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 5 … 8 »
@ Dogsquat
Haha! You have a point there Dogsquat.
The photo I have up now may actually be the best one to use. I look like a man in it, so it’s a good distraction.
I can see how some of the things I have written would freak some men out. Operation “Covert Commenter” is a go.
But not everybody.
Indeed not everybody. And therein lies the key to this blog.
Perhaps, but to me that’s a bit like saying that there would be less war if we lobotomized all the men.
I suspect SayWhaat is right:
The fact is, we want the friction. Sex is about tension, a critical component of desire and anticipation. Here are my thoughts about what would happen if we could get rid of hypergamy and sexual variety:
Hypergamy:
Women would not seek higher status males because they would feel no desire to submit to a more dominant male.
Women would not select men based on their ambition, drive or work ethic, all indicators of their ability to provide.
=======> Men would have no incentive to achieve or lead.
Sexual variety:
Men would not desire multiple women, so oneitis would be the norm. Women would have no incentive to maintain their attraction or relationships, because there would be no risk of infidelity.
Preselection would not exist, so women would select men on different criteria. Any notion of men having options would be moot, as men would have no desire to exercise those options.
No woman would feel special or chosen – since men do not desire variety, their standards for commitment are low. Any woman providing regular sex who meets a minimal attractiveness threshold will suffice. Therefore, getting a man to commit would be no achievement at all, and would therefore have little value.
It might be true that such a change would produce more monogamous relationships, but I feel certain they would be of much lower quality.
@Danny
Yes, you did! Now I have backing from two superstar bloggers
@ Susan
Thanks Susan–that’s a line from a quote from a review of “Girls,” though, not my own inspired turn of phrase.
But I do agree, it’s about a very specific “species.” And there’s nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but when people with only thin connections to average Americans and perhaps other people in general begin to watch it and assume ‘this is how women just are these days’ I think it can be unnecessarily discouraging. Taking too many cues ABOUT the cultural milieu from popular culture can give anyone a distorted view of reality, in my view, especially for many of the young men who seem drawn to the Manosphere and/or pickup “artistry.”
+1
This is exactly how I see it.
@Susan
think girls enjoy the “friction” and ups and downs of a relationship a lot more than most guys, hell it’s one of the tenants of game.
I honestly believe that most beta guys would be more than happy with “Any woman providing regular sex who meets a minimal attractiveness threshold will suffice…” I know I would’ve been happy with that in my beta days. Definitely the scarcity mindset illustrated.
But then again, I’m a lot happier now that I’ve rid myself of that thinking and raised my standards. So you might have a point…
Tabletop second Episode is Settlers of Catan!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3WJTlDa7oo&feature=g-all-u&context=G280e4bcFAAAAAAAAAAA
I will be in my bunker.
Slightly OT
Speaking of “famous for being famous,” check out this experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=C9Ko6Xfa84w
Gotta love social proof.
…That ivillage “hot dads” contest is adorable enough to melt a PUA’s heart…
think girls enjoy the “friction” and ups and downs of a relationship a lot more than most guys, hell it’s one of the tenants of game.
Add me to the few girls that don’t want friction I just want to have my husband to grow old with me and raise my kids, have sex with me regularly and watch a couple of movies once in a while, play some video games and talk about crazy stuff. That is my idea of heaven. I never saw marriage as some sort of victory over others, but victory over being lonely and childless forever.
@Ana
Ditto on the friction angle. I think Susan was probably referring to the initial stages of dating and relationship interaction. Who wants to have anxiety, uncertainty, and doubt WRT his or her SO for decades? I don’t think anybody who’s married that long wants to. Couples tend to settle into comfortable, secure routines. That’s not to say they don’t try to spice things up once in awhile, and shake off some of the montony that can set in.
Ditto on the friction angle. I think Susan was probably referring to the initial stages of dating and relationship interaction. Who wants to have anxiety, uncertainty, and doubt WRT his or her SO for decades? I don’t think anybody who’s married that long wants to. Couples tend to settle into comfortable, secure routines. That’s not to say they don’t try to spice things up once in awhile, and shake off some of the montony that can set in.
The only reason I allowed myself to fall in love with my now husband is that he was completely honest, open, never played games and was reliable I’m sure any level of doubt wouldn’t had made our relationship progress heck the crisis I had that almost made me break up my engagement was for a comment from another guy that made me feel dread not even him someone else said a passing comment and I was on the edge of just calling everything odd I don’t do dread or friction at all. I might be an outlier or maybe all my experiences about “friction” has ended with bad outcomes and heartbreak but no. Security is my aphrodisiac.
That being said I’m “crazy” enough that the hubby doesn’t get bore and in everything else I do change up and spice things up. But I never do dreadful things and I certainly avoid fighting unless the consequences of bottling up my feelings are worse than resolving them, YMMV.
“The only reason I allowed myself to fall in love with my now husband is that he was completely honest, open, never played games and was reliable”
This is exactly how I felt too, Anacaona.
My husband was honest and upfront. No games, no negging, no deception or pretence. He was a breath of fresh air. Have been married 16 years now and still going strong.
“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.”
Well said, I agree. The risk is not worth it for a high count partner.
BTW when is your baby due, Ana ?
This is exactly how I felt too, Anacaona.
My husband was honest and upfront. No games, no negging, no deception or pretence. He was a breath of fresh air. Have been married 16 years now and still going strong.
Two for the no DRAMA! Please club
BTW when is your baby due, Ana ?
Mid October although knowing my luck it will be a week before of after, just for the lulz.
@ Kathy, Anacaona
This is why I like HUS. The comments here are a breath of fresh air. I can read your posts and say to myself (“there are women out there who value what matters”).
I find Dalrock’s posts just as informative as Susan’s, but the commentators there are the opposite of the commentators here.
@Susan,
“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.”
It’s not surprising to see this. A good percentage of the Manosphere are guys who have been hurt by the modern SMP. Even the most docile dog will bite after being kicked so many times. The thing is, the Manosphere is the only place you’ll see the “Dark Side” of female attraction described. We already know the dark side of male attraction (which ironically, can be an attractor to women, as long as it’s “alpha-like” males displaying it), but the equivalent female side is actively denied or praised by modern culture. Here’s a perfect example that Dogsquat pointed out:
“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.”
These statements above are at odds, but when womens’ promiscuity is seen as the “fault of cads”, rather than their own preferences, while at the same time arguing that women are not exotic pets, it serves to strengthen some of the Manosphere arguments about women, that you need to watch their actions and not listen to their words (revealed preference).
The incentives in the modern SMP are heavily skewed to the female side. In the past, a variety of societal forces were deployed to mitigate this, but they have been effectively removed. The modern SMP does not have those restrictions, and the endgame of this is pretty clear…we have several communities here in the USA which have been bellweathers for the last 40 years…
I’ll end this post with the words of one of the more perceptive female commenters from a past post:
“This also sort of explains why my husband had little luck in romance. He acts way closer to the nice guys than to the jerks. He didn’t play games, called me and texted me all the time, and he is really cuddly and touchy-feeling. How other girls don’t appreciate this is truly beyond my comprehension.”
The guy in question is a smart, good looking, solid guy. He wasn’t alone in having little luck in romance. A society where that difficulty becomes the norm for men is not a society with a positive future…
Dogsquat and ExNewYorker…can you expand on the way you see those two statements existing in such stark contradiction with one another that they are mutually exclusive in your eyes?
I think the use of “force” and the phrase “against their will” was too strong in the first sentence. Women (some women!) may indeed be compelled and convinced by seductive masculinity to do things that are harmful to them from a pragmatic perspective. They may indeed not have total control over what their body responds to sexually (neither do men) but ultimately, the CHOICE to go to bed with someone is a free-will choice. You can walk away from a hook-up potential even when aroused, if you so choose. Anyone can.
I’m not seeing the contradiction here. Can you expand on your interpretations and assumptions here?
I agree the Manosphere is pretty damn enlightening as far as helping women understand the emotional turmoil that too much sexual rejection puts men into. It can be rather traumatizing to wade through, sometimes, for a lot of women, but I think the Internet is invaluable in giving people places to vent and share unfiltered emotions.
What’s problematic, though, is when these wounded young men extrapolate airtight, grandiose theories about femininity and human nature from their own personal experiences. In that sense, I think the Manosphere has been very negative in encouraging self-defeating overthinking and existential depression for a lot of young guys, who I suspect probably just needed some kind of parental-style wisdom and guidance on ways to find, attract and keep commitment-minded women.
Courtley says
What’s problematic, though, is when these wounded young men extrapolate airtight, grandiose theories about femininity and human nature from their own personal experiences. In that sense, I think the Manosphere has been very negative in encouraging self-defeating overthinking and existential depression for a lot of young guys, who I suspect probably just needed some kind of parental-style wisdom and guidance on ways to find, attract and keep commitment-minded women.
——————————————————————————-
That right there is gold. Men are looking for ( and finding) . the wrong kind of women.
“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).”
Every society everywhere has high sociosexuality people who can do whatever they want sexually, and they do. There will always be sluts. There will always be beautiful women who walk between the raindrops. There will always be football team captains and Rhett Butlers. They will always be able to get whatever they want, whenever they want.
The culture has convinced not only the high sociosexuality people that they can pursue NSA sex with impunity. Now, the average Jane with a sex rank of 4 is convinced that she’s Miss America, entitled to do whatever she wants sexually with whomever she wants, with no consequences and no judgment.
@Dogsquat, @Ex New Yorker
Your first statement does not correctly reflect what I said. If the woman abandon’s her own best interests, she does it very much according to her will. In fact, I’ve argued that is a perfect description of promiscuous women today. They are making poor choices, and no one is forcing them to do so. The goal of seduction is to bend the other person’s will to one’s own – you can’t remove their agency. Well, you can, and that is rape.
I do not give those women a free pass. They are responsible for self-control, no matter how tempting the lure, and should be judged by their actions.
But I do hold seducers accountable – specifically, men who target a woman who is unwilling or previously inexperienced and attempt to bend her to their will for sex knowing they will inflict harm in doing so. This is usually and commonly achieved by pretending to be interested in a love relationship when their only intent is short-term or no-strings sex. Again, the critical element here is deceit. In short, a cad.
I do not apply this judgment to men who have sex with women without pretending they are offering anything more than a ONS. As I’ve said before, don’t ask, don’t tell is on the woman. It is her responsibility to suss out the intent of any man she has sex with. If she fails to do so, the man is blameless for her decision, though he may still be an immoral man.
History and literature are chock full of rakes who seduced women into sex and ruined them during times when there were daunting social forces keeping women chaste. In the contemporary SMP, there are many willing women, but there are also still plenty of rakes who enjoy the hunt and seduction, and view the activity of breaking hearts as one of collateral damage. In fact, I’ve seen a commenter here say that very thing. Collateral damage.
Your summary of the second point is correct.
“parental-style wisdom and guidance on ways to find, attract and keep commitment-minded women.”
Here’s how I (and a lot of men coming of age in the 1980s) were told how to “find, attract and keep commitment-minded women” by pastors, parents, teachers, Scout leaders, and persons in authority over us (men and women):
“Be nice. Be yourself. If you cannot find or keep a commitment minded woman, it is because you are not being nice enough. If girls are breaking up with you or you can’t get past one date, you are not being nice enough. You have to be nicer.
“When you go on a date, it is your DUTY to pay for EVERYTHING. You are to do what she wants. You are to ask her what she wants and then do that. You are not to do anything that she does not want to do. You are to ask her for permission before doing anything.
“With sex — DON’T. Keep your d**k in your pants. If you want to kiss her, you must ask her first. If you want to hold her hand, you must ask first. You must never, never, NEVER escalate to anything physical unless you ask first. You are not to take anything sexually. You must ask for it.”
“Sex is a Beautiful Experience for a woman. You must never do anything to ruin it for her. You must make sure she orgasms and if she is not it is YOUR FAULT. Women do not like rough, vigorous sex. They like slow, romantic sex with candles and soft music. You must always have sex the way SHE wants to have it.
“Women are always looking for husbands. You are being evaluated all the time for your suitability as a husband. You must show that you are husband material. The way you do that is through immediate investment and commitment. You must go all in immediately on a woman you like.
“You must tell her everything about yourself — your likes, dislikes, hopes, dreams, plans and desires. You must not hesitate to show your emotions, that you are in touch with and understand your emotions, and that you will come to her for emotional support when you need it. Women love that. You must reveal, be an open book so you have no secrets from her. In this way she will know that it is safe for her to show her emotions, and that you have shown the requisite level of commitment to her and her alone.
“Do all this, and the women will be beating down your door to date, marry and have sex with you. Now go forth, be fruitful, and multiply.”
So that’s what I was told. And that’s why I’ve become an active participant in the manosphere.
@Jimmy Hendricks
Let me clarify that. I am not talking about friction in relationships. I am talking about the sexual tension that is part of attraction and builds anticipation. In other words, mating is a dance, with many steps and millions of neurochemical occurrences. Attraction includes so many emotions – inspiration, longing, obsession, desire, joy, euphoria, anxiety, pain, fear, elation, investment, jealousy, curiosity, optimism. I contend that if you take away hypergamy and the male desire for variety – which reflect the reproductive priorities of each sex – then you dial these emotions way down, and eliminate many.
Life would become easier, but boring as hell, and the birthrate would plummet. People wouldn’t bother.
I’ve actually been meaning to write a post about friction for a while. Not friction as in disagreement, hostility or angst. I’m talking about both the physics and metaphysics of friction.
The friction that occurs when two things touch and create energy. This happens at every stage of human interaction, and of course friction is necessary for reproduction in the literal sense as well.
@Susan
“inspiration, longing, obsession, desire, joy, euphoria, anxiety, pain, fear, elation, investment, jealousy, curiosity, optimism.”
This has gotta be a chick thing. The only time I ever felt some of these was at my most beta.
Currently its more of do it my way or NEXT.
@ENY
I get it, but at the same time have no intention of being a punching bag for those disaffected males. Truth? Sure. I’m just asking people to maintain perspective and communicate with decency.
Please keep in mind that I have thousands of female readers everyday who know nothing of the experience of young males. I’m doing my best to inform them, but I have no intention of telling them they’re hypergamous bitches in the process. If they’ve come to HUS (despite great linkage, the vast majority of people still find me via Google search) they’re looking for a solution to a problem. They’re already aware, and they may even be self-aware. I’d rather clue people in without assaulting their sensibilities in the process by dishing up a view of all women that is hostile and judgmental. As I’ve said, I prefer to deal with matters of biology in a dispassionate way – the mating process may not be perfect, but it’s as close to perfect as it’s ever been, and we have no idea what we’re talking about when we make value judgments. AFAIC, it makes no sense.
That’s the fine line I’m always walking, and it’s my problem. I’m just sharing the blogger perspective.
+1
This is exactly what I meant when I referred to overdosing on the red pill.
Question for the ladies.
How do we find a commitment minded women?
What are the tells?
Purple hair? Polka dots?
What is it that a man can use to tell an actual good wife apart from both pretenders and sociopaths. You all look exactly the same.
@ Saywhaat
I agree with you Saywhaat.
I don’t see how people can say they want the desires of hypergamy and sexual variety to be eradicated from human nature. It’s those two natures that allowed humans to evolve so efficiently in the first place.
If women didn’t select the best mate that they could get, the evolutionary process would have been much slower. The selection of evolutionary good traits (intelligence, physical attractiveness, etc) would have been coincidental instead of intentional. Humans would be fairly mediocre, in my opinion, if human females didn’t strive to get good quality males and good quality sperm.
The same is the case for sexual variety. If men didn’t value different types of women and characteristics, our species wouldn’t be as varied as it is. There would probably be less genetic diversity, which would probably be the downfall for the entire species. Without genetic diversity, diseases and natural disasters would wipe out catastrophic amounts of humans. If everyone was similar, and everyone had relatively the same immune system, one very well mutated form of bacteria or virus would do us in. It’s genetic variations and mutations in our genomes that have allowed people to survive this long in the first place.
Really? I think that’s sad – in my experience the best orgasms result from a heady emotional mix including some history with all of the above. I know that women are more emotionally inclined during sex than men are, but do men have no variation in the intensity of their orgasms as a result of emotional depth and connection? For me the most important sex organ has always been the brain, and I don’t mean doing calculus proofs.
Lokland, SW:
“inspiration, longing, obsession, desire, joy, euphoria, anxiety, pain, fear, elation, investment, jealousy, curiosity, optimism.”
I’ve felt all these things. It’s when you start showing them to your woman that they become detrimental. Many women (NOT ALL) can’t handle a man being overly emotional — overly happy, sad, anxious or in pain.
Susan/friction…there’s an old SF book about a comet that passes near earth and its tail includes a substance which increases friction so greatly that all mechanical devices cease to work and civilization is destroyed.
It strikes me that if there were a substance in the comet’s tail that *totally eliminated* friction, it would have the same destructive effect….clutches wouldn’t work, belt drives wouldn’t work, tires wouldn’t grip the road, etc etc.
@Susan
There is a difference. And yes its within the context of a relationship.
Which is not what you were talking about.
You said the intial stages of attraction.
I’ve never felt any of those things. My sole directive was to find a vagina capable of child bearing.
All that other nonsense came much later. (as in >6 months, of course when I was still very low beta I was more like what you describe.)
TMI time.
My fiance is the only woman who has ever made me moan during sex. It started after doing a year of LD (serious LD, none of this across the country crap) and we met up in her hometown. Emotional connection was probably more important then.
inspiration- this is not unique to one woman
longing- no
obsession- maybe as a virgin
desire- not unique
joy- only when I’m finished
euphoria- see above
anxiety- why, one didn’t work out. Only 3,499,999,999 more to go,
pain- I hope not
fear- this only comes later
elation- no
investment,- definetely no
jealousy- yes. This is an every situation case.
curiosity- Yes.
optimism- No.
“mean doing calculus proofs.”
Ohh no… I seem to be hot and bothered.
And I really need another coffee. That writing was atrocious.
If it needs clarification just ask.
“do men have no variation in the intensity of their orgasms as a result of emotional depth and connection?”
Technically, it probably does happen: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/07/08/sperm-attractiveness.html
Although it seems to have more to do with hotness than emotional attachment.
But speaking from personal experience, the difference is negligible. Personally I’ve always found it to be much more dependent on proper physical stimulation. Women need a fair amount of practice too, though it doesn’t have to be with multiple partners.
@ Deti
I think much of what you wrote are at least somewhat accurate for what I’d say the commitment-minded women I know desire in a man, or value about their significant other–the gist of it anyway, obviously without your added underlying emphasis on perceived female privilege. Non-spoiled, sensible women don’t want an all-about-meeeee relationship. But the ideas of romance, thoughtfulness, sharing your emotions and dreams, etc. sounds bang-on to me. You could probably describe these women as the type who are at least somewhat biologically wired to be attracted to faithful “beta” characteristics in men.
@Lokland, do you not notice any difference women’s personalities? Are you just seeing one collective giggly mysterious female personality? How do you personally assess women’s character? And, also, what’s your age range/the age range of girls you spend time around?
“we have exalted personal sexual initiative to one of the most ultimate human freedoms”
Instead of looking at the society level, it is more important to look at that one person at a time. Some people are always going to act on personal sexual initiative regardless of the consequences, so it is best to avoid those people. Everyone else will be tempted to act on them, but they ultimately will choose what they will do (it’s called free will and individual responsibility, people). A spouse can reduce these temptations through their behaviors, but no one can make them disappear completely.
It is all about finding people who are mature and committed enough both to avoid temptation themselves, and also reduce the temptation for their spouse. Fortunately, both of those things are usually self-reinforcing. Unfortunately, most of us are not great at realizing how to do that. That is why “red pill wisdom,” by itself, is not the only answer. It must be accompanied by maturity and self-restraint in both of the partners.
I think that all successful couples understand this naturally, but failing couples don’t understand it at all. That is why websites like HUS and MMSL are so valuable- they give the rest of us a clue of what we can do!
@Susan
My fault, I didn’t write that the way I meant to… I actually meant that yes, most guys don’t enjoy friction in the initial stages of the relationship. “The Chase” as it’s so often called.
I think this idea that guys enjoy “The Chase” is mostly projection on the part of girls. It’s well documented that they girls the emotional roller coaster. They love the ups and downs and unexpected nature of new relationships. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But most guys don’t.
Other than the borderline sociopathic alphas I’ve known, most guys would rather just “get the girl and get on with life.”
Boring? Sure. But that’s beta in a nutshell. Dependable and borderline boring.
Courtley 336:
This is going to sound really cynical. But — Are you serious?
Please tell me you’re not serious.
I wrote that comment at 322 as exactly what NOT to do when attracting women. My point was that I got exactly the wrong advice on how to attract and date women. I was doing everything wrong but I was doing it that way because my parents, pastors, teachers, SCout leaders, etc. were telling me to do it that way. And when it failed (as it was destined to fail), I was just told that it must have been because I was not nice enough and that I needed to be nicer.
I learned more about women in a year in the manosphere than I had learned in the previous 30 years from my parents, pastors, teachers, and from trial and error.
I think you’re wrong about a man showing immediate signs of commitment by spilling his guts about himself. Men just cannot do that if they want their women to be attracted. It kills attraction.
@Courtley
“I think much of what you wrote are at least somewhat accurate for what I’d say the commitment-minded women I know desire in a man”
Absolutely. Every woman deserves a beta chump after her exhilarating ride on the carousel.
Susan:
“FWIW, I know several Game bloggers who have admitted to cold or even hateful relationships with their mothers. I would be amazed to find a single practitioner of Dark Game who had healthy relationships anywhere, including with family.”
———-
If you’re referring to dark triads:
Ironic, in my experience, dark triads tend to actually be mollycoddled by family, especially their mothers. My suspicions are that some are like that due to biochemical imbalances + the absence of a very firm hand.
@Lokland
I understand what you are saying. I’m sure men experience it differently. Focusing on the initial stages of attraction, weren’t you more excited if the vagina was not just capable of child-bearing, but honing in on your penis to get the job done? IOW, the exchange of mutual attraction creates energy. And I am simply using the word friction to describe it. You could say combustion or some other word to describe it. My point is that your going after any and all vaginas is part of what made you exciting to your fiancee, who ideally secured commitment from you before having sex. Her wanting the best man possible and selecting you made you feel incredible – I recall you saying it’s like walking around on a cloud 24/7.
Without hypergamy and male sexuality, neither of those things could happen.
Just coming back from a nice weekend. I see we’re back to debating female nature.
Lokland, how are you beta if your count is higher than 40? You gave the impression that you and your fiance had similar past partner counts.
Courtley, I agree that the show doesn’t represent all of us 20-somethings. But my life would be too boring to last more than an episode. Also, I’m the token Asian good with computers and Photoshop. :<
Anacaona and Kathy, I agree with the certainty of love from the man, but I had lots of uncertainty with regard to circumstances. We were long distance, and I was moving several states away, quitting my job and starting over with no friends or acquaintances to be with him. He had to make me totally comfortable with the idea first, because it was definitely scary.
deti, my husband did most of the things on that list, and he was unsuccessful with most other girls, but quite successful with me. In particular the open about emotions and telling everything about himself part got him friendzoned with other girls but total devotion from me. I think it's a matter of numbers. There are way more girls who don't want that than do, so the manosphere advice is better for the average guy catching the average girl.
@Alias
I’ve read that many narcissists experienced insecure attachment in childhood. Their NPD is in fact an attachment disorder. But I think you’re right – we can pump our kids up so drastically with delusions of grandeur that they can reach the same place. I’m thinking of a couple of people who have openly stated that they have a cold, even hateful relationship with their mothers. Their dark views of women are probably just a subset of their generally dark views about everything.
Hope:
Then you’re an outlier. I have not met a single woman — including my wife and my mother — who wanted to hear me talk about my feelings. Not one. None of my past GFs either. They were either repulsed, or disgusted, or creeped out, or (in the case of my wife) mildly irritated.
“I’m not your therapist.”
“If you need to talk about your feelings, get with some guys from church.”
deti, my husband and I are both INFJ, which you are right is outlier territory (estimated 1-3% of the population). If we don’t talk about our feelings with each other we feel disconnected and lonely.
As I recall you’re an NT? Could it be the women you know are SJ or SP types? As an NF, I’ve had fruitful discussions about feelings with NTs.
“in my experience, dark triads tend to actually be mollycoddled by family, especially their mothers. My suspicions are that some are like that due to biochemical imbalances + the absence of a very firm hand.”
Possibly. Sociopaths, bullies, narcissists are known to have very high levels of self-esteem. That may be caused by everyone telling them how wonderful they are while growing up.
I have a niece who is coddled by most people in my extended family. She is an unbearable, entitled brat.
@Lokland
I clipped a comment by Dogsquat a while ago about finding good women. To save him the trouble of rereating it, I offer it here:
Deti – “So that’s what I was told. ”
That was exactly the same “instruction” I was given as a boy and young man. It sometimes amazes me that my marriage lasted 12 years with all that nonsense knocking around my head.
Susan – I know I am not even close to representative of the average man, but I do indeed derive great pleasure from emotional intensity during sex. Sex with my SO is always good, but sometimes a massive dose of emotion can really take things to another level. Of course there is “make up sex”, but we’ve also had “the car needs $1500 in repairs stress” sex, “I got a great bonus at work so we can live it up on vacation” sex, I can go on and on, but the point is that at least for me any increase in emotion between us often results in mind blowing sex.
And as a guy that has never had a ONS or casual sex buddy, every one of my sexual experiences has had some level of emotion and connection. I honestly can’t say how much better emotional investment makes sex, but I can tell you that damn good sex with SOME emotional investment can be turned into something stellar with a heavy dose of emotional tension or friction (positive or negative). To me, this means casual sex must be about as fulfilling as a saltine cracker to a starving man.
Of course, I would never blame a starving man for gorging himself on saltines…
@Susan
It really is different for men, Susan. The vocabulary is much different and, truth be told, it’s an experience that is not expressed in words. There is *no* vocabulary.
The best I can do is tell you that it’s almost the opposite of what I’ve copied above (and I don’t mean been doing calculus proofs either). It’s almost like turning your brain completely off and experiencing almost nothing but sensory input. No words, no thoughts, just images, sounds and sensations.
Cosign to Jimmy on the “friction” angle. I find this to be a very important part of building sexual tension in a relationship. It’s something a man must learn and know how to manufacture to keep things sexy.
It’s not friction in the sense of “Will he still be here next week?” or “Does he still love me?” That’s bad friction.
It’s more along the lines of playful butting of heads, challenging and teasing, knowing how “rough” to be at the appropriate time. The flirting could be in the form of a challenge or a purposeful, playful comment or action to put her “in her place” and exert your caveman dominance, i.e. the tried and true swat on the ass.
Nurturing and stability has is key, but I believe a man has to always have a raw side to keep up the “come get it” and “I bet you can’t handle this
” dynamic. If you’re super cuddly guy and she just KNOWS she has you wrapped around her finger, well there’s just no fun in that. Gotta learn how to keep that push/pull chase going while having it understood that you’re not some jerk on the street.
Going through all my files and clippings, I came across this old quote from Roissy, which is relevant here:
@ susan
As someone who’s been happily married for 27 years without a single harem or hypergamy crisis, I think it’s all about carefully selecting a partner, giving and receiving generously, getting creative and practicing gratitude. It’s also about embracing the idea of constant self-development, avoiding complacency and deterioration as much as possible.”
_________________
Exactly!…This may not apply to you, but it might. Some people wonder if they missed out on anything by having only one or two lovers before marriage. People with a little experience do know and understand it is the emotional connection that is what really counts. No need to wonder about what they missed, they have been there, done that and hopefully learned from their experiences… Someone mentioned 3-1 ratio of good girl to slut behavior.. Boy are they hanging out with the wild ones. Most stats say only about 5% or less are showing slutty behavior.
This was a well written article. It supports my contention all along that both men and women ARE conscience thinking people, for the most part, and that past behavior is NOT a good predictor of future behavior, for MOST people. For the exotic animal woman who thinks with her vagina, sure, but she is to be avoided if one is looking for a relationship. Not all promiscuous people go about it in a destructive or harmful, thoughtless way. Most I have encountered are discerning, picky, level headed and responsible with their actions. The true exotic animal sluts, in my opinion are pretty easy to pick out of a crowd.
Obviously not everyone is OK with their potential mate having experienced others sexually. That`s A-OK. But as Athol relates, not all women are the exotic animal types who follow their instincts only.
Boring? Sure. But that’s beta in a nutshell. Dependable and borderline boring.
Boringness is relative I must add. I find my reliable beta husband a thousand times more entertaining that all my promiscuous friends whose only theme was “women” and “sex”. Even the writers couldn’t talk about anything without mentioning some writer sexual description or sexual life. It was a one track minded and yes they called me boring for wanting to discuss different things and not look at every human as walking genitals, so boring beta is a very first world thing spent some times with men that love banging more than breathing and see how boring they can be, YMMV.
College Kid:
“Its called the folly of youth. I can’t think of very many college kids who want commitment while we are still in college. We have too much on our plate and will college and move on in a few years anyway.”
——–
Many students remain in their home state because of financial/personal reasons and the majority of the undergrad kids are single and available. So, very many college kids are missing out on one of the best opportunities to find someone they’re compatible with.
I’m speaking as someone who attended school full-time, worked 30 hrs/week, lived independently, kept a bf throughout college (now my husband), and even managed some extra-curriculars- as did many other people I know. Even the ones who graduated cum laude managed a similar schedule. It’s doable.
It’s doable.
But is cool? Desirable? What the popular kids are doing in mass? There is your answer as to why its not the mindset few modern kids want to be the first of their group to marry or be the one that marry their first boyfriend. That is for religious freaks, unambitious women and losers!
Susan:
“I’ve read that many narcissists experienced insecure attachment in childhood. Their NPD is in fact an attachment disorder.”
————
Yes, it is a detachment disorder. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s due to the parent. Some infants/toddlers with disorders actually pull away and don’t like to be carried. IOW, the child lacks the ability to attach. It’s actually a sign for parents that something might be amiss.
Narcissists can have a superficial connections to their family members, but the don’t feel deeply for anyone. That’s what I’m saying- they’re not necessarily at odds with family members and don’t have to be abused.
Now, I’m not arguing that some dark gamers don’t have abusive relationships with their mothers, I’m just saying that many of the ones I know don’t. I don’t want people to think that’s always the case.
I wonder if JesusM is reading and can share what the relationship was between his mother relationship to his DT brother.
I wonder how much mothers influence sons in regard to attachment styles and whether or not they’ll turn out to have “dark triad” traits. I remember a series of posts by Ricky Raw at The Rawness on this subject.
My husband’s mother is also INFJ, and she was the closest female figure to my husband for a long time. He was able to talk about feelings and emotions with her, as well as ideas and philosophy. It makes sense he would look for the same in a woman.
@Hope
“Lokland, how are you beta if your count is higher than 40? You gave the impression that you and your fiance had similar past partner counts.”
Alpha has nothing to do with getting your penis wet.
Alpha is the leader, the god among men. Its the guy whose very presense doesn’t just catch female attention but gathers the hearts of other men to follow him. For good or evil. I’ve only ever encountered one and my immediate instinct was to begin following where was irrelevant.
I have no desire to lead anyone but myself. (And my fiance and children but that should be implied. And possibly the people who work for me but I have no delusions that their dreams do not revolve around mine.)
As for misleading on my count. My mistake.
@Susan
“weren’t you more excited if the vagina was not just capable of child-bearing, but honing in on your penis to get the job done?”
No. The honing on my penis bit was more like a requirement to even be acknowledged.
To put it really cynically. A women who doesn’t show enough interest is more useless to me than a slut. Atleast the slut is good for sex.
And yes, knowing my fiance is dedicated to me is like walking on a cloud. But that didn’t matter to me or even register in my thought/feelings until I devoted myself to her. Which took ~6 months. I promised her exclusivity before that but that was merely delving into a good prospect not any type of I wuv u 4ever statement.
I didn’t feel much of anything until much later in the relationship. The intial stages were mechanical steps involved in finding the right person to devote myself too.
Susan,
Re: attachment disorders
Children can become attached to abusive/neglectful parents, and most often do. In order for a child to form a secure attachment to their parents, it must be 2-way. Both parent and child must have the capacity.
@ Susan
Wow that comment by Dogsquat needs to go up as a post and be bookmarked in the Best of HUS section. Really good advice.
Lokland, I see. You’re using a stricter definition of alpha. I guess this shows how assumptions can be so off.
Interesting that it took you 6 months to reciprocate your fiance’s feelings. My husband and I fell in love within two weeks (before we got physical). Different couples are definitely different!
I think that the masculinist commentators are facing some of the same challenges that feminism experienced early on; it is impossible to weave an ideology into a tent large enough to cover every misbehavior committed by members of one sex against members of the other.
Watching my two older kids navigate the minefield has left me awestruck at just how ideology-ridden the SMP has become even in the last twenty years. Even though the last two relationship crises in our household (my son with a long distance relationship that couldn’t hold up because of the mileage, and my daughter breaking up with a “Him Kardashian” because of his stultifying self-absorption) could have happened to anyone since Adam and Eve, they were all minutely dissected according to the sexual orthodoxies in place among their peers.
Sorry for posting this in installments. ha
Susan,
You’ve written many times that the number of narcissists has increased because our culture is permissive and indulgent. If we were living under stringent social and cultural mores, the number of narcissists will decrease.
This is similar to what I’ve seen in narcissists. Their families coddle them.
deti
There’s a lot of guys reading this who have never even got to stand next to the carousel or even seen what the carousel looks like, much less get to be a cock on the carousel.
There are a lot of guys out there who would give their left nuts to be a cock on the carousel.
____________
Then there are those of us who were a cock on the carousel and understand it is a lonly, shallow way of life when compared to a great relationship.. There are women who have also had similar experiences.
OT, but interesting
I saw E.L.James on “Access Hollywood” over the weekend. She was asked why she chose to make the hero so “dominant” and if she thought men like that were really so attractive to women. She laughed and ansewered, “On paper, yes.” She added that IRL women like men who will help with the dishes. I though that was really revealing that she admitted in essence that there’s a huge difference between fantasy and reality and that even she knew where to draw the line.
I was oddly charmed by her. The photo is SW’s post is clearly a “glamour shot.” E.L. is an overweight, middel-aged hausfrau who is aging Britishly, but she looks like she’s be a hell of a lot of fun to hang out with. She laughed through the whole interview and acknowledged that she was a lousy writer and had no idea how she became so successsful. She exhibited a lot of gratitiude to whatever providence awarded her book and movie contracts worth millions, seemed to be enjoying what she deemed as unmerited good fortune and said that she planned to use some of the money to remodel her kitchen. I got a kick out of her.
Also, I wasn’t on the net over the weekend, but just I answered some posts addressed to me on the Girls thread in case people were expecting responses from me.
@Hope
I take a long time to trust people and that applies to everybody.
And yes my defintion of alpha is very strict.
I tend to use the short-hand version we do here for discussions sake but thats not my personal defintion.
To make it more clear. I believe being an alpha (my defintion) will let you get your dick wet. I also believe there are other ways to get your dick wet but those don’t make you a leader.
PUA reverse cause and effect. Being an alpha gets you laid (though its not the only way). Getting laid does not make the man an alpha. It might make him appear alpha to women but they don’t determine the hierarchy they just want what men determine to be the best.
(The slight exclusion to this is the gaining of hierachal status by getting the hot women. However this doesn’t exist nearly as much anymore.)
Interesting that it took you 6 months to reciprocate your fiance’s feelings. My husband and I fell in love within two weeks (before we got physical). Different couples are definitely different!
It took me around that time to get to fall in love with my husband too. But that is usually my threshold with people in general in six month I can tell how our relationship is going to be for the rest of our natural lives , hubby tells me he had strong feeling but he wasn’t properly hooked till after the end of the first trip, of course it most be six months of constant and regular contact. My best friend that is like a sister to me and I shared a class on college but she was busy being pregnant with her first child and I was too “tomboyish” and with too many classes per day for us to talk more than once or twice we didn’t register in each others radars back then. Then two years later when we were doing the thesis after more or less six months of time sharing we “fell in friendship” and never stopped we had been friends for almost twelve years now.
deti:
“There are a lot of guys out there who would give their left nuts to be a cock on the carousel.”
——–
If carousel = lots of casual sex, then it’s important that relationship oriented people who aren’t into casual avoid both those who enjoy being on the carousel and all of the wannabes.
susan.
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
__________
Perfectly put. A very easy concept to understand, but some of my friends just dont get it. It works both ways. No one likes the air of desperation in either gender, and a relationship seeker does not appreciate a person who is totally noncommittal(especially after they say they were)
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.
___________
This has basically been done by the couple participants themselves in most successful relationships.. Their love for one another trumps biological desires of variety and hypergamy. At least those desires are normally buried very deep.
Hey Ted. I hope this finds you well.
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”.
Obviously Susan, I agree with Mike C. on this. Men need to take a topic to the Nth degree to fully understand it. They will not mince words as it will blur the objective. If the objective is to understand women then it has to all hang out and it will be talked about in a general manner as the time wasted to keep saying this is a generalization is simply tedious. In someone else’s house (blog) this is acceptable and even necessary for the discussion. For your house, you have made it obvious that this is a blog directed at women and it is unacceptable. The Nth degree, as regards women, is going to be different from woman to woman and lie, as everything else discussed here, on a sliding scale.
@Jimmy Hendricks
“I think this idea that guys enjoy “The Chase” is mostly projection on the part of girls. ”
+1.
There are some guys who like the “chase”. These are usually the cads and related figures. Your average beta doesn’t want that drama.
“Other than the borderline sociopathic alphas I’ve known, most guys would rather just “get the girl and get on with life.”
Boring? Sure. But that’s beta in a nutshell. Dependable and borderline boring.”
Yeah. Can’t argue with this.
Unfortunately, “the chase” is something most every guy will need to deal with. That’s the burden of being the gender that’s expected to act first. You’ll never see any significant number of women be the “initiators” (though they can improve their “invitation” skills).
Two for the no DRAMA! Please club
Three. DH and I purposely selected each other for no drama.
Great point, Tom! This is essentially what Athol said in his post as well. We need those forces to optimize selection, and then we can set them aside. I think this is exactly what successful couples do. It promotes stability and satisfaction within relationships. Those who continue to indulge these drives, even in fantasy, are probably much likelier to be dissatisfied with their partner over time as the novelty wears off.
@Susan
“No woman would feel special or chosen. . . . Therefore, getting a man to commit would be no achievement at all, and would therefore have little value.”
I’m in complete agreement with Anacaona – I don’t see marriage as some sort of victory, I see it as being able grow oldwithout being lonely. (while sharing a bunch of lovely experience)
You’re statement that women require friction further instills my belief that women don’t want a man willing to commit – they want one unwilling, to commit. Thus rendering the men who are willing to provide want women say they truly want as valueless.
If I reliquish my desire for variety, which I believe a lot of men now-a-days have done to appease womens’ desire for monogamous-commitment, I’ve essentially rendered myself as valueless.
To reference HBO: Girls, women do truly prefer a guy who “can afford to treat [them] poorly.”
I want to believe otherwise, but isn’t coming easy.
@Stingray
I don’t disagree with that at all. I do find it amusing that you are often the only female present for those conversations.
In any case, I absolutely do insist that both misogyny and misandry are filtered out of conversation here. Reports of this debate being hostile were premature, though, as you can see. This thread has been civil, informative and engaging from my POV.
I have zero interest in what gets said on other blogs unless I am specifically referenced, quoted, or vilified. Even then, as you know, I would rather live in blissful ignorance, since catty name-calling and jealous (male) bitches are what I find tedious. In the specific instance I was referring to, Mike C specifically advised Ted not to bring his relationship conversation to HUS anymore. (Actually, he said, “you know where I mean.”) Unfortunately, this was emailed to me by a reader – it is very difficult to escape the hate even when I decide to avoid looking. This morning another reader clued me in to more haterade from Dalrock and his followers. When people offer their opinions online, it’s bound to get out one way or another.
What I do care about is two-faced behavior. If one doesn’t support my mission, and does not consider HUS a good place to discuss relationships, one shouldn’t be here at all. It’s entirely disingenuous to come here and pretend you’re not dissing HUS elsewhere.
I’ve made a choice that HUS will be a place for people who share the same values and goals in the SMP. We will disagree and debate many topics here, but I won’t allow anyone to hang out here and destroy what I and many others have built over time.
Susan, I just want to say that I think HUS is a wonderful blog, despite me thinking of the facts and conclusions of todays’ SMP are hard to swallow.
And whether it’s hard to believe or not, I actually don’t frequent a single other blog related to dating.
Not saying that sometimes I think I may be limiting my learning by exclusively viewing a blog written towards women.
In talking about the friction, or energy created by mutual attraction, I’m not talking about a chase, being hard to get, or any other kind of manipulation of another person. I’m talking about the limerence stage of attraction (from Wikipedia):
I guess not everyone has this experience, but I know that some men do, and I very much felt this way about my husband.
@Cooper
Please see my comment about limerence.
I guess what I’m saying is that I believe if you remove the biological imperative from women and men, which is what hypergamy and variety represent, we wouldn’t have any more limerence.
@Cooper
Thank you for the kind words, I appreciate them very much.
I actually encourage you to look around at other blogs. You can certainly learn different things at an all-male blog than you will here, and the emphasis will naturally differ.
My only advice in reading any relationship or SMP blog is to ignore any blogger who doesn’t have what you want. Every blogger describes his or her life in some detail. If that’s a life you’d like to have, that’s a blogger you should be reading.
I trust that this advice alone is enough to keep the readers I care about away from “dark Game” blogs, as the relationships those people describe sound positively dysfunctional and dreadful.
@Susan
Has a man that seeks a monogamous-relationship reliquished his biological imperative, thus forfeiting any potential for limerence (from a women)?
Must a man have an apparent choice of variety of women in order to obtain limerence from another?
Furthermore, is it my goal of seeking*one* that has hindered me from finding any?
Susan, I definitely had the limerance stage with my husband, and he was the same way at the same time.
I think what men want to avoid is having one-sided limerance for a female, or “unrequited oneitis,” because that is generally a recipe for disaster.
Cooper, your problem is the same one my husband had. Most of the girls who respond well to the monogamy-seeking male are already in a relationship. The few who are single are not single for long.
I would second other posters’ suggestions to expand your social circle and be generally in contact with more potential females on your own, as opposed to being in the same group you are in now that has brought no success.
I have zero interest in what gets said on other blogs unless I am specifically referenced, quoted, or vilified. Even then, as you know, I would rather live in blissful ignorance, since catty name-calling and jealous (male) bitches are what I find tedious. In the specific instance I was referring to, Mike C specifically advised Ted not to bring his relationship conversation to HUS anymore. (Actually, he said, “you know where I mean.”) Unfortunately, this was emailed to me by a reader – it is very difficult to escape the hate even when I decide to avoid looking.
Since once again I’m specifically mentioned I feel the need to respond. This sort of thing really disappoints me. Especially the hyperbole about “hate”. I’ve tried to be respectful of what conversation you do not want here, and now you are going to get pissed off about conversation elsewhere. No, I don’t think Ted should be trying to figure stuff out on conversations here, or at least using it as his primary source, but he is a big boy and can decide what he wants. I’d say alot more, but it is probably best left for e-mail if you want to e-mail me.
@Susan
“I actually encourage you to look around at other blogs.”
I knew you’d say this, but as I’m sure you know the PUA-advice can be hard to swallow as the best of times. (hense the pill analogy)
“My only advice in reading any relationship or SMP blog is to ignore any blogger who doesn’t have what you want”
And well, sometimes I feel that PUA-advice is completely void of what I seek – that being love, of course.
That being said, a guy will always choose what works over anything, so I can’t say I completely dismiss it entirely.
@SW
“If one doesn’t support my mission, and does not consider HUS a good place to discuss relationships, one shouldn’t be here at all.”
That’s a breath of fresh air to read. Not sure how many here are on your side. You should have regulars sign an oath to that effect : )
Cooper, my husband looked at the PUA stuff back in college, tried it, and realized it wasn’t for him. But he did internalize some of the core concepts like inner game, confidence, authenticity, get in the mentality that you’re the prize and the one choosing/filtering females, and going after what you want.
Here’s a great article from Post Masculine about the intersection of PUA concepts and male self-development:
http://postmasculine.com/a-new-masculinity
It’s also relevant to this topic in general. The author does not “hate” women, and he does not blindly follow the PUA community. Instead he offers a new solution.
As I was part of that conversation with Mike C and Ted, I did not detect any “hate” from Mike at all. All I got was that Ted was understanding more there and that it might be a better place for him to ingest what he was wanting to learn. Again, the men there need to understand things on a different level and from a different perspective than what you are offering here. What you are offering here is for women and comes from that perspective. That often means leaving the mens perspective out or at the very least offering it in a way that the younger women can begin to understand it.
No, I don’t think Ted should be trying to figure stuff out on conversations here, or at least using it as his primary source,
Given what your objective it here and what Ted was trying to figure out, I fully agree with this statement.
@Mike C
For the benefit of other readers, let me be clear. You have every right to say whatever you think at other blogs. Feel free to talk shit about me wherever you like. But you can’t play both sides.
As for disappointment, you have no idea.
Here’s a great 3-part series on emotional needs from the same author (Mark Manson), which is quite relevant to the discussion at hand.
http://postmasculine.com/emotional-needs-part-3 (this is part 3 and has links to part 1 and 2).
I check this blog quite a lot because the writing is fantastic, and there are some solid theories about psychology and culture.
If you come away from reading an article feeling despair, negativity, hatred or self-pity, that’s not good. Mark Manson’s articles make one feel empowered, more knowlegeable and with better understanding. That’s value-added for the manosphere (though, he’s more or less on the periphery of this part of it, as I don’t recognize any of his links).
@Cooper
Well, that’s preselection and it helps. Remember, you are the prize. You need to qualify a woman who is worthy of you. I know that’s hard to accept when you don’t feel that you really do have options, which is why the self-development that Dogsquat talks about is so important.
That frame of self-worth and self-respect conveys that you feel confident that you have options. This is necessary.
@Megaman
Apparently there are commenters bitching at Dalrock’s that I told them to get lost because I didn’t like their insults. I find that hilarious. I guess they thought they were negging me.
@Cooper
PUA seems void of what you seek because PUA is just a means to an end, whether what you want is just ass, or love, or anything in between. The tactics work, no doubt. But I’ll tell you what- I have watched guys try out PUA and end up coming full circle only to realize that actually becoming an interesting person is much, much more effective than pickup tactics (many of which encourage you to bend over backwards for a slice of the pie). Going at it in a more natural way makes it much LESS work to attract women than trying to dance on cue- that’s not what a man should be doing. Maybe try adopting the attitude that you will do what you want, when you want in every arena of your life, and if women show interest, they can come along for the ride. And forget the idea of “one woman” making you whole. These days, the “one woman” mentality won’t get your foot in the door. And further, no single person in your life will make you whole. But as a man, your mission will be the closest thing. That’s what I have learned about handling the environment we’re faced with, and staying true to me. I’m sure plenty of other guys on here (and elsewhere) will tell you something similar.
The “manosphere” is writing for people with the wool still over their eyes. If you were never one of those guys, just taking control of your image and your mentality will be about as effective, and less depressing.
@SW
I’ve always been puzzled by how much negativity there is directed at women in general… on a female-oriented blog. Certainly there are other places for that. Blasting specific women who harbor nasty opinions, I can understand. I think Mike M mentioned that men’s sites were starting to differentiate a bit in terms of message and content. Yet women’s blogs seem to be viewed as one big monolithic anti-male zone. HUS (among others) is proof that isn’t the case.
One last link and I’ll stop for a while. In this article Mark Manson talks about vulnerability vs. strength. Deep and advanced stuff, and not your run-of-the-mill Game 101.
http://postmasculine.com/the-fake-alpha-males
This goes back to what I said about my husband not being afraid to be emotional, to be open and honest, and to show vulnerability. His frame is one that attracts a woman who is capable of receiving it.
In saying this:
I was referring to a recent conversation you and I had here. You asked me why I still read Rollo’s blog, and I expressed that I’d rather not know what goes on there, as he rarely writes without finding a way to slander HUS. No sooner had I said that, when I started hearing about convos there from others. My readers consider it a service to me – they want me to know what’s being said, so I can respond. And it is a service, as I feel like a fool now. In any case, I do not consider Mike’s remark hate.
Frankly I feel that Ted has extracted every bit of insight he could here, and will undoubtedly be happier in less depleted soil. I hope he finds a way to get that red pill down, and wish him all the best.
Thanks BroHam, Hope, and SW.
I do have the “prize” mentality, maybe so much that I’ve never felt compelled to have to display it – it wouldn’t be as genuine if I felt other must verify how good I think I truly am, would it?
Re: PUA-tactics.
As much as I support the core concepts, like Hope had listed #389, I do feel if one would blinding follow all of it that it would borderline misogynistic.
Oddly though, I have noticed first hand the increase in attraction from women when I’m feeling particularly bitter towards the opposite sex, at that time.
Surely that can’t be the trick – despising the opposite sex to trigger interest.
Sometimes it seems like all the PUA-stuff is about getting guys to accept that that is ‘what works.’
Susan,
Understood.
as I feel like a fool now.
Are you accomplishing what you are setting out to accomplish?
“Girls, women do truly prefer a guy who “can afford to treat [them] poorly.”
Women prefer a guy who can afford to treat them poorly but chooses not to. The afford part means he’s sought after because he’s such a high quality man. The chooses not to part means he’s a man of character who values her.
@Avacado
“Women prefer a guy who can afford to treat them poorly but chooses not to.
The afford part means he’s sought after because he’s such a high quality man.
The chooses not to part means he’s a man of character who values her.”
It still seems that women seem to place a higher importance on the former rather than the latter.
@Hope
“But there’s a shortcut. And that’s to objectify
women.”
That would explain much of PUAs’ success. Very interesting, I will definitely remember that one. Thanks again.
Cooper, being beloved by women is a symptom not a cause. The cause is being a high quality man. That is what women want. We determine a disease first by observing its symptoms.
@Cooper
Yes. This is true. But Hope’s link is correct, you don’t blindly follow the pied piper of PUA, and you don’t sit and do nothing. You choose your own path that gets you what you want. And the key here is what YOU want, not what women want, not what your mom told you you should want, or what anyone else tells you to want. The reason you get more attention when you’re feeling that bitterness is probably because your behavior is a bit more selfish, i.e. it’s about you. You’re probably too altruistic when you’re not behaving that way. So there’s your first note- for lack of a better way to describe it: be more self-interested.
@Susan
I understand your heartburn over all of these manosphere dudes talking shit, but you have to understand that they’re just re-flinging all of the shit that’s been thrown at them for years. I don’t exactly fit into their same category for various reasons, but as someone who has watched from the sidelines, I don’t envy their situation. A lot of those guys are the ones treated with the most contempt. I get treated with contempt for other reasons, and that sucks, but having watched friends who didn’t know the drill get disrespected by women, I really couldn’t tell them not to be mad.
You’re doing the equivalent of walking into the locker room and getting mad because you saw somebody’s pants down (LOL). This is how men roll- we talk about stuff like this in clear, unflattering terms. And if someone needs to get some sense slapped into them, that’s exactly what happens. You think you’re being singled out as a punching bag, but you personally are not. You’re watching the guy who was lied to cursing out everyone that had a hand in the lie. And you know what, this too shall pass. You might not like the new system that will result, but they’ll get over it and times will change.
Courtley, you are on FIRE!
Giant +1 to everything you are saying!
I don’t know a single Kardashian-inspired shallow young woman but that’s because I’ve always avoided bars and clubs that attract that crowd.
I do know a plethora of well-educated, amazing young women in several service-oriented and academic fields. They usually match or exceed their husbands/boyfriends/same-sex partners in terms of income. They do chores and do not expect to be treated like princesses. They pay for half of everything except for on date one or two. They identify as feminists but I don’t hear them complain about gender inequality or bring gender politics into many conversations at all. Honestly, they’re living their lives and not thinking about it much day-to-day. This is clearly a niche blue state demographic but I put it out there to counter some of the representations of women and feminists I see on this blog.
I worry a great deal that impressionable young men and woman are reading the manosphere / the negative comments about women here and becoming prematurely jaded when there are courses of action beyond Internet rumination that could benefit them greatly.
Rather than complain about how shallow women are, why not make moves to be around people of substance? Like Courtley, I attended a school that did not have (in my case, much — there was some) of a fraternity/sorority scene. I chose that for myself as an eighteen year-old. And yays! I completely bypassed a lot of the assholish behavior I’ve seen described here. The men I met valued me for my character and my intellect. Everyone dated despite the fact that we were not super-hot. Most of my friends got serious with a compatible person fairly quickly. Most of the men were kind and the women liked it. We all had plenty of same-sex friendships and still do. My best friend since college is a man. We have never entertained dating — we just respect each other and have a mutual appreciation of each other’s sense of humor. Young people, if you want this, you can get the ball rolling by choosing a school environment that has this vibe. Stay away from schools that emphasize partying, status dressing, shallow behavior, gross frat hazing ala Dartmouth, etc. Those schools still exist.
There is a lot of great research out there about social contagion; friendship circles can have a dramatic impact on your physical health and your relationship prospects. Find people who can keep you on track via positive peer pressure.
The outside culture at large — majority though it may be — doesn’t have to negatively impact our dating lives if we surround ourselves with people who reflect the values we care about most.
Alias:
“It’s doable.” (finding a mate in college)
—-
Anacaona:
“But is cool? Desirable? What the popular kids are doing in mass? There is your answer as to why its not the mindset few modern kids want to be the first of their group to marry or be the one that marry their first boyfriend. That is for religious freaks, unambitious women and losers!”
______
Yes, it was totally cool!
Lots of the popular kids were the ones in relationships.
The ones who married- didn’t actually marry in college but a few years afterward. They weren’t religious freaks. And most everyone went to grad school.
These “losers” had jobs, went to school and contributed towards or fully paid their education/room & board.
I will say though, that several people tried to discourage my husband and I from “getting too serious” because we were “too young.”
Well, we were “serious” people- even at 18 and 19, it couldn’t be undone.
This is not to say that we were/are better than anyone else, in fact, it’s to encourage others that it can be done.
Only, you have to choose very wisely and then stick by your choice. Stop thinking the grass is greener- take care of your own lawn.
“The fact of the matter is if you could theoretically remove the male preference for variety, and the female preference for hypergamy”
The problem is not necessarily one or the other. It is that women have “disproportionately” preferred hypergamy over men who preferred variety. It is as simple as that.
The fact that women are responsible (although they have not yet claimed such responsbility) for the greater majority of marital failure has caused the problem that they have created, which is men who decide to forgo long term relationships. The fact that women want to be in committed relationships without the commitment is a puzzlement.
“The fact that women want to be in committed relationships without the commitment is a puzzlement.”
They want to be in them for a time, not a lifetime. A lifetime is a prison sentence.
Slightly OT, sorry ’bout that, but good news for Susan:
Bettina Arndt mentions you (and Dalrock, and Whiskey, the whole happy family, hehe) in a mainstream article in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Thought I`d pass along the link for readers:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-women-lose-the-dating-game-20120421-1xdn0.html
@Cooper
Apparent indifference to a particular woman triggers interest. However, I feel compelled to point out that the woman who is most likely desirous of a relationship is the most likely to step back and give up when treated in an aloof manner. Just remember your target market.
Also, aloofness or asshole Game will get the job done for a ONS, but unless you intend to feign indifference forever, it’s not going to work for a LTR. However, I don’t mean to encourage you to spill your feelings early. Hold your cards close to the vest and reveal yourself gradually – you don’t want to scare her away with unearned affection or adoration. This is the biggest risk for beta guys who want a gf. You have to make her work for it. I wish it weren’t true, but it is.
@Stingray
Yes, I think I am. I have found it necessary to play hardball in recent months, something I never anticipated. I can tell you I’ve never encountered this kind of hostility before – not at a top business school, not working as asst. to the CEO of a huge company, not working as a management consultant who was mostly hated by client employees, for fear I’d recommend their jobs be eliminated. Not even as the PTA president at the high school.
People can get pretty vicious online – I guess I was lucky to avoid the snipers as long as I did.
I confess I do get hurt feelings, though. My husband doesn’t understand this – he can’t figure out why I care. I do care. I’ve formed relationships that have been important to me, but things change and people change.
Haha, I’ve been ridiculed elsewhere for saying, “Everything changes. You will be surprised.”
Everything does. And I am.
@BroHamlet
I guess I make a good target
I get it, I would just like to remind people that I’m a girl. Actually, old enough to be a grandma! I’m not at all sure I can handle it. I’m not asking for special treatment, just awareness that this form of communication is foreign to me. Women do not communicate this way, and I’m finding it hard to hold my own in the locker room.
Stingray/Mike C- I am doing fine but mostly still just taking a break from the ‘sphere (including here). I’m not totally gone, but I am really just sorting through a bunch of stuff.
However Athols’s post was no coincidence as I went to him for advice regarding my concerns from the conversations elsewhere. I’m flattered that he thought my issue was important enough to use as a post subject, but what I really wanted and received was some advice from a man that by all accounts has been happily paired with a woman for years. I’m not convinced Athol or any other blogger is 100% correct, but my guess is the truth is somewhere in the middle of each one’s perspective, including our host here. It doesn’t mean I believe any of them are wrong, but simply that each one has a slightly different view of the scene. The more views I can collect, the larger the scene is for me.
Thank you both (as well as some of the other regulars here) for being concerned about my well being. In truth, I feel better today than I have in months. I am not thrilled with everything I’ve found in my search, but I have a solid idea of where to go next and am cautiously optimistic (imagine JM’s surprise when he reads that!) that I will figure this all out with minimum emotional turmoil.
Susan – Fear not, I am no Sith. But, there is some truth that the Jedi did indeed hide information to minimize the “pull” of the dark side from thier pupils. That probably worked for a large majority of the student body, but some people simply need to know the whole of it so they can decide on their own which path to take. I can’t stand being “guided” to a solution, I want to know the whole of the problem so that I can find my best course. In this case it meant I needed to know thw worst of it. Just how bad can female nature actually be? How many women are really that extreme? Is there more to this than I can see? The answers are: pretty bad, probably not as many as suspected, and indeed I wasn’t seeing the forest for the trees. I needed a good ass kicking, and to be honest I think they went easy on me, but it definitely got me moving along, which was what I needed more than anything else.
If nothing else, I feel less angry now than I have in months, and that alone is allowing me to think clearer and make better decisions.
@Pennies
Noted. I share your view that it’s good for people to get out and mix it up. There are great conversations to be had online, but if you want another person in your bed you’ve got to get out and meet people. Make eye contact, initiate conversation. Random encounters is the fourth most common way people meet their spouse!
+1 that’s brilliant.
Three. DH and I purposely selected each other for no drama.
And if I’m not mistaken we all wanted to pass the genes of our “boring” beta husbands. I really don’t think taking away the hypergamy and variety seeking will take away the sex or the reproduction. Most of the Alpha chasers are in the same cohort of the ones that don’t want children or want the less amount so no Hypergamy and childbearing cannot related so of with its heads!
Susan, I definitely had the limerance stage with my husband, and he was the same way at the same time.
Me too. I don’t think love and attraction are only fueled by uncertainty I actually think of hypergamy and variety seeking as our wisdom tooth. A left over from when we lived short dangerous lives thus the most women a man seeded the better chances for him to have offspring because a mammut could stomp on him in a few hours and many women died during childbirth, and women picked the best genes because it was too dangerous to take the risk for an offspring not strong enough to survive and to have a strong mate to defend her and feed her during the pregnancy.
We had not been living in this state for millenium’s now we don’t need them anymore we can select our mates knowing that they will last long and we will survive the pregnancy and our kids don’t have the face the same harsh conditions and we all could spent more time doing better things than finding a mate, YMMV.
Bettina Arndt mentions you (and Dalrock, and Whiskey, the whole happy family, hehe) in a mainstream article in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Wow I don’t know why people keep talking about it, there was another one about how natural babies rabies are also shitstormed by the childfree group. People want to hear that every choice they make is valid, natural and consequence free. Anything else is offensive when will this kid’s learn the truth is for suckers. /sarcasm.
@ deti
I’m completely serious. Coming on too strong initially might freak someone out, though–there’s a sort of unspoken timeline for how these things work and declaring love and commitment shortly after meeting someone or a few dates isn’t part of that code.
Also, if your mother and other women in your life always shamed you for sharing your feelings…you were given unhealthy messages about masculinity from some pretty important figures, and that’s very problematic in many respects. I wouldn’t discount how much that may have influenced how you see women now.
@Hope
Y’know…I don’t think women who want commitment are all that rare. I think it’s a majority. I think that a good chunk of the most attractive and extroverted ones may spend some time doing hook-ups because that’s the cool thing to do now, unfortunately, but they aren’t ‘most women,’ at least not where I’m from. Maybe it seems that way in certain parts of big cities if you spend a lot of time at college parties or nightclubs but I’m not buying it as far as what I’d consider to be the average American woman.
@ Thoth
Again, no, the friends I’m thinking of weren’t that into ‘riding the carousel.’ We’re all in our mid to late 20s now, but I think they were mostly LTR-or-looking-for-one kind of girls in high school and college. Not saying that no one EVER had a hook-up, but frathouse/club skanks giving it up to every jock that asked they certainly were not. Decently cute, ordinary, often-athletic girls from nice-ish families. If you don’t know any women like this, then you’re self-selecting a very small number of people to represent “women” to you. Which is a big part of the problem in the Manosphere IMO.
Courtley:
“I’m completely serious. Coming on too strong initially might freak someone out, though–there’s a sort of unspoken timeline for how these things work and declaring love and commitment shortly after meeting someone or a few dates isn’t part of that code.”
I wish you the best; I really do. I think that your approach will not work in some situations and that others might try to take advantage of you. Be aware and keep your wits about you.
It would have been nice if someone would have clued me into the “unspoken timeline” and “that code” at age 10, 11 or 12 instead of at age 42 and 15 years into a marriage. Part of why I’m here is to help my children learn how to navigate that timeline and code.
@El Marques
Thanks for linking that article! J emailed me today or I would not have even known about it! I’m not familiar with Bettina Arndt, but I gather she is a friend to men, so I am pleased to be included.
She picked up on the 80/20 statistic from me – that is especially gratifying, because that is the single most important stat to raise awareness of female hypergamy. I assume she got it from the Atlantic article – I worked hard to sell Kate Bolick on the need to highlight that, so it’s awesome that it was picked up all the way across the world!
Courtley, I didn’t spend a lot of time around women who weren’t commitment-minded. But almost all the women I knew were already in LTRs, engaged or married. It’s really hard for a man to find a woman like this who is single, and that is part of what I was trying to say.
Also, many of the women who want relationships and are single tend to be on the overweight side. There was a girl who showed interest in my husband before we had met, but she was below his attractiveness threshold because of her weight. Sure, it’s superficial, but attraction is not a choice. This contributes to a lack of attractive, commitment-minded and single females, from the male perspective.
@Ted D
You sound great, I’m happy for you. I did wonder if you were Athol’s reader, but concluded you were not. Interesting to learn I was wrong. I think you’re right that exposure to all views is a good thing. When I was still a news junkie, every day I read the NY Times and WSJ, watched CNN and Brit Hume on Fox News at 6. I felt that I was better informed than 99% of MA residents, just because they screened out everything except Rachel Maddow.
@Courtley
It’s good to have a report from someone who had that experience in college. You were in the majority, but you’d never know it by observing cultural cues. It’s not just the blogs, it’s the rom coms, and the sensational articles. Even college students grossly overestimate the frequency of hooking up.
@deti
I hold a special place in my heart for parents. Mule Chewing Briars has shared some of his experience here, and there are other regulars who are parents as well – OTC, J, Alias, Stingray, Kathy and soon Hope and Anacoana! It was parenting that got me interested in this topic in the first place, much to the chagrin of my kids.
I mentioned once before that my daughter went on a date and in getting acquainted mentioned generally her mom was a blogger about hooking up. The guy said, “Whoa, Hooking Up Smart? Susan Walsh is your mom? That’s crazy!” She was kind of mortified. Sorry, sweetie!
Susan, it does suck to be on the receiving end of it, but guys do it to each other all the time online. Maybe I see it more because I also frequent video game forums. People get pretty nasty.
Try not to let it get to you personally. There’s a Buddha quote, “Those who are free from resentful thoughts will surely find peace.”
Yes, I think I am.
Women do not communicate this way.
If you are accomplishing what you set out to do then when the men communicate in the way that is necessary, keep your eye on that goal. You have no reason to feel foolish for accomplishing what you set out to do. Always keep that in mind. But, also keep in mind that the men have another goal and a lot of times that goal goes down a rabbit hole that is not in line with what you set out to do. They are going to get angry with that and in a lot of ways, understandably so. But I think most of it all boils down to how women feel the need to communicate vs the way men feel the need to communicate.
Don’ t feel foolish. Unfortunately, as a woman entering the locker room it is an inevitable feeling. That doesn’t mean you have a reason to feel it. If you are accomplishing what you wish, then you are not a fool. On the same token, neither are the men who are accomplishing their goals in the same locker room.
Stingray:
“But, also keep in mind that the men have another goal and a lot of times that goal goes down a rabbit hole that is not in line with what you set out to do.”
Sometimes, to get to the truth, we men have had to get all the way down to the ugly, dark, dank pit. Many times we have had to go further and find more than we ever thought was there. Many times what we find is hideous. But it must be faced and addressed nonetheless. That’s what I’ve had to do. It’s what Ted had to do. It was like an out of body experience watching Ted coming to hard-won truths literally in real time.
It’s not easy facing the truth about ourselves . It’s not easy facing the truth about the “dark sides” of attraction, for men and women. It’s not easy learning that everything you were told about women wasn’t true. But we’re learning it, and we hope to be better for it.
deti,
Thanks. I was struggling to explain everything I wanted and that was a great help. Perfectly said.
Without that rabbit hole, I am not sure that men would be able to grok what is necessary for the changes they wish to see in their lives and in their marriages. I am not sure men could face the truths you speak of without it. It’s almost like basic training in the Marines. Not until you are broken down do you start to become who you were meant to be. (Sorry, too hokey?)
@Stingray
Thank you. That is excellent advice. I think you communicate very well with men – better than I do – and I defer to your expertise. I appreciate it.
I’d like to see stats on the 20/80 thing as well. It doesn’t seem to equate to the reality I live in. I could see it being true maybe on big college campuses or something.
Susan,
Thank you.
On the way back from a Navy funeral–that makes the Big Three, still lacking Coasties and jarheads–I discovered a young relative is enlisting in the Navy.
The object of the attention today had impressed his comrades. Sixty of his closest friends showed up, including half a dozen officers including an admiral, and a few SEALs. Then there were the chaplain and the honor guard and the Survivor Assistance guys.
The sailors lined up on each side of the church aisle as the casket and the family processed forward.
What they all said about the guy was astonishing. In addition, he was a loving uncle, had a smile that lit up a room and was always ready to help a friend.
Thing is, although I’m a guy and I have no direct experience of tingles, none of what impressed the hell out of his sharp-end buddies overlapped what has been described here as tingle-inducing.
Perhaps the clowns with the dark triad fell overboard one dark night. Those heads–restrooms–are tricky that way.
Point is, it’s really, really hard for a good guy to figure this stuff out, and if he does, he has to accept that he has to accept it. It sure as hell doesn’t make, you know, sense.
@ Hope
Yes, obesity in America is a big health problem and I’m pretty sure it’s more common among women (haven’t seen stats on this, but matches up with general observation). As far as the commitment-minded women all being taken . . . many of them are, but I know a lot of single women who would love to find a nice guy and settle down, but haven’t. And they aren’t 35-year-old reformed sluts, either, as the Manosphere wants to believe. Actually, none of them fit that description and most of them are definitely not fat, either. They’re also not 8-10 range hotties and could probably glam it up a bit and that part is their responsibility, but again, that’s a side-note when we’re talking about how these guys make their theories to begin with.
The Manosphere defines “women” by this narrow subset of vapid, shallow and generally extremely attractive women in their 20s out there right now. I think a lot of their theories, again, describe THESE particular women pretty well, but aren’t as applicable to the rest of as they really seem to want to believe. I think the Manosphere is comprised of guys who like to categorize everything because that is what makes life more easy to navigate for their specific personality types. Humans all do this to some degree–we need to see and distinguish patterns of behavior in people around us. That doesn’t mean our theories about such patterns are always as accurate as we want to think they are, though.
Apologies to all if I am being redundant. I’m super busy the next couple of days, and haven’t been able to perform my due dilligence by reading all of the posts/recommendations.
@COurtley and Susan:
Courtley said:
“Women (some women!) may indeed be compelled and convinced by seductive masculinity to do things that are harmful to them from a pragmatic perspective. They may indeed not have total control over what their body responds to sexually (neither do men) but ultimately, the CHOICE to go to bed with someone is a free-will choice. You can walk away from a hook-up potential even when aroused, if you so choose. Anyone can.
I’m not seeing the contradiction here. Can you expand on your interpretations and assumptions here?”
__________________________________
I agree with you.
Therefore, it’s wrong to blame men for “seducing” women. Who women bang is 100% the gal’s responsibility.
Upthread, Susan mentioned PUAs causing women to bang them (her definition of seduce). The implication was that these women were manipulated by the PUA into sex, despite the women’s best interest.
For this to be possible (PUA basically hypnotizing a chick), then (some/most/all – who knows?) women really are exotic pets. All you’ve gotta do for sex is to push specific buttons. Flip the PUA switch, and the woman is no longer in control – the PUA is to blame.
To blame the PUA is to imply that women are powerless before tight Game, and are innocent victims.
I doubt Susan meant to imply that women are so similar to Pavlov’s dogs.
This issue is critical to understand. It’s not a grey area, or a matter of degree, either. Women either choose (sometimes badly or with poor foresight) who they sleep with – in which case women are soley responsible…
or
PUAs are capable of presenting certain signals that compel women to bang them, no matter what the woman wants. If this is true, then the PUAs are indeed to blame for abusing their exotic pets.
I hope someone who’s a lawyer or trained in philosophy or something understands what I’m saying and can present this in a better way. I know about guns and car crashes and penetrating trauma, not rhetoric. I know incongruity when I see it, though, and I want Susan to be mindful of this issue.
Susan said:
“But I do hold seducers accountable – specifically, men who target a woman who is unwilling or previously inexperienced and attempt to bend her to their will for sex knowing they will inflict harm in doing so. This is usually and commonly achieved by pretending to be interested in a love relationship when their only intent is short-term or no-strings sex. Again, the critical element here is deceit. In short, a cad.”
___________________________
Yes, guys who lie are dicks. Forget about that for a second.
What do you call a guy who doesn’t lie, but is aware of the Rationalization Hamster and uses it to his full advantage, though? He’s not lying, just adept at applied psychology.
I submit to you that, if no overt lying is committed, then who the woman bangs is entirely the woman’s responsibility. The guy is giving her a sales pitch, she’s writing a check drawn on Booty Bank.
It’s a nominally free country, and nothing’s stopping her from saying,”Slow down, Turbo – You’ve never directly answered my question about exclusivity. What’s the answer?”
@Susan regarding friction:
For a little inspiration, you may want to spend a half hour or so reading what Karl von Clausewitz had to say on the matter of friction. I know he wrote about war, but with the “combat dating” metaphor being so widely accepted, you might find a few concepts that help crystallize an otherwise nebulous idea.
One such concept that translates well to human relationships is “fog of war’. In relationships, there is often a dearth of information, of absolute, objective Truth. Instead, we’re left with assumptions, feints, ruses, and protective smokescreens. The people best at relationships are often possessed of an intuition Erwin Rommel called “fingerspitzengefuhl”. They instinctively know what’s going on, and aren’t as subject to the debilitating Fog.
Alternatively, you have my express written permission to explain (gently please, I’m fragile) that I spent too long in the hot desert sun, and am officially an Infantry Nerd.
And goddammit – tell these idiots to stop getting sick and hurt so much on days you post this good stuff. I’d rather argue with you than go on another hobo vs hobo stabbing call. Their feet stink so bad it hurts.
Yes, sometimes the conversation gets dragged into unhelpful quarters by certain guys. Getting out of a bad psychological state is one of the hardest things to do. It’s almost entirely a matter of will. You just have to start doing things that are good for you.
Overall, reading blogs is terrible for you – it’s addictive and it’s not going to help you all that much. But in small doses it can be very interesting and useful. Ultimately you have to get out there and meet people, and improve your own life. Also, that’s not going to happen by focusing all of your efforts on getting girls. Work on yourself, and other things will fall into place.
If women are helpless before a slick PUA, that means they have no agency and PUAs (men) can be blamed.
Feminists hate PUA, or many do. Which is a problem. If the woman has the choice, you can’t blame PUA. If you want to slag PUA, you imply women are helpless when it hits them. No agency. Do feminists want to claim that?
No?
Then PUA are not to blame.
That’s a toughie.
Avacado
Because 80% of women want to bang the same 20% of men (the most desirable ones), and that’s exactly what they do, especially when they’re at their most desirable (in their 20′s), until they settle down.
@Courtley
The 80/20 rule holds in most progressive, urban places, and even if women don’t have the opportunity to act this out due to social circumstances (or whatever), they still want to get (and keep) the top men. Susan has a few articles that demonstrate that 80/20 is real, and I’ll let her speak for herself.
I can tell you from both my experience and those of several female friends I have, all of whom are mid to late 20′s and unmarried. I have not only watched this happen, but been in the game myself (and still am). It starts in college and it keeps going until people settle down. If you’re married, don’t go out (or do social events with groups of single friends), or are otherwise not in or around the non-conservative single 20-35 demographic, you don’t really have the perspective to see it at work. I can tell you as a guy who is dating these women, that from my perspective not only does that rule hold, but if you get into that top 20%, you will get laid really regularly as a guy. It’s not only real, it’s the law of the land until you get married.
Courtley, yeah there are some really wonderful girls here on this blog who are in their 20s, want a relationship but don’t have a relationship.
I don’t really agree with the manosphere observations, which is why I have stopped posting on those types of blogs. I’m mostly reporting observations of 20-something guys I’ve met throughout my Internet travels (mostly via online video games).
If a 20-something single woman wants a man, playing video games is probably the easiest way to find a whole bunch of 20-something single guys.
Also, thought it was worth saying – men do experience limerence! Certainly, this man does. We should all shut up and go read Stendhal’s On Love. “Half – the most beautiful half – of life is hidden from him who has not loved passionately.”
@ BroHamlet
“The 80/20 rule holds in most progressive, urban places, and even if women don’t have the opportunity to act this out due to social circumstances (or whatever), they still want to get (and keep) the top men. Susan has a few articles that demonstrate that 80/20 is real, and I’ll let her speak for herself.”
All women want this? Really? What about all those boring ordinary but seemingly cheerful 3-6ish range-attractiveness-level couples I see at like, the mall and the grocery store and know in real life?
I do get what you’re saying about urban cultures have more of a hook-up culture and I would suspect probably being havens for Sex-and-the-City-type hypergamous women. Isn’t this its own subculture, though?
@ BroHamlet
Actually I think you’re essentially saying what I’m saying. Manosphere observations are spot-on for a certain type of American coed or single urbanite. A certain type, though, that’s the key. They are accurate observations on a specific demographic of Americans, but these guys think they are accurate for all people everywhere.
@Courtley
“I’d like to see stats on the 20/80 thing as well. It doesn’t seem to equate to the reality I live in.”
Don’t ask for facts, they don’t matter here : )
Seriously, I think Susan’s posted some sources on this one in various discussions. Around 20-25% of guys are having a majority of NSA sex, and probably contracting the majority of STDs too.
But if one were to quantify the frequency and volume of sex, and this has been done in numerous large-scale nationwide studies, married and committed couples (over half the population) are having the lion’s share of sex by far.
@ Dogsquat
“PUAs are capable of presenting certain signals that compel women to bang them, no matter what the woman wants.”
Yeah, no, not buying that. But manipulation and deception are very real things, even if the women fully consent. And practicing manipulation and deception is unethical and makes you a lame-ass human being, as far as my standards for character go.
But, yes. I’m all for giving women full responsibility for the sexual choices they choose to make.
@ Megaman
If we’re talking about NSA sex then that makes a lot more sense. But if we were to tally up, you know, all the sex that all the people are having in and out of relationships there’s no way it’s 80/20. More than 20% of American men are married or in a LTR.
This is an interesting thread! Am catching up, but wanted to respond to an earlier comment….
@ Courtley:
+1
As I wrote on a previous thread, I like the show and find it entertaining. However, I think of the characters like caricatures! In real life people like them would annoy me. They’re very self-involved!
While I can relate to some facets of their experience due to being also Gen Y living in NYC, my own experiences are nothing like these characters. At 24 I supported myself and had my own apartment. I’ve never been part of the carousel nor ever desired to be (at the time I had a long term bf). And as a black woman, EWW has never been part of my reality! Thanks to my parents I’ve always known I’d have to work hard to accomplish my goals in life. I align myself with like-minded people who share this value as I have little patience for those who don’t!
To me, girls is a newer grittier version of SATC — and I loved that show. Neither depicts real life, but they’re fun to watch. The topics they tackle are fun to discuss (i.e., the Post It break up will live in infamy!). But I wouldn’t go deeper with either show. I don’t think they “capture” the voice of a generation. Moreso they echo the sign of the times, in showing the modern experiences of one niche group.
Sorry, post cut off. Anyway, check out the Kinsey Institute under “frequency of sex”:
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html
That’ll tell you who’s having it and how often. Pretty lopsided in favor of married and partnered couples. Drops off with age, though. For Susan’s target demographic (single, 18-29), there are a lot of people doing without.
@Courtley
Well, I’m a guy who knows girls that are like that and girls that aren’t like that, and I can tell you that the manosphere is correct in saying that most single girls no matter where they’re from, have at least some of those characteristics- they’re built into them from a very early age and reinforced by tons of social conventions. And from a functional perspective, it’s better to assume more are “like that” than not, whatever environment you are in. I’ve found that to be true from smaller places I’ve lived in to larger ones. Fact of the matter is, that demographic isn’t some isolated patch of women on an island somewhere, it’s not some abstract in a far off land they way you are talking about it. It’s a whole lot bigger than you know. The manosphere is a whole lot more hard-edged with their characterizations than they have to be, but truth be told, there’s a whole lot of “like that” women out there, and unless a guy is sitting back waiting for girls to come to him through his social circle or whatever else he’s into, I’m going to guarantee you he’s going to run into plenty of them. The manosphere’s preparing them for the worst- it’s not as bad as they claim, but you will run into plenty of the characteristics they describe, not all girls will have all of them, but most will have some, regardless of background. Keep in mind they are preaching to people who don’t know what’s up, but need to have it beaten into their heads.
High school never ends, it just goes underground, PJ
@BroHam
Agree completely. I’ve lived in big cities, out in rural areas, college towns, and suburbs… I’ve rolled with high class SWPL people, blue collar people, college people, rural people, inner city people, and everything in between….
Some places and demographics are worse than others… but as you said, to some extent that behavior is everywhere. There are obviously exceptions to every rule. But in my mind, there’s enough of it going on that you’re putting yourself in a bad situation to assume otherwise.
If everything was going fine, blogs like Susan’s wouldn’t be very popular.
@BroHamlet
“I can tell you that the manosphere is correct in saying that most single girls no matter where they’re from, have at least some of those characteristics.”
Which characteristics do you find to be this universal? Wanting a guy who’s at least somewhat attractive and has some social skills? Probably universal. Wanting to be mistreated by her man? Simply not universal. That’s especially the part I object to in Manosphere theories and find quite disconcerting.
And I’m curious about where you and “Manosphereists” live and hang out and what you’re interested in! This is what I’m really curious about, how some of this looks when you start breaking it down into smaller and more specific social sets.
« 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 »
{ 2 trackbacks }