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 … 5 6 7 8 »
What I mean is, if promiscuity is in fact more common in the 6-8 or 5-7 range, then the experience of guys who are, for the most part, targeting girls in this range are not going to match the statistics that say only 20% of girls are promiscuous.
___________
that doesnt mean ALL 5thru 7`s are promiscuous. If only 1% of them are then that feeds the stats of maybe @ 5% of women are promiscuous.
@SW
“When we say ‘So what?’ or ‘Who cares?’ about the Toms of the world, we create a default code of conduct in the SMP that is corrosive at best.”
Well, the SDS requires that women have high standards and unimpeachable scruples, because, of course, men have none of those things (or so it is said) : |
Do we know that Jane hasn’t accepted her failure in this situation? Is she really in denial? Maybe we don’t have the whole story yet. For all this talk of society rewarding women for making “obvious” mistakes, she’s still single and quite possibly jaded about men going forward. Guys may see her as just another gullible girl who sleeps around (N+1). But Tom still has a devoted girlfriend who’s willing to put up with multiple instances of cheating. Who’s really been punished, and who’s been rewarded?
Tom is a cad.
#1..He cheated on his girlfriend.
#2 He did not tell Jane he had a girlfriend.
Would Jane have had sex with Tom if she knew he was in a relationship? We dont know, but I kind of doubt it.(she seems level headed because of her chaste behavior concerning Tom while separated from him)
Jane only had sex with Tom because she “assumed” he was being faithful to her too. She had sex without full disclosure from Tom.
Any other view of this situation is speculation at least.
*Big hugs to Jackie*
I know a little bit of how you feel, but this is after all the red pill zone, and it isn’t pleasant. It can be tempting to think there is no hope.
But it makes it that much more awesome when you finally meet a spiritual, positive and ethical man who is attracted to the goodness within you, and who will attract you with his goodness.
You are certainly more virtuous, chaste and kind-hearted than me, as I had done many wrongs in my past. You have a purity that shines even through the anonymity of the Internet. I believe you will find a great man who is capable of being on your level.
Forgive the cheesy metaphor, but just as there are female angels sent to Earth to spread genuine love, there are male angels as well. You will find one of your fellow angels. I just know it.
Tom’s gf is a much bigger idiot than even Jane.
Returning to the broader issue, might the “I’m single and liking it” for some of the women you speak of have been a defense mechanism against the shame?
Might be but that is stupid if no one knows you do want to get marry how is anyone going to ask? How people is going to introduce you to single willing men or at least the same men they are shaming into “manning up” as reporter here many men do want to meet commitment orientated women but if they all hide in the “I’m single and proud” mantle who is going to know. Stupid strategy if you ask me. I was not shy of my intentions of getting married and not finding the right is is a legitimate excuse. Pride shouldn’t get in the way of something as important as marriage and family, IMO.
Shaming only works if its done en masse. If you and me try and slut shaming everyone will think your crazy and I’m a hypocrite.
To quote Pocahontas someone has to start. The mass is made out of individuals if we remove shame from the beta guys so the women understand that there is not such a thing as a guy being creepy just because he is not attractive but keep the one in cads I think a lot of progress can be made. I’m personally sick of the Alpha is so hot that he can get away with everything he does. Is not fair or productive and is the source of a lot of problems in our SMP, YMMV.
When we say “So what?” or “Who cares?” about the Toms of the world, we create a default code of conduct in the SMP that is corrosive at best. I don’t think Tom is unusual in the least -he clearly had all his buddies on board to cover for him.
One thought on this. Not sure how this works amongst most women, but a very clear part of “Guy Code” is you don’t rat your buddies out. I can’t overestimate how important this is amongst guys. Now me personally, I’m not going to directly lie for a guy if asked a direct question. “Hey, I heard Tom has a girlfriend, is that true?” I would answer yes he does, but I am certainly not going to go out of my way to correct any misperception.
I skimmed this thread rapidly. I’m actually not understanding the point of contention between what Dogsquat was saying and some of the responses. Tom is a shady, sleazy character. Primarily, because he cheated on his girlfriend who presumably he has a direct agreement of sexual exclusivity with. That is a broken promise. The situation with Jane is a bit more grey who he doesn’t have a similar obligation to. One could presume the intent of his question “Are you hooking up with other guys” is to give the false pretense of them being exclusive”, but I’m not sure I see that as the huge moral issue. Pretend everything was the same minus he had NO girlfriend he was cheating on. He asked the same question, and proceeded to have sex with her. I don’t see the huge moral trangression. It really is the cheating on the girlfriend. Unless I missed something in the story or thread, he didn’t promise exclusivity to Jane before having sex with her.
I don’t really get the whole “tricking” a girl into sex. Speaking from personal experience, IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE where I either had sex with a girl very quickly or got pretty close (2 instances I stopped the encounter short of intercourse) it was NEVER necessary to engage in any trickery or deception. It was simple physical escalation that went from A to B to C to D without any conversation or questions about my status or what else I was doing.
Herb:
“If you want to shame Tom for lying about commitment even when he was never asked directly you need to be willing shame Jane for giving it up without insuring there was commitment.”
———–
Then it follows that a gf/bf relationship means absolutely nothing (Tom having a gf = zero), there’s no commitment whatsoever, so we shouldn’t be hearing complaints when cheating and other poor behavior take place within them.
Unless someone’s married, from now on- any complaints will be deemed as whining because there’s absolutely NO expectation of good behavior unless a person has signed their name on the dotted line.
Do we all agree to this?
_____________________
Herb:
“I think that’s what’s a lot of men are saying. The typical HUS woman is open to shaming Jane or at least calling her on being stupid. The typical HUS men know the larger world will give her a “poor baby, men are assholes” so see no reason the call him to the carpet either.”
—–
Yes, I agree that there has to be the SAME standard for all or we’ll never reach a consensus and the madness will continue.
(I’m not holding my breath for it.)
@Tom
FYI, I didn’t delete any of your comments.
I’ve never been called a white knight or a mangina, but I’m one man who is willing to say that Tom’s behavior – with respect to Jane, not just his girlfriend – was abominable. Jane was responsible for her decision to have sex with Tom, but that is not at issue. The real issue dividing posters in this thread is how we evaluate Tom’s actions concerning Jane. I don’t see how anyone can excuse or condone the deliberate deception, falling just short of outright lying, that Tom practiced. In this context there is a huge difference, morally speaking, between a player, who maintains a soft harem without misleading any of its members, and a cad, who engages in deception in order to get sex. Tom definitely belongs in the latter category.
The broader, long-term consequences of actions of this type are dispiriting. Deception promotes hostility and distrust between the sexes. It’s not enough to say “caveat emptor” to participants in the sexual marketplace and to treat Jane as simply a casualty in the battle between the sexes. To extend the economic analogy, we know that efficient markets do not operate in a vacuum. They require institutions and norms that support them. One of the norms of a well-functioning sexual marketplace is that when men or women do not act in good faith they should be criticized for failing to do so. If all that one can say in this situation is that Jane should have kept her legs closed until she verified that Tom was single and available, one is encouraging behavior that makes forming relationships more difficult for all participants.
The same principle applies to an even greater extent in the femosphere when subjects such as paternity fraud are discussed. It’s very, very, very difficult to get feminists to treat paternity fraud seriously or to make them understand how damaging it is to a man’s trust in women and hence to his willingness to commit to long-term relationships. Some might understand it intellectually, but it does not have the same visceral and emotional impact that it does to most men. When paternity fraud is discussed at feminist websites posters often try to evade the issue by talking about “the best interests of the children” (a concept conspicuously absent in discussions of abortion or child care) and telling men to “man up” and accept their responsibilities. But for those of us who are serious about creating a sexual marketplace that works for BOTH men and women, it’s essential to call out all behavior that makes the market even more dysfunctional than it already is.
@Megaman
The story is about four years old, I know how things played out. The first time I heard the description of the talk in the park I thought, “Uh oh.” I knew exactly what was coming next. I told Jane right then and there she’d been an idiot and she agreed. She took full responsibility. But she also was very, very judgmental of Tom. Jane has been very careful since, and she has a very low number to this day, having filtered out many cads along the way.
Tom turned out to be a cad throughout college, with repeated episodes of cheating and lying. I believe he does have a serious gf now, though. Jane doesn’t envy her, she knows it could have been worse.
When Jane confronted Tom initially, not only did he not apologize, he said, “I fucked my girlfriend Thursday night, you all weekend, and then banged her Sunday night after you’d gone.” So yeah, a real charmer. I think Jane felt like she knew him pretty well, but it had mostly been long distance, and she knew nothing of his reputation or past history to go on. She learned her lesson.
The same principle applies to an even greater extent in the femosphere when subjects such as paternity fraud are discussed. It’s very, very, very difficult to get feminists to treat paternity fraud seriously or to make them understand how damaging it is to a man’s trust in women and hence to his willingness to commit to long-term relationships. Some might understand it intellectually, but it does not have the same visceral and emotional impact that it does to most men. When paternity fraud is discussed at feminist websites posters often try to evade the issue by talking about “the best interests of the children” (a concept conspicuously absent in discussions of abortion or child care) and telling men to “man up” and accept their responsibilities. But for those of us who are serious about creating a sexual marketplace that works for BOTH men and women, it’s essential to call out all behavior that makes the market even more dysfunctional than it already is.
Cosign that. Might be cultural but in my country not even sluts thinks that passing a child to a different father without their knowledge is justifiable. Not even the worst kind of woman will do it and think she is doing it right, not that it doesn’t happen but no one is sympathetic to a woman that does that. In telenovelas only the villainesses do that and they don’t end well, when inevitable get caught.
Anacaona:
“I agree but again this training is not available anymore to younger generations due to PC culture”
“she was baffled that no one in the office said anything or that he never acted strange around her, thank goodness upper classes also have the rule of no sex before monogamy”
_______________
Then we have a BIG job to do.
See, no one was looking out for her- not the cad, not her coworkers.
We have to let good people know that they can’t let their guard down, making the assumption that other people also have good character.
Let’s not allow anyone to be baffled that other people can be jerks.
I don’t want to take the shaming out of the equation, but the worst culprits aren’t affected one iota by shame- they just become more deceitful. So, let’s also work on getting good people to be more cautious about who they trust.
Look at it this way.
We can lock up the thieves that get caught, but they’ll still be plenty of thieves out there getting away with robbery. So, lock your doors, get an alarm system, create a neighborhood watch, buy insurance- take the necessary measures to reduce your chances of becoming a victim.
Sue: “Talk to the women here, not the women “out there.” Do you see women here advocating a double standard?”
That was actually supposed to be a question. Are shit tests and flaking okay? Are they deception? If you (this is a generic “you”) flake on man X, are you surprised when man Y makes a lie of omission? Has Jane been as honest with others, as she wants others to be with her? Do you believe you get what you give, in life?
@Alias
Your coming awfully close to victim blaming there Alias.
Lets be careful now, we all know that telling someone to be careful is wrong.
@Susan
You left a post about how having a man confirm that a girl is not seeing anyone else is a huge step forward for them.
Its not.
I’m pretty sure not seeing/fucking another dude is a requirement for girlfriend material. It just is.
I confirmed my fiance wasn’t seeing anyone else but continued to see other people. (Very early on, our exclusivity commitment came up pretty quickly.) If she had been I probably wouldn’t have dated her.
I know I’m a hypocrite but thats just the way it is. Atleast for me.
“I posted stats about latin americans sky rocketing divorce rates”
.
Irrelevant to an American man who finds tremendous satisfaction in dedicating his life to a woman HE considers worthy of that dedication and after he is done passing around what will be some poor sacks mess to clean up somewhere in [pick your US city]
Thrasymacus:
“One of the norms of a well-functioning sexual marketplace is that when men or women do not act in good faith they should be criticized for failing to do so. If all that one can say in this situation is that Jane should have kept her legs closed until she verified that Tom was single and available, one is encouraging behavior that makes forming relationships more difficult for all participants.”
——-
Another poster *pvw* (thanks pvw!) directed us toward the political scientist- Charles Murray, author of “Coming Apart” (don’t think I’ll agree with his solutions, but so far, I think he’s spot-on)…
snippet from Niall Ferguson’s review of Murray’s book:
“The key point is that the four great social trends of the past half-century–the decline of marriage, of the work ethic, of respect for the law and of religious observance–have affected Fishtown much more than Belmont. As a consequence, the traditional bonds of civil society have atrophied in Fishtown. And that, Murray concludes, is why people there are so very unhappy–and dysfunctional.”
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010/dp/0307453421/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335463327&sr=1-1
**I have no idea how we’re going to get that toothpaste back in the tube.
_______________________
Thrasymachus:
“I’ve never been called a white knight or a mangina, but I’m one man who is willing to say that Tom’s behavior – with respect to Jane, not just his girlfriend – was abominable. ”
———
Then, I really hope you’ll allow us to clone you.
I don’t know why flaking is seen as a uniquely female behaviour. It seems to happen across the board with Gen Yers.
Lokland:
“Your coming awfully close to victim blaming there Alias.
Lets be careful now, we all know that telling someone to be careful is wrong. ”
———–
Stick and stones make break my bones but names will never hurt me!
It’s not like I don’t have tremendous sympathy for Jane, I do. But,that’s not going to help her much NOW -she can only learn from this lesson + her story can serve as a cautionary tale for other Janes (and Johns).
Watch out for all the Toms out there!
Susan:
“She took full responsibility. But she also was very, very judgmental of Tom. Jane has been very careful since, and she has a very low number to this day, having filtered out many cads along the way.”
“I think Jane felt like she knew him pretty well, but it had mostly been long distance, and she knew nothing of his reputation or past history to go on. She learned her lesson.”
————
Good for Jane!
Tom’s an azz.
# 919
* may break my bones
@OTC & Susan:
I saw this question earlier and wanted to see how some of the women responded to it- flaking and subtle forms of manipulation (testing) seems to be a hot point of discussion among guys from what I’ve seen. OTC just asked a question that I’ve seen asked before when the discussion of flaking comes up: how can women en masse continue to do this and sweep it under the rug as “this is how we are” and not expect it to catch up with them at some point? Every time a girl does this she’s confirming the common stereotype of women as childish. It’s not a good look, and I can tell you personally it’s a really big strike in my book (along with any other manipulation other than light-hearted shit testing) as to whether I’ll consider any sort of commitment, and I imagine most other guys will tell you the same.
The negative is that if this type of behavior is accepted as normal and common, it’s not much of a leap to accept lies of omission as normal and common as well. Like I said, not a good look- girls that behave this way only lower the bar for dating conduct for everyone.
@Emily
To be really blunt (not trying to be insulting), if you’re female and you don’t approach men regularly enough to get rejected a lot, you don’t have enough perspective to comment on this. Flaking happens a hell of a lot more to men than to women because we do the approaching, not the other way around. These days it is almost completely a female behavior in dating situations.
I’m interested to hear people’s perspectives on this dynamic.
Here’s the rub though. The women who comment here don’t strike me as the type of women to flake out. I’ve never flaked out on a guy. Not. even. once. If I make a promise to a guy, whether it’s a date or a meeting, I always fulfill my end of it.
Asking us to give explanations for the sins of our sisters won’t get you very far. We don’t know why some women are flaky. We don’t know why Jenny never called Bob back. We don’t know why Kim stood Roger up on their date. I haven’t the faintest idea because it’s not how I operate.
Asking us to explain the poor behavior of fellow women isn’t that easy.
@Sassy
To Sassy and every other woman that wants to answer, let me be more clear: I am not asking you to answer as to why women flake- I understand plenty about that. What I am asking is what do you think about the impact of flaking on the overall dating dynamic, and what you think about drawing the comparison between lies of omission, flaking, and other subtle manipulation?
I really want to find out how you see those things as compared to each other, and what you see as the impact (I already know what I think, I want to know what the female perspective is on this- there may be some disconnect in the way men and women view these things).
@Alias
I think you missed my point about commitment or I explained poorly.
Jane didn’t verify there was a commitment to her, not that Tom had no commitments. In otherwords, I think shaming men for pretending to offer commitment to gain sex is the compliment of shaming women for having sex without gaining commitment.
Jane’s failure, if we want to shame Tom, is not failing to verify there wasn’t a girlfriend but failing to verify she was the girlfriend
@Susan
As odd as this might sound, because she refuses to play the victim card and own her bad choices I have more sympathy for Jane regarding how Tom used her than I would if she’d tried to blame him.
@OTC
Oh, OK. Flaking is definitely not OK, it’s inconsiderate and rude. Definitely violates the Golden Rule.
Shit tests are a bit different, IMO. They are deceptive, so that’s bad. But the deception is often unconscious. Again, I think it comes down to intent. If a woman sets up a test for a man, asking him to “pass it” and dumping him if he does, that’s outright deception.
I can’t say whether Jane has always been honest with others, but she’s a good kid. I don’t know if I believe in Karma, but I hope it’s real.
Herb:
“Jane’s failure, if we want to shame Tom, is not failing to verify there wasn’t a girlfriend but failing to verify she was the girlfriend”
———
No, YOU were clear, Herb, it was I who wasn’t.
I know where Jane failed on her end to protect herself. She was foolish.
This particular scenario gets a little more complicated due to the fact that Tom already had a gf- and it seems that some guys would give him a pass despite that. Where to me, he’s also guilty because he was supposed to be in another commitment.
Still, in the end she’s the one who lost out more- so the one who’s taking the biggest risk is forced to take the most preventative measures- even if it’s not fair.
I was simply stating the other side of that coin you pointed us to (shame for all or shame for none), that if we overlook his cheating- then we’re to do so for both genders under the same circumstances.
(Not MY personal belief- I’m willing to follow one *higher* standard for all than this.)
@Alias
The men have been much more open to criticizing his cheating on his gf than how he treated Jane, so I assumed it as a given.
I’m happy to string him up on cheating on his gf in the current SMP. I’m more iffy on doing so for his lying by omission in the current SMP because women aren’t big on shaming women for their failures to insure (and for their using men for emotional committment without offering sexing up for that matter).
@Herb
Well, I didn’t give her that opportunity. The women who come to me for advice know that I won’t give them the benefit of the doubt due to their sex. If anything, they find me extremely sympathetic to guys. That may surprise some here
What I mean is that I won’t let them claim douchebaggery where there isn’t any, and a guy isn’t a jerk if he happens not to like you. Also, if they’re acting slutty, I give them the raised eyebrow. Many times I’ve seen girls cry and have had to tell them I have zero sympathy, FWIW.
In fairness to Jane, though, she did admit she’d been ridiculously naive. She was only 18, and a virgin (until Tom).
BroHamlet,
Don’t worry, I didn’t find you insulting.
Maybe it does happen to guys more since they’re the “initiators”. It’s also possible that flaking takes a different form depending on who’s doing it. But I still see it happening the other way as well.
All the weird “timing” rules are one of my least favourite things about casual dating. (ie. you’re supposed to wait X number of days to call or whatever else). And girls will spend FOREVER waiting by the phone and obsessing over these stupid timing issues. It’s like hamster crack. “He said he’d call, but it’s been five days. Should I call him or would that look desperate?” Or you won’t hear from a guy for a few weeks, and then out of nowhere you’ll get a text that just says “sup”. Sometimes the phone tag and last minute cancellations happen back and forth both ways, and it’s like both parties are trying to Game each other or something. Girls with spend hours analysing this stuff with each other.
There are quite a few girls who seem to enjoy this stuff. These are the girls that would require some pretty heavy Game. I personally don’t like to give my hamster that much power. This is why I love being in a stable relationship but hate dating. I prefer to tell my hamster to STFU so I can focus my energy on something useful.
I’ve also found that some places and cultures are worse than others. For example, people on the West Coast flake ALL THE TIME. And when they don’t flake, they’re ALWAYS late. This even happens in non-romantic contexts (ie. when I’m meeting up with girlfriends). As somebody who’s obsessively punctual, it never fails to get on my nerves.
I definitely do not approve of flaking, no matter who does it.
Anacaona:
Might be but that is stupid if no one knows you do want to get marry how is anyone going to ask? How people is going to introduce you to single willing men or at least the same men they are shaming into “manning up” as reporter here many men do want to meet commitment orientated women but if they all hide in the “I’m single and proud” mantle who is going to know
My reply:
Yes, if the discussion takes place at the level of wanting to be helpful, that is certainly fine and there is not need to act “proud,” but the cases I’m thinking of did not involve any real level of supportiveness. It was more about criticism and blame, the shaming I was talking about it.
Susan:
When Jane confronted Tom initially, not only did he not apologize, he said, “I fucked my girlfriend Thursday night, you all weekend, and then banged her Sunday night after you’d gone.” So yeah, a real charmer.
In fairness to Jane, though, she did admit she’d been ridiculously naive. She was only 18, and a virgin (until Tom).
My reply:
Cad, cad, cad!!!! And I presume he knew her status.
That is why the old school rules existed. Poor girl, she must have been devastated. He knew what buttons to push in getting a young virginal 18 year old to have sex with him.
Shudder!
@SW (Harvey)
Thanks for the rest of the story : )
It’s difficult not to judge either party in a situation like this, but it’s always best to get all the facts before drawing conclusions. I didn’t think Tom would have changed his stripes, but I’m baised against anybody who cheats.
I guess the moral of the story is that dating complete strangers is too big of a risk these days, period. I observed similar situations like this play out quite a bit post-college amongst my friends. Neo-dating (within one’s existing social circle), trusting but verifying someone’s bona fides, is the safest way to go.
Jane lost her V-card to this guy? Yikes, that’s certain to have left a strong impression on her going forward. Hopefully her opinion of guys in general didn’t plummet too far.
Herb:
“I’m more iffy on doing so for his lying by omission in the current SMP”
——-
I’d be less iffy about his lying if he didn’t have a gf- that fact compounds it for me because he was just being a greedy (expletive).
____________________
Herb:
“women aren’t big on shaming women for their failures to insure”
———
Then it’s obvious you haven’t met my family.
____________________
Herb:
“and for their using men for emotional committment without offering sexing up for that matter)”
——
Do you mean friendzoning guys?
I’m not a supporter of most intergender friendships, especially ones where one party is interested in the other…. there are very few of us on this particular soapbox.
But yeah, again, if a standard is set then it must be adhered to by all or it won’t work.
>> “I guess the moral of the story is that dating complete strangers is too big of a risk these days, period. I observed similar situations like this play out quite a bit post-college amongst my friends. Neo-dating (within one’s existing social circle), trusting but verifying someone’s bona fides, is the safest way to go.”
+1. I cosign all of this.
Dating makes everybody act so weird. It’s much easier to figure out somebody’s character in a platonic context. Or even if it’s a friend-of-a-friend type situation, you can at least get an honest opinion from somebody that you trust.
Emily:
“girls will spend FOREVER waiting by the phone and obsessing over these stupid timing issues. It’s like hamster crack. “He said he’d call, but it’s been five days. Should I call him or would that look desperate?” Or you won’t hear from a guy for a few weeks, and then out of nowhere you’ll get a text that just says “sup”.”
———-
Guy: “I’ll call you”
Girl: “I’ll be expecting your call by Monday, otherwise I’m assuming you’re not interested in getting together.This way I won’t hold back on making other plans, OK?”
Irrelevant to an American man who finds tremendous satisfaction in dedicating his life to a woman HE considers worthy of that dedication and after he is done passing around what will be some poor sacks mess to clean up somewhere in [pick your US city]
+++++++++++++
seems to be a lot of “passing around” in latin america too.
Abbot Im glad you found a woman who is “worthy”.. Not so easy for a real macho man
@ADBG
“there is a macro element to this. Jane has helped, in a very small way, to create a society where men are literally pushed into behaving like sociopaths to accomplish their objectives.”
Kind of like how the way women respond to Game that has taught, otherwise nice, too altruistic, guys that objectifying them can actually imitate the dominant behavoir necessary to successfully attract.
Shouldn’t that be discouraged, too?
In terms of dating, I never knew that altruism could be such a vice.
————————————————————-
Re: Tom&Jane
I wonder what reactions Jane must’ve received while accompanying Tom to his Formal. I understand that Toms’ immediate friends would’ve been covering for him, due to bro-code.
Wouldn’t she have gotten signals from other girls though, as if she was stealing another girls’ bf? (presuming most of the others at his school knew his real-gf)
@Emily
“It’s much easier to figure out somebody’s character in a platonic context. ”
Do girls not realize that guys usually don’t do platonic?
And even if a guy does consent to being in a platonic-relationship, its’ usually cause he foolishly thinks it will be a prelude to being sexual-relationship.
There is always that cliche story about a girl who gets betrayed by her “guy friend” when she gets told that he actually had feeling for her the entire time. (it’s a misunderstand on both sides)
It would simply be better if girls universally knew – guys don’t do platonic.
Cooper,
I don’t know whether or not this is a good strategy for guys, but I’d definitely recommend it for girls.
It doesn’t have to be intimate one-to-one friendships. In fact, it’s probably better if they’re not. I agree with you that those can become very complicated. My approach also works better if when it includes a wide variety of people. I’m thinking more in terms of larger social circles, extra-curricular activities, hobbies etc. My closest friends are almost always female, but there are quite a few guys that I hang out with in mixed groups. Sometimes people LJBF each other (and I’ve been on both sides of that situation), but I’ve also seen couples develop from it.
Maybe the random dude at the bar is a great guy, but there’s pretty much no way of knowing whether or not he’s a creep. If you’re dealing with guys that you already know, usually what you see is what you get.
Cooper April 26, 2012 at 5:48 pm
@ADBG
“there is a macro element to this. Jane has helped, in a very small way, to create a society where men are literally pushed into behaving like sociopaths to accomplish their objectives.”
An observation:
Pushed into being a sociopath? A cad preying on a virginal 18 year old?
@pvw #941
I’m not understanding what observation you’re trying to make.
Cooper
@pvw #941
I’m not understanding what observation you’re trying to make.
My reply:
I was looking at the comment ADGB made, which you referenced and the other observations you made; I left out part of the reference I was thinking about, the “bro code,” and not telling her what was happening, and whether any of the other young women knew and might have told her.
I find it interesting, the comments about women as free agents, which is true of course, as are men, and men who attempt to take advantage are not blameworthy for trying; women are the gatekeepers, so they need to take care of themselves.
All true, but I was wondering about what the “bro code” says about something like this…This, of course, is where I think game theory falls short. The presumptions about game theory, women are to be manipulated so that men can finally score when they could not.
From what I’m understanding of the story, this was not some type of manipulative young woman who needed to be manipulated so that some guy could finally get some. This was a guy who was getting more than he needed!
She was naive, it is true, but understandable, in light of her inexperience and many young women’s fantasties of their first time. He played right into that. So she was gamed by a cad. Perhaps his “bros” didn’t know, but knowing the “bro code” says “bros before hoes,” I get the sense that if any of them knew, it would have been just fine.
He was in a fraternity, if I remember correctly? Hmph.
@pvw
I don’t have much to say, really. I might be one of the few that genuinely blames Tom.
I see everyone is blaming Jane for not being a throughout enough of a ‘gatekeeper.’ And since Tom managed to bypass her security, which he is *apparently expected* to attempt, it is her fault. I don’t really understand how that makes any sense.
What if she *had asked* and he flat out lied “I have no gf,” then she goes on to get P&D’d – is that her fault for not screening him thoroughly enough to see that he was a lying SOB? I’d say no.
Blaming Jane kinda seems silly. What really happened was they had the “exclusivity talk” and he asked ‘good-character’ questions and she presumed him to be holding himself to the same standard. The assumption being the mistake, which was made by her I suppose.
It all kinda sounds like blaming the person who got cheated on within a relationship cause the person didn’t *renew* their “exclusivity deal.”
Sometimes there are presumption to be made – and sometimes it comes down to expecting the other is being honest.
@pwv
Yes.
Bro code.
Bros before hoes.
Right up there with don’t try and checkmate someone at the urinals. (Bastards!)
Of course. Theres also a chicks before dicks. I’ve seen that play out before as well. Its also not a fun time for the reciever.
I’m interested to hear people’s perspectives on this dynamic.
Flaking is terrible and should be shamed on. Is the mini “EPL”" I don’t feel to fulfill my commitment because I changed my mind” So no same standard.
It was more about criticism and blame, the shaming I was talking about it.
I still don’t see what good does it makes to them, anyway. What about “what do you think I should change to find a husband?” I’m sure many of the things we discuss here would be more known if people wouldn’t feel afraid of being on the “hot spot”
PVW said:
“I find it interesting, the comments about women as free agents, which is true of course, as are men, and men who attempt to take advantage are not blameworthy for trying; women are the gatekeepers, so they need to take care of themselves. ”
__________________________
I think I started that whole turd tornado, so I’ll try and explain where the storm cell originated:
First, my point was intended to be a larger idea than Tom and Jane.
It’s a fact that there are attractive men who don’t want much more than sex from women. Some women want relationships with those dudes.
It really grinds my gums when Those Women bang Those Guys, get no relationship, and then claim they were manipulated.
I’m reminded of a line in the movie Natural Born Killers:
“Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, “Why have you done this to me?” And the snake answered, “Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake.”
It seems (totally subjective) that very few women are willing to say,”Holy smokes, I was dumb.” Instead, their Hamsters redline and they start flying the Victim Flag. Once I can buy, but after that? Come on…
I see that purdy flag (with oak leaf clusters for second, third, or fourth award) just a-wavin’ in the wind, and I thinks to meself,”Well, okie-doke. You were totally powerless against this….again, huh? Then you are not the rational human being you claim to be. For your own safety, you ought to be chaperoned in public and locked up at night. You need to be treated like a four-year-old.”
It’s even worse when Team Woman rallies around the poor, helpless Victim. Again.
I am bothered by this, because there are a few manosphere folks who DO believe women are basically overgrown children. Those guys contend that women are constitutionally unable to control themselves in this arena. Every time a person excuses/overlooks a dumb woman’s behavior in favor of blaming the guy who wanted to get laid, they’re proving the Dark Gamer’s point.
Again, I’m not talking about Jane here. In Dogsquatlandia, Jane would be in a special exempt category because it’s the first time something like this has happened to her. She just didn’t have the chops to hang with Tom given her inexperience.
Jane ought to be royally pissed at her family, too. Jane’s family turned a kitten loose in a tiger-infested jungle. The only possible future for that kitten is imminent transformation into rapidly cooling tiger dookie.
And yes, some guys are assholes. I don’t deny that. That’s not what I’m talking about, either.
Jackie said:
“Over Lent, when I was not feeling well– it turned out it was pneumonia. Yikes! Things got pretty bad– I had a low-grade fever than ran 11 days.
I am usually super-active and could not even walk down the stairs. Completely humbling. ”
_____________________________________
I am not a doctor but I’ve seen one naked. I just drive an ambalamps. If me and your doc disagree, do what your doc says.
Pneumonia is Serious Shit.
Please be patient and allow yourself plenty of time to heal.
Pneumonia can jack you up for months. A good rule of thumb for a young, otherwise healthy person is to expect to feel about 80% better after one month. You might improve 5% each month thereafter.
You can still see changes in lung tissue on plain film xray up to 2 years after a bad bacterial pneumonia. This scarring makes it harder to clear fluid outta there, leaving you more vulnerable than usual to follow on infections. Please also lower your criteria for getting seen by a doc regarding cold/cough symptoms for the next couple of years (yes, years.) It’s a lot better to be safe than sorry, and us healthcare types (jaded though we may be) will not look askance at you if you say,”I had pneumonia last year and I’d like to catch this before it gets that bad.”
I hope you allow yourself plenty of time to sleep, especially in the next few months. Seriously -even if you’ve got to re-arrange things in order to get 10 hours of good sleep for the next 6 weeks or so, I highly reccomend it. We heal when we sleep, and you’ve got a lot of healing to do.
Also, I hope your doc asked you to follow up in a month or so and wants to shoot another chest xray. Please go to that appointment – it’s often critical to ensure the infection is truly gone and isn’t doing a slow burn down in one of your costophrenic angles. Sometimes one round of clindamycin or whatever isn’t enough to clear that crap out.
Strictly empirically, I see many people who add misery by not paying close attention to proper hydration. If you’re using an expectorant or a decongestant, you’re going to get pretty dry. Pound that water down and cough that junk out!
Good places to find information include the Mayo Clinic’s website and Epocrates. Mayo is cool because they will give you an explanation in plain English, and link you to the scientific articles the info is drawn from. Epocrates is neat because it’ll show the medical problem solving process, but it is written for health care folks and can be hard for the uninitiated to understand.
If you got lab tests and want to know what RBC or MCV mean on your CBC w/diff (or whatever) I recommend Labtests.org. Pretty good info and they’re not trying to sell you anything. I use that site myself.
For info on medicine, I like Rxlist.com or Drugs.com. You’ve got to be careful about info on pharmaceuticals because a lot of the research is performed by the companies selling the pharms, but I’ve never been steered wrong by those sites.
Good luck, Jackie, and may you feel better soon.
@Ana (#891)
“she better ask the right questions next time or she will get “Oh Jane you ignorant slut” from me at least.”
——–
Ha ha! In the midst of all this cheat-n-deceit, quoting classic SNL is hilarious and definitely made me laugh.
Ana your quick wit is going to make your books *awesome*! Can’t wait for them to debut
In fairness to Jane, though, she did admit she’d been ridiculously naive. She was only 18, and a virgin (until Tom).
. 931 Emily April 26, 2012 at 4:27 pm
=======================================
wow now I really have less sympathy for Jane…and naive is NOT the right word, that excuses her,,the word is stupid. Thats all the thought she put into the giving up of her virginity?
@Susan (#893)
“But the truth is that it’s just terrible luck to wind up in the crosshairs of someone like this. Emotionally manipulative people wreak great damage on others.”
—-
Very true! I wonder, though… what kind of relationship “imprinting” has she received from her family? What kind of role model were her parents? What were the tacit lessons she was being taught about relationships?
I don’t mean to sound “victim-blaming”– this Tom guy sounds so terrible that either he was a charming narcissist or an obvious cad. I mean, of all the guys in the world, she chose this one– at a premium expense of time and effort and travel. Why him, when there were lots of other guys at her college?
Maybe I’m completely off base. I just wonder why there was such a connection that she felt so strongly about him.
@Emily (#894)
Hi Emily!
You are right: Most people are really trying to do the right thing. It’s those darn bad apples stinking up the joint!
Thanks so much for your kind words.
PS: How is the job quest going?
@MegaMan (#902)
” But Tom still has a devoted girlfriend who’s willing to put up with multiple instances of cheating. Who’s really been punished, and who’s been rewarded?”
——
Hi MM!
I had this thought about the Tom/Jane situation today: What if, in a pathetic and cowardly way, this wimp is trying to get out of the his relationship. Being a gutless wonder, instead of being direct and telling her he wants to break up… Instead he tries to “force her hand” to make her break up with him, via cheating and bad behavior?
(NOT THAT I AM EXCUSING HIS EGREGIOUSLY CRUDDY CONDUCT.)
I have been in the space where you know you have to break up with someone– it’s really uncomfortable, awkward and you can never relax or feel good until the cord is *cut*. By doing this gross behaviour, and *still* the GF won’t leave, he is stuck in a dysfunctional relationship from heck.
The more he abuses her (yes, cheating is emotional abuse, as well as abuse of trust), the more he will hate and disrespect himself, her and everyone around him. He’s kind of stuck in a hell of his own making– yes, he’s having sex, but he knows he’s a gutless wonder and is unhappy.*
(Unless he is a sociopath, in which case he feels nothing at all.)
I am not a doctor but I’ve seen one naked.
Heh LOLing at that so funny.
Ha ha! In the midst of all this cheat-n-deceit, quoting classic SNL is hilarious and definitely made me laugh.
Thank you for catching it! No one else did I though I was the only fan here
Ana your quick wit is going to make your books *awesome*! Can’t wait for them to debut
Oh now I’m terrified of letting them out. I hate disappointing people. Thanks for the faith I hope you think the same after I read my work
.
No listen to Dogsquat and take good care of yourself, you have many things to do with your lives including reading my books
@Hope (#904)
Aww, Hope! *sniffles*
Thank you SO much– your words are like gold and mean so much. I appreciate your kindness and support more than I can ever say. The cats are wondering why I am misting up at the computer screen!
Thank you again, dear Hope!
@Susan
Let’s hope she plays it smart and surrounds herself with positive role models from now on.
“In fairness to Jane, though, she did admit she’d been ridiculously naive. She was only 18, and a virgin (until Tom).”
——–
This is starting to feel like a 21st century “Tess of the D’Urbervilles”
PS: I apologise if this is prying– feel free to delete: Why would she make such a big decision with this guy, over something as small as a weekend and a dance? Was she just trying to “get it out of the way”? Did she want the experience to have any meaning to her?
@Emily
Re: time and flaking:
I think it’s a cultural thing: A lot of Europeans I know (well, the Italians) will tell you they’;ll be there @ 9pm and will drift in at 11pm. They honestly are not flaking– the concept of time is just more elastic in that culture. In my experience, Germans and Swiss are far more punctual and less flaky.
Here is a pretty awesome animated RSA explanation on how the perceptions of time affect us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3oIiH7BLmg&feature=relmfu
@Dr. Dogsquat (#948)
Good Sir, thank you for your kindness and extremely thorough explanation!
I have saved your advice in to Google Docs and will bring to my next dr’s visit, just to make sure things are on the up-and-up. (BTW, I’m so glad to see you recommend the Mayo Clinic– three friends of the family have done their residencies there.)
Duly noted about the sleep and hydration — will do! *snaps salute* Thank you again, DS, and please accept my kindest regards.
PS: I hope you will not be offended if I say a Rosary at tomorrow’s ladies group in your behalf for continued safety and good studies. (We are supposed to bring pics of the people we are praying for– I can only imagine the looks on the other girls’ faces when I toss out a pic of your avatar!
Ya know, it’s actually quite possible to make yourself FEEL damn near close to nothing. Not necessarily sociopathy.
Or maybe that’s just my hamster running after watching Girls and thinking to myself “huh, Adam seems to have it down pat and doesn’t seem all that different from me.”
@Alias
Friendzoning any more covers a variety of sins. Lots of guys consider it friendzoning when a woman genuinely isn’t interested and still wants to hang because they’re part of the same social circle. These are the entitlement guys I discussed up thread.
No, to me I’m talking like the CS grad I mentioned up thread. She knew I was attracted and when her sexy player just wanted sex and kicked her out she called me and wanted to cuddle because she was upset. She did it more than once.
That’s using me for commitment by now and then making me think she was going to change her mind about me.
Was I stupid? Yes. Do I deserve sympathy? To be honest, no. I should have been way too old and wise to fall for it. I deserved a “what the fuck, are you 15 or something.”
Is her behavior, in my mind, roughly equivalent to what Tom did to Jane? Yes.
@Ana
I am hoping there will be sequels/pre-quels, so it can be a really extended story. (Hey, it worked for Twilight!)
“Oh now I’m terrified of letting them out. I hate disappointing people. Thanks for the faith I hope you think the same after I read my work
No listen to Dogsquat and take good care of yourself, you have many things to do with your lives including reading my books”
====
Are you kidding? I will be so psyched to read a book where I have “met” the author already! C’mon, Ana, everyone knows it will be really good.
Will do on the DS Rx. Thanks, Ana Cullen, for the support!
@Jackie
Over Lent, when I was not feeling well– it turned out it was pneumonia.
OMG, that’s serious stuff. I had pneumonis about five years ago; it took six months to fully recover. Every time I thought I was well enough to get back to my normal activities, I overdid and relapsed. Take good care of yourself.
@ADBG
“Ya know, it’s actually quite possible to make yourself FEEL damn near close to nothing. Not necessarily sociopathy.”
—–
Hi ADBG,
Do you mean detachment, or the state of being detached?
For me, I have never been able to “make myself feel” anything– if I try to repress something, it comes bubbling up ten times as strong through another outlet. I have gotten better at being able to change frames and states, though (thanks to CBT
)
@J
“OMG, that’s serious stuff. I had pneumonis about five years ago; it took six months to fully recover. Every time I thought I was well enough to get back to my normal activities, I overdid and relapsed. Take good care of yourself.”
—
Hey J!
Thanks for the well wishes and good advice! I did relapse once and am still not 100%. I have pulled back on my schedule and am getting “help” for things that would push me too hard. It’s funny: I’ve never been seriously ill before and I used to think it would be so awesome to have an “out” to not do things and take things easier. *Definitely* not true! I miss my former self!
I swear, though, I have never been so grateful for the most basic of things: Breathing. Seriously. I am probably a weirdo but now, even just filling my lungs and being able to exhale fully feels so awesome.
Thanks again, J!
Flaking happens a hell of a lot more to men than to women because we do the approaching, not the other way around.
I often wonder how much flaking is a response to PUA tacitcs. If I were talked into a date with a guy I didn’t quite trust, I might well think better of it and not show. Otherwise, I do agree that standing someone up is rude, but that it happens more to men than women seems a change from the SMP that I dated in back in the Pleistocene.
“Ya know, it’s actually quite possible to make yourself FEEL damn near close to nothing. Not necessarily sociopathy.”
I’ll venture to say neither type would make a particularly good spouse. Given a choice between Mel Gibson vs. O.J. Simpson, I’m certain most women would pick “none of the above”.
Jane ought to be royally pissed at her family, too. Jane’s family turned a kitten loose in a tiger-infested jungle. The only possible future for that kitten is imminent transformation into rapidly cooling tiger dookie.
It happens all too often that girls are kept “innocent” by family only to become easy pickings for cads.
@Jackie
Why would she make such a big decision with this guy, over something as small as a weekend and a dance? Was she just trying to “get it out of the way”? Did she want the experience to have any meaning to her?
I wondered that as well. Maybe she had been crushing on him for a long time and was flattered by his attentions.
I swear, though, I have never been so grateful for the most basic of things: Breathing. Seriously. I am probably a weirdo but now, even just filling my lungs and being able to exhale fully feels so awesome.
I believe it. I had a very bad month in March healthwise. I still feel that every day above ground is a gift.
@Cooper
“I don’t have much to say, really. I might be one of the few that genuinely blames Tom.
I see everyone is blaming Jane for not being a throughout enough of a ‘gatekeeper.’ And since Tom managed to bypass her security, which he is *apparently expected* to attempt, it is her fault. I don’t really understand how that makes any sense.”
Agreed.
Having your trust exploited doesn’t put you at fault. By that logic, any kind of fraud is solely the fault of the victim. Yes, she was naive. But the guy *clearly* attempted to mislead the girl. Attempts to mislead are deception. And deception is indicative of bad faith.
And I don’t know why the beta chumps on here are defending the guy. This is the kind of guy that kept betas like those on here in the sexual desert when their hormones were on the rampage. And now they are falling over themselves to fellate him for being such an awesome player.
@This is Jen, @Jackie
and
Jane met Tom at a party in the summer. It wasn’t love at first sight (someone later jokingly asked if they had been set up by the Make a Wish Foundation), but Tom is very charming and witty, very confident. He zeroed in on Jane. Contrary to what some might expect, he ran a total nice guy routine. He asked to do her favors, give her rides, see her frequently, etc. He texted frequently to see how her day was going at work, brought her soup when she was sick. He was very caring, and ironically, the fact that Tom was not very attractive physically made him seem like a real catch in Jane’s eyes. She thought he was real relationship material, the opposite of a player.
After a month of spending a lot of time together, Jane was starting college and Tom was returning for his sophomore year. They talked about how terrible the timing was, and agreed to stay closely in touch and “see how things go.” They chatted almost every day, mostly via IM, texted, etc. They hung out over Thanksgiving and Winter Break. Jane described herself as basically being in love during this time, though they did not discuss these feelings. Whenever they saw one another, separation loomed. Jane had no desire to be with anyone else, and was uncertain about what Tom might be up to. She didn’t ever consider that he might have a gf, but figured he might be hooking up with people.
When Tom proposed that she visit him for Valentine’s Day weekend (plane ride necessary), she was very excited. She was nervous about his expectations around sex – she was a virgin and though they had been physical, he knew she would not have sex outside a relationship. She arrived at his apartment, they went for the now infamous walk. At the time she interpreted Tom’s remarks as his being relieved that she hadn’t found someone else, because he was emotionally invested in her. She did not ask if he had hooked up with anyone else – I think she presumed he probably had, but that this was a milestone in their relationship, the “exclusivity” talk where he signaled how happy he was that she only wanted him.
The weekend was very emotionally intense and romantic. He prepared a romantic dinner Friday night. They went to the formal together, where his friends told her they’d heard so much about her, it was great to finally meet her. Sunday afternoon they separated with apparent great reluctance. They continued as before, and two months later he came to see her at her school, another great weekend.
She learned in July that he had been hooking up regularly with a girl at his school since the second week of the fall semester. They had become official in December. She confronted him, he said he had followed “don’t ask, don’t tell” to the letter, and that it was her problem. He said there were two sides to every story, and she had no right to claim the moral high ground. She cut him out of her life entirely (defriended, etc.) and has never spoken to him again. It took her about two years to get over him, but fortunately she did not turn to promiscuity during that time.
This is the worst story I’ve ever heard from a young woman. I originally just told the bit about the “talk” because I thought it was a clear example of gray area. But Tom proved himself to be a terrible person. I would guess that he easily meets the criteria for clinical NPD.
Even when you posted the first , shorter version of the story-as I was reading it I thought the next line was going to be “and she asked him the same question.”
So it doesnt matter if Tom is nice, or fooling her into thinking he is nice, or a cad,jerk, whatever, SHE has to ask that question, AND be satisfied with the answer.
Don’t Mothers teach their girls this stuff anymore? And like I said before, hadn’t she ever asked him what he did on the weekends she was not there? Frats are always having mixers, and fix up parties, etc. Did she think Mr Charming was at school pining for her??
No they don’t. That’s why I have a blog that does it.
As I said before, she assumed he was not. She foolishly, stupidly, naively, insanely, ridiculously, thought that their talk in the park was sufficient to establish exclusivity at that point. No one is letting Jane off the hook. She made a mistake and she paid the price. She’s done her time. Tom is still at large.
>> “He was very caring, and ironically, the fact that Tom was not very attractive physically made him seem like a real catch in Jane’s eyes. She thought he was real relationship material, the opposite of a player.”
This is important. In real life, guys don’t walk around with “Alpha” or “Beta” written on their foreheads.
pining for her??
. 972 Susan Walsh April 27, 2012 at 8:53 am
Don’t Mothers teach their girls this stuff anymore?
No they don’t. That’s why I have a blog that does it.
Did she think Mr Charming was at school pining for her??
As I said before, she assumed he was not. She foolishly, stupidly, naively, insanely, ridiculously, thought that their talk in the park was sufficient to establish exclusivity at that point. No one is letting Jane off the hook. She made a mistake and she paid the price. She’s done her time. Tom is still at large.
.
===========================================
Am I too harsh? Maybe, but this kind of thing INFURIATES me. Yes, of course Tom is at large, so are Dick and Harry, and the rest of them. Those kinds of guys will always be out there, lurking and looking for the Janes of this world.
Susan, maybe your link should come up for all college freshman when they get accepted to school. Somehow these girls need to get this info.
I went to visit my daughter at Big University last weekend, and spent some time with her and her friends, so I KNOW for a fact that there are girls that age who are informed, and level headed, and have their acts together and who are NOT hooking up all over the place. As a matter of fact, they look out for eachother.
I feel so sorry for the ones who don’t have that, and who don’t have that basic knowledge to help them navigate when they get away from home.
Don’t get me wrong, I realize how being all in love can do to a young girl…..but thats precisely why they need that basis under their belt to start with.
Susan – “Don’t Mothers teach their girls this stuff anymore?
No they don’t. That’s why I have a blog that does it.”
And that is precisely how jaded young women are made. It is at best a cruel joke and at worst parental neglect to send a young man or women out into the world with NO concept of what is waiting for them. I get that many people don’t want to think about the worst of humanity, but if young people are never told there are wolves out there, it’s damn hard to blame them for getting bit.
Thanks for the backstory.
Clearly Tom is an experienced cad, playing false-beta game, and maintaining the flimsiest level of plausible deniability. Ricky Raw tore this tactic apart a while back, about incongruency – where his actions said “boyfriend” but he carefully skirted around that very word. Actually Ricky is extra harsh on this subject – if you *act* like a girlfriend (no passed form women) then repeatedly saying “I don’t want anything serious” is still incongruency. Look at Danny’s latest post how to be congruent (though I disagree that his first point is mandatory).
However, it would be interesting to hear HIS backstory, even if We will never know and it is no excuse. Right nowmhe is a black box, but what made him this way?
Just thinking out loud, but I bet Jane was pretty sore after 3 straight days of sex, her being a virgin and all….lol
@OTC
I think this is fascinating. It’s Game in reverse. He knew he had the dominance, but was aware he lacked the comfort traits, so he added them in spades. He was probably indistinguishable from a beta guy who gets Game, except of course, that his core was rotten.
I agree. Equally problematic is a woman acting like a hookup while trying to insinuate herself as a gf. A woman doing this often winds up producing tons of drama and accusing the guy of poor character. I’ve seen guys get labeled douches when the fault was entirely with the woman. So it definitely works both ways with incongruency.
I don’t know much about him. I know his upbringing was solidly middle-class, parents are together, one sister. As I said before, he has been in a relationship with one girl for 2 years. I have no idea if he is faithful – perhaps he has changed in four years. One limitation of getting advice requests is that we never get to hear the other side of the story.
“I don’t know why flaking is seen as a uniquely female behaviour. It seems to happen across the board with Gen Yers.”
Young people today are flaky but my male friends are far less flaky than my female friends. And importantly my male friends really do feel like they let me down if they can`t follow up on something and even if they have an explanation or excuse in there their focus is more on taking responsibility for not following through my female friends feel significantly less guilt about not following through on something and focus far more on the excuse/explanation and absolution of guil rather than taking responsibility for not following through on something. It is to some extent like if they don`t feel right about it anymore or just don`t feel like it anymore that makes it legitimate to break whatever promise has been made while for the guys that is mostly irrelevant as it is the promise and upholding that that matters not whatever he happens to have changed his mind to feel about it. This all varies a lot individually of course and all of my male freinds are more flaky than my grandmothers who would have seen any promise made as something that should be upheld no matter what.
Susan:
“Shit tests are a bit different, IMO. They are deceptive, so that’s bad. But the deception is often unconscious. Again, I think it comes down to intent. If a woman sets up a test for a man, asking him to “pass it” and dumping him if he does, that’s outright deception.”
Shit tests can feel very sneaky and devious and all that but I perfectly respect that women do it. At its best, over the course of history, it has served women well in screening men and checking if he is still fit to lead her etc. For me it has changed from angry frustration to feeling that shit tests often are like fun and natural parts of flirting. When a woman shit tests me for hte first time I recognize it as an indication that she is attracted and I like that I know enough now to usually recognize it and pass it. In a relationship I might feel different but I hope I will see it as her seeking assurance that I am on course and me giving her assurance that I am and as me feeling that I am once I can handle her tests properly. I also see it as a very good self development tool because my goal would not be to just learn how to handle them because I intelectually recogneze them and handle them through game technique but because I have developed myself internally to a place where passing them is a natural consequence of my personality. I see that as part of how the way women and men work to self correct in relationship to each other in a way that brings both closer to their natural masculine and feminine cores and the closer we are to it the better we feel as well. If I had not felt compelled by the demands of a man that are inherent in women I would have just continued in a sort of semi demasculinized state not just in relationships but in everything in life. In stead I feel great about the way I have changed. I feel so much more natural and right and good where I am now compared to some years ago. I expect that to continue as much work is yet to be done. Likewise I expect that I won`t find a girlfriend that has been reading HUS so I have to give her feedback in various ways to push her towards being closer to her feminine relationship self and I expect her to feel very good about that and see it as a bit of a revalation and as a relief. So in the overal general picture I think both shit tests and quite a few other behaviors of women that men tend to complain about as not negative but constructive chalenges. So I think it is wrong for women to feel bad about shit tests in general.
That said there are meaningless, excessive and downright evil shit testing. When I have read about guys dating strippers describing nearly daily and nuclear shit tests that often can not be passed in an way other than harsh assholery it is pretty clear to me that that is far into neuroticism and we aren`t talking about shit tests in any meaningfull screening type way but extreme emotional needs of a woman being lumped onto the man she is dating. A more normal woman might also find that her shit testing is a bit exessive or not constructive for the relationship and so they should be curbed.
About concious testing. Is that always bad? What if it concernes something that the woman feels is important to her? Isen`t the whole point about shit tests that a woman sort of pokes or pushes the man a little to see if he stands tall instead of just asking him about it or checking out what he says his boundaries and strenghts are since she can`t really know his real strengths or weaknesses untill she pushes a little.
” I don’t know if I believe in Karma, but I hope it’s real.”
There is to a large extent instant karma. If you do something really cold and cruel towards someone you feel like crap even if you don`t notice it at all. The thing is people feel rewarded when doing shitty things on a certain level by for example getting a feeling of superiority when being a condescending snob or releasing anger when taking it out on others or feeling a superficial boost of ego by banging your more alpha best friends wife who you have a rivalry going with or stuff like that. At the same time as they get this reward there are simultanious emotional changes that tend to be slightly outside of our awareness that feel really bad. How does hatefull anger, snobbishness, coldness, cruelty, arrogance etc. feel? It feels like crap. Any person that previously used to act in ways that had those emotions as motivators and so felt those emotions will when they become nicer more healthy people recongnize that it actually felt really bad they just couldn`t see it at the time because there was a preverted emotional reward that the mind was more fixated on than hte real underlying emotional state. Furthermore, when you treat people like shit you are on some level saying to yourself that this is the way teh world works and subconciously you start to feel fearfull of receiving the same treatment In a way you design your own very harsh wolrdview and have to live in it when you treat others badly. And, if you are so cold that you are entirely unable to recognize the bad feelings of treating someone badly you are already in a really bad place. If you are so cold you don`t have empathy you are unable to feel love and so also unable to really feel loved by others and love towards yourself. That is an extremely cold and brutal world subjective to live in. I have heard people say that sociopaths are harder to treat than other personality disorders because unlike most of the others sociopaths feel good about themselves. But I think thats not true I think they just are unable to recognize how bad it feels to not feel love and warm nice feelings because they are so removed from them they have no comparison.
So, even if there is no next life karma, at least on some level there is an instant or semi instant or premade karma.
@SW
“He was probably indistinguishable from a beta guy who gets Game, except of course, that his core was rotten.”
The double-edged sword strikes again. It’s too bad honesty isn’t as attractive as confidence. The sad part about this is that relationship-minded women tend to gravitate (correctly) towards guys with these outward characteristics. But they also might incorrectly believe that kind, sensitive, monogamous guys are rare. Hence the quick escalation to sex, which would have been fine if the guy in question was single and honest about his intentions. Tom certainly gives “nice guys” an extremely bad name. Too bad there isn’t some penal colony guys like him get sent to : )
I was actually thinking about shit tests the other day and I think that in addition to everything you’ve said, Wudang, they also serve as a proxy for what kind of parent the guy might be.
A guy who consistently fails the shit test as a guy who accedes to every demand made of him and would probably let his children walk all over him. He fails to be a disciplinarian and as a result raises wild, spoiled, and unruly kids.
A guy who fails by responding to shit tests with assholery is a guy who isn’t meeting the emotional needs of the relationship and consequently wouldn’t be a good father who sticks around for the children (if there are any).
So shit-testing (within reason) serves as an effective screener to avoid both types of men and secure the “fittest” genes for offspring.
/armchairtheory
I agree with that say what. I never thought about the parent screening element but it makes sense.
Clearly Tom is an experienced cad, playing false-beta game, and maintaining the flimsiest level of plausible deniability.
I already mentioned one of my best friends who played this game for nine years to the woman that will eventually become his wife. Just for the ones that don’t know it.
He was his friend and played the “lonely good guy” part while banging all sorts of women at enough distance and lower classes than herself so she will never heard of it. He was so good that it was a mutual male friend that suggested her to date him since “he is such a nice guy and you get along so well” they married really fast after that (maybe the fact that she was a virgin and was not going to give it up without the ring) and then he cheated on her with her best friend when she was seven months pregnant of their first child.
Is probably the case that hurts me the most because we used to be friends when she was a young bride (and for the ones that likes this sort of things she signed a prenup before marriage) and I knew her dreams of having a big family and a long marriage, then I saw her became a shadow of the happy girl I once knew when he abandoned her even though she wanted to give her marriage another chance and now she swore not to have any more kids or marry again and she is only 29…
Perhaps strangely, what the Tom and Jane story reminds me of is this short but insightful post
http://emporiasexus.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/we-could-be-that-mistake/
on the vastly-under-appreciated blog of Miguel Bloomfontosis (there’s a lot of thoughtful stuff there, it’s worth a prowl). The post centers on a film clip of two omega dweebs who hit on the insight, “You know how girls get drunk and make mistakes? We could be that mistake!” , as though this is their best and only hope (perhaps realistically) of ever getting any sex.
So, what do the uber-cad and the omega dweeb have in common, you might ask? This: neither one can get laid unless a woman makes a mistake. And by “mistake” here, I mean exactly something the woman would not do if she were both in her right mind and reasonably informed about the guy’s true nature. This, in turn, brings up a disturbing general question: of all the encounters between young-ish people — say late teens and early twenties, the HUS demographic — how many, ie what percentage, are the result of a woman’s mistake?
(Of course, men can similarly make mistakes, hence the terms like “beer goggles” or “coyote ugly”. But from what Susan says I gather that the rate of these mistakes, as measured by what people regret later when they recover or learn more, is much, much higher among women at that age.)
And this, in turn, brings up an even more disturbing question: for the majority of guys who are not objectively handsome and immediately physically attractive, can they ever get to have sex without engaging in some level of deception? I’m putting aside the moral question completely for a moment, and just thinking about the operational one. Suppose we define “deception” as “knowingly, deliberately giving someone a false impression, about something sufficiently important to them that if they knew the truth then they wouldn’t agree to what you want”. Sound reasonable? As such, though, deception is on a very wide continuum: at one end is outright lying about not having a girlfriend, or being interested in a relationship; at the other end it could be something as simple as cleaning up one’s room when the person of interest comes to visit — if they guy is at the margin where one bad impression means curtains for him. Really, think about it: how many guys can just “be themselves” and still get any kind of decent sex life? I think the fraction is quite small — I’ll go out on a limb and put it at less than 15%, anyone disagreeing is free to provide their own estimate — which leaves the rest in a difficult position.
The PUA manuals, of course, are all about deception: how to act as though you have status, how to act as though you have preselection, etc., etc. But I can’t really blame the Roissians, though, just for this alone. Theirs is an exaggerated but unsentimental response to the basic truth, which is that for men the old advice to “be nice, be yourself” simply does not work (at least not for the majority who are not super-handsome). Once a man as bought into the idea — typically, through sad experience — that an honest presentation is very likely (not guaranteed, but very likely) to fail, then the rest is not a question of whether deception is necessary, but simply how much deception is necessary, achievable and acceptable for him.
Now, I don’t doubt for a moment that Susan, together with various Pollyanian equivocators, will say that “there is some happy medium between revealing everything about yourself on a first date and going through life as a stone-cold liar.” But this doesn’t really cut it for me: once you’re on the spectrum, we’re just arguing about the price. Further, I think this really avoids the main point, which is to ask whether the average guy needs to engage in a sufficient level of deception, far enough up the spectrum, that he has essentially concealed or been misleading about something important, in order to have a sex life at a young age. YMMV, but I think the answer is not an encouraging one.
SayWhaat said:
A guy who consistently fails the shit test as a guy who accedes to every demand made of him and would probably let his children walk all over him. He fails to be a disciplinarian and as a result raises wild, spoiled, and unruly kids.
____________________
Interesting theory.
The only hole I can poke in it is the social conditioning of the guy. I was raised to give a woman anything I possibly could at all times. If we were pulling into a parking lot and she said,”Oh….are you really going to park here?”
I’d be all,”Where would you like to park instead – let’s go there!”
Now that I know better, I’d park the car in the furthest spot in the lot, jump out, touch her on the shoulder and yell,”TAG! You’re it!” and run away fast as I can go.
Incidentally, that move is dumb but effective.
Esau said:
“But this doesn’t really cut it for me: once you’re on the spectrum, we’re just arguing about the price. Further, I think this really avoids the main point, which is to ask whether the average guy needs to engage in a sufficient level of deception, far enough up the spectrum, that he has essentially concealed or been misleading about something important, in order to have a sex life at a young age.”
__________________________
Interesting point, and I agree that deception is necessary – or at the very least some sort of time-release disclosure.
However, I submit to you that Game, when carried to it’s ultimate conclusion, leads to a life and mindset whereupon no deception is necessary. At least that’s how I’m trying to be – fixing my shit, being interesting, and removing as much outcome dependance as possible.
I will probably always have to conceal bits of my past, but the goal is to have a deception free future.
That move allows you to both maintain your frame while still connecting to the emotional needs of the person in question (by having fun with her). Translation: Cool Dad.
SW:”So shit-testing (within reason) serves as an effective screener to avoid both types of men and secure the “fittest” genes for offspring.”
Sure. Banging a bunch of women in parallel is an efficient way for a man to secure the fittest genes for offspring, since he can’t get pregnant.
@Wudang
I think this is true. I also believe that women flake on men when they would never flake on a girlfriend. They hold themselves to a lower standard when dealing with the opposite sex. Cliches like “women are fickle” or “it’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind” suggest this has always been the case. In fact, I wonder if the sayings reflect women’s natural tendency to flake, or if they have created a culture of permissiveness around this behavior.
@OTC
Don’t be ridculous. It is wrong to be deceptive…unless you have a vagina.
————————————-
Just a thought on flakiness and shit testing.
There features not bugs.
Lets you tell apart the crazy/unreliable/nonloyal women from the ones we want.
@Wudang
That’s a very interesting and dispassionate comment about shit testing! You are right of course – it’s an aspect of female nature that most men consider a “negative,” but the behavior evolved to test for fitness. That’s why I could feel enormous empathy watching a teenage boy sob uncontrollably, but simultaneously found that my attraction to him weakened. (I hadn’t known him long.)
Agreed. I think that neuroticism, narcissism, and a sense of entitlement can also produce this kind of behavior. It looks the same, but it’s markedly different. In that case, evidence of the woman’s personality should be readily observable in other areas.
@Wudang
This is very much what I’ve read about Narcissistic Personality Disorder – people like this may appear to be the life of the party, charming, successful, and happy. But they’re not happy. Their lack of empathy also prevents them from feeling joy, and because they’re unable to love, they’re unable to receive love.
@Megaman
This is the single biggest error in perception among young women today. Many honestly and truly believe that all guys are jerks. Just like many men (including bloggers, sadly) seem to believe that all women are sluts. Once again, it’s that promiscuous 80% sucking all the oxygen out of the environment.
Ha! How about a Penile Colony – no chicks!
@Esau
Hence the term “gray area.” These are questions humans have been debating since we evolved higher order thinking. As I said previously, for me at least, it always comes back to intent. The guy who cleans his apartment and makes a nice dinner for his date intends to give her something, please her, and in doing so makes it more likely that she will reciprocate by pleasing him. Of course, early on, his odds improve if he withholds information about how much he likes her, but again, his behavior is generous, or at least he perceives mutual benefit for both parties.
The guy who pretends more interest in the woman than he actually feels to clear her bar for emotional investment is operating from an entirely selfish perspective. In fact, his withholding of information springs from his awareness that she will be worse off if he succeeds. He is creating a false impression by exaggerating benefits and minimizing risks. His motivation is pure, selfish gain, and his pleasure in achieving that is not mitigated by the pain he causes another.
The question of intent doesn’t just apply to men, it applies equally to women. We focus more on male deceit because chastity is so highly valued by men for long-term mating – if a woman makes a mistake, the price is very high and takes a permanent toll.
@Dogsquat
This is a good example of how intent makes all the difference. Tom led Jane to believe that after several months of uncertainty, he was working toward a committed relationship. She banked on time-release disclosure, when from the start it was pure deception.
For the record, in my view time-release disclosure is necessary in all aspects of life. Opportunism is a human trait, and we do take advantage of the weaknesses of others, and of molding perceptions of ourselves to produce the best possible outcome. Imagine a job interview in which you vomited your foibles onto the interviewer’s desk.
There’s nothing unethical about controlling your message, or the delivery of that message. There is something unethical about creating false content for your message.
@OTC
I don’t think men work to secure fit genes for their offspring. It’s a numbers game, and our evolved standards of beauty signal one thing and one thing only: fertility. The male is not concerned with anything more than a successful pregnancy carried to term.
Sue: “I don’t think men work to secure fit genes for their offspring. It’s a numbers game, and our evolved standards of beauty signal one thing and one thing only: fertility.”
I’m not so sure. Two women can be equally fertile, but one is much uglier than the next. Some girls smell incredible and other smell like nothing or worse – doesn’t that indicate genetic compatability?
But even if accept your point, SW’s point was shit tests are OK because they select better genes. Then how is not true that cheating is OK because maximizes *his* reproductive potential?
I’m just trying to say that if you employ deception, be it conscious or unconscious on others – then you are playing a game where you should be deceived back.
@Susan, OTC
OTC,
lets take it a step farther and really flush out the whole situation.
Shit testing is to ensure good genes. It is deception but its okay because it ensures good genes.
You know what else can ensure good genes while being deceptive, cuckolding.
And of course since women are able to maximize their reproductive sucess by increasing quality of offspring via deception it should follow that men should be able to increase their reproductive sucess via deception.
Guess what that means. Men should be able to cheat to increase their number of progency. And yes, we should be able to decieve to achieve that end.
If shit testing is okay then womans reproductive sucess > mans reproductive sucess.
Good lucking finding anyone willing to sign up for a relationship where their needs are put secondary to their partners.
P.S
Susan, this is where zero-sum mating comes from. When one sex decides the means to achieve their own sucess is a-okay while the other must rein theirs in.
@Susan
P.SS
Also, if deception is okay when the intent is to provide benefit to both members of the pair bond.
What is the benefit of shit testing for a man?
Hint, there isn’t one. There are only negatives.
Shit testing is in essense the same thing Tom did to Jane, deception for self benefit at the expense of the other member.
“seems to be a lot of “passing around” in latin america too.”
.
This is not about prostitution
.
“Im glad you found a woman who is “worthy”.. Not so easy for a real macho man”
.
Here, its fixed
.
“Im glad you found a woman who is “worthy”.. Not so easy for a man unwilling to explore options”
.
So men do “explore their sexuality” after all. Who knew
The Tom story comes down to false negotiation. Tom gave all appearance of offering caretaker, pair-bonder traits to balance the scale, compensating for his lesser genes. Jane eventually accepted the offer, got the brain out of her body’s way, under those conditions.
There was a dating show a while back, a millionaire version of the Bachelor, where women competed cattily for the affections of a millionaire, only to be informed, at the end of the show, that the man wasn’t a millionaire. Same conditional affection, another face.
Tom’s bro-code violation is that it’s line-crossingly scummy to sell false goods to a virgin (or girls from traditional marriage cultures), mainly because she/they could have still been a traditional marriage prize. That opportunity was stolen, something was taken away.
Otherwise, non-matrimonial monogamy, is still serial sex, with a particular preference in style of hookup. There are very few rules in hooking up, no gods to anger, and everybody learns what can get them to the prize. Playing devoted, playing aloof, crushing S-tests, dressing a part, driving a Porsche…
Marriage has rules, hooking up has a few airy assumptions.
What definition of shit test are we using? If it’s the PUA one: http://www.pualingo.com/pua-definitions/shit-test/ then I think it’s utterly ridiculous and makes the woman look like a middle schooler. I’ve never said I had a boyfriend when I didn’t, always been honest and never made retarded comments like “Why are you looking at my shoes?”
On the other hand if a shit test is anything that a woman says or does that the man doesn’t like, then I’m outta this conversation TYVM.
“The male is not concerned with anything more than a successful pregnancy carried to term.”
.
In this regard, what is the female residing in the pill-driven sexual culture concerned with more than anything?
@OTC
They could be theoretically, but they probably aren’t. We evolved to select for fertility cues and good health: clear skin, large bright eyes, facial symmetry, large breasts, full lips, curvy hips, muscularity rather than fat, etc. It doesn’t mean that all beautiful women are fertile, or all ugly women aren’t – it’s just a question of placing your bet with the best odds.
How can you be playing a game if your behavior is unconscious?
First, shit testing is not ubiquitous. I probably haven’t done it more than half a dozen times in my life, and when I did it was only after I’d witnessed weakness in a man. The ‘sphere is very liberal in its definition of what a shit test is – OTC recently claimed a woman asking a man to put the toilet seat down is a shit test. I think that’s ridiculous – both men and women may make requests of each other without it being a test. The purpose of a shit test is to take your measure as a man, and has no purpose in a LTR where the man hasn’t changed. That isn’t to say that women don’t abuse the practice, but no one is defending that.
Second, we evolved to pair-bond – that became the dominant model for mating. So man’s reproductive success with a favored female > man’s reproductive success with many women, and that’s been true for 1.5 million years. It’s a myth that men are biologically programmed to spread their seed as far and wide as possible, though it’s a very convenient myth for some.
Oh, I don’t know. A man’s failure to clear the bar is a blatant sign of a poor match. Those two are not well-suited to one another. He would be happier, and therefore reproduce more efficiently, with a woman whose bar is set lower. Women vary considerably in their capacity for empathy and nurturing. Maybe this ties in somehow with Helen Fisher’s work – a male builder may be a very poor match for a female explorer, for example.
To piggyback on what Susan and Hope have said:
first we have to define what a “shit test” is. My definition of a shit-test is a question the girl asks that unconsciously tests for compatibility. An example from my own life:
(discussion about BF’s finances)
BF: Groceries alone cost me over $250/month.
Me: Should you be spending that much? Aren’t there places you could buy milk and stuff for cheaper? Is there any way you can scale back?
BF: Yeah, but I like to support the mom-and-pop stores on the block.
Me: Is that wise, considering you’re barely breaking even this month? [Shit-test]
His answer to that question would determine our compatibility wrt our views on money. This is all stuff I’m thinking back on, by the way, I didn’t consciously ask him those questions knowing which answers I wanted. But his answers gave me a better sense about our financial views — a very crucial part of long-term compatibility.
Second, we evolved to pair-bond – that became the dominant model for mating. So man’s reproductive success with a favored female > man’s reproductive success with many women, and that’s been true for 1.5 million years. ****It’s a myth that men are biologically programmed to spread their seed as far and wide as possible****, though it’s a very convenient myth for some.
Susan, just my opinion, but I don’t think this is accurate, although it would probably be better if this were true.
Many times in the past, I can recall various women including yourself remarking on how other mean are “sexually invisible” relative to their “favored male”. I suspect this doesn’t exist for most men, at least I know it doesn’t for me and guys I’ve discussed this with in real life.
****IF****the part I bolded were in fact true, then this would NOT exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect
In biology and psychology, the Coolidge effect is a phenomenon—seen in nearly every mammalian species in which it has been tested—whereby males (and to a lesser extent females) exhibit renewed sexual interest if introduced to new receptive sexual partners,[1][2][3][4] even after refusing sex from prior but still available sexual partners.
The original experiments with rats applied the following protocol:[6] A male rat was placed into an enclosed large box with four or five female rats in heat. He immediately began to mate with all the female rats again and again until eventually, he became exhausted. The females continued nudging and licking him, yet he did not respond. When a novel female was introduced into the box, he became alert and began to mate once again with the new female. This phenomenon is not limited to common rats.[7] The Coolidge effect is attributed to an increase in dopamine levels and the subsequent effect upon an animal’s limbic system.[8]
Human males experience a post-ejaculatory refractory period after sex. They are temporarily incapable of engaging in sex with the same female after ejaculation and require time to recover full sexual function. In popular reference, the Coolidge effect is the well-documented phenomenon that the post-ejaculatory refractory period is reduced or eliminated if a novel female becomes available.[9] This effect is cited by evolutionary biologists as one reason why males are more likely to desire sex with a greater number and variety of partners than females. [9]
@Saywhaat, Hope
My defintion of a shit test is a direct or indirect challenge to an opinion/idea/thought that said guy has expressed that has no useful purpose. Essentially it creates confrontation that is totally unecessary.
For example, Saywhaat, your “shit test” would not qualify. Thats a difference of opinion and lifestyle choice. I don’t think anyone could fault you for checking that. BTW, what was the “right” answer?
However something like leaving the toilet seat up. Definetly qualifies as creation of confrontation that is totally unecessary.
And of course if the man fails to both run into said conflict and more importantly win it he has failed and DLV. Which eventually leads to end of pair bond.
However, I don’t see a problem with this when dating/single. However in a serious LTR shit testing is absolutely unecessary and very unpleasant.
Now of course there are the nuclear, public embarrasment style shit tests. Those are wrong, regardless of what stage the relationship is in.
If you’ve ever seen a guy be publically eviscerated by his wife (I have, my uncle, kinda pathetic) you knwo what I mean here.
@SW
“Many honestly and truly believe that all guys are jerks. Just like many men seem to believe that all women are sluts.”
People believe what they want to believe, even moreso when high profile or notorious examples are used. Tom certainly adds fuel to the fire, but so do women like Karen Owen I suppose.
It’s funny, but in the “Contemporary MMS” thread one of your regulars claimed (I’m paraphrasing) that all negative generalizations, stereotypes, and clichés about the opposite sex are basically accurate and true, because “enough of them” are really like that. Amazing logic. Do we extend that to racial and ethnic groups? Of course, people rarely acknowledge the bad behavior of those in their club, whatever it may be. It’s similar to political solidarity, à la “my party, right or wrong”.
@Mike C
I’m not saying men don’t like sexual variety. In The Evolution of Desire, David Buss addresses what he calls the mystery of why men marry:
The evolution of pair bonding is a testament to this. It doesn’t mean that men are not tempted by other women, or that they do not cheat. It does mean that the most successful reproductive strategy for men is to pair with one woman and raise his children to adulthood. Obviously, women could not have insisted on monogamy – as there would always be large numbers of women willing to undercut, as we see in today’s SMP. So pair-bonding had to have been a male priority.
@Mike C & Susan
You bet, broham. I don’t know a single guy for whom every other girl becomes invisible once wifey enters the picture. Ideally he makes a choice not to pursue or entertain any thoughts of pursuing another once he’s committed, but the others don’t just disappear in a puff of smoke. I don’t think the “favored female” holds as much promise for males Susan seems to suggest it does, although it’s important for a patriarchal society to function in the long term.
@Susan, Lokland, and OffTheCuff
You’re all asking really good questions. When I asked my question as to the comparison of the concepts of shit-testing and flaking with bending the truth to get laid, this is the type of discussion I wanted to see.
Personally, I don’t know if I agree with either side fully. I would say that even though Susan describes shit-testing as an unconscious behavior, the result is the same- it creates a scenario where a challenge is set up and a guy can either accept it or opt out. How that is used by both sides is up to the individual, i.e. there can be appropriate or inappropriate shit tests (and I don’t believe the fact that they might be unconscious makes them any more right or wrong depending on which we are talking about). On the flipside, there’s appropriate and inappropriate conduct for males from full disclosure on one end, to outright lying on the extreme bad end.
I do find it interesting that every time this discussion comes up, the “unconscious” aspect of the female side is brought up as to justify the game that often inevitably results. I think that justification is similar to saying the end justifies the means. The important part is the culture it creates- to me, screening is fine, but I think women need to know their own tendencies and realize that if you set up an obstacle course, you are creating a game, and some will play fair, some won’t (especially when there is no contract, like in a hookup situation). Just because you “don’t know” what you are doing doesn’t mean that you aren’t subject to the results of the situation that has been created. Lots of guys who don’t know what they are doing with women “don’t know” that being too nice results in getting walked all over, but it’s on them to take control of their tendencies and understand the nuances just the same.
Ha, that depends on your point of view. I’ve never had to mention this once, but my position would have been seat down, no compromise. There are hygienic, safety and aesthetic reasons for this.
I always think of shit tests as making unreasonable demands, not bickering. Like “hold my purse” at the mall. Shit tests are meant to be emasculating, and the male should not allow this, that’s the point. The woman puts him in a position to look weak and/or foolish, and if he complies, she concludes that he is.
Funny, today I was at Home Depot buying plants, and I heard two women discussing the Presidential election. One stated that she is sure Obama will win in a landslide. The other woman asked her what indicators had led her to conclude this. She was stymied, then said, “I don’t know, I don’t even keep up with the news. I’m just going on my intuition.” The other woman then readily agreed it would be a landslide. We see a lot of this in Massachusetts
@BroHamlet
True, and there are presumably natural consequences for that. Like the highest value guy says, “I’ve had enough of your shit tests, I’m outta here.” Or whatever.
I’m not attaching any value to it as good or bad. I’m simply reporting the evo psych position on it. Since Game is based on evo psych, we can’t pick and choose which theories we prefer. David Buss is the grandaddy of the field, and his text is the Bible.
He doesn’t come anywhere near saying men don’t desire variety – in fact, he writes about the Coolidge Effect. Perhaps, that’s the compromise men make for the good of the children. As we know, the compromise women make for their children is selecting men with nurturing traits for long-term mating. Fossilized remains from 1.5 million years ago begin to look markedly different from male remains earlier than that. Males who reproduced became noticeably smaller and less symmetrical. The tradeoff between genes and partnership was swift and pronounced among women at that time, and of course it continues today.
@SW
“Funny, today I was at Home Depot buying plants, and I heard two women discussing the Presidential election.”
Strange… my wife and mother-in-law were at Home Depot today buying plants for the house. And I’m pretty sure my MIL will be voting for the President this year. Maybe you entered a wormhole and briefly visited California this afternoon. That’s one too many weird coincidences this week : )
I’m actually interested in seeing how Romney does in Massachusetts in November, popular vote-wise. The electoral college definitely has to go one of these days.
I do find it interesting that every time this discussion comes up, the “unconscious” aspect of the female side is brought up as to justify the game that often inevitably results. I think that justification is similar to saying the end justifies the means.
To me, the “unconscious” aspect serves as a sort of convenient “get out of jail free” card. In my opinion, this goes back though to properly educating and informing young women about tendencies in their OWN behavior so they can recognize things they do and appropriately stop or curtail them as needed, but that does take away the ability to excuse it as unconscious. In some of the more self-aware women who I’ve read commenting here and there, they almost instantly recognize whey they are acting bitchy or getting excessive with shit tests and reign themselves in without the guy having to escalate signs of dominance.
The important part is the culture it creates- to me, screening is fine, but I think women need to know their own tendencies and realize that if you set up an obstacle course, you are creating a game, and some will play fair, some won’t (especially when there is no contract, like in a hookup situation). Just because you “don’t know” what you are doing doesn’t mean that you aren’t subject to the results of the situation that has been created.
Well said.
@Susan
Just to point out. Men and women are larger now than 1.5 mya.
Its that the dimorphic size difference lessoned moreso than men just got smaller. 1.5mya dudes were not 7 feet tall hulking around boulders for fun.
——————————————-
Emasculation. What better way to do that than produce a useless conflict and then force him to either choose the I love you so much I’ll do it cause I’m a mangina route or the carry your own fucking purse route.
You’ve never dated women (I’m guessing) but some of them (most of them) won’t simply ask and take no for an answer. I suspect this is part of the you-go-girl mentality society has. I’ve gotten serious pushback as in actual fighting/arguments over simple shit tests (and yes I mean a can you hold my purse fight).
So bickering is on the lower end of shit testing tactics I’ve experienced.
However, you are right NAWALT.
———————————————-
Last, on men and monogamy.
Its true the betas (loser) males probably favoured monogamy. However the alphas (winner) obviously did and still do favour variety.
The push for monogamy was likely an unholy alliance between beta males and alpha females that essentially reduced to reproductivity of alpha males and beta females while increasing their own. We’re currently seeing the hot dudes and ugly chicks push back something thats been in place for over 1.5my’s.
You bet, broham. I don’t know a single guy for whom every other girl becomes invisible once wifey enters the picture.
Haha. Yup. Although I’ve read comments from a few women commenters who insist that their husbands have never looked at another woman with a lustful eye AT ALL since they day they said I do. They know this because their husbands told them. I always get a good laugh out of that one.
I don’t think the “favored female” holds as much promise for males Susan seems to suggest it does, although it’s important for a patriarchal society to function in the long term.
I think it is less “favored female” and more “chosen female”. In other words, it is a deliberate decision that this woman has earned your commitment.
SW: I always think of shit tests as making unreasonable demands… [l]ike “hold my purse” at the mall. …. The woman puts him in a position to look weak and/or foolish, and if he complies, she concludes that he is.
Ahem. Can I take a moment just to point out, that the act of deeming a man to be “weak” because he committed the minor chivalry of doing something harmless and helpful, that you asked him to do, is in fact completely, utterly, bat-shit insane?
I do agree about the compatibility angle, though: I would encourage men everywhere to fail this kind of shit-test deliberately, up front, so as to screen out these head-cases (and here I’m being polite) as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Jesus F. Christ on a shingle! but you people scare me sometimes.
Mike C said
I think it is less “favored female” and more “chosen female”. In other words, it is a deliberate decision that this woman has earned your commitment
———————————————————————
I am with Mike on this one. other women do not become invisible-but husband chooses the marital relationship over variety. In other words, he sees and wants other women, but doesn’t risk the trust of the chosen wife.
And that is why women should be open to variety in sex, don’t have the same sex every time. Changing things up helps sate his need for variety. No, you can’t be another person, but you can NOT be the same old lover.
@ Jackie:
Wow, it’s hilarious to see this mentioned! I just bought this book recently! I know it’s a classic but never read it before..
Btw, thanks for the Time Perception link! Enlightening indeed. I think I am Future-Anxious, though I’d rather be future-positive oriented…
Lokland said:
I’ve gotten serious pushback as in actual fighting/arguments over simple shit tests (and yes I mean a can you hold my purse fight).
___________________________________
Dude, that means you’re failing the shit test. I know you know that, but I am compelled to proselytize anyway.
Here are some ideas for you to try:
If she says,”Hold my purse.”
You say,”OK,” but make no move to hold it.
She’ll bluster a bit. Then you ask her what a modal auxiliary verb is, and state a deeply held principle that forbids you from participating in any activity with people who don’t understand their uses.
Lecture her for 30 seconds or a minute on grammar and ethics – get ridiculous and funny with it. Quote vast tracts of Noam Chomsky. Then snatch the purse out of her hand and point imperiously toward whatever she was going to do.
Alternatively, bargain with her. I stole one from Athol about her baking you cookies. She says,”WOULD you hold my purse?”
You say,”For seven homemade cookies I’ll do it.”
Don’t hold it until she agrees.
If she’s like 90% of the women out there, she forgot that deal as soon as she made it. Next time she asks you to hold her purse, don’t say anything.
Just open your mouth, and point a single, hungry finger at your food hole. She’ll push back. Get over the top about your critically low serum cookie levels, and how your doctor cautioned you at your last appointment. If it’s in public, embarrass her a little in an over-the-top way.
“My doctor said you were someone who could be relied upon to care for this critical disease, that’s why he prescribed you. Hypocookiemia is a serious condition, you know. I can’t mess around with a would-be murderer like you, you negligent harpy blah blah blah…”
Either way, you’re making fun of her in a humorous way. You’re also reinforcing the frame that you will do whatever she asks, as long as she’s worth it. By embarrassing her a little in public, you’re drawing attention to her bad behavior.
Also, remember sometimes shit tests are not actually shit tests. Sometimes she just needs a hand.
@Mike C:
“Many times in the past, I can recall various women including yourself remarking on how other mean are “sexually invisible” relative to their “favored male”. I suspect this doesn’t exist for most men, at least I know it doesn’t for me and guys I’ve discussed this with in real life. ”
_____________________________
Mike is right about this, and it’s a tough thing for lots of women to swallow.
It’s not always as stark as it sounds, though.
Yes, there are guys out there who would bang the college cheerleading squad as soon as their wife turned her head, but not every guy is like that.
I’m on the opposite end of the spectrum – a dyed-in-the-wool monogamist who’s happy with his partner. To me, my ol’ lady is the most desirable woman in The Universe. I’d rather bang her than any other woman alive.
That doesn’t mean I don’t notice when a hot girl gives me some elbow tit*, or that I’m blind to the nicely-filled yoga pants in the gym. There’s no drive, though.
When I’m single, I’ll have some irresistible force inside of me that pushes/pulls me to approach, to position myself in such a way as to maximize the chance that I’ll get to know (Biblicalgiggity) the owner of said nice posterior. When I’m in a good relationship, that motor is still running, but my girlfriend has pushed the clutch in – there’s no power going to my wheels.
If I become unhappy/unfulfilled in the relationship, it’s like the clutch gets let out, bit-by-bit. That drive to approach starts turning my tires. My personal ethics is still stomping on the brakes, so I’m not going to do anything, but that’s a clue that something in the relationship is lacking. I need to address it with whomever I’m dating and give her a few chances to fix it. If it’s an unfix-able thing (she banged all the firemen at Station 2 or something) then I’ll cut her loose and pop the clutch myself.
Again, I believe myself to be an outlier – but so is the guy who fucks the neighbor when his wife gets up for another glass of wine.
Mike C said:
“I think it is less “favored female” and more “chosen female”. In other words, it is a deliberate decision that this woman has earned your commitment.”
______________________________
There’s an element of “Meh. I’m getting what I want at home. It’d be more work than it’s worth go get that hot piece of ass naked” at play, too.
You women are not powerless to address this tendency in men, but it does take some work on your part. As with all things relationship-wise, partner selection is key.
*Elbow tit – Defined here as when a girl who likes you smushes her boob against your upper arm, ostensibly by accident, usually while showing you something. This also happens in a crowded situation.
@DS
“I’m on the opposite end of the spectrum – a dyed-in-the-wool monogamist who’s happy with his partner.”
You’re not as much of an outlier as it might seem. There’s a lot of guys everywhere along the spectrum, but it may not seem that way online. Probably because those guys don’t spend much time talking about it. I think you mentioned in the forum somewhere how options really don’t matter anymore past a certain stage in a good relationship. I meant to agree with you there, so I’ll do so here.
the squatter said
You women are not powerless to address this tendency in men, but it does take some work on your part. As with all things relationship-wise, partner selection is key.
————————————————————————-
I don’t think this can be stressed enough
Shit testing as therapy? Look what I found.
Storming the Masculine
an evening for Women & Men
* * *
This is an exciting, edgy and provocative evening for both men & women.
Ok, it’s edgier for the men … since it will be the women testing (and rating!) how Trust Inspiring the men are being in the face of the feminine storm.
Women will be using their Wholebodied Intuition to feel if the men are staying open, grounded, connected AND on purpose in the face of each woman’s ever changing feminine storm.
WOMEN:
How is your trust meter?
Do you sometimes hold back parts of yourself fearing that others can’t take it or won’t find it attractive?
This is a chance to express parts of yourself that don’t often get to be fully seen and loved.
This is a chance to release the full range and depth of your feminine storm and have it be witnessed and loved by a man. Then you practice feeling into him to sense if he is able to keep an open heart and be connected to you — while maintaining connection to his deepest self and the community.
Does your Anger collapse him?
Does your Desire and Arousal pull him off track?
Can he powerfully appreciate and love your Bitch?
Can he feel the gift of your Slut — without running away nor losing connection with the bigger picture?
Can he be fully present for your Mother energy without having to turn into a Little Boy?
Can he be fully present to your Sadness, Grief or Fear without being overcome with the emotions himself?
MEN:
Would you like to consistently Inspire Trust even the most challenging situations?
Do you ever find yourself closing in the face of another’s anger or blame?
Does feminine radiance or sexuality ever pull you off center?
You’ll get a chance to practice being your deepest most powerful self — and then get feedback on how you can show up even more deeply and authentically and inspire even more trust.
——————————————————————————–
Come and join us for an evening of community & connection as we explore how wonderfully safe and freeing it can feel to be fully expressed while being loved and accepted by another.
You’ll have fun, while learning WholeBody Wisdom practices that will leave you feeling powerfully alive.
For more information go to:
http://www.WholeBodyWisdom.com
Also, remember sometimes shit tests are not actually shit tests. Sometimes she just needs a hand.
I’m actually confused about holdmypursegate. Every single man I know has helped a woman by holding her purse when she needs to do something with her hands , as we Latina love to fill our purses with all the crap we can get so they know is heavy and all of you know Dominican men are assholes alphas for the most part so could somebody describe the difference between real “help me with my purse” to “I have your balls in my purse so hold it so you remember who is boss”
@Blogger
OMG, I thought that was satire. Training men to fully appreciate your inner Bitch and Slut? The course itself seems like one big shit test. I don’t know if it will attract manginas or create them!
Sue: “How can you be playing a game if your behavior is unconscious?”
Sorry, no excuse. Can I flirt with other women so long as I am a natural? It still can invoke a response. We are responsible for our unconscious actions.
As for the toilet thing, that was more a joke than anything – but requiring it to be down (rather than closed) is a mild dominance game. Who’s frame wins?
SayWhaat’s example doesn’t involve deception, that’s open honest communication. So I don’t see it as a shit test, and I don’t care about PUA definitions.
@Blogger
Could we arrange for someone to hand out the Red pill to whatever shell-shocked men that crawl out of that hellhole?
Best shit test definition that I’ve seen is a fat arsed woman asking her partner if her arse looks fat in this skirt.
yes – he’s an insensitive bastard
no – he’s a lying bastard
it’s a shit test because there is no answer that he could give and get a positive response from her. So Game says not to play this one on her terms.
“I know, I can’t believe my eyes either”
“You’re asking for fashion advice from me? Don’t you have gay friends for that?”
@OTC
You’re absolutely right. We are. The fact that people are unconscious is a sign of dysfunction, not the need to relax standards.
“I know, I can’t believe my eyes either”
“You’re asking for fashion advice from me? Don’t you have gay friends for that?”
Athol has the perfect answer to this shit test. Check his blog!
I think that is their version of the red pill? Showing just how far down the rabbit hole women can go, and weathering the storm all the while. I dunno, might work? Let it her let of steam in a controlled environment instead of in the dangerous privacy of your own home.
Plain Jane returns…
That site looks like a corruption of David Deida stuff. Sure, encourage your woman run roughshod all over you, expressing her feminine energy. And then to return the favor, express your masculine energy by banging her younger sister and beating up her dad with a baseball bat. WTF?
BroHamlet:
“I don’t know a single guy for whom every other girl becomes invisible once wifey enters the picture. Ideally he makes a choice not to pursue or entertain any thoughts of pursuing another once he’s committed,”
———-
You’re taking this too literally, as I don’t think other men become invisible to women either.
I think people make a conscience effort not to pursue others or entertain thoughts of pursuing others while in a commitment, while others only do so only if they’re feeling satisfied in a relationship.
If a married woman is placed in a position of being surrounded by attractive men/interacting with them on a daily basis- she’ll have to exercise a lot of control, just as a man in that position would need to.
People were made to feel attracted to the opposite sex, it’s natural for both genders, that’s why it’s wise to not put yourself in compromising positions so that you’re not tempted. It doesn’t matter whether you act upon these temptations or not, when those thoughts are constantly present, it will deteriorate your relationship with your S/O.
When you take precautions and work on making your relationship fulfilling with your S/O- then others become invisible – which really means – not enticing enough compared to my S/O or I’m too satisfied to give them real consideration.
SW: “Males who reproduced became noticeably smaller and less symmetrical. The tradeoff between genes and partnership was swift and pronounced among women at that time, and of course it continues today.”
Lokland: “Just to point out. Men and women are larger now than 1.5 mya.
Its that the dimorphic size difference lessoned moreso than men just got smaller.”
Sexual dimorphism tends to be most pronounced in species where there is a lot of competition for females. That dimorphism has been on the decrease for the last 1.5 million years suggests that for most of humanity’s history monogamy has been the most common mating strategy and that the idea that only 40% of males have been able to reproduce is not valid.
@Mike C
Haha. Yup. Although I’ve read comments from a few women commenters who insist that their husbands have never looked at another woman with a lustful eye AT ALL since they day they said I do. They know this because their husbands told them. I always get a good laugh out of that one.
On this blog? Who said that?
Sexual dimorphism tends to be most pronounced in species where there is a lot of competition for females. That dimorphism has been on the decrease for the last 1.5 million years suggests that for most of humanity’s history monogamy has been the most common mating strategy and that the idea that only 40% of males have been able to reproduce is not valid.
Well it seems that the difference genetically speaking lean to this being true. The issue is that many of the commenter that use this argument forget that men in ancient times were exposed to a lot more dangers thus is very likely that 60% of males died before reproduction by a combination of war, male rituals of initiation (I was actually reading the heroe’s journey new edition and some boys that fail to follow the rules were killed on the spot so this rituals were designed to only allow the most fit to live), hunting accidents, fights (again in my country aside from men killing women in fit of rage regularly men can kill themselves over meaningless things at the drop of a hat and we have a cruel joke that says the Dominican gay males don’t get killed in hate crimes by heteros because they do a great job killing each other and is so true that is not even funny Google Mickey Breton or Jean Luis Jorge and those were the famous ones I know more that were too unknown to make it to the news) and female babies tend to survive better harsh conditions that male. They usually try to use this example as a way to prove that males were rejected in droves by ancient females when I think being male in savage condition is probably most dangerous than being a woman given the list above in fact the first groups of people with widespread polygamy usually have the stories of how they ended up with a decimated population of mails and lots of widows and making men possible to marry more than one being the best solution.
I think those are very real factors, Ana, but there’s a bit more to how the 40% number was arrived at. A Roissy commenter, a statistician named Polymath, deconstructed the numbers and disproved the theory back in 2009, but no one pays attention. Also, when Roissy did the first 40% post, a number of commenters with science backgrounds called the post junk science.
Ahem. Can I take a moment just to point out, that the act of deeming a man to be “weak” because he committed the minor chivalry of doing something harmless and helpful, that you asked him to do, is in fact completely, utterly, bat-shit insane?
______________
Bingo!
Holly chit, if I hold my fiances purse while she slips on a prospective new coat I instantly become less of a man, heaven forbid some other macho man sees me and thinks less of me for being polite to the woman I love.
Hardly a shit test in my eyes.
Now it might be a different story if she demands I carry it all around the mall..not my job.
Seriously some dudes need to get a grip
@J
“Sexual dimorphism tends to be most pronounced in species where there is a lot of competition for females. That dimorphism has been on the decrease for the last 1.5 million years suggests that for most of humanity’s history monogamy has been the most common mating strategy and that the idea that only 40% of males have been able to reproduce is not valid.”
Ya, ya I know.
I’m just pointing out that men didn’t actually get smaller.
Men and women both got bigger. Women just got “more” bigger which decreased the dimophic size gap.
I’m a stickler for details on this stuff.
P.S I wasn’t around in for Polymath but I’ve never heard of anything other than the 40% but your right. About 10 seconds was all it took for about half a dozen ways to achieve an apparent 40% reproduction rate while it was actually higher.
Dangerous female?
.
feminists would be up in arms if an ad promoted the idea that women needed men to survive financially. There would be new feminist slogans, bumper stickers, and rallies across the country to encourage women to stand on their own two feet. So where is the outcry over this claim that women need government dependence.
.
http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia
@ Pgp
Then your understanding was wrong. There are plenty of men who want children, though taking a pretty woman off the market and ensuring a caretaker when we get old are nice too.
As for never showing emotional vulnerability, that’s just plain crazy. And no, crying in front of a man won’t get you murdered.
@Pgp
Many men are conditioned not to connect emotionally, because they’ve realized that doing so is a good way to appear beta and get friend-zoned. A man who exhibits any vulnerability is going to get dumped for the alpha asshole. On the other hand, a woman exhibiting some vulnerability won’t get dumped, unless that vulnerability takes the form of extreme emotional instability (something which a lot of women have and is something no man wants to deal with).
I and my friends like to have intellectual discussions with everyone, including women, but we’re STEM guys and might not be representative of men in general. So you could be right about that though.
Basically, there’s a difference between being a robot and being a drama queen.
Err what happened to Pgp’s posts? Was she plain jane in disguise?
INTJ: I have no idea what happened to my posts. Wordpress seems to have problems with me. And no, Politicalguineapig is my one and only handle. I realize that seems like a denial, but I came in much later then Jane did, and have no idea what she was talking about.
Plus, I really don’t get how guys work, and this discussion is not helping. Apparently befriending guys isn’t good? Or do men just want all non-pretty women to ignore them?
I do like science, so I expect if we ever met, we’d get along well. I don’t really bother with the whole dating thing- I’m not pretty, so destined for singlehood
« 1 … 5 6 7
{ 2 trackbacks }