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 6 … 8 »
The manosphere does go overboard a lot.
But keep in mind I can count on two hands the # of women I’ve known who will admit unequivocally that women are capable of making mistakes. On top of that, I can only count on one hand the number of women who demonstrate real empathy for what men and boys are going through right now in society.
So let’s not get too critical of the mote in the manosphere’s eye…
@deti
Pretty much…
@Courtney
How many women have you attracted that way (yes, I know you’re a woman).
I’ve had plenty of women tell me that…I’ve had women I’ve been attracted to tell me that and they, to a woman, friend zoned me at best (or at worst, depending on POV).
Telling men who’ve been doing that their whole life and got nothing is only increasing their cynicism by giving them one more “lying bitch” to blame. I know you’re not trying to be one nor am I calling you one, but that’s the pattern statements like yours only reinforce.
Why? Because you’re saying to someone their experience and the pain from that experience is wrong. Once you do that, especially to someone with multiple trips through the wringer they’re only going to shut you off.
PUAs get laid and lots of guys who do what you describe get nothing at best and are used as emotional tampons at worst. The way to combat the PUAs is not to tell men the things that failed that drove them to PUAs but to present an alternative new strategy.
@thoth
…speaking of, if you’re interested look for mdarcy on the expect place.
It’s funny you talking about beta guys
@Courtley
What is that timeline? Do women ever reveal it?
Or is this one of those thought reading things men are supposed to do?
If women have unspoken rules that are violated by the advice they offer they are only feeding the fires.
That’s one thing I like about Susan and some of the female commentators here: they will say “this is when, more or less” or “no, you don’t want to do that”. The reality is most women, knowingly or unknowingly, lie to men about what most women want.
The longer it takes men to figure that out the more bitter they will be when they do. That is the essence of the red pill and as I said, telling guys on the verge of taking it or who have taken it the same thing feeds cynicism. Given them an alternate plan B to the PUAs.
@ Herb
I don’t doubt your experiences are true. At all. I’ve seen some very sweet dudes get burned by spoiled and manipulative women. I understand the dynamic the Manosphere refers to and it is very real.
But it IS important to understand that they don’t define reality for everyone. I can’t think of one married friend of mine who is not married to a very, very nice man. They seem happy as far as I, as a close friend, can tell. So, obviously, it can and does work. Don’t you know any married couples who fit that definition?
What would you say to a sort of stereotypical angry-at-the-menz radical feminist if she said her anger came from growing up with an abusive father, being sexually assaulted, stuff like that? Probably something similar–yes, her experience is real, yes there are men who do get off on hurting and dominating women and yeah, there might be some sort of biological explanation behind that. But still, her experiences aren’t really the best place to start from if she’s trying to construct some sort of comprehensive theory of masculinity.
I do get what you’re saying about being shut off by angry people and this is why I don’t go and argue with people on Manosphere blogs, and I like the idea of an “alternate strategy” for these guys. I think the first part of that, personally, should be them examining the kinds of women they’re drawn to, and why they might be attracted to toxic, controlling personalities or women who simply don’t want them or something. Women who have been abused get this sort of thing in therapy–i.e., how to recognize signs of potential abuse and try to root out why it’s attractive to you in the first place.
@Richard Aubrey
I think if you want to explain the SMP of today versus even 1970 it’s that fact.
Up thread Avocado said:
Forty-five years ago your uncle was a quality man. Today many people think he’s a joke. It’s men like him and my father (for who I will endure the same on Thursday) who used to make things work. Not I don’t think they’re very wanted.
As someone said up thread, a society that does that does not have a good future.
@ Herb
I think we both know that “OMG I love you let’s be together forever!” after like one date is a bad idea, no? I dunno, most solid couples I know said “I love you” after at least a few months of being in a relationship. And this isn’t a woman-enforced thing–most guys would be weirded out by a girl declaring her love after one date, or one hook-up too.
“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.”
Really, the only difference between me and most guys is that I just do not give a shit if I get rejected by a woman. The idea of it mattering just doesn’t even register in my head anymore. I also have a substantial instinct to flirt with damn near everyone, and it’s impossible to see women as perfect little snowflakes. Don’t see you all as monsters, but definitely as deeply flawed creatures just like men.
Also, apparently, I am a HELL of a lot more sexual, both in quantity and quality, than most guys. Which may fed into the rest of this. But then again, I’m not really a big “manosphere” guy, I am just a guy that lived through what most men would consider a horror story and came out the other side mostly okay. Still recovering. Gotta work on all these pounds I added. But still here.
“Don’t see you all as monsters, but definitely as deeply flawed creatures just like men.”
I LOVE that. I think that’s a very, very healthy perspective!
What does a HELL of a lot more sexual than most guys mean? Aren’t most guys pretty darn sexual especially when they’re young? Can you elaborate?
@Courtley
I’d say she needs to get help to work out the damage men have done to her. Once she’s done that, I’d say “this is how to find better men”.
I have my hours of therapy. Trust me, you weren’t around for the truly bitter me (“all women are whores, but a lot want gifts so they can pretend they’re not”, “if you have a bitch over, make sure you nail down everything first”, “the law doesn’t care if you have an alibi when she accuses you” [1]).
I’ve done the therapy and yet, when I try to date my choices are the very “hit the wall” women the PUAs talk about, single mothers who like the fact I have a steady job, and poly women. Those three options plus MGTOW are the only options I’ve found. Age may be a part of it…if you’re single at 45 and don’t want to be you have issues (I have said more than once I include myself there).
But you know, no one has told me how to attract women without being an asshole, buy them (which is essentially what many single mothers come across as…I’ll date you for the job), or share them.
I have a deep affection for my current GF. Enough that the emotional connection does provide for better orgasm (I’m one of those guys who enjoys attached sex more).
Yet more and more when we break up, I think I’ll quit dating. Every year it’s harder to attract for less reward.
So I’d REALLY like a fifth option.
[1] And they didn’t put my alibi in their report. I pretty much had to quit frequenting entire towns in CT after that because it was clear the police had already decided I was a stalker.
@ Herb
Why do you think you’ll break up if you have deep affection? How did you attract this woman you love and have great orgasms with??
And I am in my mid-20s and writing from that perspective, I can’t speak to a 45-year-olds or women of that generation.
@ADBG
I’ve become very bifurcated about women.
Tailhook and an incident over a calendar has made me skiddish about them at work (I’d rather be in a woman free environment).
I’m very distrustful once romance/sex comes up.
But outside of that, in terms of platonic, non-work interaction I enjoy them. Some of my favorite hashers are women (they are vicious at namings). I like most of the women I’ve met in the tri club, especially the swim coaches I’ve worked with. In fact, that’s one place where apparently I like women more because with one exception all the swim coaches who have taught me the most valuable things are women.
@Courtley
I work very hard not to say it, stopping myself when I want to say it more times than not. In fact, I only told my current GF the first time by accident and got a long period of silence even then. It was weeks before the topic came out, much less reciprocated.
I spent most of the time in between expecting to be dumped. Once you say it, she’s won and it’s just counting most of the time.
I want to clarify that as much as I hate my cad friends that lied their way to many women’s pants. This women were choosing to believe blatant lies that not even my little sister that has had no boyfriend would had or just not do any check up before getting in too deep.
I just believe this is a beast with two heads.
Cad’s lying or omitting info and women not asking the hard questions, doing their homework and make sure they have the much amount of info possible before compromising themselves with sex and/or feelings.
I had a really hot friend that was supposedly really smart, like me she was a married idiot’s magnet but she always asked before anything if they were married or had a girlfriend (95% of the cads work with denial of information blatant lying about having a wife or girlfriend takes away the whole “you didn’t asked and I’m a man “speech of the tearful reveal later on and most of them wait till the woman is in love to reveal there is another one as a way to assure her staying around, so they are very likely to tell you the truth if you ask straight), but then there was this guy at work (tall, dark, police officer with a nice car) and she completely forgot the filter and just went after him with all the power of her hot teenager body, she later found out he had a girlfriend and after accessing her looks decided that she was hotter so she could steal him, well she went from “that hot girl that seems to be nice” to “slut” pile for 90% of the men we both used to work with, and in the end he never left his girlfriend and got married to her later on, not that she was in much luck he naturally, was cheating on her before the one year mark.
I always say that this is akin to a bank robbery the guys that steal the money get more years in prison once caught, but the guy that drove the car gets a lower punishment but he is not absolved as non-guilty.
So yeah cads and the women supplying them with sex “just because we had a natural connection” are both at fault I will blame the women more but the cads are surely feeding class A hamster’s food to this women knowing exactly what will happen, YMMV.
@Courtley
1. She’s poly
2. She’s divorced nearly a decade and her other current BF is the first one to break the 18 month shelf life relationships since the divorce have lasted.
3. I figure most women will leave eventually. Of the 13 women I’ve had sex with prior to her all but two were done with me before I was done with them (and one of those was a ONS).
Based on #2 & #3 I’d be insane to figure we will last, despite what I might want.
“Dark Triad” PUA (of the hardcore variety not the “one foot in one foot out” variety) checking in.
“But if 75% of the women you know are rapacious beasts, you’re hanging out with a slutty crowd, and you’re not selecting for long-term mating.”
This is just the classic “that might work on those slutty college girls but that would never work on a mature woman with her act together like my co-worker Janice!” bullshit reworded. You don’t want to accept that your friends and family can behave in a way that’s so morally reprehensible to you that you categorize them differently. It’s the same as the parent of a bully saying “my little Johnny would NEVER do that, you must be lying” or the wife who refuses to believe her hubby is molesting their daughter despite blatant signs. This “those are OTHER people who do those bad things no one I know is like that trust me” belief is extra strong the closer someone is to you. For instance which squigs you out more to read: that a bar slut is into anal or that your mom was?
It’s so weird, NO one I know has ANY friends who do ANYTHING wrong. What are the odds of that. Hint: low.
“I can tell you that if my husband had ever embraced this view we would certainly never have gotten together.”
Classic “don’t you DARE learn game or try to improve your skills with women or we’ll all cut you off from sex!!!” threat reworded to shame men into feeling scared that if they learn game the “good ones” won’t want anything to do with them. What’s the difference between someone who’s really good at game (not a weekend dabbler newbie) and a guy who’s naturally charismatic and attractive to women? Hint: nothing. That’s why you wouldn’t “never have gotten together”, because you wouldn’t suspect anything is going on because it’s all congruent and attractive.
What are the odds a woman who says in 16 years her husband has never negged her isn’t (unknowingly) full of shit? Really? He hasn’t teased you in a way that made you laugh in 16 years? He hasn’t ONCE, in *16 YEARS* joked around when you asked him for his opinion about something? Really? You’ve never disagreed about something without being mad at him for not sharing your opinion? In *16 YEARS*? Which is more likely, that that’s the case or that you like him and he makes you feel good so when he does tease you in a fun way about something that makes you go “oh YOUUUU!!!” as you laugh? Hint: It’s not the former.
“While it may be true, it essentially says that beta males are hapless even at learning Game.”
They’re not hapless. The concept just so completely offends their entire lifetime of social conditioning and the threats from women that if they dare improve themselves and the stereotyping gamers with exaggerated cartoon character beliefs by people who aren’t actually guys who game, that they reject Game as a whole.
There is a ton of social pressure against you if you try to learn game. Even fr close friends and family who don’t even care if you neg or anything they just don’t want you to change your behavior at all or they’ll have to re-evaluate and re-label you. But of course those are just “bad friends” and no one YOU know would comment on someone changing their style or attitudes or anything. You could go to work dressed like a goth tomorrow and no one would say anything and everyone would high-five you.
“He even said that Game is good for short-term, but often targets women not oriented toward long-term mating, and therefore not a great way to get a relationship.”
Jeremy Whoever is an idiot that no one who actually studies game has heard of. I think until you’ve actually been a guy who’s learned game and been in LTRs from it you should stop commenting on what the strategies are capable of or what sort of relationships they can produce.
There are plenty of PUAs in LTRs. But most of us just don’t see the need to be in one.
“There’s being up front, there’s lying outright, and there’s that murky area known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” or lies of omission.”
Modern pickup is extremely honest and up-front. I even have a picture of my GF on my nightstand. Maybe you should read some newer stuff than The Game before pushing false stereotypes and ideas across as representative of PUAs.
@Susan, Dogsquat
““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?”
———————
DS, I think your answer was revealed already in the question: Someone who exploits people by “using the Rationalization Hamster to his full advantage” is just that– a user. A user can be male or female. Lack of integrity and manipulation knows no gender.
Are these girls responsible for their actions? Absolutely! 100%! They need to own their behavior.
Just as much as the men do. Because some guy who views romantic relationships as a “sales job” (selling what? Flesh? Sex? Tweaking emotions for personal gains?) is speaking volumes about his character through his actions.
Just like there are “slut tells” for promiscuity, there are “character tells” as well. The guy doing this is pretty weak, character-wise, in my opinion. To me, his actions are telling the universe, “Who I am is not enough. I have to ‘use her hamster to the fullest’ to get what I want.”
Maybe he’ll get some short term copulation with someone he manipulates. Pretty sad (and cheap) trade-off for integrity, though.
@ Herb
Ugh, the polyamory trend is…such a bad trend IMO. I’m sorry to hear your GF has been hoodwinked into believing it’s a more fulfilling lifestyle than a healthy monogamous relationship.
@ DarkTriadReally
No one’s ever said that NO ONE they know fits into these categories! People can be in denial about others they’re close to, absolutely. But not everyone’s little Johnny is a bully, either.
I’ve encountered PUAs before, like they had gone to a Game conference and everything, and they did not cast a magical spell over me, though they did make me start doing quite a bit more googling on the topic. But I also don’t do ONS, on principle.
Also, you seem pretty angry.
@Courtley
She had he other two SOs when I met her.
What saddens me is apparently I’m not enough for a woman to want a monogamous relationship. That’s certainly part of my diminished interest in relationships in general. There are things where I’m good enough. Perhaps they should be where I put all, not just some, of my energy.
But I do expect poly to be more common. It’s how the walking wounded of this SMP will coast. For some it is more fulfilling than an impossible to obtain monogamous relationship on the half a loaf theory.
That should be “how the walking wounded of this SMP will cope.”
@Susan
Fascinating blog post tangental to this discussion:
http://therawness.com/raw-concepts-double-messages/
@Herb
“What saddens me is apparently I’m not enough for a woman to want a monogamous relationship.”
Herb, respectfully, this is not true. You are a man from an excellent family, a tri-athlete with an excellent job. It’s obvious you have intelligence, depth and drive. You are MORE than enough.
Please don’t sell yourself short– you sound like a total catch!
@DogSir
“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’m neither a lawyer nor philosophical, but I caught your meaning. No one can be compelled to act against his or her nature. I’m totally on board with taking personal responsiblity for cold, sober choices made. Where I think the gray area does come into play is when alchohol permeates the social scene. Normally rational individuals choose to drink (underage or otherwise), some graduate to binge drinking, and then end up doing things they do regret afterwards. Not excusing it by any means, as drinking is as much a choice as sleeping with someone.
If all the “honest” hooking up was occuring in the absence of intoxication, there’d be a lot less of it IMO. Sexual inexperience and low tolerance seemed to be big factors. Back in college, I recall senior guys “fishing” for freshmen girls pretty aggressively. Typically, they tried to get the girls as drunk as possible, even to the point of passing out. It was never the other way around.
@Courtley
Here’s a short list:
- First of all, no girl, even the one without options, wants a guy who’s “somewhat” attractive or has “some” social skills. If she’s even marginally attractive, it’s a really good bet she believes she’s much more attractive than she actually is, and chances are she only wants someone (much) higher up on the totem pole. It’s almost comical how many of the most average girls think that they deserve the guy at the top of the pyramid to the exclusion of all others regardless of what they actually have to offer. I’ve even heard guys talk about this happening in church settings. You can thank her parents and the media for making her think she’s more “special” than most guys, even if she’s quite average herself. This is where the “negging” advice comes from. If a girl has a big head, you might have to take her down a notch. For some girls, you have to be extreme about it- those girls have a really high threshold for dominant behavior. You need to pull a dick move with those girls. And for what it’s worth- the jerk move even makes a good amount of nice girls like you more. Mistreatment (in measured amounts) is actually a better bet than being nice, because most girls are just plain sick of “nice”.
-Two Prices for the same item: If you are nice and don’t push for sex right away, not only will you not get it, you won’t get a relationship with her either. Best case, you’ll move forward under the pretext that she “values” you more- meaning that you have to put in a whole lot of work for the same relationship she’s gladly jump into with someone else (and she probably has before). Before you say anything, allow me to preempt you by telling you that I had a girl that used to come over every day to sleep with me, and she told me how she was dating a guy and making him wait so she could “see where this goes”. That’s why, true to manosphere advice, you should never keep at it with a girl who is consciously making you wait- best case, she’s not really attracted to you, just enjoying the attention, worst case she’s probably getting it somewhere else. I have seen this all up close.
-Flaking: See above. If she thinks that she’s more important than you are, she’ll also treat your time as less valuable than hers. This is VERY common, even for guys who are really good with girls. There’s just no believing what they say unless the right emotion is behind it. See my first bullet- you better have kept her ego in check when you met her.
I live in a pretty urban area like most of them probably do, but this isn’t limited to just those types of areas. Girls will exhibit those common traits almost regardless of where we’re talking about. It’s based not on location, but on how high they perceive your status to be. For example, if you’re visiting overseas, you’ll probably be a rockstar by comparison to your local spot- no cold shoulders, no flaking, no nothing, virtually no games required- you have just become more attractive because you’re scarce. If you’re at your local bar or a friend’s housewarming, you need to do more, because you’re more familiar, and familiarity is boring, so your behavior needs to send the message that you value yourself more than anyone else.
I might be coming off plenty harsh, but I really don’t want anyone to get depressed here. None of this is impossible to get around (or even that hard if you have real confidence). Just understand the realities of what is behind the behavior. Courtley- you seem to think this is an isolated phenomenon, but it’s not, and the more girls perceive their status to be the same as guys, the further it will go and the more they will ignore all but the highest status guys unless more guys learn to make adjustments.
We’ve swung to the other extreme now, of underrating the value of Game. None of these ideas were invented by Game; read Stendhal, for example. His plot features the same, universal phenomenon: there is a perverse dynamic that potentially sets in once a woman knows she has your love – the risk of becoming diminished in her eyes, or drifting into beta-tude. By the same token, these are much broader issues and the whole Game approach is a limited take on these things. I really like this article:
http://www.thepointmag.com/2010/essays/love-in-the-age-of-the-pickup-artist
“Several painful months later, she told me in a parked car—we were already having frank philosophical conversations about our past—that once upon a time she had seen me in the library, at the head of a group of my friends, and thought: “That guy is a badass.” She thought that I was a man, just like her powerful father. The implication of the statement was obvious: I once was a man, but I wasn’t anymore. To be honest, I can’t say I disagreed with her at the time.”
Maybe it is all only relevant to the brave new world of elite young coastal singles scenes. Maybe the only people complaining here on this website are those for whom things have simply not (yet) worked out. I know I fit that category. If I was in a successful relationship I wouldn’t be obsessing on this damned blog.
@ Herb
“I spent most of the time in between expecting to be dumped. Once you say it, she’s won and it’s just counting most of the time.”
Uh . . . what now? Won what?
Did ya ever try dating any of the women at the swim club? Were any single? Were any attractive to you?
” but do men have no variation in the intensity of their orgasms as a result of emotional depth and connection?”
Sure we do. Massive difference.
@Herb
…speaking of, if you’re interested look for mdarcy on the expect place.”
“It’s funny you talking about beta guys
Well, the whole alpha/beta marketplace thing isn’t really my scene. In more ways than one. But I am aware of the phenomenon. And seen it play out lots of times. So I do poke fun at it from time to time.
I am from a very different culture too, but women are women everywhere (as men are men too, I must add). So yeah, I can attest that NAWALT (nearly all women are like that).
Will find you mdarcy.
@ BroHamlet
You wrote, “First of all, no girl, even the one without options, wants a guy who’s “somewhat” attractive or has “some” social skills.”
But, BroHamlet, what about all the ordinary-looking couples at the mall? And on the street? And know in real life? The guys are somewhat attractive–not ugly, not gorgeous–and probably have average emotional intelligence and an average level of extroversion. Most dudes I encounter with girlfriends in real life aren’t Tom Brady and their girls seem happy. Most happy couples seem pretty well-matched physically–people actually tend to marry people of about equal attractiveness. Hell, I feel like a lot of people end up with partners who sort of resemble them!
Everything else just reads like a recycling of the basic tenets of pickup-artistry. I get the concepts, but I think you guys need to back them up a little more. Because when I like, hang out with my friends and encounter real people in real life I’m just not seeing this as very typical. Probably more common in urban areas but sorry, it’s still a group of characteristics limited to a certain type of spoiled, generally upper-middle-class gal in her 20s. I think they’re a growing number–we know that narcissism a growing problem among women–and in general entitlement is a problem among Gen Y-ers (both genders!). Still, this idea that women have no inkling of their “market value” and think they’re all super hot stuff seems like the fantasy of someone who doesn’t know very many average, not-super-hot, not-super-wealthy young women very well.
Let me ask you how you narrow down girls to hit on/run Game on and how it works. Give me some cold hard logical specifics here–how old, where do you meet them, what do they look like (what do you typically aim for on the 1-10 scale?) and what do you do initially to get their attention? I like theory, but since I don’t feel like I see this in my real life I want something more concrete.
Also, if you feel comfortable revealing which urban area, or even what region of the country’s it’s in I’d like to know that as well, for my own mental frame of reference.
Also, I think this Avocado person is a sock-puppet of that College Kid fellow.
@Herb
“She had he other two SOs when I met her.
What saddens me is apparently I’m not enough for a woman to want a monogamous relationship. That’s certainly part of my diminished interest in relationships in general. There are things where I’m good enough. Perhaps they should be where I put all, not just some, of my energy.”
Well it isn’t fair to expect a poly person already in a relationship to drop the others and become monogamous with you. I don’t think that will ever happen. You already knew the situation. However, you do seem to have “settled” by dropping your insistence on monogamy. You might have found someone monogamous perhaps if you looked around a little more. I’m only saying that because monogamy seems to be a big requirement for you and repressing that is probably not going to work in the long term.
But, if you are happy with your poly arrangement, have fun.
This article and comment thread is a strawman shitstorm.
Herb. Not sure I get your meaning. But if you think the Navy funeral was for an old fart, not so. He was twenty-five. That was the average age of the EM at the funeral, not counting the chiefs. Actually, they look like they’re in junior high these days. I don’t think we did. Did we?
“”@Richard Aubrey
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.
I think if you want to explain the SMP of today versus even 1970 it’s that fact.
Up thread Avocado said:
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.
Forty-five years ago your uncle was a quality man. Today many people think he’s a joke. It’s men like him and my father (for who I will endure the same on Thursday) who used to make things work. Not I don’t think they’re very wanted.
As someone said up thread, a society that does that does not have a good future.”"
When I was much younger, one woman or another might puzzle me. I recall the time when I thought there was something wrong with the entire species.
I had gotten a minor scar on my forearm playing lax. It was, iirc, about three inches long, a quarter of an inch wide, eighth of an inch deep. IOW, nothing.
I was seeing a woman I’d known in HS, visiting at her home, leaning against the refrigerator talking to her mother. (Note to self. Leaning against somebody’s refrigerator is probably not polite.)
The girl came up behind me, saw the scar, hissed through her teeth and traced it gently with one finger.
I was disappointed:
1. She was trying to impress me with her sympathy. Lame. It was a minor, superficial ding. No stitches, no first aid, zip.
2. She was viscerally reacting to the battle-scar thing. Lame. I had been playing a game, not defending the ville against Viking slave raiders.
3. She was shocked by the physical insult to my forearm. Lame. Superficial, and what was she going to do if she saw a serious injury?
Caused me to rethink a number of assumptions. The results were…disappointing. Weren’t we all issued with brains?
@Courtley
Here’s the post I wrote on the 80/20 rule:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/14/hookinguprealities/sex-and-the-pareto-principle/
@Dogsquat
I agree 100%. The grey area can be a bitch, though. Here’s a real example I know:
Tom and Jane got together at the end of the summer, but did not have sex. They went to their different colleges, saw one another at breaks. They had no agreement to be exclusive. Tom invited Jane to visit him at school for Valentine’s Day. When she arrived Friday afternoon, they went for a walk around the city. At one point Tom said, “Let’s sit down on this bench for a second.”
“Listen, I know it’s long distance, and I don’t want to hold you back, but I need to know if you have any other boys at your school.”
“No. I haven’t hooked up with anyone.”
“That makes me really happy. I like you so much.”
They grinned at each other like a couple of fools, he hugged her tightly, and they walked back to his apartment, where they had constant sex for three days.
Jane later learned that Tom’s girlfriend was out of town for Valentine’s Day, and he’d needed a date for his formal. When she confronted him, he pointed out that he had not ever used the word exclusive or relationship.
His was a lie of omission. Is Jane to blame? Should she have parsed the vocabulary on that brilliant winter afternoon?
What is Tom’s responsibility? Is he just a guy who is adept at applied psychology?
@Dogsquat
You’ve definitely piqued my interest re the concepts of fog of war and “fingerspitzengefuhl.” I’d be lying if I said I had the time to read about them anytime soon, but I’ve clipped your comment for future reference. Thanks.
PUAs cannot be blamed for a woman’s consent to have sex. They can be blamed for lack of character in the same way that a used car salesman can be blamed for selling lemons. Both salesmen are knowingly engaging in a transaction that leaves the other party worse off without their knowledge. In the case of the used car salesman, he may employ various strategies to deceive the buyer, such as mentioning another customer who is interested in the car, saying he’ll get fired if the price goes any lower, claiming the car was only driven to church by a little old lady.
In the same way, the PUA attempts to make the women feel insecure and off-kilter via negging and incongruent behavior. Additionally, he is pretending to be something he is not – a naturally dominant male with options. The “buyer” has been misled re the quality of what’s being offered.
Note: this is not an anti-Game argument, I am specifically talking about PUA tactics for short-term sex.
Re: Alpha/Beta/Goldilocks/Whatever
A good rule of thumb might be that guys shouldn’t show any more interest/affection than the girl is already demonstrating.
So if a girl is acting more reserved, then it might be a good idea to be more aloof. But if she’s acting like an overeager puppy, then you’re probably free to be as “beta” as you want.
Just a suggestion.
DarkTriadReally is a textbook example of the male rationalization hamster. His is spinning so fast, it’s a blur.
“But if she’s acting like an overeager puppy, then you’re probably free to be as “beta” as you want.”
No. Being beta will kill her over-eager puppy-like excitement. The thing to do is to treat her like a puppy (who’s grown, and female and probably described better by another word for canines instead of puppy). That should keep her tail wagging.
@Courtley
I infuriated a male reader once by mentioning that when I take a walk in my own urban neighborhood on a Saturday morning, the park is chock full of beta dads with their wives and kids. I see families talking, laughing, living their lives. The notion of the beta being scooped up as second best after a woman has ridden the cock carousel is ridiculous. Beta males comprise 80% of the male population, and probably 90% of married men. And they’re marrying women of similar traits, whom we might call beta females.
I agree that the market is very segmented, and both sexes need to stop vying for “alphas.”
No, it’s a response to the strawman shitstorm that is a fixture of the manosphere.
@Susan and Courtny
I agree that theres a significant number of couples that involve a beta male.
What about on your average college campus?
Most of the betas are sitting it out completely. (As are most of the beta females.)
Thoth,
You’re right, it was an overstatement for me to say that they’re free to have unlimited beta-ness. But I do think that once a girl starts to show some vulnerability, then it’s okay (and even preferable) for the guy to let his guard down to at least some extent.
Alias,
My brother isn’t very self-aware. I’ve spoken to him a few times since I broke my engagement and had my whole “red pill” experience, and he seemed genuinely puzzled that I had any issues with women at the time. (This from a guy who once said that the ultimate conquest would be to bang his brother’s fiancee.)
I’m pretty sure my brother’s hatred and aggression toward me as a child had to do with my being born at all. I represented competition. I’ve heard my mother discuss with other moms how bad she felt having a second child, how much resentment my older brother felt at the time, and how she sought to appease him.
So yea, I think there was an insecure attachment between them–at least as he experienced it. It was a battle for attention in his eyes. He may have won consistently, but he always felt the need to engage.
Athol Kay emailed me a clarification of a point I made, and I think it’s important, so I am going to paste it here:
One of the things I love best about Athol’s work is that he is dispassionate and science-based. He has no use for political correctness of any kind. He’s realistic, but also incredibly positive, and he has a great marriage to show for it. It helps that he and Jennifer are open in their identity and both participating in the project. The testimonial is real. We don’t have to wonder if Athol is some Lex Luthor wannabe making stuff up.
I think Courtley may be having a problem understanding male attraction.
Most of the aggregate masculine attention DOES go to the top 15-20% of women, so you have kind of a hypergamy thing working there as well. I know that frustrates women, because there ARE some women who every man finds attractive. Where men and women differ, though, is that men appear to me to be more idiosyncratic in their choices than women are.
Some women look like they can scratch you where you itch. Other men may not be able to understand why you like cross-eyed girls, or girls with 15 extra pounds, or girls with pronounced ankle tendons, or flat-chested girls, but it kind of makes the world go ’round.
There are very, very few women who aren’t in some man’s crosshairs because of what she probably considers a beauty flaw. The biggest problem is when there are is no overlap. Like I keep telling my daughter – you get to choose from the boys who are interested in you, not from those who aren’t.
My older daughter has a friend who is, uh, pectorally challenged. I told her (my daughter, not the friend), that there are lots of boys and men who are attracted to gamines, but my daughter said that her friend “doesn’t like the kind of boys who like flat-chested girls.”
That one had me puzzled.
second.”
“Listen, I know it’s long distance, and I don’t want to hold you back, but I need to know if you have any other boys at your school.”
“No. I haven’t hooked up with anyone.”
“That makes me really happy. I like you so much.”
They grinned at each other like a couple of fools, he hugged her tightly, and they walked back to his apartment, where they had constant sex for three days.
Jane later learned that Tom’s girlfriend was out of town for Valentine’s Day, and he’d needed a date for his formal. When she confronted him, he pointed out that he had not ever used the word exclusive or relationship.
His was a lie of omission. Is Jane to blame? Should she have parsed the vocabulary on that brilliant winter afternoon?
What is Tom’s responsibility? Is he just a guy who is adept at applied psychology?
——————————————————————————
this is jen
I ain’t buyin that.
As someone who had a long distance relationship in college ( 2000miles) I would have taken that opportunity right then and there to say ” and how about you?”
she didn’t want to know, or she already did know
@Susan
I’m with Jen.
It just doesn’t sound right.
I also did LD for awhile.
She just had some guy say he really liked her and decided to fuck him and assume monogamy. Her vagina also spouts unicorns!!!
Whereas the bar slut just had some hot guy show interest in her and she decided to fuck him assuming monogamy would result. Her vagina also spouts unicorns too!!!
Note: Without a doubt that dudes an ass. He cheated on his girlfriend.
But she is still an idiot for making such a ridculous assumption.
Heres a good starting appoint. Assume non-monogamy until articulated otherwise.
Oughta clear up a lot of problems.
@Courtley
“What about all the ordinary-looking couples at the mall? And on the street? And know in real life?”
The true believers are never going to acknowledge successful couples exist in any great number, even though they’re a majority of the population. That would contradict the view that society is going to hell in a handbasket. Coupled with the belief that “most” women in the SMP are the equivalent of Mata Hari, and “most” men are their hapless victims, and you’ve got one giant self-fulfilling prophecy at work.
@MM
Just to point out I believe society is going to hell. I don’t particulrly care if it arrives via handbasket or FedEx but thats where its going.
Its got nothing to do with PUA/game/female hypergamy and more to do with the time of Western economic supremacy is over.
@Courtley
“What about all the ordinary-looking couples at the mall? And on the street? And know in real life?”
Soon to be EatPrayLove’d
@LL
I understand the economic concerns, especially these days. I’m not as pessimistic about that, either. Market economies are more dynamic than people give them credit for (i.e. Germany, Israel). You and the fiancee could always relocate if that’s a concern?
There’s no question the girl is an idiot. That’s not what I asked. The question is whether the guy is a douche. Forget cheating on his gf – was his intent to deceive Jane? He didn’t just not bring it up. He brought it up in a way that was meant to give comfort when that was the last thing she should be feeling.
The problem is that women don’t want to turn a lovely romantic moment at the park into a DTR talk. That’s on them – having that conversation is a necessity. She brought it on herself by failing to do due diligence.
What do we think about his character as demonstrated in his behavior towards Jane?
I can tell you I’ve never encountered this kind of hostility before …People can get pretty vicious online – I guess I was lucky to avoid the snipers as long as I did.
I can’t say don’t take it personally because it’s hard not to, especially when the attacks are personal in nature. But I do think that you have to consider the source. You had a particular goal in mind, helping young women, when you started this blog. In writing this blog, you advanced a conservative approach to hooking up while still being understanding of the fact that young people would still continue to have pre-marital sex. Your conservatism and your adoption of ‘sphere terminology made some members of the ‘sphere feel like they had an ally, as did your being attacked by Marcotte and company, but your gender and mission do not allow you to take as radically conservative a stance as many would want you to. That makes them angry; they feel betrayed, I suppose. But what can you do? There are even a few odd guys in the ‘sphere who long the days when women didn’t vote and 13 year olds could marry. They are chronically angry, and only turning back the clock 400 years will make them happy. In the meantime, the rest of us can only push forward in the hopes that new and better forms of relationships will evolve.
Susan. The guy’s the reason even people without horses sometimes own horsewhips.
That said, there’s a maxim that you can’t cheat an honest man. Not exactly true. You can cheat an honest rookie. And it’s so easy to cheat somebody who wants to be cheated that it’s hardly any fun. The woman in question was either a rookie–which means you learn the hard way or you listen to all those fun-ruining, blue-nosed, slut-shaming old folks and their nasty, repressive advice–or she wasn’t sufficiently concerned about being cheated that she didn’t bother with due diligence.
@MM
We are. I’ve been offered lead on a project overseas in a few years.
@Susan
Let me put an analogy to it.
She got hit by a car. Theres no doubt about it.
However in the eyes of the law theres a big difference between letting someone walk infront of a car (even intentionally) and pushing someone infront of a speeding car.
His intention was to no doubt let her walk infron of that car. That doesn’t make it a crime.
People can believe whatever they want to believe. If it puts the outcome in my favour over theirs it would make me a good person to point out their flaw. It however is definetly not a requirement and it doesn’t put me at fault for letting someone be an idiot.
So yes, his character is quite low. Despicable. He let someone walk infront of a speeding car. That doesn’t mean he is to blame, even the teeniest lil bit.
I think it depends on whether or not Tom’s deception was deliberate. In this case, I’d say that it was. Therefore, he is a douche. And of course she was an idiot as well.
Also, I hate the idea of open relationships, even if they’re long-distance. Either you’re in or you’re out. She should have initiated the DTR talk before they left for college.
My favorite male rationalization hamsters:
Women don’t care about men’s looks. And yeah, most young women (including older women) are really into old dudes.
I could make a list of them but I will stop right here.
He did a bit more than that. He invited her out and led her to an intersection when he knew a speeding car would be coming by. He took her by the hand and led her across the street at the precise moment the car came by.
He invited a woman for the weekend when he already had a gf without telling her. Should she have been expected to say, “I’d love to visit, as long as you don’t have a gf who’s going to be away that weekend.”
Intent is the key. In my view, when you seek gain at the expense of another you are behaving immorally if they have incomplete information. This applies in all areas of life, for both sexes. In fact, I can think of two examples in our criminal justice system:
1. Intent can make the difference between Death Row and two years with good behavior.
2. The defense is entitled to all evidence gathered by the prosecution.
IRL re relationships, don’t ask, don’t tell is not immoral, IMO. It is the responsibility of both parties to ask for the information they need. In this case, however, we have:
Boy: Ask, but don’t tell. Suppress relevant information.
Girl: Tell, but don’t ask. Avoid relevant information.
That makes her stupid and him evil.
@SW
“What do we think about his character as demonstrated in his behavior towards Jane?”
Opportunist at best. Con man at worst. It’s clear that young women are expected to have zero margin of error out in the SMP, even the inexperienced ones, lest they be eternally unworthy of a relationship. Guys on the other hand, well, anything that gets them in those pants is a-okay, because “boys will be boys” : |
Re: Tom & Jane
I was reading somewhere that the source of all lying was either “fear” or “lack.” No one overtly lied in this scenario, but I feel like T&J were both acting from those same places:
Jane, if she wanted more than NSA sex, is afraid at some level to clarify. She is afraid to ask because she doesn’t want to know. If she stays ignorant, she can believe the best– for a little while, at least. I think this position is crazy: She is putting her health at risk (STI’s), possible pregnancy, potential heartache and wrecking her self-respect, in my opinion. To me, this is MUCH scarier than asking a guy, Hey, are we exclusive?
Tom is also acting from fear. (See comment #465 for clarification on his character) He *knows* that if he was honest and told her the truth– let’s face it, the guy is lying by omission– that he wouldn’t get sex. He is afraid to be honest about a huge swath of his life. (BTW, My brother was assigned a “Tom” for a roommate his freshman year of college. My dad remarked, He’s not a real man.)
As for Tom’s girlfriend– who he has promised exclusivity– we can only hope she has been informed of the situation and can kick him to the curb. UGH! So much needless hurt for weekend of sex and a date to the dance.
But, BroHamlet, what about all the ordinary-looking couples at the mall? And on the street? And know in real life? The guys are somewhat attractive–not ugly, not gorgeous–and probably have average emotional intelligence and an average level of extroversion.
SW: “I infuriated a male reader once by mentioning that when I take a walk in my own urban neighborhood on a Saturday morning, the park is chock full of beta dads with their wives and kids. I see families talking, laughing, living their lives.”
I had an interesting experience on Saturday afternoon. The weather was lovely, so DH and I went to the botanical gardens. He heard something move in the bushes, and I joked it was probably a tarantula and starting doing spider hands up and down his back. He grabbed me and hugged me, playfully pinning my hands at my sides so that I couldn’t tickle him. We were both laughing loudly enough to attract the attention of a young women who said to her bf, “Aw look at all the cute old people in the park today.” After the comment stopped rankling, I looked around and noticed several other middle-aged couples walking hand in hand together. Most looked comfortably married, not like dating couples. We were the norm, not the exception.
Liza: “Women don’t care about men’s looks. And yeah, most young women (including older women) are really into old dudes.”
It’s easy to make someone else’s ideas look silly, when you get them entirely wrong in the first place. What you said is obviously wrong, but. Obey is claiming that. What is true that women, in aggregate, care about men’s looks less than men care about women’s, and lots of women will date older men, far more than the other way around.
I know personally at least 4 women who have married or cohabitiating men 20 years older. One is my cousin, who could be a bikini model. Men? I know none dating women that old.
*obey = nobody. Yay iPad.
@MegaMan
“It’s clear that young women are expected to have zero margin of error out in the SMP”
MM, it appears this way, unfortunately.
This may sound lame, but couldn’t people dodge a lot more bullets by refusing to give in to the lowest common denominator? Is it really that hard to say No, I’m not ready for this yet?
When some guy pressured me for sex and wouldn’t back off, I asked, How would you like to handle a pregnancy? It definitely changed the tone of the conversation.
The reason I asked was because I had friends get pregnant on the pill, condom, IUD, and *combination* in college. I said the same thing to some guys. If they dumped me, GOOD. They weren’t truly interested me as a person and saved me a bunch of time. I’d call that a win (even if it felt like a lose at the time).
I’m not going to act from fear (of knowing the truth) or lack (that I better “get it while you can,” or I’ll end up alone). Fear, to quote Dune, is the mind-killer.
That makes her stupid and him evil.
Yes, indeed. Hopefully, she will learn from this mistake. My guess though is that he will continue in this tactic as long as the reward is sex.
Megaman, that’s why I feel semi-lucky to have gotten the harsh talks from my mother about how all men are liars, cheats and out for sex… before I hit puberty. Yeah it wasn’t the healthiest view, and certainly my own view is not that, but I definitely grilled the hell out of every guy who was interested in me. I never got pumped and dumped or used.
But if that’s the kind of preparation a girl needs to not be hoodwinked, that says something sad about male nature as well.
Susan – Thanks for the well wishes. All in all, I feel a bit sad, but better informed. And the truth is, I’m not really sad about MY situation at all. I won’t say that I’m not concerned, but I’m no longer anxiety ridden and worried that my world will come crashing down again. But, that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be prepared in case things go wrong, and that single idea alone puts me in a WAY better position than I was in before. I mistakenly believed that a promise made is a promise kept, and as much as I believed I was keeping my promise during my marriage, I realized that I didn’t even know what the promise actually was, and in turn my ex was not able to keep hers.
That won’t happen again. I can’t say that my current relationship will be any more or less successful than my marriage, but I damn well surely won’t be short-changing my SO on my side of the promise. That means I need to adjust some of my behaviors and attitudes which as you know has been a sticking point for me, but no longer. I finally realized that no matter what, I need to do what is best for *me* before I can do anything for someone else, even the ones I love the most. Of course that doesn’t mean I intend to become a selfish asshole, because that isn’t best for me anyway. However, it does mean that I need to put more effort into simply doing and being a better person, and by doing so I position myself to be able to help the people I love and care about.
When I and my SO agreed to become exclusive, she put her trust in me to do what is best for us, as I did in her. However, I’ve realized that how we do “what is best” for our relationship may turn out to be very different. She is an adult, and certainly has her own agency to make decisions for herself. But, it is also my task to “look out” for her, and part of that means looking out for myself. That doesn’t mean I intend to remove her agency in the least, but that I intend to do what *I* believe is best for us regardless of her agency. If she truly trusts me, then she will know that my motives are true, and will accept that although she may not feel *my* way is best, my way is how we are getting to our destination. If she doesn’t trust me to steer the wheel, well, we don’t have anything to build on and it’s best we part ways.
And I finally realized that I don’t have to announce this. I don’t have to make some proclamation that I am going to do the right thing, since technically I should have been doing it all along anyway. And, in many ways I have. I’m not a total loss, clueless and helpless. I simply wasn’t seeing everything clearly. I was mired too much in the details to see the entire picture. I can see now that I am filling my role in our relationship, but just didn’t consciously acknowledge it. And, now that I am finally beginning to see my “role” more clearly, I am also much less apprehensive to step up and fill it fully. I don’t need my SO’s permission to lead our relationship, she granted it when she agreed to be with me. I don’t need to be explicit about our roles either, since it is likely that they will change throughout the entirety of our relationship. But, the thing that will never change is: I will always do what *I* feel is best for me, her, and us.
I hope you understand that my desire to seek knowledge elsewhere was in no way a sign of my lack of respect for you and your work. The simple truth is that I couldn’t find everything here. And not because of any lack of honesty, but because of limited perspective. You and the majority of the female regulars here, although very supportive, are still very much women, and because of that there really is an issue of perspective to consider. If it means anything, it was and remains HUS that reminds me NAWALT, and why I sought advice from Athol and a few others as well. If I hadn’t found this place first, (actually second after MMSL, but I’ve remained here more than there or anywhere else) things may have turned out far differently. I can’t say for sure if it would have been better or worse, but if the end result was a cynical and overly negative me (it’s hard to believe but I can be more negative.
) then I think it would have been for the worse. So if nothing else, thank you Susan and the regulars at HUS for making me look at you as individuals first, and women second. In the end, THAT is how I intend to approach my relationship with my SO. She is the person I love and trust, but she is also a woman. She can and does rise above her basic instincts, but I need to provide an environment that encourages her to continue doing so, and at the same time promotes our growth together. I’m not responsible for making her a better person, I’m responsible to show her how to be a better person, and that was the small piece I’ve been missing all along. And, without even knowing it, she is already showing me how to be a better man. If there is anything that can help a relationship last a lifetime, it has to be becoming better people together.
@Hope
“that’s why I feel semi-lucky to have gotten the harsh talks from my mother about how all men are liars, cheats and out for sex… before I hit puberty.”
Hope, she was telling you this… at the same time she was comparing you to other girls about prettiness and impressing the importance of appearance to attract men? This seems very dissonant, to me.
What were her expectations for you? To marry, with the expectation you’ll be treated like crap?
I remember my parents impressing on me to “stay a kid” as long as I could, dating-wise. No formal dances until 17. Any boy who wanted to come over knew he would be expected to meet all of us. Group dates were encouraged.
I was *extremely* shy about boys and couldn’t even talk to one at the time, so all their concern was for nothing.
OffTheCuff,
The looks “thing” always seems to touch a nerve in men.
The claim from men is that women don’t care about looks AT ALL. And, no matter how much women say we care about looks–men refuse to believe it and simply choose to be in denial about it. Why?
Megaman, that’s why I feel semi-lucky to have gotten the harsh talks from my mother about how all men are liars, cheats and out for sex… before I hit puberty. Yeah it wasn’t the healthiest view, and certainly my own view is not that, but I definitely grilled the hell out of every guy who was interested in me. I never got pumped and dumped or used.
Conversely, loads of girls hear that talk, know it’s unrealistic, dismiss it totally, and then are easy prey for cads because they’ve decided that mom or dad is an old fool who can not be believed. Kids, particularly adolescents, have a huge drive towards independence that makes them ignore good advice when given to them in a way that provokes fear and drives them back into dependence.
I don’t mean this as a criticism of Hope or her mom, but as a comment about how to reach kids.
@Courtley
You have the wrong last question: were any attracted to me?
As for them attractive to me, what swimmer isn’t…talk, lean, with some drive, interested in triathlon…certainly there is enough for one date to see, but it has to be reciprocal.
As for won what, welcome to combat dating…the one who shows HV and thus can leave when they want wins.
@Thoth
I have no expectation for her to change. I have in fact given up monogamy as a requirement. As for more time, my divorce was final on July 31, 2001. That’s a long time.
@RA
Ah, I did think it was for an old fart.
And when I drive by a base today or see pictures I wonder when they started letting kids play with rifles and reactors.
.
@Mule Chewing Briars
That does seem to be the biggest difference between men and women. Men should a much greater variance in what their big thing is. Then again, in most psychological measures men show more variance.
Yeah, well, hopefully she’ll get a clue before 40. People need to get over “there is someone for everyone” and “the perfect person for you exists”. You’re lucky if anyone finds you interesting and your choice is to choose between the people available or choose to be alone. Nothing wrong with choosing the later, but to demand people who don’t like you start doing so because you don’t want to choose it is the common entitlement.
@Megaman
I acknowledge they exist. I’ll even give that at any given time slice they constitute a majority, or at least have historically. They may still, but I believe that number is declining.
What worries me is how many of those couples will be together in 10 years. I didn’t say “how many are unhappy” because even the happiest couples have unhappy periods. The issues is the willingness to work through them. We have plenty of research that says if you do you’ll be happier than you were in a few years.
But we’re failing on that. First, the culture at large endorses leaving marriage if you’re unhappy for both women and men. That women seem to reach that point more often is curious and is probably related to the “you deserve it all culture”, but men are picking up similar messages. I think men are more reacting to a culture “you’re optional anyway” message.
My biggest worry, though, is we’ve baked in divorce. Children of never married mothers and children of divorce are much less likely to form lasting marriages (a red flag I ignored in choosing a mate). Every generation these people are a larger proportion of the population. In fact, they are a majority and soon the first group alone will be the majority.
Finally, I look at my own family. Prior to me there were no divorces and only one old maid in the 20th century. Forty percent of my generation divorced. Another forty percent never married. The last one (there are five of us) was, the last time we heard, a drug addict married to a drug addict. On the two who divorced only one (my sister) has remarried. Sure, it’s anecdote but it’s enough to tell me something has changed that makes happy couples that last much less likely.
Jackie, she was painting a harsh, bleak version of reality for me so that I wouldn’t be entitled or disappointed. In Asian culture girls are less valued than boys. It is indisputable. Girls had to be slim, light-skinned, have big eyes, be pretty, be smart, be obedient, be virgins, work hard, and always be aware of her place in the hierarchy. I was not slim enough, light enough, pretty enough or obedient enough. I got the opposite of the “you’re special” treatment.
Her expectation for me was to marry a rich, high-status man whom I did not love, so that I did not have to suffer poverty or work in physical labor as a housekeeper or servant (which my mother did). She wanted me to be as manipulative, selfish and cunning as I could be, because in her view that is how to get ahead in life. It’s not exactly dissonant with her own experiences, since my father was a womanizer, physically abused her, cheated on her and eventually left her for a younger woman, and she fell into poverty. This was commonplace in Asia, where men held much higher status, and the only thing uncommon was that he actually got a divorce instead of just having mistresses on the side.
So I can’t really blame her, although she was a crappy mother, for trying to warn me about what she saw as the horrible reality of the world. I did not have a long childhood. I knew about sex early and wanted to grow up early so that I would get away from her.
@Liza207
I know no man who believes that. We’re compared to the flavor of the day too much to not know it.
What I’m much more familiar with is women’s anger that men do care about looks and the belief they should be allowed to care.
Prime example is my sister. She’s told me I should lose some weight to attract women. She has a point and I had be losing when she told me that. I’ve lost since. She’ll still tell me I need to lose more even though I can outrun, out bike,and out swim a significant fraction of men a decade younger (possibly the majority but I’m not sure). Yet her fat and obese female friends get plenty of sympathy about how men should quit caring looks and see personalities.
This matches with pop culture. We have Shallow Hal about a man learning it does matter if a woman is morbidly obese because in the end she’s just as attractive as the thin version. I have yet to see Shallow Jen about a woman learning to not care a man isn’t Hugh Jackman.
@Hope
“She wanted me to be as manipulative, selfish and cunning as I could be, because in her view that is how to get ahead in life. ”
——
Hope, you have really done an amazing job with your life, especially in regards to character. I’m so sorry your mom was so difficult.
((((((Hope)))))
BTW–Does your mom have NPD? Because she sounds like my grandmother
J, that talk was not unrealistic for me, since I grew up in Asia, my grandfather had a whole other family by his mistress, and it was the norm. American culture might be more Puritannical, but I also grew up on the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.
Of course I never believed that women were all nice and sugar and spice, because my mother was not. I got a huge dose of reality pre-puberty that stayed with me throughout life. Of course I still dated guys, but for most of my youth I had a deep wariness of them and didn’t trust them. My husband is the first man I ever really trusted.
Jackie, I’m fairly certain at this point that my mother has NPD. She has 90% of the list of traits on this page:
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/traits.html
I remember her being paranoid that the FBI/CIA were spying on her, and she was convinced there were people outside going through her garbage to see what she was up to. She had strange grandiose delusions.
It’s possible that life just kind of broke her. She didn’t exactly have an easy life in adulthood, and although she was smart and beautiful by Chinese standards, and born into a relative life of privilege in China, she was a nobody in America and living in poverty. I suppose she insisted on continuing to be important in her own mind.
Liz: “The claim from men is that women don’t care about looks AT ALL.”
OK, show me an example of that claim if it’s so common. I rarely see this, unless it’s from a deranged commenter, not any respected blogger. Most of what I read is “looks do matter, so get to the gym, fatso!” Athol says so, as well as Rollo.
Herb: “Yet her fat and obese female friends get plenty of sympathy about how men should quit caring looks and see personalities.”
I have mentioned before that I have a friend who thinks like this and she is constantly seeking my validation and sympathy for this line of thinking. However, she will never ever receive it from me.
Hope, Jackie, et al.
I wonder how many of the women who comment in the ‘sphere with some regularity had mentally ill or problematic mothers? There seems to be a disproportionate number.
Jackie, thank you for the hugs.
Don’t feel bad for me though. I feel so much luckier than a lot of people in the world. Regardless of my mother’s flaws, she did work hard, provided for me, and sent me to school so I’d have a better future. I’m in a really good place now, and I’m grateful to be here. I do wish I could help my mother get better psychologically, but I don’t think I can.
I remember my own takeaways from what happened to her. 1) Mate choice in one’s youth and 20s have a big impact on one’s life. 2) Ignore Mr. Big who’s super successful, greedy and ambitious. 3) Good character and ethics trump money and status any day.
In another conversation thread, someone mentioned my husband could have gone into banking making six figures with a math degree. My husband actually refused to go work for a bank for the big bucks. It was one of those things that really impressed me about him and made me think, “Wow!” I’d rather live a frugal middle class life and have a happy family than risk my future and the future of my children on a Dark Triad a-hole. Middle class American lifestyle is already better than the vast majority of people have it on Earth. I have no need for more.
Perfect Christmas present for the avid HUS commenter: http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster
You are welcome
Okay, I am glad that a couple of male bloggers have driven home this point to men. I remember one of the bloggers you mentioned doing a post on the topic and the response from men was almost overwhelming.
Men really get their tightie-whities in a bunch over this subject.
Liza207,
True! Yet it’s amazing how many men in the ‘sphere are adament that men don’t have hamsters — only women…
@ Courtley
Where are those girls? How do I find them? Every girl I know except one in college is either hooking up or going from boyfriend to boyfriend. The one girl who actually wants commitment is already in a relationship.
J,
You know, I remember this being discussed on a previous thread awhile back. I think the consensus was due to hearing harsh criticism growing up, such women had thick skin. As such they did not take all the awful comments made about women personally.
Iggles:
You know, I remember this being discussed on a previous thread awhile back. I think the consensus was due to hearing harsh criticism growing up, such women had thick skin. As such they did not take all the awful comments made about women personally.
My reply:
I think this had to do with them not being overly bothered when men in the manosphere attacked them directly, they were more empathetic to men’s perspectives on abuse at the hands of women, or to abusive situations in general.
As for me, I’m an INTJ, so I don’t spend my time being overly worried about the perspectives of anonymous rants about women. Beyond that, I don’t tend to hang out in the “locker room,” in that I respect boundaries; certain spaces appear to be primarily male-only, and I as a woman should observe but not necessarily participate, ie., when I might glance at a manosphere blog post, ie., Dalrock, etc., but not participate. The old joke I can remember from chatting with girlfriends at the gym was about avoiding “testosterone poisoning…”
By the way, Iggles, I liked your observation about not experiencing “EWW girl syndrome,” in that my background is similar–my younger 24 year old black girl self knew that no matter how entitled I might have thought I was, the world was not likely to agree!
J, Iggles and pvw, it is interesting to me how many females who are non-white and/or non-privileged in background we have here at HUS.
None of us could have been a protagonist on one of these “modern dating” TV shows.
Ted @ 517,
You’ve got the whole thing now Ted. All of the pieces. Well done, man and I wish you the very, very best. I hope you BOTH enjoy the journey of becoming better people and a better couple, together. It is an awesome thing.
Iggles,
Of course, men have ralationization hamsters. And their hamsters appear to run at super duper speed too. The poor little things appear to be near cardiac arrest because they are always running so damn fast all. of. the. time. It seems that when women tell them what we actually desire and actually want is when it goes into overdrive.
@J, Iggles (#529)
“Hope, Jackie, et al.
I wonder how many of the women who comment in the ‘sphere with some regularity had mentally ill or problematic mothers? There seems to be a disproportionate number.”
——–
Hey J!
My mom was actually a really nice person– *her* mother (my maternal grandmother) was the NPD. Sometimes I think if I hadn’t lost my mom at a young age, I would be a lot more mentally healthy. Because the “manosphere” had nothing on my GM when it came to criticism of women!
Now I can laugh about it –albeit in a gallows humor way– but at the time she made me cry buckets. She’d make me stand in front of the mirror and point out my deficiencies, ugliness and call names until I was just a puddle of tears. Some of her criticisms were bizarre (“asymmetrical!” “I can see the ugly German blood in you” from my dad’s side).
We were her only living relatives– her only daughter’s children– so we couldn’t just cut her off. My dad just told me to avoid her as much as possible — a plan I followed to the letter.
PS: In a happy ending, when my sister inherited her share of that estate, she used a bunch of the money to send anonymous gifts to the people (besides family!) that my grandmother had hurt, with apologies. It was a pretty huge lesson: Her life brought unmitigated misery; her death brought tons of happiness; be the opposite of NPD grandmother!
I wonder how many of the women who comment in the ‘sphere with some regularity had mentally ill or problematic mothers? There seems to be a disproportionate number.
—–
I believe most of the women who comment regularly in the manosphere and find the company of those men appealing are usually women who are attention whores with mama issues.
@Susan
Obviously the dude’s a scumbag in this situation.
I obviously don’t know these people, but I’ve seen situations like this play out many times before.
It’s pure speculation, but I’d be willing to bet that if she knew the guy long enough, there were plenty signs he was bad news before this happened, and she just chose to ignore them.
@INTJ – “Where are those girls? How do I find them?”
How old are you and where do you live? Are you on a campus? It all depends on context.
I would say…
Go to lectures, bookstores, and coffeeshops.
Take up a hobby that involves teamwork (producing a radio show, promoting a band you enjoy, putting on a show for your university, organizing a conference.)
Take a leadership role running an event that forces you to interact with the public.
You could also try out online dating sites that ask people to clarify their views on monogamy, having children, interest level in marriage.
Which of these have you tried already?
“It seems that when women tell them what we actually desire and actually want is when it goes into overdrive.”
Ah, there’s the problem. With women, it’s better to observe what the “revealed preference” is, rather than blindly accept what you say.
I take it you’ll see “revealed preference” as yet another male rationalization
I do wonder what to call the male version of the hamster (typically seen in beta guys who get LJBF’d or white knights).
@Jackie
“In a happy ending, when my sister inherited her share of that estate, she used a bunch of the money to send anonymous gifts to the people (besides family!) that my grandmother had hurt, with apologies.”
This seriously rocks!!!
@INTJ (#534)
“Where are those girls? How do I find them? Every girl I know except one in college is either hooking up or going from boyfriend to boyfriend. The one girl who actually wants commitment is already in a relationship.”
——-
I think a lot of really great people, both guys and girls, have a hard time finding each other due to social circles not overlapping. For me, my major was mostly female and many of the guys were not interested in women (i.e. wanted to date other guys). I knew a *ton* of great girls who all kind of hung out together but didn’t see much of the opposite sex in a way for dating potential.
The ones who did meet boyfriends were involved in extra-curriculars, met people through roommates and were extroverted in seeking out other social circles. If you, INTJ, live up to your handle, it will probably be more challenging for you.
Are there any groups or activities you are a part of? Are you open to expanding your social circle?Are you part of a faith community? That is one place I have seen guys *clean up*– they met tons of girls, it was like they added about 4 points to their “number on the 1-10 scale” just by showing up.
I think that sometimes it takes a bit of extra effort and luck for certain personalities. GL and keep us posted, OK?
@pennies (#545)
Hi pennies!
Thanks for the kind words towards my sister
I think you would like her tons, with the feeling being mutual I am sure!
(BTW, my grandmother told her she “Had a black heart” and “Would never, ever marry!” My sister, who is older and probably healthier, just laughed and said, Like she’s worried about competition!
)
I do wonder what to call the male version of the hamster (typically seen in beta guys who get LJBF’d or white knights).
ENY,
This comes after the “looks” things which is number one, in my opinion. I would say that “revealed preference” is definitely them rationalizing.
pvw,
Indeed, like-wise I tend to stay away from primarily male-only forums. Occasionally I might find it interesting to read but I’m not moved to participate. Not every place is for me and vice-versa.
Yup!
Hope,
I agree! I never fully identify with any character on TV. (The closest is the web series Awkward Black Girl, and even then I differ from the protagonist in a number of ways!) There are always parts of characters I can relate to, regardless of ethnicity/gender. Still, I think more diversity in media is needed because the symbols & stereotypes seen on TV do matter.
@Jackie – “Like she’s worried about competition!”
You two sound hilarious together! Love it!
And yes, I thought about adding church to my rec list for INTJ if that applies…
Liza -
Men aren’t angry about women being attracted to visually appealing men. What frustrates them is average women ignoring a sure thing with them in favor of a 3% shot at a much better looking man.
I may be biased, but I think in the current Sexual Marketplace, men have a better bead on their relative attractiveness than women. The majority of guys have gotten over the head cheerleader with the shampoo ad hair and the 34C not being impressed with their level 20 Rogue by their last year of high school.
What does rankle, though, is to find a cute-enough girl supporting a “poet” or a “musician”, paying his bills while he pursues his muse and cheats on her, or the pretty girl from the research department going into rotation in Chad McChin’s harem.
Yeah, we’d love to be one of those great-looking guys, but these are not your grandfather’s great looking guys, who married great looking girls that fought off all her rivals, and had great looking kids. The sexual script a lot of young women are following now is to sign up for a rotating harem with the possibility of ending up in the top spot when the music stopped. What men are saying now is that they don’t intend to be around to pick up the pieces when Scheherazade gets to the 1,002nd night.
Can someone please explain to me the ‘hamster’ analogy?
Is it a certian thought-process that men/women tend to not give up easily – as though it goes through their head endlessly, like a hamster on a wheel?
If so, what is the thought that females endlessly think? and males?
Oh, yeah. There s also OK Cupid where 70-80% of men’s photos were rated “below average”.
>> “Beyond that, I don’t tend to hang out in the “locker room,” in that I respect boundaries; certain spaces appear to be primarily male-only, and I as a woman should observe but not necessarily participate, ie., when I might glance at a manosphere blog post, ie., Dalrock, etc., but not participate.”
This is exactly how I feel. And if the posters there find it therapeutic to vent their anger, then good for them. I only have a problem with the “angry manosphere” stuff when too much of it is carried over here.
Mule Chewing Briars,
I agree with most of what you said. However, I am not quite sold on this: “The majority of guys have gotten over the head cheerleader with the shampoo ad hair and the 34C not being impressed with their level 20 Rogue by their last year of high school, ”
I have often observed men who are low on the attractiveness scale hitting on women I would consider way out of their league all. of. the. time. And in some cases these men become very indignate when rebuffed by those women.
This brings me to another male rationalization, I want to add: being in denial and clueless about their own SMV. I believe this affects males way more than it does women.
“I’ve had plenty of women tell me that…I’ve had women I’ve been attracted to tell me that and they, to a woman, friend zoned me at best (or at worst, depending on POV).”
Just because you do all those things doesn’t mean she’ll be attracted to you personally. It simply means those are the general qualities she likes in a man she’s attracted to. Should I expected every man who likes smart blondes to want to date me personally? Your mistake is thinking that because a woman doesn’t want to date you that means she automatically wants to date bad boys.
@Ted D
I commend you for doing the research necessary to find your solution, wherever it has taken you. I don’t want the responsibility or control of limiting readers to HUS, nor do I consider it a sign of failure if people go elsewhere. I think most of us, including myself, read a number of blogs. It sounds like you’ve reached understanding, acceptance, and have an idea of how to proceed. I’m glad for you.
That’s a lovely thought – and a healthy way to view your relationship, IMO. Best of luck.
INTJ, the thing is, we can’t possibly “know” everybody at college or work or anywhere really. Dunbar’s number is somewhere around 150-200. Beyond that we can’t realistically keep track. Also most of us only interact with about 5-50 people on a regular, personal basis (a good talk at least once a week), depending on how introverted or extroverted.
The key is to get to know people you don’t normally know. Other commenters had good ideas. It’s good to be where you’re comfortable, but also good to branch out a bit. Ideally you want a setting where you can interact with the same set of people for at least several hours a week, but where new people come in and go as well. That’s why people often suggest church, volunteer work, groups and organizations, etc. Virtual spaces also count.
If you’re single and looking, you should be getting to know at least few new people every month. Not just casual introductions, but a good one-on-one talk. Nowadays people often do this in the way of “dating,” but a lot of relationships don’t start out that way. They often start out with two people including each other in that small but regularly in-touch group.
“Your mistake is thinking that because a woman doesn’t want to date you that means she automatically wants to date bad boys.”
——-
This is also a very common beta male rationalization.
None of us could have been a protagonist on one of these “modern dating” TV shows.
LOL. That’s for sure!
Mule Chewing Briars:
“you get to choose from the boys who are interested in you, not from those who aren’t.”
——–
I’m lucky because I was never interested in a guy if he wasn’t reciprocating, so I don’t relate to the unrequited love phenomenon. If a guy didn’t show interest in me or if he was showing interest in me + even 1 other girl- I became instantly disinterested- just like that! (snap)
____________________________
Hope:
“”that’s why I feel semi-lucky to have gotten the harsh talks from my mother about how all men are liars, cheats and out for sex… before I hit puberty”
—–
I received the same talks during puberty by my father but I also had the fortune to witness those types of men with my very own eyes from an early age.
Now I can laugh about it –albeit in a gallows humor way– but at the time she made me cry buckets. She’d make me stand in front of the mirror and point out my deficiencies, ugliness and call names until I was just a puddle of tears.
Wow, that’s really insane, egregiously so. You should be proud of yourself and your late mom for overcoming this.
@Jimmy H
No doubt. She was a college freshman, so probably naive to boot.
By the way, more on Dunbar’s number and social groups. The rise of mass media, celebrities and pop culture have caused some people to think of the fake characters they see on TV as those they know personally and interact with on a regular basis, even though it is just one-way. Undoubtedly that shapes people’s psyches about what kind of mate they seek, what kind of relationship they want, and what kind of life to live. We are social creatures, and even if the “peer” is just someone on TV, that has definite influence and subtle peer pressure.
I heard some commentator talking about the anchor on morning news shows, how that’s the person we wake up to in our bedrooms, spend our mornings “naked, just coming out of the shower with,” and how there’s an intimacy there for most people. So they get very attached to a particular news anchor. I thought that was interesting, partially because I cannot relate to it at all after a decade-long break from TV.
Emily:
“A good rule of thumb might be that guys shouldn’t show any more interest/affection than the girl is already demonstrating.
So if a girl is acting more reserved, then it might be a good idea to be more aloof. But if she’s acting like an overeager puppy, then you’re probably free to be as “beta” as you want.”
———-
That’s the exact advise I give for relationships. Mirror the other person’s behavior.
It’s give and take – you’re to make sure you keep the input and output balanced or else either you’ll be taken advantage of or the other person will keep an account of what you owe them- either way the relationship will fall apart.
The rationalization hamster is just another way of calling out cognitive dissonance, holding conflicting views simultaneously and how we deal with this. For a classic example, the story of the fox that can’t reach the grapes, and rationalizing that the grapes must be sour and not worth it (sour grapes syndrome). Another example is people judge harshly others who are overweight or are smokers, but many people are overweight or smokers themselves (hypocritical cognitive dissonance).
Men and women both engage in these mental gymnastics. In fact, it is very difficult for anyone to never have done such (though one can be aware of it). To claim otherwise would be silly and, well, ignoring real-life data points, and to engage in cognitive dissonance in itself.
@Liza207
We’ll probably have to agree to disagree. According to most women, most men (70-80% of them) are “low on the attractiveness scale”, whereas most women consider themselves “above average” and “out of their league”. You can see where this would cause some resentment.
Notice this video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM9WSElLklw
I thought the law student was above average in looks (needs a better haircut), and thought he’d have made a good couple with the better looking, longer-haired girl on the right. I know I’d be thrilled if my daughter brought him home for inspection.
The girl on the left strikes me as being completely average for a young woman in her age group.
I am very glad that my daughter truly finds a wide variety of young men appealing. It gives her a considerable advantage over her competition. As a doting father, she’s the most beautiful girl in the world to me, and she hasn’t brought home a truly ugly one yet, although I had to warn her about a couple of players….
It’s give and take – you’re to make sure you keep the input and output balanced or else either you’ll be taken advantage of or the other person will keep an account of what you owe them- either way the relationship will fall apart.
Alias,
This is excellent advice and should be practiced in all relationships not just romantic ones.
@Hope
Ah, not exactly what I had thought.
Thanks
@Liza207
” I would say that “revealed preference” is definitely them rationalizing.”
Well, no point in discussion, then. Odd that you read HUS considering Susan uses other economics principles. You can lead a horse to water…
Liza207
I have often observed men who are low on the attractiveness scale hitting on women I would consider way out of their league all. of. the. time. And in some cases these men become very indignate when rebuffed by those women.
This brings me to another male rationalization, I want to add: being in denial and clueless about their own SMV. I believe this affects males way more than it does women.
My reply:
Here is my observation. It seems that women believe they are affected to a far greater extent than men are about looks, and there is greater criticism from certain quarters about oppressive media standards and their effects upon women. Thus, might more and more women be conscious of their failure to live up to the standards as compared to men? Is it that men traditionally have had to prove their ability to provide as a means of attracting a mate?
Growing up, I was never talked to about “SMV,” my parents would not have imagined such a concept existed; again, they grew up in a different time and place. If a woman presented herself well, that is all that mattered–making a pleasant and attractive appearance.
But with media imagery, more and more women are given the message that if they don’t measure up to some impossible standard, they are absolute losers, and thus, more parents might consciously tell their daughters that “those standards” don’t apply to them? Or, in rejection of the craziness of some mothers, ie., what some discussed here, of mothers humiliating their daughters by calling them ugly, they go the opposite way and try to build up their daughters before they fall victim to the societal pressure and criticism?
A case in point, a perfect example. I was chatting recently with the minister and children’s ed coordinator at my church where we were thinking about baptism gifts for two little girls in the congregation. I’m the adult ed coordinator, so I was getting gifts for the adults who just finished their programming this year, getting ready for confirmation and reception (they are becoming Episcopalian).
I was doing research and I saw that there is a female minister who developed a line of dolls, Rev. Barbie, Episcopal priest, Malibu, California. I thought it was too cute, stylish Rev. Barbie in her cool clerical garb.
Rev. Lisa and Denise, the children’s ed. coordinator howled, no Barbies! They talked about how Barbies impose an oppressive standard of beauty upon little girls from a young age, to value their looks over everything else and to feel bad about themselves for not fitting in.
In the end, I got each one “Episcobear,” a teddy bear wearing the Episcopal church colorsand crest. It went over well….
Here are some classic cognitive dissonance scenarios:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effort_justification
Example: A guy justifying to himself putting in so much time and effort into getting one girl by putting her on a pedestal. A girl justifying to herself spending money on a guy as she must really like him.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_handicap
Example: A guy deliberately not approaching a girl he likes because he fears failure. A girl deliberately avoiding eye contact with a guy she likes because she fears failure.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_attribution_error
Example: A guy who has rejected a few girls in his past thinks all girls are terrible because a few girls have rejected him. Vice versa for a girl.
These types of list can go on and on, but basically the idea that both men and women have rationalization hamsters is sound and backed by psychological research.
“I was doing research and I saw that there is a female minister who developed a line of dolls, Rev. Barbie, Episcopal priest, Malibu, California. I thought it was too cute, stylish Rev. Barbie in her cool clerical garb.
Rev. Lisa and Denise, the children’s ed. coordinator howled, no Barbies! They talked about how Barbies impose an oppressive standard of beauty upon little girls from a young age, to value their looks over everything else and to feel bad about themselves for not fitting in.”
What nonsense. I don’t know who started that crazy idea but I played with Barbie for years without giving a single thought to the way I looked or thinking I want to look like Barbie when I grow up. Its just a toy.
It works both ways. In college I got the distinct feeling some of the ladys who approached me, didnt really want to get to know me, they wanted a notch on their bedpost that included an athlete. Humph.. me, a piece of meat….lol
“It seems that women believe they are affected to a far greater extent than men are about looks, and there is greater criticism from certain quarters about oppressive media standards and their effects upon women. Thus, might more and more women be conscious of their failure to live up to the standards as compared to men? Is it that men traditionally have had to prove their ability to provide as a means of attracting a mate?”
PVW,
This is exactly it. This is why, I don’t buy men making the claim that women are the ones overestimating their SMV. Women are under way too much pressure to live up to unrealistic beauty standards set by the media, as you pointed out. Most of us will never be able to live up to those standards even some of the hottest women will always feel that something is not quite right concerning their appearance. Men have never been under this kind of pressure when it comes to their looks therefore, they are way more prone to overestimating their SMV in terms of appearance.
@ Jesus Mahoney
“So yea, I think there was an insecure attachment between them–at least as he experienced it. It was a battle for attention in his eyes. He may have won consistently, but he always felt the need to engage.”
———
Thanks for weighing in.
What I was getting at is that narcissism isn’t caused by parental/maternal abuse.
It seems like you’re saying that your mom tried to help your brother with his insecurity (jealousy). Other guys have younger brothers whom they love to bits and protect. I’m sorry you didn’t have that kind of relationship with your brother.
>> “Rev. Lisa and Denise, the children’s ed. coordinator howled, no Barbies! They talked about how Barbies impose an oppressive standard of beauty upon little girls from a young age, to value their looks over everything else and to feel bad about themselves for not fitting in.”
My bf recently told me about the Computer Engineer Barbie that came out a few years ago. I personally think it’s awesome, but it turns out that the feminist bloggers were mad that she was too attractive (of course). That being said, I think they would have been just as pissed off if Mattel had made her ugly.
I personally think that Barbie’s bad rap is undeserved, but that’s JMO. (…those Bratz dollz on the other hand…)
@Courtley
Maybe one day, I will be one of those couples. But today is not that day lol. Considering almost 6 out of 10 of those “average” dudes will probably get divorced in a legal action initiated by his wife, I’m not in a huge hurry to tie the knot, either. All’s not roses and sunshine for many of those guys, hence why blogs like Susan’s and Athol Kay’s exist. You should start reading some of the archives both there and here, then come back to us.
You wanted to know what basic characteristics most 20-30 something women have, and I told you, point blank. I’m not going to draw up some sort of proof for you only for you to continue to be myopic. If you don’t date women, you should be listening, not telling me I’m crazy. I have been around them and dating them across multiple environments and cities since I was 17 haha, and I know what I’m talking about. How many women have you dated? Please learn when to listen. You don’t see me here challenging you on something I know little about but you know a lot about.
Again, how many women have you sat across from in a romantic situation? Trust me, they’re very different when they deal with us versus with you.
Again, that demographic is not that limited. Many girls of all status levels do think they can get and keep Mr. Big, and that is the reason blogs like this one exist in the first place. Ask Susan about how many emails she gets from girls wanting to tame douchebags- she even wrote a post telling girls to stop putting out for dickheads. In fact, the whole reason for the rise of “Game” is because girls standards for what is attractive have risen much higher- they always want someone that offers more than what they have. It’s rare that the average 20-30 something girl is paying attention to guys “in her league”, barring girls raised well in the right type of environment. The girls that have been raised right are now in the minority, so now guys need to be on their p’s and q’s.
Ok, I’m humoring you here because you seem to genuinely not know what is going on. I have my preferences, but several other guys here have different ones and they will tell you the same things I have seen. I’m not writing you a thesis on this, but I will briefly run it down. I typically date early to mid-twenties girls that I meet either out or through friends. It’s about equal from each pool. I am involved in music outside of work so admittedly, I’m not that average from the standpoint of having something to talk about that interests people, and I’m more natural than not. These game bloggers are just teaching dudes with no game to do what naturals have learned to do from day one. If you’re doing it right, you’re not approaching every girl you see- in situations that call for it, you step up and make it happen, but most of the time they come to you through connections with friends or they make it clear that they want you to talk to them.
NO, lol. Randoms on the internet don’t get that much info, but I will tell you that I am in a major (top 5 population) US metro area. You have now heard from a few different guys that are agreeing with my every word, and I’m pretty sure none of us are neighbors. If you live in an area where everyone’s coupled up and happy, fine. I am very happy for you, but me and other guys are telling you that this is not the world the average dude lives in before he settles down. And even settling down and getting married is kind of a shitty deal for many guys these days because of the legal risks and social implications. I have said it before and will say it again. This is the entire reason the “Game” phenomenon exists, and all of the blogs we’re referring to, including the one we are speaking on right now, are even around. Welcome to what the reality is for many men- some embrace it and make it work for them like I have, or bitch about it, or some combination of the two- it’s an adjustment for most men, and it will continue to be that way until things settle out again. Female preferences are shifting with the cultural tides, and we’ll adapt.
@Liza
I’m afraid that this is an open invitation to play the My gender has it worse than yours! game. I’ll try to resist, but I still have to point out that this doesn’t describe an analogous position for men.
If women don’t select men based on appearance the way men select women, then it’s not necessary for men to try to glam it up. Coincidentally (or not!), they don’t (excepting certain rock ‘n rollers in the ’70s
).
What men have to do is different. They have to be “the quarterback”. They have to be the lead singer in the band. They have to be the guy with the corner office and they have to be the guy with a distinguished service medal.
Of course, if you say “No they don’t! Women don’t expect that from every man they meet!” then you have to realize the men don’t expect all women to be Kate Upton (or insert this year’s model of choice here). That was never the problem.
And seriously, the problem isn’t the model selling the hair coloring. It’s the phrase “…because you’re worth it.” that has become a sore point.
It’s time to give everyone a break, I think.
Liza, women who don’t plug into media may overestimate their looks but once we see what advertising is trying to push on us (underarm whitener anyone?) we probably underestimate them.
@ Liza207 # 569
Thanks.
Relationships are just like balance sheets, with debits and credits.
People want unconditional love, but it’ll only happen if they’re willing to give it. Inversely- they should hold back on giving it unless they receive it. It may sound unfair- but that’s the only way to have a healthy relationship.
Of course, you’re not keeping a tally for every.single.exchange. but overall- both sides need to balance out because if one member’s in the red, the relationship’s going out of business.
@Pixie
“underarm whitener”
I LOL’d….What if you’re not white? Sometimes the products out there being pushed to people are just hilariously nonsensical.
Underarm whitener? Hilarious.
Guys, give it up. I don’t think I’ve changed my stance much here in the last few months, but I do notice the moderate guys dropping out one by one. Soon only Tom will be left.
Until next thread…
Susan @ 483 & 485
I am sure you are not trolling for lawyer comments but the “due diligence” remark at 502 pushed me over the edge. Tom engaged in misrepresentation by omission; part of the English common law for centuries. But that presupposes he had a duty to tell Jane he had a GF. A car salesman must disclose if he knows he has a lemon. Surely you are not suggesting Tom had to disclose he had a girl friend before he fucked Jane. The SMP is not regulated by Congress — yet. Thank God. Your due diligence comment was right on. Jane should have asked. If the guy lied then he would be weasel. If not, it’s something my veteran heros on here – Dogsquat, Richard, Herb – would instantly understand: take no prisoners.
Porn has created a new aesthetic with its hairless and bleached a-holes. There’s both a vagina and an anal bleach on the market now.
Mule Chewing Briars,
I believe the issue she was having with that guy was that he was a bit of a dork. I don’t think his looks had much to do with why she was rejecting him. He just had no game.
Hope,
We (my family) weren’t told that women were sugar and spice, we were told to watch out for everyone. To learn to defend/protect ourselves because predators were out there camouflaged among the crowd- waiting to take advantage of anyone who allows them to be taken advantaged of.
What do you mean by moderate? The “instill dread” guys? I’d love it if they went away and never came back.
@Senior Beta
Then it seems it boils down to one’s stance on lying by omission. Including, in this case, a deliberate attempt to mislead by implying the opposite of what was intended. I think you’d be hard pressed to find any girl who, after being in regular contact and having dates with a boy from another school, and upon being asked to travel to his school to be his date on Valentine’s Day, would wonder if he has a girlfriend.
If you don’t think his behavior is shady, I can’t help you. If the SMP isn’t regulated by honesty and integrity, then perhaps we should introduce polygraphs. Just think – we could get the facts re STDs, intent, previous number of sexual partners, etc. I wonder how far we are from that portable technology.
Susan at 590
But Tom didn’t “imply” anything. He asked if she had a BF. She said no. That made him happy. She didn’t use due diligence. You say “shady.” I say “Game”.
You don’t think inviting a girl to a weekend formal and telling her how much you like her implies availability?
He was available. For that weekend.
“Some people wonder if they missed out on anything by having only one or two lovers before marriage”.
.
If they live in a place or culture surrounded by people who have had more. It is purely culturally driven. If you do not want to be with such a person, switch cultures [shop elsewhere]. You see, all are happy and there is someone for everyone after all. Happy happy
“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.”
.
well, good for them. any takers?
.
Forgive me for asking a simplistic and rather remedial question, but I am new to these discussions.
Are there assumed to be (net of common costs) “winners” and “losers” in the current SMP? Who are they? What controlling assumptions about human happiness are commonly made?
“But Tom didn’t “imply” anything. He asked if she had a BF. She said no. That made him happy. ”
Why? If all he wanted was NSA sex then what does it matter if she has a bf or not?
Alias, yep. I was also taught to be wary of potentially bad people.
Susan, I can see how she got fooled. The lesson here to girls is that a guy saying “I like you” doesn’t mean squat. Always be skeptical. Use best judgement, discernment and mind-reading prowess. Don’t ignore little nagging feelings and warning signs.
I also agree with you that intent is key. It is the biggest difference between an ethical and an unethical person, a sheepdog or a wolf.
“Are there assumed to be (net of common costs) “winners” and “losers” in the current SMP? Who are they? ”
.
In this order from winners down, and not an assumption:
.
Sexually successful men [10 to 20% of men]
The women who cock hop the above [nearly all women]
The rest of the men who are left to pick over the above women years later
Are there assumed to be (net of common costs) “winners” and “losers” in the current SMP? Who are they? What controlling assumptions about human happiness are commonly made?
A very simple baseline is this: how many people are getting what they want, as they define that, out of the SMP? The ones who are doing so are the “winners” — the game of the current SMP is giving them what they want from it, and so it’s a “win”. The ones who are not doing so are, in varying degrees, the “losers” — the game of the current SMP is not giving them what they want from it, so their participation is a “loss”. An analogy would be winning and losing investors (over more than a short period … chronic winning and chronic losing).
« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
{ 2 trackbacks }