The Feral Female

April 21, 2012

I said I’d be away until after May 1st, but I lied because Athol Kay has a post up that made my heart sing, and I wanted to share it with you. Are Women Like Exotic Pets?

One of the strangest things I’ve encountered as a blogger overlapping with the manosphere is a view of women as rapacious man-eating vixens, cold-blooded fiends who suck the life out of men and should be caged during ovulation. According to this view, we’re devoid of moral character and lacking a cerebral cortex, guided instead by something called the “hindbrain.” We’re sexual Terminators, ruthlessly and relentlessly searching for the more dominant male, the bigger asshole, the man most likely to leave us brokenhearted (if we had a heart).

If we’ve been “lucky” enough to have such a thug in our past, a man must be on guard at all times for signs of “alpha relapse.” Preventing us from having such errant thoughts is critical, and this can only be accomplished by acting like a bigger asshole. The thinking is that if men can keep us sad, threatened, anxious, worried, suspicious and jealous we won’t have the time or mental energy to find another man attractive, much less cheat. 

We’re also programmed to reject any man who reveals his humanity, vulnerability, or need as a runt who can’t survive the rough and tumble world long enough to mate and care for his family. 

I’ve debated this view of female nature more times than I care to admit here at HUS, and more than once I’ve wracked my brain to come up with a single example of a woman who fits this description. I believe they do exist, but only because I’ve seen them on TV. 

The worst thing about this view is that it destroys the ability of men and women to relate to one another in any meaningful way. A relationship with such a woman would be doomed, or so entirely self-destructive it would make no sense to try. Athol Kay, a rational male blogger whose method of saving and improving marriages has won him well-deserved accolades and success, relies on science and actual results rather than hyperbole and hucksterism.

Athol received the following letter from a Reader who shares my horror at the dystopian vision (excerpted):

The Manosphere paints women in a pretty ugly light (by my standards), and I can’t help but think if it is really that bad, why bother at all?  If my SO’s true nature is like that, what is the purpose of being with her? …What I’m being told is that no woman will ever understand me, understand my concerns or issues, and doesn’t really want to know what makes me tick.  The impression I get from them is that women are like kids at Disneyland:  They love the rides, but don’t want to know how they work, and would be disappointed to find out.

…I get the feeling that what is described is much more like owning an exotic pet than having a mate…How can I emotionally bond with someone if I can’t tell her how I really think and feel?  How can we support each other if we don’t understand each other?  Can I ever expect her to understand on any level the dedication and work I’m putting in?  How can I keep her from taking me for granted if she has NO idea what I’m doing to make things work?

Athol’s response (also excerpted):

Most of the Game websites view women exactly as you say, as “exotic pets” and they give advice as such. Frankly though, if women really are exotic pets, you shouldn’t mess with one at all. Eventually every animal has a bad day, and a 400 pound tiger having a bad day isn’t the same as a 10 pound cat having a bad day. Likewise, if women are essentially dangerous wild animals, divorce and cheating are essentially assured unless you relentlessly manage their behavior. If that were truly the case, my advice would be to buy a Fleshlight, a ten-foot-pole and the highest quality streaming porn money can buy.

He goes on to desribe the reality:

  • Both men and women have biological drives toward a primary pair bond and opportunistic sex. 
  • Both men and women have modern socialization, education and intellect. 
  • Both men and women have access to technology that can gain some degree of control over sexual outcomes. 
  • Both men and women have rationalization hamsters.

And then he describes what separates man from all other animals:

Most importantly, both men and women can have either an unconscious relationship, or a conscious relationship. By unconscious relationship, I mean they simply go along through life believing that all their feelings and thoughts are something that they have no control over or ever hope to understand.

The conscious relationship, however, acknowledges that we have a ton of hormones and neurotransmitters following ancient programming telling us how to think and feel…Because we are conscious of these things, we can also exert some conscious control over them by our actions. We can actually adapt and outwit our own biology to some extent. We can understand that we’re designed for a primary pair bond and also opportunistic sex, and be able to pull off monogamy by having regular sex together, and also some highly irregular high intensity sex together. One hits the oxytocin response, the other hits the dopamine one. Thus fooled, our bodies relax and tell us we’re happy.

…What most of the Manosphere advises assumes that the male is conscious (“Takes the Red Pill”) and the female is unconscious.

…If your SO is conscious and self-aware, I think there’s plenty of hope for a genuinely deep friendship along with the nuts and bolts of having to keep up the basic opposite sex attractiveness. Wife selection is absolutely critical though. Some women believe they are exotic animals, and they should be avoided. You can’t make a tiger into a house cat.

Perhaps the Red Pill should be a controlled substance, as overdoses seem common and casualties are mounting. You don’t have to take my word for it, you can get the truth from your Uncle Athol.

Filed in: Uncategorized
  • INTJ

    Well Susan, you certainly don’t show the same level of cynicism that the Manosphere does. But nevertheless you accept the evolutionary drive that men and women have and suggest like Athol Kay that people should find ways to satisfy that evolutionary drive in the context of a meaningful relationship.

    Personally, this just isn’t good enough for me. I remember a comment that Concerned Mama made in another article, and that comment really struck a chord. Paraphrasing, I as a thinking rational being can choose to ignore my evolutionary drive.

    The conscious relationship, however, acknowledges that we have a ton of hormones and neurotransmitters following ancient programming telling us how to think and feel…Because we are conscious of these things, we can also exert some conscious control over them by our actions. We can actually adapt and outwit our own biology to some extent. We can understand that we’re designed for a primary pair bond and also opportunistic sex, and be able to pull off monogamy by having regular sex together, and also some highly irregular high intensity sex together. One hits the oxytocin response, the other hits the dopamine one. Thus fooled, our bodies relax and tell us we’re happy.

    I don’t see the point in trying to outwit my biology. If my biology is wrong, I’m going to ignore it. This is self-control. There was a time when humans expelled body waste when they needed to. Now, in civilized society, we choose to control the expulsion of body waste for purposes of hygiene. Why can’t we exercise the same control over our harem or hypergamy impulses?

    • @INTJ

      Why can’t we exercise the same control over our harem or hypergamy impulses?

      I agree – self-control is a critical skill, and without it we’d just wind up rutting in the gutter and destroy our own species. As an individual personality trait, it’s also been shown to be a strong predictor of relationship success.

      But why not make the experience as pleasurable as possible to avoid much of the need for self control?

      If I’m trying to eat healthily, I can eat the same 2 fruits, 2 vegetables and chicken every single day, or I can find ways to make meals palatable or even delicious by cooking things differently, adding seasoning, and varying my menus. As the behavior brings positive reinforcement, I’m more likely to continue it.

      As someone who’s been happily married for 27 years without a single harem or hypergamy crisis, I think it’s all about carefully selecting a partner, giving and receiving generously, getting creative and practicing gratitude. It’s also about embracing the idea of constant self-development, avoiding complacency and deterioration as much as possible.

  • Lokland

    @INTJ

    “Now, in civilized society, we choose to control the expulsion of body waste for purposes of hygiene. Why can’t we exercise the same control over our harem or hypergamy impulses?”

    You answered your own question. People don’t want to control it. They quite like the system that is set up. Whether or not their willing to consciously admit this is irrelevant.

    Sidenote: I know more women that fall in exotic man eating tiger category then in decent human being category by approximately 3:1.

  • BuckeyeBri

    @Lokland

    You are right: they don’t want to control it. However, I think we do see that they frequently don’t consciously like consequences of their actions. They want to have their cake and eat it to, and there’s just no way to do so.

    I also agree with a 3:1 ratio of “exotic pets” to women living consciously in my own life. However, these days, I find the ratio of non-self aware men to self-aware men is similar. We are just living in a culture that disdains the concept of self-examination and self-control, but I would posit that women giving into their primitive urges does far more damage to the SMP than men doing so, because – no matter how angry it makes women to hear or read this – they are the sexual gatekeepers.

    • @Buckeye Bri

      I find the ratio of non-self aware men to self-aware men is similar. We are just living in a culture that disdains the concept of self-examination and self-control

      Agreed. Those avoiding consciousness and self-control are receiving positive reinforcement for it, which further drives the behavior. Wrt mating, I believe that much of the bad behavior is found in the quarter of the population that is promiscuous. That’s not to say that the rest wouldn’t behave badly if they had the opportunity – undoubtedly, some would. But if 75% of the women you know are rapacious beasts, you’re hanging out with a slutty crowd, and you’re not selecting for long-term mating.

      I would posit that women giving into their primitive urges does far more damage to the SMP than men doing so, because – no matter how angry it makes women to hear or read this – they are the sexual gatekeepers.

      Yes, women could change the SMP overnight if they restricted access to casual sex. But men are making poor choices too when they select women who have “hypergamous disaster” written all over them.

  • Abbot

    “a man must be on guard at all times for signs of “alpha relapse.”
    .
    What man, alpha or otherwise, would even consider permitting this town-bike into his life behind a quick romp?

  • Herb

    @BuckeyeBri

    I also agree with a 3:1 ratio of “exotic pets” to women living consciously in my own life. However, these days, I find the ratio of non-self aware men to self-aware men is similar. We are just living in a culture that disdains the concept of self-examination and self-control, but I would posit that women giving into their primitive urges does far more damage to the SMP than men doing so, because – no matter how angry it makes women to hear or read this – they are the sexual gatekeepers.

    You’ve got half the problem here. I also think our culture is more punishing to men who do self-exam because they are a threat to the status quo more than women. A woman who self-examines has an advantage because she can relate better to both self aware and non-self aware men. A man who does is going to actively reject non-self aware women as he can’t interact with them.

    If you’ll remember, back on the 50 Shades of Grey thread (quick aside, a leading S&M erotica writer has done a parody of it that was a riot) I pointed out if the vanilla world could learn one thing from the S&M world (and the poly world I guess) it’s the amount of self and mutual discovery and conscious relationship work we do. We do it because we don’t assume we know how to have the kind of relationships we’re pursuing.

    Everyone assumes we know how to have vanilla relationships just by breathing. It’s clear we don’t and in moving to that assumption in how we teach children to relate we’ve really screwed things up.

    The manosphere is men trying to be self-aware in a feminist culture. Because of the nature of modern feminist culture that’s going to be mostly men up against the wall and already angry. That’s why it seems like red pills cause OD. It’s less an OD and more an allergic reaction to the culture they’re taken in.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    giving and receiving generously

    + all my HUS points and all my goth points if they transfer.

    I once commented that it seems the average vanilla woman (at least the ones I’ve dated including my ex-wife) demand and take without giving more than all but a handful of FemDoms I know.

    One reason even thought I’ve swallowed the red pill I’ve avoided Game is most (all?) of the men teaching Game seem to be as narcissistic as the women who drove me to the manosphere to begin with.

    Why is no one teaching partnership, give and take, and finding a complimentary mate (in addition to a compatible one). Relationships are partnerships but it seems most people are looking to be a partner.

  • deti

    “Why can’t we exercise the same control over our harem or hypergamy impulses?”

    We can. What you’re missing are the cultural forces and imperatives which are also at work.

    Men not only can control harem impulses, all but the most attractive are forced to control them by circumstance (unattractiveness, lack of alpha, lack of game, lack of opportunity) or by draconian law and cultural customs (sexual harassment laws, feminist shaming of men).

    Women can control their hypergamous impulses. Many, however, choose not to. There really are no external controls on female hypergamy anymore. All that restrains her are her own internal controls. Society used to recognize that internal constraints were often not sufficient and so instituted a series of external controls (slut shaming, rejection of sluts for marriage, threat of spinsterhood, unwed pregnancy).

  • “As someone who’s been happily married for 27 years without a single harem or hypergamy crisis, I think it’s all about carefully selecting a partner, giving and receiving generously, getting creative and practicing gratitude. It’s also about embracing the idea of constant self-development, avoiding complacency and deterioration as much as possible.”

    This is what it’s all about, really. I’m glad to hear about someone who actually knows how to maintain a healthy, lasting relationship.

    • @Ashley

      Thanks! I have to say, it isn’t that hard. It doesn’t feel that way. I think in the beginning of a relationship, you have to figure out how to coexist. You need to figure out the ground rules, the hot buttons, the turnons, etc. You have to appreciate and respect your partner, and also your own contribution. You have to make time together a priority. There are ups and downs – having small kids is a challenge, illness or job loss are obviously big stressors. If the couple maintains the attitude that “we’re a team, we’re in this together” as opposed to “am I getting mine?” then the challenges are a lot less onerous. At least, that’s been my experience.

  • Harkat

    I really, really wish I could have seen this back when I first “took the red pill” last year. Roissy was a rude awakening when you’re raised in liberal, feminist Norway.

  • BuckeyeBri

    @Susan

    I should clarify: when I say “exotic animals,” I’m not necessarily saying that they have sex everything guy they find attractive, but they do engage in hypergamous behavior and have shown willingness to be put into soft harems for “dark triad” guys. I also do see a LOT of single women, some who like to purport that they are the embodiment of NAWALT, engaging in rapid-fire serial monogamy that involves sex, which to me is nothing more than a way to sleep around while trying to avoid the stigma – albeit, a nearly non-existent stigma these days – of being a “slut.”

    Also, please keep in mind I’m talking about single women and single men. The ratio of self-aware to non-self aware in my anecdotal sampled improves quite a bit if we bring into the equation people I know that are in long-term relationships. I should have been more precise in my original post.

    Now that clarification is out of the way…

    Yes, men are making poor choices when it comes to mate selection, but in this geographical area, if you don’t get one of the good, self-aware women early, good luck finding those single women who are attractive, self-aware, and self-disciplined. (God help you if you get divorced and are still open about the idea of finding someone to bond with for life, because separating the wheat from the chaff is a full time job post-thirty). So some men make the mistake of not rejected damaged goods and instead adopt the “something’s better than nothing” approach, which – as the White Stripes state in Blue Orchid – “something’s better than nothing is giving up” and is not a valid approach to finding a suitable mate.

    I’m not trying to absolve men of their bad choices, mind you, but even if men who aren’t enjoying the abundance of sexual pleasure that the “dark triad” guys are were to stop making bad choices right now, nothing would change because: A) the guys who are enjoying women making stupid mating decisions are not going to join in such a strike and B) women surrounded by a culture that embraces the aforementioned lack of self-control, self-examination, and immediate gratification, a culture that basically celebrates them giving into their darker impulses in the name of empowerment, are not going to care for the most part, since they are after the alpha/dark alpha guys anyway.

    So, I’m back to my main point: the onus is on women to turn this mess around, and in order to do that, women as a whole need to become fully self-aware and embrace the concept of self-control. I think that’s one reason the manosphere can seem so toxic in their attitude towards women sometimes: we can empower ourselves as men, but ultimately, other than exerting influence, there is little we can do to directly change the SMP like women can. We are enlightened to our limited power, and it makes some of us…disagreeable.

    I think the best service you are providing is you are making women more aware of what makes them tick, but, Lordy, you aren’t just up against hardcore feminism but the current overall cultural trend right now. Hopefully women such as yourself can help stem that tide and eventually reverse it.

    • @BuckeyeBri

      nothing would change because: A) the guys who are enjoying women making stupid mating decisions are not going to join in such a strike and B) women surrounded by a culture that embraces the aforementioned lack of self-control, self-examination, and immediate gratification, a culture that basically celebrates them giving into their darker impulses in the name of empowerment, are not going to care for the most part, since they are after the alpha/dark alpha guys anyway.

      Agreed.

      the onus is on women to turn this mess around, and in order to do that, women as a whole need to become fully self-aware and embrace the concept of self-control.

      Eh, don’t disagree, but I think men participate in creating a combat dating culture. As long as there are men who run asshole Game, they’re responsible for making things worse, especially since so many of them boast that they nail “good girls.” That’s just creating a situation to seduce someone into abandoning their self-control, even though you know they’ll be worse off if you succeed. That’s a game that always has a winner and a loser, though I think you could argue both parties ultimately lose.

      I also think that the selling of female nature as essentially unbridled evil has a very negative effect on the SMP as a whole and relationships at the individual level, because it destroys a positive view of relationship potential. I can tell you that if my husband had ever embraced this view we would certainly never have gotten together.

      I suspect this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. When men OD on the red pill, they’re far more likely to wind up with a bad partner because they believe it’s the norm, and that they can control the bad behavior with dread game.

  • deti

    “Athol Kay, a rational male blogger”

    Heh. I see what you did there.

    • “Athol Kay, a rational male blogger”

      Heh. I see what you did there.

      Huh? What do you mean?

  • asdf

    People respond to incentives. Self control isn’t fun. People only exercise self control when there is an incentive too.

    We used to have a variety of cultural controls to give people incentives to have self control. They are largely gone.

    Occasionally, you’ll find two people with just the right set of circumstances that they have enough incentive to use some self control. Mathematically, that seems to be turning out to be less then half our society.

  • Just1X

    @Harkat

    “Roissy was a rude awakening when you’re raised in liberal, feminist Norway.”

    FWIW

    My British stiff upper lip quivered a little as well, at times I found that one of my eyebrows was raised (slightly – nothing extreme)

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    I think the mating market place is so skewed against men that men are really settling for whatever they can get. Sure, they shouldn’t be doing this. But women are in a much better position to change their behavior than men.

    See the sex ratio amongst singles: http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/08/where-are-women.html

    Yes, women could change the SMP overnight if they restricted access to casual sex. But men are making poor choices too when they select women who have “hypergamous disaster” written all over them.

    • @INTJ

      I think the mating market place is so skewed against men that men are really settling for whatever they can get. Sure, they shouldn’t be doing this. But women are in a much better position to change their behavior than men.

      I think the mating market place is skewed against both sexes in different ways. Sex is in short supply for the majority of men, and commitment is in short supply for the majority of women.

      Although women are the gatekeepers, the sexual ratio always has a dramatic effect on SMP dynamics. When there is a short of men relative to women, as there is in college today, men gain more power overall and sex becomes more casual. This has been demonstrated over time and in many different countries.

  • BuckeyeBri

    @asdf

    I agree. Basically, it comes down to perceived pain/pleasure. Barring a return to those cultural controls you correctly cite, self-awareness, education, and an acknowledgement of negative long-term consequences (deep, abiding long term pain) that result from the short-term lack of self-control (quick, ephemeral pleasure) would help a great deal (Susan is helping with that).

    After all, there are people in this culture who aren’t acting in a stupid fashion and do exercise self-control without those controls being present. Those are your people living consciously, people who are aware and practice ongoing self-examination and personal development.

  • reformedmalenerd

    In defense of certain manosphere bloggers, it could be said that:

    1. These writings don’t exist in a cultural vacuum. Their virulence serves to counterbalance prevailing social trends. They need not be read in isolation and taken absolutely literally. You could force-feed the complete works of Roissy & Co. to the average beta male – it won’t turn him into a violent taliban or a heartless Casanova. At most, he will be more assertive when it comes time to choose a restaurant with his date. It is not about demeaning women but about depedestalizing women, and that in itself requires considerable mental forcefulness. It’s like tearing down statues of Lenin after the fall of the Berlin Wall – it takes more than a love tap.

    2. I would not be surprised if it turned out that contact with the manosphere actually tended to weaken the misogynistic feelings that can bubble under the surface of nice-guy facades. If a Nice Guy is doing All The Right Things with women, and still gets treated like crap, it would seem that women’s innate bitchiness is to blame. But Game tells him that he is far from blameless – in fact, that he has it all wrong and that he is ultimately responsible for what he experiences.

    3. Some of these writings can indeed seem to suggest manipulative psychological techniques, and a general hopelessness concerning female nature, but there’s another way of looking at it. They relentlessly bring home this message: forget about what women could or should be doing to make your relationships with them more satisfactory – don’t expect anything from them but concentrate on what you can do to create and maintain attraction. You can think of it as a methodological principle: don’t worry about what women can, will or should do for you, but do what it’s in your power to do. The rest will take care of itself (or it won’t).

    4. When it comes to interpersonal dynamics of any kind, and especially those involving sexual attraction, there is such a thing as being TOO conscious or self-conscious or explicit with each other. I don’t mean to knock it, but Athol’s site makes me think of a kind of dutiful laboratory experiment. It’s a little…belabored. And honestly, how many highly hypergamous females of the snarky Jezebel reader variety are likely to gleefully embark upon a self-development journey so that their beta schlump can play pretend-alpha with them?

    It seems to me that if a man’s partner is mildly hypergamous and just needs a little extra alpha behavior from her mate, he can easily supply that on his own without being too explicit about it. If on the contrary she requires an absolutely overwhelming dose of all-out alphaness, then the take-all-prisoners approach of ferocious Game is the only avenue.

    • @reformedmalenerd

      These writings don’t exist in a cultural vacuum. Their virulence serves to counterbalance prevailing social trends. They need not be read in isolation and taken absolutely literally. You could force-feed the complete works of Roissy & Co. to the average beta male – it won’t turn him into a violent taliban or a heartless Casanova.

      This is the standard defense given by men. While it may be true, it essentially says that beta males are hapless even at learning Game. While I don’t believe that most readers of the more extreme blogs will turn into full-blown sociopaths, I do think that when you step onto the dark path, you’ve left the path of integrity and honesty. Even if you travel only a short distance, you’re still going the wrong way.

      But Game tells him that he is far from blameless – in fact, that he has it all wrong and that he is ultimately responsible for what he experiences.

      I agree, and that is the beauty of Game as a tool for self-development. The kind of advice I’m talking about does not hold the male responsible, except in the sense that he must learn to rule over and control a woman if he is to gain and sustain her attraction. It essentially reduces women to being good for one thing only – it’s very clear that getting laid is the mission, and if you’re crazy enough to want to go long-term with someone, you need to understand that you’re dealing with a creature that is not rational or conscious.

      concentrate on what you can do to create and maintain attraction.

      The problem is in the “how to.” If you believe that all women want thug-level dominance, you’re going to advise men differently than if you believe that there are some women whose base urges are minimal or curbed. It also takes both the responsibility and the agency away from men to be very selective in choosing a partner. I support men having very high standards. As Athol said, if all women are like that, get a Fleshlight and tell them to stay the hell away.

      And honestly, how many highly hypergamous females of the snarky Jezebel reader variety are likely to gleefully embark upon a self-development journey so that their beta schlump can play pretend-alpha with them?… If on the contrary she requires an absolutely overwhelming dose of all-out alphaness, then the take-all-prisoners approach of ferocious Game is the only avenue.

      Again, why would you even want a woman like that? If she requires an overwhelming dose of anything that doesn’t come naturally to you, getting with such a woman doesn’t sound much better than breaking rocks in a striped jumpsuit.

  • Thanks for the link love and pumpage (is that the right word?) Susan.

    Perhaps the Red Pill should be a controlled substance, as overdoses seem common and casualties are mounting.

    Almost everyone has dark thoughts regarding taking the Red Pill. Not everyone comes out the other side.

  • Harkat

    @Deti

    Rollo?

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “We’re also programmed to reject any man who reveals his humanity, vulnerability, or need as a runt who can’t survive the rough and tumble world long enough to mate and care for his family.

    As someone who has watched and experienced this multiple times I can tell you theirs a grain of truth to it all.

    Ever been told to stop crying (when there was a legitimate reason too) because its turning her off. Glad to fucking know her attraction > emotional pain on the importance scale?

    Ever bought a strip of suckers (flavoured like beer because you can’t read Spanish, dip shit that I was at the time), hand them out to kids with nothing in the world and have a chick call you a loser for trying to hard? (Sidenote: I was in a relationship, not with her, thank god. Crazy women everywhere…)

    NAWALT, but the ones who are stand out and tend to leave scars that never go away.

    Anyway.

    I found myself nodding in agreement to most of the first three paragraphs. I don’t disagree with anything you wrote (even though you meant it as sarcasm).
    I don’t think having these natures is a bad thing. I do think lack of control of said natures is very bad and very normal.

    Heres the problem. Try telling most women that they can’t have alpha stud who will shower them with rose petals. Tell them they might have to date Joe, the normal guy. He’s not spectacular to look at. He’s never gonna lead an army to conquer this or that.
    He will work a steady job, provide for his family and be a good father.
    Tell them that merely trying for alpha stud could disqualify them for Joe and the response is not pretty.

    Wa large portion of a group sees you as either sub-human or a back-up plan (ohh wait, those are the same. Silly me.) treating them well can be incredibly difficult.

    • @Lokland

      I don’t think having these natures is a bad thing. I do think lack of control of said natures is very bad and very normal.

      If that’s what you believe, of course it’s a bad thing. In this view, women are predators by nature, and men are victims of female immorality. I’ll say this – women are only as good, or as bad, as men are. We’ve evolved together, you and I, and we’re optimized to get together with the least difficulty possible. It’s not perfect, but we’re built to mate with speed and comfort, and we’re made to pair bond.

      There’s nothing more animal, more exotic or more unpredictable about one sex than the other. There can’t be. It wouldn’t be efficient.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “men who run asshole Game, they’re responsible for making things worse, especially since so many of them boast that they nail “good girls.” That’s just creating a situation to seduce someone into abandoning their self-control, ”

    Actually Susan.
    This is a very good thing for men.

    Much like women who want the real alpha. We want the REAL good girl.
    Not the girl that who has simply never been tempted enough to lose control but the one who actually has self control.

    They appear very similar but in terms of happiness in relationship potential they are very different.

    Those assholes running dark game are doing beta guys a favour. Its a feature not a bug.

    • @Lokland

      Those assholes running dark game are doing beta guys a favour. Its a feature not a bug.

      Yeah, I’ll buy that. In the same way, slutty women are doing beta girls a favor. And you’re right, a woman who succumbs to a cad has relinquished self-control before properly vetting, or even trying to vet, the man before granting sexual access.

      My earnest advice to young women and men who want relationships is to steer totally clear of promiscuous members of the opposite sex. (Or if you’re already promiscuous, seek someone else with a similar level (or lack thereof) of self-control.

  • Jet Tibet

    I suspect that you are talking about Roissy and Dalrock as opposed to smaller and wackier blogs. If so, I think your description of their views here is a bit of a caricature.

    R. and D. would probably agree with the first 3 of your 4 bullets listed.

    I do think the hamster is something uniquely female. Men can act brutally and selfishly, but they are usually aware of what they are doing.

    Women can act as moral agents, but moral principles need to be strongly etched into a woman’s consciousness in order to avoid the hamster. Traditional religions educate men and women quite differently for this reason.

    • @Jet Tibet

      I suspect that you are talking about Roissy and Dalrock as opposed to smaller and wackier blogs.

      Actually, I wasn’t targeting any specific blogger. In fact, the view of women here – only slightly exaggerated – is the norm on Game blogs. There are some exceptions, including Athol. But I could easily come up with a dozen blogs or more that would fit this description.

      I do think the hamster is something uniquely female. Men can act brutally and selfishly, but they are usually aware of what they are doing.

      I think any man hanging out in the friend zone is hamsterwheeling. I get a lot of emails from guys who are in total denial. Males may be less likely to engage in cognitive dissonance, I don’t know. But I’d say anyone is capable of it when emotions are involved.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    I think the mating market place is skewed against both sexes in different ways. Sex is in short supply for the majority of men, and commitment is in short supply for the majority of women.

    Genuine commitment, as opposed to settling or “committing” for now is in short supply for men too. Perhaps the majority of men can still get it but it’s by a sliver and I think going down each year. A sizable number (plurality maybe) of women don’t want to commit to average Joes until the baby rabies hit and how long they still around after is a constant debate (with you and Athol being representative of the two sides).

    I think the mating market place is so skewed against men that men are really settling for whatever they can get.

    I know I am. If so many women are wanting commitment why can’t a well employed, reasonably fit, and intelligent man not even get a date from woman who are advertising they are interested in commitment when the man says the same?

    If a six figure salary, a desire to marry, the ability to cover a sprint distance tri, being moderately well read, and mostly balanced isn’t enough to attract (not land, just attract) in this supposedly “short supply of commitment for women” what is the baseline?

    • @Herb

      Genuine commitment, as opposed to settling or “committing” for now is in short supply for men too.

      Yes, this is true. Jeremy Nicholson pointed this out in his piece about male mating strategies. He even said that Game is good for short-term, but often targets women not oriented toward long-term mating, and therefore not a great way to get a relationship.

      Both sexes need to figure out how to filter the short-term types from the long-term types. Historically, we’ve considered women more long-term oriented, and men more short-term oriented, but that’s all topsy turvy in this SMP.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “In this view, women are predators by nature, and men are victims of female immorality. ”

    No.

    My view is that women hold a gun to a mans head. We can trust them, love them, be their friend and do every wonderful thing in the world together but that gun is still their.

    I actually believe their are two guns, one natural (cuckold), one unnatural (divorce law). I love my fiance. She is my best friend. I’m closer to her than anyone else I’ve ever known.

    I know she would never pull the trigger. I trust her.
    That doesn’t mean her finger might not twitch at some point.

    I’m willing to take that risk.

    And I get that women can take a similar set of risks on. Though beyond physical abuse I really can’t think of any.

    However, some people (men and women) are predators by nature. Our society has a general love of sociopaths (see the show House), the natures are what they are but there are two factos I dislike:
    i) we breed predators here
    ii) shit happens.

    • @Lokland

      And I get that women can take a similar set of risks on. Though beyond physical abuse I really can’t think of any.

      Heartbreak. Via infidelity, divorce, ILYBINILWY. It happens to us too. And even if we don’t lose our shirts in the process, it’s not exactly a piece of cake, especially when we’ve dedicated our most fertile years to a man only to be cast aside for a younger model when we hit 40. It happens.

  • Lokland

    And by their I mean there.
    Edit feature would be really nice.

  • Underdog

    As a man, the red pill depresses the hell out of me, especially in this SMP. Sometimes I wish I was still a blue pill guy living in blissful ignorance, mindlessly enjoying every chance at sex I get. I’m comfortable with the girl I’m currently with, but the red pill makes me totally insecure about my dominance and masculinity when compared to her sexual history. I swear, sometimes I feel like if I could find a decent looking girl who’s still a virgin I’d drop this one and marry her in a heartbeat.

  • deti

    Harkat 21, SW 23:

    Yeah, Rollo.

    Just a bit of fun. I saw SW get that in. I thought it was quite clever, actually.

  • deti

    Underdog @ 36:

    I used to feel that way. I don’t anymore. There’s no way I’m going back to the way it was — the fear; the frustration; the wasted time, money and effort; the crappy or nonexistent sex.

    I might not like some of the truths I now know, but at least I now know them and can deal with them accordingly.

  • Harkat

    @Underdog

    I feel ya man, I really do. Nine months ago, I got a nagging sense I had been told lies about how sex and relationships worked, so I googled “do girls want dominant men” or something to that effect until I found Roissy. The months afterwards were pretty dark. I often slipped into very bitter misogynist territory where I convinced myself every pleasant interaction with a woman was some sort of evil political (and entirely unconscious) move on her part that I had to dodge. I got depressed wondering about how pointless and arbitrary our biology was, how happiness and anger and sexual attraction meant nothing because it could all be flicked on and off like a switch.

    I’m still pretty cold and numbed by my whole manosphere adventure, but the despair is gone. I’m convinced that IF I find a solution here, behind the veil, the happiness will be better than anything on the blue pill. It’ll be pure and free of lies and doubt. But the future is uncertain. Although HUS has greatly helped me in the right direction (by not being Roissy-nihilist but still realistic), I’m not certain there is a solution. In any case, HUS is doing a really fucking important job by being a ground for honesty and genuine, unbiased search for a sustainable solution between the sexes.

    /rant, but hopefully you get me.

  • Wudang

    ““We’re also programmed to reject any man who reveals his humanity, vulnerability, or need as a runt who can’t survive the rough and tumble world long enough to mate and care for his family.

    As someone who has watched and experienced this multiple times I can tell you theirs a grain of truth to it all.”

    This is VERY common and a huge problem. In previous discussions at this very blog several of your female readers and you yourself has admitted to for example only tolerating men crying when there are unusually good reasons to do so such as when someone very close to them dies.

    • @Wudang

      This is VERY common and a huge problem. In previous discussions at this very blog several of your female readers and you yourself has admitted to for example only tolerating men crying when there are unusually good reasons to do so such as when someone very close to them dies.

      There is no question that women are wary of weakness in men, and they’re on the alert for signs of it when sizing a man up. In my case, I was 14 and felt repelled by having my crush weep profusely in front of me after knowing one another a short time. I’ve seen my own husband cry in frustration, sadness, grief and sentimentality in the time we’ve been married and experienced no loss of attraction.

      Men should be very careful about revealing their needs or vulnerabilities too deeply or frequently before commitment. I always found a touch of vulnerability charming, but seeing a guy in a state of emotional turmoil is extremely disconcerting for a woman who doesn’t know him well.

      Witnessing signs of a person’s humanity should be a prerequisite for exclusivity.

  • Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    “As long as there are men who run asshole Game, they’re responsible for making things worse, especially since so many of them boast that they nail “good girls.” That’s just creating a situation to seduce someone into abandoning their self-control, even though you know they’ll be worse off if you succeed.”
    ____________________________

    Susan, I wish for clarification on this point. I wonder if you’ve considered the second and third order effects of accepting what you’ve said here as fact.

    First, it’s generally a waste of calories to play The Blame Game. Things are how they are. Can they be changed? How can an individual best get what they want?

    Blame on something like this is inevitably toxic.

    But if we’re playing it anyway:

    Not having sex with someone is not hard. It’s not like trying to paint the moon pink, or invent cold fusion. Don’t put your pie-hole on his tan, athletic penis. Just don’t take your pants off. That’s it – that’s all there is to it. Problem solved.

    I will admit to a short period of my life where I did, in fact, have difficulty operating trousers. I bought this particular brand that lacked stenciled-on operating instructions or any semblance of a manual. To compound things, their online support was horrible, and the toll-free phone number connected to….never mind.

    Operating a set of trousers is something most toddlers are getting the hang of. Underwear is even simpler. I’m sure most women are familiar with how to own, operate, and care for trousers by the time they are 18.

    Real self control is hitting a chest-sized target 800 meters away with a rifle made by the lowest bidder. Real self control is earning an advanced degree, or running a marathon, or not punching Rosie O’Donnell in the face.

    That stuff is hard. Keeping pants on – that is to say – not actually removing said trousers – contains precisely zero steps. There are no pumps to prime, no batteries to keep charged, no monthly maintenance fees. You just….do nothing.

    Having sex with a PUA/cad type is not a loss of self control.We’ve already established that sex is impossible while wearing most pants, and it takes no self control to operate articles of clothing. There’s got to be something else, then…

    Those women do it because they want to. Believing that these women aren’t doing it of their own free will and (relatively) enthusiastically is to believe that women aren’t in control of themselves. It’s asserting that women are mere creatures of instinct, lacking higher thought and future orientation.

    Like pets, or amoebas.

    You said this earlier:

    “If that’s what you believe, of course it’s a bad thing. In this view, men are predators by nature, and women are victims of female immorality.”

    *Your words with the genders switched.

    It is inaccurate bordering on disingenuous to blame the man because women choose to fuck him, which you did in the first paragraph I quoted. Further, this means that women aren’t able to influence their own instincts, which you argue against elsewhere in the piece.

    • @Dogsquat

      Having sex with a PUA/cad type is not a loss of self control.We’ve already established that sex is impossible while wearing most pants, and it takes no self control to operate articles of clothing. There’s got to be something else, then…

      Those women do it because they want to. Believing that these women aren’t doing it of their own free will and (relatively) enthusiastically is to believe that women aren’t in control of themselves. It’s asserting that women are mere creatures of instinct, lacking higher thought and future orientation.

      I am happy to clarify. I have always held women accountable for their sexual choices. This is an area where we walk a fine line, one that divides honesty and deceit. There’s being up front, there’s lying outright, and there’s that murky area known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” or lies of omission. FWIW, I hold women accountable for this. I agree with you – don’t take off your pants until you know what’s up. If you do, and he turns out not to want a relationship later, it’s on you.

      However. I used the word seduce for a reason. Traditionally, the meaning of the word seduce has involved deception:

      The act of seducing; , (law) In English common law, a felonious crime committed when a male induced an unmarried female of previously chaste character to engage in an act of sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage

      The most common definition today:

      Attract (someone) to a belief or into a course of action that is inadvisable or foolhardy

      Under the latter definition, I would hold the woman responsible for a poor choice. But I would also hold the man responsible for malfeasance, as he behaves in a way that enables him to achieve personal gain only by prompting another person’s loss.

  • “…a woman who succumbs to a cad has relinquished self-control before properly vetting, or even trying to vet, the man before granting sexual access.”

    As Deti so smartly explained, there is little or no social pressure on a young woman to encourage her personal self-control.

    To a man without Charisma (Game) or without the knowledge of how women think and behave (it’s generally predictable, folks), women are indeed like exotic pets. The lack of Charisma and knowledge in men is basically what the Manosphere is addressing.

    As for Dating 2.0, there is no way of returning to Dating 1.0 and it’s time for men with rational minds to teach other men the current dating situation if men are to obtain their relationship goals, whatever those goals might be. Athol’s doing much the same for Marriage 2.0.

    • @Private Man

      To a man without Charisma (Game) or without the knowledge of how women think and behave (it’s generally predictable, folks), women are indeed like exotic pets.

      Are you saying that women seem like exotic pets, because men lack experience with them, or that their nature is the same as an untamed 400 lb. tigress?

  • Underdog

    “As long as there are men who run asshole Game, they’re responsible for making things worse, especially since so many of them boast that they nail “good girls.””

    Good girls don’t sleep with assholes. We all agree that women are the sexual gatekeepers. They should learn to keep their gates better. It’s not like these assholes are raping them, they’re just assholes, and these “good girls” are choosing to sleep with them because this feminist culture is encouraging them to give in. “If a man can do it, why can’t you? Slut it up, good girl.”

    I honestly don’t think guys are the ones to blame here.

    • I honestly don’t think guys are the ones to blame here.

      The whole point of the post is to stop the blame game. We’ve reached a point where the sexes are claiming that the other is genetically inferior, less evolved, take your pick.

      Feminists do it to men.

      The manosphere does it to women.

      I reject the notion of supremacy for either sex.

      The “women are born wicked” outlook doesn’t just harm women. It leaves men in the position Athol’s Reader is in. Why pair off at all if we’re all like that? The adversarial, combat dating model may assuage male disappointment and inspire men to get into the SMP. But at the very least they should be aware that they’re using a strategy to get paired off to a psycho bitch with poor impulse control.

  • Jacob Ian Stalk

    Susan, I think your ignoring the driving force behind the attitudes in the “manosphere” (if one can characterise the attitudes one finds there as being collective) and in doing so you entirely miss the point of its existence. Its existence is dependent entirely on the spread of rampant feminism, cultural misandry and the very real and very biased legal power women wield over men in today’s society. It has nothing to do with how men view women as a class outside of this context. Of course, bloggers and commenters here and there will write about the age-old things that bother them about the opposite sex but those things are peripheral or tangential to its raison d’etre.

    You quite often (too often to be taken seriously as a blogger in my opinion) presume that the ideas you find in the manosphere somehow have moral primacy. They actually don’t. They’re a response to what many (most?) men are seeing as a fundamental, state-sponsored moral failing in women as a class. Feminist-led women, for all their increased freedoms, wealth, power, ability and influence have categorically and in wholesale manner failed in their duty of care towards men as a class. This is what informs and drives the manosphere, not those deliberately manipulative ideas you’ve written about in the OP above.

    When state-sanctioned misandry stops, the manosphere will disintegrate and its ideas about women will become irrelevant.

    I’ve read and re-read almost all of your posts and have come to the conclusion that you’ve never really understood the manosphere. As such, your opinions come across as little more than another attempt to excuse Eve’s sins because of Adam’s, which is the same poisonous little nut at the heart of misandry. This OP is another interesting and informed excursion up the garden path.

    • @Jacob Ian Stalk

      Its existence is dependent entirely on the spread of rampant feminism, cultural misandry and the very real and very biased legal power women wield over men in today’s society. It has nothing to do with how men view women as a class outside of this context.

      That’s an MRA perspective, but the manosphere is also made up of Game bloggers. Athol’s Reader had the same experience I’ve had many times myself – receiving “instruction” about the true nature of women as a biological entity. Not political, not ignorant of legal bias, but incapable of self-control. Also incapable of rewarding good character in men, owing to the face that we always heed the call of the hindbrain.

      This is what informs and drives the manosphere, not those deliberately manipulative ideas you’ve written about in the OP above.

      As someone who is interested in seeing men and women mate happily, and who writes pretty much exclusively about that topic, with occasional forays into the legal and misandrist morass, I can tell you that I am confronted with these manipulative ideas every single day in the comment threads here. Again, I think you are underestimating the power of the prominent Game bloggers.

      I’ve read and re-read almost all of your posts and have come to the conclusion that you’ve never really understood the manosphere.

      I agree! I do not consider myself a manosphere blogger, though I acknowledge an overlap. I think it’s fair to say at this point that Athol Kay is not a manosphere blogger either. When I’ve written about my mission here, I’ve been dismissed and ridiculed by the manosphere for pushing a “relationships” agenda, which is female centric. I’ll happily own up to that, although I believe that all human beings crave connection and relationships.

  • Todd

    I wonder if many women in the manosphere have been either emotionally or physically abused by women, especially (though not only) their mothers. It seems like the mothers of all of these men are cold and abusive. Then again, so was mine. Maybe that’s why I’ve been able to relate since I took the red pill last year.

    • @Todd

      I wonder if many women in the manosphere have been either emotionally or physically abused by women, especially (though not only) their mothers. It seems like the mothers of all of these men are cold and abusive

      FWIW, I know several Game bloggers who have admitted to cold or even hateful relationships with their mothers. I would be amazed to find a single practitioner of Dark Game who had healthy relationships anywhere, including with family.

  • Rum

    The fact that no woman has ever given accurate dating advice to a beloved son or brother looms very large in the background.
    Does this mean they are not consciously aware enough of their sexuality to do so or
    They are aware of it but do not actually want their sons and brothers to succeed with women.
    Pick one.
    Not even the strongest hamster can ever wiggle out of this.

    • @Rum

      The fact that no woman has ever given accurate dating advice to a beloved son or brother looms very large in the background.

      Heh, I guide my son through his gf’s shit tests whenever he asks. I’ve also heard my daughter give my son accurate dating advice, in accordance with the principles of Game.

  • deti

    Are you saying that women seem like exotic pets, because men lack experience with them, or that their nature is the same as an untamed 400 lb. tigress?

    Heh. A man with no game is easily eaten alive by some of these women. Why? Because he has no clue what he’s doing.

  • Underdog

    “The whole point of the post is to stop the blame game. We’ve reached a point where the sexes are claiming that the other is genetically inferior, less evolved, take your pick.

    Feminists do it to men.

    The manosphere does it to women.

    I reject the notion of supremacy for either sex.

    The “women are born wicked” outlook doesn’t just harm women. It leaves men in the position Athol’s Reader is in. Why pair off at all if we’re all like that? The adversarial, combat dating model may assuage male disappointment and inspire men to get into the SMP. But at the very least they should be aware that they’re using a strategy to get paired off to a psycho bitch with poor impulse control.”

    I agree. No sex is superior or inferior. Men and women are complementary. I agree that the manosphere is a fucked up place for a person to get lost in, much like feminism. But the manosphere is not the force that’s controlling our culture today. When “good girls” get themselves liquored up so they could give it up to assholes, the manosphere is not at fault. Back when I was a PUA in college bringing home girl after girls, “good” and bad, I never tricked one of them into having sex with me. I never dangled commitment over their heads or promised them anything of the sort. I simply acted like another frat boy asshole and watched the girls get drawn toward the flame. The knowledge that this asshole personality was what attracted even good girls into sex was the forbidden fruit that I tasted, and it is making me insecure about the girl I’m with, Eden is no more. The manosphere isn’t the force that’s making girls abandon their roles as sexual gatekeepers and give in to their darkest impulses. I wouldn’t blame guys for being assholes. It’s what’s working at the moment.

    • @Underdog

      I wouldn’t blame guys for being assholes. It’s what’s working at the moment.

      You sought and found women to have casual sex with. For a man looking for strictly casual, asshole Game is very effective. The problem comes in when a man wants a relationship, or even to take a break from being a cock on the carousel.

      Personally, I think there are some pretty awful women out there. But as I said in the post, I’ve only seen them on terrible reality shows and heard about them as the sluttiest sluts on campus. If a man desires something longer term, he will need to recalibrate his view of women and select carefully. I think many men will be unable to do that – they’ve OD’d on the red pill. And of course, a quality woman may decide that his manwhore past is a dealbreaker.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “Perhaps the Red Pill should be a controlled substance, as overdoses seem common and casualties are mounting.”

    What casualties?

    I’ve been reading a long time, and I can think of one, maybe two people who over-gamed their wife to the point of bad things happening — the reader who issued an outright ultimatum to his wife to lose weight and she did, then cut him off.

    Compare that to the thousands of reported casualties of under-gaming.

    For sure, some guys get a bit paranoid, but rarely to the point of damage.

    • @OTC

      What casualties?

      I think many men have gone so deep into the Red Pill, they have lost the ability to respect or cherish any woman. I see evidence of that on many blogs, including this one. In addition, there is much advice that would be devastating to a marriage if followed. We really don’t know when and if people take this advice to heart. Since Athol is the only blogger who appears to get feedback of marriage improving, I consider his the only tried and tested method.

  • College Kid

    I think presence and groundedness are what women look for in a man rather than dominance. We can also say purposefulness. I’d chuck the dominance word for obvious reasons.

  • Richard Aubrey

    When society in general, women most particularly, and one’s prospective SO–female type–recite in chorus that women want nice guys–not the TM type, but as generally understood nice guy and then one’s prospective SO goes off with a jerk….
    It is not merely that everybody lied. It’s that one’s prospective SO lied to your face and then rubbed your nose in your credulity. Perhaps it was not purposeful, although it might be, but it amounts to the same thing.
    Everybody lied. Everybody suckered you. Everybody knew better but they lied. Even the girl in question who was bothering your sleep before and is still, but for a different reason.
    This is a big, big hit. A big hit possibly long before the guy ever thought of how divorce and custody laws are messed up.
    Then, maybe, you discover in places like HUS, that women don’t like “nice guys” and betas and guys extending themselves to be friendly and considerate. And not only did people lie, the truth doesn’t even make SENSE.
    IOW, it seems as if everybody knows better. Knew better.
    But they lied.
    Hard to overstate the impact, the prolonged injury, this has.
    Not that this happened to me. I got dumped for other reasons, but not that. But I saw it happen to friends and listened to their anger.

  • Rum

    OK. I believe you. But you guys had to learn good advice from somewhere outside of your own experience and awareness of your own sexuality. Do you have any idea how easily a man could tell a woman what would attract a guy sexually? Or what a Wife/SO could do to get more sex from a guy? Assuming he was actually straight and reasonably healthy.

    • @Rum

      You’re right – I would say that in general, men are much more aware of their attraction triggers than women are. Heck, I didn’t even think about it before I was 52. In fairness, though, I must point out that men have fewer triggers. 🙂

  • truthseeker

    Susan Walsh, from the bottom of my heart I want to say…
    thank you.
    I discovered pick-up game, somewhere in the fall of last year. As a kid, I wasn’t allowed to date, or have a boyfriend . My parents always told me that men only wanted one thing: sex. In the beginning of college, I struggled to understand why men would pick my roommate over me. I didn’t understand how the male psyche worked, luckily/unluckily I stumbled on pick-up game. Initially, pick-up game was fascinating, hypergamy discussions, concepts like “hand” and negging and so on. But then I become disgusted with the rampant misogyny in pick-up game, Chateau Heartiste would post about a woman’s likeliness to cheat during ovulation cycles, and he urged a man to continue to cheat on his wife because he found her unattractive . Roosh V saw all women as “notches” and noted that a “notch has no feelings”. He also wrote, ” Once you have slept with an American women, you have taken the very best part of her, because there is nothing left.” I now understand how guys think of women, but I find it hard to have any empathy/compassion for men. I have taken a peek into the psyche of men and it is disgusting and hopeless. As of now, I’m taking a break (possibly permanent) from PUA game in order to try to see men as humans again. I think PUA “dark” game must be strongly rebuked. PUA game is detrimental to both men and women. It turns the mating game into an arms race of dominance, power and control.

  • Wudang

    “There is no question that women are wary of weakness in men, and they’re on the alert for signs of it when sizing a man up. In my case, I was 14 and felt repelled by having my crush weep profusely in front of me after knowing one another a short time. I’ve seen my own husband cry in frustration, sadness, grief and sentimentality in the time we’ve been married and experienced no loss of attraction.

    Men should be very careful about revealing their needs or vulnerabilities too deeply or frequently before commitment. I always found a touch of vulnerability charming, but seeing a guy in a state of emotional turmoil is extremely disconcerting for a woman who doesn’t know him well.

    Witnessing signs of a person’s humanity should be a prerequisite for exclusivity.”

    And men today have been trained since we were young that we can safely pour out ALL of our insecurities and weaknesses to our woman and htat we indeed should do so and that it is a failing in us if we don`t. It feels like such damn betrayel when you find out that worked against you most of the time. I do know that there is an acpetance of some such displays and sharing but it is much, much smaller than I think it should be. Do I think the average HUS poster gives her man a humane room for weakness and vulnerability without it damaging attraction? No I don`t. From reading here it is clear to me that the understanding I for example get from a female or male friend I would not be able to safely get from a girlfriend without grave risk of diminished attraction. I didn`t need Roissy to get that view I got it from the female posters at your blog. I am aware that I have a qouta of sorts for that and that the stronger the pair bond and commitment the bigger it is but it is far smaller than I think reflects the real me or the real version of most men I know. In its most extreme form the manosphere view of this is a little overdone but only a little.

    I`m actually not all that bitter about this. To some extent I view it as positive because it is easy for a man to become too whiny and sympathy seeking if women do not require him to be stronger than he actually is. It pushes men forward. Still the paranoia of what is too much for any give woman to acept does bother me a lot.

  • The knowledge that this asshole personality was what attracted even good girls into sex was the forbidden fruit that I tasted, and it is making me insecure about the girl I’m with, Eden is no more. The manosphere isn’t the force that’s making girls abandon their roles as sexual gatekeepers and give in to their darkest impulses. I wouldn’t blame guys for being assholes. It’s what’s working at the moment.

    This and this discussion in general reminds me to the controversy over Tauromachia (bullfighting) big Spanish tradition. Who is more to blame the Torero that knows how to make the bull mad, attack him and manipulate its own nature for entertainment and personal pride or the bull for not knowing any better? Does the PUA/Hottie that knows what buttons to touch to make the woman/man do his/her biding more moral than the woman/man in question that is acting out of attraction thinking to herself that “this is a magical moment”/”Hot girl is finally paying attention to me” .
    I particularly have some pity on a woman/man burned once by this magical feeling (the same for a man that gets with a crazy hottie hypnotized by her hotness), if she (or he) keeps the same pattern of course she/she is an idiot no pity for them than the PUA/or the hottie that willingly plays his card knowing the result even before anything happens.
    As a note I personally oppose to bullfighting (barbaric custom that has no modern reason to be) and as cruel at it sounds when a bull kills a torero I feel no sorry for him, he knew what he was doing and I think that is pretty much the same standard if you are knowingly doing something for personal gain with ulterior motives and a hint that the person wanted something else you are in the dark side, YMMV.

  • Todd

    FWIW, I know several Game bloggers who have admitted to cold or even hateful relationships with their mothers. I would be amazed to find a single practitioner of Dark Game who had healthy relationships anywhere, including with family.

    I wonder if dark game would exist if we’d get that women are as likely to be just horrible mothers (as opposed to stressed, mentally ill, oppressed by society, etc.) the same way we can recognize men as horrible father. Maybe we can take that level of abuse seriously…but I doubt it.

  • College Kid

    “I wonder if many women in the manosphere have been either emotionally or physically abused by women, especially (though not only) their mothers. It seems like the mothers of all of these men are cold and abusive”

    “FWIW, I know several Game bloggers who have admitted to cold or even hateful relationships with their mothers. I would be amazed to find a single practitioner of Dark Game who had healthy relationships anywhere, including with family.”

    Current American culture has a deep disrespect for parents.

  • Mike C

    I’ve debated this view of female nature more times than I care to admit here at HUS, and more than once

    Susan, just curious…

    If the debate about “female nature” is tiresome, why this post? A post like this seems intent on stirring up that debate.

    Anyways, the truth of something lies somewhere in between easily refuted caricatures. There is a “female nature” just as there is a “male nature”. My guess is most red-blooded normal men would find many 16-17 year old high school juniors/seniors sexually attractive. But that doesn’t mean you are going to have hordes of 40-50 year old men prowling high schools.

    The problem lies in the general inability to even define and accept what are some of the negatives of “female nature” and than how to deal with them both at the societal level (which isn’t my battle or concern) and at the individual level of guy 1 on 1 with woman X.

    The most important part of Athol’s post was this part:

    “…*******If your SO is conscious and self-aware*******, I think there’s plenty of hope for a genuinely deep friendship along with the nuts and bolts of having to keep up the basic opposite sex attractiveness. *****Wife selection is absolutely critical though.*****

    You can take this for what its worth….but I’ll continue to say it is oversimplistic generalization to box guys into “relationship” guys and “casual sex” guys especially if you are dealing with guys who have even some real value in terms of SMV and know it. Sure, they crave real relationships and connections but in the meantime they’ll want to get laid and take advantage of opportunities that present themselves. Whether they are “relationship” oriented can depend highly on the individual woman.

    • @Mike C

      I’ve debated this view of female nature more times than I care to admit here at HUS, and more than once

      Susan, just curious…

      If the debate about “female nature” is tiresome, why this post? A post like this seems intent on stirring up that debate.

      You’ve said many times that men should never believe what a woman has to say about female sexuality. Well, here’s one of your own saying what I’ve been trying to communicate for three years, and I welcome the company.

      I never said I was unwilling to debate, just that I find it frustrating that it’s even necessary to explain that women are not exotic pets. As you may have noticed, I don’t shy away from controversy, that’s not the issue. I will continue to have the debate as often as necessary, even if I don’t enjoy it. Having Athol Kay weigh in was an unexpected treat, as I said at the start of the post. Mostly I was struck by the absolute reason and rationality of his response, and wanted to share it.

      The problem lies in the general inability to even define and accept what are some of the negatives of “female nature” and than how to deal with them both at the societal level (which isn’t my battle or concern) and at the individual level of guy 1 on 1 with woman X.

      There are no negatives in female nature. None. And there are no negatives in male nature. We are biologically programmed to fulfill a function, and I think an argument can be made that both sexes are perfect. Nature is not the problem. It’s human motivation, intent, selfishness and carelessness that causes all the difficulty.

      Totally agree that consciousness and self-awareness are critical qualities in a mate of either gender. And mate selection is absolutely critical for both sexes as well.

  • Underdog

    “Personally, I think there are some pretty awful women out there. But as I said in the post, I’ve only seen them on terrible reality shows and heard about them as the sluttiest sluts on campus.”

    What about the waves of “good” girls who celebrated their newfound freedom by fucking their shares of assholes (and ignoring the nice guys) before wising up and wanting commitment? Girls with this sexual history are far more prevalent in college than the career sluts. My girlfriend is one of these girls and I never gave her sexual history much thought due to her number being fairly low, but the deeper I swallowed the red pill (past the PUA stuff and more into psychological stuff), the more insecure I became of committing myself to a girl who once gave it up so casually to a few assholes just for the hell of it. I guess karma is a bitch… I still don’t think assholes should be blamed for this situation, though. They were just being assholes. I don’t blame guys who picked up asshole game in order to finally get sex, either. The blame should fall onto this feminist culture that encouraged so many impressionable girls to give in to their sexual impulses without thinking about the consequences.

    • @Underdog

      My girlfriend is one of these girls and I never gave her sexual history much thought due to her number being fairly low, but the deeper I swallowed the red pill (past the PUA stuff and more into psychological stuff), the more insecure I became of committing myself to a girl who once gave it up so casually to a few assholes just for the hell of it.

      If her number is fairly low, then it sounds like your issue is who she chose to have sex with. Do you know those guys – are they really assholes and not at all nice? Even if she had a few ONSs, it doesn’t mean she gave it up for assholes. Beta guys have ONSs too. In fact, a good-looking beta has an easier time getting a ONS than a relationship.

      I also continue to question the validity of the claim that women screw alphas casually and turn to betas for commitment. Women don’t need providers anymore. I think there are women who are alpha chasers, and they don’t suddenly decide to settle for beta. They don’t even have the self-awareness to realize they’re playing a losing hand, so they rarely adjust.

  • College Kid

    “What about the waves of “good” girls who celebrated their newfound freedom by fucking their shares of assholes (and ignoring the nice guys) before wising up and wanting commitment?”

    Its called the folly of youth. I can’t think of very many college kids who want commitment while we are still in college. We have too much on our plate and will college and move on in a few years anyway.

  • There is a fundamental asymmetry between the sexes that explains why more women might be corrupt than men.

    In terms of sexual power, women are born “wealthy”, and they receive their “inheritance” when young. Without wisdom or constraints, receiving power at a young age corrupts. Just look at what happens to people who receive a financial inheritance at a young age.

    But men have to earn their sexual power. Many men never do. Those that do attain status, usually have earned it, which acts as a check against corruption — as does the fact that they tend to attain it at an older age, after they’ve already developed their character.

    Basically, if you gave a million dollars to every 16-year old boy, and encouraged them to spend it however they wanted, you’d get a generation of men with the same level of corruption as you see in today’s women.

    You can see my post on Power and Corruption in the Sexual Marketplace:
    http://hunter-gatherer.com/blog/power-and-corruption-sexual-marketplace

    • @John

      Hey, I know you! Welcome, it’s good to have you here.

      I agree with you about the asymmetry of sexual power. I would add that men age with the sexual power they’ve earned intact or even increasing, while we know that women cannot avoid the decline. So the advantage shifts to males later. A smart woman commits and cares for a man while she’s beautiful to earn his devotion as she ages.

      Corruption is a question of character, though. In your post you talk about old money folks – and the likelihood they’ve taught their kids a set of values. There was a time when all women were taught those values, but they no longer are in our culture. When my daughter was growing up, her father and I used to joke that she had a self-esteem issue – it was too high. I suppose what we engaged in was a form of parental “negging” to bring her view of herself into line, and to encourage the development of good character traits. She turned out OK.

  • Underdog

    “Its called the folly of youth.”

    It’s called slutting it up to assholes.

  • OffTheCuff

    Truth: “I now understand how guys think of women, but I find it hard to have any empathy/compassion for men.”

    If you’ve read Roissy for any appreciable time, you should know that most men are “beta” and don’t have the luxury of acting this way.

  • Mike C

    It’s called slutting it up to assholes.

    I see some new guys commenting in the last month or two, and its just funny to see the same beefs/complaints because they really are universal across the vast majority of guys.

    If there is one thing that just really burns guys (especially guys used to having to “work” to get it) it is the “price discrimination” aspect. This is something that can really twist a guy up if he is in a “relationship” with a woman where he had to “commit” to get the goods and than finds out she did give it up to a number of “assholes” on a day 1, 2, or 3 meeting.

    What I find even more amazing is why many women can’t grok why this would piss a guy off so much because he is more highly valued as a “serious relationship”.

    • @Mike C

      I agree with you re price discrimination in sex, which we’ve talked about many times here. But my sense is that more guys fear it than experience it. In the debates about it at HUS it’s mostly been theoretical. I can think of only one example – A Definite Beta Guy – where the woman actively practiced this strategy.

      It’s called slutting it up to assholes.

      I see some new guys commenting in the last month or two, and its just funny to see the same beefs/complaints because they really are universal across the vast majority of guys.

      Of course this happens – we know that a quarter of both sexes are promiscuous. Why not select a woman with a low number? 90% of women in college are under 5, it can’t be that difficult.

      I believe this is another manosphere cliche – a lot of the guys who make these statements are guys not having sex, and they get worked up after reading Game blogs.

  • Underdog

    “What I find even more amazing is why many women can’t grok why this would piss a guy off so much because he is more highly valued as a “serious relationship”.”

    It is the equivalent of working my way up from poverty into a millionaire, investing all my money into a company, and later finding out that company has a history of bankruptcies. Fucking burns, man.

  • SayWhaat

    In terms of sexual power, women are born “wealthy”, and they receive their “inheritance” when young. Without wisdom or constraints, receiving power at a young age corrupts. Just look at what happens to people who receive a financial inheritance at a young age.

    This is funny to me because I never thought about having sexual power at the age of 16. I wasn’t one of those girls who was able to wield it. Very few boys found me desirable at that age.

    Even now, when I understand that I am approaching my sexual peak, it’s hard to properly “wield” that sexual power to gain the interest of a man you like and secure commitment. I honestly think that I just got lucky and somehow stumbled into a relationship.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “I think many men have gone so deep into the Red Pill, they have lost the ability to respect or cherish any woman”

    Perhaps, but the amount of androsphere blogs and participants is dwarfed by feminist sites and commenters. There are many feminist websites that host hundreds of blogs each! It’s a few orders of magnitude difference.

    • @OTC

      Perhaps, but the amount of androsphere blogs and participants is dwarfed by feminist sites and commenters.

      That’s interesting, a lot of the men have responded that way recently. Even though HUS is far from feminist, I think guys are venting here what they really would love to say at feministing or Pandagon. That’s problematic for me, because I would rather they let off steam with the people pissing them off, but I understand it.

  • Jones

    John’s point is fascinating. I do think it is worth reflecting that womanhood is granted by nature – the possession of the valuable ability to reproduce – whereas manhood must always be earned.

    Overall this is a painful discussion. Our culture has entered a dark place. I do think, though, that the darker game stuff, though unfortunate in its misogyny, counteracts tendencies that already exist in a lot of men today – though you have to take it with a grain of salt. It’s best to think of it as a thumb on the scale. Pedestalizing is deeply ingrained in me, so it takes a lot to get over it.

    Those scenes from that episode of “Girls” are so haunting…the thing that makes me sad is that showing vulnerability and humanity to a girl is a mistake. I have been convinced by all of these discussions, and my own experiences, that it’s true.

    The erosion of male status means that proving your worth has become incredibly hard, and that’s precisely what makes gender relations even more hostile. If you can’t show vulnerability, because you are fundamentally insecure about your status, which is not guaranteed by anything, then relations between the sexes will inevitably be more closed and confrontational. This leads directly to the demise of romance.

    There’s just no easy way out. Most men won’t achieve manhood, because the opportunities aren’t there – and that’s fundamentally a result of the economy. It’s also worth pointing out that you can’t just blame everything on “feminism.” What caused feminism? Certainly the mass entry of women into the workforce was going to result in cultural changes, and it preceded feminism as a social movement.

    • @Jones

      The erosion of male status means that proving your worth has become incredibly hard, and that’s precisely what makes gender relations even more hostile. If you can’t show vulnerability, because you are fundamentally insecure about your status, which is not guaranteed by anything, then relations between the sexes will inevitably be more closed and confrontational. This leads directly to the demise of romance.

      I agree with this. You’ve described a Catch 22 for men, and it’s real. Women face a Catch 22 of their own in this SMP re the timing of when to put out. There is great hostility between the sexes, because we’re at cross purposes in any case, and today far fewer people are getting what they want.

      What’s most discouraging is that while feminism has played the primary role in the erosion of male status, we’ve reached a point in society where even the end of feminism as a movement (which won’t happen) would not solve our problems. We’re beyond that now.

  • SayWhaat

    Truth: “I now understand how guys think of women, but I find it hard to have any empathy/compassion for men.”

    If you’ve read Roissy for any appreciable time, you should know that most men are “beta” and don’t have the luxury of acting this way.

    That’s poor comfort if we know that they *want* to act that way.

  • “What I find even more amazing is why many women can’t grok why this would piss a guy off so much because he is more highly valued as a “serious relationship”.”

    I think the best equivalent would be telling a girl that has been dating a guy for years without getting a proposal the guy has been married/proposed before to countless of girls or worst the guy they broke up because he was not ready to get married, gets married a few months after dating a new girl. She will think she was not “good enough” for him to propose as fast and wonder why, forever. That is probably the closest thing to sex price discrimination, commitment price discrimination, YMMV

    • @Anacaona

      or worst the guy they broke up because he was not ready to get married, gets married a few months after dating a new girl.

      I don’t know if this is a cliche, or if it really happens all the time, but I hear this a lot. I know it happens with relationships – a guy tells a girl he’s not looking for anything serious, if he wanted a relationship it would be with her, etc., then two weeks later he’s asking some new girl to be his gf. I’ve witnessed that particular dynamic many times. Usually the girl who earned the GF role is a manipulative bitch, too – which is a parallel to the idea that girls give it up for assholes before settling for the nice guy.

  • SayWhaat

    “What I find even more amazing is why many women can’t grok why this would piss a guy off so much because he is more highly valued as a “serious relationship”.”

    I think the best equivalent would be telling a girl that has been dating a guy for years without getting a proposal the guy has been married/proposed before to countless of girls or worst the guy they broke up because he was not ready to get married, gets married a few months after dating a new girl. She will think she was not “good enough” for him to propose as fast and wonder why, forever. That is probably the closest thing to sex price discrimination, commitment price discrimination, YMMV

    I think I felt similarly when a guy who didn’t call me back after the 2nd date went on to date another one of my girlfriends for 6 months. I didn’t like him, but every time I saw them I felt a pang — why wasn’t I good enough for any guy to ask me to be his girlfriend?

  • Lokland

    @Mike C

    “What I find even more amazing is why many women can’t grok why this would piss a guy off so much because he is more highly valued as a “serious relationship.”

    Hamsters are very magical creatures with incredible super powers. They have the ability to take the greatest insult and see it as a complement.

    Tada!!

  • SayWhaat

    @ Jones:

    Those scenes from that episode of “Girls” are so haunting…the thing that makes me sad is that showing vulnerability and humanity to a girl is a mistake. I have been convinced by all of these discussions, and my own experiences, that it’s true.

    Far be it from me to change your already made up mind, but I would just like to point out that it’s the *timing* of showing the vulnerability that makes all the difference (i.e., it’s less of a big deal when the two of you have made enough ground in the relationship to handle a storm).

    • Those scenes from that episode of “Girls” are so haunting…the thing that makes me sad is that showing vulnerability and humanity to a girl is a mistake.

      To be honest, I felt totally repelled by Charlie. I cringed at everything he did:

      1. Happily takes her dirty nightguard as a “present.”
      2. Blows and bestows kisses constantly, as if she is a pet.
      3. Sticks to her like glue – he even walks in on her in the bathroom.
      4. When she asks what would turn him on he says, “To turn you on. Let me do that.”
      5. Talks to her in baby talk.

      I don’t think he is showing vulnerability, as much as a smothering affection that is overwhelming. She’s on a very high pedestal, and she wants her feet planted on the ground, as all women do.

      If guys have been lied to about what women want, then Girls is a good show to watch, because they do not want Charlies.

      FWIW, I found the other guy even more repellent. During their sexual encounter, we see no evidence whatsoever that she even minimally enjoys herself.

  • SayWhaat

    Perhaps, but the amount of androsphere blogs and participants is dwarfed by feminist sites and commenters. There are many feminist websites that host hundreds of blogs each! It’s a few orders of magnitude difference.

    Perhaps, but I think the malevolence in the manosphere probably surpasses that of feminist websites.

  • Jones

    To bolster my point with an analogy, it’s interesting that men in societies where homosexuality is utterly taboo – a complete nonstarter – there is more emotional intimacy between men, because less need to prove your gender/sexual identity, which can be taken for granted. In the same way, having to constantly prove your manhood to women reduces scope for emotional intimacy with them.

  • OffTheCuff

    SW:”That’s poor comfort if we know that they *want* to act that way.”

    What? Want to act mean to women? Guys don’t want to do this. They want female affection.

    The alphas might act means because it works, not because they like it. The betas won’t do it at all, and don’t ever sit there thinking “oh, I wish I could be mean and call her a bitch, too!”

  • SayWhaat

    I can’t think of very many college kids who want commitment while we are still in college. We have too much on our plate and will college and move on in a few years anyway.

    +1 to College Kid. Finding a relationship in college is like finding love in a metaphorical airport.

  • Lokland

    @Saywhaat 85

    I get what your saying. I’ll agree for the majority thats the way it works.
    However theres a small subset of woman who find that behaviour unacceptable.

    And these girls are not abnormal, just immature.

    Like a 14 year old who just doesn’t like it that one time.

    I haven’t cried in over twelve years because of one experience.

    That is all it takes.

  • OffTheCuff

    SW: “Perhaps, but I think the malevolence in the manosphere probably surpasses that of feminist websites.”

    Which ones call for outright violence against the other sex? One guess. Provide links.

  • Wudang

    Te manosphere needs to start reading more David Deida. His view on gender dynamics matches the manosphere view very well but he manages to do two things different. One is that he describes well different levels of masculinity and femininity with lower less worthy and higher more worthy forms and how you work to reach higher forms. The second is that he writes about all of this in a way that makes it far more digestable and seem far less morally problematic. Very similar truths but less anger created and more understanding generated.

    Specifically relevant to this discussion is that although he has many views that line up with the view of women as more irrational, emotional, instinctual and in a way dangerous he explains the positive of that. One out of many examples of that is that the female desire to feel male strength and direction leads to testing that strength in men and that is not a negative evil thing but a necessary thing in order for men to grow and not become passive and weak. Humans are lazy path of least resistance animals and if we are not required to work we tend to degenerate. An easy life makes you weak. There are tons of men in the manosphere that love the new men they have become. They have become those men because of the female requirement of male strength so they started to work on themselves because of that but after they got to work they discovered that this work lead to changes in themselves that where about far more than just pleasing a woman, it led to finding themselves as men. So without female testing those men would have led much less concious and vital and weak lives.

    Another example acording to David Deida is that female testing tends to focus on your weakest spot. To men that can initially feel unfair and frustrating and make them see women as spoiled because if you are doing really great overal why focus on and complain about your weakness. However, that spurs you to grow where you need it the most. This way, if you know how to use it, the feeback from your woman is the greatest feedback and mirror you will ever get.

    In similar ways Deida looks at many other aspects of the male female dynamic in highly similar ways as the manosphere but always has ways to describe and explain it that gives it a meaningfull and positive spin. He does that while fully recognizing how men and women initially feel when frustrated over these things. Some Deida reading would do us all a lot of good.

    I think an undercurrent in manosphere frustrations is that many of the guys feel that if getting a good treatment from their woman or any woman is so dependent on the extent to which they as men have enough alpha qualitites to bring out positive behavior in women. They feel disapointed because they feel that men bring to the table a form of universal morality that is what it is regardless of conditions, the men see themselves as having one standard for good behavior and try to maintain it regardless of conditions while women seem to not bring a morality that is equally independent of others but more reactive. To the men this seems like it is false and worthless. They feel if good behavior from women is dependent on male strength, frame control/leadership it is not the woman but the man that creates the good behavior. However, The correct way to judge a woman would not be the extent to which she holds herself to one standard she ALWAYS try to live up to in the same way as men think everyone should. The correct way to judge a woman in a relationship is not by what she independently brings but how she responds to male leadership in it. While one woman will react to good male leadership in a relationship with being very nice and nurturing and attentive and honest etc. and respond to lacking leadership by being not so nice but still not a lying cheating bitch that woman is far superior to a woman who responds to exaclty the same good leadership with less positive behavior and become a total psycho bitch as a response to the exact same lack of leadership. It is her ability to respond that is what she is to be judged on not how she behaves independently of stimulus. The pet analogy comes fromt the frustration of seeing how differently women behave as a consequence of how you behave and seeing that as meaning they don`t really have any inherent substance themselves or any direction etc. But the falacy lies in not seing the agency in the contrast between how two women would respond to the same man/same behavior and also how a woman controls you by requiring you to bring a certain type of alpha behavior to the table in order respond well to you which puts the agency back in HER hands.

    Women naturally get angry at the pet analogy but respond to it the wrong way by trying to point out how they don`t fail in the areas the men see them as not living up to male standards in instead of asserting that they should be judged by a different standard namely HOW they respond not that they are responsive.

  • SayWhaat

    SW:”That’s poor comfort if we know that they *want* to act that way.”

    What? Want to act mean to women? Guys don’t want to do this. They want female affection.

    I meant it’s poor comfort to know that they want to get with the hot sluts instead of the girls who are well-intentioned.

  • College Kid

    “In terms of sexual power, women are born “wealthy”, and they receive their “inheritance” when young. Without wisdom or constraints, receiving power at a young age corrupts. Just look at what happens to people who receive a financial inheritance at a young age.”

    “This is funny to me because I never thought about having sexual power at the age of 16. I wasn’t one of those girls who was able to wield it. Very few boys found me desirable at that age.”

    Most girls don’t have a rotating harem of guys calling them up every hour. My sisters, both rather plain but ok looking like most girls, never did. They both went through high school without boyfriends. The mistake some guys make is thinking everyone’s getting laid except them, when for the most part, most people are not getting laid, except for the hot ones.

    “What I find even more amazing is why many women can’t grok why this would piss a guy off so much because he is more highly valued as a “serious relationship”.”

    “I think the best equivalent would be telling a girl that has been dating a guy for years without getting a proposal the guy has been married/proposed before to countless of girls or worst the guy they broke up because he was not ready to get married, gets married a few months after dating a new girl. ”

    You got it twisted. In the first scenario the guy is valued enough to have a relationship with, in the second the girl is not.

    Or is the original commenter saying he wants to be a one and done only?

  • BroHamlet

    John said it best-

    In terms of sexual power, women are born “wealthy”, and they receive their “inheritance” when young. Without wisdom or constraints, receiving power at a young age corrupts. Just look at what happens to people who receive a financial inheritance at a young age.

    To make matters worse, like others have said, there are very few external checks on women’s behavior. Incentives are powerful in determining people’s behavior. We live in a society (for those of us here in the States) that gives women carte blanche to (literally) do whatever they want to men. I’m not mad at them for that, but I am aware of the risks.

    @truthseeker

    I now understand how guys think of women, but I find it hard to have any empathy/compassion for men. I have taken a peek into the psyche of men and it is disgusting and hopeless.

    Whatever. This sounds really melodramatic. Men aren’t the ones mostly in control of the market, so you’d be real foolish to let that chip on your shoulder grow any further. There are plenty of us who have been around enough women to know that there is a spectrum of this type of behavior- it varies.

    Honestly, if so many women didn’t act out this whole “exotic pet” BS, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The best woman you can find is one who seeks to better herself to the point of being self-actualized (and not by making dumb-ass “Eat Pray Love” decisions about her life, by taking responsibility for what she can sensibly control). I believe this to be true because I have been privileged to have been raised by one of those women, and it’s a great measuring stick for any woman I meet now. I would advise a lot of guys to make introspection a hard and fast requirement in the women they choose for relationships.

  • Wudang

    “John April 21, 2012 at 9:52 pm
    There is a fundamental asymmetry between the sexes that explains why more women might be corrupt than men.

    In terms of sexual power, women are born “wealthy”, and they receive their “inheritance” when young. Without wisdom or constraints, receiving power at a young age corrupts. Just look at what happens to people who receive a financial inheritance at a young age.

    But men have to earn their sexual power. Many men never do. Those that do attain status, usually have earned it, which acts as a check against corruption — as does the fact that they tend to attain it at an older age, after they’ve already developed their character.

    Basically, if you gave a million dollars to every 16-year old boy, and encouraged them to spend it however they wanted, you’d get a generation of men with the same level of corruption as you see in today’s women.

    You can see my post on Power and Corruption in the Sexual Marketplace:
    http://hunter-gatherer.com/blog/power-and-corruption-sexual-marketplace

    You can add to that the fact that female exertion of power because of its normally indirectness and the plausible deniability that goes with that is less regulated by society. There are not as clear norms and social sanctions regarding its use, partly because the very existence of the power is denied. In addition to that there is the fact that even if every power play is theoretically understood it is always hard to catch someone using inderct power and whoever feels nobody is watching will do more bad things.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    No guy wants to be an asshole. (Excluding the psycopaths.)

    Given a choice most of us would play a game of pick up, sit around have a few beers and have each of our individual wives/SO/gf etc. snuggle on our laps.

    Women don’t want that.

    Women want the asshole. If it didn’t work it wouldn’t be done.

    @College Kid

    +1

    A large portion of the problem is the belief that everyone is getting sexed 24/7 except you. In reality that is not the case.
    However those people on the TV say that everyone but me is getting laid like tile.

    @Saywhaat

    Feminism actually had a discussion on whether or not the world would be better or not without men.

    No MRA has called for genocide that I’m aware of.

    • @Lokland

      Women want the asshole. If it didn’t work it wouldn’t be done.

      No, women want to be submissive to males. The asshole routine is a cartoon version of what women want, and it is effective on some women. In the short-term it can be very effective in a time when most men exhibit little dominance. When you’ve got 20 men in a room, and 2 are assholes, while the rest display zero dominance, the assholes will get all the girls. I’m not saying this to blame men, I’m just being honest about contemporary gender dynamics.

  • Abbot

    “Society used to recognize that internal constraints were often not sufficient and so instituted a series of external controls (slut shaming, rejection of sluts for marriage, threat of spinsterhood, unwed pregnancy).”
    .
    Women thrive optimally when controlled

  • College Kid

    “Te manosphere needs to start reading more David Deida.”

    Duuuuuuuuuuuuude noway! I’m listening to this right now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbCnNSZKsr8&feature=related
    as I read your comment. Coincidence? There are no coincidences. Serendipity.

  • You got it twisted. In the first scenario the guy is valued enough to have a relationship with, in the second the girl is not.

    He was not valued enough to get the sex easily as most men want and the woman in question has given in the past, since women don’t value sex as much as relationships this doesn’t make sense for them, and it seems that for you too. But if a man that is actively having sex with a woman is unwilling to commit to her easily and does to another one she can see how painful this is. You are seeing this from the POV of the woman and relationships only without taking in account the men and sex part.

  • SayWhaat

    AssholeWomen want the asshole. If it didn’t work it wouldn’t be done.

    Fixed that for you.

  • SayWhaat

    Honestly, if so many women didn’t act out this whole “exotic pet” BS, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

    I believe the original point of the post was that the only women who were “exotic pets” were the Jersey Shore types on TV.

  • Abbot

    “Try telling most women that they can’t have alpha stud who will shower them with rose petals. Tell them they might have to date Joe, the normal guy. He’s not spectacular to look at. He’s never gonna lead an army to conquer this or that. He will work a steady job, provide for his family and be a good father. Tell them that merely trying for alpha stud could disqualify them for Joe and the response is not pretty.”
    .
    Bizzarre as it is, their response is to spit fiery accusation of slut-shaming. In addition to avoiding feelings of disgust, rejecting such women means you also reduce the probability of dedicating yourself to a person with self destructive tendencies.

  • SayWhaat

    I’d love to stick around and keep shooting bullets in your misinformed world views, but the boyfriend’s over, I haven’t seen him in a week, and as a result I have some business to attend to. Catch y’all later.

  • College Kid

    David Deida doesn’t use the words masculinity or femininity but rather masculine essence and feminine essence. Reason being that we all have both within us, but an essence will prevail. He says 80% of men have a masculine essence and 80% of women have a feminine essence.

  • Wudang

    “Feminism actually had a discussion on whether or not the world would be better or not without men.”

    Uhm, they are still having that debate and amongst the classic feminist heroes a bunch had view in that direction.

  • College Kid

    “You are seeing this from the POV of the woman and relationships only without taking in account the men and sex part.”

    Uh no. I’m taking it from my own POV if my gf wanted me for a quick jump off and not a relationship.

  • Abbot

    “So some men make the mistake of not rejected damaged goods and instead adopt the “something’s better than nothing” approach”
    .
    Without these men, women would turn like rabid dogs against feminism and the entire hookup/hypergamy septic system

  • Uh no. I’m taking it from my own POV if my gf wanted me for a quick jump off and not a relationship.

    ??? I think we have a missinformation problem. Sex price discrimination is this scenario:
    You had been dating woman X for a few months she hasn’t had sex with you because “she wants to take it slow, you are important to her” then you find out that she regularly used to have no strings sex in the same night or shortly after meeting other men when she was younger or just right before she meet you or/and that she is still having sex with other men while she doesn’t has sex with you, because the other men are just “toys” but she “values” you and want to “make it work” how does that makes you feel?

  • Abbot

    “When there is a short of men relative to women, as there is in college today, men gain more power overall and sex becomes more casual. ”
    .
    There is a shortage generally when women select among a minority of sexually successful men, thus the casual sex

  • Dogsquat

    Posting from work, sorry if this is screwed up.
    Susan said:

    “But I would also hold the man responsible for malfeasance, as he behaves in a way that enables him to achieve personal gain only by prompting another person’s loss.”

    _______________________________

    Susan, I am not yet persuaded that this is a correct idea.

    My understanding of malfeasance is wrongful or dishonest conduct. For your statement to be congruent, you’d have to explain why a guy getting laid is wrongful or dishonest.

    As for prompting another person’s loss – well, I see a lot of women giving it away. They’re not losing anything because they know right where it went.

    Say I owned 10,000 cars and a person I just met asked for one. If I give a car away, it costs me something – relatively little, but still something. But that doesn’t make the stranger a bad person for asking, nor have they behaved wrongfully. I made the choice to hand them the keys. Even if they give me a sob story that turns out to be exaggerated – I exercised my agency. I could have said no.

    Again, there’s a perfect defense against sexual seduction. It has to do with garments remaining on one’s legs, not on the floor.

    It’s much more logical to work with the “women are the gatekeepers of sex” idea. Women are choosing to bang these guys.

    Susan said:

    “This is an area where we walk a fine line, one that divides honesty and deceit. There’s being up front, there’s lying outright, and there’s that murky area known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” or lies of omission. ”
    ____________________________________

    I’m going to sound like a misogynist here, but I am assuredly not. I’m just a realist:

    If I was honest, up-front, and never ommitted anything I’d be an involuntary celibate.

    “Hi, I’m Dogsquat! I’m looking to get into a long term relationship. I saw you over here and I think you’re attractive enough for the job. I’m monogamous by nature, and you have to be as well for me to consider you. Also, I won’t be interested in you if you’ve been promiscuous in the past, so how many people have you slept with, and in what contexts? Yes, oral counts. Also, I’d like to know about your parents because that factors in a marriage. What is your IQ? Do you have any health problems? I have PTSD and a screwed up leg from the war.”

    • @Dogsquat

      I define malfeasance as deliberately causing harm to someone, presumably for personal gain. In a don’t ask, don’t tell situation, or a ONS, all parties are responsible for their choices. I’m not saying it’s the man’s responsibility to consider whether the choice is beneficial for the woman.

      What I am saying is that it’s wrong to knowingly mislead a person by implying they have more to gain than they do, or less to lose than they do. This is not unusual. In a survey of over 1000 men, 40% admitted to having lied outright by pretending interest in a relationship just to get sex. For the record, women who pretend they’re fine with a casual relationship when they really want more have no right to call a guy a dick when he rejects them.

      There’s a difference between approaching a new relationship in good faith while not showing your hand, and entering into a transaction where you understand you’re going to leave the other person worse off than you found them. That’s called using people for personal gain.

      It’s hard to explain all the theoretical ways that people may deceive one another, but I think we’ve all been there – you know it when you see it. Players “play” people. Cads deceive outright. Women should engage either at their peril, and should be held accountable if the man’s true nature or reputation is known.

  • College Kid

    “You had been dating woman X for a few months she hasn’t had sex with you because “she wants to take it slow, you are important to her” then you find out that she regularly used to have no strings sex in the same night or shortly after meeting other men when she was younger or just right before she meet you or/and that she is still having sex with other men while she doesn’t has sex with you, because the other men are just “toys” but she “values” you and want to “make it work” how does that makes you feel?”

    That made me feel great. Both my gf and I were done with casual when we met.

  • OffTheCuff

    Dog, that is sexy. I think I’d even date you for your honesty.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    Witnessing signs of a person’s humanity should be a prerequisite for exclusivity.

    Don’t you mean the reverse? You talked about men not revealing before commitment.

    • @Herb

      Don’t you mean the reverse? You talked about men not revealing before commitment.

      I don’t equate humanity with weakness or vulnerability. I would define showing signs of humanity as including displays of genuine empathy, kindness, generosity, joy. An awareness and concern for people and things other than oneself.

  • Mike C

    John,

    Some insightful and original points and perspective. I think you’ve hit on an interesting theme with the Old Money versus New Money in addressing sexual market power.

    Wudang,

    As always, well developed thoughts that force me to go back and reread and ponder. Regarding your comments on Deida, what I’ve found pretty consistently is that when you are communicating with women, HOW YOU SAY something is more important than what you say in terms of the reaction you’ll get.

    If you were to analyze the substantive comment of say blogger X or commenter Y and really drill down, you might find the actual point really is quite similar, but the way in which it is said can trigger a visceral negative reaction or the person might listen to what is being said. Dogsquat is a good example of how to deliver a message in a way that doesn’t turn the female reader off. He uses humor very effectively to get the reader to listen to the point. Of course, a guy writing for guys can deliver the message minus the garnishes and decorations around the plate to make the main course look more appetizing.

    • @Mike C

      Dogsquat is a good example of how to deliver a message in a way that doesn’t turn the female reader off. He uses humor very effectively to get the reader to listen to the point. Of course, a guy writing for guys can deliver the message minus the garnishes and decorations around the plate to make the main course look more appetizing.

      Yes, Dogsquat is a master of diplomacy. It’s a wonderful gift and a key part of his charm. He also is moderate in his views, and genuinely willing to consider both sides of a question. I appreciate that he communicates here in a way that encourages women to participate rather than go away. 🙂

  • College Kid

    Mike C, Deida is very new agey. That’s why women swoon over him. Watch some of his videos on youtube. Quite feminine if you ask me.

  • That made me feel great. Both my gf and I were done with casual when we met.

    Okay then. So guys there is one guy that doesn’t care so obviously women are not being as deliberately obtuse about it, you are probably are in the minority. Jess has been right all along /sarcasm

  • @Dogsquat
    If I was honest, up-front, and never ommitted anything I’d be an involuntary celibate.

    This “involuntary celibate” isn’t going to argue with you! 😛

    “Hi, I’m Dogsquat! I’m looking to get into a long term relationship. I saw you over here and I think you’re attractive enough for the job. I’m monogamous by nature, and you have to be as well for me to consider you. Also, I won’t be interested in you if you’ve been promiscuous in the past, so how many people have you slept with, and in what contexts? Yes, oral counts. Also, I’d like to know about your parents because that factors in a marriage. What is your IQ? Do you have any health problems? I have PTSD and a screwed up leg from the war.”

    Hahahaha! Okay, I’m not that up front when I meet people . . . although I did once tell someone on the second date that I wanted to adopt orphans with special needs. Let me work on my script now (based entirely on your template) and see which one of us turns out to be more “undateable.”

  • Underdog

    “That made me feel great. Both my gf and I were done with casual when we met.”

    I had that exact sentiment when my gf and I first got serious. “I’m done fucking around with random girls and I’m glad I pulled this hottie off the market and have her all to myself. Her number’s lower than mine so it’s all good.”

    Stick around.

    • I had that exact sentiment when my gf and I first got serious. “I’m done fucking around with random girls and I’m glad I pulled this hottie off the market and have her all to myself. Her number’s lower than mine so it’s all good.”

      This is exactly what Jason said recently. It didn’t last because he couldn’t get past her number, which was 16 compared to his own number of 40.

  • @Dogsquat
    I forgot to say that I personally don’t think your script is that bad! As OTC said, I’d date you for your honesty!

    Then again, I’m the one who once made a friend by telling her, “I’ve been reading this book that says there are no such thing as coincidences, and if someone’s face or name pops into your mind for no reason, then you should go and talk to him or her . . . And then your face popped into my mind, so now I’m talking to you.” (True story. All of it.)

  • Herb

    @SayWhaat

    Perhaps, but I think the malevolence in the manosphere probably surpasses that of feminist websites.

    http://community.feministing.com/2011/12/18/5-rape-prevention-tips-for-guys/

    Try that one on for size and repeat that statement:

    1. Every guy is a potential rapist – including you. This sounds like utter bullshit, right? I mean, you’re a good guy, you aren’t hiding in the bushes or lurking down some dark alley to jump out and force sex on a woman. Part of the problem is that most rapes aren’t the violent stranger-rape type. Many cases of sexual assault happen in cases where the perpetrator doesn’t think what he’s doing is rape. You may think you’re being daring and confident when you go in for a kiss – the girl on the other end may feel like you’re forcing yourself on her and be legitimately scared for her safety. You may think you’re being coy by putting your arm up in front of the door and saying, “how about a kiss?” – the girl may feel like you’re seriously blocking her from leaving. What you intend doesn’t matter in comparison to how she feels about it.

    All men are potential rapists and putting your arm up is sexual assault.

    Then women get pissy if men say “all women are potential cuckoldresses”.

    I get Susan and Athol’s point, but the fact is the manosphere is reaction to stuff like this. The big difference is young men going to college is forced to at least pretend to agree to the above in freshman orientation at college or sexual harassment training in the military.

    Women don’t have to face the manosphere ever if they don’t want.

    • @Herb

      I get Susan and Athol’s point, but the fact is the manosphere is reaction to stuff like this.

      The manosphere is a two-headed being with MRA on one side and Game on the other. Many of the guys reading Game blogs couldn’t care less about Men’s Rights, except in an abstract sense. And many MRAs are not seeking any advice on how to be better with women.

      As someone who blogs about relationships, I get mostly Game guys here.

  • Herb

    @Jones

    To bolster my point with an analogy, it’s interesting that men in societies where homosexuality is utterly taboo – a complete nonstarter – there is more emotional intimacy between men, because less need to prove your gender/sexual identity, which can be taken for granted. In the same way, having to constantly prove your manhood to women reduces scope for emotional intimacy with them.

    Actually, that’s a good analogy.

    In fact, I’ve wondered if the modern western conception of marriage: as your source for emotional intimacy and support as opposed to just for reproduction with same sex friends being your intimates is a mistake.

  • Mike C

    You’ve said many times that men should never believe what a woman has to say about female sexuality.

    That isn’t my position

    I never said I was unwilling to debate, just that I find it frustrating that it’s even necessary to explain that women are not exotic pets.

    IDK…when certain discussions/debates come up you got that card to play that “it isn’t central to your mission” but when you feel like it you’ll bring the debate up. Certainly your prerogative.

    There are no negatives in female nature. None. And there are no negatives in male nature.

    And this is where we part ways. Honestly, I find this an absurd position at least within the context of a highly modern, structured civilization which necessitates a high level of cooperation. Both sexes evolved with “natures” for small hunter-gatherer tribes where survival was the #1 imperative each day. ***BOTH*** sexes come with negatives. I’ve got no problem saying male nature has negatives. Frankly, I simply do not understand your reluctance to admit there are intrinsic aspects of BOTH the male and female hindbrain that are quite negative.

    Anyways, I’ve tried to quite intently avoid debating any of these points here so I’ll try to keep my comments minimal. I’ll leave it to Dogsquat to engage you diplomatically on points of disagreement.

    • @Mike C

      You’ve said many times that men should never believe what a woman has to say about female sexuality.

      That isn’t my position

      I’ve seen you say, here and elsewhere – that men should avoid discussing their relationships with women, and even that they should avoid discussing them at HUS. You’ve offered approval for taking the discussion to a blog with zero or one woman present. How have I misunderstood your position?

      IDK…when certain discussions/debates come up you got that card to play that “it isn’t central to your mission” but when you feel like it you’ll bring the debate up. Certainly your prerogative.

      I’ve noticed that each time I’ve directly challenged a concept or principle in the manosphere, you’ve wondered why I choose to deal with it at all. The reason is because my own comment threads are full of these topics, and I consider some of these ideas wrong and counterproductive. If they’re going to come up, I want to respond because thousands of people are reading every word.

      It may not be central to my mission, but that didn’t stop Escoffier from wanting to discuss female hypergamy for a full day. Mostly, I’m in the position of responding to readers, and sometimes to other bloggers when they link. It’s more damage control than anything, and it’s often clear that women are relieved to have the issue addressed, as evidenced by the ones who de-lurk and voice their appreciation.

      As you say, it is my prerogative, but I am happy to explain my thinking on this. I’ve had to work very aggressively to rid HUS of some fairly toxic stuff, and to the extent that my posts signal to people that it’s not worth coming here to vent about women, that’s a good thing.

      Frankly, I simply do not understand your reluctance to admit there are intrinsic aspects of BOTH the male and female hindbrain that are quite negative.

      That’s a value judgment, and I don’t think that’s a valid framework for discussing biology. If you could tweak human nature in some way – let’s say you got rid of female hypergamy, as an example. The species would not survive. Same if women could magically take away the male preference for sexual variety. It’s the tension, the balance, and the negotiation of compromise between male and female mating strategies that makes people desire one another. Take anything away, and the whole model falls apart. That’s why I don’t find it useful to discuss sexuality in terms of negatives and positives – you really can’t know which is which.

      I don’t demonize men, and I don’t want to hear men demonize women. That just turns HUS into a battle ground, the antithesis of what I’m trying to do here.

  • Underdog

    “If I stick around will I start hoping my gf wants me for a once and done instead? Will I start looking forward to her dumping me?”

    No, you will start thinking along the time of:

    Why am I buying this cow when other guys are getting her milk for free?

  • Anacaona, I’m stumped. Should I feel bad that my gf wants to have a relationship with me?

    Most men that post here didn’t had the chance of having lots of casual when their girlfriends make them wait for sex in lieu of a relationship if you felt that great that is good for you but for the average sexless guys it feels like a scam to have “yes spent time and money on me but I won’t bang you till I feel like it, while banging other guys to fulfill my sexual needs or even if every other guy I meet was in my pants before knowing my full name”. Again you are in the minority in taking this as “peachy and loving”, YMMV.

  • Underdog

    “Most men that post here didn’t had the chance of having lots of casual when their girlfriends make them wait for sex in lieu of a relationship if you felt that great that is good for you but for the average sexless guys it feels like a scam to have “yes spent time and money on me but I won’t bang you till I feel like it, while banging other guys to fulfill my sexual needs or even if every other guy I meet was in my pants before knowing my full name”. Again you are in the minority in taking this as “peachy and loving”, YMMV.”

    To add to your point:

    1. I did have the chance of having lots of casuals (after I became a PUA)
    2. My gf didn’t make me wait for sex.

    But after over a year of dating this girl and further swallowing the red pill, I still ended up with the same insecurity and mistrust as the average beta.

    “Other guys aren’t getting her milk for free. I said we were both done with casual.”

    Okay, then:

    Why did you have to buy the cow when other guys got her milk for free?

  • Courtley

    Collegekid, I think you sound very rational and sensible, and you seem to think the way most young men that I personally know do about love and sexual relationships. 🙂 If other dudes dislike your standards for themselves that’s fine, but it’s interesting to me that some feel the need to try and prove that you’re making the wrong choice for yourself in order to validate their own preferences.
    Anyway:

    Hey, Susan! Been lurking for awhile, curious about many things. Hopefully I’ll be commenting more in the future–we’ll see. I’m an American woman in my mid-20s interested in this whole back-and-forth between the Manosphere and contemporary feminism and the way it does seem to come down to a battle over who will influence young women’s sexual choices the most.

    One of the things I keep running into that simply makes the MRA/PUA/Roissy-ish mindset confusing to me is indeed this idea of women’s sexual turn-ons having evolved to include aggression, dominance and general assholery by men, with the reasoning being that these are traits that signal healthy, strong offspring and the ability to protect one’s young from danger. It’s a cogent enough theory and certainly I’ve known some women who fit that description, but . . .it has just never seemed applicable to ME. I’m a straight woman who isn’t wired that way at all, and while I think evo-psych is interesting and probably contains grains of truth, it needs to develop a lot more nuances in my view–both on their science and their understanding of the social situations from which people are reading, digesting and interpreting their theories.

    1) Are there evo-psych theories out there that sort of account for the fact that not all women respond sexually to dominance? I have never, since puberty, been sexually attracted to “alphas” (as per Game definition). Too much dominance has ALWAYS been a massive sexual turn-off. And I mean that in the most basic, animalistic sense possible. I find gentleness and sweetness in men to be very erotic; I’ve fallen hard for more than one gay or bisexual man, and all my other great love interests have all been very “beta” by Game definition (but none have been as into me as I was into them, ultimately). I sometimes joke about being a gay man in a woman’s body–drawn to certain effeminate characteristics in men, but NEVER sexually drawn to women or wanted to experiment with them. Definitely hetero.

    I think I’m sexually wired to be turned on by a sense of security or the potential for security in a sexual relationship–and I know that you and Athol have written a bit about this, but hardcore “Game” bloggers really seem to ignore it. I’m definitely turned on by the idea of someone being gentle/careful in the bedroom–as a very, very small woman, like 5-feet tall, 95-lb small, I find large and sexually aggressive men sort of “anti-erotic” in my brain. All of this seems to make sense to ME from an evo-psych idea–I’m a small woman from a line of smallish people who probably instinctively knew that males too large or physically aggressive could be detrimental to their ability to carry and rear healthy offspring, since they could do serious damage to mothers if they wanted to. I also find intelligence to be a great turn-on, and I’ve always attributed this to having a really smart, cultured dad and being an introvert who prefers reading or intellectual discussions to partying. From an evo-psych position, would this mean I had ancestors who figured out that the ability to invent new tools and think their way out of sticky situations actually led to a greater chance of survival than just brute strength or athleticism?

    I totally get that there are women out there who ARE turned on by strength and dominance. But I can’t be alone, and I suppose I’d theorize that there have to be sort of like…different lines of evolutionary-psychological factors that have come to influence what different men and women find sexually stimulating. Yes, humanity may be one species, but all of our ancestors didn’t live in identical places under identical circumstances. We have different levels and types of intelligence and different aptitudes in many different areas as human beings. Why the insistence that our sexuality is all so one-size-fits-all? I think part of the answer lies in this theory I have about different social demographics in America/the west/the Anglosphere:

    My second point relates back to this paragraph of yours:
    2) “I’ve debated this view of female nature more times than I care to admit here at HUS, and more than once I’ve wracked my brain to come up with a single example of a woman who fits this description. I believe they do exist, but only because I’ve seen them on TV.”

    A lot of feminist blogs (which I shall not name here, haha, but we can guess) often point out–very accurately, in my view–that MRA/Manosphere types tend to define “Woman” as like, the overtypical all-American blonde who shops at Abercrombie, has a fake tan, loves celebrity culture and religiously watches reality TV, loved ‘Sex and the City,’ and is of pretty average if not low intelligence. Likewise, too, their definition of “man” are the two tired archetypes of American males according to high school movies and television–the jock and the nerd. That’s it. Those are the people who comprise the world, or at least American/Western culture. Sometimes a few other archetypes might make it in there–undesirable fat girl or weird, smart nerdy chick, or maybe like druggie wannabe rockstar-dude whose charisma and access to crack gets him the laydiez a la Mick Jagger. Still, I get this impression that the Manosphere and Game and general is applicable to like….people who inhabit very, very mainstream, “typical” American culture, and I don’t really relate to that and neither do a lot of people that I know. I’m from a small, liberal, artsy, often-parodied city on the West Coast, where saying you want a guy with lots of money, spending lots of time at the gym or owning a fancy, gas-guzzling car are all HIGHLY frowned upon. That environment has its own dating/hookup/relationship culture and set of issues, with plenty of pretension and posturing, but it’s a different world from that of the pickup-artists, who really can’t seem to conceive of the existence of attractive women who don’t emulate Carrie Bradshaw.

    OK, this was loooooong and I apologize. My big point is that often, when I see these arguments between PUA/Manosphereists and feminists online, it strikes me that they are writing from across a big cultural divide that neither of them seem aware of. The reality of a feminist woman living in Seattle or San Francisco working as a graphic designer and going to art galleries and music festivals and dating men who openly identify as feminists themselves is pretty culturally removed from that of dudes living in more, I guess, mainstream/typical parts of the country, heading out to local bars on weekends to pick up on the girls who idolize Kim Kardashian. Of course they’re going to fundamentally disagree with each other on the reality of human nature because they are essentially talking about very different kinds of people. Yes, I know this is generalizing to a large degree, but I think acknowledging that we have a few differing and competing subcultures within American society could be helpful to what really does seem to be shaping up into a massive cultural conversation/debate.

    • @Courtley

      Welcome, and thanks for your thoughtful and insightful comment. You’ve made a key observation that is very important. We could sum it up as “Your mileage may vary” or “not all women are like that” to name a couple of common phrases in these parts. But I too feel that in general, the theories around female sexuality in particular are overly simplistic. I don’t think this is true at the research level – if you’ve been reading a while then you’ve seen me list all the traits women seek when mating, both for short-term and long-term. We may make some general statements, based on what we’ve learned:

      Dominant men do better with women than supplicating men.

      That is, many women seek dominance and reward it with sexual attraction. There is no evidence that women prefer high levels of dominance, or that there is even a “sweet spot” for most women. This is highly individual and variable. Certainly you’re not alone in your description of what you find attractive in men – as far as I know there is only one regular female commenter here who prefers alphas (as demonstrated by actual experience, not theoretical musings).

      Women’s attraction to men with the Dark Triad traits has also been studied, and what has been demonstrated repeatedly is that men and women with these traits are often drawn to one another. Women who like Dark Triad types generally prefer short-term mating to LTRs. And there is a high correlation between liking Dark Triad men and specific personality traits, such as low agreeableness, low conscientiousness, high novelty-seeking, high risk-taking. Obviously, it’s ludicrous to extrapolate by saying that all women dig jerks, just because we can point to a jerk and observe that he’s getting laid.

      Women generally prefer to mate with men of higher status than their own, and men generally prefer to mate with women of lower status than their own.

      The question of status is variable. There is socioeconomic status, educational status, social prestige, social dominance, and social proof. The context is also important – there are men who enjoy very high status in the penitentiary.

      As the marriage rate declines, and the number of males enrolled in college continues to decline, it will be interesting to see how people pair off. Some studies say women will adjust and become less hypergamous. It remains to be seen how men feel about partnering with women of higher status.

      These are just two examples of nuance that I think is often overlooked in the manosphere. It’s because Game is a product, and it’s a product that is easier to sell, and teach, with a set of clear rules. We may say that Game works, but any analysis of its effectiveness must take into account the opportunity cost. In this case, which women are you missing out on when you run asshole game?

  • INTJ

    @ Courtney

    Well as you point out, different mating strategies have different benefits, so everyone is not going to evolve to carry out the same psychological strategy.

    Additionally, there’s just individual variance. For example, most guys like large breasts and large buttocks. I don’t. All I care about is that she is easily distinguishable from an androgynous male. I’m not sure if large breasts and large buttocks are indicators of fertility or anything. If they are, I’m just not programmed to look for those signs of fertility.

  • INTJ

    @ College Kid

    Then they can dump their girlfriends and go out and play the field if they think that will make them happy.

    No need to get all aggressive (unless you’re trying to display alpha male dominance). You can tolerate a certain type of sexual past, while others (such as I) can’t.

    • I just want to say that Plain Jane pretending to be male is especially objectionable. The guys respond to another male, and they’re being deceived. It’s just wrong on so many levels, ugh.

  • Herb

    @Courtley

    lot of feminist blogs (which I shall not name here, haha, but we can guess) often point out–very accurately, in my view–that MRA/Manosphere types tend to define “Woman” as like, the overtypical all-American blonde who shops at Abercrombie, has a fake tan, loves celebrity culture and religiously watches reality TV, loved ‘Sex and the City,’ and is of pretty average if not low intelligence. Likewise, too, their definition of “man” are the two tired archetypes of American males according to high school movies and television–the jock and the nerd. That’s it.

    My response to that is the same feminist blogs tend to see one kind of man: the next rapist and two kinds of women: empowered sluts and victims of the patriarchy.

    They two sides aren’t that different, they just reverse who is crammed into the sets of labels.

  • Herb

    @Courtney (even though I’m quoting INTJ)

    Well as you point out, different mating strategies have different benefits, so everyone is not going to evolve to carry out the same psychological strategy.

    Additionally, there’s just individual variance.

    Very much this. Consider, beyond your lack of response to dominance there are women turned on by being the dominant partner (or turned on by submissiveness in men depending on how you like to look at it). No female readers here have said they’re in that group but two male posters are openly their matching type.

    Light colored hair is a sign of youth therefore an evo-psych turn on, but I like redheads, the darker the hair the better.

  • Herb

    @College Kid

    Take it up with the evo-psych guys.

    And all the African-American men chasing blondes and the African-American women pissed at them.

    On a more serious note, I have wondered if other hair colors tend to darken with age to a degree perceptible to the average person.

  • Jacob Ian Stalk

    Susan wrote in response to Mike C:

    There are no negatives in female nature. None. And there are no negatives in male nature. We are biologically programmed to fulfill a function, and I think an argument can be made that both sexes are perfect. Nature is not the problem. It’s human motivation, intent, selfishness and carelessness that causes all the difficulty.

    Susan, I disagree with this on its face. The fundamental problem facing civilised humans (human beings) is that Nature is dog eat dog by necessity. The human animal’s nature and motivation is selfish and careless. In fact, male and female in the animal kingdom do not “naturally” get along with other at all. They might fit together once in a blue moon but they are certainly not “perfect” for each other. Animals typically only co-operate when there is mutual advantage in doing so. Absent this selfish motivation and they would kill or maim each other (and each other’s young) if the opportunity presented itself.

    Civilisation is defined by the ‘something other’ that the human being possesses that the human animal does not. That thing, call it God or whatever you want, compels us to behave contrary to our nature for the greater good.

    • @Jacob

      Civilisation is defined by the ‘something other’ that the human being possesses that the human animal does not. That thing, call it God or whatever you want, compels us to behave contrary to our nature for the greater good.

      I think we’re saying the same thing, or close enough. We don’t judge animals for behaving according to their natures. We do judge human beings for following their base instincts without regard for others. It’s the responsibility that comes with second order thinking and what has enabled us to build civilization. We apply self-discipline, cooperation and a host of other behavioral traits to produce. We have the ability to manipulate our natures, which was one of Athol’s main points. The same qualities that one might consider “bad” in nature for dating may be “good” in another situation. Nature is amoral, and therefore not good or bad.

  • Courtley

    @ Herb
    “My response to that is the same feminist blogs tend to see one kind of man: the next rapist and two kinds of women: empowered sluts and victims of the patriarchy.

    They two sides aren’t that different, they just reverse who is crammed into the sets of labels.”

    I don’t think a response that essentially says “feminists misjudge men too so there” really deals with my point very adequately. My proposition is that the Manosphere’s definition of women is myopic because their own interaction with women is limited–by choices, by geography, by other factors both within and outside of their own control. I think, therefore, that a lot of their observations about women are very true when it comes to the women that they are actually thinking of when making these generalizations. It simply doesn’t ring true for the people–male or female–who inhabit different kinds of social circles. Likewise I also think it’s true that women who actually believe all men are violent rapists have spent a lot of time in some kind of social demographic where this unfortunately tends to be at least somwhat true, such as someone who grew up around abusive men.

  • Civilisation is defined by the ‘something other’ that the human being possesses that the human animal does not. That thing, call it God or whatever you want, compels us to behave contrary to our nature for the greater good.

    I think the truth is in the middle there are studies that show that animals and and do have acts of selflessness and empathy so “nature” did gave us good traits too. The thing is that our dynamics for everything are complex and a mix of reasons make the individual and the society accept certain behaviors as good or bad and then there is a huge part of us that just conform the change usually comes when those behaviors are not conductive to a good overall well being of the majority, hence extremists will be loud for a while and get incorporated and become the norm (French Revolution) or get proven wrong and discarded (communism), what we have against us is time till the natural conclusion of feminism happens we of course have time in our favor, this situation cannot sustain itself forever.

  • Courtley

    Also . . . I didn’t want to bring up race in my post, but I’d be curious to read evo-psych studies done on sexual attraction that includes some kind of categorization by race. Yes, it’s controversial and not PC and makes people uncomfortable and could potentially contribute to negative types of prejudice, BUT, at some point, if we’re talking about ancestors and evolution, race is bound to come up.

    I’m temporarily living and working in Asia, and it’s fascinating to me to see how men here are allowed to be very effeminate/metrosexual without compromising their masculinity or their ability to attract women. There’s really very little correlation between the kind of “ruggedness” that often is descriptive of masculinity in the West and social dominance here. But make no mistake, this society is still far less feminist than the Anglosphere despite how metro its dudes are (although still far more feminist then, say, Saudi Arabia).

  • Who’s studies are conducted using mostly white Americans, Canadians and Brits.

    My spiders senses feel a Plain Jane tell…

  • Herb

    @Courtly

    Likewise I also think it’s true that women who actually believe all men are violent rapists have spent a lot of time in some kind of social demographic where this unfortunately tends to be at least somwhat true, such as someone who grew up around abusive men.

    If you modified that with assumed to be true I’ll agree. Too many women present some variant on it to say they’ve all experienced it. It’s much like the 1 in 4 women are raped in college stat that so many people just assume is true without looking into it (basic back of the envelope calculations show it requires, even assume very, very low reporting rates, that the single strongest correlation to rape is college attendance).

    My proposition is that the Manosphere’s definition of women is myopic because their own interaction with women is limited–by choices, by geography, by other factors both within and outside of their own control. I think, therefore, that a lot of their observations about women are very true when it comes to the women that they are actually thinking of when making these generalizations. It simply doesn’t ring true for the people–male or female–who inhabit different kinds of social circles.

    One of the reasons I stated they are the same and just reverse the labels is because the social circle these men inhabit are very often the very same ones the feminists in question do. Certainly both groups are heavily made up of western college educated (or in college) individuals. Given this blog and most of the ones discussed in it are in English we can even say that with a few outliers the posting populations are from nations with an English heritage (the UK, Canada, US, Australia, and NZ).

    I do consider that important. It’s not “feminists misjudge men too” but “the same worldview draw from the same background are used to fight over who is the victim and how to quit being victimized”. Maybe it’s the algebraist in me talking, but if I can make a mapping between two sets that preserves certain operations I’m happy to view them as equivalent.

  • Herb

    @Ana:

    I was having the same feeling earlier, but I wanted to give her credit.

    Although it is a good name, she is quite the college kid. Although before I saw you shared my suspicion I was going to tell her quit being Sheldon.

  • I was having the same feeling earlier, but I wanted to give her credit.

    Likewise the wording was different but the concepts were the same. I didn’t wanted to make a mistake given that English is not my first language but now I think is obvious.

    Although it is a good name, she is quite the college kid. Although before I saw you shared my suspicion I was going to tell her quit being Sheldon.

    Funny 🙂

  • truthseeker

    College Kid, don’t listen to the other bloggers deriding you for being in a relationship with your gf. Not everyone wants to be Roosh and sleep with 7,000 vaginas. Frankly, if everyone were Roosh, our society would be over already.

  • Courtley

    @ Herb

    I don’t think we’re defining social circles in the same way. I think there’s a reason for that, and we have to start defining “social circles” by more than just being a member of the Anglosphere and having a college degree. There’s still huge variety in family background, regional culture and interests within that demographic, especially considering that so many people in their 20s now have at least some college, if not a B.A.

    I don’t have any friends, male or female, who seem to fit the archetypes as described by the Manosphere. I have met exactly one pickup-artist in real life, the rest of the men I know don’t know what it is, or think it’s stupid/fundamentally disagree with its principles. I haven’t gone out of my way to find these dudes–they’re just people I happen to know. I also do know a few “alpha asshole” type of cad/players–a couple in my extended family unfortunately, including a longtime abuser of a truly beautiful but obviously messed-up wife–so, again, I don’t dispute the existence of these kinds of people, I just haven’t had a lot of contact with men like this. I always avoided overly-aggressive guys in school, etc. If the one person in question wasn’t a family member I would have had no personal contact with an “alpha asshole” whatsoever, certainly not by choice.

    Likewise, while I’ve definitely known some women who fall squarely into Manosphere’s definitions of femininity, those definitions don’t describe me or majority of my close female friends. My female friends are either happily married to nice guys/betas, as you’d call them, or want to be.

    I’m basically saying that yes, there’s obviously a large group of people out there whoaw experiences, or interpretation of them, DO line up with Manosphere definitions of human nature and reality. But there’s also a large percentage who don’t even so much philosophically disagree with pickup-artist/manosphere ideology (as you seem to suggest) as much as they are just deeply perplexed by it, because it doesn’t match up with the people they personally know In Real Life. My personal explanation is that despite having similar backgrounds on paper, there’s a lot of subcultures and varying demographics in the U.S. that aren’t being very well-accounted for here.

  • Herb

    “Not everyone wants to be Roosh and sleep with 7,000 vaginas.”

    I don’t even want to deal with that many people…

  • Courtley

    *whoaw should be “whose.” Obviously.

  • pvw

    What is the suspicion about “Plain Jane” about?

  • Herb

    @pvw

    Plain Jane is someone who needs a life even more than me. She gets banned and creates sock puppets to keep posting.

    She’s even openly claimed that people who were sock puppets got banned as her and told Susan to give up, she can’t win.

    So, she’s HUS’s protester whose mode of interacting is spamming things to either stir shit or prevent rational discussion who also gets on creating collateral damage.

    Yet, she won’t take LeMay as part of one of her fake names…very disappointing.

  • Herb

    Since I’m bringing up LeMay again, I have to ask how many of my fellow HUS posters knows the correct three words to end each verse of The Air Force Song (or the correct title for that matter).

  • What is the suspicion about “Plain Jane” about?

    Herb explained better but to expand among her names were bag lady and poly desi. I’m starting to think that banning her is not the answer given that she can work around that. Maybe just ignoring her announce that she is back to her old tricks and warn anyone that thinks that can have a decent debate to her not to engage. Her real life is so boring that she needs our attention so let’s just deny it to her and see what happens.

  • Herb

    @Ana:

    If we ignore her she’ll start writing stuff like this:

    “Then you’re really going to be Mine!” he thundered. “Because I Alone can teach you the gift of submission, give rise to your slave heart, grant to you the loving dominance of My Masterful Aggression, all tempered, of course, with rationality and with all due care and attention given to risk-aware negotiation! I will teach you to serve Me with your submissive soul, your passive power, your girly gushiness, train you to come at the snap of My Fingers and find true freedom in your complete subjugation to My Will. Yes…you will even learn…Bad Grammar.”

    (credit to L. Antoniou for her parody).

  • Kathy

    This is a brilliant post Susan.

    “…………..We’re also programmed to reject any man who reveals his humanity, vulnerability, or need as a runt who can’t survive the rough and tumble world long enough to mate and care for his family.
    I’ve debated this view of female nature more times than I care to admit here at HUS, and more than once I’ve wracked my brain to come up with a single example of a woman who fits this description. I believe they do exist, but only because I’ve seen them on TV. ”

    I too don’t see calculating, heartless women like the manosphere portrays them,where I live in Oz, either.But would get shot down in flames by bitter men (on manosphere blogs) who would tell me I have no idea how women think, or that I am playing for team woman, or that I am a feminist (and I am not) Or, and this one was a beauty.. Just hanging around because I got gina tingles from the male commenters.. ROFL!

    I got fed up some time ago with this jaded view that the manosphere have of ALL women. Selfish, heartless, can’t truly love a man like a man can love a woman. They ALL want to marry a walking wallet have kids then kick him to the curb. Yadda yadda yadda.

    In the end what sympathy I had, finally dissapated..

    I got sick of all the name calling and outright nastiness and accusations coming from some male commenters, and the blog owners who facilitated and encouraged such vile stuff, often twisting what female commenters would say to justify their own poisonous views of women in general. I just came to see many of them as whingeing and whining, and wallowing in their victimhood. Like cracked records saying the same thing over and over..One blogger in particular rehashing the same old stuff about “sluts” recently. Tedious and tiresome. Leading nowhere. Solving nothing

    Just a forum for bitching and moaning, really. Hadn’t had a look there for awhile until recently. Still the same old same old..

    “If that’s what you believe, of course it’s a bad thing. In this view, women are predators by nature, and men are victims of female immorality. I’ll say this – women are only as good, or as bad, as men are. We’ve evolved together, you and I, and we’re optimized to get together with the least difficulty possible. It’s not perfect, but we’re built to mate with speed and comfort, and we’re made to pair bond.

    There’s nothing more animal, more exotic or more unpredictable about one sex than the other. There can’t be. It wouldn’t be efficient”

    I want to high five you Suse, slap you on the back and just shout…. YES !YES !!YES!!!!

    “If the couple maintains the attitude that “we’re a team, we’re in this together” as opposed to “am I getting mine?” then the challenges are a lot less onerous. At least, that’s been my experience.”

    Mine too! Like you, I have been married a considerable time (16 years) and my husband and I function as a team. We meet the challenges together ..And there have been a few.. Having an autistic son was a huge adjustment, and it also affected our daughter as well as we could not go out and do the things normal families did, together. The incidence of divorce in couples with an autictic child is higher, too.

    Because we were committed to our marriage and we loved one another, what was an extremely challenging time in our lives (and still is, though we have some help now) had the effect of drawing us closer together.

    And my husband never had to game me either.. Never had to become something that he was not.(no negging, no indifference and none of this never apologize to a woman, BS.. etc.. Lol.) He is who he his. Strong. Doesn’t take shit from anyone. Treats everyone the way he would himself like to be treated. And is not anyone’s doormat! He is still the same decent honest man who I fell in love with nearly eighteen years ago.

    Thank you for being a voice of reason in a sea of insanity, Susan.

    Athol too, for telling it like it really is, between the sexes.

  • pvw

    Susan quoting Athol:

    Both men and women have biological drives toward a primary pair bond and opportunistic sex.
    Both men and women have modern socialization, education and intellect.
    Both men and women have access to technology that can gain some degree of control over sexual outcomes.
    Both men and women have rationalization hamsters.
    And then he describes what separates man from all other animals:

    Most importantly, both men and women can have either an unconscious relationship, or a conscious relationship….The conscious relationship, however, acknowledges that we have a ton of hormones and neurotransmitters following ancient programming telling us how to think and feel…Because we are conscious of these things, we can also exert some conscious control over them by our actions.

    My reply:

    I find this all interesting, because I never heard of arguments regarding evolutionary psychology before seeing your posts here. For me, socialization and intellect have been paramount in determining my approach to dating and relationships. The biological is there; how did it fuel my attractions in the past? I can’t say, because my socialization and INTJ intellect have been paramount.

    My socialization in my younger years: raised by my family to understand how I am supposed to behave, the way a well-brought up young woman should be and act in the world. This requires a certain level of awareness and introspection.

    What attracted me biologically to the husband? I don’t know, because I can’t say, that isn’t how I was thinking. I recall being attracted to him, not only because of his looks, but drawing upon my intellect, his socialization mirrored my own–we value the same things and have similar ideas about life and how we should live.

    I valued his awareness and introspection. As I got to know him, I understood his vulnerabilities and how he dealt with them, along with his success in surmouning them. I knew he would be good long-term partner material, and this also helped me in understanding what type of spouse he needed. And this goes both ways; he understands what I need as well.

    I have chosen to have a conscious relationship with Mr. PVW grounded in monogamy, integrity, decency and loyalty. This is mutual and grounded in our socialization.

    • @pvw

      What attracted me biologically to the husband? I don’t know, because I can’t say, that isn’t how I was thinking. I recall being attracted to him, not only because of his looks, but drawing upon my intellect, his socialization mirrored my own–we value the same things and have similar ideas about life and how we should live.

      I think most women share this experience – we’re not digging down to the cellular level to analyze the attraction. We just feel it, and depending on our own triggers, we may be more or less disposed to reward the things you mentioned, including character, intelligence and demeanor. If we’re fortunate enough to experience that as a mutual attraction, we pair off. This is very similar to my own experience.

  • Sassy6519

    Take it up with the evo-psych guys.

    And all the African-American men chasing blondes and the African-American women pissed at them.

    There is definitely tension in the black community surrounding this issue, but it’s not as big as it seems. Some black women do care, while others couldn’t care less.

    I’m in the couldn’t care less group. I really have no room to talk when I predominately date white men myself. Everyone is fair game, in my opinion, regardless of race. If you are attractive, I might make a move on you. It’s as simple as that

    Aside from that:

    **Major News**

    I went on the most AMAZING first date last night. I’m still reeling from the butterflies in my stomach as I type this. He seemed just as into me as I was into him as well.

    If we continue to see each other, you better believe that I’m going to try to lock this guy down. It’s hard to even put this into words.

    Good god, someone pinch me….

    • @Sassy

      Sounds promising! Mostly I’m thrilled that you are well and truly over the ex. I hope this plays out just how you want it to.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “No, women want to be submissive to males. The asshole routine is a cartoon version of what women want, and it is effective on some women. In the short-term it can be very effective in a time when most men exhibit little dominance. When you’ve got 20 men in a room, and 2 are assholes, while the rest display zero dominance, the assholes will get all the girls. I’m not saying this to blame men, I’m just being honest about contemporary gender dynamics.”

    Lets not even dick around about it.
    Most men are pussies. Blame put exactly where it should be.

    I agree with you 100%.

    Now heres what I question.
    Do they want to be submissive to men in general or to specific individuals?
    I’m assuming individuals.

    Currently, do most women prefer the same individuals.
    Yes.

    So, fun thought experiment.
    If we raised the general level of male dominance would the alpha-beta dichotomy itself dissolve as more men are able to satisy a womans need for submission or would it merely raise the bar required to be one of the few individuals?

    • @Lokland

      If we raised the general level of male dominance would the alpha-beta dichotomy itself dissolve as more men are able to satisy a womans need for submission or would it merely raise the bar required to be one of the few individuals?

      Good question! We had this discussion here once. Here’s what I asked:

      If you put 100 random men on a desert island with 100 random women, I accept that 20% of the men would emerge as the ones that women find most desirable. What happens if you populate an island with 100 random women and 100 men who are extremely desirable? George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Hugh Jackman, etc. Would you find that 80% of those men would be out of luck?

      I don’t think so. As I recall, there was no consensus on that question, even among the men. What do you think?

  • Kathy

    “This is exactly what Jason said recently. It didn’t last because he couldn’t get past her number, which was 16 compared to his own number of 40.”

    Well, I find that very sad… Slept with 40 women!!

    Wouldn’t touch him with a barge pole.

    What, he expected a virgin.???

    A mate of my husband’s had slept with 40 or 50 women.. When he finally married he ended up cheating on his wife…..

    She ended the marriage and is now happily married in her second marriage.

    He told me once over a few drinks that he made the biggest mistake of his life… Cheating on his wife.

    Just couldn’t bond I reckon.. Had too many women before her…

    Jason needs to wake up!

  • deti

    “or even to take a break from being a cock on the carousel.”

    There’s a lot of guys reading this who have never even got to stand next to the carousel or even seen what the carousel looks like, much less get to be a cock on the carousel.

    There are a lot of guys out there who would give their left nuts to be a cock on the carousel.

    • @deti

      There’s a lot of guys reading this who have never even got to stand next to the carousel or even seen what the carousel looks like, much less get to be a cock on the carousel.

      I understand that. One thing I often hear is that women hate Game b/c it gives men sexual agency, it returns power to men. As someone who is biased towards relationships, I confess it’s hard to stomach the idea of all the guys with Game demanding no-strings sex. But I respect the right of each individual to pursue whatever they want – not everyone is cut out for long-term mating.

  • Underdog

    “If her number is fairly low, then it sounds like your issue is who she chose to have sex with. Do you know those guys – are they really assholes and not at all nice? Even if she had a few ONSs, it doesn’t mean she gave it up for assholes. Beta guys have ONSs too. In fact, a good-looking beta has an easier time getting a ONS than a relationship.”

    She hooked up with 5 guys her freshman year. 3 were ONSs who treated her like shit and the other 2 fucked her for a few months before cutting her lose because she wanted more. I never met these guys, but if they could hook up with a girl as hot as her and not think anything of it, they were pretty high up on the social ladder. Also 2 of the boys she had ONS with were in frats, so I’m pretty sure they were assholes. She had LTRs with 2 “nice” boys until her junior year and dumped both because they didn’t tingle her. Then she met me, who knew how to act like an asshole but was ready to quit at that point. On top of that, we had sex on the first official date. I guess my insecurity comes from the fact that her threshold for dominance is so high because of her sexual history. I know enough game to keep her tingling and shut down her shit tests (I don’t get them much anymore) and she’s totally in love, but deep down, I’m still insecure given what I know about her and about game. I think if she hadn’t gone through her “I’m a hot girl having sex to empower myself” phase and allowing herself to taste the alpha cock, she’d still be with one of those 2 “nice” boys, because I’ve met one of them and he wasn’t “weak” nice at all — he was just an average guy — an average girl would totally be all over him. He just couldn’t give her the tingles.

    • @Underdog

      Your story is unfortunately very typical in this SMP – we’ve heard several similar stories recently. In her defense, she grew up getting some pretty strong messages about sex as a form of empowerment. But that doesn’t change the reality that she may have been changed by it in some way and you feel concerned about her history. This is one of the most important things I can tell women – guys care about your number, and about the way you racked up the body count.

  • Wudang

    “Jason needs to wake up!”

    Nope, Jason almost certainly can get a woman with a much lower number. Since he can get that and that is a better deal for him there is no reason to blame him for that.

  • OffTheCuff

    K: ‘Jason needs to wake up!’

    He dumped her. I’m sure he’s crying in shame, and all alone. So alone.

    He’ll probably find someone like thisisjen who actually likes players, and finds her husband’s past exploits hot. Which is easy… if women didn’t like players, they couldn’t exist.

    If Jason is reading, he can definitely find a lowish count woman. Even better is a woman who has never had a orgasm by another person, even if her count is not low. Guys suck in bed. Get her screaming and seizing on your wang, and you’ll bond her to you for life.

  • Sassy6519

    If Jason is reading, he can definitely find a lowish count woman. Even better is a woman who has never had a orgasm by another person, even if her count is not low. Guys suck in bed. Get her screaming and seizing on your wang, and you’ll bond her to you for life.

    Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “It’s the tension, the balance, and the negotiation of compromise between male and female mating strategies that makes people desire one another. Take anything away, and the whole model falls apart.”

    Actually the model wouldn’t fall apart.
    There a certain biochemical pathways that involve hundreds (potentially thousands) of sequential reactions linked into multiple pathways that are all interconnected.

    Through trial and error people discovered the individual parts that can be removed and those that cannot. Some parts are nonessential for the survival of the system.

    However if you remove all of these nonessential parts simultaneously the system falls apart.

    I think certain mating behaviours are essential and others could individually be removed without harm. However, I’m in no position to determine which and its a pipe dream to think we could ever experiment with gene manipulation in humans to see what happens.

    That doesn’t change the point that certain mating habits are vestigeal and no longer required. (Again, I’m in no position to determine which they are.)

  • Kathy

    Jason had a lowish count woman.. 16..(compared to his) He should have been grateful for that!
    He slept with 40 women.. shudders.. Pass me the barf bag.

    “Which is easy… if women didn’t like players, they couldn’t exist.”
    What you really mean is that if sluts didn’t like players.. lol.

    What you seem to forget is that water seeks it’s own level.

    Men inevitably marry women with similar partner counts.

    Good women don’t find high partner count men attractive..

    Just sleazy. Certainly not husband and father material..

    Sex is not rocket science. 😉

    • Just to be clear, I’m not judging Jason for his count. He is a good looking kid, he got to college, and women threw themselves at him. He’s still only 23. Jason is also following his instincts to apply a sexual double standard. It is what it is. I predict he will have no trouble attracting his choice of partners. Whether Jason is capable of maintaining a monogamous relationship at this point is open for debate.

      Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned Jason on a thread where he’s not participating, but he’s been very open about all of this previously.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    I think its a pointless question.
    Your never going to have a place filled with only desirable individuals.

    Now I’ll play along.

    To a certain degree both would occur.
    Likely more men would get laid however the bar would also be raised for alpha status.
    Instead of a 20/80 distribution amongst men it might end up 40/60 50/50 60/40 etc.
    I think it would depend upon the women and men involved individually.

    In the end theres still going to be a lot of male losers and females in polygamous relationships (or single).

    You’ll never reach near one hundred percent of each sex paired up. And yes, the system inherently makes male competition more fierce, simply because of birth numbers and current survival rates.

    ———————————————————-

    On another note.
    I was just walking to get my coffee.
    I had a thought on something you may have never considered before.

    You speak quite a bit about how assortitive mating worked, it was good etc.

    Most of us younger folks understand the concept as a theory but as a reality we have never seen or experienced it. For me, women have ALWAYS gone for the asshole in droves. I’ve never seen the good guy get laid or be prefered by the majority.

    I suspect this might be part of where the miscommunication occurs. You’ve seen it occur. You’ve seen it work.

    Most of the people your trying to help have not ever seen any type of assortative mating on a large scale. Its always been girls of all SMVs going for the uber hot guys.

    Call it a generational gap or something but its hard to believe women could be happy with their equal when I’ve never seen it on a large scale.

    • @Lokland

      Most of us younger folks understand the concept as a theory but as a reality we have never seen or experienced it. For me, women have ALWAYS gone for the asshole in droves. I’ve never seen the good guy get laid or be prefered by the majority.

      I suspect this might be part of where the miscommunication occurs. You’ve seen it occur. You’ve seen it work.

      That’s a really good observation, I’ve never thought of that before. It’s definitely true, and it informs my views, no question. When I came of age, we all figured out our place in the hierarchy. The QB1 got with the head cheerleader, and it filtered down from there. A female 6 got with a male 6, give or take a number. And the QB1 would usually not be tempted to cheat with the 6, because dating the head cheerleader conveyed enormous status. Of course, there were always some guys who did cheat with the handful of slutty girls, and they were often exposed when the girl got pregnant.

      We do still have assortive mating, particularly in the high SES population. However, it doesn’t look the same, and does often follow a “wild period” for both men and women.

  • Underdog

    “Good women don’t find high partner count men attractive..”

    I don’t know about that. One of the standard rom-com tropes is the good girl who makes the boy-slut change his ways and devote himself to her.

    Also, think about 50 shades of grey and all the women getting wet over the story of the good virgin girl being deflowered by the damaged man-slut.

  • Lokland

    @Kathy

    Just to make you puke again.

    My count is higher than Jasons.
    My fiance has an N=1.

    *Hands over clearplastic bag*

    Enjoy.

  • Underdog

    “You’ll never reach near one hundred percent of each sex paired up.”

    If your island was populated by 100 George Cloneys (see what I did there?) and 100 Kristina Shannons, do you think the pair ups would be 100%? How can there be a George Clooney who’s more alpha than another George Clooney?????

  • Wudang

    “Jason had a lowish count woman.. 16..(compared to his) He should have been grateful for that!
    He slept with 40 women.. shudders.. Pass me the barf bag.”

    So what. As long as he can get a woman with a lower count, and I have zero doubt that he can, why should he settle for one witha higher count just because you think it is not fair or less than he deserves or whatever. Even though some women will avoid him because of his number and some will be vary there are still tons of women who wil. Jason is very good looking, has a great body, is an engineer that graduated from a top school, is very masculine, has great game, probably has a good sense of style, has tons of preselection and wants a girlfriend before his mid twenties not at 35 or something. That is so valuable he can have his cake and it it too. In fact it is very difficult to find a guy that has what he has and who has not taken advatage of it to the extent he has or more.

    • That is so valuable he can have his cake and it it too. In fact it is very difficult to find a guy that has what he has and who has not taken advatage of it to the extent he has or more.

      Agreed, he is at the top of the hierarchy. I caught some grief for jokingly suggesting I’d like to introduce him to some young women. I like Jason, he is clearly a good guy, manslut experience notwithstanding. You really can’t blame men for going for it when women are fighting to give them lap dances at parties, as I’m sure they were in his case. In fact, if he’d been disinterested I would suspect he was asexual or gay.

  • Kathy

    To each his own..

    I am happy with the good and decent guy that I married. Never played around .
    A VERY good husband and a great Dad. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
    We have been married for 16 years.. Very happily. 🙂

    Lokland:”My count is higher than Jasons
    My fiance has an N=1.”

    Umm, yeah, good one Dude.

    Come back to me in ten years. 😉

  • Courtley

    @ pvw

    “My socialization in my younger years: raised by my family to understand how I am supposed to behave, the way a well-brought up young woman should be and act in the world. This requires a certain level of awareness and introspection.

    What attracted me biologically to the husband? I don’t know, because I can’t say, that isn’t how I was thinking. I recall being attracted to him, not only because of his looks, but drawing upon my intellect, his socialization mirrored my own–we value the same things and have similar ideas about life and how we should live.

    I valued his awareness and introspection. As I got to know him, I understood his vulnerabilities and how he dealt with them, along with his success in surmouning them. I knew he would be good long-term partner material, and this also helped me in understanding what type of spouse he needed. And this goes both ways; he understands what I need as well.

    I have chosen to have a conscious relationship with Mr. PVW grounded in monogamy, integrity, decency and loyalty. This is mutual and grounded in our socialization.”

    This rings completely true to me (though I’m not married). Of course we all have powerful biological drives, but socialization and environment a