I don’t regret easing off dating when I had to buckle down in college. It cleared out all the drama when I needed to focus and paid off for me in the long run.
The hell you say. As not just a Nerd, but a NERD LORD, I not only got laid, I got laid a lot. The idea that nerds can’t get laid is fallacious — they may not get the cream of the crop, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t getting their pencils wet. To my knowledge, Marching Band was seething with erotic tension and I hooked up myself four times in the computer room. And this was BEFORE college.
Nerd don’t get laid, ever? I beg to differ! Anime chicks alone can keep you in pussy for a good long time!
I’d add that there are two different curves there – in my experience the guys who study and do well in school have the last laugh, though they don’t have the access the party animals do in college.
Also, Hagy labeled the axis “romance department,” not “pump and dump department.” It’s about winning hearts and minds!
I’d say this chart applies more to non-omega males than females. If a girl plays her cards right, there’s no reason that she can’t do both in university. In fact, if she works really hard, she can get into universities like Dartmouth, Cornell, many of the Canadian Universities* and to a lesser extent UVA where not only will she be able to get a great education assuming she gets a hard STEM degree, she’ll have the pick of the litter as well. It’s when she gets cocky and over reaches thinking she can also party constantly that she gets in trouble.
While it is better advice for guys, it’s not perfect. One thing that sinks many guys is that the frustration and hopelessness with women gets so bad that it leads to depression and an inability to study.
* what – you don’t like tall, dark, handsome and charming men with dirt cheap tuition – fine stay in the states – there’s a reason game was invented in Canada
Ian, you’re using a different definition of the word ‘nerd’, IMO, something that comes closer to what I think of when people say ‘geek’.
People who hole themselves up studying and don’t engage socially don’t have opportunities. Doing so under the assumption that you’re going to exit college to some sort of relationship nirvana doesn’t work.
I’m no player but my freshman/sophomore years in college were actually pretty good *because I was active socially* (junior and senior years were a MGHOW time). The worst dryspell of my life happened immediately after I graduated because I fell into the beta/omega mindset that my degree and shiny new job would have women chasing me around. It lead to a shotgun marriage to a totally unsuitable mate.
“People who hole themselves up studying and don’t engage socially don’t have opportunities. Doing so under the assumption that you’re going to exit college to some sort of relationship nirvana doesn’t work.”
I’d add that there are two different curves there – in my experience the guys who study and do well in school have the last laugh
In my experience, those guys that get the “last laugh” is with girls who are past their prime. Susan, I apologize if my comment re-ignites the kinds of flames that you have been looking to put out lately, but I would also hate if some young men here got the wrong idea.
Improving your knowledge and skills throughout college (and life, in general) is undoubtedly a good thing, but don’t miss out on the hot co-eds so that you can marry some girl after she turns 30.
Has anyone here ever witnessed someone who wanted to be married since the time they started dating in their teens go through life never alone, not without a relationship, but still unable to make any of those relationships, even the live in ones, progress to marriage? What is this?
Now I feel really old.
Back in the good ole days (lol)
quite a few of us attended school full-time, worked part/full-time jobs, and found lasting relationships, all simultaneously.
College was the perfect setting for finding a mate.
It worked for me and several other couples that I know.
I don’t understand what’s so difficult about maintaining a relationship while going to school. ??? You’re going to have to maintain a relationship while you work, keep a house, have other involvements in addition to having kids/extended family, so what’s the difference except w/o kids, it’s actually easier.
Has anyone here ever witnessed someone who wanted to be married since the time they started dating in their teens go through life never alone, not without a relationship, but still unable to make any of those relationships, even the live in ones, progress to marriage? What is this?
I had seen this happening but IME this are people that idealize marriage and married life so much that even if they have a partner that fills 99% of their ideal they still don’t want to try it waiting for the 100%.
You want to hear a funny thing most of the people I knew were also psychologists with specialty in marriage counseling. Crazy I know. It was a case of “doctors that cannot heal thyself”, YMMV.
Ana, I think in the cases I’ve seen they are not holding out for 100% but none of the people they get in relationships with, some for years, are ever willing to make the jump into marriage with them. Can’t figure it out. I’m talking about attractive, smart people here.
Ana, I think in the cases I’ve seen they are not holding out for 100% but none of the people they get in relationships with, some for years, are ever willing to make the jump into marriage with them. Can’t figure it out. I’m talking about attractive, smart people here.
Then they are not jumping ship fast enough. If marriage is your goal after certain prudent time of getting to know each other, making sure your partner is on the same page is very important. If after that they still have doubts is better to try and move on with someone else, IMO, YMMV.
Ana, now these people are in their mid-late 30s. I think they’ve given up on marriage and kids and are just happy that someone still finds them desireable enough to live with.
Ana, now these people are in their mid-late 30s. I think they’ve given up on marriage and kids and are just happy that someone still finds them desireable enough to live with.
Well that is just sad. One of the reasons I took the initiative to find my husband online was that I know that if I didn’t changed many of my patterns I would never get married and have children and I would be damned if I failed without trying my darnest best, YMMV.
Male Perspective:
“the difference now is that college kids are relunctant to commit to just one bf or gf.”
——-
Oh, I know.
I blame the older generation for discouraging the younger ones from finding a partner early on.
There’s no reason why people can’t attend school and keep a relationship. It’s not preparing anyone for real life.
When you’re looking for a spouse, it’s like you’re looking for a family member. Someone to grow up with and share a history with. (at least, that’s how I saw it.)
Why would you postpone finding that person?
Do you stop seeing family for a few years because you’re attending school?
(this isn’t directed at you, it’s a rhetorical question)
* what – you don’t like tall, dark, handsome and charming men with dirt cheap tuition – fine stay in the states – there’s a reason game was invented in Canada
LOL, that’s true! Mystery posted up at bars in Montreal for years, as I recall.
In my experience, those guys that get the “last laugh” is with girls who are past their prime.
Beta guys often come into their own about five years after college. They have tasted some career advancement, they’re removed from some of the peer pressure/pluralistic ignorance, and their SMV is only increasing. I know it sucks to wait, I’m not saying it doesn’t. My advice to one of those guys is to seek out a girl who’s a year or two out of college, one who hasn’t ridden the carousel (obviously). Just being 5 years older is attractive, and girls that age are literally starving for attention from men who will commit.
Been exclusive, and then married since 1968, so take that into account. I asked my wife some years back–she’d been in a sorority–about an idea I had for a short story. It was about a guy who asked a woman out just for fun. He’d been in Viet Nam and lost a hand. Problem with that, going to a concert? He was pretty on top of things otherwise.
“Oh, yes. We were looking for husband material. You didn’t even date for fun if there wasn’t a possibility he was marriage material. It might have been a just-to-get-acquainted date, but the marriage template was out and ready for assessment.” I paraphrase. I was shocked.
This works only for women and they date guys older than them. Men must continue to wait until late 20s before the inherent beta-tude becomes acceptable. The only solution for men post college is to aggressively learn game, and then go back to the campuses through their old social networks.
Susan while you are correct a man’s SMV increases years after college, if the beta does not actively try to instill in him, at least some alpha traits he will end up marrying a woman who fvcks around but wants marriage for stability. It’s the provider vs lover dichotomy, and college doesn’t change whether you are a provider or lover.
Like most things in life you need balance, not extremes. I don’t see why a man or woman can’t date in college while still studying. If it becomes an overwhelming habit where you forgo your studies then it is a problem. But for a person to reach their college years and beyond (22) without having any sort of relationship is very unlikely. It’s just up to parents to make sure they have the right type of relationship and not end up as a cum-dumpster…
“My advice to one of those guys is to seek out a girl who’s a year or two out of college, one who hasn’t ridden the carousel (obviously).”
It’s good advice – enough so that the guy won’t wonder TOO much if he’s the ‘second choice.’
However, identifying the girls who didn’t ride the carousel is the problem. And that’s where guys stumble…because there’s almost nothing they can do to ascertain whether or not the girl didn’t ride, or is just lying to him. They are at the mercy of the girl’s word.
Hey great idea. Why don’t guys who bombed out with girls in college return to same college once they’ve matured and come more into their own? Anyone here tried that? Results?
The last time I ventured back into college was a few months ago and I got eye-fucked by three girls and one directly fished out of me whether or not I was single.
MP, I had a GF I was very, very satisfied with at the time. There was no reason to note the interest of these girls other than academic curiosity.
If I see a girl I want to talk to now, I just talk to her. What’s the worst that could happen? Why would I feel bad being rejected by what is essentially a dice roll? Talking to women and escalating in general is like gambling, except that you never, ever lose if you don’t invest because you pay nothing to roll the dice.
I’m going to agree with Susan. More for men than women, but it does apply to both. Education is a way to increase earning potential, but it’s also a test of character. A demonstration of commitment. The flaky party girl majoring in basketweaving will go full-bore EPL on you in a few years – she doesn’t have the staying power to be prime LTR material. That STEM guy? Never mind the money, he’s a dead reliable sort, not likely to dump anyone for trivial causes. Grab him.
Sue: “Beta guys often come into their own about five years after college.”
I’m not so sure of that, I think I would have turned omega, or (worse) be totally stuck in lower-lower betaville forecer if I didn’t find love in college proper.
Beta guys often come into their own about five years after college. They have tasted some career advancement … and girls that age are literally starving for attention from men who will commit.
“So, guys, you heard her, wait until you are 27 and then you will have the opportunity, if you are financially successful, to have a committed relationship with girls who are, for some reason, starving for attention.”
Susan, there is no reason to say this to young men.
You are a fan of game, just preach it.
“Guys, learn some game and have all the sex (committed, casual, whatever it is that you are looking for) and fun times that you want.”
Yup guys, wait till your 27 then go for the post college chick. Buckle down and study up. When the urge to put a bullet through your head gets too strong just cry and think about the future and your glorious, slightly used wife.
Any girl past 16 is most likely going to be used. And yes, lots of us suck with women at a younger age because we weren’t emotionally mature yet, we were lied to, etc.
You just gotta get over that. Just don’t accept second-best. Most of her sexual experiences are going to be lame and you are going to have the opportunity to show her something more awesome.
And its not sitting too well with me either, as a man! Male sexuality is desireable. We don’t have to “use” women to get sex from them. Women engage in consensual sex with us because they desire us.
For the beta men out there who have worked their brains out and gone through college alone, I say you should just go the extra mile to learn a foreign language and live in a foreign country for a while. Find a nice local girl for yourself then, if your best career opportunities lie in the US, come back and bring her with you. If you’re good enough to go to college, you should be capable of speaking a foreign language and capable of traveling.
(To the posters who say “She’s just after your green card.” I reply that international marriages have a success rate of approximately 80% according to the formerly known US Immigration and Naturalization Services.)
I’ll even go so far as to saying this “used” mentality shames men and male sexuality. It leads us to shamefully believe that we are perverts, nay criminals, USERS, just for engaging in consensual sex or reciprocating a woman’s desire for us. Seems some men here need to liberate their own sexuality and get some self esteem.
I didn’t start the phrasing. Regardless, most guys do not want their prospective mates to be indiscriminate in their love making. If you have a problem with that, don’t date guys.
That STEM guy? Never mind the money, he’s a dead reliable sort, not likely to dump anyone for trivial causes. Grab him.
Absolutely. I’d add that there were a ton of STEM guys in b-school, and they had it going on, intellectually I mean. Funny, well-read, interesting, really smart. These guys are the husbands and dads. And a lot of them were pretty cute too.
I didn’t start the phrasing. Regardless, most guys do not want their prospective mates to be indiscriminate in their love making. If you have a problem with that, don’t date guys.
I don’t have a problem with men wanting the women they date to be discriminate in their love making. What I do object to is the notion that any woman over the age of 16, regardless of her number of sexual partners, is seen as “used”. Even women with a partner count of 1 are seen as “used”.
It’s like checking the tread on the tires of a car. It’s fine to do that to a car, because it is an object. Saying that about a human female is an extreme case of objectification.
Heaven forbid I’ve had sex with another man. Suddenly, I’ve worn out my vagina and am seen as damaged. Does the fact that another penis has been in a vagina warrant such a loaded term as “used”?
It just makes me feel like chattel. The last thing I want is to be seen as an object. No one owns me.
If you want an objectified woman, stick with prostitutes, strippers, and mail order brides. At least those women are paid to be objectified.
Sure, that’s fine. I’m just saying – beta guys see their SMV go up in their 20s. Game can obviously help – either to get them there faster, or to get them a higher SMV woman in their late 20s. I think most guys are not looking to settle down before then anyway. Remember – I’m all about the LTR. I have zero interest in encouraging men or women to go for casual.
Yeah it sucks, Sassy. I don’t want to be seen as gross or ugly or an ATM, any more than you want to be seen as “used”, be we can’t control what other people think of us, can we? We’re judged all the damn time, correctly and incorrectly, and we’re all objects until someone actually loves us specifically.
Face it, everyone’s an object in some way to most everyone.
Guys want exclusive sexual domination of their women. To some extent, you ARE chattel. Sorry we evolved that way, but that’s how it is for a lot of men.
Most men are also able to overlook this. So give us SOME credit.
JM, shame is a recognition of violation of social norms, no? Guilt is a violation of internal norms. At least, that’s how it was explained to me.
Being seen as gross or ugly are not instances of objectification. Being viewed or used as an ATM is, however.
I have just as much contempt for women who view men as ATMs as well. It objectifies men, and that’s not good.
Guys want exclusive sexual domination of their women. To some extent, you ARE chattel. Sorry we evolved that way, but that’s how it is for a lot of men.
I refuse to be any man’s chattel. Fuck that noise.
I’ll just try to avoid men who view non-virginal women as “used”. I’m sure there are some of them out there.
Regarding “getting there first,” I came across a couple of passages from a terrific short story I read a while back and became reacquainted with today.
They’re from Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried, a semi-fictional story based on the author’s experiences in Vietnam.
First Lieutenant Jimmy Cross carried letters from a girl named Martha, ajunior at Mount Sebastian College in New Jersey. They were not loveletters, but Lieutenant Cross was hoping, so he kept them folded in plastic at the bottom of his rucksack. In the late afternoon, after a day’s march,he would dig his foxhole, wash his hands under a canteen, unwrap theletters, hold them with the tips of his fingers, and spend the last hour oflight pretending. He would imagine romantic camping trips into the WhiteMountains in New Hampshire. He would sometimes taste the envelope flaps,knowing her tongue had been there. More than anything, he wanted Martha tolove him as he loved her, but the letters were mostly chatty, elusiveon the matter of love. She was a virgin, he was almost sure. She was anEnglish major at Mount Sebastian, and she wrote beautifully about herprofessors and roommates and midterm exams, about her respect for Chaucerand her great affection for Virginia Woolf. She often quoted lines .of poetry; she never mentioned the war, exceptto say, Jimmy, take care of yourself. The letters weighed ten ounces. Theywere signed “Love, Martha,” but Lieutenant Cross understood that Love was only a way of signing and did not mean what he sometimes pretended it meant. At dusk, he would carefullyreturn the letters to his rucksack. Slowly, a bit distracted, he would getup and move among his men, checking the perimeter, then at full dark hewould return to his hole and watch the night and wonder if Martha was a virgin…
Almost everyone humped photographs. In his wallet, Lieutenant Cross carried two photographs of Martha. The first was a Kodachrome snapshot signed”Love,” though he knew better. She stood against a brick wall. Her eyes were gray and neutral, her lips slightly open as she stared straight-on at the camera. At night, sometimes,Lieutenant Cross wondered who had taken the picture, because he knew she had boyfriends, because he loved her so much, and because he could seethe shadow of the picture taker spreading out against the brick wall. The second photograph had been clipped from the 1968 Mount Sebastian yearbook.It was an action shot–women’s volleyball–and Martha was bent horizontal to the floor, reaching, the palms of her hands in sharp focus, the tongue taut, the expression frank and competitive. There was no visible sweat. She wore white gym shorts. Her legs, he thought, were almost certainly the legs of a virgin, dry and without hair, the left knee cocked and carrying her entire weight, which was just over one hundred pounds.Lieutenant Cross remembered touching that left knee. A dark theater, he remembered, and the movie was Bonnie and Clyde, and Martha wore a tweed skirt, and during the final scene, when he touched her knee, she turned and looked at him in a sad, sober way that made him pull his hand back, but he would always remember the feel of the tweed skirt and the knee beneath it and the sound of the gunfire that killed Bonnie and Clyde, how embarrassing it was, how slow and oppressive. He remembered kissing her goodnight at the dorm door. Right then, he thought, he should’ve done something brave. He should’ve carried her up the stairs to her room and tied her to the bed and touched that left knee all nightlong. He should’ve risked it. Whenever he looked at the photographs, he thought of new things he should’ve done.
There’s something about the desperate innocence that he wants to cling to in the midst of the horrors he’s experiencing, his longing for her (him tasting the envelope she would’ve certainly licked when sending it off is such a pathetic, gut-wrenching detail), the naive, idealistic hope he puts in her… puts in love–that I find incredibly moving. I’ve been rereading it. I shared it with my gf.
What do you think monogamy is? It is there because your man does not want you screwing other men.
You are very unlikely to fully escape the chattel mindset
You’ve just switched the goal posts.
We aren’t talking about monogamy. We are talking about whether or not non-virginal women, regardless of the extent of their sexual histories, are “used”.
I am not a virgin. There will have been other men who have slept with me before my next future partner. He will not be first, and the idea of him viewing me as “used” goods rubs me the wrong way.
If he viewed me as sexually experienced, I’d have no problem with that. That’s what I am. I have a problem with the word “used”, in this scenario, because it is objectification.
It’s not shifting goal posts if both desires come from the same place. A lot of guys would truly prefer being their partner’s one and only. That does not make them bad men. I am just telling them that they are being unrealistic and shutting out good women.
Without shaming their desires that I understand perfectly well. That will get me nowhere.
Being seen as gross or ugly are not instances of objectification. Being viewed or used as an ATM is, however.
They’re all examples of objectification, because in each case, the person is being seen in terms of his effect on the viewer and not for who he is as an individual human being, i.e. a “subject.”
The guy in the Tim O’Brien story sounds like a fucking creeper. That’s not romantic to me. It’s obsessive, and a bit unnerving.
lol. I knew you would say that, Sassy.
Of course he’s obsessing: he’s living in a strange jungle where people are trying to blow him up or shoot him, where every man, woman, and child he encounters may–or may not–be the enemy. He’s a kid in the middle of a war: love is the only hope he’s got to hold onto. You say obsessive, I say desperate.
They’re all examples of objectification, because in each case, the person is being seen in terms of his effect on the viewer and not for who he is as an individual human being, i.e. a “subject.”
No they are not. Only the ATM example is.
Objectification is the instance of viewing, treating, or using a person as an object instead of as a human. Thinking someone is gross or ugly is not objectification. Humans are capable of being ugly and gross. There is no need to view, treat, or use them as an object to accomplish it.
Viewing men as ATMs, however, is objectification. In that instance, the man isn’t viewed as a human. He is instead viewed as a cash-dispensing machine to use at a woman’s leisure. Notice how he is viewed as an object (ATM) and is “used”.
Shame and guilt: General usage is that shame is externally-driven, involving fear of ostracism by others (“no one will never talk to me again), whereas guilt is internally-driven(“I’ll be a bad person”). See Wikipedia article on shame society, which has a link to “guilt society.”
I see I caused a little shit storm with my word choice. I feel like I accomplished something good today.
Anyway, it was the suggestion that the beta guy sit out on the action and wait till he arcs up in value while the lady in question either
a) screws around (even with a few guys, casual or serious) or
b) lets her SMV drop while she sits out.
Either way, its not an equal trade.
As for assuming any girl who has had a penis in her vagina is used. Thats nonsense. Making a judgement call to avoid her however is acceptable. (Totally devoid of my opinion on number.)
@Male Perspective
“I’ll even go so far as to saying this “used” mentality shames men and male sexuality. It leads us to shamefully believe that we are perverts, nay criminals, USERS, just for engaging in consensual sex or reciprocating a woman’s desire for us. Seems some men here need to liberate their own sexuality and get some self esteem.”
You start by bitching about shaming male sexuality and then finish by shaming male sexuality. I see what you did there.
You said being thought of as “used” makes YOU feel like an object, like chattel, regardless of the thinker’s intent. You don’t know that he thinks of you as an object, that wasin your mind, perhaps he thinks you are just a human but one whose pair-bonding ability is worn down and not “new”. (NOT a position I personally agree with, I am arguing what is objectification.)
So if it’s not intent, but how the receiver feels then… perhaps you thinking of a man as gross makes HIM feel like an object, like a monster or a pile of dung.
So why is one objectification but the other isn’t?
So you’re encouraging women to see 1/2 of the human race as users? That’s sexist.
1. Who is your comment directed to?
2. If it’s me, I’m not encouraging women to see men as users. I am bothered by the word “used” when it’s meant to describe non-virginal women. How can I think that men are “users” if I don’t think women are “used”? If anything, I’m rallying against the notion of “users” and “used”, in general, when it comes to sex.
@ Lokland
No problem man. You and I are in agreement, after the clarification.
Sassy, not directed at you. At those who think consensual sex between is not an equal exchange but a situation where one party is the user and the other the used. As a man I find that highly offensive to my manhood and male sexuality.
JM, are you teaching at the creative writing program at NYU? Reason I ask is because one of my creative writing professors had us read that Tim O’Brien story as an example of how listing objects in a story can evoke a better understanding of a character.
Considering a man an ATM is objectification because it is viewing him as something completely separate from his humanity. He is viewed as a machine instead of as a human.
Saying someone is ugly or gross is not objectification because he is still viewed as human. Humans are capable of being ugly or gross. There is no need to view him as non-human. A person can be viewed as ugly/gross and still retain their humanity.
Viewing a woman’s non-virginal state as being “used” is objectification. It strips her of her humanity, making her an object that has been handled and manipulated by another instead of being viewed as a human who consented to sexual intercourse with another. Viewing women as being “used” is a denial of female autonomy. It implies that the woman had no choice in her sexual experiences and was at the full will and whim of a man.
I don’t understand what’s so difficult about maintaining a relationship while going to school. ??? You’re going to have to maintain a relationship while you work, keep a house, have other involvements in addition to having kids/extended family, so what’s the difference except w/o kids, it’s actually easier.
Thank you. I kid you not, this is literally the exact thing I have said to people whenever they claim they “just don’t have time for a relationship right now!”
“It’s just petulance – the guy didn’t get there first.”
You under estimate how good it feels to get there first.
AMOG of her life (assuming you stick around).
It is by no means necessary (obviously) but don’t discount how good it can feel for a guy. (And it only feels good if your actually into more than her tits.)
As for how a guy acts about not getting there first, first and foremost its degree. Not everyone can be there first, hopefully your last. Buts it kinda like climbing Everest. No one gives a fuck after a certain point. However number 2, 3, 4 and a few more can probably be considered notable still.
Anyway, my point was. There is a very real dopamine release on getting there first (at least for me). How someone acts if they can’t get their “fix” is another matter entirely.
I will be sure to bookmark your blog and will eventually come back at some point. I want to encourage you to definitely continue your great job, have a nice afternoon!
JM, are you teaching at the creative writing program at NYU? Reason I ask is because one of my creative writing professors had us read that Tim O’Brien story as an example of how listing objects in a story can evoke a better understanding of a character.
You’re going to NYU? I was there as an undergrad. And no, I’m not teaching anywhere right now.
O’Brien does a masterful job of evoking characters through the objects carried in their rucksacks. It’s really an ingenious focus–almost like a desert island list, only the characters are traipsing through the bowels of hell carrying items that help them hold on to some vestige of their humanity: floss and foot powder, tranquilizers and 7 or 8 ounces of premium dope, comic books, condoms, an illustrated New Testament, canned peaches in heavy syrup to pour over pound cake. And Cross’s non-love letters.
Do you believe it is possible for humans to be ugly/gross?
Heck, I think it’s possible for them to be ATMs.
Objectification has to do with seeing people in a limited and self-serving sort of way. Men “objectify” strippers by only seeing them as sex objects for their own gratification. If you look at a physically unattractive person and “see” ugly, then you’re objectifying the person–because you’re not viewing the person as an entity unto himself. All you’re seeing is his effect on you. In other words, you’re the only subject in the equation, it’s only your wants, needs, thoughts that you’re considering. If you see gross, then you’re objectifying the person even more.
Objectification has to do with seeing people in a limited and self-serving sort of way. Men “objectify” strippers by only seeing them as sex objects for their own gratification. If you look at a physically unattractive person and “see” ugly, then you’re objectifying the person–because you’re not viewing the person as an entity unto himself. All you’re seeing is his effect on you. In other words, you’re the only subject in the equation, it’s only your wants, needs, thoughts that you’re considering. If you see gross, then you’re objectifying the person even more.
My God.
Let me break this down one more time.
Thinking someone is ugly/gross is not objectification. Humans are capable of being gross/ugly. If you don’t think that is the case, the point is moot.
Humans cannot be ATMs. It’s impossible. One is a living creature and the other is a mechanical device. Viewing someone or treating someone as an ATM is objectification. They are no longer seen as human, but as a cash-dispensing machine.
According to Philosopher Martha Nussbaum, objectification has the following characteristics:
1. Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one’s own purposes;
2. Denial of autonomy – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination;
3. Inertness – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency;
4. Ownership – if the thing is treated as if owned by another;
5. Fungibility – if the thing is treated as if interchangeable;
6. Violability – if the thing is treated as if permissible to damage or destroy;
7. Denial of subjectivity – if the thing is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the ‘object’s’ feelings and experiences.
Let it be known that I have never advocated that telling a person they are ugly/gross isn’t objectification. I’ve been saying that thinking someone is gross/ugly isn’t. Saying those things to the person in question, however, is an example of #7 on the list.
Viewing or using a man as an ATM is an example of #1, not to mention #2 and #4. Viewing non-virginal women as “used” is an example of #1 and #2.
1. Worked 25+ hours per week while studying full time so dating would have compounded my time and I prefer a fair amount of alone time to recharge.
2. I didn’t want to be tied to someone permanently as I knew that I would be moving abroad after college
3. I honestly didn’t meet too many people I’d have a connection with and didn’t actively seek it out.
Im not gonna say I was being a good student either. I surely wasn’t. More like a mediocre one.
If, in the act of having sex, your only real concern is your sexual pleasure, then you’re “using” your sex partner.
I agree with this. I couldn’t imagine only wanting someone for sex. It wouldn’t be a pleasurable experience in the least. I also couldn’t imagine allowing someone to use me for just pleasure. Its oh so cheap.
Haha. Well, she’s technically not objectifying the tree because the tree is not sentient.
If trees had the capability of rational thought and consciousness, she would be objectifying the tree.
Either way, I do feel bad for it.
@ Charm
ATM stands for automated teller machine
If, in the act of having sex, your only real concern is your sexual pleasure, then you’re “using” your sex partner.
Yes, that would be an instance of objectifying a sexual partner. The question is, how often does this happen? Rape is another instance of objectification. I’m still trying to figure out whether having sex with a corpse/necrophilia is objectification or not.
Awwwww. I thought it was some new hip acronym that someone here created that I could steal and use on other websites and pass it off as my own. I thought an actual ATM was too literal.
hinking someone is ugly/gross is not objectification. Humans are capable of being gross/ugly. If you don’t think that is the case, the point is moot.
Human’s are capable of being ugly or gross in relation to other people. Human’s are also capable of dispensing $20 bills to other people. (Referring to a person an “ATM” is just a figure of speech.) These are both “possible” things.
If you run across a guy and dismiss him because he’s ugly, then you’ve committed #’s 1 and 7.
1. You’ve judged him in terms of your purposes (“ugly” pretty much means “it doesn’t please me to look at that.”)
7. Since you’ve dismissed him due to his ugliness, you’ve failed to show any concern for the subject’s feelings and experiences. The conclusion of “ugly” closes the book on the guy.
Human’s are also capable of dispensing $20 bills to other people. (Referring to a person an “ATM” is just a figure of speech.) These are both “possible” things.
Viewing someone and treating someone as an ATM is objectification. If someone intentionally uses someone else solely for their money, they are using them as an ATM, disregarding their humanity, and objectifying them.
If you run across a guy and dismiss him because he’s ugly, then you’ve committed #’s 1 and 7.
1. You’ve judged him in terms of your purposes (“ugly” pretty much means “it doesn’t please me to look at that.”)
7. Since you’ve dismissed him due to his ugliness, you’ve failed to show any concern for the subject’s feelings and experiences. The conclusion of “ugly” closes the book on the guy.
Oy vey.
1. How can I use an ugly person as a tool if my purpose/goal is to date an attractive person? How could I use them? They wouldn’t serve my purpose, therefore negating any desire to use them as a tool. It’s not an example of #1.
2. What person in their right mind would tell someone that the reason they are being rejected is because they are ugly? I always show concern for the person’s feelings/experiences by letting them down easy. I don’t even know why you attempted your explanation for #7.
It’s funny, because you were the one earlier in the thread who said that we shouldn’t bother trying to explain this to one another. We won’t agree, however either one of us spins it.
I don’t know about you people, but when I have sex with someone, I’m not the only one getting pleasure out of it. Its an equal exchange. Share, don’t use.
1. How can I use an ugly person as a tool if my purpose/goal is to date an attractive person? How could I use them? They wouldn’t serve my purpose, therefore negating any desire to use them as a tool. It’s not an example of #1.
You’re treating the person as a tool because you’re judging them in terms of your own purposes. You’re not “using” the person as a tool; you’re evaluating the person in terms of your purposes and concluding that he’s “useless.”
2. What person in their right mind would tell someone that the reason they are being rejected is because they are ugly? I always show concern for the person’s feelings/experiences by letting them down easy. I don’t even know why you attempted your explanation for #7.
Because #7 still holds if you don’t tell the guy why you’re rejecting him. The fact still remains that you’re thinking of him solely in terms of his “use” (or, in this case, uselessness). You are failing to consider who he is beyond his looks because you’ve already decided that you have no use for a person who has failed to meet your minimum physical requirements.
It’s funny, because you were the one earlier in the thread who said that we shouldn’t bother trying to explain this to one another. We won’t agree, however either one of us spins it.
I’m going to be proactive by apologizing to you in advance for the conversation that has spiraled out of control.
@ Male Perspective
I don’t know about you people, but when I have sex with someone, I’m not the only one getting pleasure out of it. Its an equal exchange. Share, don’t use.
You’re not the only one, man. Sex has always been about give and take, for me.
For me, that book is like a Masamune katana or a P-51D Mustang – perfect and beautiful in form, but horrible in origin. I read it several years ago. Fucked me up for weeks. It is as close to The Truth about grunts as you can get in print.
“The guy in the Tim O’Brien story sounds like a fucking creeper. That’s not romantic to me. It’s obsessive, and a bit unnerving.”
________________________________
I agree with you, but I’m compelled to explain.
Lt Cross is an infantryman.
His existence is utterly primitive. The only technology Lt Cross has is related to Death. He’s got a radio to communicate with allies. His weapons are the best an industrialized society can afford. His uniform is mass produced.
For everything else, he is almost a caveman. He walks everywhere. He sleeps outdoors in the dirt. He doesn’t clock out at the end of the day or have weekends off. He doesn’t have a desk or a storage unit or even a shelf to put stuff on – everything he uses, including food and water – he must carry. He is cold or hot or hungry or thirsty most of the time. He is either tired or scared all the time. He hunts the most dangerous animal that’s ever appeared on Earth – man.
If he is not excellent at his craft – quick, strong, brutal, and cunning – he will die in ways so horrendous you can’t even comprehend them. If someone nearby has a tiny lapse in judgement, he will die, alone and in excruciating pain. If he is unlucky, he will cease to exist.
His whole purpose in life is to destroy other human beings he has never met.
He does this month after month after month after month…..
If he internalizes these things, or even thinks too deeply about them, he will cease to be something you’d recognize as human. On some level, he fears this and tries to stave off losing his humanity. To do so, he spends much of his time deep in fantasy – fantasies about things normal Western people take for granted.
Some guy you went to high school with is doing this right now, as you read these words. He’s walking somewhere, eyes watchful for tripwires or freshly turned dirt or the glint from an enemy sniper’s scope. His ears are cocked for orders or incoming rounds. He is sweating, tired, angry, bored, and frustrated. His back and neck hurt. Yesterday, his buddy from bootcamp lost both testicles, feet, nose, and one eye to an IED.
That is his environment.
In his mind, though – what wondrous things in his mind!
He is imagining crunching into a taco – the tang of cheddar, spicy beef so steamy-hot it almost hurts, fresh tomato slices falling out the other side. He is in a hotel room, early afternoon, on a soft bed with clean sheets. He watches the sun dapple across the naked, taut stomach of a young woman who loves him. He sees it so clearly he can count the few tiny, soft, peach-fuzz hairs below her navel that glow in the light. He smells the soap on her skin, the faint perfume on her collarbone. He presses his lips to the back of her neck, enjoying her hair brushing his face. He cups her breast in his hand.
He plays scenes like that over and over and over in his mind. It gives him something to live for. It keeps him from becoming too alien. It is not romantic at all – merely necessary.
“It just makes me feel like chattel. The last thing I want is to be seen as an object. No one owns me.
If you want an objectified woman, stick with prostitutes, strippers, and mail order brides. At least those women are paid to be objectified.”
I thought one of the teachings of “game” is that even though women SAY they don’t want to be objectified, they actually do, but ONLY from a man they find attractive. I can tell you with full assurance that my SO greatly enjoys being objectified by me from time to time. So the issue here isn’t that Sassy doesn’t like being sexually objectified, but that she doesn’t like being sexually objectified in that manner from some random internet guy.
+1. Dogsquat uses vivid imagery like a pro, wielding it to evoke both coarseness and sensuality, then placing the two side-by-side, and by doing so, conjuring up the spectrum of possibilities inherent in the human.
Reading Dogsquat’s comment it kind of dawned on me that the only socially accepted modern equivalent of a male rite of passage is serving your country in the army.
Where I was born, it used to be compulsory, so I never thought that not doing it would be such a loss, but getting older and realizing its importance for “inner game”, I’d actually recommend the girls to screen for that for marriage purposes.
Regarding the graph it’s the same old. Cats emulating dogs.
For girls it only makes sense if the end point on the x-axis is at around 25. After that, the curve takes a steep dive.
Anon, people still write love letters today. They’re just often in email format instead of postal mail.
Jesus Mahoney/Dogsquat, The Things They Carried was a massive tearjerker for me. I don’t think I could read it again. It was brutal and beautiful. Thanks for the passage and the elaboration on it, but ya’ll are trying to make me bawl at work.
As an aside, I wish young folks didn’t have to go off to war that old people start. 18 is so young, but in the military it is normal. Just kids, teenagers, who should be full of life instead of experiencing so much death.
Ana, now these people are in their mid-late 30s. I think they’ve given up on marriage and kids and are just happy that someone still finds them desireable enough to live with.
Hey, no getting personal…oh, you said mid-late 30s, not 40s…never mind.
However, that last bit was something I was trying to get across in the last thread when people commented on dumping less than mostly optimal relationships. At some point, you’re happy to have any bit of being wanted.
@Ramble
In my experience, those guys that get the “last laugh” is with girls who are past their prime.
Preach it Ramble. Studious gentleman, never settle for a wife over 30 at marriage and if you haven’t married at 40 move to STRs for sex and comfort. If you don’t get the fertility don’t pay for the infirmary.
Hey great idea. Why don’t guys who bombed out with girls in college return to same college once they’ve matured and come more into their own? Anyone here tried that? Results?
Not directly, but kind of. I spent a year in college then nine in the Navy. When I went back to college in my late 20s several different coeds clearly expressed interest in me.
Sadly, I’d made a poor marriage choice and was off the market. Looking back had I stayed smart and stayed single in the service not only would I not have reenlisted once, but I probably would have meant plenty of decent women about 5-6 years younger than me in college, wifed one up soon after, and be watching my oldest finishing high school instead of wandering the wastelands of 40 divorcedom.
So, a good strategy for men might be to work 3-5 years, save for college (so you’re loanless), take some night classes here and there or self-study and CLEP out so you go back as a sophomore or even junior. Then you have some alpha type advantages: proven ability to command resources, age and experience relative to the frat boys, and so on.
It’s like checking the tread on the tires of a car. It’s fine to do that to a car, because it is an object. Saying that about a human female is an extreme case of objectification.
Have you look at the list of requirements you have put up over time here at HUS for a guy to marry.
I had a shorter list in February looking to buy a car.
Just sayin’.
And, from my experience, yours is relatively short.
Awwwww. I thought it was some new hip acronym that someone here created that I could steal and use on other websites and pass it off as my own. I thought an actual ATM was too literal.
It’s not too literal. Sadly, a good variety of women see men as ATM.
My ex-wife’s sister’s first question to me (looking back should have been a warning): “Do you buy my sister a lot of presents.”
I could make a pretty strong case that NOW, when not viewing men as rapists, views them as ATMs based on their policy positions and actions regarding child support, visitation rights, custody distribution, abortion, and alimony.
1. How can I use an ugly person as a tool if my purpose/goal is to date an attractive person? How could I use them? They wouldn’t serve my purpose, therefore negating any desire to use them as a tool. It’s not an example of #1.
“How can I use them as a tool?” is the same as saying “This tool does not serve my purpose”. So, you just evaluated them as tool. Besides, as you said, “They wouldn’t serve my purpose” which again is evaluating them not as a person with their own worth but in terms of how you can use them.
As for you not being a feminist, you may claim otherwise but you’ve got the entitlement and even a bit of the female supremacist that I expect from them: men objectify, women can’t therefore I can’t being a grand example.
Is it me, or is Sassy flirting back at a guy who just propositioned her for NSA sex?
I never agreed to it. I diverted the question away from the sex onto something else.
It’s a little harmless verbal banter, nothing more and nothing less.
Have you look at the list of requirements you have put up over time here at HUS for a guy to marry.
I had a shorter list in February looking to buy a car.
Just sayin’.
And, from my experience, yours is relatively short.
Like I have said before, I would have no problem if a guy told me he wanted to date a virgin or if he wanted a woman that was less sexually experienced. Those are two things that I am not. I understand that. I would have a qualm, however, with a man referring to me as “used”. I’ve explained why that is enough already.
He plays scenes like that over and over and over in his mind. It gives him something to live for. It keeps him from becoming too alien. It is not romantic at all – merely necessary.
Although my service experience is different (less primitive but arguably more isolated and unnatural) I get you.
However, you live in a world where not only do most of the people who benefit from the people who suffer not only don’t consider it but many think it is beneath them and hold those who do it contempt.
I’m not surprised it was found creepy. However, finding it so reveals more about the judger than the judged.
Reading Dogsquat’s comment it kind of dawned on me that the only socially accepted modern equivalent of a male rite of passage is serving your country in the army.
Hey, now don’t leave out the Navy (and I guess our wholly owned subsidiary, the Marines) and I guess we could even add in the Puddle Pirates.
You under estimate how good it feels to get there first.
AMOG of her life (assuming you stick around).
Lokland, I really think you guys overestimate the importance of this to women–to the point that it makes you all feel bad unnecessarily.
I was engaged my senior year of college and lost my virginity to my fiance. He was a very crazy and narcissitic guy, but I really was very sheltered before I met him and didn’t see it coming. Long story short, I broke off the engagement, which was painful and involved a lot of shame at the time. In retrospect however it was the best choice I could have made.
A year later, he was married. A few years and two kids later, he was on his way to a divorce and attempted to get back with me. I refused. Another year later, he was on wife number two. Fast forward a few more years and a few more kids, and he is on his second divorce. Again, he tried to come back to me, Again, I refused. He is now married to wife number three, who looks nuts to me. I think this guy would be considered a hero to many in the ‘sphere, but I look at him as a dogded bullet. The notion of this guy as a husband or as the father of my kids is horrific to me. And, I know that his kids are pretty damaged young people.
I still run into him occasionally. My sense is that he still desires me (Oh J, you never change…still beautiful, blah, blah, blah…), but I’m pretty glad I was smart enough not to become his first wife. He is far from the AMOG of my life and more like the dirty joke I was too young and naive to prevent life from playing on me.
As an aside, I wish young folks didn’t have to go off to war that old people start. 18 is so young, but in the military it is normal. Just kids, teenagers, who should be full of life instead of experiencing so much death.
My ex-mother in law said to me at the beginning of the first Gulf War back in 91, “They all look so young.”
I responded, “War is old men sending young men to settle their disputes”.
Most people don’t take the time to think, but the typical ballistic missile submarine commander, a man who commands more total firepower than unleashed in some wars, is probably 38 at the oldest. The other two men who hold keys to those nuclear weapons are younger. The weapons officer may be under thirty if he’s moving up a bit ahead of his class. The majority of the enlisted men he commands are of an age with the same college girls this blog is aimed at.
I went to college a bit before I joined and I still could have retired with a 50% base pay pension payable upon retirement before I was 40 (a thought very much in my mind on the 20th anniversary of my enlistment).
War is decidedly a young man’s profession. What boggles the mind is that old men who one engaged it will send their sons off to do it again.
Let’s look at the definition of instrumentality one more time.
1. Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one’s own purposes
I wouldn’t use a man I didn’t find attractive as a tool for my own purposes. I wouldn’t use him. I think instrumentality is about actually using someone as a tool for a purpose without their knowledge or consent. It would be objectification, however, if I used an unattractive man to have access to one of his friends. That would be an example of #1 and #7. I have never condoned that sort of behavior though.
Also, I have also never said that women can’t objectify men. I have been claiming the exact opposite, DURING THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION, by saying that viewing men as ATMs is objectification. I even said, in an earlier post, that I have contempt for women who think that way of men.
I’m starting to believe some people are reading what they want to read instead of actually reading what I have written.
Lokland, I really think you guys overestimate the importance of this to women–to the point that it makes you all feel bad unnecessarily.
Maybe he does, but he was talking about its importance to men, which women seem not to get.
There are things that matter to men in selecting mates, after all. We don’t feel bad about it because of how you feel.
J, please don’t take offense because this is only tangentially related to you, but this is a classic problem I see in American women. It’s not just about you. Men do have feelings, desires, and priorities of their own. Too often, articles about dating for women treat men like too many foreign policy experts treat foreign countries. They see them as a set of buttons that if pushed in the right order serve a woman’s specific purpose. Then when they learn the buttons have a mind and desire of their own they are confused (some are offended that the buttons don’t exist just for them, but I’ll give most the benefit of the doubt most days).
Learning and accepting what is important to men is just as important to a successful LRT as men doing the same for women.
1.
to act or behave toward (a person) in some specified way: to treat someone with respect.
2.
to consider or regard in a specified way, and deal with accordingly: to treat a matter as unimportant.
3.
to deal with (a disease, patient, etc.) in order to relieve or cure.
4.
to deal with in speech or writing; discuss.
5.
to deal with, develop, or represent artistically, especially in some specified manner or style: to treat a theme realistically.
See, “treat” doesn’t mean “use.” It could, in fact, mean “not use.”
Herb, long ago the Navy and AF got into a major beef about the boomers. Bascially, the AF said, You can’t have an 05 in charge of all those warheads, it’s crazy, we sensibly give our ICBM squadrons to two-stars. So the navy upgraded the boomers to 06 commands even though the personnel on board didn’t really warrant it and it screwed up the promotion system in a lot of ways. That lasted less than 10 years as I recall.
Kind of irrelevant in the end because they physically cannot launch those missiles at their own authority anyway. Unlike certain nuclear gravity bombs which, despite the Pentagon’s protestations, can be detonated by almost anyone.
I think instrumentality is about actually using someone as a tool for a purpose without their knowledge or consent.
If I look at a woman and evaluate her sexual appeal I’m routinely accused of objectifying them. Yet, I am in no way using them as a tool.
Either looking at women, the most common example given of objectification, isn’t objectification or your hamster is up to speed.
Or we’re back to female supremacy: men do it, it’s objectification. women do it, it’s just evaluating women.
I’m starting to believe some people are reading what they want to read instead of actually reading what I have written.
No, they are men who have done, with respect to women, exactly what you described and are both personally and in the general culture excoriated for objectifying women. For example, for just opining that a woman I knew who was considering getting a boob job would look better if she didn’t I got a five minute lecture at a party about how I just objectified women and should respect they can do what they want with their bodies.
That is not an isolated incident for me or men in general.
Now, re-evaluate how those men will see you saying “a man is ugly so I can’t be interested”. You’re acting on a judgment which just having for a man is objectification. So, if I act on it, it’s just objectification but if I have it isn’t?
So, if I walk up and fondle a woman I’ve judged sexy it quits being objectification?
So the navy upgraded the boomers to 06 commands even though the personnel on board didn’t really warrant it and it screwed up the promotion system in a lot of ways. That lasted less than 10 years as I recall.
The Tridents are still 06 boats. The solution was Tridents, unlike the earlier boomers, aren’t first commands. Everyone driving a Trident has prior fast boat command (or back in the late 80s/early 90s boomer commands) but when I was on the Carver our CO was just an 05.
I don’t agree with you, and I thought you and I were no longer going to discuss this. That’s what you agreed to.
@ Herb
If I look at a woman and evaluate her sexual appeal I’m routinely accused of objectifying them. Yet, I am in no way using them as a tool.
Either looking at women, the most common example given of objectification, isn’t objectification or your hamster is up to speed.
I don’t think evaluating a woman’s sexual appeal is objectification. I never said I did. The women who freaked out at you about it are off the mark. I don’t agree with those women.
No, they are men who have done, with respect to women, exactly what you described and are both personally and in the general culture excoriated for objectifying women. For example, for just opining that a woman I knew who was considering getting a boob job would look better if she didn’t I got a five minute lecture at a party about how I just objectified women and should respect they can do what they want with their bodies.
That is not an isolated incident for me or men in general.
Now, re-evaluate how those men will see you saying “a man is ugly so I can’t be interested”. You’re acting on a judgment which just having for a man is objectification. So, if I act on it, it’s just objectification but if I have it isn’t?
So, if I walk up and fondle a woman I’ve judged sexy it quits being objectification?
I’m sorry you have gone through those experiences. I don’t agree with the women who think that way. I don’t share their views.
Considering the attractiveness of women, or men, is not objectification. I would say it is objectification though to fondle a random woman. You would be using her body without her consent (#1 and #2). If she agreed to have you fondle her, however, it is no longer objectification.
One would be sexual assault (objectification), and the other would not be.
To help you understand why men think you considering a man ugly or gross is objectifying.
Feminist scholars say that the objectification of women involves the act of disregarding the personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities of a female; and reducing a woman’s worth or role in society to that of an instrument for the sexual pleasure that she can produce in the mind of another.[2][3] Although opinions differ as to which situations are objectionable, some feminists see objectification of women taking place in the sexually oriented depictions of women in advertising and media, women being portrayed as weak or submissive through pornography, images in more mainstream media such as advertising and art, stripping and prostitution, men brazenly evaluating or judging women sexually or aesthetically in public spaces, and the presumed need for cosmetic surgery, particularly breast enlargement and labiaplasty.
Every man who has been to sex ed in junior high, sexual harassment training at work, or freshman orientation at college (ie, pretty much all of us) has had that bolded part drilled into our head. It can even cost you your job.
Yet doing the same to a man isn’t objectification?
Thanks for qualifying your remarks, Herb. I lot of this stuff quickly escalates into something personal, so I appreciate your doing that.
I do understand that men get something from being first and possibily are just wired that way. I had hoped to offer some some helpful information in saying that first isn’t necessarily best in a woman’s lifelong memory. I do hope that at least some men who may be reading will come to realize that any jealousy they may feel over their wife, gf, or SO’s first, is not necessarily realistic from the woman’s point of view. Honestly, I doubt that many women “imprint” on or pine away over their first, especially these days when first often happens outside a relationship. Even among women of my generation (I am roughly Susan’s age, so I missed the era of drunken hook-ups.), I’ve never heard a woman clain to be pining for her first.
I don’t think that’s right. I had dinner with the captian of one about 1.5 years ago and he was a CDR. A quick google confirms that boomers are commanded by 05s. I don’t know exactly when that changed but I know that in the 1980s they were 06.
I’m sorry you have gone through those experiences. I don’t agree with the women who think that way. I don’t share their views.
You agreeing or not is irrelevant. That is currently the broad societal expectation and even if you disagree with it, unless you’re loudly defending men when they get excoriated for it (did you speak up about it being silly at freshman orientation for example) you can expect to be held to the same standard.
@Escoffier: I could be out of date then as I left the fleet in 1995. At that time boomers (which are not Tridents but are all out of the feet at this point…even the oldest Tridents aren’t SSBNs but SSGNs now) were 05 commands and Tridents were 06.
I’m surprised anymore all subs aren’t 06 given how top heavy the Navy has gotten.
{ 521 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 4 »
I question whether this graph applies equally to both sexes.
Ha pretty much.
I don’t regret easing off dating when I had to buckle down in college. It cleared out all the drama when I needed to focus and paid off for me in the long run.
I know this opinion willl buck the perceived wisdom around here but personal experience says this graph is a fail.
Nerds don’t get laid. Ever.
@DerHahn:
The hell you say. As not just a Nerd, but a NERD LORD, I not only got laid, I got laid a lot. The idea that nerds can’t get laid is fallacious — they may not get the cream of the crop, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t getting their pencils wet. To my knowledge, Marching Band was seething with erotic tension and I hooked up myself four times in the computer room. And this was BEFORE college.
Nerd don’t get laid, ever? I beg to differ! Anime chicks alone can keep you in pussy for a good long time!
Ian Ironwood, Esquire
Professional Sex Nerd
I’d add that there are two different curves there – in my experience the guys who study and do well in school have the last laugh, though they don’t have the access the party animals do in college.
Also, Hagy labeled the axis “romance department,” not “pump and dump department.” It’s about winning hearts and minds!
I’d say this chart applies more to non-omega males than females. If a girl plays her cards right, there’s no reason that she can’t do both in university. In fact, if she works really hard, she can get into universities like Dartmouth, Cornell, many of the Canadian Universities* and to a lesser extent UVA where not only will she be able to get a great education assuming she gets a hard STEM degree, she’ll have the pick of the litter as well. It’s when she gets cocky and over reaches thinking she can also party constantly that she gets in trouble.
While it is better advice for guys, it’s not perfect. One thing that sinks many guys is that the frustration and hopelessness with women gets so bad that it leads to depression and an inability to study.
* what – you don’t like tall, dark, handsome and charming men with dirt cheap tuition – fine stay in the states – there’s a reason game was invented in Canada
Ian, you’re using a different definition of the word ‘nerd’, IMO, something that comes closer to what I think of when people say ‘geek’.
People who hole themselves up studying and don’t engage socially don’t have opportunities. Doing so under the assumption that you’re going to exit college to some sort of relationship nirvana doesn’t work.
I’m no player but my freshman/sophomore years in college were actually pretty good *because I was active socially* (junior and senior years were a MGHOW time). The worst dryspell of my life happened immediately after I graduated because I fell into the beta/omega mindset that my degree and shiny new job would have women chasing me around. It lead to a shotgun marriage to a totally unsuitable mate.
@susan, personal experience, antecdote is not data and all that, but it’s a fail in that department, too. See above.
“People who hole themselves up studying and don’t engage socially don’t have opportunities. Doing so under the assumption that you’re going to exit college to some sort of relationship nirvana doesn’t work.”
That’s what online dating is for.
I’d add that there are two different curves there – in my experience the guys who study and do well in school have the last laugh
In my experience, those guys that get the “last laugh” is with girls who are past their prime. Susan, I apologize if my comment re-ignites the kinds of flames that you have been looking to put out lately, but I would also hate if some young men here got the wrong idea.
Improving your knowledge and skills throughout college (and life, in general) is undoubtedly a good thing, but don’t miss out on the hot co-eds so that you can marry some girl after she turns 30.
Has anyone here ever witnessed someone who wanted to be married since the time they started dating in their teens go through life never alone, not without a relationship, but still unable to make any of those relationships, even the live in ones, progress to marriage? What is this?
Now I feel really old.
Back in the good ole days (lol)
quite a few of us attended school full-time, worked part/full-time jobs, and found lasting relationships, all simultaneously.
College was the perfect setting for finding a mate.
It worked for me and several other couples that I know.
I don’t understand what’s so difficult about maintaining a relationship while going to school. ??? You’re going to have to maintain a relationship while you work, keep a house, have other involvements in addition to having kids/extended family, so what’s the difference except w/o kids, it’s actually easier.
That’s what online dating is for.
HEY! That is the most pure level of…TRUTH! :p mea culpa.
Alias, the difference now is that college kids are relunctant to commit to just one bf or gf.
Has anyone here ever witnessed someone who wanted to be married since the time they started dating in their teens go through life never alone, not without a relationship, but still unable to make any of those relationships, even the live in ones, progress to marriage? What is this?
I had seen this happening but IME this are people that idealize marriage and married life so much that even if they have a partner that fills 99% of their ideal they still don’t want to try it waiting for the 100%.
You want to hear a funny thing most of the people I knew were also psychologists with specialty in marriage counseling. Crazy I know. It was a case of “doctors that cannot heal thyself”, YMMV.
Ana, I think in the cases I’ve seen they are not holding out for 100% but none of the people they get in relationships with, some for years, are ever willing to make the jump into marriage with them. Can’t figure it out. I’m talking about attractive, smart people here.
Ana, I think in the cases I’ve seen they are not holding out for 100% but none of the people they get in relationships with, some for years, are ever willing to make the jump into marriage with them. Can’t figure it out. I’m talking about attractive, smart people here.
Then they are not jumping ship fast enough. If marriage is your goal after certain prudent time of getting to know each other, making sure your partner is on the same page is very important. If after that they still have doubts is better to try and move on with someone else, IMO, YMMV.
Ana, now these people are in their mid-late 30s. I think they’ve given up on marriage and kids and are just happy that someone still finds them desireable enough to live with.
Ana, now these people are in their mid-late 30s. I think they’ve given up on marriage and kids and are just happy that someone still finds them desireable enough to live with.
Well that is just sad. One of the reasons I took the initiative to find my husband online was that I know that if I didn’t changed many of my patterns I would never get married and have children and I would be damned if I failed without trying my darnest best, YMMV.
Male Perspective:
“the difference now is that college kids are relunctant to commit to just one bf or gf.”
——-
Oh, I know.
I blame the older generation for discouraging the younger ones from finding a partner early on.
There’s no reason why people can’t attend school and keep a relationship. It’s not preparing anyone for real life.
When you’re looking for a spouse, it’s like you’re looking for a family member. Someone to grow up with and share a history with. (at least, that’s how I saw it.)
Why would you postpone finding that person?
Do you stop seeing family for a few years because you’re attending school?
(this isn’t directed at you, it’s a rhetorical question)
Funny enough, they met they current partners….. online.
LOL, that’s true! Mystery posted up at bars in Montreal for years, as I recall.
Funny enough, they met they current partners….. online.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSZaC_W7eyE
Beta guys often come into their own about five years after college. They have tasted some career advancement, they’re removed from some of the peer pressure/pluralistic ignorance, and their SMV is only increasing. I know it sucks to wait, I’m not saying it doesn’t. My advice to one of those guys is to seek out a girl who’s a year or two out of college, one who hasn’t ridden the carousel (obviously). Just being 5 years older is attractive, and girls that age are literally starving for attention from men who will commit.
Been exclusive, and then married since 1968, so take that into account. I asked my wife some years back–she’d been in a sorority–about an idea I had for a short story. It was about a guy who asked a woman out just for fun. He’d been in Viet Nam and lost a hand. Problem with that, going to a concert? He was pretty on top of things otherwise.
“Oh, yes. We were looking for husband material. You didn’t even date for fun if there wasn’t a possibility he was marriage material. It might have been a just-to-get-acquainted date, but the marriage template was out and ready for assessment.” I paraphrase. I was shocked.
Hmmmm. I am several years post college.
No.
This works only for women and they date guys older than them. Men must continue to wait until late 20s before the inherent beta-tude becomes acceptable. The only solution for men post college is to aggressively learn game, and then go back to the campuses through their old social networks.
Susan while you are correct a man’s SMV increases years after college, if the beta does not actively try to instill in him, at least some alpha traits he will end up marrying a woman who fvcks around but wants marriage for stability. It’s the provider vs lover dichotomy, and college doesn’t change whether you are a provider or lover.
Like most things in life you need balance, not extremes. I don’t see why a man or woman can’t date in college while still studying. If it becomes an overwhelming habit where you forgo your studies then it is a problem. But for a person to reach their college years and beyond (22) without having any sort of relationship is very unlikely. It’s just up to parents to make sure they have the right type of relationship and not end up as a cum-dumpster…
“My advice to one of those guys is to seek out a girl who’s a year or two out of college, one who hasn’t ridden the carousel (obviously).”
It’s good advice – enough so that the guy won’t wonder TOO much if he’s the ‘second choice.’
However, identifying the girls who didn’t ride the carousel is the problem. And that’s where guys stumble…because there’s almost nothing they can do to ascertain whether or not the girl didn’t ride, or is just lying to him. They are at the mercy of the girl’s word.
And nowadays, that’s no longer enough.
Hey great idea. Why don’t guys who bombed out with girls in college return to same college once they’ve matured and come more into their own? Anyone here tried that? Results?
Oh dear. You’re mistaking “brilliant” for a hamster rest break.
“Luck” is not a dependent variable – that’s why it’s called luck.
“Anyone here tried that? Results?”
The last time I ventured back into college was a few months ago and I got eye-fucked by three girls and one directly fished out of me whether or not I was single.
But:
That’s totally different from actually closing.
In other words you didn’t pursue their leads? Shyness took over?
For women, there need only be one curve, that being curve A.
MP, I had a GF I was very, very satisfied with at the time. There was no reason to note the interest of these girls other than academic curiosity.
If I see a girl I want to talk to now, I just talk to her. What’s the worst that could happen? Why would I feel bad being rejected by what is essentially a dice roll? Talking to women and escalating in general is like gambling, except that you never, ever lose if you don’t invest because you pay nothing to roll the dice.
“For women, there need only be one curve, that being curve A.”
How so?
Hmmm….
I’m going to agree with Susan. More for men than women, but it does apply to both. Education is a way to increase earning potential, but it’s also a test of character. A demonstration of commitment. The flaky party girl majoring in basketweaving will go full-bore EPL on you in a few years – she doesn’t have the staying power to be prime LTR material. That STEM guy? Never mind the money, he’s a dead reliable sort, not likely to dump anyone for trivial causes. Grab him.
Sue: “Beta guys often come into their own about five years after college.”
I’m not so sure of that, I think I would have turned omega, or (worse) be totally stuck in lower-lower betaville forecer if I didn’t find love in college proper.
“So, guys, you heard her, wait until you are 27 and then you will have the opportunity, if you are financially successful, to have a committed relationship with girls who are, for some reason, starving for attention.”
Susan, there is no reason to say this to young men.
You are a fan of game, just preach it.
“Guys, learn some game and have all the sex (committed, casual, whatever it is that you are looking for) and fun times that you want.”
@Ramble
+1
Yup guys, wait till your 27 then go for the post college chick. Buckle down and study up. When the urge to put a bullet through your head gets too strong just cry and think about the future and your glorious, slightly used wife.
Any girl past 16 is most likely going to be used. And yes, lots of us suck with women at a younger age because we weren’t emotionally mature yet, we were lied to, etc.
You just gotta get over that. Just don’t accept second-best. Most of her sexual experiences are going to be lame and you are going to have the opportunity to show her something more awesome.
“Any girl past 16 is most likely going to be used. ”
Consensual sex doesn’t count for anything anymore? Geez.
Am I the only one who had a problem with the phrasing of this sentence?
Being referred to as “used” isn’t sitting too well with me, for some reason.
And its not sitting too well with me either, as a man! Male sexuality is desireable. We don’t have to “use” women to get sex from them. Women engage in consensual sex with us because they desire us.
For the beta men out there who have worked their brains out and gone through college alone, I say you should just go the extra mile to learn a foreign language and live in a foreign country for a while. Find a nice local girl for yourself then, if your best career opportunities lie in the US, come back and bring her with you. If you’re good enough to go to college, you should be capable of speaking a foreign language and capable of traveling.
(To the posters who say “She’s just after your green card.” I reply that international marriages have a success rate of approximately 80% according to the formerly known US Immigration and Naturalization Services.)
Correction: “She’s just after you for a green card.”
I’ll even go so far as to saying this “used” mentality shames men and male sexuality. It leads us to shamefully believe that we are perverts, nay criminals, USERS, just for engaging in consensual sex or reciprocating a woman’s desire for us. Seems some men here need to liberate their own sexuality and get some self esteem.
I didn’t start the phrasing. Regardless, most guys do not want their prospective mates to be indiscriminate in their love making. If you have a problem with that, don’t date guys.
Most guys have no idea just how sexually desireable they/we are.
They mired in shame and low self esteem.
Absolutely. I’d add that there were a ton of STEM guys in b-school, and they had it going on, intellectually I mean. Funny, well-read, interesting, really smart. These guys are the husbands and dads. And a lot of them were pretty cute too.
@ A Definite Beta Guy
I don’t have a problem with men wanting the women they date to be discriminate in their love making. What I do object to is the notion that any woman over the age of 16, regardless of her number of sexual partners, is seen as “used”. Even women with a partner count of 1 are seen as “used”.
It’s like checking the tread on the tires of a car. It’s fine to do that to a car, because it is an object. Saying that about a human female is an extreme case of objectification.
Heaven forbid I’ve had sex with another man. Suddenly, I’ve worn out my vagina and am seen as damaged. Does the fact that another penis has been in a vagina warrant such a loaded term as “used”?
It just makes me feel like chattel. The last thing I want is to be seen as an object. No one owns me.
If you want an objectified woman, stick with prostitutes, strippers, and mail order brides. At least those women are paid to be objectified.
I have no shame. Shame is externally driven. It means society says you are a bad person.
There is no respecting this society, though, so I don’t even know HOW to feel shame anymore.
@Ramble
Sure, that’s fine. I’m just saying – beta guys see their SMV go up in their 20s. Game can obviously help – either to get them there faster, or to get them a higher SMV woman in their late 20s. I think most guys are not looking to settle down before then anyway. Remember – I’m all about the LTR. I have zero interest in encouraging men or women to go for casual.
No, guilt is externally driven; shame is internally driven.
@Sassy
No you are not! It’s just petulance – the guy didn’t get there first.
Really, the objectification canard?
Yeah it sucks, Sassy. I don’t want to be seen as gross or ugly or an ATM, any more than you want to be seen as “used”, be we can’t control what other people think of us, can we? We’re judged all the damn time, correctly and incorrectly, and we’re all objects until someone actually loves us specifically.
Face it, everyone’s an object in some way to most everyone.
Guys want exclusive sexual domination of their women. To some extent, you ARE chattel. Sorry we evolved that way, but that’s how it is for a lot of men.
Most men are also able to overlook this. So give us SOME credit.
JM, shame is a recognition of violation of social norms, no? Guilt is a violation of internal norms. At least, that’s how it was explained to me.
@ OffTheCuff
Being seen as gross or ugly are not instances of objectification. Being viewed or used as an ATM is, however.
I have just as much contempt for women who view men as ATMs as well. It objectifies men, and that’s not good.
I refuse to be any man’s chattel. Fuck that noise.
I’ll just try to avoid men who view non-virginal women as “used”. I’m sure there are some of them out there.
What do you think monogamy is? It is there because your man does not want you screwing other men.
You are very unlikely to fully escape the chattel mindset
Regarding “getting there first,” I came across a couple of passages from a terrific short story I read a while back and became reacquainted with today.
They’re from Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried, a semi-fictional story based on the author’s experiences in Vietnam.
There’s something about the desperate innocence that he wants to cling to in the midst of the horrors he’s experiencing, his longing for her (him tasting the envelope she would’ve certainly licked when sending it off is such a pathetic, gut-wrenching detail), the naive, idealistic hope he puts in her… puts in love–that I find incredibly moving. I’ve been rereading it. I shared it with my gf.
I think you have it reversed.
The best distinction I ever heard of the two terms:
Guilt=I made a mistake.
Shame=I am a mistake.
@ A Definite Beta Guy
You’ve just switched the goal posts.
We aren’t talking about monogamy. We are talking about whether or not non-virginal women, regardless of the extent of their sexual histories, are “used”.
I am not a virgin. There will have been other men who have slept with me before my next future partner. He will not be first, and the idea of him viewing me as “used” goods rubs me the wrong way.
If he viewed me as sexually experienced, I’d have no problem with that. That’s what I am. I have a problem with the word “used”, in this scenario, because it is objectification.
It’s just the wording that is bothering me.
It’s not shifting goal posts if both desires come from the same place. A lot of guys would truly prefer being their partner’s one and only. That does not make them bad men. I am just telling them that they are being unrealistic and shutting out good women.
Without shaming their desires that I understand perfectly well. That will get me nowhere.
@ Jesus Mahoney
The guy in the Tim O’Brien story sounds like a fucking creeper. That’s not romantic to me. It’s obsessive, and a bit unnerving.
They’re all examples of objectification, because in each case, the person is being seen in terms of his effect on the viewer and not for who he is as an individual human being, i.e. a “subject.”
Remember – I’m all about the LTR. I have zero interest in encouraging men or women to go for casual.
The guy can go for whatever he wants when he is 16, or 26, or whatever, but Game will help him get there.
And, yes, after learning game, he probably will enjoy some casual sex. Which is just fine.
lol. I knew you would say that, Sassy.
Of course he’s obsessing: he’s living in a strange jungle where people are trying to blow him up or shoot him, where every man, woman, and child he encounters may–or may not–be the enemy. He’s a kid in the middle of a war: love is the only hope he’s got to hold onto. You say obsessive, I say desperate.
No they are not. Only the ATM example is.
Objectification is the instance of viewing, treating, or using a person as an object instead of as a human. Thinking someone is gross or ugly is not objectification. Humans are capable of being ugly and gross. There is no need to view, treat, or use them as an object to accomplish it.
Viewing men as ATMs, however, is objectification. In that instance, the man isn’t viewed as a human. He is instead viewed as a cash-dispensing machine to use at a woman’s leisure. Notice how he is viewed as an object (ATM) and is “used”.
Sassy,
You’re wrong, and you’ll continue to think I’m wrong, so let’s not bother.
Shame and guilt: General usage is that shame is externally-driven, involving fear of ostracism by others (“no one will never talk to me again), whereas guilt is internally-driven(“I’ll be a bad person”). See Wikipedia article on shame society, which has a link to “guilt society.”
@ Jesus Mahoney
I fixed it for you.
You can’t claim that I’m wrong. You can claim that you think I’m wrong. The truth is out there. Let other people decide for themselves.
I can claim whatever I want.
So you’re encouraging women to see 1/2 of the human race as users? That’s sexist.
Thanks, Dave. I guess I had it backward.
@Susan, Sassy
I see I caused a little shit storm with my word choice. I feel like I accomplished something good today.
Anyway, it was the suggestion that the beta guy sit out on the action and wait till he arcs up in value while the lady in question either
a) screws around (even with a few guys, casual or serious) or
b) lets her SMV drop while she sits out.
Either way, its not an equal trade.
As for assuming any girl who has had a penis in her vagina is used. Thats nonsense. Making a judgement call to avoid her however is acceptable. (Totally devoid of my opinion on number.)
@Male Perspective
“I’ll even go so far as to saying this “used” mentality shames men and male sexuality. It leads us to shamefully believe that we are perverts, nay criminals, USERS, just for engaging in consensual sex or reciprocating a woman’s desire for us. Seems some men here need to liberate their own sexuality and get some self esteem.”
You start by bitching about shaming male sexuality and then finish by shaming male sexuality. I see what you did there.
“Guilt=I made a mistake. Shame=I am a mistake.”
Consensual sex between two adults is neither a shameful mistake nor a guilty mistake.
“And, yes, after learning game, he probably will enjoy some casual sex. Which is just fine.”
Exactly. Not shameful, not a mistake, not using someone. Just fine.
You said being thought of as “used” makes YOU feel like an object, like chattel, regardless of the thinker’s intent. You don’t know that he thinks of you as an object, that wasin your mind, perhaps he thinks you are just a human but one whose pair-bonding ability is worn down and not “new”. (NOT a position I personally agree with, I am arguing what is objectification.)
So if it’s not intent, but how the receiver feels then… perhaps you thinking of a man as gross makes HIM feel like an object, like a monster or a pile of dung.
So why is one objectification but the other isn’t?
@ Jesus Mahoney
Cool story bro.
@ Male Perspective
1. Who is your comment directed to?
2. If it’s me, I’m not encouraging women to see men as users. I am bothered by the word “used” when it’s meant to describe non-virginal women. How can I think that men are “users” if I don’t think women are “used”? If anything, I’m rallying against the notion of “users” and “used”, in general, when it comes to sex.
@ Lokland
No problem man. You and I are in agreement, after the clarification.
Plain Jane again. Go away.
Consensual sex with 100 different partners isn’t a mistake either, unless the person regrets it afterwards.
Sassy, not directed at you. At those who think consensual sex between is not an equal exchange but a situation where one party is the user and the other the used. As a man I find that highly offensive to my manhood and male sexuality.
@JM
“Consensual sex with 100 different partners isn’t a mistake either, unless the person regrets it afterwards.”
Thats rape you idiot ask the lawyery ppl
Wow, get over yourself.
lol
“Thats rape you idiot ask the lawyery ppl”
Its not a far leap from being used to being raped so be careful what you call sex.
MP
Most of us don’t think of relationship sex as “being used.”
JM, are you teaching at the creative writing program at NYU? Reason I ask is because one of my creative writing professors had us read that Tim O’Brien story as an example of how listing objects in a story can evoke a better understanding of a character.
Well I can introduce you to a ton of them, lol. </3
@ OffTheCuff
Considering a man an ATM is objectification because it is viewing him as something completely separate from his humanity. He is viewed as a machine instead of as a human.
Saying someone is ugly or gross is not objectification because he is still viewed as human. Humans are capable of being ugly or gross. There is no need to view him as non-human. A person can be viewed as ugly/gross and still retain their humanity.
Viewing a woman’s non-virginal state as being “used” is objectification. It strips her of her humanity, making her an object that has been handled and manipulated by another instead of being viewed as a human who consented to sexual intercourse with another. Viewing women as being “used” is a denial of female autonomy. It implies that the woman had no choice in her sexual experiences and was at the full will and whim of a man.
Alias,
Thank you. I kid you not, this is literally the exact thing I have said to people whenever they claim they “just don’t have time for a relationship right now!”
For every one woman you call “used” you are calling all the men she desired “users”. That’s misandry.
Tortured feminist bullshit logic, where you get to decide what’s dehumanizing, but not men. I’m glad I’m not fooled anymore.
@Susan
“It’s just petulance – the guy didn’t get there first.”
You under estimate how good it feels to get there first.
AMOG of her life (assuming you stick around).
It is by no means necessary (obviously) but don’t discount how good it can feel for a guy. (And it only feels good if your actually into more than her tits.)
As for how a guy acts about not getting there first, first and foremost its degree. Not everyone can be there first, hopefully your last. Buts it kinda like climbing Everest. No one gives a fuck after a certain point. However number 2, 3, 4 and a few more can probably be considered notable still.
Anyway, my point was. There is a very real dopamine release on getting there first (at least for me). How someone acts if they can’t get their “fix” is another matter entirely.
I will be sure to bookmark your blog and will eventually come back at some point. I want to encourage you to definitely continue your great job, have a nice afternoon!
@ OffTheCuff
1. I am very far from being a feminist. That should be readily apparent from my writings on this blog.
2. It’s not just about men. Women can be ugly/gross too. It’s still not objectification though.
Question for you. Do you believe it is possible for humans to be ugly/gross?
Saywhaat,
You’re going to NYU? I was there as an undergrad. And no, I’m not teaching anywhere right now.
O’Brien does a masterful job of evoking characters through the objects carried in their rucksacks. It’s really an ingenious focus–almost like a desert island list, only the characters are traipsing through the bowels of hell carrying items that help them hold on to some vestige of their humanity: floss and foot powder, tranquilizers and 7 or 8 ounces of premium dope, comic books, condoms, an illustrated New Testament, canned peaches in heavy syrup to pour over pound cake. And Cross’s non-love letters.
Well I say its dehumanizing to me as a man to be considered a “user” just because I have sex with a woman who wants me.
Heck, I think it’s possible for them to be ATMs.
Objectification has to do with seeing people in a limited and self-serving sort of way. Men “objectify” strippers by only seeing them as sex objects for their own gratification. If you look at a physically unattractive person and “see” ugly, then you’re objectifying the person–because you’re not viewing the person as an entity unto himself. All you’re seeing is his effect on you. In other words, you’re the only subject in the equation, it’s only your wants, needs, thoughts that you’re considering. If you see gross, then you’re objectifying the person even more.
MP,
If, in the act of having sex, your only real concern is your sexual pleasure, then you’re “using” your sex partner.
JM, I graduated from NYU last May.
@ Jesus Mahoney
My God.
Let me break this down one more time.
Thinking someone is ugly/gross is not objectification. Humans are capable of being gross/ugly. If you don’t think that is the case, the point is moot.
Humans cannot be ATMs. It’s impossible. One is a living creature and the other is a mechanical device. Viewing someone or treating someone as an ATM is objectification. They are no longer seen as human, but as a cash-dispensing machine.
According to Philosopher Martha Nussbaum, objectification has the following characteristics:
1. Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one’s own purposes;
2. Denial of autonomy – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination;
3. Inertness – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency;
4. Ownership – if the thing is treated as if owned by another;
5. Fungibility – if the thing is treated as if interchangeable;
6. Violability – if the thing is treated as if permissible to damage or destroy;
7. Denial of subjectivity – if the thing is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the ‘object’s’ feelings and experiences.
Let it be known that I have never advocated that telling a person they are ugly/gross isn’t objectification. I’ve been saying that thinking someone is gross/ugly isn’t. Saying those things to the person in question, however, is an example of #7 on the list.
Viewing or using a man as an ATM is an example of #1, not to mention #2 and #4. Viewing non-virginal women as “used” is an example of #1 and #2.
Question from the STEM guy.
The chick in the vid from the last thread.
Was she “objectifying” that tree?
Technically it shouldn’t be possible but if I were that tree I’d probably need counseling.
Well, I hate coming late to the party.
Could someone tell me what ATM means?
Re college relationships
Reasons I didn’t date more:
1. Worked 25+ hours per week while studying full time so dating would have compounded my time and I prefer a fair amount of alone time to recharge.
2. I didn’t want to be tied to someone permanently as I knew that I would be moving abroad after college
3. I honestly didn’t meet too many people I’d have a connection with and didn’t actively seek it out.
Im not gonna say I was being a good student either. I surely wasn’t. More like a mediocre one.
I agree with this. I couldn’t imagine only wanting someone for sex. It wouldn’t be a pleasurable experience in the least. I also couldn’t imagine allowing someone to use me for just pleasure. Its oh so cheap.
Lol, and a hot shower.
@ Lokland
Haha. Well, she’s technically not objectifying the tree because the tree is not sentient.
If trees had the capability of rational thought and consciousness, she would be objectifying the tree.
Either way, I do feel bad for it.
@ Charm
ATM stands for automated teller machine
Yes, that would be an instance of objectifying a sexual partner. The question is, how often does this happen? Rape is another instance of objectification. I’m still trying to figure out whether having sex with a corpse/necrophilia is objectification or not.
Awwwww. I thought it was some new hip acronym that someone here created that I could steal and use on other websites and pass it off as my own. I thought an actual ATM was too literal.
Sassy,
Human’s are capable of being ugly or gross in relation to other people. Human’s are also capable of dispensing $20 bills to other people. (Referring to a person an “ATM” is just a figure of speech.) These are both “possible” things.
If you run across a guy and dismiss him because he’s ugly, then you’ve committed #’s 1 and 7.
1. You’ve judged him in terms of your purposes (“ugly” pretty much means “it doesn’t please me to look at that.”)
7. Since you’ve dismissed him due to his ugliness, you’ve failed to show any concern for the subject’s feelings and experiences. The conclusion of “ugly” closes the book on the guy.
I would say that this happens every time someone has NSA sex.
@ Jesus Mahoney
Let’s try this one more time.
Viewing someone and treating someone as an ATM is objectification. If someone intentionally uses someone else solely for their money, they are using them as an ATM, disregarding their humanity, and objectifying them.
Oy vey.
1. How can I use an ugly person as a tool if my purpose/goal is to date an attractive person? How could I use them? They wouldn’t serve my purpose, therefore negating any desire to use them as a tool. It’s not an example of #1.
2. What person in their right mind would tell someone that the reason they are being rejected is because they are ugly? I always show concern for the person’s feelings/experiences by letting them down easy. I don’t even know why you attempted your explanation for #7.
It’s funny, because you were the one earlier in the thread who said that we shouldn’t bother trying to explain this to one another. We won’t agree, however either one of us spins it.
I don’t know about you people, but when I have sex with someone, I’m not the only one getting pleasure out of it. Its an equal exchange. Share, don’t use.
You’re treating the person as a tool because you’re judging them in terms of your own purposes. You’re not “using” the person as a tool; you’re evaluating the person in terms of your purposes and concluding that he’s “useless.”
Because #7 still holds if you don’t tell the guy why you’re rejecting him. The fact still remains that you’re thinking of him solely in terms of his “use” (or, in this case, uselessness). You are failing to consider who he is beyond his looks because you’ve already decided that you have no use for a person who has failed to meet your minimum physical requirements.
It’s funny, because you were the one earlier in the thread who said that we shouldn’t bother trying to explain this to one another. We won’t agree, however either one of us spins it.
@ Susan Walsh
I’m going to be proactive by apologizing to you in advance for the conversation that has spiraled out of control.
@ Male Perspective
You’re not the only one, man. Sex has always been about give and take, for me.
Sassy sounds like my kind of gal
Smart, sensible and sexy. Maybe we could get together and “use” each other sometime? Eh.
@ Jesus Mahoney
I don’t agree with you, and I don’t think your points are valid on this topic.
I’ll just end up replying to your comments with all of the things I have said before.
Let’s just agree to disagree and move it along.
Sassy,
I’m cool with that. I’d rather not keep reading the same arguments over and over again anyway.
@ Male Perspective
I do what I can sir.
I never use.
Also, are you Canadian? That’s a mighty well placed “Eh” you have going on in that sentence.
STEM != nerd
Not all Arab nations have oil, and not all nerds have nerdy interests that translate well into the corporate world.
@JM and SayWhaat
re: The Things They Carried
For me, that book is like a Masamune katana or a P-51D Mustang – perfect and beautiful in form, but horrible in origin. I read it several years ago. Fucked me up for weeks. It is as close to The Truth about grunts as you can get in print.
@Sassy:
“The guy in the Tim O’Brien story sounds like a fucking creeper. That’s not romantic to me. It’s obsessive, and a bit unnerving.”
________________________________
I agree with you, but I’m compelled to explain.
Lt Cross is an infantryman.
His existence is utterly primitive. The only technology Lt Cross has is related to Death. He’s got a radio to communicate with allies. His weapons are the best an industrialized society can afford. His uniform is mass produced.
For everything else, he is almost a caveman. He walks everywhere. He sleeps outdoors in the dirt. He doesn’t clock out at the end of the day or have weekends off. He doesn’t have a desk or a storage unit or even a shelf to put stuff on – everything he uses, including food and water – he must carry. He is cold or hot or hungry or thirsty most of the time. He is either tired or scared all the time. He hunts the most dangerous animal that’s ever appeared on Earth – man.
If he is not excellent at his craft – quick, strong, brutal, and cunning – he will die in ways so horrendous you can’t even comprehend them. If someone nearby has a tiny lapse in judgement, he will die, alone and in excruciating pain. If he is unlucky, he will cease to exist.
His whole purpose in life is to destroy other human beings he has never met.
He does this month after month after month after month…..
If he internalizes these things, or even thinks too deeply about them, he will cease to be something you’d recognize as human. On some level, he fears this and tries to stave off losing his humanity. To do so, he spends much of his time deep in fantasy – fantasies about things normal Western people take for granted.
Some guy you went to high school with is doing this right now, as you read these words. He’s walking somewhere, eyes watchful for tripwires or freshly turned dirt or the glint from an enemy sniper’s scope. His ears are cocked for orders or incoming rounds. He is sweating, tired, angry, bored, and frustrated. His back and neck hurt. Yesterday, his buddy from bootcamp lost both testicles, feet, nose, and one eye to an IED.
That is his environment.
In his mind, though – what wondrous things in his mind!
He is imagining crunching into a taco – the tang of cheddar, spicy beef so steamy-hot it almost hurts, fresh tomato slices falling out the other side. He is in a hotel room, early afternoon, on a soft bed with clean sheets. He watches the sun dapple across the naked, taut stomach of a young woman who loves him. He sees it so clearly he can count the few tiny, soft, peach-fuzz hairs below her navel that glow in the light. He smells the soap on her skin, the faint perfume on her collarbone. He presses his lips to the back of her neck, enjoying her hair brushing his face. He cups her breast in his hand.
He plays scenes like that over and over and over in his mind. It gives him something to live for. It keeps him from becoming too alien. It is not romantic at all – merely necessary.
Off-topic, but here’s something the hook-up SMP has made obsolete:
“Love Letter Lost for 60 Years Finally Recovered,” by Eric Pfieffer, Yahoo! News, 2 Apr 2012
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/love-letter-finally-delivered-60-years-first-written-165305864.html
He proposed in it, they’re still married today.
What have we lost?
Dogs…an eloquent piece of writing in #119.
“It just makes me feel like chattel. The last thing I want is to be seen as an object. No one owns me.
If you want an objectified woman, stick with prostitutes, strippers, and mail order brides. At least those women are paid to be objectified.”
I thought one of the teachings of “game” is that even though women SAY they don’t want to be objectified, they actually do, but ONLY from a man they find attractive. I can tell you with full assurance that my SO greatly enjoys being objectified by me from time to time. So the issue here isn’t that Sassy doesn’t like being sexually objectified, but that she doesn’t like being sexually objectified in that manner from some random internet guy.
Just trying to keep it real folks.
Is it me, or is Sassy flirting back at a guy who just propositioned her for NSA sex?
+1. Dogsquat uses vivid imagery like a pro, wielding it to evoke both coarseness and sensuality, then placing the two side-by-side, and by doing so, conjuring up the spectrum of possibilities inherent in the human.
He’s also a master of tact.
Reading Dogsquat’s comment it kind of dawned on me that the only socially accepted modern equivalent of a male rite of passage is serving your country in the army.
Where I was born, it used to be compulsory, so I never thought that not doing it would be such a loss, but getting older and realizing its importance for “inner game”, I’d actually recommend the girls to screen for that for marriage purposes.
Regarding the graph it’s the same old. Cats emulating dogs.
For girls it only makes sense if the end point on the x-axis is at around 25. After that, the curve takes a steep dive.
Anon, people still write love letters today. They’re just often in email format instead of postal mail.
Jesus Mahoney/Dogsquat, The Things They Carried was a massive tearjerker for me. I don’t think I could read it again. It was brutal and beautiful. Thanks for the passage and the elaboration on it, but ya’ll are trying to make me bawl at work.
As an aside, I wish young folks didn’t have to go off to war that old people start. 18 is so young, but in the military it is normal. Just kids, teenagers, who should be full of life instead of experiencing so much death.
@Male Perspective
Hey, no getting personal…oh, you said mid-late 30s, not 40s…never mind.
However, that last bit was something I was trying to get across in the last thread when people commented on dumping less than mostly optimal relationships. At some point, you’re happy to have any bit of being wanted.
@Ramble
Preach it Ramble. Studious gentleman, never settle for a wife over 30 at marriage and if you haven’t married at 40 move to STRs for sex and comfort. If you don’t get the fertility don’t pay for the infirmary.
@Male Perspective
Not directly, but kind of. I spent a year in college then nine in the Navy. When I went back to college in my late 20s several different coeds clearly expressed interest in me.
Sadly, I’d made a poor marriage choice and was off the market. Looking back had I stayed smart and stayed single in the service not only would I not have reenlisted once, but I probably would have meant plenty of decent women about 5-6 years younger than me in college, wifed one up soon after, and be watching my oldest finishing high school instead of wandering the wastelands of 40 divorcedom.
So, a good strategy for men might be to work 3-5 years, save for college (so you’re loanless), take some night classes here and there or self-study and CLEP out so you go back as a sophomore or even junior. Then you have some alpha type advantages: proven ability to command resources, age and experience relative to the frat boys, and so on.
@Sassy
Have you look at the list of requirements you have put up over time here at HUS for a guy to marry.
I had a shorter list in February looking to buy a car.
Just sayin’.
And, from my experience, yours is relatively short.
@Charm
It’s not too literal. Sadly, a good variety of women see men as ATM.
My ex-wife’s sister’s first question to me (looking back should have been a warning): “Do you buy my sister a lot of presents.”
I could make a pretty strong case that NOW, when not viewing men as rapists, views them as ATMs based on their policy positions and actions regarding child support, visitation rights, custody distribution, abortion, and alimony.
@Sassy
“How can I use them as a tool?” is the same as saying “This tool does not serve my purpose”. So, you just evaluated them as tool. Besides, as you said, “They wouldn’t serve my purpose” which again is evaluating them not as a person with their own worth but in terms of how you can use them.
As for you not being a feminist, you may claim otherwise but you’ve got the entitlement and even a bit of the female supremacist that I expect from them: men objectify, women can’t therefore I can’t being a grand example.
I never agreed to it. I diverted the question away from the sex onto something else.
It’s a little harmless verbal banter, nothing more and nothing less.
Like I have said before, I would have no problem if a guy told me he wanted to date a virgin or if he wanted a woman that was less sexually experienced. Those are two things that I am not. I understand that. I would have a qualm, however, with a man referring to me as “used”. I’ve explained why that is enough already.
@Dogsquat
Although my service experience is different (less primitive but arguably more isolated and unnatural) I get you.
However, you live in a world where not only do most of the people who benefit from the people who suffer not only don’t consider it but many think it is beneath them and hold those who do it contempt.
I’m not surprised it was found creepy. However, finding it so reveals more about the judger than the judged.
@El Marqués
Hey, now don’t leave out the Navy (and I guess our wholly owned subsidiary, the Marines) and I guess we could even add in the Puddle Pirates.
The Air Farce, however, just doesn’t count
You under estimate how good it feels to get there first.
AMOG of her life (assuming you stick around).
Lokland, I really think you guys overestimate the importance of this to women–to the point that it makes you all feel bad unnecessarily.
I was engaged my senior year of college and lost my virginity to my fiance. He was a very crazy and narcissitic guy, but I really was very sheltered before I met him and didn’t see it coming. Long story short, I broke off the engagement, which was painful and involved a lot of shame at the time. In retrospect however it was the best choice I could have made.
A year later, he was married. A few years and two kids later, he was on his way to a divorce and attempted to get back with me. I refused. Another year later, he was on wife number two. Fast forward a few more years and a few more kids, and he is on his second divorce. Again, he tried to come back to me, Again, I refused. He is now married to wife number three, who looks nuts to me. I think this guy would be considered a hero to many in the ‘sphere, but I look at him as a dogded bullet. The notion of this guy as a husband or as the father of my kids is horrific to me. And, I know that his kids are pretty damaged young people.
I still run into him occasionally. My sense is that he still desires me (Oh J, you never change…still beautiful, blah, blah, blah…), but I’m pretty glad I was smart enough not to become his first wife. He is far from the AMOG of my life and more like the dirty joke I was too young and naive to prevent life from playing on me.
@Hope
My ex-mother in law said to me at the beginning of the first Gulf War back in 91, “They all look so young.”
I responded, “War is old men sending young men to settle their disputes”.
Most people don’t take the time to think, but the typical ballistic missile submarine commander, a man who commands more total firepower than unleashed in some wars, is probably 38 at the oldest. The other two men who hold keys to those nuclear weapons are younger. The weapons officer may be under thirty if he’s moving up a bit ahead of his class. The majority of the enlisted men he commands are of an age with the same college girls this blog is aimed at.
I went to college a bit before I joined and I still could have retired with a 50% base pay pension payable upon retirement before I was 40 (a thought very much in my mind on the 20th anniversary of my enlistment).
War is decidedly a young man’s profession. What boggles the mind is that old men who one engaged it will send their sons off to do it again.
@ Herb
Let’s look at the definition of instrumentality one more time.
1. Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one’s own purposes
I wouldn’t use a man I didn’t find attractive as a tool for my own purposes. I wouldn’t use him. I think instrumentality is about actually using someone as a tool for a purpose without their knowledge or consent. It would be objectification, however, if I used an unattractive man to have access to one of his friends. That would be an example of #1 and #7. I have never condoned that sort of behavior though.
Also, I have also never said that women can’t objectify men. I have been claiming the exact opposite, DURING THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION, by saying that viewing men as ATMs is objectification. I even said, in an earlier post, that I have contempt for women who think that way of men.
I’m starting to believe some people are reading what they want to read instead of actually reading what I have written.
@J
Maybe he does, but he was talking about its importance to men, which women seem not to get.
There are things that matter to men in selecting mates, after all. We don’t feel bad about it because of how you feel.
J, please don’t take offense because this is only tangentially related to you, but this is a classic problem I see in American women. It’s not just about you. Men do have feelings, desires, and priorities of their own. Too often, articles about dating for women treat men like too many foreign policy experts treat foreign countries. They see them as a set of buttons that if pushed in the right order serve a woman’s specific purpose. Then when they learn the buttons have a mind and desire of their own they are confused (some are offended that the buttons don’t exist just for them, but I’ll give most the benefit of the doubt most days).
Learning and accepting what is important to men is just as important to a successful LRT as men doing the same for women.
Sassy,
You’re using “use” and “treat” interchangeably.
Treat:
See, “treat” doesn’t mean “use.” It could, in fact, mean “not use.”
Herb, long ago the Navy and AF got into a major beef about the boomers. Bascially, the AF said, You can’t have an 05 in charge of all those warheads, it’s crazy, we sensibly give our ICBM squadrons to two-stars. So the navy upgraded the boomers to 06 commands even though the personnel on board didn’t really warrant it and it screwed up the promotion system in a lot of ways. That lasted less than 10 years as I recall.
Kind of irrelevant in the end because they physically cannot launch those missiles at their own authority anyway. Unlike certain nuclear gravity bombs which, despite the Pentagon’s protestations, can be detonated by almost anyone.
Sorry to go OT.
@Sassy
If I look at a woman and evaluate her sexual appeal I’m routinely accused of objectifying them. Yet, I am in no way using them as a tool.
Either looking at women, the most common example given of objectification, isn’t objectification or your hamster is up to speed.
Or we’re back to female supremacy: men do it, it’s objectification. women do it, it’s just evaluating women.
No, they are men who have done, with respect to women, exactly what you described and are both personally and in the general culture excoriated for objectifying women. For example, for just opining that a woman I knew who was considering getting a boob job would look better if she didn’t I got a five minute lecture at a party about how I just objectified women and should respect they can do what they want with their bodies.
That is not an isolated incident for me or men in general.
Now, re-evaluate how those men will see you saying “a man is ugly so I can’t be interested”. You’re acting on a judgment which just having for a man is objectification. So, if I act on it, it’s just objectification but if I have it isn’t?
So, if I walk up and fondle a woman I’ve judged sexy it quits being objectification?
@Escoffier
The Tridents are still 06 boats. The solution was Tridents, unlike the earlier boomers, aren’t first commands. Everyone driving a Trident has prior fast boat command (or back in the late 80s/early 90s boomer commands) but when I was on the Carver our CO was just an 05.
So, if I act on it, it’s just objectification but if I have it isn’t?
That should read: “So if I act onit, it’s not objectification but if I haven’t it is?”
@ Jesus Mahoney
I don’t agree with you, and I thought you and I were no longer going to discuss this. That’s what you agreed to.
@ Herb
I don’t think evaluating a woman’s sexual appeal is objectification. I never said I did. The women who freaked out at you about it are off the mark. I don’t agree with those women.
I’m sorry you have gone through those experiences. I don’t agree with the women who think that way. I don’t share their views.
Considering the attractiveness of women, or men, is not objectification. I would say it is objectification though to fondle a random woman. You would be using her body without her consent (#1 and #2). If she agreed to have you fondle her, however, it is no longer objectification.
One would be sexual assault (objectification), and the other would not be.
@Sassy
To help you understand why men think you considering a man ugly or gross is objectifying.
Every man who has been to sex ed in junior high, sexual harassment training at work, or freshman orientation at college (ie, pretty much all of us) has had that bolded part drilled into our head. It can even cost you your job.
Yet doing the same to a man isn’t objectification?
Thanks for qualifying your remarks, Herb. I lot of this stuff quickly escalates into something personal, so I appreciate your doing that.
I do understand that men get something from being first and possibily are just wired that way. I had hoped to offer some some helpful information in saying that first isn’t necessarily best in a woman’s lifelong memory. I do hope that at least some men who may be reading will come to realize that any jealousy they may feel over their wife, gf, or SO’s first, is not necessarily realistic from the woman’s point of view. Honestly, I doubt that many women “imprint” on or pine away over their first, especially these days when first often happens outside a relationship. Even among women of my generation (I am roughly Susan’s age, so I missed the era of drunken hook-ups.), I’ve never heard a woman clain to be pining for her first.
I don’t think that’s right. I had dinner with the captian of one about 1.5 years ago and he was a CDR. A quick google confirms that boomers are commanded by 05s. I don’t know exactly when that changed but I know that in the 1980s they were 06.
Unless it changed back very recently.
@Sassy
You agreeing or not is irrelevant. That is currently the broad societal expectation and even if you disagree with it, unless you’re loudly defending men when they get excoriated for it (did you speak up about it being silly at freshman orientation for example) you can expect to be held to the same standard.
Sassy,
You don’t have to respond. I’m just finding the topic interesting. And what don’t you agree with, the meaning of “treat”?
Until a person stops thinking of another in terms of his desirability, that person is “objectifying” the other.
@Escoffier: I could be out of date then as I left the fleet in 1995. At that time boomers (which are not Tridents but are all out of the feet at this point…even the oldest Tridents aren’t SSBNs but SSGNs now) were 05 commands and Tridents were 06.
I’m surprised anymore all subs aren’t 06 given how top heavy the Navy has gotten.
1 2 3 4 »