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.
{ 1050 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 4 … 8 »
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.
@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.
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.
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….
@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.
@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.
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.
@OTC
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
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.
@Anacaona
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.
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.
@Lokland
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.
@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.
@Herb
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
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.
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.
@Herb
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.
@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?
“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!
@Mike C
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?
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
@Jacob
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.
“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.
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.
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
@Lokland
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?
@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.)
@deti
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
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.
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.
@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.
“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.
@Kathy
Just to make you puke again.
My count is higher than Jasons.
My fiance has an N=1.
*Hands over clearplastic bag*
Enjoy.
“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?????
“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.
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.
@ 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 and uprbinging ARE important, people! Neither nature nor nurture stand alone in human development–they’re entangled in a complicated relationship, one feeding the other, back and forth. Only focusing on one’s theories about our “animal” side is unwise, as is the feminist insistence (until very recently, perhaps) of only analyzing nurture for answers into human behavior, especially mating strategies.
@Kathy
“Come back to me in ten years. ”
No thanks. I don’t do expired goods.
“How can there be a George Clooney who’s more alpha than another George Clooney”
Well twins tend to end up with one being more dominant than the other within their relationship. If all the Clooneys needed to get some hunting done or organize som coconut picking they wuld need to make some sort of hierarchy etc. Some Clooneys would lead a bit more than others.
I think the Island example is very interesting and have thought about similar stuff myself. I think there is a combination of objective attraction and hierarchy based attraction. If the only thing that mattered was the hierarchy based attraction women today would be just as happy with the men in general as women where 50 years ago and western women would feel just as much tingling for a guy displaying the level of dominance that is a 5 in relative terms in the west as a Russian woman would for a guy displaying a level of 5 in relative dominance amongst Russian men. I think that is obviously not true. The guy on the middle of the dominance ladder 50 years ago or in Russia is dominant enough to make her see him as wrthy of respect and as a leader and he would not put up with her shit. The level 5 guy in the west today is not dominant enough to enspire the same respect. At the same time the Russian woman with the 5 or the woman 50 years ago with the 5 still isen`t all to happy that hubby is not as high up as her sisters hubby who is an 8 or a 9. So I think things do get better overal once men learn more game and that will to some extent calm down the female desire to trade up but it will never end it as the Clooney who gets to lead the other Clooneys always will be more attractive. I think it is key though that more harmony is not necessarily achieved unless the culture is fairly monogamous. If you look at the afircan american community or any place arround the world that has a highly promiscuos culture and frequent LTR partner changes and the men are dominant you get a rather exreme competition between the males but not much improves other than women tinglind more for the guy they are with at any moment. You need a monogamy dominant culture and guys with more game to achieve more harmony. But the culture can not be as strict on divorce as to make it extremely rare because then guys become lazy and forget their game abilities over time.
@Susan’s OP
I’ve noticed that reading the mannosphere more than a little at a time can make me quite depressed. Judging by the PUA strategy, I think they tend to assume women prefer to go through dating in what Athol calls the unconscious state. Think along the lines of Selena Gomez’s song “Naturally” as an example. Women can certainly make a shift to dating in a more conscious and deliberate manner. Most don’t. Then again, the reason PUA sites exist, is to give the red pill to blue pill men, so they can start to take more conscious control over their actions.
As far as my own experience with women goes, I’ve noticed the pattern that only women I’m not very attracted to wind up being attracted to me. After a while, you start to get the clue that they apparently hate it when you smile at them.
@Underdog
“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?????”
First. Things are never equal. As Wudang said, even amongst twins.
So lets say we did have people who were all 10/10.
In reality that nots gonna happen. Someone would be a 10.00000001 someone else might be a 9.99999999999. These minor differences would become exagerated to form the SMV hierarchy.
However I don’t doubt more people would be happy and in relationships but the dude who is a 9.8 would probably be SOL.
So the bar would raise. Yes.
Still more people would fit over the bar.
Its a strange and totally unnatural situation and my armchair analysis probably has a million holes in it but thats where I’d put my money.
“Come back to me in ten years. ”
No thanks. I don’t do expired goods.”
Ha ha ha ha ha… Touched a raw nerve have I?
I have my man, (my kids) and a good solid marriage.
Best of luck to you..
You are gonna need it!.
Court: “What attracted me biologically to the husband? … This rings completely true to me (though I’m not married). ”
How can you not be married, but have a husband?
Kathy’s insistence that all good women will always avoid players, is very much like the beta male delusion that players abuse women, women don’t really like them, and they’re always hurt by them. Blue pill thinking 101. You sound like me from age 15-35.
Some well-adjusted women do get with ex-players. It might not be the best bet, but it happens.
@Katy
“Touched a raw nerve have I?”
Yup. Writhing in emotional turmoil.
“Best of luck to you..”
You to cupcake.
@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?
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.
Susan:
“One thing I often hear is that women hate Game b/c it gives men sexual agency, it returns power to men.”
You have some who comment here who say pretty much exactly this. I think many times men don’t realize the power they have in the market.
But we’re seeing more and more of it — through withholding of commitment and investment. And I think women would do well to understand this. But I don’t believe some are connecting the dots –not because women are stupid, but because I think they don’t want to see it or they just can’t see things from men’s perspective.
Men are increasingly saying “Women are the gatekeepers of sex. That’s fine. I’m the gatekeeper of investment and commitment. If I can’t get sex, I won’t commit or invest. If I have no reasonable shot at winning, I just won’t play. Or, I won’t commit or invest until I get sex. If she starts withdrawing sex, I’ll start withdrawing commitment and investment.” It’s just a rational response to the marketplace men see and have to operate in.
“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.”
I don’t think you’ll have to stomach that idea, because it’s never going to happen for many reasons. First, most men who learn some game will never get proficient. Second, men who learn game have different reasons for it — some for PUA, some for relationships, some for marriage.
I think this notion of America becoming this vast wasteland of pick up artists spitting game in bars and parties and at work and in church, and taking innocent girls back to lairs for ONSs and pump & dumps, is wild overreaction.
We’ve already seen our future. It’s 35 year old men in their parents’ basements playing Halo and Mortal Kombat.
It’s 30 year old men who work good jobs, are reasonably fit and attractive, who can’t even get the 26 year old HB6 secretary or the HB 7 Sunday school teacher from church to share drinks after work (and who 35 years ago would have been married at 24 and been able to date within his sex rank easily).
It’s 39 year old attractive women (who are still pretty attractive) who threw away perfectly good men dropped in their laps and then write articles in national magazines wailing about where all the good men are.
It’s 40 year old female lawyers and bankers and accountants going on and on about their fabulous careers and six figure salaries and vacations and BMWs, and blinking incredulously when told that men don’t find any of that attractive at all.
It’s 28 year old waitresses who are 50 pounds overweight, wearing flip flops and sweatpants, with a 10+ partner count, talking about how once a few years ago, she sexed an alpha 8, when she’s now a 4 at best, but still holding out because “I deserve the best and I’m never gonna settle, nope, not ever.”
@pvw
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.
@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.
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.
Susan says: Since Athol is the only blogger who appears to get feedback of marriage improving, I consider his the only tried and tested method.
A while back Roissy reposted some interesting stuff that “Hawaiian libertarian” wrote about his improved marriage.
@Lokland
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.
OffTheCuff April 22, 2012 at 9:26 am
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.
——————————————————————–
dang! some people have good memories!
yep, just like the fairy tale—-must have been dumb luck…. he found” low number” me, and I found “alpha ready to commit” him
@ SayWHaat:
“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.”
Just because you can’t see it, or don’t want to see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. This site alone is replete with men sharing their stories of women ruthlessly wielding sexual power — giving it up to assholes as younger women, wasting their prime years on assholes, then acting the part of the “nice girl” and demanding a beta commit to her and holding out for that commitment. Meanwhile she is backed up by a feminist culture that tells her all this is good and right and the natural order of things.
We men come here and say the same things over and over and over again. I just don’t think this message is getting through. What I described in the paragraph above is a prominent feature of the current SMP and has been for a very long time. And a lot of women have been doing this with no accountability for a very long time. This is a fact of life for many men in the SMP. It was for me until about a year ago.
Women are bristling at having this pointed out to them and being called out for it.
And given all this, it makes perfect sense that men would withhold investment, demand up front sex as an indicator of interest before committing or investing further, and refuse investment if the IOIs aren’t there.
As far as my own experience with women goes, I’ve noticed the pattern that only women I’m not very attracted to wind up being attracted to me. After a while, you start to get the clue that they apparently hate it when you smile at them.
Indeed.
Which makes the “exotic animal” comparison not that far off the mark.
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.
@Sassy
I am soooo thrilled for you. Your exitement is palpable!
Sue: “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.”
These words, out of a Chrisitan woman’s mouth, is probably the most potent force for atheism there is. Sin is OK, if you’re hot enough, otherwise you are a loser. I’m glad I’m deconverted, but I’m still living with the mind wreckage.
““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?””.
.
Man “feels” like he learned a lesson and will never again allow a woman to waste months of HIS precious important time. Case closed.
@Susan The Old Money / inheritance framing is also useful because people already view receiving an inheritance = GOOD and squandering an inheritance = BAD. So judicious sexual behavior is not about imposing sharia law, which is how some women seem to view it, it’s about making wise choices for the long haul. I’ve done a few posts translating Old Money financial advice to sex/dating advice.
Enjoy your site a lot, important message.
@ Susan
@Susan
I’d say my ex-wife did a reverse form of it. She lost the weight she’d always had (I married her with it) and then traded up (in her estimation).
She also points out the fallacy of putting so much emphasis on virgins and the number. When we married her number was 1, me. I’ve wondered if I’d been 2 or 3 if she wouldn’t have felt she settled for the first man to show interest.
@Jet Tibet
Yes, Keoni Galt did write a series of posts about relationship Game, which he credits with saving his marriage. Vox Day is another married Game blogger I respect, though I don’t think he applies Game intentionally – he’s more of a natural. And there are several married bloggers who write about Game from a Christian perspective.
But Athol is the one who specifically prescribes Game in marriage and has the results to show for it. That’s his mission.
“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.”
.
Do feminists acknowledge this phenomenon among their female constituency? Men who can reap these particular “Benefits” of feminism and later spit them back at their discretion get the wink and nod from feminists. Out of fear of being humiliated [mud in their faces] or out of desire to have a crack at them? Either way, these feminists are a twisted group with an agenda guided by the wind and their own monthly ups and downs. Obviously
@deti
The problem is that you’re preaching to the choir. Often when I point this out, a male commenter will say, “Well, just look at the women over at Jezebel!” That’s why the message isn’t getting through – most of the women here can’t relate. We don’t have a single female commenter who left her husband because she wasn’t haaaaaapppppppy. So it’s hardly surprising they’re going to say they haven’t seen EPL divorce up close. I haven’t either.
If you want to call women out, call out the women who are having sex with assholes. I really don’t think you’ll find them here.
A lot of us feel at a complete loss when the gross generalizations about female nature don’t resonate for us, but when we say so, we’re told we’re hamsterwheeling or that we have no understanding of our own sexuality. In any case, it’s all about assigning blame and responsibility. I think that’s looking in the rearview mirror. I understand that may be a natural part of swallowing the red pill, but at some point, we have to move forward. I’m more interested in moving forward than figuring out why men were lied to. I don’t blame men for wanting to work through all of that, but HUS isn’t the place for it. I’d prefer to check our weapons at the door.
“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.”
.
Women tend to avoid accountability like it was a disease. When a man then enforces that accountability based on her past actions, she cries foul, aka crying slut shamer, as if he is the bad guy.
First, I’m a mostly lapsed Catholic, not a Christian blogger. Second, I’ve never concerned myself with questions of sin here, for either sex. I don’t view casual sex as immoral in and of itself, and I don’t apply a double standard to it. I simply point out that there is a male double standard that women should be aware of.
I do think many women are repelled by guys with very high numbers, but that too will be determined by market dynamics. No need for me to weigh in on the morality, even if I were inclined to do so.
“women ruthlessly wielding sexual power — giving it up to assholes as younger women, wasting their prime years on assholes, then acting the part of the “nice girl” and demanding a beta commit to her and holding out for that commitment. Meanwhile she is backed up by a feminist culture that tells her all this is good and right and the natural order of things.”
.
Then, are feminists and their followers a tad freaked over the new messages being fed to men: its okay not to want these woman. its okay in the same way it has always been acceptable for men to not want to marry prostitutes. Its a fine line to cross and proudly state that you prefer to avoid marriage with ho-lite women
Agreed, I’ve always distinguished between players and cads, and the dividing line is deceit. I think there’s a female corollary to this as well.
“I think there’s a female corollary to this as well.”
What would that be?
@Susan
You don’t shout them down or delete their comments.
Despite the “women want you to listen and men try to solve problems” sometimes you just want a “representative person” to hear what you’re saying.
This is why “but these people have it worse” sometimes gets people riled up. It’s a way to invalidate the initial person’s pain. Feminists, who will point out male privilege and end with “just because you fucked up your life doesn’t mean women aren’t oppressed” are really bad about that.
You, on the other hand, acknowledge the reality of these men’s complaints. You may tell them they’re missing X and Y or assuming everyone else is getting what they can’t and it’s wrong but you never claim their experience isn’t real or invalid. You don’t even when you challenge their extrapolations from it.
I know your target audience is 20 something women trying to find commitment but I think you do a lot for 20 something men just by letting them bitch. To the extent you turn them away for the worst of the PUA world that also serves your goal although indirectly.
@SayWhaat
Yeah, I read it. I don’t agree that the only ones acting that way are roommates with Snooki and Jwoww. We’ve seen posts even by Susan herself about frivolous divorce, etc. which is the perfect example of being a “dangerous pet” and that’s obviously not limited to women from eastern Monmouth County. Clearly guys need to choose wisely because it’s a risky environment when the law stacks the deck in favor of making this type of behavior possible, and society encourages more responsibility for one party versus the other. Personally, my view is that some women are introspective, and some aren’t. The latter are a good bet to succumb to some “exotic” traits, so they should be avoided, if only to avoid unnecessary hassle in a relationship, nothing more, nothing less. The “manosphere” is overblown with some of their characterizations, but they’re preaching to people who need to be slapped in the face with reality. No need to be knee-jerk with me, because I’m not the one writing those blogs. There’s an element of truth to the whole “exotic pet” thing, but I think it has more to do with the effect of social incentives on female behavior than women’s true nature.
“all the women getting wet over the story of the good virgin girl being deflowered by the damaged man-slut.”
.
Is it possible that this theme has feminist heads exploding?
@Wudang, @Dogsquat
The female corollary also involves the deployment of deceit. It could be any of these:
1. Pretending interest in a guy to get material goods, e.g. drinks, expensive dates, gifts, etc.
2. Pretending interest in a guy to get attention and validation. This can be short-term, like at a party, or it can be truly torturous for the guy in an LJBF situation.
3. Pretending no interest in a relationship and then making drama when the guy doesn’t want one.
4. Pretending interest in a relationship, then casting the guy aside when someone with perceived higher status comes along.
5. Having sex with more than one person at a time without full disclosure.
6. Failing to disclose STD.
7. Cheating on an SO. If you meet someone new, you should break up to pursue it. No overlap!
I’m sure there are more, but you get the idea. By the way, Ricky Raw has a very interesting post about “gray area,” opportunistic mating.
http://therawness.com/raw-concepts-double-messages/
@Herb, 221
+1
Its nice to come somewhere (actually the only place in the whole wide world) where your pain isn’t considered wrong because you have a penis while also not driving you over the edge with anger.
I think Susan does a helluva lot for your average 20 year old guy even if she doesn’t realise it.
I was browsing youtube today, and I came across this video. It’s by a group that makes comedic mock rap videos. The subject matter of this one fits the discussion at hand, so I figured I’d share it with everyone. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajcGDaLy4Zw&feature=relmfu
@Herb
Thanks so much for the feedback. I do want to be available and provide support for young men too. It’s true that it’s not my mission per se, and I’ve been asked to recuse myself from advising men, but I feel that the group here, consisting of me, other happily married women my age, guys of various ages, and younger women is a diverse group and offers a variety of views that people can think about. That’s why I love the posts that are requests for advice – I’ll give my .02, but I always encourage the commenters to chime in, and I always encourage the reader to join the discussion in the comment threads.
I haven’t done one of those posts in a while. When I come back next week I’ll try and do one.
One thing that bugs me about the manosphere and which leads to PUAs getting a much worse recpetion amongst those who encounter the manosphere than they should it that the manosphere is so limited in scope interms of the PUAs it draws upon. It sometimes feels like they haven`t read anything other than mystery method and David Deangelo. But in the book the Game itself there is a chapter devoted to Zan and in some but not all of the editions of the book there is a chapter about Juggler. Zans game is diametrically oposed to most of what the manopshere talks about when they talk about game. He is a natural whose game is all about a combination of extreme outcome indepdence and worship of women in the style of classical seducers like Don Juan and Cassanova. Jugglers game is all about authentically expressing yourself and making her authentically express herself while leading and passing shit tests. Instead of hiding weakness he unabashedly and feearlessly dsiplays them (so she can`t complain about them later on as he says). Juggler was the first PUA to teach infield workshops. Representing game, or even the begining period of game, without taking this into account is historically inacurate.
There are also a multitude of other PUAs that teach very different things.
The authentic man programe is utterly brilliant and has been arround for several years now:
http://www.authenticmanprogram.com/igtp/InnerGameStickingPoints.pdf
RealSocialDynamics have moved in a entirely different direction from where they started and are almost as close to Eckhardt Tolle as to mystery now.
Pookie wrote some of the best stuff about game ever written. The book of Pook is very insightfull and a lot of fun to read:
http://www.jbspencer.com/djb/Downloads/The%20Book%20of%20Pook.pdf
The disucssions I have come across at various game FORUMS have been better than a lot of the game discussions I have come across in the manosphere because at the forums there are PUAs that are into a wider range og PUA litterature than the key manosphere bloggers seem to be.
Women don’t need providers anymore.
I think technically women don’t need them but still desire them, you going to have a hard time finding women bragging about their stay at home husband’s or how they are the principal breadwinners even Athol’s site has a lot of women losing attraction for their husbands out of them making less money or not having a “good” job. So the instinct is still there the bad boy that steals money from your purse no matter how much it makes you tingle gets tiresome after a while, YMMV.
I don’t know if this is a cliche, or if it really happens all the time, but I hear this a lot.
TIME FOR DOMINICAN HORROR STORY!
I knew a girl that was cassually hooking up with this guy (idiot) for about a year he always had an excuse for no committing (he needed to make his business thrive more, he needed time to introduce her to his family because she was lower class…) and one day he simply disappeared my friend was talking to a mutual friend and when she casually mentioned that the pictures of his wedding made it to the news. He was on his honeymoon with his brand new his own class wife. I think that was a time when she attempted suicide.
I know another that did the same at work he was an executive when I was working on telemarketing, he was a Buffy fan so we talked a lot but just about the show, he was dating one of my co-workers really pretty but stupid as usual (I remember she advising me to be less picky and that you can accept a guy as a boyfriend just after one meeting) so he was her boyfriend till he also left for his honeymoon, she was devastated she went from one of the best sales person and her way to get a promotion as supervisor to several calls out by HR because of lack of productivity and tardiness and a demotion in less than three months after the wedding, he of course pretended not to know her after that.
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?
IME surrounded by Alpha males it depends on what the culture is about in low classes a lot of this women find themselves serial monogamy with bad boys trading up more dominance or even paying the most dominant ones once their beauty doesn’t hold interest anymore but in the interclasses or among the ones that want to climb to a better status they become a sign of low status and the few Beta guys are sought after and competed for fiercely. You will need a societal context for you to know which way it goes.
Get her screaming and seizing on your wang, and you’ll bond her to you for life.
I think the point is that even if an Alpha gets with its virgin bride there is no garantuees he will be able to be satisfied only with her. The guy that has had variety also reaches a point were one woman is settling, two thirds of the guys I knew that married chaste women and cheated on them weren’t happy about it and wish they could stop but at that point they were too used to have a new punani every certain time and couldn’t get off the variety carousel. Is the flip side of the Alpha carouseler that tries her best to move on to Beta guys but find herself unable to let go her Alpha days. I know for men the number is higher but no one knows what their number is till they decide to try monogamy for a long period of time. Better safe than sorry for both genders, YMMV.
These words, out of ONE Chrisitan woman’s mouth, is probably the most potent force for atheism there is. Sin is OK, if you’re hot enough, otherwise you are a loser. I’m glad I’m deconverted, but I’m still living with the mind wreckage.
So I get to judge all atheists for the few assholes that I had encounter and write it off as a valid philosophy?! SWEET!
When we married her number was 1, me. I’ve wondered if I’d been 2 or 3 if she wouldn’t have felt she settled for the first man to show interest.
As a number 1 woman I can tell you that in the same way there are wrong reasons to have sex there are reasons not to. It seems that your ex was an carousel watcher and as soon as she find a way to get in she did. That is a lot different than a woman that chooses chastity because she has tons of reason to do so because once you get married the reasons stay. I’m sorry that it happened to you that way but this is the sort of thing that happens when a woman is a virgin because she can’t lose it not because she doesn’t want to, YMMV.
“Men who are loosing sleep over their gf’s numbers should dump them ”
.
Men have better things to do. Learn slut tells.
@Ana
This is the date that told me, “I’m a feminist and I demand equality but still expect to be treated like a princess.”
The problem is “I’m independent and don’t need you to take care of me” devalues men who are providers. To turn around and demand a man pony up something your routinely disparage is a no win game for him and in the long run for the woman demanding it as well.
@Susan
I don’t mean this as a personal dig at you Susan… but this line of thinking really shows that there is very little grey area for guys between “Alpha Getting Laid” and “Beta Getting Nothing.”
What about the guys who actually don’t want to get public lap dances, but instead just want to find a nice girl to have a serious relationship? You’re quote illustrates that they’re basically screwed. And again, I’m not trying to single you out here… I honestly believe 90% of girls 18-25 would think the same thing.
It’s embarrassing for me to even think it now, but back in my beta days I absolutely did appear to be disinterested in girls grinding on me on the dance floor or any other public sexual escalation. And it’s not because I was gay or asexual ( I certainly enjoyed it), but just that I was raised to believe a good guy wasn’t supposed to engage in that kind of public behavior…. only assholes and douchebags did that stuff.
Back then, I was definitely most interested in just being a good guy and finding a nice girl to be in an exclusive relationship with… one where I’d be happy to give as much time as she needed to feel comfortable having sex, and where we’d hopefully consider marriage in the future if things went well.
Needless to say I got FZ’d like it was my job.
My game is 100x better today. But the funny thing is, I’ll be the first one to admit that I’m not nearly as good of a relationship bet as I was back then.
They don’t need providers, but they still need boyfriends and husbands for status reasons.
“most feminists I know (which are a lot!) are sex-positive and believe that it’s a sign of women’s growing power that they feel more entitled to seek out what turns them on.”
–Amanda Marcotte
.
Sex positive? Entitled? aka feels-like-fucking-around-because-its-effortless-fun couched in cutesy shameless rhetoric. Marcotte is effectively supporting the few sexually successful males / most sexually active females system.
.
And here Marcotte arrogantly pats herself on the back:
.
“women feel less need to apologize for their sexual desires than ever before, thanks to feminism”
.
As always, this is fuzzy. To whom did they apologize to before and to whom now? Thanks to feminism! Expect to see more of these self congratulations as their ship sinks. “Thanks to feminism” for all the fucked up shit.
.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/04/17/roiphe_s_newsweek_article_on_masochism_misses_important_trends_and_nuances_.html
.
@Wudang
That Authentic Man Program looks awesome. I love it because it comes at the subject of attraction from a positive place, an attitude of abundance rather than scarcity. It doesn’t rely on “taming the bitches.” It’s about improving oneself – who can’t get behind that?
I don’t know anything about PUA forums, but I do feel that the Game blogs have drifted strongly toward the negative in the last year or two. They were always there, but several of the newer blogs are quite nasty to the point where the bloggers seem to loathe women. Toxic is really the word for it.
@Jimmy Hendricks
Except that Jason got all that attention because he is very handsome. No doubt he brought some dominance, but let’s face it, some people are good looking enough that they’re going to get hit on all the time. So it’s more like 9s and 10s getting laid. You said yourself that women tried to hit on you – you were very beta then but you could obviously have had ONSs. Your own mindset was what held you back, not lack of interest from girls.
Oh showing vulnerability…and does a-holism work on normal, well adjusted, women…
An accidental experiment of sorts:
I have an issue with this concept of showing vulnerability, or doing it I should say. I didn’t use to be like this, but one horrible divorce (having to paternity test your kids = horrible, if anyone was wondering) and a lot of water under the bridge later, changes you. This new fortress of steel around me ended a recent budding relationship, if that’s what it can be called.
I was never mean or rude to her, but I wasn’t mushy, I was aloof and a bit of a self focused a-hole. I never gave one single compliment. It was like I was acting in a play. I was going down a mental checklist and it worked. I enacted the PUA script of attraction generating behaviors (minus fuzzy hats, retarded palm reading, and cheesy crap – I’m too old for that shit.) to a tee. Before any women call me a sociopath (and get the hots for me), understand that I did not consciously find this woman, and say “Okay, let’s try this…” It was more of doing a lot of reading and absorbing and thinking “Hmm, well I guess this is how it’s done these days…” Then I just happened to me her, and off we went…
When I say it worked, I mean every step of the way, every action and reaction, each text, every turn of phrase designed to generate attraction worked just like the PUA blogs described. It was difficult for me though. I was like George Constanza in that one episode where he does the opposite of his natural instincts and everything starts working out for him.
Some may say that “Oh, you just have to find the right woman and a good one will respond to your gentler nature.” Bullshit. Maybe that was true twenty or thirty years ago. It’s not true now. It’s just not. As someone reinserted into the dating Matrix, I can tell you that kinder and gentler are two words that have no traction at all in the current market.
If I say that I was a sweet guy in the past, don’t confuse that with being a “nice” guy or a pussy. Far from it. I was a person with a gentle heart, a lot of empathy for others and I always strove to live up to the calling of my higher nature. In my life I have been a soldier, a man who has traveled overseas quite a bit, I put myself through school, I was a business executive and now I run my own firm, among many other things. I was not and am not a fat, mouth breathing, x-box addicted, doughnut eating, do-nothing basement dweller. Prior to my marriage I had girlfriends short and long term and sex. Gasp.
After a couple of months of dating this woman, I knew that if I didn’t offer some beta mush, she was going to dump me, but I just couldn’t or wouldn’t do it. (I should work on that) The ‘getting dumped’ happened as predicted and expected. She was by no means an “exotic pet” type at all. She was pretty much the furthest thing from it and she was actually a very sweet girl.
The more I reflect on this and what I learned, the more I don’t feel great about it. I feel like kind of a heel. I did not lie, and I never promised anything nor said I was looking for anything long term but I knew that she was. I have this unfortunate ability to put myself in the other person’s shoes. So, I can imagine that she felt hurt and disappointed that she met this ‘wonderful’ person and was very excited that this could be the start of something good. And there I was with my little mental checklists and rules: don’t do this, don’t say that, respond like this, only text back this much, etc. etc., knowing that these things were dooming the outcome from the start. It felt very mechanical and mathematical, but it worked if you classifying working as: getting a woman out on a date, getting repeat dates, progressing to a physical relationship, making her very, very attracted to you to the point where she was like a high school girl again writing bad poetry.
So I have read the post over at Athol’s that sparked this discussion, and yes, like the guy who wrote into him, that is how I feel in many respects. I feel this way in part because of my past experience of being married to a “dangerous pet.” In my new experiences with dating in this market I have come to see things with a pretty dour outlook. My rational mind tells me that yes, NAWALT, and I know that is true factually in my brain, but I don’t see it in front of me on the street, so to speak.
But the funny thing is, this woman I was dating you could classify her in the category of NAWALT, yet she responded just like AWALT. So which is it? I just don’t know. Maybe I’m blind and she is NAWALT and only responds to me AWALT. But, I don’t know about that, I’m too old too think I’m such a unique snowflake.
The dilemma is that being too, let’s just call it beta/nice/’emotionally there’, and being too ‘a-hole’ is that they both get you to the same relationship place: alone. The difference is that being too ‘a-hole’ at least gets you laid these days.
Susan did you not recount a story on here of how a boy showed some emotion in front of you and well, it pretty much repulsed you? You strike me as a very nice lady, rational and very balanced. Yet, you are saying that it’s okay to show emotion or to be human in front of a woman but you recount how it repulsed you. So I guess I’m saying that if I’m going to get rejected, I’d rather get dumped for being too unemotional and at least be having sex with women as opposed to never getting inside the gates.
So it seems from reading a lot of peoples posts and comments and blog articles the SMP these days is perhaps forcing women to do things they don’t want to to do to remain competitive, and the same is happening to men. An arms race to the bottom. I think it’s probably not very emotionally satisfying for either, but I don’t know what to do. I’m not going to live like a monk.
Yep, I have issues. Working on it…and trying to find a better balance.
They do. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years. Some have suggested that women will get status by bringing around boy toys. Perhaps our standards for status will change, e.g. cohabitation is as good as marriage.
@Susan
I guess what I’m saying is that once you get the “beta stink” on you, you can’t shake it. Not only do the girls making moves on you suddenly see you as gay/asexual, but now all the other girls that witnessed it do to. Then their friends hear about it, etc….
A guy that wanted to follow a traditional model of dating, emotional intimacy before physical intimacy, etc. is DOA even with the good girls because of the beta reputation that’s been given to him.
“Some have suggested that women will get status by bringing around boy toys.”
.
In the same way that men currently get status by bringing slim women with long shiny black hair and captivating “where is this woman from” accents to parties to meet co-workers and friends?
@Susan
Among my generation I see this happening already. I have a family friend that has kids with a girlfriend that he lives with, and a former co-worker that has 3 kids by his girlfriend. Neither seem to have any desire to officially tie the knot. I could see this becoming a whole lot more common.
@PutMeBackIn
Thanks, I really appreciate your comment.
To me, your story sounds like what Athol describes – you display alpha traits for sexual attraction and beta traits for attachment. Women do want both, and sure enough, this woman dumped you when the emotional intimacy failed to materialize.
I’m not saying women don’t respond to dominance, or that we don’t want to work for the cookie, i.e. commitment. We do! It’s about timing – if you show attachment before attraction has been confirmed, it’s unattractive. If you generate attraction, but never move toward attachment, it’s also unattractive. This is why I say that women indeed do take a Goldilocks approach to mating. If this woman was only interested in a sexual fling, your aloof routine would have worked indefinitely, until the affair petered out. But for long-term mating, it’s a jump start, and real connection must develop for the relationship to have any traction.
To be clear on my own experience with witnessing vulnerability, here’s the post:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/03/21/relationshipstrategies/why-we-shit-test/
In it I describe a situation I recall from my youth. I was going into the 8th grade, and my family had just moved into a new neighborhood. He was starting high school. We met and talked in our yards a couple of times. We were both smitten. One afternoon, I’m guessing around the third time I hung out with him – maybe the second week, he talked about having lost his father the year before. Of course I felt enormous sympathy, and I understood that he was still grieving. But he began to sob so powerfully and convulsively that I was completely freaked out. I think he’d pent up all that grief for so long, that when he got the chance to spend time with a girl, his vulnerability found an outlet and he released it. I rose to the challenge in the sense that I held him for a very long time, and talked with him for hours. But when that day was over, I had lost attraction to him. It was just way too much, too soon.
The reason I wrote the post was to describe the shit tests I put him through after that, which were wrong and manipulative. However, to this day, I wouldn’t really expect more from a 14 year-old girl. The truth is, I was in way over my head that day and I knew it. I couldn’t be that outlet for him.
A followup to my own post:
After the end of my marriage I spent a great deal of time deconstructing what went on and trying to learn something from it. I stumbled upon Athol, which leads to Dalrock, which leads here, to Badger, then Roissy and Roosh, etc. It was all very illuminating. I really try not to have such negativity towards women but I will say that I find it disconcerting to discover that the PUA tactics do work in many respects, even on women that you would expect it would not. When I was younger and dating pre-marriage I did not consciously employ any of these attraction generating/PUA things, though I did some naturally and recognize them now that I have seen spelled out in black and white in print. These days it seems that having a solid repertoire of this information is a necessity to even get in on the ground floor with a woman.
Again, you may say that I’m meeting the wrong women. Well then, where shall I go? I meet them through business, through Church, at the grocery store, school events, etc. I’m out and about at normal places in normal society. Is there a special place I should be looking? Tell me, and I’ll go there.
Also, in my post above when I state that I was being a bit of an a-hole, I will clarify that I was not in any way being mean or doing things to cause dread, etc. I was just very unemotional and purposefully suppressing my natural ‘sweet’ inclinations which I suppose gave the appearance of being a challenge. For example, I wanted to tell her that I really like her. But I felt that if I did, I could forget about continuing to see her.
I suppose I have formed for myself the impression that in today’s SMP since women no longer need men for anything, any bonus points I get for a great career, good character, solid Dad credentials, etc. are secondary or not considered. If women don’t need men for any of the traditional roles anymore then the only reason they seek to have a man around is for entertainment value. A solid track record of career stability, parenting and being responsible isn’t very entertaining.
@Susan
I know I’m out of the age range you target but for me I can imagine cohabitation but not really marriage anymore. I don’t think I can trust enough and can’t figure out what marriage offers to make the risk. After call, clearly the permanence that marriage had for our parents is dead today.
If we view 20 somethings today suffering the same death many divorced people do but instead of one big hit the current SMP delivers the death of 1000 cuts I think we might see it.
Actually, I hadn’t thought of it, but is the current SMP basically 1000 tiny divorces instead of one big one leaving the walking wounded who can’t love and trust again.
In convos about marriage this week when my sister blanched at the fact I’ve been dating poly women I asserted when monogamous women decide to give me a shot I’ll date them my mother suggested I wouldn’t. Poly women are safer to the divorced me.
I’m both afraid she’s right and that we’re raising an entire generation that hurt from the start.
“I’m a feminist and I demand equality but still expect to be treated like a princess”
IF you treat me like a KING I treat you like a princess.
@SW
“The whole point of the post is to stop the blame game.”
I don’t think you’ll ever accomplish that. To admit the other side isn’t all bad is to show some weakness, and nobody’s going to do that. Hence the constant repetition and collective use of “we” in describing the SMP. Certainly an internet phenomenon. It’s kind of funny, given the fact that a majority of women don’t even consider themselves feminists, and most likely a majority of men don’t call themselves MRAs or some equivalent term.
It is interesting that the standard for who’s “right” seems to be which side hates less. Ms. SayWhaat said feminist sites were not as bad. Guys naturally said the opposite. There are more F sites vs. M sites (web stats, anyone?). But does it all really matter? I feel like many people in Europe probably did in the early 1930s: to make the world a better place, choose either fascism or communism. I’d choose neither.
@Wudang
What feminist, especially one with that attitude, is going to treat a man as a person, much less a KING.
In some ways that one “date” fueled my mistrust of women almost as much as my marriage. If that sounds extreme she was a long term member of my social circle and knew a lot of context and yet didn’t even consider it a date, just her due (despite knowing the key to the evening, my Boston Ballet season tickets, were bought as a pair for dating instead of a single to just enjoy the ballet…she was the first and last time they were used for dating).
“Again, you may say that I’m meeting the wrong women. Well then, where shall I go? I meet them through business, through Church, at the grocery store, school events, etc. I’m out and about at normal places in normal society. Is there a special place I should be looking? Tell me, and I’ll go there.”
.
Did you know that 3% of Earth’s women live in the US? It is 2012 and the age of the Modern Man has begun. No, it does not mean you save some poor former cock-hopper from her fate or stay home and raise the kids. It means you blow the dust of your passport but if you are like most Americans, you don’t have one. Send in the $50 and get one of the few benefits available to men from the government. Or stay put as the feminists want you to and be part of the captive audience they so desperately need.
@Megaman
Hmmmmph. Maybe it’s more like a chronic condition that requires periodic treatment. Every little while I’ll need to put up a post like this just to bring things into the light a bit more.
I’ve received advice along the way just to ignore the stuff I don’t like (or the things people may be saying about me) and keep doing my thing. I tried it briefly, and dug myself into a very deep hole. I learned something then about dealing with men in competitive mode – weakness is like blood in the water to a shark. I can’t hold my own unless I push back hard against the things I don’t believe in. One would think I’d have figured this out in b-school or my subsequent career in business, but I’ve never encountered men as aggressive as some other bloggers. I suppose that too is an internet phenomenon.
Final followup to my own post: Lol. Self Therapy via blog comment.
After reading what I wrote I was struck by the thought that perhaps my inability to show this woman any vulnerability was caused by the methods I used to attract her. Meaning, that because I was very consciously employing attraction generating behaviors and very consciously trying to avoid making any tactical ‘mistakes’ the entire process felt completely unnatural and contrived. Therefore, I doomed the whole thing from the get go by in effect turning her into a pet, and I was the lab technician in the white coat trying this and that. I think this was truly a case of “It’s not her, it’s me.”
Well, I’m glad for her actually that she dumped me. I’m probably not in a good frame to be inflicting myself on a woman right now. I’ll have to think on this and figure out how I can apply the positive aspects of what I’ve learned this past year and incorporate it into my life in such a way that it doesn’t feel like I’m running a con. I need to work on this so that it becomes a natural part of my way of being, but without becoming a source of negativity internally or towards others by creating self fulfilling doom and gloom scenarios.
Susan I think you are spot on in your analysis of my original post. It was time for some beta if I wanted to continue seeing her, but for whatever reason, I just couldn’t or wouldn’t do it. Perhaps leftover debris from my marriage. Gah. Humans, we’re so messy.
I’m out. Peace.
Underdog
… 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…I guess my insecurity comes from the fact that her threshold for dominance is so high because of her sexual history….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.
My reply:
Now that is interesting. Was there a disparity between her smv and that of the alpha guys? Was she pursuing hypergamy? Thus, she found it hard to go with beta guys? Was she of higher status than the average guys or was she of the same status?
“What feminist, especially one with that attitude, is going to treat a man as a person, much less a KING.”
Not a single one and that is what my intention with the reply would be meant to make her reflect upon. Princess treatment requires king treatment. It is a contract and the wanabe princesses has broken their part of the contract. Upholding their part of the contract automatically makes them non feminists.
@SW
“Every little while I’ll need to put up a post like this just to bring things into the light a bit more.”
Fair enough. Though I don’t agree with MikeC on much, he did ask a good question about why you’d want to stir the pot. But I can see where you’re coming from most of the time. FWIW, I don’t see a lot of diversity of opinion amongst the guys here at HUS. Diversity of personality, yes.
Putmebackin I recomend reading the authentic man programe link in my previous post and also the book of pook and the no more mister nice guy book. All those focuse on becoming the man you naturally need to be. Also David Deidas works, especially way of the superior man should be helpfull to you.
OffThe Cuff
The discovery that the female human hindbrain is at least as much turned on by displays of “evil” male trait as virtuous ones is certainly corrosive of a placid, conventional belief in a family-friendly Diety.
However, there are counter-balances. Real old-time religions did NOT pedestalize the female id any more than the male id – which everyone knew could be a problem. Both needed to be held in check with equal stern-ness.
Likewise, how would you like to be reborn as a woman with a heart of gold, a bright shinning disposition, the best will in the world – and with microscopic boobage?
If you are looking for fairness you have come to the wrong shop.
“The discovery that the female human hindbrain is at least as much turned on by displays of “evil” male trait as virtuous ones is certainly corrosive of a placid, conventional belief in a family-friendly Diety.” However, there are counter-balances”
.
Then it is up to each man to decide what he wants, and know what types of women are available and where to find them. For Western men especially, intense due diligence is required. The counter balance may not be there in the local area. There is enough information now and a host of slut tells for those who insist on shopping in the Western market. No more excuses. If you choose unwisely you have yourself to blame. Hint – nearly all women on Earth are rightly counter balanced.
Susan, the manosphere’s characterization of women is an amalgam of a wide array of female behaviors or inclinations. Sure, you don’t find women who encompass all these behaviors, but most assuredly you find that all women exhibit some of these behaviors/inclinations. Since a female SO won’t disclose these inclinations, as I wrote on MMSL, the best male relationship strategy is hoping for the best but gaming her for the worst.
I’m impressed by your level of energy, Susan…kudos for putting so much effort into this blog.
@Susan (159)
I agree that the guy as depicted was utterly cringe-worthy…but this is a TV show, so everything is dramatized to make a strong statement. I am loathe to think that any guy actually behaves like that, though I’m sure there are handful out there. I’ve never acted like that; most of the discoveries of “Game” I had more or less worked out for myself, intuitively, through experience. But none of it made sense, because of the confusion in the broader culture and in other people’s, especially women’s, minds. (I don’t mean that women are uniquely deluded, only that they suffer most directly from the contradictory messages of feminism.) So I never quite understood what was going on, or trusted my intuitions, or put it all together.
I think what’s disturbing about the scene is that at this point a fair number of guys aren’t aware that they’re being judged on these grounds. In other words, they haven’t grown up with any strong or clear idea of manhood, and of what’s expected of them as men. They have come of age in a culture committed to the pretense of gender equivalence. They have a vague sense, reinforced by the culture (until recently!), that this “beta” behavior is the right way to do things. In many spheres of life, someone with this mindset blindly “learns” behavior from women as well as men, on the pretense that the gender distinctions don’t matter. The disturbing part is getting mugged by reality.
The underlying problem is that, despite all of these “red pill” discoveries, there is still nothing like a coherent and stable role/identity for men in society. (And the same goes for women.) The hard work is creating and stabilizing society around a set of clear expectations, that young people can actually know and prepare for. It bears repeating that the economy and the law have to enter into this discussion.
I have to say this because I think this discussion ends up being interminable…
Personally I’ve veered between two poles, neither of them satisfactory. One is the dominant man, who is basically an asshole – thinks and acts like one. Sometimes it appears that that is who you have to be to succeed in this culture. On the other hand, the sensitive, humane, intelligent, and civilized person – but one who does not want a place in the existing power structure.
There is something missing in between these extremes: the legitimate authority. Neither the rapacious brigand, nor the pensive milquetoast. I accept that the legitimate authority is almost invisible in our culture. You have to use your imagination. But that’s the sweet spot that would reconcile these extremes, the thing that Susan keeps describing when she tries to depict women’s ideals. The legitimate authority exercises power, doesn’t abuse it. In the absence of legitimate authority, the choices are dismal, and one unhappily settles for the brigand.
I think this is what the Art of Manliness has figured out. I highly recommend that site and its approach, which is also well-grounded in philosophical thinking and historical understanding.
I didn’t mean to imply that feminist websites were “more right” than MRA sites. I was simply trying to point out that both sides have enough to share in the blame game. Apologies for the miscommunication.
+1.
Thanks for the reply, Susan. I doubt I’ve read as much about this as you have, and while I don’t find it very relevant to my real life or that of my friends it’s interesting in theory.
I can understand the concept of men with some level of “dominance” getting more women than a man who’s truly supplicating. But, again, most of the men in their 20s that I know personally don’t really seem to fall into either category in this dichotomy. They just seem like nice, normal dudes who may have had a ONS or two but generally seem to prefer steady monogamous girlfriends to exclusively hooking-up, and they have female friends they enjoy without all this underlying “nice guy” resentment. It’s not unusual in my circles for friends to turn into lovers/couples, either–happened very recently with one of my guy friends and a longtime friend of his from university.
To be fair, I went to a university that didn’t even HAVE frats/sororities and in general, and the club/hookup scene is not my scene now. I’m just not orbiting in that sphere. I seem to end up with a lot of married/LTR friends, especially the women–but this could be because, not being a sort of laissez-faire chick who hooks up at clubs I naturally gravitate away from women who are into this. Who you self-select to spend time with influences your take on reality quite a bit! But that brings me to what you wrote here:
“In this case, which women are you missing out on when you run asshole game?”
I think this is the million-dollar question and one that I’ve only read PUA deal with in a very quick, offhanded way. I think Roissy’s acknowledged that yeah, some chicks are like awkward or religious and shit and you can’t let that hurt your gaaaaaaame, man. What he and other PUAs underestimate and seem to not really grasp is how many people out there are still unimpressed with shallow mainstream American culture and try to maintain some level of depth and authenticity in their lives and try to care about things besides money and celebrities. Even attractive women do this sometimes!
They’re pretty clearly self-selecting a certain cultural “type” of woman–pretty, vain, spoiled, shallow, not especially intellectually inclined even if she’s “educated,” etc. I have no doubt their theories correctly apply to THESE women and the assholes they apparently prefer. Using spoiled Kim Kardashian wannabes as a measuring stick for all young women, or even all Western women, just seems myopic and lazy to me and an exercise in intentional cynicism.
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?
No point in me trying to explain how you’ve misunderstood it. To the part I’ve marked with asterisks, you’ve been clear and firm on what debate YOU do NOT really want here. I’m fine with that. So I’ll take that discussion elsewhere. It is nonsensical to say on the one hand you don’t want any of the “toxic” discussion here, but then criticize taking the discussion elsewhere. I believe there are blogs where it is more appropriate for MEN to engage other MEN in unfiltered, uncensored conversation where they can let “it all hang out”.
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,
Well…if you don’t want your comment threads full of those topics, it probably isn’t a good idea to resurrect certain debates by posting on them. You had a good number of posts recently that had more contentious stuff absent from comment threads simply by leaving certain stuff alone.
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.
Agree. So there is no point in trying to start fires and/or fan fires that are going to signal people.
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.
Why? One sentence assertion isn’t evidence or a logical argument for anything.
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.
Not really. This makes really no sense. The fact of the matter is if you could theoretically remove the male preference for variety, and the female preference for hypergamy, it would be orders of magnitude easier to form long-lasting or permanent monogamous pair bonds. Frankly, if we could rework our base biological desires, it would be much easier to accomplish your desired objective of monogamous committed pairings.
@Courtley
That’s very astute, Courtley. But after seeing that episode of Girls recently highlighted here on HUS, I’m not sure how much they can be blamed.
I can’t believe that’s real life. But if that’s the kind of entertainment 20-somethings feel represents them, oh yeah, we have a problem, Houston.
Kim Kardashian wannabes seems a perfect description of nearly all the characters in that world. It left me – unsettled.
@SayWhaat
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply you were in that camp. I know your take on things pretty well by now. Susan at least tries to maintain a moderate zone here at HUS, not always successfuly. The blame game usually devolves into which side is worse, which isn’t a reason to support either. Particularly when terms like “genocide” start getting thrown around.
@Jones
I love The Art of Manliness. They’re trying to restore the old, masculine virtues. They are clearly on record as objecting to any and all “dark” manipulative tactics – I think they’ve written posts about dating with integrity and respect.
Not really. This makes really no sense. The fact of the matter is if you could theoretically remove the male preference for variety, and the female preference for hypergamy, it would be orders of magnitude easier to form long-lasting or permanent monogamous pair bonds. Frankly, if we could rework our base biological desires, it would be much easier to accomplish your desired objective of monogamous committed pairings.
I agree as well. Matt Ridley’s book “The Red Queen” talks about this in describing men and women, in terms of genetic replication terms, as “resources” to each other, each with their own genetically programmed agendas — which are often at cross-purposes. So, of course there are aspects of the “programmed strategies” of each that undermine the pair bond model. The likely reason is that these are behaviors that developed to continue to potentially maximize the individual advantage for individual males and females once pair bonding entered the species as a norm (which can be deduced from the time that the physical dimorphism in the species began to shrink — indicating less physically brutal direct competition among the males for mating access to the females, which in turn suggests the appearance of a more equitable means for dividing the females among the males — hence, the pair bond). But, the older strategies of monopoly for men (i.e., impregnating as many of the women as possible, which we now call “variety” seeking) and hypergamy for women (i.e., being sexually available only to the most choice male specimens who have clobbered the other males to death) survived in the form of “pair bond cheats”. Now these cheating strategies optimize the return for the propagation of the genes of the cheating individuals, potentially, but certainly are threats to the pair bond, and therefore make pair bonds less stable and more difficult to maintain over extended periods. Again, it’s likely that this was the basis for the extensive set of social, philosophical and religious strictures against pair bond cheat behavior — belts and suspenders that were necessary in order to suppress, to a significant (but of course never a complete) degree, these naturally occurring pair-bond-threatening behaviors. Therefore, I would agree that these behaviors and inclinations, while “natural”, are nevertheless big threats to the pair bond, and given the importance of the pair bond to the development of our species since H-G times, a threat to the continuation of the species as a whole (again, leaving aside the individual benefits which can accrue in specific cases of undetected and unpunished cheat behaviors) — and can therefore properly be classed as “negative”, even from an objective point of view, leaving aside any questions of morality per se.
Sexual dimorphism might have waned because of the development of weapons. I’m a pretty big guy, but what the fencing coach referred to as “tempo” allowed me to watch quicker guys moving the point toward me while my directions to parry were still being finalized.
Susan, I have to disagree about the manosphere being two-headed. The Game community is fissioning. Evolving into a distinct PUA Game community and a Courtship/Marriage Game community.
And I find the latter a good, cheering development. Precisely because it rejects both feminist misandry and PUA misanthropy.
@ Joe
I don’t know, is “Girls” really all that representative of reality for most young women? I don’t get HBO and haven’t seen it, but I have read quite a lot about it and I understand it’s generated quite a backlash. I think a lot of the praise on its “reality” is just the fact that people like that it portrays sex–the actual act of it–in a more realistic, gritty sort of way than much of popular culture does (or so goes the argument). And gritty realism when it comes to sex is a bit of a trend in indie-type media right now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phoebe-robinson/not-one-of-lena-dunhams-g_b_1435664.html
As just one example…fave quote:
“Maybe it’s just me, but when I had roommates, the bathroom was my alone time aka where I texted or stared at my afro, willing it grow, or practicing my Inside the Actors Studio interview. I wasn’t hanging out in soft lighting and chatting it up, Sex and the City-style about boys. And I most certainly wasn’t eating while sitting mere inches away from my roommate grooming herself. #Trifling.
Basically, what this show and all the fan girls need is a strong, hard dose of Robitussin aka #realtalk. This show is not groundbreaking. It’s not revolutionary. It’s not a game changer. And for the love of God, it is not the female answer to Louie. I’m talking about you, AV Club. Girls is an occasionally funny show and decently written (the pilot episode does move at a fairly brisk pace) about a particular and narrow POV that I like to call EWW (Entitled White-Girl Whining). And you know what? If you want your show to be about such a tiny, niche demographic, go for it. Just don’t try and fool everyone and say it’s for everyone when it’s clearly “for us, by us.”
I mean . . . there are reviews that say it does resonate with other Gen Y-ers. As it will–I mean again, these women DO exist. But they’re one demographic out of many in the West. That’s my point.
Sexual dimorphism might have waned because of the development of weapons.
Certainly a possibility, but the effect would have been the same: to result in a more egalitarian (among the males) distribution of sexual access by relatively de-privileging the “silverback alpha” equivalents of our species in terms of being able to maintain sexual monopolies because of their size (likely it was a group of males who maintained that status, not one, in our species).
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?
A couple of things:
1) Concerning the bolded part – people change and learn from past mistakes, especially if those mistakes were made when they were young. No one is perfect. I understand that there are those who don’t want to take that risk, but women and men who used to have ONS shouldn’t be seen as forever tainted in general (once a slut always a slut). I believe in seeing changed people are they are now rather than who they used to be.
2) …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?
I see this line of reasoning used by guys whenever they group females in different categories. Like how certain girls are just toys and some are the “more valued” group, and the valued females are told to not be offended if a guy doesn’t want to sleep with them.
Can’t it be possible for a girl to take it slow on a particular guy because she does indeed value him more than as a simple sex toy or a person with benefits? He isn’t used for just sex. But hey, maybe this is one of those “it’s different” instances….
Now of course if she’s having sex with other guys WHILE she’s with him, then that’s a problem. The same goes for guys dating a girl while they’re having sex with other girls (I’ve seen comments from guys who do this exact same thing and see it as ok).
Can’t it be possible for a girl to take it slow on a particular guy because she does indeed value him more than as a simple sex toy or a person with benefits? He isn’t used for just sex. But hey, maybe this is one of those “it’s different” instances….
The issue tends to be that the guy is normally a guy who hasn’t had the same degree of sexual access as the girl has, so he feels like he is much *less* valued to her than the other guys were, because he’s been placed in the waiting room while the other guys went right to the appointment directly. It gets at how men and women view (and value) sex and commitment differently. Most guys in that situation (lower sexual opportunity than the woman .. which is normal for most guys) are not going to feel very good about being the guy she made wait for it — just not going to be the case for most guys, because sex is seen by guys, among other things, as a reward, and he isn’t being given that reward as quickly — he feels like a chump as compared to the other guys, like he is being emotionally used by her to satisfy her emotional needs for romance leading to commitment, while she puts his own needs on the shelf in a way she didn’t for the other guy. All of the rhetoric in the world about him being “more special” isn’t going to make him feel any better about being placed in the waiting room when other guys were not — guys compete sexually with each other, and he experiences this as a relegation, sexually, as compared with the other guys.
In some cases, like the poster above who also was a casual sex type before settling down with another former casual sex type, the situation is different, because the two had equal sex access histories before they decided to have a relationship with each other which went slower. For *MOST* men, it’s simply the case that their sexual access history is going to be quite a bit lower than the guy who was posting above, so the “differential pricing” issue burns them in a way it doesn’t burn the poster above (he had casual sexual access when he wanted it and left it behind, unlike most guys, who never had it to begin with).
@Courtley
I don’t think anyone’s disputing that they exist. But everyone seems to be arguing about how much or how little they represent Gen-Ys right now, and how important they might be – both those female AND the male stereotypes on the show.
Just how important is Kim Kardashian anyway? From my vantage point, I’d say, not at all, except that someone keeps throwing her up the flag pole and a lot of someone’s keep saluting.
Is there any particular reason the “Kim Kardashians” (and the Snookies and the Bachellorette-Courtneys of the world, to name a few) are so influential for so long?
“Now that is interesting. Was there a disparity between her smv and that of the alpha guys? Was she pursuing hypergamy? Thus, she found it hard to go with beta guys? Was she of higher status than the average guys or was she of the same status?”
I’ve never met the “alpha” guys, so I don’t know. I think it was just a case of a dumb hot girl who thought slutting it up was empowering until she figured she wanted a little respect with it also. Then she became FB with 2 dudes who didn’t treat her like shit but also didn’t want to commit. Then those 2 “nice” guys who both committed and respected her put her on the pedestal and she figured didn’t want that either. In terms of looks, she’s pretty hot. An easy 8. 9 when she dresses up. She models for the local film school all the time.
I mentioned the male hamster a few days ago. I’m glad Athol backed it up.
@Joe
“Is there any particular reason the ‘Kim Kardashians’ (and the Snookies and the Bachellorette-Courtneys of the world, to name a few) are so influential for so long?”
They’re about as influential as the Flat Earth Society. I’d say they’re in the news often, entertainment news that is (an oxymoron), because they have very good publicity agents. You can’t separate the profit motive from how these ridiculous celebrities behave. And they’re particularly adept at staying in shape, getting made up, and making fools out of themselves : )
Brendan
You reversed it.
Certainly a possibility, but the effect would have been the same: to result in a more egalitarian (among the males) distribution of sexual access by relatively de-privileging the “silverback alpha” equivalents of our species in terms of being able to maintain sexual monopolies because of their size (likely it was a group of males who maintained that status, not one, in our species).
The first comment on the subject said that dimorphism declined due to egalitarian ways of matching up male and female. IOW, the egalitarian came first, allowing or promoting the reduced dimorphism. IMO, humans are too bloody-minded for that. Why give up a good thing when nobody can take it from you?
I suggested the use of weapons promoted the reduction, which would have the effect. IOW, it wasn’t egalitarian first, but second. Then you equally matched up.
Now you say we have the same effect. Same as what? Which comes first?
The first comment on the subject said that dimorphism declined due to egalitarian ways of matching up male and female. IOW, the egalitarian came first, allowing or promoting the reduced dimorphism. IMO, humans are too bloody-minded for that. Why give up a good thing when nobody can take it from you?
I suggested the use of weapons promoted the reduction, which would have the effect. IOW, it wasn’t egalitarian first, but second. Then you equally matched up.
Now you say we have the same effect. Same as what? Which comes first?
I don’t think it matters much, because the result was egalitarian in the end, which was my point in talking about the reduced dimoprhism to begin with.
Not really. This makes really no sense. The fact of the matter is if you could theoretically remove the male preference for variety, and the female preference for hypergamy, it would be orders of magnitude easier to form long-lasting or permanent monogamous pair bonds. Frankly, if we could rework our base biological desires, it would be much easier to accomplish your desired objective of monogamous committed pairings.
ITA. The only thing that will suffer would be porn and romance novels: Boy meets girl, they get married, have children, those children grow up and get married too. Not a lot to write or act about, but then who knows marriage people porn and romance after the wedding like dealing with a couple reconnecting after a long period of hard work could become the new norm. I would love to live in that universe in fact I have transhumanist leanings and this should be the first two erased from the list of “human” traits. No hypergamy no variety need. World would be a better place if we could pair off for life and we can afford it now that our lifetime is four times longer and we have conquered the planet, YMMV.
but women and men who used to have ONS shouldn’t be seen as forever tainted in general (once a slut always a slut). I believe in seeing changed people are they are now rather than who they used to be.
You can date those if you want to I will abstain and suport anyone that doesn’t want to get involve with them who knows maybe if enough people do that people might think twice before opening their legs or dropping their pants at the first sign of arousal.
I had never seen a person that loooves casual sex doing a 180 unless they had a really bad fall out from it: a near death experience, time in jail or felt a deep and genuine religious conversation, aside from that “perro huevero aunque le quemen el hocico sigue comiendo huevos (Egg stealer dog even if it gets its snout burned in the act will keep stealing eggs), YMMV.
Is there any particular reason the “Kim Kardashians” (and the Snookies and the Bachellorette-Courtneys of the world, to name a few) are so influential for so long?
I think is the Cinderella aspect of it, legitimate famous people, singers actresses…need to work to be famous and compete with others so normal people can’t dream to be famous if they have no skills or talents Snooki and the Kardashians have no talent or skill except letting people in their personal lives so any nobody can dream that their stupid meaningless personal shenanigans are as valuable as theirs and worth it of attention and money they are just a camera away from stardom, just look at all youtube people attempting to do similar things. I might be wrong though but is the closest thing I had come up with.
“Kim Kardashians” and other sort of mainstream-American-modern-female-culturea-icons are extremely influential in the Manosphere conception of “Dangerous Women.” Manosphere bloggers are far more influenced by media and pop culture archetypes than they seem to realize. Often, when I read these bloggers’ descriptions of interaction with real women they often seem to be women like this–and if you look for it, references to these cultural icons and archetypes are numerous in the PUA blogosphere. To be fair though, Kim Kardashian is simply the first name I came up with and certainly isn’t the only influential pop-culture example here–a better one might be a “Sex and the City”-wannabe type of woman. THAT show and those characters are given explicit references in “Girls” (according to a couple of Lena Dunham interviews) partly because of the inevitable comparisons between the two shows, but also because Dunham is trying to write a sort of “girls-with-SATC-dreams-moves-to-Brooklyn-and-confronts-reality” thing.
All of that to say, I think the extent of the real influence of these types of cultural icons (god, I hate using the word “icon” for these people, it’s far too complimentary, but I can’t think of a more suitable turn of phrase) is indeed more limited than a lot of Manosphere bloggers tend to believe. Many of them really do seem to think that “American women = those women I see on TV and can’t respect. Also, I knew 5 chicks who were like that in college, so yeah, this is just what women are like now.”
In a way, they’re sort of unwilling to draw the ol’ virgin-whore dichotomy, which is kind of weird given their overall perspective on gender. Even women who “appear” to be good are still subject to their not-very-well-nuanced theories of sexual evolutionary psychology, and there’s a lot of what looks like increasing paranoia about this–the whole idea that even your evidently loving, faithful wife/girlfriend realllllllllly only gets wet for assholes. It can get quite cagey and neurotic. It’s very similar to women who believe all men would be cheating assholes if they could get away with it and who can’t ever really accept that some men ARE trustworthy and commitment-oriented. Again, this goes back to my original point–it has been made really well before on this blog–that a certain percentage of women ARE hardwired for hardcore ‘hypergamy’ and men for being playas. But some of us have evolved to really be wired for monogamy, and this does make sense according to evo-psych, as the monogamous family structure has been very beneficial to human development and survival for a long time now and many of us have ancestors who have been doing things that way for generations. What’s toxic now is that we in the West live in a culture that does encourage and rewards these sort of poorly-evolved particular individuals’ indulgence and tries to make the rest of us feel inadequate for not joining in. Fortunately . . . not everyone buys it. If you only hit on and interact with people who do your views will be tainted.
Maybe Joe and others actually agree with the gist of this, not sure.
I suggested the use of weapons promoted the reduction, which would have the effect. IOW, it wasn’t egalitarian first, but second. Then you equally matched up.
Well the weapons technology is a side effect of our brains growing bigger and you forget other factors that had attracted females that are also part of our mating strategy. Like musical or painting talents. So the reduction of diphormism is a consequences of us becoming smarter, but the females have to be at least smart enough to see that the skinny guy fencing the strong one shows good genes too regardless of how he looks so brains are the answer, IMO, YMMV.
I believe so. Someone needs to force feed that woman her meds.
Maybe we should raise money, hire a hacker to locate her and call her family so they can give her the help she needs. I mean at this point I think we are her only friends and this is the closest thing to attention she gets. I feel lots of pity for her.
Unrelated question:
Do you ever feel guilty about getting many opportunities/free stuff just because of your looks?
@Courtley
In my mind, celebrities are only influential (i.e. contribute to society) if they’re heavily involved in philanthropy. Paul Newman comes to mind. His various enterprises donated ~$300 million to charity over the years, and I believe he rarely acknowledged this publicly.
You’re on the right track, though. These young people are pretty much “famous for being famous” and that’s it. And they’re usually wealthy already, or looking to make it big. Their publicity is mostly manufactured. I think the vast majority of Americans, young and old, view them more with amusement than actual admiration or respect.
But some of us have evolved to really be wired for monogamy, and this does make sense according to evo-psych, as the monogamous family structure has been very beneficial to human development and survival for a long time now and many of us have ancestors who have been doing things that way for generations. What’s toxic now is that we in the West live in a culture that does encourage and rewards these sort of poorly-evolved particular individuals’ indulgence and tries to make the rest of us feel inadequate for not joining in. Fortunately . . . not everyone buys it. If you only hit on and interact with people who do your views will be tainted.
My view: most of us (other than the high sociosexuality scoring) are wired both for monogamy and for opportunistic cheating on the monogamous bond for personal gain.
A rational system recognizes the benefits of the monogamous urge, and the detriments of the cheating urge, and rewards one while punishing the other (and while at the same time shunning the high sociosexuality people as detrimental to the overall ordering for everyone else, which they well and truly are as Susan has pointed out numerous times quite well). We do not have this system, precisely because we have exalted personal sexual initiative to one of the most ultimate human freedoms — you can’t do that at the same time as rewarding monogamy and punishing cheating and high sociosexual behavior — it contradicts. Our civilization made a choice a few decades ago in favor of one side over against the other — in my opinion (and I daresay Susan would agree), in favor of the minority report on this issue. But be that as it may, it was a society-wide-impacting decision. The genie isn’t going back into the bottle anytime soon.
@ Anacaona
No. Why would I?
People giving me things of their own volition is completely on them. Who am I to stop them?
Also, thanks Susan and This is Jen for the good wishes regarding my date from last night.
In accordance with the topic at hand, I figured people would find it interesting that he told me he doesn’t kiss on the first date.
I closed the date by kissing him on the cheek, but we left it at that. It was actually quite quaint.
No. Why would I?
People giving me things of their own volition is completely on them. Who am I to stop them?
Guilty because you got lucky with the looks, you could had been ugly if genetics would had worked differently and then get nothing, you never had an ugly friend/relative that was treated completely different?
@Sassy6519
No drama? No games? Boring! You shouldn’t contradict the time-honored stereotypes about men vs. women that are so much a part of HUS : )
Seriously, congrats. Hope things progress for you and the lucky guy.
@Brendan
That seems like a reasonable and nuanced description–less pigeonholing than many evo-psych theorists for sure. I suppose I wouldn’t actually say some of us are so exclusively hardwired for monogamy that we CAN’T cheat. I just think monogamy and the traditional family structure has enough benefits that it has to have some biological basis, too–and indeed, oxytocin and pair-bonding indicate that it does. Some people are going to have less of this than others, and I agree, they are a now an over-glorified minority in our culture and sadly, many people for whom monogamy and something more traditional are in their best interests try to emulate them.
But not everybody.
That…doesn’t make sense to me. The way I see it, if you remove the base biological desires of hypergamy/variety, people would just be…asexual. Or, we as a species would simply sputter out — we would have women and men mating with the mentally-disabled, inbreeding, etc. There would be no evolutionary success for our species because people would have no motivation to mate with better prospects.
Oh boy we talk about how realistic is the views of the manosphere about rampant hypergamy and then I got this in my inbox:
HOT DAD’S CONTEST!
http://www.ivillage.com/hot-dads-contest-2/6-j-435775
@Susan:
Please forgive me, as I do not have time to read Ricky Raw’s article right now, although I like that dude a lot. I wish he’d been my big brother – my life would have been a lot easier. I will read it tomorrow evening when I get done with school.
I agree with most of what you’ve said in our discussion. Again, my intent is not to argue who is right, or play Oppression Olympics with anyone at all. I’m attempting to highlight an inconsistency that probably got lost in the clutter of competing contexts.
It’s a stinger, too – like somebody who drops his shoulder a half second before throwing a punch. You know that’s gonna get him knocked out one day.
Awright….
Forget I am a dude. For the remainder of this post, I am Robot Dogsquat, Destroyer of Worlds, Devourer of Chimichangas, He Who Has No Bias.
Here’s the Cliff’s Notes on two diametrically opposed ideas posited by you in this post and/or the comments:
1. Women are sometimes seduced by men. Men can act in certain ways that force/compel/cause women to abandon their best interests against their will.
2. Women are not exotic pets. They possess free will, and to think of them as manipulable/simple-minded/devoid of agency is incorrect and demeaning.
I am also not only talking about when women are directly lied to by men – of course people get hookwinked once in awhile. And yes, there is nuance and grey area involved. However, these two statements as written are inconsistent. Both cannot be true simultaneously.
Fucksocks. I wish I had more time.
In closing, I will caution you again that I am not arguing with you about good or bad, or which gender is “better”. I’m asking you to be mindful of these contradictory ideas. As we say in counterinsurgency operations, Credibility Is King, and this is a matter of credibility. You can convince anyone of almost anything as long as your message is consistent and applicable. The above is not.
I believe that this contradiction is a side effect of having multiple simultaneous conversations. I also believe that if I caught this, other people will notice as well. I humbly suggest you present a HUS Unified Theory reconciling or refuting these ideas, lest they be used against you in the Court Of Public Opinion.
Pedantically Yours,
Robot Dogsquat
@ Anacaona
I don’t think I’ve ever had an “ugly” friend, but I’ve had friends/relatives who were 5s, at the time. They weren’t ugly. They were just rather plain looking or overweight. They definitely got treated differently than I did, but most of their problems were fixable.
The overweight girls could have lost the weight. The plain looking women could try different hairstyles, clothing choices, or makeup palettes to spruce up their looks.
Aside from that, I don’t understand the idea of feeling guilt over the looks I was given. That would be like me expecting white people to feel guilt over simply being born white. That makes no sense whatsoever. We can’t choose what we are born with or as. We can only control what we do with the raw materials we are given.
@Megaman
“Their publicity is mostly manufactured. I think the vast majority of Americans, young and old, view them more with amusement than actual admiration or respect.”
And we view the people who genuinely emulate them with lots of amusement, too! There is always going to be that loud, obnoxious, attention-seeking blonde at the bar . . . and there’s usually 10 disgusted women starting at her as they try to have a nice chat at quieter tables with friends or a date, acting much more respectably. Let’s not pretend these people are representative of our entire society.
Sassy, I beg of you to keep your HUSness to yourself with this guy. Don’t even mention the Manosphere or anything, and maybe change your avatar for a bit. You’ve revealed quite a bit of stuff on here that guys don’t want to learn about their Ladies.
Congrats, and Happy Hunting! I hope you end up as happy as my goofy ass is.
@Mike M.
That’s welcome news! I actually think Game as applied to relationships is huge, because the truth is most of the guys wanting to learn Game are relationship-oriented. Some may choose the casual sex route, but I think the majority of beta guys will prefer relationships – that’s their strength.
@Sassy
Okay, thank you for the answer.
@Courtley
Agreed, and it’s even a narrower slicing than that, it’s NYCEWW, which is a genre all its own. To me, watching Girls is like watching a show about meerkats or the honey badger. It’s a close-up look at a particular species, and it’s interesting, if affected. As I’ve said before, I think its saving grace is that Lena Dunham is very happy to laugh at herself, at least in the show.
« 1 2 3 4 … 7 »
{ 2 trackbacks }