864»

Contemporary Male Mating Strategies

I’ve been noticing more discussion in the mainstream media of the consequences of radically shifting social norms during the last fifty years. From James Taranto at the Wall St. Journal to Frank Bruni at the New York Times, men are stepping up and dissecting the long-term effects of the Women’s Movement on both sexes. 

Jeremy Nicholson is a psychologist who specializes in persuasion and influence as it applies to dating. He’s frank about the fallout as well. He addresses the problem from a clinical or behavioral standpoint rather than a political one, but he has several interesting essays on his blog at Psychology Today.

In a recent post he addressed the high level of frustration men are experiencing in dating today. Previously, he had written about what he calls the “double bind” of female sexuality – women may lust after one type of man, but prefer to attach to a different type of man. It’s the Goldilocks dilemma, and finding just the right mix of traits is a challenge, leaving many women unhappy in this SMP. 

With those two “feelings” juxtaposed, women often find themselves unfulfilled in love. Many that I talk to seem to hover between what they call “nice guys” and “jerks” in their dating life. They become attracted to “jerks” for their status, ambition, and dominance—only to be hurt when those men don’t live up to the cooperative and considerate cultural standard for an attachment partner. Women then may gravitate towards a culturally prescribed “nice guy,” only to find that they become bored, their libido wanes, and their eyes wander back to “jerks.” Either way, they find the relationships largely frustrating and unsatisfying.

Of course, this isn’t exactly news for regular readers of HUS. Echoing what so many men have expressed here, Nicholson then shares the male perspective:

If men choose to follow social norms and become compliant as “good guys”, they may get a “relationship partner”. However, due to women’s social vs. biological double-bind, these compliant men may also not be “attractive” to those same relationship partners (Buss & Shackelford, 2008). As a result, they may be punished by their girlfriend’s/wife’s lack of sexual interest, being cheated on, or disrespected as a “push over”. These men may further be regarded as “just friends”—expected to pay for all of the costs of a relationship, without the physical and intimate benefits.

In contrast, if men shun social pressures to be “nice” and follow what is biologically attractive, they have a higher likelihood of getting “sex partners”. However, these men are often punished by being socially labeled as “jerks”, “players”, or even “creeps”, unfit for socially-defined relationships. Furthermore, their tactics are often designated as “sexist” (Hall & Canterberry, 2011). Therefore, these men may get sex, but they often do not get love and respect.

Nicholson reports that men in both camps report finding an attractive long-term partner difficult. Of course, men are in a double-bind of their own. The females they deem attractive - women who are sexually-selective, faithful, physically attractive, and have a pleasant, respectful disposition – are in short supply because they too have been guided away from biological characteristics and steered toward new social norms instead. With so few incentives, it’s not surprising that many men would abandon such a seemingly hopeless quest. 

Nicholson doesn’t have the answers – like me, he concludes that the only thing we can do at present is muddle through as best we can.  To that end, he offers his observations of the four primary strategies he observes men using today.

1. Player

Nicholson is a fan of Game for the same reason I am – he feels that the overall message of empowerment and self-development for men is positive. He does caution that assertive PUA tactics do not produce lasting relationships:

Becoming Attractive - one strategy adopted by some men is to become attractive, dominant, and sexually-forward. These are the guys who are often labeled “players”, “macks”, and “pick-up artists”. With this strategy, men are often able to fulfill their short-term sexual needs—especially within the modern, socially-sanctioned climate of “hook-ups” and causal encounters. Many of these tactics, however, primarily attract women who are focused on short-term flings with attractive men.

…The results of the study (Hall and Canterbury, 2011) primarily indicate that [PUA] tactics are used for short-term mating and casual sex. Both the men who employ them and the women who find them attractive are high in sociosexual orientation – basically looking for more casual encounters. Furthermore, there is strong support that the women who find these “assertive” tactics appealing have more traditional/sexist views about women (higher in both hostile and benevolent sexism).

…The strategies help men and women looking for short-term sex find each other and connect. Other strategies might be better suited for those looking for a monogamous marriage partner instead of a fling.

The study looked at aggressive courtship strategies, including:

  • competing with other men who are also interested in the woman
  • teasing or “negging” the woman
  • isolating her away from her friends

In response, women with a preference for ‘no strings attached’ sex and negative attitudes towards other women are more likely to respond to men’s aggressive strategies.

2. Nice Beta Guy

Another approach guys use is the “pure beta” approach, which requires a level of vigilance and “expecting the worst” that surely won’t appeal to most men:

Partnering Carefully - another strategy adopted by some men is to adhere to social norms and become a “good guy” or even “domestic partner”. These men often find relationships more easily. However, men who follow this strategy should pick their partner carefully. Men successful with this strategy attempt to find an honest and faithful partner, who respects their needs, and is grateful for their contributions. Men pursuing this strategy also report the need to stay vigilant for their partner’s waning attraction, signs of cheating, and being taken for granted (much as women in “traditional” relationships do). With divorce a very real (and punishing) possibility, these men may also choose to think carefully before committing.

3. The Whole Package

The most difficult to pull off, this is the strategy that I recommend to women here at HUS. It’s a long-term strategy, requiring considerable investment both in self-development, and in qualifying potential partners. The goal is to practice this strategy while seeking someone else who does the same.

Holding High Standards - yet other men continue to hold high standards for both themselves and their partners. They invest in their own attractiveness, value, and success. They also treat partners equitably according to their behavior, worth, and contributions to the relationship. These men further qualify and screen partners well, not selling themselves short for less than they deserve. This approach takes constant effort though—both in the man maintaining his own standards, and in his motivating and inspiring others to do so too. It also requires patience in searching for someone who can live up to those desired standards. However, these efforts are often met with a partner who is attracted to them, respectful, and attractive for them too.

Nicholson cites a plethora of research identifying self-control and conscientiousness as the two most important personality traits for relationship success. He suggests four ways to screen for these traits:

  • Attention span – Is the person focused in general and attentive to you?
  • Delayed gratification – Is the person self-indulgent or patient and willing to work towards a goal?
  • Planning – Avoid people who “wing it” or are overly spontaneous
  • Achievement – Does the person “get things done?” Do they finish what they start?

4. MGTOW

This is the non-mating strategy. More men are making this choice, decreasing the pool of potential partners for women.

Opting Out - finally, some men choose opting out as the best option for them. This is sometimes known as the “men going their own way” (MGTOW) movement. Essentially, these are the guys who have been frustrated and punished to the point that they see no further incentive to relate. Rather than spending their efforts on material success to attract a partner, they focus on making themselves happy. Although these guys are often socially-shamed as “not growing up”, in fact, they are arguably just reacting to the lack of outside motivation…and taking care of themselves.

What does this mean for women?

It’s not easy to snag the Whole Package.

If you have high expectations for a man, you’d better make sure you’re holding yourself to the same standards.

Go for guys in the same SMV (sexual market value) range as you. Select for character traits and achievement. Express appreciation and respect to deserving guys.

If you’re lucky enough to land one of these men, lock it down. Don’t foolishly delay commitment because your 20s are about “having fun” and “being single.” Commitment -minded men who are accomplished and attractive are becoming increasingly rare. Grab one if you can, even if he’s still young and a bit rough around the edges. It’s doubtful you’ll get another chance.

Avoid players.

Players are strictly for short-term use. If you decide to have a fling with a player, be aware that you’re also demonstrating a lack of self-control to the ideal guy you haven’t met yet. Don’t play the loser’s game of thinking you can flip a cad. They never stay flipped for long. 

Avoid men who do not attract you sexually.

A long-term monogamous commitment will fail if you are not attracted to your partner. It’s unfair to both parties. Furthermore, if a man is fearful that your attraction will wane, the relationship is doomed. He will become increasingly insecure, jealous and possessive, torturing himself and repelling you. Don’t go there.

One Pingback/Trackback

  • Chris_in_CA

    Jeremy made a good showing with his pair of posts. He tiptoed around the women’s side of things, but he deserves credit for at least talking about the men’s side.

    The fact that he mentioned MGTOW alone astonished me. And many of my fellow MGTOWs!

    “If you have high expectations for a man, you’d better make sure you’re holding yourself to the same standards.”
    Damn straight. And be prepared to take responsibility for past actions too.

    There ARE answers to these dilemmas. But they are not entirely social…they’re legal as well. Massive entitlement reform. A major rework of the divorce/alimony/child support systems.

    Course, any politician who so much as touches these ideas will find themselves ruined in moments. I won’t hold my breath at all. Neither, as I’m finding out in recent months, are many of my friends.

  • Lokland

    He forgot five.

    5. Beta with no fucking clue what he’s doing.

    The guys with no strategy are the majority and the ones most likely to be pulled through the cleaners.

  • Sexybearfriend

    Wow! I’m one of the 1st commenter!
    I’ve been lurking on sites such as HUS and MMSL for a bit now, just out of sheer curiousity. I have always been fascinated by gender dynamics. I must have been under a rock, because I had no idea that relationships were in such danger! This is so sad — I am in a wonderful relationship with an amazing man and always have been — all without having to give up my autonomy or by being “submissive” in all things (in the bed is another thing, *wink wink*). I kinda get it — I have several friends (male and female) that are in happy relationships, but also a few (again, equally male and female) that have been single for a long time or have struggled. But I can’t help but think that the whole “MGTOW” thing is simply the guys version of angry spinster. I seriously doubt that 1.) this is a way of life that most men would consider (thereby making it of limited use in “changing” women”. Sounds really pouty, like “I’ll take my ball and go home”) and 2.) I seriously doubt if these guys got their act together and started looking for better matches for themselves (instead of thinking that they’re all going to get Playboy Bunny meets Joan Cleaver or whomever they have set themselves up as the “perfect woman”) that they would pass on a woman. It’s a sad existence and they know it and worse yet, everyone knows it. They aren’t fooling anyone with the idea that they’re happy. They’re the male version of the lonely, batshit cat lady.
    Here’s how I see it:
    • Men have great difficulty seeing shades of gray. With specific instructions, they’re great. But once you try to get them to “think for themselves”, it gets dangerous. I see this all the time on Athol’s site. I wonder if men just can’t trust their instincts. They go off the deep end when given some good advice and then try to apply it in cases not specifically addressed in the advice (like the Shit Test — so many are unable to tell the difference between a simple request and a Shit Test! I mean, there was a LONG debate about putting down the toilet lid. Really?)
    • Women put too much stake in shades of grey. My husband’s biggest complaint against me was that I wouldn’t (couldn’t!!) ask specifically for what I wanted. Once I started doing that, our relationship became even better. By self-editing my thoughts (strip out all the side, lawyer-ly supportive crap) to be concise, it was amazing the buy-in that I got.
    It’s really easy, peeps — there is NO SUCH THING as 1-size-fits-all in people. These manosphere sites all skew towards conservative, traditional people. I’m not really that way — when I tried to implement some of the advice, most backfired. Some worked — and that’s great. But a lot didn’t. If I would have continued, it could have destroyed my relationship. But when I took a step back and thought “what’s pertinent in this advice FOR ME (and my husband, BTW! He actually pushed back more than I did with most of the advice!) and what isn’t?”
    Oh, and this is anecdotal (but facts fly loose around these comments so whatev’), but from people that I know, there’s an equal dispair about not being in relationships. The men that I know crave them every bit as much as the ladies. So talking about this as if it’s just a woman’s issue isn’ accurate. And finally, maybe this is a “class” thing? I notice that these sites seem to attract a certain class of people. Although all my friends and I are college educated, we’re generally the 1st in our families — most of our parent’s didn’t go to college (or went to night school), we’re solidly middle class, but from the blue collar area. We tend to be more of the so-called “cool kids” in HS (in rock bands, etc.). We also live in a big city and like to go to “cool” bars on the weekend. I guess we’re kinda older “hipsters” and most of us don’t have kids (sie note — the only bad couple I know of, they have kids. Hmmm…). Any thoughts about this as a “class” (or kids) thing?

  • Marie

    This is the worst post I’ve read yet. It’s hard enough being female already. Lock it down while you still can?! What if the relationship with a good guy just didn’t work out? This blog makes me paranoid and afraid of ending up alone, but I’m drawn to it still. It honestly depresses me- all the good guys are disappearing and girls who want a good guy have to be fucking amazingly perfect to get him? Great, this will really help me not be paranoid once I get in a relationship with one. Susan, how about something not so grim? I feel like all of your posts revolve around girls having to be basically perfect to get a guy worth their time, and forget about sexual activity unless you want to raise your number and be a slut no one will want, and how guys are either betas or alphas (the former makes them unnattractive and the latter makes them unnattainable). Thanks for the advice-I’m a 22 year old fairly attractive female and I feel hopeless now.

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

      @Marie

      Welcome to the comment threads at HUS, and I’m sorry I bummed you out. :( As Brendan said, the last thing I want you to do is feel hopeless. I consider it my responsibility to report what I see happening, what’s being discussed in the media and culture, what research is being conducted, etc. I believe this is the only way to be really informed – by tapping into as many resources as possible. Not all sources are equally credible – some may not be credible at all – but in the end I think HUS presents a fairly accurate picture of the scene.

      Your generation has the bad luck to come of age at a particular breaking point in the sexual marketplace. If you’re a regular reader, you know that the marriage rate is declining, and women are outpacing men both in education and earnings. Women like Kate Bolick, approaching 40 and involuntarily single, are forming “friend families” and proclaiming the beauty of being “single by choice.” I think that’s probably a healthy response to their circumstances, but I know that most women your age would prefer to avoid that outcome.

      My goal here is to give you the information and tools to get what you want. I can assure you that there is no shortage of good, attractive men who will make great husbands and dads, but you won’t find one if you fail to filter out poor prospects and filter in good ones.

      Lock it down while you still can?! What if the relationship with a good guy just didn’t work out?

      I don’t mean to imply that if you break up with a guy at 22, you’re unlikely to meet another man. There are tons of attractive men for you to date! Here I was addressing the reality that many women have been raised to consider marriage something one does around age 30. They go through their 20s focusing on short-term flings or trying to get with guys who are terrible relationship prospects. That’s not a good strategy. Here’s why:

      1. You’re at your peak of beauty and fertility before the age of 30.
      2. 30 year old men can select from women as young as their early to mid 20s.
      3. Commitment-minded men have often found a life partner by the time they’re 30.

      It’s not hopeless at all, but 22 is not too young to be open to meeting your life partner. If you do find a big fish, don’t throw him back because you’re too young. Kate Bolick wrote longingly about the one that got away because she didn’t feel ready at 28. He’s now happily married to someone else.

      all the good guys are disappearing and girls who want a good guy have to be fucking amazingly perfect to get him?

      There are good guys everywhere if you will open your eyes and see them. They feel just as frustrated as you do. You don’t have to be perfect to get a great guy – you just need to be your best self and have something to offer in a relationship. Look at that list of what guys want – faithfulness, loyalty, respect, appreciation, a positive outlook. Be a woman of good character and select men of good character.

      forget about sexual activity unless you want to raise your number and be a slut no one will want,

      I hope you’ll be extremely sexually active in a way that makes you happy. You can have casual sex – that’s your choice. But the reality is that guys will have their own feelings and judgments about that. Most women strongly prefer sex with emotional intimacy. I’m just saying that you should stay true to yourself – if you’re a woman who wants casual sex and isn’t looking for emotional connection, go with that. You won’t be disappointed. But if you do want the emotional piece, then having casual sex is going to be disappointing at best and damaging to your mental health and reputation at worst.

      guys are either betas or alphas (the former makes them unnattractive and the latter makes them unnattainable)

      First, I do not consider betas unattractive. In fact, the Whole Package guys are most likely to be betas who have their shit together. Those are the guys who are conscientious and self-disciplined. There are plenty of guys who have managed to break free of the emasculating cultural messages we send men, either via Game or some other means.

      Alphas are unattainable, but in my view, they’re also generally undesirable long-term partners. They have a high rate of infidelity and divorce.

      The ideal mate is a mix of alpha and beta traits – and I’ve always been of the opinion that it’s a lot easier to add alpha traits to a natural beta than beta traits to a natural alpha.

  • Chris_in_CA

    Batten down the hatches, here comes the shaming language!

    I have popcorn if anyone wants some.

  • Lokland

    @Chris

    Pass it over.

  • riley

    I really have to agree Marie here – the rhetoric and tone is becoming increasingly alarmist towards women and our prospects in general. I mean, it can’t be that bad, surely??? Is HUS the tabloid of dating blogs now? This used to be entertaining!

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

      @riley

      I really have to agree Marie here – the rhetoric and tone is becoming increasingly alarmist towards women and our prospects in general… This used to be entertaining!

      Eh, a lot of my posts are in response to what’s in the press. Lately there’s been a lot of grim talk about what the new show Girls (starting Sunday on HBO) says about the long-term effects of the Sexual Revolution. Apparently, the sex scenes in the new show are absolutely grim from a female perspective.

      I hear you though – I’ll try to work in some upbeat or funny stuff soon. The thing is, this post doesn’t need to be depressing – it reveals that there are men out there with high standards for women. Most women are unaware, disinterested, or unable to rise to that level. By deciding to be one of those women, and working to get there, you’ll develop a large competitive advantage over your peers. Since the Whole Package strategy is the only one that produces great relationships – for women and men – that’s where you should focus.

  • Marie

    @chris I am not advocating sleeping around. I’m just upset because I know what Susan writes about is true, but it is a hard truth and it really is enough to make a girl depressed about the future.

  • deti

    @ Sexybear:

    You’re mostly wrong about MGTOW.

    There are some men in the MGTOW who sound “angry”. But the ones I’ve read who are angry sure have reason to be. Some have lost wives, their children, their entire families, their jobs, their homes, and all their money. They’ve lost everything because of a wife who divorced her husband due to unhaaappiness or to Eat Pray Love or to “find herself”, and because of unfair confiscatory divorce laws.

    Most MGTOWs I have read made the decision to GTOW as a purely rational lifestyle choice. They survey the landscape, the political, social economic and sexual arena, and decide not to play. They tried dating, they tried mating, and it either didn’t work at all or wasn’t worth the hassle. So it’s not so much the male version of the angry cat lady spinster. They’ve chosen it, for the most part.

    By contrast, most women who do not marry have that lifestyle forced on them — either because they waited too long (see Kate Bolick) or because they pushed away good men (Bolick again) or divorced a good man thinking they’d find a hunky handyman just around the corner (and like most divorced women, they don’t remarry and end up alone).

  • deti

    SExybear:

    Your ideas about men are a bit oversimplified. Men would like a Playboy Bunny meets June Cleaver. We’ll settle for Marie Barone meets Mary Tyler Moore. I think you’d be surprised at how easy it is to please a man — if the women would just stay around long enough to give the guy a chance.

  • Chris_in_CA

    @Lokland
    Help yourself, plenty to go around.

    @Marie
    Nor would I suggest you advocate such. My personal opinion is that serial monogamy is a great approach; it encourages fidelity and provides connection in a relationship.

    There was a discussion here some days ago about ‘the number,’ and it was the overarching position of men who commented (as I understand) that a few LTRs are no obstacle to a new relationship.

    I’m here to talk about the legal aspect of this prism. Susan has the social facets down.

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

      @Chris in CA

      My personal opinion is that serial monogamy is a great approach; it encourages fidelity and provides connection in a relationship.

      I agree. Today, we spend about 17 years between puberty and marriage. That’s an awfully long time. I think that sexual activity within meaningful relationships is superior to any other alternative.

      Just to be clear, I’m not advocating jumping constantly from one relationship to another, which is how serial monogamy is often understood. I’m just saying that relationships are preferable to hooking up with randos. And so is abstinence, if you are not in a relationship. That’s where self-control and future time orientation comes in.

  • Lokland

    @Marie

    “all the good guys are disappearing and girls who want a good guy have to be fucking amazingly perfect to get him?”

    “all of your posts revolve around girls having to be basically perfect to get a guy worth their time”

    What is you defintion of:
    i) a good guy
    ii) a guy worth your time

    If in either defintion you happen to describe a man who is perfect. Then yes, sadly you must also be perfect.
    Note: These people don’t exist.

    If perfect isn’t a requirement then you don’t have to be perfect. But if you want good you must be at least in the same ballpark.

    Its much the same as getting a job. People don’t hire lazy prigs on for the same pay as the genius workaholic. And most people fall in the middle and are compensated as much.

    @Sexybearfriend

    Heard many guys lament lack of sex. Few lament lack of girlfriend.

    I just kinda figured I’d get married when I met the right girl. If she never showed up I got to keep playing xbox. Kind-of a win-win for me.

  • deti

    Marie:

    “all the good guys are disappearing and girls who want a good guy have to be fucking amazingly perfect to get him?”

    Oy.

    For the 658,984th time:

    The good guys are not disappearing. It’s that women do not look at them, do not want them and reject them out of hand. The good guys are sexually and romantically invisible to most women. I suspect you don’t see them because you aren’t looking for them. You’re looking for Alpha McGorgeous and Harley McBadBoy.

    And you don’t have to be “fucking amazingly perfect” to get a guy. Sheesh. All you have to do is be relatively good looking (Marie Barone, Mary Tyler Moore, hell, even Kathy Griffin) and be nice. That’s it. Be pleasing to the eye, and be nice.

    And you will have to give the so-called “nice guys” a chance. That means if women want a nice guy, women will need to start approaching, dating, having sex with and marrying nice guys and STAYING WITH THEM.

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

      @deti

      And you will have to give the so-called “nice guys” a chance. That means if women want a nice guy, women will need to start approaching, dating, having sex with and marrying nice guys and STAYING WITH THEM.

      In Nicholson’s list, these guys are mostly found in group #2. We all know that niceness alone is not going to get guys the women they desire. The #3 group has taken that nice guy core and worked it to improve himself. This is where I see Game as being the most useful tool for betas who want a relationship. Not in developing “aggressive PUA strategies” but in providing a framework where guys can afford to hold women to very high standards.

  • Maggie

    There are some things I don’t understand:

    1. “The females they deem attractive- … are in short supply because they too have been guided away from biological characteristics and steered toward new social norms instead.”

    Where did these women go?

    2. What happens to these alphas when they hit their 40′s and start losing their hair and putting on a few pounds? Will they be ready for a relationship then?

    3. Is Tim Tebow a beta?

    This is all perplexing but I absolutely agree with the advice that girls should lock down a good guy in their 20′s if they can.

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

      @Maggie

      1. “The females they deem attractive- … are in short supply because they too have been guided away from biological characteristics and steered toward new social norms instead.”

      Where did these women go?

      To be blunt, they became masculine and narcissistic. My generation was raise to eschew femininity and to refuse to let any man exert control in our life. We then raised a generation of daughters the same way. Female narcissism has been increasing sharply for the last 20 years. We’re demanding, we’re entitled, and we’re superficial. (See Sex and the City for a depiction of this.) Many young women today just aren’t going to meet the high standards of the men who can afford to be selective.

      2. What happens to these alphas when they hit their 40′s and start losing their hair and putting on a few pounds? Will they be ready for a relationship then?

      Haha! Good question. An aging player is not an attractive sight to behold. Most of them wind up marrying women from their social circles – fellow practitioners of the promiscuous lifestyle – and cheat on them.

  • deti

    riley #7:

    It’s only bad because women reject the good men in favor of the alpha studs.

  • deti

    Something else I just noticed from Marie and riley is a decidedly petulant undertone of “why is Susan telling us this truth that we need to lock in a good guy? DOesn’t she know that girls just wanna have fun?! I wanna have a good time! I want the perfect man there, waiting for me when I’m done having my fun!”

    Ladies, I think Susan is letting you know what men are doing and why they are doing it. You’d be wise to listen and heed.

  • Brendan

    @Sexy –

    You’re pretty much off-base about MGTOWs.

    There are basically two sorts of them: (1) the older ones (over 40), more than half of whom are divorced and (2) the “Guyland” guys in their twenties. These are two different groups, with different motivations.

    The older group tends to be guys who either never wanted to get married (a surprising number of former players in this group) or who are divorced and don’t want to remarry. The motivation is often more fatigue (with women, dating, the whole relationship thing and the endless compromsies it requires) than anything else. Most of these guys are quite happy doing what they are doing, which generally involves much more focus on things they were not able to focus on nearly as much when they were married or actively involved in relationships — hobbies, interests, projects, “avocations”. So these guys aren’t spinsters, but guys who really have had their relationship experience and just decided to get out of the market because they wanted to do other things with their time that they found more interesting and satisfying. These motivations are, in my view, the main reason why the remarriage rate among men has fallen off and continues to fall.

    The younger group is different. I would even say that not very many of the younger, 20s generation, guys are really “MGTOWs”, but are rather “Guyland” guys. These guys are not permanently out of the market, but they are more interested, at this time in their life, in enjoying themselves, doing what they want, and so on, than they are in investing in relationships, or focusing a good deal of time and effort in seeking sex or relationships with women. Most of these guys tend to be pretty happy as well — they’re having fun, after all, and it’s not like they never have sex, either. Most of them will eventually find relationships when they are in their 30s, and they eventually graduate out of “Guyland”. A small portion of them will not be able to do that in their 30s — these are the involuntarily celibate. I would also not classify these as MGTOWs, either, because it isn’t a voluntary state — hence “involuntary” celibacy. They generally are not happy, but they also aren’t really MGTOWs, either, because they haven’t made a choice in the matter.

  • Marie

    @deti You definitely have the wrong “undertone”. Im definitely looking for a long term relationship. I was trying to summarize the main ideas of Susan’s posts to show how hopeless she makes the situation seem for young females. When I referenced good guys disappearing, I was referring to the ones Susan advocates that we lock down before they disappear.
    I think you missed the beta/alpha part as well, but I’ll reiterate- betas are unattractive, alphas are unattainable according to Susan.

  • Jackie

    Hi Marie, Riley, Deti–

    I try to consider the mindset of the people who are coming here. We’re all trying to figure relationships out; lotsa folks get burned on the way, unfortunately. :(

    Speaking for myself, I am here to learn and improve. It’s been some time since my engagement broke off, so hopefully my viewpoint and vision is clearer. I don’t always “like” the things people say, but I’m committed to learning the truth.

    Susan has been really really helpful, nice and gracious. I genuinely believe she wants good people to end up together. If it gets to be too much, just take a break and come back later. “Take what you need, leave the rest”– you know?

    PS: My parents didn’t get married until their 30s– both had lots of bad luck and had to overcome difficult families. The main point is they were looking and working on being the best they could be. (I’m pretty sure, seeing as I wasn’t around then!)

  • Brendan

    Marie –

    I don’t think Susan is saying it is hopeless. She is saying it is challenging, and it requires effort and focus right now,, when you are in your early 20s. If you follow the yellow brick road, in other words, and avoid the issue until later on, the number of these men very much *does* dwindle as you get towards the 30ish mark. So I think the message is that if you want one of these guys you need to get serious about it now, and not put it off. It’s still challenging (which should not be surprising — finding a great mate, which is what these guys are, is something we should expect to be a challenge), but not hopeless if you start early enough and also bring quite a bit yourself to the table.

  • Cooper

    Contrary to what Marie said, I think this is one of the best articles yet.
    I think it speak much truth.

    I like to think I have all the quality of a Nice-Beta-Guy, but according to my success in the SMP I’m a MGTOW, by definition.
    And by that I mean I put varying amount of effort (from none to extreme) towards changing my ‘catagory,’ but I haven’t have any results, so I can’t in good faith say I’m anything other than MGTOW.

    From my experience, girls my age (early twenties) are still hoping to find being able to convert that “unnattainable*” alpha, rather than try that “unattractive*” albiet committable beta. (*As Marie put it)

    Thus, I go on my own way.

    @Lokland
    What’s you gamer-tag? (seriously.)

  • Ramble

    The females they deem attractive – women who are sexually-selective, faithful, physically attractive, and have a pleasant, respectful disposition – are in short supply because they too have been guided away from biological characteristics and steered toward new social norms instead.

    Yes, girls have been away and steered toward new social norms by choices that girls have made.

    Both guys and girls are reacting to the choices that girls are making.

    Guys will act like jerks/players/PUAs because this is what is working. Girls are becoming sluttier because they want to be slutty or other girls chastise them for being virgins or “prudes”.

    This is important. The modern SMP is almost entirely the doing of girls and their choices.

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

      @Ramble

      Yes, girls have been away and steered toward new social norms by choices that girls have made.

      If you’re referring to the choices of girls like Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem I’ll agree. Feminism ushered in new social norms for both sexes. We’re reeling from the fallout.

      Both guys and girls are reacting to the choices that girls are making.

      It is true that women are the gatekeepers of sex. But it’s not simple.

      Girls are becoming sluttier because they want to be slutty or other girls chastise them for being virgins or “prudes”.

      As you know, I don’t believe a very large percentage of women is slutty, though the culture does depict young women that way. The virgin and prude shaming does occur among promiscuous women, and again, in the culture. But here is where Pluralistic Ignorance has a strong effect.

  • Cooper

    @Deti #16
    +1

    It’s cause the truth ain’t fun enough.

  • Marie

    @Lokland I’m not looking for perfect haha. Your comment actually made me feel a little better about things. But I’m really addressing Susan’s tone- lock him down, like I’ll never be able to find someone! Depressing

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

      @Marie

      lock him down, like I’ll never be able to find someone! Depressing

      I’m not suggesting you should settle by taking the first guy you can get. I’m just saying that if you do meet a great guy, don’t break up with him because you want to have fun in your 20s. The price of that choice may be very steep, as we are seeing regularly in published tales of spinster woe.

  • Dogsquat

    Marie said:

    “Thanks for the advice-I’m a 22 year old fairly attractive female and I feel hopeless now.”
    _____________________________

    Marie, the dynamics inherent in attaining a long term relationship haven’t changed all that much yet.

    What has changed is you.

    Now you know how this stuff works, and you’re thinking about some issues that had never occurred to you before. You were blind, but now can see.

    It’s kind of like learning how hot dogs are made – useful information, but it does tend to detract from one’s enjoyment of said foodstuff.

    Couple things:

    You are still young. You’ll be fine – you just have some extra things to pay attention to now. No sweat.

    Also, don’t work yourself up into a tizzy trying to be perfect. You aren’t – nobody is. Just make good choices as much as possible and maintain your situational awareness.

    On a long enough timeline, everyone’s survival rate drops to zero, anyway. Freaking out about most things is a waste of energy.

  • Jonny

    I’m not a #1. I cannot never be player. It is not my nature and I’m a Christian so it’ll never work.

    I’m not a #2. I used to be, but I grew up fast especially after getting dumped by my first wife. I look out for myself and I can’t expect a woman to uphold her vows even after she given it. Two-thirds of women ask for divorce so the odds are the marriage risks are not in the hands of men.

    I’m number 3 and I expect the woman to be the whole package as well. If she expects a quality guy, she had better be a quality woman. Absolutely no exceptions will be allowed. She can’t weasle out of commitments without having me call her on it. As a result, I dumped women early in the dating process. Dumping is early is better so you can keep dating other women that might show up. Sometimes, I could go weeks without a date, but it frees you up to look for available women.

  • Ramble

    Marie, you may feel that a post like this is a little depressing, but think of it this way:

    You now have a better idea of what is a happening out there and will be better off than those that are ill informed.

  • Cooper

    @Marie
    “lock him down, like I’ll never be able to find someone! Depressing”

    At least you have the option. For betas, it’s as if our only option is to wait until girls get burnt by alphas. In which case, it still sucks to be second (last) choice.

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

      @Cooper

      At least you have the option. For betas, it’s as if our only option is to wait until girls get burnt by alphas. In which case, it still sucks to be second (last) choice.

      You do have options. You can be in group #3.

  • Maggie

    @Ramble
    “Yes, girls have been away and steered toward new social norms by choices that girls have made.”

    Are you saying these missing “girls” are just having casual sex and have no interest in a relationship? Surely by 25 or 26 most girls would be tired of chasing jerks and want to be in a relationship. At least most girls I know.

  • Senior Beta

    Fascinating post. But like Munson said, I feel like a picnicker at the Battle of Bull Run. Curious what the estimate would be of males between 22 and 30 who would fit the “Whole Package” bill. Can’t be very many.

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

      @Senior Beta

      Curious what the estimate would be of males between 22 and 30 who would fit the “Whole Package” bill. Can’t be very many.

      Agreed, but from a male perspective, there’s nothing stopping a guy from getting there if he’s willing to put in the work. I will say that there are probably not a lot of guys in that group before the age of 25 or so. They need maturing. That’s why I encourage women to seek and reward potential in a guy. Couples can mature together, nothing wrong with that.

  • Dogsquat

    Cooper said:

    “At least you have the option. For betas, it’s as if our only option is to wait until girls get burnt by alphas. In which case, it still sucks to be second (last) choice.”
    _______________________

    Everybody’s got options, man. The more you work at it, the more options you have.

    A little luck helps, too, but that is the case with anything.

  • http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

    Those guys are out there. I was one of them.

    See, when I was a young man I was a Nerd, and fiercely proud of it. But being a Nerd, at the bottom of the social ladder, I was relegated to the Nerdery of life and denied the chance to date the women at the other end of the ladder: the pretty, popular girls. Sure, I was clueless, unfit, and had very few characteristics that women my age wanted. I was, after all, a Nerd.

    But Nerds . . . study. And hence Game.

    Game, in it’s fullest application, is a means of transforming a solid Beta into a well-presenting Alpha through self-improvement and dedication. And once I studied, got fit, got charming, got (amazingly enough) handsome and successful, I realized just what a rarity I was. Compared to my friends post-college, going through their first round of divorces, I was a freakin’ prize. I might have been a Nerd, but I was a by-gods successful Nerd, with bright prospects, a future, etc. Suddenly all of those hot chicks were interested.

    Too bad I held a grudge. I married a wicked smart dumpy Nerd chick, and we had three happy little Nerdlings and have been married twenty years, Happily Ever After. She had the sense to be good mom material AND be good wife material, and only after serious discussion and rational argument did we get hitched. We’ll still be together when we’re 90.

    You see, early on I made the choice that I wanted to have children, and therefore only women who would make good mothers would make the cut. And I knew I wanted to have a rich, frequent, and fulfilling sex life, so only women who were into that sort of thing made the cut. But mostly I wanted her intelligence for our Nerdlings, her adept social awareness and high standards to raise them in, and her absolute loyalty to me and the family . . . no “I’m not haaaaaaapy!” ten years down the road.

    You see, Mrs. Ironwood understands commitment in a way that women lured by hypergamy do not. They get the man they can afford and trade up — she got a man with outstanding potential and then did everything in her considerable power to support him. She improved the property, so to speak, and didn’t give up on it prematurely. Or ever. In return for that commitment she gets about the best possible husband and father for her children.

    But she met me when I was 25. And when she knew I was the one she wanted, she didn’t let me go so she could pursue a couple of extra dicks before she settled down. She began cultivating me as a husband from the beginning and I cultivated her as a wife. She didn’t put her career first, she put her family first. That, as much as anything, is why us “good ones” are so rare.

    Our standards are high. And most are not worthy.

  • Abbot

    “their tactics are often designated as “sexist””
    .
    Ha, like any man actually gives a rats ass if designated as so. Yes, even in the US.
    .
    “If you decide to have a fling with a player, be aware that you’re also demonstrating a lack of self-control to the ideal guy you haven’t met yet. ”
    .
    YES. BE. AWARE. and its not just the demonstrated lack of self control that will send the very limited ideal-guy-supply walking away from you. You will merely be “that kind of girl”

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

      It’s good to have Abbot back among us :)

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Marie, actually women can’t do the real “locking down” part. When Susan says “lock him down” she probably means to be committed and loyal to him, don’t hesitate to agree to be his girlfriend, etc. We can only express our desire to be locked down by the man. Men still do 99% of proposals, and without their desire to marry you, it’s not going to happen.

    The other point Susan is trying to make is that the number of men who have the desire to marry at all is dwindling by the day. As women we have to step up and be marriage-worthy, and also not have sky-high standards. My husband was “rough around the edges” when we met, but he had real potential. I took him off the market when he was 25, before he was really successful. Susan is telling girls in their 20s to look for guys like that instead of waiting for the “finished product.”

  • Just1X

    “With specific instructions, they’re great. But once you try to get them to “think for themselves”, it gets dangerous.”.

    Yeah you’re right, thank goodness we’re not letting them run things, like in a patriarchy (sarc). You really are full of it, but on the bright side, you’re letting it out at a great rate.

    Are you sure that you’re not Plain Jane? if not, you guys should hook up. You have a lot in common.

  • Dogsquat

    Ian said:

    “did everything in her considerable power to support him. She improved the property, so to speak, and didn’t give up on it prematurely. Or ever. In return for that commitment she gets about the best possible husband and father for her children. ”
    __________________________

    If I were a gal and I wanted to get married and reproduce, the above paragraph is what I’d be thinking about an awful lot.

    How do you spot that potential? What should the guy have innately, and what can he learn?

    That’s gotta be in the top 5 things a woman has to figure out for herself when thinking about marrying a guy.

    Sounds kinda hard, actually.

  • Ramble

    Are you saying these missing “girls” are just having casual sex and have no interest in a relationship?

    No, that is not what I am saying.

    I am saying that the Sexual Market Place (or Mating Market Place, take your pick) has changed drastically over the last 50 years, with special emphasis on the last 25 years.

    And girls are either choosing to be slutty, or are being encouraged by other girls to be slutty or chastised if they attempt to remain chaste and modest.

    And for those that like to place the blame at the feet of popular culture, it was girls who chose to buy Madonna’s and Britney’s albums and make Drew Barrymore a star and Pretty Woman (a movie about a whore) an iconic movie.

  • Abbot

    “As women we have to step up and be marriage-worthy”
    .
    Men really do not have that many qualifiers. Ladies…know what they are and temper your behaviors and actions accordingly. But heck, if you plan on never marrying, by all means throw your bodies to the wind

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Dogsquat, actually Susan already pointed out two traits in a guy with potential in this post: self-control and conscientiousness. My husband has both, which was very impressive to me from the beginning.

    Some other good traits my husband had: disdain for mainstream culture, honesty, integrity, emotional awareness, good leadership qualities that he could also turn into good follower qualities, and love of animals (and he was not afraid to say he wanted kids in the future).

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

      @Hope

      (and he was not afraid to say he wanted kids in the future).

      I’ve shared before that the third time my husband and I went out, he mentioned in passing that he hoped one day to have a daughter, and told me what he wanted to name her. I was completely charmed by that, and I wanted to meet his standards to be the mother of that girl. Seven years later we had her and gave her that name.

      By the way, I’m assuming all went well with the ultrasound?

  • Abbot

    “girls are either choosing to be slutty, or are being encouraged by other girls to be slutty or chastised if they attempt to remain chaste and modest.”
    .
    Is this being done because there is some twisted notion that it benefits women or because women want to dissociate sexual behavior from worth and eliminate the great satisfaction men receive when dedicating their lives to worthy women?

  • Just1X

    Chris_in_CA:
    “There ARE answers to these dilemmas. But they are not entirely social…they’re legal as well. Massive entitlement reform. A major rework of the divorce/alimony/child support systems.”

    This to me is the thing that makes MGTOW pretty much a no-brainer. In fact even cohabitation can lead to being taken to the family court ‘down under’. Feminists have been ramping up the laws to destroy marriage and the nuclear family – and I think that they’ve managed it. In the last week there was the story of the guy getting FRA’d because his wife was pissed off when an attempted rapprochement failed – if he hadn’t recorded the sex session, he’d be in gaol, not her (you can tell it’s not a US story as she actually got gaol time).

    This means that even the perfect woman could end up not finding anybody if the guys judge the laws as too dangerous to take the risk. And contrary to numbnuts above, men are far more capable of choking down the red pill and walking away than women are. ref Capt Capitalism’s MGTOW vs WGTOW article, what he says isn’t a description of every MGTOW, but he hits the main points, solidly. http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/mgtow-vs-wgtow.html

  • Just1X

    @Susan

    link alert – avfm (delete this comment if you want – I broke the link, so no referrer when the link is followed).

    There’s nothing ranty in the post (by a woman called TyphonBlue) or the comments (now anyway).

    It addresses another part of what your article and Chris said about how women tend to view ‘the deal’ – which doesn’t commonly consider the other side of the deal; what’s in it for him? is it seriously just enough that she lies back and thinks of England, as a duty?

    hxxp://www.avoiceformen.com/women/domestication-of-the-human-male/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Typhon Blue is one of the cool writers for avfm who happen to be women.

  • Just1X

    @Marie

    “It’s hard enough being female already. Lock it down while you still can?!…Thanks for the advice-I’m a 22 year old fairly attractive female and I feel hopeless now.”

    I know that it might be hard to believe, but I can actually feel some sympathy for you (despite what I just wrote above). It’s just that it’s worse for men legally speaking and, for the majority of men, in the SMP too.

    HUS is giving you a bit of the red-pill for women, and you are still young enough to make the best deal that you can. Imagine that you were 10-12 years older and finding this out? Fertility fading and still single due to a fabulous career taking all your time. It might be a guy thing, but I prefer to know the truth (as far as it can be perceived) and deal with that.

    Best of luck, I hope you find someone and make each other happy ’til death (of old age) parts you.

  • CornSyrupy

    Ian’s story reminds me of me. I always considered myself what would now be labeled an “alpha,” (we called ourselves Masters of the Universe back then, a little nod to Tom Wolfe) but I was unusual because I was always looking for a long-term marriage partner.

    My wife quickly and wisely recognized my willingness to commit to the right woman, and so I was off the market at 27. All of my male friends that I thought would make good husbands were married before 30, and most of them to women 3-5 years younger. Now in my late 40s, I’ve had plenty of my still-single female peers or friends of my wife lament “Why can’t I find a guy like you?” I always answer that guys like me were out there, but we all got married 20 years ago. If we are considered the cream of the marriageable crop, then it only makes sense that we all got taken early.

    To complete my “old pop culture” hat trick, if you’re looking for a long-term marriage, don’t listen to Cindy Lauper’s exhortation that “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun.” The better advice comes from Cobra Kai: “Strike First, Strike Hard, Show No Mercy.”

  • Odds

    @ Dogsquat

    “How do you spot that potential? What should the guy have innately, and what can he learn? ”

    Find a socially well-adjusted nerd. Best way to do that in college is to form a study group. A disproportionate number of these guys have the potential to be self-made greater betas and lesser alphas, they simply lack the opportunity or know-how to do it on their own without outside influence.

    @ Maggie

    “Are you saying these missing “girls” are just having casual sex and have no interest in a relationship? Surely by 25 or 26 most girls would be tired of chasing jerks and want to be in a relationship. At least most girls I know.”

    Two things to cover here. First, most of the girls want a relationship, but they want something else much, much more: the social approval of their group of female besties. Some harbor the hope that hooking up will lead to a relationship, some just think it’s normal to do the casual thing until you’re 25, but they’re prioritizing badly for themselves due to social pressure. Second, if it takes until a girl is 25 or 26 to get tired of jerks, then it’s taken here about 8 to 10 years to get tired of them – she’s either a very slow learner or she actually loves getting treated like crap and is only changing in response to baby rabies. The point, as Susan put it many times, is that girls need to get serious about finding a good, solid beta as early as possible.

    @ Marie

    If the truth is depressing enough that you don’t like hearing it, you are not fit to be making major life decisions. That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be. Now, if you want to contest whether Susan’s assessment of the SMP is accurate, that’s completely acceptable – you’ll have a hard time proving the manosphere wrong, though, at least in this field. But don’t expect a lot of sympathy from anyone here for how much the truth hurts. Too many betas and reformed/reforming betas like me wandering around who have been hurt by the *lack* of truth.

  • Odds

    Regarding the original article, I think the research cited is (like a lot of social psychology research) too isolated to be taken at face value. What I mean by that is this: in science, you try to isolate variables to figure out how each factor affects the outcome, alone and in tandem with others. However, with social psychology, I’m pretty convinced the mix of factors is far, far more important than any individual factor.

    So, when you see research where a woman is isolated and presented with a stimulus (say, a player-type guy) and responds a certain way (for example, only women with a predisposition for casual sex and a desire for short-term relationships respond positively), the data is of limited use. Most girls in the real world are under the constant influence of the hive mind – what will their besties think? What will happen to her reputation? Does this fling “count” toward her number? How much plausible deniability will she have the next morning (“one thing led to another” is easier to swallow for some girls than “I took him home to hook up”)? Did her bestie just leave to hook up? Is she jealous of her? Is she just out of a breakup and feels it’s socially expected to have a rebound? Does she genuinely want a rebound just to get back at her ex in her head?

    The mix of those factors is probably going to have a major effect on a girl. It could put “that kind of girl” in a celibate mood, or a nice girl in the right frame of mind for her first nameless random in the bathroom. Most psychology studies work so hard to isolate one stimulus and one effect, perhaps in an attempt to emulate harder sciences, that I have a hard time buying the results.

    tl;dr version: I know for a fact that even the vast majority of relationship-type girls react strongly to alpha vibes, so I call BS on the psychologist narrowing his outcome to girls generally predisposed to casual sex instead of situationally predisposed.

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

      @Odds

      Most psychology studies work so hard to isolate one stimulus and one effect, perhaps in an attempt to emulate harder sciences, that I have a hard time buying the results.

      Usually I won’t reference a study until I can read the full report and at least determine some basics, like sample size and the general methodology. This study has no PDF available online – I’ve requested it as a “journalist” so I may have more to say about it later. For now I’ve only got the abstract and Jeremy Nicholson’s interpretation.

      Social science research is far from perfect, but it’s also far from useless. As it is extremely difficult to study sexual behavior accurately, we can either throw up our hands and remain completely uninformed, or investigate the body of research and see whether there are trends, patterns, etc. that emerge. I subscribe to the latter approach, and in fact, many studies confirm the correlation between sociosexual index scores and mating behaviors that signal the intention for no-strings sex. It’s hardly surprising, IMO.

  • Cooper

    “if it takes until a girl is 25 or 26 to get tired of jerks, then it’s taken her about 8 to 10 years to get tired of them – she’s either a very slow learner or she actually loves getting treated like crap and is only changing in response to baby rabies.”

    I guess I have a few more years of Xbox ahead of me.

  • Abbot

    “if it takes until a girl is 25 or 26 to get tired of jerks, then it’s taken her about 8 to 10 years to get tired of them – she’s either a very slow learner or she actually loves getting treated like crap and is only changing in response to baby rabies.”

    “I guess I have a few more years of Xbox ahead of me.”
    .
    and what will be there for you then?

  • Mike M.

    Marie, the good men are out there. In plenty. You just have to look.

    Understand one thing – Nice Guys fall into two categories. Weak Guys, and Polite Guys. Do not underestimate the Polite Guys. That velvet glove covers a steel fist. Which their enemies will feel, if the need is great enough.

    Forget the primping, preening Faux Alpha PUAs. Hunt yourself down a Polite Guy with potential. Educated, good career prospects, reliable. Good husband potential. If he’s imperfect, ask yourself just how perfect YOU are. And remember that Polite Guys will politely upgrade themselves, if you take the trouble to thank them for trying.

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

      @Mike M.

      Understand one thing – Nice Guys fall into two categories. Weak Guys, and Polite Guys. Do not underestimate the Polite Guys.

      Great point.

      Forget the primping, preening Faux Alpha PUAs. Hunt yourself down a Polite Guy with potential. Educated, good career prospects, reliable. Good husband potential. If he’s imperfect, ask yourself just how perfect YOU are.

      Exactly! That’s the strategy. In my view, it’s the best strategy by far, and this is a good time for women to employ it – these guys are underappreciated in general in this SMP, and are therefore a “bargain.”

  • Mike M.

    And Odds gave some good hunting tips. I’ll add looking for offbeat sports. Fencing. Martial arts, especially the traditional ones.

    And look for businesses that employ large numbers of STEM guys. Engineers, especially.

  • Lokland

    @Mike M

    “And look for businesses that employ large numbers of STEM guys. Engineers, especially.”

    Pfff. Drink to much, bunch of alcoholics.

    Biochems where its at.

  • purplesneakers

    I thought this was the most interesting part:

    In response, women with a preference for ‘no strings attached’ sex and negative attitudes towards other women are more likely to respond to men’s aggressive strategies.

    What does a negative attitude towards other women indicate?

    Also… it’s pretty easy to quantify a girl’s SMV since it’s based mostly on age and looks. How do you quantify a guy’s SMV? Appearance and fitness matters, sure, but how much does job/intelligence matter in comparison to personality and social skills? I think it’s harder to quantify a guy’s SMV because there’s more variance in what women are attracted to. Some of the women of HUS are into skinny pretty boys with long hair, others into really tall hipster dudes with glasses, and I’m into medium-height gym rats who look like they could tear me apart.

  • Lokland

    @Marie

    “@Lokland I’m not looking for perfect haha. Your comment actually made me feel a little better about things. But I’m really addressing Susan’s tone- lock him down, like I’ll never be able to find someone! Depressing.”

    Your welcome.
    Meh, it is what it is. I like what Dogsquat said at 22.

    Just think about it like this.
    Your on the same road now that you were before.
    The only difference is you know theres a bunch of pitfalls and you have a map. Its not a perfect map, thats never existed, shit happens, but still you have a map. Your better off now than you were before even if the road looks really depressing but its still the same road.

    @Cooper

    No. Not putting info personal info on a blog.
    BTW, I’d suggest you learn some basic game. Cull out all the anti-game you have (contrary to poular belief everybody has something) and then start trying to find your classic good girl.
    You and an actual good girl will mesh very well.

    @Ian

    Your post was awesome. The nerdlings bit was epic.
    May I say, your choices in life and wife should try to be emulated. The world needs more nerdlings.

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

      @Ian

      Your post was awesome. The nerdlings bit was epic.
      May I say, your choices in life and wife should try to be emulated. The world needs more nerdlings.

      Agreed, I loved it.

      I would just point out that what Ian and his wife both had plenty of was self-control and conscientiousness.

  • Lokland

    @purple

    “What does a negative attitude towards other women indicate?”

    You know that kid on the beach who always runs around kicking over little kids sand castles.
    This is the female version of that.

  • jlw

    Brenden said: “A small portion of them will not be able to do that in their 30s — these are the involuntarily celibate. I would also not classify these as MGTOWs, either, because it isn’t a voluntary state — hence “involuntary” celibacy. They generally are not happy, but they also aren’t really MGTOWs, either, because they haven’t made a choice in the matter.”

    Just because someone is the absolute bottom of the barrel w/r/t to the SMP and has no hope of attracting a female who he, in turn, is attracted to, doesn’t mean he, as an irrecoverable omega, can’t be a MGTOW. These guys have seen that they can’t get anybody and have GTOW towards achieving their own satisfaction and fulfillment.

  • CornSyrupy

    I guess I have a few more years of Xbox ahead of me.

    Don’t wait until women in your own age group tire of poor treatment and change their expectations. Just like there is a small percentage of men interested in marrying in each generation, there is a small percentage of women who are not interested in or have quickly learned to avoid the alpha carousel. Don’t be afraid to date younger women, because you have to get to this small percentage first.

  • CornSyrupy

    Ohh, I failed at quoting. This software is so abstruse.

  • Abbot

    “Don’t be afraid to date younger women, because you have to get to this small percentage first”
    .
    Well, there certainly is an overarching desire among good men to have wives with appropriate histories. Good. Drive that message like a pile hammer.

  • Cooper

    @Abbot, CornSyrupy

    This issue with having to date down in age, is that I’d have to wait until I’m mid 20s to seek early 20s. I’m 23, so hence my Xbox statement.

  • Abbot

    Good men and feminists are now in loggerheads over who gets to influence the Western female sexual behavioral fad du jour. Fortunately, this shitshow is NOT even close to global

  • Odds

    @ Abbot

    “Good men and feminists are now in loggerheads over who gets to influence the Western female sexual behavioral fad du jour.”

    True. But then, I’d contend that between the ages of 13 and 25, the vast majority of girls are more interested in social approval from female peers than from guys. For some women, that upper age limit is probably closer to 35, maybe much higher. Since the “vast majority of girls” are presumably who we’re fighting a culture war over, it creates a nice catch-22 about how to convince them that what’s in their best interest, is in their best interest. They won’t do it until their besties are doing it, but their besties won’t do it until *their* besties are doing it. Have to chip away at it in little chunks and hope that we outpace feminists. Fortunately, I still have faith in the average person’s ability to rationally analyze their life (given proper motivation), so if we’re right, I suspect we can win. It’s just a matter of whether or not we can get the ball rolling in our direction.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Hahahahahhaha, the “whole package.” I know, maybe, two guys like that.

    Good luck looking for THOSE unicorns. Most guys I know are in “I have given up” mode or “fuck bitches in clubs” mode.

  • Alias

    @ Odds-
    “I’d contend that between the ages of 13 and 25, the vast majority of girls are more interested in social approval from female peers than from guys.”
    —————
    Why are you even counting the 13-16 crowd?
    It’s true that young women are increasingly delaying marriage until later. I think the strongest push is/has been coming from the older generation and from other cultural influences more so than from their peers.

    This is how it’s currently panning out according to the CDC:

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf

    “The median age at first marriage was 25.8 for women.. in 2006–2010. ”
    44% of women married by age 25.
    68% ” ” by age 30.
    78% ” ” by age 35

    The median age at first marriage was 28.3 for men in the same period with:
    31% of men married by age 25.
    56% ” ” by age 30.
    71% ” ” by age 35.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    A Definite Beta Guy, a guy who is in “I have given up” mode can still be the “whole package.” It describes my husband pretty well when I met him. He didn’t think about dating, didn’t have a dating site profile, didn’t visit sites about the subject, and he was kind of just pursuing other things.

    The girl has to make it clear that she’s into him and that she’s serious for such a guy to possibly get out of the “given up” mode though.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Alias
    “This is how it’s currently panning out according to the CDC.”

    Music to my ears. Discussions should involve proportionality. Things aren’t all good nor all bad. But don’t trot out too many facts around here. People don’t seem to like ‘em : )

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

    The girl has to make it clear that she’s into him and that she’s serious for such a guy to possibly get out of the “given up” mode though.

    Maybe that will be the new romantic hero for Romances. The guy that has lost all hope on women till the right woman comes along and changes his mind…:)
    I wonder if is any more realistic than the “flipping the cad” fantasy though…

  • Alias

    ADBG:
    “Hahahahahhaha, the “whole package.” I know, maybe, two guys like that.”
    ———
    What are you defining as “the whole package?” Is it the same definition as the poster Marie #4 above?
    whole package = perfect

    Are you saying that your friends aren’t the best that they can be and aren’t ready for marriage or that they’re being overlooked?

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Far more realistic. A man that has “lost all hope” on women typically just needs some positive experiences to reinvigorate the spirit.

    Keep in mind, though, that you’re still playing a dangerous game. These guys do not understand women well. They will hurt you purely by accident, you will probably lose attraction at some point, it will be a lot of work, and they can be both bitter and judgemental.

    But it’s like playing with a butter knife, as opposed to playing spin the samurai sword. It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to flip a cad.

  • Odds

    @ Alias

    “Why are you even counting the 13-16 crowd?”

    I originally typed 18, but thought about and realized that it’s true for some time before that, as well. They care about their peers’ social approval more than their own personal satisfaction with a guy, even a decade after they start noticing boys.

    Age of marriage isn’t a good indicator of when this stops, either. How many girls decide to marry their current/next boyfriend just because their friends started getting married? It always starts with someone’s sister, then soon enough everyone within three degrees of separation has got the itch. But that’s still seeking approval from female friends, not from the man himself, however blissfully ignorant he may be.

  • Alias

    Megaman:
    “Music to my ears. Discussions should involve proportionality. Things aren’t all good nor all bad. ”
    ____________
    Let’s not forget that getting married is the easy part.
    Staying married for a lifetime is much harder nowadays.
    In my ideal world, if people are going to end up divorced/separated, I’d rather they skip on kids and marriage altogether.

  • Alias

    Odds:
    “They care about their peers’ social approval more than their own personal satisfaction with a guy, even a decade after they start noticing boys.”
    ——–
    Oh, OK. Yes, this is one of those cultural influences due to youngsters spending too much time with their same-aged peers. This is something that the child psychology folks have pushed and the culture (parents) have lapped it up.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Alias, I do not mean that they are perfect, but rather that they possess a suitable mix of alpha and beta traits to be great life partners without the woman feeling like she is settling for something inferior. Also having drive and ambition, and the desire to improve one’s self, and able to hold women up to high standards that are not also impossible.

    Oh, and willing to work on a relationship, too.

    That is an exceedingly rare combination. Most of the guys I know do not have anywhere near the social acumen or alpha skills to really be “the whole package.” Men also have ridiculously high standards for women. I was out to dinner with one of my best friends tonight. I mentioned that the waitress was quite attractive.

    He said he didn’t like her because she had braces. They were not very noticeable. And braces come off some day. And she was quite attractive besides that, if a bit plain. But I can’t help him see that, and I can’t help him open in an bowling alley because he thinks it is “creepy.” I can’t help my friend who desperately wants a girlfriend but is only able to perform in clubs but can’t even hook up because he’s so goddam insecure about not having sex since he was 15.

    I cannot help my friend with the gambling and anger problem. I cannot help my friend who gets immediately discouraged and angry when his crush starts grinding on me instead of him. I cannot help my friend the dick who cannot even relate to men, let alone talk to a girl. I cannot help the tall guy who is shy of women and social situations in general so just doesn’t talk and is especially afraid of escalation. I cannot help my friend is horribly scarred because his LTR of 8 years cheated on him and dumped him uncereminously. Can’t help the obvious narcissist guy who gets all the girls already, because why the fuck would he stop what he is doing when he gets girls so easily?

    None of these guys are even close to being the full package and I would advise any woman to be VERY hesitant to invest in them. The closest ones, they just need to alpha up and lower their standards.

    Now, other than that. The one Whole Package I know has thinning hair and is engaged already. The other is sexually reserved and thinks porn is bad and also still lives with his parents, because he wants to save money before he moves out.

    The next in line is me, but then again, you’re dealing with me at that point.

    Whole Packages are Very Rare. That’s why you should snatch them up IMMEDIATELY. That’s also why you should NOT sleep with cads. Neither one of the Whole Packages I know has ANY tolerance at all for sluts. NONE. They don’t even like their FRIENDS dating sluts.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Alias
    “Let’s not forget that getting married is the easy part. Staying married for a lifetime is much harder nowadays.”

    Preaching to the choir. Whether it’s easier to stay married or just divorce these days is going to depend on the 2 people involved, why they got married in the first place, and what marriage means to both of them. But most people do marry, and most who have never divorce. That should count for something.

    I’ll 2nd your other motion. Marriage tends to get a bum rap IMO because most anybody can get a marriage license (in Las Vegas for instance). And they can just as easily tear up said piece of paper. For many other people, marriage isn’t such a disposable notion. But the institution tends to get judged by it’s worst offenders. Kind of like certain professions.

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

    But it’s like playing with a butter knife, as opposed to playing spin the samurai sword. It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to flip a cad.

    You are preaching to the choir, but I don’t think dating an almost GTOW man is that traumatic, like Hope’s my husband was seriously considering monkitude when I messaged him at Sciconnect and he didn’t made major mistakes.

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

    Kind of like certain professions.

    And religions…Sorry couldn’t resist this is a pet peeve of mine.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Yeah. Not THAT dangerous. That’s why I said playing with a butter knife ;)

  • Alias

    ADBG,

    Don’t worry about helping friends if they don’t want your help. All you can do is occasionally throw them some nuggets of wisdom.
    ================

    ADBG
    “The one Whole Package I know has thinning hair and is engaged already. The other is sexually reserved and thinks porn is bad and also still lives with his parents, because he wants to save money before he moves out. ”
    ————
    - Thinning hair shouldn’t be a deal breaker (his fiancee obviously knows this).
    - Neither is living with parents, especially if he’s doing it to save money provided he pitches in and contributes in some way. Point your 2nd friend to some game sites.
    ========

    ADGB
    “That’s also why you should NOT sleep with cads. Neither one of the Whole Packages I know has ANY tolerance at all for sluts. NONE. They don’t even like their FRIENDS dating sluts.”
    ————
    Yes, the good ones are selective.

  • Alias

    Megaman:
    “Preaching to the choir.”
    ——-
    LOL
    I’ve seen you at rehearsal. LOL
    It wasn’t really aimed at you but at the audience.

    It would be nice if getting married were more difficult than getting divorced, it’d get my vote.

  • Carmen

    These was awesome. Thanks for sharing such great strategies with us. Looking forward for more relationship strategies.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Alias
    “It wasn’t really aimed at you but at the audience.”

    The ladies are pretty smart around here. I doubt most of the guys @ HUS are in the choir, let alone the congregation : )

  • INTJ

    I’m definitely #3. I still don’t like the thought of having alpha traits, but I respect myself enough not to settle for less than I deserve. And being smart, healthy, loyal, and caring, I think I deserve someone who is also like that.

    However, with regards to my standards, I have a relatively easy time telling if a girl is a slut who has casual sex . The problem is the girls who go through serial LTRs and are too flaky, emotional, or choosy to be able to settle down with a guy. I mean if she’s gone through 5 relationships, I don’t want to be the sixth relationship unless I know there probably won’t be a seventh.

  • GudEnuf

    “Don’t foolishly delay commitment because your 20s are about “having fun” and “being single.”

    I heard a woman say that she wants to get married and have kids “but not before I’ve finished my masters, traveled the world, and found my passion career. So probably in 5 to 10 years.”

    She’s 27.

  • JUtRdr

    Wow, Ian Ironwood, quite a tale, congrats.

    I can relate to that, pretty strongly. Well, except for finding the quality woman in time.

    I am 41, earn almost 4 times the median family income, in shape, 6’2″, debt free, a wide range of interests, and a strong social circle. I think I was angry for a bit, and then somewhat disappointed in women. But now, I am pretty at peace with it all.

    I made a lot of mistakes. I was overweight, introverted, complete INTJ. I took martial arts and adopted a Buddhist outlook. I went from a small town in a lightly populated state to a good sized college and saw some women doing things that I would never want my sister doing.

    My small understanding of women was from a mother who was physically abused as a child, who never got over it, and her boys would not be abusers of women. I white knighted like a champ. I was strong, big. I bounced in the clubs, but I observed that I got a lot more attention from women when I was rude to them. I can remember specific examples where I had to deal with a fight situation, and had no time to be polite to this very beautiful blond girl, and I got in her face (just a little over, she was tall) told her to ‘stfu’ in a very assertive method and then trounced a troublemaker. She immediately came onto me right afterwards.

    I really didn’t understand what was going on, but I knew something was broken between men and women. I had no idea chivalry was dead. I tried to be less overbearing with women (per mom’s strong conditioning), I thought I was being respectful, only to find out I was turning them off. I kinda got caught in the cracks.

    I worked at self improvement, trying to achieve what I thought I would make me a good catch. , only to find out I really was fine all by myself, and I could set self improvement goals for myself without having women be the motivation.

    Well, when I found out about hypergamy, Game, dark triad and all the social science around the topic, I figuratively shrugged, said ‘that figures.’, and now I do my own thing.

    My chances at finding someone who would be faithful to me and stick with me and bear my children have past. If I knew all this stuff 15 years ago, I feel like I might have come out more like Ian.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Ramble
    And for those that like to place the blame at the feet of popular culture, it was girls who chose to buy Madonna’s and Britney’s albums and make Drew Barrymore a star and Pretty Woman (a movie about a whore) an iconic movie.

    I get what you mean by Madonna, Britney and the character Pretty Woman, but I’m wondering what the case is against Drew Barrymore. If she has given offense, it doesn’t seem to be the same one these other women have. (Unless, that is, her Charlie’s Angels character outweighs everything else she has ever done. That might be what you mean, but I’m asking just in case there’s more.)

  • L.A. Dude

    I believe there is a significant portion of reformed betas that have a two pronged strategy of (1) pursuing easy lays while (2) continuing to keep an eye out for a quality girl. While such guys will often appear to be “the whole package,” they will usually decide early on when getting to know a girl which strategic prong applies to her. If a girl seeking an LTR unwittingly exhibits flaky or unbecoming behavior, she might be bringing out the cad (first prong) in a guy who could otherwise be interested in a serious relationship (second prong). In this sense, female flippancy — so common in today’s post-feminist dating market — is quite insidiously self-destructive to many women. I’d be curious to know if other guys here agree with this.

  • Dogsquat

    @JUtRdr:

    If we were walking down the street and you told me that, I’d give you a brofist and alter course to the nearest serviceable beer.

    I must say:

    I respect your stoicism. Sometimes life ain’t all we’d hoped for. Some setbacks have permanent consequences. Your ability to speak without rancor on such an emotional issue is a hard-won skill.

  • JUtRdr

    Well, I am thankful for the life I have, and the blessings of health and the fortune to live the way I want. It’s hard to be upset with that as a foundation.

    I compare myself to where I might be in an ideal situation with a loving wife and healthy children, and I admit, that my life might be lacking.

    But then I look around me at the wrecks of most of my friends marriages and relationships, and I kinda feel like I won the lottery. Some of them understand me, I expect a few more will before all is said and done.

    Yes, I could have been just that much happier, but wow, man, it could have been so much worse.

  • Dogsquat

    Yes, indeedy – no matter how Bad anything is at the present, Even Worse is lurking nearby.

    Still – equanimity must be earned, and you’ve obviously done some work. That rates respect, in my eyes.

  • Someguy

    What dogsquat said.

  • Just1X
  • Just1X

    ah well, the embed didn’t work, but it is funny, promise.

  • pvw

    I liked reading this by Ian Ironwood:

    Suddenly all of those hot chicks were interested.

    Too bad I held a grudge. I married a wicked smart dumpy Nerd chick, and we had three happy little Nerdlings and have been married twenty years, Happily Ever After. She had the sense to be good mom material AND be good wife material, and only after serious discussion and rational argument did we get hitched. We’ll still be together when we’re 90.

    You see, early on I made the choice that I wanted to have children, and therefore only women who would make good mothers would make the cut. And I knew I wanted to have a rich, frequent, and fulfilling sex life, so only women who were into that sort of thing made the cut. But mostly I wanted her intelligence for our Nerdlings, her adept social awareness and high standards to raise them in, and her absolute loyalty to me and the family . . . no “I’m not haaaaaaapy!” ten years down the road.

    You see, Mrs. Ironwood understands commitment in a way that women lured by hypergamy do not. They get the man they can afford and trade up — she got a man with outstanding potential and then did everything in her considerable power to support him. She improved the property, so to speak, and didn’t give up on it prematurely. Or ever. In return for that commitment she gets about the best possible husband and father for her children.

    My thoughts:

    I’m glad you stayed away from the hot chicks and married your “nerdy chick.” I’m on team nerdy chick because I was (and still am) nerdy chick. Dumpy? Perhaps when I was much younger, but definitely not now.

    And here is the thing, I wonder whether many might realize, is that it is not uncommon that the nerdy chicks, a bit plain or dumpy perhaps, are the ones who were raised by their mothers to have “exceptional home training,” ie., modest, feminine, polite, considerate, with good home-making skills. They have good character. They are raised to be wives, but they might be ignored for the hot chicks….

  • Deli

    Just chiming my 5 cents:
    Reading variations on “Where have all the good men gone” is always rich from where I’m from, because in my country (Russia) this problem has been present for the last 60-70 years or so. (of course saying that Russian men are “lucky” because of such a divide is like saying that one-legged men is lucky because his shoe-bills are half of what they could have been),

    WW2 – during which Russia lost around 10 million people, a big share of which were soldiers (meaning – men), created a terrible demographic divide between sexes. Later, due to the depression of stagnating economy of the later Soviet Union, mortality rates of men rose much higher than mortality rates of women – mostly attributed to chronic diseases, alcoholism, suicide rates and incarceration.

    A small illustration – in 1961 Soviet comedy “Girls” (“Devchata”) there is a song called “Dance night” which has a chorus (rough translation)

    Girls wait along the walls of the dancehall
    They are fidgeting anxiously,
    Because for every 10 girls
    According to statistics there are only 9 boys.

    Again – this was a part of an actual film, that due to the peculiarities of Soviet film production industry was probably viewed by every adult citizen of the country at some point (and multiple generations after – I saw it at least 2-3 times in my life time :) )
    So you can only assume, how could such a demographic divide shape the psychology of both sexes.

    So to sum up: it took US what – 20-30 years of feminism? – to approach the same problem, that Russia found itself in after a meat-grinder World War and several decades of economic stagnation.
    Guess USA should bomb its enemies with feminists – it looks like a terrible WMD completely unbound by the Hague convention to me.

  • Just1X

    @pvw

    Elsewhere I have seen it said that facebook / relationship sites etc give women an overly high view of their SMP/MMP value – ‘look at all these men saying I’m interesting, smart and pretty…I must be wonderful, I should keep looking for my alpha, because I’m worth it.’ The fact that the guys are horrible lumpish goblins who are desperate, doesn’t matter – she has her ego boost. Works for all women whatever their looks, hypergamy means that they won’t settle for what they are really worth. I’m not criticising, men have other issues (looks over…well everything).

    The mirror image (the bit you suggested) is that for the good looking guys (“alphas” etc) they can get sex from lots of women, and who needs to marry (even if marriage/cohabiting made sense legally) if you’re swamped in sex? These guys (not necessarily cads, just “lucky”) are getting their needs met without long term commitment, as a side effect they tie up women who think that they have a chance at an alpha.

    So, alpha men raise their MMV (if they are interested in any LTR at all) beyond where they’re likely to meet an acceptable princess perfect.

    Other men ain’t gettin’ no lurvin’, so MGTOWing and finding some better way of living becomes an option. By the time the women decide to settle, these men might well have a nice life thanks, no need to screw it up by risking marriage 2.0.

    The ‘normal’ women (nothing wrong with normal), don’t notice the ‘other men’ until it is too late. The good looking ones can still ‘settle’ for someone ‘acceptable’, leaving normal women a small target population, with little time left and lowered SMP and MMP value.

    Ain’t nobody happy ‘cepting the alpha men and the top women who trap early.

  • Just1X

    @deli

    funny and interesting. good to hear from a knowledgeable and balanced source.

    I think globleman (sic) has been making that point for years; eastern europe and Russia are showing where the west is going. Men drop out (MGTOW there seems to include alcohol, lots of it) because they’re not interested in the deal offered to good guys (corruption doesn’t help either; it’s the bad boys that have money and power) and the women are left alone, or at least unmarried. This is why there’re a lot of Russian wives available for export, including good looking women.

  • Just1X

    @Susan #99

    yep, now if we can just sort out the marriage / cohabiting legal issues, we’re free to sail off into the sunset. Assuming that #3 men and the women that truly commit long term find each other acceptable and find each other

    Sounds more upbeat though, nothing wrong with that.

  • JUtRdr

    Well, Dogsquat, I have been lurking for some time now, and your opinion holds more weight with me than you probably suspect. I appreciate your empathy.

    Like you, I look at the young crop of men coming up and I also have a great deal of empathy for what they have to understand. I feel bad for a lot of the young girls as well. I think our society has not told our children about the realities of interaction as we raise them, and it leaves them to learn some hard lessons, some bitter, and some sadly learned too late.

  • JUtRdr

    Susan, nice site, by the way. First time I have posted, but many times I have been tempted. I have followed Dr. Nicholson’s postings on PT, and I saw his conversations over on MGTOW (where I also lurk) but I chose to comment here because of the environment you foster.

    I have to go pick up dogs to sit for the weekend, and go target shooting with my Dad for the day. I’ll be back later tonight to check in on the chat.

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

      @JUtRdr

      Welcome, I am so glad you decided to join us in the comments! I second what Dogsquat said, but the hopeless romantic in me wants to point out that you are only 41, and sound highly eligible. Are you sure you don’t want to date?

  • pvw

    Just 1X:

    I’m not criticising, men have other issues (looks over…well everything).

    My reply:

    This is why I find Ian Ironwood’s story so fantastic; there are nerdy beta types who become so delighted by their new found alpha type success that they forget the hot chicks they want wouldn’t have wanted them before, so why should they get the reformulated them?

    They forget that the hot chicks they wanted so much back then could be flaky and superhypergamous; they are not looking for character, or if they want character, they want it later, in the nice guy they passed up before when they were alpha chasing. So he now gets the alphas leavings once the woman is off the carousel.

  • Just1X

    @pvm

    we’re good, I didn’t perceive any criticism in what you wrote. I intended to just make an observation on how crap the market is for the majority of people of either persuasion

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

    Susan…”Usually I won’t reference a study until I can read the full report and at least determine some basics, like sample size and the general methodology. This study has no PDF available online”

    It is extremely irritating that media coverage of a social science study…which is often the direct result of a press release sent out by the university PR office…is rarely accompanied by any way to read the actual study (unless you subscribe to an esoteric and expensive journal or pay something like $50 for one-time access)….for research funded with public money, which most of it is, there really isn’t any excuse for this and it should be disallowed as a condition of grants.

  • Chase

    Marie-

    If you are an attractive 22 year old female and would like to “lock-down” an alpha…It can be done.

    I have been a player/alpha since I began to understand what male/female relations entailed (age 14 or so). I’m now 21. I’m not claiming to be a PUA or to have a Phd in psychology, but I have been locked down once before, which I told myself I never would.

    Simply put, you need to make yourself stand out from the rest of the girls that said guy is with. If he’s an alpha, he’s with more than just you hunny- regardless of what he says.

    Be feminine, goal-oriented, caring, and genuinely nice.

    I have dated beautiful women my whole life…The girl who locked me down was actually in the lower percentile (looks wise) than the beforementioned…But what she did- was push the above attributes.

    She put those attributes before me, which showed me she cared about herself in a goal-oriented way, meaning she was genuinely optomistic about her future; which then gained my interest in her future. The only way to make sure I was part of her future- was to jump in right now. She’s going to med-school ;)

    Currently still dating and still an alpha; I may flirt with girls, but I won’t leave this one.

    I know this is true of my alpha buddies as well. Hope this helps -Chase

  • INTJ

    @ david foster

    Susan…”Usually I won’t reference a study until I can read the full report and at least determine some basics, like sample size and the general methodology. This study has no PDF available online”

    It is extremely irritating that media coverage of a social science study…which is often the direct result of a press release sent out by the university PR office…is rarely accompanied by any way to read the actual study (unless you subscribe to an esoteric and expensive journal or pay something like $50 for one-time access)….for research funded with public money, which most of it is, there really isn’t any excuse for this and it should be disallowed as a condition of grants.

    Actually that statement on the Springer website is a misleading statement. It is research funded by a public university, and as I pay tuition at a public university, I have access to the journal. :) Any questions about the full article you want me to answer?

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

    INTJ….thanks, but my point wasn’t a result of particular interest in this specific study, but a more general one. Publicly-funded research needs to go on a freely-available site on the Internet (with exceptions for classified work). It is extremely irresponsible of universities to publicize SS research with the intent of influencing public policy but then to make that research available only in highly summarized form.

  • INTJ

    Btw, looking through the journal paper, I’m going to say it’s all BS. The reason being that they simply surveyed people. The problem is that people will say one thing on a survey and do another thing in different life.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    I’ve enjoyed reading through this discussion and felt compelled to throw in my $.02 (probably worth less than that).

    Re: Finding “Total Packages” in the sexual marketplace. In the early 90s, a cross-cultural anthropologist named David Gilmore proposed a three-part framework for considering the key functions of an idealized man from a “product design” type of perspective:

    1) Procreate—the ability to co-create beautiful, healthy children; typical differentiation signal is physical attractiveness.

    2) Provide—the ability to provide a comfortable, safe lifestyle for his family. Money is the obvious tool, but education is often considered a powerful provider signal under the traditional assumption that a high-quality education can be easily monetized. To some extent, sophisticated cultural experiences such as foreign travel may be considered part of an educational background.

    3) Protect—simply put, the ability to destroy other men in physical fights.

    Put these together and you have, in an ideal world, a handsome, well-educated badass with money. He has *ability*, he is the stuff of action films and legends (007, Batman, etc.). From a woman’s perspective, the question then becomes one of his willingness to share these qualities within the confines of an exclusive relationship. Does he have *willingness* on top of ability?

    The issue is certainly made more complicated by the view that women may not give equal weighting to each asset class—some may give the looks a 1.5x weighting, say, and give a 1x to money/education and a lowly .5x to the badass protector factor. Given a dating/mating world of both aleatory and epistemic uncertainty, a cumulative-points, satisficing strategy may dominate other forms.

    Let’s say that a man can be scored from 1-10 in each category. One woman may look for a man who has a total score of at least 18, without requiring any particular combination in order to get there. She hits that number and wants to take this guy and get out of the game. A different woman may insist on an 8 minimum in provision/resource type factors, and be willing to settle for anything above a 2 in the others. Yet another may attempt to demand a man who scores 8 or above in everything (there are predictable problems with this, including extreme scarcity: assume that looks, money/education, and badass factors are independent variables and assume that a woman demands a man who is in the top 5% in each category. Consider how many men who fit this description one would find in a city of 1 million people).

    From the man’s perspective, he has three primary ways to signal to potential mates that he does indeed possess such qualities: Direct Display, Behavioral Correlates, and Social Proofing/3rd Party Testimonials. The more expensive (read: difficult to fake) a signal mechanism is, the more value it will generally have. Some environments will force Direct Display: a man with a poor physique will have difficulty on South Beach; a man with poor resources will have difficulty in Monaco; a man who cannot fight should probably avoid trying to pick up girls at a cage match.

    Social Proofing can add mystique when cocktail-party bulletpoints are used: “I know that guy, he runs a big PE fund out of Seattle”…”former SAS, so don’t mess with him”…”climbed K2 last year”…”delightful chap—Eton and Cambridge, I think”…

    A strategy based heavily on Behavioral Correlates would tell you to fake it until you make it if necessary, creating attraction by behaving like the aforementioned handsome, educated badass with money (HEB-M..?). But how would such a person behave? Because an HEB-M would simultaneously be capable of dramatic Direct Displays, this is an interesting question in itself.

    Consider how the deeply-studied Halo Effect could lead to an attractive rationalization for almost any behavior associated with simultaneous high Direct Display (for illustrative purposes I will give a sensationalized example): a man with bronzed god-of-war looks is seen exiting a black Aston-Martin, wearing Charvet shirts and Lobb brogues, armed with the AMEX Centurion, etc. He begins talking to a woman at a sidewalk cafe. His attitude is one of abrasive sarcasm and aloofness. Halo Effects kick in and the woman is sexually excited by his “dominant personality.” Repeat the same scenario, but this time the man is warm and exceedingly polite. Halo Effect returns and the woman is sexually excited by his “courtly manners and gentlemanly charm.” Repeat the same scenario and the man tells stories and jokes. Halo Effect…

    In other words, the peculiarities of the conversation mattered less than the context in which the conversation took place. The paradox of the many “game” strategies that rely on imitative Behavioral Correlates (as opposed to more comprehensive strategies based on self-development) is that the legit HEB-M may favor situations that have a certain pressure-cooker vibe in place to crunch pretenders and literally force Direct Displays. After all, passive, permanent signals of Direct Display work for him whether he is deliberately trying to attract mates or not. He benefits from that strong filter because he can carry the costs easily; he can manage that heavy decorative tail. His idiosyncratic behaviors on the other side of the filter line may not matter to him much because he knows that they will almost always be rationalized as attractive (he could probably kill someone, vomit on himself, etc. and an attractive narrative rationalizing the behavior would ensue).

    Sorry for the long ramble! What do you all think?

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

      @Bastiat Blogger

      First, you get my seal of approval just for using the word satisficing. I love that word, but have found that it has no traction outside b-school.

      The issue is certainly made more complicated by the view that women may not give equal weighting to each asset class—some may give the looks a 1.5x weighting, say, and give a 1x to money/education and a lowly .5x to the badass protector factor.

      Second, you get major bonus points for acknowledging that women vary in their preferences. Sounds simple, but one downside of Game from a female POV is that it adopts a cookie cutter approach to female sexuality.

      . But how would such a person behave? Because an HEB-M would simultaneously be capable of dramatic Direct Displays, this is an interesting question in itself.

      True, which is why the person using a Behavioral Correlates approach is going to avoid settings where he doesn’t shine naturally, and frequent settings where faking it is useful as a proxy for the dominance that comes naturally to a HEB-M. Mystery codified Game specifically as an application to successfully solicit no-strings sex in nightspots. That’s not to say it doesn’t work elsewhere (it does), but Behavioral Correlates by definition are more suited to short-term encounters, as the practitioner is likely to be “found out” at some point.

      the legit HEB-M may favor situations that have a certain pressure-cooker vibe in place to crunch pretenders and literally force Direct Displays.

      No doubt. However, these guys are relatively few in number. The Behavioral Correlates approach will work well in settings where there are either few opportunities for Direct Display or few HEB-Ms. It also helps if the venue is populated by women with low barriers to entry for casual sex.

      Game has established routines for trumping the dominance of the AMOG, which is the guy most likely to be a HEB-M, though if every group has an AMOG, most of them will not obviously not meet that standard.

  • pvw

    Just1X @pvm

    we’re good, I didn’t perceive any criticism in what you wrote. I intended to just make an observation on how crap the market is for the majority of people of either persuasion

    My reply:

    Hi, I didn’t see any criticism at all; I was making a similar observation as you were. I want the beta guys to win as well as the “nerdy dumpy” girls who might not get much attention from men because they are not “hot”, as they might be merely “pretty,” but who have great character and are quite attractive when you get to know them. They are not going to blossom in the casual sexual marketplace, but they will blossom as long-term girlfriends and wives. Going back to Mrs. Ian Ironwood, something tells me she would not be considered “dumpy” today.

  • http://chancebradley.wordpress.com/ Chase

    Bastiat- Great comment.

    Makes perfect sense and many PUA’s tell their “followers” to do things that they themselves do and continuously ask themselves why their clients are not attracting women.

    You make a good point on venue selections when it comes to pushing certain qualities.

    I do very well on the beach (athletic physique); however, would my friend (who is in a band) do well on the beach? Should I tell him to go there and do what I do because it works for me? Of course not. Nor should I expect to get the attention that he would get performing on stage.

    Once again, golden little write-up.

    Thank you for that.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Bastiat Blogger:

    Consider how the deeply-studied Halo Effect could lead to an attractive rationalization for almost any behavior associated with simultaneous high Direct Display (for illustrative purposes I will give a sensationalized example): a man with bronzed god-of-war looks is seen exiting a black Aston-Martin, wearing Charvet shirts and Lobb brogues, armed with the AMEX Centurion, etc. He begins talking to a woman at a sidewalk cafe. His attitude is one of abrasive sarcasm and aloofness. Halo Effects kick in and the woman is sexually excited by his “dominant personality.” Repeat the same scenario, but this time the man is warm and exceedingly polite. Halo Effect returns and the woman is sexually excited by his “courtly manners and gentlemanly charm.” Repeat the same scenario and the man tells stories and jokes. Halo Effect…

    In other words, the peculiarities of the conversation mattered less than the context in which the conversation took place.

    A+. You’re absolutely correct, the context will be the key.

    I think too many guys believe that if they just learn how to spit tight game, they’d be able to land the HB10 they deserve for all their hard work. No.

    Even if you have tight game, you can’t expect to land a girl looking like a cheeseburger. Looks may not matter to girls as much as they do for guys, but you can’t discount them entirely.

    Look at Danny DeVito. Apparently that guy has tight game (he has to!) and his wife isn’t a 10 by any means.

    I say this because I’ve recently realized that a huge attraction trigger of mine is how well-dressed a guy is. I will probably notice a well-dressed average-looking guy before I will notice a good-looking, average-dressed guy, simply because the well-dressed guy is presenting better. Seriously guys, if you have any sense of style you could probably clean up well.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    What is a “well dressed” guy?

  • SayWhaat

    What is a “well dressed” guy?

    I know it sounds vague, but basically a guy who has style. I don’t mean expensive designer clothes, I mean clothes that suit and flatter your body shape.

    Style implies creativity, which is probably why it’s so huge for me.

  • Abbot

    “the “vast majority of girls” are presumably who we’re fighting a culture war over”
    .
    In the West there was not too long ago no such war. The culture was much more manifest from nature. Happiness among women was at the best it was ever going to be, more or less. Then the feminists roared in with their pills and long-pent up “ideas.” The “war” will not end as feminists desperately hope – where women are suddenly much happier than ever living in some feminist-created fantasy. The legacy of conflict can only end when these feminists throw in the towel or women are counseled with sufficient wisdom thus causing them reject the feminist sexual propaganda.

  • http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob

    Society pretty much got around this problem in the past by making sure all men were highly-paid and women kept out of most jobs. So even an unambitious good-natured man could make a lot of money.

    Unfortunately wages stopped going up in 1973, which is 100% the government’s fault by interfering in the free market. Had they continued to rise as they should have, the average salary today would be about $90,000 a year.

    Relationship problems would still exist, but they be a fraction of what they are now.

    We can blame the expansion of government and laws interfering in the relationships between men and women. As always, the Law of Unintended Consequences comes into play.

  • also intj

    JUtRdr, like Susan I think you could still get married if you want to. If there is a church with a parochial school near you, it’s worth checking out. I know several incredibly nice marriage-minded parochial school teachers in their early 30s who simply don’t know single guys.

  • Abbot

    “Unfortunately wages stopped going up in 1973″
    .
    and other dumb shit was happening around that time. Basically, too many people entered into the workforce thus watering down wages but it did not change where babies come from or what makes men comfortable with women.

  • also intj

    With the talking of “locking it down,” it would be interesting to see a state-by-state breakdown of age at first marriage. Living in a red flyover state, I see lots of young people getting married right out of college. I bet there is a significant difference based on geography.

  • http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob

    “Unfortunately wages stopped going up in 1973″
    .
    “and other dumb shit was happening around that time. Basically, too many people entered into the workforce thus watering down wages but it did not change where babies come from or what makes men comfortable with women.”

    It certainly didn’t help when Nixon went off of the gold standard, thereby allowing the completely unconstiutional Federal Reserve Bank to destroy the value of the dollar though inflation.

    If the government had stayed out of the relationships between men and women, and not passed all these destructive laws, I honestly believe the problems between men and women would be a fraction of what they are today.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    “Living in a red flyover state, I see lots of young people getting married right out of college.”

    Susan commented that most guys probably won’t be “ready” for a serious relationship until they’re 25. And yet ~ 30% of guys have already settled down by age 24. Most likely in less expensive, more traditional environments.

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

      @Megaman

      And yet ~ 30% of guys have already settled down by age 24. Most likely in less expensive, more traditional environments.

      Since the average age at first marriage for men is now 28.5, that must mean there’s also a very large percentage getting married in their early to mid-30s. I would be curious to see how these stats break down geographically, by education, income and other demographics.

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

    but the hopeless romantic in me wants to point out that you are only 41, and sound highly eligible. Are you sure you don’t want to date?

    Great minds think alike. :)
    I didn’t wanted to say anything because the guys support his “Buddhist philosophy” but he is young to just quit IMO, specially if he has the whole package.

  • also intj

    I agree, Megaman. I think culturally, younger marriages are much more the norm here. My observations are also probably skewed from that of the state as a whole since my circle of friends and acquintances are mainly Christians, who I think tend to marry younger.

  • Abbot

    “If the government had stayed out of the relationships between men and women, and not passed all these destructive laws, I honestly believe the problems between men and women would be a fraction of what they are today.”
    .
    Politicians often create laws in order to pander for votes from interest groups. Now, what groups of folks thought these laws would benefit themselves? Are they sorry now for all the negative unexpected consequences?

    mud. on. faces.

  • Dogsquat

    @PVW regarding “dumpy chicks”.
    __________________________

    Madam, please don’t forget this fact in your calculus:

    When a man is in love with a woman, that woman will become beautiful to him.

    Your guy doesn’t experience you visually the same way a stranger does – no kidding.

    To be sure – that’s no excuse for sucking down an extra bucket of hot wings every night. Love is only so powerful, after all, and we’ve got to help it out wherever we can – but it is there and it’s on the so-called “dumpy” woman’s side.

    This is a funny thing about men that’s rarely talked about. I have experienced it in the past, and so have several of my friends. One day, you’re looking at your girlfriend from across the room, and you can’t tear your eyes away. She is so pleasing to look upon, you just get stuck doing it for awhile. You wonder how the hell you landed such a quality piece of tail, too…

    It’s a strange epiphany to have, especially if you’ve been with her awhile.

    Now, lest I give false hope or misleading advice to others that may be reading:

    Looks matter. They matter a lot, especially when trying to start a relationship. There’s no getting around that.

    However, you can help yourself out in the longterm-looks department by being an excellent partner. Your guy will experience it as you being more attractive than you actually are. It’s not some rational trade off, either – it is a visceral feeling. Totally bypasses higher thought when it occurs.

    As an aside, PVW, you once recommended a book to me. I promised you I’d read it over my winter break. I have failed to do so, but I have not forgotten.

  • Dogsquat

    JUtRdr said:

    “Like you, I look at the young crop of men coming up and I also have a great deal of empathy for what they have to understand. I feel bad for a lot of the young girls as well. I think our society has not told our children about the realities of interaction as we raise them, and it leaves them to learn some hard lessons, some bitter, and some sadly learned too late.”
    _________________________________________

    Steel on target.

    What really chaps my hide is that I/we were taught wishful thinking – pure fantasy – in place of useful information. This shit was all figured out already, until some ding-dongs decided that reality wasn’t shiny enough. Rather than do anything useful, they just made up a bunch of bullshit and called a press conference.

    It’s like a modern epidemiologist deciding he hates mosquitoes, so therefore malaria comes from solar flare activity.

    Incidentally, target shooting is one of my great joys in life. An hour at the range is better than a month of prescription antidepressants.

    What did you shoot today?

  • Sassy6519

    @ SayWhaat

    I think too many guys believe that if they just learn how to spit tight game, they’d be able to land the HB10 they deserve for all their hard work. No.

    Even if you have tight game, you can’t expect to land a girl looking like a cheeseburger. Looks may not matter to girls as much as they do for guys, but you can’t discount them entirely.

    Oh my God, Yeeeeessssss.

    The issue is certainly made more complicated by the view that women may not give equal weighting to each asset class—some may give the looks a 1.5x weighting, say, and give a 1x to money/education and a lowly .5x to the badass protector factor. Given a dating/mating world of both aleatory and epistemic uncertainty, a cumulative-points, satisficing strategy may dominate other forms.

    Let’s say that a man can be scored from 1-10 in each category. One woman may look for a man who has a total score of at least 18, without requiring any particular combination in order to get there. She hits that number and wants to take this guy and get out of the game. A different woman may insist on an 8 minimum in provision/resource type factors, and be willing to settle for anything above a 2 in the others. Yet another may attempt to demand a man who scores 8 or above in everything (there are predictable problems with this, including extreme scarcity: assume that looks, money/education, and badass factors are independent variables and assume that a woman demands a man who is in the top 5% in each category. Consider how many men who fit this description one would find in a city of 1 million people).

    This sounds right to me.

  • also intj

    I can’t imagine “scoring” a guy like that to see if he comes up with some composite number. I got married at a younger age than I ever would have expected to, but it would have been crazy for me and my husband not to get married. We just FIT.

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

    Guess USA should bomb its enemies with feminists – it looks like a terrible WMD completely unbound by the Hague convention to me.

    Feminism the perfect biological weapon…I think there are manosphere writers that actually think all this mess was created un purpose by the ruling class to decimate our planet population and keep the lower classes controlled, so….

    Exactly! That’s the strategy. In my view, it’s the best strategy by far, and this is a good time for women to employ it – these guys are underappreciated in general in this SMP, and are therefore a “bargain.”

    I think we already mentioned that a thing both Hope and me have in common is that we don’t mind waiting a little longer and making a good effort to shop for a good quality item at the cheapest price, so who knows maybe is a correlation in dating matters too ;)

  • Mike M.

    WRT “dumpy chicks”, the most attractive woman I ever met was about a 7 in looks. Front of the attractiveness pack, but not ahead of it.

    But she was usually well dressed…and had a personality that effervesced.

    Looks are the bait on the hook. Not the hook or line.

  • pvw

    Dogsquat:

    Madam, please don’t forget this fact in your calculus:

    When a man is in love with a woman, that woman will become beautiful to him.

    Looks matter. They matter a lot, especially when trying to start a relationship. There’s no getting around that.

    However, you can help yourself out in the longterm-looks department by being an excellent partner.

    My reply:

    I agree, totally! I sense that with Mr. PVW, without question, they way he looks at me at times…he is just so (I joke) besotted (uxurious), I teased him once around his family, and he was embarrased…But sweet, in the eyes of his sisters!

    Tee hee…

    Oh, and no problem about the book. Speaking of which, the authors are proposing a second edition, and I was asked to give some commentary by the press, it should be interesting to see what developments in US society they talk abut since the book was published in 2006…

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

    One of the weird things about the Internet is that you read an article like this and then a few days later you find the opposite: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-women-will-rule-future/
    Is like we live in a parallel universe across the street.

  • AlphaRising

    @Marie:
    “It’s hard enough being female already.”
    Bullshit. You have it too easy to even realise how easy you have it. Think it’s hard being a girl? Try approacing. But of course you won’t do that, it’s our job to ‘man-up’ and take all the rejection risk

    “Lock it down while you still can?! What if the relationship with a good guy just didn’t work out? This blog makes me paranoid and afraid of ending up alone, but I’m drawn to it still. It honestly depresses me- all the good guys are disappearing and girls who want a good guy have to be fucking amazingly perfect to get him?”
    Reverse the genders in that statement, and that’s what it’s like being a guy. Welcome to our world

    ” … guys are either betas or alphas (the former makes them unnattractive and the latter makes them unnattainable).”

    Self-created problem. If you didn’t all throw yourselves at alphas they wouldn’t be unattainable, and if you gave betas a chance once in awhile you might find that they’re not so unattractive.

  • Abbot

    “Guess USA should bomb its enemies with feminists ”
    .
    Are any enemies out in the middle of the Pacific? A good idea and feminists would go for it as desperate as they are for some entity to fund their global expansion.
    .
    But
    .
    Every place south of the Rio Grande River is off limits!! No good reason to contaminate paradise.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @also intj
    “I think culturally, younger marriages are much more the norm here.”

    I’ve observed the same phenomenon out here in CA. And not amongst young white kids. I guess some cultural groups prioritize marriage/family while others just fiddle until age 30.

  • Abbot

    “I’ve observed the same phenomenon out here in CA. And not amongst young white kids. I guess some cultural groups prioritize marriage/family while others just fiddle until age 30.”
    .
    Then the arbitrage for a white man is to fiddle with the “sexual expressers” at his convenience and then step into the non fiddle pool for abundant wife selection, again, at his convenience. Ah, times are good.

  • also intj

    The women in the non-fiddle pool may not want the guy from the fiddling pool.

  • Abbot

    “The women in the non-fiddle pool may not want the guy from the fiddling pool.”
    .
    Ah, now wouldn’t that be refreshing…

  • Dogsquat

    @AlphaRising:

    Dude, you’re winning the battle but losing the war when you communicate like that.

    Yes, it’s irritating when someone describes their situation as unjust and unfair – the very same situation you’ve been dealing with since your first boner arrived.

    But what do you want to do with that?

    You can lash out at them, of course. You might feel good in the short term, work out some of that angst, maybe. The price for that behavior is the other person immediately seeing you as an adversary. In my experience, I’d rather my adversaries not realize I’m gunning for them until after I send rounds downrange.

    Alternatively, you could try a little tact, maybe exercise some self-discipline, be judicious with your word choice. It’s good practice in general, and you might gain an ally. First impressions are critical in that, and hurling anger often leads to a sub-optimal first impression, no? The worst case, if no common ground is arrived upon….is that nothing changes. People turn away from the red pill all the time. That’s where she was yesterday, anyway.

    Besides, you can always yell and shoot and scream later if you deem it necessary.

  • JUtRdr

    Well, it was a sunny, warm day (for Maine) and a gorgeous day for throwing some lead down range. Dogsquat, today was a .380 day. We shoot up on my parent’s property, which is about 50 acres surrounded by a few hundred of ridgelines and forest.

    I split the cost of a S&W Bodyguard .380 for my Dad a couple weeks ago, and we got a bunch of Hornady and Remington loaded up for testing. With my Sig P238 and his Bodyguard, we tested different types of powder (Power pistol, blue dot) with some different style bullets (lead to fmj, to hpj). We broke in his new pistol pretty well, then shot some .38 through his Taurus and my S&W 686 and Ruger SP101.

    I loaded some cold tracer rounds up for my 45XD, but it was too sunny to see them, and I need to wait until dark to get the best effect.

    My parents raised 4 boys pretty successfully, and they are still together, though it was close a few times. They do not always get along, and it has been a struggle, though they stayed together for the kids. My Mom has strong character and faith, and it has helped her through times when she felt like quitting. My Dad has always been a rock, and has worked hard his entire life. Now, they are retired together, and while suffering some health issues, they have both saved each others lives, and they know that they have each other.

    Susan, I had some pretty ugly experiences with low quality women in my beta incarnation. They were pretty much all that would pay attention to me, and in my ignorant, passion enflamed youth, I gave without getting, and got used hard. I learned a few lessons about life, myself, and what I will allow.

    Even if the best woman came along, it would be unlikely that I would be able to give her what she needs in a relationship, and I don’t feel that would be fair. I have figurative scar tissue that protects me, and I am unwilling to remove it to be hurt again. I am unwilling to risk the outcomes if that happened.

    Besides, I have a pretty good strategy which has ensured a peaceful existence. I never ask, and never get asked. I get the eye IOIs, but I know beta body/face language well enough to ensure that there is no follow up.

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

      @JUtRdr

      OK, your call obviously. But I have to say this kind of broke my heart:

      I get the eye IOIs, but I know beta body/face language well enough to ensure that there is no follow up.

  • Wudang

    “My chances at finding someone who would be faithful to me and stick with me and bear my children have past. If I knew all this stuff 15 years ago, I feel like I might have come out more like Ian.”

    Why? Seems like you are excellently positioned for that and at 41 as a man it is not to late at all.

  • JUtRdr

    Bastiat Blogger, I think one of the categories that has been left off your list is

    ENTERTAINER.

    It used to be enough to be a protector and a provider, but now women need entertainment.

    If I may relay a purely anecdotal story? A good friend of mine got married. He’s 6′”3, rock solid, football player. Even tempered, humble, balding a little, but handsome. He plays the dumb big guy pretty well, but he taught me everything I know about Oracle databases and helped cultivate me as I learned software design. I love this guy, salt of the earth. I cut a dozen cords of wood a year, and this guy will come up of his own free will and help me throw 600 lb logs around and fill my parents wood sheds every year. He is polite to everyone, and a true gentleman.

    But, he has had terrible luck with women, because he is such a nice guy, perhaps a little boring. He finally thought he found someone who would love him back for the rest of his life, and married her. She was working at the time, and she was not attractive, to me, but he treated her like a queen. She didn’t want kids, but quit her job and she stayed at home and packed on the pounds for 3 years (which she could ill afford to do to begin with), and she got bored, and she wasn’t haaaaaaaapy. So she got a contract job, and he came home one night after going to an Xmas party to find she had half the shit in the house (all of which HE bought) packed up.

    She kept saying that it wasn’t his fault, and that she wanted to make it as easy as possible, and to part amicably, which of course crushed him, but since he was a nice guy, he wanted to see her be happy, and so they parted.

    Well, as the divorce was finalizing, her contract job fell through, and she was hurting for money, so as things were finalizing she changed her terms. She started asking for cash. Then alimony, then she wanted him to take equity from his retirement funds, and then started asking him about his stock options in the company he had worked for 15 years.

    Well, in the end, he ended up buying her off for about $50k in cash, but it was a near thing, and he almost ended up having to sell his house he had worked so hard for.

    He got off lucky, but, because he wasn’t entertaining her, she got bored and left. She at least didn’t sleep around on him, like some I have seen (and experienced).

    I am a protector. I am a provider. I am not an entertainer.

  • JUtRdr

    “Why? Seems like you are excellently positioned for that and at 41 as a man it is not to late at all.”

    It is too late to find someone who will bond to me and I to her. Mid-20s was the time for that. The risks at this age are far greater than the rewards.

  • Wudang

    “Forget the primping, preening Faux Alpha PUAs. Hunt yourself down a Polite Guy with potential. Educated, good career prospects, reliable. Good husband potential. If he’s imperfect, ask yourself just how perfect YOU are.

    Exactly! That’s the strategy. In my view, it’s the best strategy by far, and this is a good time for women to employ it – these guys are underappreciated in general in this SMP, and are therefore a “bargain.””

    Yes, good betas are 50% of these days or something like that. They were much more expensive 50 years ago when much more women pursued them.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    “The women in the non-fiddle pool may not want the guy from the fiddling pool.”

    Fiddling certainly doesn’t prepare women, or men for that matter, to be parents. I swear, my generation (X) will probably be the first where a sizable portion not only never has kids. Also, those who do (later) may not live long enough to enjoy being grandparents.

  • Strauss

    “It is too late to find someone who will bond to me and I to her. Mid-20s was the time for that.”

    Damn, that was somewhat demotivating as a guy leaving mid-20s (28) and beginning to learn game, sometimes i too wonder if it is too late.

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

      @Strauss

      Damn, that was somewhat demotivating as a guy leaving mid-20s (28) and beginning to learn game, sometimes i too wonder if it is too late.

      No it is not! I think 28 is the age of peak attractiveness for men, though they can maintain and even improve with age, depending. You’re just getting started, and you have a lot of time.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    I think that’s the median age of 1st marriage. And I’ve not seen geographic breakdowns. NY, LA, maybe Chicago and a few other really large cities undoubtedly push this number up. Factor those out, and median age for guys in other parts of the country may be as low as 25.

    Not that it means anything : ) but I’ve eyeballed the stats. By age 33 (my age) ~ 75-80% of guys are off the market (married, cohabitating, or otherwise coupled). What are women’s odds finding single guys they like interested in settling down at that point? Probably pretty low : |

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

      @Megaman

      What are women’s odds finding single guys they like interested in settling down at that point? Probably pretty low : |

      That’s a good point. In general, men single in their 30s are likely to be less commitment-oriented – they’re probably the guys who spent their 20s as players. Maybe at that point you’ve got a singles population largely comprised of previously promiscuous men and women. I’ve always figured they get with each other, but I imagine they marry less overall.

  • JUtRdr

    Strauss, it is never to late to learn game.

    Whether or not your character will allow you to benefit from it is a different matter. I really am unwilling adopt the lifelong dark triad traits necessary to ensure that a modern American woman is properly enticed, enraptured, and won’t take my children in a fit of whimsy. Of course, a woman with a strong character and strong personal ethics can override the instincts, but with a society that encourages it, it is like gambling. And of course, the best women get taken off the market early and remain off it, so those remaining require increasing investment in time to find.

    I recommend all men educate themselves on the nature of women, but beware of how quickly it all loses its luster.

  • also intj

    I just don’t buy this whole notion that women have to be dark gamed to stay married. It doesn’t square with the many happily married couples I see around me.

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

      I just don’t buy this whole notion that women have to be dark gamed to stay married. It doesn’t square with the many happily married couples I see around me.

      Oh boy, don’t get me started. I’ve concluded that the men pushing this agenda are toxic human beings. Their own relationships sound horrendous, and I shudder to think of them as parents.

      The bottom line is that if you need to Dark Triad your relationship to keep your woman interested, you did a very poor job of selecting a partner.

  • JUtRdr

    also intj, do you also compare the unmarried ones?

    It’s odd, we all seem to have certain demographics that seem obvious to us, but yet others have no experience with it.

    I have about 20 male straight friends. Including my brothers among them, there are 5 children from these men. I have a few gay friends, but I think it is unfair to throw them into the comparison. I have no explanation for my anecdotal evidence, but I see a lot of men not having kids due to uncertainty around me. My good friend (former Army ranger, in first Gulf) has no kids, though he married a good girl who had a teen daughter. The guy I mentioned in the story prior in this thread has none. Of my 4 brothers, only one has a kid, and that is all they plan to have, much to my parents distress.

    Some of my co-workers at my old job were married, but one of the other senior managers (a good friend who followed me to my current consulting gig) had the same issues I did, and at least 4 other guys in the office were headed that way.

    I guess we all see what we want to reinforce our beliefs.

    Maybe that is because

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    “It doesn’t square with the many happily married couples I see around me.”

    They don’t count for much, apparently. That goes for happily unmarried couples, too. That’s the message I’ve noticed online, anyway.

  • also intj

    I admit, I basically know married people. And they stay that way.

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

      @also intj

      I admit, I basically know married people. And they stay that way.

      That has also been my experience. I haven’t had any close friends divorce, but there have been a few divorces in the community one hears about. Of the dozen or so I’m aware of, three have been men announcing they’re gay, and the rest have been due to male infidelity. (In one case, the couple were both unfaithful with the same man, ugh.)

      In addition, the vast majority of husbands – probably 90% – are beta guys. I’m not saying women never go Eat Pray Love, or that every marriage reflects an amazing sex life. I will say that sometimes it makes sense to see if your eyes confirm what you’ve heard online. In my case, there’s little overlap, but I acknowledge that this varies enormously according to socioeconomic status.

  • also intj

    Yeah, sometimes it gets really depressing to read posts. I appreciate reading your posts, Megaman, along with those of MuleChewingBriar, J, and others. There are a lot of very happy couples out there, and sometimes I think that gets lost in the shuffle.

  • JUtRdr

    Also intj, apologies for depressing you, that was not my intent. I simply dropped in to add some MGTOW perspective. We are all in different stages in life, and we need to make decisions that are best for us. We can make good decisions that impact the quality of our life when we have good information. I only wanted to add a little to what I feel is an important topic.

    With that said, I will retire back to lurking. Susan, thank you kindly for this great forum.

    Best,
    Just Under the Radar.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @also intj
    I appreciate your apprecation, and your outlook : )

    I’ve got friends who are still single, but I’m optimistic they’ll achieve successful relationships. Susan provides a lot of positive advice that I’ve passed along to my female AND male friends.

  • Marie

    @DogSquat
    Thanks for that. Your response made me feel a lot better and made me see the advice on this blog in a new light.

    @AlphaRising
    You’re acting like I singlehandedly made the SMP the way it is, and can simply fix it by myself. I’m sorry that it seems like you have been hurt in the past, but I do think girls have it just as bad. If I were you I might feel a bit better knowing that you have more time than I do to find a quality relationship. It seems that I have a glaring expiration date by 30.

    @Susan
    Thanks so much for clarifying. What really compounded my exasperation and led to my first comment on your blog was that I lost a quality man after a long term relationship – Ivy League grad, an athlete, with a warm, caring personality. He would have been a great dad. Your advice made me very nervous that I’ll never find someone that great again. And because I am in grad school now, according to your advice that also leaves me with even less options! I do usually enjoy reading your blog – it keeps things in perspective, and I will continue to read. It just all seems like too much sometimes, you know? Have you imagined your 20 year old self’s reaction to your blog?
    I also hate thinking of marriage and finding someone you can love as some sort of formula with probabilities that will increase your chances of success. It’s exactly like DogSquat said haha-it’s like finding out how hotdogs are made. It’s nearly enough to make you want to stop eating hot dogs!

    @Chase
    Thanks for the advice!

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

      @Marie

      And because I am in grad school now, according to your advice that also leaves me with even less options! I do usually enjoy reading your blog – it keeps things in perspective, and I will continue to read. It just all seems like too much sometimes, you know? Have you imagined your 20 year old self’s reaction to your blog?

      How does grad school leave you with less options? I’m not saying that at all! I met my husband in grad school. To clarify, I’m not saying that women should try and find a husband by 22. There are bloggers who say that – I’m not one of them. I am saying that if you found a great guy at this age, don’t break up just because you’re young. It sounds like you had a bad breakup – that sucks and I’m sorry. He was not the right man for you to marry. But the same woman (you) that attracted such a great guy – the Whole Package – to a LTR will attract other quality guys. There are lots of good men out there! Remember, you only need one – I blog to help you get there. I’ll acknowledge that it may seem cold sometimes to approach relationships the way I approach strategic planning – but I think it’s a valid approach in a time when so many women are reaching 40 and wondering out loud why they never found the right guy.

      Like you, I would have found this blog somewhat alarming when I was 20. My friends and I were reading Cosmo like it was gospel back then, and filling our heads with terrible advice. We had it easier though – the marriage rate was higher, men were not lagging behind women, and we didn’t have hookup culture. A high status college guy increased his status by “going steady” with an attractive girl. Players only got with sluts, and neither group ever had relationships. It’s more complicated (and worse) now.

      As I said earlier, I’m sorry you’ve found recent posts grim. I’ll try to lighten up the mood in the next couple of weeks. The last thing I want to do is make young women more anxious. It’s important that you know the reality of the SMP, but having that knowledge gives you a big advantage.

  • also intj

    JUtRdr, you personally aren’t depressing me. When I read the manosphere as a whole, yes, it depresses me. I like to see people happy together, and think the majority are. Please don’t lurk. I apologize if I offended you.

  • ConcernedMama

    First-time commenter, here. I fell down the rabbit hole of the manosphere several months ago when Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) linked to Roissy (something for which I’ll never forgive him, by the way). As the mother of two almost-five-year-old boys, I’ve had many sleepless nights since then worrying about how they would fare in the world represented by these sites. And thank Sweet Jesus I don’t have a girl!! It seems that I was born about 5-10 years too early (I just turned 38) to completely experience this nightmare “dating” culture in its full horror, and I feel “got-out-of-Poland-in-August-1939″ lucky.

    So many of the female desires and behaviors described in this culture are utterly bewildering to me. I’ve been happily married for ten years to a man who is undisputedly the world’s best husband. And by most PUA standards, he’s a total Beta. (He does have degrees—including a PhD—from elite universities and makes great money, so maybe that adds to his “SMV,” if you calculate that.) He’s socially capable, but you wouldn’t look twice at him when he walks down the street, and he certainly doesn’t “own the room.” He has self-esteem without arrogance, and humility without insecurity. He’s attentive, adoring, loyal, an amazing father, does laundry, buys gifts, and generally does everything right. He’s sweet and goofy and loves geeky strategy board games and collecting baseball cards. He was never a chick magnet but didn’t get bitter about it; he just worked and studied hard, did things he enjoyed, knew who he was (i.e. he didn’t like the bar scene and wasn’t going to look for girls there), and kept trying. Moreover, he made his very strong interest in me known immediately and passionately, and far from being turned off, I loved it. We knew we wanted to get married as early as our second date. I always knew I wanted a “Beta,” though I obviously wouldn’t have categorized it as such, and the shy(ish) nerdy types (perhaps not conventionally “hot,” but with a quiet cuteness) always attracted me.

    Most important, though, and this is something I rarely see emphasized on these sites: My husband and I are from similar backgrounds, have common values, and a similar world view (perhaps best encapsulated in compatible senses of humor). It seems that in the manosphere/gender-dynamicsphere/whatever, women are valued almost exclusively for their looks, followed distantly by their “agreeableness” (read: submissiveness), and men (if I take what I read at face value) for their so-called Alpha traits. But few people seem to mention the importance of shared values, outlooks, and goals.

    Kudos to Ian Ironwood for recognizing that the quality women might not be the conventionally “hot,” popular ones you’ve been slavering over since high school. Since the age of 3, I’d been told by adults both male and female that I was beautiful, but apart from two high-school boyfriends (one serious [ a fellow nerd], one less so [a semi-popular evangelical Christian who never even tried to kiss me]), a lot of casual male attention when I studied and worked for brief stints in the U.K., and one beau of 6-months’ duration when I returned, I was not highly sought after by my male peers. I wasn’t bubbly, especially in bar-type situations; I was nerdy; and I was told (again, by men and women) that I was either “cute” or “classically lovely”–i.e. I wasn’t tanned, bleached, underweight, and easy, I guess.

    As for all the complaints about rampant sluttiness, I can understand the frustration. The whole “girls gone wild” phenomenon is appalling, and I’m all for delaying till marriage or at least doling it out very sparingly prior to that. But just as Alpha behavior is rewarded, so, too, is slutty behavior! Good girls watch the slutty girls get all the attention starting as early as junior high! Is it not just a tiny bit understandable when, seeing that virtue is no longer rewarded, good girls give up and give in? That they think, “Oh, easy and early sex must be what guys today really want!”? The hypocrisy of all these men obsessing about how to get laid as much as possible and then complaining that women are too slutty is unbelievable!

    Kudos also to A Definite Beta Guy for exhorting men to tone down their expectations a little, too. Yeah, I know, women are hypergamous and too picky, etc., etc, but so many of these guys also seem to think they’re entitled to the Porn Princess of their dreams. (The mere fact that “hot” has eclipsed “beautiful” as the ultimate accolade for female attractiveness says a lot about our times.) God forbid she have braces, a BMI over 20, short hair, or any of the other 1,000 unacceptable flaws I’ve read so much about in recent months. Of course you want someone attractive! No one’s asking you to accept an obese troglodyte, but perhaps broaden your definition of what constitutes good-looking just a little. Consider that we live in the most surface-oriented, visual culture in human history. You (those of you in your 20s and early 30s) have grown up surrounded by airbrushed photos, carefully constructed online identities, and extreme scrutiny of women’s bodies pouring out of every media outlet, and it has shaped expectations in profoundly unhealthy ways.

    Apologies for the interminable ramble, but all this stuff has been troubling me deeply in recent months, and it’s been rather like a car accident I can’t take my eyes from! Still, take heart, young (would-be) lovers: I have to believe that good people can still find each other. Otherwise, I can’t bear to think about what the future will look like for my sons.

  • ConcernedMama

    I guess I should clarify that HUS is definitely the most sensible and temperate of the sites I’ve read. You probably realize that most of my despair, outrage, revulsion, indignation, etc., is in reference to material I’ve seen elsewhere.

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

      @Concerned Mama

      Welcome, I am so glad you decided to comment! I really appreciate your perspective. I don’t know when we’ll reach the tipping point of having had “enough” women testify here that they’re attracted to and happy with their beta mates, but I hope we’re getting there. A lot of what I wind up spending time doing here is portraying that reality for people who have fallen into a Bizarro World red pill matrix of their own.

      I’m all for people doing whatever it takes to get them through the night. But I don’t want my views, or my reader’s views, infected by a dark vision of human sexuality and relationships.

      I hope you’ll keep commenting!

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Susan, I think you are on to something re: the avoidance of Direct Display-oriented venues and discretion being the better part of valor. The strategic choice of mating opportunity/venue selection may be the single most important decision that a would-be social engineer makes. He’s operating in a dynamic competitive environment in which his rivals are going to attempt to shape female preferences towards their own strengths and expose his weaknesses.

    For example, a man who went to Harvard will enjoy group settings in which the “…so where did you all go to school?” question comes up. A man with a Lamborghini will seek to provide a comparison opportunity between his car and those of his rivals. A man with washboard abs and a Phuket tan will want to celebrate pool and beach parties. Other environments may showcase athletic ability, a tantalizing hint of discretionary slush funds that *could* be available to the right partner to fuel exotic travel and gifts, and so on.

    Our quasi-mythical HEB-M “total package” individual would be most comfortable in environments that have forcing functions requiring Direct Display of multiple traits in order to even participate at that level of play.

    Imagine a society in which men were showered with praise, gifts, and sex opportunities if they could run the 400m in under, say, 52 seconds. Those who had that ability would be the first to suggest legislation forcing all men to have their 400m race times officially measured and publicly displayed. The HEB-M would similarly want his command of sex, money, and violence to be precede him into a room filled with potential sex partners. The extensive use of expensive (hard to fake) signals, third-party testimonials, and visible prestige brands will allow him to remain gracious and modest in his personal style, and this may be accomplished by becoming a regular at certain trusted venues. The man who relies on Behavioral Correlates over Direct Displays, on the other hand, would hopefully be able to avoid these venues, as they represent cruel traps that have been set up to try to expose and humiliate him.

    Of course, many women have learned to use various screening techniques to determine if potential mates have high performance potential in those three functional areas, and all of them have the potential to be objectified and credentialed. There are venues that align the interests of the HEB-M with those of the woman seeking a HEB-M, and these are places that are set up specifically to force Direct Display.

    Other women may recruit male friends to assist in the filtering mechanism. Perhaps one of the most reliable for a woman is to have a dude buddy in her circle who is a legitimate badass—elite military, MMA fighter, etc.—to help conduct casual “field interviews” out in the bar scene. If a would-be seducer is the type who would rapidly get mauled and become a group-therapy sodomy-pin-cushion in prison, this may be useful to know as said individual would certainly fail in the “Protector” sphere.

    The Protector thing can get short thrift in our metrosexual day and age, but it is no joke. There is a reason that Castiglione wrote that the first quality of his perfect courtier was fighting ability. There is possibly nothing worse that can happen to a man’s alpha status than to be completely dominated in a public fight with another man, particularly if the loser was the one who started it. It’s just very difficult to recover and the effects can be life-altering as the victim relives the beating again and again. Women start to think of him as a liability, even if they won’t say so out loud. These events hardly ever happen in polite society, but the preparation for hypothetical violence remains a key component of the male psyche, the entertainment that men enjoy, and ultimately the way that men compare themselves to other men.

    If a man cannot compete in one of these forced-display hypercompetitive environments, he should probably stay well clear (to paraphrase Milton, “It is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven”). He’s going to have to see himself as an entrepreneur and look for niche opportunities that encourage ambiguity and confusion.

    Young women may be well-served to think of themselves as something akin to NFL players: their highest payday opportunities may be front-loaded to relatively early in life, so they should seek the best deals while they have strong negotiation hands. I suppose that the problem is that many of the most attractive men should rationally follow the opposite strategy—like insurgents, these men will “win by not losing” and need to avoid a potentially catastrophic loss in decisive battle (i.e., divorce court). Of course, therein lies a great social conflict as today’s mothers and fathers may find themselves giving completely different words of advice to their daughters and sons.

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

      @Bastiat Blogger

      If a man cannot compete in one of these forced-display hypercompetitive environments, he should probably stay well clear (to paraphrase Milton, “It is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven”). He’s going to have to see himself as an entrepreneur and look for niche opportunities that encourage ambiguity and confusion.

      It is perhaps not surprising that some men get so into PUA that they do embrace it as an entrepreneurial venture. Even those who aren’t able to monetize the lifestyle may blog (and brag) about their conquests. There are many blogs that fit this description.

      I’ve known two women via this blog who have dated men they learned were PUAs, or had been PUAs. In both cases, it was a dealbreaker, though the women were both sort of heartbroken by it. I think it was a massive Demonstration of Low Value – because of its exposure of the Behavioral Correlates approach.

      Young women may be well-served to think of themselves as something akin to NFL players: their highest payday opportunities may be front-loaded to relatively early in life, so they should seek the best deals while they have strong negotiation hands.

      I once wrote about an aspect of Game theory – the Eligible Bachelor Paradox – that confirms this:

      . In any auction, there will be “strong bidders” and “weak bidders.” Strong bidders are very confident of their ability to win the auction. However, weak bidders understand they can be outbid and often bid more aggressively, while the strong bidders hold out for a great deal. Empirical studies of auctions show that weak bidders often win. In dating, a strong bidder is a woman who feels very confident of her ability to attract men, while a weak bidder knows that she is less attractive and faces stiff competition.

      You can see how this works intuitively if you just consider that with a lot at stake in getting it right in one shot, it’s the women who are confident that they are holding a strong hand who are likely to hold out and wait for the perfect prospect.

      It’s all about the checklist! Meanwhile, women holding a weaker hand make moves.

      Where have all the most appealing men gone? Married young, most of them—and sometimes to women whose most salient characteristic was not their beauty, or passion, or intellect, but their decisiveness.

      Grimein does close with a very important caveat:

      Game theory deals with how best to win the prize, but it works only when you can decide what’s worth winning.

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/01/25/hookinguprealities/the-new-sex-math-probabilities-and-opportunities/

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

    QUOTE FAIL! Take two!

    Young women may be well-served to think of themselves as something akin to NFL players: their highest payday opportunities may be front-loaded to relatively early in life.

    This is a very good metaphor. Sadly women would need to understand that their sexual power does diminish with age and is sooner than they think. That is probably as politically incorrect as slut shaming.

  • Mike C

    When a man is in love with a woman, that woman will become beautiful to him.

    Your guy doesn’t experience you visually the same way a stranger does – no kidding.

    To be sure – that’s no excuse for sucking down an extra bucket of hot wings every night. Love is only so powerful, after all, and we’ve got to help it out wherever we can – but it is there and it’s on the so-called “dumpy” woman’s side.

    This is a funny thing about men that’s rarely talked about. I have experienced it in the past, and so have several of my friends.

    Dogsquat,

    As you would say, steel on target. This is most definitely true.

    And the fact that this is true is something women can take much comfort in. As you said though, it isn’t an excuse to gain 50-100 pounds and totally disregard one’s physical appearance. But yes, a man who loves a woman sees her through a different “visual filter” than just a random guy looking at her.

  • Mike C

    I bounced in the clubs, but I observed that I got a lot more attention from women when I was rude to them. I can remember specific examples where I had to deal with a fight situation, and had no time to be polite to this very beautiful blond girl, and I got in her face (just a little over, she was tall) told her to ‘stfu’ in a very assertive method and then trounced a troublemaker. She immediately came onto me right afterwards.

    Jutdr, glad to have you as part of the former bouncer club along with me and Dogsquat. :)

    This reminds me of a funny story. When I first started bouncing, I was definitely more in the nice and polite camp. There was this one girl who was a regular coming in at least a couple times a week, but some time during the night she would always storm out of the bar in a fit and with drama usually due to some drama (she was a total drama queen). Anyways, one night after I had been studying Game for some months, she came in to the bar and was hanging out near the front door. I thought it would be funny to mock her by acting all dramatic and storming out the door right in front of her. So I did. I walked back in, and she was smiling and laughing with sort of a look of “who is this guy”, but it was clear I had sparked some interest. Go figure.

  • Mike C

    I believe there is a significant portion of reformed betas that have a two pronged strategy of (1) pursuing easy lays while (2) continuing to keep an eye out for a quality girl. While such guys will often appear to be “the whole package,” they will usually decide early on when getting to know a girl which strategic prong applies to her. If a girl seeking an LTR unwittingly exhibits flaky or unbecoming behavior, she might be bringing out the cad (first prong) in a guy who could otherwise be interested in a serious relationship (second prong). In this sense, female flippancy — so common in today’s post-feminist dating market — is quite insidiously self-destructive to many women. I’d be curious to know if other guys here agree with this.

    ______________________________________________

    LA Dude,

    Yes, absolutely. In my view, there is a sort of Maslow theory of needs you can apply to sex and relationships from both a male and female perspective.

    Someone who is starving an dehydrated probably isn’t focusing too much effort and mental energy on anything related to self-actualization.

    I think this is pretty much factual reality (although there might be a few guys who take issue with this) but a guy’s need for sex trumps his need for a relationship and vice versa for a girl although both sexes want both. Really, this is obvious. Susan says her number one search that leads women here is “why can’t I get a boyfriend”. I doubt many women are googling “why can’t I get laid” which is probably the number 1 search that guys run. My guess is it would trump “why can’t I get a girlfriend” by 10 to 1.

    So with that has a starting point, I think most guys who kind of “figure this all out” run with that two pronged strategy. First, how do I get laid with any girl I find physically attractive, and secondarily, how do I get a relationship with a “quality girl”. Just being honest. After I got divorced in spring 2005, I was still a mess in many ways, but by fall 2005 I had put the divorce behind me, was back in top physical shape, and after listening to Interviews with Dating Gurus by David D for months, I was really starting to understand and use Game effectively. The next several months I had success like I had never experienced. I really had no intention of a serious LTR, but in January 2006 I met my current GF. I quickly realized she was not like 95% of the other women I was encountering in the bouncer gig and I “locked it down”. But honestly, if something really bad happened and we were not together, I’d follow the 2 prong strategy you outline. Really, if you are an attractive guy in this SMP, you’d be foolish not to. But you are right that many guys are going to quickly filter girls, and it isn’t just about sexual history, or how fast they give it up. I’d say some guys are realizing that any girl who throws too much BS in the beginning, either shit-testing, or flaking, or whatever isn’t LTR material.

  • Mike C

    Sadly women would need to understand that their sexual power does diminish with age and is sooner than they think.
    _____________________________________________
    Quote I read….”A beautiful woman dies two deaths”

    Again though, as Dogsquat articulated correctly, a man who loves a woman sees her differently.

  • Mike C

    The man who relies on Behavioral Correlates over Direct Displays, on the other hand, would hopefully be able to avoid these venues, as they represent cruel traps that have been set up to try to expose and humiliate him.

    ________________________________________________

    BastiatBlogger,

    Really good cogent insights all around. I always enjoy reading the thoughts of someone obviously smart with a different twist.

    Let me suggest something to mull over. I’d argue that often the Behavioral Correlates trump Direct Displays. Purely, logically and rationally you’d think that is absurd, but I’ve seen enough to know that is often true.

    Take this quality “confidence” that seems to me to be the single most important non-physical quality to women. And when you think about confidence is purely a state of mind. You could have someone with nothing tangible behind that confidence.

    Case in point. It is pretty well known that many beautiful women are actually insecure about their looks. Logically, it makes no sense, but it exists.

    There is actually a male corollary to that, and that is you could have a guy who is objectively attractive across a number of objective metrics (height, build, educational status, income, etc.) yet lacks “confidence”. I know because I was that guy for a long time. The flip side to that would be the guy who really has nothing concrete…say short, uneducated, barely making ends meet but radiates “an aura of confidence” that really is just effective self-delusion. I’d argue the latter actually can do better than the former especially beyond an initial meeting and the escalation phases.

    I’m not really sure why the behavioral correlates work as well as they do. My pet theory is they are an evolved heuristic. Essentially, the heuristic that I think many women run is “If a guy is acting like he really is the shit and high value, then he really must be”.

  • Dogsquat

    @JUtRdr:

    LOL.

    We share similar taste (that means excellent) in weapons.

    How’d the Bodyguard do? I’ve heard good things about them, but I’ve never fired one. Any jams?

    The .380 is a much maligned round, IMO.

    People talk a lot of noise about stopping power and foot-pounds and get Kimber tattoos…and then leave their full frame M1911 at home when the weather warms up because they can’t comfortably conceal it.

    I picked up a Diamondback .380 for the dog days of summer, and I’ve been very happy with it. It’s not picky about ammo brand/type, either. I will admit to a slight preference for my normal C/C weapon which is a compact XDM in .40SW, but it’s not always practical. The Diamondback doesn’t even print when you just stick it in your front pocket.

    I love my 686, too. That thing just feels right in your hand.

  • Dogsquat

    Jesus said:

    “the idea that the man portrayed at the beginning of the book is desirable or attractive at all (and not just to a few odd balls, but to enough female readers to make it a blockbuster) is a bit disheartening.”
    ____________________________

    Here’s a couple things you might want to consider:

    The medium inevitably distorts the message. You know that written stories are a team effort – the author scribbles the words, and the reader brings the story to life inside their mind. As you’re well aware, no two people experience written stories the same – too much “filling in” goes on in the mind of the reader.

    Couple that with this:

    Women in general have a herd instinct that tests out around 180,000 brake-horsepower. They experience intense pressure to conform, especially in semi-casual relationships like co-workers.

    So, when a co-worker hands them a book and says,”Holy shit! This is the ultimate fantasy! Read it so we can reassure and affirm each other about our life choices, and validate our sexuality!” they’re already primed to read The Ultimate Fantasy.

    They’ll at least find something to like about the book, if only to avoid giving offense in the inevitable breakroom conversation.

    But none of them finds exactly the same stuff attractive. It’s impossible. It’s not a movie – it’s a book. There’s too much room to mingle their own ideas and preferences with the author’s words. Too much is left unsaid by the author. Even if two women read the book and find it equally titillating, the mental movies they create as they read and think aren’t going to be identical at all.

    I hope that makes sense. My shifts at work are screwed up and my sleep schedule is fubared. I’m super tired. Hell, I might be dreaming right now.

  • Mike C

    So many of the female desires and behaviors described in this culture are utterly bewildering to me.
    _________________________________________________
    Had a VERY interesting conversation with a co-worker M Friday evening that makes we wonder if some of this is generational?

    M is probably early to mid 40s. Really cool woman with a couple of daughters in that 18-23 range. For information, T also has an 18 year old daughter. All of these girls have been to our workplace.

    Anyways, G is the player co-worker I’ve mentioned here a great number of times whose number is 200+. He fits the mold. Cocky, brash, very extroverted, etc. G is 29. Then there is co-worker N. More subdued, a little younger, and I’d say not a bad looking guy. Objectively, I think I could make the case N has a better face than G.

    OK, so I’m talking to M about all kinds of stuff and work gossip, and G comes up in conversation. And she specifically tells me about her girls and T’s girl being at the workplace seeing G and raving “HOW HOTTTT HE IS”. M tells me how aghast and incredulous she is to this, and is like NO, and says she just doesn’t see it, and thinks N is way better looking, and wanted to set her daughter up with N.

    I just found it interesting how a woman in 40s would pick N over G hands down no doubt, while a bunch of younger girls were creaming over seeing G. I’ve got no doubt of the strong preference for alpha type behavior correlates amongst many younger women, but I”m wondering how much of it is instinctual versus how much is some aspect of how girls have been raised the last 20 years. There has ALWAYS been a proclivity for the “badboy”

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077631/

    But I do wonder if it something that has escalated to a much higher degree in the recent decade

  • Dogsquat

    @Mike C and JUtRdr:

    Duz that maik tree fingerz worf uv bownserz? Me wuz a bownser an dat meanz I m Dum.

    Tha intornet pepul told me so.

  • Dogsquat

    Maybe I am dumb, seeing as I posted comment 190 to the wrong thread.

  • Mike C

    It seems that in the manosphere/gender-dynamicsphere/whatever, women are valued almost exclusively for their looks, followed distantly by their “agreeableness” (read: submissiveness), and men (if I take what I read at face value) for their so-called Alpha traits. But few people seem to mention the importance of shared values, outlooks, and goals.

    Overall, good comment, but I’ll admit I want to nitpick on some of this here. Firstly, I think people should be “valued” on things that are not necessarily linked in any way to sexual attractiveness. I’m not sure how many men in the manosphere believe women should be “valued” for their looks anymore than a guy should be “valued” for his status or income earning capacity. But we are simply lying to ourselves if we want to pretend those things don’t play into sexual attractiveness. Look, in terms of sexual attraction, looks are important to men. I realize many women don’t like that. I find it troublesome though to conflate that with what is “valued” if the subtle message is there is something morally wrong for men to put an emphasis on looks and they just need to get over that.

    Secondly, I think it is a MASSIVE mistake to equate agreeableness with submissiveness. They are not the same, and the fact that you want to equate them says something about your perspective. Agreeablness doe NOT mean Stepford wife, but it certainly means not being a nagging, aggressive, ball-busting bitch which is what many “empowered” and “independent” women think is the way to interact with men.

    Anyways, you mentioned you have sons I believe. For their sake, I hope you will continue to learn and survey the landscape and inform and prepare them accordingly. Honestly, my Mom fucked me up when it came to women and dating. Now I owe my educational and career success largely to her influence, but I had to rewire myself from alot of faulty programming.

  • INTJ

    So I just read this article.

    At first I thought the author was joking, but sadly she appears to be dead serious. I hate a lot of things about Mitt Romney, but one of them isn’t his wife raising their kids without any domestic help.

  • Just1X

    @ConcernedMama

    FWIW (I have no kids), in your position I would get your sons to bond with your hubbie and spend time doing boy/man things with him. Mix in a judicious amount of ‘positive’ game and some mild red-pill.

    Once they start school they’re gonna see a lot of spin put on girls are better than boys. If they buy into this and then discover the red-pill later, that’s when men get severe reality whiplash. A common reaction to that is to sleep around experimenting with PUA stuff. Better that they start off confident in their self worth, which to me, is the important part of game. PUA, not to my tastes really but I can’t say that it isn’t a forseeable outcome of the free-sex marketplace.

  • femalenerd

    Ironwood’s post stroke a cord.

    I am a 42 divorced female nerd (my ex went all EatPrayLove on me: am I the only woman that has experienced that? Mid-life crisis is poison). Not only I am a eminent scientist who’s been to the top universities in the world (Cambridge, MIT, Harvard) but I am above average attractive. I never dated until I went to college, in school nerdy boys would not approach me thinking they couldn’t get me, alpha men were intimidated by my intelligence, to top it all I was very shy, so I was in a catch-22 situation. Until I met my husband at 20. He was (is) of a complimentary intelligence to mine: arty, emotional, very talented painter… He knocked my socks off, we married, had two children and I was happy. Never looked anywhere else, until 2 years ago when he did the ‘I am not happy, love but not in love’ thing and went off with a hairdresser leaving me heart broken with two very young little girls to look after.

    It has taken me this long to get up and start ‘looking’. I have found that it is like going back to school again. Men my generation are still intimidated by me (!). My male friends tell me to act dumb but even if I do, they look me up in LinkedIn, Google or PubMed and they stop calling. As I said I am quite attractive and this results in many orbiters but nothing sets. I have to say that I am not online, I meet men in functions, seminars, social occasions. I’ve only seriously dated my ex and that was over 20 years ago, all this ‘game’ ‘pills’ and ‘online dating’ is daunting.

    The only sustainable relationship that I have managed to have, and still do, is with a man who approached me at university after a seminar. He is the ultimate nerd, a mathematician, who asked me for my number and actually called me. One big caveat: he is 15 years younger than me.

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

      @femalenerd

      Welcome, and thanks so much for leaving a comment. If pretty women have it harder, smart pretty women are really up against it. Men are always quick to say that female intelligence and career achievement doesn’t turn them on. OK, but I’ll go further – for lots of men it’s a turnoff, as you have experienced. On the other hand, you’re unlikely to be happy with a man of lower status, intelligence, etc. This is a real challenge for highly accomplished women.

      I’m sorry your husband ran off with a hairdresser (such a cliche!) but glad to hear you are getting back out there. It sounds to me like you’re doing all the right things, interacting with men with common interests. I don’t know if you’re looking to remarry, but personally I vote for enjoying the 27 yo for a while :)

  • Wudang

    ” I’d say some guys are realizing that any girl who throws too much BS in the beginning, either shit-testing, or flaking, or whatever isn’t LTR material.”

    I interperate that as a sign that she will need to be gamed hard and often, forever, but that even if you can do that you will eventually struggle with her. My guess is those girls will have huge difficulties remaining attracted to you and behaving well after the initial crush type love period ends somewhere arround year 2 or 3. I think such girls display signs of low and unstable dopamine levels and wanting you to keep them up. That is an impossible task in the long run. Shit testing is fine, but too much, too harsh and in combination with too much flakiness tells you that you are dealing with a woman that has attraction demands that are hopeless to meet long term.

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

      I think such girls display signs of low and unstable dopamine levels and wanting you to keep them up.

      Agreed. Dopamine issues are real and correlate to promiscuity as well as high risk taking and all manner of addictive behaviors. It’s true for males as well – most usually found in Dark Triad types.

      There’s a test for the DRD4 dopamine receptor mutation that appears responsible for at least some of this. I hope one day we can buy that test at CVS :)

  • Wudang

    Dogsquat:

    “There is actually a male corollary to that, and that is you could have a guy who is objectively attractive across a number of objective metrics (height, build, educational status, income, etc.) yet lacks “confidence”. I know because I was that guy for a long time. The flip side to that would be the guy who really has nothing concrete…say short, uneducated, barely making ends meet but radiates “an aura of confidence” that really is just effective self-delusion. I’d argue the latter actually can do better than the former especially beyond an initial meeting and the escalation phases.

    I’m not really sure why the behavioral correlates work as well as they do. My pet theory is they are an evolved heuristic. Essentially, the heuristic that I think many women run is “If a guy is acting like he really is the shit and high value, then he really must be”.”

    I think the hindbrain has evolved to rely quite heavily on the behavioral correlates because back in hte day they actually were better long term predictors of resources. Back in the day a guyt with a really nice hut, top quality spears, some great pottery and blankets, height and a lot of muscle but who displayed little confidence probably would be displaying signs of for some reason be heading downwards (he has been thrown out of the hunting party, his father has chosen the younger brother to take over his position as chief, he knows the nieghboring tribe will attack and take it all away etc. etc.) or that he just has what he has because he inherited it or was given it by his sisters alpha husband or something which means in the future he does not himself have what it takes to keep requiring resources. On the streets in a really bad neighborhood today my guess would be that having a nicer car, flash clothes and being buff won`t get you far in the future without confidence because someone IS going to pick up on it and challenge you and then what? A mamooth hunter with a lot of muscle but crippling insecurity probably is showing signs that his muscle isen`t worth all that much because his eye hand coordination is so bad he never hits with his spear or he has crippling mamooth aproach anxiety and so rarely brings home any meat. So historically behavior correlates have been the best predictor of long term and very imprtantly the key to revealing if for some reason the woman does not understand there is something wrong that the objective displays of status and resources does not reveal.

  • JUtRdr

    Susan, quick delurk to clarify one point about what I said about relationships, because I feel it was misrepresenting what I was trying to get across.

    I don’t have any dark game traits. I do anything for the people I love, and while I have had family and well chosen friends who respect and appreciate it. On the dating front, once given that love, women tended to manipulate me while subtly disrespecting me, eventually despising me for it. I know, I know. Not new in the world, but it was a shock to me. That being said, the traits that used to make me valuable make me vulnerable in society today, and I can’t change the core of my nature, and I am no longer the young adrenaline (testosterone?) junkie, so it is better to walk a path away from the danger.

    From here forward in the thread, I’ll stick to chatting with Dog and Mike about lead and steel.

    Mike C, thanks for the welcome. I still work security a couple times a year for a small alternative arts venue that does New Years and Halloween parties. I’m still on the clock for a brew pub down town, and I used to work Saturday nights until a couple years ago, but I don’t have any shifts and only sub in if I get a call and I am in town. I started working security in 1992, but really earned my bones in a nightclub around 1994-1996, which catered to a late night eclectic crowd that ranged from drunk fisherman, to surly punks, to lumberjacks, to drag divas and many people involved in a strong underground scene. I worked the pit for Sam Black Church, Helmet, Life of Agony, Tree, Honkeyball, Cannibal Corpse and many other shows. Over the years I’ve worked at brew pubs and dive bars, but I also I worked and ran security at raves, reggae shows, and the last gig I did with my team was a big BBQ festival in Southern Maine.

    Dogsquat, heh, yeah, the dumb bouncer stereotype is cliche, but some of them have been some of the most introspective people I have ever met. One of the guys I worked with at the local brewpub is late 50s, bespectacled, and works for the State of Maine assessing juvenile delinquents. I mean, he is THE go to guy in the state. To look at him, you would think fatherly, grandfatherly. But this is a guy who has military experience, studied Aikido all his life, and totes several different conceal weapons when not on the clock. On a Saturday night, he can be found smiling and chatting with all manner of people who have no idea how good it is to have this man protecting a room.

    On .380, I agree on the maligning. I also agree that it’s a tool, and sometimes there are better ones for the job. If you have an accidental fire, of course a bigger extinguisher is better, but sometimes a small one is fine just in the nick of time.

    I am a big fan of the thought that the best gun in the world is the one you have with you when you need one. (also the Ranger philosophy of ‘Two is one, one is none’)…

    With that in mind, I tend to always carry, and like you, Dogsquat, I found the larger calibers not always viable. I carried my .45 XD (love the .40 XDM, got a friend to get one for his bedstand) for a while, but after hot days on the motorcycle, and not being able to take the jacket off for the harness, some alternative became necessary. I tried the SP101 for a while, but it was just too heavy. But man, when I tried that Sig p238 with the scandium frame, I was blown away with how fantastic it was, 14 oz with a 1911 style!!! A Desantis pocket holster and it goes right in the front pocket of any pants or shorts I wear, another 6 round mag for the back pocket. No excuses not to carry it now.

    I love the way Kimbers look, but man, if I had one, it would be a shelf queen. Too few opportunities to carry it, and I never show anyone when I carry, so the beauty is a wasted. I have never had a factory round jam or fail in my XD, so I am not sure if the actual tactical advantage. Plus I like my guide rod Lasermax a lot now that it is working right.

    On the 686, that was my first gun, and a gift from my Dad after I helped him build his machine shop. From the first day I fired a round through that, I loved the feel. I grew up on a farm and so shooting was just natural from spitballs to apples on willow sticks, to slingshots, to BB guns, then to 22s and beyond. I also reload bullets with my Dad, which allows me to really spend quality time with him before that time passes.

    On that Bodyguard, I was pretty impressed with the performance, especially with the variety of ammo we fed it. Zero jams. The trigger pull was very stiff at first, especially compared to my Sig. But it really started to work in after a couple hundred rounds, and we were just chewing the centers out of reactive targets at 10 yards. The one complaint I would have really wasn’t a factor in shooting yesterday, but it bears mentioning. That built in laser is not really useful, the button is too stiff and located so you have to hard finger it before you obtain the trigger, and it was significantly less powerful than my XD lasermax, and WAY less powerful than a Crimson trace (SP101).

    Oh yeah, I am also a serious flashoholic and laser enthusiast.

  • Wudang

    “Agreed. Dopamine issues are real and correlate to promiscuity as well as high risk taking and all manner of addictive behaviors. It’s true for males as well – most usually found in Dark Triad types.

    There’s a test for the DRD4 dopamine receptor mutation that appears responsible for at least some of this. I hope one day we can buy that test at CVS ”

    For men too much masturabation leads to dopamine issues. It afects you differently than sex with a partner. It creates a lack that needs to be filled, neediness. Esepcially if it is done fast and hard. Slow and with awareness leading to full body orgasms don`t have as much of the same effect, but few guys know how.

    I think modern junk food and everything concerned with the hyperstimulation of modern life creates whacky and unstable dopamine systems in need of hyperstimulation. That effects men and women equally but how it manifests in relationships is different.

    Whatever neurochemicals and hormones are stimulated by attention I think they are also getting out of whack in modern people. More so in women though because attention is more their currency and they seek it more and get it more. I visited the blog of a woman who has 80 000 hits a day blogging about her mundane life the other day. I am convinced such a woman, even if healthy when she started out, would have somehow messed with her psychology regarding attention in ways that make her a very difficult, probably hopeless partner.

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

    Femalenerd…one thought: You might do better with men whose fields are NOT in the sciences or in academia. I don’t think that an intelligent and highly-successful businessman, for example, would likely feel intimidated by a woman who is a scientist, no matter how brilliant and eminent in her field she might be…..whereas someone who is in the same field, or even in academia or research at all, would more likely view her as a competitor, and a competitor he has no hope of catching up with.

  • Ian

    I was replying to write something else, but I’ll second Wudang. All seesawing dopamine levels and no MPOA androgen-receptor density makes Jack a dull boy. (Who expresses neither sexually dominant nor paternal behaviors.)

    Taoists called sex the “flowery battlefield”. IME, Orgasms shoudn’t be wasted, shouldn’t be the goal of male sexuality, and female should outnumber male by a large margin.

  • OffTheCuff

    Concernedmana,

    I remember, a few years ago in Cosmo, an article that exhorted women to sleep with her boyfriends friend, as a way to make him do what she wants. I didn’t think anyone took that seriously, but I was wrong.

    Cosmo is in every grocery store and living room. The manosphere is tame compared to that, and has hardly the same reach. You should be concerned for your sons, but it isn’t Roissy – its the stuff like Cosmo that suffuses our culture and is deemed acceptable enough to be in mass media.

    I, like you, married young. People like us are getting in short supply. It’s not enough to simply close your eyes and hope thingswork out. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

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

      Cosmo is in every grocery store and living room. The manosphere is tame compared to that, and has hardly the same reach. You should be concerned for your sons, but it isn’t Roissy – its the stuff like Cosmo that suffuses our culture and is deemed acceptable enough to be in mass media.

      I think you can make an argument that access to online porn is just as if not more detrimental to the SMP. At least Cosmo isn’t leading to an increase in prescribed treatments.

  • Ian

    I take issue with the word “contemporary”. Is this more contemporary South Asian, Mormon, Muslim, etc. mating strategies, or, more unsustainable (temporary) post-cultural American/European sex logistics?

    Things, especially civilizations, don’t disappear the moment they die, they linger and fester away slowly. It’s hard to notice that a pile of branches isn’t the tree that it used to be. The American culture that the article describes is the temporary logistics of the futureless branch pile. Information about it is useful while it exists, but it’s a mistake to build anything long-lasting around those rules.

    People born into a dead culture can only enjoy it unproductively, abandon it to join a living culture (Muslim, Mormon, Amish…are there any other choices?) or abandon it to start a new one. The easiest tests of whether the culture you were born into has a future – your father’s status in the house (dominant, passive, absent), whether expectations of marriage were continually emphasized, and whether the surrounding community was raised similarly.

  • Abbot

    “have a two pronged strategy of (1) pursuing easy lays while (2) continuing to keep an eye out for a quality girl. ”
    .
    How would this quality girl feel about all those lays? Would she be denigrated and shamed for naturally having the “ewwww factor” and rejecting you for “expressing your sexuality” in this manner, no matter how brilliant your “character?”
    .
    “women would need to understand that their sexual power does diminish with age and is sooner than they think. That is probably as politically incorrect as slut shaming.”
    .
    Then this so-called “politically correct” nonsense is merely denial of inconvenient human nature. Her sexual power diminishes even sooner with each new cock. Her power has strength only if the man who gazes upon her decides that it does. A woman’s sexual power is in the eye of the observer.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    MikeC: That’s an interesting point. I feel that, in periods of uncertainty, an “expensive=good” heuristic is often employed and behavioral correlates piggyback on this.

    Cialdini has a piece about a woman who owns a store that sells Native American jewelry. Before leaving for the weekend, the woman tells one of her employees to mark a certain table or shelf with a sign saying “All Items This Table 1/2 x Normal Price”. The woman goes away for a few days, comes back, and finds that the table in question is clear—everything was sold. Imagine her prize to see that the employee had erroneously written a sign for the table saying “All Items This Table 2 x Normal Price.”

    We can all guess what happened: given a general ignorance of the investment value of Native American jewelry, customers in the shop read the “2x normal price” as indicating that these had suddenly become scarce collector’s items and snapped them up.

    With information search costs, time sensitivity, transaction frictions, and so on taken into account, a person may fall back on cognitive shortcuts to inform a purchase decision. Obviously the point of a behavioral correlate strategy is to generate behaviors that are *highly correlated* with attractive, functional performance traits (procreate, provide, protect).

    Re: confidence. We would expect confidence to be a by-product of having high levels of capacity in these areas, so imitating this confidence even if it is not grounded in accurate self-appraisal may benefit many men and, at the very least, give them a chance. The alternative may be immediate de-selection and oblivion.

    Some traits will be more difficult to fake than others, and of course a man who has the trait in question in abundance will seek to criticize and expose imitators through direct display requirements. This creates the arms race aspect of sexual marketplace competition. I believe that we could predict that behavioral correlate strategies will pay off the most in situations where direct displays have been blocked or are impractical. This has two benefits for the social strategist who relies on BC: 1) less able to determine if the traits useful to her genes are truly present or not, the woman may be forced to rely on “expensive=good”, “confident=$, education, and/or badass” (looks being more difficult to fake, obviously), and other shortcuts that can be hacked in the right circumstances; and 2) the dreaded HEB-Ms will not frequent this area because these men do in fact want clear-cut, unambiguous direct displays to be the dominant social theme (they survive this test easily; others don’t). Thus, the competitive pressures will be lower in ambiguous social situations as the apex predators seek terrain that is optimal for their own strengths.

    I suppose that benefit #2 could work at cross-purposes to the strategist’s goals if highly attractive women started avoiding ambiguity-rich venues in favor of concentrated HEB-M Great White shark feeding grounds, but then again those women would be operating in a very intense competitive funnel with other, equally attractive women once they got there.

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

      @Bastiat Blogger

      Some traits will be more difficult to fake than others, and of course a man who has the trait in question in abundance will seek to criticize and expose imitators through direct display requirements. This creates the arms race aspect of sexual marketplace competition.

      What is the HEB-M’s preferred setting then? It’s not as if all of these “whole package” guys can just head to the polo club or invest a lot of time looking good on the beach. Since they are relatively rare, they must function mostly as AMOGs and socialize along with everyone else. How much control does a HEB-M have over direct display requirements?

      And where should women go to watch this show? :)

  • Abbot

    ““2x normal price” as indicating that these had suddenly become scarce collector’s items and snapped them up.”
    .
    Price = value. Perhaps that is why cheap/abundant is not valued for investment for the long term [keep].
    .
    Explains A LOT

  • VD

    It has taken me this long to get up and start ‘looking’. I have found that it is like going back to school again. Men my generation are still intimidated by me (!). My male friends tell me to act dumb but even if I do, they look me up in LinkedIn, Google or PubMed and they stop calling. As I said I am quite attractive and this results in many orbiters but nothing sets.

    First, you should be smart enough to stop mischaracterizing their lack of interest in you as being intimidated. The fact that your husband left your brilliant and highly educated self for a hairdresser should have been your first clue that your entire perspective on intersexual relations is out of whack. Second, you should probably consider the possibility that you’re obnoxious rather than intimidating. I’m not saying that is necessarily the case, but look at how you managed to work in your connections to Cambridge, MIT, and Harvard by the third sentence in your comment. Ask yourself this: was it really necessary to inform everyone of those details in order to understand your situation?

    What would you think of a man who mentioned his Porsche, his Ferrari, and his Lamborghini in the first three sentences of his comment?

    The fact that it was wrong for your husband to leave you doesn’t change the fact that you have to deal with the world as it is, not as you imagine it should be. If you’re attractive as you say you are, you will have no problem finding men to express interest in you… if you can manage to shut the hell up about your academic career. That’s not “playing dumb”, it’s simply “not boring the opposite sex to death”.

  • someINTP

    Hi all,

    Thank you for reading this essay. I’m a male and I have a compulsive tendency for strategic thinking. I have to indulge in this topic. :)

    Let me begin with a lamentation. For men, marriage has lost its advantage. Women are cutting their husbands loose, flooding the market with men who want to start over again (with younger women) because of lost progress. Therefore, the contemporary male strategy is increasingly aware of the competition–and what their competitors are offering.

    Many divorced men, although jaded by experience, still have their identities anchored in the idea of the family man and they are trying to learn from their mistakes. These men flood the market with an excess of these “beta traits”, causing buyers (women) to undervalue them. Women do not assess these traits based on their inherent worth–like most human beings. A $20 bill at auction will sell for more than it’s value only because of competition. We will pay more than $8/gal for a bottle of water but complain about $4/gal for gasoline. There are 28,600 calories of energy in gasoline, which is a nonrenewable resource. Bottled water has zero calories and comes mostly from municipal tap water. So why do we undervalue their inherent worth? You buy bottled water at the vending machine. You buy gas at the pump.

    So why are some men undervalued? For women, these men are like the gas in the fuel tank. You get a lot of mileage out of them and they keep the economy going, but they are not seen as something to consume. You don’t drink gas. Your car drinks gas. You drink water and take it into you body–nevermind that it takes a gallon of oil to produce 56 gallons of bottle water and the plastics leach into the water.

    For society, market forces don’t recognize inherent value or long term scarcity of these men. There are plenty of “betas” now, but they may soon disappear and may not recover especially if “game” takes over. To use another ecological metaphor, think of a collapsed fishery like New England cod. These fish will never recover because the size of their population was security against competition. If “beta” traits don’t exist in any sizable communities (like marriage), will they survive?

    This is how men exist like commodities on the sexual market. What about the human being? Terms like “alpha” and “game” are not self actualizing terms, they are adaptations or recognitions. They are also time and labor consuming. Is it any wonder why some cultures have highly structured mating rituals? Perhaps, we are losing productivity. Not all adaptations are beneficial to the species–especially if they are fake. Can we expend more resources on developing out mating strategies without any justified return on productivity or happiness? Harmful cosmetics, barbaric plastic surgery, useless status symbols, faking your rank, etc. As economist Robert Frank would say his book, _Luxury Fever_, “Smart for one, dumb for all.”

    We don’t need more strategies–as much as I enjoy the exercise. We need more leaders. Or at least, we need the front row of individuals to act like leaders. They can remain standing, forcing everyone behind them to languish on their legs. Or they can sit down and give everyone a good view of the stage, of where out society is headed. Unfortunately, there are no good leaders borne of this generation–or none promoted. All we have and desire are celebrities–our fake, distorted, pornographic ideal of leadership.

  • GudEnuf

    Penelope Trunk says that Cosmo is important for women because it teaches all the “common sense” rules that socially awkward women don’t pick up on.

    http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2012/04/02/how-i-decide-where-to-focus-my-energy/

  • Abbot

    “can you imagine what it feels like to be sitting in an apartment sauna listening to a guy brag about his latest conquest, and then discover he’s talking about your girlfriend? I walked out with my tail between my legs and a tear in my eye. To me she was very special. To him she was not.”
    .
    A paramount male mating strategy is to NEVER have such an encounter!
    .
    Do NOT put yourself in a WRETCH position. The US culture is poison. Men DESERVE better!!!!
    .
    ” Everybody loves a reformed slut! The girl who’s had quite a few and could have had quite a few more but gave it all up for the love of a good man is always more interesting than the girl whose curiosity finally made her give it up to someone who will have to live up to a whole lifetime of expectations. (What human being can do that?)”
    .
    NO human being should even CONSIDER doing that!!!
    .
    Do NOT rationalize this. Do NOT even think about considering such women. Free your minds. Shop elsewhere.
    .
    “The word “slut” really doesn’t have the same effect when used to describe a man. It’s still a word used to try to control women by making them sound worthless if they have sex. This is really all about male insecurity and lack of self-awareness.”
    .
    Really? How many men here consider a woman who has sex as being worthless? That comment was made by a woman…go figure. She, as always, did not make her statement as thus:
    .
    “…making them sound UNWORTHY FOR LIFELONG DEDICATION if they have sex WITH MANY MEN WITH NO EFFORT TO BED THEM REQUIRED BY HER WHATSOEVER.
    .
    Had enough?
    .
    http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/lavin/11494464-452/whos-a-slut-depends-on-definition.html

    .

  • SexyBearFriend

    @ Deti and @Brendan

    Hey guys, where are you getting your MGTOW info from? Perusing the Comments on their sites? Or is there a rational, non-biased go-to place for info on this? I don’t buy the argument — about them being happy – for a sec. But it’s no skin off any of our backs, so oh well. Taking their butts out of the gene pool is prob for the best.
    Regarding the cat lady, they’re old. Approaching or past menopause. They’re not bitter about not having men. Their bitter about the kids not visiting, about the ethnic groups that are moving in, about the other drivers that beep when she’s doing 15MPH in that sweet 1985 Crown Vic. The vag is dry down there, fellas. We ain’t like you guys, able to lube up — or even want to — after our 60′s.
    But that brings me to my other point — what’s up with guys and low testosterone these days? MGTOW seems impossible in the past — men have a biological urge to have sex. Where are these MGTOW guys finding chicks to bang that don’t want relationships? I would think that the “whore pool” is fairly thin (based on that Vox Days’ Fidelity Pool and HUS postings where it’s just the PERCEPTION that “everyone” is hooking up and having casual sex) and for PUA’s to have to share it with MGTOW? I’d like to see that math! (that’s a joke — girls aren’t good at math.). I see most not having sex at all. And the normal state of males can’t sustain that. So why are they? I say it’s all that soy. There’s a group of men who are flaccid more than they should be. I’m concerned and I’d think that you guys should be too.
    And yes, I’ve oversimplified about men. We’re all oversimplifying — its the freakin’ COMMENTS section. Oh, and just to piss you guys off more I’m going to grossly oversimplify again — in relationships, men have a habit of settling too much. You guys make bad choices and then extrapoloate that ALL women are like that. Women OTOH think that they all deserve the perfect man — there’s no consideration for someone less than “perfect”. They still make bad choices and then extrapolate that ALL men are assholes. We all end up at the same place. Susan is preaching the “truth” to the ladies, but I want to interject that men need to watch out too. Cuz based on the comments at this site, it appears like a lot of dudes are sitting in a sinking boat pointing across the bow and laughing as the ladies boat sinks as well. Instead of pointing fingers, steps back and realize that us — and ONLY US — to blame for the state of our own unhappiness. Make better choices ladies AND FELLAS. Game is just a tool to GET ladies. But it says nothing about the QUALITY of the ladies (and may in fact only help you get the shitty ones)
    Hey, all joking aside, I really like the fellas. I’ve always been in amazing relationships (my man is the greatest in the world. I absolutely adore him) so I want to help. Tough love works with guys. It might hurt to hear, but it’s coming from a good place. And there’s more than enough piss and shit for me to give the ladies. But you guys do a good job as it is. Ya dont need me to rub their noses in it. So come on. Group hug. Just don’t feel me up.

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

    Quote I read….”A beautiful woman dies two deaths”

    I will say a beautiful woman only comes alive when she reafirms her beauty is still there, someone said that pretty women get addicted to compliments and experience withdrawal if they don’t get called “pretty” often enough and I think that is more often than not true. I have a friend that used to go out on the street and if after half and hour outside she wouldn’t have any man catcalling her she will go back and check her entire outfit and make up and one of my best friend change at least four or five times before leaving the house, she is always late for that reason, now that she is on her way to 40 I can imagine how she is going to take not having men looking at her as she ages.

    Again though, as Dogsquat articulated correctly, a man who loves a woman sees her differently.
    This should be more widespread it will be like an attractiveness insurance, instead of having to win the attention from a new guy all over again.

    “If a guy is acting like he really is the shit and high value, then he really must be”.

    Is very funny because for me confidence should be earned so when I see a guy acting like the shit without any other information to back it up I have a gut reject reaction “faker” in my head. Like if the shy guy on the corner is a doctor that has saved countless life, and the confident guy is just a PUA he is stealing the attention the doctor rightful deserves with nothing but his attitude, unfair and stupid. Maybe because I gained my confidence slowly through life and I’m not eager to “display my life achievements in the first paragraphs upon meeting someone so I assume that most people are like me I guess, so someone that is behaving with confidence is “stealing it” from the people I show be “gifting it” to. Of course all this is unconscious but still my first reaction to over confidence is of rejection. Odd that.

    But I do wonder if it something that has escalated to a much higher degree in the recent decade

    I think so yes, I have plenty of older friends that feel powerless over their daughters pickiness and dating choices. I do wonder why they feel they have no authority to tell them they are being stupid. I think is also and influence of the culture and media were “shaming” is the worst sin and also were sex is the “cult” and women really should never been told to moderate themselves because that is sexist. We have a huge battle to fight.

    Maybe I am dumb, seeing as I posted comment 190 to the wrong thread.

    Karma is always waiting for a chance to make us look bad, don’t sweat it.

    Firstly, I think people should be “valued” on things that are not necessarily linked in any way to sexual attractiveness.

    Another point is that once upon a time the way dating rituals worked made possible for people to give a fair chance to people that shared other values even if they weren’t instantly attracted to each other. But nowadays most women won’t stay around long enough with a guy they don’t feel attracted to unless they are going to friendzone him we live in a time of extreme so of course the base should be to win enough time to actually get to other level, in this case sexual attractiveness. Like mentioned here most women don’t think men are worth their time unless they get tingled by him at first sight, sad but true.

    That has also been my experience. I haven’t had any close friends divorce, but there have been a few divorces in the community one hears about. Of the dozen or so I’m aware of, three have been men announcing they’re gay, and the rest have been due to male infidelity. (In one case, the couple were both unfaithful with the same man, ugh.)

    I say that in my time here I had seen a mix of things around 50/50 specially in the 30 and 40 but I’m worried about younger generation I know a girl recently engaged that told me that she is getting married to her college boyfriend because that is what everyone expect them to do. I really think the fact that getting out of a marriage is physically easy for a woman makes them don’t think about it too hard. Aside from her “feelings” there is not real repercussion or at least not a documented one. I hope that this was just a phrase from her and she will actually be taking her vows seriously. For all our sakes, YMMV.

  • femalenerd

    @ Susan, thanks. I am enjoying myself. But it is a scary world out there…

    @ David Foster. Thank you for your tip. Sure, you do have a point. The difficulty now becomes in where can I find those business men?

    @ VP, thank you for reading my post.

    “First, you should be smart enough to stop mischaracterizing their lack of interest in you as being intimidated.”
    If you had read carefully you would have noticed that I didn’t mention a ‘lack of interest’, au contraire. There is plenty of interest which becomes luke warm once they know who I am and what I do. You might be right in that my ‘entire perspective on intersexual relations is out of whack’. Slowly, but surely, I am learning.

    “What would you think of a man who mentioned his Porsche, his Ferrari, and his Lamborghini in the first three sentences of his comment?”
    I wouldn’t think anything. This is the comment section of a blog not a social scenario or a dating profile.

    “The fact that it was wrong for your husband to leave you doesn’t change the fact that you have to deal with the world as it is, not as you imagine it should be”
    True. Your point being?

    “If you’re attractive as you say you are, you will have no problem finding men to express interest in you… if you can manage to shut the hell up about your academic career”
    Again, I don’t have problems finding men interested in me, they just stay orbiting around waiting for I am not sure what. Believe or not I do not mention my academic career unless asked, which happens 100% of the time. ‘What do you do for a living?’ is a very common question… This is just part of my life that is all, it is not a big deal.

  • Abbot

    Typical female desperately seeking validation for HER actions:
    .
    ” Everybody loves a reformed slut! The girl who’s had quite a few and could have had quite a few more but gave it all up for the love of a good man is always more interesting than the girl whose curiosity finally made her give it up to someone who will have to live up to a whole lifetime of expectations. (What human being can do that?)”
    .
    Ah, yes, all those virgins in abundance in the US who gave it up to their husbands out of curiosity. Even if that were the case, do men love a reformed slut [a creature that cannot even possibly exist] or is it this particular slut who fantasizes such love?
    .
    “What Sarah, you had sex with just two men?” “Oh, Im sorry, I need to throw you back out there for a few more rounds of expectation numbing sexual expression. I really want a nice low pressure marriage life”
    .
    Gaaad, there is just no end to the spew that spurts from these dumbass slut defenders.
    .
    http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/lavin/11494464-452/whos-a-slut-depends-on-definition.html

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Bastiat Blogger #210, I like that story about prices and heuristics. The smart investor would be buying when prices are low, but a lot of people seem to use price as an indicator of quality.

    As for confidence being a marker of competence, consider the Dunning-Kruger effect: more actual competence may lessen self-confidence, while idiots actually tend to think they’re brilliant. Unfortunately not enough women know this, and the smart, less cocky guys get sidelined.

    SomeINTP #213, excellent post, and a great analogy.

  • VD

    If you had read carefully you would have noticed that I didn’t mention a ‘lack of interest’, au contraire. There is plenty of interest which becomes luke warm once they know who I am and what I do.

    Like many young college women, you’re confusing your sexual market value with your relationship market value. Now, it is theoretically possible that all the men you have encountered are too intimidated by intelligent, attractive women with degrees from top universities to pursue them. Perhaps they are terrified that you will beat them to death with your degrees. However, given the tone of your comment, the odds would appear to be that somehow, in the process of learning who you are and what you do, they are encountering something that gives them pause. What could that something be? Let’s flip the switch and see how your attitude comes off from the other side.

    I am a 42 divorced man. (My ex-wife went all EatPrayLove on me.) Not only I am an eminent businessman who’s been an executive at the top corporations in the world (Apple, Facebook, Google), but I am above average attractive. I never dated until I went to college, in school girls I approached didn’t think they were good enough for me and cheerleaders were intimidated by my athletic prowess, to top it all I was very shy, so I was in a catch-22 situation…. It has taken me this long to get up and start ‘looking’. I have found that it is like going back to school again. Women are still intimidated by me(!). As I said I am quite attractive and this results in many indicators of interest, but still no women will go out with me.

    Now, answer the question honestly to yourself. Does this sound like a highly desirable man to you? Or does it sound more like a self-deluded douchebag who has no clue about women?

  • College Kid

    Me thinks the guys who go their own way were never in high demand to beginwith so women won’t see it as any kind of loss.

  • Blissex

    My usual story: if women don’t have children, 90% of the reason to have a long term relationship or marriage simply disappears, and “dating” becomes a free for all.

    If there is no requirement for Male Parental Investment, girls are only interested in sex, and marriage loses 90% of its reason to be. The remaining 10% is old-age companionship, but very few girls think about that.

    Marriage was something for the times where women were terrified of having to bear and raise a child all by themselves, without the investment of the male parent.

    Susan Walsh is always going on about getting girls to marry the good guys, but she is assuming that’s something they want to do. But girls who don’t want children or want to postpone them forever are in effect equivalent to gay men, and they don’t marry or get into stable relationships until they become old and can no longer pull automatically. That’s what women are starting to do in ever larger numbers.

    Many women still do get married by force of tradition, but then divorce because they don’t understand what’s in it for them, unless they need Male Parental Investment, and if they don’t have children they don’t need it, and if they do the family courts make sure that she gets it even if she leaves her husband.

    All these debates about getting girls the Whole Package are largely pointless: girls, like gay men, don’t want the whole package, they just want to get laid with hot partners until they can no longer pull.

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

      girls, like gay men, don’t want the whole package, they just want to get laid with hot partners until they can no longer pull.

      OK, ladies, we’re all anonymous here. Do you agree with Blissex?

  • AlphaRising

    @Marie
    “You’re acting like I singlehandedly made the SMP the way it is, and can simply fix it by myself. I’m sorry that it seems like you have been hurt in the past, but I do think girls have it just as bad. If I were you I might feel a bit better knowing that you have more time than I do to find a quality relationship. It seems that I have a glaring expiration date by 30.”
    .
    Look I didn’t mean to come down on you so hard, but seeing a 22 year old woman, at her peak attractiveness, in this female-created female-centric, anti-man dating culture complain about how hard it is for women kind of made me feel like a 3rd world slum inhabitant hearing a trust fund brat complain about their caviar being a little off. The first reaction is to snap back.

    And no, you won’t ‘expire’ @ 30 and shrivel up lol …. BUT know this: The men you’re attracting now are the best you’re capable of getting. After 25 the quality and quatity will start to decline, and that decline will excelerate for every 5 years you age after 25. The point I think Susan’s making is that you’d do well to understand that, and think long & hard about your priorities while your options are still open, before the time slips away

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

      @Alpha Rising

      You’re right about the point I was trying to make in the post.

      But I do have one request.

      female-created female-centric, anti-man dating culture

      Stop quoting Rollo. I don’t want that shit here.

  • Blissex

    As to “femalenerd” she has two very big obvious problems: the first is that she is a single mother, and this is a very big problem, except for 27 year old mathematicians who see her just as a pastime cougar.

    The second is a guess: a successful female (or male) academic or researcher is a bit like a lawyer: learns to be a competitive fighter in a cut-throat environment. It is not your intelligence that intimidates men, it is your “steel balls” vibe. Most men regard women as rest and recreation, and having trained yourself to be a competitive fighter you don’t fit that desire very well. Your husband’s middle age crisis probably was precipitated by that too, no surprise that he went for a hairdresser, it was not because she was dumber than you.

    Because of the “steel balls” vibe there are statistics that show that successful career women get or stay married quite a bit less than others, and rarely have children. You got lucky on that at least.

  • femalenerd

    @ VD
    You should wipe off the chip on your shoulder. Maybe you are reading too much into my post? Does it seriously have a ‘tone’? My comments are not a crusade against men or you. Moreover, unlike you I am not insulting anyone. In fact your comments validate perfectly what I was stating in the first post. As Susan said: I’ll carry on enjoying the 27 year old nerd. EOC

  • Blissex

    «Me thinks the guys who go their own way were never in high demand to beginwith so women won’t see it as any kind of loss.»

    It is sort of the opposite: women don’t notice MGTOW guys at all, unless by a very rare coincidence they are “alphas”. Most women consider non-”alphas” as furniture, drones, hired help, at most nuisances they have to fend off, whether they are MGTOW or still-interacting beta or omega.

    Conversely it is difficult for a charismatic hot man to choose MGTOW, because they have it made: starting in my late teens I was a natural “alpha” and noticed how often women were throwing themselves at me, and how aggressive and shameless they were (and in a totally “objectifying” way). I good friend at University was so handsome and charismatic that he would not come out evenings to clubs and bars because he could not stand the constant and quite vulgar aggression by women. Eventually post-university he decided to take a break and got an arrangement with two hot career women who rented and paid a flat for him as long as he went out with them and fucked them regularly, as they were too busy to date and anyhow he was so attractive. Note: he was a very good guy too and treated women well.

    Men who have not experienced being an alpha have no idea what women (single women, married women, young women, older women, …) are really like when turned on.

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

      Men who have not experienced being an alpha have no idea what women (single women, married women, young women, older women, …) are really like when turned on.

      Wow, that’s throwing the gauntlet down. How do the “unnatural alphas” and betas feel about that?

  • deti

    @Concerned Mama:

    “My husband and I are from similar backgrounds, have common values, and a similar world view (perhaps best encapsulated in compatible senses of humor). It seems that in the manosphere/gender-dynamicsphere/whatever, women are valued almost exclusively for their looks, followed distantly by their “agreeableness” (read: submissiveness), and men (if I take what I read at face value) for their so-called Alpha traits. But few people seem to mention the importance of shared values, outlooks, and goals.”

    I think much of the manosphere talk of women being valued for looks and men for confidence/dominance is giving voice to what people know instinctively but don’t discuss openly, because it runs counter to what men are taught about relationships, sex and marriage.

    Men want the hottest women they can find (preferably all hot, as many as possible, as much variety as possible). Men have acted like this for thousands of years, but it isn’t discussed at all in the mainstream media. In fact, people who point this out are derided as sexist, politically incorrect cranks and dunces.

    Women are hardwired for attraction to confident and dominant men. They want the best man they can find at any given time, and are wired to trade in an old mate for a new one every 4-7 years or so. We see this in young women who my parents quaintly called “fickle” or “choosy”. She is just looking for the best man she can get. If she has a man, but can get a better, more confident and dominant man, it will be out with the old and in with the new. Women have acted like this for thousands of years. It is plainly observable at any high school, any college campus anywhere in the nation.

    Manosphere writers talk about these things in stark, plain terms precisely because the feminist-drenched culture and mainstream media do not talk about them. So when it is discussed here, many men have “AHA!” moments when they read an absolutely dead-on synopsis of something that happened to them — and that furnishes a unified explanation of it. Concepts and occurrences they have seen in action in their own lives suddenly come to life when animated with the right words and phrases that describe perfectly what happened to them as boys and young men. The hope in describing such things in plain terms is that young men will recognize the patterns and learn strategies to address them.

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

      They want the best man they can find at any given time, and are wired to trade in an old mate for a new one every 4-7 years or so.

      Hmmm, I think this wording is misleading. It suggests that hypergamy will strike in year 4, like a bipolar episode, wreaking havoc and wrecking families. It doesn’t happen that way. The wiring is not hard, and varies considerably among individuals. If you were correct, the divorce and infidelity rates would look very, very different.

  • deti

    actually, I meant to say the bit about female hypergamy and fickleness is what’s not discussed in the MSM. Frankly I think feminism is doing its best NOT to discuss those things.

  • Abbot

    “girls, like gay men, don’t want the whole package, they just want to get laid with hot partners until they can no longer pull.”
    .
    And the crash and burn at that point, as we are all finding out, is very real and very frustrating. For them. Female lurkers of this website – heed reality. If you take the gay man route, then please, by all means, let the good men dedicate their important lives to appropriate women from the other sexual culture. Abide by the social contract.

  • College Kid

    Blissex, I don’t believe you. Looks don’t matter to women.

  • deti

    Part of why I keep coming back is to watch VD dismantle arguments, not to mention dismantling the occasional commenter.

  • deti

    @ Concerned Mama:

    Another thing to think about is this: Your paragraph was about what makes relationships work. But like men liking looks and women liking confidence are about attraction.

    Manosphere writers talk about attraction and how it works mainly to help disabuse men of the false notions they have been taught over their lives. Most men (and even more women) have no idea how female attraction works. Most women don’t understand or cannot articulate why they find certain men attractive. Most men don’t understand, or have to learn the hard way, that he will get nowhere with a woman unless she’s attracted to him.

  • Abbot

    “Men who have not experienced being an alpha have no idea what women (single women, married women, young women, older women, …) are really like when turned on.”
    .
    Yes, and they are aggressive, especially with that pill in hand. And should leave other men alone, for good. But years later, as the supply drops off a cliff…guess what? Ah, what tumultuous and torturous lives they have. shame

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “In general, men single in their 30s are likely to be less commitment-oriented.”

    It’s a numbers game, pure and simple. There’s a large drop off in single men right around age 25 (goes from 60% down to 25%). It’s funny, but the real advantage for women is when guys are at the tail end of college, or have just graduated (20-24). That’s when a majority of them are single, and also presumably looking for girlfriends. Women writing off these younger guys (for dating and/or marriage) do so at their own peril : |

    I think you’ve written about this priority-relationship-timing problem before. Women waiting until they’re 30+ to have kids, that’s a different kind of problem. But women waiting until they’re 25+ to settle down, and wondering where the guys went, that’s a BIG problem for your target demographic.

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

      @Megaman

      But women waiting until they’re 25+ to settle down, and wondering where the guys went, that’s a BIG problem for your target demographic.

      I tell women all the time that after college they should never date a man they would not consider marrying. If he doesn’t pass the “potential dad” test, it’s a waste of time. And I agree with you – it’s time that women should not waste.

      Having said that, I didn’t get together with my husband until I was nearly 26 – and any of my previous boyfriends would have been disastrous marriage partners. I think it’s enough to encourage women to take the long view – I don’t want to freak them out if they’re not partnered up in their early 20s.

  • deti

    @ College Kid:

    “Looks don’t matter to women.”

    You’re wrong about that. Looks do matter to women. They just don’t matter as much to women as they do to men.

  • Mike C

    Blissex, I don’t believe you. Looks don’t matter to women.

    Ha. Absolutely, unequivocally total BS. Looks mostly definitely matter to most women. I don’t know the exact percentage it makes up of the overall sexual attractiveness package, but it is a substantial one. There is research that supports this, and my own empirical observations prove this out. Over the past 16 years, I’ve cycled back and forth from about 10% BF to 25% BF back down to 10% back up again a couple of times. The difference in attention and overt sexual aggression between those 2 different “looks” is like night and day

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

      Re whether looks matter, this is a reprint of the list that James Taranto included in his recent article about 50 Shades and hypergamy. Here’s how women in a study described why they’d had sex with certain men, and the percentage who mentioned a certain trait. Looks top the list:

      good-looking (43%)
      intelligent (40%)
      good income potential (40%)
      control of social resources (37%)
      food provided (36%)
      control of material resources (36%)
      protective toward female (35%)
      male older (30%)
      male dominant toward female (28%)
      confident (26%)
      well-educated (23%)
      good build (23%)
      aggressive (22%)
      generous (22%)

  • Abbot

    “female hypergamy and fickleness is what’s not discussed in the MSM. Frankly I think feminism is doing its best NOT to discuss those things.”
    .
    Because it would put them out of the we-have-the-female-happiness-solution business and slam the door shut. It is because of hypergamy and fickleness that feminism has hit the wall and cannot advance. Female human nature just rolls right over all that vapid festering feminist spew. Have pity on all these tortured souls.

  • Just1X
    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Just1X

      Thanks, I did read those articles by Jeremy Nicholson. I got an email from him today – he likes the blog, and feels that we are approaching the SMP similarly. He was happy to be linked. I’ll be watching his work from here on out.

  • deti

    Sexybear:

    A couple of things (at the risk of troll feeding):

    On MGTOW: Some seem angry — but have reason to be. Most seem content with their lifestyle choice not to marry or have children. And just because a man is GHOW doesn’t necessarily mean he is celbate, I suspect.

    On men and low T: That’s probably a function of age, no exercise, porn use and poor diet. Also, it’s a problem that’s come into vogue recently, but probably has been a medical problem for about 40 years now. You think about it now because it’s discussed now all over the place.

    On men and women being “like that” — no, not all women are “like that”, nor are all men “like that”. But enough are “like that” that overall accurate generalizations and observations can be made. Know why something becomes a cliche? Because it’s mostly true.

    On men “settling”: Maybe some do. A rising number of men aren’t marrying at all. Used to be that a divorced man would nearly always remarry. A rising number of those men are eschewing remarriage. And why should men marry, when if he spits a little Game he can rent her for as long as he wants, and doesn’t have to wife her up? That will change only when women return to assortative mating, by choice or by force.

  • Abbot

    “That will change only when women return to assortative mating, by choice or by force.”
    .
    Either way, the current fad is waning

  • reformedmalenerd

    @femalenerd

    As a former academic, it was my experience that the mere mention of my profession could make women head for the hills. Chatting with them, everything would go smoothly, until the truth came out and their face would sometimes fall. “I work in academia” = for many people, “I have herpes” or some similarly appealing trait. This was the general consensus among my male peers – when interacting with a girl who is not in academia, avoid/postpone/gloss over that topic as much as possible. Why? Still not sure. I don’t think they were intimidated by my superior intellect (ahem) or put off by my “steel balls” vibe (*cough*). I just think that in today’s mainstream culture, it has little cachet and is even considered a little icky. It’s not surprising that academics tend to intermarry (generally with success). Since I have changed careers, my dating/mating life has changed in innumerable ways, which would tend to confirm my analysis.

    My point is simply that it is not (primarily) a gender issue. It’s not the kiss of death either. The whole thing used to rile me up until I simply accepted it and factored it into my behavior (saving me much time).

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

      @reformedmalenerd

      Wow, I guess I must be unusual because for me “I’m in academia” is pretty close to being a panty dropper (or was, back in the day). :)

  • Abbot

    “feminist author Jaclyn Friedman spoke about the commodity model — a heteronormative transaction in which women are expected to protect their sexuality while men are encouraged to pursue it”
    .
    So now its a model? Heck, it was not long ago when JF mocked Susan Walsh for calling the dating market, well,…a market. Just who is expecting women to protect and who is encouraging men to pursue? Where does this ass hat Friedman get such vague generalities from? Oh, yeah she pulls them out of this very large and reachable place…

    http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=86695

  • Brendan

    Of course looks matter quite a bit to women, more today than ever before because they can drop the “economic” aspect off the checklist in favor of the “hot bod” checklist factor. So, all men benefit from being better looking than being worse looking, without doubt.

    The difference in terms of the sexes here is that men place a higher emphasis on appearance/physical, still on average, than women do. I expect that this is going to continue to change until it becomes more balanced, such that there are many more boytoy types. Not trophy husbands, necessarily, but boytoys nonetheless. The UMC will still have a good percentage of geeks/geeks (broadly defined) assortively mating with each other, for long-term-horizon reasons (as well as commonality reasons), but in the broader demographic I expect the relatively undereducated yet sexy boytoy is on the rise.

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

      but in the broader demographic I expect the relatively undereducated yet sexy boytoy is on the rise.

      Which women are going to get with these guys? I can’t see this happening in the UMC – it’s just so downmarket. I definitely can see it happening among the invol. spinster set – but I don’t believe women will knowingly eschew marriage in favor of boytoys.

  • Alias

    @SexyBearFriend
    “I don’t buy the argument — about them being happy – for a sec. But it’s no skin off any of our backs, so oh well. Taking their butts out of the gene pool is prob for the best.”
    ——–
    > Why do the MGTOW bother you so much? I don’t get it.
    =========

    SBF:
    “MGTOW seems impossible in the past — men have a biological urge to have sex.
    Where are these MGTOW guys finding chicks to bang that don’t want relationships? I would think that the “whore pool” is fairly thin”
    ——–
    > MGTOW doesn’t mean they won’t ever be having sex nor relationships.
    A better way to define them is “men doing whatever they want w/o caving into social pressures of getting married and/or having children.”
    I still don’t get why they would bother you so much. ??

  • Mike C

    Of course looks matter quite a bit to women, more today than ever before because they can drop the “economic” aspect off the checklist in favor of the “hot bod” checklist factor. So, all men benefit from being better looking than being worse looking, without doubt.

    FWIW, there is a very real trade-off here as well. Getting ahead economically and rising through the corporate ranks usually requires a lot of extra time and energy. At the same time, building and maintaining a “hot bod” is a lot of work as well. It took me 5-6 days a week, 1.5-2 hours a day to stay in top physical shape. That isn’t conducive to super high performance in other areas of life. All that said, a lot of guys could really improve simply by working out 2-3 days a week, getting a new wardrobe and haircut. Just improving looks a basic amount is low-hanging fruit, and to the extent that today’s woman prioritizes it higher than the woman of 50 years ago means a guy has to make some effort here.

  • Alias

    Quote I read….”A beautiful woman dies two deaths”
    ———-
    We live in a pretty superficial world if losing one’s beauty is equated to experiencing death.
    Here’s a better quote:
    - Getting old is a privilege not a right.-

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    @AlphaRising

    The men you’re attracting now are the best you’re capable of getting.

    This sort of strikes me as weird, and I think it would have struck me as strange even if I was 30 (I’m past that). This notion rests on a very narrow definition of the word “best”.

    I was never a “hot” guy (I’m too short for that). But by the time I was 40 and past being attractive to 20 year olds, I was quite a bit more dominant (in all sorts of ways) than the 20 something guys you’d find in most gatherings. Richer, more powerful and influential, with far more resources. Better in a lot of ways (given a 20 year head start, it would be odd if that wasn’t the case).

    The 20 something woman barely interested me, not because they weren’t physically attractive, but because that simply wasn’t enough at that stage. As it was I did find and meet women who *did* offer more (married one, actually, an not the first marriage for either of us), and she too past past that stage everyone’s saying was “her best”.

    Sorry. Most of the 20 somethings bored me to tears. She excited me and was still capable of stimulating conversation after a glass of wine. We used to do that in a bar, now we do it on the deck, watch the sun set. It’s different and definitely nicer.

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

      @Joe

      Sorry. Most of the 20 somethings bored me to tears. She excited me and was still capable of stimulating conversation after a glass of wine. We used to do that in a bar, now we do it on the deck, watch the sun set. It’s different and definitely nicer.

      So much nicer. My husband and I sat outside today, enjoyed a glass of wine and looked at the garden, which is just beginning to pop out of the soil.

      Reading the earlier comments about how women experience a death when their beauty fades – I don’t feel that way. I am perfectly content with aging, and my husband seems to like me OK. Perhaps there will come a time when a birthday freaks me out or depresses me, but it hasn’t happened yet. I accept the nature of the journey, and have no wish to fight it. Age has brought me many gifts – I wouldn’t go back. Nor would I even consider any kind of surgery. My goal is to wind up like the old woman in Titanic, with her polished toes and her dangly earrings at the age of 100.

  • Mike C

    We live in a pretty superficial world if losing one’s beauty is equated to experiencing death.

    Yes, but to the extent that is true, it says more about the person. A beautiful woman who cultivates other aspects of her personality has something when the beauty fades. The woman who spends her youth getting validation from her beauty and sex appeal to men (see Anacoana’s comment) and not developing other aspects is the one who “dies” when her beauty fades. So the quote is ONLY true to the extent that person has overprioritized their individual meaning to their beauty.

  • Abbot

    “MGTOW doesn’t mean they won’t ever be having sex nor relationships.
    A better way to define them is “men doing whatever they want w/o caving into social pressures of getting married and/or having children.”
    .
    I still don’t get why they would bother you so much. ??”
    .
    It gives men waaay too much upper hand; beyond the upper hand already perceived they have. IOW it weakens the cards held by women

  • femalenerd

    @reformedmalenerd
    You are absolutely right. The great majority of married academics are married to academics. I used to be the exception. This could also be because academics (including me) are not very good at their social skills and we tend to hang out at university. I wasn’t making my argument gender specific per sé. Whether you are a male or a female, nerds have it tough.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Alias
    “I still don’t get why they would bother you so much. ??”

    Yeah, it’s not really constructive, especially if women aren’t interested in those kinds of guys to begin with. But then, why do young women who hook up bother so many guys, who’ve already written them off for relationships? Rhetorical question, I suppose : )

  • Mike M.

    Femalenerd, a word of advice. Trotting out your alumni associations provokes one of two responses in men. Most just think you’re arrogant. The rest think you’re arrogant – and not nearly as smart as you think you are.

    A sense of humor would serve you better. Advanced lessons available if you’re in the Greater National Capital area.

  • Alias

    Here are some variations:
    “To age is a privilege, not a birthright”
    “Do not resent growing old. Many are denied the privilege.
    – Author Unknown”
    _________________

    “They want the best man they can find at any given time, and are wired to trade in an old mate for a new one every 4-7 years or so.”
    ——
    I must have a wiring malfunction, I’m about 20 yrs overdue.

  • College Kid

    “That will change only when women return to assortative mating, by choice or by force.”

    Assortive mating?! Care to explain?

  • Alias

    @ Susan

    So I’m in the midst of cooking Sunday dinner and we got into talking about Neil Armstrong (astronaut). We find out (quick wiki search) that he left his 1st wife of 38 yrs to marry wife #2!

    Discussion: “What is it with people leaving their spouses, what’s wrong with them, people are messed up, yadda yadda”

    Me: “That’s it! I’m sick of this *boring* life! I’m off to India and Italy! See ya!” (EPL reference)
    Husband: “You’re free to go, but when you come back all this shiiiat will be right here waiting for you , including all of the dirty dishes!”
    lol

    Me: :-)

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

      @Alias

      Now isn’t that better than “instilling dread” in your spouse? If that was your MO, he’d have been anxious and depressed. It’s great you can joke that way. Knowing you’ve got a partner for life makes things so much better, and for me at least, those funny moments are a way of celebrating that.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “Wow, that’s throwing the gauntlet down. How do the “unnatural alphas” and betas feel about that?”

    Truth. Coming from the experience of a former alpha who went beta and is trying to get alpha again. My alpha days involved me literally pushing girls off of me as they tried to give me blowjobs in movie theaters. Or the neighbor girl, wanting to show how fun and sexy she was, squirting the hose down her swimsuit before swimming over and grabbing my crotch.

    Beta sex, hahahahahahahaha…there’s no comparison in the sheer aggression.

    As for MGTOW: men who have large numbers of sex partners and hook-ups become spoiled goods. Reducing the mating pool creates more of these spoiled goods. And MGTOW types, they COULD have learned to become better men. And MGTOW, are only the most desperate. Even a higher proportion are going to be desperate beta types that simply cannot excite women.

    The pool of dateable men suitable for LTR, the so-called “Whole Package,” is very, very small. MGTOW are a huge problem and a symptom of an even larger problem. The current dating culture is socially destructive, and it needs to be called out as being socially destructive.

  • Alias

    Oops, what’s with the italics?
    Did I do that? lol (remember Steve Urkel)
    ____________

    Here’s the rest to #264
    Me: (thinking -Oh yeah, well, Federico or whatever his name was can do the cleaning!) :-)

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    True, there’s no need to be an alarmist. There’s plenty of time post-college to meet people. However, if a girl hasn’t had a serious boyfriend or even thought about marriage by age 25, I’m not sure what to make of that.

    I will say things have changed since your college days. The window of opportunity for finding a compatible partner seems to have shrunk at the same time age of 1st marriage has gone up. Did you say you first met your (now) hubby at age 26?

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

      @Megaman

      Did you say you first met your (now) hubby at age 26?

      I met him when I was 25, but he didn’t give me a second look until I was 26. :(

  • College Kid

    “And MGTOW, are only the most desperate. Even a higher proportion are going to be desperate beta types that simply cannot excite women.”

    This is what I first thought initially. Then I googled it, found a few blogs and that thought was confirmed.

  • Mike C

    Which women are going to get with these guys? I can’t see this happening in the UMC – it’s just so downmarket. I definitely can see it happening among the invol. spinster set – but I don’t believe women will knowingly eschew marriage in favor of boytoys.

    Just one category is recent divorcees in the 30-40 range. The player guy I work with has had huge success with this demographic. Women who are “in between” relationships might go for a “boytoy” type for a short time period before they decide it is time to look for another “serious” relationship.

  • College Kid

    By the way Blissex I think you’re right about women not wanting kids anymore. At least nowhere near the levels they did a few decades ago.

  • thefemaleperspective

    So I had a revelation about a few weeks ago after reading Susan’s post about how to get a boyfriend and the consensus by the men on HUS was to be more feminine.

    As a confident well-spoken girl I’ve always wondered why I was having so much trouble attracting the right type of guys, even with what I may think is a well-rounded personality. So I started to experiment with how I acted around guys. I became more feminine, I would act more sweet, talk less, be less witty or sarcastic and it was crazy how many more guys came flocking to me. It was kind of disheartening though that I had to become this demure thing to attract more guys. I felt like I was compromising myself, and at times not even being myself because I had to bite my tongue so much and watch what I said. I think a big issue lending to why men are not finding the women they wish to seek is due to the fact that we live in a post-feminist era where young college educated women are encouraged to fulfill and compete for the roles that once belonged to men. That competitive nature has made us lose sight of how to embrace our femininity without whoring ourselves out.

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

    I don’t think it’s accurate to assume that FemaleNerd’s mention of her career success and attractiveness necessarily implies that that’s the way she presents herself in social situations.

    If someone said “I’m a little bit on the chubby side,” or “I don’t make all that much money” in the context of discussing their relationship status/strategies/outlook, we wouldn’t assume that s(he) makes that same point right off the cuff when meeting a potential partner.

  • deti

    College Kid:

    Assortative mating is the phenomenon in which men and women of the same or similar sexual market value and marriage market value “pair off”. A female 6 gets with a male 6 or 7. A male 4 gets a female 4. A female 10 is with the very top men, a male 10. Like goes with like. Under that old system, pretty much everyone who wanted a mate got one. Even the 2s and 3s could pair off and be happy (or at least not sexless).

    Completely unrestrained hypergamy tossed that system out the window. A female 5 can sleep with a male 8 or 9, but what she gets is a pump & dump. She inflates her SMV, thinking that because she got an 8, she can snag an 8 for an LTR or marriage. She finds out the hard way it doesn’t work that way — she tries again, and gets pumped and dumped again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

  • College Kid

    deti, sounds like communism to me.

  • reformedmalenerd

    @Susan

    Wow, first time I hear of panty-dropping in connection with my former job – and too late for me, unfortunately. ;)

    I suspect part of the issue is that working within the ivory tower implies that you have adapted over time to a very unworldly environment. Even if you are not a socially inept STEM nerd, you can go through life without ever having proven you have real-world survival skills. Most likely this is more of a turn-off for women than it is for men, who don’t necessarily put a confident, can-do attitude at the top of their want lists.

    My current employment is more mainstream business, and I have found it to be neutral – it doesn’t win me any points but it’s not a turn-off either (main reaction = OK, you’re a fully functioning adult).

    One notable exception to the above is the male prof-female student dynamic. But besides the inevitable complications, it takes place in a very closed, controlled environment.

  • Alias

    david foster:
    ” I don’t think it’s accurate to assume that FemaleNerd’s mention of her career success and attractiveness necessarily implies that that’s the way she presents herself in social situations.
    If someone said “I’m a little bit on the chubby side,” or “I don’t make all that much money” in the context of discussing their relationship status/strategies/outlook, we wouldn’t assume that s(he) makes that same point right off the cuff when meeting a potential partner.”
    ———-
    You make a good point.
    JUtRdr started his post in #83 with a description of his height, income, etc. and no one thought anything of it. Although admittedly his post was more toned down and didn’t include the namedropping.

  • Abbot

    “The current dating culture is socially destructive, and it needs to be called out as being socially destructive.”
    .
    For some reason, feminists never admit or even mention this. Are they even aware? Are they afraid of the monster they inadvertently created?

  • Abbot

    “She finds out the hard way it doesn’t work that way — she tries again, and gets pumped and dumped again. Wash, rinse, repeat.”
    .
    How pathetic. Who will cut her a break and wife her up then?

  • Jon

    I tend to agree that the guys who label themselves MGTOW aren’t happy. The way I see it, there’s an inherent bitterness in boycotting anything, and if they really were happy with their decision they wouldn’t need to make such a big deal about it.

    The kids who stay home and play xbox rather than getting on the school->job->wife->house->kids… assembly line are a different story. My ex-brother in law was like this. He was in his late 20s when his sister left me, and as far as I know he had never even gone on one date in his entire life, but when his friends came over to play Halo, they had a great time. He wasn’t bitter about it, he just honestly seemed like he didn’t care.

    Anyway, I can definitely get behind the recommendation to get married in your twenties. I was the whole package (or at least in process) when I got married at 27. After watching it all fall apart, I’m more like the gun shy nice guy now.

    While I’m open to long term commitment, avoiding marriage is a key part of my self preservation strategy. Divorce is kind of like getting food poisoning. Even though it’ll probably be fine this time around, after getting sick once, you don’t want to eat that particular dish again.

    The 27 year old me was a great marriage prospect, but the sad truth is that the 36 year old me is damaged goods, and if you waited too long, it’s the 36 year old me you’d be dating.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    Well, then, I blame you and your husband for pushing the marriage age up so high : )

    Seriously, back when you guys were dating, it’s probably true that most young people were looking for a life partner. So folks could afford to wait a bit before settling down. These days, there’s probably a 15-20% group of hardcore men and women who aren’t going to settle down, ever. And they’re swimming around with all the other singles.

    Anyway, I don’t think the delayed marriage age is that big a deal. I think I sent you an email about that not too long ago…

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

      @Megaman

      These days, there’s probably a 15-20% group of hardcore men and women who aren’t going to settle down, ever. And they’re swimming around with all the other singles.

      Good metaphor. I think they should at least stay in their own lane.

  • Alias

    @ Susan
    “Now isn’t that better than “instilling dread” in your spouse? If that was your MO, he’d have been anxious and depressed. It’s great you can joke that way. Knowing you’ve got a partner for life makes things so much better, and for me at least, those funny moments are a way of celebrating that.”
    ————
    1000x better than dread
    (oh and he’s very helpful, we’re just silly like that)

    Have you ever seen this, Sue?
    Percent Never Married 1970-2010
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763219.html

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

      @Alias

      I just spent some time looking at all the great charts on marriage at Info Please. What a great resource, thanks for the link!

  • Alias

    That link #286 also has a chart for median age of first marriage 1890-2010 at the bottom.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “It was kind of disheartening though that I had to become this demure thing to attract more guys.”

    Okay, I’m trying really hard NOT to start a gender war, and I am trying to be curious: this has popped up several times as a major “red-pill” moment for women that counts as discomforting. So what red pill moments did you women have that brought a major pain to your heart?

  • Abbot

    “It was kind of disheartening though that I had to become this demure thing to attract more guys.”
    ______________________________

    “Okay, I’m trying really hard NOT to start a gender war, and I am trying to be curious: this has popped up several times as a major “red-pill” moment for women that counts as discomforting. So what red pill moments did you women have that brought a major pain to your heart?”
    .
    Cold turkey is supposedly discomforting as well. Kicking the feminist habit and settling into your true nature shared by nearly all women on Earth has this withdrawal effect.
    .
    Just say no in the first place

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

    Reading the earlier comments about how women experience a death when their beauty fades – I don’t feel that way. I am perfectly content with aging, and my husband seems to like me OK. Perhaps there will come a time when a birthday freaks me out or depresses me, but it hasn’t happened yet. I accept the nature of the journey, and have no wish to fight it. Age has brought me many gifts – I wouldn’t go back. Nor would I even consider any kind of surgery. My goal is to wind up like the old woman in Titanic, with her polished toes and her dangly earrings at the age of 100.

    Well Susan you are different you have a lot more to offer to the world and to yourself than how many men are drooling over you. I also think that looking back and finding that you accomplished a lot helps, now the problem is that the accomplishments everyday look like having lots of lovers, traveling, wearing expensive clothes and all sorts of materialistic things so all those women that are your age pretending to be half that age (and acting ridiculous) is probably because in spite of all the sex and money they still have nothing in their actual lives that is witness of their life. Thus they need to try and keep accumulating the same things all over again to feel valuable, YMMV.

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

      @Anacaona

      all those women that are your age pretending to be half that age (and acting ridiculous) is probably because in spite of all the sex and money they still have nothing in their actual lives that is witness of their life.

      I see women like this at the gym – usually moms around age 40. It’s as if working out for 3 hours is their only responsibility for the day. They wear expensive jewelry and dress like Workout Barbie – for each other. They’re very cliquish but I always feel a bit sorry for them.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    ADBG, I’ve always been “demure” and “submissive,” so that part of the red pill was not a big deal. The most painful part of the red pill for me was coming to terms with the idea that the guy is always going to have the itch for newer, younger, and hotter.

    Basically, when my husband and I are in our 50s, the thought that he’d be viscerally attracted to either our daughter’s friends or our son’s girlfriend… is very uncomfortable. I would guess it’s repressed, but the fact is that’s almost inevitable.

    Though comments like Joe’s about 20-somethings boring him to tears makes me feel a little better. I’m 20-something now, but I know I won’t stay this way forever.

  • Abbot

    “men are not finding the women they wish to seek is due to the fact that we live in a post-feminist era”
    .
    That era comes to a screeching halt at the Rio Grande River. Men are bound by the border, not feminism. Take away the male US-centric mindset and forty plus years of feminist indoctrination will merely blow away in the wind.
    .

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

    I think the worst part of the red pill for me was the “being friends in order to be more” that was my baptism with fire here. I already knew the being pretty and feminine and about the sexual impulses of men but that was the hardest part. Thinking about it is mostly because I believe on boundaries I remember when I found out that one of the other secretaries in my last job at DR has slept and got pregnant from one of her bosses. Me and other secretaries were horrified I think the phrase we used was “sleeping with your boss is like sleeping with your father” so its a lot like that.
    Now before someone sets me on fire again I made a difference with American blue pill men given that you were left with no other device to meet the fair gender, but in other countries were male sexuality is not demonized but celebrated I can’t really concede the “being friends with ulterior motives” to be a nice thing to do, YMMV.

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

      @Anacaona

      Thanks for the clarification re Edward and Bella. I know I never have to google anything related to Twilight. :)

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Alias
    Thanks for the link. Looking at the other tables, I’d always thought people in the past married young, like 18-20. But median age of marriage for guys hasn’t gone up that much in 100 years. Women moreso, but not by too much. Also, the share of the population currently divorced has never been over 12%. Very interesting…

  • J

    @also intj

    Yeah, sometimes it gets really depressing to read posts. I appreciate reading your posts, Megaman, along with those of MuleChewingBriar, J, and others.

    Thanks for the kind words. I actually do make a real effort to present the positive side of relationships in my posts. The ‘sphere really can be a depressing place. I think that part of that is due to the fact that a self-selected group of people post in the ‘sphere. That group tends to be intellectual, introverted and not really relationship savvy. Some of the folks who post in the ‘sphere are deep in the throes of that; others are “recovering.” I suspect that people who find relationships to be simple and easy don’t spend a lot of time posting about it.

  • ConcernedMama

    Mike C: Re: the generational aspect of all this—I suspect in your co-worker’s case, she was merely trying to protect her daughter. I can’t think of any parent who’d want a slut (male or female) for their child. But I definitely think there have been some cultural changes in the past decade or two that have accelerated the behavior you’re seeing now.

    For starters, let’s look at the parents of Gen X (my generation) and Gen Y (I suspect yours and that of most people in the thick of all this). My husband’s parents were born during the Depression and mine were born during WW II. Their values—loyalty, self-sacrifice, hard work, delayed gratification, etc.—were dramatically different from those of the Baby Boomers who raised today’s twenty-somethings. I idealized my mother’s coming-of-age. Her high school and college days seemed like one long episode of “Happy Days,” and I used to play dress-up in her fabulous “Mad Men”-era party dresses. My father gave her his fraternity pin in college during a formal ceremony in which he serenaded her in front of her sorority sisters. Then they both got Masters degrees (and my dad did all his basic training for the Marine Reserves; this was during Vietnam) and married as virgins at 24–on the later side for that time. My parents impressed on me from an early age that sex was for marriage, marriage was for life, and there was no urge that could not be controlled. My mother also said, “Whatever you do, marry a smart man.” A stay-at-home mom for much of my childhood, she returned to work when my brothers and I were older and became something of an expert in her field, but she was always loving and attentive to my father.

    We were on the cusp, but in general, we pre-dated the era of consequence-free, everyone-gets-a-medal schooling and parenting, and our parents were our parents. They didn’t try to be “cool” or be our friends, and they didn’t prize self-actualization above all else. I’m sure I’ll be blasted for saying this, but there does seem to be a considerably bigger sense of entitlement among the Millennials. We didn’t feel that we were owed praise, grades, jobs—or an “Alpha who will commit” or a “nice girl who’s at least an 8.” All of these things had to be earned, or we had to adjust our expectations.

    And then there’s the media. In our formative years, we had three TV networks and PBS. The most popular sitcoms of the time were sweetly innocent and revolved around happy, in tact families (“The Cosby Show,” “Family Ties,” etc.). Contrast that with the glamorization of the single, sleep-around lifestyle you saw as kids growing up in the 90s: “Seinfeld,” “Friends,” and, eventually, “Sex in the City.” You had hundreds of channels at your fingertips and Internet porn was essentially your mother’s milk. (Actually, I’m sure that’s the subject of some porno somewhere!) I didn’t use e-mail until my junior year of college and most of my peers weren’t seriously surfing the Internet until after graduation.

    I know I sound like a self-righteous geezer, and I know I’m making some big generalizations. There was definitely a hook-up culture when I was in school (although it seems pretty tame compared to what’s out there now), and it’s not like women were lining up to get married at 22, although almost every woman I knew was positive that she eventually wanted marriage and kids. I was always pretty alone in wanting to save myself for marriage—a goal I didn’t achieve, but it did seriously limit my exposure to the carousel.

    In summary, IMHO our culprits are: more permissive parenting fueled by an ethos of “Anything’s okay as long as you’re happy,” a sense of entitlement, a barrage of unhealthy media influence, the instant gratification supplied by technology, and the obsession with visuals/surfaces engendered by the same (think Facebook).

  • J

    They’ll at least find something to like about the book, if only to avoid giving offense in the inevitable breakroom conversation.

    I wouldn’t go so far as to say that every woman in a particular workplace is going to run out and buy this book because of peer pressure, I would confirm that there is price to pay for not conforming. There are oodles of women who dislike me for not following programs like “Dancing With the Stars.” OTOH, My DH is left out of a lot of male bonding because he prefers music to sports.

  • Dogsquat

    Femalenerd asked:

    “Maybe you are reading too much into my post? Does it seriously have a ‘tone’? ”
    _____________________________

    The following is an attempt to help you. I got help from some folks when I was in a bad spot and I have no way to pay it back, so I’m trying to pay it forward. Unfortunately, this stuff is so personal that only a Vulcan could hear it and not feel attacked/put down/judged unfairly.

    Believe it or not, here’s a hand out of the mud you’re stuck in:

    Femalenerd – yes, your post sub-communicated a few unpleasant things.

    I got a definite vibe when I read it, and if I got that same vibe in person I would not be romantically interested despite your attractiveness. You might not have meant to do that, but it happened nonetheless.

    I do not know, nor have I ever met, a man who is intimidated by a woman’s intelligence. There might be a few out there somewhere, but I suspect they’re as common as Sasquatch.

    Hell, my girlfriend has a bunch of letters after her name and makes roughly six times my salary. She’s probably smarter than I am, too. I don’t give a shit. She makes me feel awesome, and I like when she’s around.

    Your brain is just a few pounds of glop sloshing around due North of your stacking-swivel.

    Communication is the primary way to make another person feel anything, positive or negative.

    Right now, you’re unconsciously communicating arrogance, anger, and entitlement – just through word choice and sentence structure. I’ll bet your facial expression and body language are doing the same thing. The men you’re interested in are reading that loud and clear.

    This probably sucks to read. I hope you’re able to take it in it’s intended way.

    I also hope you’re able to put on your scientist hat, get extremely objective about yourself, and overcome the obstacles you’ve placed in your path.

    You might want to head over to Bb’s blog on Susan’s sidebar and look at the experiment she conducted last summer on femininity. There’s a lot of good discussion done respectfully in the comments there, and some info you’ll find indispensable.

    Take the Red Pill. It’s better to know.

    Good luck, and I hope you work things out.

    Feel free to argue with me or ask for clarification or whatever. I’ll help you if I can.

    Yours in Grey Matter,

    Dogsquat

  • Sassy6519

    @ College Kid

    Blissex, I don’t believe you. Looks don’t matter to women.

    Speak for yourself.

    I’ll happily admit that looks matter a great deal to me when selecting a potential guy. If I don’t feel hot at the mere sight of you, there’s barely a chance to ever overcome that.

    Aside from that, I’m stocking up on fancy feast as I type this. I wouldn’t want my future army of cats to go hungry.

  • College Kid

    thefemaleperspective @ 273,
    Confidence, smarts, wit are all feminine qualities. Don’t repress them just add playful flirtation to the mix and you’ll do fine.

  • J

    I don’t believe you. Looks don’t matter to women.

    Sure they do, just not as much as they do to men.

  • J

    Ian–The story of you and our wife is so sweet.

  • J

    Reading the earlier comments about how women experience a death when their beauty fades – I don’t feel that way. I am perfectly content with aging

    Yeah, me too. One of my life’s most pleasant surprises is that love, sex, mutual attraction, etc. still persist into middle age and beyond. Whodduh thunk it?

  • ConcernedMama

    To Just1X: My boys are VERY bonded to my husband, who is the most involved father I know, and a better male role model I can’t imagine. Hopefully, he will teach them HIS version of masculinity, though, which involves developing your mind, cultivating your passions, working hard, valuing yourself, controlling yourself, and treating people with dignity—NOT being a cocky jerk who uses women (or gets used BY women). Fortunately, I’ve vetted the kindergarten they’ll attend next year pretty thoroughly, and I’m heartened by the fact that many of the teachers have boys of their own and an understanding of how boys operate and learn.

    Mike C and Deti: There’s not a woman on the planet who doesn’t know that looks are important to men; I’m not denying that. But so many Game sites really imply–or flat-out say– that it’s all women have to offer. Some recent comments that are burned on my brain: “Ugly women should be hunted for sport,” “To get men, women need to do only two things: Spend all their spare time working on their appearance, and lower their standards,” “Why do women think we care if they’re funny or smart?” “I don’t need a woman who wants to discuss international affairs with me; I just want her to look sexy, fuck like a porn star, and cook.”

    Re: my comment about “agreeableness.” Sorry, I can’t remember who took issue with this. I don’t actually believe that agreeableness and submissiveness are the same thing (sorry it appeared that way), but since the two words are so often paired in the Manosphere, I get the impression that they’re linked in many of your minds. It’s totally understandable to be put off by an aggressive, ball-busting bitch, but there is something about “agreeable” that rubs me the wrong way. I get what you want, but couldn’t you use adjectives like “loving,” “considerate,” or “respectful” instead? To me, “agreeable” implies a certain emptiness and passivity that I don’t think are necessary to treat men well.

    On PUA themes in general—I don’t deny that certain behaviors in a man can provoke a “tingle” (BTW, that’s a terrible word; the feeling is really more like a fluttery throb. A tingle is what you feel when you have a urinary tract infection!), or that certain physical attributes in a woman excite a man’s primordial urges. The PUA sites think they’re bold and transgressive for pointing this out. But here’s the thing: We are more than walking ids. Just because I feel a fluttery throb doesn’t mean I have to act on it!!!! My brain is more than capable of telling me that Mr. Alpha is probably a bad choice. If the evolved brain can override the nethers, then how does it follow that Mr. Alpha (or Ms. 20-year-old sex bunny) is the evolutionarily superior choice? Rather than trying to ram the “biology is destiny” stuff down people’s throats, these sites might be better employed figuring out WHY so few people are using their brains anymore.

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

      But here’s the thing: We are more than walking ids. Just because I feel a fluttery throb doesn’t mean I have to act on it!!!! My brain is more than capable of telling me that Mr. Alpha is probably a bad choice. If the evolved brain can override the nethers, then how does it follow that Mr. Alpha (or Ms. 20-year-old sex bunny) is the evolutionarily superior choice? Rather than trying to ram the “biology is destiny” stuff down people’s throats, these sites might be better employed figuring out WHY so few people are using their brains anymore.

      YES! YES! YES! OK, how about a +1?

      I would also point out that many men are under the impression that the “fluttery throb” (great description, btw) is something that women feel frequently. No. We don’t get this sensation from some attractive asshole stranger in a bar. The tingle is about a woman’s anticipating intimacy with a favored male. It’s the lady equivalent of a boner. We can be very attracted upon meeting someone, but the fluttery throb is most likely to happen either during physical intimacy or when we think back on it later.

      I think a lot of hooking up bypasses the attraction and arousal altogether.

  • Jet Tibet

    @ConcernedMama

    It’s totally understandable to be put off by an aggressive, ball-busting bitch, but there is something about “agreeable” that rubs me the wrong way. I get what you want, but couldn’t you use adjectives like “loving,” “considerate,” or “respectful” instead?

    “Sweet” and also “deferential” or “admiring” should be in that list (“loving” not so much).

  • Jonny

    @Femalenerd. VD is on to something in an indirect sort of way. It is acknowledged that academics is not exactly a pants dropping attraction for men. Nonetheless, men are not attracted to career oriented and successful women. Since you said that what do you do comes up quite frequently, perhaps try a different approach. Say you work in teaching. Successful men seem to go for teachers. Its a white lie for them to not know you’re a professor. If they ask where, mention the city and that it is a small school.

    Of course, when you meet them, don’t dress in an ultra sophisticated way like a blazer with matching skirt. Dress down. Don’t insist on a classical opera, ballet, symphonies, jazz clubs, or musicals. Just see a movie with them.

    Good luck.

  • College Kid

    “men are not attracted to career oriented and successful women. ”

    Speak for yourself.

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

    Some recent comments that are burned on my brain: “Ugly women should be hunted for sport,” “To get men, women need to do only two things: Spend all their spare time working on their appearance, and lower their standards,” “Why do women think we care if they’re funny or smart?” “I don’t need a woman who wants to discuss international affairs with me; I just want her to look sexy, fuck like a porn star, and cook.”

    I think you need to remember that this are hard core PUA’s they are not looking for the mother of their children thus they are going to be more strict on the baseline. A regular man will still want a hot woman that fucks like a porn star but that is also funny and smart enough, specially if they are planning to be with her for a long period of time.
    I think the reason men hammer home this one is because for the longest time mainstream had given women the idea that they can let themselves go, chop their hair, gain weight and be bitchy and can compensate and attract a mate be being accomplished, rub their smarts/titles all over the place and up the sarcasm to eleven. Thus they focus on the most problematic areas and men are direct and harsh so it does sounds as there is no hope unless you are a HB10 born with natural sex skills and a fairy kitchen. The truth is somewhere in the middle YMMV.

  • VD

    “I work in academia” = for many people, “I have herpes” or some similarly appealing trait. This was the general consensus among my male peers – when interacting with a girl who is not in academia, avoid/postpone/gloss over that topic as much as possible. Why? Still not sure.

    Academics are the left of the left of the left. When 40+ percent of the US population describes itself as conservative, and another 40 percent as moderate, it should be no surprise that the idea of getting involved with a clueless Communist or wild-eyed female supremacist isn’t intrinsically appealing to the average individual. And most people who have been to college and been forced to sit through numerous pedantic, off-topic lectures about how the world must be changed to better suit the utopian fantasies of the idiot professor finds the idea of dating an academic to be about as appealing as rolling in road kill. Academics also don’t get any respect from successful businessmen and women because they’re spoiled, lazy, and if tenured, have no responsibility. One can only laugh at academics who have to take a sabbatical from teaching nine hours of classes per week every five years so they can write some slim 150-page volume that no one will ever read… while popular professional writers crank out one book every two years in addition to their full-time jobs.

    The great majority of married academics are married to academics. I used to be the exception. This could also be because academics (including me) are not very good at their social skills and we tend to hang out at university.

    Further evidence that most people don’t consider academics to have a high MMV. The only professions that are reliably more annoying are politicians and international journalists. Sweet South Africa, but you would not believe how the latter can name- and place-drop. It’s the entirety of their conversations. “So I flew in from Kazahkstan two days ago.” “Oh, I was just there last summer, the wild donkey testicles they serve in Astana are just wonderful!” If you ever want to amuse yourself while talking with international journalists, just make up an imaginary place in Asia or South America and see how many of them will claim to have been there.

    If someone said “I’m a little bit on the chubby side,” or “I don’t make all that much money” in the context of discussing their relationship status/strategies/outlook, we wouldn’t assume that s(he) makes that same point right off the cuff when meeting a potential partner.

    True, but you have to keep in mind that people who have been to an elite university usually find a way to let you know within the first five minutes of every conversation. If you don’t believe me, go to a party with someone from Harvard or Yale. If you start timing whenever they meet someone new, I bet you’ll find they will mention where they went to college in an average of less than 90 seconds. And academics are the worst of the worst when it comes to credential-flashing. It’s how they keep score.

    I started to experiment with how I acted around guys. I became more feminine, I would act more sweet, talk less, be less witty or sarcastic and it was crazy how many more guys came flocking to me. It was kind of disheartening though that I had to become this demure thing to attract more guys.

    Now you know how all the nice guys who learn that being a gentleman and treating women kindly and with respect has cost them badly in the sexual marketplace feel. As a general rule, if Hollywood portrays it as attractive, it probably isn’t. And if you find a behavior attractive as a woman, then men probably don’t. There are exceptions, of course, but it’s a useful metric.

  • Herb

    Quoting on the tablet is too much of a pain, but I wanted to expand on Dogsquat’s point about your guy seeing you differently.

    First, this is true. I have never dated an ugly woman. Everyone is beautiful. All those guys who disagreed were wrong. :)

    When a guy invests your beauty gets increased. Similarly, if you burn him you get ugly really fast. I found my ex-wife beautiful for years but when she started leaving I realized her emotions showed in her expression and made her ugly. The question, of course, is did she change or did my perception.

    Finally, for the longest time my sig file read “Beauty is being more attractive after two hours than you were when I started looking.”

    No hot chick whose look can be substituted for a porn star is ever that fascinating, but a lot of 5 and 6s who have something of substance and put some effort into themselves are.

  • Just1X

    @ADBG

    “And MGTOW types, they COULD have learned to become better men. ”

    Better men? you mean ones that buy into only existing to service society (women)?

    So, back to the 1950′s where the man was just the packmule used to finance a family? This is why I have no interest in forcing women back to the kitchens a la ’50s. I can understand that many women wouldn’t (didn’t) find it fulfilling (hence all the antidepressants that came into vogue at that time). But more than the women, I don’t (as a man) think that life was too good for the men; shovel the gravel then retire and die (and don’t take too long doing it). So, no, no return to marriage 1.0.

    Have you noticed the great thing regarding happiness levels surveyed since feminism took off?

    men’s rates have been improving, women’s declining…LMAO. Who was more opressed?

    Men should do exactly as they damn well want, including living in the basement playing x-box. If you (society) want them to do anything, you’d better offer them a better deal. The same goes for women, but let’s stop using taxes to subsidise stuff that’s detrimental to society (SMBC etc).

  • Just1X

    “The current dating culture is socially destructive, and it needs to be called out as being socially destructive.”

    yes, my previous comment should not be taken to mean I disagree with much of what you wrote.

    MGTOW isn’t desperation, it’s men looking at their options and making a rational choice. I like women but it’s not like living with one doesn’t have drawbacks and risks. I think that the number of ‘whole package’ women is also very small, putting my resources into searching for one for a LTR is a poor investment of time and money (IMHO). I can get what I want when I want it.

  • Just1X

    And as to why SBF doesn’t want to understand MGTOW?

    It’s because MGTOW says to women, “You know that ace card you’ve used throughout history? to manipulate your way to resources? It doesn’t work on me”.

    If you truly believe in equality, this is not a threat…enough said?

    There have been articles elsewhere on teh webz about the herbivore / grass-eater movement in Japan (kind of MGTOW but with a Japanese twist), which is currently becoming/is a threat to that nation economically.

    The funniest bit I read was a young woman who had basically said to a guy, “take me, I’m yours”, and he just said, “no thanks” and went home! She wrote asking what could she do, if she couldn’t even give it away? LMAO

    Now, I don’t think that many in the west will go as far as that, but I do think that a growing number of men are not looking to invest much, if anything, in getting a woman. This is your man-boi (all power to them), MGTOW or just PUA (no paying for drinks etc).

    Many of these guys were, in former generations, the ones that built civilisation. Or, at least paid taxes to fund it. What happens when they don’t wish to fund the feminist dystopia, or a woman of ‘their own’?

    I am SO interested in watching how this plays out, from a sun lounger with beer and peanuts. As Captain Capitalism says, “Enjoy the decline”.

    (I see HUS as part of a pushback against the problems, that’s where my interest in this site comes from – just in case you were wondering)

  • Just1X

    @Susan

    “Thanks, I did read those articles by Jeremy Nicholson. I got an email from him today – he likes the blog, and feels that we are approaching the SMP similarly. He was happy to be linked. I’ll be watching his work from here on out”

    Not surprised that you had already been there, seen it and done it, but he seemed such a good fit I gave the links anyway. It’s really good to see the professionals beginning to talk about things in a way that I can share their reality. Not entirely, but hey, this is a good beginning.

  • Just1X

    @Jon

    “My ex-brother in law was like this. He was in his late 20s when his sister left me, and as far as I know he had never even gone on one date in his entire life, but when his friends came over to play Halo, they had a great time. He wasn’t bitter about it, he just honestly seemed like he didn’t care.”

    to me this is a perfectly acceptable definition of a guy going his own way; MGTOW. As are you by the way, you story is somewhat familiar to me.

    That’s the thing about GYOW; it is Your way.
    You can be bitter, or not.
    You can be a monk, or not.
    You can tune out financially and live in a basement, or you can make money and spend it as you wish.

  • Just1X

    @ConcernedMama

    “self-righteous geezer”

    I believe that you are using an English word there. I haven’t heard an American say geezer before. There are a few issues to be addressed:

    geezer = man

    Sydney is a MAN’s name

    Herbal tea has an ‘H’ which should be used. If you going to claim to be going French (i.e. claiming the cultural high ground), then I’m going to have to ask why you don’t call it “Thé d’herbes” (where the H is silent)

    just glad to get those of my chest… LOL

  • Just1X

    @ConcernedMama

    “To Just1X: My boys are VERY bonded to my husband, who is the most involved father I know, and a better male role model I can’t imagine. Hopefully, he will teach them HIS version of masculinity, though, which involves developing your mind, cultivating your passions, working hard, valuing yourself, controlling yourself, and treating people with dignity—NOT being a cocky jerk who uses women (or gets used BY women). Fortunately, I’ve vetted the kindergarten they’ll attend next year pretty thoroughly, and I’m heartened by the fact that many of the teachers have boys of their own and an understanding of how boys operate and learn.”

    very cool. I share his values and yours by the look of it.

  • Just1X

    @Susan,

    just noticed the cicrular nature of those links…DOH!

    In my defence I read you article and then spent hours elsewhere (mean culpa) and then ended up on his site. I just wanted to give you the links before heading off. Ah well.

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

      @Just1X

      No worries, I knew your intent was to be helpful. :)

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

    @Blissex

    How odd that you address me in the third person, no one has ever done that before.

    I can only say that your entire comment is obviously a regurgitation of BS you’ve memorized elsewhere, and bears little resemblance to reality and experience as understood by most people. Perhaps it is no accident that your commentary doesn’t recount a single personal experience with a woman.

    Whatever gets you through the night, but I’m not spoiling for a fight and I won’t tolerate that sort of invective here. As you well know, there are other blogs that will indulge and reaffirm your theories, so I suggest you scurry back to them.

  • ConcernedMama

    “Men should do exactly as they damn well want, including living in the basement playing x-box. If you (society) want them to do anything, you’d better offer them a better deal.”

    This is another attitude I just don’t get. Why does everything have to be about “what’s in it for me?”—sexually or otherwise? What about doing something constructive just because you want to contribute to the greater good, or simply trying to make yourself a better person–completely independent of what women may or may not be doing? Or because you realize that it’s unfair to expect your parents to support you after a certain age! (Something that the Obama administration doesn’t get, btw, with its insistence that 26-year-olds need to be on their parents’ health plans.)

  • pvw

    Hey Susan, are you watching the marathon today?

    A few words for femalenerd. Hi, I’m a “female nerd” as well, an academic, but in a different field. I’ve been lurking and processing some of what I have read in your post and in response to it.

    Regarding dating as a 42 year-old divorced female research scientist, it seems to me that there might be several things going on here. Your male friends and colleagues might not necessarily be intimidated by you even though you are attractive and accomplished.

    They might like and admire you but just not want to date you. Harsh, but it is a reality I have noticed among men who are in their 40s. Something tells me your story would have been different if you were now a younger version of yourself, say if you were 27 and single, fresh out of graduate school and on a post-doc.

    The men I know who married in their 40s tended to marry younger women who didn’t have children. One I know married a woman in her 40s; she had no children, but she is a great step-mom to his son–she is effectively raising him, as his mother lives in another country. Another wanted a family; he chose a woman in her late 20s/early 30s.

    The men I know who married in their 50s tended to marry younger women as well who did not have children. Two I know married women in their 40s; one married a virginal 23 year old. The men who married women in their 40s already had children; the one who married the 23 year old became a first-time father in his 50s. It is not implausible that a divorced/widowed man in his 40s might not have a problem with dating you and raising a blended family–your children and his.

    The 27 year old might see you as a cougar, fun for dating, but not for something serious. Who knows, he might have found your age, accomplishments and apparent sophistication appealing.

    As for people being turned off by academics, I don’t think that applies to your situation. If you are a research scientist, that is a totally different type of academic from the stereotypes being discussed here. The female research scientists I have known did not dabble in what others might think of as trite academic silliness. They were working on heavy duty projects with a great propensity to contribute to societal wellbeing, ie., diabetes and cancer research.

    So it comes down to how you sell yourself, ie., among non-academics. My husband is not an academic. When we first began dating, I told him that I teach, and he would have asked me what level, thinking elementary, etc. I merely said college/graduate level, and because he is a good conversationalist, he asked me about the subjects I teach and the work I do. As we got to know each other better, I’d talk about the challenges of working with my students, got him to listen to mock runs of academic talks I gave, and went with me on research trips. He played tourist and I sat in the archives (I’m a historian).

    So what you might do in meeting non-academics, is to stick with the basics, you teach in the sciences, and see the follow-up, or say you are interested in xyz field of research, ie., selling your field in terms an average layperson might understand. That might make you sound interesting and exciting, for men who find smart women appealing, smart women who are doing interesting and useful things in the world.

    I wouldn’t downplay who you are and what you do, ie., being evasive at university teaching; at the same time, I wouldn’t make a big deal about it. Make a big deal, perhaps, among your academic peers, but not among laypeople who might not be familiar with the academy, research science, pursuing a doctorate, and so forth.

  • deti

    femalenerd:

    I’ve never met a man who finds female intelligence intimidating. We just don’t find it attractive. It’s neutral to us.

  • Maggie

    @Concerned Mama

    “What about doing something constructive just because you want to contribute to the greater good, or simply trying to make yourself a better person–completely independent of what women may or may not be doing? Or because you realize that it’s unfair to expect your parents to support you after a certain age!”

    Great point. I know several 20-something young men (some in my family) who spend all their free time “playing x-box in the basement.” They’ve been this way since they were teens and seem to have no interest in dating girls. Too many of these young men go away to college for a year or so, flunk out and end up home. They can’t blame all this on fallout from constant rejection from girls. They are hardly in the real world enough to even meet new girls.

  • ConcernedMama

    @ Anacona
    “I think the reason men hammer home this one is because for the longest time mainstream had given women the idea that they can let themselves go, chop their hair, gain weight and be bitchy and can compensate and attract a mate be being accomplished, rub their smarts/titles all over the place and up the sarcasm to eleven.”

    I dont’ want to invalidate anyone’s experience of the world here, but again, I’m completely bewildered—I just haven’t seen this! Where are all the magazines, movies, and TV shows showing how sexually successful all these fat, bitchy, cropped-haired, accomplished women are! We are SURROUNDED by images of extremely thin, hypersexualized, often airbrushed women everywhere we look, and the message is clear: You ARE your looks. (In fairness, this is becoming increasingly true for men as well. Again, I blame our overly visual culture.)

  • Just1X

    @ConcernedMama

    “This is another attitude I just don’t get. Why does everything have to be about “what’s in it for me?”—sexually or otherwise?”

    because feminism defines how society works now. they have pushed society in women’s interests to the point that even naturally oblivious men have started noticing. have you seen the number of male comments against feminism rising over the last year or so? in the main stream media, I mean. I have, and it’s real, it is happening.

    a great example is the Titanic sinking where the survival rates show women over children over men. A higher percentage of children died than women. Survivors W : C : M ; 72% : 50% : 19%. (http://www.ithaca.edu/staff/jhenderson/titanic.html). Men stood back / gave lifejackets to women. What do we hear about this sacrifice?

    “But not all women were grateful to the men who went down with the ship….The men got to die a quick death while women were left alone and impoverished.”
    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/13/titanic-anniversary-is-a-man-brave-or-condescending-if-he-lets-women-and-children-go-first/?__lsa=27831532

    Whatever men give is taken by feminists, it is then not enough AND too much at the same time, and is then used to beat men over the head with. that sounds like a shitty deal to me. best just walk away from the deal. not looking after your own interests when everybody else is, is not ‘the decent thing’, it is being used as a tool. the best way to equalise things is to not take the deal, force the pendulum to swing back. Stopping it at halfway is fine by me, and by most of the MRAs I come across.

    Chateau / Roissy / Heartiste often writes interesting stuff from a reasoned perspective, check out the following link. It should give you a lot to think about the deal offered to men. (the comments? not so much – you may wish to skip them)
    hxxp://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/game-obesity-and-men-dropping-out

  • Blissex

    «I won’t tolerate that sort of invective here»

    What invective? I just agreed with your position for the case where women want to get Male Parental Investment, and pointed out that very often that is not the case, and that when they don’t want children (yet or ever) they just want to hookup and enjoy sex with hot guys, something that apparently you find unconceivable or abhorrent.

    If you find solace in the illusion that most women don’t want to hookup for sex unless some male predator seduces them into that, too bad.

    But many women find sex and men pure fun objects, which is just the natural consequence of the article you quote, that women have two different mating strategies: «attracted to “jerks” for their status, ambition, and dominance—only» «“nice guy,” only to find that they become bored, their libido wanes, and their eyes wander back to “jerks.”».

    «Perhaps it is no accident that your commentary doesn’t recount a single personal experience with a woman.»

    This malicious innuendo reminds me of the standard feminist truth that “men who disagree with me are small dicked basement dwellers who can’t get laid”.

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

      @Blissex

      The tone of your comment seemed to me to be of the “women suck” variety. Examples include:

      hypocrisy is a major aphrodisiac for women

      or

      Susan Walsh seems to me to think that males are sexual predators

      But the giveaway is statements like this:

      they act as manipulative resource predators towards provider patsies, and thereafter having locked down Male Parental Investment they feel “unfulfilled” and go back to being aggressive sexual predators for sexy young bastards in their “kinky cougar” phase. Then they hit the wall…

      It’s a rote recitation of Roissy 101, yawn.

      There are also statements that are just plain wrong, factually speaking:

      There is a funny experiment about asking partner number to men and girls and then asking them saying it will be verified with a “truth machine” and the difference in numbers given by girls is large, and even the “truth machine” numbers are suspicious.

      Not sure what’s funny about it – researchers have always presumed women revise their number down and men up do to the different reception in society of male and female promiscuity. The study, perhaps the most frequently mentioned study in the manosphere, was conducted in 2003 and has not been replicated. It included 100 male and 100 female college students, each broken into three groups. Here are the results:

      Females:

      Group 1, told researchers may view answers: 2.6 partners
      Group 2, told survey is anonymous: 3.4 partners
      Group 3, told they were hooked up to a polygraph: 4.4 partners

      Note that the oft-cited 69% difference between groups 1 and 3 is on a very small base. Also, there was no way to control for variable promiscuity in the study – to what degree the groups actually differed is not known.

      Interestingly, the Male response was unexpected:

      Group 1: 3.7 partners
      Group 3: 4.0 partners

      The males in group three had more than 8% the number of partners, the opposite of the expected trend. Again, this may be explained by variable sexual experience among the groups.

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3936-fake-liedetector-reveals-womens-sex-lies.html

      Also many women delude themselves that eventually they will want Male Parental Investment and thus to lock down a male’s resources, either because of tradition or because one day perhaps they might have a child, but only if everything is absolutely perfect and they have spare time and money

      I’m not familiar with this mode of female thinking. Can you cite a source for it?

      females should ensure payment-in-advance for sex; to her the hookup culture seems giving sex away for free as in the “why buy the cow if the milk is free” story.

      Yes, this is the exchange – male resources for female sex – that has guided the human race for a couple of million years. I can’t really take credit for the idea.

      female sexuality at its peak and on average (cycle) is much more ravenous (for “alphas”) than male sexuality.

      This statement is incorrect. During ovulation, women are more strongly attracted to male dominance, and only look for it outside the relationship if their partner lacks it. However, men with no dominance are unlikely to succeed at any time of the month, and many men who are not “alphas” have enough dominance to satisfy their partners. The cuckoldry rate is very low (1-2%?) and the female rate of infidelity is lower than the male’s.

      I don’t understand your comparison to male sexuality.

      So women have two mating strategies (the “vagina” and “womb” strategies), which they usually deploy at different times with different types of men

      May I ask where you derive your knowledge of when women deploy different mating strategies? In fact, studies show clearly that some women are predisposed to short-term mating and others are predisposed to long-term mating. The alpha cock carousel rider turned beta provider seeker is a manosphere meme I have seen no evidence for IRL.

      As I said in the post, women generally employ the Goldilocks approach – the mixture of traits that is “just right.” For her. It’s not alpha OR beta. It’s not vagina or womb.

      In short, you oppose me, my views, and my work here. You are not here to debate in good faith, you’re just interested in bitching about women. If you haven’t already done so, I’d suggest you check out Dalrock, the Spearhead and Rollo’s blog, where you’ll find all the MISOGYNY you could ever want from fellow commenters.

  • ConcernedMama

    Just1X—I acknowledge that feminism has left a lot of nasty unintended consequences in its wake, but I still don’t get your reasoning. Why does it have to be about the “deal” society “offers” you? I just think there’s so much more to life than that…

    Anyway, I’ve blocked Roissy on my computer. He’s how I discovered all this stuff in the first place, and it was really affecting my mental health. Yes, he’s a talented writer, extremely bright, and some of his stuff is very well-reasoned—but much of it is swathed in so much bile and misogyny (an overused word, for sure, but Roissy et al are the real deal, IMO) that I had to stop it for my own sanity. (And his commenters are the dregs of humanity. I always kind of got the impression that he wouldn’t deign to associate with most of them in real life.)

  • Maggie

    “a great example is the Titanic sinking where the survival rates show women over children over men”

    An interesting article in Discovery News http://news.discovery.com/history/titanic-women-children-120413.html

    The ” women and children first” hasn’t been the case for 100 years and even then it was truly “upper class women and children first”.

    Maybe it’s now “captain first”?

  • Blissex

    «Something tells me your story would have been different if you were now a younger version of yourself, say if you were 27 and single, fresh out of graduate school and on a post-doc.»

    Of course she would be: she probably wouldn’t have children already, and she probably wouldn’t have been tempered by her career into “steel balls”.

    «It is not implausible that a divorced/widowed man in his 40s might not have a problem with dating you and raising a blended family–your children and his.»

    I would say in his 50s, and ideally an academic himself, who has had children (even if they don’t live with him) and from a male dominated field so he cannot count on an easy supply of female postdocs/younger academics. A man in his 40s usually will have some difficulty considering for an LTR a woman of menopausal age (as the examples by “pvw” suggest); nothing personal, it is just “instinct”. She may have to consider well preserved men in their 60s.

  • Just1X

    @Maggie

    “I know several 20-something young men (some in my family) who spend all their free time “playing x-box in the basement.” They’ve been this way since they were teens and seem to have no interest in dating girls.”

    You do realise that this says as much about ‘girlz’ as it does about ‘boiz’, right?

    Even powered by the rampant power of testosterone in a teenager, there’s only so much interest in the bonobos of jersey shore / kardasians / facebook that a male can feign. the sheer amount of drama and attention that a young girl can get via the media is overwhelming what most young boys can muster. as well as being nauseating to most males.

    (it’s been a while for me, so I’m just extrapolating from comments about on-line dating sites – which I similarly don’t frequent).

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

    ConcernedMama – “Rather than trying to ram the “biology is destiny” stuff down people’s throats, these sites might be better employed figuring out WHY so few people are using their brains anymore.”

    I’m glad I’m not the only one thinking this exact same thing. Anytime I try to take a conversation down this road, I get pushback about how it goes against male/female sexual nature, blah blah blah… It goes against my nature to not strangle someone that is really pissing me off, but I manage to not only prevent myself from killing people, I can sometimes do it with a smile. So even IF all of the biological stuff is 100% true, why aren’t we asking why people can’t just keep their pants on?

    “This is another attitude I just don’t get. Why does everything have to be about “what’s in it for me?”—sexually or otherwise? What about doing something constructive just because you want to contribute to the greater good, or simply trying to make yourself a better person–completely independent of what women may or may not be doing? “

    Wow. You and I think a lot alike (that may be bad for you… LOL).

    Here is the thing: modern society does NOT teach that we should be responsible TO EACH OTHER. At all. It’s all about “what is in it for me?” This is part and parcel of WHY we are in the mess we are, no one wants to put the “greater good” before their own desires.

    No where other than hard core feminists blogs have I seen this attitude more pronounced than at any PUA site. But, I can understand it to an extent. When you look at the fact that traditionally it was the men’s “place” in society to sacrifice their lives on the battle field and in the work place for their family, I can easily see that young men today don’t see any reason they SHOULD work for the greater good, especially if women will not do so as well. How would they do that? Well, one way would to actually reward men for being good citizens, by dating/marrying, and staying with them for life. For many, many men, the way to get their “buy in” to working for the greater good is to GIVE THEM A FAMILY. Once they have children, they will worry about the next election, the deficit, the environment. Why? Because they now have a stake in the future. For most men, no children/wife means no stake in making things better. If I was single and childless, I could live happily on MUCH less than I make now, which would afford me much more time to be lazy and/or simply focus on things I enjoy rather than being productive at work.

    If we want young men to truly participate and become “good citizens”, we need to figure out how to get them married and having children. Without that, the best you will get are some men that are driven enough to excel on their own, and frankly that will be a small minority. Most would rather work enough to pay for video games, weekend entertainment (clubbing/drinking/screwing around) and goof off as much as possible. Honestly, I would spend my time playing in bands and working part-time to pay the rent and get something to eat. I could probably get more than enough “social” time on the nights we played out, and if I wanted sex, being in a rock band would certainly afford me opportunities, provided I didn’t have high expectations, which I wouldn’t if I wasn’t looking for a LTR mate.

    It almost seems like a perfectly stress-free life.

  • J

    I’ve never met a man who finds female intelligence intimidating. We just don’t find it attractive. It’s neutral to us.

    IME, some man find female intelligence intimidating and some don’t. I’ve had guys who were nowhere near bright enough for me find me attractive, probably mostly physically, and I’ve had other men shy away because they knew we wouldn’t have much in common. (As I matured past focusing on the looks of beautiful himbos, I actually preferred that they select themselves out of dating me.) I’ve also had other men find my intelligence very attractive. Those men were generally looking for relationships and were quite bright themselves. IQ can be a large component of wit and charm.

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

      @J

      I’ve also had other men find my intelligence very attractive. Those men were generally looking for relationships and were quite bright themselves. IQ can be a large component of wit and charm.

      Every man that has ever professed feelings for me except one has cited my intelligence, indeed partly demonstrated via wit and charm, as a key source of the attraction. The only one who never mentioned it one way or the other was my dumb jock college boyfriend. So I think it depends clearly on both the IQ of the individual male, as well as his own attraction triggers. I do not know a single man married to a bimbo, and I’ve heard young men talk plenty of times about girls being “dumb” in a derisive tone. YMMV.

      P.S. I just realized something. Whenever my son talked about a girl, my husband and I asked about her intelligence. And I know that my daughter’s bf’s parents were keen to know where she’d gotten into college. It may be that some young men are raised to select for this quality – if not with their dicks, then with their heads.

  • ConcernedMama

    On female intelligence/success: I wonder how much of this is a class thing? I’m not trying to be a snob here; I’m genuinely curious. Among my acquaintance, there are many happily married couples in which the woman is impressively educated and accomplished. And if men are put off by these traits, then why do most Ivy League graduates marry other Ivy League graduates? If one of my husband’s friends or colleagues married a super hot cocktail waitress, sure, they might say (or think–most of them are extremely well-mannered), “Wow, she’s hot.” But they’d also think the guy was just a little bit ridiculous. In fact, I sometimes feel self-conscious around the spouses of my husband’s friends and co-workers because I have only a B.A. and have chosen to be a stay-at-home mom.

    I do think that if a woman is successful—especially if she’s more academically/professionally accomplished than her husband, boyfriend, etc.—she needs to redouble her efforts to make him feel important and valued, though. But this is not about being “deferential”; it’s about being a decent human being who treats others as they’d like to be treated.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Just1X
    “A great example is the Titanic sinking where the survival rates show women over children over men.”

    You might want to check this out before you pass judgment:
    http://news.discovery.com/history/titanic-women-children-120413.html

    The Birkenhead and Titanic appear to have been the exceptions. Certainly class had something to do with it. But children (of both genders) have the lowest survival rates on most all shipwrecks, for obvious reasons. You really think feminism ruled the world in 1912? They didn’t even get universal suffrage until after WWI.

    FWIW I’ve been hearing and seeing a lot of tributes lately in the media regarding the Titanic dead, especially the guy who first spotted the iceberg and what ultimately happened to him.

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

      @Megaman

      During the recent Costa Concordia disaster, there were lots of Titanic stories that came out. One was that suffragettes afterwards held rallies with signs saying, “Votes not Boats!” They were offended to have been singled out for chivalrous treatment, apparently. Although many male bloggers took the opportunity to berate the women who had complained, the truth was largely overlooked. The strong preyed on the weak, and the large on the small. The elderly reported being pushed aside by large burly men to get into lifeboats. Men were getting into physical fights – it was mayhem. In a world where it’s “every man (or woman) for himself,” the large will survive and the small will not.

  • J

    a great example is the Titanic sinking where the survival rates show women over children over men. A higher percentage of children died than women.

    I’m really not surprise by that. A small child who escaped drowning would still face exposure, dehydration and hypothermia in a lifeboat. An adult would face those hardships as well but would be more likely to survive them.

  • Just1X

    @ConcernedMama

    “Just1X—I acknowledge that feminism has left a lot of nasty unintended consequences in its wake, but I still don’t get your reasoning. Why does it have to be about the “deal” society “offers” you? I just think there’s so much more to life than that…”

    unintended consequences / of no consequence to the feminists / feminists-just-happy-about consequences? One thing is for sure; they’re not consequences being addressed by feminists, are they?

    “I just think there’s so much more to life than that…”, yeah, I’m sure that the slave owners were able to have such an enlightened view too. “Well they work in the fields picking cotton, but I feed them and breed them when it suits me.”

    Do you not see that society is a bargain? You give up some rights in order to get some benefits? If all society does is take, isn’t it time to kick society in the lady-garden?

    Men do not exist just as tools for society. They have equal rights to happiness as women, it is not all about you.

  • Just1X

    @ConcernedMom

    “Anyway, I’ve blocked Roissy on my computer. He’s how I discovered all this stuff in the first place, and it was really affecting my mental health.”

    such a cool comment! I can see how you arrived at that decision to block the site. I’m considering blocking blogs in general, just to get my time spent on blogs down.

    he was my gateway site too. I got there from some female blogger who called him ‘he who should not be named’ (or some such). I was intrigued and spent the time to find her mentioning him by name some posts earlier. From there? the androsphere (new name for manosphere) in general, then HUS via the dread blogger ‘D’.

    I don’t actually go there very often nowadays, he seems to wander off topic. (and I can’t stand gbfm who swamps some comment threads – is he medicated / retarded or arrogant enough to think it’s worth trying to penetrate his drivel? or a mixture).

  • pvw

    Blissex:

    she probably wouldn’t have been tempered by her career into “steel balls”.

    My reply:

    That is certainly possible, but I don’t buy the stereotype that all women who are successful in male-dominated careers have “steel balls,” and I don’t presume that is what “femalenerd” is like. I know plenty of women and men who are good at balancing what they do at work and what they are like outside of work.

    A woman can be successful in a male-dominated field yet down-to earth, feminine and attractive.

    Here’s a perfect example. On Friday, I was hosting a guest speaker who visited our department. He is an academic in his 70s; he came with his wife, a younger woman whom I took to be in her 60s. She was a feminist pioneer back in the 60s; she was a founder of her law school’s women’s law journal. For 35 years, she had been a litigator. Nothing about her said “steel balls,” nothing in her appearance or coversation. She seemed a very pleasant, attractive woman; she has kept herself together well.

    If anything, she is a dedicated wife, mother and grandmother–they have been married forever. She loved that we invited her husband to chat with us, because it gave them an opportuntiy to visit their oldest son and his children. They were planning all sorts of outings for them.

    When her husband had a fellowship to teach overseas and he said he wouldn’t go without her, she began to relinquish her law practice. Once they returned, her practice was not as before. I didn’t get the sense she resented that in any fashion. When he got his latest job, she retired altogether from law practice and now pursues artistic endeavors; she is a photographer.

  • Blissex

    «much of it is swathed in so much bile and misogyny (an overused word, for sure, but Roissy et al are the real deal, IMO)»

    I reckon that the real deal as to misogyny are the people like Hugo Schwyzer, that is many of the male “feminists”, who seem to me to truly despise and hate women (except for the sociopaths who don’t give a damn) as they pander to their worst impulses for advantage; I guess that they follow the saying “if you know a fool, don’t tell her, borrow from her”.

    Instead the vast majority of the PUA/MGTOW men may be bitter, being small dicked basement dwellers that never get laid :-), but they like women and really would like to connect to them (and not just sexually), but their experience is that usually women demand terrible compromises, with the PUAs taking them and the MGTOWs rejecting them.

    Accordingly the Heartiste(s) seem to have a rather bleak and unflattering view of average/typical female behavior towards men, and perhaps they hate and despise that behavior. But having an unflattering and bleak view of the average behavior of a group is a fair comment if it based on some substance rather than prejudice (of the “all men are [potential] rapists and abusers” variety), and Heartiste seems keen to support his views with plausible behavioral science studies (like the article mentioned in this blog post).

    But of course many females (and males) take any criticism of some of their behavior quite personally, and the feminasties particularly so.

    «(And his commenters are the dregs of humanity.»

    Some of his commenters (usually those from the less amusing fringes of the far right) are pretty much the male equivalent of the more common feminasty supremacists (for example so many commenters at Huffington), but many are quite reasonable and even milder than he/they is, as many seem to still think NAWALT, which he instead has abandoned.

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

      Instead the vast majority of the PUA/MGTOW men may be bitter, being small dicked basement dwellers that never get laid , but they like women and really would like to connect to them (and not just sexually), but their experience is that usually women demand terrible compromises, with the PUAs taking them and the MGTOWs rejecting them.

      Wow, that’s about 180 degrees from my own experience, a few regulars here being the exception. I’ve been treated with more venom, disrespect and outright hatred on those blogs than I ever thought possible. I’ve been subjected to physical threats and told I was unfit to be a wife or mother. Frankly, I’m not sure how some of those men can even lead normal lives. It must take an extraordinary degree of compartmentalization just to function in the real world without giving every female in public a verbal thrashing.

      Heartiste seems keen to support his views with plausible behavioral science studies (like the article mentioned in this blog post).

      Wanna hear something funny? On several occasions Roissy and I have written about the same study, and come to completely different conclusions. (He’s wrong, ha.) The funny thing is that men reading there cite his love of scientific studies as proof of the validity of his views. Those same men will comment here on the same study that social science research is bogus. The lies we tell ourselves.

  • Abbot

    ““You know that ace card you’ve used throughout history? to manipulate your way to resources? It doesn’t work on me”.

    If you truly believe in equality, this is not a threat…enough said?”
    .
    Is is this a positive for the image of US feminism or an embarrassment? Are they not proud of how their rhetoric [all they do is yap, spew diatribes and sometimes carry placards] has finally caused reactions among men?

  • Alias

    Susan,
    You’re welcome (the charts). Isn’t it nice how they laid it all out?

    ________________
    Concernedmama:
    “What about doing something constructive just because you want to contribute to the greater good”
    ——-
    Too late. We’ve raised and encouraged people to need external incentives. “Good job” and all that.

    CM:
    “Or because you realize that it’s unfair to expect your parents to support you after a certain age!”
    ———-
    And I ask why on earth are parents supporting grown adults?

    CM:
    “ (Something that the Obama administration doesn’t get, btw, with its insistence that 26-year-olds need to be on their parents’ health plans.)”
    ——-
    It removes this segment of the population < 26 which would be uninsured- off of the public dole and onto the parents and their employers.
    Reagan did similarly when he made it difficult to claim independence from one’s parents if you were < 23, decreasing financial aid.
    In the end, yeah, we’re extending the age of dependence.

  • J

    @Concerend Mama

    First of all, welcome aboard! You are expressing a lot of the concerns I used to express before I came to consider it a lost cause, so I’m enjoying your posts.

    On female intelligence/success: I wonder how much of this is a class thing? I’m not trying to be a snob here; I’m genuinely curious.

    It’s a class thing to the extent that like attracts like (what the ‘sphere refers to as assortative mating). But the real issue is that you’ve stepped into a meme. Many commenters blame the education of women for a wide variety of social ills, including but not limited to:

    –rising age of brides at first marriage
    –riding the “cock carousel”before settling for/using a beta
    –decreasing birth rate among whites especially
    –increasing divorce rate/number of divorces initiated by women
    –an increasing sense of entitlement among women often based on academic and career achievement
    –rising rate of STDs and infertility among women as more years are spent riding the “carousel”

    There’s a sense that all that would go away if women just realized that it’s more important to be hot or submissive than smart. It’s counter-intuitive for those of us who can not imagine our husbands with women less bright than ourselves.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Susan, re: HEB-Ms and their natural habitats. They normally won’t stand in line to attend a meat market with the “proles”. These are ultimately a breed of uberjock culture vultures and when they are on the pull they will prefer a venue with filters in place to eliminate or at least frustrate the behavioral correlate strategists and yet to allow attractive women to enter easily.

    A lot of this is done with the social equivalent of supporting arms fire: HEB-M #1 does not need to mention that he read PPE at Christ Church because his associates HEB-Ms #2 and #3 will do it for him (and he will return the favor in a different situation).

    Venue selection and displays will reflect their complex social mores. Aggressive self-promotion would be far too vulgar and desperate and could de-stabilize the elegance of that world; in fact, one of the most extreme HEB-Ms that I personally know will deny or marginalize some of his own accomplishments (including having been an officer in the Royal Marines SBS, one of the most elite units in the world). He is naturally modest, I am sure, but he can also do this because he knows that his friends will dependably bring up his swashbuckling commando heroics when an audience of attractive new women are around. The result of this cross-promotional team effort is that he generates an incredibly exciting James Bond mystique: girls already see that he is good-looking and dressed in Savile Row finery, venue selection and various displays given them certainty that he is well-off (he runs a big trading book for an $800m emerging markets fund), and now they learn that he was also an elite mil operator and can kill people with Taylorist efficiency. Through it all, he keeps clean—he seems humble and pleasant (it’s not an act: he’s actually a nice guy) and the venue and the social proofing have done his dirty work for him. You can almost hear boxes being checked in the girls’ heads. The effects are predictably devastating.

    Later on, he plays the promoter for someone else.

    That’s how HEB-Ms roll. Like Jedi Knights or Immortals from “The Highlander” series, they can identify each other at a distance (many of them know each other because there actually are a fairly limited number of places that pre-HEB-Ms can go to become fully-credentialed HEB-Ms). They then rapidly form “gated communities” within their social environments and use various tactics and techniques to control the flow of people into and out of the pleasure bubble. In pick-up terms, they rotate the “AMOG” role so that each of the old chums has a chance to enjoy himself. After all, there is more than enough to go around…

    Keep in mind that these guys are not complaining about the current sexual marketplace—it benefits them to a great degree. They don’t want women to feel shamed for one-night stands (unless said one-night stands are with men they consider to be losers). Many of these men would describe themselves as “applied sex-positive feminists” in terms of gender politics; they want to encourage more hypergamy, more direct display requirements by shallow women, more of a wild auction for scarce alpha males, more heavily-skewed ratios of women to men in college, more women to feel empowered to approach attractive men, etc. They realize that marriage has become a game with negative mathematical expectancy for many guys and they have adjusted accordingly (the irony being that they may be contributing to this negative expectancy with their unintended house-wrecking behavior). Maybe this changes if one of these guys has a daughter or a little sister, but even then I suspect that even then they will simply create one set of rules for family and another for the out-group.

    I realize that by discussing the migratory habits of Great Whites I am arguing from anecdote here, painting with a very broad brush of generalization, and that my observations may not accurately represent a wider social phenomena.

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

      @Bastiat Blogger

      I realize that by discussing the migratory habits of Great Whites I am arguing from anecdote here, painting with a very broad brush of generalization, and that my observations may not accurately represent a wider social phenomena.

      Great Whites indeed. Based on your description I pity any woman who finds herself in the sights of one of these HEB-Ms, as they are clearly not oriented toward LTRs, marriage or fatherhood, not to mention monogamy.

  • J

    (and I can’t stand gbfm who swamps some comment threads – is he medicated / retarded or arrogant enough to think it’s worth trying to penetrate his drivel?

    I think he’s Roissy’s alter ego.

  • Just1X

    @Megaman

    Sorry, but I’m not taking one study from manginaland as definitive.

    But generally speaking? Children first, then people that can ensure the survival of the kids in the maritime environment…and yes, that would mean men on the whole. But that’s okay if we have equality and it’s about what’s best for the children, right?

    If everyone ends up in the water, are you really surprised that men fare better in physical survival (with, or without chivalry)? Physical standards for army recruitment are significantly lower for women, else women would not qualify. (Similar lowering of standards in the fire service puts everybody more at risk.)
    http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml
    (Fred Reed is an excellent read on mnay topics – great writer from the old school).

    “You really think feminism ruled the world in 1912?”

    No, I made the comment about the Titanic to show the amount of gratitude shown by feminists. “Votes not boats” was their cry at the time, I believe. Not the women on the Titanic, you understand, just the feminists safe on land looking to stop men getting any credit for their sacrifice.

    http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/03/titanic-its-lessons-about-gender-still.html

    p.s.
    anybody saying “Women fared worse in shipwrecks involving Union Jack ships.” is CLEARLY not a maritime expert. “Sailing under the Red Ensign” or “Blue Ensign” (according to the number of Royal Navy Officers aboard a civilian ship). I’m no expert, but that crap leapt of the page.

    But then journalism is on the rocks. When you get journalists for a reputable (not daily mail) UK newspaper describe Spitfires as ‘fighter jets’, you know that facts and truth are dead as is journalism of the Fred Reed calibre.

    hxxp://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=82494

  • pvw

    Concerned Mama:

    Among my acquaintance, there are many happily married couples in which the woman is impressively educated and accomplished. And if men are put off by these traits, then why do most Ivy League graduates marry other Ivy League graduates?

    My reply:

    I have noticed the same thing: the academic with the lawyer or medical doctor; the two lawyers, etc.

    Concerned Mama: I do think that if a woman is successful—especially if she’s more academically/professionally accomplished than her husband, boyfriend, etc.—she needs to redouble her efforts to make him feel important and valued, though. But this is not about being “deferential”; it’s about being a decent human being who treats others as they’d like to be treated.

    My reply:

    Yes, I noticed that in chats with one of the friends I spoke of earlier, a woman who married a man in his 50s. She has been a successful lawyer–she just got a promotion to become a magistrate. He is a clergyman, and I could tell from what she has said, that he felt self-conscious about it.

    But she assured him that although she is more successful, she chooses to share her resources with him and not thinking any less of him for that reason.

    If anything, these strengths have benefited him when he was dealing with a legal issue (non-criminal) that could have put him into endless expense at the hands of incompetent lawyers and advisors. She waded in, took on the matter pro bono and got it solved in no time. In dealing with him, she is quite warm and attentive; she makes a very feminiine appearance in general.

    This is something that just occurred to me; if a woman is in a male-dominated field, ie., like law, as I just described, is she seen as “ball busting” or a “mama bear,” the woman who radiates a protective feminine strength, the type who will be at her husband’s side taking care of him and their family in an emergency?

  • Abbot

    “feminism defines how society works now. they have pushed society in women’s interests to the point that even naturally oblivious men have started noticing. have you seen the number of male comments against feminism rising over the last year or so? in the main stream media, I mean. I have, and it’s real, it is happening.”
    .
    Such attitudes growing in the mainstream media REALLY puts feminists on guard and quite frankly, freaks them out. Feminists RARELY debate unless it happens on their highly censored sites. They do not debate in open public forums because nearly every one of their arguments will get shot down and they know it. That is why their comfort zone is mainstream media articles with no comment sections or limited commentary, whine walks and their favorite: embarrassing politicians and other officials who will not pass their self serving policies or laws.

    Have you seen or read ANY public forum debates with feminists? No. Because they have a little girl tactic of running into the room shrieking and then upstairs to hide. No need to wonder why they get virtually no respect from anyone in America, never mind the rest of the world

  • Blissex

    «she probably wouldn’t have been tempered by her career into “steel balls”.
    [ ... ] the stereotype that all women who are successful in male-dominated careers have “steel balls,”
    »

    I am not that interested in «the stereotype that women who are successful in male dominated careers» because I wrote that «a successful female (or male) academic or researcher is a bit like a lawyer: learns to be a competitive fighter in a cut-throat environment».

    There are many female dominated careers where women have to develop “steel balls” (or much worse) to succeed (the training starts in girl groups in school, where girl-on-girl bullying is common and often ferocious, check out “dunking”). One relevant example:

    http://www.postsecret.com/2012/04/sunday-secrets.html
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VCIEmgQxDcQ/T4oLd3inj0I/AAAAAAAASzM/2vxnhxcL3R4/s1600/bully.jpg

    Men need “steel balls” to “get ahead” in most male dominated careers too.

    Therefore “The battle does not always go to the strong, nor the race to the swift, but that’s the way to bet!”. Some generalizations are not stereotypes, they are odds; there is such a thing as a well founded generalization.

    Sure, there are female (or male) lawyers who are sweet and nice, but that’s not the way to bet. Careers in academia in particular require a lot of dedication and sharp elbows (and the mix often varies, by subject or institution), and that has an effect. “steel balls” often means an obsessive dedication, which may be offputting by itself as a dating vibe.

    «and I don’t presume that is what “femalenerd” is like.»

    She should look at herself and figure that out. Being a near-menopausal woman with children surely puts her in a pretty disadvantaged situation with respect to dating by itself, but perhaps there are other issues, and I was suggesting a fairly topical possibility.

    «Here’s a perfect example. [ ... ] For 35 years, she had been a litigator. Nothing about her said “steel balls,” nothing in her appearance or coversation.»

    I would ask her work colleagues first, but single cases are not that interesting. Arguments about people are not arguments about theorems, where a single counterexample invalidates a theorem: they are based on an appreciation of odds. They are calls of judgment based on statistics. For example:

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/not_one_legal_secretary_surveyed_preferred_working_with_women_lawyers_prof_
    «When Chicago-Kent law professor Felice Batlan surveyed 142 legal secretaries at larger law firms in 2009, not one expressed a preference for working with a female partner. Asked whether they preferred to work for male or female partners or associates, 35 percent preferred working for male partners, 15 percent preferred working for male associates, 3 percent preferred working for female associates, none preferred working for female partners, and 47 percent had no opinion. [ ... ] Ninety-five percent of the legal secretaries who responded to the online survey were women.»

    As a further example marketing and segmenting consumers or voters into categories works better than nothing, even if the segmentation is not 100% accurate. Sure not all 30-40yo moms in the suburbs are “soccer moms”, but that’s the way to bet.

    «She seemed a very pleasant, attractive woman; she has kept herself together well.»

    I know several very humane people in academia too, or even in the law; and anyhow having “steel balls” does not mean being unpleasant or nasty; it means for example driving hard for one’s interests, whether combatively or subtly.

    While many people do it without much grace, some others have probably very good anti-stress genetics and can do it with good manners.

  • VD

    Among my acquaintance, there are many happily married couples in which the woman is impressively educated and accomplished. And if men are put off by these traits, then why do most Ivy League graduates marry other Ivy League graduates?

    Because they’re there. It’s the largest subset of the set of women they know and it’s the same reason that Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod men are much more likely to marry Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod women than Mormons or Southern Baptists. That was the whole point of going to college to get the old MRS degree. Your average Ivy League guy doesn’t know a lot of strippers, models, and fitness instructors, moreover, the women in his social circle actively discourage him from doing so in the same way that English women in the imperial colonies fought tooth-and-nail against Englishmen getting involved with native women.

  • Just1X

    @Abbot

    “Have you seen or read ANY public forum debates with feminists? No. Because they have a little girl tactic of running into the room shrieking and then upstairs to hide. No need to wonder why they get virtually no respect from anyone in America, never mind the rest of the world”

    yep. they don’t rate truth and facts very highly either, kinda like manbooby and hugeo.

    the feminist tactic that I find the most amazing (and that IS the word) is “I’m about to faint / throw up as a reaction to what you just said”. WHAT? so you’re saying that if you’re driving and hear something that you don’t agree with on the radio, you’re likely to pass out and crash? And they let you drive? Anybody trying that line in my court would get relegated to the legal level of a child quick-smart.

    You know that you’re running the show when you can pull that shit and get away with it.

  • Blissex

    «“(and I can’t stand gbfm who swamps some comment threads – is he medicated / retarded or arrogant enough to think it’s worth trying to penetrate his drivel?”»

    I think that he is interesting, and I reckon that he does express himself in a gnomic way deliberately because he thinks that «it’s worth trying to penetrate his drivel».

    Horrifyingly :-) I found myself agreeing often with quite a bit of what he writes, even if I really disagree with his monetary economics, but his financial economics are sounder than most, and his social commentary is unconventional but reasonable (I agree with the “great books for/from men” argument, but he seems to have a limited view of what in that group).

    «I think he’s Roissy’s alter ego.»

    Scarily he has his own (low traffic) blog: http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/

    Heartiste does not seem to mention monetary or financial economics much, and usually people obsessed with them cannot resist…

  • Mike C

    Mike C: Re: the generational aspect of all this—I suspect in your co-worker’s case, she was merely trying to protect her daughter. I can’t think of any parent who’d want a slut (male or female) for their child. But I definitely think there have been some cultural changes in the past decade or two that have accelerated the behavior you’re seeing now.

    ConcernedMama,

    Perhaps…but what I was really driving at is what seemed to be a very *real difference* in the “type” of men the older woman found attractive versus the younger daughters.

    For starters, let’s look at the parents of Gen X (my generation) and Gen Y (****I suspect yours**** and that of most people in the thick of all this).

    Haha…I wish I could rewind the clock sometimes :) IIRC, you mentioned you were 38….which puts us at the same age (early 1974 birthday for me). My parents were born in 1939 and 1942. Anyways, I find myself mostly nodding in agreement with a lot of your comments regarding generational differences especially the differences in how our parents raised us versus how Baby Boomers raised their Gen Y kids and definitely not for the better. My sense overall is Gen Y were very coddled and fed way too much praise and BS self-esteem stuff. I’m really into demographic stuff and especially the difference in generations:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss_and_Howe

    It’ll be interesting to see how the kids of Gen Xers grow up

    My mother also said, “Whatever you do, marry a smart man.” A stay-at-home mom for much of my childhood, she returned to work when my brothers and I were older and became something of an expert in her field, but she was always loving and attentive to my father.

    Well…you’ll get no disagreement from me on any of this and I’d give an enthusiastic thumbs-up. Men will respond to the incentives that the market signals are sending.

    And then there’s the media. In our formative years, we had three TV networks and PBS. The most popular sitcoms of the time were sweetly innocent and revolved around happy, in tact families (“The Cosby Show,” “Family Ties,” etc.).

    Yup. I grew up watching those shows. Those shows did portray solid, intact families, but one thing I will point out is they started to highlight the shift in the dynamic between husband and wife especially compared to something like say Happy Days. Maybe I will expand on this at a later point. Looking back, one of the shows that may have been a turning point was Married with Children. Do you remember how controversial that show was when it first came out? Nobody would think a second thought today.

  • Just1X

    @J

    you make many fine points…

    I’ve never been clear on whether Heartiste was Roissy. Admittedly I haven’t tried to find out very hard, but why the change? I wonder (a bit).

    “I’m really not surprise by that. A small child who escaped drowning would still face exposure, dehydration and hypothermia in a lifeboat. An adult would face those hardships as well but would be more likely to survive them.”

    I made a similar point a bit later (before I saw your comment).

    Now is this slapdash research by a couple of manginas, or bullshit pushing an agenda?

    If it is slapdash, it is a sad sign of what much of what social scientology has come to (or has been since Mead et cabal).

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

    Just1x….the “Spitfires as jet fighters” thing is really unbelievable, even by the low standards of “professional journalism.”

    One of the great things about the Internet is that our collective information feedback system is no longer dependent on the kind of people whose qualifications consist of their journalism degrees and/or their television-qualified hair.

  • Just1X

    @Blissex

    “he thinks that «it’s worth trying to penetrate his drivel».”

    I suspect that you’re right – and I call shit-test :0

  • Just1X

    @Blissex

    OH NOES!!!

    you gave a direct link! doesn’t that mean he can backtrack who sent people his way? hxxp:// is much safer (or I’m completely wrong – it happens)

  • Just1X

    @David

    yes, the interweb is a fine thing. It’s where I discovered the red-pill and a wider set of evidence, or lack of it, for CAGW. How much have the twin catastrophies of feminism and cagw cost? How odd that the tide is turning on both just after the economy took a hoof to it’s ‘nads? Seems that they’re both more suited to the good times, where idiocy can be indulged.

  • J

    Heartiste does not seem to mention monetary or financial economics much, and usually people obsessed with them cannot resist…

    GBFM is obssessed not just with finance but with the interaction of finance and sexual politics where the existence of a Bernickefied fiat economy makes the antics of Tucker Max possible. IOW, the fiat ecoonomy takes women out of the home and into the job market so they can ride the carousel. That position is hinted at in a less crazy way by Roissy. GBFM seems to me like a vehicle for Roissy to express his crazier ideas without sounding like a conspiracy theorist. GBFM is sounds completely insane, but he’s crazy like a fox and many CHreaders agree with him.

    I’ve seen the blog. Maybe I’m crazy, but I think it’s there to give the character of GBFM some credibility as a real entity.

  • Blissex

    «”women may not give equal weighting to each asset class—some may give the looks a 1.5x weighting, say, and give a 1x to money/education and a lowly .5x to the badass protector factor.”
    Sounds simple, but one downside of Game from a female POV is that it adopts a cookie cutter approach to female sexuality.»

    Oh noooo! One of the principles of Game is “calibration”, that is adapting your profile to the specific female segment you are dealing with (some would call that “pandering” more than “calibration”).

    And “calibration” includes selecting appropriately different levels of “attraction”, “comfort” and “rapport”, for example depending on the relative SMVs, or whether the girl is high-testosterone, etc.

    Because as Heartiste himself has said that Game is all about figuring out and giving to potential partners whatever they actually want that turns them on, starting from the general and then learning to instinctively “calibrate” it to the segment at hand.

    If there are is a limit to “calibration” is that Game is a *statistical* approach to *getting laid*.

    That is practitioners don’t particularly care about pandering to women who are difficult or are undesirable prospects (the most vital skill in game is learning to quickly leave alone unlikely prospects), and that calibrating to individual girls involves lots more more work than having a good topical calibration that will match some or most girls in a given segment.

    It is about effort/result ratios: “calibration” yes, but up to a point.

    Therefore a common mistake about Game is thinking that is a technique that allows to manipulate any specific woman into wanting to fuck you.

    It is rather about agreeing to be manipulated by women into doing what gives a better chance that *some* woman who would like to fuck *someone* will want to fuck *you*, while skipping as quickly as possible women who are not likely to get laid or don’t want to get laid with you or demand too much effort to get laid with you.

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

      @Blissex

      One of the principles of Game is “calibration”, that is adapting your profile to the specific female segment you are dealing with (some would call that “pandering” more than “calibration”).

      Yes, but it’s all within the context of “speed seduction.” Every target is presumed to be fuckable after 7 hours of knowing the PUA. What Game doesn’t even attempt to do is distinguish between the sexual psychology of a stripper and a kindergarten teacher.

      Since we know that 80% of women are not promiscuous, and do not fuck men within 7 hours of meeting them, it remains to be seen what the most effective calibration might be for these women. The female population varies widely wrt hypergamy, preferred level of male dominance, and traits valued, especially the order in which certains traits are valued. And of course – some women have more self-control and risk-aversion than others. They may recognize a man’s good looks and successful way with women while at the same time being personally repelled.

  • J

    @Just1X

    you make many fine points…

    Thank you.

    I’ve never been clear on whether Heartiste was Roissy. Admittedly I haven’t tried to find out very hard, but why the change? I wonder (a bit).

    Pls see my post #363.

    I made a similar point a bit later (before I saw your comment).

    I saw it.

    Now is this slapdash research by a couple of manginas, or bullshit pushing an agenda?If it is slapdash, it is a sad sign of what much of what social scientology has come to (or has been since Mead et cabal).

    IDK. I will say that even as a child, I found “women and children first” to be odd and against human nature. In a diasater, it would seem to me that each man would attempt to aid his own family. I could imagine my father kicking some strange woman and her kids in the teeth in order to save me and my mom. I can’t imagine my husband staying on a ship’s deck as opposed to staying with me and our kids. That “women and children first” only happpened on two ships seems very believeable to me.

  • Ramble

    In the end, yeah, we’re extending the age of dependence.

    Alias, we are extending the age of dependence because we are extending when a persons education is complete.

    For the grand majority of the Western World, you were done with education (basically) when you were 18.

    Also, since you basically need to have two incomes, today, to own a home in a safe neighborhood with “good” schools, it is almost pointless to get married (with intent on having children) at, say 22.

  • Ramble

    I could imagine my father kicking some strange woman and her kids in the teeth in order to save me and my mom.

    J,
    And if some other man kicked your father right before he had a chance to kick that woman, then what?

    We tend to think of mob violence as “every man for himself”, but, it often involves “every family for itself”, with the normal violent mob results.

    There is a reason why prosperous and polite societies attempt to formulate rules on how we act.

  • Alias

    J
    “It’s a class thing to the extent that like attracts like (what the ‘sphere refers to as assortative mating). But the real issue is that you’ve stepped into a meme. Many commenters blame the education of women for a wide variety of social ills, including but not limited to:

    –rising age of brides at first marriage
    –riding the “cock carousel”before settling for/using a beta
    –decreasing birth rate among whites especially
    –increasing divorce rate/number of divorces initiated by women
    –an increasing sense of entitlement among women often based on academic and career achievement
    –rising rate of STDs and infertility among women as more years are spent riding the “carousel”

    There’s a sense that all that would go away if women just realized that it’s more important to be hot or submissive than smart. It’s counter-intuitive for those of us who can not imagine our husbands with women less bright than ourselves.”
    ————-

    If you compare the % of never married women (2008 in the US) (I’m using this year to keep it with the stats below)
    ages 20-24 = 76.4 %
    ages 25-29 = 43.4 %
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763219.html

    to the% of women enrolled in school during 2006
    at ages 22-24 = 28.5 %
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112605.html

    and also to the % passed of women passed age 25 (the stats aren’t limited to those <30) who have earned a 4 yr degree or more (2006)
    = 26.9 %
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779809.html

    You''' notice that it can't be education that’s keeping women from marrying at younger ages nor directly causing any of the other factors you've listed.
    There are sufficient available women who have not earned a degree if that's what men want.

    Susan started this blog for the benefit of college educated women.
    However, the problems you've listed are rampant in the lower classes <UMC.
    So, no, I wouldn't put all of the blame on schooling for these issues.
    Education is not what caused these same problems in other demographics outside of mainstream US;
    - The African-American and Latin-American communities in the US
    - Another poster mentioned Russia
    -Anacaona's Dom Republic

  • Just1X

    @J re see #363

    okay, that sounds plausible. thanks for wading though his lozls

  • J

    And if some other man kicked your father right before he had a chance to kick that woman, then what?

    Then we’d have been screwed.

    We tend to think of mob violence as “every man for himself”, but, it often involves “every family for itself”, with the normal violent mob results.

    Well, I have often referred to my dad in the ‘sphere as my “dear old alpha thug daddy.” He was uniquely qualified to survive in the nastiest of circumstances. Right or wrong, it was who he was. Nevertheless, I do think it’s natural to put one’s own family over strangers. If I had been the captain of the Titanic, I’d have put young families first. That’s the most pro-survival strategy. A kid with both parents in the lifeboat has a greater chance of making it.

    There is a reason why prosperous and polite societies attempt to formulate rules on how we act.

    I know.

  • J

    You”’ notice that it can’t be education that’s keeping women from marrying at younger ages nor directly causing any of the other factors you’ve listed.

    Right, I was explaining the manosphere’s position, not my own.

  • J

    @Just1X

    LOL. Not a problem. I find GBFM to be oddly fascinating. As I said, I see him as Roissy’s crazy (–ier?) doppelganger. If Roissy didn’t create him, he did at least summoned him from the depths of the ‘sphere’s unconscious mindhive. And interestingly, GBFM is Roissy’s biggest fan.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Mike C, I feel compelled to defend my fellow younger generationers here. We may have grown up on trash in the media, but it was the older generation who put that trash on the media. We were only teenagers coming of age, and those shows were produced by older folks. We looked to the older folks for guidance, and we received the wrong messages.

    We are also of the Internet generation, and many of us sought out, found and grew up on alternative sources of information. No, it was not all of us, but enough of us misfits stumbled across each other online, and many of us began to rebel against the mainstream. This process began early. We saw the founding of Wikipedia and Google, and we saw the older folks attack the Internet before embracing it. This generation does not just blindly believe everything on TV, and we are exposed to a lot of different viewpoints.

    I believe that rather than being lazy and unmotivated, our generation is simply tired of the BS and the lies. Many of us feel like there’s no future for us, because the older generations are sucking it dry. They’re dismantling social security so that even if we pay into it our entire working lives, by the time we retire, we’ll be living on the future equivalent of nothing. Most young folks can barely get a decent job, but the young folks are not the ones who exported manufacturing or raised the bar on education and experience needed to get into a higher level job.

    As for what girls are finding attractive, it’s getting darker all the time. They want the rich selfish jerk who is going to weather the storm, not the good diligent hardworking boy who is going to get screwed by the system. It’s a sad reality that Dark Triad traits are rewarded in today’s society; integrity, honor and loyalty are, well, out-of-date. Some children of immigrant groups and insulated upper middle class folks still hold onto the old-fashioned values, but that is also diminishing, and even those kids see what happens all around them.

    We the younger generation did not create this mess. We just have to live in it.

  • Chris_in_CA

    @Ted D

    From what I’ve read here, I think you’re a pretty good man. I felt compelled to respond after reading your last comment. My response is not personal. In fact, I find this a great opportunity to illustrate a slightly different perspective to your own.

    “If we want young men to truly participate and become ‘good citizens’, we need to figure out how to get them married and having children.”

    No. I must categorically oppose you here. Change the laws first.

    With the legal environment in which we now live, you’re advocating something that is a step away from clapping legal manacles on these young men. While I agree that children are a powerful motivating force, which compel men toward hard work & noble sacrifices…children are also the tool with which men’s lives are ruined every day.

    I’m talking about the women who take a man’s children away, grab his wallet while they’re at it, and put the hammer of The State over their heads. Enshrined in law. Your ‘how to get them married and having children’ is outright *dangerous* now.

    “Without that, the best you will get are some men that are driven enough to excel on their own, and frankly that will be a small minority. Most would rather work enough to pay for video games, weekend entertainment (clubbing/drinking/screwing around) and goof off as much as possible.”

    True. A man’s children are his most powerful external motivation. We will gladly leap in front of trains to save them, work for decades to give them good lives, etc.

    But when the same child can be snatched away on a whim, and we have very little legal recourse, is it no surprise that men would avoid that particular motivation?

    “Honestly, I would spend my time playing in bands and working part-time to pay the rent and get something to eat. I could probably get more than enough “social” time on the nights we played out, and if I wanted sex, being in a rock band would certainly afford me opportunities, provided I didn’t have high expectations, which I wouldn’t if I wasn’t looking for a LTR mate.”

    Frankly, most of the MGTOWs I know don’t do this. They go to work and make good use of their time. They save money. Some travel. I’ve seen hobbies everywhere from sports to firearms to shipbuilding.

    That said, I have spoken with many students (high school and college). Many of these young men don’t have much interest in working beyond the basics, and enjoy as much free time as they can.

    Their view on the society is much like Hope’s, in #373. However, a good number of them have interests which they pursue passionately. DIY building, technology, wilderness exploration.

    Women aren’t their first priority, either way. And some are even aware of how much this scares the girls their age.

    “It almost seems like a perfectly stress-free life.”

    I find my MGTOW life pretty stress-free, in fact. It’s a great way to live.

  • Ramble

    Alias, I understand the point you are making, and I mostly agree…

    There’s a sense that all that would go away if women just realized that it’s more important to be hot or submissive than smart.

    There is a big difference between educated and smart.

    But, more specific to your point, having a large percentage of women enter into and completing higher education has not helped. The cost of housing went up, the cost of education went up (duh), the delay of first pregnancy went up (that is a whole issue on it’s own) and the amount of (personal and state) debt went up.

    Most of us, guys and girls, get, basically, useless educations in college. I would say that most outside of the STEM fields spend way too much on their educations and get way too little in return. Many in the STEM fields could do much, much better in a different system.

  • Sexybearfriend

    @Deti
    Woooooowwwwwwww. Hey, let’s have a sense of humor about this. Relax, take a chill pill and step away from the “SexyBearFriend is the enemy. RUN! SHE’S HOLDING A MIRROR TO US!!!!” cliff. Look guys, seriously, I just want to help. The undercurrent on these sites from the men is that you’re just as mizz as the ladies. Society is changing, women are changing. You can either adapt or you lose ground. What would you rather do — put your head in the sand and blame others? Or get the tools for self-reliance and personal responsibility for your happiness? I can help with that. I want to. But first, you need to take that 1st step and step out of your comfort zone. It’s never easy — behaviorist Karen Pryor says that the biggest fuss she sees are when someone’s worldview is challenged. If your worldview is that all women are the source of all problems, that needs challenging. It’s illogical and based on emotion. So you have a choice: you can poo-poo the women that are cool and then alienate all chicks because you still need to get back at your mom or ex. Or you can say “I shouldn’t be in a relationship that’s bad, but I also shouldn’t hold all women accountable for my hurt”. Compromise, gents.

    @Alias & @Abbot
    On what planet is “due diligence” being “bothered so much”? I hear a term, I research the term so I’m at least conversant in it, and then comment. If someone disagrees in a logical and respectful manner, then I listen. I may even change my mind (happens all the time). I’d much rather reach some semblance of “truth” than look like an idiot digging my heels in so as to hold easily refuted ideas. What — do you just blurt stuff out without researching or giving it thought? I mean, I commented 2 times over the course of 3 days. Thats hardly “bothered”. You guys are writing comments every millisecond (that’s an exaggeration for levity. I really don’t think that.)

    And for the last freakin’ time: a critique of men DOES NOT IMPLY THAT WOMEN ARE BLAMELESS!! Can we stop with that strawman?

  • Ramble

    Nevertheless, I do think it’s natural to put one’s own family over strangers.

    It is also natural, for many, to strike someone when in an argument. But, we look to enforce rules about that as well.

    I understand that at this point, you and I are probably in agreement. The point (well, at least one of them) that I am trying to make is that by the late 1800′s, prosperous western societies were working quite hard to create and enforce social structures that would help make/keep them polite societies.

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

    Thanks for the clarification re Edward and Bella. I know I never have to google anything related to Twilight.

    Why everyone keeps saying that?! Gistory of my life and is not only Twilight I have friends from DR that call me to ask me about plots, authors, movies and books. Stupid enhanced memory…Oh well at least I’m useful! :p

    -Anacaona’s Dom Republic

    Actually in my country women’s primary motivation to get educated is because they can have a plan B for when their husband’s/boyfriend’s cheat/beat the crap out of them, or abandon them for another woman they can raise their kids because the men in general terms don’t pay child support. So is different than here were child support is effectively collected.

  • Ramble

    We may have grown up on trash in the media, but it was the older generation who put that trash on the media.

    So, Hope, was it supply or demand?

    Remember, at the time that Madonna, Brittany, Bieber and all the rest were on the radio, so was The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Fats Domino, etc.

    The Jersey Shore is on TV at the same time as The Science channel (and a host of other interesting channels and programs).

    Is it Supply, or Demand? It sounds like you are saying, “It is the Supply”.

  • Just1X

    @Chris

    “I find my MGTOW life pretty stress-free, in fact. It’s a great way to live.”

    me too, I tend to work around half the year and have been ‘over-working’ lately. I’ve got lots of toys and time to play.

    I can’t imagine the woman that would tempt me to work full time to pay for her and kids and work till I’m 65+. So, bitter? No, not really thanks for the concern.

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

    I dont’ want to invalidate anyone’s experience of the world here, but again, I’m completely bewildered—I just haven’t seen this! Where are all the magazines, movies, and TV shows showing how sexually successful all these fat, bitchy, cropped-haired, accomplished women are! We are SURROUNDED by images of extremely thin, hypersexualized, often airbrushed women everywhere we look, and the message is clear: You ARE your looks. (In fairness, this is becoming increasingly true for men as well. Again, I blame our overly visual culture.)

    Do you know there is an obesity epidemy right? The level of commitment needed to look like the magazines is too much so there is a backlash but they take it too much. Also feminist love to blame men for the “unrealistic portrayals of women” when women and gay men are the ones fueling the portrays. Women rather pretend they are “better than a skinny woman” by letting themselves go and them deciding that the men that are not falling for them are superficial. This is one of those things that are behind the media portrays but you can see it on the streets, randomly count how many women are dressed and acting feminine and not overweight and you will see what the average guy has to deal with, magazine looking women are just in the magazines for the most parts, YMMV.

  • Mike C

    Mike C, I feel compelled to defend my fellow younger generationers here. We may have grown up on trash in the media, but it was the older generation who put that trash on the media. We were only teenagers coming of age, and those shows were produced by older folks. We looked to the older folks for guidance, and we received the wrong messages.

    Hope, to be clear I was NOT directly attacking Gen Yers. I was simply agreeing with ConcernedMamas point that Gen Y came of age with alot of different media exposure than us Gen Xer’s did. My sister grew up watching Full House while a Gen Y woman was watching Sex in the City in the formative teenage years. And the parenting styles were very different. At my workplace, in my department pretty much all the managers are Baby Boomers so I’ve seen and heard a little about their relationships with their children. One co-worker and I joke how with one of the women her son must call her every time he takes a shit to ask about wiping his ass. I believe the term is helicopter parents…always hovering…way too involved in the details and minutia of their children’s lives. It really is amazing to me. When I was a kid (mid to late 80s) I remember one summer when I and my friends were really into bike riding. There were no cell phones then. We’d get on our bikes and literally ride all over the place all day leaving in the morning getting back home late evening maybe. And we rode those bikes without being strapped with helmets and kneepads and elbowpads like we were going off to war.

    I’ve got no axe to grind with Gen Y in general. Based on what I’ve seen and read, they have some positive qualities. I’ll admit they seem more team, community, and family oriented than many Gen Xers myself included. I think us Gen Xers (not all of us, but a good chunk) have a more independent, individualistic streak with some cynicism. That has some negatives associated with it, but our society faces some difficult decisions down the road where kick the can will no longer be a viable option. I think Gen Xers will be better equipped to make the tough decisions that require some tradeoffs.

    Many of us feel like there’s no future for us, because the older generations are sucking it dry. They’re dismantling social security so that even if we pay into it our entire working lives, by the time we retire, we’ll be living on the future equivalent of nothing. Most young folks can barely get a decent job, but the young folks are not the ones who exported manufacturing or raised the bar on education and experience needed to get into a higher level job.

    The one piece of advice I would have is think through clearly what you can control and what you cannot. Sure, it is noble and worthwhile to try and change the system. At the same time, make your individual life decisions as much as you can so that you are beyond being dependent.

    http://randomroger.blogspot.com/2012/04/boom-goes-social-security-assumptions.html

    Every night, I hear the bitching on the news about gas prices. Hey people, don’t live in the middle of nowhere 50 miles from your job. Don’t take senseless trips for no purpose. Consolidate your shopping to once a week. Be efficient.

  • Blissex

    «You”’ notice that it can’t be education that’s keeping women from marrying at younger ages nor directly causing any of the other factors you’ve listed.
    There are sufficient available women who have not earned a degree if that’s what men want.
    »

    The keys to understanding women reproductive choices is related to education, but not just: it is pensions as to motivations and contraception as to enabling.

    For several hundred thousand years women have been terrified of ending up lone old widowers begging in the streets, and accordingly they have had children as investments in old age support, knowing well that odds were that their husbands would die before them.

    The following discussion is mostly part of my “womb” or “Male Parental Investment” thread (not the “vagina” or “hookup/bathhouse culture” one).

    The ancient Matriarchy regarded children as pension nest eggs, and men as the means to get the resources to invest in having and raising those children; and most children would be put to work to support that investment too. Therefore in many societies male children are more highly prized than female children (harder working for example) and therefore female children would need dowries to get married (because usually not directly revenue generating).

    The ideal investment portfolio for an individual woman was to have several male children first, and then last a single female one to keep unmarried as specific caretaker, while the elder male children would earn the money to fund the mother’s old age. Also reliable contraceptives were not available, and sex had a relatively high chance of resulting in pregnancy, and securing Male Parental Investment before pregnancies was nearly essential.

    Thus having children was a critically important investment, and often determined the affluence and lifestyle of a woman in upper middle and old age, just as a careful selection of parenting husband determined it in young and lower middle age. Thus also why in poor and risky countries women tend to have more children than in richer safer ones: play the numbers.

    What has happened is that pensions, whether state or work related, have turned children from a necessary retirement investments into luxury discretionary consumption, competing with other types of luxury consumption, like a bigger house, a nicer car, a more exotic holiday, and many women no longer accordingly feel the absolute need to have children as nest eggs. As long as they work, save into a retirement account, or rely on the state pension, things are going to be good.

    Add to this the easy availability of contraception, and the legality of abortion, and women have no financial incentive to have children, the opportunity to have sex without pregnancies for as long as they want or ever, and anyhow the time demands of work and career, the alternative way to save for retirement, displace the effort for having children (but for really determined women).

    Of course an education both takes time and helps getting better paying careers with better pensions, so education does reduce even more the incentive to have children, but it is not just education.

    The only countries that I think have introduced work and state pensions for women and not seen a colossal and very quick fall in natality rates have been those like the Scandinavian one where having and raising children is highly subsidized: there pensions are available, so the necessity of having children is greatly reduced, but the cost of having children is also greatly reduced, so women have them anyhow.

    Pensions for women without child subsidies have a terrible effect. Obviously collectively women still have to rely on their children for being taken care of in their old age.

    Because if all the women in a country have no children, men will die 5-15 years before women do, and the old women can vote themselves huge pensions and fantastic care arrangements, but there will be nobody around to provide them.

    So suppose that half of the women have no children, and half have two. The half of the women who spent time and money and effort in raising their children will share their care with those who did not, because all will have a pension, not just those who had the two children.

    Therefore there is a very large freerider problem…

  • Mule Chewing Briars

    Re: The HEB-M.

    That future sobriquet explains a lot of things, the sex ratio of single women to single men in NYC and DC, for example. Why wouldn’t women gravitate to a place where there are lots and lots of HEB-Ms? What I cannot understand is why the sex ratio is so skewed in favor of women in LA. There must be a load of HEB-Ms there.

    As for what girls are finding attractive, it’s getting darker all the time. They want the rich selfish jerk who is going to weather the storm

    I wonder about that a lot. Looking at places where the storm has already hit, it seems true. Look at Mexican beauty queens and their predilection for cartel goons.

    Then, looking at how Vikings managed to work their way into so many upper class European bloodlines in the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries, it makes me wonder if the Female Selecting Compass doesn’t subconsciously presage some difficult days ahead where unthinking ferocity and the capacity for brutal violence (or the capacity to contain it), will be more valuable than the ability to follow orders in a well-ordered Cube Farm.

    I often wondered how some of Roissy’s acolytes would fare if dropped onto the streets of, say, Pereira, Colombia. This series investigates some of this territory but stops short of a unified field theory, despite his fingering of Democracy as the culprit.

  • Blissex

    «What I cannot understand is why the sex ratio is so skewed in favor of women in LA. There must be a load of HEB-Ms there.»

    Two reasons: Hollywood. It is two reasons because it is a winner-take-all employment market for aspiring actresses, and a winner-take-all marriage market for aspiring wives of actors.

  • Alias

    Susan:
    “YES! YES! YES”
    ——-
    Meg Ryan’s in the house!

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Ramble, while our moms were watching TV, kids like me and my husband were on the computer. Also, why listen to the radio when you can download music, the exact songs you like?

    The pop culture fans will always be there, but the supply side of what gets signed into label has changed over the years. Have you by chance seen the YouTube series “The Industry”?

    Mike C, I understand structure vs. agency, and personally I’ve done well for myself. But you can’t ignore the fact that right around 2008 the bottom fell out, and the new crop of graduates are having a lot tougher time than you or even me.

  • Maggie

    @Hope

    I think Gen Y gets an unfair rap. They may be a little more spoiled than previous generations — each generation seems to be a little more spoiled than the one before — but I think most Gen Y’s are polite, caring and upbeat.

  • Ramble

    Ramble, while our moms were watching TV, kids like me and my husband were on the computer. Also, why listen to the radio when you can download music, the exact songs you like?

    Hope, you were the one that was seemingly placing the blame on those that produce the trash, I was simply responding.

  • Ramble

    Every man that has ever professed feelings for me except one has cited my intelligence, indeed partly demonstrated via wit and charm, as a key source of the attraction. The only one who never mentioned it one way or the other was my dumb jock college boyfriend.

    Susan, could you imagine one of the smarter ones saying, “Susan, I think I am falling for you…and your perky tits played a big part in that!”?

    I am not saying that they didn’t appreciate the fact that you could keep them intellectually engaged, but…

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

      Susan, could you imagine one of the smarter ones saying, “Susan, I think I am falling for you…and your perky tits played a big part in that!”?

      I am not saying that they didn’t appreciate the fact that you could keep them intellectually engaged, but…

      Yes, because they said that too :)

      All partnered women have heard the speech about why the guy is falling, at least I hope so.

      “You’re beautiful, and you make me laugh, and your ass is amazing, and you’re an awesome cook and you’re so damned smart! You have it all.”

  • Alias

    Mike C:
    “one thing I will point out is they started to highlight the shift in the dynamic between husband and wife especially compared to something like say Happy Days. Maybe I will expand on this at a later point. Looking back, one of the shows that may have been a turning point was Married with Children.”
    ——–
    I can think of a show where the husband was made to look like a buffoon, earlier than Married with Children.
    1955 Jackie Gleason- The Honeymooners

  • Alias

    And based on The Honeymooners, cartoons like
    The Flinstones 1960s

  • Mule Chewing Briars

    Alias -

    Alas, I am old enough to remember a lot of these shows:

    Trouble With Father
    The Life Of Riley
    Ozzie And Harriet

  • Mike C

    Re: my comment about “agreeableness.” Sorry, I can’t remember who took issue with this. I don’t actually believe that agreeableness and submissiveness are the same thing (sorry it appeared that way), but since the two words are so often paired in the Manosphere, I get the impression that they’re linked in many of your minds. It’s totally understandable to be put off by an aggressive, ball-busting bitch, but there is something about “agreeable” that rubs me the wrong way. I get what you want, but couldn’t you use adjectives like “loving,” “considerate,” or “respectful” instead? To me, “agreeable” implies a certain emptiness and passivity that I don’t think are necessary to treat men well.

    ConcernedMama,

    This is a difficult conversation because it is hard to get the words exactly right to capture the essence. There is alot of nuance and grey here, and unfortunately many people want to view things in black and while, and immediately get emotional. When I think “submissiveness” I think Stepford wife and I certainly do NOT want that. I suspect the percentage of guys who want that even in the Manosphere is relatively small. My GF actually can be quite sassy and feisty, BUT she is pretty good about knowing where to draw the line, and what is too much. Agreeable means to me exactly how the word is laid out….”inclined to agree” while disagreeable means “inclined to disagree”. It’s either one or the other. Are you going to go along with me, or are you going to fight me at every decision point.

    The best analogy I can come up with is the physical act of dancing. Only one person can lead. You cannot have two perfectly equal co-leaders without the dance looking like a clusterfuck. And in the dance, the man leads the woman follows. Agreeable simply means she follows along with the dance while disagreeable means she fights the steps. No guy wants to dance with that woman. At the same time, I personally don’t view agreeable as meaning having a YES WOMAN. To me the main crux of “agreeableness” comes down to the point that in any ongoing relationship there will be a multitude of decisions and when the rubber hits the road there can only be one “decider”. Again, this is all very tricky to articulate just right because there is subtle nuance. The difficulty lies in that many women were raised to “assert their indepedence” at every turn yet they still want a man who is “dominant” on an instinctual level. My sense is not many see the paradox in the conflict between cultural message and the subconscious.

    The PUA sites think they’re bold and transgressive for pointing this out.

    Well…IDK…bold and trangressive at least to the degree that the mainstream message is still “be yourself” and you’ll win the girl in the end. Even today, there is still alot of MSM messages that basically say the patient beta orbiter does OK in the end.

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

      I just want to point out that sometimes I write about agreeableness as one of the Big Five Personality traits:

      Agreeableness is a tendency to be pleasant and accommodating in social situations. In contemporary personality psychology, agreeableness is one of the five major dimensions of personality structure, reflecting individual differences in cooperation and social harmony.[1] People who score high on this dimension are empathetic, considerate, friendly, generous, and helpful. They also have an optimistic view of human nature. They tend to believe that most people are honest, decent, and trustworthy.

      People scoring low on agreeableness are generally less concerned with others’ well-being and report having less empathy. Therefore, these individuals are less likely to go out of their way to help others. Low agreeableness is often characterized by skepticism about other people’s motives resulting in suspicion and unfriendliness. People very low on agreeableness have a tendency to be manipulative in their social relationships. They are also more likely to compete than to cooperate.

      Unfortunately, I do often see men who are quite disagreeable according to this definition demanding feminine agreeableness from women.

      Agreeableness is a trait that both sexes should value equally in a relationship. An alpha male with low agreeableness in his personality is probably a Dark Triad type – the worst possible bet for long-term mating. Similarly, the female with low agreeableness probably has Borderline Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, etc.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    @Hope

    As for what girls are finding attractive, it’s getting darker all the time. They want the rich selfish jerk who is going to weather the storm, not the good diligent hardworking boy who is going to get screwed by the system. It’s a sad reality that Dark Triad traits are rewarded in today’s society; integrity, honor and loyalty are, well, out-of-date. Some children of immigrant groups and insulated upper middle class folks still hold onto the old-fashioned values, but that is also diminishing, and even those kids see what happens all around them.

    We the younger generation did not create this mess. We just have to live in it.

    This hits home, Hope. I’m part of the generation of which you speak. Can I somehow reach across generations?

    First off, when someone says “Baby Boomer”, it always seems like they mean hippy. Dirty, pot smoking, free-lovin’, LSD & Timothy Leary Forever, easy-ridin’ hippies. I was born in ’54 and I swear I was too young for all that. I just got the music.

    What we had were parents who messed it up for us. We grew up in the shadow of world wars and atomic bombs and – not a lousy tomorrow, but NO tomorrow. Of course we felt we had to do something – anything – that was different since we were on the road to hell.

    And stupid us, it didn’t work out that way. It never does.

    I’m going to need social security in a few years too. Medical bills are not something I have much control over. What I have is a wife who is brave enough to weather this storm with me. Susan’s been mentioning how important intelligence is in a life-partner. It is. But don’t underrate the importance of bravery.

    There is between you and me and that is you have time to do something about your personal situation. Finding someone who can game the system, lie, cheat and or steal to weather the storm (as you put it) may be a good strategy. FOR NOW. Long term? Think carefully about that.

    Think real carefully about the dark triad.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    Sorry. Typo’d. Read “There is a difference between you and me…”

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Ramble, well, the thing is, Madonna was too old by the time we were growing up, Britney Spears and Justin Bieber were for pre-teens and 13-year-olds, and there aren’t a whole lot of generation-defining artists for our generation (perhaps the “alternative genre” is what you could call defining for us). Our tastes varied so widely, and the new media meant we could listen to whatever we want, whenever we want. Can you think of an artist or band like The Beatles that had influence over our entire generation?

    Even with TV shows, the multi-episode long story format that gained traction, but it wasn’t all about shows that featured sex as the main theme. Many young folks were watching Lost, Heroes, The Office, and so on during the 2000′s. Then there were niche nerdy shows like Alias, Buffy, Battlestar Galactica, and various crime/doctor shows like Grey’s Anatomy, CSI, etc. There were no defining shows for our generation, as much as people in the manosphere like to tout Sex and the City. I hardly know anybody in my age group and younger who watched that show. It was talking about 30-40 somethings, and most of us were too young to relate. Gilmore Girls was more relatable.

    And that’s about as pop culture knowledge as I can dredge up.

  • Blissex

    «So women have two mating strategies (the “vagina” and “womb” strategies), which they usually deploy at different times with different types of men

    May I ask where you derive your knowledge of when women deploy different mating strategies? In fact, studies show clearly that some women are predisposed to short-term mating and others are predisposed to long-term mating.»

    Short and long term mating are different issues from recreational vs. reproductive goals in sex. They are not uncorrelated, but quite different issues.

    As to reproductive vs. recreational sex, it seems surprising that nobody you know went to high school or university, where many if not most girls and boys have a number of bf-gf “dating” stories, most involving sex of some sort, and none of them targeted at reproduction (“womb”) but as a rule at recreation (“vagina”).

    The average age of first sex in the USA is 15-17 for recent age cohorts. The average age of marriage for the same age cohort is 27-29, or around 10-15 years later.

    During those 10-15 years relationships are usually “fun” and temporary, and purely recreational (unless the woman gets unlucky). Sure, it is only a minority of women who get into high double digits or “better” before getting married, but the rest have some “fun” relationships, and they are not (if they can help it) intended for reproduction.

    While 50-70 years ago 95% of women (and a significant percentage of men) were virgins at marriage (after 1-2 years of engagement and rather often quite a bit of non-vaginal sex) and most had children straight away, at a pretty young age, like around 20.

    I just found this particularly interesting graph, on page 7 of this census report, of marriage percent by age and cohort:
    http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf
    which to me indicates clearly that there is an ever widening gap between age of first sex and age of marriage, and that isn’t because engagements now last 10-15 years.

    «The alpha cock carousel rider turned beta provider seeker is a manosphere meme I have seen no evidence for IRL.»

    That seems to me an extraordinary privilege, because at least in Europe there are many movies and novels about “wild girls” who suddenly turn into “demure angels” to score a husband (usually 25-30), and there have been for *centuries* (IIRC one of the Canterbury Tales is about that, but I may be confusing them with the Decameron), to the point that it is a clichè; in the past it was the “who is going to have to marry the village sluts when they are the only ones left to marry?” issue. Accordingly, there used to be an industry of “hymen reconstruction” surgeons, to ensure “experienced” girls had a better chance to grab a good provider, and there is still one in some backward countries. In modern countries there is instead the “born again ‘virgin’” phenomenon in several Christian communities, a kind of metaphysical instead of surgical hymen reconstruction, with the aim of matching (formerly :->) “experienced” women with good Christian herbs.

    In old times of course “wild girls” were rather rarer before marriage, and most women who had a “wild phase” had it after marriage, especially in the 80% of the lower classes, or in the 1% upper class; and again there are many novels and movies about married cougars discreetly sampling dashing minstrels/officers/… and other hotties (with clichè “O my God, my husband!” moments…).

    Men insisted on virginity at marriage because it was just about the only way they could have a better assurance that the first child was biologically theirs, as children where the father is not the same as the parent were as common then as now (between 10-40% depending on country and class).

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

      @Blissex

      During those 10-15 years relationships are usually “fun” and temporary, and purely recreational (unless the woman gets unlucky).

      I’ve written frequently about the gap between puberty and marriage, which is 17 years. The vast majority of women prefer to have “in love” relationships – serial monogamy with each relationship lasting a couple of years or more. And women are certainly not controlling the end dates of those relationships – often the driving force is geographical separation due to school or job considerations.

      Only a small percentage of women are looking for “temporary fun” from guys, even in college.

      I am not familiar with the cultural theme of wild girls turning into demure angels to score husbands. Indeed, American culture has for some time been promoting the exact opposite of that, and women are shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that men care about their sexual history. I’ve never heard of an American woman having hymen reconstruction surgery.

      I will agree that many American women, once they do discover their bf wants them to have a low number, obligingly produce one.

      However, I don’t believe alpha chasers ever become beta chasers. The legions of 30 something unmarried women pretty much proves that. Women don’t need the beta provider anymore. And a woman who prefers alpha types is just not going to get it up for a friendly beta provider type.

      Lots of women here are beta chasers :)

      Again, you seem to have bought into the PUA party line. In fact, only a small percentage of women in college (3%) have had 15 partners or more (including vaginal, anal and oral sex). The alpha cock carousel doesn’t have much of a line. In fact, it appears that there are generally about the same number of riders as there are alpha cocks.

  • Alias

    Mule Chewing Briars:
    “Trouble With Father
    The Life Of Riley
    Ozzie And Harriet”
    ——–
    I’ve heard of them but I didn’t watch.
    But, yeah, it’s not exactly new.

  • Ramble

    Hope, the point that you had seemingly made was that it was the producers of trash that caused these problems. And, I am saying, it is, generally, not the supply, but the demand.

    Whether or not there was some prefect era-defining band, or tv show, or movie for a very specific generation is unimportant.

    Each decade, we can easily see, that we are able to get our hands on more and more trash, and, this is, I believe, stemming mostly from demand, not supply.

    So while Bruce Springsteen may have been the artist of his generation, he came at a time when bands like Journey, and Foreigner and the rest of those crap bands were doing very well. And better than before.

    There was a lot of demand for bad pop-music.

    There is a ton of demand for it now.

    It is about the choices that we are making. Sometimes, these things are really limited (i.e. Voting for our President, we get two choices, basically) and sometimes they are wide open, like in music.

    We have tons and tons of choices, but people like Katy Perry and Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift become the huge stars. American Idol and The Jersey Shore on TV. That does not mean that there is not god programming on TV, I personally think there is a ton of it.

    But, it is our choices that are driving these things, in general.

  • Ramble

    Since we know that 80% of women are not promiscuous, and do not fuck men within 7 hours of meeting them, it remains to be seen what the most effective calibration might be for these women.

    Susan, I am not really disagreeing with what you are saying, but you are forcing two ideas together.

    Just because the majority of girls are not promiscuous does mean that they would NOT have fucked the right guy within a day of meeting him.

    I mean, if we heard that some married woman had 2 sex partners her whole life, her husband and some one night stand, she would qualify for the 80% who are not sluts…even if her ONS was some PUA who had banged her within hours of meeting her.

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

      @Ramble

      Just because the majority of girls are not promiscuous does mean that they would NOT have fucked the right guy within a day of meeting him.

      Eh, another overblown meme. The women who have sex during foam parties in Cancun are the women who have sex in the bathroom at bars.

      I mean, if we heard that some married woman had 2 sex partners her whole life, her husband and some one night stand, she would qualify for the 80% who are not sluts…even if her ONS was some PUA who had banged her within hours of meeting her.

      I don’t think men understand the one-night stand. It very rarely has much to do with the particular charms of the guy. In fact, most women decide they’re going to have a ONS, or are open to it, before they even meet the guy. The women who make a habit of it generally do so for male validation, and the charms and assets of a certain guy can be almost immaterial.

      If you could round up all the women who had had one ONS in their lives and ask them why they did it? “He was really hot” would be very, very low on the list of reasons.

  • INTJ

    @ Anacaona

    Do you know there is an obesity epidemy right? The level of commitment needed to look like the magazines is too much so there is a backlash but they take it too much. Also feminist love to blame men for the “unrealistic portrayals of women” when women and gay men are the ones fueling the portrays. Women rather pretend they are “better than a skinny woman” by letting themselves go and them deciding that the men that are not falling for them are superficial. This is one of those things that are behind the media portrays but you can see it on the streets, randomly count how many women are dressed and acting feminine and not overweight and you will see what the average guy has to deal with, magazine looking women are just in the magazines for the most parts, YMMV.

    This is 100% spot on. It’s women that fuel the portrayal of rail-thin as the ideal. And then feminists create a backlash against that and say that obesity is alright. We men just want healthy women. Not obese or anorexic women.

  • Sexybearfriend

    @ConcernedMama
    Yes! Thank-you!I just read your comments and couldn’t agree more.

    @Ted
    I also am really enjoying reading your posts. I don’t think that we see eye-to-eye on some stuff (I don’t think that feminism is the cause of all ills, but merely a progressive cultural step. It’s worn out it’s usefulness so we should be “progressing” towards something else), but you’re points are well-made and respectful. I honestly believe that you are coming from an honest and well-intentioned place, rather than bitterness. Viva la difference! You seem like a great, sweet guy. Plenty of chicks dig ya :-)

    I love how both of you talk about personal responsibility. We live in a society where it’s “whats in it for me”. There’s plenty of blame to go around — 24hour media that caters to the base desires of super-youth; overly stressed work situation for both sexes; blatant marketing-based capitalism (please note that I said “marketing” and not “market”. As in “advertisments” and”focus groups”) But we all play a part in how much we allow these distractions to affect us.
    Thanks again guys! I look forward to reading your comments as much as Susan’s new posts!

  • Alias

    Ramble:
    “I believe, stemming mostly from demand, not supply.”
    —–
    Yes, from demand and decreased censorship.
    In earlier days, the studios and celebrities carefully crafted their images. All of the dirty laundry was well hidden otherwise careers were ruined.
    Now, they’d be celebrated and well-rewarded financially.
    High demand created by people who line up to buy any KimK nonsense or tickets to see Charlie Sheen.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Joe, I think there is some parallel there. Our generation has had two major, expensive and decade-long wars, in some ways still ongoing. There’s a line from Fight Club we can’t relate to 100%: “We have no Great War or Great Depression.” We all have peers or know people or talked to people who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. There was a short time of economic prosperity during the wars, but then the major recession hit, and now they’re talking about it with a capital R. We have peers our age who are coming back from war, and we fear the future for our own kids. My husband says sometimes, “It’s a sad world we’re bringing a baby into.”

    So there’s a great deal of uncertainty and fear, about debt, jobs, economy, romance, health, and the future in general. Many kids are moving back with their parents for stability and security, to save up money, because we are not the partying or weed-smoking or happy-go-lucky generation. We’re the product of a culture of fear, terrorism this, bombing that, going through airports with pat-down searches and tiny liquid bottles, and living under constant but intangible threats. In the face of all this, neither the good guy nor the bad guy can really do much.

    There’s a lot of retreat into fantasy worlds, something that was once the domain of the nerdy outcasts, now fully in the mainstream. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Twilight, now Hunger Games, and The Hobbit will be big as well. There are all these fantastical elements, the escape from reality, the alternate universes or imaginary worlds. In my time playing online video games, I have met a lot of active duty and returned veterans, no older than me, some younger, and they prefer knowing who their enemies are, that look like dragons or monsters or zombies. And for many, it beats living in the real word.

    I didn’t select for Dark Triad traits in my husband, but I know that he is also capable of protecting us in a storm. He knows how to handle firearms and taught me how to shoot, he stockpiles canned food and supplies, and we have plans about what to do in emergencies. Keep in mind we’re in our 20s, and we’re living mostly middle to upper middle class.

    Perhaps on some subconscious level this fear has seeped into the mentality of many young women in our generation, though I would certainly not count on the selfish cad to protect in a time of danger. The problem is that men protecting themselves is demonized socially, for example gun ownership itself is called into question, so nowadays it is often only the men who are “dark” possess such force. Although, when it comes down to it, no one can fight against artillery and rockets.

  • A definite beta guy

    It may not be polite to completely live for ourselves and give nothing back.

    It is also not polite to build a society that requires immense sacrifice for one group of people on behalf of another that does not need to sacrifice anything.

  • Ramble

    All partnered women have heard the speech about why the guy is falling, at least I hope so.

    God, I hate to be that wet blanket, but, if half the girls are above average in looks, well, then the other half must be…and this is after a huge portion of them got a lot huger.

    Also, I am not so sure how many guys say, “You make me laugh”. YMMV

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

      God, I hate to be that wet blanket, but, if half the girls are above average in looks, well, then the other half must be…and this is after a huge portion of them got a lot huger.

      I’d like to think that a guy who’s a 5 would think his 5 gf is beautiful to him if he’s in love with her.

      Also, I am not so sure how many guys say, “You make me laugh”. YMMV

      I wasn’t generalizing – I was sharing what guys have said to me specifically. I tend to be a bit goofy, silly and funny in my relationships. Making people laugh is one of my most favorite things to do in life.

      Also, and I don’t mean to pile on, but I am curious how many are saying “You are an awesome cook”.

      My mother was not very…maternal. She didn’t cook or sew or do any “caring” things. So I taught myself to do all of those things. By the time I was 14 I was spending Saturdays cooking things from the Joy of Cooking. Sort of an adolescent version of Julie and Julia. Whenever I dated a guy I liked, early on I would prepare a feast for him. In fact, feeding men I like has always been one of my go-to moves. So that really is feedback I heard a lot – I learned to cook pretty well at a very young age.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Ramble, well we can also live in China, where the cultural overlords shut down silly romance reality TV shows that were wildly popular and replaced them with educational programs (yes they actually did this). Catering to human desire for light, frivolous trash happens everywhere.

    Here, culturally speaking, there’s a new crop of shows glorifying promiscuity, and young kids growing up don’t really know any better besides, “Hey look it’s on TV, and lots of people are watching it and talking about it!” Some people are more resistant to such messages due to previous indoctrination, but many buy into it.

    Of course there’s always demand for salacious material, and there’s also something called “freedom” in the West. Just look at the way the government in China and the Middle East try in futility to censor pornogralphy and keep it away from people. Or the way movies showing full frontal nudity are common in Europe, but not quite in America. I grew up in China where people never even kissed on TV or in front of people in real life. When I first moved here, I watched in fascination the first time I saw people making out on TV. The demand is always there, but the supply isn’t always. Or is it?

  • Ramble

    Also, and I don’t mean to pile on, but I am curious how many are saying “You are an awesome cook”.

  • Ramble

    Hope, are you thinking that I am implying that we should have some sort of socialist cultural program?

  • Sexybearfriend

    Hey guys and gal, can we all stop with the Pity Party? “Oh, the men died on the Titanic! Society thinks men are expendable!”. Or what about “centuries of sometimes brutal submission by men! We’ve endured HUNDREDS, maybe THOUSANDS of years of this!” We need to at some point draw a line in the sand and say “ok, enough. Nothing is getting solved, let’s be adults and move forward.” Seriosuly — with very rare exception, the men that will ACTUALLY give up their lives for family/women/community is exceptionally rare. And us ladies have it historically good right now. ALL of us are living in the “best” time in history, regarding personal safety and personal wealth. We shouldn’t be riding the gender coattails of our predesessors. None of us are not particularly heroic, nor oppressed. The happiness among us are the ones that understand how (and when) to compromise.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    Hope, everything you say rings true, as it did for my generation (just substitute Viet Nam for Afghanistan and you get the idea). It is ever thus. My father and his brothers survived WWII while the women stayed home, for the most part, and worried themselves into despair. Then they worried about Polio. The same for his father and brothers and WWI, except they also survived immigration and worried about the flu pandemic of 1918.

    I’ve heard it said that when we’re born, the ticket says “admit one.” It never says “A good time is guaranteed for all.”

    I’m glad you chose your husband wisely, because it’s not right to take all that comes at you alone. Together is a better way to celebrate the good times, too, because they’re coming also.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Hope
    There’s a lot of retreat into fantasy worlds, something that was once the domain of the nerdy outcasts, now fully in the mainstream. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Twilight, now Hunger Games, and The Hobbit will be big as well. There are all these fantastical elements, the escape from reality, the alternate universes or imaginary worlds.

    That’s an interesting analysis, Hope. I read a lot of Middle Grade and Young Adult fiction (partly because I work with children and partly because I’ve always loved the genre) and the explosion of Fantasy/Paranormal books is a sight to behold. I don’t even count Tolkien’s new popularity and Rowling’s influence any longer because they started writing their series in very different worlds. These new books are more likely to be violent and/or dystopian . . . or even apocalyptic.

    I’d also say their appeal is bit more nuanced than a retreat from the “real world.” That is, they don’t pretend that there isn’t a problem, but they change the nature and offer a workable solution. In these fantasy worlds, there are often huge, violent conflicts that may mean the end of the world and the deaths of the heroes. But as in video games, it is clear who the enemies are and how to defeat them. And you never feel that characters have died in vain. But most importantly, these stories have endings. There is some catharsis in reading about the end of a fictional war that readers must yearn for at a time as full of uncertainty as ours.

  • ConcernedMama

    @Jet Tibet

    “Sweet” and also “deferential” or “admiring” should be in that list (“loving” not so much).

    That you would add “deferential” and subtract “loving” speaks volumes. Why do you need deference? What’s wrong with mutual respect?

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Ramble, you were the one who first objected to when I said that our generation didn’t put the stuff on TV, that we were not the ones who produced the shows. You still are being slippery about your exact objections to what I said.

    I’m pointing out the fact that there are different ways different cultures address the issue of demand for trashy stuff, including outright censorship. Personally, I didn’t mind that aspect of my upbringing. I thank them for brainwashing me into a prude, so that I didn’t ride the casual carousel.

  • Ramble

    Eh, another overblown meme. The women who have sex during foam parties in Cancun are the women who have sex in the bathroom at bars.

    Way to take it to the extreme.

    I don’t think men understand the one-night stand. It very rarely has much to do with the particular charms of the guy. In fact, most women decide they’re going to have a ONS, or are open to it, before they even meet the guy. The women who make a habit of it generally do so for male validation, and the charms and assets of a certain guy can be almost immaterial.

    Yes, but this is with the big assumption that she chose for it to be only one night. They call it Pump and Dump for a reason.

    Again, I am not implying that the 80% have had that. I am simply trying to show what the stats can say.

    If you could round up all the women who had had one ONS in their lives and ask them why they did it? “He was really hot” would be very, very low on the list of reasons.

    Well, I certainly wouldn’t expect them to say, “He had some tight game. I got played, yo”.

    Or, “We only spent the one night together because that was all of me he could stand.”

  • Sexybearfriend

    @Ramble
    “Also, I am not so sure how many guys say, “You make me laugh””

    What are you talking about?
    Look, I’m an outlier here I understand. But I’m also not some weird “precious snowflake”. I’ve been in 3 long-term relationships, all with marriage proposals (I never wanted to get married. They offered it up, I never asked for it). My ability to make them laugh (and to laugh with them) was what brought our relationships from just “a girl I’d like to bang” to someone special. Any chick can give a sweet BJ or doll herself up. It’s the differences in individuality that carve out a niche for ourselves in their minds. For some it could be cooking, others it could be humor. I get that a woman’s humor might not be a biggie for you — cool, you and I will never bang (I’m not attracted to a guy that doesn’t like to laugh). But I strongly suggest that if a chick has the aptitude for humor she should develop it.

  • Mike C

    Agreeableness is a trait that both sexes should value ****equally**** in a relationship.

    False. We know there are traits that are much more important depending on the sex. For example, men prioritize looks more than women so physical appearance is more important for women to cultivate. Women prioritize status/income potential more so it is more important for a man to cultivate that. The male preference for agreeableness is stronger than the female preference for agreeableness. That is NOT to say a guy should go out of his way to be a disagreeable bastard (he should NOT), but that he shouldn’t expect agreeableness to be a big attractor. It’s not. I know that for a fact. I was raised to be agreeable, and I had to work hard to tone down that aspect of my personality and find a balance where I was a lot more assertive and firm about *what I wanted*.

    Like everything else, agreeableness lies on a spectrum, and it isn’t a case of either being agreeable or being a Dark Triad narcissist.

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

      @Mike C

      I wasn’t saying agreeableness is a sexual attraction cue, or that it should be, which would obviously be pointless. I’m saying it’s an important personality trait related to character, and it predicts relationship success pretty accurately.

      Agreeableness is essential for relationships, so the lack of it should be used to filter men out for long term mating.

      Good for long-term partnership:

      empathetic
      considerate
      friendly
      generous
      helpful
      optimistic view of human nature

      Bad for long-term partnership:

      less concerned with others’ well-being
      report having less empathy
      less likely to go out of their way to help others.
      skepticism about other people’s motives
      suspicion
      unfriendliness

      Of course this trait lies on a spectrum, like all traits. My advice to both sexes would be to look for someone well into the agreeable side of the curve.

      From a recent post I wrote:

      Low agreeableness and low conscientiousness both predict all forms of short-term mating behavior for both sexes. The strongest link is to infidelity for both traits.

      The strongest personality predictor of short-term mating is impulsive sensation-seeking. Studies have consistently linked sensation-seeking to short-term mating, including men’s patronage of prostitutes. Impulsive sensation seeking is closely associated with the Big Five dimensions of low agreeableness and low conscientiousness.

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/03/06/hookinguprealities/which-personalities-are-best-for-relationships/comment-page-2/

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    Thanks for the lowdown on the Titanic. That kind of thing does come across like an urban legend. I’m very doubtful that chivalry was ever widespread in history. It seems more like a 19th C. Victorian upper-class notion. It certainly wasn’t practiced in the Middle Ages.

    I wonder how much criticism of men/women as a whole would go away if people were aware of confirmation bias?

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

      @Megaman

      I wonder how much criticism of men/women as a whole would go away if people were aware of confirmation bias?

      If they were aware? None, because there are none so blind as those who will not see. But if they could be forced to acknowledge it? I bet nearly all the criticism would evaporate. It won’t happen though – we want our confirmation biases, it doesn’t really matter whether we’re actually right, just that people perceive that we are right.

  • Sexybearfriend

    (3rd comment in an hour. Slow at work! Haha!)

    Regarding agreeable, to my mind, it’s not submissive. It’s something that BOTH men and women should have. I have a male friend who is so contrarian. It’s gotten to the point where the rest of my friends and I don’t want to be around him. So agreeable is something good in everyone. It doesn’t mean that the man automatically “leads”. It should mean that whoever has the right POV on that particular subject takes the lead, in a gracious manner. And it also means that if you disagree, you can do so in a constructive, not desctructive, manner.

  • Blissex

    «Yes, but it’s all within the context of “speed seduction.” Every target is presumed to be fuckable after 7 hours of knowing the PUA.»

    I am not a Game practictioner myself, but I have read a lot out of interest, as it matched a large part of my “natural alpha” experiences (a while ago), so I hope that I am not misrepresenting their culture, but it is completely different. Some people’s advertising is sleazy, but then it is advertising.

    The 7-hour thing is called in the jargon a “Same Day Lay”, and it considered a rare achievement even for truly smooth alphas. Most approaches end with a “number close” and then some dates. For example, there is an entertaining blog by a “professional” PUA at http://WWW.KrauserPUA.com and it has many stories of approaches and lays (skewed towards approaches that resulted in lays, I suspect), and if you read them you will find your prejudices about Game entirely contradicted.

    To give a data point PUAs aim to get a 1-in-20 approach-to-lay rate, of which very (very) few will be Same Day Lays. That’s part of the reason why critical aspects of Game are recommendations to try many approaches, and to quickly skip those that are “cold”. No point in hassling girls who are not in the mood to get laid or not with the man doing the approach. There is something like a 30 second guideline for approaches: if the approach is “cold” after 30s it is unlikely to get better.

    If there is a 7 hour mentioned here and there it is a completely different story: that if after 6-8 hours cumulative time together (that often means some to several dates, possibly spanning weeks) the woman has not yet decided to get laid with the man, it is usually a bad idea to spend more time on her and it is is better to give up and spend more time on a better chance with a girl more interested in getting laid and specifically with the man.

    Again, the goal is to maximize the approach-to-lay ratio, where 20 is good ratio to aim for, and then the effort-to-lay ratio, where around 8 hours is commonly advised as a limit to effort.

    Note: I wonder nowadays in how many cases today it takes more than 8 hours of interaction for “dating” to happen in non-Game inspired stories.

    «What Game doesn’t even attempt to do is distinguish between the sexual psychology of a stripper and a kindergarten teacher. »

    Consider two results of a quick search from your favorite PUA :-):

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/direct-vs-indirect-street-game/
    «One more beef I have with direct game, and it’s a minor one, is the type of girl it will be most effective on. Direct game would theoretically work best on impulsive and, yes, dumber girls who better appreciate the stark boldness of an assertive man. Indirect game, with its reliance on wit, situational awareness and verbal dexterity, would work better on less impulsive, smarter girls (i.e. SWPLs) who appreciate these qualities demonstrated in men.»

    «http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/does-game-work-less-well-on-masculine-women/»
    «If more aggressive (lower ratio), you may want to shoot for women with lower ratios as well, since they will be less possessive of your time and attention, freeing you up to fool around. If you are less aggressive by temperament, you will want to screen for feminine women with higher digit ratios, as these types of women will be more easily gamed into loyal relationship material.»
    «Are you looking for a fling or a girlfriend? If the former, target low digit ratio girls. If the latter, go with high digit ratio girls. Returning to the title of this post, I surmise that masculine, low digit ratio women are harder to game because they are less possessive and more prone to cheat than feminine women.»

    Note the very situational advice, depending on the type of man and the type of woman, and even the type of relationship desired. The Game is largely a way to avoid wasting either person’s time on women who are not attracted to a man, and that depends a lot on the details.

    The fundamental assumption is that the main goal of a PUA is recreational sex (getting laid), something that I think is legitimate, and that there are women, potentially very many women, who want recreational sex too, and are in the mood for it (whether that’s a good idea for them or not, which is a separate issue).

    Which seems very different from this:

    «Based on your description I pity any woman who finds herself in the sights of one of these HEB-Ms, as they are clearly not oriented toward LTRs, marriage or fatherhood, not to mention monogamy.»

    I think statements like this are based on an unwillingness to acknowledge that there are indeed very many women who are not much or yet interested in «LTRs, marriage or fatherhood, not to mention monogamy», at least for a significant part of their lives. And sometimes I pity the HEB-Ms who find themselves in the sights of these women, who can be quite vulgar and obsessive as another commenter reported from his own experience. BTW the hot male friend I have mentioned in the post you deleted as one who had given up going out evenings because of the frequent sexual harassment by female groupies was a preppy-style HEB-M, even if the establishment was downmarket from Christ Church and he was reading engineering rather than PPE, and I have also been somewhat familiar with Seb’s background (upper class universities, in a few countries), and the greedy appetite that so many (upper class) “nice girls” studying there have for flings with some (upper class) HEB-Ms.

  • ConcernedMama

    Susan,

    Thanks. Your definition of “agreeableness” certainly does encompass more than it usually connotes to me. If we’re using that standard, I’ll be agreeable and admit that it’s an important attribute!

  • Ramble

    Ramble, you were the one who first objected to when I said that our generation didn’t put the stuff on TV, that we were not the ones who produced the shows. You still are being slippery about your exact objections to what I said.

    What slippery. Here is what I said, “Is it Supply, or Demand? It sounds like you are saying, “It is the Supply”.”

    And, like I had said in a previous thread, this is a hobby horse of mine: That, girls are sluttier because pop culture is telling them to be.

    Madonna was not being overtly sexual because her record company told her to be (hell, they sped up her voice to make her sound younger and more innocent…before she got greater control of how she would be marketed). That is what she wanted to do.

    Brittany, same deal.

    Miley Cyrus, ditto.

    And the girls, at least a large portion of them, ate it right up.

  • Ramble

    I’d like to think that a guy who’s a 5 would think his 5 gf is beautiful to him if he’s in love with her.

    Except that the average guy is still fairly nice, whereas the average girl, in your own words, has become more narcissistic and masculine.

    And that 5 gf is a great deal fatter than her 5 mother and 5 grandmother before her.

    Also, and I don’t mean to pile on, but I am curious how many are saying “You are an awesome cook”.

    My mother was not …

    Well, your specific situation aside, I was still speaking generally.

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

      @Ramble

      Except that the average guy is still fairly nice, whereas the average girl, in your own words, has become more narcissistic and masculine.

      I thought we were talking about looks. And I’m not so sure the average guy is nice. I don’t know one way or the other. Guys may be decreasing as a percentage of total narcissists, but that doesn’t mean they’re delightful to be around. I’d also say that there are plenty of female 5s who are anything but narcissistic.

      Well, your specific situation aside, I was still speaking generally.

      OK, I have no idea about that. I have my own history, and some knowledge of the feedback my young women friends get. I was sharing that as a sample of 1.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Joe, thanks for that encouragement. My father-in-law is a Vietnam vet, and he started the habit of collecting guns/ammo and stashing food. Some of that undoubtedly rubbed off on my husband, too.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Only a small percentage of women are looking for “temporary fun” from guys, even in college.

    That might not be their intention, but that’s exactly what most of their actions communicate.

    I don’t think men understand the one-night stand. It very rarely has much to do with the particular charms of the guy. In fact, most women decide they’re going to have a ONS, or are open to it, before they even meet the guy. The women who make a habit of it generally do so for male validation, and the charms and assets of a certain guy can be almost immaterial.

    If you could round up all the women who had had one ONS in their lives and ask them why they did it? “He was really hot” would be very, very low on the list of reasons.

    Probably true, but that’s not going to make guys think she’s any more suitable for a relationship.

  • Mike C

    It should mean ****that whoever has the right POV**** on that particular subject takes the lead, in a gracious manner.

    Sexybear,

    How do we determine who has the “right” POV on a “particular subject”. Do we bring in a third-party arbitrator for each side to plead their case and get a judgement on who has the right POV?

    If the wife wants to buy a super expensive house in the best school district for the kids, but the husband is sure it is too much of a stretch financially and exposes the family to financial problems, who has the “right” POV. Do we escalate the disagreement into a massive emotional bickering until one side caves? Here is the problem. There is a lot of shit that sounds really good and utopian in abstract theory, but when you get down to the granular, operational logistics, the utopian theory doesn’t work. Honestly, your statement above is meaningless because it presupposes there is some way to determine the “objective right” POV amongst two parties with differences in opinion.

  • Blissex

    «it’s all within the context of “speed seduction.”»

    In the PUA culture “speed seduction” means teaching hapless “betas” to stop wasting months or years being strung along or (rather often) stringing themselves along, rather than achieving 100% Same Night Lays with Down To Fuck women. It is all relative.

    Also please remember that a large percentage of women are available for first-date sex, one quote among many:

    «55 percent of singles reporting having had sex on the first date (66 percent of men; 44 percent of women).»

    That’s the percent of women who have scored a Same Night Lay once; from memory it is 25% of all dates that end in a Same Night Lay (probably well under 7 hours of cumulative interaction during the date). A quick search returns another quote:

    «According to a recent survey published by the Sexuality Research and Social Policy research journal, one-third of women who meet people online have sex on the first date, and a whopping three-quarters of those surveyed do not use a condom. Meanwhile, a mere 27-percent engage in oral sex on the first day. [ ... ] The high likelihood of sex on the first date is partially attributable to an increased comfort level. According to the survey, having extended or multiple conversations with a person online can decrease the tension and general awkwardness that accompanies a first date.»

    In some countries 50% of dates are setup online…

    The idea of Game is to get to that “first date” without spending months of groveling and to give it a good chance that the woman is in the mood; but if she is not in the mood, no matter, it may be some subsequent date, as long as it is not the 50th.

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

      @Blissex

      The discussion depends largely of the age of the population in question. Obviously, since I focus on college students and people in their 20s, the percentage of women having had a SNL is much lower than if you’re talking about the entire online dating population.

      Also, there is a lot of variation in “first dates.” This could apply to a man and woman who have known one another as friends or neighbors for years. It might also be true of people who have known one another in the workplace. As the quote mentions, online daters may know a great deal about one another, may have spent hours talking on the phone and feel generally well acquainted by the time they meet. Which again, is a very different situation than picking a guy up in a bar. “First date” is a phrase without much meaning in hookup culture, since kids don’t date. And it’s subject to a great deal of variation according to context.

      The idea of Game is to get to that “first date” without spending months of groveling and to give it a good chance that the woman is in the mood; but if she is not in the mood, no matter, it may be some subsequent date, as long as it is not the 50th.

      And I have no problem with that. I have drawn the line at suggestions that if she doesn’t have sex by the third date, she’s not attracted to you. Women seeking monogamous relationships have every reason to get their price met up front, as you suggested earlier, no matter how attracted they are.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Ramble, so I want to make clear, you are saying it is NOT the supply, and the responsibility rests SOLELY on the demand?

    I remember singing this totally random pop song when I was 10, only you’d never know what I was singing because I was singing Chinese songs. It was about the moon and love and sappy stuff, and the original singer was a man. My relatives were doing karaoke, and I wanted to sing along. So of course little girls eat that stuff up up. It’s monkey-see, monkey-do! I also imitated my relatives when they stoked the furnace, washed clothes and peeled potatoes.

    Kids are highly impressionable. They are greatly influenced by their environment, what they see around them, and what plays on TV. When I was growing up, they had Chinese cultural dance on TV, and I would try to make my sleeves longer and whip them around to try to dance like them. If it had been Britney Spears gyrating her hips on TV, I would have tried to do the same. You’re going to pin all the blame on the kids who try to imitate the person on TV?

    This process starts early and doesn’t stop until late teens to early 20s, when a person is more fully mature and developed. In that time, if the parents don’t supervise carefully and the culture/peer groups are working for it, then the trash will win.

  • Alias

    You”’ notice that it can’t be education that’s keeping women from marrying at younger ages nor directly causing any of the other factors you’ve listed.
    ———–
    J:
    ” Right, I was explaining the manosphere’s position, not my own.”
    ——–
    Sorry J, I only quoted you because your post contained all those factors that are commonly sited in the sphere for delaying marriage.
    College educated young women (<30, perhaps 25-35% of young women in total) aren't the only ones delaying marriage. Let's not forget, so are men and those without college (delaying or eschewing marriage altogether.)

    Ramble made a point above that it might be due to the economy and a need for 2 incomes, more likely.

  • ConcernedMama

    @ Mike C—I guess the joke’s on me for directing a diatribe on generational differences to someone who’s exactly the same age! (I turned 38 last month. Sigh.)

    Interesting point about the shifting dynamic between husband and wife in 80s sitcoms. I guess I viewed the marital relationships on these shows as pretty ideal. Claire Huxtable, Maggie Seaver, Elise Keaton, etc., were all smart women with successful careers who were extremely loving to and supportive of their husbands. The men rarely looked like the useless buffoons with long-suffering, whip-smart wives that are so prevalent today.

    And “Married With Children”—yeah, I think that might have been the beginning of the end. And we haven’t even mentioned “The Simpsons”!

    Another generational difference: I knew there’d been a major sea change when, some 6 or 7 years out of college, I learned that it had become standard for girls to make out with each other at parties for the enjoyment of guys. That would NEVER have happened in my college days, unless the women were genuine lesbians, or at least LUGs. There’s nothing for making you feel old like some new sexual behavior you find shocking!

    Re: “agreeableness” You explain yourself well, and I basically agree. This is certainly the dynamic my husband and I have, and it’s pretty much what I want, although I guess I don’t like to make it so explicit. I suppose I like to think that there are other models out there that work for some people. Maybe not.

  • Blissex

    «The vast majority of women prefer to have “in love” relationships – serial monogamy with each relationship lasting a couple of years or more. [ ... ] Only a small percentage of women are looking for “temporary fun” from guys, even in college.»

    But serial monogamy is “temporary fun”, that was I was referring to when I wrote:

    «During those 10-15 years relationships are usually “fun” and temporary, and purely recreational (unless the woman gets unlucky). Sure, it is only a minority of women who get into high double digits or “better” before getting married, but the rest have some “fun” relationships, and they are not (if they can help it) intended for reproduction.»

    Because my point is that there is a difference between recreational and reproductive sex goals, and so many women really want to do quite a bit of purely recreational sex during the 10-15 years they pursue serial monogamy before getting married (and I would not describe most women who do serial monogamy as being in love in any substantial sense of the world, it is usually thinly veiled lust or at best convenience).

    There is a big difference between wishing that girls targeted both recreational and reproductive sex in the context of a committed relationship, and noticing that very many girls are sexual opportunists and have a pretty cool attitude (that is from opportunistic to predatory) to recreational sex during “serial monogamy” or rather more informal periods.

    The “whole package” is something they really don’t want to get into during those 10-15 years of playing the field, whether at a slower or faster pace.

    50-100 years ago they had to get married to have sex, and that was a very different story, especially for middle and upper class women who really wished to find both the sexy fucker and the dumb provider in one package (and often ended up giving the dumb provider the first child and a share of the others, and the rest with swarthy tradesmen or soldiers or prestigious nobles or the pastor or even just the neighbour…).

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

      @Blissex

      Because my point is that there is a difference between recreational and reproductive sex goals, and so many women really want to do quite a bit of purely recreational sex during the 10-15 years they pursue serial monogamy before getting married (and I would not describe most women who do serial monogamy as being in love in any substantial sense of the world, it is usually thinly veiled lust or at best convenience).

      I don’t agree. If a woman just wants recreational sex, she has no need at all to commit to any kind of relationship. Since alphas don’t penalize sluts, and even date them, a woman has no incentive to date a guy unless she has feelings for him. I don’t think that LTRs before marriage are just for fun, recreation, or lust. Most women prefer relationship sex precisely because of the emotional intimacy. In fact, the disaster that is hookup culture reflects that even most of the slutty women are miserable – hooking up in hopes of getting a boyfriend.

      The LTR = preferred form of sexual promiscuity doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t match up with research, testimonials here, or my focus groups, which include a few promiscuous women.

      both the sexy fucker and the dumb provider

      Yeah, this just isn’t working for me. I married a sexy provider. :)

  • http://jabootu.net/?p=4714 Pip

    As an aside: Ah Roissy. Roissy’s blog is what brought me here. For a number of years, I have, once a year, written long recaps for bad movies. Basically, this is the written equivalent to the Mystery Science Fiction Theatre 3000 show from junior high you might remember. There’s a whole snarkosphere which has sprung up, overwhelmingly male.

    On one review, I linked to a (now gone) homepage of mine. It had a picture of me. (A lesson is about to be learned.) Someone linked to it high in the comments of a long-standing “rank this bink’s bangworthyness from 1-10″ contest on Roissy’s site. My long-forgotten homepage received a steady of flood of traffic thereafter. (Wow, Roissy’s site is popular. I was rated somewhere between “wtf?!” and “Woody Woodpecker with bedhead” so I think I was closer to the 1 than the 10.) The lengthy thread with followed was as appalling as you might expect.

    So I perused Roissy. Entertaining writer. The commenters were, however, a mixed bag with a sizable component of stupid men, in my opinion. A maestro conducting an orchestra composed of everything from good musicians to apes trying to use powertools. “Game” in their paws would look mighty sad and obvious to my ears. In an effort to draw in the biggest crowd for his bigtop, Roissy is slow to admit that his “game” is not the first step some young guys need.

    From there, several sites were linked. After a stop at Half Sigma, I found myself here as a longtime lurker, now unmasking briefly.

    Maybe Susan, on a slow day, could sponsor a “how I got here” thread.

  • Ramble

    I thought we were talking about looks.

    We were, for girls. Unless, like your husband, you were also looking to get with someone with perky tits.

    Guys may be decreasing as a percentage of total narcissists, but that doesn’t mean they’re delightful to be around.

    The growing number of guys who are snarky concerns me, so, I won’t argue too much on that.

    I’d also say that there are plenty of female 5s who are anything but narcissistic.

    I was using your words, not mine. You also included masculine in your description of the modern girl, which, I will also not argue with.

    But, back to the point, the average girl today, your 5, would be a 2 or a 3 only a few generations ago because of how much fatter she is.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Pip
    I think I found Susan through either John C. Wright’s blog or Vox Day’s blog. Either way, I’m glad I did. :)

  • ConcernedMama

    @ Blissex

    Re: Roissy—Frighteningly enough, I think Roissy and I share a certain bedrock belief in common, and that is that civilization is hellward bound, handbasket or no. But we differ in our responses. His is to embrace the decay and party like it’s the Pleistocene in order to hasten its demise. Mine is to “rage, rage against the dying of the light.” I suspect (massive understatement) that being a Christian makes all the difference.

    As for his commenters, I was actually strangely encouraged to discover a not insignificant overlap with various white supremacist sites. This made it far easier for me call evil what it is.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Susan
    I’d argue that most college relationships are little more than socially-sanctioned hookups. All about social status and so the girls can get sexed up without feeling like sluts.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    And that’s not say there aren’t exceptions to the rule… I’m just saying when you dig deeper and actually see the relationship for what it is, more often than not there was never any real intention of long-term…

    FWIW, I was guilty of it in my undergrad days too.

  • Cooper

    I think I have to agree with Blissex.

    @Susan
    “Most women prefer relationship sex precisely because of the emotional intimacy.”

    Is relationship sex really about intimacy? (speaking in terms of college-LTRs)

    Or is it receational sex without the slut-shaming?

  • Blissex

    «The discussion depends largely of the age of the population in question. Obviously, since I focus on college students and people in their 20s, the percentage of women having had a SNL is much lower than if you’re talking about the entire online dating population.»

    Not so obvious: I have been using words like «recent age cohorts» because whole-population stats are rather different, especially for women, where women live longer and stats are skewed by older women. There are online a number of older cougars who don’t mind SNLs, but also a lot of younger girls who also don’t mind. Current 20yo women (and men) seem less recreational than than 20yo women were 10 years ago, but they still do a lot of purely recreational sex.

    Another quick search yields this from a campus about first date sex:

    http://www.goldengatexpress.org/2012/02/07/first-date-sex/
    «Out of 100 SF State students surveyed, 74 claimed to have never gone for that quick connection, while 26 said they had.»

    From the statistics that I have seen SNLs were virtually unknown until recently, except perhaps during the roaring seventies, and even then were not that common.

    «I have drawn the line at suggestions that if she doesn’t have sex by the third date, she’s not attracted to you.»

    That’s a fair point, but the goal of Game is, very upfront, to get laid with a good effort/lay ratio, and this means focusing on women who want the same and want it with the specific man.

    «Women seeking monogamous relationships have every reason to get their price met up front, as you suggested earlier, no matter how attracted they are.»

    I have already said that I agree with that, even if with a different qualification: that applies to lifetime, reproductive relationships, those involving Male Parental Investment, rather than simply “monogamous”, because by itself “monogamous” does not require Male Parental Investment, nor can it justify a male investment on that scale. Without children in the picture the sexes are on a level, like two gay men (or women). Neither has a compelling need or case for investment from the other (companion not being that compelling until much later). Thus the bathhouse culture is extending to the hetero case.

    Therefore the impression is that stats show that there is decreasing number of girls are interested in lifetime, reproductive relationships, and at an ever higher age, and for the rest they are mainly interested in getting laid (like gay men do), and Game aims at that demand.

    I am not saying that women should or should not aim for the whole package, but that it is only necessary for reproductive sex, or that they should aim for more than recreational sex, just that they do because they now can, and there are huge reasons why that did not apply in the previous few hundred thousand years in which it was a bad idea to have sex without a legal contract for Male Parental Investment, and children were anyhow indispensable old age insurance.

  • College Kid

    “all those women that are your age pretending to be half that age (and acting ridiculous) is probably because in spite of all the sex and money they still have nothing in their actual lives that is witness of their life.”

    “I see women like this at the gym – usually moms around age 40. It’s as if working out for 3 hours is their only responsibility for the day. They wear expensive jewelry and dress like Workout Barbie – for each other. They’re very cliquish but I always feel a bit sorry for them.”

    Why do you feel sorry for them? They have children who are witnesses to their lives. Guys here are telling you looks matter and you ladies are getting catty about other women go out of their way to look good at the gym? Maybe the do that so their husbands will take notice when they leave the house.

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

      Guys here are telling you looks matter and you ladies are getting catty about other women go out of their way to look good at the gym?

      I couldn’t care less how much they work out. I just think it’s kind of sad that they get all dressed up and made up to spend half a day working out. What can they possibly talk about over dinner? Body Pump? Bosu Challenge? These women are one step up from a Real Doll.

  • Blissex

    I think that this is largely wishful thinking, however nice it is:

    «If a woman just wants recreational sex, she has no need at all to commit to any kind of relationship. Since alphas don’t penalize sluts, and even date them, a woman has no incentive to date a guy unless she has feelings for him. I don’t think that LTRs before marriage are just for fun, recreation, or lust. Most women prefer relationship sex precisely because of the emotional intimacy.»

    Because women and men both know very well that most serial monogamy relationships before something like 25 are not going to be permanent.

    Having a boyfriend (or a girlfriend) is very convenient not just for recreational sex, without it necessarily meaning that it is a meaningful relationship. It is just a young person’s “romance”. Few take them seriously… Eventually during one something “switches” and it does lead to marriage.

    Also I guess that one of the major driver of relationships among young (and sometimes no so young) people is actually mainly recreational sex: if both parties have established some trust in their monogamy they usually drop condoms, and that makes the recreational value of the sex often a lot better.

    Another major driver of relationships is another angle of recreational sex: sex in a relationship is expected, and can be more or less on demand, especially for women, while scoring a new lay can be some work and time. At university a number of “nice girls” told me that they had boyfriends mainly to get regular sex during the year, until the end of exams, as they could not spare the time between lectures and studying to score a different guy every time they needed a fuck, but after exams they were going to dump them and have some variety.

    Accordingly there are sometimes FWB or even FB arrangements that are exclusive: having a safe partner for condomless recreational sex and regular booty calls, without the emotional baggage (in theory… :->). Some career women seem to like that arrangement too (like the two who were paying the rent for my HEB-M friend).

    «In fact, the disaster that is hookup culture reflects that even most of the slutty women are miserable – hooking up in hopes of getting a boyfriend.»

    That’s again I think wishful thinking or a misunderstanding. Most young women seem miserable, whether single, serially monogamous, or promiscuous, because they don’t achieve the dreams they think they are entitled to (I have nice cartoon with the caption “the market for inflated expectations is worth TRILLIONS”), including getting the “whole package”, which is amazingly rare (“alphas” are few, “alphas” with “beta” characteristics much fewer still).

    From what I read of the bathhouse culture some or even several of them are also unhappy that it is difficult to have long term monogamous relationships among young gay men, but that’s how it works: non-reproductive sex is “cheap” and does not require partner investment, and is “fun”, so there they go.

    I think that most men including the vast majority of PUAs and MGTOWs would rather the hookup culture did not exist (and they often write this), and that even average guys could partner with average girls for average relationships involving average feelings, but that’s not how many/most women “want” it.

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

      @Blissex

      I disagree with you about female interest in strictly recreational sex, but I don’t see any point in debating it further.

      Most young women seem miserable, whether single, serially monogamous, or promiscuous, because they don’t achieve the dreams they think they are entitled to (I have nice cartoon with the caption “the market for inflated expectations is worth TRILLIONS”), including getting the “whole package”, which is amazingly rare (“alphas” are few, “alphas” with “beta” characteristics much fewer still).

      What a bizarre claim. Of all the young women I know, I would only describe one as miserable – but I would not describe her as entitled, just discouraged. I do think that many long for love – not casual sex – and that is harder to find than ever before for young women.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Jimmy Hendricks
    “I’d argue that most college relationships are little more than socially-sanctioned hookups. All about social status and so the girls can get sexed up without feeling like sluts.”

    This was already becoming true in mid to late 90′s, and seems to have only gotten worse (my brother got a graduate degree a year ago, and he described the LTR college scene exactly this way as “women friendly and socially sactioned sex”). And yes, guys had similar lack of ltr thinking, but with the caveat that the average guy didn’t have any options. If a STEM guy could lock down a cute, low count girl, more often than not, the LTR would get converted to a real commitment (e.g. marriage). But there weren’t many girls who really wanted commitment (as a opposed to socially sanctioned “trial” runs, with the option to break the lease with no penalty and try a new model).

    An older married woman of my acquaintance tried to comfort me when I had that realization with the advice “after they’re 28, they tend to settle down and actually want a real commitment”. At the time (beta boy extraordinare), I saw that as a reason to hope. But kick a dog enough times…

  • College Kid

    “I think that most men including the vast majority of PUAs and MGTOWs would rather the hookup culture did not exist”

    From the blogs I’ve surfed in just the past few days since becoming familiar with the term at this blog, MGTOW are awkward with women and do wish the hookup culture did not exist and society would assign them a partner. PUAs on the other land love hookup culture.

  • Just1X

    “From the blogs I’ve surfed in just the past few days since becoming familiar with the term at this blog, MGTOW are awkward with women and do wish the hookup culture did not exist and society would assign them a partner.”

    And yet within this very thread several men have said what ‘Their Own Way’ was. That’ll be an ‘F’ on your homework then,

  • Emily

    Femalenerd might have more luck with STEM guys.

    The guys at my bf’s workplace always seem to have smart girlfriends/wives. Or at the very least, I haven’t seen any bimbos. These guys definitely aren’t intimated by intelligent women, and to a certain extent I think that culture encourages them to find bright partners.

  • Mike M.

    Hope:

    Cheer up. All is not lost.

    Let me tell you a story…It was 1980. The United States was in desperate trouble. Unemployment running about 9%. Inflation running about the same. A two-bit religious dictator and a few dozen thugs had seized the embassy in Iran and were holding the staff hostage. And above it all, the threat posed by the Soviet Union, which would soon be able to choose whether to conquer Western Europe, or nuke us all off the face of the Earth. Bad times. Hard times. Scary times.

    I graduated from high school in that year.

    But we didn’t give up! Didn’t yield to despair. Instead, we elected better leaders (Reagan’s strongest support came from voters under 25). Girded our loins and got to work. It was hard. Boiling the inflation out of the economy took three years of hardship. But in 1983, we turned a corner. Inflation eased. Unemployment dropped. We took the island nation of Grenada from a Soviet-backed gang of revolutionaries. A small victory – but a victory. Something we hadn’t seen in our lifetimes, if you were my age.

    And we never looked back. The economy picked up momentum. The Soviets felt the squeeze. By 1989, the Berlin Wall came down…and the Cold War was over.

    If you had told any of us in 1980 that a decade later, the United States would be at the beginning of the biggest economic boom in history – and the Soviet threat an unhappy memory – we would have thought you insane. But that’s what happened.

    So fill your heart with determination, not despair.

  • Blissex

    «civilization is hellward bound, handbasket or no. But we differ in our responses. His is to embrace the decay and party like it’s the Pleistocene in order to hasten its demise. Mine is to “rage, rage against the dying of the light.” I suspect (massive understatement) that being a Christian makes all the difference.»

    That’s to say the least rather bizarre: why ever should Christianity be relevant as to the demise of a secular, Golden Calf worshiping civilization?

    Unless you associate “Christianity” not with the faith, but with an element of the culture of an established social order, that means “social conservativism”.

    «As for his commenters, I was actually strangely encouraged to discover a not insignificant overlap with various white supremacist sites.»

    White supremacists especially in the USA are common (in 1/3 of the states in particular), plenty of them appear on sites about politics and economics too (sometimes masked with the usual euphemistic talk about welfare queens and strapping young bucks and CRA loans), and often there is a large overlap between them and gold maniacs.

    I suspect that the extreme “traditionalists” are nostalgic for when the USA was at the peak and so were middle aged white males. There are similar characters in the UK, they tend to be obsessed with the signal features of the good old imperial times, like steam trains, xenophobia and real ale, rather than gold money, white supremacy and homemakers.

    Extreme traditionalists tend to belong to constituencies that got screwed over the past 30 years, but their reflex is to demand a return to the symbols of the past, instead of figuring out why and going forward, even on the gender issue.

  • Blissex

    «MGTOW are awkward with women and do wish the hookup culture did not exist and society would assign them a partner.»

    Not society, but chance. Because it shouldn’t be terribly difficult to match the 70-80% of average men with the 70-80% of average women in some way.

    «PUAs on the other land love hookup culture.»

    Heartiste/Roissy and many others hate it and have written that several times, very explicitly. They wish for a simpler life; as Heartiste/Roissy has said the PUA/hookup lifestyle requires a large investment of energy (time and stress), and that competes with many other aims that a man can have.

    The main difference between PUA and MGTOW is in whether they reckon it is worth satisfying the requirements for getting laid defined by women unconstrained by the need to have children and Male Parental Investment, and to most of whom 80% of men have below average “looks”.

    The PUA reckon, very reluctantly, that getting laid is worth the effort, the MGTOW don’t; “worth” here means both as to effort and psychological adaptation.

  • Ted D

    Chris – no mistake, part of getting young guys married with kids is family law reform. I’m not suggesting we send them like lambs to the slaughter, but men’s rights isn’t a subject I was trying to bring up here…

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

    So suppose that half of the women have no children, and half have two. The half of the women who spent time and money and effort in raising their children will share their care with those who did not, because all will have a pension, not just those who had the two children.

    You are assuming the system won’t collapse out of lack of young people to infuse with money and work. I don’t remember where I read it but is more likely that upon reaching saturation the women with grown children won’t want to share their kids with the childfree ones and of course if a child has to peak between sharing his/her money with aging parents or strangers they strangers are going to lose out Maybe a few of then could afford very expensive caretaker but according to some predictions we will have a massive concentration of older people living together to try and spent their golden years the best possible way together. Of course all this is speculation but I though on mentioning it.

    We have tons and tons of choices, but people like Katy Perry and Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift become the huge stars. American Idol and The Jersey Shore on TV. That does not mean that there is not god programming on TV, I personally think there is a ton of it.

    I think you are assuming that there is not other forces at work. I for example haven’t read the hunger games or shades of gray and don’t plan too and my Twilight friends that are moving on those fandoms are not connecting with me the same way. In different circumstances I would totally jump on wagon just to keep myself in the group, imagine this for younger people that come from broken families and the only sense of permanence they have access to is his/her peers.
    Another point is that you are assuming that the kids that reject pop culture are also making smarter choices than the trash consumers. Most liberals love to brag about the obscure unpopular books or bands they like and they still are undermining society with casual sex and frivolous divorce. The thing is that herd mentality can be big herd and small herd. Logic and critical thinking are what we need but that few people do have, YMMV.

    There’s a lot of retreat into fantasy worlds, something that was once the domain of the nerdy outcasts, now fully in the mainstream. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Twilight, now Hunger Games, and The Hobbit will be big as well. There are all these fantastical elements, the escape from reality, the alternate universes or imaginary worlds.
    According to Eliade Mircea: secular man cannot escape his bondage to religious thought. By its very nature, secularism depends on religion for its sense of identity: by resisting sacred models, by insisting that man make history on his own, secular man identifies himself only through opposition to religious thought: “He [secular man] recognizes himself in proportion as he ‘frees’ and ‘purifies’ himself from the ‘superstitions’ of his ancestors.” Furthermore, modern man “still retains a large stock of camouflaged myths and degenerated rituals”. For example, modern social events still have similarities to traditional initiation rituals, and modern novels feature mythical motifs and themes.Finally, secular man still participates in something like the eternal return: by reading modern literature, “modern man succeeds in obtaining an ‘escape from time’ comparable to the ‘emergence from time’ effected by myths”.
    He is a fascinating philosopher if anyone cares to know more about him:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade

  • Blissex

    «This was already becoming true in mid to late 90′s, and seems to have only gotten worse (my brother got a graduate degree a year ago, and he described the LTR college scene exactly this way as “women friendly and socially sactioned sex”).»

    This was the same some or many decades ago even without the sex, never mind the 90s.

    Even when 95% of women were virgins at marriage at 20yo, or 50% were (in 1960 IIRC) there were a few years of mostly asexual dating in middle and high school, with couples lasting sometimes as little as two weeks or sometimes years; and sometimes not that asexual, starting with kissing/licking, and then involving mostly handjobs for either sex (the old “bases” story), dry humping, and rarely oral or anal usually for engaged women (demi-vierges) or married women, to avoid loss of virginity or unwanted pregnancies.

  • Ramble

    In different circumstances I would totally jump on wagon just to keep myself in the group, imagine this for younger people that come from broken families and the only sense of permanence they have access to is his/her peers.

    I am really glad you brought this up because of the accompanying explanation you gave for it. A while back, when Olive was still commenting here, she would bring up the subject of “herd” mentality. The idea being, similar to what you just said, that girls, often enough, will listen-to/read/watch whatever the herd is so that they can fit in.

    Fair enough.

    But she would not answer the question: well, why did the herd coalesce around sluts like Katy Perry or Smut-peddlers like the Shades of Gray chick instead of Bob Dylan and Tom Wolfe?

    Point being that for those girls that even when some girls are simply going along for the ride, the ride is still to Slutsville.

    And, again, I am not saying that are girls are sluts, or that every girl that listens to [fill in the blank] is an idiot…simply that, we are, in general, not being controlled by puppet masters. Those in power definitely have an influence over what is produced, but the consumers have huge input on what is ultimately purchased.

    Another point is that you are assuming that the kids that reject pop culture are also making smarter choices than the trash consumers. Most liberals love to brag about the obscure unpopular books or bands they like and they still are undermining society with casual sex and frivolous divorce.

    Actually, I didn’t assume that, but I an see why you would think that. I am well aware pseudo-intellectuals and posers. They are supremely annoying.

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

    But she would not answer the question: well, why did the herd coalesce around sluts like Katy Perry or Smut-peddlers like the Shades of Gray chick instead of Bob Dylan and Tom Wolfe?

    I do agree with the parable of the seeder in which the seed needs to find fertile ground in order to prosper.
    So the seeds were planted decades ago by parents that spent a great deal of time telling their kids that they are working hard so they a) never lack the things they lacked growing up aka material goods and the chances of feel normal by having the same toys and b) they can have better lives than those women in the past whose only choices were motherhood, housework and if any job secretaries and nurses never executives and surgeons?
    How many jaded unhappy women that blame maternity and regret it have published their memoirs vs lonely career women that blame their career choices and regret not to have a man and a family have done the same?
    The career women go the Kate Bolick route “trying to make lemonade out of lemons, while the mother can bitch all she wants or just abandon their kids and husband to find herself.
    I think you are forgetting that in the intimacy of the home the rejection for traditional values was almost total by the growing educated part of he population not only the parts that we might think questionable (like not career opportunities and staying in abusive/cheating marriage out of economy slavery) but everything that looked feminine like sweetness, nurture, sexual selectiveness… Who looks more “modern or empowered”? Katty Perry with her foam producing bra and colorful or Taylor Swift with a simple dress and a guitar?
    I do believe supply and demand have a symbiotic relationship, but a lie told several times becomes the truth.
    The way media is now has not been done overnight. You can see in the change of the leading ladies in movies from the interesting movies and biographies are never about a good girl and how she ended up finding a good man and a loving family by keeping her legs shut. Is usually the town slut/rebel that was unjustly vilified and turned out to be the best woman on town and how she ends up with love and success while the judgmental “good girls” are portrayed in the worst light.
    Being good and being boring and thus bad, modern values, and again with not counterculture to fight that there is little a young person can do,YMMV.

  • Ramble

    I think you are forgetting that in the intimacy of the home the rejection for traditional values was almost total by the growing educated part of he population not only the parts that we might think questionable (like not career opportunities and staying in abusive/cheating marriage out of economy slavery) but everything that looked feminine like sweetness, nurture, sexual selectiveness… Who looks more “modern or empowered”? Katty Perry with her foam producing bra and colorful or Taylor Swift with a simple dress and a guitar?

    If you can afford to “rise above” the mundane and pedestrian, do you remain mundane and pedestrian simply because it might be better for society?

    As the West has become wealthier and wealthier, we have found more and more ways to “rise above” the mundane, “transcend” standard forms and subvert social norms.

    Modernist Art, Flappers, Hippies, Brutalism (a personal favorite), the rise of starchitects, uncomfortable furniture, post-structuralism…Lady Gaga, when interviewed by 60 minutes, didn’t even bother to get dressed.

    Why would she? Why on earth would she put on a pretty dress and say how thankful she was that she has been given such golden opportunities?

    Be fabulous, fierce and when the opportunity strikes, outrageous.

    I hear what you are saying. Actually, if I understand you correctly, we are nearly in complete agreement.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “between the sexual psychology of a stripper and a kindergarten teacher.”

    I’d go for the kindergarden teacher a million times over. If there was ever a profession that made a women hot….and yes I would assume her required level of dominance and count are low.

    Also in regards to calibration of dominance for women.

    I think you and the manosphere are using the same measuring stick but opposite ends.

    To elaborate:

    For drugs (the legal kind) theres two measurements. The concentration that kills you, the concentration that produces effect. Above the first is dead, above the second is like taking sugar pills.

    The distance between these two is the therapeutic range.
    Some drugs have ridculous huge ranges, 1 or 5 pills irrelevant. Others are literally micromolar ranges that if you go above, dead, below useless.

    As well each individual varies in the required range.

    Hypergamy (ie dominance) works in much the same way. Theres the amount that kills and the amount that tingles. These vary women to women.

    However, where you and PUAs depart (and I’ll firmly plant myself in the manosphere camp… seriously I got a tent and everything) is that the upper range IN GENERAL is really, really high for a large proportion of women. (You seem to think that the maximum is really low, whereas the minimum is somewhere fuzzy and fluffy.)For PUAs going overboard is really difficult. However falling under the required mark is easy. (I’ll split this 50/50 with men being pussies.)

    Now how does this relate back to picking a partner.

    Women will have an effective range. It is far better to be on the upper end of that range because when it shifts during ovulation if your to low your out. (If you met and she was ovulating, the reverse is the case.)

    Some women will also have a larger range of what is acceptable. This is where it can mean either a) shes a nonselective hoe cause everyones good enough or b) shes selective for other qualities and hey, hey your king of the mountain with nothing to knock you down.
    Others will have narrow ranges, don’t even want to imagine.
    Most will be in the middle (ie normal).

    I’m still gonna say, that if you overlayed the average range of acceptability on social dominance the upper end is probably 8/10 while the lower is 4/10 with most being centred at 5/6/7ish.

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

      @Lokland

      I’m still gonna say, that if you overlayed the average range of acceptability on social dominance the upper end is probably 8/10 while the lower is 4/10 with most being centred at 5/6/7ish.

      I’ll cosign that. Sounds about right to me. I don’t think I differ from PUAs in the ranges – I know that most PUAs and Game bloggers don’t acknowledge a range. It’s just “all women are outrageously hypergamous throughout their lives.” If that were true, we’d see a whole lot more trading up (and attempts to trade up) than we do. The facts don’t bear it out, but in a warped way, red pill swallowers seem to want it to be true. I don’t know if this is to justify the manipulative tactics they’re using or to assuage previous feelings of failure by attributing all the difficulties to female nature.

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

    If you can afford to “rise above” the mundane and pedestrian, do you remain mundane and pedestrian simply because it might be better for society?

    Do you care about society just because or you care because there is something in it for you?

    Modernist Art, Flappers, Hippies, Brutalism (a personal favorite), the rise of starchitects, uncomfortable furniture, post-structuralism…Lady Gaga, when interviewed by 60 minutes, didn’t even bother to get dressed.

    Why would she? Why on earth would she put on a pretty dress and say how thankful she was that she has been given such golden opportunities?

    Be fabulous, fierce and when the opportunity strikes, outrageous.

    Do you think that Lady Gaga was “born that way” or she is a product of our time’s upbringing?

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “If they were aware? None, because there are none so blind as those who will not see. But if they could be forced to acknowledge it? I bet nearly all the criticism would evaporate.”

    Wow, I can surmise where some of your irritation comes from. And I share it. I’ve had to change my position on a number of things over the years after seriously considering all sides. Not 180 degrees, but significantly. Society advanced beyond the racism of the past (for the most part), which was based on mostly flimsy stereotypes of “the other”. But it took several generations. Hopefully we’ll get past the gender wars too, eventually.

  • College Kid

    “Extreme traditionalists tend to belong to constituencies that got screwed over the past 30 years, but their reflex is to demand a return to the symbols of the past, instead of figuring out why and going forward, even on the gender issue.”

    Why do they look towards a mythic past instead of toward a future they can have some semblance of control over?

    Hunger Games. The storyline has more social implications than Twilight which is just fluff.

  • J

    #391

    My mileage doesn’t vary. I think the key for bright women is knowing your demographic. There are probably guys who wouldn’t care at all about a woman’s intelligence, but you and I wouldn’t have wanted them so it’s no loss.

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

    Society advanced beyond the racism of the past (for the most part), which was based on mostly flimsy stereotypes of “the other”.

    I actually think we changed racial discrimination for social discrimination, but maybe that is just me.

  • J

    The funny thing is that men reading there cite his love of scientific studies as proof of the validity of his views.

    Interestingly, when actual scientists read and comment, they often criticize the studies Roissy quotes as junk science or point out that his conclusions based on the studies are faulty.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    The thing about intelligence as I see it, is that it is an awesome “spice,” but it can’t make up the meat. If that makes sense? The fundamentals are the same for every girl, and intelligence cannot make up for a lack of it.

    So it’s extra. And it’s an AWESOME extra. But it’s still an extra.

  • J

    Also, I am not so sure how many guys say, “You make me laugh”. YMMV

    My DH told me he was looking for a woman who was “whip smart,” “beautiful, but not in a Barbie doll way,” and who had “a killer sense of humor.” If he ever finds her, I’m in big trouble. Ba dum bummm.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    A sense of humor is pretty much non-negotiable…

  • J

    Also, and I don’t mean to pile on, but I am curious how many are saying “You are an awesome cook”.

    Must I tell my banana cream pie story once again?

  • J

    Not a problem, Alias. I just wanted to be clear in case anyone read me as advocating something I wasn’t.

  • College Kid

    “Modernist Art, Flappers, Hippies, Brutalism (a personal favorite), the rise of starchitects, uncomfortable furniture, post-structuralism…Lady Gaga, when interviewed by 60 minutes, didn’t even bother to get dressed.”

    Don’t lump hippies in with the rest of that nihilistic bunch. Hippies were positive and they still are as ex hippies (my parents). I can survive off the grid and in the wild because of my hippie parents. Thanks ma and pa!

  • College Kid

    “The thing about intelligence as I see it, is that it is an awesome “spice,” but it can’t make up the meat. If that makes sense? The fundamentals are the same for every girl, and intelligence cannot make up for a lack of it.”

    Speak for yourself. When you’re old and grey and can’t get it up you’ll want a partner you can have stimulating conversation with. Intelligence along with character and personality are more important than looks, or at least equally important.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    I notice that a number of you take the macro view on this stuff (I mainly am focused on microeconomic and sexual incentives) and feel that the current dating/mating system contains the seeds of its own collapse. It will be very interesting to see how long things can go, as many stakeholders seem entrenched and will no doubt engage in martingale betting when times get tough.

    The gulf between hardwired female sociobiological imperatives and artificial feminist mandates has created a sort of arbitrage opportunity for all manner of sexual entrepreneurs. Perhaps the arch-feminists who are invested in their positions may act like a desperate central bank and keep this profitable trading opportunity going for a long time.

    Like a costumed vigilante in a league of superheroes, each member of the modern SMP arbitrage unit brings a special talent to the table:

    -we have aggressive PUAs reading books on seduction, evo psych, and stage magic, going out 4-5 nights a week, working canned routines with the systematic perfectionism of stand-up comics, setting goals of approaching 100+ women a month, and doing whatever it takes—eyeliner, feather boas, goggles, cowboy hats, whatever—to stand apart and spark interest in the clubs they frequent;

    -we have Screaming Eagle-sipping HEB-Ms who can hardly go out for a drink without finding panties and contact numbers left on the windshields of their Carreras. They live an endless summer of eager breast augmented-playmates, expensive toys, diverse hobbies, and Peter Pan-like freedom from traditional life responsibilities, and go on to frolic and practically waltz with each other in the bacchanalia that is their social circle;

    -we have aging fraternity guys and former big man on campus ball players who use Facebook to find and seduce bored former flings and then relive the glory of days long past—tailgate parties, groping breasts in sweaty corners of sports bars, drinking to excess, simulated date rape, taking pictures of each other vomiting to Bon Jovi tracks;

    -we have vapid 19-year-old “Jersey Shore”-clone gigolos practically high-kicking like showgirls as they sneak into cougar bars to find sugar mamas who will subsidize their coke, Red Bull, and XBox lifestyle needs.

    Rather than competing directly with each other, the players may self-organize into a layered trophic system and then enjoy the horns of plenty that come with successful niche market exploitation.

    I suppose that the real shame of it is that there are some perfectly decent guys who appear to be disgusted by what they perceive in front of them. To these fellows, the market is not a source of great laughs; on the contrary, they see it as a semen-soaked circus of horrors. Some of them are responding by exiting the market (and further intensifying the scarcity dynamic that the players enjoy).

    I have also read some jeremiads against the current state of affairs from happily-married men, whose motives and incentives are probably quite reasonable as such men *may* gain little upside (assuming they are faithful to their wives) but much downside risk from hookup culture, and even from former and active-duty PUAs. Some of these PUAs are probably crying crocodile tears and marketing to a certain demographic, yes, but others seem quite poignant and serious and may be engaging in a kind of quasi-schizo “stop me before I kill again” reflection.

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

      @Bastiat Blogger

      Epic segmentation of the market there. It’s a bit hyperbolic, but rings true overall. The “stop me before I kill again” bit is brilliant.

      I notice that a number of you take the macro view on this stuff (I mainly am focused on microeconomic and sexual incentives)

      My own focus is as micro as one can get, as in “How’s that working for you?” The macro interests me primarily as a bellwether of what individuals are likely to experience. I need to remember that when I get drawn into debates – many of them are literally beside the point wrt my mission here.

  • INTJ

    @ ADBG

    Not for me. I’d totally marry Susan Calvin from the I, Robot movie. (Not sure about the Susan Calvin in literature. She seemed like too much of a workaholic).

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

    @Bastiat

    I think the PUA’s and the MRA’s are going to come to become enemies at some point after all the PUA’s are the ones providing boring housewives with the opportunity of affairs and profiting from every single EPL and perpetuating the idea that once getting rid of their boring husbands, but not their money, they can lockdown a better man.
    I do think that eventually once the same women that are riding them hard start to realize they had been shared like an used condom they might be willing to open up about how much is sucks to have to keep going to the gym, using botox, plastic surgery, boob’s implants…to compete with the younger sluts that are after the same meat. But it will take time to become something they can’t ignore any longer. The seeds are there but this is a long term growing tree. Many MRA’s are predicting for things to change by 2020 but some others think it won’t happen in their lifetimes, so who knows…

  • http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

    lzozzozozlzzzozlzzlzoz

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Speak for yourself. When you’re old and grey and can’t get it up you’ll want a partner you can have stimulating conversation with. Intelligence along with character and personality are more important than looks, or at least equally important.

    I’ve never understood this ridiculous idea that only “smart” people are capable of having interesting conversation.

    I’m from a major city, went to two top 5 universities in my field for both undergrad and grad school… my best friend has a high school education, grew up in a rural town of a few hundred people in the middle of nowhere, and works low level blue collar job.

    I think the conversations I have with him are a hell of a lot more interesting than the “smart” educated people I deal with on a regular basis.

    I have nothing against intelligence in women. But it really has diminishing value once you get past “not dumb.” Certainly not as much value as attractiveness, agreeableness, and loyalty.

  • http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

    roger devlin sayss dat womenz mate like babooons zlzozlzozo without proper trianingsz from menz who read da great boooks for menz like da bible men love da great boooks and womenz love da babooooons zlzllzlzlzlzzol stsyle dodoycyc babbooon styelels zlozlzzl

  • PJ

    Divorced – no more metaphysical thinking.
    One married GF, one single. Perfect balance.
    Gotta love feminism, SlutWalks, etc.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Jimmy Hendricks

    “I have nothing against intelligence in women. But it really has diminishing value once you get past “not dumb.” Certainly not as much value as attractiveness, agreeableness, and loyalty.”

    I deal with enough intelligent, driven people at work every day. I don’t want to come home to a self-aggrandizing “intelligent” woman at home to make life a misery. And this day and age, any woman with a piece of paper wants to be seen as “intelligent” (I think VD’s comments on the subject on previous threads pretty much are on the spot).

    Attractiveness, agreeableness, and loyalty. What a crazy world we’re in when trying to find these qualities is like pulling teeth.

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

      I deal with enough intelligent, driven people at work every day. I don’t want to come home to a self-aggrandizing “intelligent” woman at home to make life a misery. And this day and age, any woman with a piece of paper wants to be seen as “intelligent”

      I’m puzzled by men here often linking female intelligence to self-aggrandizing, aggressive, shrewish, miserable behavior. Intelligence is not a personality or character trait. My own community is filled with highly intelligent women, few of whom I would describe as behaving in this way. After all, these are the women with the lowest divorce rate in the country.

      It’s clear that there is no consensus on this issue among males, so debating whether men find intelligence attractive in women is pointless. I can only share that being bright was very advantageous for me in the SMP, in a variety of ways. To the extent that some men filtered me out for it, I consider that a blessing. None of us if for all markets.

      My advice to intelligent women is to look for men who thrive on the intellectual exchange, whether it be humor, witty banter, discussion of complex ideas, appreciation for literature, music, etc. All of these have played a crucial role in my marriage and I believe they are a significant reason why my husband has been faithful for 30 years. The company and conversation he gets at home is superior to what he finds elsewhere. Of course, it depends on what one finds interesting. Intellect and education are not necessary for many pursuits.

  • College Kid

    Jimmy Hendricks, I never equated intelligence with higher education.

  • College Kid

    The thing about equating higher education with intelligence (which I’ve not done but those of you arguing against intelligent women did) is that university graduates are intelligent in their individual fields and sometimes not much beyond that. My parents the ex hippies are both autodidacts (one didn’t even graduate from high school) and they are 2 of the most intellectualy expansive people I know. Not only have they build their own house from the ground up with their four hands, they also can out analyse anyone on a wide variety of subjects, some most people haven’t even heard of. I’m kind of stumped why you would equate intelligence only with higher ed and a high powered career.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @College Kid
    I’m with you 100% on intelligence vs education. Didn’t really mean to imply that you were saying that. I guess since I’m in grad school I’m used to educated people always being the first to pronounce themselves “intelligent” or “smart”.

    I definitely have a viewpoint like ExNewYorker’s:

    I deal with enough intelligent, driven people at work every day. I don’t want to come home to a self-aggrandizing “intelligent” woman at home to make life a misery. And this day and age, any woman with a piece of paper wants to be seen as “intelligent” (I think VD’s comments on the subject on previous threads pretty much are on the spot).

    If a girl’s attractive, nice, loyal, and shares my interests, I honestly couldn’t care less if she knows anything about the Arab Spring, Trayvon Martin, Macroeconomics, or who her senator is…. Not that knowing those things counts against her. But I honestly don’t care. If she appreciates me and what I’m doing with my life, that’s honestly good enough for me.

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

    Why do you feel sorry for them? They have children who are witnesses to their lives. Guys here are telling you looks matter and you ladies are getting catty about other women go out of their way to look good at the gym? Maybe the do that so their husbands will take notice when they leave the house.

    I think you are missing the point there is a difference between trying to look good regardless your age and trying to look 20 years younger. Is like the difference between Hellen Mirren and Cher.

  • Emily

    Omg GBFM is here! :D …how on earth did that happen?

  • Paul

    It is no wonder that a lot of guys get friend zoned.

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

    JH…” since I’m in grad school I’m used to educated people always being the first to pronounce themselves “intelligent” or “smart””

    One of the odd features of present society is the number of people who are desperate to advertise their own (claimed) intelligence….buying things called “smart cars”…being drawn to Barack Obama when he said his diplomacy would be based on “smart power”…there’s even a sect of atheists/agnostics who decided it would be good marketing to brand themselves as “brights.”

    My most recent post….paying higher taxes can be very profitable

  • Hope

    Susan, I really appreciate what you are trying to do here in this post – to help women to focus on doing what they can to find a man who will love them and help them raise beautiful babies .. but I can’t help but feel really saddened by this one. I always imagined love would be something that would come naturally .. that it wasn’t about strategising and planning and panicking about trying to hunt down a man to lock it down in my early 20s. What happened to the mystery and magic of love?

    Absolutely everyone wants love .. even the PUA’s and the MGTOW’s .. who might say they don’t need it, that they are better off with disposable sex partners or no one at all. But it’s more likely that they have just squashed and hidden that need.. because its scary and often disappointing and seriously hard work.

    This is going to sound so cheesy but if you died tomorrow .. wouldn’t you have regret not giving all you’ve got to find an earth-shattering, transformative, incredible love? It seems like it is really tough now to find such a thing, especially if you read this blog.. but it makes me so sad to think of these men that have just completely given up on the notion of finding a woman who can snuggle up to them at night and raise their kids and share their dreams and passions. Surely that is what life is about .. not about empty, impersonal sex with someone you just met at a bar.. or eschewing a connection with the opposite sex at all. I feel like as a society we have totally forgotten that. Its all cheap and easy or quick thrills.

    It’s like trying to survive on a diet of fast food .. you can’t nourish your body. Love is the same.

    I appreciate this blog because I think at the heart of it what you seem to be trying to do is to help people find love. But all this PUA stuff, and “women must be smoking hot with porn star moves in bed” “guys must be alpha jerks” is all such rubbish. That stuff shouldn’t matter. You just need to find someone who can see past that.

    I can imagine people are going to be gagging at the sappiness of this post .. but I had to say something because I don’t want to forget what matters. In the end we are all going to die .. and it’s nice and simple/easy to be able to get no strings sex or to go your own way – but it there is so much more beauty and depth to be had than that.

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

      @Hope (the new one)

      Welcome, and thanks for commenting.

      But all this PUA stuff, and “women must be smoking hot with porn star moves in bed” “guys must be alpha jerks” is all such rubbish. That stuff shouldn’t matter. You just need to find someone who can see past that.

      You’re right, of course. In the end, lots of people will find that special person without worrying about declining marriage rates, whether guys care about past sexual experiences, and whether the guy is an alpha male.

      Picture a game of musical chairs. Everyone but one will get to take a seat. I’m writing to help women ensure they get a seat. Is it necessary to aggressively filter men and know how dysfunctional the SMP is? Probably not. But I’ve always subscribed to the belief that being informed is always better than being clueless, because it gives you more control.

      I’m not suggesting women go hunting for a man. Nor am I suggesting that your early 20s are some kind of deadline. What I am saying:

      As you meet men, be picky about the important stuff: character, not dominance or “alphaness.”

      Be open to love whenever it arrives, no matter how young you are.

  • Maggie

    @Hope

    Your post was wise and beautiful. Your name is so appropriate.

  • Blissex

    «doing whatever it takes—eyeliner, feather boas, goggles, cowboy hats, whatever—to stand apart and spark interest in the clubs»

    In this and other aspects and like the blogger there is a fair bit of confusing the PUA culture with some marketing fringes. For example currently several PUA writers recommend staying out of clubs and bars because the male-to-female ratio is so bad, and the “stand-up” like approach routines are considered learning tools to be internalized and discarded with experience.

    «I suppose that the real shame of it is that there are some perfectly decent guys who appear to be disgusted by what they perceive in front of them. To these fellows, the market is not a source of great laughs; on the contrary, they see it as a semen-soaked circus of horrors.»

    I think that both the PUAs and the MGTOWs the PUAs agree with that. They think that the type of demands put on them by women to perform as the trained donkeys (provider patsies) or trained monkeys (sexy bastards) in that circus is demeaning and even soul-destroying. The HEB-Ms (which are PUAs by accident) probably sort of realize that too, because they are not stupid and some some are even introspective.

    The big difference is the reacting with either resignation (PUA) or avoidance (MGTOW) to such “down-or-out” choice demanded by a large segment of the sell side (who as our blogger shows haven’t yet realized that they are not the sell side unless they supply pregnancies).

    To me one of the worst aspects of that circus is that the sell side seem to me to behave like that for truly awful for them reasons, which is very sad.

  • Hope

    @Susan Walsh

    “be picky about the important stuff: character”

    “Be open to love whenever it arrives”

    And that is exactly why I continue to read you .. because that’s a beautiful message.

  • Ramble

    Do you care about society just because or you care because there is something in it for you?

    Are you asking me specifically, or is that an abstract question?

    Do you think that Lady Gaga was “born that way” or she is a product of our time’s upbringing?

    As always, that cocktail has multiple ingredients, but, I doubt she had a moment in her life where she thought, “Hmm, should I major in Physics at MIT or should I become an attention whore?”

    Here innate “qualities”, I think, had a lot to do with what she would become.

  • Ramble

    From J

    Also, I am not so sure how many guys say, “You make me laugh”. YMMV

    My DH told me he was looking for a woman who was “whip smart,” “beautiful, but not in a Barbie doll way,” and who had “a killer sense of humor.” If he ever finds her, I’m in big trouble. Ba dum bummm.

    And from Beta

    A sense of humor is pretty much non-negotiable…

    J, a “sense of humour” and “wow, Sarah Silverman (or whomever) really makes me laugh” are two different things. I am not saying that you are not a laugh riot, you may very well be. And, that is what Definite Beta may be looking for as well, I dunno.

    But, in general, could you imagine being with a person who didn’t have a sense of humour?

    Here is a gross generalization:
    Girls: Want a guy who will make them laugh (i.e. he should be entertaining)
    Guys: Want a girl who laughs at his jokes (i.e. she should be entertained)

  • Blissex

    «Absolutely everyone wants love .. even the PUA’s and the MGTOW’s .. who might say they don’t need it, that they are better off with disposable sex partners or no one at all.»

    This is incredibly wrong. Both the PUAs and MGTOWs are people who were offering love or at least infatuation and good times and hoping it would be reciprocated. There is a small number of
    sociopaths in both cultures, but most of them are brokenheart romantics (including Heartiste).

    What both groups think to have discovered is that all (NAWALT) or many/most (NAWALT) women don’t give a damn about love or companionship as an “interactive” thing (“The eternal solipsism of the female mind” is a PUA/MGTOW classic), they only care about only resources or sex and “gina tingle”, and use men into providing all of the above.

    The PUAs are those who decide to accept that, and put up with being treated as disposable sex partners, as the lesser evil, and the MGTOWs are those who think that they have better things to do as the lesser evil, like playing games or developing hobbies or careers.

    Neither of the groups wants or needs to treat women as disposable sex partners, as there are hands and fleshlights for that, they just react differently to what they perceive as being used as disposable sex objects by women.

    If they are lucky: PUA training is all about making an effort to learn how to be treated *at least* as disposable sex objects, because PUAs (and MGTOWs) that’s the best deal on offer and that the others can be much worse.

  • Ramble

    I’m puzzled by men here often linking female intelligence to self-aggrandizing, aggressive, shrewish, miserable behavior.

    I can’t speak for others, but there is often a correlation between girls who describe themselves as “smart” and some of those other negative adjectives that you used.

    In my experience, people who are genuinely intelligent (i.e. they get shit done, consistently, without drama) tend not to use that word in describing themselves.

    After all, these are the women with the lowest divorce rate in the country.

    And the latest age of first marriage.

    And, Jimmy, +1 on everything you said.

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

      @Ramble

      In my experience, people who are genuinely intelligent (i.e. they get shit done, consistently, without drama) tend not to use that word in describing themselves.

      Anyone who has to call attention to their natural gifts is doing it wrong. A woman’s intelligence (or lack thereof) should be obvious to anyone who converses with her for 5 minutes. I feel confident I could estimate IQ within 10 points after speaking with anyone for that long.

      There are men who will think, “too smart for her own good.” Others may think, “what an interesting woman.” This is a matter of personal preference, something we’re all entitled to. Jimmy Hendricks’ only requirement is that a woman appreciate him and what he is doing with his life. Other men are interested in being able to appreciate a woman and what she is doing with her life. Like many women, I always wanted more than appreciation for someone else’s choices, and I never had trouble finding more.

      After all, these are the women with the lowest divorce rate in the country.

      And the latest age of first marriage.

      And that’s not a coincidence.

  • Maggie

    “The thing about intelligence as I see it, is that it is an awesome “spice,” but it can’t make up the meat. If that makes sense? The fundamentals are the same for every girl, and intelligence cannot make up for a lack of it.”

    I had a highly intelligent inlaw who married a very sweet, agreeable woman who adored him. She wasn’t particularly smart or intellecutally curious. After two years he was totally bored with her and left her. (Yeah, not very nice of him). He since has remarried someone more his intellectual equal and is much happier.

    Sure, you want a woman who is caring, loyal, argreeable, loving, etc. But if you plan on spending years together it’s best to have someone who is your intellectual equal or willing to step up and learn to engage you in a meaningful and entertaining way. What are you going to talk about when you’re in a car for three hours on the trip to the inlaws? The Kardashians?

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

      @Maggie

      What are you going to talk about when you’re in a car for three hours on the trip to the inlaws? The Kardashians?

      Our go-to discussion is: John or Paul? It’s never failed us yet.

  • Blissex

    ««Absolutely everyone wants love .. even the PUA’s and the MGTOW’s .. who might say they don’t need it, that they are better off with disposable sex partners or no one at all.»

    This is incredibly wrong. Both the PUAs and MGTOWs are people who were offering love or at least infatuation and good times and hoping it would be reciprocated.»

    For a summary of this point of view, one of the most important quotes ever from PUA/MGTOW land, describing what most PUAs/MGTOWs may think is the “best” type of relationship a woman can give a man, and then only if he is 100% smooth at Game:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/08/24/is-game-in-marriage-always-worth-it/#comment-38675
    «Jabberwocky August 24, 2010 at 07:09

    As a happily married man I find it ironic that in order to make sure my wife cares about me, I have to insure that I don’t care too much about her.

    Her emotions are all over the place and don’t necessarily reflect anything of actual significance. I have to detach myself from her emotionally so that I can always maintain the appropriate frame.

    No matter what is going on I have to act like I’m above it, that her mortal concerns are of no real interest to the god that I am.

    Don’t get me wrong. I tell her things that make her feel better, or if she is acting out against me, that shut her up, but I do it in an emotionally detached, almost clinical way.

    I feel more like her life coach than an equal partner. It is what it is.»

    Note that the «happily married man» does not sound that happy given the «It is what it is» close. Probably his marriage is described as happy because she feels happy/turned on and he is relieved that it means that she does not cause him damage.

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

      @Blissex

      As a happily married man I find it ironic that in order to make sure my wife cares about me, I have to insure that I don’t care too much about her.

      Note that the «happily married man» does not sound that happy given the «It is what it is» close. Probably his marriage is described as happy because she feels happy/turned on and he is relieved that it means that she does not cause him damage.

      I’m glad you identified this as an example of PUA/MGTOW thinking. This attitude of scarcity – instilling dread, or following the “golden ratio” of giving a woman only 2/3 as much as she gives you – is like the donut tire on a car. Yeah, you might be able to make the journey without a breakdown, but you’ll never drive easy, and a blowout is always potentially around the corner.

      It’s not a healthy relationship dynamic and as a wife these “behavioral correlates” would be immediately identifiable, and therefore signal low value. I’d rather pay up for the Michelin.

  • ConcernedMama

    @ Susan
    “I’m puzzled by men here often linking female intelligence to self-aggrandizing, aggressive, shrewish, miserable behavior. Intelligence is not a personality or character trait. My own community is filled with highly intelligent women, few of whom I would describe as behaving in this way. After all, these are the women with the lowest divorce rate in the country.”

    Amen! Of course, I, too, live outside Boston and, I suspect, run in the same circles you do. Reading the comments here and elsewhere has made me realize afresh how rarified our world is. While I worry for my sons, I also realize there is a higher than average chance that given their cultural background and the education we will provide for them, they will grow up to value intelligence in women, as well as till-death-do-us-part marriage.

    My perplexity is to do with what’s going on in the rest of country and the impact on society as a whole.

  • Ramble

    I had a highly intelligent inlaw who married a very sweet, agreeable woman who adored him. She wasn’t particularly smart or intellecutally curious. After two years he was totally bored with her and left her. (Yeah, not very nice of him). He since has remarried someone more his intellectual equal and is much happier.

    Well, I am going to take this opportunity to speak for all men everywhere.

    If the girl is simply too dim or dull, or in general, simply not bright enough to have a conversation with that is satisfying, then, yes, you need a smarter girl.

    But, assuming that she has met some sort of base requirement, guys are not going to be looking for some girl that got her masters in communications.

    Now, if some guy just got his PhD in French Lit or his masters in Applied Math, then, his “base requirements” are likely to be much higher than your average Joe.

    But, again, girls who are quick to trumpet their intelligence are, IME, not great candidates. In fact, I find that girls like that are immature.

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

      @Ramble

      Well, I am going to take this opportunity to speak for all men everywhere.

      Sorry, you don’t get to do that.

      If the girl is simply too dim or dull, or in general, simply not bright enough to have a conversation with that is satisfying, then, yes, you need a smarter girl.

      But, assuming that she has met some sort of base requirement, guys are not going to be looking for some girl that got her masters in communications.

      Perhaps, but the base requirement varies a lot among men. I know men who would consider a masters in communications a lightweight qualification and not indicative of a woman’s ability to produce smart sons.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “After all, these are the women with the lowest divorce rate in the country.”

    Lowest divorce rate, lowest cohabitation rate, highest marriage rate (key), AND lowest (median) number of lifetime partners. I figure waiting a few years before getting married is a pretty good tradeoff given those facts. But you can’t please everybody around here : )

  • VD

    I’m puzzled by men here often linking female intelligence to self-aggrandizing, aggressive, shrewish, miserable behavior. Intelligence is not a personality or character trait.

    Because many men have regularly observed that women who describe themselves as “smart” or “intelligent”, or who mention their educational credentials in the first five minutes of meeting someone new, tend to be self-aggrandizing, aggressive, shrewish, annoying, and obnoxious people. You’re right, of course, intelligence is not a personality or character trait. And neither is an automobile.

    But what would your reaction be to a man who tells you that he drives a Porsche in his initial conversation with you, especially when you didn’t ask him about his preferred mode of personal transportation? I tend to doubt it would be very positive, and suspect that his need to divulge that information would tell you something about his personality. The ironic thing is that intelligence is very, very easy to demonstrate, and yet, these annoying intelligent women can’t manage to do more than do the equivalent of grunting “me go to good school, me smart, so you like.” And it’s not much better when they ostentatiously display an extensive vocabulary, although it does provide for some high quality amusement when they use their fifty-cent words improperly.

    On the other hand, I will admit that overhearing a woman mutter “kill me now” under her breath while some social butterfly is babbling on about the latest gossip or entertainment product will certainly tend to pique one’s interest.

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

      @VD

      Personally, I find any kind of boasting a signal of low self-esteem, and I usually write off people right away who engage in it. That certainly applies to either men or women who need or want to tell me how intelligent they are. I feel the same way about people who mention their house on Martha’s Vineyard, Range Rover, private school tuition or friendship with Mitt Romney in our first conversation.

      By the way, I also feel this way about people who give big bucks to get their names on buildings. Here’s something that has always resonated for me, from the time I was very young:

      “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” Matthew 6

      For me, this has always said something about humility. I’m not very good at this myself, but I feel that it is something to work toward.

  • Ramble

    Lowest divorce rate, lowest cohabitation rate, highest marriage rate (key), AND lowest (median) number of lifetime partners.

    Lowest Fertility Rate
    Lowest Replacement Rate

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

      @Ramble

      Lowest divorce rate, lowest cohabitation rate, highest marriage rate (key), AND lowest (median) number of lifetime partners.

      Lowest Fertility Rate
      Lowest Replacement Rate

      True, but that doesn’t have anything to do with whether smart women are obnoxious. My original point was that smart women don’t get divorced very often, so they can’t be too difficult to live with.

  • Sexybearfriend

    @ MikeC
    It’s not utopian, it’s problem solving. No problem is insurmountable as long as you are methodical about the motivations behind actions and willing to compromise. I just can’t understand this level of surrender and loss of can-do action. “It’s just hopeless” is the rallying cry of certain segments of the manosphere. I know that your question is a set-up to prove a point about how hopeless everything is so why bother — and knowing that the detail required to adequately address it is too much for the comments. But I do have answers. So if Susan wants to broker a go-between for us to exchange email addresses, I’d be happy to do that.
    But a quick summation:
    1. Attack the foundation of the problem: don’t rush into relationships. Avoid couplings that are incompatible. My personal rule is that I didn’t say “I love you” until around a year-ish. Your hypothetical coupling could be a fully independent woman and a man that wants to be fully Captian. I make no value judgement about this, but they aren’t right for each other. No point in trying to shoehorn 1 type of person into another personality. They should find people that appreciate them. A good chunk of couples are compatible anyway. Your scenario, while it def does exist, is not the rule. Couples who have similar economic outlooks (as well as social, cultural, etc) tend to pair together. I know that blogs can create an echo chamber and make problems seem larger than what they really are, but these may not necessarily be the majority in the general population.
    2. But in your scenario, the deal is done. So what now? COmpromise. Quickly,there are 2 basic scenarios (and don’t skewer me for taking shortcuts here. Again, we’re in the Comments section): The manosphere version, where she’s a shreiking, bratty harpee(“I want what I want. WAAAHHH!”); and (prob the more realistic version) they’re both decent people who have different, but valid, reasons for wanting what they want. In version 1, compromise is simply saying “yes, we can do that. But you need to get a better job to support that. Or, give up your shoe habit. I’ll give up X. But it can’t work if we keep going as we’re going. And you have to prmise me that you will not get cranky and pissy when we can’t go out to eat, blah blah blah…” You make her share in the gains and the hardship. In the 2nd scenario, you can say “I undetstand your reason for a larger house and a better school district. But, as we are right now, we can’t have both. Let’s compromise — what are you and I willing to give up.” Look, compromise may not be the greatest things, but there needs to be some shared responsibility: hypothetical-you hooked up with a screaming harpee. Either divorce or compromise. You can’t magically wave a wand and change her, I hate to say. But you don’t have to be taken in by her little tirades. It’s a process. Even Athol’s MAP isn’t an overnight solution.
    So you may say “but what if she screams, cuts off sex, etc.” Deal with it and solve the problem. “Emotional” problems can be tackled in the same way that a mechanical or other technical problem is — methodically take it apart and fix the smaller until the whole is complete. PEOPLE HAVE A TENDENCY TO THINK THEMSELVES INTO INACTION. DO something. Drill down with a series of “why’s”, starting with the larger issue (“why does she want a better school district”) and go from there. I don’t believe for a sec that men are less empathetic than women, it’s just showing them that it’s a process. Men can handle technical and methodical very well.

  • deti

    Blissex 517:

    Yeah, the married man today has to be more than a husband, provider and friend. Many women expect their husbands to be the sexy, fun, exciting, romantic boyfriend as well as a provider, money-earner and child-father. She wants not only the safety, but also the thrill, the danger, the excitement, and the fun.

    Funny thing is, men like me spent our formative years listening to our mothers, pastors, teachers and everyone else tell us that to get women to like us, we had to be nice. Can’t get a girl to like you? You’re not nice enough. She broke up with you? You weren’t nice to her. You have to be nicer or the girls won’t like you. Don’t you dare escalate sexually! That’s not nice!

    Looking back what was really happening was that I was too nice. I went on lots of first dates with no second ones. In retrospect it was because I paid for everything on that first date at a 4 or 5 star restaurant that cost me $50 or $100. I got to date a few women for a while but they would break up with me because I didn’t escalate them by the third or fourth hangout. My own wife tells me she “sometimes wasn’t physically attracted to” me because we got married, I put on 40 pounds, and I would not take charge in the bedroom.

    Men, don’t be nice. Be good. Be assertive. But don’t be nice.

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

      My own wife tells me she “sometimes wasn’t physically attracted to” me because we got married, I put on 40 pounds, and I would not take charge in the bedroom.

      A nice man can stay in shape and take charge in the bedroom. Nice does not mean supplicating. Failing to produce the tingle is the result of an imbalance between acting nice (giving) and dominant (taking). A good relationship requires both.

  • Just1X

    Is intelligence in a female partner nice? Yes it is.
    Is a sexy female partner nice? you bet.

    OK guy, choose

    I’ll have the sexy one, not breed with her, practice 24/7 and have conversations with my guy friends while my little guy recovers.

    If you don’t have to choose? fine, take the package, but society frowns on doing the sexy thing outside marriage. Getting intelligent conversation on topics of interest outside marriage? nah – you’re all right. Why don’t you have a beer while you’re at it?

    Men (PMAMALT – Pretty Much All Men Are Like That) are never going to put intelligence on a par with looks. When it comes to breeding material they might take intelligence into account, a bit, maybe, yeah I know, but…

    Exhibit A
    Prince Chuckles of the UK* (Charles / Jug Ears etc) who frankly should have been looking to improve the intellect of the bloodline chose Diana. Now I’ll happily agree she looked cracking in that dress (and probably out of it) but intellectually? She made Chuckles look like da Smartz. And he travels around in an Aston Martin (running on fuel extracted from wine) lecturing us little people to live greener lives (oh the irony). He also hires airliners to fly him and his ‘team’ to environmental conferences.

    Now if someone bred to ‘do his duty to the country’ (and I’m sure that he was), that isn’t very intelligent (and he isn’t) won’t prioritise intellect? The chances with us proles doing the decent (intelligent?) thing are what?

    Ladeez, give up any pretence of smart over looks prioritisation.

    Even without the ample contributions of feminists, society is heading for an Idiocracy

    (c) VDM enterprises

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

      Ladeez, give up any pretence of smart over looks prioritisation.

      I’m pretty sure not one woman has said intelligence matters more than looks. I think we all recognize that sexual attraction is first and foremost about looks for men. Beyond that, there’s “relationship attraction,” reflecting compatibility among other things. Human beings have a long history of marrying people of similar intelligence.

      From the How to Get a Boyfriend post, the list of female traits men consider when contemplating commitment (not in order):

      Charm
      Athleticism
      Education
      Generosity
      Honesty
      Independence
      Kindness
      Intellectuality
      Loyalty
      Sense of humor
      Sociability
      Wealth
      Responsibility
      Spontaneity
      Cooperativeness
      Emotional stability

      Looks aren’t on the list because it’s presumed the woman has already cleared that bar.

      Again, just to be clear, I’m not telling men they should find smart women attractive or commitment-worthy. I’m stating that in my experience, intelligence has been an asset in soliciting offers of commitment from men.

  • Just1X

    * the Queen is alright by me (just alright) after that can we become a republic? Obama is going great shakes over your way, perhaps we could time share?

    (some sarc involved)

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    “Lowest Fertility Rate
    Lowest Replacement Rate”

    Cite sources, please!
    You’ve totally discounted adoption, by the way.

    HUS sources:
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
    http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/annualreports.html

  • Blissex

    The slightly maniacal trader jargon of “Bastiat Blogger” is amusing in this context (I am not a trader)…

    «I notice that a number of you take the macro view on this stuff (I mainly am focused on microeconomic and sexual incentives)»

    As to this a little aside which however is very topical.

    In most trades it is not always clear who is buying and who is selling; technically both parties are buying and selling at the same time, especially when it comes to barter; if I want to buy dollars offering euros I am also selling euros and accepting dollars. But there is often a sense that there is a seller and a buyer, and this usually influences initiation and leverage in the trade. Important aspects that are ignored by the usual demented theoclassical general equilibrium approaches.

    After some reflection I figured out that the seller is the side that wants to become more liquid after the trade, and this depends on context. The buyer is the side that wants to become short liquidity. Emphasis: I am talking liquidity not currency, and liquidity is contextual.

    Applying this to the usual sex-for-onesided-commitment and fatherhood-for-investment and children-for-pension trades might be amusing as to «microeconomic and sexual incentives)».

    Especially considering that mothers (like men in other contexts) can be quite financially astute, for example by aborting female children where they are lower return retirement assets, or pressuring male children into boundless exam cramming to maximize the safety of their retirement returns.

    «and feel that the current dating/mating system contains the seeds of its own collapse.»

    Well, those who think so have a somewhat different thesis: that the entrenching of the current mating system contains the seeds of the collapse of the civilization around it, not its own, actually it will become even more entrenched as the civilization around it collapses.

    The model they have is that the current mating system is being replaced by the “ghetto” one, the one that gives rise to patriarchal but matrilineal cultures like those in central Africa (while Euro-American and Japanese culture has been for a long time matriarchal but patrilineal).

    The thesis is that, without a constant effort to enforce the matriarchal/patrilineal mating system by both genders, it will be thermodynamically replaced by a more disordered patriarchal/matrilineal ghetto one; but higher civilization requires patrilineality to motivate men to maintain it as men yearn for immortality and build civilizations for their children. Some say to impress women, but women seem more cheaply impressed by “gina tingle” enabling.

    Western gender-raunch female supremacists hasten the “ghetto” mating system because they are arbitraging between the nonsexual rights that they have in one system with the sexual rights that they have in the other, without realizing that they cannot pick-and-choose, as you sort of allude to:

    «The gulf between hardwired female sociobiological imperatives and artificial feminist mandates has created a sort of arbitrage opportunity for all manner of sexual entrepreneurs.»

    Even if most of those «sexual entrepreneurs» would rather be husbands and fathers in a boring average marriage (with perhaps very occasional straying by either). But in a ghetto you cannot opt to work in a cube and go home to a white picket fence, you got to scavenge on your own or play the black market.

    «Perhaps the arch-feminists who are invested in their positions may act like a desperate central bank and keep this profitable trading opportunity going for a long time.»

    The «arch-feminists» are not personally invested, they are like TBTF traders, and are acting as a central bank funded by seignorage and thus by «men» (and women who have children, especially male ones) so it will take a long time indeed, as inflation can be pretty long term.

    If there is a possible moderator is that in the current halfway system the benefits go mostly to childless women, women with female children pay some of the costs, and women with male children pay quite a bit of the costs, because the current system involves direct transfers from males to females and indirect ones from women with children to childless ones.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    The other Hope: hi! You sound like a fellow NF idealist. :) Such love as you describe does exist. I have found such love with my husband, and he was a guy who took the red pill when he was young and then was a man going his own way, playing video games and pursuing graduate studies.

    I believe that the red pill is not all about cynicism, but about being realistic and seeking the truth. I would rather have this knowledge and be able to keep our love alive and strong.

    Mike M, thank you for that. Perhaps the future will be brighter.

  • Ramble

    Cite sources, please!

    It would take too long, and it is unnecessary.

    The very fact that they get married at later ages (and are very likely to produce children from those marriages, and not before) means that they are going to have a lower Total Replacement Rate.

    For an overly simplistic example of these things:
    LMC 20 year olds having 3 babies will have 21 kids total after 60 years.
    UMC 30 year olds having 2 babies will have 4 kids total after 60 years.

    The LMC saw 3 generations after 60 years, while the UMC saw 2.

    I am not advocating much here, but I do want to point out some of the important differences between the 2 strategies (and what some of the consequences might be).

  • Emily

    Just1X,

    I was always under the impression that Charles was pressured into marrying Diana because Camilla was considered “unsuitable”.

    He really should have married her in the first place, but I actually find it kind of sweet how Charles wound up staying with Camilla even though he could have had pretty much any woman that he wanted. She’s not exactly a looker, and their relationship has done SERIOUS damage to his popularity.

    …I suspect that the Duchess of Cornwall could teach us a thing or two about Girl Game. : P

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Blissex, I enjoyed that post—erudite, insightful, etc. Thank you

  • Just1X

    @Emily

    from my purely casual knowledge from a disinterested viewpoint (royalty not being very interesting to me, so caveat emptor)

    Chuckles and Camilla were an item decades ago
    He went of for a year or two (Royal Navy?) and she couldn’t wait
    She married some other bloke
    He married Diana
    Things continued to happen
    Diana went off and dies
    Quiet divorce for her and then wedding bells

    But yeah, what you said; whatever she’s got, if she could bottle it the UK finances could be sorted. There have been recent rumours that he’s again maneuvering for her to become queen. But I only ‘know’ what I can’t avoid in the news, as with just about anybody I ever talk to, we don’t care about royalty. Where the vast numbers of flocking idiots that sleep on the streets to be in the crowd come from…who on Earth knows?

    I was in France for their wedding…wall to wall coverage on French TV! I never met anybody there that actually cared either.

  • Ramble

    Megaman,
    From the CDC,

    A women’s educational level is the best predictor of how many children she will have, according to a new study from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study, based on an analysis of 1994 birth certificates, found a direct relationship between years of education and birth rates, with the highest birth rates among women with the lowest educational attainment.

    It is a little old, but it still holds true today. Again, too lazy too look for something more recent.

    BTW, I am not starting anything here. If you know what you want, go for it.

  • Ramble

    But I only ‘know’ what I can’t avoid in the news, as with just about anybody I ever talk to, we don’t care about royalty. Where the vast numbers of flocking idiots that sleep on the streets to be in the crowd come from…who on Earth knows?

    Most of my family is from the UK (a good deal north of you…they eat haggis) and they, basically, never talk about the Royals. They talk about teh Royals about as often as you and I talk about the Kardashians.

    However, my mother loves how the Queen has conducted herself all these years.

  • Ramble

    Megaman, one more, since it is good news, The U.S. teen birthrate is now 34.3 per 1,000 women aged 15-19. Fewer babies were born to teens this year than in any year since 1946.

    This is from only a few days ago and it is also from the CDC: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2012/04/cdc_teen_birth_rates_at_histor.html

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Ramble, your math is off. I’m no mathematician like my husband, but here are my calculations.

    First scenario:

    Year 1: 1 (mother)
    Year 20: 1 – 1 – 1 (3 children)
    Year 40: 3 – 3 – 3 (3 grandchildren from each child)
    Year 60: 3 – 3 – 3 / 3 – 3 – 3 / 3 – 3 – 3 (3 grand-grandchildren from each grandchild)

    Total: 3 + 9 + 27 = 39

    Second scenario:

    Year 1: 1 (mother)
    Year 30: 1 – 1 (2 children)
    Year 60: 2 – 2 (2 grandchildren from each child)

    Total: 2 + 4 = 6

    Clearly a huge numerical difference, assuming all children including males in the first scenario reproduce right at age 20, and all children produce 3 children of their own.

    This is partially why the right tail end of the bell curve will never be huge. My husband and I are definitely in the second scenario trajectory. :P

  • Ramble

    Hope, you are absolutely right. Lazy, lazy.

    Thanks.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Although, that is purely theoretical, since the idea of the woman having triplets every time right at age 20 is statistically next to impossible. :P So the actual numbers would be staggered until about year 90.

  • Emily

    Haha celebrity gossip is one of my main guilty pleasures, and at this point the royals are pretty much glorified celebrities.

    Background information (if anybody cares):
    Charles continued his love affair with Camilla throughout his marriage to Diana. He also made it very clear to Diana that Camilla was there to stay, which is one of the main reasons why Diana was so miserable and why they eventually got divorced. Camilla also wound up getting divorced shortly after the affair became public.

    What they did to Diana was horrible, but they clearly loved each other.

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

    Are you asking me specifically, or is that an abstract question?

    Both.

    As always, that cocktail has multiple ingredients, but, I doubt she had a moment in her life where she thought, “Hmm, should I major in Physics at MIT or should I become an attention whore?”
    Here innate “qualities”, I think, had a lot to do with what she would become.

    I think we agree that there is a mix a girl growing in a stable home that understand causes and consequences and whose herd mentality has been tamed by family/community loyalty mentality (I will talk about on the blog at some point but a strong family knot helps to avoid succumb to peer pressure) will see Lady Gaga’s attempts of attention whoring in different way than someone who don’t have anything but their friends to hold onto to survive life and worst of all teenagerhood, YMMV.

    Because many men have regularly observed that women who describe themselves as “smart” or “intelligent”, or who mention their educational credentials in the first five minutes of meeting someone new, tend to be self-aggrandizing, aggressive, shrewish, annoying, and obnoxious people. You’re right, of course, intelligence is not a personality or character trait. And neither is an automobile.

    Maybe we should think of women calling herself intelligent the same way a woman that is fifty pounds overweight says “Marilyn Monroe was my size and she was considered beautiful” trumping what they lack.
    Maybe that should be another thing to point out to young girls. Don’t call yourself anything: show, don’t tell. If you are smart men will pick it on, if you are funny men will laugh if you are sexy men will ask you out and so on. I know is PC giving men all the power but maybe knowing that is not their calling to make might help the “I’m so smart you should have a boner for me” crowd as small or big it is, YMMV.

    She wants not only the safety, but also the thrill, the danger, the excitement, and the fun.

    As a personal disliker of the dystopian genre I had observed that this is a genre popular and cultivated on anglosphere: a.k.a first world countries more often than not. I do wonder if there isn’t a natural need for violence that safe countries need to fulfill and the lack of it under stimulate them so women are more attracted to “violent looking and acting men” than on majority of women in countries were violence is daily and real. Just a though.

  • Alias

    J
    :Must I tell my banana cream pie story once again?:
    ——
    Are you looking to get banned? ;-)

  • Escoffier

    I used to think that John outclassed Paul by miles and miles. I don’t think the case is so clear-cut any more. Personality-wise, Paul is certainly a better person. I always found it incredibly classy how Paul always went out of his way to honor the life and work of Brian Wilson. I just can’t imagine John ever doing any such thing for a peer/competitor.

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

      @Escoffier

      Paul did outclass John in terms of character, though the Beatle with the best character is Ringo. After a lifetime of debate, I believe my husband and I have reached an agreement that John produced better music, but that neither Paul nor John alone was half as good alone as they were when they collaborated.

  • Ramble

    Although, that is purely theoretical, since the idea of the woman having triplets every time right at age 20 is statistically next to impossible.

    Not triplets, just 3 kids. I understand that she would not have all3 non-tripleted kids in one year, which is why I referred to it as being simplistic.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Remember how you say that people who hook up have a hard time getting sex regularly? That’s why girls go for serial monogamy. It’s recreational sex without the problems of hooking up such as effort required, worrying about STIs, and ONS guilt.

    They still are not interested in having a permanent relationship. Also, it should be noted that single women are no more interested in marriage than single men and less interested in having children: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2046035,00.html

    The Time poll also brings up an interesting thing about female hypergamy in the post-feminist world: there is a greater expectation for the husband to put family before all else, to provide a good income, to be good at household chores, and to be a good parent. For wives, there is a greater expectation to be well educated. http://www.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,2031973,00.html

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

      @INTJ

      Women hooking up do not have difficulty getting sex regularly – it’s only a problem for men. Worrying about STIs and ONS guilt are conspicuously absent among the promiscuous. If either of those considerations weighed heavily, those women would be less likely to hook up.

      In fact, only a small fraction of women (10-20%) hook up regularly. Hooking up is the pathway to relationships in college, so most dating couples began their relationship with no-strings sex. We might extrapolate to say that most dating couples are sluts, and that as you claim, the relationships, such as they are, are really glorified booty calls. However, most women (90%) do not pursue that strategy in college.

      As for the Time article, the Match study looked at everyone, including people already divorced, to ascertain interest in marrying. In my recent post Millennials and Marriage, I cited the stats that 68% of Gen Y women cite motherhood as a priority, 70% of both Gen Y men and women want to marry, and 74% want children.

      I don’t understand what prioritizing family has to do with female hypergamy. If anything, it would argue against it. What does fit is 41% of women saying a husband should have a good income, compared to 19% of men saying that about a wife. Frankly, I’m surprised the women’s number isn’t higher.

      Surprisingly, especially in this thread, 39% of men said it is important for their spouse to be well educated, compared to 36% of women.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    What if there’s a shortage of Michelin tires and it’s difficult to get one?

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

      What if there’s a shortage of Michelin tires and it’s difficult to get one?

      My second choice would be Toyo, and if I can’t get that, I’ll manage without a car as necessary.

  • Ramble

    Other men are interested in being able to appreciate a woman and what she is doing with her life.

    Which, for many, will be: having children and raising a family.

    And if some girl is talking about how intelligent she is, it is unlikely that she is, at that point, well suited for such an endeavor.

    Again, we are talking about girls who describe themselves as “intelligent”. At least, that is how I understand it.

    After all, these are the women with the lowest divorce rate in the country.

    And the latest age of first marriage.

    And that’s not a coincidence.

    You are right. The later a girl marries, the lower her SMV will be if she ponders divorce. So, there is both the carrot and stick with older couples, “if I am going to get married, this really, REALLY, better be the one, because I will be too old to start over again.”

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

      @Ramble

      And if some girl is talking about how intelligent she is, it is unlikely that she is, at that point, well suited for such an endeavor.

      Again, we are talking about girls who describe themselves as “intelligent”. At least, that is how I understand it.

      I don’t know why you’re restricting the conversation to women who boast about being intelligent. That was not the original question. The question is simply, “Are men attracted to intelligence?” I can attest that some are, and it’s equally obvious in looking around that some are not.

      I’m puzzled as to why men care what other men find attractive. We’ve been down this road before, and at least half the men on the threads have stated they value intelligence in a partner and select for it. There’s nothing new here.

  • http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

    lozozlzozlzozozozzlzozo

    Poetry For a Pristine Girl
    I met a girl with eyes of ocean blue,
    I tried to pull her from the pagan realm,
    But it was something this sailor couldn’t do,
    And before I knew it, she had the helm.
    I went down fighting for something I believed,
    While my soul never strayed from the pinnacle,
    And that, my friend, is what made it hard to grieve,
    For flesh is but a temporary shackle.
    Those eyes– they bound me to a dreary day,
    For they could never see the words I spoke,
    Without a soul to anchor things she’d say,
    Soft promises drifted when she awoke.
    With no constraints, unrequited temptation,
    Conversations drowned out by her TV,
    On the pill to counter God’s creation,
    A long time before she ever knew me.
    She said stop twice and called it modesty,
    Like getting trashed for our anniversary,
    Tight skirts and bars– she needed all to see,
    Her subtle, endearing humility.
    Surrounded by her friends, all so astute,
    With their profound sitcoms and MBAs,
    they laughed at my jokes, they thought I was cute,
    and cast aspersion on my quiet ways.
    They worshipped all those who treated them wrong,
    They believed in nothing but what they felt,
    In their context Christ’s kindness wasn’t strong,
    They needed to share the pain they’d been dealt.
    To me love is a painting, poetry,
    A relationship is a work of art,
    Where actions embroider the tapestry,
    To her it was but a strategic chart.
    I enjoyed the work, she wanted the pay,
    A part-time player in her transactions,
    Her friends told her that I got in the way,
    Of their suave and superior abstractions.
    Guess I’m a simple guy, the starred night sky,
    And of the pristine feminine I’m a fan,
    But this culture taught her to live a lie,
    To trade her virtue and become a man.
    I wanted the romance our forefathers knew,
    The deep romance they teach us to deny,
    But the Book I found, I knew it was true,
    When the words shook my soul and made me cry.
    But there were moments where I pulled her free,
    And I know she felt her eternal soul,
    But then again, it could’ve just been me,
    We kept afloat because I filled a hole.
    I wanted mountains, she needed to ski,
    I spoke of marriage, she just needed now,
    Somewhere within, she confused being free,
    With a sinful love that God can’t allow.
    I read Shakespeare while she watched the movie,
    I loved the sunflowers, she needed museums,
    Like Van Gogh I guess I felt art was free,
    While she religiously bought all that seems.
    Where most would feel shame, she created a game,
    kept her parents and friends laughing at me,
    while I strove to light an eternal flame,
    she thought it healthier to just sleep with me.
    Postmodernism’s queen, she’d poll her friends,
    take phone surveys on the right thing to do,
    as long as it was a means to an end,
    abortion if a child just wouldn’t do.
    Demanding forgiveness without judgement,
    I watched her cut the prophets’ souls in two,
    What ever she believed, that’s what God meant,
    And thus whispering prudence wasn’t true.
    And every time that I sought to explain,
    she clicked call waiting to the other line,
    I told the silence what I couldn’t feign,
    and I told her that I was feeling fine.
    Against their culture called economy,
    Against Cosmo and all they advertise,
    They dressed up licentiousness as liberty,
    Virgin Mary in a bulimic’s disguise.
    And all these things that I could never say,
    The bold Truth she’d always seek to deny,
    Not out here, where her innocence would fray,
    Her soul belonged somewhere warm, safe, and dry.
    And so I’d tried to make her a Christian,
    Gently and subtly, without any pain,
    While I endured the judgements of a pagan,
    Those sky blue eyes and a cold soul of rain.
    And I guess it was that rain that I saw,
    two puddles reflecting an honest sky,
    Such infinite beauty, I held in awe,
    And leapt to give eternity a try.
    It hurt to dive into those deepest eyes,
    And find out that they were just shallow pools,
    For her deeper soul, where true beauty lies,
    They’d made a kingdom for pagans and fools.
    I know, my Lord, this sailor went astray,
    Drifted meself, trying to make her whole,
    For something more I thought I heard her pray,
    But the Truth broke my heart and saved my soul.
    And Lord, I feel that I have done my time,
    Ready to kneel before a Virgin heart,
    With reason and rhyme, I’ll confess my crime,
    And by God’s great grace, make a brand new start.
    Now she’s crying, but there’s a silver lining,
    Out of the fog, an angel walks my way,
    These words ran with her tears, now the sun’s shining,
    Blue eyes cleared of the postmodern fog’s grey.
    O’ the forgotten power of a poem,
    The mirror of the spirit’s reflection,
    For love, faith, and honor, a sturdy home,
    This noble vessel of vital redemption.

    lzozozozozozoozozzlzlo

  • Ramble

    Sorry, you don’t get to do that.

    Susan, come on, I was being facetious.

    Perhaps, but the base requirement varies a lot among men.

    Which is why I said, right after the part you quoted,

    Now, if some guy just got his PhD in French Lit or his masters in Applied Math, then, his “base requirements” are likely to be much higher than your average Joe.

  • Maggie

    @Susan
    “Our go-to discussion is: John or Paul? It’s never failed us yet.”

    Ha Ha …I’ve never been able to decide… although I’ve steadfastly loved Paul since I was six.

    @Escoffier
    “I always found it incredibly classy how Paul always went out of his way to honor the life and work of Brian Wilson.”

    That’s so funny. Just last week I was telling my husband about my consipracy theory that one of the Stones was jealous of Brian’s talent and plotted to get rid of him. You have to come up with something to talk about on those long trips…

  • Ramble

    True, but that doesn’t have anything to do with whether smart women are obnoxious. My original point was that smart women don’t get divorced very often, so they can’t be too difficult to live with.

    We are going back and forth on a number of things, and, I think, shooting past one another.

    This might be a brief summary of some of the points and questions being made and asked:
    1.) How smart does she need to be? Does she meet your baseline?
    2.) If she describes herself as “smart”, does that set off a red flag for you?
    3.) If she is marrying at 30, is it her intelligence or age, or both, that is reducing her chances of divorce.
    4.) How smart is it to marry at 30 and start having children then (i.e. health of children, fertility, etc.)?

  • Escoffier

    Susan, re: “wife game” or whatever you want to call it, when I first started reading about that I had the same reaction as the person Blissex is quoting. I was like, “What the hell, you mean I have to play all these stupid mind games on her just to keep her from leaving me? All this effort on the male side, what is SHE required to do?”

    Then I remembered that I had already been married a dozen years without playing any such mind games and she was still around and I felt better.

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

      @Escoffier

      Then I remembered that I had already been married a dozen years without playing any such mind games and she was still around and I felt better.

      I won’t speak for all women, but if my husband had taken that mind game approach to our marriage I would have left him when the kids were grown. An attractive man with options does not need to remind his wife of that. Only a man who knows he’s already lost her attention would even be attempted to use such tactics. And once he does that, he’s wrestling in the mud. The best way to be attractive to your mate, and every other woman in the vicinity, is to be an attractive person, not a master manipulator.

  • Just1X

    @Ramble & Emily

    “However, my mother loves how the Queen has conducted herself all these years.”

    I think that this is a pretty fair summary of most sane people (not flocking idiots); She’s alright. The problem comes with the next generation. Still, what’s the alternative President Barry / Bliar / Gordoom / Rooney / Russell Brand / Ali G?

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

    Escoffier – “Then I remembered that I had already been married a dozen years without playing any such mind games and she was still around and I felt better.”

    And I was married for around 12 years, didn’t play those games, and ended up divorced. So do we cancel each other out? :P

    It really is a very flexible/bell curve kinda thing. Some women (my ex-wife being one of them) really want/need a strong “leader/captain” and some simply want a guy that can be the tie breaker when necessary. The trouble I see is how exactly to determine this early enough in a relationship to know if you are compatible or not in terms of dominance/leadership/”tingle-worthiness”/etc.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Ted D, if both parties have taken the red pill and can communicate, it’s much easier to determine compatibility early. For this reason I think Susan is doing great work reaching out to young men and women.

    Ramble, where do you live? In most of America, most people get married in their 20s, not after 30. I have very few unmarried coworkers in their 30s. This was even the case when I lived in a suburb of Chicago.

  • Just1X

    @Susan

    “I’m pretty sure not one woman has said intelligence matters more than looks”

    fair enough, I don’t think that my comment was exactly ‘you go guy’ pro-male. More of a comment that however much some aspects of female attraction to males seem counter productive at times, males bring some issues to the table too. Given my time again I would not use the same criteria to choose a partner, but that said, there do have to be male ‘tingles’ (‘dangles’ / ‘jiggles’ /’wiggles’ maybe?)

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

      @Just1X

      there do have to be male ‘tingles’ (‘dangles’ / ‘jiggles’ /’wiggles’ maybe?)

      Agreed, and that’s fair. I’m not judging men as shallow because women need to pass the boner test. We’re currently optimized in terms of evolution, at least until we change again. There’s no percentage in fighting that. That’s why I always include that advice to women when I talk about finding a mate. Maximizing physical attractiveness is the most important thing.

      I think men are afraid women are going to try and shame them into getting with fat, ugly, smart women. I’ll agree with whoever said intelligence is an extra – nice to have for some men, not worth the trouble for others.

  • Escoffier

    I think I “lead” well enough though who knows if we will agree on what “leading” means in these circumstances. I will say this, though, she has moved for my career four times and I have not moved for hers once (she no longer has one, which makes that easier).

    Anyway, my point was less about leading than about mind games like counting how many times I return her calls/emails and how often I conciously instill dread (pretty much never, I would say). I don’t doubt that instilling dread can be very effective on a certain kind of female, I just know that I wouldn’t want one and, lucky me, I don’t appear to have one.

  • Sexybearfriend

    @ Dogsquat:

    “There is actually a male corollary to that, and that is you could have a guy who is objectively attractive across a number of objective metrics (height, build, educational status, income, etc.) yet lacks “confidence”. I know because I was that guy for a long time. The flip side to that would be the guy who really has nothing concrete…say short, uneducated, barely making ends meet but radiates “an aura of confidence” that really is just effective self-delusion. I’d argue the latter actually can do better than the former especially beyond an initial meeting and the escalation phases.

    I’m not really sure why the behavioral correlates work as well as they do. My pet theory is they are an evolved heuristic. Essentially, the heuristic that I think many women run is “If a guy is acting like he really is the shit and high value, then he really must be”.”

    @Wudang
    I think the hindbrain has evolved to rely quite heavily on the behavioral correlates because back in hte day they actually were better long term predictors of resources. Back in the day a guyt with a really nice hut, top quality spears, some great pottery and blankets, height and a lot of muscle but who displayed little confidence probably would be displaying signs of for some reason be heading downwards (he has been thrown out of the hunting party, his father has chosen the younger brother to take over his position as chief, he knows the nieghboring tribe will attack and take it all away etc. etc.)

    ———————————-

    There are some hunter-gather societies where males that display bragging behavior are shunned. I can’t recall the tribe (I believe that it was the African Hadza, but I don’t quote me), but the best hunter would take his prey into the village and sit back while the rest of the tribe would take their cuts before he took his. Obviously women want this great hunter, but the cues for his greatness become his modesty. That might account for these behavioral remnants of modesty. It’s fascinating reading about the different HG societies — there is such diversity.

  • Alias

    Hope:
    “In most of America, most people get married in their 20s, not after 30. ”
    —————–
    *Median Age at First Marriage*
    Pew Research Center, 50 State Tour Oct 2009

    Highest 5 States for Men:
    Dist of Columbia – 32
    Rhode Island – 30
    New York -30
    New Jersey – 30
    Massachusetts -30

    Lowest 5 States for Men:
    Kansas – 26
    Utah – 26
    Arkansas -26
    Oklahoma -26
    Idaho -25
    —————
    Highest 5 States for Women:
    Dist of Columbia – 30
    Connecticut – 28
    Massachusetts – 28
    New York – 28
    Rhode Island -28

    Lowest 5 States for Women:
    Wyoming – 25
    Oklahoma – 24
    Arkansas -24
    Idaho -24
    Utah -24

    Click on “Median Age at First” Marriage above the map
    Also interesting “Share Currently Married” and
    “Share Currently Divorced”
    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2009/10/15/marriages-and-divorce-a-50-state-tour/

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

    Escoffier – “I don’t doubt that instilling dread can be very effective on a certain kind of female, I just know that I wouldn’t want one and, lucky me, I don’t appear to have one.”

    And that was the point I was trying to make. If you find a woman that doesn’t require the “mind games” in the first place life is much simpler.

    I didn’t know that until recently, but it is now a top priority item in my mind. This is a sore point for me because my ex stated at one point that she wanted me to “lead” our marriage better during the time when we were trying to work things out. She is now with a guy that *I* consider to be “old school” (tends to think a woman’s place is in the kitchen, that a woman cannot be trusted to make important decisions alone, etc.) and although I hear she complains, she is still voluntarily with him. That tells me that we were never compatible, because even IF I believed that stuff 100% (which I don’t) I wouldn’t be happy having to be that kind of controlling “leader” anyway. I never saw it coming, and to this day am a bit shocked to shit that she is willingly in that relationship, but the proof is in the pudding I guess.

    So at least in that case I was a poor judge of this particular trait. Other than trial and error, I don’t see how any guy can determine the ‘thresholds’ for dominance in their relationships up front. And trial and error to me is just an icky way of resolving things…

  • J

    I cosign post #506. Well said, SW!

    One factor that’s been ignored in this discussion is a woman’s own enjoyment of her intelligence and education. I think the brighter a person is, the wider the world is for him/her. I personally enjoy that. There are also a number of ideas and huge chunks of arts and culture that I would not be acquianted with had I not gone to college. Those things enrich my life. I’m not so sure that I’d want to give that up for a relationship; I’m happy that I found someone I could share those thigs with.

  • J

    Frighteningly enough, I think Roissy and I share a certain bedrock belief in common, and that is that civilization is hellward bound, handbasket or no. But we differ in our responses.

    Me too. Roissy recognizes the problem and chooses to make it worse.

  • Ramble

    Ted D, if both parties have taken the red pill and can communicate, it’s much easier to determine compatibility early. For this reason I think Susan is doing great work reaching out to young men and women.

    Hope, right on.

    Ramble, where do you live? In most of America, most people get married in their 20s, not after 30. I have very few unmarried coworkers in their 30s. This was even the case when I lived in a suburb of Chicago.

    Well,
    1.) Susan, as she has said, is looking to address the concerns of girls in the UMC, primarily.
    2.) Those girls are much more likely to marry in their late 20′s as opposed to lesser educated MC and LMC girls.
    3.) I was using 20 and 30 as simplistic examples, to move things along
    4.) I live in a large East Coast city.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Alias, as expected, the coastal states have higher age ranges. Roissy and Roosh were operating in DC, which appears to have the highest. I’ve lived in only non-coastal states, the Midwest and the Mountain West. There aren’t a lot of PUAs in Utah, that’s for sure. :P

  • Alias

    Ted D:
    “I never saw it coming, and to this day am a bit shocked to shit that she is willingly in that relationship, but the proof is in the pudding I guess.”
    ——–
    Often when people end a relationship, they’ll seek new partners with the polar opposite qualities of the old partner even if it’s not exactly what they want (especially if they’re on the rebound.)

  • J

    But she would not answer the question: well, why did the herd coalesce around sluts like Katy Perry or Smut-peddlers like the Shades of Gray chick instead of Bob Dylan and Tom Wolfe?

    Because the herd responds to the lowest common denominator; everyone likes sex.

    simply that, we are, in general, not being controlled by puppet masters. Those in power definitely have an influence over what is produced, but the consumers have huge input on what is ultimately purchased.

    Nah, there’s no conspiracy, just a profit motive.

    Do you think that Lady Gaga was “born that way” or she is a product of our time’s upbringing?

    Third option: She’s a marketing genius. No one wanted to hear a bespectacled, mousy, brunette Stephanie Germanotta play classical piano, but many people loved Madonna in the 80s. Steph was smart enough to realize that people love crap and recycle Madonna’s old act. I just hope that those tats can be removed.

  • Alias

    Hope:
    “There aren’t a lot of PUAs in Utah, that’s for sure.”
    ——–
    Aww! We’ll send some in that direction if you like! ;-)

  • Mike C

    There are some hunter-gather societies where males that display bragging behavior are shunned. I can’t recall the tribe (I believe that it was the African Hadza, but I don’t quote me), but the best hunter would take his prey into the village and sit back while the rest of the tribe would take their cuts before he took his. Obviously women want this great hunter,***but the cues for his greatness become his modesty.**** That might account for these behavioral remnants of modesty. It’s fascinating reading about the different HG societies — there is such diversity.

    Ehhhhh….probably not (equating greatness with modesty).

    I’m speculating but I’d bet the shunning was by other men and then the women of the tribe followed their lead. This behavior probably had NOTHING to do with generating female attraction, but stabilizing relations amongst men and removing male intrasexual competition as a big influence in the tribe. Obviously, a high level of male intrasexual competition is not conducive to a high level of male cooperation, so I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if you studied a great number of hunter-gatherer societies across the globe across time, you’d find some type of socialization, rituals, customs to lessen male intrasexual competition because the endgame there was probably total chaos and violence. The lower men/”betas” probably just ganged up to take the top guy/” alpha” out.

  • Alias

    Re: sense of humor
    When people say they’d like their partner to have a sense of humor, it’s not that they’re asking for a comedienne. What they really want is an optimist as opposed to someone who gets upset over minor things. Someone who sees the glass half-full and can be lighthearted in difficult situations- one with a cheerful disposition.

  • Blissex

    «This attitude of scarcity – instilling dread, or following the “golden ratio” of giving a woman only 2/3 as much as she gives you – is like the donut tire on a car. Yeah, you might be able to make the journey without a breakdown, but you’ll never drive easy, and a blowout is always potentially around the corner.»

    The PUA/MGTOW thinking, as I understand it, is that this is indeed an awful thing for men, and that they would rather women demanded something very different to feel sexually excited. Heartiste/Roissy has written a few times that if women demanded something else then PUAs would be about doing that, and it would be better if it was something else, and Jabberwocky also was rather frustrated that his wife demanded that, as I pointed out very prominently.

    Many men are not happy to learn to be a trained monkey that keeps dancing exactly the silly steps that keep their wife entertained, all the time, no mistakes allowed, or she punishes you, one way or another, often with the full force of the law. «It is what it is». It is better than being a trained donkey, but still not so good.

    The PUAs seem willing to learn the monkey dance in order to be treated as well as at least disposable sexual objects by women (rather than worse), the MGTOWs seem to think that such women are defective partners and they would rather not deal with them. Both reckon that women who demand the “donut tire”/monkey dance are the overwhelming majority and wish it weren’t so.

    The “red pill” is realizing that despite a lot of hypocrisy («pretty lies«) most women require a peculiar and sad type of monkey dance to feel sexually excited, take-it-or-leave-it, and then to decide whether to monkey dance as women need or walk away; with their chances for fatherhood in the balance.

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

      @Blissex

      most women require a peculiar and sad type of monkey dance to feel sexually excited, take-it-or-leave-it,

      This is my sticking point with you. You’re painting with far too broad a brush, and your conclusions do not fit with my own understanding. You say that is because I haven’t come to grips with the truth yet, but I wonder where you get your information.

      I’ll remind you that I’m writing here for an educated, young female audience. The behavior of American women overall is of little relevance here, because mating practices differ dramatically among socioeconomic groups. This isn’t to say that female college students are lacking the hypergamy gene, but your descriptions do not reflect my readership.

  • J

    Omg GBFM is here! …how on earth did that happen?

    I would assume he googled his name and saw that he was being discussed here.

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

      Omg GBFM is here! …how on earth did that happen?

      I would assume he googled his name and saw that he was being discussed here.

      I confess I’ve never had the pleasure before. The notion of this guy as Roissy’s alter ego is an interesting one.

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

    Alias – “Often when people end a relationship, they’ll seek new partners with the polar opposite qualities of the old partner even if it’s not exactly what they want (especially if they’re on the rebound.)”

    True that. Either way it isn’t MY problem, and for that I’m thankful. ;-)

    If I had to guess, I would say you are correct, or perhaps she just went way too far over to the dark side. :P I think she would probably be happy and content with less dominance, but as pointed out above, a bit too much doesn’t appear to be a bad thing for some women.

    In the long run, one of us wasn’t going to be happy as we were, and knowing what I do now I would never have initiated with her in the first place. But, to my original point, if I would have “gamed” her hard, she probably would have been more than happy to stay. I am simply not willing to go that far so I guess I just don’t want a relationship that much. She was over my price mark, so to speak. Looking for a woman with a much lower threshold of dominance is simply making sure you keep her in your acceptable price range.

  • Blissex

    «“be picky about the important stuff: character”
    “Be open to love whenever it arrives”
    And that is exactly why I continue to read you .. because that’s a beautiful message.
    »

    It is a beautiful message, and I guess that nearly every PUA/MGTOW wishes it was realistic, but the “red pill” is to realize that it is not realistic, (some/many/most/all) women are driven by what turns them on, and that’s not «character» or «be open to love».

    The article mentioned at the top says very clearly «They become attracted to “jerks” for their status, ambition, and dominance» which is nowhere like «character» or «be open to love».

    I think that our blogger is exhorting women to behave differently, and to “take the house” with a difficult to find perfect man who has everything but I guess that exhortation is not the same as reality.

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

      The article mentioned at the top says very clearly «They become attracted to “jerks” for their status, ambition, and dominance» which is nowhere like «character» or «be open to love».

      He also says that women are caught between wanting jerks and wanting nice guys. One has only to read the Sunday newspaper to see that most people still marry, and most of those grooms are nice guys. Most women don’t choose jerks, even if they find them sexually attractive. And not all do.

      The women who go for jerks remind me of geese being fattened up for foie gras. They’re gorging on male dominance.

  • J

    @Ramble

    Actually, I’m pretty funny IRL. If you appeciate dry humor, I’m the life of the party. But I do understand that most men like women who laugh at their jokes and/or are happy and optimistic. I like men who find me funny though.

    @Alias

    Believe it or not, my banana cream pie story involves an actual banana cream pie. It was even served as food and not used as a marital aid. ;-)

  • Alias

    Ted D:
    “In the long run, one of us wasn’t going to be happy as we were, and knowing what I do now I would never have initiated with her in the first place. But, to my original point, if I would have “gamed” her hard, she probably would have been more than happy to stay.”
    ——–
    Since she’s the one who was looking to walk out, she could have taken steps herself to improve the relationship. But…. she probably didn’t know what to do or didn’t want to do all of the work. Sad either way.

    It’s not really so clear cut when it comes to lasting relationships and what qualities to look for in a partner.
    I know couples who don’t have the best character- but they’re compatible and committed to make things work so they’ve been together for decades and still counting.
    * Compatibility and high on commitment* those should be high on the list.

  • Alias

    J:
    “Believe it or not, my banana cream pie story involves an actual banana cream pie. It was even served as food and not used as a marital aid.”
    ——-
    I was kidding.
    Sounds yummy!

  • Blissex

    «”Most young women seem miserable, whether single, serially monogamous, or promiscuous, because they don’t achieve the dreams they think they are entitled to [ ... ] including getting the “whole package”, which is amazingly rare (“alphas” are few, “alphas” with “beta” characteristics much fewer still).”»

    What a bizarre claim.»

    I am perplexed as that claim was a paraphrase (perhaps a bit wider than the original) of the one made in this blog entry:

    «Previously, he had written about what he calls the “double bind” of female sexuality – women may lust after one type of man, but prefer to attach to a different type of man. It’s the Goldilocks dilemma, and finding just the right mix of traits is a challenge, leaving many women unhappy in this SMP.»

    «“With those two “feelings” juxtaposed, women often find themselves unfulfilled in love. Many that I talk to seem to hover between what they call “nice guys” and “jerks” in their dating life.”»

    As to «amazingly rare», the blog entry above is not quite as empathic, but not far off:

    «The Whole Package
    The most difficult to pull off, this is the strategy that I recommend to women here at HUS. It’s a long-term strategy, requiring considerable investment both in self-development, and in qualifying potential partners.
    »

    It is however very good news that the blog entry above this comment stream does not apply to most women in a group:

    «Of all the young women I know, I would only describe one as miserable – but I would not describe her as entitled, just discouraged.»

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

      @Blissex

      My quarrel is not about the number of women unhappy in the SMP – if it wasn’t large I’d have no reason to blog. I take issue with your claim that most women feel they are “entitled.” Women may lust after a man or attach to another without any sense of entitlement. So your claim was wider than mine, but not in the way you thought.

      Previously, he had written about what he calls the “double bind” of female sexuality – women may lust after one type of man, but prefer to attach to a different type of man. It’s the Goldilocks dilemma, and finding just the right mix of traits is a challenge, leaving many women unhappy in this SMP

      Rather than focus on female demands, we might look at male supply. Until recently, dominance and good character were not infrequently found in the same man. Men didn’t divide so neatly into piles of jerks and nice guys. The Greatest Generation embraced and lived masculine traits. Female hypergamy has no doubt exacerbated the split, but men are responsible as well. Both sexes were “lied to,” by both mothers and fathers.

      This is why one often hears women asking “where are all the good men?” What they really want is an American male circa 1950.

      I don’t understand your point about the whole package and women feeling miserable. I think both sexes get discouraged both by not being the whole package (as evidenced by SMP success) and by not being able to find the whole package.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Ramble, that explains some of it, thanks. I think Susan’s message is generally applicable to girls across the class spectrum, though. The people I know socially are all across the gamut from upper to lower class, young to old, some from trailer parks, and others are Harvard grads.

    I know several girls who had one kid early (before 23) and are no longer with their “baby daddy.” Often they stagnate with live-in boyfriend situations and don’t have more kids. I know a handful of examples off the top of my head, and these women are now in their 30s with no real husband prospects. The reason why they can’t have the 3 kids they theoretically would in your first scenario is because of economics. They would not be able to support all the kids by themselves.

    Meanwhile all the girls who married and had kids after 25 are still married, often with more than one kid, and those kids will likely have much better outcomes than the group I just mentioned. This isn’t big city I’m talking about though. I’m talking about places like Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, etc. It is quite rare to see women putting off marriage until their 30s in these places, even among more educated groups (one of the women in this group has a PhD).

    I think the comparison of 20 vs. 30 is too simplistic. Let’s break it down to 20-24, 25-29, 30-35, and 36-40. Speaking purely in terms of fertility, 20-24 is probably the best, but 25-29 isn’t that bad. 30-35 is the start of the decline, and 36-40 is when the drastic decline happens. But in terms of long-term stability, the 25-29 group is optimal. In observing stable marriages, most of them seem to have gotten married when the woman was in the 25-29 age group, and not much earlier or later. Also, possibly for the 20-24 group, the woman often made her selection in her teenage years, and teens are notoriously poor decision-makers.

    In other words, a woman who is in her early to mid 20s should be seriously looking for a husband, and not wait too much longer. It really is the optimal timeframe and best window of opportunity, after which things become much tougher.

  • Just1X

    @J

    “I’m pretty funny IRL”

    exhibit A:
    “My DH told me he was looking for a woman who was “whip smart,” “beautiful, but not in a Barbie doll way,” and who had “a killer sense of humor.” If he ever finds her, I’m in big trouble. Ba dum bummm.”

    yep, guilty as charged.

    FTR I LOL’d.

  • Blissex

    «The best way to be attractive to your mate, and every other woman in the vicinity, is to be an attractive person, not a master manipulator.»

    That is exactly what the PUA/MGTOW community wish was told to the women they have met.

    They greatly regret the down-or-out choice of letting themselves be manipulated into performing a trained monkey dance to satisfy a woman’s merciless tastes, as Jabberwocky wrote very sadly:

    «As a happily married man I find it ironic that in order to make sure my wife cares about me, I have to insure that I don’t care too much about her.»

    But if it takes letting themselves be manipulated in order to get laid or keep a marriage going, many men will do that. “whatever makes you happy dear”.

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

      They greatly regret the down-or-out choice of letting themselves be manipulated into performing a trained monkey dance to satisfy a woman’s merciless tastes

      Invective is bolded. Just lose the hyperbole, dude.

      First, it is what it is. Play by the rules or go your own way. I have no problem with men responding to market conditions by GTOW or PUA. I do caution women not to engage with PUA types, though. Which brings me to my second point. I detect no regret from PUAs or manipulative men. The highly manipulative Rollo is anything but regretful. Neither Roissy nor Roosh express regret. Game bloggers like Frost, FFY, Krauser PUA and others express no regret. Indeed, they’re boastful.

      There are a few guys – Ricky Raw and Assanova – who have turned against PUA and express some regret. But they’re the only two I can think of.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Susan, you know you’ve hit the big times when GBFM is gracing your blog with his presence lol. :P

  • Sexybearfriend

    @Wudang
    “For men too much masturabation leads to dopamine issues…
    I think modern junk food and everything concerned with the hyperstimulation of modern life creates whacky and unstable dopamine systems in need of hyperstimulation. That effects men and women equally but how it manifests in relationships is different.
    Whatever neurochemicals and hormones are stimulated by attention I think they are also getting out of whack in modern people. More so in women though because attention is more their currency …”

    COmpletely agree. I’m a health and nutrition junkie and I see this play out, myself included. Before I gave a crap (and, interestingly, ate like crap) I was a vegetarian and ate tons of processed foods. I was cranky all the time and could fly off the handle. I was fat and my sex drive was zilch. Health scare and fast forward, I’m thin, emotionally well-balanced and sex drive is strong. I look back and it’s like a different person. My husband watched the changes and started to eat better himself (I guess I was doing the MAP before I even heard of Athol). Anyhow, he changed as well. Unlike girls, that crave attention(that’s what the screaming’s all about), I noticed that men go into apathy. He snapped out of that.
    Regarding hyperstimulation, there’s an obesity research, Stephan Guyanet thats fascinating to read: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/

    @Blissex
    “Marriage was something for the times where women were terrified of having to bear and raise a child all by themselves, without the investment of the male parent.”
    Here’s something I found interesting — so what made the men stay? This has been disputed by anthropologists, evolutionary psychologist and armchair blog commenters. Richard Wrangham wrote the book Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. He proposes that the Great LeapForward (the gains made in human evolution some 1.8 million years ago, not the Chinese socialist shitstorm) was caused by humans beginning to harbor fire to cook their meals. Cooking makes nutrients more assimilable; better nutrients means bigger brains (and smaller guts). We could also exploit more food sources, such as tubers, that needed cooking to even be edible. Fire was sacred and needed to be maintained (we didn’t have Bic’s then). It was the woman’s job to maintain the hearth. I read about the !Kung (I think it was the !Kung) where a man without a woman was looked down on, a pariah. Not because of the woman, per se. But because he had no hearth and therefore, no one to cook for him. Cooking in HG tribes isn’t recreational, it takes time. He had to resort to begging for food.

  • College Kid

    “Previously, he had written about what he calls the “double bind” of female sexuality – women may lust after one type of man, but prefer to attach to a different type of man. It’s the Goldilocks dilemma, and finding just the right mix of traits is a challenge, leaving many women unhappy in this SMP”

    There’s no perfect person. Guys also have our preferred mixed, but she’s a unicorn.

  • Alias

    @ Hope, Ramble

    I found this for you.
    Here’s the breakdown of the report;

    -22% of 1st births were to unmarried couples

    -Average age for becoming parents to 1st child:
    Women = 23
    Men = 25

    -½ of women’s 1st birth took place in her 20s
    2/3 of 1st births were fathered by men in their 20s

    -Married and college-educated women more likely to have 1st births at 30 or older

    -By age 40:
    85% of women had given birth
    76% of men had fathered a child

    -By early 40s, American women typically have 2 kids.

    “The survey estimated that 43% of women ages 15-44 had no children because they had decided not to, were unable to become pregnant, or were planning to have them later in life.”

    http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20120412/children-born-unmarried-couples-on-rise

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    Re: hunting parties, modesty, etc.

    In a stable group of professional hunters probably numbering <150 in total group size (including men, women, and children), individual mastery of the "manly" arts—hunting, fighting—would be well-known and embedded in reputation. The observed humility of the badass is made possible by this recognition.

    This is a fragile thing, but worth exploring. The HEB-Ms are Paleo throwbacks in the sense that they create subcultures in which an individual can afford to be gracious, elegant, and modest because his mates celebrate his achievements, make sure that each man gets his time in spotlight, and defend him against attack. The HEB-M is genuinely proud of his friends and thinks that they deserve the best. Obviously this all ultimately stems from an overwhelming sense of abundance, and from an older conception of a gentleman being a man who can and will A) fight for his honor (he can "give satisfaction", hence the preoccupation with dueling); and B) make those around him generally feel more comfortable and secure through his charm, style, and sensitivity to offense.

    Not everyone deserves Treatment B, hence the need for some exclusivity.

    While HEB-Ms have sex with women, the most enduring and emotional romance is the one that HEB-Ms have with each other.

  • http://dicipres.wordpress.com dicipres

    Feminism, the sexual revolution, and eroding institute of family released both women’s hypergamy and maked high status men to be men less interested in commitment since they can fulfill their verity seeking.

  • Marc

    “If you’re lucky enough to land one of these men, lock it down. Don’t foolishly delay commitment because your 20s are about “having fun” and “being single.” Commitment -minded men who are accomplished and attractive are becoming increasingly rare. Grab one if you can, even if he’s still young and a bit rough around the edges. It’s doubtful you’ll get another chance.”
    .
    Well put, and I preach this to every young woman who will listen. The same 30yo guy you want when you’re 22 is the same guy you will want you YOURE 30. Of course after you’ve ‘partied’ and had enough, and want to settle down. BUT, when you’re 30, that high value 30 yo doesn’t want you anymore. He wants your 22 yo sister. Hear me now, believe me later.
    .
    Let’s kick the ballistics here for a minute. 16-24 is probably the most desireable age range for a woman. Every dude from 10 to 100 years old desires this range. You are in high demand. Take advantage of being able to land a great guy. With every birthday and wrinkle that appears, your options diminish. AND FAST! Dont’ think “I’m pretty, I have many years left”. Youth trumps beauty. If you’re a 33 yo attractive woman, that average looking 18 yo has a leg up on you. Us guys are super focused on how many good years you have left. We know, regardless of your looks at 33, you’re in the 8th ininng as far as procreation value. What I’m saying is don’t try to ‘ride your looks’ into the 8th inninng, THEN look for that square jawed hedge fund manager…..he wants a woman in the 2nd inninng.
    .
    Just trying to help.

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

      @Marc

      What I’m saying is don’t try to ‘ride your looks’ into the 8th inninng, THEN look for that square jawed hedge fund manager…..he wants a woman in the 2nd inninng.

      Sounds like a good-looking woman in her early 20s should aim for these guys. Maybe, but not every woman will want a reformed manslut. I still think women are better off selecting for consistency in character.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Mr. Ramble
    “BTW, I am not starting anything here. If you know what you want, go for it.”

    Actually, I agree with you! Higher levels of education do go along with fewer children. I just don’t think that’s a big problem. The benefits of a college education certainly outway the tradeoffs for many women. The U.S. still has net population growth, even factoring out immigration. More educated people, or people with higher incomes, tend to have fewer children. It’s a choice made. I think ~ 30% of women choose not to have children. But they can always adopt if they want to. The only way to reverse this trend is to discourage women from going to college, and encourage them to have more kids. Good luck with that!

    You know, male fertility in 1st world countries all over the world has also declined over time. Prosperity has that effect on everybody’s fertility. Anthony Quinn aside, guys aren’t clamoring to have 3+ kids all that much anymore. I certainly couldn’t imagine handling more than 2, if that.

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

      @Megaman

      I certainly couldn’t imagine handling more than 2, if that.

      Me either! Families with three are unusual in my community, though there are a small number of families who have had 4-6. I can’t even imagine…I had my first at 30, and two was a good number. If I’d started earlier I might have gone for a third, at most.

  • Blissex

    «”most women require a peculiar and sad type of monkey dance to feel sexually excited, take-it-or-leave-it,”»

    This is my sticking point with you.»

    There is a much bigger one: whether it is realistic for women to drive a hard bargain with men on demanding resources for sexual access rather than pregnancies.

    «You’re painting with far too broad a brush, and your conclusions do not fit with my own understanding.»

    Well, I am mostly reporting my understanding of the PUA/MGTOW point of view of what the “red pill” means. I tend to agree with them (but my own impressions are not as optimistic as those of the “red pill” persuasion).

    Also note that the quotes in the blog post above seem to be largely aligned with the “red pill” point of view:

    «They become attracted to “jerks” for their status, ambition, and dominance [ ... ] “nice guy,” only to find that they become bored, their libido wanes, and their eyes wander back to “jerks.”»

    To me that seems to say that if men become trained monkeys displaying «status, ambition, and dominance» they get laid, and if they are trained donkeys just providing resources they don’t, and the article uses «many» as the quantifier for the women involved in this “dilemma”.

    «I’ll remind you that I’m writing here for an educated, young female audience. [ ... ] This isn’t to say that female college students are lacking the hypergamy gene, but your descriptions do not reflect my readership.»

    As to this I think that there are two interestingly different PUA/MGTOW positions.

    The “weak” theory of “gina tingle” is: if you want to get laid with a good approach-to-lay ratio, the girls to look for are those demanding “gina tingle”, just ignore the others if any, their existence is not relevant to getting laid efficiently.

    The “strong” theory of “gina tingle” is that virtually all (NAWALT) or all (AWALT) women demand “gina tingle”, and almost only “gina tingle”, when it comes to sexual excitement and partner selection.

    Heartiste/Roissy seems to me to strongly support the “strong” theory, nuanced by his frequent reminders that the intensity of “gina tingle” demanded varies and what triggers “gina tingle” varies in composition, even if almost always it is a mix of something like «status, ambition, and dominance».

    So under the “weak” theory of “gina tingle” it is entirely possible that many or most female college students, and in particular those following this blog, may be among those women who don’t feel “gina tingle” or if they feel it that’s not what dominates their partner choices.

    Under the “strong” theory of “gina tingle” there is no obvious reason why female college students should be exceptions to the rule of “gina tingle” driven partner choice.

    Whether the “weak” or “strong” theory are more relevant in general (and I lean towards the “strong” theory), my guess is that most if not all female college students are driven by “gina tingle”, and that perhaps most haven’t experienced it yet, or just have and dream of getting their own “gina tingler”, because “gina tingler” guys are rare and out of the reach of most female college students, who often make do unhappily with average guys.

    Also my experience (and it is a bit old and limited and not in the USA but in 2-3 western european countries) is that female college students are in general rather disinhibited about sex and casual sex (the keyword is “experimenting”), and even if not all are wildly promiscuous, nearly all go crazy when a “gina tingler” pays them some (detached :->) interest. The appeal of “gina tinglers” is well beyond the 20% of female college students that rack up the higher partner counts.

    Perhaps the readership of this blog is made specifically of those college girls who don’t feel “gina tingles” or are not driven by them, and perhaps in USA colleges things are different from European ones.

    But I think that it is unrealistic to argue from the premises that female college student reading this blog do not wish or demand “gina tingle” from their partners, or that they want or can drive a hard bargain for resources for just sexual access.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    My second choice would be Toyo, and if I can’t get that, I’ll manage without a car as necessary.

    That, in a nutshell is MGTOW. Whereas the PUA people would rather drive a car with a bad tire.

  • Ramble

    I don’t know why you’re restricting the conversation to women who boast about being intelligent.

    I didn’t mean to. That was how I initially understood it, and the I started running. That is why I did that little recap later.

    I’m puzzled as to why men care what other men find attractive.

    Well, I am not so sure that we care as much as some might think. But, the conversation is relatively interesting.

    We’ve been down this road before, and at least half the men on the threads have stated they value intelligence in a partner and select for it. There’s nothing new here.

    Well, like the one tv ad used to say, “It may be a re-run, but it is new to me”. And, again, there is nothing wrong with (high) intelligence being an attractor. Obviously. But, and I understand that this is a derailment for some, when a girl is boasting about, or sometimes just mentioning, that she is intelligent, and that this is a reason why she would be attractive to others, or intimidating to others, it can be a real red flag.

  • Ramble

    I think men are afraid women are going to try and shame them into getting with fat, ugly, smart women.

    What afraid? It’s been happening. That is a basic part of the leftist/feminist/post-modern tool set.

  • Ramble

    I think the comparison of 20 vs. 30 is too simplistic.

    Yes, obviously. It was just to act as shorthand to move the conversation along. Older more educated people procreate at a slower rate than poorer less educated people.

  • J

    a woman’s merciless tastes

    Wow!!

    Coming soon 50 Shades of J, in which a middle-aged vixen mercilessy bends an aging, distinquishedly grey-haired (Note classy spelling.) senior executive to her will between trips to the grocery store and driving kids to music lessons. If you like jewelry, chocolate, cunnilingus and apologies, you will LOVE this book!

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

      @J

      Coming soon 50 Shades of J, in which a middle-aged vixen mercilessy bends an aging, distinquishedly grey-haired (Note classy spelling.) senior executive to her will between trips to the grocery store and driving kids to music lessons. If you like jewelry, chocolate, cunnilingus and apologies, you will LOVE this book!

      I laughed out loud so hard at this I sort of woke Mr. HUS, who is asleep next to me. Brilliant.

  • Ramble

    Actually, I agree with you! Higher levels of education do go along with fewer children. I just don’t think that’s a big problem.

    Especially for those that live in gated communities.

  • Sexybearfriend

    @MikeC
    “Ehhhhh….probably not (equating greatness with modesty).”

    You may or may not be right — what do us armchair commenters know.

  • Mike C

    I think men are afraid women are going to try and shame them into getting with fat, ugly, smart women.

    What afraid? It’s been happening. That is a basic part of the leftist/feminist/post-modern tool set.

    Shit, I could probably retire tomorrow if I could collect a nickel from every woman who either has said or believes that a man’s high emphasis on looks is “shallow”. Of course, many of those same women would be oblivious to their “shallow” preference for “confidence” and status over things like loyalty, dependability, and earnestness. I wonder what the male equivalent to “inner beauty” would be that you often heard spoken of.

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

      @Mike C

      Shit, I could probably retire tomorrow if I could collect a nickel from every woman who either has said or believes that a man’s high emphasis on looks is “shallow”. Of course, many of those same women would be oblivious to their “shallow” preference for “confidence” and status over things like loyalty, dependability, and earnestness.

      +1

      I know this is true, and FWIW I reject this hypocrisy. Guys like hot women. Advice to women: Be the hottest you can be. If that fails, relax your standards. And of course, the corollary holds for men as well.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Re: attractiveness and intelligence, apparently there’s a correlation between these that is about as much as education level and intelligence:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent

    This article was making the rounds in the manosphere a year or so back, but maybe not everyone has seen it.

  • Blissex

    «Neither Roissy nor Roosh express regret. Game bloggers like Frost, FFY, Krauser PUA and others express no regret.»

    Some of them, and in particular a few times and very explicitly Heartiste/Roissy, but not just, have stated in various forms that they regret that “gina tingle” is demanded by women, and regretted what drives “gina tingle”, and they also regret that they choose to let themselves be manipulated into doing what women demand. Or at least wish that “women” were more honest and less manipulative about what turns them on.

    «Indeed, they’re boastful.»

    They boast that giving women what they (implicitly) demand means that a lot of women (1-in-20…) want to fuck them unsurprisingly; plus many of them are selling some PUA products, so it is advertising.

    For the MGTOWs those are hollow boasts, because they don’t stand for letting themselves being manipulated, even for a “good cause” like getting laid.

    People who give up the PUA culture often silently become MGTOWs, because they no longer care being a “gina tingling” accessory for women’s pleasure, or because they take the risk of getting married (usually for having children), and then apply LTR Game.

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

      @Blissex

      Some of them, and in particular a few times and very explicitly Heartiste/Roissy, but not just, have stated in various forms that they regret that “gina tingle” is demanded by women, and regretted what drives “gina tingle”, and they also regret that they choose to let themselves be manipulated into doing what women demand. Or at least wish that “women” were more honest and less manipulative about what turns them on.

      This cracked me up. I hadn’t realized you were saying that men regret that women suck. This reminds me of a post I once wrote about apologies: I’m Sorry You Got Mad.

  • J

    @Just1X
    yep, guilty as charged. FTR I LOL’d.

    Thanks. I’ll be here all week. Next week, I’m headlining the Mayville Sheraton.

    Srsly, thanks. I didn’t think my humor came off well over the net.

    @Alias

    I knew that you were kidding.

  • J

    Hope,

    I recall that article. Anecdotally, I find the kids in the upper racks at my kids’ high school are nicer looking than the kids in the lower tracks. Additionally, few of them fit the dweeby, unfit, smart kid stereotype. The same was true of the GT program I was in as a child. Most of the kids were abundantly healthy and better than average in looks.

    Speaking of bound to be smart and good-loking, how’s the fetus?

  • Sassy6519

    Let’s kick the ballistics here for a minute. 16-24 is probably the most desireable age range for a woman. Every dude from 10 to 100 years old desires this range. You are in high demand. Take advantage of being able to land a great guy. With every birthday and wrinkle that appears, your options diminish. AND FAST!

    I turn 24 in about a month (May 19th).

    I guess I should brace myself for hitting the wall.

    Oh the agony.

  • Blissex

    «”They greatly regret the down-or-out choice of letting themselves be manipulated into performing a trained monkey dance to satisfy a woman’s merciless tastes

    Invective is bolded.»

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invective
    «of, relating to, or characterized by insult or abuse».»

    «Just lose the hyperbole

    As to women’s tastes and hyperbole, I’ll excerpt from a quote in the blog post above:

    «these compliant men may also not be “attractive” to those same relationship partners (Buss & Shackelford, 2008). As a result, they may be punished by their girlfriend’s/wife’s lack of sexual interest, being cheated on, or disrespected as a “push over”. These men may further be regarded as “just friends”—expected to pay for all of the costs of a relationship, without the physical and intimate benefits.»

    Is the above paragraph about women’s tastes hyperbole?

    Perhaps to some women that is fair dealing for not meeting their tastes, but perhaps some men regard that behavior as “not as excellent as it could be” :-).

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

      Yes, Blissex, I think your views are insulting to women beyond reason.

  • Richard Aubrey

    From Susan:
    “Failing to produce the tingle is the result of an imbalance between acting nice (giving) and dominant (taking). A good relationship requires both.”

    I’m probably the only one here born as early as 1945. I can’t tell you how antithetical the copied lines are to what we were taught. There was to be no “taking” whatsoever. No matter what anybody thought, no matter how the greasers in the high school seemed to have the L’est TRs, there was to be no taking.
    Amazing. Funny thing. So many of us had fathers who had whipped the world in WW II, and who ourselves were called out for the Viet Nam issue. We should have thought of ourselves as badasses descended from badasses. Professional killers, we were. Ran in the family with grandfathers and uncles in WW I.
    But “taking” wrt women? Horrid thought. Unacceptable.

    WRT intelligence: Perhaps it’s a reax to the anticipation of being considered just a lay. Sort of pre-empting the issue, rather than unseemly boasting.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    J, thanks for asking. I was feeling the little one move around just a few minutes ago. I love that. :) It’s a very happy feeling. We won’t find out whether it’s a boy or girl until middle of next month though.

    And yeah, most smart people I’ve known have been at least above average in looks. Even the “nerds” turn out nicely as adults, because they don’t let themselves become obese.

  • J

    @Hope

    That is the coolest feeling. Sometimes I dream that I can still feel life. Enjoy!!

  • Abbot

    “This is why one often hears women asking “where are all the good men?” What they really want is an American male circa 1950.”
    .
    Would the fact that men want this as well surprise anyone? The fifty year old failed fad is burning out now that we have, in retrospect, learned what worked before was the best and the best we are ever going to have. The withdrawal is painful [for some] and is manifest in the sudden vicious turn feminism has taken and more mildly in blog comments by slut defenders, hypergamy denialists and equality freaks.

  • Emily

    Sassy,

    IMO 24 is probably the ideal age for snagging that 30 year old.

    Even if the 30 year old guys are biologically programmed to want a 16-24 year old, I rarely see them getting involved with somebody who’s on the younger end of that spectrum. (Although this is probably one of those things that depends on where you’re living.)

  • College Kid

    “And if some girl is talking about how intelligent she is, it is unlikely that she is, at that point, well suited for such an endeavor.”

    She’s better suited than the one who describes herself as “hot”.

  • http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

    lzozozlzozozlzlzozo

    nice to meetetetz everyones here!!!!

    how can i hooks up smart?

    does dat mean da butthole sectrely taped like tucker max rheymes with godlman sax zlozlzozozzo as tucker max fims anal sex with girls without their cocnthent and then publsihes and profiets offf the stories as da ebernaneekr bankerz wire him hundreds of thosuands of dollarz fiat dolalr buttehxual dolalarz

    now dat is smart!!!!!

    get paid 4 your butthex with fiat dolalrz!!!

    trade yoru beutehetdudla gowry stories for fiat doallarz !lzozlzzo

  • Abbot

    ” many women really want to do quite a bit of purely recreational sex during the 10-15 years they pursue serial monogamy before getting married ”
    .
    and really want men to consider such recreation to be no different than, say, golfing, sailing, arcade games or playing gin rummy. Recreation is recreation. Right?

  • JUtRdr

    /waves GBFM

    /lzolzs.

  • Marc

    @191 You have been out of the dating world a while. You’re making the classic mistake of not knowing the difference between ‘intimidated’ and ‘not attracted to’.
    .
    Intelligence and confidence are not typically attractive traits in women to us men. Most men who think they find these traits attractive are lacking in these traits themselves, and are looking to fill a void. The name of the condition escapes me.
    .
    You should read the blogs on Evan Katz website. Good stuff about how successful women can learn to ‘tone it down’ in order be a ‘woman’ again and attract men.
    .
    Hillary Clinton anyone? (crickets), Anyone?? (more chirps).

    @217 Quote I read….”A beautiful woman dies two deaths”
    Good one! About your friend addicted to compliments. Now she doesn’t need to leave the house to get her fix…..introducing Facebook. I never met so many ‘models’ in my life. LOL. Ever look at a girls FB picture folders, only to find one labeled ‘my book’,, with her pics, taken by some half assed photographer who got into the biz only to try and bang hot chicks with low self esteem? Her occupation listed as ‘model’. Then why do you work at a bank? Oh, the bank gig is a hobby I guess. Didn’t know 31 year olds with 2 kids were in such high demand as models. Where have we seen you? Calvin Klein billboard? Oh, a pizza hut flyer in 1999, ok.
    .
    I swear I know this woman who is a ‘washed up model’ at 33 years old. Two boner slayers, crows feet coming out, divorced, the whole thing right.
    She posts at least one photo of herself EVERYDAY. She needs the constant compliments and daily ‘likes’ from people everyday to reassure herself. When she runs out of pics, she posts a duplicate, but with the hue changed, or maybe now she made it black and white. It’s pathetic. I think it’s worse than the ‘facebook DJ’s. You know the ones who still think you’re going to click on THEIR favorite music videos on Youtube.

  • College Kid

    “If a girl’s attractive, nice, loyal, and shares my interests, I honestly couldn’t care less if she knows anything about the Arab Spring, Trayvon Martin, Macroeconomics, or who her senator is”

    “What’s particularly intelligent about any of those things? The first two are mainstream pop culture news, the third, ok some intelligence is required, and the third is local politics.” with my life, that’s honestly good enough for me.”

    Except for the macroeconomics, not much if any intellectual nuance is required to know anything about them. It just indicates she watches TV or reads mainstream newspapers – both of which could be red flags. So yeah, we all have different base line requirements for what we consider intelligent.

  • Abbot

    “You’re making the classic mistake of not knowing the difference between ‘intimidated’ and ‘not attracted to’.”
    .
    Its not only classic. Its rampant [in certain locations]. A woman can’t be feeling so good if a man selects another woman because he was “intimidated” but she feels much worse if he does that because he was not attracted. So she goes around saying its intimidation to elevate herself a bit. Whether it was actually feeling intimidated or not-attracted-to, the man does not give a rats ass either way as he gleefully runs for the hills.
    .
    “Intelligence and confidence are not typically attractive traits in women to us men.”
    .
    Its a fact that continual effortless enabling of multi-man recreational sex is not a typically attractive trait to men either. Unless men are just out to get laid.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Further to Intelligent.
    My first year in college and maybe the second, I off and on dated our HS valedictorian–she going to a different college.
    Later, I worked in a long-term field project with a woman who seemed extraordinarily smart. Found out later she’d achieved a top-tier uni’s MA in English, and not too much later, an Ivy MBA.
    My wife was HS valedictorian and is Phi Beta Kappa.
    So, how do you know a woman’s really smart? When you notice she’s taking it easy so you can keep up.
    And all three were/are hot.

  • College Kid

    For raw sexual attraction intelligence ranks low on both sexes’ list. Relationship is where people select for common values. If you value intelligence, then you select for intelligence, otherwise not.

  • Cooper

    “IMO 24 is probably the ideal age for snagging that 30 year old.”

    What is it about 24yo guys that aren’t worth snagging?
    Is it simply strategizing that the percentage of commitment oriented guys is much greater when they’re 30?

    I have a cousin who is 32 and he is dating a 23yo. (whom is the same age as me)
    They met using a online dating service (he didn’t have any girlfriends before his 30s), and have committed to each other quite quickly (she wants kids, and our family expects they’ll be engaged quite soon)

    She always compliments me, and asks “why don’t you have a girlfriend?”

    I’ve always been tempted to say to her that it’s because girls like her (my age) have chosen to date guys in their 30s.

    @Sassy6519
    “I turn 24 in about a month (May 19th).
    I guess I should brace myself for hitting the wall.
    Oh the agony.”

    Ouch. I guess I’m lucky, cause my SMV is going continue to rise (provided I continue self-improving) for my next 10 years.

  • College Kid

    “Two boner slayers, crows feet coming out, divorced, the whole thing right.”

    Crows feet never slay my boner. A moustache does though.

  • College Kid

    “I’ll remind you that I’m writing here for an educated, young female audience. The behavior of American women overall is of little relevance here, because mating practices differ dramatically among socioeconomic groups.”

    Good point. And for guys who don’t appreciated degreed women, there are tons of young women working every day at the fast food chains across the nation. The market is wide open, take your pick. I’m sure these girls would appreciate a wealthier man taking care of them.

  • Emily

    >> “What is it about 24yo guys that aren’t worth snagging?
    Is it simply strategizing that the percentage of commitment oriented guys is much greater when they’re 30?”

    Exactly. I’ve personally found that guys tend to be more commitment-oriented in their late 20s-early 30s.

    With younger guys, even the ones who aren’t participating/trying to participate in the hookup culture are often too focused on their studies/future career to want a serious relationship.

    But a commitment-oriented 24 year old is definitely worth snagging. :)

  • Sassy6519

    @ Cooper

    Ouch. I guess I’m lucky, cause my SMV is going continue to rise (provided I continue self-improving) for my next 10 years.

    If you didn’t catch it, I said what I said in a mocking tone. I don’t think I’ve suddenly hit a wall. I’m positive that there is a wall for women way down the line, but I also think it’s a bit overblown.

    I’m sure I’ll fair well though. I’m not too worried about it.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    There are barely any 24 year olds worth snagging. Again, the total package, both in men and women, is extremely rare. And it’s really pointless to settle for anything else.

    On the other hand, as a total package male, you can definitely sample women through STRs very effectively. I think a lot of gamers lose sight of this when they are discussing college: most of the guys on a college campus are losers, and there aren’t enough athletes to go around for thousands of women. There’s some hooking up going on, yeah, but IME it just isn’t the hyper-fueled alpha pairings you think it is.

    I’ve met exactly two true panty-droppers in my life, both in the past year. When I say panty-droppers, I mean I was in a room with professional football players, and one of these guys just strode in and took all the attention in the entire room. Now that is friggin nuts. But it’s also really rare.

    After college, still in the young and mid and even late 20s? That’s when things start to get interesting. And I’d say to the women, that’s when things start to get truly dangerous.

    To Susan, wrt to the PUAs boasting about their lays:
    Like you said on the previous page, constant boasting usually betrays low self-esteem. The boasting may just serve the purpose of these guys pumping themselves up and trying to convince themselves that their accomplishments are worth something, even if they can’t get what they REALLY want.
    And that’s pretty consistent with what I read. Roosh is a broken-hearted romantic that used to be an omega, that’s why his sarcastic “pick-up advice for men” that involved the goal of cuddling rang so true with so many other men. Roissy himself admitted he feels bad that he can’t respect women anymore, because he’s seen so much of the darker side. That was on Roosh’s blog. And even Mystery is in a LTR now.
    It’s also consistent with my own experience. I’m not proud of my flings at all, but sometimes I trot them out in male audiences to boost my own ego. Not proud of it, but, meh, I’m only human.

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

      @ADBG

      Thank you for that honest comment about boasting. I’ve heard similar things from other guys re Roissy and Roosh. And I get it re male intrasexual competition.

  • Jackie

    @Dogsquat (#298)

    Sir DS, I always like hearing what you have to say; I especially appreciated this post on sub-text and micro-communications. Also the link to BbSez blog and the discussions are extremely beneficial. You are going to be such a fine doctor!
    Many thanks :D

    PS I wasn’t sure if you are familiar with the work of Paul Ekman? If I ran a network (HUS-TV :) ) I would hire that guy for a reality show ASAP.

    Analyzing communication between the sexes: Subtext, microexpressions, feedback loops (positive and negative, how to break them) and communication coding systems. Way better than Jersey Shores :D

  • Jackie

    @Sassy
    Hey Sassy,
    I just noticed your new pic– is there a backstory? :)

  • Sassy6519

    @ Jackie

    I just noticed your new pic– is there a backstory? :)

    That’s a picture of me from a few Halloweens ago. I was Kanye West. I bound my chest, drew on facial hair, and wore the attire that you see. My roommate was Taylor Swift that year, and we reenacted the VMA interruption all evening.

    I was totally in character the entire night. I lowered my voice while speaking. I sat with my legs spread instead of crossed. I hit on about 10 different women that evening as well. All of them turned me down and some of them looked really freaked out by me. I told my friends afterwards that I learned what it was like for a guy that night to be turned down so often.

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    ““What is it about 24yo guys that aren’t worth snagging?
    Is it simply strategizing that the percentage of commitment oriented guys is much greater when they’re 30?””

    Just going to add that a 18-24 year old woman is at the height of her sexual value based on looks, (hopefully) not having a string of exes behind her, and not having children.

    As such, it would make sense for her to go for a man at the height of his value – able to provide, some years of confidence, and able to demonstrate whether he’s interested in commitment or not.

    As a male at the age of 26, while I’m not…. adverse, to commitment, I’m not looking for it. It certainly isn’t my focus. And it would certainly require a damn good woman between the ages of 22-25 for me to be interested in doing so. Otherwise, why cash in my chips before I’m dealt the winning hand? Might as well enjoy life, build my career, concentrate on myself rather than throw it all away for a mediocre woman wanting to saddle me with her needs, wants, and desires.

  • Jackie

    @Sassy

    Imma let ya finish, but OMG that’s hilarious! :D I would have loved to see that. Was anyone actually fooled by your costume?

    BTW, you have a really excellent point about the getting turned down stuff. Have you ever read the book _Self-Made Man_ by Nora Vincent (I think that’s her name)?

    You might appreciate it: She gets completely made over (facial hair, padding, binding etc) as a man. She infiltrates men’s bowling groups, a monastery, goes on dates as a man. Apparently it drove her over the edge– she had to be institutionalized, I believe. She said the constant rejection was mortifying. :(

    PS: The pic of you with the green background was really pretty! You have great skin.

  • Jackie

    @LeapofaBeta

    Hi Leap!
    I’ve missed seeing you around– how is theatre stuff going? :)

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    Oh – I should add that the danger of going for the older guy is that he’s jaded from a string of women mistreating him or has been shown he has nothing to gain from commitment. Though that’s probably fairly obvious to any of the usual HUSers.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sass: “I turn 24 in about a month (May 19th). I guess I should brace myself for hitting the wall. Oh the agony.”

    In your defense, you don’t want kids, so that really doesn’t apply to you. Women never hit the wall in the sense of being unable to attract a man, as long as they are female, there is no “wall” for sex.

    Someone who is 24, wants kids “someday”, but has no relationship prospects *is* on the hairy edge of fertility problems, if she wants the man to be a part of her kid’s life, as it takes time to find a man and conceive. (My wife was married by your age, yet it still took a few years past that due to fertility issues with our firstborn. Which went away with our second two… She is hair-trigger with babies now.)

    On the other hand, you still don’t have what you want in a boyfriend, so, maybe you already have hit it?

  • http://stagedreality.wordpress.com Leap of a Beta

    @ Jackie

    Going well – had three 80 hour weeks in a row that I just got done with. A group of three of us were doing carpentry/painting for them, and one of us literally did a no call/no show, never responded, and last we heard his wife doesn’t know where he is. So we had to pick up the slack.

    But got one show that has received rave reviews that I did most of the carpentry and all the scene painting for. Then a U.S. premier that I think will do even better I did the carpentry for. I’d encourage anyone here to go see it actually – In A Forest Dark and Deep if you’re in Chicago. About a 40 year old woman dealing with some messed up consequences of her hypergamy by asking her brother to fix all of her problems for her. Fun, dark stuff.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Jackie

    Imma let ya finish, but OMG that’s hilarious! :D I would have loved to see that. Was anyone actually fooled by your costume?

    BTW, you have a really excellent point about the getting turned down stuff. Have you ever read the book _Self-Made Man_ by Nora Vincent (I think that’s her name)?

    You might appreciate it: She gets completely made over (facial hair, padding, binding etc) as a man. She infiltrates men’s bowling groups, a monastery, goes on dates as a man. Apparently it drove her over the edge– she had to be institutionalized, I believe. She said the constant rejection was mortifying. :(

    PS: The pic of you with the green background was really pretty! You have great skin.

    I’d say that I had most people fooled that night. There was one guy in particular that I was talking to that night who didn’t believe me when I finally told him that I was a woman. He refused to believe me until I showed him my driver’s license. Once he saw the woman on the ID, he nearly shit bricks.

    I have heard of that book that you mentioned. Did she really end up in an institution afterwards? Her time as a man must have been brutal.

    Also, thanks for the compliment!

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Sassy6519

    Hahahaha! That is hilarious!

  • Sassy6519

    @ OffTheCuff

    In your defense, you don’t want kids, so that really doesn’t apply to you. Women never hit the wall in the sense of being unable to attract a man, as long as they are female, there is no “wall” for sex.

    That makes sense. Crisis averted.

    On the other hand, you still don’t have what you want in a boyfriend, so, maybe you already have hit it?

    What do you mean?

    If you mean that I have hit the wall in trying to find a guy I’m genuinely interested in, perhaps. A lot of meeting people is left to chance, so I’m not too worried about it. I could meet a guy tomorrow, for all I know. Also, if Cincinnati doesn’t offer what I’m looking for, I can always move to a better location with a better market.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Bellita

    Hey! Long time no see, or hear. What have you been up to recently?

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Coop
    “What is it about 24yo guys that aren’t worth snagging? Is it simply strategizing that the percentage of commitment oriented guys is much greater when they’re 30?”

    Single men 30+ are FAR less commitment-oriented than their younger counterparts. Women would be stupid to disqualify a guy (you?) based solely on his age. There just aren’t enough guys to go around if every girl insists he be 5+ years older. You’ll find a girl who appreciates you, but she’ll probably be a *couple* of years younger than you. You’re in the majority. Most guys your age are single, and (hopefully) open to having a girlfriend.

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

      Single men 30+ are FAR less commitment-oriented than their younger counterparts. Women would be stupid to disqualify a guy (you?) based solely on his age. There just aren’t enough guys to go around if every girl insists he be 5+ years older.

      Women need to widen the net for things like age, hair color, wine knowledge,etc. and narrow it for dominance, cocky arrogance and reluctance to commit.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    @INTJ

    Women hooking up do not have difficulty getting sex regularly – it’s only a problem for men. Worrying about STIs and ONS guilt are conspicuously absent among the promiscuous. If either of those considerations weighed heavily, those women would be less likely to hook up.

    That’s my point. At least from what I’ve observed in college, for most girls, STIs and ONS guilt are a significant worry. I think this is the main reason they go for serial monogamy. Most of the girls I know practice serial monogamy, and they certainly aren’t interested in finding someone for a long term commitment. They just like the sex and the status associated with having a boyfriend. The one girl I know who is looking for a long term commitment has had just one boyfriend in the two years she’s been at college (her current boyfriend).

    Of course, now that I think about it, a similar thing probably applies to guys and serial monogamy. I’m probably just a little skewed in my perception because in my STEM circle of friends, many of the guys are interested in long term commitment, whereas most of the girls are busy taking advantage of the 7-1 male to female ratio and jumping from partner to partner having sex.

    In fact, only a small fraction of women (10-20%) hook up regularly. Hooking up is the pathway to relationships in college, so most dating couples began their relationship with no-strings sex. We might extrapolate to say that most dating couples are sluts, and that as you claim, the relationships, such as they are, are really glorified booty calls. However, most women (90%) do not pursue that strategy in college.

    Most women (90%) don’t pursue which strategy in college? You seem to agree that most women prefer serial monogamy to regularly hooking up or abstaining from sex. What exactly do you think motivates women to go for temporary “long” term relationships?

    I can only see three reasons for serial monogamy:

    A) The woman wants regular sex and emotional support without any permanent commitment.
    B) The woman is bad at choosing partners and keeps getting dumped.
    C) The woman is two picky and keeps dumping her partners.

    While B) and C) might very well be true for older women, from what I’ve observed, A) is the main reason for serial monogamy in college at least.

    As for the Time article, the Match study looked at everyone, including people already divorced, to ascertain interest in marrying. In my recent post Millennials and Marriage, I cited the stats that 68% of Gen Y women cite motherhood as a priority, 70% of both Gen Y men and women want to marry, and 74% want children.

    That’s refreshing to read. :)

    I don’t understand what prioritizing family has to do with female hypergamy. If anything, it would argue against it. What does fit is 41% of women saying a husband should have a good income, compared to 19% of men saying that about a wife. Frankly, I’m surprised the women’s number isn’t higher.

    Surprisingly, especially in this thread, 39% of men said it is important for their spouse to be well educated, compared to 36% of women.

    It shows that there is a greater expectation for men to bring in good income, do the household chores, put family first, and be a good parent. This is part of the general pattern of higher expectations by women, which fits into hypergamy.

  • http://www.empowernetwork.com/kevincron/ Kevin

    I think acceptance is an important part of this equation. You can’t go into a relationship thinking you are going to be able to change a person. Chances are you are already experiencing this potential mate at their best. :)

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

    We won’t find out whether it’s a boy or girl until middle of next month though.
    Mmm why so late? That is my appointment date for the gender too but you are at least a month ahead of me aren’t you?

  • Marc

    @621
    “I turn 24 in about a month (May 19th).
    I guess I should brace myself for hitting the wall.
    Oh the agony.”
    .
    Nooooooo! You’re doing it! You’re falling into the belief that your vag power will be eternal. It isn’t. It isn’t even as powerful as it was last week, or two years ago. It will be less powerful tomorrow.
    .
    I have no vested interest in telling you this. We don’t know each other today, nor will we ever. Nor am I trying to pick a fight with you. Just realize where vag power comes from…….youth. You can always find sex as a woman, but the high value dudes will not commit to you when you are older. It’s go time.

  • INTJ

    @ Hope and Anacaona

    Will we get to see pictures of the babies? :)

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

    Will we get to see pictures of the babies?

    Heh as soon as there are any. Babies are still safely inside mommies, Hope’s is moving and mine moves a lot, in fact the doctors have to chase it around to get the heartbeat and a clear pic he/she doesn’t like the probe… but I still can’t feel it :(

  • Alias

    Megaman:
    “Single men 30+ are FAR less commitment-oriented than their younger counterparts. ”
    ——-
    I agree. They might not be ready for marriage until their late 20s to early 30s, but you should try to get them off of the market before then, IMO.
    Most people *I know* date for several years prior to walking down the aisle.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/ Bastiat Blogger

    I think there is a cryptic genius to the posts made by the masked man known only as “Great Books for Men”. His ability to connect the dots in innovative ways—Tucker Max sodomy vids being linked to the potential problems posted by a cartelized fractional-reserve banking system, to name just one example —makes for some strangely compelling social commentaries. Even though I have no idea what he is talking about, I enjoy his input.

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

    Most people *I know* date for several years prior to walking down the aisle.
    Yes the timeline from first meeting to wedding is usually longer, lets say a year to get things serious, then another year for “the talk” and a year for doing the paperwork or wedding preparations. It could take three years at the very least so waiting too much is not advisable unless you plan on rushing.
    My husband and I were relatively fast and I still got married nine months after turning 30. We meet when I was 27. Three years total and he is four years my senior.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @Alias
    I tied the knot one month shy of my 30th, after dating for 4 (consecutive) years. No looking back. It would have felt very strange (and lazy at that point) to stay single past 29 : )

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

    I tied the knot one month shy of my 30th, after dating for 4 (consecutive) years. No looking back. It would have felt very strange (and lazy at that point) to stay single past 29 : )

    If I knew marriage was this good and that both hubby and I were the type that does better in marriage, to the right people of course, than in dating hell I would had married him in the first trip. Not sure if he would had though ;)

  • College Kid

    “Nooooooo! You’re doing it! You’re falling into the belief that your vag power will be eternal. It isn’t. It isn’t even as powerful as it was last week, or two years ago. It will be less powerful tomorrow.
    .
    I have no vested interest in telling you this. We don’t know each other today, nor will we ever. Nor am I trying to pick a fight with you. Just realize where vag power comes from…….youth. You can always find sex as a woman, but the high value dudes will not commit to you when you are older. It’s go time.”

    Dude, chill. She’s only 24, not 34.

  • http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

    lozozlzlzoz

    hey bastiat blogger did you notice dat your post # was 666? zlzololzozozzol

    dat is how i wanted it!!!

    as dante who wrote dabnte’s inferno divine comedy about satan and hell connected tucker max whyems with goldman sax to da butthxetters serteive taped buttthextingu!!

    bastiat my french economsit firend you write, “Bastiat Blogger April 18, 2012 at 12:07 am
    I think there is a cryptic genius to the posts made by the masked man known only as “Great Books for Men”. His ability to connect the dots in innovative ways—Tucker Max sodomy vids being linked to the potential problems posted by a cartelized fractional-reserve banking system, to name just one example —makes for some strangely compelling social commentaries. Even though I have no idea what he is talking about, I enjoy his input.
    Bastiat Blogger´s last [type] ..Sleek Home Fortress Designwrite.”

    and listen to DANTE!!

    i dant’es inferno the usuers were in the same level as heel as the butthexers.

    in dante’s inferno the fiat masters were in teh same level of hell as teh butthexers!!! i ma not making this up!!!

    the fiat masters were right next to the butthexers lzozlzlzl!!!

    (14), Sodomy (15-16), Usury (17)

    no wonder they hate the greta books in colleges lzozlzlzllz and prefer tucker max sodomites lzozlzl

    http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/circle7.html#violence

    “those who violate nature, God’s offspring (sodomites: Inferno 15-16); and those who harm industry and the economy, offspring of nature and therefore grandchild of God (usurers: Inferno 17). Identifying the sins of these last two groups with Sodom and Cahors (Inf. 11.49-50), Dante draws on the biblical destruction of Sodom (and Gomorrah) by fire and brimstone (Genesis 19:24-5) and the medieval condemnations of citizens of Cahors (a city in southern France) for usury. Dante’s emotional reactions to the shades in the seventh circle range from neutral observation of the murderers and compassion for a suicide to respect for several Florentine sodomites and revulsion at the sight and behavior of the lewd usurers. ”

    lolzozlzlzozozlzlzlzozlzzlzlzzozlzlz neocons hate dantes infrmnoo oolzozlzl

    lozlzlzozlzl

    read da RG GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ!!! lzozozo

  • College Kid

    “You can always find sex as a woman, but the high value dudes will not commit to you when you are older. ”

    What’s a “high value dude”?

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    I have a friend, really smart guy, went to Stanford, physics/engineering, the whole nine yards. He enjoys statistics as much as I do. We were talking about women’s preferences years ago (both single at the time). I recall him proving to me on paper, that IF every woman in the U.S. insisted on ONLY being with a guy who was taller than she was, something like ~ 1/3 of all men would be permanently single. And that’s clearly not the case.

    I was blown away by this. I’m right at 6′ myself. After thinking about it, and meeting more people over the years, I concluded that shorter guys might have a little harder time dating, but that disadvantage is way overblown. Women just don’t reject guys based on height (alone), by and large.

  • Sassy6519

    I just have a hard time paying all this “You are losing value quickly, so you better find a guy fast” talk much attention. I do believe that there is truth to the idea that women don’t retain their ability to attract men as strongly as they once did in the past. I get that.

    What I don’t understand is all this pandering, Chicken Little, “THE SKY IS FALLING” nonsense. Scare tactics aren’t going to do much good in this situation.

    I definitely believe that women who are actively eschewing commitment during their youth should hear that message. They are the ones who need to hear it. There is another segment of young women out there who are looking for commitment right now, including myself, who have yet to meet the right man for them.

    If I had the ability to track down my most compatible mate with a GPS, I would. I don’t like the fact that chance plays a big part in whether or not I will ever meet a suitable man for me. I also don’t want to settle. I see no point in bringing that kind of pain onto myself and a man.

    The fact that I don’t want kids helps me. I’m not being guided by my biological clock, and I have more time to go after what I actually want. If I met a great guy tomorrow, I’d definitely be thinking long term. I just haven’t met such a man yet.

    Also, as an aside, my last ex was 30 years old. Throughout the course of our relationship, he mentioned several times that he was bothered a bit by our age difference (7 years). He said he would have felt more comfortable with a woman around his same age. I know this is an isolated case, but it’s enough for me to remember that there are preferential variances for everything. There are men out there who like older women, just as there are men out there who like younger ones.

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

      @Sassy

      I just have a hard time paying all this “You are losing value quickly, so you better find a guy fast” talk much attention.

      Just in case this is directed at me, I want to be clear. Suggesting that women commit when they find a great guy has nothing to do with women losing value as they age. It’s more a comment on the number of “whole package” guys that are out there.

      I’ve had other women tell me that guys in their late 20s had no interest in dating them right out of college. They get the most attention from guys their age or a year or so older.

      I will agree that rumors of female demise at age 30 have been greatly exaggerated, and include an element of wishful thinking by males. Marc said:

      You’re falling into the belief that your vag power will be eternal. It isn’t. It isn’t even as powerful as it was last week, or two years ago. It will be less powerful tomorrow.

      Nonsense! My vag power is still awesome. :)

  • pvw

    College Kid April 17, 2012 at 8:21 pm
    “I’ll remind you that I’m writing here for an educated, young female audience. The behavior of American women overall is of little relevance here, because mating practices differ dramatically among socioeconomic groups.”

    Good point. And for guys who don’t appreciated degreed women, there are tons of young women working every day at the fast food chains across the nation. The market is wide open, take your pick. I’m sure these girls would appreciate a wealthier man taking care of them.

    My reply:

    I agree…And yet, Charles Murray is suggesting in his latest book that numbers of these women are not marrying at all by age 24. Instead they are having children out of wedlock. They might think of marriage as an ideal, but doesn’t think it is available to them, ie., the men in their socioeconomic groups are not seen as marriageworthy. Or they don’t believe in marriage at all. They think having children is normal, but marriage, not as much. Marriage is stronger among the educated middle class. They still see marriage as the ideal and as presenting the best circumstances for raising children. Thus, in comparing “Fishtown” and “Belmont,” he is describing marriage as having become an elite social good for the well-educated and middle class.

  • Blissex

    «I hadn’t realized you were saying that men regret that women suck.»

    That’s your imagination, but let’s the author of the article quoted in the blog entry speak:

    «Echoing what so many men have expressed here, Nicholson then shares the male perspective:

    “If men choose to follow social norms and become compliant [ ... ] they may be punished by their girlfriend’s/wife’s lack of sexual interest, being cheated on, or disrespected as a “push over”. [ ... ] expected to pay for all of the costs of a relationship, without the physical and intimate benefits.
    In contrast, if men shun social pressures to be “nice” and follow what is biologically attractive [ ... ] punished by being socially labeled as “jerks”, “players”, or even “creeps”, unfit for socially-defined relationships. [ ... ] often do not get love and respect.”
    »

    Does that mean that James Nicholson is saying that «men regret that women suck»?

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

      Does that mean that James Nicholson is saying that «men regret that women suck»?

      He doesn’t use the word regret at all, as far as I can see. Obviously, I’m in agreement with Nicholson or I wouldn’t have quoted him in the post. My disagreement with you is one of degree and generalization.

      There’s no reason a guy needs to go “dark” with Game. Nicholson suggests that the aggressive tactics used by PUAs are designed to appeal to women with a short-term mating agenda, and he differentiates these women based on their sociosexual index score. You seem to be implying that all women have the same, two-pronged mating agenda, which is erroneous. Nicholson says so by advising men to avoid PUA-style moves when seeking a relationship.

  • Blissex

    «”The article mentioned at the top says very clearly «They become attracted to “jerks” for their status, ambition, and dominance» which is nowhere like «character» or «be open to love»”
    He also says that women are caught between wanting jerks and wanting nice guys. »

    He writes this:

    «They become attracted to “jerks”»
    «then may gravitate towards a culturally prescribed “nice guy,”»

    Perhaps as a man I can’t appreciate that «attracted» and «culturally prescribed» are entirely equivalent types of «wanting», but in their simplicity most men would prefer that a woman find them attractive instead of culturally prescribed.

    Also note that the potential punishment for “attractive” men comes from society, and that for “culturally prescribed” from the the woman, which again seems to reflect very different levels of “enthusiasm” from the woman:

    «men choose to follow social norms [ ... ] punished by their girlfriend’s/wife’s»
    «men shun social pressures to be “nice” [ ... ] punished by being socially labeled»

    The impression I get is that according to the author is that women are not «caught between wanting jerks and wanting nice guys» but that they definitely want only “jerks” and merely put up with “nice guys” mostly because they are «culturally prescribed» or as relaxing (even long term) fillers between “jerks”… Not because of their «character» or «open to love» profile:

    «become bored, their libido wanes, and their eyes wander back to “jerks.” Either way, they find the relationships largely frustrating and unsatisfying.».

    The article quoted extensively in the blog entry may be entirely wrong, and perhaps “women” do want “jerks” and “nice guys” with the same intensity and may be really «caught between wanting» them.

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

      @Blissex

      You’re viewing female dual mating strategy as sequential, or mutually exclusive. In this view the woman either chooses the jerk or the nice guy. I am arguing that the female is looking to optimize the mix of the two in one man. In today’s SMP, fewer “mixed” men present to women. Many men fall into one category or the other, and the gulf between the two types has widened. So a woman may experiment with the more dominant male, and find that he has no attractive qualities as an attachment partner. Next she tries a man of good character who lacks dominance, and she finds that he does not kindle her lust.

      What women want is a man of character who has the capacity to demonstrate love and affection. We want to earn those things – they should not be granted as a form of pedestalization, which decreases their value. A man must demonstrate enough self-respect to pass shit tests and enough self-confidence to communicate that he has a path for moving forward in life. This is what women are biologically programmed to seek, and feel frustrated that men with this balance of qualities seem to be in short supply.

      Compromise is necessary and inevitable. I recommend that women select men based on their potential and character. But even if I could get women to do that, they cannot do it alone. Men need to swallow the red pill and do the self-development.

  • Blissex

    As an aside, it is often amusing to switch genders, and see how it plays: :-)

    “Echoing what so many women have expressed here, Amanda then shares the female perspective:

    “If women choose to follow social norms and become feminist [ ... ] they may be punished by their boyfriend’s/husband’s lack of sexual interest, being cheated on, or disrespected as a “battleaxe”. [ ... ] expected to pay for all of the costs of a relationship, without the physical and intimate benefits.

    In contrast, if women shun social pressures to be “homemakers” and follow what is traditionally attractive [ ... ] punished by being socially labeled as “pushovers”, “opportunists”, or even “golddiggers”, unfit for socially-defined relationships. [ ... ] often do not get love and respect.””

  • Blissex

    In the above spoof I made a critical mistake: :-)

    “If women choose to follow social norms and become feminist [ ... ] they may be punished by their boyfriend’s/husband’s lack of sexual interest, being cheated on, or disrespected as a “battleaxe”. [ ... ] expected to pay for half of all of the costs of a relationship, without the physical and intimate benefits.”

  • Blissex

    «Does that mean that James Nicholson is saying that «men regret that women suck»?

    He doesn’t use the word regret at all, as far as I can see.»

    Very astute! I did not ask whether he used the word “regret”, but whether you think he is “saying” it.

    Anyhow your imagination can conjure out of thin air the word “suck” and stick it to what I write, but you feel free to point out that “regret” does not literally appear in the text.

    But I find these interesting quotes in the text, by yourself I think:

    «In a recent post he addressed the high level of frustration men are experiencing in dating today.» «With so few incentives, it’s not surprising that many men would abandon such a seemingly hopeless quest.»

    Does your imagination extend to thinking that the author is implying by not using the word “regret” literally that men don’t regret those «high level of frustration» and «seemingly hopeless quest»?

    :-)

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

      Does your imagination extend to thinking that the author is implying by not using the word “regret” literally that men don’t regret those «high level of frustration» and «seemingly hopeless quest»?

      Perhaps this is a language issue. Are you a native English speaker? When we say we regret something, we generally mean that we are taking personal responsibility for having behaved in a way that now makes us feel guilty or ashamed. So when you said PUAs regret their tactics, I thought you meant that they were repentant for behaving in an emotionally manipulative manner.

      Instead it seems that you are saying that PUAs acknowledge that it’s unfortunate that being sexually successful with women requires such exploitative tactics, but they’re only doing what works in this SMP.

      I don’t buy it. I believe that men can be successful with women without resorting to asshole Game. In any case, from a female POV, men presenting as jerks are not suitable for relationships, which is why I follow Nicholson’s lead in disqualifying them altogether if an LTR is the goal.

  • Blissex

    «Nicholson says so by advising men to avoid PUA-style moves when seeking a relationship.»

    What he is saying very prominently is that if a man does not display «status, ambition, and dominance» in a relationship he is likely to be treated as a patsy:

    «If men choose to follow social norms and become compliant as “good guys”, they may get a “relationship partner”. However, [ ... ] punished [ ... ]»

    The rest of his article, from a PUA/MGTOW culture point of view, is pretty standard, and the overall argument is similar or at least compatible to what Mystery, Heartiste and other have been arguing many times: that Game involves all of attraction, rapport and comfort and that both Game and LTR Game are based on attraction, but are different in composition:

    «Other strategies might be better suited for those looking for a monogamous marriage