wider variety of sexual/reproductive strategies available to women. This might change the distribution of women who pursue each strategy, as some penalties for one strategy have been lessened.

    For a corollary in microbiology, look at staph aureus:

    There’s just as much staph as there’s always been. Some is good ol’ regular staph aureus – simple, robust, durable. In the past, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA, flesh-eating bugaboo!) has been burdened by slightly goofy metabolic machinery that left it less robust – out-competed by good ol’ staph at every turn.

    Enter penicillin. The pressures in the environment changed.

    Now, the machinery that handicapped MRSA is beneficial. The population of microbeasties is basically the same as always. What has changed is the “winning” strategy.

    Now, good ol’ dependable staph can’t compete. It’s still the same honest bug it’s always been, but that ain’t enough these days. In the meantime, the cousin staph thought of as a retarded mutant has revealed itself as a savant.

    The bugs are the same as they’ve always been. The population of bugs as a whole is the same, steady at Whatever The Environment Will Bear. What’s changed is the ratio of staph-to-MRSA, with MRSA getting a bigger piece of the pie every day.

    The women who’ve liked beta traits have always been around. So have the alpha carousel girls. Only thing is – now, the alpha girls aren’t being shunned from the tribe, or rendered unmarriageable by social mores. Uncle Sam, feminism, the media, and whatever else are the antibiotics that have given succor to the primarily alpha-attracted women.

    As I said, individual women are the same as they always were – good, bad, or indifferent. What’s changing is the environment, and subsequently the ratio of success for differing strategy.

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

      @Dogsquat

      As I said, individual women are the same as they always were – good, bad, or indifferent. What’s changing is the environment, and subsequently the ratio of success for differing strategy.

      I do agree with this. Yesterday Escoffier talked about the way people raise their daughters, and of course that is a huge factor. I can assure you no daughter of mine would hump a tree or flash her boobs for a GGW crew. Furthermore, environment can alter DNA – so the interaction of nature and nurture is a whole new frontier that we’ll be learning a lot more about, if people like you and your gf study it for us.

      It’s also undeniable that when female sexuality was unleashed, they began to engage in a much greater amount of casual sex, duh. And they still do. Furthermore, we champion those women, to the point where virgins are more embarrassed than sluts are. There is a great deal of slut-encouraging (opposite of slut-shaming) done by women to women.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Lokland,

    The idea is “relative” attractiveness. Assortative mating.

  • Lokland

    @JM

    Your right.

    Let me re-arrange.

    alpha-beta > cuckold > alpha > beta.

    Alpha-beta would have been best cause good genes + child care.

    Alpha sucks because kids die because he doesn’t provide. Beta sucks because kids can’t have their own kids.
    Therefore if alpha-beta is unattainable cuckolding would have been the next best option.

    As for the risk involved, I’m sure she could have found a nice lil shady patch on the Savannah while hubby was out hunting or something.
    It occurs regularly in birds (~40-60%) depending on species. All that happens is hubby kicks the eggs out of the nest and they restart.

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

      @Lokland

      Alpha-beta would have been best cause good genes + child care.

      Alpha sucks because kids die because he doesn’t provide. Beta sucks because kids can’t have their own kids.

      Yes! I think we’re on the same page! (I’m going to enjoy it while it lasts.)

  • Kirk

    “It’s not that women are less base because we value character traits. We’ve evolved to select for them because men with beta traits are better for our babies. And that’s what the tingle is – the unconscious signal for making and raising babies.”

    @Susan
    Again, we need to distinguish intellectual attraction from physical attraction. A woman can appreciate traits like dominance and honesty in a man, but unless he is a bonafide stud, he isn’t going to physically arouse her. Physical appearance generates attraction while personality traits serve to amplify it. I have a hard time believing that women have fantasies about average joes dominating them or providing for them.

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

      @Kirk

      A woman can appreciate traits like dominance and honesty in a man, but unless he is a bonafide stud, he isn’t going to physically arouse her.

      That’s nonsense! I don’t think my husband has ever been described in his life as a bonafide stud, but he’s the man who has aroused me the most. This is a pretty red lie told to men.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    All that happens is hubby kicks the eggs out of the nest and they restart.

    Right. Dead eggs, dead babies: no offspring.

    And betas can’t have their own kids? Why not?

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Lokland,

    And if alpha/beta has been the evolutionary ideal, then it would follow that most of us are the mix that women have been wired to desire.

  • Lokland

    @JM

    They either die because they cannot attain resources or they are unable to find a partner that will reproduce with them.

    This does agree witht he 40% of men have had children figure.

    If you really want to get down to alpha vs. beta in sexual terms. Alpha is whoever had the most kids, which also happened to be the chief of the tribe.

    So for example, my great-grandfather had 16 kids, 40 something grandkids and like 200 greatgrandkids or some nonsense such as that. Some of them are not related to him due to cuckolding but he is still one hell of an alpha in reproductive terms.

    Then theres Ghengic Khan who had >1000 kids. Alpha of the universe.

  • Escoffier

    “Ultimately I find that assigning values like ‘base’ or ‘shallow’ to human nature leads to finger pointing and a culture of blame.”

    I don’t see why. It’s just reality. Violence, acquisitiveness, selfishness etc are all part of the package, like bad weather is to geography. We should blame people not for having low impulses but for failing to control them.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “The real female fantasy is that transition from pure alpha to alpha/beta mix.”

    Still not possible. Beta > alpha proportion wise.
    Most women can’t have their fantasy unless they want to share.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    “The real female fantasy is that transition from pure alpha to alpha/beta mix.”

    Still not possible. Beta > alpha proportion wise.
    Most women can’t have their fantasy unless they want to share.

    That I do agree with.

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

      Most women can’t have their fantasy unless they want to share.

      That I do agree with.

      Me too, but there’s another reason women can’t have it. Because the most alpha men never (or at least rarely) transform into loving partners. They cheat, they have trouble at work, they get in fights, they have poor impulse control. The men in romance novels are entirely fictitious creations. There’s a reason many of these novels are set in bygone eras – men had restraints on their behavior in polite society. One might actually encounter a Mr. Darcy. Today Mr. Darcy would be a total asshole, and no woman’s love would get him to see the error of his ways, i.e. pride.

  • Sassy6519

    In any case, a look at female fantasy, i.e. romance novels, reveals the ideal from the female perspective. He’s the alpha outside, beta inside. A strong, imposing, high testosterone male who is rendered a sensitive boy child by his undying love and devotion to one and only one woman.

    The real female fantasy is that transition from pure alpha to alpha/beta mix.

    So, in summation, you are in agreement with me?

    Everything you wrote echoes what I wrote in post #350.

  • Lokland

    @JM

    Ahhh, your lack of understanding of evolution shows entirely and completely.

    “And if alpha/beta has been the evolutionary ideal, then it would follow that most of us are the mix that women have been wired to desire.”

    The Red Queen.

    We almost run to stay in the same place. The evolutionary arms race.

    Women are not attracted to the alpha-beta mix they are attracted to the BEST alpha-beta mix. What was suitable one generation ago will be inadequate next time around. Staying the same is not good enough, you must get better.

  • Dogsquat

    Some of you folks are oversimplifying evolution.

    When looked at as a population, it is not instantaneous. It is a shifting of ratios between organisms that have a trait and those that do not. Beneficial traits/behaviors/culture (anthro definition) will edge out non-beneficial. Sometimes it’s fast, sometimes to extinction, and sometimes the non-beneficial never disappears.

    Beneficial and non-beneficial often exist concurrently.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    He killed his rival. Jealousy is believed to have evolved as an emotion to reduce cuckoldry, and therefore homicide.

    Right, that’s my point. And perhaps the baby as well.

  • Rum

    I try to act here as if I were in Susans kitchen, at her house, among her friends. OTOH, I have a very low tolerance for boredom.
    I cannot remember how many times I have heard well meaning people explain that the “reason” that slightly more male babies are born than females is that male babies have a slightly higher death rate. As if god or Darwin intended for monogamy to happen and so adjusted things accordingly. The Truth is that the standard issue gamete-production-module common to all mammals spits out roughly 50-50 male/female more or less on the solid, default basis of randomness. Afterwards, a few males get lucky but most die celibate, depending on the species. This Truth makes some people uneasy so they lie about it – mostly to themselves.
    We are told that human females are sexually attracted to guys who look like they will be good providers because females need provision and safety, etc. to make lots of good babies. It is a feel good explanation that (for once) uses Darwinism to paint a pretty picture of base human (actually, just female) nature. It tells men that becoming virtuous will make hot women want to fuck you.
    Brilliant. For parents and society.
    IMHO, it is no more truthful than the notion that nature intends a girl for every boy. I do not believe that there have been nearly enough generations of female neediness and dependency to undo the ancient wiring that connects male dominance with gina tingles; and with only weak to no instinctive concerns about whether the lucky guy will stick around afterwards. In 99.99% of nature, apes included, dads are un-needed.
    Thinking out loud about the implications of this will make things interesting around the gender dialogue table.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    taying the same is not good enough, you must get better.

    No, I get that. But it’s evolution, not revolution… These things occur slowly, over time. I think most people can keep up.

  • SayWhaat

    And it’s not just women – Megaman has stopped commenting here due to what he calls the extreme negativity of the male commenters here.

    I was wondering where he went! :(

    Dear Megaman…if you’re reading, please come back. We need you here!

  • Dogsquat

    JM, you oughta pick up a copy of Sperm Wars by Robin Baker if you haven’t already.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Dogsquat,

    I was going to pick that up over the summer, but then I figured I get most of the relevant info on sex and relationships here at HUS. What am I missing in it, anything good?

  • Sassy6519

    Overall, my point is that I think it’s important for men to get this information. Women are complex creatures. I’d rather give them pertinent information to work with than to continually lead them astray.

    The ultimate female fantasy, as both Susan Walsh and I have mentioned, is to have an alpha male soften for us. Ideally, women would like an alpha male with a sprinkle of beta.

    The problem this creates is that the amount of natural born alphas, or men who have received social and sexual proof without much effort, is low. There aren’t that many to go around to satisfy the multitude of women who desire them.

    This leaves the beta males frustrated when they are practically ignored for large spans of time. This also leaves women frustrated when what they instinctively desire seems impossible to get or not worth the effort.

    What is the solution to this conundrum? I really have no idea, at this point.

  • Dogsquat

    @JM,

    Yes, it’s a dispassionate look at a bunch of different mating strategies. It delves into a lot of the topics we discuss in the comment threads.

    It’s quite helpful in categorizing and depersonalizing mating strategies. Makes it easier to view humans as primates with goofy thumbs – sometimes helpful in the quest for truth, that is.

    Some parts will probably be hard for you to read – I certainly experienced that. Worth it, though.

  • SayWhaat

    Ideally, women would like an alpha male with a sprinkle of beta.

    Speak for yourself. I like my beta man with a sprinkle of alpha.

  • SayWhaat

    Furthermore, we champion those women, to the point where virgins are more embarrassed than sluts are. There is a great deal of slut-encouraging (opposite of slut-shaming) done by women to women.

    There was a thread on Reddit about virgin-shaming. There was one female commenter who had lost her virginity at the age of 10 (she had been fooling around with a friend without realizing what they were doing). She was so embarrassed to have lost her virginity at that young age that she kept it a secret to herself. People assumed she was a prude and her friends were exasperated with her for not having immediate sex with her boyfriend. She said that only her virgin friends were understanding and non-judgmental. Her situation allowed her to see both sides of slut-shaming and virgin-shaming, and she said that in her opinion, the virgin-shaming was definitively worse.

  • Dogsquat

    Furthermore, environment can alter DNA – so the interaction of nature and nurture is a whole new frontier that we’ll be learning a lot more about, if people like you and your gf study it for us.
    _________________________

    Maybe her – I’m not that smart.

    I like car crashes, CHF, and shootings.

    Me plug hole in ur chest. Me put in da toob so u can breave. Other guy, me put in da Lasix to da IV and make ‘um kidney work more gooder.

  • Just1X

    @JM

    “Well, I’d say they’re just spoiled, entitlement bitches (and I’m sure that’s true of some), but I suspect that a significant portion of them are just the counterpart of some of the men here. Probably, they’ve been burned badly and have trust issues.”

    Well…I understand that this can happen. {insert emoticon}

  • Sassy6519

    @ SayWhaat

    So you consider your boyfriend a beta male?

    Ask how many men here would like to be seen as a beta male in the eyes of their women. My guess is that it wouldn’t be a lot.

    Perhaps your boyfriend is actually alpha enough for you. Perhaps you have a lower threshold for how much alpha is needed for you to feel attraction for him.

    Good for you. I mean that sincerely. My thoughts go out to the men, however, who haven’t had the luxury of meeting a woman like you or who are trying to dial up the alpha to be seen as attractive to the majority of women.

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

      @Sassy

      Ask how many men here would like to be seen as a beta male in the eyes of their women. My guess is that it wouldn’t be a lot.

      That’s because beta is a bad word in the manosphere. It’s about male intrasexual shame.

      There is a wide range of alpha/beta ratio that individual women want. Personality traits play a large role, along with formative experiences in adolescence, mental health/self-esteem, and a woman’s own genetic hormonal makeup. I also suspect that a woman’s father plays a role, not just genetically, but also as her primary model of male behavior. I’ve seen considerable evidence for the first three – the last is just a theory.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    My thoughts go out to the men, however, who haven’t had the luxury of meeting a woman like you or who are trying to dial up the alpha to be seen as attractive to the majority of women.

    That’s ironic, since your perspective on what constitutes an ideal mate actually invalidates most of the guys here far more than any other woman’s. Not to say that you shouldn’t voice your opinion or that your opinion is bad. It’s yours and you’re entitled to it, of course.

  • Brendan

    Yesterday Brendan mentioned 50 Shades of Grey, a mega hit book that grew out of Twilight fan fiction. He cited it as evidence of hardwired female hypergamy, but in reading a synopsis of it, it’s a psychopathically dominant male (based on Edward Cullen) who is transformed to a loving and gentle creature by a woman (based on Bella). The real female fantasy is that transition from pure alpha to alpha/beta mix.

    In terms of attraction, however, the attraction was to the pure alpha at the outset. I think almost all men understand that the number one fantasy of women is to “flip” an alpha male into being their “personal alpha male”, committed to them only, devoted to them, loving and kind to them and so on. But the *attraction*, initially, is to the alpha. It’s only after that is established that he can “let his hair down” and be an alpha-beta mix. The attraction is still fundamentally hypergamous in nature, and in the case of that book, in a quite exaggerated way (as you correctly note, it’s basically a BDSM/sexed-up version of Stephanie Meyer’s stuff, which itself is basically rehashing of the iconic female romance fantasy).

    So no doubt the ideal for *mating* is an alpha-beta mix — but the initial attraction, without which there isn’t any mate selection at all, is to the alpha traits.

    A woman can appreciate traits like dominance and honesty in a man, but unless he is a bonafide stud, he isn’t going to physically arouse her. Physical appearance generates attraction while personality traits serve to amplify it.

    It sounds intuitive, but there are too many contrary cases of not so good looking men with attractive women for it to be as clear as you are stating it there. And not all of these are women being with the men in *spite* of their lack of attraction to them. One rather easy example is the case of Billy Joel. Joel is average in looks at best, he pretty much looks like a regular guy from Long Island, and he’s aged that way as well. Yet, he was able to attract and marry Christie Brinkley — a woman of her own independent wealth *and* status who was clearly not marrying Joel for his money or his status (she was at the apex herself already in both areas). She could have chosen a ton of other men who are more physically attractive than Billy Joel, but she didn’t. I honestly doubt that she married Joel without being physically turned on by him, either — a woman of her status would have nothing to gain by doing so. So I don’t think it’s always that clear-cut for *all* women. Certainly good looks are tremendously advantageous for a man, but there are nevertheless women who will mate select like Brinkley did, which was clearly not based on looks. Of course, most guys who look like Joel can’t pull that off, because they don’t have the status he does, never mind the access, but nevertheless if there are women who look like Brinkley and yet are not selecting based on male appearance primarily, there are bound to be such women further down the female food chain as well.

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

      @Brendan

      So no doubt the ideal for *mating* is an alpha-beta mix — but the initial attraction, without which there isn’t any mate selection at all, is to the alpha traits.

      I agree with this. In fact, I spent the afternoon reading this book, and you’ve described it correctly. It’s a total piece of crap, by the way. Stephenie Meyer should win the Nobel if this is considered any good.

      Re Billy Joel, there are many more examples just like it. Keith Richards, Eric Clapton, even Ringo, for starters. Looks matter for initial attraction, along with alpha traits. But that’s just first glance or first meeting. That’s why Game is a gift to both men and women – it serves to extend that first meeting regardless of whether a guy is textbook “hot” or not.

      As it happens, Tyler Cowen is not a handsome guy. I enjoyed reading this blog post about how he met his wife:

      How Did Tyler Cowen Land Natasha?

      It turns out that Cowen met his wife, Natasha, a Russian literature scholar turned SEC lawyer, at a party. Cowen is typically a hit at such gatherings. His co-blogger and colleague at George Mason, Alex Tabarrok, said people who meet Cowen at get-togethers often come away finding him interesting for different reasons.

      “If he talks to an economist, that person will say, ‘Tyler had a solid grasp of economics,’” Tabarrok says. “If he talks to someone in the music world, that person will say, ‘Tyler knew a lot about music.’ If he talks to a kid, that kid will say, ‘Tyler knew a lot about Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings.’”

      He knows everything. Natasha knew it.

      That’s quite an endorsement for Inner Game, IMO.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Me too, but there’s another reason women can’t have it. Because the most alpha men never (or at least rarely) transform into loving partners. They cheat, they have trouble at work, they get in fights, they have poor impulse control. The men in romance novels are entirely fictitious creations. There’s a reason many of these novels are set in bygone eras – men had restraints on their behavior in polite society. One might actually encounter a Mr. Darcy. Today Mr. Darcy would be a total asshole, and no woman’s love would get him to see the error of his ways, i.e. pride.

    That’s a dispiriting thought for men who don’t present as “alpha” in the beginning of a relationship.

    Sometimes I think that ignorance of their respective natures allowed men and women to come together.

  • Sassy6519

    That’s ironic, since your perspective on what constitutes an ideal mate actually invalidates most of the guys here far more than any other woman’s. Not to say that you shouldn’t voice your opinion or that your opinion is bad. It’s yours and you’re entitled to it, of course.

    It’s true. It’s probably akin to some men’s reactions to obese women. They feel sad for them, and try to empathize with the pain they are going through, but they still wouldn’t date them when all is said and done. It wouldn’t be wise to. Their instinctive sexual desires lead them away from obese women, and I understand it completely.

    It’s my same reaction to beta males. I want to help them, but I don’t want to date them. It’s sad, and fairly superficial, but it’s true.

  • Dogsquat

    Sassy said:

    “Ask how many men here would like to be seen as a beta male in the eyes of their women. My guess is that it wouldn’t be a lot.”
    ______________________

    This is where I have a problem with Game terminology.

    Alpha and beta are useful shorthand for generalities, but can be useless/harmful terms for men to think in.

    It’s better for a guy to think of himself (and become) someone who is competent, interesting, in shape, and primarily internally motivated. Not. Giving. A. Shit. What. Women. Think. About. You. is better than studying Game for 10 years.

    I have no idea if I’m alpha, beta, or sierra hotel india tango. Don’t care, either. Call me Ishmael if you want.

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

      Alpha and beta are useful shorthand for generalities, but can be useless/harmful terms for men to think in.

      It’s better for a guy to think of himself (and become) someone who is competent, interesting, in shape, and primarily internally motivated. Not. Giving. A. Shit. What. Women. Think. About. You. is better than studying Game for 10 years.

      +1

      I think that the terms alpha and beta have caused more miscommunication on this blog than anything else. Just getting past the “beta is bad” mindset is usually a losing battle. Personally, I find the whole range of male traits attractive, except for the desire for sexual variety. :P

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Not. Giving. A. Shit. What. Women. Think. About. You. is better than studying Game for 10 years.

    If you could spin this into about 25 to 30 thousand words, you could easily self-publish the greatest ebook on Game available.

  • Dogsquat

    I’m gonna need a bigger thesaurus.

  • Just1X

    @Susan

    “You have never stepped over the line once here. You are a model of empathic listening and dispassionate debate. I would love to have Just20x’s.”

    Well, colour me surprised and happy. ‘Jane’ in ‘Coupling’ made a sound appropriate to my reaction. Trouble is, I can’t work out how to write it…’nyoar’ or something like that.

    Some subjects get the MRA side of me more expressed than others. I don’t really come here to be an MRA, I naturally have those attitudes (which I am sure come through, passionately at times), but I like to think that I can choose when to express them. I thought that I might have crossed the line, I was tempted here and there…

    To be honest the cross section of people here provide for a more interesting discussion on some topics than occur elsewhere. I visit all kinds of sites and take what I want from each, hopefully I add something as I go. There are females comenting on most of the sites that I visit, but I wouldn’t call all of the sites female friendly (and I don’t think that they should feel obliged to be so – SPLC be damned).

    I did notice that the comments were coming from men more than women on this post, which I thought was a shame. In fact I commented on it earlier in the thread. Looks more balanced tonight.

    Off to eat now, have fun and sorry about the tree (or more) puns I made on the other thread (oops, I did it again)

  • Just1X

    @JM #403

    “If you could spin this into about 25 to 30 thousand words, you could easily self-publish the greatest ebook on Game available.”

    that’s the writer in you, looking to write a book.

    I’m an engineer, I appreciate keeping it short and ‘sweet’

  • Jesus Mahoney

    I’m gonna need a bigger thesaurus.

    Or you could just repeat it a couple hundred times, put some new age music behind it, and sell it on iTunes as a meditation.

  • Dogsquat

    Honey Badger voice? Or something more Lee Marvin?

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Honey Badger voice? Or something more Lee Marvin?

    A cross between Barry White and Richard Simmons would work well.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    I want to help them, but I don’t want to date them. It’s sad, and fairly superficial, but it’s true.

    I don’t think they want pity. And if they do, then that’s worse.

  • Dogsquat

    Alright, baby. I’m gonna get burnin’ on this nap I’m fixin to take, mmmmkay?

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Alright, baby. I’m gonna get burnin’ on this nap I’m fixin to take, mmmmkay?

    lmao. Was that your Barry Simmons impression? Good stuff.

  • Kirk

    @Susan
    I haven’t seen your husband, so I cannot judge his level of studliness. If he is average looking as you say, then you are clearly an anomaly.

    @Brendan
    I don’t doubt that some women can get wet from average looking guys, but I still maintain that most women for whatever reason (societal pressure, the need for a provider, etc.) are in relationships with men that they are not hot for. My only relationship was with such a girl. After dumping me, she revealed that she had only been using me for ego boosts and free rides to and from our university (I thought her talk about fearing physical intimacy seemed a little fishy).

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

      @Kirk

      After dumping me, she revealed that she had only been using me for ego boosts and free rides to and from our university (I thought her talk about fearing physical intimacy seemed a little fishy).

      I wish I could send women like this to Guantanamo. That’s reprehensible.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Jesus Mahoney

    I don’t think they want pity. And if they do, then that’s worse.

    I want to help them, not pity them. If I can help some guys better understand women, just as some men on here have helped me to better understand men, I’ll take that opportunity.

  • Mike C

    Sassy,

    I just wanted to say I find your candor refreshing.

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

      I just wanted to say I find your candor refreshing.

      Just as long as we all recognize that Sassy is the extreme female outlier here. I too appreciate her honesty and openness.

  • Mike C

    OK, but I am so tired of getting bogged down in these discussions.

    Susan, that is understandable. You could always just avoid comments that get you “bogged down” in discussions you don’t want to have. There are commenters I almost never address directly.

    If you’re right, this blog will have no female audience.

    Not important, but my opinions really have zero bearing on your page views. My views are more related to the decisions women make. If you are correct, women should choose the high status in terms of education/income/career provider type with just the smidgen of alpha OVER the more pure alpha dominant type EVERY SINGLE TIME. At the end of the day revealed preference is what it is. IIRC, you’ve mentioned girls in your focus group who even after all your discussions and counseling still fall back into trying to chase and pin down a more pure alpha dominant type.

    In a perfect world, we could perfectly quantify exactly what male attributes spark/create what level of sexual attraction in the majority of women. We could say alpha dominance is X% and providing/nesting capability is Y%. I don’t want to throw Sassy under the bus or interject her, but when I read comments from her, I scratch my head and ask is she an anomaly or the only one being introspective and honest.

    If you don’t want to get bogged down, feel free to ignore and not respond.

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

      @Mike C

      You could always just avoid comments that get you “bogged down” in discussions you don’t want to have.

      I have found that avoiding or ignoring inflammatory comments from the guys generally results in an increase in those sorts of comments. :-/ Stepping in and calling time out often seems to restore some balance to the thread. For example, yesterday the women were completely MIA on this thread. I got fed up and some came back. It’s become very, very clear to me that I need to take a firmer hand in the comment threads. Two very senior male bloggers have advised as much. Delete a lot more, and ban a lot more – all without explanation. I got one email inquiring whether I really wanted to hand my blog to the extreme wing of the manosphere – from a Game blogger. I also learned the hard way that ignoring criticism did not make the problem go away – Dalrock had a field day at my expense during Christmas week, and by the time I was able to respond, the verdict was in and the Bastille had been stormed. I won’t make that mistake again.

      Not important, but my opinions really have zero bearing on your page views.

      It’s not page views I’m concerned about. The traffic grows steadily. I never consider traffic as a motive when I write or respond.

      What makes HUS unique – and this is my brand identity – is the coed dialogue that takes place here. Ideally, that dialogue will be 50/50, with respectful debate. I know for a fact that the general overtone of negativity about women that often pervades the threads here drives female commenters back to lurking, or worse, causes them to leave HUS permanently. You’ve seen numerous admissions to that effect here by women, and I receive a lot of feedback offline as well.

      As I mentioned above, several male commenters have also gone away – Megaman’s views, which were generally more optimistic or neutral, were often shouted down here by other men. Or at least he perceived it that way. Numerous young guys – a cohort I want to encourage – have observed that the guys here are surprisingly angry. I understand the source of a lot of the anger, and I can appreciate men’s need to vent it. But HUS is really not the place for that. I recall saying this once before and Ted D, whom I basically adore, said, “I would much rather express my anger here, where everyone is so nice. I don’t like it over at Rollo’s.” LOL.

      If you are correct, women should choose the high status in terms of education/income/career provider type with just the smidgen of alpha OVER the more pure alpha dominant type EVERY SINGLE TIME.

      At this point I think I’ve said hundreds of times that women vary widely on what they prefer re dominance. I do not for one minute think that all women want a guy in finance. That’s the whole point I’m trying to make. Nothing works every single time. Buss’ list of traits is just a menu. Women will pick and choose the items on that list to prioritize based on a whole host of factors.

      I have also stated many times that women pursuing casual sex do so largely in part to score with a guy higher on the scale than they themselves are – and that’s obviously hypergamy. They might wish they could marry those guys, but in the end if they do marry, it will likely be to a man lower than they are, since they would have devalued themselves due to partner count.

      Sassy is very honest, but I believe that’s true of all the women who comment here. And the proof is who they’ve selected as mates. Also, we’ve discussed, and Sassy’s admitted, that she is very high testosterone herself, most likely. It’s not really a stretch to say she thinks more like a guy when it comes to sex. She has acknowledged that men she’s dated are disappointed that she does not welcome emotional intimacy. I commented on one recent thread that her not being promiscuous is something of a miracle – and very much to her credit. I believe that the most promiscuous women share her general views re sex. I don’t say this to pick on Sassy, but because female readers are trying to figure out where they fit in. Sassy’s definitely in the long tail re masculine traits, but left of center re partner count. That’s the impressive part.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Mike C

    Sassy,

    I just wanted to say I find your candor refreshing.

    Thanks. It’s just the way my mind operates.

    I’d rather be honest, despite how incriminating it may be, than anything else.

  • Mike C

    This is where I have a problem with Game terminology.

    Alpha and beta are useful shorthand for generalities, but can be useless/harmful terms for men to think in.

    DS, totally agree!

    Alpha and beta are good for abstract discussions, especially in terms of behavioral traits, but a guy shouldn’t pigeonhole/box himself into one of those labels. Am I alpha or beta? I don’t care. I have beta traits….many of which are the product of upbringing…and I have alpha traits….many the result of internal cultivation. And how you behave with your GF might be different than your boss at work where a different measure of alpha and beta might be required.

    It’s better for a guy to think of himself (and become) someone who is competent, interesting, in shape, and primarily internally motivated. Not. Giving. A. Shit. What. Women. Think. About. You

    Right. And that really means not apologizing for what your value or believe. Apologize for bad behavior/hurting someone, but never for your mission or thoughts. And that applies everywhere. One of the biggest changes I’ve made personally is I don’t do anything for the purpose of being “likable”. Sure, I want to be liked. But if that means saying what they want to hear, then f that.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    For what it’s worth, I like Sassy’s honesty as well. And I respect her view of relationships. I just don’t think it represents the “average” woman very accurately. Which is fine.

  • AndrewV

    I currently live in “God’s country”
    http://picasaweb.google.com/118056876965199621053/View#5626394540061785202
    and in the nearby town I am witnessing almost the entire spectrum of the current socio-sexual environment, where the majority of economic activity is around traditional “male” activities such as mining, logging fishing and outdoor tourism (kayaking, hiking).

    This includes a 70 year old man with a 30 year old girlfriend, underage (15 and 16 year old) single mothers, a poly relationship (two guys and living with a single mother) as well as the more “traditional” arrangements with and without benefit of clergy (and these appear to be in the minority).

    And that is not even the half of it. I am very satisfied with my sex life, and from what I have seen, so are most of the people in town (not all though), who give every indication that they are going at it like rabbits, especially the young people.

    What I find eyebrow raising though, is that no one appears to consider any of the above to be unremarkable.

    I have been recommending this site to many of the young women I encounter in town for the last two years, because my observation is that the competition these girls face is intense, as many of the young men are absent.

    In general, men in this town have a remarkable array of options and the women correspondingly fewer. I am not a PUA, and I do not have to be, because I get offers from women in their mid 20s, whereas many of the women just under my cohert (40+), judging from the complaints I hear, are quite bitter about the whole situation, but interestingly enough blame the men, but not the women.

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

      I have been recommending this site to many of the young women I encounter in town for the last two years, because my observation is that the competition these girls face is intense, as many of the young men are absent.

      Thank you Andrew, I appreciate that very much!

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Andrew,

    You run In Mala Fide?

  • Wudang

    You’ve just described the alpha males on every college campus: fraternity guys and athletes. The ability to flirt and escalate are a byproduct of the confidence derived from high social status.

    Again, you’ve just described the natural alpha. Dominance with her flows naturally from who he is. He is dominant with everyone, including females. I believe that muscularity, T levels and social rank are also correlated to alphaness, or dominance.

    This is ridiculous. The confidence from social status can help in making people able to flirt and escalate but it certainly is a factor on its own. Being able to do those things is not in any way dependent on social status and having social status does not guarantee them. Hence they are not studied in this research. And plenty of males are dominant in general but not with females or just don`t know how to escalate with females. Thats how I was in my teens. The problem here is you are claiming this research is far more authorative than it is and research that has not properly studied skill with women and the ability to be highly dominant with women socially is far, far, far from being authorative. Roissy recently wrote about a study that came close to studying game factors. They used the term sociosexuality I think to describe behaviors that come close to or is highly related to game and found it mattered a whole lot.

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

      They used the term sociosexuality I think to describe behaviors that come close to or is highly related to game and found it mattered a whole lot.

      There are many studies that have looked at sociosexuality, and I’ve written about several of them. That simply correlates attitudes about sex with the ratio of men to women in a society. Not surprisingly, sociosexual values go up, i.e. casual sex is more common, when there are more females than males. It has nothing to do with Game. Incidentally, that’s why Latvian women are the most promiscuous women in the world :) No wonder PUAs like to go to the Baltics.

      I’m not claiming research is authoritative at all. In fact, the studies Tyler Cowen linked to surprised me very much – I’m not sure what to make of them. On the other hand, the sample sizes were huge and looked at marriage data – this was not a question of asking women “Who would you do?”

      It’s OK to dismiss the research, provided one has a reason other than not liking the conclusion.

  • AndrewV

    @Jesus Mahoney March 31, 2012 at 4:46 pm
    You run In Mala Fide?

    I do not. What happened is that I chose that as an online identity for discussing such matters as these, because I always argue in good faith and it appealed to my sense of the perverse.

    In retrospect, it was not a good choice because of the possible confusion with that site.

    Another example of my peversity is my choice of the handle :

    “AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo”

    at another site where just the mention of MRA is bound to raise hackles.

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

      Purveyor of Piffle & Woo

      I love that. Is that more UK-speak? It sounds like a dessert I should learn how to make.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Andrew,

    Ah, okay. I was just curious. You didn’t strike me as being the In Mala Fide type. Not that I know a whole lot about the site. I only visited there when I was looking a while back for posts by Bardamu, since he pimped his nom de plume from Celine. But he’s no Celine, so I stopped reading.

  • Just1X

    I currently live in “God’s country”

    What? Yorkshire?

  • Male Perspective

    Yahoo’s relationshipopsychology finally got something right.

    http://yahoo.match.com/y/article.aspx?articleid=12468&TrackingID=526103&BannerID=1184536

    Though I will say we dudes have our own version of #3. If a girl we’re dating starts dating other dudes, we’ll dump her. We may not want to sit down for “the talk” but thats only because we automatically assume the relationship is exclusive after the 3rd date or hookup. That’s our version of “where is this relationship going”.

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

      thats only because we automatically assume the relationship is exclusive after the 3rd date or hookup. That’s our version of “where is this relationship going”.

      Really? So if a woman gets to hookup #4, she’s justified in calling you her boyfriend? What about FWB? Or guys who have numerous girls in rotation?

  • Escoffier

    I have no idea if my wife sees me as beta or alpha or some combination but by any objective standard, I am a beta.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    This doesn’t concern me personally, but my question is this: if it’s true that the standard female fantasy is alpha “softened” by her love into a nice alpha/beta mix, then how do men who don’t present as “alpha” in society (which is a large majority of men) find relationships with women who aren’t “settling”?

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

      @Jesus

      if it’s true that the standard female fantasy is alpha “softened” by her love into a nice alpha/beta mix, then how do men who don’t present as “alpha” in society (which is a large majority of men) find relationships with women who aren’t “settling”?

      I think it has to do with the nature of fantasy. It doesn’t translate into what women want IRL. I think it’s arousing for women to think about being so sexually and emotionally powerful and influential on a man that he becomes a pussycat. Of course, if that were to happen, the women would lose interest. Fantasies don’t really resemble life. There have been studies that measured blood flow to the vagina while women watched rape scenes – and they were definitely aroused. Does this say anything at all about wanting to be raped? No. They just find it sexually arousing from the safety of their plastic chair.

  • Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    I wish I could send women like this to Guantanamo.
    _________________________

    Susan, there are a lot of very nice young Marines stationed there. Young Marines can be very dumb about women, and are often like lambs to the slaughter before them. Please reconsider.

    Send something easier for those dudes to deal with, like a giant dragon with laser beams for eyes and AIDS for blood.

  • Brendan

    I think it has to do with the nature of fantasy. It doesn’t translate into what women want IRL. I think it’s arousing for women to think about being so sexually and emotionally powerful and influential on a man that he becomes a pussycat. Of course, if that were to happen, the women would lose interest. Fantasies don’t really resemble life. There have been studies that measured blood flow to the vagina while women watched rape scenes – and they were definitely aroused. Does this say anything at all about wanting to be raped? No. They just find it sexually arousing from the safety of their plastic chair.

    Right, it’s fantasization. My understanding of both the common “rape” fantasy and the “flip the alpha” fantasy is that the exciting element is for a man to be so overwhelmed by his attraction to the woman/her desirability that he either completely loses control (the rape fantasy) or ends his caddish ways and commits (the flip the alpha fantasy): in both cases the core is the irresistability of the woman and the impact that has on the men. As you say, these are fantasies — women don’t want to be raped.

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

      @Brendan

      the core is the irresistability of the woman and the impact that has on the men

      Yes, I think this must be ego-driven. Not to sound too Freudian, but ego and sex – it seems to me they’re intricately linked.

  • Dogsquat

    “It’s become very, very clear to me that I need to take a firmer hand in the comment threads. Two very senior male bloggers have advised as much. Delete a lot more, and ban a lot more – all without explanation.”
    __________________

    Perhaps limiting to one blanket statement per thread, and one warning per poster would be good. I believe leaving a placeholder in place of a deleted post that says,”Hey, dude, welcome to the blog. Sorry you’re mad, but Dogsquat already indicted all women everywhere for the same thing in post #24. Take a look for yourself if you want,” seems fair.

    Even replacing relevant paragraphs with something like that would work.

    Another thing you may wish to consider is a different colored text box you use for moderating the thread. You’re in blue when I read you now. See if you can’t get one that’s red for statements like “all posts below this that pile on with sentiment X will be deleted. We already know. Knock it off,” or something. That red box is used only by She Who Must Be Obeyed. Regular blue box is for good ol’ Susan, who will banter back and forth and can take (and dish out) a joke or two. Talk back to Red Box Susan and she’ll punch you in the face over the internet.

    That ought to allow guys the leeway to express what might be unpopular opinions without poisoning the well. It’s fair, too – the idea is out there, once, but the thread isn’t a flytrap of negativity.

    A shallow, unmarked grave for trolls is appropriate – I’m not talking about trolls for this.

    There is a lot of good back and forth you don’t want to stifle. I think the damaging statements are of the “You belong to Gender X, and therefore think this way. I deny your experience based on mine.”

    Both genders do this. If you’ve got a Jess, you’ve got to have an Abbot. Both contribute worthwhile things from time to time, and often spark further conversation. (I’ll admit a fondness and respect for Abbot’s tenacity. Plus, he’s funny as hell sometimes.

    As far as I’m concerned (and other people I correspond with), your trademarks have included rigorous intellectual openness and honesty, your respect for the individuals here, and a willingness to learn from everyone. Somebody continues to be a dick, you ought to get rid of them – but you’re risking something by too-heavy censorship, especially if it’s covert.

    Iron hand in velvet glove is the way to go.

    My $0.02, worth exactly what you paid for it.

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

      @Dogsquat

      You’ve got a great and creative mind for blog logistics.

      I believe leaving a placeholder in place of a deleted post

      That’s a great idea. It’s a level of customization that is very labor intensive, though. I’ve noticed that some blogs do include a placeholder that says “comment deleted by editor” – at least then it’s clear that action has been taken, rather than the commenter wondering where their comment went. Then they’re free to inquire.

      That red box is used only by She Who Must Be Obeyed. Regular blue box is for good ol’ Susan, who will banter back and forth and can take (and dish out) a joke or two. Talk back to Red Box Susan and she’ll punch you in the face over the internet.

      Haha, I love this idea. I don’t know enough about coding to design this feature, but I’m actually about to hire a regular blog tech person, so I’m putting this on my wish list.

      There is a lot of good back and forth you don’t want to stifle. I think the damaging statements are of the “You belong to Gender X, and therefore think this way. I deny your experience based on mine.”

      Agreed.

      Both genders do this. If you’ve got a Jess, you’ve got to have an Abbot. Both contribute worthwhile things from time to time, and often spark further conversation. (I’ll admit a fondness and respect for Abbot’s tenacity. Plus, he’s funny as hell sometimes.

      I’d rather have 10 Abbots than 1 Jess. In fact, I unceremoniously banned Jess last week. I’ve had enough, and her taking a thread off-topic to rail against GWB and Sarah Palin was the last straw. It felt very good to hit the eject button.

      As far as I’m concerned (and other people I correspond with), your trademarks have included rigorous intellectual openness and honesty, your respect for the individuals here, and a willingness to learn from everyone. Somebody continues to be a dick, you ought to get rid of them – but you’re risking something by too-heavy censorship, especially if it’s covert.

      I tend to err on the side of zero censorship, I just get my panties in a twist and complain. Not only do I wind up extremely frustrated, I know I’m not sending consistent messages about what’s OK. I think the iron hand in velvet glove idea is apt. I may even get one for my desk as a reminder.

  • Male Perspective

    ” So if a woman gets to hookup #4, she’s justified in calling you her boyfriend? What about FWB? Or guys who have numerous girls in rotation?”

    If we’re lucky enough to get 4 hookups from a girl we’ll be calling her our girlfriend first. Guys with numerous girls in rotation are rare and they couldn’t care less about the number of guys those girls have in their rotation either. I speak for the average joe, not the alpha j-dawg.

  • Kirk

    “I wish I could send women like this to Guantanamo. That’s reprehensible.”

    @Susan
    She was bipolar if that makes you feel any better.

  • Kirk

    @Susan
    I also found out that she did the same thing to at least four other guys at my university. Apparently, she was using guys like crack while refusing to give anything back physically. A man only needs one of these experiences to be turned off of dating for life.

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

      @Kirk

      A man only needs one of these experiences to be turned off of dating for life.

      Don’t go there! Don’t let one experience with a psycho manipulative bitch put you on the beach! I understand the hurt – I say lick your wounds for a bit and then get right back out there, the sooner the better.

  • Male Perspective

    “Not surprisingly, sociosexual values go up, i.e. casual sex is more common, when there are more females than males. It has nothing to do with Game. Incidentally, that’s why Latvian women are the most promiscuous women in the world No wonder PUAs like to go to the Baltics.”

    Hmm. I’d a thought the reverse to be true.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Yes, I think this must be ego-driven. Not to sound too Freudian, but ego and sex – it seems to me they’re intricately linked.

    The difference being that the rape fantasy doesn’t imply a certain persona in the figure of the “rapist.” The other fantasy does. The fantasy isn’t to find a beta man who steps up and becomes “the man” for the sake of the woman–it’s the other way around.

    All well and good if we didn’t live in a world with actual alphas walking around. If I’m a predominately “beta” man in a relationship with a woman who harbors such a fantasy, then I’m going to be keenly aware of that fantasy any time such an “alpha” is in our presence.

    Also, if this is indeed the fantasy of most women, then it sort of validates the concept of “imposter asshole” game.

    I’m not necessarily condoning imposter asshole game. I think men should be who they are and choose to have relationships with women who are crazy for them. But if a man is going to be with a woman who harbors fantasies for so-called “alphas” and he’s not an “alpha”, then it might pay for him to hold back some of his “true” self and put up a front.

    That’s not for me. I’d rather just not have a relationship if that were the case. But for “beta” men who want a relationship that badly… idk.

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

      @Jesus

      But if a man is going to be with a woman who harbors fantasies for so-called “alphas” and he’s not an “alpha”, then it might pay for him to hold back some of his “true” self and put up a front.

      A couple of things. First, I don’t think women actively “harbor fantasies.” That implies it’s in the back of a woman’s mind as she goes about her day. I know you’re not a fan of porn, but that’s like saying that a guy goes through life wishing he could be a pizza delivery guy whose customer grabs his belt buckle and whips it open. I think it’s quite compartmentalized.

      I haven’t ever fantasized about someone else during sex, and I don’t think a woman in a thriving relationship would either. I’ve been told that men often do regardless of relationship quality, IDK.

      On the other hand, female fantasies do say something real about attraction cues, and it’s well understood that men do benefit from not showing their hands too early. I don’t believe that requires running asshole game, but it does necessitate an understanding of female sexuality. We want to earn the affection of a worthy man – and a man’s appearing to have options signals that other women have already found him worthy (preselection). Of course, in this SMP, women need to be careful about what kind of “worth” has been conferred on a male.

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

    I’m not afraid of this thread or the guys here (Hi Guys!) just busy, working and being a tired pregnant lady. Now I will be replying to some stuff

    ROMANCE FEMALE FANTASY
    As the resident expert on Romance Genre I must mention that is more nuanced than just “I saw a jerk and I want to turn him” at least in sane women (no how many modern women are actually sane is for other discussion). Usually when you are constructing one of this perfect men he cannot actually win the affections of the lady till he shows some of his good traits aka heart of gold, this can be done by him confessing a past pain, saving someone’s life, being good and protective to someone weaker than him and so on… In Pride and Prejudice the reader realizes that Mr Darcy is not a jerk before Lizzy does, when he asks her to dance even though he just called her ugly, when he commented on her eyes, when he paid attention to what she was doing and stared at her… The idea is that you can see the potential for the guy before any feelings are developed. Going for the pure alpha jerk was what Lidia did and few women are in love with Wickham are they? In Twilight Edward starts as seemingly hating Bella for no reason, then he comes back a gentleman, talks to her when she knows he ignores everyone else and showing her a side that she never seen before and is then that her feelings for him start to grow, then he saves her life and we are pretty much locked in the relationship if Edward upon discovering his secret to her by accident would had acted all vampire jerk “If you dare to say anything I will break your neck with my left hand and you know very well I can” this would had been the short history of how Bella quickly and quietly moved back with her mother to Arizona after being threatened by some sort of demon at Forks, but given that all he did was “ignore her and glare at her” then he showed that although powerful he had no ill intentions towards her or anyone for that matter. So yeah there is only a very few subset of women that will go for a pure jerk deluding themselves that they will change him with the “power of their gold platted vaginas” none in romance as far as I can remember we as readers wouldn’t root for any idiot doing this in real life or fiction.

    What would have happened when the cuckolded man discovered the deceit, for example?

    Yeah people are missing the fact that honor killings were quite common in cases were cuckoldry was found and sometimes even all the children of said woman were killed because there was not trust anymore that any of the kids were her husbands… If anything sexual selection would say that all modern women descend from the woman that survived and didn’t cuckolded or were not caught. That should show that cuckoldry in humans couldn’t had ever prosper as viable mating strategy.

    That’s ironic, since your perspective on what constitutes an ideal mate actually invalidates most of the guys here far more than any other woman’s.

    She was flirting with Leap of Beta so not sure about that

    This doesn’t concern me personally, but my question is this: if it’s true that the standard female fantasy is alpha “softened” by her love into a nice alpha/beta mix, then how do men who don’t present as “alpha” in society (which is a large majority of men) find relationships with women who aren’t “settling”?

    Back to Romance Genre there is usually another trope on contrast with the Alpha with heart of gold is the “I loved you all along and I didn’t knew it” that is usually falling for male friend. In Emma she doesn’t think of her friend as anything but a friend and she doesn’t have any inclination for marriage for herself but once she actually sees her friend as a man her passion for him is as hard as any. Manosphere guys, specially the ones that had been friendzoned, hate this trope and consider it invalid. But many women do want to get to know a man, slowly discover his true self and eventually burn in desire for him. In that case the change is for themselves to soften up to him not the Alpha, so yeah there are more ways that a woman actually falls. This are just two of the most popular ones found in books and movies written for women by women.

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

      @Anacaona

      Agreed, the alpha male of a woman’s fantasies always shows good character traits right away. I haven’t read a lot of romance but I believe this is often portrayed as being highly respected by other men – he is a beloved leader. He may also be devoted to family, as Darcy is. So the fantasy is not to flip a bad boy, but to awaken the feminine energy that lies dormant in every male. In the typical language in these parts, that means bringing out his beta side.

      Back to Romance Genre there is usually another trope on contrast with the Alpha with heart of gold is the “I loved you all along and I didn’t knew it” that is usually falling for male friend.

      I think it’s also common in rom com films for the woman to fall in love with that friend who’s beta. When Harry Met Sally is an example, Juno is another. There are many. Since women are the consumers for these films, it clearly says something about women developing sexual attraction over time for less dominant men. I agree, the men hate this trope, but it does persist.

      I’m curious if you have an opinion on 50 Shades of Grey. Having read about a third of it, I imagine that a true Twihard would not approve – but supposedly that’s who spread the word and made this book a bestseller. I read that Kristen Stewart can’t wait to read it.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    I’ve been mostly lurking because I’ve been busy with other things.But also, this discussion is kind of boring. It just doesn’t seem possible to talk about this stuff when people seem pretty set in their views already.

    I could post my perspective, which is very different from what’s been more frequently posted here, but I’ll just be called outlier and be discounted. I don’t think I want to bother convincing the unconvinced. It’s like trying to convert people to a different religion… not my cup of tea.

    I’d rather go refresh reddit or read about something random or go to bed early. :P

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

      @Hope

      I could post my perspective, which is very different from what’s been more frequently posted here, but I’ll just be called outlier and be discounted. I don’t think I want to bother convincing the unconvinced.

      I don’t blame you. The women here who are married to or dating betas are regularly called extreme outliers. Then a woman who can’t get enough alpha comes along and is cited as representative of all women. It’s extremely frustrating for me to watch, and your comment is proof that it affects the motivation of women when it comes to commenting. That’s a problem.

      Debate is not fun when everyone’s mind is already made up. It’s just exhausting and repetitive. That’s why I’d like to stick to debating specific concepts in posts rather than whether women prefer cads.

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

    @Sassy
    I do consider my husband Beta and guess what he considers himself Beta too. But then when I asked him “Do you know what an Alpha is?” He said “An asshole” “And a Beta” ” Not an Asshole” I laughed and agreed with him that it was the best definition ever (and I don’t mean offense this is just OUR definition). So I’m sure he is happy with me calling him Beta all night long. ;)

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

      But then when I asked him “Do you know what an Alpha is?” He said “An asshole” “And a Beta” ” Not an Asshole”

      Haha, I like that.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ana,

    Back to Romance Genre there is usually another trope on contrast with the Alpha with heart of gold is the “I loved you all along and I didn’t knew it” that is usually falling for male friend. In Emma she doesn’t think of her friend as anything but a friend and she doesn’t have any inclination for marriage for herself but once she actually sees her friend as a man her passion for him is as hard as any. Manosphere guys, specially the ones that had been friendzoned, hate this trope and consider it invalid.

    Invalid or unacceptable? I never read Emma, so I can’t comment on it, but if the “I loved you all along and didn’t know it” was preceded by months or years of her getting burned by cads, I can understand why the non-cad wouldn’t be open to it.

    But many women do want to get to know a man, slowly discover his true self and eventually burn in desire for him. In that case the change is for themselves to soften up to him not the Alpha, so yeah there are more ways that a woman actually falls.

    I like the idea of the slow discovery. As far as the other “alpha” fantasy goes, I just think it’s a bit much to expect a guy who’s predominately “beta” to open up and fully trust a woman who harbors fantasies about flipping cads.

    I don’t want to be misconstrued as judging women who fantasize about that sort of thing or men who are with women who do… I just don’t understand how the trust can be there.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “Just getting past the “beta is bad” mindset is usually a losing battle.”

    It’s contextual. In Roissyland, “beta” is often shorthand for a supplicating doormat, or a man who has let his beta qualities overtake his alpha ones. Other times it’s used to include greater betas who still have a spine but don’t/didn’t/can’t have the attention of lots of women. Other times it means comfort traits, as Athol calls it. Generally, I can tell the difference.

    Sue: “Sassy’s admitted, that she is very high testosterone”

    Ugh we have to stop claiming this (both sexes), unless you get a T test to show it. Further, even a single T test is not conclusive unless it’s way out of the expected range, like your blood glucose. Your T varies normally through the day and month.

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

      Ugh we have to stop claiming this (both sexes), unless you get a T test to show it.

      Fair enough. It is a lazy shorthand for less emo, more aggressive, higher sex drive, etc.

  • Lokland

    @ JM

    “No, I get that. But it’s evolution, not revolution… These things occur slowly, over time. I think most people can keep up.”

    You’ve got half the story.

    Your talking about gradualism which is what Darwin originally proposed. It can and does occur.

    So to does punctuated equilibrium. Rapid, fast one generation time change based upon the strength of selection going ape-shit steroids strong or a complete switch in the direction of evolution.

    An example would be if there were brown and black mice on the beach. The brown would win. If a volcano blew up and the beach was covered in ash black would win (at predator avoidance). The time for the selection pressure to switch would be an hour, the generational time for the overall switch would be one or two generations max.

    That is what is occuring now.

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

    Invalid or unacceptable? I never read Emma, so I can’t comment on it, but if the “I loved you all along and didn’t know it” was preceded by months or years of her getting burned by cads, I can understand why the non-cad wouldn’t be open to it.

    Errr Jane Austen novel, Napoleonic times.Not a lot of space for cad burning girls of good families. Anne of Green Gables also has this trope and another past time Romance.

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

      @Anacaona

      The loved you all along trope is also present in Wuthering Heights, interestingly. That really flips the script – Heathcliff is a good boy turned bad man by the love of a woman. And Katherine is his savior.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Lokland,

    I understand punctuated equilibrium. And that may be what’s happening now, but it’s a bit hasty to be drawing conclusions, no?

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ana,

    I was speaking of the trope in general, not Emma in particular. But even so, let’s say the “falling for beta” was preceded by Emma or Anne (or whoever) “fanning herself” over tingle-inducing “alphas” for years. Still, a lot of beta men are going to feel too much resentment to be open to love after being ignored for so long. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, right or wrong… but I do think it’s true.

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

      But even so, let’s say the “falling for beta” was preceded by Emma or Anne (or whoever) “fanning herself” over tingle-inducing “alphas” for years.

      In Emma, Mr. Knightley is pure alpha, so there is no “settling.” He just happens to be much older than Emma, and a close confidante of her father’s. Neither one sees the other as a lover and then the light bulb goes on for both of them late in the book.

      In fact, most of the characters in Austen are alpha. The less attractive men, like Mr. Collins in P&P, are held up as more omega like. I don’t know if there were fewer betas then – I suspect most men conformed to behavior we would describe as alpha today.

      In fact, I am confused about the history of alpha and beta. I’ve often heard men say that the 40% of men that got to reproduce were the alphas and a few betas. But I’ve also read that the reason that number is so low is that men were more violent and went to war. I would think that would mean a high number of alphas were killed before reproducing.

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

    But even so, let’s say the “falling for beta” was preceded by Emma or Anne (or whoever) “fanning herself” over tingle-inducing “alphas” for years. Still, a lot of beta men are going to feel too much resentment to be open to love after being ignored for so long. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, right or wrong… but I do think it’s true.

    Well is a fantasy the men that think this fantasy is invalid are the ones who never actually see it happening or lasting so is a different judgement.

    Is interesting how you called Sassy the most hard judging her own gender but now you are pretty much if she so much likes the bad boy fantasy I don’t want her” and if she likes the Beta fantasy but in any moment of her life she didn’t for whatever reason “I don’t want her!” at this point I hope you gave your girlfriend your 2654 reasons to “Dump you” so she is at least prepared. Kettle, pot, something.

  • Lokland

    @JM

    “I understand punctuated equilibrium. And that may be what’s happening now, but it’s a bit hasty to be drawing conclusions, no?”

    Conclusions are not possible until its over. Planning and preparing for the most likely course of action however are a necessity.

    Again, the strength of this change is both rapid (one generation) and VERY STRONG. Punctuated equilibrium seems to be the more likely route atm.

    Note: Grad. vs. Punct. Eq. are the two extremes most things occur as a mix of the two.

    Anyway the feds here just released their new budget. Everyone under the age of 54 and unborn for 20 years was officially drafted as a financial slave to pay off the boomers unbelievable levels or narcissim and greed so I’m officially finsihed with this culture.

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

      Anyway the feds here just released their new budget. Everyone under the age of 54 and unborn for 20 years was officially drafted as a financial slave to pay off the boomers unbelievable levels or narcissim and greed so I’m officially finsihed with this culture.

      I’m bracing myself for a lot of boomer hate.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Is interesting how you called Sassy the most hard judging her own gender but now you are pretty much if she so much likes the bad boy fantasy I don’t want her” and if she likes the Beta fantasy but in any moment of her life she didn’t for whatever reason “I don’t want her!”

    1. I never said anything about Sassy judging her own gender harshly.

    2. I never said that I myself wouldn’t be open to a woman who went from liking alphas to preferring betas. I was just describing why some “manosphere” men might find that particular fantasy objectionable.

    3. I’m not even sure I’m predominately “beta.” I said this whole thing “wasn’t personal.”

    at this point I hope you gave your girlfriend your 2654 reasons to “Dump you” so she is at least prepared. Kettle, pot, something.

    I have no idea what this has to do with pots or kettles.

    Listen, I don’t know why you have a bug up your ass about me. I tried to make it clear that I wasn’t judging anybody. If I don’t understand something, I ask about it.

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

    1. I never said anything about Sassy judging her own gender harshly.

    I missed “her and your” you called her outlier and not typical and also mentioned she judging men hard.

    Listen, I don’t know why you have a bug up your ass about me. I tried to make it clear that I wasn’t judging anybody. If I don’t understand something, I ask about it. AND
    2. I never said that I myself wouldn’t be open to a woman who went from liking alphas to preferring betas. I was just describing why some “manosphere” men might find that particular fantasy objectionable.

    I have no idea what this has to do with pots or kettles.

    *sigh*
    Had you noticed that 80% of your comments about women or relationships end up in “Dump her”..? How can you call someone’s standards hard when you pretty much talk about dumping every single time something in the relationship is not 100% the way you “fantasize” about?

    Heh right because you asked you didn’t mentioned right away the “burned by cads” that is far from just simply asking. Simply asking would mean. Why?

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “FWIW, I think you’re too hard on your own sex (or yourself, not sure which). And I know you’re too hard on yourself re height. Size and strength is just one of the traits on that list, and it’s not the most important one.”

    I’m hard on everybody but the retarded, children, the elderly and the ill. If your not in one of those categories I expect 110 all the time.
    I expect far more from myself than anyone else.

    As for my harshness on this cateogry.
    When I was a kid I had the same complaint re height directed at my father. He told me in no uncertain terms that until I had perfected everything else I wasn’t allowed to bitch.
    It took 15 years but he let me bitch last summer.

    “I think anything under 5’7″ is a real challenge for guys, but personality compensates a heck of a lot. Danny from 504 is 5’4″ and he’s more successful getting laid that most other Game bloggers. No lie.”"

    Thats the problem. Even if I learn game I’m doing a huge dis-service to my fiance. I’m providing her with low quality genes. Whether or not she judges them so is irrelevant.

    I can do pretty much have done anything I want but that doesn’t change the quality of what I am.

    Last, are any of these complaints directed at me? If so, which I don’t doubt, I’ll tone it down.

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

      @Lokland

      I’m providing her with low quality genes. Whether or not she judges them so is irrelevant.

      I strongly disagree. I think this is a terrible way to see yourself, and I don’t think it’s accurate. I hate talk of high quality and low quality genes. Also, you have no idea what offspring your union will produce. My “chubby thighs” gene lost the battle with my husband’s genes and my daughter has slim legs a mile long. You’re applying eugenics to yourself, and I think that’s a very bad idea. Just my .02.

      Last, are any of these complaints directed at me? If so, which I don’t doubt, I’ll tone it down.

      No, despite our differences sometimes I actually find you a pleasure to have around. You’re very opinionated but quite polite and you are open minded.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    I missed “her and your” you called her outlier and not typical and also mentioned she judging men hard.

    I didn’t say she judged men “hard.” I said that her ideal for a relationship (75% alpha, 25% beta) would invalidate most of the men here. Which, btw, she readily admitted to. And she is an outlier.

    Had you noticed that 80% of your comments about women or relationships end up in “Dump her”..?

    Actually, a good percentage of my comments about women and relationships are devoted to defending women against pessimistic notions of their “base natures.” And quite a few have concerned my view of “love”, which basically involves two people who are devoted to each other and see each other as their “ideal” mate.

    How can you call someone’s standards hard when you pretty much talk about dumping every single time something in the relationship is not 100% the way you “fantasize” about?

    Did I even mention dumping on this thread? All I said was I didn’t understand how a “beta” male could develop enough trust to maintain a healthy relationship with a woman who fantasized about flipping cads.

    Heh right because you asked you didn’t mentioned right away the “burned by cads” that is far from just simply asking. Simply asking would mean. Why?

    I appreciate the sage advice on how to communicate my ideas more clearly.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Yes! I think we’re on the same page! (I’m going to enjoy it while it lasts.)”

    Kool story.

    “I don’t agree that a majority of men are ugly. Not at all.”

    (Invokes OkayCupid study or w.e it is.)

    “How we’re going to get there? I have no idea. But the world must be peopled!”

    The world will be peopled but not by white NAs.

    Pardon, I’m a tad drunk everyone, goodnight.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    Nvm one last thing.

    In regards to fantasy,

    I think I see it differently than you.
    I don’t fantasize or daydream.
    I visualize the future.

    Hence where the, “its just a fantasy” goes off the tracks with me.

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

      I think I see it differently than you.
      I don’t fantasize or daydream.
      I visualize the future.

      Interesting, I think this may be a male/female difference.

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

    I didn’t say she judged men “hard.” I said that her ideal for a relationship (75% alpha, 25% beta) would invalidate most of the men here. Which, btw, she readily admitted to. And she is an outlier.

    Your ideas of relationship will invalidate every woman here but Hope so…

    Actually, a good percentage of my comments about women and relationships are devoted to defending women against pessimistic notions of their “base natures.” And quite a few have concerned my view of “love”, which basically involves two people who are devoted to each other and see each other as their “ideal” mate.

    You defend women that fill your ideal being a lot more than what other men claim they are except that even here you claim that most of the comments from women here “Taylor Kisch is hot” render her far from YOUR ideal so…

    Did I even mention dumping on this thread? All I said was I didn’t understand how a “beta” male could develop enough trust to maintain a healthy relationship with a woman who fantasized about flipping cads.

    You used the definition of dumping instead of the word so…

    I appreciate the sage advice on how to communicate my ideas more clearly.

    Grasshopper I’m glad you are learning so fast. :)

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Your ideas of relationship will invalidate every woman here but Hope so…

    I don’t think so, but perhaps.

    You defend women that fill your ideal being a lot more than what other men claim they are except that even here you claim that most of the comments from women here “Taylor Kisch is hot” render her far from YOUR ideal so…

    First of all, I never had a problem with anyone thinking the guy was hot. My problem was with people going ga-ga over him. And, I apologized for my comments. And they weren’t about you.

    And yea, my “ideal” for a woman is more than most guys here. Most guys here think that every woman would go out and fuck the most alpha guy in the world at the right time of the month.

    You used the definition of dumping instead of the word so…

    That’s not the definition of dumping. If I had wanted to say that I would dump someone, I would have said it. What I was saying was exactly what I said: I don’t understand how a beta guy could develop enough trust in a situation like that. That’s all. Would I end a relationship with a woman if she considered me “beta” and yet fantasized about flipping alphas? You betcha. But that’s not what my comments were about. I wasn’t judging anybody. I was trying to understand.

    Grasshopper I’m glad you are learning so fast.

    Oh. Please.

  • Catalina

    @ Jesus Mahoney

    “It reminds me of a story I wrote as a teenager–one of my only forays into sci-fi. A species of plant mutates and develops the ability to think and reason. The plants become so smart that they figure out how to become mobile. They pull themselves out of the ground and go running to take over the world. Soon enough, all but one die–none of them realized that their lives were sustained by being rooted in the ground.”

    omg that’s so cool and creative and deep lol <3333

  • Male Perspective

    “Also, if this is indeed the fantasy of most women, then it sort of validates the concept of “imposter asshole” game.

    I’m not necessarily condoning imposter asshole game. I think men should be who they are and choose to have relationships with women who are crazy for them. But if a man is going to be with a woman who harbors fantasies for so-called “alphas” and he’s not an “alpha”, then it might pay for him to hold back some of his “true” self and put up a front.

    That’s not for me. I’d rather just not have a relationship if that were the case. But for “beta” men who want a relationship that badly… idk.”

    That’s not a relationship, that’s a staged drama. Unless you are talking about role play sessions, pretending to be something or someone you’re not in order to get or keep someone is bad strategy and it doesn’t work.

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

      That’s not a relationship, that’s a staged drama. Unless you are talking about role play sessions, pretending to be something or someone you’re not in order to get or keep someone is bad strategy and it doesn’t work.

      Exactly. It can work for a ONS or maybe a short fling. That’s it. At what point does the Impostor Asshole fess up that he’s really a good and caring guy? And then what reaction does he expect from the asshole-loving girl?

  • Male Perspective

    “Yeah people are missing the fact that honor killings were quite common in cases were cuckoldry was found and sometimes even all the children of said woman were killed because there was not trust anymore that any of the kids were her husbands”

    Which specific cases are you talking about here?

  • AndrewV

    Something that people may want to consider, is that not only does the average person have twice as many female ancestors than male, but it is also known in population genetics that “Y” chromosome replacement events were not uncommon.

    Typically, we can assume that these events were characterized by “aggression” for whatever value you care to assign to it. Here is an example:

    Y-chromosome, mtDNA, and autosomal DNA from Treilles (5,000 years ago, Neolithic France)
    Ancient DNA reveals male diffusion through the Neolithic Mediterranean route
    http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2011/05/y-chromosome-mtdna-and-autosomal-dna.html

    I think we can assume that these events were not usually pleasant for some of the parties involved. Morever, perhaps it goes a long way to explaining some residual artifacts that manifest themselves today as “rape fantasy”.

    The main point is thus: People did then, what it took to survive and reproduce and we are today, the end products of a successful strategy that was suitable for the time that they lived in.

    People today who come up with a successful strategy for mating will in general, have a better chance to reproduce than those who do not. In the end it is the successful strategy that will win the day so as to speak, and not an ideology.

    Just saying.

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

    JM’s story in which “A species of plant mutates and develops the ability to think and reason. The plants become so smart that they figure out how to become mobile”

    A little reminiscent of Ilse Aichinger’s The Bound Man

  • Escoffier

    Well, there’s more to Emma than that, not all of it flattering to Emma.

    What really wakes up her interest in George Knightly is Harriet Smith’s declaration of love. Emma is appalled and shocked both because she doesn’t want Knightly taken away from her and because she thinks Harriet is not nearly good enough for him. In other words, jealousy and snobbery are big motivators.

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

      @Escoffier

      And it’s Knightly that takes Emma to task for her snobbery. He is her moral guide, and it is the loss of his good opinion that troubles her and also informs her feelings.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    That’s not a relationship, that’s a staged drama. Unless you are talking about role play sessions, pretending to be something or someone you’re not in order to get or keep someone is bad strategy and it doesn’t work.

    Or relationship as staged drama. I agree that it seems like a bad strategy, which was why I said it wasn’t for me. However, becoming vulnerable to a woman who fantasizes about flipping your antithesis strikes me as somewhat strange and almost anti-intuitive, so I can see the “imposter asshole” game as a way of dealing with that sort of situation… for guys who wouldn’t choose to be single instead.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    I know you’re not a fan of porn, but that’s like saying that a guy goes through life wishing he could be a pizza delivery guy whose customer grabs his belt buckle and whips it open. I think it’s quite compartmentalized.

    The pizza delivery fantasy would be like the “rape” fantasy: neither presupposes a specific persona. The “flipping the alpha” fantasy would be akin to a fantasy about flipping a femme fatale. I would caution a “good” woman to be suspect of a man whose ultimate fantasy was flipping a femme fatale.

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

      The “flipping the alpha” fantasy would be akin to a fantasy about flipping a femme fatale. I would caution a “good” woman to be suspect of a man whose ultimate fantasy was flipping a femme fatale.

      Fair enough. I just don’t think most women – or men – make this fantasy a key part of who they are. Also, in this context you’re considering alpha a negative, when Anacaona is right – in romance novels the heroine does not flip a bad man, she just wins the heart of a desirable man – and by desirable I mean possessing most of the traits on Buss’ list. It’s not as psychologically dark as you’re making it out to be.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    Exactly. It can work for a ONS or maybe a short fling. That’s it. At what point does the Impostor Asshole fess up that he’s really a good and caring guy? And then what reaction does he expect from the asshole-loving girl?

    I agree. But replace Asshole with alpha and the same concern applies. This is my point.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “I’m bracing myself for a lot of boomer hate.”

    Not to be a douche but its not undeserved. Your generation royally fucked over the next few generations. Its gonna be worse here because we have to pay all the same old age nonsense you guys do but we also have to cover their healthcare.

    Article yesterday in one of the papers had two articles, millenial and boomer. Boomer basically said, we fucked up but maybe we can stop being greedy. The other bitched about how most of the things accesible to her parents would be beyond her reach for well over a decade (and shes older than I am).

    Anyway, theres better opportunities elsewhere on this wonderul blue planet. The American dream has become more of a nightmare. (Many other reasons as well not just economy or culture.)

    “You’re applying eugenics to yourself, and I think that’s a very bad idea. Just my .02.”

    You can’t apply eugenics to yourself unless you refuse to have children. I’m doing quite the opposite and fighting to reserve multiple spots (currently decided at 3) for my genes.

    Also, I’m far more calculating than your average individual. It helps I always had a thing for dark hair but mix race children will have a boost in quality due to heterozygosity at a greater number of loci. (And I love her and shes hot, win-win.) So, I haven’t dated a white chick since I was 17. (Not to mention the 25-50% chance that I could mix my genes with those of the Khan in some minute way is just bad ass.)

    “No, despite our differences sometimes I actually find you a pleasure to have around. You’re very opinionated but quite polite and you are open minded.”

    Hmm, mental note to try harder.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    I don’t believe it’s psychologically dark. Like I said, I don’t see this personally. Frankly, I suspect I’m at least as “alpha” as I am “beta.” But I’m trying to understand it from the perspective of a man who’s predominately “beta”–or at least perceived as beta by his SO.

    If such a scenario really is the “ultimate” female emo porn fantasy for the majority of women, then it would lend some credence to what gamers say about all women wanting the “alpha”.

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

      @Jesus

      If such a scenario really is the “ultimate” female emo porn fantasy for the majority of women, then it would lend some credence to what gamers say about all women wanting the “alpha”.

      Gamers are right about half the story. Women do want alpha traits. Where they’re wrong is that women do not reject beta traits, which are not the opposite of alpha traits, or the absence of alpha traits, but different traits altogether. Alpha traits are prioritized in short-term mating, and a mix is prioritized for long-term mating. Brendan was right – a square jaw and perfect white teeth are going to be strong initial attractors, because they signal good genes. But again, I caution viewing female sexuality as a lightswitch. It’s more like the control panel of a sophisticated jet. And every woman is a customized jet.

      There are aspects of female sexuality that men don’t like. That’s because babies come before mates – they are the ultimate priority. It doesn’t help to gloss over these realities. While I don’t share the view of some guys here, I’m not as idealistic as you are about female nature.

      I’m not finding 50 Shades of Grey at all arousing, but I expected to. To deny that women feel sexual arousal from fantasy would be a lie. But it has no bearing on real life – these are fictitious characters, as you’ve pointed out. Fantasizing about the pizza delivery guy – that would be different.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    I think what I’m getting at is this: if women as a whole really do subscribe to such a fantasy, then there’s a sliver of truth in what Escoffier says–and in his perspective on relationships.

    It’s fine if that’s reality for all but a few outliers–though it would radically alter any kind of relationship advice I would give to the non-outliers. It would seem to me that non-outliers are best not showing all of their cards in a relationship. Love, for most, can’t mean complete surrender.

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

      there’s a sliver of truth in what Escoffier says–and in his perspective on relationships.

      There definitely is! Like I said earlier, I think Escoffier swallowed the red planet rather than the red pill, but there is most definitely truth in what he says.

  • Brendan

    @JM –

    But do you really think you can extrapolate that much from fantasization? Men have some pretty “interesting” fantasies as well, which I think in general would be a poor source for women trying to discern what men are looking for/attracted to in a relationship partner.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Brendan,

    But do you really think you can extrapolate that much from fantasization? Men have some pretty “interesting” fantasies as well, which I think in general would be a poor source for women trying to discern what men are looking for/attracted to in a relationship partner.

    I think what I’m saying is that such a fantasy implies a disparity between what a person “looks for” in a relationship and what they “respond to” sexually. If a woman’s partner is perceived to be “beta” and yet her ultimate fantasy is winning an alpha, then I don’t think it benefits the “beta” to give himself over to the relationship as completely.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, I don’t think Knightly is pure alpha in game terms. He is after all totally rooted to his estate and devoted to his tenants. He has a nest that he is quite proud of, just no mama bird to share it with.

    He has, apparently, no vices. Austen occasionally drops little hints that she knows what kind of debauchery is going on out there in Regency society. (And we know from her letters that she knew.) Knightly has the cash and the social cache to participate if he wants to but he doesn’t.

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

      Susan, I don’t think Knightly is pure alpha in game terms. He is after all totally rooted to his estate and devoted to his tenants. He has a nest that he is quite proud of, just no mama bird to share it with.

      Right, and that’s the limitation of Game. Knightly is pretty close to the ideal male, and that’s due in large part to his beta traits. Pure alpha in Game terms is a cad. Austen wrote a few of those too.

  • Escoffier

    Re: fantasies, every once in a while in advice columns, e.g., Dear Prudence in Slate, I run across letters, usually from men, who say “My fantasy has always been to do X and after three years I convinced my wife/GF to do it, and now that we have done it, I can’t even look at her any more.” Alternative ending: “She left me for the other guy.”

    Sad but also a little bit funny.

  • Brendan

    I think what I’m saying is that such a fantasy implies a disparity between what a person “looks for” in a relationship and what they “respond to” sexually. If a woman’s partner is perceived to be “beta” and yet her ultimate fantasy is winning an alpha, then I don’t think it benefits the “beta” to give himself over to the relationship as completely.

    I think the main takeaway, for me at least, is that it’s best to put your alpha foot forward at the beginning, just as it’s best for a woman to put her feminine foot forward at the beginning (some women screw this up, too, by being too masculine when on dates and then complaining that men are intimidated by them when in fact they are just not attracted to the unfeminine in an initial meeting). I think that this period doesn’t last that long, because at some not very distant stage, the rest of the person is disclosed, gradually, and that’s where the rest of the beta traits show up (as well as some of the masculine traits for the woman). This way, they are not the *first* thing the other person is seeing, so they are disclosed after attraction to the masculine/feminine, respectively, has already been established.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Well, if a “beta” or “alpha-beta combo” guy pretty much has to accept the fact that even the best woman is going to be aroused by fantasies of the pure alpha, then I withdraw about 98% of what I’ve said about love, women, and relationships in the past 5 months.

  • Sassy6519

    I think the main takeaway, for me at least, is that it’s best to put your alpha foot forward at the beginning, just as it’s best for a woman to put her feminine foot forward at the beginning (some women screw this up, too, by being too masculine when on dates and then complaining that men are intimidated by them when in fact they are just not attracted to the unfeminine in an initial meeting).

    Bingo.

  • Escoffier

    “I think Escoffier swallowed the red planet rather than the red pill”

    Lol, I am so far from a red pill guy it’s not even close. Go read some of my adventures in Dalrock’s comment threads if you want to see how real red pillers react to me.

    I am an Aristotle guy, I believe in teleology, virtue and natural right.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Seeing Rollo in a whole new light. Beginning to regret my insults toward him.

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

      @Jesus

      Seeing Rollo in a whole new light. Beginning to regret my insults toward him.

      Wow, you really know how to hurt a girl. Seeing you go over to the Dark Side? That would be a loss indeed.

  • Brendan

    I’m not finding 50 Shades of Grey at all arousing, but I expected to. To deny that women feel sexual arousal from fantasy would be a lie. But it has no bearing on real life – these are fictitious characters, as you’ve pointed out. Fantasizing about the pizza delivery guy – that would be different.

    Exactly. It’s a general fantasization, as we see in porn for men or romnovs for women, as compared with fantasizing about “my heighbor’s wife/husband”, which gets very problematic very quickly due to opportunity.

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

    Exactly. It’s a general fantasization, as we see in porn for men or romnovs for women, as compared with fantasizing about “my heighbor’s wife/husband”, which gets very problematic very quickly due to opportunity.

    I think many men don’t consider that there is a difference between enjoying certain fantasies and being obsessed with them. Most sexologists and psychologist agree that fantasies are not a problem till they become a problem. That is why I found ludicrous when a woman thinks that her husband is cheating if he is watching porn, the same about a woman liking romcoms or romances and her man thinking she is being disrespectful. If the man only wants porn and can’t get it up without porn then is a problem, the same for a woman that spents all her energy in fantasyland and doesn’t care for the men in her lives. BIG difference but then I think this is one of the things that unless you are a nerd (spent a lot of your time in fictional universes dreaming with warp speed without this affecting you using a normal car to commute to work) you won’t get, YMMV.

  • SayWhaat

    JM, very few women would tingle for a cad. With full disclosure, few women would go for a cad, and the ones who would are fucked in the head. That is why a cad lies to get into a girl’s pants. That is the definition of a cad.

  • OffTheCuff

    SayWhaat: if few women tingled for a cads as you say, they would only be wanna-be cads, not actual ones. Honesty works so much better more than deception, and that’s why players do so well.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Saywhaat,

    My fault for confusing terms. What Sue and Sassy seem to be saying is that the ultimate female fantasy is to win over the “alpha” (not necessarily the cad).

    I’m sure there are some women who would disagree, but if it’s true for the vast majority, then my idea of love for betas and alpha/betas would be very different. I wouldn’t recommend a man ever fully disclose himself to a woman for example. I would recommend that men maintain a certain emotional distance.

    This doesn’t jibe with my idea of love, but I’m beginning to see just how unrealistic my idea of love is.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Take a concept such as “instilling dread.” Sounds terrible, but in reality it’s probably just playing into this fantasy that women have: by showing a woman your options and your interest in the world outside of your relationship, you’re evoking her desire to “win over the alpha.”

  • http://T SayWhaat

    The ultimate female fantasy is winning over the alpha by drawing out his beta traits.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Saywhaat,

    Right. But the object of the fantasy is still the alpha.

    I’m not complaining about it. I’m just really understanding it for the first time.

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

      Right. But the object of the fantasy is still the alpha.

      No. Would you please just forget these terms? The object of the fantasy is to take a man who is competent, ambitious, and respected by other men, and turn him into a man who is all that plus softened by the love of a woman.

      Romance novels never focus on flipping a cad. The cad always is disgraced in the end.

      Jesus, you’re the one who said you don’t believe alpha exists, and now you’re getting hung up on the vocabulary. Guess what? Women don’t think in terms of alpha and beta. Men do.

  • Lokland

    @JM

    This is news to you?

    Thats exactly what game is acting/becoming a womans dream man.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Lokland,

    Yes, this is news to me. And I apologize to all the guys I’ve given misguided advice to over the past few months.

  • http://T SayWhaat

    The object is an alpha…who adds beta. Therefore the ultimate fantasy is alpha + beta. This does not contradict anything we have said here for the past few months.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    There’s a difference between the alpha who adds beta in response to a woman’s love and desire and the man who is a mix of alpha and beta traits.

  • OffTheCuff

    Yes, JM, finally you are seeing!

    Game writers caution that most men who get into it, only go so far until they meet their “dream girl” and then fall back into old habits of excessive idealism and supplication. Going “beta”, and that can happen quickly as easily as it can erode slowly over time. I see that a bit in your attitude after you met your girlfriend.

    That doesn’t mean harden an be immune to love, but do remember what got you there.

  • http://T SayWhaat

    Another ultimate female fantasyL the beta who adds alpha. Final result is again alpha + beta. See: every underdog story, ever.

    I don’t have time to get into all this, I’ve been stuck at the office all weekend and I have shit to do.

  • Lokland

    Winning strategy,
    Present with alpha overload.
    Slowly add in beta.
    Find happy place.
    Maintenaince.

    Relationships are really that simple. How easy it is to pull off is another beast entirely.

    Point is, if you want to know if your doing it right. She should probably wonder if your a womanizer when your first getting together, whether you are or not. Then you become hers.

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

      She should probably wonder if your a womanizer when your first getting together, whether you are or not. Then you become hers.

      This is BS. Many women avoid womanizers like the plague. It’s a DLV for long-term mating.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    OTC,

    Game writers caution that most men who get into it, only go so far until they meet their “dream girl” and then fall back into old habits of excessive idealism and supplication. Going “beta”, and that can happen quickly as easily as it can erode slowly over time. I see that a bit in your attitude after you met your girlfriend.

    That doesn’t mean harden an be immune to love, but do remember what got you there.

    See, I was under the impression that it was the mix of alpha and beta traits that attracted her. The idea that her fantasy would be the alpha that softens to a bit of beta for her rubs me the wrong way altogether.

    For now, I’m just trying to understand this objectively. If I start thinking about this in terms of my own relationship right now, and if I accept that that this “fantasy” is something that she too responds to, my first impulse would be to go out and fuck 10 others.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Point is, if you want to know if your doing it right. She should probably wonder if your a womanizer when your first getting together, whether you are or not. Then you become hers.

    Great if this works for you. I wouldn’t be interested in that.

  • http://T SayWhaat

    JM, your initial impression is also correct

  • Jesus Mahoney

    JM, your initial impression is also correct

    Yea. I guess it’s really just a matter of whether or not this whole “fantasy” is one she shares.

  • AndrewV

    @JM,

    “if I accept that that this “fantasy” is something that she too responds to, my first impulse would be to go out and fuck 10 others”.

    I am pretty sure I would not recommend that. It is one thing to create the possibility, it is quite another to actually do it.

  • Mike C

    For now, I’m just trying to understand this objectively.

    That has *ALWAYS* been my objective. It can get really confusing because I think it does actually vary significantly across different women. Clearly, Susan and Sassy are radically different in their preferences just to highlight two instances. I’ve been ruminating on Susan’s statement that even her ONS were with beta provider types so clearly there must be some initial attraction to beta traits. But then I think about guys I’ve known who pulled ONS and they are all archetypal alphas.

    IDK, I think the vast majority of guys out there are plenty beta enough already and bringing plenty of beta comfort traits. IMO, the danger any guy has in not bringing enough alpha so I’m wary of any subtextual message that “hey, bring the beta comfort/providing on” and you’ll do just great which is the humming I hear in the background.

    Even with the increase in female college graduation rates compared to men, there still should be a very sizable percentage of men who meet the “nesting” criteria for long-term mating.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Andrew,

    I wasn’t suggesting that I’d cheat. I’m not a cheater.

    Mike C,

    You’re right. Most men don’t need to learn to bring on the beta.

    I don’t think I’m capable of loving someone who could be attracted to “pure” alpha, even in the hopes of drawing out some beta.

    Unless I change my understanding of love.

  • OffTheCuff

    JM, just because it’s not the utmost fantasy, doesn’t mean a solid relationship can’t be had without alpha+beta at the outset.

    But when I met my wife, I can see now how I didn’t lead with any beta stuff, and really kept it mostly at bay. She didn’t know me, I didn’t play with kids or buy flowers or take her to dinner or do her homework… that all came much later. It was pretty much raw sexual energy at first, with the tiniest drop of nice.

    They want to see the beta traits revealed over time, just like a striptease is sexy to us.

  • Mike C

    I don’t think I’m capable of loving someone who could be attracted to “pure” alpha, even in the hopes of drawing out some beta.

    Unless I change my understanding of love.

    IDK…I would never suggest you should or shouldn’t do anything, but I will say that my understanding of love is different than yours in that I don’t have that “idealization” part. To me, there is very much an active decision making component to love, but I’ve been in two long-term relationships that have lasted a number of years, not just 3-6 months.

    I”ll admit I kind of chuckle when someone in their 20s talks about “long-term committed” relationship with the backdrop of being with someone for 3 months or 6 months. Get back to me when you’ve been with someone for 3 years, 5 years. At least to me, “love” very much includes a component of active decision making that this person’s feelings and well-being matter greatly to me beyond just being “lost” in some emotional state.

    To your first point, I simply view it as we human beings have no control over our primal attraction triggers whether male or female. When I see a hot 17-year old, I’m sexually attracted. Millions of years of biology of encoded that instinct. There is nothing “bad” about that. What I choose to act on is. Now, are women attracted to alpha traits and only alpha traits on a primal basis? I”m not 100% sure, and Susan’s position seems to be that it is a mix of alpha and beta traits that maximize attraction. IDK. But I don’t think “love” should be contingent on what someone’s primal attraction triggers are or are not.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    I agree with everything you guys are saying. And I’m not “judging” anybody for their “primal” triggers. I just don’t think I could love a person under those circumstances

  • Michael of Charlotte

    @Mike C 527,

    “IDK, I think the vast majority of guys out there are plenty beta enough already and bringing plenty of beta comfort traits. IMO, the danger any guy has in not bringing enough alpha so I’m wary of any subtextual message that “hey, bring the beta comfort/providing on” and you’ll do just great which is the humming I hear in the background.”

    That was my reaction to the initial article. The last thing that guys need to hear who aren’t swimming in options is to be more beta.

    My position at work is increasingly forcing me to become more and more alpha. I find the reaction from men the most strange. But when I slip into alpha mode around women, it’s VERY interesting.

    @Lokland 521,

    :Winning strategy,
    Present with alpha overload.
    Slowly add in beta.
    Find happy place.
    Maintenaince.

    Relationships are really that simple. How easy it is to pull off is another beast entirely.”

    I’m learning (the hard way) this is the case as well. Showing Beta traits at all in the beginning to look like such a huge mistake. It almost seems like I should view showing Beta traits on the level of women putting out. Doing so too early spells the death of a potential relationship, just like women putting out too early.

    I’ll have to think about that while I’m at the gym today getting more alpha.

  • Male Perspective

    “My fantasy has always been to do X and after three years I convinced my wife/GF to do it, and now that we have done it, I can’t even look at her any more.”

    Don’t get this. Explain?

  • Sassy6519

    Winning strategy,
    Present with alpha overload.
    Slowly add in beta.
    Find happy place.
    Maintenaince.

    Relationships are really that simple. How easy it is to pull off is another beast entirely.

    Yes! Ding Ding Ding!! We have a winner!!!

    I see a lot of eyes opening right now. I’ve been saying a version of this for awhile now. This seems to be what most women want. I’m not just basing this off of my experiences, or my friends’ experiences. I’ve based it off of the experiences of every woman I have ever spoken to about relationships and men, which is quite a considerable amount.

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

    Michael of Charlotte…”My position at work is increasingly forcing me to become more and more alpha. I find the reaction from men the most strange”

    In what way?

  • OffTheCuff

    Sassy: “I’ve been saying a version of this for awhile now”

    Actually, it’s start with alpha. Add in beta if she really deserves it, or perhaps never.

  • Lokland

    @OTC

    Solid point. I was working under the assumption that she was worth it. If shes not keep up the alpha.

  • Male Perspective

    “Solid point. I was working under the assumption that she was worth it. If shes not keep up the alpha.”

    Wouldn’t it be the other way around? Slack off if she’s not worth it, stay on top of your game if she is.

  • Lokland

    @Male Perspective

    If shes worth it you “switch” to LTR game which involves alpha-beta mix. (The relative quantities differ by the lady in question, for example I’m prolly 60-40 beta-alpha and 50-50 when ovulating. I started with like 5-95 and mixed in the beta overtime.)

    If she isn’t wife material theres no point doing beta because its not gonna go long-term anyway. Therefore keep her hot, horny and bothered with no intent of committing until she gets the hint and goes elsewhere.
    (I can feel evil death rays hitting me already.)

  • Male Perspective

    ” I’m prolly 60-40 beta-alpha and 50-50 when ovulating.”

    Dude, TMI. What are you doing ovulating in the first place?

  • Lokland

    @MP

    lol, long story. Involved this creepy old man in Shaghai one time sayin funny words and he had some kind of dead lizard.

  • Jennifer

    “now guys are free to be flight attendants and nurses and housewives – isn’t that great, guys? Well, you know, nine out of 10 guys are not so thrilled about that”

    I laughed at that..

    “And I’ve talked to women who said, well, of course, why would they be happy? Those are the jobs we’re happy to escape now”

    ..then got disgusted at THAT. Nursing and homewifery is now shameful. Of course.

    This is indeed a big problem: men need education and should get it for EVERY reason in the book. Empowering women isn’t the problem, but empowering them at the EXPENSE of men. Men HAVE to feel like they’re taking care of their families, and most aren’t happy doing this by being stay-at-home dads. Most women are happy raising kids at home at some point, and THIS is why they want men with better jobs than the ones they have: you can’t marry a man with a smaller job if you don’t want to be the main worker. And then there’s simply the fact that men are more wired for physically tough, lonely jobs than women are; we’re far more likely to be happy at home, while men are more likely to take longer jobs and often socialize at work. That’s nature, fem-sweeties; deal with it.

  • Male Perspective

    “Men HAVE to feel like they’re taking care of their families, and most aren’t happy doing this by being stay-at-home dads”

    Start a home business.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    The more I think about it, the more I realize that I’m just repulsed by anyone who’s “essentially” alpha–who doesn’t evince an equal amount of “beta.”

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

      The more I think about it, the more I realize that I’m just repulsed by anyone who’s “essentially” alpha–who doesn’t evince an equal amount of “beta.”

      “Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win.”

      Victor Laszlo

      A man without beta is half a man.

  • Michael of Charlotte

    @David Foster 535

    A bit off the topic, but my background is not in engineering. However, I lead one of the engineering review efforts for both contractors and internal folks. It’s amazing to me that they defer to me at all but often times, they do. I just find it weird when men will just sit back and let other men do the decision making, especially since they know more than me.

  • Dogsquat

    @IronFistedQuestionablyMaterialedGloveLady:

    You’re a Good Egg, Susan. If I can help you, I will.

  • Dogsquat

    @Jennifer and Male Perspective:

    “Men HAVE to feel like they’re taking care of their families, and most aren’t happy doing this by being stay-at-home dads.”
    _______________________________

    I honestly don’t know why more guys don’t consider healthcare.

    For any dude reading:

    I started as a phlebotomist while in school for other things. First I worked Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday nights making $18.00/hour with benefits and extra money for education.

    Later I switched to collecting timed tests (pain in the ass sometimes). I worked from 0400-0700 five days a week, and I made about $700/week, after taxes. If I had any kids, it would have been fairly simple to work around that schedule.

    Now I’m a paramedic, and I can work as much or as little as I want. I can go to an oil rig or overseas and make pretty damn good money, or stay here and work on a truck or in an ER. Plus, the emergency room is always open, and there are usually slots open on night shifts. Put the kids to bed, go work, get off, and take ‘em to school.

    Some of my friends work in rural areas. They do stretches where they’re on call – they’ve got to carry a pager/phone and respond to a scene in a certain amount of time. These folks usually live in the (rural) area they cover, so they get paid to stay within a few miles of their house. Not much money there, but where else can you get paid to sleep in your own bed?

    Nursing is a similarly flexible field, with much more variety and (sometimes much) higher pay.

    Seriously – if you’re a dude and you want to be there for your kids, consider healthcare.

    As a bonus – you’ll run into some pretty neat women in this field.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    While I don’t share the view of some guys here, I’m not as idealistic as you are about female nature.

    I’m done with idealism.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    The question I have to work out now is: do I maintain this relationship, changing the dynamic to place limits on intimacy, trust, and emotional availability or do I just scrap relationships altogether and go back to where I was this summer?

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

      @Jesus

      The question I have to work out now is: do I maintain this relationship, changing the dynamic to place limits on intimacy, trust, and emotional availability or do I just scrap relationships altogether and go back to where I was this summer?

      Have you lost your mind? Dude, tell me this is just an April Fool’s joke.

      I sure hope you’re not seeing your girlfriend tonight, because she won’t know what hit her.

      One final suggestion from me: Don’t take advice from anyone whose relationship (and relationship history) you wouldn’t want for yourself.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Wow, you really know how to hurt a girl. Seeing you go over to the Dark Side? That would be a loss indeed.

    Honestly, Idk. I’m not making any decisions yet. I either have to change my understanding of what actually constitutes love, or I have to just give up on love altogether.

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

      I either have to change my understanding of what actually constitutes love, or I have to just give up on love altogether.

      Jesus, you are not learning anything new. Remember those animated Disney movies? Prince Charming? That’s the female fantasy. I would argue he’s a mix of alpha and beta. He’s certainly not a womanizer, he doesn’t withhold love or affection, and he doesn’t approach women with “alpha overload.”

      Women don’t love womanizers. They don’t fall in love with cads. Headcases like cads the way cutters like razor blades.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    A man without beta is half a man.

    I agree–and herein lies the problem. If the fantasy is to win the love of the man who’s “essentially alpha” and to draw out the beta in him, then admirable as the goal may be, the initial attraction to the alpha repulses me.

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

      If the fantasy is to win the love of the man who’s “essentially alpha” and to draw out the beta in him, then admirable as the goal may be, the initial attraction to the alpha repulses me.

      He is not essentially alpha – he is a man who flourishes with the love of a good woman. She enables him to express his more tender side. It’s there all along – it takes a woman to bring it out. That is the fantasy. It’s worth noting that the woman doesn’t want more alpha – she wants more beta.

      I agree with you on one thing – if I had to be gamed by my husband, and knew he was deploying strategies to appear more dominant? That would be one failed marriage. It’s all about inner game, which you’ve known all along. Why you’re regressing to sociopathy is beyond me.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Jesus Mahoney

    If the fantasy is to win the love of the man who’s “essentially alpha” and to draw out the beta in him, then admirable as the goal may be, the initial attraction to the alpha repulses me.

    Why? Why does it repulse you?

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Have you lost your mind?

    Maybe. Basically, this is the same problem I ran into in the other post with the comments about the guy from Friday Night Lights. The idea of attraction to the alpha repulses me just as much as the idea of the pure alpha. I’m sure that it’s my own shortcoming and nobody else’s, and I’m sure it’s all tied in with my “alpha” brother and a mom who told me to shut up and stop crying so she could sit and read her romance novels all day… I don’t blame women for their attraction triggers, but I really don’t think I’m capable of loving a person who’s capable of an attraction to a guy who’s virtually “all alpha”–even if the fantasy is to change him in the end.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Why? Why does it repulse you?

    Probably because I saw girls falling over themselves to be with an alpha who treated me worse than an Abu Graib prisoner when I was a little boy.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    Really, I’m not regressing to sociopathy. If I feel like my gf fantasizes about “alphas,” then probably I’ll break it off. I don’t see myself playing dark game to keep a relationship going. I guess I just don’t relish the idea of ending it, either.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Jesus Mahoney

    I watched my father beat the daylights out of my mother for years. I watched him also abuse my sister and brother. I was also not spared from his abuse.

    Plenty of people are victims of abuse, including myself. I, however, refuse to make the entire male sex pay for the sins of my father. You seem to want to make all women pay penance for the faults of your brother and mother. How is that fair?

    I went to counseling to help get over the scars I had from my past. Have you ever sought counseling for yours? I’d suggest it, if you haven’t.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sassy,

    How do I want to make all women pay penance for anything my family did to me?

  • Male Perspective

    Dunno about all this beta and alpha. Chicks are attracted to goodlooking guys who can do something or at least know something and are confident and interesting.

    “now guys are free to be flight attendants and nurses and housewives – isn’t that great, guys? Well, you know, nine out of 10 guys are not so thrilled about that”

    Dunno about that either. I know a few of each and they’re all pretty psyched about their lives. Especially the flight attendants because they love to travel. The cup is either half empty or half full depending on you.

  • Herb

    @Sassy

    It’s my same reaction to beta males. I want to help them, but I don’t want to date them. It’s sad, and fairly superficial, but it’s true.

    At this point I don’t want pity.

    What I want is the mass of women who decided my values, genes, and aptitudes weren’t good enough to pass onto the next generation quit expecting my ass to be taxed to support the offspring of men whose values, genes, and aptitudes they did but who didn’t stick around.

    In fact, the one group of women I am okay treating like shit on a personal level are the single mothers who enter my social sphere and realizing I’m single and wanted to be a dad start to romance me, noting I can have the family I always wanted right away. It’s bad enough I have to finance them wholesale during taxes, but to offer to let me finance another man’s child in the name of having a family is insulting. I’m happy to be insulting right back.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    I have inner game still. I’m happy with who I am as a person. And I want to be with someone who’s happy with who I am as a person. I don’t want to be with someone if her ultimate fantasy doesn’t correspond to who I am as a person.

  • AndrewV

    @Jesus Mahoney April 1, 2012 at 11:15 pm

    I would suggest you reread what Susan wrote in #561 and reconsider.

    I would also suggest that if and when you have children of your own, that you will know what NOT to do.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    After dumping me, she revealed that she had only been using me for ego boosts and free rides to and from our university (I thought her talk about fearing physical intimacy seemed a little fishy).

    I wish I could send women like this to Guantanamo. That’s reprehensible.

    Perhaps it is. It is also common enough that many men will have the majority of their relationships, including marriage, with women like that before they finally become bitter and pack it in.

    I personally think the current “go grrl” environment encourages women to act like that, especially with respect to men. What is the “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” tee shirt wearing girl going to think of men at 25?

    That leads to an interesting question. How many “grrl power” girls are the equivalent of Game taught fake assholes. Do college and 20 something women after act grrl power types for social reasons when they don’t want to? This could be a significant issue for the 80% of college women who want a bf but can’t get one. Grrl power is like anti-game for women, after all.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Take for example this 50 Shades of Grey book. All well and good if women find this arousing, but from what I’ve heard, Grey is not at all a Prince Charming. At all. He’s predominately alpha. He’s alpha overload in many ways.

    And yet, this book really is quite the phenomenon.

    Prince Charming I can do. And do do very well. But if women are aroused by the sort of things I’ve heard described from 50 Shades, then… I’m repulsed.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Jesus Mahoney

    You are repulsed by alphas because of what your alpha brother did to you. You loathe them also because of your mother’s fascination with them.

    In turn, you find it hard to be with or love any woman who may be attracted to alphas. What you are now realizing is that alpha traits are instinctively attractive to women.

    It seems like you consider alpha traits or alpha men bad things. Just because your brother was an alpha who treated you horribly does not mean that all alpha males are evil people.

    You seem to want women to reject alpha traits and alpha males because of the pain alphas have caused you. How realistic is that, however?

    That’s going to go over as well as women expecting men to reject young fertile women and to take old infertile women instead. Some women have tried to do that very thing, and they haven’t been successful in the least.

    It just seems like you are holding all women to a standard that isn’t realistic or possible to accomplish.

  • Herb

    @dogsquat

    Send something easier for those dudes to deal with, like a giant dragon with laser beams for eyes and AIDS for blood.

    Hmmm, if he’s venerable or older his HP per HD will still be high for the marines. Younger than that and they’ll probably be okay.

  • Male Perspective

    “What I want is the mass of women who decided my values, genes, and aptitudes weren’t good enough to pass onto the next generation quit expecting my ass to be taxed to support the offspring of men whose values, genes, and aptitudes they did but who didn’t stick around.

    In fact, the one group of women I am okay treating like shit on a personal level are the single mothers who enter my social sphere and realizing I’m single and wanted to be a dad start to romance me, noting I can have the family I always wanted right away. It’s bad enough I have to finance them wholesale during taxes, but to offer to let me finance another man’s child in the name of having a family is insulting. I’m happy to be insulting right back.”

    Whoa dude hold up there. If you haven’t managed to attract even one childless female your entire life up until now despite trying you might want to consider that it could be you and not them with the problem. And those single moms? I went through a period where the only women I would date were single moms because they were more grounded, nurturing and giving than the childless chicks.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sassy,

    I don’t reject alpha traits. I think I have a good many myself, thanks. What I reject are people who are predominately alpha and lacking a balance of beta traits. I reject women who are attracted to men with alpha traits even when there’s a perceived lack of complementary beta traits (the desire to “educe” the beta traits in a man presupposes an initial lack of such traits).

    It’s neither realistic nor unrealistic because I’m not “expecting” women to live in accordance with my ideals.

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

      @Jesus

      (the desire to “educe” the beta traits in a man presupposes an initial lack of such traits).

      No it does not. This is where you’re making an error. The woman inspires the man to reveal his tender side. Watch a John Wayne western sometime that includes a love interest. Or better yet, The Quiet Man, which was his own favorite.

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

    I’m curious if you have an opinion on 50 Shades of Grey. Having read about a third of it, I imagine that a true Twihard would not approve – but supposedly that’s who spread the word and made this book a bestseller. I read that Kristen Stewart can’t wait to read it.

    This books combines three things I don’t really like fanfiction, BSDM and seeing characters I sort of know getting nasty so is not so much about being a Twihard but I don’t plan to read it or watch the movies like the Hunger Games is just not for me.

    Agreed, the alpha male of a woman’s fantasies always shows good character traits right away. I haven’t read a lot of romance but I believe this is often portrayed as being highly respected by other men – he is a beloved leader. He may also be devoted to family, as Darcy is. So the fantasy is not to flip a bad boy, but to awaken the feminine energy that lies dormant in every male. In the typical language in these parts, that means bringing out his beta side.

    This is an important distinction the true pure Alpha of that story is Wickham and all the women that feel for him are whether naive (Giorganna) or stupid (Lidya). I just don’t know if men can actually identify an Alpha, a Gamma man ( to coin Athol’s term) or a Beta. I think men tend to think a man that gets away with something they did and got them dumped as Alpha Asshole. I also mentioned all the hate the sex symbols get from men from Rudolph Valentino to Edward Cullen so I’m not sure if men can get past their dislike of competition to actually see the nuances on this distinctions.

    I strongly disagree. I think this is a terrible way to see yourself, and I don’t think it’s accurate. I hate talk of high quality and low quality genes. Also, you have no idea what offspring your union will produce. My “chubby thighs” gene lost the battle with my husband’s genes and my daughter has slim legs a mile long. You’re applying eugenics to yourself, and I think that’s a very bad idea. Just my .02.

    The funny thing is that as a scientist Lokland has no idea what genes are going to do in the near future if an epidemy comes and only shorter men get to reproduce he will be having the best genes for the task. Me thinks he just decided he was going to hate himself over this like a woman with an A cup decides she could never compete with a woman with double DD, instead of focusing on the market of men that will be crazy about her the way she is.

    But do you really think you can extrapolate that much from fantasization? Men have some pretty “interesting” fantasies as well, which I think in general would be a poor source for women trying to discern what men are looking for/attracted to in a relationship partner.

    Cosign this.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    And I don’t loathe them because of my mother’s fascination with them. I loathed my mom growing up because she was too hooked on her books to bother getting up to prevent my brother strangling me with a belt or shoving my face into my own feces because I was taking too long on the bowl.

    But I don’t loathe either of them anymore. I went through a difficult period in which I worked out my forgiveness for everything. That’s not to say it doesn’t still affect me. Obviously it influences my way of thinking today. And I sometimes have nightmares (for example, I woke up remembering the “belt” incident early this morning, which was brought on by a perfect report card I got in the 2nd grade, I believe). But I think I’m probably about as “over” it as it’s possible to be.

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

    @Susan
    If Jesus knows what the source of his problems are (mom and brother) and instead on using them as excuse to go to the other side he would get his ass in therapy and work his issues I will feel more pity for him. As of now he just showing that the apple doesn’t fall too far away from the tree and that he is not anywhere better than the mother that abandoned him over some fictional lovers and the brother he abused him because he was “oh so Alpha” he just picked a different poison and a different reasons to get into the same place. You can’t save them all you know?

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ana,

    I wouldn’t like your pity. Or your respect for that matter.

    Carry on.

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

    I wouldn’t like your pity. Or your respect for that matter.

    Good that you don’t have either then. Sadly can’t deny you my attention for the time being, people is watching and we need to make sure the identify a drama queen when they see one. “Oh pity me I was abused by my family so I get to be a jerk if I feel like it and is all your fault” had lot of that on Jezebel “I was abused so I get to hate all men and treat them like crap and is all penis carriers fault” no thanks.

  • Herb

    @Male Perspective

    Whoa dude hold up there. If you haven’t managed to attract even one childless female your entire life up until now despite trying you might want to consider that it could be you and not them with the problem. And those single moms? I went through a period where the only women I would date were single moms because they were more grounded, nurturing and giving than the childless chicks.

    I was married for over a decade, so I’ve attracted childless women before. It’s been since my divorce (in my mid-30s) that women with children entered period. My experience of 30+ single moms is they needed someone who could hold a job better than the one they had (a job often compromised by their need to take care of their children…the traditional division of labor was not just to oppress women but to gain the economic advantages of specialization).

    I understand their need, but I wish they were a little bit more discrete about sizing men up in the “daddy and provider” terms. It’s one thing to know it’s there, but the offer of “instant family” (like it is a good thing) came twice and my response was…blunt.

  • Herb

    @Ana

    I just don’t know if men can actually identify an Alpha, a Gamma man ( to coin Athol’s term) or a Beta. I think men tend to think a man that gets away with something they did and got them dumped as Alpha Asshole. I also mentioned all the hate the sex symbols get from men from Rudolph Valentino to Edward Cullen so I’m not sure if men can get past their dislike of competition to actually see the nuances on this distinctions.

    Honest (ie, not sarcastic question), could women either help men see that or be more open with men about how they see that mix in a man they are talking to?

  • Male Perspective

    Herb, of course you’re going to get offers from 30 something single moms, they are in your age bracket and dating demographic. Realistically how many childless 30 something women are out there? I would be worried if they were not sizing you up for potential provider dad material. From where I stand not enough single moms do that and end up putting their children at risk. Be thankful that at least you are meeting the more sensible ones with maternal instincts intact.

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

    Honest (ie, not sarcastic question), could women either help men see that or be more open with men about how they see that mix in a man they are talking to?

    Good question. I really don’t know. I think someone has to invent a gender to gender translator or something along those lines. I do have a theory noticing that Latin men have a lot less issues with Romance, fantasies and Leading men than First world ones I think is the early exposure to it before puberty hits. I think once big T is on the body, men can’t connect certain cues beyond “Competition, must kill” a bit like depression is prevalent during the childbearing years of both genders than any other time of their lives.
    But is a just a theory based on how much interaction with the gender goes on in my own culture and also some interesting conversations about this I have had with men past their peak of T.
    Do we have any game middle age game writer? I think they might have a useful perspective.

  • Male Perspective

    Latin lovers? Seems to me like latin boys download the suave sensual lover program at an early age. Some of the male readers of this blog appear to be just now learning these things in middle age.

  • Male Perspective

    “Honest (ie, not sarcastic question), could women either help men see that or be more open with men about how they see that mix in a man they are talking to?”

    My experience is that women have told me when I do things they like. So I just wash, rinse and repeat. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    I apologize for cursing out Ana on your blog.

    Just to be clear, I have no intention of applying dark game a la the Ro’s. This whole topic dredges up old ghosts for me. As I’ve said, “alphas” repulse me. You agreed with Sassy that the ultimate female fantasy was to win over and “soften” the alpha.

    I happen to take what you say to heart. That’s my issue, not yours, but it was depressing to hear a woman who’s married to a “beta” (a woman I like and respect a lot, btw) say that the ultimate female fantasy was to win the alpha.

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

      @Jesus

      You agreed with Sassy that the ultimate female fantasy was to win over and “soften” the alpha.

      It is gratifying for a woman to bring out the nurturing traits in a man. If he’s all alpha and has none, that’s not possible. If he’s all beta and has no dominance, that’s not possible. It’s about the mix and the balance. Winning my husband’s love and getting him to surrender to it was hard, even though he’s not particularly dominant. The fantasy can apply to most men.

      Different women like different things. Personally, I’ve always liked a sprinkle of alpha in my beta, just as SayWhaat said. Obviously, cads are successful with women, so we know that there are women who like pure alpha, to the point where they reward a complete lack of empathy and caring in a man.

      Your apology was appropriate but should be directed to Ana.

      Jesus, it’s pretty clear that you endured horrors as a kid. You still express a lot of pain. It is not resolved, and you are not over it. It will affect your relationship in time if you don’t work through it.

      You recently mentioned that you have a photo of your eight year-old self at your desk, and you expressed empathy for that boy. I’ll tell you a story from my own therapy.

      I’m very close to my brothers, but the relationship has been more parent-child in nature than same age siblings. This is odd because the three of us were born in a 2.5 year period. My younger brother in particular sees me as a mother figure, and came to me when he was hungry, hurt, etc. even as a baby. As you can imagine, being a toddler myself I was not a very competent caregiver.

      Anyway, I was talking about that dynamic with my therapist one day. I remembered something that had long been repressed. I was in an apartment my family left when I was three. My brothers would have been one and two. It was a sunny morning and my mother was not there. (Actually, she probably was in bed, I don’t think she ever left us truly alone.) It got to be lunchtime. My brothers were hungry and asking me for lunch. I didn’t know how to get lunch. I went to the refrigerator and found an unopened package of Philadelphia cream cheese. I brought it to the floor, along with three spoons. My brothers and I shared that brick of cream cheese for lunch. I remember we were all quite happy with this lunch. It was delicious.

      Telling the story I began sobbing, and I cried for a really long time. My therapist asked why I was so sad. I told her I was crying for that poor little girl, a mother at the age of three.

      I think you need to do that crying, and you’re going to need a guide. Please consider therapy, it’s a way of loving that eight year-old boy.

  • Male Perspective

    Didn’t Sue say she had to fight off undergrads to get to her now hubby? Does that qualify as alpha?

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

    Latin lovers? Seems to me like latin boys download the suave sensual lover program at an early age.

    Heh I know I know I had tried to understand it and I think is the lack of “girls have coties” stage males are told early on that playing with girls is good for them, also Telenovelas are our Primetime shows so the whole family gets to see this gender interactions early on during dinner. Hence my theory, I still need proof of course.

  • Male Perspective

    Ana you may be onto something. I noticed in college that the immigrant and exchange students who came from cultures that segregated the sexes were painfully awkward around the opposite sex.

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

    @Male Perspective
    Mmm interesting. More for the puzzle.

  • Dogsquat

    Ana, I really thought better of you.

  • Dogsquat

    Jesus –

    You’re slipping into binary-think. You’re also letting a bunch of women speak for your girl.

    Knock that shit off, before you do something dumb.

    Your girl will show you what she wants, through words and actions. You’re a smart guy, and perceptive. You’re competent at applied psychology. Apply some of your considerable skill to yourself.

    One thing you really ought to consider:

    Patience, both with yourself and with your SO.

    The only thing I find unreasonable about your idealistic notion of love is the time frame. You want it right now, fated to be. Consider:

    The building blocks of your ideal are made of trust. Trust is built over time. The longer you’re with her, the tighter you two get, the less you’re going to wonder about her inner workings – because you’ll actually know them.

    It’s like slowly turning up the lights in your closet – what you thought was The Bogeyman morphs into your old winter coat hanging kind of crooked.

    You can choose (in the way Mike C means) to let time and trust illuminate the dark corners.

    Or, you can haul out your trusty Mossberg 590A1 and pump a pound and a half of 00 buckshot and some deer slugs into that closet because you’re freaked out.

    Discipline and discernment, old boy. Slow your roll.

  • Dogsquat

    “Hmmm, if he’s venerable or older his HP per HD will still be high for the marines. Younger than that and they’ll probably be okay.”
    ___________________________

    Easy for the guy who’s used to riding around with ASROCs, Mk 48s, and maybe an SLBM or twelve to say. Match generated bearings and shoot, my aching ass.

    You forget – our collective ignorance is the Marine’s most powerful weapon. We are too dumb to know when to quit, so we win.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Dogsquat,

    Thanks.

    You’re slipping into binary-think. You’re also letting a bunch of women speak for your girl.

    This thing’s been brewing for a bit now, since people started telling me I’m idealistic, unrealistic, narcissistic, egoistic, overly optimistic, etc… I’m fine with all that as far as I myself am concerned. Call me what you want–whatever I am has brought me a long way. I guess the thing I’m beginning to wonder is whether or not I’m an extreme outlier.

    I understand and accept a woman’s attraction to status, resources, etc… I’m attracted to women for their hair, their eyes, their smiles and breasts, etc… It’s no less superficial. Yet all those things matter little to me if I don’t already perceive or have some inkling about who a woman is on the inside. And I would imagine, for a healthy woman, the same would apply. So, I would imagine, the fantasy would be to win over the “alpha-beta” and not the “alpha.”

    You can choose (in the way Mike C means) to let time and trust illuminate the dark corners.

    Or, you can haul out your trusty Mossberg 590A1 and pump a pound and a half of 00 buckshot and some deer slugs into that closet because you’re freaked out.

    Yea. This is a great analogy, btw. I guess I need to stop listening to people who are insisting that it really is a monster in my closet and that the best I can hope for is that it stays in the closet and doesn’t eat me, and listen, instead, to my own instincts.

    Again, thanks.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “This is BS. Many women avoid womanizers like the plague. It’s a DLV for long-term mating.”

    Well agreement over. Let me reclarify. You don’t have to actually be a womanizer. You need to be capable of it or at least appear capable of it.
    (Actually doing it still works, much as you dislike that.)

    Note: Womanizer was a bad word-choice. I hate womanizers myself, pain-in-the-ass. Being the AMOG of the group (real alpha not PUA standard alpha) or appearing to be the AMOG is whats required.

    When I say “alpha overload” I’m not using PUA/Cad definition. I’m using classic tribal chief/leader type (aka strong silent type) defintion which is what you described. Then add in the wuving fluffy bunny stuff afterwards.

    @Ana

    Thanks for the sentiment,

    I used the same argument on my buddy who has CF. If the enviroment were to radically change and only CF’ers survived he would be golden (as one of the 10% of male CF’ers who can have children he’d be a god actually. Also, he’s already a player. Ands he’s like 5′ 5”.)

    Anyway, he could still hold out hope but he’ll be dead inside of 10 years. Lets hope those changes come quickly.

    Heights much the same. I could stand around holding out hope but 99.99% of the animals who have ever lived have a nearly static enviroment. I don’t expect somethings that been around for millions of years to change now.

    I’ll work with the cards availible to me to construct a winning hand but I have no fantasies about the world changing to alter the value of the hand I’ve been given. (Thats the lazy way out, “waiting on the world to change.”)

  • Jesus Mahoney

    It is gratifying for a woman to bring out the nurturing traits in a man. If he’s all alpha and has none, that’s not possible. If he’s all beta and has no dominance, that’s not possible. It’s about the mix and the balance. Winning my husband’s love and getting him to surrender to it was hard, even though he’s not particularly dominant. The fantasy can apply to most men.

    Sure, I get that. But even though it was difficult for you to “win” your husband over, you knew from the start that he wasn’t the “alpha.” This is much different from what Sassy was saying and what you originally concurred with.

    Different women like different things. Personally, I’ve always liked a sprinkle of alpha in my beta, just as SayWhaat said. Obviously, cads are successful with women, so we know that there are women who like pure alpha, to the point where they reward a complete lack of empathy and caring in a man.

    Sure, and the cads are welcome to the women who are attracted to them, because I don’t want them anyway.

    Your apology was appropriate but should be directed to Ana.

    No, I’m sorry I used your blog as the medium through which I communicated my insult. But I’m not sorry that I insulted her. I stand by what I said about her.

    Jesus, it’s pretty clear that you endured horrors as a kid. You still express a lot of pain. It is not resolved, and you are not over it. It will affect your relationship in time if you don’t work through it. You recently mentioned that you have a photo of your eight year-old self at your desk, and you expressed empathy for that boy.

    Thing is, the pain is real. I try not to focus on it most of the time, though I’ll admit that it comes to the fore when certain issues come up. I went to therapy for a while, and wept like a baby often. And I worked through a lot of it. But, it’s still there. And it’s not always a bad thing. I may have memories that linger like bruises, but those sensitive, sore spots are part of what allows me to empathize with the pain of others. And it’s part of what motivates me to want something better.

    Please consider therapy, it’s a way of loving that eight year-old boy.

    Trying to hold on to my idealism is another way of loving that eight year-old boy. Also, making choices based on what he can and cannot handle.

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

      @Jesus

      Sure, I get that. But even though it was difficult for you to “win” your husband over, you knew from the start that he wasn’t the “alpha.” This is much different from what Sassy was saying and what you originally concurred with.

      I think it’s fair to say that Sassy and I share zero attraction triggers, so if I appeared to concur with her I either expressed myself badly or was misunderstood.

      But, it’s still there. And it’s not always a bad thing. I may have memories that linger like bruises, but those sensitive, sore spots are part of what allows me to empathize with the pain of others. And it’s part of what motivates me to want something better.

      Understood, and I’d agree that those experiences can dictate what kind of a parent you’ll be, and how your kids will relate to one another. I did a 180 from my own mother when I had a child.

      Trying to hold on to my idealism is another way of loving that eight year-old boy. Also, making choices based on what he can and cannot handle.

      That’s fine, but it is my sincere belief that you are overreacting in a big way to this notion of female fantasy. You’re finding it very threatening, and it needn’t be. I think it’s pretty clear that your gf is not fantasizing about anyone but you, and she fell for you early on, with whatever mix of alpha and beta you happen to be. My guess is that she’s gratified by your trust and intimacy, and also by her sexual power in stimulating your desire. I don’t know her, but I wouldn’t think less of her if she became aroused watching a sex scene from Twilight. And that wouldn’t say anything about you, her feelings for you, desire for other men, etc.

      Finally, I will ask you to keep in mind that others here are affected by your comments. I know I’ve felt defensive at times. When you talk about what repulses you, and it’s something I may do, I feel criticized and judged. I think a lot of the pushback you get comes from that place.

  • Lokland

    @Ana

    Also, you misunderstand how evolution works.

    If only short men could reproduce for any given reason that would not make them sexually attractive.
    Women would adapt and do whats necessary but evolution occurs over generations, not within a generation.

    So ya, I might get laid like tile (not what I want) but the ladies would still want what they want. Overtime that would change.

    I should also note, I have exactly what I want from my fiance. Devotion, I can see it quite clearly in her beautiful eyes everytime she looks up at me. She quite literally sees me as one of the greatest men ever born. Thats all I want.

  • Ramble

    I have found that avoiding or ignoring inflammatory comments from the guys generally results in an increase in those sorts of comments. :-/ Stepping in and calling time out often seems to restore some balance to the thread. For example, yesterday the women were completely MIA on this thread. I got fed up and some came back. It’s become very, very clear to me that I need to take a firmer hand in the comment threads. Two very senior male bloggers have advised as much. Delete a lot more, and ban a lot more – all without explanation. I got one email inquiring whether I really wanted to hand my blog to the extreme wing of the manosphere – from a Game blogger.

    Another thing that you could do is create a grand FAQ detailing your exact beliefs about male-female relationships. And so, each time some guy, or girl, tries to twist what you have said, or simply ask you a question that you have been asked 500 times before, you could simply point them to the FAQ. If some belligerent commenter keeps coming at you, or refuses to acknowledge what you have said, well, kick them out.

    I understand that this would be one more piece of homework that you would need to do, but it might prove helpful to newbs as well. Steve Sailer did something like this for his blog.

    I’ll give you an example of something that you could clarify: You will sometimes insinuate that PUAs are good at picking up promiscuous bar skanks (I am exaggerating for effect), but then you will also say how adamant you were in showing pictures of Roissy and Roosh to your daughter so that she could defend herself from the tingles that she was likely to get from them.

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

      @Ramble

      The suggestion for a FAQ page is excellent,thanks.

      I’ll give you an example of something that you could clarify: You will sometimes insinuate that PUAs are good at picking up promiscuous bar skanks (I am exaggerating for effect), but then you will also say how adamant you were in showing pictures of Roissy and Roosh to your daughter so that she could defend herself from the tingles that she was likely to get from them.

      I can see the problem here, so let me clarify now that you’ve brought it up. Promiscuous bar skanks are the easiest women to pick up. They begin the evening by wondering who they might hook up with tonight. They evaluate males as potential sexual companions. A guy with tight Game has very little work to do other than reel her in. This is how players get ONSs. Mystery’s claim that women need 7 hours of your company before having sex with you is so antiquated it’s quaint, particularly since he focused on “hired guns” himself.

      I think the scenario plays out differently for women who are not promiscuous. First, they might meet Roissy at some coffee place in Georgetown – out comes his day game, his devastatingly accurate reading of people, and some woman thinks she’s met an interesting, attractive man. If he is in the mood to put in a bit of work to seduce this one, I’d say she is very vulnerable. The same thing can happen at a bar, though it’s less likely. The DC bar scene is different too – my daughter got approached by a lot of men in their 30s and 40s when she was 21. It’s more sophisticated, the men are more polished, and the drinking scene is less segregated by age.

      Also, I tend to err on the side of caution.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    I wouldn’t think less of my gf is she got aroused watching a sex scene from Twilight. I’d have sex with her. What repulses me is the notion that a woman would consider an “alpha” more fantasy-worthy when she’s in a relationship with a man she’s identified as “beta”. And that’s basically what was said, whether it was meant or not. Which was why I said I’d regretted insulting Rollo, because as much as the concept of relationship-as-staged-drama doesn’t appeal to me personally, I can understand, given the reality above (which we’re now saying is not really reality), why a man would feel the need to play the kind of games that Rollo advises men to play.

    The alpha overload, the coming-on as pure alpha and the gradual introduction of beta traits, enough to love the woman and maintain a steady, happy relationship, but that’s all–that was what Sassy was claiming every woman’s hottest fantasy was (and what you were giving your stamp of approval to), and so, yea, I can see her getting offended when I say that it would repulse me–though I’m not trying to offend her and I’m not saying that she as a person repulses me (I like Sassy), only that her attraction to guys who start out by projecting “alpha overload” was repulsive.

    I’ve kept my judgments about Anacaona largely to myself. I’m really not sure why Ana feels she can say that promiscuous men repulse her, that “alpha” men repulse her, that “alpha” men are assholes, etc… but the moment I say that a woman’s attraction to or fantasies about someone essentially “alpha” would be a deal breaker for me, I’m some sort of jerk. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what she writes–I do have a difficult time trying to figure out what she’s talking about most of the time.

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

      @Jesus

      The alpha overload, the coming-on as pure alpha and the gradual introduction of beta traits, enough to love the woman and maintain a steady, happy relationship, but that’s all–that was what Sassy was claiming every woman’s hottest fantasy was (and what you were giving your stamp of approval to

      I specifically objected to the idea of “alpha overload.” Nor did I suggest that a minimum of beta traits was desirable. My view is much closer to Brendan’s – a man should reveal his softer side in time with a trusted female. That’s just good strategy if he doesn’t want to get kicked to the curb. Does that say something about female nature? Yes, we want to see strength before we see vulnerability. Some women want the nastiest, douchiest guy they can find. I think they’re head cases. The world is full of those.

      If you think that means that women want men who live by the golden rule of only ever giving 2/3 as much love as they receive, then go hang with Rollo. That’s what repulses and disgusts *me*. You can go light, or you can go dark. There is no walking the middle ground. But you can’t go dark here.

  • Ramble

    The men in romance novels are entirely fictitious creations. There’s a reason many of these novels are set in bygone eras

    I am curious, are there any popular romance novels set in the modern day with things like texting and Facebook?

  • Ramble

    Furthermore, we champion those women, to the point where virgins are more embarrassed than sluts are. There is a great deal of slut-encouraging (opposite of slut-shaming) done by women to women.

    You know, during my eduction into pseudo-adulthood, this fact surprised more than anything from the “red pill”.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    Just wanted to point out what you said in comment #371:

    The real female fantasy is that transition from pure alpha to alpha/beta mix.

  • Ramble

    What’s more, depending on context, a specific trait can be seen as alpha or beta. Any dingbat with size and strength can be a bouncer at a club.

    Jesus, you made a number of interesting points relative to Alpha and Beta, but that was wrong.

    Personally, I have never been a bouncer, but I remember seeing a documentary on HBO that took a good look at them and it was really interesting.

    1.) Many of them are simply too impulsive and angry to be effective bouncers at the hottest clubs. For a club to get the hottest girls with the slinkiest of clothes, they can’t have a reputation for fights. So, the bouncer needs to be able to diffuse situations. And, when ejecting some guy from the club, doing so without getting too physical.
    2.) Often enough, they need to put their ego aside. Letting the guy that is getting bounced thinking that he got the best of you. He might say something about your mother, but he told his story walking and not fighting.
    3.) Being able to identify the trouble makers to begin with. It can be the most important part in not getting into fights in the first place.

    Granted, you can still be a dumb bouncer, bouncing at some roach bomb in the red light district, but, I don’t think those guys are getting girls, in general, that are “hot”. (At least, not from what I have seen.)

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ramble,

    Fair enough. I wasn’t trying to diss bouncers, btw. I have a cousin who’s a bouncer and he’s a good guy, and not at all a dingbat.

    I can see how the ability to diffuse tense situations would help a good bouncer.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Also,

    Just wanted to point out that it was this statement:

    The real female fantasy is that transition from pure alpha to alpha/beta mix.

    that made me think of Rollo, because I think (and he can come around and correct me if I’m wrong) this is at the heart of his understanding of women, and, by extension, at the heart of the advice he gives to men.

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

      @Jesus

      The real female fantasy is that transition from pure alpha to alpha/beta mix.

      I was talking about what the female sees. When we are allowed to see the vulnerable 8 year-old boy, and how rewarding that is as a relationship progresses.

      I was not talking about the actual makeup of a man. I assume that men are on a spectrum, and early on we only see the alpha. Romance novel heroes often have difficulty expressing their emotions, due to childhood psychological trauma or some other reason. Again, it is the love of a good woman that unlocks their true nature. You’re upset that women would go for the guy who can’t express his emotions in the first place. That’s where the fantasy comes in – the woman imagines (or projects) those vulnerabilities and wants to save him from himself.

      Most women don’t pursue these fantasies IRL, or even have them independently. Some do, and those are the women who fare very poorly in relationships.

      Please don’t mention Rollo again. The last thing I want is for him to show up here.

  • Escoffier

    Male Perspective:

    re: fantasies gone wrong, I think what those guys are saying is this. They have the fantasy about a threesome or swinging or their wife with another man and they nurture it for a so long that they come to assume that they have “gotten beyond” jealousy. The wife of course is skeptical and it takes a while to wear her down but the guy eventually does. Then they act on the fantasy and lo and behold, he is not “beyond” jealousy after all. He in fact becomes insanely jealous. He also loses respect for his wife and starts to think of her as a cheating whore, etc. Never mind that the whole thing was his idea and she didn’t want to do it but had to be talked into it.

    This is, it would seem, the flipside to the rape fantasy. Some women may enjoy reading Harelquins in which the herione is “raped” (but not too violent, please, and make the guy a hunk not a total thug loser, and also make sure there is a happy ending, i.e., they get married or at least stay together!) However, a real rape of any kind proves definitively that the fantasy is just that–a total fantasy, not meant to be enacted in real life.

    Since there is (typically) no violence in a threesome, men probably are less viscerally frightened by the prospect of living such a fantasy than women are about rape fantasies. However, the possibility of buyer’s remorse is very real. Probably a bad idea for 99% of people to act out these little dramas IRL. I wonder if anyone has ever done a study that asks, of those who lived out a sexual fantasy, how many were happy about it and how many regretted it?

  • Jesus Mahoney

    You can go light, or you can go dark. There is no walking the middle ground. But you can’t go dark here.

    I like this. And this is my stance, too. Which was why I reacted when you said the real female fantasy was pure alpha transformed into alpha-beta mix. I’m not down with that. If a woman’s attracted to pure alpha, or fantasizes about it, whatever… then she’s not for me.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    You’re upset that women would go for the guy who can’t express his emotions in the first place.

    Not at all. I am one of those guys. But I thought that one of the compelling things about guys like that is that while they may not expose their vulnerable parts to the world like some trench-coat flasher, there’s a hint of who they are beneath the rough exterior. If the most compelling thing is just the hard surface, then that’s sad.

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

      there’s a hint of who they are beneath the rough exterior. If the most compelling thing is just the hard surface, then that’s sad.

      Sometimes there is a hint. Other times women project it. And I agree, that’s sad. Sometimes women know there’s no hint, but figure every man has that in him, and they’re determined to help him find it. That’s where the savior complex comes in.

      I’ve told the story before about when I fell head over heels for my husband. I had found him physically attractive way before this, but one day a bunch of us were eating lunch between classes. We got talking about silly stuff – foods we liked when we were kids. Someone mentioned how gratifying it was to pull apart Oreos and scrape off the cream. My husband (who has a slight space between his front teeth) said, “I always hated when kids did that, because I always left a white stripe of cream behind.” That small vulnerable admission is the exact moment I fell in love, I recall it very clearly.

      Anyway, I hadn’t brought that out in him, but that glimpse into the boyhood vulnerability of a man I found attractive was powerful. I wanted to know more of it.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Anyway, I hadn’t brought that out in him, but that glimpse into the boyhood vulnerability of a man I found attractive was powerful. I wanted to know more of it.

    Yes, this was what I was getting at. I loved that story about you and your husband so much I copied it into my notebook. It’s one thing to find people attractive–I see attractive people all the time–but it’s the soft spots, the vulnerabilities, that draw us in and make us fall hard.

    I can understand a woman finding a man’s success, charm, charisma, etc… attractive, but I don’t get (or I just don’t like) the way a woman can find herself drawn to such a man if that man doesn’t also evince some genuine kindness or generosity or empathy–something to show some true humanity and not just a manipulative adroitness. Those “humane” traits are things I would identify as “beta.”

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

      @Jesus

      I don’t get (or I just don’t like) the way a woman can find herself drawn to such a man if that man doesn’t also evince some genuine kindness or generosity or empathy–something to show some true humanity and not just a manipulative adroitness. Those “humane” traits are things I would identify as “beta.”

      I don’t understand it either, but it’s pretty clear there are a lot of really shallow and screwed up people out there. We know that there are some women who actively seek out Dark Triad traits. It’s not surprising that the women who feel this way are the most likely to engage in casual sex – they’re actually choosing the least emotional partners they can find.

      I think it’s safe to say your girlfriend is not one of those women, and any talk of bailing on her is ridiculous!

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Re: female fantasies. I only really ever had one big fantasy, and it was to make really amazing love with a man whom I was really in love with and who was really in love with me, and to have a simultaneous orgasm during lovemaking.

    I have to say that when that fantasy was finally fulfilled, it blew my mind and was even better than what I imagined. It is part of the reason why I am so firmly bonded to my husband. This whole “alpha” and “beta” stuff go out the window when it comes to love. No other man in the world could even come close.

    My new fantasies involve us having a baby, doing stuff as a family, cuddling and playing together, and sneaking in sexy sessions between when the baby is sleeping. I don’t want to romanticize it too much, because things could go wrong, and I have heard all kinds of horror stories, but this is still a future I look forward to and would love to become reality.

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

      @Hope

      My new fantasies involve us having a baby, doing stuff as a family, cuddling and playing together, and sneaking in sexy sessions between when the baby is sleeping.

      Oh I think you’ll get that! Just be prepared – that baby monitor can sound off at the most inopportune moments!

      This whole “alpha” and “beta” stuff go out the window when it comes to love.

      I agree. I would argue it has no place in love.

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

    Mike C – “IDK…I would never suggest you should or shouldn’t do anything, but I will say that my understanding of love is different than yours in that I don’t have that “idealization” part.”

    It seems I’ve been slowly killing the “idealized” part since I first found MMSL and HUS, and I think that is what has been driving much of my bitterness of late. I am very happy with my current relationship, and at the same time very disappointed that it will probably never live up to my ideal of what love should be. In the end it will be better for me to have a realistic view than an idealized one, because I can then try my best to drive my relationships towards the ideal, while not feeling like it is lacking because it isn’t already there.

    Susan – “I haven’t ever fantasized about someone else during sex, and I don’t think a woman in a thriving relationship would either. I’ve been told that men often do regardless of relationship quality, IDK.”

    I have NEVER fantasized about anyone while having sex. I am totally in the moment and concentrating on the act and my SO.

    As an aside, my SO and I actually had a conversation over the last week on this topic. I told her that I greatly appreciated the fact that when we had sex, she was always “in the moment” with me, and she looked at me surprised and said: “is there any other way?” I told her, that in my limited sexual experience, there definitely is and I experienced it. I knew my marriage was going downhill before the sex dried up, because I could sense that my ex-wife just wasn’t “in the moment” as much, and over time it got worse right up until I simply lost all desire to even try to initiate. Sexually speaking, I have never suffered a worse blow to my ego than realizing that she just didn’t want me, and was only going through the motions out of wifely duty or some such BS.

    To me, this is why fantasy during sex is bad for men and women. If you cannot BE with the person you are having sex with, stop and move on. Even if the other person is OK with it, why settle for that?

    JM – I had like four paragraphs typed out to respond to your recent posts, but I scrapped them all. Not because I don’t think they were correct, but because I don’t think you are in the right place mentally to hear them. I’ve said many times here that the hardest part of swallowing the red pill for me was learning about all of this WHILE trying to keep a good relationship going for exactly the reasons you are showing some doubt now. Its DAMN HARD to look at female sexual behavior in general and not go home at night and wonder just how much of the “bad” behaviors your SO has that you haven’t seen. All of the drama I’ve been posting regarding “how to be dominant” is precisely driven by the unknown variable: How much dominance does my SO actually need to stay interested and feel satisfied that I am “the man”? From being here and elsewhere, I realize that this is highly variable from women to women, but at its worst it takes a pretty big asshole to keep some women interested. I’ve determined that my SO isn’t one of those, but I still can’t say what the threshold is. And, its driving me nuts because I really don’t like trial and error methods of solving puzzles. I got into IT because it is mostly logic based. Meaning, I don’t do much “trial and error” so much as combining known technologies and processes to make newer/better technologies/processes. I HATE HATE HATE having to “try out” game concepts to see how they work. I feel like I’m using my SO as an experiment subject, and then I get into the whole ethical debate about using people yada yada…

    Based on your collective posts here, I like you a lot. I acknowledge that what we post online is a fraction of our entire person, but I think it often is a good representation of who we are enough that I know who I would be willing to meet in person from this blog, and who I would be likely to foster long term friendships with. It hasn’t been too long since your last “moment of doubt” here at HUS, and here you are in another. At the risk of sounding like I’m trying to be “dad”, know that you are not the only one. I’m in the same place myself, and I see some of the same struggles I am going through in your recent posts. Whatever you do, DO NOT allow any of this to directly affect your relationship. I’m not going to tell you what to do other than that, because it isn’t my place and I don’t know either of you. But, I CAN tell you that no matter how upset, angry, aggravated, depressed, frustrated, and generally maligned I may appear to be here, know that I DO NOT take this home to my relationship. In fact, I truly give credit to Susan/HUS for helping me through all this, because without this forum to vent my frustration, I very well may have taken this home and ruined what may turn out to the the best (and last) relationship of my life.

    We can agree or disagree. Argue for months at a time. The very last thing I want is for ANYTHING I (or anyone else) post to ruin your relationship. You have to figure this one out on your own, driven by or despite what you learn here. I can be angry at “women” all day, but I do not allow that feeling to make me angry at my mate.

    Don’t ever give up your ideals man, just realize what they are: ideals. In the real world, no one gets to live the ideal, because by definition an ideal is generally unattainable, at least when it comes to interpersonal relationships. No one is perfect, which means no relationship is perfect.

    One of the things that makes diamonds so beautiful are their natural imperfections. When raw, the diamond cutter uses his skill to maximize the beauty of the gem by taking those faults into consideration when forming the stone. A relationship is no different. It isn’t because your SO is without imperfection that she is beautiful to you, it is in the way that you form the relationship to maximize the beauty of them that will grow your attraction to her. And, as she does the same, together you will make one hell of a great diamond.

    I”m all about “fighting the war”, but that is a grand scale plan. My relationship is the opposite. It is a tiny environment where I do my best to make decisions based solely on what is good for it, with input from the “war”, but without the battle plans. I don’t want to make my SO the enemy, and if I did I could never be with her. That is my biggest complaint when it comes to the likes of Rollo and other married MRA types: how can you sleep next to a woman at night if you TRULY believe they are all alike, and as you portray them? I can’t do it, and I won’t. If I have to choose between supporting men and my relationship, I will do my best to make sure my boys know the facts and pull out of the war altogether. To me, I’ve already dodged my bullet, and I’m not about to destroy my life to help others. I want to help, but I have to be in a good place first, and a healthy relationship IS a good place for me. If that is true for you as well, then don’t let anything or anyone tell you differently.

    Lastly, in the last month I’ve had to get all positive and supportive a few times. Its all good, but know that other than my “work” face (which I try to keep generally positive only because management sees that as a good sign of my contentment) I only send out positive vibes to people I trust and respect when they need it. But I don’t think its something I’m particularly good at, so I’d like to thank you for giving me some practice. It reminds me that deep down on the inside, I want to see the good in people, and foster it when I can. Its only because of that “gooey emotional center” that I became such a pessimistic hard ass.

    Stay strong. There is a pretty good likelihood that as your relationship progresses, you are going to run into more moments like this. When all the ‘evidence’ you can drum up online seems to indicate that you are expecting too much, or that you are not “seeing” your SO in the right light. Fuck that. Even if its true, so what? Go into it with your eyes wide open, and know that you are dealing with a person, not a stereotype. Even if 100 people tell you in no uncertain terms that you are wrong, don’t take their word for it. Find out for yourself.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    This whole “alpha” and “beta” stuff go out the window when it comes to love.

    I agree. I would argue it has no place in love.

    Yet, unless I’ve misunderstood you, you endorse MMSL, which is basically how to game your wife into wanting you over time. Plus, it has the under the surface assumption that unless you do, your wife will lose interest.

    I think it is this idea, written more broadly, that has a lot of male posters upset. In fact, it’s a big reason I have no interest in studying much Game or, as deti suggested, being a little more dominant to attract women.

    At work I have to be inside a certain persona. I have to do so at other places as well. At home is the one place where I don’t have to strive to be what everyone else wants/expects/needs/will react to/whatever.

    Why bring a woman into my wife and my home if the cost of the relationship is giving up the one space where I don’t have to be an actor?

    I’d like to believe the alpha/beta stuff goes out the window in love but even the posters here seem to indicate otherwise.

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

      @Herb

      Yet, unless I’ve misunderstood you, you endorse MMSL, which is basically how to game your wife into wanting you over time. Plus, it has the under the surface assumption that unless you do, your wife will lose interest.

      I have never employed Athol’s methods. I endorse MMSL based on the fact that he seems to have many men reporting dramatic improvements in marriages that were practically DOA before they found his blog.

      I’ve said here before that I personally wouldn’t respond to Athol’s style of sexy move, e.g., send dirty text to get allowed into the house. Nor do I envy Jennifer their sex life :-/

      But if it works for men, I’m not going to second guess it.

      I’ve also said that the idea of using game to create or maintain a healthy relationship, or as a form of preventative maintenance can be troublesome. I think this depends on the degree of manipulation. Lighthearted teasing and banter is one thing, instilling dread is another. Being dominant in bed is one thing, always giving your partner less than you take is something else.

      Game is amoral, and can be used to create many different human emotions. In the hands of an unscrupulous male, it’s a terrible thing (for everyone else). But I also believe it can foster good relationships, by maintaining sexual tension.

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

    Hope – “This whole “alpha” and “beta” stuff go out the window when it comes to love.”

    yes and no. To me, the take away for LTR/Marriage is that it takes a mix of “alpha” and “beta” traits from a guy to make a relationship work. For me, that is a change as I always believed it was the “beta” stuff that kept a marriage strong. It was my mistake based on how I saw the relationships around me growing up, and how I internalized the messages my mother and other significant women in my life gave me as a child.

    I think it goes something like this: It doesn’t matter if a man is more alpha or beta as compared to all other men when it comes to love. It only matters that he is enough alpha/beta for the woman he is with. It sounds like a simple concept, but in all honestly it was one I never even considered until finding the red pill. If I had just this simple concept in my head as a young lad of 20-something, my life would have been completely different. Its OK that it wasn’t, because I love my children dearly and wouldn’t trade them for any other life I could have had. But I’ll be damned sure they know what I didn’t back then so that they can make better decisions for themselves.

    That being said, it is becoming clearer to me that when it comes to meeting women for any type of relationship, whether a ONS, FWB, or love and marriage, it is best for a man to bring his alpha to the table first, no matter what level of it you have. Don’t bolster it at all, but display it as best as you can. Boosting his alphaness will probably work, but it will pull in a woman that will expect all that alpha to stay, and if it is a temporary boost she will get bored when it goes away. But, by displaying in all its glory all the alpha a man has to offer, he can be pretty sure any women it attracts will be happy with him long term. And, if he has a lot of well developed beta skills, it wouldn’t hurt for him to let her see them a little at a time, as if she is bringing it out of him. She will feel like she is earning her “way in”, and he will begin to relax and settle into the relationship. And, the best part? If he was honest about his alphaness up front, those additional beta traits won’t detract from her initial attraction to him.

    Good grief I’m in the mood to write… Perhaps I should try to knock out a song or two. :P

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Actually, Athol Kay himself has hinted that most of what he calls “marriage game” is keeping your life straight. Exercise, stay in shape, have goals, don’t get addictions, and live a happy life. He calls it “get up in the morning and do the sh*t you have to do.”

    Without these fundamentals, a husband could run the tightest outer game Roissy/Roosh/Rollo style and still end up divorced. It’s not rocket science. Living well is about self-respect, and if you don’t respect yourself enough to live a good life, your wife isn’t going to respect you either.

    My husband wasn’t gainfully employed for most of our marriage, but he had the fundamentals. What happens in a lot of dysfunctional marriages is they give up on these fundamentals. One or both spouses eat junk, gain 100lbs, don’t do the chores and become completely complacent.

    I know a couple that is getting divorced who don’t walk their dogs, and their dogs poop in a corner of their house! And they have a young kid. I don’t know if you’d call that alpha or beta, but I’d call that lazy. No offense to anyone who might have gained a lot of weight in their marriage or slacked off like this, but this isn’t being beta. It’s being omega.

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

      @Hope

      Living well is about self-respect, and if you don’t respect yourself enough to live a good life, your wife isn’t going to respect you either.

      I saw this quote today – I hadn’t come across it before:

      Try not to become a man of success but a man of value.

      Albert Einstein

      It reminded me of JM.

  • Ramble

    Susan, I want to pick a nit.

    If he is in the mood to put in a bit of work to seduce this one, I’d say she is very vulnerable.

    Personally, I would say that she is “game”, even though that word, in our context, is really loaded. In my experience, girls are really game for charming and charismatic guys. Especially when there is just tinge, or more, of asshole-ishness.

    Granted, I get a little sensitive to how you word things. I am not a big fan of coloring or shading girls as victims in the modern dating game unless she is being genuinely lied to.

    ===============================

    On more important things. We debate the word “alpha” here endlessly, and it often fails to accomplish much. Something for the Alpha obsessed to think about are these various examples of what might be an Alpha:

    • Silverback/Caveman
    • Patton/Washington/Napolean/Robert-E-Lee (i.e. leader of men, not particularly interested in banging sluts)
    • Athlete/Jock – May be a subset of the Patton/Washington group
    • Backdoor-Man/Sneaky-Fucker/Artist/wanna-be-Rock-Star
    • Charming Gentleman (who may, or may not, prove to be a deceitful bastard)
    • Steely Eyed and Glad Handing manager (think Jack Donaghy in 30 Rock)
    • Genius – may not be great with girls (there are a few exceptions), but will likely have important men in awe of him

    The PUA is often some form or combo of the Backdoor Man and Charming Gentleman…it depends on which approach they are taking, or, possibly, a hybrid.

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

      @Ramble

      Eh, I didn’t mean vulnerable as in potential victim. How about ripe for the picking?

      I adore the idea of the PUA as a Sneaky Fucker. That’s perfect.

      Honestly, the only alpha on your list that I find remotely appealing is Genius. I guess at this point I know too much about the other types.

  • Ramble

    Napoleon, not Napolean.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ted,

    Thanks for the advice. And the compliment. HUS is the only place I’ve ever been a blog regular, so it’s interesting to see how relationships here are similar to and different than real-life relationships. I feel like I need a new category: blog-friend. I definitely consider you one of my good blog-friends.

    Generally I don’t let most of this talk get to me. My gf has been wonderful, our relationship has been awesome: that’s really what matters. A lot of people have pushed back against what I’ve argued that love can and should be, and that’s fine. It mostly rolls off my shoulders.

    I guess it was a different story with Sue. I don’t really have any positive female models in my life. I’ve got men in my life that play somewhat of a “mentor” role, but no women. Odd as it sounds–this being a blog and all–I’ve sort of come to see Sue that way. In terms of marriage and family, she’s got what I want. And, I think our ideas about love and relationships are somewhat similar. Finally, she’s a smart cookie. I listen to her, I trust what she says, I value her perspective.

    So when she said that the real female fantasy was the pure alpha (which started what I think was a misunderstanding), I took her at her word.

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

      @Jesus

      So when she said that the real female fantasy was the pure alpha (which started what I think was a misunderstanding), I took her at her word.

      I think you know me pretty well by now, and what I stand for. If you see me say something that seems out of character, jump on it fast, like Ramble does. :) My clarification may not put your mind at ease, but we can nip it in the bud and avoid dragging other people in.

      A pure alpha is a psychopath. I think people should carefully consider what they want on their tombstones. If it’s “I cared less”, ridding oneself of one’s emotional capacity may be the way to go. I know that’s not what I’ve ever looked for in a man.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    I think it’s safe to say your girlfriend is not one of those women, and any talk of bailing on her is ridiculous!

    True. I didn’t think all (or even most) women were like that, but it sounded like that’s what you were saying. That tripped me up.

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

    Ana, I really thought better of you.

    ???

    @Susan
    I don’t need an apology. I knew what I was doing when I make my comments and I knew he was not going to take them well. Is all good.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ted,

    That being said, it is becoming clearer to me that when it comes to meeting women for any type of relationship, whether a ONS, FWB, or love and marriage, it is best for a man to bring his alpha to the table first, no matter what level of it you have.

    The way I see it is this: the alpha traits are the traits that are going to best help you get ahead in society, deal with adversity, and… survive. I think that in any business or social situation, you should lead with your alpha.

    Here, I divulge family secrets and explain the ways in which they’ve left me vulnerable under the veil of anonymity, but in real life, no. The only people who know about my “history” outside of my family and a therapist are my ex and my current gf. And even they haven’t heard as many details as I’ve confided here.

    You definitely need to draw a lot upon your “alpha” when creating your public persona. Though you don’t want to leave the beta out of the mix altogether.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    I saw this quote today – I hadn’t come across it before:

    Try not to become a man of success but a man of value.

    Isn’t that what we’re fighting over, what constitutes a man of value anymore. Even your OP was about feminist wanting to redefine “man of value” to “housewife”.

    There is an interesting commentary on the Time magazine excerpt from Mundy’s book at National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/295021/rich-women-and-emasculated-men/suzanne-venker

    Mundy saysbreadwinning wives go to “great lengths” to avoid emasculating their husbands — particularly if they stay home with the kids. These wives assure their husbands that taking care of the house and children, including planning, shopping, and cooking for the family, is a task equally worthy to theirs. Then Mundy adds this: “The ability to generate income is not the only measure of value.”

    Really? You don’t say? That’s an excellent observation, Ms. Mundy — but also an ironic one considering feminists have been chomping at the bit to get out of performing such equally worthy tasks for decades. As a matter of fact, Betty Friedan began this whole mess by stating outright that housewives live in “comfortable concentration camps.”

    Yet when men do it, childrearing and homemaking become indispensable.

    But wives don’t need to pump up their husbands’ egos, says Mundy. It’s okay that men don’t make as much as women. A University of Texas study found that ever since the sexual revolution, there’s been a “huge jump” in the weight men give to women’s earnings. There’s “strong evidence” that a rich woman makes great wife material. That’s not surprising — most men (and women, for that matter) love the idea of having more money.

    It’s the flip side that matters: There’s also been a “sharp drop” in the way men view domestic tasks.

    In other words, after years of listening to feminists gripe about how terrible it is to be at home with babies, toddlers, and bags full of groceries, men have stopped respecting the vital role mothers play in our society. Given this huge (and negative) social transformation, it seems logical to me that when husbands do stay home they would need their egos pumped.

    tldr; We want men to embrace as necessary and valuable what we’ve been screaming for 50 years was oppression and they don’t appreciate it.

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

    I’ve kept my judgments about Anacaona largely to myself. I’m really not sure why Ana feels she can say that promiscuous men repulse her, that “alpha” men repulse her, that “alpha” men are assholes, etc… but the moment I say that a woman’s attraction to or fantasies about someone essentially “alpha” would be a deal breaker for me, I’m some sort of jerk. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what she writes–I do have a difficult time trying to figure out what she’s talking about most of the time.

    Can you tell the difference between actions and thoughts?
    I never demonized men for watching porn, seeing a good set of pair of tits and getting it a boner or even fantasizing about their favorite porn stars is all in the mind and the mind is a free reign.
    But a promiscuous man or a man that treats people like second to their own needs and ideas or stupid because they disagree with them, is actually affecting the real physical world and real people.
    Telling a woman that between feeding her kids, making love to her husband, exercising and working 9 to 5 she enjoys certain fantasies that in her mind are just mind candy for her is repulsive in any way, is a lot different than the actions of a womanizer.
    I’m pretty sure if we all policed our thoughts we all be in jail but so far I never heard of someone going to jail for fantasizing about killing their boss, they do go to jail if they actually put a bullet between their eyes.
    Although that might be a good plot for a dystopian future novel in which thoughts are considered so dangerous that they monitor them 24/7 and people get punished for improper thinking. I guess you will love to live in a world like that.
    So yeah think whatever you want to but this is one of those things that I won’t let slip in here at least if we were on a party I will just remove myself from your presence and let you whine all your inane talk all you want. But this blog is trying to change woman’s actions and telling them that in the end thinking and acting are the same for men then what is the incentive on any change or advice? You might as well keep riding the carousel or following the hook up culture is not like there is anything they can do to become worth it of love, you are doomed either way. That usually doesn’t work out very well for anyone. If telling you that makes me a bitch, so be it.
    Only Susan can tell me I should stop and if she said I will. Her blog her rules.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    I have never employed Athol’s methods. I endorse MMSL based on the fact that he seems to have many men reporting dramatic improvements in marriages that were practically DOA before they found his blog.

    I’ve said here before that I personally wouldn’t respond to Athol’s style of sexy move, e.g., send dirty text to get allowed into the house. Nor do I envy Jennifer their sex life :-/

    But if it works for men, I’m not going to second guess it.

    I can’t second guess it but my reaction is why bother with a woman who is so uninterested in you that you have to be someone else to get sex.

    Hire a prostitute. They’ll be much less resistant to doing what you want and will probably fake liking the real you better than your wife actually likes the fake you.

  • Escoffier

    Patton and Washington were by all accounts very good husbands.

    When Patton was in France during WW1 he refused to do anything about his men visiting whore houses, which pissed off Beatrice to no end. However, I’ve never read even a suggestion that he indulged himself.

    I agree that both were alpha, however.

  • Escoffier

    If I ever have to start “sexting” to save my marriage, I think I would rather just get divorced.

  • Herb

    @Ana

    Although that might be a good plot for a dystopian future novel in which thoughts are considered so dangerous that they monitor them 24/7 and people get punished for improper thinking. I guess you will love to live in a world like that.

    Been done more than once…the Phillip K. Dick version was even made into a Tom Cruise movie.

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

    JM – “I guess it was a different story with Sue. I don’t really have any positive female models in my life. I’ve got men in my life that play somewhat of a “mentor” role, but no women. Odd as it sounds–this being a blog and all–I’ve sort of come to see Sue that way. In terms of marriage and family, she’s got what I want. And, I think our ideas about love and relationships are somewhat similar. Finally, she’s a smart cookie. I listen to her, I trust what she says, I value her perspective.”

    Yep I get it. Susan dropped a comment or two that struck me as depressing as well, but she is just being honest and even if I don’t like the message, I appreciate the honesty. And in the end, despite all my talk of “team woman/man”, I realize here we are all on the same team. I tend to agree with much of what Susan and most of the regulars have to say even when I take opposition. It isn’t that I think anyone here is wrong so much as my perception of what they are saying as reflected in *MY* experience doesn’t always jive. I think if we could all get our ideals lined up, we would find that we are all pretty similar in regards to what we would like to see of the SMP and the MMP. But it’s a mess, and clearly the mess is different depending on where you are, what ethnicity/religion you are, as well as your SES. I’m in an odd place, because I am white and lower-middle class, but grew up poorer and in an area that suffered massive financial loss during the 70′s and 80′s, which means that I didn’t grow up seeing middle/upper-middle class families interact. I grew up with many poor kids being bussed to a mostly white middle/upper-class school system. (We were the “bad” kids in our school because we came from a little town that was absorbed by the closest school with money and room) The women I have been in LTRs with were from a similar background, so perhaps I grew up seeing the more extreme “bad” behavior from young women in general. Lots of divorces and a fair amount of single mothers. Abusive husbands/fathers and women that stayed with them out of fear. Of my close friends in HS, not a single one graduated with their family intact. Of my SO’s, only one came from an “intact” home, but her mother passed away and her father never remarried, so she still spent the better part of her teens in a single parent home. Basically, where I’m from, life long marriage is a rarity among the parents of my peers. Grandparents? Yes, but not parents. I am the first of my family to get a degree, which means we all were in the much higher risk bracket for divorce. So even though I now might be in a much better place according to the stats, I didn’t grow up feeling that safety, and I certainly don’t feel it now.

    And I’m rambling again… All I’m getting at is although I trust Susan’s judgment and opinion a great deal, I’m not so sure we are basing our opinions on similar experiences. I often feel like we come from different worlds, and it may be that we really do. I mean, I have NO idea what “Greek” college life is like. I got my associates from community college, and finished my degree over a decade later going online to Phoenix. I’ve only managed to see “how the other side lives” since then because my career brought me to a place where I was accepted among the people at work that would have probably never given me the time of day before. I am pretty sure that most of the folks Susan has to deal with in Boston would still snub there nose at me, so I’m sure we are definitely rolling in different social circles. I can tell you this: I know far more women that go for the bouncer type than the high-payed lawyer/doctor type. Most of the young women I know would consider landing a man like that as hitting the lottery. And it’s funny, because I work with lots of guys like that, and I don’t see them as such great prospects. I also don’t see them in terms of what they make either…

  • Ramble

    I’m bracing myself for a lot of boomer hate.

    Bracing yourself?

    I would say that the only people who don’t hate the boomers are, the boomers themselves and their mothers.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    I’ve said here before that I personally wouldn’t respond to Athol’s style of sexy move, e.g., send dirty text to get allowed into the house. Nor do I envy Jennifer their sex life :-/

    One further thought on this, I know many 24/7 S&M D/s couples…even couples who frame their relationships as Master/slave (or Mistress/slave if you prefer in some cases) and even Owner/property.

    None of them have the level of disrespect I see it in that. From the outside they might have some rituals that look work, but those are mutually worked out rituals to reinforce a power imbalance they both desire. It’s not one party doing it just to make sure the other is interested in them.

  • Ramble

    Patton and Washington were by all accounts very good husbands.

    So was Robert E. Lee.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    But a promiscuous man or a man that treats people like second to their own needs and ideas or stupid because they disagree with them, is actually affecting the real physical world and real people.

    Promiscuous men don’t all treat people as second to their own needs. If two people are engaged in sex they both know is casual, then they’re both getting their short term needs met. You support that type of promiscuity?

    Telling a woman that between feeding her kids, making love to her husband, exercising and working 9 to 5 she enjoys certain fantasies that in her mind are just mind candy for her is repulsive in any way, is a lot different than the actions of a womanizer.

    Idk. I’m sure some people like to come home after a day at the office and pick their noses on their couches in front of the television. We can’t find their nose candy repulsive?

    Look, I read and write fiction every day. I’m all for giving the imagination free reign. But “imagining” and “fantasizing” are different. And fantasizing about having magical powers or being a vampire is different than fantasizing about the love of a man who is, in most fundamental ways, different from the man you are with.

    And, of course, fantasizing about men that I personally find repulsive, is going to be repulsive to me.

    I’m pretty sure if we all policed our thoughts we all be in jail but so far I never heard of someone going to jail for fantasizing about killing their boss, they do go to jail if they actually put a bullet between their eyes.

    Fair enough. But if you were a boss, would you want to hire someone who fantasizes about shooting you between the eyes?

    Although that might be a good plot for a dystopian future novel in which thoughts are considered so dangerous that they monitor them 24/7 and people get punished for improper thinking. I guess you will love to live in a world like that.

    That’s ridiculous.

    But this blog is trying to change woman’s actions and telling them that in the end thinking and acting are the same for men then what is the incentive on any change or advice? You might as well keep riding the carousel or following the hook up culture is not like there is anything they can do to become worth it of love, you are doomed either way.

    So what you’re saying is that a man has no right to evaluate his partner based on the kind of men she fantasizes about and the amount she indulges in such fantasies?

    That usually doesn’t work out very well for anyone. If telling you that makes me a bitch, so be it.

    No, that doesn’t make you a bitch. Your snotty attitude, the way you’re caricaturing everything I’m saying, and your obvious disdain all do though.

    Only Susan can tell me I should stop and if she said I will. Her blog her rules.

    That’s fine. I wasn’t telling you to stop; I was just telling you a little of what I think of you.

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

    Been done more than once…the Phillip K. Dick version was even made into a Tom Cruise movie.

    If you mean minority report it was about predicting actions not really about monitoring thoughts.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Honestly, the only alpha on your list that I find remotely appealing is Genius. I guess at this point I know too much about the other types.”

    You called.

    Note: Go back and reread my description of alpha overload. It got taken out of context, we are in agreement here.

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

      @Lokland

      Note: Go back and reread my description of alpha overload. It got taken out of context, we are in agreement here.

      I did, thanks for clarifying.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Herb, if you have a problem with what Athol Kay is saying, maybe say it on his blog instead of Susan’s? I don’t think it’s a good idea to start blog wars in comment threads.

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

      Herb, if you have a problem with what Athol Kay is saying, maybe say it on his blog instead of Susan’s? I don’t think it’s a good idea to start blog wars in comment threads.

      Agreed. Honestly, I don’t want to say anything that amounts to criticism of Athol. He is selling a strategy that gets results, and it’s designed to save relationships and marriages. I am in no position to argue against it – I hope he gets rich doing it.

      At the same time, I admit I don’t read MMSL regularly anymore. There was a time when Athol and I commented on one another’s blogs, but we’ve both gotten a lot busier. So I don’t endorse any particular stratagem, nor object to it. I’m not really qualified to discuss it.

  • tom

    Some people need to understand it is ok that you can not be everything to one person. It is ok that your so finds other people attractive because there Are other attractive people in the world and people WILL NOTICE. It is natural. Doesn’t mean they thinl less of you..its part of being an adult and being mature.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Some people need to understand it is ok that you can not be everything to one person. It is ok that your so finds other people attractive because there Are other attractive people in the world and people WILL NOTICE. It is natural. Doesn’t mean they thinl less of you..its part of being an adult and being mature.

    Thanks for the input, but that’s not what the debate is about.

  • Ramble

    You can go light, or you can go dark. There is no walking the middle ground.

    Susan, you, of all people, know that it lies on a spectrum.

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

      @Ramble

      Susan, you, of all people, know that it lies on a spectrum.

      Perhaps, but in that case I prefer a man who avoids gray areas. I don’t care for people with “moral flexibility.” Ultimately, we each need to find someone who shares our ideas of what constitutes right and wrong. Obviously, there are women who permit one-way open relationships, or get turned on by feeling jealous as they watch their husbands transmit sexual vibes to another female. It’s all consensual, so it’s none of my business. I believe, though, that these women are atypical and not worth emulating. I’ve never met or heard from a reader who feels that way. So I’ll continue warning women to avoid men who exhibit that level of narcissism.

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

    @Lockland
    Isn’t this a circular argument? I mean being tall is only advantageous because the environment make it advantageous and women evolved to find it sexually attractive if being shorter becomes more advantageous then women will find that attractive. There is not an intrinsic value on being tall in evolutionary terms.

  • Lokland

    @Ana

    Thats not the argument.

    The problem is women NOW find tall hot. (And yes it is actually better.)
    If all tall men couldn’t have kids tommorow that would not suddenly make women like short guys.

    Overtime those few who preferred/didn’t mind short guys would outbreed those who prefer tall guys because they were having kids whereas the others were not. Then short guys would be hot.

    But it would take time (like thousands of years), it wouldn’t be an overnight switch.

  • Ramble

    How about ripe for the picking?

    You know, I am really sensitive, so, “no”. Again, if I was trying to brainwash you, I would want you to be sensitive to having the girl in the role of the passive.

    I understand that the dynamic is often one of the guy approaching the girl. But, in many of these successful approaches, we are talking about girls who are really, really open to being charmed.

    But, again, I am really sensitive to the idea of girls saying things like, “I was seduced.”, or, “I didn’t know”, or”It happened so fast” or a thousand other things.

    My mother never played the role of victim, ever, in my life and it was something that I was not all that prepared for when I got older. So, now, when I see girls try that shit, it gets to me. Like I said, this is simply something that I am sensitive to, you are probably phrasing things just fine.

    I adore the idea of the PUA as a Sneaky Fucker. That’s perfect.

    Again, that is just one archetype. The PUA as an Oak tree (referenced in your other post with the video) is not that related to the Sneaky Fucker.

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

      @Ramble

      But, again, I am really sensitive to the idea of girls saying things like, “I was seduced.”, or, “I didn’t know”, or”It happened so fast” or a thousand other things.

      To seduce: Attract (someone) to a belief or into a course of action that is inadvisable or foolhardy.

      Clearly, the most important consideration is motive. If the seducer is guilty of malicious intent, which we can assume Roissy would be, the fault lies there. If the woman has reason to suspect the seducer and consents or engages in cognitive dissonance, she is responsible for her fate. That doesn’t change the fact that anyone who would tempt someone into inadvisable behavior for personal gain is immoral. Their target is most certainly an intended victim.

      In general, a woman meeting a guy in a Georgetown coffee shop would be a perfectly fine way to make an acquaintance. God help her if the guy is Roissy or Roosh. Roosh doesn’t refer to himself as a jackal for nothing.

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

    Promiscuous men don’t all treat people as second to their own needs. If two people are engaged in sex they both know is casual, then they’re both getting their short term needs met. You support that type of promiscuity?

    Had you read PUA’s diaries? There is always an element of deception involved. So in theory it sounds easy but in real life is never like that. If it was like that we wouldn’t need a blog like this or any others.

    Idk. I’m sure some people like to come home after a day at the office and pick their noses on their couches in front of the television. We can’t find their nose candy repulsive?

    Would you dump a woman for picking up her nose in front of the TV at home?

    Look, I read and write fiction every day. I’m all for giving the imagination free reign. But “imagining” and “fantasizing” are different. And fantasizing about having magical powers or being a vampire is different than fantasizing about the love of a man who is, in most fundamental ways, different from the man you are with.

    Fantasizing about other man during sex is totally wrong. Reading Romance and enjoying a man becoming better for the love of a good woman is not fantasizing that is the difference we had been trying to explain but every time the discussion comes on you are jump from “Taylor Kisch is closer to perfection” = Susan and any woman that agrees with her fantasizing about Taylor Kisch and not her husband during sex.

    And, of course, fantasizing about men that I personally find repulsive, is going to be repulsive to me.

    Men you find repulsive knowing nothing but that women find attractive because they are good looking I might note. What is more shallow? Repulsion based on appearances or attraction based on appearance?

    Fair enough. But if you were a boss, would you want to hire someone who fantasizes about shooting you between the eyes?

    If I haven’t hire them I’m not their boss am I?

    That’s ridiculous.
    So is only sane when you apply it to other people? Good to know.

    So what you’re saying is that a man has no right to evaluate his partner based on the kind of men she fantasizes about and the amount she indulges in such fantasies?

    Does a woman has a right to evaluate her partner based on if he watches porn or not?

    No, that doesn’t make you a bitch. Your snotty attitude, the way you’re caricaturing everything I’m saying, and your obvious disdain all do though.

    I say again so be it.

    That’s fine. I wasn’t telling you to stop; I was just telling you a little of what I think of you.

    Meh…

  • Ramble

    I think people should carefully consider what they want on their tombstones. If it’s “I cared less”, ridding oneself of one’s emotional capacity may be the way to go.

    By now, you may have picked up on some ideas that I come back to time and again. One, in real life, is to call out any friend that ever says, “I don’t care what anyone thinks …”.

    If you (truly) don’t care what anyone thinks, then you are a fucking sociopath.

    And 90% of the time when someone says, “Well, I don’t care what John thinks, I am …”, they are full of it.

    When you truly don’t care what someone thinks, you usually don’t reference them at all. You usually give them little more than an eye roll.

    Caring about the thoughts and feelings of some people simply means that you are human.

    Of course, and this should not have to be said, you are not going to care about what everyone thinks.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Had you read PUA’s diaries? There is always an element of deception involved. So in theory it sounds easy but in real life is never like that. If it was like that we wouldn’t need a blog like this or any others.

    Not all promiscuous men are PUAs.

    Would you dump a woman for picking up her nose in front of the TV at home?

    Um… eventually, yes.

    Fantasizing about other man during sex is totally wrong.

    Okay, you’re free to draw the line wherever you’d like, but not me.

    Reading Romance and enjoying a man becoming better for the love of a good woman is not fantasizing

    I agree. I don’t have a problem with that.

    that is the difference we had been trying to explain but every time the discussion comes on you are jump from “Taylor Kisch is closer to perfection” = Susan and any woman that agrees with her fantasizing about Taylor Kisch and not her husband during sex.

    You’re the one that keeps mentioning this guy. I forgot his name the day after the conversation. And I never once said or implied that Sue or anybody else fantasized about him while having sex with her husband.

    Men you find repulsive knowing nothing but that women find attractive because they are good looking I might note. What is more shallow? Repulsion based on appearances or attraction based on appearance?

    Neither is more shallow. I have a problem with fantasizing about having sex with other people, period, while in a relationship. Has nothing to do with looks. I would personally have a problem with my partner finding another man more attractive than me, but that’s different than the bit about fantasizing.

    Fair enough. But if you were a boss, would you want to hire someone who fantasizes about shooting you between the eyes?

    If I haven’t hire them I’m not their boss am I?

    Duh. This is your response? First of all, I said if you were *a* boss. Second of all, you didn’t answer the question.

    That’s ridiculous.
    So is only sane when you apply it to other people? Good to know.

    I applied that to other people? When did I claim that anybody wanted to live in a dystopian society?

    Does a woman has a right to evaluate her partner based on if he watches porn or not?

    Of course.

  • Jonny

    The more I read this site and others, the more I feel indifferent about the whole issue of marriage and relationships. While I sympathize with women for not finding their husbands, I don’t think they will reach their goal especially with all the hamster rationizations that excuse their behavior. They need to look for mates at the height of their attractiveness, which means 25 to 30. BEFORE 30 should be their mandate. Next, they need to learn how to cook, clean, and be dutiful wives. You might say this is a throwback, but I just read the article above that said men should bring wine to their working wives. Its a hypocrisy that women don’t realize.

  • Escoffier

    It might make sense to separate PUAs (for lack of a better term) into “actives” and “passives.” Actives would be the guys who are on the make all the time, whether they are concious gamesters applying their scripts or just naturals. “Passives” would be guys with an abundance of looks/muscles/fame/money/etc. in some combination that just draws the women without them having to do anything.

    I think the former are often sneaky as hell, yes, but the latter are not. They don’t need to be. Indeed, they don’t need to expend any effort at all on women, the women just flock to them. I recall the quarterback of my college football team (that is, the team at my college, I was not on it), he was even named “Troy” if you can believe that and he looked like a Troy, very nice guy, mild mannered, didn’t have to move a muscle or say a word to get pussy. I’m sure he never had to lie about it either.

    Susan, think of JoJo, no game whatsoever, he never gives “pick up” a single sentient thought, he can just get laid whenever he wants virtually with whoever he wants simply because of who he is.

    Apologies to Henry the K but power is not the greatest aphrodesiac, fame is.

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

      @Escoffier

      It is my understanding that PUAs are a group of men who study seduction arts, practice techniques in bars like cold approaches, negging, number closes, take away, etc. They may attend or even teach bootcamps, or they may dedicate their energies to learning pickup online. Many PUAs do it for a living – or at least don’t have anything else they do for a living. The book The Game describes the start of the movement.

      Players and cads may include PUAs and vice versa, obviously.

      There are definitely guys with high numbers who get there strictly via status, as JoJo did. I’m not sure JoJo fits into any of these categories.

  • Herb

    @Hope

    Herb, if you have a problem with what Athol Kay is saying, maybe say it on his blog instead of Susan’s? I don’t think it’s a good idea to start blog wars in comment threads.

    I’m not trying to start a blog war…however, his blog comes up often as an example of “good” or “acceptable” game. He’s not the only one with that focus and one reason I’m here and not there is because how I feel about it.

    Recent thread here have me thinking he’s right and that women here think he’s right. That’s why I asked the clarifying question of Susan and my two posts (which should have been one, gather all your thoughts prior to replying) are merely my reaction to that.

  • Ramble

    Honestly, the only alpha on your list that I find remotely appealing is Genius. I guess at this point I know too much about the other types.

    Whoa, really?

    What about a non-sociopathic gentleman? Or, the athlete?

    I would like to think that you could find them remotely appealing. However, the charming gentleman is an archetype that has not been around for a generation or two.

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

      @Ramble

      Yeah, I think of some of Cary Grant’s characters as Charming Gentlemen. One doesn’t see much charm anymore.

      I know there are great guys who are athletes. I think many of the young ones have been corrupted by the spoils of the SMP. Honestly, I have never, ever heard a happy ending to a story that included a lacrosse player. I don’t know what it is about that sport – maybe its prep school popularity.

      On the other hand, I love track guys. That’s a whole different culture. So YMMV.

  • Herb

    @tom

    Some people need to understand it is ok that you can not be everything to one person.

    I think we’re teaching young people, especially young women, quite the opposite in our cultural models of romance and love. When young women get that message plus the grrl power entitlement one I think they get unrealistic expectations like the 61 item requirements list Lori Gottlieb opens Marry Him.

    The more I read and listen at HUS (and other places) the more I think the theory that the current SMP is hypergamy specifically unleashed and men’s reaction to it is wrong.

    We aren’t educating young people, especially young women, about the difference between fantasy and reality and the need to build and work on reality. So they go forward and and think reality will happily conform to fantasy and those who stand in the way of that are wrong.

    80% of college women have < 2 partners and want a boyfriend but can't get one. Have we taught them to go out and get one or that a good boyfriend is out there but the perfect one isn't. Girls like Kayleigh ONS they're way to a high number hoping to turn the alpha hookup into an alpha/beta boyfriend without, apparently, having considered that maybe, just maybe, they're just alphas looking to score.

    Human nature isn't the issue…our failure to follow through on a key part of human nature: the need to have non-instinctual learning, is.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Herb, well I do have a lot of respect for what Athol’s doing, which is trying to keep marriages going. A lot of his readers have kids, so that’s a different playing field. I think a lot of his suggestions are gender-neutral as well. He advises wives to flirt with their husbands as much as vice versa. He doesn’t say wives should just sit back and slack off, and they need to put in effort as well.

    When I say alpha/beta stuff go out the window, I don’t mean all “effort” goes out the window. I mean I don’t think of things my husband does or says in terms of alpha or beta. It’s just him, his words and his actions. Sorry if I was unclear about this. He doesn’t put on a “mask” in front of me, but he also doesn’t slack on the fundamentals.

    We both continue to put in the effort to help make our marriage a good one. And I believe that is far more powerful than game. However it is fun to add some flirting on top of this foundation, which you could call game, but whatever the terminology, it’s the topping, not the base.

  • Ramble

    I don’t care for people with “moral flexibility.”

    Neither do I. But, we are talking about assortative mating, and, I am guessing that just as girls promiscuity will lie on a spectrum, so will the accompanying dark triad from her man.

    I don’t think I phrased that well, but you know what I mean.

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

      just as girls promiscuity will lie on a spectrum, so will the accompanying dark triad from her man.

      Right, and it’s up to each individual to draw their own line in the sand.

  • Ramble

    Clearly, the most important consideration is motive. If the seducer …

    Susan, no. Personally, I cannot get on board with this.

    The grand majority of girls who have had some sort of ONS or other casual sex is not being “seduced” by a PUA. And, those girls that are sleeping with Roosh and Roissy are, as far as I can tell from their writings, are not being fooled.

    Hell, I get the idea that they (Roissy, Roosh) like that they are not playing the role of “nice” guy.

    Basically, I would say this: with the exception of the girl that has some guy declare his love to her, they sleep together, and then he takes off, the other girls were making choices.

    My problem is how the girls talk about these “mistakes”. But, you don’t need to be my therapist.

    However, if you were going to listen to my troubles, this is what I would say:
    When I hear girls talk about their “mistakes”, they so rarely seem to take ownership of their choices and actions. It is not just the words, but tone and body language. They were duped.

    It is so rare to hear a girl say, “Well, I went for those things that attracted me, and now I am paying for it.” Like, when you go out drinking with the boys. I know, before I even go out, that I will probably have my regrets in the morning. I know it as I am ordering the drinks. I know it as I am drinking. And the only person to blame for my ultimate state is myself.

    But, we had a good time, and I will almost definitely do it again. Hell, I am smiling a little bit right now as I write about it.

    Anyway, it is something that consistently gets to me.

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

      It is so rare to hear a girl say, “Well, I went for those things that attracted me, and now I am paying for it.”

      I’m hearing it from some women, but I can imagine that most guys will never hear those words. Honestly, I hold people responsible for their choices. If a loved one succumbed to a cad, I’d shake my head at her stupidity, but also rue the day she ever had the bad luck to come into his sights.

      No one is demanding you feel the same way. I’ve seen some bad situations though – and many women get burned. I think the key question is did they learn? Or do they keep putting their hands back into the flames?

  • Ramble

    Right, and it’s up to each individual to draw their own line in the sand.

    OK. I understand.

    Honestly, I have never, ever heard a happy ending to a story that included a lacrosse player.

    Nowadays, the sport I follow is football. But, I grew up a big hockey fan, and, as far as I can tell, NHLers have a pretty low divorce rate.

  • Alias

    “MMSL, which is basically how to game your wife into wanting you over time. Plus, it has the under the surface assumption that unless you do, your wife will lose interest.”
    ———
    Many men seem to find solutions at MMSL so I’m not going to knock it.
    But..
    underneath that premise of keeping Jennifer interested, the one who seems, to me, more likely of the 2 to lose interest in the marriage and want to call it quits is actually Athol himself. It’s not like I’ve read entire blog so it’s possible that I may not have a complete picture of their situation, but I have come across several posts where Athol’s the one having a hard time with staying in the marriage.
    I really believe that all of his effort is to keep himself motivated and I commend him for that.
    A lot of what he recommends would not work for me, but if it works in their marriage or for his readers, then I have no qualms with it.

  • Ramble

    Yeah, I think of some of Cary Grant’s characters as Charming Gentlemen. One doesn’t see much charm anymore.

    The Charming Gentleman is a product of genuinely urban (read: walkable) areas. You spend little of your time in the field or factory and spend a lot of time interacting with lots of people, of all ages, outside of your family.

    Nowadays, people will move to the city as adults, but, beforehand, spend most of their young lives segregated by age and spend most of their time with those same kids, or their family.

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

    Not all promiscuous men are PUAs.
    One doesn’t know that when choosing to engage in casual sex. Hence the deception involved.

    Um… eventually, yes.
    Item # 325 for getting dumped, I guess farting and burping are out of the question as well.

    Okay, you’re free to draw the line wherever you’d like, but not me.

    Actually this is the same treatment you offer everyone else the men that don’t get their boxes in a bunch about what their SO are thinking or finding attractive like you, get a lot of back handed comments from you “I wouldn’t put up with that” “If would stay married but I will end up hating her” and so on. So no when you stop telling everyone that “Jesus way, is the way” then your criteria might not need some comments from me.

    I agree. I don’t have a problem with that.
    Jesus don’t have a problem with something a woman does. Call the newspapers!

    You’re the one that keeps mentioning this guy. I forgot his name the day after the conversation. And I never once said or implied that Sue or anybody else fantasized about him while having sex with her husband.

    True my mistake, you mentioned the guy from Friday night lights

    Neither is more shallow. I have a problem with fantasizing about having sex with other people, period, while in a relationship. Has nothing to do with looks. I would personally have a problem with my partner finding another man more attractive than me, but that’s different than the bit about fantasizing.

    Having a fantasy and fantasizing during sex are two different things. Capisce?

    Duh. This is your response? First of all, I said if you were *a* boss. Second of all, you didn’t answer the question.
    Poorly worded question the question should be if you knew your employee is fantasizing about pulling a bullet between your eyes would you fire him/her?
    No. I will talk to several professionals (police officer, psycologists) try to ask the best course of action I mean people don’t randomly fantasize about this if I made some mistakes that had gotten him/her to that point I might still save the situation and in any case fired them on the spot will probably mean that he/she can take that imaginary violence into real one and maybe not even on me but in another person getting him/her help sounds better than unleashing the problem into someone else. I read that most of the shooters on work places were people that already had a record and just kept getting passed around to become “someone else problem” I wouldn’t act irrationally about that, but that is just me.

    I applied that to other people? When did I claim that anybody wanted to live in a dystopian society?

    I meant the whole “thoughts are dangerous and should be taken in the same level as actions” the dystopian future would be a society funded and handled by many Jesus M.

    Does a woman has a right to evaluate her partner based on if he watches porn or not?
    Of course

    I have no problem calling this a ridiculous standard for women doing this level of nitpicking either, so…

  • ExNewYorker

    Also,

    “Just wanted to point out that it was this statement:

    “The real female fantasy is that transition from pure alpha to alpha/beta mix.”

    that made me think of Rollo, because I think (and he can come around and correct me if I’m wrong) this is at the heart of his understanding of women, and, by extension, at the heart of the advice he gives to men.”

    It’s funny how similar Rollo’s “understanding” of women is so similar to my cad brother’s. I remember, roughly a dozen years ago, arguing with him in a beachside bar in Paros (one of the Greek Isles) about this exact subject, and after four hour of debate (and plenty of wine), I finally began to actually listen to him. I had seen the evidence with my eyes for nearly a decade, but had managed to argue it away. It was a bitter pill to swallow, and like Mahoney, I had a summer without self-imposed limits.

    That being said, I think I reached something of an individual compromise…kind of what I think Mike C. has as well, a generalized realism (or cynicism, if you want to call it that), where I’ve accepted the weaknesses of female nature, with the understanding that there’s still a distribution within that. Though I can understand how tempting the dark path is. My two siblings have followed that path, and there’s really not much I can say to them that would get them to drop something that works. I think the younger one may tire of it eventually, but at the moment, that hasn’t happened yet.

    That fantasy: the “transition from pure alpha to alpha/beta mix” is really why a guy is best off being too agressive rather than too meek. You can always add beta later, but if you didn’t have enough alpha to begin with, the train rides off without you…

  • Male Perspective

    Jesus, try not to read too much into the small details of what women do or say. If a woman shows positive interest in you take it at face value, appreciate it and reciprocate. You’ll be happier and so will she.

    “I understand and accept a woman’s attraction to status, resources, etc… I’m attracted to women for their hair, their eyes, their smiles and breasts, etc… It’s no less superficial. ”

    Attraction to status may be superficial but the requirement for resources is not.

  • Male Perspective

    Escoffier re male fantasies, that’s why I said be careful what you ask for wrt girl-on-girl action for male viewership. A number of uber cute lesbian couples were created that way taking really hot girls off the market for us men. Once she goes femme, its bad for the men.

  • Herb

    @Male Perspective

    Escoffier re male fantasies, that’s why I said be careful what you ask for wrt girl-on-girl action for male viewership. A number of uber cute lesbian couples were created that way taking really hot girls off the market for us men. Once she goes femme, its bad for the men.

    LOL

    {humor}

    Now, I know you’re not divorced. I remember living in CT when gay marriage came to pass in Mass and my first thought was “finally, chicks will do it to each other”…so having them go femme so they treat each other like they treat men is something that’ll make my bitter and angry side smile.

    Or course, it’s probably all the non-shrews who turn to the saphic ways because of it.

    {/humor}

  • Alias

    I’m aware that the discussion has gone somewhat gone off on a tangent, but back to the main topic:

    Re: hypogamy

    I don’t personally know any SAHFs, not one, so I’m not sure how that works out.
    I do know some UMC males who have deliberately sought out women with higher incomes than their own. It’s kinda weird to me, having grown up in a macho culture, but to my surprise, they seem to be working out fine so far.
    This setup wouldn’t work out well with my relatives, but perhaps in a few generations it might. I’m not hopeful, but crazier things have happened.

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

    Susan – wait…. Did I see correctly a few pages back that you mostly “adore” me? Let it be known that you made me blush, but no one was here to see it so it doesn’t count.

    The feeling is mutual, and I’m very glad that even though we often find ourselves on slightly opposite sides of the discussion, you realize it isn’t in any way personal. Like I said above, I mostly agree with what you post, I just feel like we are coming from very different places in terms of lifetime experiences. There is nothing wrong with that at all, but it makes sense as to why I agree with you and feel you are off the mark at the same time. I can see much of your advice applying to middle-class young women, but to be honest it really doesn’t apply nearly as well to the less educated.

    Despite the fact that Pittsburgh is now a big college town (UPMC, Carnegie Mellon, Penn State, and plenty of smaller schools) a lot of the folks going to school here aren’t FROM here. I find that many of my local peers are not enjoying the educational opportunities nearly as much, partly because of cost and partly because of the lingering blue-collar mentality that we haven’t managed to completely purge from our existence.

    I’m very sure hookup culture as you describe it exists at some or all of our colleges, but to be honest I have never seen it first hand. What I’ve seen are poorer young women getting trashed in cheap bars and hooking up with random guys, most of which aren’t using “Greek” social proof so much as simply being “bad assed” enough to look like the AMOG. I’ve seen plenty of young women trying their best to “snag” a guy making what they consider decent money, only to pull out years later taking half of whatever wealth they accumulated. I’m not going to say it is/was nearly as bad as Obsidian and others describe the black community, but I would wager that what I grew up seeing was far closer to it than what you have experienced in your youth.

    I’ve been trying all day to think of one friend from HS that graduated with a their father and mother in the house, and I simply cannot think of one. And the sad part is, I know that at least half of them DID have a complete family unit when I first transferred to the school system in 7th grade. In the course of 5-6 years, all of them divorced, and several remarried. Now, I only had a small circle of friends as I still do today, and if I expand that out there were plenty of kids at my school with intact families. None of them were from my town though, which probably says something about the SES of my little slice of heaven growing up.

    At any rate, I am concerned about the prospects for marriage in my neck of the woods. According to the web “The median income for a household in the city was $30,505, and the median income for a family was $37,952. 2000 Census data.” This is not Pittsburgh proper, but the suburb where I live, and it means that we are kinda the big fish in a little pond. It also means that our children have many friends from single parent households, that are on government assistance, and in fact there are only a few that I know have two parents at home, and I’m not sure if any of those are step-parents. It is by no means the worst area around, and in fact I wouldn’t be living here with my children if things hadn’t improved much in the last 10 years, but obviously things aren’t booming here yet.

    So when I start pushing back on things you have experienced, keep in mind that I think we come from very different backgrounds, and the reason I tend to have a pessimistic view of “people” is because I’ve seen plenty of bad, but not a lot of good people throughout my life.

    Wow, all I intended to do was make a funny comment about blushing, and I wrote a small essay. It’s just one of those days for me. :P

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

      @Ted D

      I hear you re regional differences. There is no question that I’m in a very different milieu than you are. What you’re describing surely goes on here too, but I think it’s more segregated. For example, young women describe certain bars as being filled with “Massholes.” I believe this refers to the guys who are acting as bad-assed as possible while “bro-ing” out with their friends. Fights in these bars are very common. While the women in my groups don’t go looking for those guys, they obviously are having some success, or I assume they’d stop acting that way.

      I do adore you because you are such a good man, and you have such a big heart. Even when you’re at your most frustrated, you’re pretty delightful. :)

  • Male Perspective

    Herb, the lesbian couples I know are young, hot and thrilled that they finally found someone who “gets them” and wonder why they didn’t go gay sooner. And a number of them first kissed a girl and liked it egged on by their boyfriends, who they later dumped for the girl they kissed and liked it with. Once you go black you never go back is so last millenium. Now its once you go girl, your heart’s in a whirl. Or once you go gay, you never stray?

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

      @Male Perspective

      I have a funny story about this that proves karma is a bitch. My daughter had a sorority sister at college, very pretty. One of the biggest frat rat players on campus hooked up with her one night after an October tailgate. In the following days, her complete indifference to him drove him crazy. Within a few weeks he was begging her to date him and inviting her to his distant home for Thanksgiving to meet his parents. No one could believe that Teddy had finally been tamed. Just before the semester ended, she brought Teddy to the sorority holiday formal. He was so smitten, telling everyone how head over heels in love he was. At one point he noted she had been gone to the bathroom for quite a while, and went in search of her. He found her making out with another sorority sister, the person she was truly in love with.

  • Escoffier

    What about LUGs?

  • Male Perspective

    Can’t speak for them. Can only speak for the racks who never looked back.

  • Herb

    @Escoffier

    LUG is so 80s…geeze…or so Smith…

    @Male Perspective

    Hmmm, most of the lesbians I’ve know aren’t very femme…although a couple of weeks ago at the bar I was hanging for a bit with a dyke with guns I couldn’t develop in a decade.

  • Ramble

    If a loved one succumbed to a cad…

    So, can I say that I succumbed to the beer?

    She made a choice to spread her legs for that guy. I made a choice to get drunk.

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

      So, can I say that I succumbed to the beer?

      Yeah, if the beer told you that it really, really liked you a lot, and the beer your friend drank vouched for it as well.

  • Escoffier

    I never heard LUG in the ’80s. Or ’90s. Not even from a Mills or a Scripps girl.

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

      I never heard LUG in the ’80s. Or ’90s. Not even from a Mills or a Scripps girl.

      Oh yeah, there were SLUGs in the 70s. I have a good friend who graduated from Smith in the early 70s, and there was already a contingent of women just saying no to Amherst guys.

  • Male Perspective

    Guns? That’s a euphemism for…? I know plenty of previously straight now gay hot feminine lesbians. Sometimes their partners are the same, sometimes more androgenous, but at least one of them will be a hot femme fatale.

    We’ve created a monster, fellas. Be careful what you wish for.

  • Herb

    Guns is biceps or upper arms in general (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/cyberpump12.htm).

    As for being careful what you wish for, although I don’t disagree for other reasons (although by the time it was part of my world I was over the two girls fantasy…thank H L Mencken for that), I suspect most of the women would have gone that way eventually anyway. And there is nothing more embarrassing realizing your friends watched you hit on a lesbian and no one bothered to tell you.

  • Male Perspective

    “I suspect most of the women would have gone that way eventually anyway.” Don’t know how in a culture where it isn’t encouraged. They did something they never thought of before, prodded on by guys, and a lightbulb went off in their heads, or elsewhere.

  • Tom

    Thanks for the input, but that’s not what the debate is about.
    _______________

    fantasizing about the love of a man who is, in most fundamental ways, different from the man you are with.
    ____________
    uh yeah it kind of is. Different people are attracted to different types of people, whether it is a guy who is really good looking, or an alpha type, or an alpha/beta type. It REALLY is nothing to get bent about. Lots of shrinks say fantasy is healthy and normal. Tough to be the be all to end all to another person. Just accept everyone (well practically) does it and it normally doesnt mean a thing.

  • Tom

    I mean , foe christs sake, you are wanting to control the other person thinking?? Especially about fantasy?

  • Male Perspective

    Yeah, forget what she’s thinking and just focus on what she’s doing, with you. There may come a time in your life when you fantasize about someone other than your partner too.

  • Herb

    @Male Perspective

    Yeah, forget what she’s thinking and just focus on what she’s doing, with you. There may come a time in your life when you fantasize about someone other than your partner too.

    This is easily said, but given how often women will go off on men for noticing other women and the assumption the man wants to act on it, trust the other way is harder to create.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    So, after consistently wading through semi-literate comments by Anacaona in a good faith attempt to make sense out of nonsense, she’s going to criticize and jeer at what she mistakenly perceives to be a poorly-worded question.

    Ana, you’re laughable. And not even worth talking to anymore.

  • ExNewYorker

    “Yeah, if the beer told you that it really, really liked you a lot, and the beer your friend drank vouched for it as well.”

    Yeah, and that used car salesman I bought this great car from had his manager pull me aside to vouch for what a great deal I was getting! :-)

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

      Yeah, and that used car salesman I bought this great car from had his manager pull me aside to vouch for what a great deal I was getting!

      Touche. I confess I have zero sympathy for women over 18 who fall for this ploy. I give college freshmen one pass.

  • Male Perspective

    “This is easily said, but given how often women will go off on men for noticing other women and the assumption the man wants to act on it”

    Herb, I was almost going to say that Jesus’ obsession with what his gf or imaginary future wife might be fantasizing about was a bit, uh, how would I put it, effeminate.

    Look Jesus, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. You gotta girl right? She likes you right? Hell she might even love you. DON’T SELF SABOTAGE THIS by brooking over “what if…”

    Ride the wave of love and good fortune while you can.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “I do adore you because you are such a good man, and you have such a big heart. Even when you’re at your most frustrated, you’re pretty delightful. ”

    I blushed again…

    Don’t let too many people know about me. It could ruin my reputation as an arrogant asshole. :-p

  • Ted D

    JM – just a reminder, I totally dislike the idea that my SO may at some point fantasize about another guy. I cant help what she thinks, so I’m just going to fight back by keeping her too occupied with me to have time for some fantasy dude. ;-)

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue “I do adore you because you are such a good man, and you have such a big heart. Even when you’re at your most frustrated, you’re pretty delightful.”

    …and you love him like a brother, and you bet he’ll make a great husband for someone else someday? ;)

    (Cheap shot, I know, but you set yourself up perfectly…)

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

    Ana, you’re laughable.

    I love to entertain! ;)

    And not even worth talking to anymore.
    Then you shouldn’t waste your time on answering my illiterate comments anymore. Please feel free to ignore me from now on.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Herb, I was almost going to say that Jesus’ obsession with what his gf or imaginary future wife might be fantasizing about was a bit, uh, how would I put it, effeminate.

    There is no obsession, as you suggest, or policing, as others have suggested. It was simple: it was said that the real female fantasy was to win the pure alpha and transform him into alpha/beta. I just wouldn’t want to be with a woman who fantasizes about that. If it were in fact “all women” who fantasized about that (which would include my gf), then I wouldn’t want to be in a long-term relationship.

    Others may be able to cultivate a sort of distance from their partners that enables them to not care what their partners think and feel–I do care. That doesn’t make me effeminate, it makes me Jesus Mahoney. Tbh, I think your whole “ride the wave of love” advice makes you sound like a emasculated, long-haired hippy who smells like marijuana and B.O. Not necessarily terrible, but also not a position from which to criticize anybody else’s masculinity.

    Look Jesus, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

    This sounds as profound as “ride the wave.” You have a pocket guide for advice givers you’re getting these from?

  • Jesus Mahoney

    I’m just going to fight back by keeping her too occupied with me to have time for some fantasy dude. ;-)

    lol. I think that’s the best advice of all.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Tom,

    Just accept everyone (well practically) does it and it normally doesnt mean a thing.

    I can accept that practically everyone does it. I definitely do accept that a lot of people do. I just wouldn’t accept that the woman I’m in a relationship with does. And I’m going to just assume she doesn’t unless I find out otherwise.

    If I ever find out otherwise, I’ll decide what to do from there.

  • SayWhaat

    It was simple: it was said that the real female fantasy was to win the pure alpha and transform him into alpha/beta. I just wouldn’t want to be with a woman who fantasizes about that.

    The fantasy is not to TRANSFORM him, it’s to NURTURE him and bring out his PRE-EXISTING BETA TRAITS.

    The fantasy evokes the best of her feminine nature as well as the best of his masculine nature.

    That is really all we are trying to say here with respect to female fantasies.

  • OffTheCuff

    And then dump him when they’re too much!

    Sorry, it’s the meds.

    But it’s an interesting question. How can they be pre-existing if entirely absent? Does it means they are there, but dormant? There, but only shown to a non-human, maybe he has a cutemwiddle kitty kat? Or there, but repressed completely due to his alpha badassitude? Or not there, but still there, in a whoaaa-totally-zen way?

  • Lokland

    @OTC

    Or there, fully functional but veiled by mystery.

    She gets her fantasy of taming the big bad alpha and releasing his inner beta.

    He gets to take the virginal woman and make her his personal slut.

    Win-win.

  • Lokland

    @Saywhaat

    In man speak transform and nurture out his beta qualities read as exactly the same thing.

    I kinda get it intellectually but they read the same.

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

    He gets to take the virginal woman and make her his personal slut.

    This is interesting since we did had this discussion before about the guys wanting a woman to always resist every guy advances but then lose it with them and we also called this highly unlikely if she if giving up to you the first time you interact with her chances are she did before with other unless she was a virgin or something like it. Both genders have their unicorns it seems like it.
    Is a shame Badger doesn’t come here anymore, one of is goals is to become a successful writer of romance for men he would probably tell us more info about this fantasy girls for men, YMMV.

  • ExNewYorker

    “The fantasy is not to TRANSFORM him, it’s to NURTURE him and bring out his PRE-EXISTING BETA TRAITS.”

    I’ll reiterate what OTC has said (he said it quite humorously): this presupposes that Mr. Alpha MacAlpha has “pre-existing” beta traits. The hook is that he’s Mr. Alpha MacAlpha…he’s only getting a chance to show some beta because he was Mr. Alpha to begin with. And past experience has shown that women will give him quite a bit of leeway and interpret anything as a beta (he loves his dog!). Of course, he may never show any beta, but that’s a feature, not a bug. He’ll be off to the next woman who’ll be looking to “draw out” some of his inner beta. And Ms. Chaser of MacAlphas will be off to the next “redeemable” alpha.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    The fantasy is not to TRANSFORM him, it’s to NURTURE him and bring out his PRE-EXISTING BETA TRAITS.

    The fantasy evokes the best of her feminine nature as well as the best of his masculine nature.

    That is really all we are trying to say here with respect to female fantasies.

    I’m down with that. But you’d have to know they’re there in the first place. Or else, you’re really just dealing with the “pure alpha.” If there’s a hint of the hidden beta, then fine, I can totally understand that fantasy. If not, then all you’re really saying is that the alpha devoid of beta makes you hot and makes you want to bring the beta out in him so you can have the whole package.

    But if that’s the case, then it’s the “alpha devoid of beta” making a woman hot that I would find… just “not to my taste.”

    All of this is really irrelevant though. I’m content to believe that my gf isn’t attracted to “pure alphas.”

  • Lokland

    @Ana

    Its kind of part of life.

    “You don’t always get what you want.”

    However it seems like many of the people who comment here did. Including yourself.
    I know me and my fiance both got it pretty much exactly as I described it.

    I think one thing that needs to be remembered is that the male fantasy also takes place overtime (just like the ladies). We don’t want a women who refuses all sexual advances or one who is a hoe from the get-go.

    It took maybe 8mo-1yr for her to go all out personal slut. (Coincidentally, about the same time it took for all my beta to come out.)

    This, I want the Madonna-Whore on the same night is PUA without a sense of long-term investment.

  • SayWhaat

    I’m down with that. But you’d have to know they’re there in the first place. Or else, you’re really just dealing with the “pure alpha.” If there’s a hint of the hidden beta, then fine, I can totally understand that fantasy.

    In a fantasy, she is completely able to project any alpha or beta qualities onto the guy. : )

    But yes, the beta qualities are there in the first place. It just takes the power of her nurturing womanly awesomeness to bring them out to create the most epic love story of all time.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Saywhaat,

    The idea of her fantasizing about drawing out the beta that she perceives in a man is fine with me–since that’s pretty much what happened in our relationship.

    Honest question: how would you feel knowing that your new beta bf’s ultimate fantasy, the thing that got him hottest, was to imagine taming an utter slut, a woman who was a total whore through and through?

  • SayWhaat

    Honest question: how would you feel knowing that your new beta bf’s ultimate fantasy, the thing that got him hottest, was to imagine taming an utter slut, a woman who was a total whore through and through?

    He’s already trying to do that every night. ;)

  • SayWhaat

    To answer your question more seriously:

    I’m fine with that being his fantasy, so long as *I’m* that slut.

    The parallel fantasy is that men want madonnas on the street, and then they want to bring out that inner whore using their own masculinity that drives her wild for him.

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

    However it seems like many of the people who comment here did. Including yourself.

    True but I consider myself blessed in real life most people I know male and female had different expectations but then they are as happy as me and hubby are so I really can’t claim that only one road goes to Rome. It seems that city has many roads, some smoother than others, YMMV.

    This, I want the Madonna-Whore on the same night is PUA without a sense of long-term investment.

    I agree but then I never read a romance story that doesn’t take its sweet time for the lead to get there either. The first glimpse of beta “heart of gold” usually takes time to sink in the leading lady before she finds herself in love with him and usually he already showed interest in some way.
    But then we are neglecting the opposite trope “loved you all along” that is the other way around the beta male friend it seems like a good friend only till he does or shows some Alpha and then the woman falls for him, so there.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    I’m fine with that being his fantasy, so long as *I’m* that slut.

    Thank. You.

    This is exactly what I’ve been saying.

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

    “I’m fine with that being his fantasy, so long as *I’m* that slut.

    Thank. You.

    This is exactly what I’ve been saying.”

    But that isn’t much of a fantasy, is it? I mean, you are already together so… And if you’ve been together awhile, by definition you are already ‘tamed’.

    I don’t know what my SO fantasizes about, and I’m not going to ask. I don’t worry about it much though, because frankly she is very much a participant in our sexual escapades. If she is having fantasies about other people, she does a damn convincing job of being present.

    Now the second I get an inkling of the feelings I did with my ex-wife when she started ‘checking out’, I’ll go full stop and call her on it. I refuse to spend one moment with a woman that has to “lay back and think of England” or anything other than being fully immersed with me in the experience. I will go celibate before that. Hell, a prostitute would probably be more enthusiastic!

  • Ramble

    Yeah, if the beer told you that it really, really liked you a lot, and the beer your friend drank vouched for it as well.

    No, you are right. They are victims. I need to change my thinking on this.

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

    My last post knocked something loose in my head that I’d like to toss out here. (Sorry Susan, it is indeed a derailment of sorts…)

    “And if you’ve been together awhile, by definition you are already ‘tamed’.”

    Perhaps the secret to “game” in a committed relationship is to never appear to be completely tamed? I mean, it is the desire of most women to get with a guy and feel secure in the fact that he is staying for the long haul. However, those same women often get bored when things are going smoothly and there is little to no threat of the status quo. In short: she has her man tamed.

    Is spitting a little relationship game really about simply bucking the “training” a bit? Go against her desires and wishes just a little so she isn’t completely confident that she has you under control? Because honestly, after I married I did my best to prove that I would never leave, and looking back it was mostly the actions I used to prove that fact that put me in major betatude territory.

    See, for me I want/need a pretty high level of security, and to be honest even small actions that present against that security can set me into a tizzy. So, I did my best to never cause doubt, because that was what *I* wanted. But I can see that for many people, that level of security could cause boredom, and a little bit of push-back can get their motor running again.

    I think this is why I have doubts about “gaming” in general, because I’m the type of person that DOES NOT like waves in a relationship. I don’t tolerate doubt well, and I highly value security over novelty and excitement. But for people that maybe put a higher value on excitement, security can be extremely boring. Even if that person is madly in love, their desire to find some novelty might lead them astray. So “gaming” in a relationship might just be a way to add some excitement and novelty to an otherwise stable, secure, but boring relationship.

    So game is like the anti-taming cure. If a guy starts to seem to “trained” (I’ve had that word used on me exactly once, and I nipped that right in the ass) a bit of game can make him appear to still have some spirit left in him, that the woman will probably then seek to get under control, thus providing her with the necessary excitement and novelty.

    It seems like such a complicated thing for such a simple problem. Of course, I don’t see the allure of excitement and novelty anyway, so the entire thing strikes me as a waste of time and an exercise in futility, but depending on the level of “game” necessary, it may be a small price to pay for life-long happiness. And that seems to be where I always end up: is it a price I’m willing to pay for a relationship.

    I really wish if nothing else that when I was younger someone would have told me there was a cost to having a relationship. Rest assured I’ve always understood relationships were work and took compromise and negotiation, but I always believed that the work came from the relationship itself. By that I mean I always believed that it would be the daily stuff that would need attention to foster and grow a relationship. Paying the bills, doing the yard work, fixing stuff, etc… It seems to me that although that stuff is important, it isn’t really important TO THE RELATIONSHIP other than the fact that the shit needs done. The real work in a relationship is making sure you are meeting your mates needs, even when they don’t necessarily know what they are, or how you can meet them. I have difficulty understanding this because I am very aware of my needs and how my mate can meet them, but it is obvious to me that many women and men don’t have nearly that level of self awareness, and it forces their partner to either guess or figure it out, or face failure.

    It seems like I’m in day two of long winded posts. I need to get this out of my system, or the next thing you know I’ll be trying to write a book. NO ONE wants that to happen, believe me. :P

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ted,

    Perhaps the secret to “game” in a committed relationship is to never appear to be completely tamed?

    I was going to suggest something like this myself after reading your other comment.

    Though I would say the real secret is to never actually be completely tamed. My gf is continually “earning” my love and devotion by being the most wonderful person she can be (something she’s quite good at, btw). I continually earn her love and devotion in the same way. This is reality, not a parlor trick. We are not “beings” so much as “becomings.” We change constantly. The person who has becomed “tamed” has given up a lot of his “becoming.”

    Just as an aside, I found Saywhaat’s comment very hopeful. I often feel alone in defending my POV about relationships and love here–like I’m expecting the impossible from someone. So it’s nice to hear someone saying the same.

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

    JM – Like I said yesterday, never give up on that. I just hate to see you constantly banging your head against a brick wall because of it.

    In regards to the taming thing, my issue was I always believed that being ‘tamed’ was exactly what I was supposed to do. Get married, switch modes and go into husband/dad role, which to me was supposed to be:
    consistent
    secure
    trustworthy
    loyal
    empathetic
    supportive

    No where in there is:
    exciting
    spontaneous
    willful
    difficult
    daring

    For real, I assumed that getting married meant buckling down, becoming “respectable” and putting everything else other than your family on the back burner indefinitely. Obviously that didn’t work out so well, LOL.

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

    JM – “The person who has becomed “tamed” has given up a lot of his “becoming.””

    Right. But that was because I accepted that getting married was exactly this, giving up MY becoming to join in OUR becoming. Turns out that without MY own becoming, there is no OURs.

    Again, seems simple to me now, but it wasn’t obvious when I needed that little bit of info.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ted,

    Thanks, bro. Really the only time I find myself banging my my idealistic head against a wall is at HUS.

    consistent
    secure
    trustworthy
    loyal
    empathetic
    supportive

    No where in there is:
    exciting
    spontaneous
    willful
    difficult
    daring

    This is beta + alpha. Of course, you’re a parent, so beta has to take precedence. Though you’re also a father, so part of being supportive and empathetic is showing–by example–the importance for a man of being both.

  • Mike C

    ****Perhaps the secret to “game” in a committed relationship is to never appear to be completely tamed?**** I mean, it is the desire of most women to get with a guy and feel secure in the fact that he is staying for the long haul. However, those same women often get bored when things are going smoothly and there is little to no threat of the status quo. In short: she has her man tamed.

    Is spitting a little relationship game really about simply bucking the “training” a bit? Go against her desires and wishes just a little so she isn’t completely confident that she has you under control? Because honestly, after I married I did my best to prove that I would never leave, and looking back it was mostly the actions I used to prove that fact that put me in major betatude territory.

    Ding. Ding. Ding. Ding.

    Ted, I think you’ve hit on something profound here that ties a lot of things together including the whole fantasy of “winning over the alpha/bringing out the beta” with some of the previous discussions/debates including some of the more controversial tactics such as sparking some anxiety.

    Dalrock had a post a long time ago about the neverending courtship within the context of marriage. I think a man’s natural proclivity is to want to “win the girl over” and then check the box that is a complete task and move on to the business of life. We don’t want to have to constantly win the girl over and over. This is a mistake, but probably represents most men’s default state.

    In contrast, I think most women actually get gratification from “winning the man” over even within the context of a committed LTR. But there has to be *something* to win over. To me, a great parallel is the difference between dogs and cats and men’s preferences for dogs as pets while women generally prefer cats. Cats always have that tinge of aloofness to be won over. The dog that comes running to its owner is too easy. I’d expand more on this theme but I don’t have time now, except that I think you’ve nailed something critical here.

    FWIW, here is an actual exchange with my GF last night, and keep in mind this is with the backdrop of being together 6 years with an engagement probably coming very soon. And this is all in a joking, playful tone

    Me: You’re mine

    Her: I’m not yours. You haven’t bought me yet

    Me: (Laughing) I’m renting you

    She laughs, I forget her exact response

    Me: You are on the rent to own plan

    It didn’t dawn on me until reading what you said Ted, but the frame of this interaction is “winning me over”. Its playful and teasing, and if there is one thing I’ve learned from all my time studying Game is simply to mix in being a verbal smart ass from time to time, and then follow with some sincere affection. It is the whole push-pull thing.

    Anyways, I think you are really “getting all this” and it seems to me you are sort of making peace and not having such an internal struggle which is good to see.

    Jesus, I want to say this to you. You and I have different views of the world….I suspect a lot of that is our Myers-Briggs personality differences as I am an ISTJ and I think you are an FP. Its not my objective to convince you that you are wrong and convert you to my perspective. That said, I would hope you would entertain the notion there are other models of successful, happy relationships that don’t conform to your vision of what “love” is. You are a smart guy but you do have a penchant sometimes for some passive-aggressive comments. Just something to ponder. But I certainly would not allow the academic discussions we have here to impact your real life relationship.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Mike C,

    Love the “rent to own” bit.

    I admit I made some passive-aggressive comments around the talk of the Tyler or Taylor guy–comments I retracted. I think that some people are interpreting everything I’ve said since as an attack or a judgment, when in fact it’s not meant that way at all.

    My “ideal” is my own–I recognize that others have their own, and some, even, have no ideals. And I can respect that. But honestly, I feel like I’m mostly defending my ideal against people who think it’s ridiculous.

    I guess I do consider how our discussions apply to my personal life. Probably because much of what I’ve learned or thought through here has dramatically changed my life–and mostly for the better. So when it seemed as if some of the women I respect and admire most here were suggesting that “reality” just wasn’t going to jibe with my “ideal”, I took that to heart.

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

    Mike C – “FWIW, here is an actual exchange with my GF last night, and keep in mind this is with the backdrop of being together 6 years with an engagement probably coming very soon. And this is all in a joking, playful tone”

    Its funny you mention this. the running joke in our relationship goes something like this:

    Me: Lightly smack my SO on the butt in passing.
    Her: don’t touch my butt!
    Me: MY butt.
    Her: No way, its MY butt
    Me: I think I’ve done more than enough to earn it, don’t you think?
    Her: (looks at me and ponders a little…) OK then its OUR butt.
    Me: walk by and smack her butt. “just playing with my toys…”

    And yeah, that kind of banter works wonders. I’m still amazed to be honest.

    “Anyways, I think you are really “getting all this” and it seems to me you are sort of making peace and not having such an internal struggle which is good to see.”

    Thanks. I’m sure I have a way to go yet, but I am starting to get past my initial resistance to the concepts mostly because I’m getting past the feeling that it is all artificial manipulation. I still view it as such, but some of it really isn’t so bad that I feel it is underhanded/sneaky/deceiving. Next I need to get past feeling like it is a waste of time, simply because *I* don’t need it to feel secure in the relationship. Its that whole “meeting my mates needs even when she doesn’t know what they are, and how to meet them” kinda thing. I fought long and hard on this one, because I felt like it was putting the responsibility for making her happy in my hands, but the truth is I spent over 10 years married to a woman I constantly “tried” to make happy and failed. So really, what is the harm in doing it now? I finally realized that my issue was that feeling of manipulation, so I try to let her know what I’m doing on some level so it doesn’t feel so sneaky. I don’t walk up and say “Hey, I’m about to initiate witty banter to peak your interests.” But, when I say something smart assed and she replies with some mock displeasure, I always follow up with some form of “and you know you like it” reply to which she agrees. I don’t know why, but somehow that makes me feel better about my *motives* for lack of a better term.

    It is kinda stupid that I have to go through all this mental BS to justify to myself how doing X is better for my relationships. But a lot of my morality is based on honesty, and most “game” just feels dishonest to me. I guess I just needed to find my loophole. LOL

  • Sassy6519

    @ Ted D

    Perhaps the secret to “game” in a committed relationship is to never appear to be completely tamed? I mean, it is the desire of most women to get with a guy and feel secure in the fact that he is staying for the long haul. However, those same women often get bored when things are going smoothly and there is little to no threat of the status quo. In short: she has her man tamed.

    Is spitting a little relationship game really about simply bucking the “training” a bit? Go against her desires and wishes just a little so she isn’t completely confident that she has you under control? Because honestly, after I married I did my best to prove that I would never leave, and looking back it was mostly the actions I used to prove that fact that put me in major betatude territory.

    I agree with you. Game does help men to avoid being tamed or feeling tamed in a relationship.

    I never want to fully conquer a man. I also would never allow a man to fully conquer me.

    I want a man who is with me because he wants to be, not because he is tamed or feels obligated to do so. I want a man to retain a piece of himself that is completely separate from me. I don’t want a trained animal.

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

    Sassy – “I never want to fully conquer a man. I also would never allow a man to fully conquer me.”

    And this is where we part ways, and why I have had so much issue with “game” in general. When I agree to enter an exclusive relationship, it comes with a certain sense of ownership. Now, I obviously don’t own my SO in the sense that she is MY actual property, and I certainly don’t treat her as a slave. However, I was very clear to her before we “got official” that I will consider her “mine” and she can expect me to defend that anytime I feel the need. How I perceive that ownership is complicated, but put simply I expect to be the ONLY one that benefits from her romantic intimacy and her sexuality, and I expect to be given prime consideration on any important decisions she makes. In return I do the same for her, which makes it fair and equal.

    Now, the issue is this: once *I* perceive that deal to be accepted, I consider her “won” and don’t want or need to continually “win” her again, as she already agreed I “conquered” her. She enjoys that same level of security, but also wants/needs to feel me push back a bit on it. Not in ways like flirting with other women, but small ways that show my independence and autonomy FROM her. Me? I would be completely satisfied if we never had witty banter, push-pull, or tension between us. I get all the confirmation of her dedication and loyalty to me I need every time I wake up next to her. *I* don’t need reminders of the bonds we have on each other, because I remind myself every single day of the commitment I made to her. But, it seems that I am not like most people, and most people need some kind of reminder from time to time of exactly what it is they have, and exactly what they stand to lose if they don’t have it anymore.

    As I’ve said before, you and I would probably have a great time hanging out, but we would never work in a relationship. I expect a fair bit of voluntary loss of autonomy from my mate, and I expect a level of co-dependency that precludes the kind of independent state you desire. But I am also pretty old fashioned, so I suspect you will have an easier time finding a man that is interested in the kind of relationship I think you are looking for, which is to say two independent people that choose to spend time together because they want to. I certainly want my SO to “want” to be with me, but I also expect her to surrender a bit of her independence as part of our relationship, and I do the same.

    There is nothing wrong with either outlook, but I will say that I believe my more traditional approach is better for raising a family, which I understand you are not interested in. My gut tells me the guys you find that don’t want children as well will probably like your ideal of a relationship quite a bit. It actually sounds very nice in terms of companionship and excitement, but it lacks too much in security for my tastes. It just seems that two fully independent people can easily walk away from the relationship with little loss.

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

    I certainly want my SO to “want” to be with me, but I also expect her to surrender a bit of her independence as part of our relationship, and I do the same.

    That is my take too. The idea of thinking and acting like I’m still single while married makes little sense to me. If I liked to be single and independent I wouldn’t had gotten married at all. But then again raised catholic the “becoming one flesh” is the whole purpose of marriage. Anything less and you are just roommates that have sex, IMO, YMMV.

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

    Sassy – I also wanted to comment on this after a few minutes to think on it…

    “I want a man who is with me because he wants to be, not because he is tamed or feels obligated to do so. I want a man to retain a piece of himself that is completely separate from me. I don’t want a trained animal.”

    I want my SO to ‘want’ to be with me, but I’m also very OK with her feeling obligated to stay as well. In fact, I tend to view that “obligation” as the fail safe for the tough times when “wanting” to be with me may not be foremost in my SO’s mind. I can see how a person might view that level of commitment as “tamed”, but to me it is exactly what marriage is about. You ARE obligated to stay with that person because you AGREED to stay when you accepted the marriage. Its the same in a LTR for me, only without the actual legally binding paper. But then again, I treat all my LTRs like that, and I recently dubbed it “marriage lite”, all the commitment, none of the legal entrapment.

    And I find it odd that you would consider a man that feels obligated to stay with you a ‘trained animal’. Again, I know my thinking is far from the norm, so I wonder if that is how most women view a man that has truly committed to stay with her. As if she loses respect and/or attraction for him once he tells her he belongs to her, which seems absolutely nuts to me. Isn’t that the goal of it all, to get a man to commit and stay? If so, then I am confused as to why many women (and men) seem to need that feeling of potential loss to really appreciate that commitment.

    I mean, my SO doesn’t take our banter seriously, but I can tell you that if she initiated that kind of push-pull on me, I would immediately consider it a threat to our relationship and act accordingly. I suppose on some level it speaks to her level of comfort in the relationship that she doesn’t get freaked out when I ‘game’ her up, but if the roles were reversed I would be a mental wreck, constantly concerned with her eminent departure. Luckily she seems to understand that such displays upset me, and she doesn’t have an issue NOT initiating those actions with me, as long as I do so to her on occasion.

    I have to admit that the whole thing makes me feel a little like something is wrong with my wiring. I mean, when I look around I see most people in the opposite camp from me, so I can’t help but wonder why I”m the minority. Good thing for me I don’t like people in general, so I don’t feel a loss at not having their acceptance. LOL

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

    Ana – “But then again raised catholic the “becoming one flesh” is the whole purpose of marriage. Anything less and you are just roommates that have sex, IMO, YMMV.”

    I hadn’t considered it, but you are right: it may be my Catholic upbringing that has me viewing relationships this way. I’m with you though, if I liked being all independent and self-reliant, I would have never even looked for a mate. Relationships like what I believe Sassy is looking for always seemed to be much more about companionship/friendship than what I see as ideal. Not to say my SO isn’t my friend or companion, but there is WAY more to it than that, and limiting it to ONLY include those things would make it something other than a relationship to me. More like FWB+ – all the independence, half the security.

    I very much want my SO to need me on some level, not just want to be with me. Of course that means that my SO also has to be willing to allow herself to need me, which is the hard part for many modern women. I want that massive sense of purpose from my relationship, because without it, I don’t see the point in putting in the effort. The trick for me is to make her my focus without putting her on a pedestal, which I have to say isn’t as easy as it sounds.

  • Alias

    Anacaona:
    “That is my take too. The idea of thinking and acting like I’m still single while married makes little sense to me. If I liked to be single and independent I wouldn’t had gotten married at all. But then again raised catholic the “becoming one flesh” is the whole purpose of marriage. Anything less and you are just roommates that have sex, IMO, YMMV.”
    —————–
    Religion may play a role for many people, but I wasn’t raised in a religious home and I share the same beliefs as you and TedD.
    If I didn’t want to give up my autonomy, I would have remained single.

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

    @Ted
    Yes I think because I believe I have a body, mind and a soul that I want to connect with my SO in body, mind and soul too. Or if you want to be scientific about it I want my ID, my Ego and my Superego to connect with his. Which is scary in modern times there is more encouraging for jumping ship as soon as things start to get meh because if you are “out of love” there is no point in staying than to work with it based on any level of connection left, sad but true.
    Oh well I don’t see this model surviving next century, people is unhappy, birthrates are dropping and economy is changing for the worst. Change will come whether traumatically after a huge catastrophe or by working on the margins and showing slowly that in the end being a couple and funding a family does matter, YMMV.

  • Alias

    Ted D:
    “Relationships like what I believe Sassy is looking for always seemed to be much more about companionship/friendship than what I see as ideal. Not to say my SO isn’t my friend or companion, but there is WAY more to it than that, and limiting it to ONLY include those things would make it something other than a relationship to me. More like FWB+ – all the independence, half the security.”
    ———–
    Yes, that’s exactly the way I view it.
    I mentioned this in the newest thread. For me, finding a spouse is similar to finding a family member + sex + much more. Otherwise, it’s looking for companionship/NSA sex, which for me isn’t sufficient. There’s no security in it and not worth my effort nor giving up my autonomy for and certainly not stable for children (I know Sassy doesn’t want).

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

    Religion may play a role for many people, but I wasn’t raised in a religious home and I share the same beliefs as you and TedD.
    If I didn’t want to give up my autonomy, I would have remained single.

    Welcome to the club! You know that for modern definition we are a bunch of unhealthy codependents right? Oh well modern people can marry their independence I will make sure to remember that I need my husband and he needs me and be happy with that. :)

  • Alias

    Anacaona:
    “Welcome to the club! You know that for modern definition we are a bunch of unhealthy codependents right?”
    —————
    If it’s wrong, I don’t want to be right.

    Oh yeah, if you get a chance, read this:

    http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi8110_cod.html

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

    @Alias
    I read that article about co-dependency in marriage builders some years ago. Really on point. :)

  • Alias

    Anacaona
    As soon as I saw “codependent” I thought of that article.

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

    “Welcome to the club! You know that for modern definition we are a bunch of unhealthy codependents right?”

    Good thing I don’t care what most people think. But, as far as it goes, I think intimate relationships without codependency are broken and/or shallow at best, a complete farce at worst. What is the point of a relationship if you aren’t willing to combine and become one entity. I don’t want a mate for a sex buddy, I’m looking for someone to add their life to mine and make something completely new and different, and that means giving up “her” life as she knew it, in the same way I will give up mine.

    It is a willing sacrifice that to me shows the level of commitment we are making for the relationship.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Everyone

    For me, since I can only speak for myself, there always needs to be a bit of distance between myself and my partner. Not a lot, but enough for me to not feel suffocated.

    I want a man in my life. I do not need one. There is a very clear distinction between those two things, in my mind.

    Like I said in another thread, I want to get married to a man for my desire for companionship, not to mention a gratuitous amount of sex.

    It’s not the most overly romantic notion, but I like that quality about it. The slight amount of detachment is what I need to feel comfortable. I wouldn’t love the man any less. I’m just not comfortable with someone having 100% of me. I don’t think that’s healthy.

    It goes without saying that I don’t look down on anyone who doesn’t feel love the way I do. I think it’s quite interesting how so many different manifestations of love can exist.

  • Lokland

    @Ted D

    “Now, I obviously don’t own my SO in the sense that she is MY actual property, and I certainly don’t treat her as a slave.”

    Excellent LTR game material here if you use it right and it can run both ways. I’ve told her if I we’re ever short on cash I’m gonna have to sell her.
    She does the same. Yeah, I use the word slave on at least a bi-daily basis (all for fun of course) and she loves it.

    On the “ownership” thing. I assume thats fairly normal because I’ve heard that described multiple times using that exact word. I own my fiance.

    However I know she wants to think she has to continually be buying me. I don’t get it but it is what it is. Therefore, I’ll never be fully tamed. Theres always gonna be part of me thats the wild-animal she needs to conquer. (Good pillow talk and LTR game here too.)

    @Mike C

    Classy. I like the rent-to-own.
    We tend to have convos that run along the same line of your’re mine, no you’re mine etc.

    I’ll throw that one in for new material.
    Thanks.

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

    It goes without saying that I don’t look down on anyone who doesn’t feel love the way I do. I think it’s quite interesting how so many different manifestations of love can exist.

    Neither do I. As noted I believe many roads lead to Rome and I wouldn’t love romance as much if all the love stories were about the same type of love. I do wish people would know themselves well before starting dating so they could quickly move on and signal what kind of relationship they want. It will save us a lot of heartbreak me thinks.

  • Ramble

    Sassy,
    What if you met a sexy and masculine man that said to you (at the appropriate time in the relationship):

    “Sassy, I love you. And, like me, I know that you do not want to have children. So, I want you to be my one and only but I do not want to get the federal government involved just so we can have a piece of paper.”

  • Sassy6519

    @ Ramble

    What if you met a sexy and masculine man that said to you (at the appropriate time in the relationship):

    “Sassy, I love you. And, like me, I know that you do not want to have children. So, I want you to be my one and only but I do not want to get the federal government involved just so we can have a piece of paper.”

    My ex actually said something similar to that to me. At first I was a little apprehensive about the idea of not getting married, yet cohabiting. I’d prefer to get married, but I’m not ruling out cohabitation entirely anymore. I very well may be happy cohabiting with someone without the official marriage paperwork. It will depend on the man, how I’m feeling, and the situation between the two of us.

  • Sexybearfriend

    (I’m a lurker chiming in late. Read up to about 150 comments before posting this) I see a lot of talk about how bad women are and how we need to do X, Y, and Z. But what about yourselves? Hear me out here — a good way to address change is to change yourself. Athol does this beautifully in his Married Man Sex blog (the MAP). But he — and a lot of self-help, inc HUS — neglect the idea of self-selection. And I believe this is the root cause of relationship unhappiness. The men that come to these sites (inc HUS) are already selected for as those that have been damaged by crappy women. However, what CAUSES you men to be attracted to these women? I know that it’s easy to simply say “yeah, but ALL women are like this”. That’s silly. It’s the equivalent of me saying that all men are “douche bags”. You get pissed when so-called feminists express this sentiment. And understandably so. We all know a person who, 1 after the other, picks a batshit crazy person to date. They all are the same type of batshit crazy. And what about ourselves? I know that I always pick a certain type of man. I see that my husband has dated women that resemble me. At it’s simplest, it boils down to our parents. They are the 1st role model. If you’re a guy and your mom had issues, you’re going to pick a woman with issues. I had an amazing relationship with my father. It’s no accident that I’ve had amazing relationships with men. Guys who’ve had great mothers have great relationships. And, sadly, the reverse is true. I’ve seen this with guys and with gals who’ve had awful opposite-sex parents (or, even worse, non-existent opposite sex parent). Until this is honestly looked at and addressed, you can’t hope to find true happiness in a relationship.
    It’s easy to say “all men/women are bitches/douchebags”. But that’s patently false. It’s harder to address some uncomfortable truths about yourself and then try to fix them. Additionally, once we do we also have to contend with our preconceived ideas going INTO the relationship. If you have a great relationship with women, you come in thinking positive. If you don’t, then you come in negative (“all women are like this…”) This goes for women as well. It’s nails on a chalkboard for me when I hear ANYONE say that “*All* men/women are like this.” I want to scream “THIS is why you’re unhappy!” Fix yourself, first. Game for men kinda starts this, but it doesn’t address the WHY — the “why” you’re attracted to crappy women in the first place. Until you fix this, all Game will do is allow you to more easily get crappy women. Or, at least, women that fit the Gamer profile. You won’t find happiness there, gents — with chicks whose greatest accomplishment was *almost* getting featured on Girls Gone Wild Vol 1,000,000. Temporary happiness? Yes. Long-term? Nope. Men, you love relationships as well. The sheer volume of comments attest to that. Game is the male equivalent to Cosmo mag. Sure